• novibe@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Let’s hear about reforestation in Europe and Asia. You guys destroyed your forests hundreds of years ago…

    • Riddick3001@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It’s being done in Europe since decades actually and probably in other places. Not sure though whether the figures are true, and or how they are calculated. But I’d say slowly Europe is getting there.

      article Washington Post 2014

      Forest and nature destruction, started actually thousands of years ago What has changed though the last couple hundreds years is an extreem population boom.

      The first polluted river in the world is like 5000 yo or something.

      Ad. just saw someone else saying reforestation even started 100s of years ago. Though reforestation to me, also means more net green.

      • novibe@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sure when Europe recovers forested areas the size of the rainforests in Africa, South America and Asia, then we can all stop deforesting…

        Or how about as a species we actually put a value on nature and pay countries to protect their forests and biomes?

    • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      This ain’t it chief. The old growth european forests were destroyed centuries ago. That doesn’t mean that we should accept Brazil destroying one of the worlds remaining old-growth forests.

      • novibe@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Never said anything about that. But the focus is always on the poor colonised countries to protect their nature and not develop. While Europe destroyed its forests and much of the forests of the world through centuries of colonialism.

        What about this. If the developed world wants the Amazon and other rainforests to stay intact, why don’t they pay Brazil, Bolivia, Indonesia etc.?

        • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Payment implies a capitalist world order, which would be impossible if we lived in a world where natural resources are given non-extraction value. So rich countries paying poorer countries for environmental purposes is already a nonsense premise. In a different socialist world, maybe that could work in some way. Regardless of how you want to frame it, deforestation should be opposed in all ways, including state-sponsored violence.

          • novibe@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Why would payment imply capitalism? Pay in resources idk, who cares. Europe is rich because of the material wealth from South America, Africa and Asia.

            For Brazil to forgo exploiting its material wealth, it has to be compensated.

            Or it will forever exist in a subservient and underdeveloped state.

            That’s just pure logic, I’m not sure what is wrong with what I said.

            • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              Because it won’t happen and can’t happen in our current world. It’s nonsense. It’s like pontificating what would happen if personal teleportation existed.