[HN Gopher] Iceland's forest and bush cover has increased sixfol...
___________________________________________________________________
Iceland's forest and bush cover has increased sixfold since 1990
Author : toto444
Score : 381 points
Date : 2022-07-18 10:23 UTC (12 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.icelandreview.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.icelandreview.com)
| xiaq wrote:
| An interesting tangential: outlawry in the Viking age was called
| "skoggangr", literally "going to the forest". (I read about this
| in https://norse-mythology.org/outlawry-viking-age/.)
|
| But in the sagas all the Icelandic outlaws would instead travel
| overseas (quite literally, since Iceland is surrounded by sea) -
| which now makes a lot of sense to me knowing that Iceland was
| already deforested early on, so there wasn't really a lot of
| forest to go to.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| Perhaps related: Sweden is one of the very few European
| countries that never had serfdom. Swedish peasants were of
| course dirt poor, but they were free citizens, and had 1/4 of
| the voting power in the ancient version of parliament1.
|
| The reason I've heard for this is that most of the country was
| (and is) forest. Enough forest that you can hide from, and/or
| ambush, anyone coming to mess with you.
|
| 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riksdag_of_the_Estates
| selimthegrim wrote:
| Didn't the Vikings have thralls?
| BurningFrog wrote:
| They did, but that era ended a few centuries before there
| was a country of Sweden.
|
| Also, the thralls were mostly taken prisoner in raids
| abroad, so the local forests were not a factor.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrall
| carvking wrote:
| All this Co2 is doing wonders for us!
| jonnycomputer wrote:
| Ok, one of the things that totally bugged me about the Viking tv
| show's visit to Iceland is that it only showed the harshest of
| environments, not the forests that used to exist there when the
| vikings colonized the island.
| xhkkffbf wrote:
| On a trip through Scotland, we were driving through some
| backroads and all of a sudden, there would be a forest with clear
| lines along some property boundry. The trees were more or less
| the same. It was essentially a tree farm. Apparently the Brits
| started offering special tax incentives to get people to plant
| trees and many listened.
| olddustytrail wrote:
| No, that wasn't any tax thing. It's called forestry. The "tree
| farm" is a business and it's where wood comes from.
| blondie9x wrote:
| This is great. But it isn't nearly enough to offset the amount of
| forest burning due to climate change right now. In just one area,
| Siberia in 2022 there have been 100,000 hectares of forests
| destroyed by wildfires.
|
| This article says that in all of Iceland there are now 45,000
| hectares of forest. So there is 225% more land burning in Siberia
| this year alone compared to all the forest planted in Iceland.
| [deleted]
| Kalanos wrote:
| NeoTar wrote:
| ...because they cover only 2% of this island... as you would
| know if you actually read the article!
| Kalanos wrote:
| https://www.google.com/maps/@64.9820968,-21.0589178,3a,75y,2.
| ..
| Kalanos wrote:
| https://www.google.com/maps/@65.4562908,-15.8058236,3a,75y,1.
| ..
| Kalanos wrote:
| those links are to 2 random points on the ring road that
| looks like everywhere else
| Kalanos wrote:
| no, they do not
| someweirdperson wrote:
| I've been there 25 (maybe 30) years ago and cannot remember
| seeing any tree at all. It might be my memory. I'm not sure if
| everything else was simply more memorable or there were none.
|
| 6-fold increase seems easy starting from there. The 2% is
| impressive.
| balls187 wrote:
| Off topic, but I suggest adding Iceland to your list of
| places to revisit.
|
| Iceland has really come into it's own as a place to holiday.
| photochemsyn wrote:
| Planting forests increases the overall amount of carbon stored in
| biomass, but the forestry program is also designed to harvest
| trees for use as fuel or building material (from the main article
| linked in the post):
|
| > "In the meantime, Iceland's forests have begun to produce wood
| for a small timber market. Forests planted between 1950-1970 are
| now supplying around 5,000 square metres of wood per year:
| miniscule compared to industries abroad, but a start. The
| Icelandic birch, Siberian larch, Sitka spruce, lodgepole pine and
| balsam poplar are producing quality wood of equal or superior
| quality to that which Iceland imports from abroad. Yet an
| overwhelming 80% of the trees felled are burned as fuel in
| silicon smelting."
|
| Iceland has a silicon production industry, which relies on
| geothermal electricity interestingly enough. The wood is included
| to grab the oxygen from silicon dioxide to produce elemental
| silicon metal (being emitted as carbon dioxide). Overall, if they
| could eliminate the coal from the mix, this would be a carbon-
| neutral fossil-fuel free silicon production system:
|
| https://www.pcc.is/
|
| > "Silicon metal is extracted from quartzite, aided by the
| addition of wood chip and coal, in electric arc furnaces at
| temperatures of around 2,000 degrees Celsius. The new plant
| obtains its key raw material quartzite primarily from PCC's own
| quarry in Zagorze, Poland. However, the related logistical costs
| are more than outweighed by the advantages of electricity
| procurement. And the dust emissions generated during silicon
| metal production are almost completely removed from the ambient
| air by high-performance filter systems installed in the PCC
| plant. Taken as a whole, therefore, the production process offers
| exceptional sustainability credentials."
| tims33 wrote:
| The most interesting fact was that Iceland was 40% forested when
| settlers arrived. I'm not sure their goal is to return to 40%,
| but certainly a long way to go at 2.6% 20 years from now.
| toto444 wrote:
| I have been donating some money every month to an Icelandic tree
| planting project to offset my carbon emissions after reading an
| article on HN about how the Vikings cut all trees of the island.
| I find the numbers fascinating :
|
| > Forests and bushes now cover over 2% of Iceland, Visir reports.
| That number may not seem like much, but since 1990, the surface
| area covered by forest or shrubs in Iceland has increased more
| than six times over - from 7,000 hectares to 45,000. In 20 years,
| the number is expected to be 2.6%.
|
| And from another article :
|
| > The Forest Service intends to deliver six million plants this
| year, says Throstur, which is equivalent to pre-crash levels of
| production. "It was around five million last year, and four
| million the year before that. This is a rapid increase. Then we
| need seven to eight million next year, which we may not manage,
| and ten to twelve in 2025."
| bloppe wrote:
| If the goal is to sequester as much CO2 as possible, it's much
| better to support tropical rainforest than planting trees near
| the arctic circle. The Coalition of Rainforest Nations is
| consistently cited as one of the most impactful NGO's in terms
| of carbon saved.
|
| I'm all for planting more Icelandic trees, but I don't think
| you're getting as much bang for your buck as you could.
| koheripbal wrote:
| In general, mature forests are net CO2 neutral as they exist
| in a balanced carbon cycle.
|
| Only when they are initially planted and growing is there a
| net CO2 sequestration going on.
|
| Burning fossil fuels is the problem we need to fix.
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| if your only metric is CO2, you miss the forest for the
| trees ;)
|
| the problem with climate change is the wild swings in
| weather - if you want to stabilize and buffer these swings,
| you need to maximize biomass. having a mature forest
| ecosystem acting as a carbon/nitrogen buffer does a lot of
| good, but in a way that is difficult to measure
|
| I think we get tunnel vision on CO2 ppm because it's a
| metric with a nice clean causative effect (greenhouse), but
| more energy on earth is not what's actually causing us
| grief, we've destroyed most of the mature ecosystems and
| decimated total biomass, and we are surprised that this
| causes issues with the total ecosystem because we consider
| atmospheric problems somehow unrelated to all the living
| things participating in chemical cycles with that
| atmosphere. we need more buffer wherever we can get it, and
| I hate to see someone poo-pooing ecosystem restoration in
| favor of carbon sequestration.
| soco wrote:
| Carbon sequestration is a technological problem so
| technology people will absolutely love it - unlike
| something as mundane and boring as planting trees or
| breeding frogs.
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| personally my favorite is coral propagation, just take
| some coral and split it into smaller chunks and let those
| chunks grow up - they are self replicators, what more
| could a techie want?
| KptMarchewa wrote:
| > In general, mature forests are net CO2 neutral as they
| exist in a balanced carbon cycle.
|
| Can we cut down forests and store them deep in former
| mines?
| clankyclanker wrote:
| Sure, but it's even more efficient to leave those coal
| mines unmined.
| KptMarchewa wrote:
| There is already a ton of open pit coal mines. Like here
| https://www.google.com/maps/@51.6155147,14.3242528,60602m
| /da...
|
| I'm not advocating for new mines.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| No, because as soon as a tree is dead it will begin to
| rot and decompose (there's fungi everywhere in the air
| that is just waiting for a piece of juicy fresh tree to
| digest), thereby releasing CO2, methane and other
| decomposition gases.
|
| The only way to sequester CO2 using trees is keeping the
| trees alive (or blasting them with chemicals to prevent
| rotting).
| yellowapple wrote:
| > or blasting them with chemicals to prevent rotting
|
| That's kind of a given. People generally don't like it
| when their homes and furniture decompose.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| You can also weigh it down and sink it to the bottom of
| oceans that don't have wood eating organisms. The Baltic
| and the Black Sea are the ones I know.
|
| But of course, the solution you mention is the simplest:
| Treat the wood with one of the several known ways to make
| it not break down, and leave it in big piles somewhere.
| slavik81 wrote:
| After a tree dies, how long does it take before it
| returns all its carbon to the atmosphere?
| KptMarchewa wrote:
| The idea is to cover the trees with something (soil, and
| large amount of it)?
|
| If they rot the CO2 will still be below the surface?
| spenczar5 wrote:
| If you bury the trees reasonably deep, that CO2 takes a
| very long time to get to the surface (like tens of
| thousands of years) so it's good enough for our purposes.
| gilleain wrote:
| Thus my friend's idea to CRISPR plants so that they
| deposit their carbon in some indigestible polymer that
| will not rot for the foreseeable future.
|
| I'm sure there are no possible repercussions to doing
| this.
| krallja wrote:
| Truly bioengineering at a galactic scale. In a hundred
| million years, geological processes will have turned your
| polymers into some cool new exotic fuel source.
| Baeocystin wrote:
| I mean, it worked for the Carboniferous, until some
| cheeky fungus figured out how to digest lignin. But we
| had a nice 60 million year run, and got lots of useful
| hydrocarbons out of it, so hey!
| AvocadoPanic wrote:
| You could even cut them down and turn them into houses
| that people could live in.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| We don't need that many houses.
| snewman wrote:
| We need to do many many many things. Halting the combustion
| of fossil fuels is absolutely #1 on the list, but it's a
| long list.
|
| That initial sequestration can't make up for ongoing use of
| fossil fuels, sure, but it still has nonzero value.
| belorn wrote:
| If the goal is to sequester CO2 then its not enough to just
| grow trees, you also need to prevent them from being cut down
| and burned. One thing that I would argue in favor of using
| iceland and other areas around the arctic circle is that
| people has demonstrated in the last several decades that it
| isn't economical worth to grow and farm the land for
| anything, which include trees. That might then mean that
| people will leave the trees alone for a long enough time that
| the sequester of CO2 matters.
| jacoblambda wrote:
| Sure for the purpose of sequestering CO2 it may not be the
| most "economically efficient" but in general attempting to
| restore Iceland back to the pre-settlement forest coverage of
| 40% seems a worthwhile goal in of itself.
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| Agreed. I'm also of the impression that cutting down the
| trees led to intense soil erosion (winds and rains washing
| the topsoil off of the relatively flat island). In addition
| to minimizing soil erosion, I also wonder if forests will
| help regenerate topsoil.
|
| Also, I wouldn't mind retiring early and doing some tree
| planting in Iceland or similar volunteer work to pay my way
| around a country.
| melling wrote:
| The old "Wait, wait, stop what you are doing. I've got a
| better idea."
|
| You know what would really be better than planting trees? For
| the world to stop burning so much coal.
|
| 40% of global electricity is from coal. Europe needs to
| increase coal usage because of the war.
|
| https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/germany-coal-renewable-
| energ...
|
| There are 8 billion people on the planet. "Hey, everyone stop
| what you're doing, let's all do this" is quite ineffective.
| We don't need to stop planting trees in Iceland in order to
| save the rain forests.
| scifibestfi wrote:
| > 40% of global electricity is from coal. Europe needs to
| increase coal usage because of the war.
|
| Or put another way, because they didn't bother to become
| energy independent and shut down nuclear plants instead of
| investing in more.
| bloppe wrote:
| While I appreciate the irony of this comment, you actually
| have a point. I would love the ability to personally
| sponsor the energy transition. Privately subsidized
| renewable energy projects could be a game changer. Anybody
| here done much research into this?
|
| Again, I think planting Icelandic trees is awesome! Just
| since OP specifically mentioned "offset my carbon
| emissions" I thought I'd shill one of my favorite ways of
| doing that :)
| krallja wrote:
| Duke Energy's "Shared Solar" in North Carolina USA is one
| such community-funded system
|
| https://www.duke-energy.com/home/products/renewable-
| energy/n...
| melling wrote:
| Yes, losing the rainforest is a serious problem and it
| doesn't seem to be improving.
|
| https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/19/deforestation-in-brazils-
| ama...
|
| Isn't the land being destroyed so people can have more
| meat, palm oil, etc.
|
| https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-
| solutions/2022/03/09/...
|
| What are organizations doing to improve the situation?
| Fighting consumer demand is difficult
| otikik wrote:
| I also find it hypocritical.
|
| My ancestors on my "civilised" country uprooted an tore
| down all the trees and forests, most of the countryside
| is farmland. And _now_ that we have destroyed our forests
| we go "no no, preserve the rainforests"... so we can keep
| planting wheat?
| User23 wrote:
| I'm sure you'd have no trouble getting people to let you
| pay for their solar install and buy them an electric
| vehicle.
| hedora wrote:
| I wonder if there's a charity that will pay for / subsidize
| heat pumps in Europe this winter. The war in Ukraine is an
| actual existential crisis for many countries over there,
| and ending gas imports is the easiest way for them to
| defend against future Russian invasion.
|
| I'd expect the politicians to be launching a WWII-style
| industrial mobilization to ramp up heat pump installations.
| Even if they can't switch away from coal / natural gas this
| year, typical heat pump coefficients of power are well
| above 4. Going from 100% gas furnaces to 100% heat pumps
| powered off of natural gas peaker plants would more than
| halve natural gas demand! (And, in coming years, the
| natural gas plants could be replaced with greener options.)
| fleddr wrote:
| Note that in moderate/colder countries (taking the
| Netherlands as an example), heat pumps are not a solution
| when your house is not up to modern insulation standards.
| Which is true for almost all houses older than say 15-20
| years.
|
| The insulation needs to happen first for those houses,
| and this can be a massive undertaking costing tens of
| thousands of euros. The next best thing is a hybrid heat
| pump.
|
| Although there's some subsidies here and there, you're
| very much right that we need something way more
| aggressive. For the houses I mentioned (which is almost
| all), a total sum of ~50K EUR is just not something the
| average family can afford. Those that do probably up
| their mortgage to finance it.
|
| Also take into account the shortages. I have a family
| member that installs heat pumps, he orders them by the
| dozens. Currently he's afraid to place orders as the
| delivery time is a minimum of 6 months with no guaranteed
| final date nor is the price fixed. It's "6K but we will
| charge you whatever it will actually be when we deliver".
| "I don't know when it is coming or what it will cost" is
| not a great message towards home owners.
| TravelPiglet wrote:
| Less wood they need to import as well
| spenczar5 wrote:
| It's complicated. Iceland is less corrupt than many nations
| with tropical rainforests, so your dollars are more likely to
| actually be used as you intended. There is very little
| logging industry competing against you and virtually no
| poaching so your effort is more durable, too.
|
| It's hard to quantify these things and get a conclusive
| answer on which is better; I think we can leave it at "both
| are good."
| lucb1e wrote:
| > There is very little logging industry
|
| I wonder why :P
|
| When I was in Iceland, they told me the reason they don't
| have forests anymore is that the vikings and other later
| settlers logged it. (Of course, a random horse tour person
| isn't the best source so I could very well be misinformed.)
| 11235813213455 wrote:
| or both
| ipqk wrote:
| The easiest way to support tropical rainforest is to eat less
| beef. The amazon is cleared for cattle grazing, much of which
| is imported into America.
| greedo wrote:
| Source? From what I've seen, most beef imports into the US
| come from Canada, Mexico, then Australia.
|
| https://www.beefmagazine.com/beef-quality/update-us-
| cattle-e...
| mistrial9 wrote:
| quick search for Beef (carcass weight) per month,
| international trade with the USA, for Dec. 2021, shows
| Canada, Mexico as number one and two, but Brazil as a
| close number three. In that month and year, the trade
| with Australia is very low.
| woobar wrote:
| It is a recent change:
|
| In January 2022 alone, Brazilian beef imports registered
| a more than 500% increase.
|
| Record high U.S. beef prices and drought-impacted
| supplies in Australia, where the U.S. would otherwise
| source beef, have also contributed to growing imports of
| processing-grade beef from Brazil
|
| https://www.beefmagazine.com/news/us-beef-imports-brazil-
| sur...
| greedo wrote:
| Shipping issues undoubtedly were an issue with Australia.
| [deleted]
| lucb1e wrote:
| This " _my particular country_ doesn 't import most of
| its cattle from Brazil" doesn't mean that you're not
| creating demand and perhaps also influencing the market
| in a way that _someone 's_ beef is. (Collectively,
| obviously.) The argument sounds similar to "but _my
| country_ isn 't polluting, it's China where we order all
| our stuff!" And, yeah, animal feed like others already
| said. It's all not quite as simple as "source? I don't
| believe I'm part of the problem by creating demand for
| meat here" coming from the country where the average
| person contributes the most to global warming
| greedo wrote:
| The OP was clearly saying that the importation of beef
| into America was causing clearing of the Amazon, when the
| link is a bit more complicated. Yes, some things are a
| bit fungible in the world economy, some trade tariffs
| encourage things like soya from Brazil for food etc. But
| just nailing the US for it when the EU, Japan, and China
| is just as culpable is silly.
| lucb1e wrote:
| > The OP was clearly saying that the importation of beef
| into America was causing clearing of the Amazon
|
| I don't see them mentioning the Amazon or hinting that
| the USA's imports are contributing there, but maybe I'm
| misreading their comment then (also when re-reading it
| now I don't see what you're referring to). Oh, or are you
| referring to the link they posted rather than their
| comment itself?
| greedo wrote:
| "The easiest way to support tropical rainforest is to eat
| less beef. The amazon is cleared for cattle grazing, much
| of which is imported into America."
| kawsper wrote:
| Denmark imports 1650000 metric tons soya from south
| america yearly to feed to animals.
| abrambleninja wrote:
| In addition to what ipqk said, a large amount of
| deforestation is for growing soy. Approximately 77% of
| global soy production [2] is used for producing animal
| feed. It's much more environmentally friendly to just get
| eat soy directly, rather than eat meat, because animals
| are very inefficient at converting food they eat to food
| that people can eat [2].
|
| [1]: https://ourworldindata.org/soy [2]:
| https://awellfedworld.org/feed-ratios/
| myshpa wrote:
| You're certainly right. Even EU imports soya from amazon to
| feed its cows.
|
| Not eating beef / meat / dairy is the single best thing one
| can do to help.
| frxx wrote:
| Can you let me know the project you're donating to? I'm
| interested as well.
| toto444 wrote:
| I send my donations to this project :
| https://www.plantatreeiniceland.is .
| asdff wrote:
| There are also islands in croatia and all over the med that are
| barren from venetian shipbuilding centuries ago as well.
| Shipbuilding stripped a lot of forests in europe.
| seunosewa wrote:
| What percentage of your carbon footprint do you reckon that
| your donation is offsetting?
| fsloth wrote:
| As a sidenote: "Carbon footprint" as a concept is mostly
| about industry gaslighting consumers. The original intent was
| to divert attention from industrial policy to consumer
| choice. Unfortunately the consumer has very little choice all
| in all as our economy runs on fossil fuels and individual
| choice matters very little [0].
|
| "Carbon footprint" was originally invented by the public
| relations agency Ogilvy & Mather for BP as a concept to
| divert attention from industry to individuals.
|
| https://mashable.com/feature/carbon-footprint-pr-campaign-
| sh...
|
| That's not to say that public pressure is not a good thing.
| It is. But the actual causal effect it has for a better
| future is in the form of creating political sentiment.
| Individual carbon economy is mostly about promoting a
| political sentiment via signaling.
|
| But generally it's a fools errand trying to scientifically
| balance your "carbon footprint" since this was not an
| engineering concept to start with. If it makes you feel good
| to plant trees do it! Trees are awesome. Buying less stuff
| you don't need is also always good I think. For example I use
| my cell phones until something irrevocably gives up and drive
| my current car as long as possible (generally making a new
| car is always more resource consuming than driving the
| current one I think).
|
| [0] For example Vaclaw Smil "How the world really works"
| discusses our fossil fuel based economy at length
| avgcorrection wrote:
| Correct. It got to the point where BP couldn't just
| straight up deny man-made climate change. So they had to
| point the finger at someone else.
| lucb1e wrote:
| Ah yes, the obligatory "we don't have a responsibility,
| that's just a BP invention from the 90s". It's always the
| evil bigcorps, of course.
|
| I don't know whether BP falsified the evidence here, but
| everything kinda points towards that it really is the
| consumers that drive demand.
|
| > generally it's a fools errand trying to scientifically
| balance your "carbon footprint"
|
| How would you, then, unscientifically solve climate change
| if we aren't supposed to take individual action to bring
| our own footprint to net zero, encourage others to do the
| same, and bring about societal change using market pressure
| and all that?
|
| > If it makes you feel good to plant trees do it! Trees are
| awesome.
|
| But if the "you" in this sentence is being made to feel
| good for the wrong reasons, isn't that dishonest? Shouldn't
| we be looking at what is actually effective use of your
| money, and not let people fall for feel-good tree planting
| only for them to find out ten years down the line that
| their hard-earned money went into /dev/null and they should
| have done (and could have been told about) something like
| meat reduction or solar panels instead?
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| > Ah yes, the obligatory "we don't have a responsibility,
| that's just a BP invention from the 90s". It's always the
| evil bigcorps, of course.
|
| They didn't say that.
|
| > How would you, then, unscientifically solve climate
| change if we aren't supposed to take individual action to
| bring our own footprint to net zero, encourage others to
| do the same, and bring about societal change using market
| pressure and all that?
|
| The individual action here is minor. Market pressure can
| work but only in certain circumstances. They already
| suggested working on political sentiment, since laws can
| do a lot here to tax or force certain methods.
|
| > But if the "you" in this sentence is being made to feel
| good for the wrong reasons, isn't that dishonest?
| Shouldn't we be looking at what is actually effective use
| of your money [...]
|
| I'm pretty sure the person you're responding to is also
| an advocate for effective use of money, specifically by
| focusing on the wider changes and not focusing much on
| the carbon footprint concept.
|
| But you don't have to spend _all_ your money on improving
| the world as much as possible.
| belorn wrote:
| > How would you, then, unscientifically solve climate
| change if we aren't supposed to take individual action to
| bring our own footprint to net zero, encourage others to
| do the same, and bring about societal change using market
| pressure and all that?
|
| The simple answer is to vote, and if you can spare the
| time/money/effort to go and become political active.
|
| Removing coal/oil/natural gas plants won't occur without
| political will. We need political will to build out rail
| infrastructure, regulating air/boat fuels, changing
| subsidies for fossil fuels into emission free
| alternatives, prioritize bike/pedestrian infrastructure,
| and so on.
|
| Right now we had politicians in EU voting that natural
| gas is "green", driving primarily by a specific political
| party in Germany, and now the same people are turning on
| coal and oil power plants. Societal change need to start
| with replacing people in power that view fossil fuel as a
| tool to be used rather than something that should be left
| in the ground. No individual action can get near to undo
| the damage that those politicians are doing by allowing
| fossil fuels to be burned.
| morsch wrote:
| The article claims that a PR campaign "popularized" the
| term "carbon footprint" in 2000. That's pretty vague and
| I'm not going to dispute it. The article doesn't claim BP
| coined the phrase.
|
| In German, it's more common to refer to an ecological
| footprint, its usage which goes back to at least 1992, and
| it wasn't coined by a PR company, but by very straight
| laced environmentalists.
|
| https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/095624789200400212
| avgcorrection wrote:
| Ecological footprint is where BPs spinoff/appropriation
| comes from.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| this is not the whole story -- a Swiss do-gooder in the San
| Francisco Bay Area had a "Carbon Footprint" project running
| for quite a while (still?) .. he was nerdy and sincere. His
| close staff certainly were sincere. If there was someone
| taking Oil money, they didn't show it.
| Schiendelman wrote:
| Plenty of well meaning people want to do better
| personally and don't realize that they're shifting the
| discussion to a damaging frame. It happens all over
| politics!
| toto444 wrote:
| I don't really know and I've been wondering for a while. HN
| might be the best place to get an informed answer.
|
| Here is my reasoning. Say I give enough to plant 10 trees a
| month. In 10 years that's 1,200 trees. Let's say half of them
| die, we're left with 600. Assuming a tree absorb 1 ton of CO2
| throughout its life, that 600 tons. I live in a place where
| CO2 emissions per capita are about 6 tons a year (check for
| yourself here and don't forget to compare with the US
| https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-
| emis... ).
|
| According to this back of the enveloppe calculation after 10
| years I would have planted enough trees to offset 100 years
| of carbon emissions.
| simongray wrote:
| I just "bought" 21 trees as a gift to someone (to be
| planted in Denmark, not Iceland). This amount supposedly
| offsets what the average Danish person emits in a month
| according to the organisation I bought it from. Not sure
| where you're from, but the average American emits something
| like 2.5 times what the average Dane does, so that would
| work out to ~60 trees that need to planted monthly (if
| you're American). Obviously, your mileage may vary.
|
| In any case, it really puts into perspective how messed up
| our continued use of fossil fuels is.
| toto444 wrote:
| Thanks for the correction.
|
| Just found this estimate 'the average tree absorbs an
| average of 10 kilograms, or 22 pounds, of carbon dioxide
| per year for the first 20 years.' My quick calculation of
| 1 ton of CO2 being absorbed is off by a factor of five
| then (200kg over 20 years).
| bmitc wrote:
| Just a note that two of the best things you can do for your own
| carbon emissions is to compost all organic material instead of
| throwing it out and planting native plants, trees, shrubs, and
| reducing the size of your lawn while also mowing what's left
| less frequently.
| [deleted]
| Schiendelman wrote:
| That's like a 1% impact compared to biking instead of
| driving.
| yellowapple wrote:
| And both combined are like a 1% impact compared to
| switching to solar/wind/geothermal/nuclear instead of
| fossil fuels.
|
| We need institutional solutions; we can't afford to punt
| climate change to individual choices.
| lucb1e wrote:
| From a quick search (not some verified peer reviewed source
| deep dive), transportation seems to be about 30% and food
| 17% of USA household emissions. Calling it 1% is
| marginalizing the impact people can have with a very simple
| change.
|
| Also note that buying a different product in the
| supermarket is an entirely different order of magnitude
| than changing your life around so that you can cycle to
| work without less free time / degrading quality of life.
| I'd argue there's sense to recommending doing low hanging
| fruit.
| woodruffw wrote:
| Which means that you should prioritize it _relative_ to
| cycling instead of driving, not ignore it entirely.
|
| (More concretely: individuals cycle, while _household
| units_ generally compost together. A household of 4
| produces a nontrivial amount of compostable waste and
| diverting it can be a significant ecological outcome,
| especially if it 's replacing purchases of topsoil or
| artificial fertilizer. It also makes taking the trash out
| more pleasant, since it doesn't spend days rotting indoors
| before being tossed to the curb.)
| Schiendelman wrote:
| A household of 4 also drives at least twice as much as a
| single person. 2%.
|
| If you're spending your limited time and effort on 2%
| measures we've all already lost.
| woodruffw wrote:
| My household drives 0%, because we live in a major city.
| I don't even have a valid drivers' license. I already
| bike or take public transit to work every day.
|
| > If you're spending your limited time and effort on 2%
| measures we've all already lost.
|
| We're talking about _one_ measure, one that 's
| specifically coextensive with managing your waste
| (assuming you don't throw your trash into a pile in the
| corner of your room). It takes me no extra time to throw
| a banana peel in the compost bin instead of the trash
| can; they're right next to each other.
| bmitc wrote:
| If everyone did it, it would mean double digit percentages
| in reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. And they are two
| things everyone can do today and is actually actionable.
| Native plants have far more benefits than just carbon
| capture. And by the way, decomposing organic waste in
| landfills emits _methane_ , which is several more times
| potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. So yes, it
| matters.
| Schiendelman wrote:
| It would not result in a double digit reduction. It would
| result in a tiny reduction. Please source it if you think
| residential compost would have a double digit impact. I
| honestly suspect it might be less than 1% of household
| emissions.
| changoplatanero wrote:
| If I have cardboard and paper scraps and stuff is it better
| to compost it at home or put it in the city recycling bin?
| woodruffw wrote:
| This probably depends on the quality and volume of your
| paper waste. If it's junk mail (weather treated, bleached
| and dyed), then putting it in your compost is likely to do
| more harm than good. On the other hand, if it's mostly
| minimally processed cardboard, you shred it and mix it into
| your food waste[1].
|
| [1]: https://helpmecompost.com/home-
| composting/implementation/how...
| pasiaj wrote:
| For comparison: Finland (338,440 km2) is three times the size
| of Iceland (103,000 km2)
|
| Finland has 23 million hectares (76%) of forest cover.
|
| http://www.metla.fi/metinfo/sustainability/finnish.htm
| BurningFrog wrote:
| A hectare is 0.01 km2, so Finland has 230,000 km2 of forest.
| lucb1e wrote:
| Frankly I find both of these really hard to wrap my head
| around. Not like football fields or olympic swimming pools
| are better, but the country of Finland being 3/4 covered
| gives me a much better sense of scale than x million
| hectolometers.
|
| Probably that only works for people that are from nearby
| Finland and/or into geography, though. For huge scales like
| these, I'm thinking degrees might theoretically be a better
| unit, since it's easier to visualize a fraction of the
| globe (presuming people know there's 360 degrees around the
| globe) than picturing hundreds of thousands of some other
| unit.
| mynameishere wrote:
| That is insane. Why not just spew less carbon? Cut out the
| middleman.
| baryphonic wrote:
| People are free to do what they want in the privacy of their
| homes on their own time, but I for one do not enjoy
| asphyxiation.
| dfxm12 wrote:
| Most of us live in capitalist societies, where it is
| ingrained into people that capital can solve all of our
| problems & that short term capital gain is more important
| than anything else. This is a case where it will not, since
| we can't buy our way to a new planet. :(
| TrueGeek wrote:
| Maybe he does both
| bloppe wrote:
| I love spewing carbon
| Taylor_OD wrote:
| Iceland is a very nice place. I don't really remember seeing any
| trees while there. Good for them.
| lucb1e wrote:
| I can recommend leaving the Reykjavik area. You'll definitely
| see trees around the country!
| User23 wrote:
| An Icelandic girl told me a joke once: What do you do when you
| get lost in a forest in Iceland? You stand up.
| yakubin wrote:
| From the title, I expected they were sounding an alarm that they
| are losing forests. It appears the opposite is happening. Really
| bewildering, given how just a couple centuries ago for most
| European countries having less than 70%+ forest coverage would be
| an oddity.
| Beltalowda wrote:
| > just a couple centuries ago for most European countries
| having less than 70%+ forest coverage would be an oddity.
|
| 70%+ seems a lot; I'm not sure where you got that number from?
| For example in [1] mentions about 15% in 1086 for England, [2]
| mentions ~2% 1750 for the Netherlands and ~11% in 1775 for
| Belgium. Numbers will undoubtable differ for other countries,
| but 70%+ is really a lot.
|
| Neolithic people already cleared a lot of forest for
| agriculture in Europe, which happened thousands of years ago.
| In some countries (such as the Netherlands) forests have
| actually _grown_ in the last few centuries (from the ~2% in
| 1750 mentioned before to ~10% today).
|
| Iceland had "only" about 30% forest before settlers arrived.
|
| [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2013/jul/27/history-of-
| en...
|
| [2]: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bos_(begroeiing)#Oppervlakte
| yakubin wrote:
| I don't remember where I got the number, but a quick look at
| Wikipedia finds some claims that Free Germania used to have
| 70% forest area. I think I've also heard similar numbers in
| some museums given for Poland in Middle Ages. Can't find it
| now though.
|
| Sweden and Finland today have ~70%. 30% is the number for
| most of Europe _today_ , and it's usually considered low,
| among the people I know. So it seems that Iceland
| historically already had very little forestation.
| zip1234 wrote:
| Iceland has almost no forest at all. It would not take much to
| increase the forest cover.
| nonethewiser wrote:
| It may have included some manualbeffort, but isnt this an effect
| of climate change?
| elevaet wrote:
| I planted some thousands of trees in Iceland in the noughties. I
| believe the program was funded by Alcoa to offset the carbon
| produced by an aluminum plant they were building on the island.
| They paid farmers to plant trees on unused land, and the farmers
| hired and hosted us to do the work. It was an amazing way to see
| the country. We mostly planted larch, birch and alder from what I
| remember. It is a very beautiful country, like an arctic Hawaii.
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| Are those trees native to Iceland? I would hope that they
| aren't just trying to increase forest cover using species that
| have the potential to be invasive.
| wnevets wrote:
| > potential to be invasive.
|
| Is that a real concern when it comes to trees?
| JadeNB wrote:
| There's at least debate about whether Chinese pistache
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pistacia_chinensis) should
| be considered invasive in Texas.
| freedomben wrote:
| In the mountain west, the Chinese Elm has exploded. In my
| neighborhood, 95% of the trees that grew naturally (i.e.
| they are established, and a human didn't plant them), are
| Chinese Elm. If it weren't for homeowners planting
| alternates, I suspect it would be Cottonwood's along the
| canals, and Chinese Elms everywhere else. Those things
| spring up _everywhere_ , even cracks of sidewalk where
| there's no dirt! And their roots go aggressive and deep,
| and are very hard to get rid of once established.
| shakes_mcjunkie wrote:
| Yes, why wouldn't it be? Any non native species can disrupt
| an ecosystem in any number of ways. For trees for example,
| they can shade or crowd out native species.
| wnevets wrote:
| Because trees tend to grow very slowly, which should mean
| they should be fairly easy to control. Not to mention the
| useful wood if any population culling needs to occur.
| Foobar8568 wrote:
| Typically the Japanese knotweed is considered as highly
| invasive and a pest in Europe. Almost impossible to get
| rid off due to its fast growth and deep root system.
| wnevets wrote:
| According to the internet the Japanese knotweed is not a
| tree, its a buckwheat. [1]
|
| [1] https://nyis.info/invasive_species/japanese-knotweed/
| Foobar8568 wrote:
| There is also the Ailanthus altissima, which also is from
| Asia/Japan.
| yellowapple wrote:
| I refuse to believe that if I can't make pancakes out of
| it.
| jonnycomputer wrote:
| Maybe ecosystems are always being disrupted?
| SkittyDog wrote:
| Honestly trying to clarify... Are you aware that altering
| existing, stable ecosystems has potentially massive,
| unpredictable, long-term costs that _other humans_ will
| have to pay, potentially far outweighing any of the
| economic benefits of the original human interference?
|
| This is pretty basic history, with _endless_ examples of
| human societies that took short-term gains by screwing
| with ecosystems for more complex than they could
| understand... Only to leave behind horrific costs for
| their descendants and neighbors? And that some of those
| costs proved so high that they _wiped out_ the societies
| that came up short, when the bill came due?
|
| Are you aware of the countless famines, wars, wildfires,
| floods, and other disasters that happened as a result? Do
| you know the body counts of these choices?
|
| If you're honestly just ignorant of all this history, I'm
| gonna suggest that you start by reading Mark Reisner's
| masterwork:
|
| * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadillac_Desert
|
| And then maybe follow it up with Jared Diamond:
|
| * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse:_How_Societies
| _Choo...
|
| If you can at least digest those, whether you agree or
| disagree with their theses--then I think we'll be ready
| to have a useful discussion about the wisdom of human
| interference in existing stable ecosystems.
| jonnycomputer wrote:
| Lay off skittyboo; doesn't seem like you are "honestly"
| trying to clarify anything.
|
| Have you considered that you might be making a wildly
| inaccurate assumption that island ecology tends toward
| homeostasis? Does it bother you so much that someone
| might believe that disruption and wild fluctuation might
| be much more typical of ecosystems, even without the
| intervention of Homo sapiens sapiens?
| jonnycomputer wrote:
| Also, honestly, Jared Diamond? you can do so much better
| than that.
| bigbillheck wrote:
| Absolutely. I've got one of these:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ailanthus_altissima in the
| back yard that I need to take a saw (and likely more
| drastic measures) to.
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| Absolutely, because the trees non-ecologists pick for rapid
| reforestation happen to grow aggressively and they tend to
| out compete the local species. They tend to pick either
| rapidly growing species, or particularly hardy ones. Both
| characteristics make removing them after introduction
| difficult.
|
| Hawaii has a huge problem with this, but also California.
| The eucalyptus trees they imported from Australia have had
| the terrible affect of making wildfires in California even
| worse. There's also a horrible negative feedback loop
| because the Eucalyptus is adapted to recover quickly from
| such fires.
|
| "It has been estimated that 70% of the energy released
| through the combustion of vegetation in the Oakland fire
| was due to eucalyptus.[41] In a National Park Service
| study, it was found that the fuel load (in tons per acre)
| of non-native eucalyptus woods is almost three times as
| great as native oak woodland."
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucalyptus#Adaptation_to_fire
| raverbashing wrote:
| Good example. Eucalyptus is bad
|
| Pinus is worse
| seattle_spring wrote:
| I've been watching way too much Beavis and Butthead.
| hodgesrm wrote:
| > The eucalyptus trees they imported from Australia have
| had the terrible affect of making wildfires in California
| even worse.
|
| I watched the eucalyptus stands burning in the Oakland
| Hills fire. They go up like torches. I've never
| understood the rationale for keeping them. Owls really
| like them though.
| yellowapple wrote:
| > Owls really like them though.
|
| There's your rationale. Owls are cool.
| bombcar wrote:
| I don't think there's much of a rationale; nobody I knew
| in CA _liked_ eucalyptus trees, they just are everywhere.
| I had heard they wanted to make railroad ties from them.
| wnevets wrote:
| Do you know of other species that have similar issues as
| Eucalyptus?
| thedougd wrote:
| America's favorite (/s) the Bradford Pear. It is invasive
| and will choke/push out other species.
|
| https://extension.umd.edu/resource/bradford-pear
| zdragnar wrote:
| Buckthorn in the US is very resilient, crowds out other
| species of both undergrowth and trees, and is a host to a
| number of pests such as aphids and fungi which will then
| attack crops and native species.
|
| You can't simply cut it down, it requires a nasty
| chemical applied to the stump, or to be completely pulled
| out by the roots. They grow tightly packed together, so
| clearing out even a small area is best done with a team
| of people.
| redtexture wrote:
| The North American Black Locust tree, a continental
| native tree, of the legume family, is considered invasive
| within North America, in New York and Connecticut and
| Massachusetts and the rest of New England, mid-west
| prairie areas, and the west of the continent.
|
| Its original range, before European arrival, is believed
| to be in Appalachian Mountains, Pennsylvania to Georgia,
| and the Ozarks. It has been used as a
| pioneer species to restore treeless land in other
| continents, including Europe, Asia and Africa and
| Australia. Spain has used them to restart forest in
| desertified areas, for example.
|
| - Black Locust (Robinia_pseudoacacia) -- Wikipedia
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robinia_pseudoacacia
|
| - Black Locust -- New York PRISM
| https://www.wnyprism.org/invasive_species/black-locust/
|
| - Black Locust -- Massachusetts Audubon Society
| https://www.massaudubon.org/learn/nature-
| wildlife/invasive-p...
|
| - Rethinking Black Locust -- by Maureen Sundberg April
| 15, 2019 Ecological Lanscape Alliance
| https://www.ecolandscaping.org/04/landscape-
| challenges/invas...
| jonnycomputer wrote:
| Amur Honeysuckle, though its sort of more of a shrub.
| rch wrote:
| Tree of Heaven is _extremely_ difficult to eradicate, and
| has spread throughout Boulder over the last few years.
|
| https://arapahoe.extension.colostate.edu/2021/09/05/tree-
| fro...
| karmajunkie wrote:
| it's not a tree but kudzu is a pretty famous example. it
| was imported from japan (i believe --may be mistaken on
| that point) into the American Deep South for erosion
| control, it quickly grew in the warm, wet environs and
| now literally smothers nearly all native vegetation. Its
| incredibly invasive and difficult to eradicate.
| hugi wrote:
| Note that reforestation up here is a different game than
| in places like California (read: "warmer locations more
| amicable to life"). Species that survive here mostly
| already existed and trees grow very, very slowly. For the
| most part, we'll welcome anything that will survive, and
| turns out (big surprise) that our existing species are
| the best at surviving here. An exception (as in, a newly
| introduced potentially invasive species) is the
| Californian Poplar, which was imported in the 40s, but
| that isn't really used much for reforestation anymore.
|
| There are notable examples of invasive species in the
| non-tree category though, the Lupine probably being the
| most controversial. It's been used to reclaim and create
| soil in sandy areas and in only a few decades since being
| imported, the blue of the flowering lupine absolutely
| dominates some areas. I think it's pretty, but it's
| aggressive as all hell.
| HeyLaughingBoy wrote:
| Oh my god yes. I'm battling (and probably losing the fight)
| the dreaded Box Elder Maple. The thing grows like a weed
| and if you cut it down, it just grows back even larger. You
| either need to cut it down to a stump (and likely grind the
| stump to nothing), or cut it and poison what's left so it
| dies for good.
|
| Fkn hate those trees and the bugs they host!
| jonnycomputer wrote:
| Invasive in Europe. Native to eastern North America. You
| can also make syrup from the sap, though you need a lot
| more sap than sugar maple.
| woodruffw wrote:
| I think by "birch" they mean the Icelandic birch[1], which is
| the only tree that's actually native to Iceland. The others
| (Siberian larch, Alder variants) were probably previously
| endemic, even if they aren't "truly" native.
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betula_pubescens
| klyrs wrote:
| To be fair, Iceland is only about 16 million years old, and
| trees have been around for about 350 million years. What's
| native to Surtsey?
| Hellion wrote:
| That's a bit of a willful misinterpretation
|
| Native is more about replanting things into a stable
| ecosystem, versus non native, which can become invasive and
| detrimental to that ecosystem
| [deleted]
| hadlock wrote:
| There are no trees on the island at all, barely an
| ecosystem, they clear cut the island about 500 years ago
| and nothing has been able to reestablish in the harsh
| conditions. Most of the island is rock, some of it
| covered in lichen, some covered in a very hardy moss.
| It's important to be respectful of the ecosystem, but
| also, iceland is a barren rocky island and you need some
| sort of flora to bootstrap a productive ecosystem. The
| tree planting efforts have been necessary.
|
| Iceland's tourism marketing department is super
| impressive; I see a barren rocky hellscape (I've been
| there twice, both times as emergency layovers due to XYZ
| airline problems) but people who buy into the ads
| consider it "beautiful and otherworldly", I think,
| because there are no trees there besides the ones planted
| in the cities. The bus trip from the new airport to the
| capital is about 30 minutes, other than Craters of the
| Moon national park in idaho I don't think i've seen a
| more barren stretch of land, especially so close to a
| major population center.
| klyrs wrote:
| I've seen the entire portion of the island visible from
| the ring road. It is absolutely beautiful and
| otherworldly... if you count the spectacular waterfalls
| and fjordlands as "beautiful" and the barren wastes of
| Mars and Venus as "otherworldly." If you're particularly
| inebriated you might see miles and miles of sheep, with
| no humans in sight, as "alien." If you're from New
| Zealand this might not be novel, but I'm not.
|
| There's nothing quite like hiking for miles before
| looking down and realizing that you've been walking on a
| dense two-dimensional mat of berry bushes and spiral-
| shaped alder trees. It's quite possible that you _saw_
| trees but did not recognize them as such -- from a
| distance, this "flat forest" looks a lot like moss. Not
| much can survive annual meters-deep snows, which is one
| of the reasons I'm uncharacteristically flippant about
| invasive species (the other reason being the sheep
| population).
| asgeir wrote:
| It is slightly unfair to say there's barely an ecosystem.
| If all you've seen is Reykjanes between Keflavik and
| Reykjavik then sure it might look like a bleak, moss
| covered, rocky desert. But the thing is that different
| regions can vary quite drastically in their level of
| vegetation. You might have farmland on one side of a
| mountain but on the other side a vast sandy desert.
|
| But, to be fair, if your measure of a fertile landscape
| is a forest then those are relatively few and far
| between. Personally I tend to feel a bit claustrophobic
| when there are trees boxing me in on all sides and I
| can't see the mountains. :)
| yownie wrote:
| We still have one original forest here from pre-
| settlement in the East called Hallormsstadaskogur, https:
| //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallormssta%C3%B0ask%C3%B3gur.
|
| However yes the ride from KEF to RVK is particularly
| barren looking.
| ajmurmann wrote:
| "nothing has been able to reestablish in the harsh
| conditions"
|
| AFAIK the main factor in those "harsh conditions" is
| sheep farming. Sheep on Iceland are kept pretty much
| without any fences. They will eat saplings and small
| tees. There is an amazing photo somewhere of a little
| island in a river that's in essence covered in forest.
| Everything around it is mostly moss as you call out.
|
| Another factor, especially on the Rejkyanes peninsula
| towards the airport is that this is also a very young
| part of the island. It's mostly still lava rock. This
| isn't representative of other parts of Iceland.
|
| Source: visited 5 times and travelled the island
| extensively.=
| zackbloom wrote:
| It sounds like you have never actually visited Iceland as
| a tourist or resident intentionally. It's a beautiful
| place, perhaps not best judged on emergency layovers.
| evanlivingston wrote:
| What is a stable ecosystem?
| mistrial9 wrote:
| the science shows dramatic changes in temperatures and
| rainfall in the far North. Planting _new_ tree stands
| certainly ought not be bound by a "pure native" perspective,
| in these times. While you and I split hairs, not a small
| amount of money is being invested in genetically engineered
| flora of all kinds, boasting that it is "climate change
| ready." A much bigger problem than "pure native" to my way of
| thinking.
| otikik wrote:
| The fact that bugs me is that artificial selection is
| "fine". If randomness produces a mutation, that's kosher,
| but if man makes the change, that's Dangerous.
| tomrod wrote:
| Any mutation could be "dangerous." We're just used to a
| system that produces mutations randomly so we estimate
| the danger to be in the background. Targeted changes also
| can produce unknown side effects, which to my understand
| are what non-GMO folks fear. Toxicity, missing nutrients,
| etc. could certainly be issues with adjustments, but I
| don't think the right approach is to fear so much as to
| attack things two fold: test the biological systems
| outputs, and learn the biological systems outputs
| sufficiently to simulate impacts.
| wizofaus wrote:
| If man was making said changes at the rate random useful
| mutations tend to occur in nature I don't think anyone
| would be concerned. And we typically do more than just
| tweak a genetic component in a single individual and see
| how it fares against existing populations - if the change
| suits our short term goals, we'll do everything we can to
| ensure that becomes the dominant variant, often
| destroying the genetic diversity that provides long term
| durability in the process.
| MonkeyMalarky wrote:
| People get all twisted up over the idea of genetically
| engineered plants breaking out into the wild though. But,
| once we're staring down the barrel of the climate
| apocalypse it'd be cool to go nuts with genetically
| engineered plants like: Here's a giant redwood that grows
| 10x faster, filters particulates out of the air with its
| needles and is designed to extract carbon from the air as
| fast as possible.
| tomrod wrote:
| I prefer this to eating yeast from vats grown in Carlsbad
| Caverns and other deep caves.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| designer grass in different colors; fish genes in
| oranges; new mammals as pets designed to sell.. people
| know very well that is what is going on.. pure BS to make
| a buck, like "fast growing things that live 600 years" ..
| like fake medicine, but worse because it breeds. zero
| confidence in MBAs and shysters making this a GMO
| business to "save the planet"
|
| ok - better, plants whose seeds die instead of
| refreshing; plants that are allegedly immune to only MY
| brand of poison and won't hurt anything; trees with
| patents.
| tomsthumb wrote:
| In at least one location in the US they did this to mitigate
| ore dust traveling via wind near a plant.
| warpech wrote:
| Interesting, considering this old Icelandic joke I found once in
| a guide:
|
| - What should you do if you get lost in a forest?
|
| - Stand up! (other version: Just get off your knees!)
| [deleted]
| warpech wrote:
| BTW what a rare example of a joke that does not offend anyone
| dotancohen wrote:
| > BTW what a rare example of a joke that does not offend
| anyone
|
| For what it's worth, I prefer jokes that "offend" my race.
| I'm Jewish, have at me!
|
| I realize that being overly sensitive is an online virtue in
| teenager websites like Reddit or Instagram. But HN users can
| be assumed to be adults. No need to point out "look, a joke
| that _doesn't_ offend!" here.
| mbg721 wrote:
| "All right, I just got down from the mountain, and the good
| news is that I have some simple rules for living in harmony
| with God. The bad news is that there's something a little
| awkward that will need to be cut off..."
| HideousKojima wrote:
| You can tell what kind of Jew someone is by how they
| pronounce Adonai. Orthodox say "Ah-Doh-Nye", Conservatives
| say "Ah-Doh-No", and if they're Reform they say "Eye-Dee-
| Nye".
| mbg721 wrote:
| The Catholic equivalent of this joke is that a Dominican,
| a Franciscan, and a Jesuit are told that a Mercedes has
| been donated to them on the condition that they say a
| Novena for the good will of Vatican II. The Dominican
| says "What's Vatican II?" The Franciscan says "What's a
| Mercedes?" And the Jesuit says "What's a Novena?"
| stinos wrote:
| > For what it's worth, I prefer jokes that "offend" my
| race. I'm Jewish, have at me!
|
| Since I would personally call that a religion and not a
| race, which is likely some heated discussion hence proper
| material for humor: do you happen to have a joke covering
| that aspect?
| hirundo wrote:
| The sephardic and ashkenazic ethnicities are closely
| associated with the Jewish faith. But I haven't heard any
| sephardic or ashkenazic jokes.
| dotancohen wrote:
| Sure, but it would probably be funny only to religious
| Jews.
|
| God comes down from heaven and says to Moses: "Thou shall
| not cook a lamb in its mother's milk". Moses asks in
| reply "So, I shouldn't eat meat with dairy?". Said God:
| "No, Moses. Just don't cook a lamb in its mother's milk".
| Moses asked for clarification "So, I shouldn't put cheese
| on chicken, no more Cordon Bleu?". And God clarified:
| "No, Moses. Just don't cook a lamb in its mother's milk".
| And Moses asked "So, I should keep separate dishes for
| meat, and separate dishes for dairy? And wait a few hours
| between meals?". And God clarified thus: "Do whatever you
| want Moses."
| jl6 wrote:
| David Baddiel is a funny guy and his book (which isn't
| humor) Jews Don't Count frames Jewishness as an
| ethnicity.
| Akronymus wrote:
| > For what it's worth, I prefer jokes that "offend" my
| race. I'm Jewish, have at me!
|
| And risk getting called a ashkenazi?
|
| But yeah, being able to shrug off insults/find
| insults/jokes funny is something I hold in high regard.
|
| Sadly, too many people take offense on someone elses
| behalf.
| dotancohen wrote:
| Your comment was much better before you edited it. I did
| nazi that edit coming.
| Akronymus wrote:
| Thats fair. Just thought I'd try to inject a tiny bit of
| humour, based on a semi-frequent misunderstanding that
| ashkenazi jews are nazis. Which seemed in line with the
| parent to my post at the edit time.
|
| Oh well, thats what I get for trying to add a joke while
| being from Austria.
| dotancohen wrote:
| > misunderstanding that ashkenazi jews are nazis
|
| I've never heard this misunderstanding. Interesting, I
| wonder if it's local.
|
| Germans have some good Jewish jokes, I posted one above
| in a reply to a Pole. I know it's a crazy sensitive
| subject, I couldn't bring myself to write the punchline
| in English.
| mbg721 wrote:
| The more dire the serious situation, the funnier the
| joke.
| odiroot wrote:
| I think most popular jokes in my country (Poland) are the
| ones comparing Poles, Russians and Germans.
|
| We probably wouldn't risk joking about your folk.
| dotancohen wrote:
| Considering our history, yes, I could see that Poles
| might not want to laugh about Jews. My gmail username is
| the same as my HN username, I personally would love to
| hear a Polish Jewish joke and promise not to take offense
| or think that it represents your personal viewpoint.
|
| A German once told me a German Jewish joke. How do you
| get 100 Jews into a Kafer (VW Beetle)? Im Aschenbecher.
|
| I'm still yet to hear Arab jokes about Jews, even though
| I live with and am friendly with Arabs. I know they
| probably have some good ones.
| biorach wrote:
| > Im Aschenbecher
|
| Damn, that's rough!
|
| My Jewish friends tell really appalling jokes like this -
| mostly, I suspect, so they can watch gentiles squirm.
| shrubble wrote:
| Rick Moranis (dressed as an Orthodox rabbi) and Dave Thomas
| (as Scotsman named Angus Crock) are probably your best best
| in this old SCTV skit:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rShkTyq-r24
| the_only_law wrote:
| > But HN users can be assumed to be adults.
|
| Could have fooled me.
| bestest wrote:
| I believe a midget might disagree.
| Akronymus wrote:
| I could see someone taking offense that it is ableism.
|
| Thankfully most people are sane.
| EarlKing wrote:
| This is the internet, sir. Sanity is DLC.
| Akronymus wrote:
| With the way things are going, you'd expect it to be a
| subscription.
| nix23 wrote:
| >BTW what a rare example of a joke that does not offend
| anyone
|
| So important today!!!
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| it's not rare at all, come on now
| pmontra wrote:
| Moss can grow very thick in Iceland, as thick as a couch. So
| you can walk over the (cold) lava field below it.
| hef19898 wrote:
| You can, but since that moss is quite fragile and takes ages
| to grow you absolutely _should not_ walk on it. Hiking trails
| are there for a reason.
|
| Even worse than walking would be driving, and that is also
| illegal in Iceland.
| s_dev wrote:
| Great news -- Ireland is another country in bad need of
| reforesting. The British took all our trees to build their navy
| and Irish farmers finished off what little remained. We have very
| few old growth forests as a result.
| CalRobert wrote:
| It would help if we didn't have a cultural dislike of trees.
| I'm getting tired of "You'll be wantin' to cut them trees down
| for light" when people see my house.
| BirAdam wrote:
| I don't know how cultural that is. In the aggregate, humans
| seem to enjoy sunlight. If a house is in the middle of the
| woods, I imagine there's a subset of human who would prefer
| that but not so much the general population over a large time
| span.
|
| EDIT: though the lighting would probably be awesome for TV
| viewing or gaming... it's important to remember that if the
| house is sticks and siding with asphalt covered shingles,
| there's an increased maintenance burden and security risk
| from having a ton of trees close to the house.
| CalRobert wrote:
| If it matters, the culture I grew up in (central
| California) very much valued trees because of the shade
| they offered, as well as their beauty.
| klondike_klive wrote:
| One of my earliest memories of my Irish grandad was him
| cutting down a tree in our back garden.
| smcl wrote:
| My parents had a similar thing in Scotland. They have a big
| garden, a conservatory and a lovely sea view. They chopped
| down a lovely conifer (I forget which kind, just remember it
| had needles) to get _more_ of a sea view, a pear tree that
| just needed some love and another that shaded the driveway
| but apparently made the cars hard to clean. This happened
| when I was away at university, I came back and thought that
| there 'd been a storm or something. Really weird.
|
| That said, there's a difference between reforesting efforts
| the countryside and (stupidly) cutting down a couple of trees
| in your garden. Scotland and Ireland are I think similarly
| deforested after previously having been nearly covered in it.
| There are reforestation efforts in Scotland, though I don't
| think we'll see a huge difference within my lifetime :(
|
| edit: ok it's maybe less negative than I thought, Wikipedia
| thinks we've jumped from 5% forested to 17% since the ~1950s.
| [deleted]
| CalRobert wrote:
| I wonder how much of that 17% is native species? Nothing
| wrong with wood farms of course but it's a point of
| contention here that the government calls a bunch of
| monoculture spruce from Alaska part of its reforestation
| efforts.
|
| I can't imagine chopping down a lovely conifer. We have a
| dozen ~20 meter tall trees in a row and our neighbours
| sounded almost annoyed we didn't chop them down with the
| rest that we had to fell when building our house. It killed
| us to lose the ones we did. Mind you we're on 3 acres;
| we're not shading anyone else.
|
| I have a couple hundred saplings growing, fingers crossed I
| have a nice starter forest in a decade or so.
| smcl wrote:
| I'm afraid I don't know, but you're right if it was all
| (or mostly) non-native it's maybe not quite worth
| celebrating. Your little future forest sounds great
| though!
| detritus wrote:
| The problem with that increase since the fifties is that
| it's mostly not 'real' forest but plantations, which are
| their own kind of desert. I don't know if you've ever tried
| to venture into one but.. it's not fun. Very dense. Very
| little of nature about them.
| CalRobert wrote:
| To be fair they're not native forest but I quite like a
| dense, dark forest. It reminds me of forests from home
| (which is fitting since it's a North American species).
| smcl wrote:
| I haven't been back for a while, but I remember seeing a
| few little geometrically simple islands of thick woodland
| in a sea of farmland. So it's mostly that? Shame
| pmontra wrote:
| Trees shade is great in hot weather.
| thematrixturtle wrote:
| Fortunately Ireland is plagued by neither sunlight nor hot
| weather.
| CalRobert wrote:
| Considering the moaning caused by 30C I think we're in
| for a rough few centuries...
| smcl wrote:
| My street is lined with trees that (in summer at least)
| provides great cover from rain, you can walk the whole
| ~200m down it without getting wet. Maybe that's a more
| convincing selling point for Ireland :)
| jmartrican wrote:
| I can imagine hearing that over and over again can get quite
| tiring. I'm planting trees all over my house to create more
| shade. Ambient light coming through the windows is good
| enough for me.
| badcppdev wrote:
| Some interesting replies to your comment. As you included an
| interesting sentence claiming the trees were taken by the
| British I just wanted to ask what your thoughts on that were
| now?
| sonthonax wrote:
| > The British took all our trees to build their navy
|
| Not only that, they took our young men to fight in their
| colonial armies; and deracinated the educated to serve as
| middeling officials in their colonial governments!
|
| Anyway, I'm being ironic, the Irish were part of the colonial
| project as much as working class factory workers were in
| Manchester were.
| Akronymus wrote:
| I think you may have misread the title as ireland instead of
| iceland.
| agilob wrote:
| >Ireland is another country
|
| is another.
|
| No, not a misread
| Akronymus wrote:
| Seems like I misread it then. Thanks for pointing it out.
| [deleted]
| profunctor wrote:
| Actually most of Ireland was deforested in the Neolithic age.
| We really should reforest as much as possible, preferable
| native species.
| edoloughlin wrote:
| _It was said that a squirrel could travel from one end of
| Ireland to the other without ever touching the ground as more
| than 80% of the land was covered by forests_
|
| https://www.teagasc.ie/crops/forestry/advice/general-
| topics/...
| wongarsu wrote:
| It would be interesting to see how this contrasts to other
| European countries. At a glance up to 1600 or so the
| history seems the same as other densely populated
| countries: dense forests made way for more and more
| farmland. "By 1600, less than 20% of Ireland was covered by
| forests." For comparison, both Germany and France are about
| 30% forest today. But where Ireland lost almost all
| woodlands by 1900, apparently driven by wood demand,
| Germany and France maintained forests for game hunting and
| developed sustainable foresting around the 1800s.
| arethuza wrote:
| That's what Trees for Life are doing in the Scottish
| Highlands:
|
| https://treesforlife.org.uk/
| stormdennis wrote:
| I think that Ireland was largely deforested in prehistory by
| early settlers. Short cycle rotation cropping of Sitka spruce
| is about all that's been done about it in independent Ireland.
| closewith wrote:
| > The British took all our trees to build their navy and Irish
| farmers finished off what little remained.
|
| That's something of a myth. Most of the deforestation in
| Ireland occurred long before the plantations (even BCE). While
| trees were cut for shipbuilding, deforestation was primarily
| the result of agriculture and a booming population pre-famine.
|
| https://www.teagasc.ie/crops/forestry/advice/general-topics/...
| s_dev wrote:
| Your link greatly understates later human (predominantly
| British people) impact from 1500 onwards:
|
| https://www.forestryservices.ie/history-of-forestry-in-
| irela...
|
| Basically my opinion is that we should be allowed to mess up
| our own island but another country messing with our island is
| a crime and infringement of our sovereignty. So yea -- thumbs
| up to Neolithic farmers trying to make ends meet vs a thumbs
| down to a global Empire bent on taking over the world through
| it's military navy.
| Reningring wrote:
| closewith wrote:
| I'm no fan of British rule in Ireland, but your own link
| states that deforestation under British rule was primarily
| for agricultural land, not ship building.
|
| It's better to have legitimate complaints when making a
| criticism of the British empire. There's plenty of them.
| OskarS wrote:
| > long before the plantations (even BCE)
|
| Iceland wasn't settled by humans until the Viking age, in the
| 9th century CE. Are you claiming it was deforested a
| millennia earlier than that?
|
| Edit: I'm an idiot, I misread your comment. Apologies!
| Denvercoder9 wrote:
| This subthread is about Ireland, not Iceland.
| rocketbop wrote:
| OP is talking about Ireland, where there have been people
| for thousands of years.
| [deleted]
| nixass wrote:
| There's similar myth where Venetians chopped down trees from
| Croatian coast, namely Dalmatia and Velebit mountain. It's
| just nonsense
| julienchastang wrote:
| Slightly off topic: I was recently in Iceland and the country is
| covered in Alaskan lupine that was introduced decades ago and has
| now become invasive. The result is these blue tinged landscapes.
| According to the tour guide, there is some benefit as the Alaskan
| lupine improves the soil (I don't know how true this actually
| is).
| bcbrown wrote:
| Lupine is a legume, and legumes host nitrogen-fixing bacteria.
| Nitrogen availability is frequently the primary constraint on
| foliage growth.
| [deleted]
| BurningFrog wrote:
| This makes me a little sad, because a major factor making Iceland
| such an otherworldly place is the complete lack of trees.
| andai wrote:
| When did the trees run out, and how did they heat themselves
| after?
| jillesvangurp wrote:
| Interesting question. I came across this reddit thread that
| tries to answer that:
| https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/am1qcd/how_d...
|
| Some interesting things in there beyond the more obvious things
| like hot springs, peat, and other biomass that Iceland would
| have. But drift wood being a thing that I did not think off. Of
| course, there would have been some forests initially and also
| the ability to import timber and other materials from elsewhere
| in exchange for some of the exports (fish, whale oil, etc.).
| Beltalowda wrote:
| When I was hiking around in Hornstrandir a few years back
| there was a surprisingly large amount of driftwood on many
| beaches on the north side. Some pictures I found online:
|
| https://fineartamerica.com/featured/drift-wood-in-the-
| remote...
|
| https://www.darnoldhiking.com/uploads/4/3/1/8/43181693/dsc06.
| ..
| probablypower wrote:
| To the latter part of your question, the main strategy was:
|
| - Build incredibly insulated turf+stone housing
|
| - Put livestock in the basement
|
| - Body warmth of livestock heats up the house during winter
|
| - The good insulation keeps the home temperature liveable all
| winter
|
| Rather than relying on the aggresive burning of wood in a
| fireplace, they relied on the consistent burning of livestock's
| body temperatures fed by a store of feedstock grown in the
| prior Summer.
| meheleventyone wrote:
| The turf and stone houses didn't have a basement AFAIK.
| Livestock in the basement was always a later thing I think.
| As well as basically everyone living and sleeping in the same
| room. Our house was originally built in 1897 and had only
| been renovated a bit by the family that owned it when we
| bought it. I've always marvelled at the number of people that
| lived in it and how cold it must have been before hot water
| heating became ubiquitous. It was mostly clad in wood from
| shipping crates and insulated with the packing material and
| wasps nests. Pretty draughty with a whole large family living
| in about 40 sqm.
| kzrdude wrote:
| I've heard it as a lot of wood was used to produce iron while
| they could. They quickly ran out of wood when used like this.
|
| And like others mentioned here, widespread sheep & goat farming
| can keep the new saplings down.
|
| Not a source, but an interesting story about iron in Iceland:
| https://www.hurstwic.org/history/articles/manufacturing/text...
| MrDresden wrote:
| Peat was used heavily, as well as animal dung and there was
| drift wood (not a stable source though, and mostly used for
| other endeavours). Also the fairly unique construction of the
| turf houses which had the animals living along side the humans,
| maximized the capture of body heat.
|
| Then again, life in Iceland was cold, dark and miserable for
| centuries all the while nature kept trying to kill everyone.
| jnsaff2 wrote:
| I just came from a trip to Iceland and most of the country had no
| trees. Some corners had a little, there were also obvious
| plantations. There was one place that had old forest and was in
| other respects very magical: Asbyrgi Canyon. Just downstream from
| Dettifoss which was an insane experience by itself.
|
| From what I have gathered the biggest obstacle to tree regrowth
| in Iceland are sheep which can roam anywhere in the island for I
| think 4 months in the year and just eat saplings.
|
| Obviously the sheep farming industry does not want to hear about
| limiting their herding areas and you can guess the result.
| joshmanders wrote:
| I just came from a trip there too. Took a week to road trip
| around the island and it was an experience that's for sure.
|
| Before that we had visited the redwoods in California and those
| absolutely dwarfed our trees here in the midwest of US (Iowa
| specifically) and made us feel like all the trees here were
| just tiny, but our trip to Iceland and their lack of trees made
| us feel good about our small trees.
| libraryatnight wrote:
| Is Iceland easy to navigate as an English speaking tourist?
| I've always wanted to go.
| anonexpat wrote:
| Very. It's extremely tourist-friendly. With the exception
| of grocery store cashiers, everyone I interacted with spoke
| at least some English.
| karmajunkie wrote:
| super easy. my wife and i honeymooned there in 2016. it
| took three days worth of driving the ring road before we
| met anyone who _didn't_ speak english.
| joshmanders wrote:
| Like everyone else said, it's easy. We had 2 people who
| didn't speak perfect English and one could understand us,
| just struggled speaking it, and another just straight up
| didn't speak or understand English.
|
| Went to the witchcraft and sorcery museum and the girl who
| was working the counter spoke perfect English and even
| sounded American and she said to us "Oh Americans, where ya
| from?!" and we told her and she goes "Oh cool, I'm American
| too!" and we followed up "Oh cool where you from?" she said
| Colorado, then laughed and said nah she's Icelandic but
| loved pulling that joke on Americans.
| alexk307 wrote:
| Yes. Do it, you won't regret it
| ngokevin wrote:
| Most everyone speaks English fluently, it'll be like
| visiting the UK.
| jnsaff2 wrote:
| 40% of their "exports" is tourism. There was exactly 0
| times when English was not enough.
| yownie wrote:
| Additionally we get very little sunlight most of the year,
| which limits how quickly the trees that exist can grow.
| Sharlin wrote:
| Yeah, in Iceland fences are for keeping the sheep _out_ , not
| _in_ :)
| gpt5 wrote:
| FWIW, I find Iceland beautiful for its lack of trees. Every
| place you go is filled with green arctic tundra with its
| distinctive fluorescent green color. Nothing obstruct your view
| and you feel like you are in the middle of wilderness.
|
| I obviously support the replant action efforts, but want to
| highlight the beauty in the current state as well.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| A simple fact to know:
|
| 1 kg of dry wood captures 1.65-1.80 kg of CO2.
|
| Not because the tree is bigger on the inside, but because the
| oxygen atoms are most of the CO2 weight.
|
| Source: https://www.paperonweb.com/A1110.htm
| bismuthcrystal wrote:
| If it has a range then it's not a fact.
| spiderice wrote:
| Lol, what? Who told you this?
|
| Are you saying that every single KG of dried wood will have
| the exact same number of carbon molecules?
| martini333 wrote:
| While sixfold might seem impressive, it's not. There was next to
| none in 1990.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-07-18 23:00 UTC)