Trump rescinds protections on 59m acres of national forest to allow logging
-
Older trees capture carbon better than young trees.
From what i get from this article, this is technically true for one tree, but not for the forest, for which there is a peak in carbon capture at some point (when the canopy closes says the article), and then it can either stabilize either slowly decline. There are other huge advantages to keeping old forests intact though, especially regarding biodiversity.
-
Older trees capture carbon better than young trees.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]An individual old tree may compared to an individual young tree, but a young forest captures more carbon. And that's not even accounting for if/when the old tree burns anyway.
*Love that facts get downvoted.
-
why is this weird like, anti-american-exceptionalism so prevalent on the internet?
it’s so reactionary. you’re… actively engaging in the same kind of thought process that is the secret ingredient to american stupidity. if you’re not careful what’s happened and happening here will happen wherever you are, if it hasn’t already. and this sort of shit is why…
They're not saying it's not news. They're saying that it's US news that this community prohibits.
-
They're not saying it's not news. They're saying that it's US news that this community prohibits.
I mean, the article still makes sense, just like all the articles about Bolsonaro revoking protections for the Amazon make sense, it cumulatively affects everyone, even if you're on the other side of the planet
-
It kind of is seeing as that is 58m acres of trees being removed an contributing further to climate change that effects everyone....
wrote on last edited by [email protected]I have no idea how big an acre or a hectare is, I have no idea who the people the article is referring to are. I see 0 mentions of the effects this will have on global climate. All hallmarks of a US centric article. This is not world news and it clearly caters to American interests.
Edit: I’d love to read an article about the global ramifications of this on the whole planet in its entirety, but I’m not too keen on reading about governor XYZ of state UVW bashing republicans and The Congress.
That’s internal US politics that I have no interest in starting my day with.
-
This post did not contain any content.
Literally, physically destroying our country.
Thanks conservatives. You're dumb as fuck. But everyone on Earth other than you already knew that.
-
I have no idea how big an acre or a hectare is, I have no idea who the people the article is referring to are. I see 0 mentions of the effects this will have on global climate. All hallmarks of a US centric article. This is not world news and it clearly caters to American interests.
Edit: I’d love to read an article about the global ramifications of this on the whole planet in its entirety, but I’m not too keen on reading about governor XYZ of state UVW bashing republicans and The Congress.
That’s internal US politics that I have no interest in starting my day with.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]I’m not too keen on reading about governor XYZ of state UVW bashing republicans and The Congress.
You should be keen on reading about anybody who dares to speak up against the current US administration from the inside, instead of belittling such actions. Ultimately it does concern you, too.
-
An individual old tree may compared to an individual young tree, but a young forest captures more carbon. And that's not even accounting for if/when the old tree burns anyway.
*Love that facts get downvoted.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]Love that facts get downvoted
You just claim what you said is fact, then get all prissy about it.
I'm sure that will get you fewer downvotes?
You want to have a good faith discussion about this? It's not a simple equation. All in all it's usually better to NOT cut down old forests. You have to consider the whole ecosystem.
Also, I'm sure Trump had our carbon emissions in mind when he rescinded those protections, hm?
-
I’m not too keen on reading about governor XYZ of state UVW bashing republicans and The Congress.
You should be keen on reading about anybody who dares to speak up against the current US administration from the inside, instead of belittling such actions. Ultimately it does concern you, too.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]If something comes of it, sure. Unfortunately it’s mostly incessant noise at this point. The only ones affecting actual change right now are SF people, and I do follow the news about that part of the country.
Edit: and I am not belittling anyone, merely saying that this is regional news and an article that doesn’t belong here.
-
why is this weird like, anti-american-exceptionalism so prevalent on the internet?
it’s so reactionary. you’re… actively engaging in the same kind of thought process that is the secret ingredient to american stupidity. if you’re not careful what’s happened and happening here will happen wherever you are, if it hasn’t already. and this sort of shit is why…
That was just exasperation (which I can understand), but their subsequent comment unfortunately shows much more of what they're about.
-
Love that facts get downvoted
You just claim what you said is fact, then get all prissy about it.
I'm sure that will get you fewer downvotes?
You want to have a good faith discussion about this? It's not a simple equation. All in all it's usually better to NOT cut down old forests. You have to consider the whole ecosystem.
Also, I'm sure Trump had our carbon emissions in mind when he rescinded those protections, hm?
I'm not pissy, I love watching it. Y'all's actions are your own, whatever they are. Good faith discussion starts in recognizing facts, not downvoting them. The whole ecosystem is better with a range of young and old forests. I didn't comment on Trump, I commented on facts. I think logging, like every industry, has to be done properly.
-
I’m not too keen on reading about governor XYZ of state UVW bashing republicans and The Congress.
You should be keen on reading about anybody who dares to speak up against the current US administration from the inside, instead of belittling such actions. Ultimately it does concern you, too.
Rule 1 literally states "no internal US news". This is internal US news. Not world news.
-
I mean, the article still makes sense, just like all the articles about Bolsonaro revoking protections for the Amazon make sense, it cumulatively affects everyone, even if you're on the other side of the planet
The community rules state no internal US news. Plain and simple.
-
I have no idea how big an acre or a hectare is, I have no idea who the people the article is referring to are. I see 0 mentions of the effects this will have on global climate. All hallmarks of a US centric article. This is not world news and it clearly caters to American interests.
Edit: I’d love to read an article about the global ramifications of this on the whole planet in its entirety, but I’m not too keen on reading about governor XYZ of state UVW bashing republicans and The Congress.
That’s internal US politics that I have no interest in starting my day with.
That’s internal US politics that I have no interest in starting my day with.
The exposition that you've latched onto is typical of news articles everywhere. As with countless others, the article conveys more than that. You don't have to value the exposition. The headline conveniently gives you all you need in order to decide whether to skip it.
The news here is that a significant portion of the world's trees, upon which we all depend, are being put on the chopping block. I consider that world news, just as I do when Brazil does it.
-
This is not world news.
I think any single nation making big environment and climate wrecking moves should count.
-
The community rules state no internal US news. Plain and simple.
internal news would be 'so and so won the lottery' or 'city eminate domains affordable housing for shopping center'
-
internal news would be 'so and so won the lottery' or 'city eminate domains affordable housing for shopping center'
No, internal news would be "US cuts down forest in the US" which has absolutely no impact on the world at all. No other country is involved. Just the US. Meaning this is internal US news.
-
I have no idea how big an acre or a hectare is, I have no idea who the people the article is referring to are. I see 0 mentions of the effects this will have on global climate. All hallmarks of a US centric article. This is not world news and it clearly caters to American interests.
Edit: I’d love to read an article about the global ramifications of this on the whole planet in its entirety, but I’m not too keen on reading about governor XYZ of state UVW bashing republicans and The Congress.
That’s internal US politics that I have no interest in starting my day with.
Its pretty easy to search a conversion. 58m acres is about the size of the entire UK.
-
I have no idea how big an acre or a hectare is, I have no idea who the people the article is referring to are. I see 0 mentions of the effects this will have on global climate. All hallmarks of a US centric article. This is not world news and it clearly caters to American interests.
Edit: I’d love to read an article about the global ramifications of this on the whole planet in its entirety, but I’m not too keen on reading about governor XYZ of state UVW bashing republicans and The Congress.
That’s internal US politics that I have no interest in starting my day with.
If you don't even know how big an acre or hectare is, you are either very young or you missed basic schooling.
-
This post did not contain any content.wrote on last edited by [email protected]
And, again, World is not for US News.
