• MrNesser@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      Personally I’d like to see the fields replaced with the forests that were cut down for them in the first place but that’s not likely to happen

      • frezik@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        They’d just be replaced by soft woods to be cut down every 20 or 30 years. Trees are nice, but North America’s old growth forests are what they are at this point. They’re not a great carbon sink, either.

        IMHO, trees got stuck in the mind of the environmentalist movement in the 1970s, and it distracted from a bunch of things that were way more important. I’d almost call it controlled opposition.

        • vaultdweller013
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          Arguably we need more algae and other water dwelling carbon sinks.

      • Ozymati@lemmy.nz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Would work if we decentralized the fuck out of everything and people could live in the forests