• Skasi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      You keep acting like trees are harming humans. Personally I haven’t been harmed by a tree before and I’m happy everytime I see one. They’re much nicer to look at, less noisy, require less roads and provide more shade than cars. Also they don’t burn fossils.

      Following your logic, since trees are carbon neutral and presumably only create problems for future generations, we’d have to go and remove all trees that exist on Earth. Sounds like something the woodcutting lobby would say.

      • nilloc
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        I think they’re saying that since there’s are neutral, focusing on them to fix or climate is a distraction from what we really need to do.

        Namely stop putting CO2 into the atmosphere.

        We’re still more forest, but it’s going to be hard to get that off the climate is too far gone to safely sustain one, like how so much of Canada is burning at the moment (and does now pretty much every summer).

        • SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Not to mention unless we curb populations, that land will be needed for housing or food eventually. You can only go up so efficiently, and can’t rely on natural lighting with vertical farming.