- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Do anyone have that new article that was like, accusing them of genociding a desert because they turned it into a forest or some shit? I remember it form a year or so back. The reforested an area of desert and this journalist was losing him mind over it.
Edit:
https://lemmygrad.ml/post/414155
Ok apparently I posted about it and my memory is just that bad. Lmao. Thanks to comrade GrainEater for reminding me.
The biggest criticism I’ve seen is that the planting project ended up being a huge monoculture of poplar trees, but that was kinda the norm back then in reforestation.
The last I heard the forest they planted was dying from a beetle infestation, and they were going to attempt a redo with a lot more species of trees.
But fostering biodiversity remains a challenge, conservationists say
Checkmate China, what’s the point if you can’t just magically spawn the Amazon forest
That is a valid concern. One of the largest problems with the project was that they planted massive monocultures of single trees. Something that is extremely dangerous as a single parasite, disease, or pest could annihilate hundreds of thousands of square kilometers.
Plus monocultures limit biodiversity to an extreme capacity as the entire forest is suitable only to a very limited number of species. It’s not that the animals aren’t there to begin with, it’s that not many can survive in the mass monoculture forest.
you posted this about a year ago, that might be it
My memory really is just that bad. Lmao.
South America and Africa having lost about 13% forest coverage over 30 years is extremely sad
Can someone explains this map to me? The text says China leads, but the numbers say Vietnam is at 56.2%, greater than China’s 40%.
I mean, it’s pretty obvious… China is huge, Vietnam is tiny compared to it. The reforested area is, therefore, much larger in China.
Also vietnam is still recovering from the war I imagine
It’s hard to take care of the forest when there is still tons of inexploded murican ordnance in it.
That and the forests got fucked up by free and democratic chemical warfare. Badly.
“Free and democratic chemical warfare”
That’s good. I’m stealing that.
the forests are well recovered from the war. it was 50 years ago, and the monsoons really make growth relatively easy.
I stand corrected then.
The map is the forest area in 2020, relative to existing forest area in 1990 (no change would be 0%).
So, if you count by absolute area, China leads, and if you count by relative area, Uruguay leads.
It’s forest added, not amount of forest
leads the increase
You know Vietnam is a tropical country.
Why is that relevant?
much easier growth of tree coverage…
Why is “private forest ownership” a thing?
Hey, the US actually expanded its forests. Go us!
One of the few good pieces of legislation put forth have curtailed the reach and power of the logging industry and development industries significantly. This is why capitalists in the US hate the EPA.
Going by the logic of US media, it’s probably abandoned towns and cities being overgrown.
Wait, it might actually be true.
Yeah honestly that’s really surprising
Removed by mod
During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them.
If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.
