[TherapyforGlencross]

Originally Posted by Azure

If you want to change the culture around owning a car, there needs to be ways for people to to move from point A to point B easier than jumping in their car to do so.

Are we doing enough with inner city transit? Outer city transit? Transit within higher population areas? Seems to me that there is always bickering going on when it comes to that.

It just annoys me that people like to bicker about over consumption, when a single family, or thousands of single families can't really make much of a difference even if they make the supposed changes that we think are needed.

I love to bang on the construction material drum, because concrete contributes up to 8% of yearly worldwide C02 emissions. For the most part it gets ignored because it isn't a 'sexy' problem to solve.

The other thing is removal of C02 from the atmosphere through proper forest management, water management and simply planting more trees. We all know that all those things are not looked after properly either, and again, these are not issues a single family, person or even thousands of individual families can change. It needs to be done on a big scale.



https://www.theguardian.com/environm...nopy-emissions

And yet everytime the 'plant more trees' or 'better forest management' subject comes up, it gets dismissed.

I don't get it.

Also, this is something that could be funded to help people on an individual scale. One does not need to believe in 'climate change' in order to plant trees. Funding everything from individual backyard trees, shelter belts to full reforestation efforts could make a big difference. Right now if I want to plant some Manitoba Maple, I need to pay for them. Fine, but we won't get very far by requiring everyone to 'pay' for planting trees.

I agree about trying multiple solutions for the climate crisis. But planting trees is never simple. To obtain peak carbon intake, monoculture would never work. How would scientists determine the correct trees, and if the correct trees are selected, will the trees allow for biodiversity on such a large scale? Otherwise, more trees than what was listed would need to be planted to reach the desired effect as you’re losing carbon intake due to the lack of biodiversity (example: agricultural produce with regards to monoculture vs multi-plant farming). This solution would also take considerable time as trees don’t reach maximum carbon intake until maturity, and then, old-growth trees cannot intake carbon as well as the younger mature trees. Planting this many trees could theoretically increase evotranspiration causing a possible warming effect, as there’s more water vapour in the air; however I have no citation to back that up, it’s just an assumption from my current line of work, which is in environmental science, notably water resource.