https://www.wsj.com/articles/cop26-leaders-agree-to-end-deforestation-by-2030-11635844937

I wonder if this a climate goal that most can agree on? It's one of the few that I support assuming countries are mostly handling their own forests and aren't getting our money to do it. It looks like wealth redistribution for this particular issue is minimal with only $12B coming from12 different countries and 60% of that funding is coming from private investment.

Countries accounting for 85% of the worlds forests have committed to stopping this by 2030. It includes China, Brazil, and Russia who have not previously signed on so this is a surface level win for climate alarmists at least in this particular area.

Not here to debate the practical means of actually accomplishing that; I'm just curious if there is a majority of folks who agree with the principle.

Seems like a no brainer to me. If every dollar allocated to building solar/wind farms was directed to planting more trees, we would be in a much better place.

If you want to reduce carbon levels, fighting deforestation/planting trees seems like a great way to do it. The cause and effect relationship is simple and clear (unlike the vast majority of the green platform that claims to change some forecasted result that won't occur for 50+ years) and planting trees is freaking cheap compared to all the other nonsense plans.

King of the Hill had an episode making fun of this years and years ago. Guy A develops some convoluted carbon credit scheme to validate his high carbon lifestyle and impress women while Hank and his kid just plant a few trees.

Fighting' Texas Aggie Bonfire disapproves of this message.

I think this is one of those common platform issues we could all agree on if the left would quit focusing on B.S. temperature goals and stealing funding for it. Focus on more practical matters like this that you can see and feel the impact and the rest may take care of itself.

Agree. Fighting deforestation is exactly the kind of useful argument about climate and things we can do that matter, and a good example why liberals need to wrest control from the redistribution marxists of the climate debate. The changes in ocean water are another real phenomena that bears watching.

There are many genuine things about climate impact, to give it a more sensible name, that can be agreed upon if genuine science rather than any form of sociology or presumed justice inform it.

Most deforestation is just bad long term economic planning by folks who aren't allowed a long term economic stake in the resource. It's in the resource owner's best interest not to destroy a self renewing resource.

I don't see any details on what this proposal actually is but I doubt it is anything other than a replant/preservationist scheme using other people's money. That will only put more stress on the remaining resource pool that isn't under preservationist management practices and further exacerbate the problem.

On a side note, the US has pretty much already done our part here. We have more forest now than anytime in this land masses history according to most experts.

normaleagle05 said:

---

Most deforestation is just bad long term economic planning by folks who aren't allowed a long term economic stake in the resource. It's in the resource owner's best interest not to destroy a self renewing resource.

I don't see any details on what this proposal actually is but I doubt it is anything other than a replant/preservationist scheme using other people's money. That will only put more stress on the remaining resource pool that isn't under preservationist management practices and further exacerbate the problem.

---

They don't really have any details yet which is why I waved that away for sake of this discussion. It's just the commitment piece of it for now.

Actually, more C02 is removed from the atmosphere by sea plants than anything else per pound.

The best thing we could do is make our oceans healthier and plant this stuff.

You got a source for that? Actually curious to read about it.

Champ Bailey said:

---

Seems like a no brainer to me. If every dollar allocated to building solar/wind farms was directed to planting more trees, we would be in a much better place.

---

That may tank my plans...

My retirement plan is to take my East Texas swamp land, plant trees there are sell carbon credits to idiots.

Ags4DaWin said:

---

Actually, more C02 is removed from the atmosphere by sea plants than anything else per pound.

The best thing we could do is make our oceans healthier and plant this stuff.

---

whales eat krill, krill eats algae, algae uses photosynthesis to convert sunlight and CO2 to produce O2.

Fewer whales more krill less algae....

It is Japan's fault !!!

I believe countries should set their own policies and stay in their own lanes.

I highly recommend apocalypse never by Michael schellenberg (sp).

Wood?

Trees are so passe. Phytoplankton is where it's at. Seriously, between 60-80% of O2 is generated in the ocean, most of it by phytoplankton. You want my support for an ecological policy then let's talk about preventing people from dumping trash and chemicals into rivers and oceans. Of course, it's the exact same countries that pollute the air, so the usual suspects would still get by with a stern finger shaking.

Edit apparently TexAgs doesn't like letters with accents over them.

jnathan10 said:

---

You got a source for that? Actually curious to read about it.

---

I think I'm wrong here. I was conflating a memory of reading following article about glut of forests in the SEC with that comment. I guess I made it up in my head.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/thousands-of-southerners-planted-trees-for-retirement-it-didnt-work-1539095250

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

I believe countries should set their own policies and stay in their own lanes.

---

Not so simple. The notion that no one lives in a vacuum and has to consider their effect on communal resources and their neighbors works on every level: neighborhood, city, state, national. The difference at the very top is that countries don't answer to cops or a higher level of government, so they have to be able to talk things out and mutually agree on policies.