The vast majority of the destruction of the Everglades happened over 50 years ago. We have been slowly rehabilitating it since, like, the 80’s. Well, more like the mid-90’s but the realization how bad we’d fucked up happened around the 80s
I do.
Ending land ownership isn’t much of a solution.
It also has zero shot of happening. Talking about how things would be if you were king is kind of a huge waste of time and mental energy.
Alright. But wetlands are still disappearing in the US.
To humans never ending sprawl in low density housing? What is then?
We are going off a cliff and not just because of climate change. People who want to tap the breaks to save us help but I don’t think it will be near enough.
Neither does me wanting all the imaginary lines we call boarders removed. I’ve got all kind of unrealistic views on how I think things should be. I blame Gene Roddenberry.
Sorry if im being an ass on this but if there are two things that get me pissy its the environment and war. I think future generation will look at America very harshly on both and think both call for drastic change.
In 2016, the Geos Institute published a report on the Tongass. “Because it is one of the world’s last relatively intact temperate rainforests, and it has a maritime climate, the Tongass is Alaska’s first line of climate change defense and a climate refuge for its world-class salmon and wildlife populations,” the report says. “Logging of the Tongass rainforest produces greenhouse gas emissions that damages the region’s contribution to a safe climate.” This summer, the fires in the Amazon rainforest captured international attention for its devastation of a crucial buffer against increasing emissions. Meanwhile, the Trump administration continued to consider removing protections for one of the largest carbon sinks in the world.
Probably nothing. But I think the only thing is going to be the erosion of our collective worship of capitalists and business interests, as boomers die off, etc. there will be less support fucking over our environment so that some people can make a quick million or add a fraction of a percent to their profit margins.
There are plenty of land-use policies that can curb sprawl and we already have laws in place to protect wetlands. The main roadblock imo is reducing the influence of business interests.
1 Like
I would consider business part of human sprawl that taking away land ownership would solve.
Humans did a lot of environmental damage before land ownership. Huge swaths of forests were burned by pre-industrial societies to make space for grasslands which favored better sources of game and also fire-fallow agriculture. Even with global populations of <25 million, people dramatically altered enormous areas.
The article i posted about the Tongass is a good example of destruction which would not be caused by landownership. Still does not mean it would not help end the mass extinction and other negative effects that partly come from ownership. It just means we need much better regulation and those things too.
Yeah this whole ‘no land ownership’ thing is super silly. No matter what we do ultimately we broke the planet and now we own that problem and everything that goes with it.
Just climate change with no other reason is going to be enough of a motivator for us to reforest hundreds of millions of acres of farmland over the next century. If we don’t we’re all going to cook. I’m sure we’re going to take timber out of those forests for biofuel, building materials, and other stuff we need… but there’s no question things are about to get a good bit more friendly for wildlife as we begin to farm carbon.
That’s a positive result of land ownership that basically has to happen or we’ll face catastrophic consequences. This Tongrass thing and what is happening in the Amazon are probably the last events of their type for a few centuries. It’s that or we all die and nature gets to slowly rebuild itself over a few million years.
Because let’s be really clear… if we truly crash the ecology of this planet life won’t end. We will end and we’ll take a lot of other types of biomatter with us, but life will rebound pretty quickly from a geological perspective.
Yeah, while the indigenous people in the Tongass area could sustainably hunt and fish forever without any kind of formal ownership of land, they need a kind of de facto community ownership of resources and that’s what the Tongass National Forests needs, in addition to the wisdom to not cut down all the trees - but there’s no guarantee idiots would elect an idiot who would just cut down all the trees on public land in order to pwn the libruls.
Forests can recover very quickly. I’m reading a very good book (“Against the Grain”) right now and it talks about how very large portions of North America were deforested by the people who came over the land bridge 10000+ years ago. In the 16th century most of them were killed/died from European brought disease - even most of the population who never encountered Euros in the flesh. By the 19th Century people like Lewis and Clark encountered huge forests that they assumed were virgin, but had regrown after the disappearance of humans from the area. The massive growth of forest in that period may have sucked up enough CO2 that it contributed to the “Little Ice Age” which peaked in the late 17th Century.
So imagine how fast it’s going to recover when we’re actively helping it with modern bio and forestry. Seriously we have to go hard at this in my generation. We’re also going to be using trees picked for their carbon capture capacity rather than for the quality of their forestry products. I’m not saying we won’t grow standard commercial timber, but we’ll also use some species that are picked for the speed with which they can pull carbon.
Most of the estimates we have for climate change don’t take into account how crazy humans can get when they are worried. Real fear is going to drive people all over the planet to figure out how to grow more food in less land so that we can reforest huge chunks of land we currently grow stuff on commercially.
Using machines to do carbon capture isn’t anywhere near as viable and can’t be done anywhere near as quickly as just reforesting ridiculous amounts of land. Then we can chop the trees down and bury them to sequester the carbon if need be. By 2040 we seriously won’t be fucking around about it.
I have no access to funding on the scale I’d need to start, otherwise I’d already be getting into the business side of forestry. As it stands I’m trying to read everything I can so that I can be ready to dive in. I think carbon farming is going to be a tremendous business and I want to be in on the ground floor.
That’s certainly possible, but very optimistic. When government money goes to pay people to plant trees and leave them alone, the reactionaries will continue to be reactionary. We’ll see. (If I make it to 2040)
How many plants or trees would it take to change a person’s CO2 to Oxygen? Can that even be measured?
And im the pie in the sky guy…we are going off the cliff now. The mass extinction we are causing is damage done.
Hell you all are for not having private land ownership anyway. Unless you want to open up protected lands like the Tongass to ownership. You just dont go as far as me.