this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2024
116 points (96.0% liked)

solarpunk memes

2913 readers
395 users here now

For when you need a laugh!

The definition of a "meme" here is intentionally pretty loose. Images, screenshots, and the like are welcome!

But, keep it lighthearted and/or within our server's ideals.

Posts and comments that are hateful, trolling, inciting, and/or overly negative will be removed at the moderators' discretion.

Please follow all slrpnk.net rules and community guidelines

Have fun!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] butter@midwest.social 21 points 6 days ago (3 children)

So I'm aware that there's a problem with "just planting trees and expecting everything to work out". Things like growing wrong trees.

But I assume they're planting native trees, so what exactly is the problem?

[–] Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net 24 points 6 days ago

The issue is that you might not end up at the desired ecosystem you want. While natives are good, you need to consider topographic, climatic, and edaphic conditions to be successful. It doesn't make sense, for instance to plant a bunch of cottonwood trees on sandy sites, because they'll die off. More importantly, however, it doesn't make sense to plant monocultures of native species as you don't end up where you want to. This second point is often what's done with commitments like this because it's easy, and planting diverse communities is difficult both in terms of physical labour, but also logistics. Some species need their seeds to be heat or cold scarified and that also takes time when you're wanting an assload of seedlings right away.

[–] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 7 points 6 days ago

Even native trees can need help to establish. A common thing that happens with massive planting is the land chosen isn't really able to grow trees without additional water or nutrients, so within a year or two 90% of the trees are dead.

[–] ShareMySims@sh.itjust.works 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)
[–] Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net 5 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Also this. while planting is good and well, it's hilarious to think that it's the magic bullet to an insanely complex issue (with next to no social buy in, sadly).

if we increase our soil carbon by 1% globally, we'll have saved the planet!

Lol. lmao even. 1% is 10,000 ppm, which equates to 24,000 kg/ha of organic CARBON across the board. Conversion rates organic matter to organic carbon are slow, and much, much lower than 1:1.... now you begin to see the problem...

[–] ShareMySims@sh.itjust.works 6 points 6 days ago

Yup, it's mostly greenwashing to distract people from the need for any real action (abolishing capitalism, for starters).

[–] drkt@scribe.disroot.org 10 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Was this ever about climate? That's not the vibe I got from the discussions as it happened. It's about expanding habitats for species that are dying because their habitats have shrunk to unsustainable levels, and the fact that Denmark has nearing fuck-all wild nature left because even our forests are actually just managed plantations.

[–] Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net 5 points 6 days ago (1 children)

No, but my point remains. You must consider site specific conditions to be successful

[–] drkt@scribe.disroot.org 8 points 6 days ago

Well sure but it's moot because it's not going to happen. They've already cheated by reclassifying farmland as nature reserves while allowing continued farming. Nothing has physically changed but now the statistics look better.

[–] activistPnk@slrpnk.net 2 points 4 days ago

This thread is relevant:

slrpnk.net/post/14944065

[–] houseofleft@slrpnk.net 2 points 5 days ago

I hadn't heard of this project until I saw this meme. Can someone explain? Surely there's some kind of condition assessment right? Like, nobody would just plan a bunch of random trees in random soil when getting a scientist to carry out an assessment is such a fraction of the cost?