China Planted 78 Billion New Trees, and Seriously Messed Up Its Water Cycle
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/a71126116/china-reforesting-changes-hydrology/
https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/a71126116/china-reforesting-changes-hydrology/
64 Comments
Rooskie91@discuss.online · 92 pts · 126d
Unlike gigiachad America, which cuts down all its trees to build data centers.
Ugh seriously stop trying to paint China's achievements as disasters because every where else is succumbing to fascism.
acosmichippo@lemmy.world · 76 pts · 126d
It's not about attacking China. It's a lesson that large scale terraforming needs to be done thoughtfully and may have unintended consequences.
bunkyprewster@startrek.website · 9 pts · 125d
Or simply that humans can keep learning about ways our activities effect the environment
x00z@lemmy.world · 54 pts · 126d
Uhm China is very fascist.
TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 126d
Can we just... try to use words correctly?
x00z@lemmy.world · 59 pts · 126d
What do you mean?
NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io · -3 pts · 126d
Fascism is more complicated than that, and while China is nationalistic it's not running on the kind of ultranationalism that, say, Nazi Germany had. Modern China doesn't meet any credible definition of fascism.
x00z@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 126d
I don't understand why you'd post that link. Almost all of those 14 points are true for China.
NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io · -7 pts · 126d
Um... hell no? There's no way more than 3-4/14 are true unless you're working with some kind of alternate universe China. Nothing about China is traditionalist, anti-modernist or anti-intellectualist, for one; they're probably the most technocratic nation on Earth.
x00z@lemmy.world · -5 pts · 126d
Lmao. If you only read what they want you to read, sure.
krull_krull@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 125d
stumu415@lemmy.zip · -3 pts · 125d
You're describing the US to a tee. China is a unlike what you think. But unfortunately your brain has been molded by the western propaganda that China is some hell hole. Come and see for yourself. Maybe, just maybe you'll get an incling of how delusional you are.
krull_krull@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 5 pts · 125d
If china isn't fascist then America definitely ISN'T fascist
It's either both or neither
You can't have your cake and eat it too, you know?
ushmel@piefed.world · 4 pts · 125d
so which one of those points are you disputing
teft@piefed.social · 38 pts · 126d
Which part doesn’t apply to china’s current government?
Sxan@piefed.zip · -1 pts · 126d
E.g., for GP:
Have they already forgotten Jinping's purges ?
Do they believe China is communist?
Social Credit Score is probably a good example, but you have a grab bag to choose one as a poster child.
Þere is no political opposition party.
c.f. Taiwan and þe entire S China Sea region.
Uyghurs.
redsand@infosec.pub · 3 pts · 125d
Lets not forget that hot mic with Putin and Xi talking about their entire country being viable organ donor pools to keep them alive longer.
finallymadeanaccount@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 126d
That's kind of American, TBH.
village604@adultswim.fan · 19 pts · 126d
Two things can be true at once. This isn't a zero sum game.
Jax@sh.itjust.works · 1 pts · 125d
China has an incredibly high literacy rating — you should try and improve your own.
frongt@lemmy.zip · -4 pts · 126d
I would not characterize Xi Jinping as a dictator. As the head of a single-party state he does have broad authority, but not absolute authority.
limonfiesta@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 126d
Tiral@lemmy.world · -1 pts · 125d
My favorite is where they say they aren't communist even though it's in the name they picked roflmao.
krull_krull@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 6 pts · 125d
And Nazi (Nationalsozialistische) are socialist, because it's in the name.
AA5B@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 124d
What does that have to do with trees? Or research about trees?
treadful@lemmy.zip · 53 pts · 126d
Right, the Americans...
The whole intro to the article even puts China in a favorable light. Why are you so ready to go to the mat for China without even trying to read what they're saying?
plz1@lemmy.world · 25 pts · 126d
They clearly only read the headline
backalleycoyote@lemmy.today · -12 pts · 126d
Byproduct of the US educational system. They can’t handle reading much more than a sentence before immediately posting their opinion about what they think the article is about.
Also, this article verifies what seems like it should have been a predictable cause/effect problem. Plenty of places have deforested their land and suffered mudslides, desertification, erosion. The US destroyed its prairies and got a dust bowl. The failure to predict that foresting grasslands and other areas not previously forest would result in ecological disruptions seems shortsighted. But, live and learn, do better next time.
W3dd1e@lemmy.zip · 26 pts · 126d
And also has no water
Arizona town facing severe water restrictions as supply could run out by summer
AA5B@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 124d
There are all too many cities in the world that are poorly located or have outgrown their resources. This article was not about that
However I do remember seeing that discussion a few days ago. Perhaps you want to search for that and add your comments there
Tiral@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 125d
Whataboutism activated!
NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 126d
Did you even read the article? Chinese researchers found that reforesting areas like grasslands into forest (as an example), redistributed water from the water cycle.
Nowhere in the article doesn't it say "China bad". The researchers said they should take into account how water availability could change when planning future deforestation efforts.
Not everything is political...you're the one making it political.
village604@adultswim.fan · 6 pts · 126d
The US plants around 1.3 billion a year, so...
Tiral@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 125d
With research, so they know what they're doing?
village604@adultswim.fan · 1 pts · 125d
Yes. Many colleges have forestry departments. I live down the road from a research forest.
Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe · 2 pts · 126d
Your ignorance is astounding.
rabber@lemmy.ca · -3 pts · 126d
You obviously don't know anything about about forestry so why say anything at all? Tree planting doesn't magically create ecosystems.
Mass tree planting creates homogeneous forests that have no undergrowth or biodiversity. They don't retain water and are usually the forests that burn up during fire season. China created a bunch of tree farms not forests lol.
DahGangalang@infosec.pub · 72 pts · 126d
Nitpick, but:
Bruh, if you're going to explain a not-at-all unclear fancy word, why not just use the explanation in the article (e.g. "have increased evaporation and transpiration")
This smells of AI writing.
TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world · 13 pts · 126d
Yeah I mean if you are trying to clarify you might want to point out it happens through plant leaves.
atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 126d
Right, I mean why would you ever want to learn a new word while reading a science article???
Beacon@fedia.io · 0 pts · 126d
marxismtomorrow@lemmy.today · -9 pts · 126d
antlion@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 49 pts · 126d
Not much substance to this article. But it is noteworthy that the trees also increased precipitation for their own benefit. The bluish haze you see as trees fade away toward the horizon is from compounds they release that act as nuclei for rain drops - yes forests do their own cloud seeding. You know who else has really messed up their water cycle? California, or probably most of the western states. Anyway.
pelespirit@sh.itjust.works · 21 pts · 126d
I think this will get worked out pretty quickly. They need to get the water to the land, that's all. Planting trees is a great thing, not sure why this article tries to make it sound like "China fucked up."
treadful@lemmy.zip · 14 pts · 126d
Moving water is like the hardest of the infrastructure projects.
NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 126d
They said it was an unintended consequence. The study authors are chinese...
Fandangalo@lemmy.world · -12 pts · 126d
“Not sure why” = American propaganda against “communism”
pelespirit@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 126d
Tbh, I think communism is stupid for anything bigger than 30 people, because humans have a percentage that are inherently corrupt and will abuse it. Imo, combine democracy and the socialism part, and we have ourselves a stew.
Worstdriver@lemmy.world · 19 pts · 126d
Wait.... 78 Billion trees. As in with a 'b' billion? In all seriousness, how?
faintwhenfree@lemmus.org · 21 pts · 126d
It's since 1980, they've had almost half a century to do it.
finallymadeanaccount@lemmy.world · 9 pts · 126d
That's still 1,695,652,173 trees per year (78,000,000,000/46 years).
"In all seriousness, how?"
angband@lemmy.world · 10 pts · 126d
The us plants about 2.3 trillion corn plants per year. 25,000 per acre, 95,000,000 acres. Considering they plant 68,000,000 trees per year just for paper, in the US, the numbers aren't shocking. Worldwide tree nurseries probably dwarf that 1.6 billion, maybe.
village604@adultswim.fan · 8 pts · 126d
68 million is a pretty far cry from 1,695 million.
But the US plants around 1.3 billion a year, so China's number isn't shocking
Simon_Shitewood@lemmy.ml · 2 pts · 125d
It's not vastly more than every Chinese person planting 1 tree a year. If you pay people to plant 10 trees a day, 5 days a week, 48 weeks a year you only need to employ one person in every 2400 to get close.
Worstdriver@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 126d
That's still over a billion trees a year. Actually that's over 1,500,000,000 trees a year. Again...HOW?
And this begs a side question. Out of those 78 Billion trees, how many are alive now?
squaresinger@lemmy.world · 12 pts · 125d
Just a matter of scale. Every seventh person lives in China.
Or to recontextualize: The article talks about a time span of around 45 years. That's around 1.7 billion trees. Remember, that's an english (short) billion, 1700 million. (In other languages a billion is a million millions, and not just a thousand millions.)
If a worker can plant 20 trees a day and works 200 days a year, that means around half a million people are more than enough to do it. In a country with around 1400 million people, that's 0.035% of the population, or roughly one in 3000 people.
Suddenly, it's not all that crazy anymore.
Worstdriver@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 125d
Are we talking 10 to the 9th power or the 12th?
I also did some reading up on this. I live in British Columbia and reforestation is a big deal. Apparently a tree planter can plant 2,000 seedlings a day. More if the terrain is good and they're experienced. So yeah, I can see it now.
Though I still wonder about the survival rate of the plantings, but How question is indeed answered.
squaresinger@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 124d
Popular Mechanics is US-based, so they use short billions: 1bio = 1 000 000 000.
You are right, long billions (1bio = 1 000 000 000 000) would be a lot more. Though even that would still be possible, but then ~35% of the chinese population would have to be employed in planting trees.
Tottakai@europe.pub · 8 pts · 125d
In Estonia we plant about 20-40 millions of trees every year.
RMK ( State Forest Management Center) alone plants about 20-25 million trees every year.
And we are nation with 1,3 million people. So for China that number over the years isn’t big at all.
I always laugh when in the western news there is some organization, what makes big words that they planted 2 million trees and if that is something of a big achivments what should be boasted around the news.
pineapplelover@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 125d
I should check out Estonia
BananaTrifleViolin@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 125d
Yes, I was shocked too. But in 1949 apparently 8.6% of the country was forested; in 2022 it was 24%.
In 2005 they launched the "Greening China" initiative to plant 13 Trillion (yes Trillion with a T) trees in 10 years. They didn't succeed but in 2021 the People's Daily claimed 78.1bn trees planted in 40 years Link.
However - China is known for inflating statistics to suit the communist party's own ends, and the People's Daily is part of the country's propaganda system. It's probably far less than 78bn, and that figure doesn't count replants and commerically logged trees. But it seems that whatever the figure there really has been a concerted long term reforestation effort in China.
shadowtofu@discuss.tchncs.de · 2 pts · 125d
There are around 3 trillion trees on earth, so planting another 13 trillion is quite ambitious
Fedegenerate@fedinsfw.app · 4 pts · 126d
She swallowed the spider to catch the fly... She planted 78 billion trees to combat soil erosion. They swayed and grew and and fucked up her water.
I wonder why she swallowed the fly, perhaps she'll die.
moondaddy@piefed.social · 1 pts · 126d
Wail til she gets to the horse.
Fedegenerate@fedinsfw.app · 2 pts · 126d
Horse: Humanity's own ridiculous self elimination. She's dead of course.
dovahking@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 126d
.... but at what cost?
harambe69@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 2 pts · 126d
Reforest the oceans, shrubs and grasses are good enough for land.
Resonosity@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 1 pts · 126d
China racking up those Ws