nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Easiest way to solve climate change is......

Road-Hog

........according to some experts planting something like 1.7 trillion trees Would sort out (reverse even) the rapid global warming that is taking place.....of this is true surely it’s what governments and environmental bodies world wide should be promoting rather than stuff like ‘electric cars’ etc. planting a tree is about as low tech and easy as it gets......practically no carbon footprint 👣 nvolved.....why is it that this never really features in the list of ways to tackle the issue....?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

blueshade

_Brian wrote: »

The hypocrisy was the thrust of the post as an example of how everyone wants a solution to penalise others but doesn’t hurt them, but WOOOSHhh, that went straight over your head.

Actually Brian, the tone of your self serving post was confusing. Try being clearer in your posts to avoid confusion.

randomspud

We should turn ourselves into immortal robots. Won't matter how hot it gets then.

I guess chaffinches and whatever will go extinct or whatever but that's their problem.

magicbastarder

cruizer101 wrote: »

1.7 trillion is a **** lot, that's 220 trees for every person on the planet or about a billion for Ireland alone.

If you're planting a new woodland, people will often plant a thousand trees per acre. So one billion trees would be one million acres. Which is about 5% of the area of ireland. If we did this, we'd still be below the European average for tree cover.

NewCorkLad

blueshade wrote: »

Try banning disposable nappies and see how fast parents change their opinions on environmental change and the importance of halting climate change. All those disposable nappies and plastic nappy bags going into landfill and they will never disintegrate. I'd love to see the reaction among parents if Greta made that suggestion.

We have moved to cloth nappies, turned out to be a lot easier to use than we assumed. So would be all for that suggestion and after some brief hysteria people would realize the benefits.

_Brian

blueshade wrote: »

Actually Brian, the tone of your self serving post was confusing. Try being clearer in your posts to avoid confusion.

Yea.
I sometimes forget how low you have to pitch to the crowd in AH, sorry about that.

NIMAN

We keep hearing about how food production and distribution is adding to the problem.

It's time we produced less food.

The world's population is on average getting fatter. Most western or developed nations are anyway.

Yet every single family throws out food. So it's obvious that we are chucking away food and still getting too much, so it's time to curb production
Whatever amount we are making now is obviously too much.

I'd love to see the fashion industry get tackled. If wardrobes around the world are anything like my OHs, they are packed to bursting with items only worn once, or sometimes never. It's time clothes were worn til they couldn't be any more. This whole " it's so last season" needs to be held up and ridiculed for the nonsense it is.

Greyfox

_Brian wrote: »

The hypocrisy was the thrust of the post as an example of how everyone wants a solution to penalise others but doesn’t hurt them

That's why most people waffling about climate change are just making noise, nobody cares about solutions that are going to hit them in the pocket. Also things like the housing crisis are 1000 times more important than climate change

sbsquarepants

magicbastarder wrote: »

If you're planting a new woodland, people will often plant a thousand trees per acre. So one billion trees would be one million acres. Which is about 5% of the area of ireland. If we did this, we'd still be below the European average for tree cover.

I've never planted a woodland, but just picturing an acre of land, it seems like it would be packed to bursting point with 100 trees, never mind a thousand?

But yea, the obvious and most simple (stop gap) solution is probably to start a massive tree planting scheme. There's no reason why we couldn't plant a billion trees on this island over the next decade or so? Well once we didn't let the Co Council shovel holders get involved, (6 men, 2 trucks, 5 days, 1 claim for a back injury and 4 trees planted

)

Maybe drop them by helicopter and let them take their chances - nice few new native forests, sucking in carbon for centuries to come!

biko

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRHhFGYOqZCsaFj5fnapVSVtF28D5mmnotlqfEgDHEdlOF33Zh2&s

cruizer101

magicbastarder wrote: »

If you're planting a new woodland, people will often plant a thousand trees per acre. So one billion trees would be one million acres. Which is about 5% of the area of ireland. If we did this, we'd still be below the European average for tree cover.

A thousand per acre seems very dense, an acre is ~4000 sqm so that 4 sqm per tree. That might be fine for a small young tree but if you are thinking long term I think you would need to reduce that density significantly.
I'm far from an expert on trees but I would be thinking at minimum half that density and more realistically a quarter or even less.
A tennis court is about 260sqm and in my mind would fit 12 decent sized trees, thats about 20sqm per tree.

Road-Hog

Hector Savage wrote: »

I know a lad that used cloth nappies for his baby girl, fair play to him he stuck with it...

What about the carbon footprint of the hot water and extra detergent used to wash the cloth Nappies......plus I bet the leakage and number of baby wipes used for cloth Nappies quadruples.....using cloth Nappies is not as ‘green’ as people think.?

gozunda

NIMAN wrote: »

We keep hearing about how food production and distribution is adding to the problem. It's time we produced less food.The world's population is on average getting fatter. Most western or developed nations are anyway.Yet every single family throws out food. So it's obvious that we are chucking away food and still getting too much, so it's time to curb production
Whatever amount we are making now is obviously too much...

It's not regular food which is making people fat - it is how it is being processed and bastardised to create demand. Highly processed muck full of soy and sugar and god knows what and calling it a plant burger or taking perfectly good produce such as a potato to make 'french fries' with added ingredients or adding half a pint of corn syrup to a perfectly good piece of meat. Or the billions of litres of cheap fizzy concoctions that people drink by the bucket full. It's true we do grow enough food to feed for everyone on the planet however that number is increasing. Eitherway I agree food waste is s massive issue and something at least everyone can do something about.

Road-Hog

NewCorkLad wrote: »

We have moved to cloth nappies, turned out to be a lot easier to use than we assumed. So would be all for that suggestion and after some brief hysteria people would realize the benefits.

Don’t forget the additional carbon footprint of the hot water additional washes plus detergent, water useage etc

sydthebeat

Road-Hog wrote: »

Don’t forget the additional carbon footprint of the hot water additional washes plus detergent, water useage etc

the answer to your weird "whataboutery" is half the carbon emissions.... so nothing additional

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-45732371

FFVII

sydthebeat wrote: »

Do a thanos and wipe out half the earths population......

Really this^

Plus climate change is an easy fix if we gave a fu*k, but we don't. Money is more important.

Things have to get really bad first.

magicbastarder

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I've never planted a woodland, but just picturing an acre of land, it seems like it would be packed to bursting point with 100 trees, never mind a thousand?

Usually if you're planting a new woodland with native trees, you'll probably be using bare root stock maybe 3 foot tall; when you've planted an acre with 1000 of those, it doesn't feel crowded, they'll be on average a little over 2m from each other iirc. Also to bear in mind is that the earlier the canopy closes, the better, as it shades out competing plants (often grass and brambles, etc). And you're not necessarily going to expect every single one to survive.
For the purposes we're talking about here, many people would make a decent argument for pure rewilding too.

Sofiztikated

blueshade wrote: »

Actually Brian, the tone of your self serving post was confusing. Try being clearer in your posts to avoid confusion.

Nah, his tone was perfectly clear.

magicbastarder

I just had a quick Google in the topic and found one (forestry rather than natural woodland oriented) guide which suggested planting oak at 6,600 per hectare, over twice the density mentioned above. That's assumed at producing very straight grained timber, not necessarily a concern here.

blueshade

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Nah, his tone was perfectly clear.

Not to me, but not to worry, you stand up for your buddy. :rolleyes:

blueshade

_Brian wrote: »

Yea.
I sometimes forget how low you have to pitch to the crowd in AH, sorry about that.

Hardly a sparkling intellect are you Brian?

blueshade

gozunda wrote: »

It's not regular food which is making people fat - it is how it is being processed and bastardised to create demand. Highly processed muck full of soy and sugar and god knows what and calling it a plant burger or taking perfectly good produce such as a potato to make 'french fries' with added ingredients or adding half a pint of corn syrup to a perfectly good piece of meat. Or the billions of litres of cheap fizzy concoctions that people drink by the bucket full. It's true we do grow enough food to feed for everyone on the planet however that number is increasing. Eitherway I agree food waste is s massive issue and something at least everyone can do something about.

True, but a big part of the problem is that eating a healthy diet, especially for a family on a low income, can be very expensive. For people on low incomes looking to make the money stretch they're money is going to go further somewhere like Iceland where they can get 20 burgers or sausages for 2 euro or whatever than buying fresh meat or poultry. There's no excuse for the fizzy drinks though, it's just muck but no matter how much sugar tax is put on it people will keep drinking it.

Just the smell of one of the energy drinks laden with caffeine is enough to make me queasy. Another thing we forget is that a lot of people don't know how to cook. Take a look at the chill cabinets in supermarkets and you've mashed potatoes and pre cooked vegetables on sale. I couldn't believe it when I saw jars of peeled boiled eggs in Dunnes during the summer, I mean it doesn't get much simpler than boiling an egg, there's probably an app for it.

xckjoo

NIMAN wrote: »

I'd love to see the fashion industry get tackled. If wardrobes around the world are anything like my OHs, they are packed to bursting with items only worn once, or sometimes never. It's time clothes were worn til they couldn't be any more. This whole " it's so last season" needs to be held up and ridiculed for the nonsense it is.

Ya the clothing industry is awful these days. Constantly churning out cheap, crappy clothes made by people working in awful conditions. All so we can get a quick buzz from buying a "bargain" and never wear the same outfit twice. It has no redeeming qualities that I can see

lalababa

blueshade wrote: »

True, but a big part of the problem is that eating a healthy diet, especially for a family on a low income, can be very expensive. For people on low incomes looking to make the money stretch they're money is going to go further somewhere like Iceland where they can get 20 burgers or sausages for 2 euro or whatever than buying fresh meat or poultry. There's no excuse for the fizzy drinks though, it's just muck but no matter how much sugar tax is put on it people will keep drinking it.

Just the smell of one of the energy drinks laden with caffeine is enough to make me queasy. Another thing we forget is that a lot of people don't know how to cook. Take a look at the chill cabinets in supermarkets and you've mashed potatoes and pre cooked vegetables on sale. I couldn't believe it when I saw jars of peeled boiled eggs in Dunnes during the summer, I mean it doesn't get much simpler than boiling an egg, there's probably an app for it.

Eating a healthy diet is actually cheaper: veg and fruit and grain and fish and 'a Little' meat, home cooked or prepared. I'd say much cheaper than processed. Tis just lack of education and habit really.
E.g 10 processed TV dinners @ 3:50 =35
Versus , bag of spuds- 3, veg for 10 dinners-5, rice-1,pasta-1,fish-3,meat-5, ingredients for sauces-3,=21

Gannicus

is_that_so wrote: »

The longer we spend on the one thing hamster wheel the longer we will take to get anything done. There is no one way and it will happen in thousands of little ways.

This is exactly the kind of thinking we need.

The amount of people in other threads I've read on this and its linear thinking answers like:

1. Ban single use plastic/cups
2. Ban diesel cars
3. Ban cars
4. Everyone must adhere to a vegan diet only

We need a multifaceted approach changing LOADS of little things over time.

Wanderer78

Gannicus wrote: »

This is exactly the kind of thinking we need.

The amount of people in other threads I've read on this and its linear thinking answers like:

1. Ban single use plastic/cups
2. Ban diesel cars
3. Ban cars
4. Everyone must adhere to a vegan diet only

We need a multifaceted approach changing LOADS of little things over time.

...and also changing loads of big things, all at the same time

Gannicus

Wanderer78 wrote: »

...and also changing loads of big things, all at the same time

Slow little wins to over time to change perceptions as opposed to ramming it down peoples throats and force feeding them changes is going to be met with a load of resistence.

Wanderer78

Gannicus wrote: »

Slow little wins to over time to change perceptions as opposed to ramming it down peoples throats and force feeding them changes is going to be met with a load of resistence.

we ve actually been doing the slow thing for decades now, its working very well

nthclare

Road-Hog wrote: »

........according to some experts planting something like 1.7 trillion trees Would sort out (reverse even) the rapid global warming that is taking place.....of this is true surely it’s what governments and environmental bodies world wide should be promoting rather than stuff like ‘electric cars’ etc. planting a tree is about as low tech and easy as it gets......practically no carbon footprint ðŸ‘£ nvolved.....why is it that this never really features in the list of ways to tackle the issue....?

Well if you planted that many tree's, you've to save a lot of seed's.

There's no point in planting generic hybrids as their seed's are infertile and will not work..

So it's a tall order growing natural native tree's.

Planting them from cuttings ain't going to offset the climate change and you'd be pissing in the wind if you think they'll multiply.

You'd be creating a monster.

If everyone collected seed's and propagated say 20 tree's, it would be a great start..

who what when

_Brian wrote: »

The big problem is everyone wants the same solution to climate.

They want the governments to implement the changes immediately that will solve it by curtailing the activities or lifestyle of someone else but not them.

I could go with that. €50 tax onto every seat on every flight, including each connecting flight. I haven’t flown in 10 years, I think it’s perfect solution, heck maybe make it €75

A congestion charge on every urban area with a population over 10,000 people. I hate big urban areas and never by choice visit them, maybe half dozen times a year.

The money should be put towards farms and supporting farms to sequester carbon. There is amazing research out there that has proven methods to allow farm land both under cereals and grass to sequester 10x the amount of carbon thought before while boosting crop production in parallel, it uses fungi produced on the farms and could be implemented quickly and cheaply. I farm, the money collected should definitely go to farms.

So tax flying to the hilt .... because you don't fly.
Tax urban areas .... because you don't live in one.
And give huge Grant's to farming.... because you farm.

s7ryf3925pivug

community buying initiatives would be good. A bunch of people in a community pool their money to buy land and turn it into natural woodland. They share whatever returns they get in the form of grants, but it wouldnt be necessarily aiming to make any profit. It would require a lot of organisation to do it though and appropriate experts.