• LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    1 year ago

    If done right, this could have tremendous benefits beyond the modest carbon sequestration.

    But I doubt any plan from the Republican Party would be done right, given their outright hostility to scientists and other experts.

  • OberonSwanson@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    1 year ago

    Assuredly it will be done with little oversight, managed by a shell corporation ran be a close constituent that is over charging per a tree and will never be completed.

    • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      1 year ago

      The problem is that even if it was “done right” it would:

      • Require three times the land area of India
      • Be a partial solution, and not the kind of complete solution that the Republicans are trying to claim it as
      • OberonSwanson@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        Exactly this. Impractical answers are what they live off, because it lets them stall. It’s depressing there’s no solutions apart from “keep doing dumb shit for money” on their wheel of choices.

        • new_acct_who_dis@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          It let’s them stall and line their pockets while being able to say government doesn’t work and everything should be privatized

    • new_acct_who_dis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is the only way this makes sense. It’s def gonna be a situation where $millions+ disappear, they never plant the trees, and everyone forgets this was ever promised.

      We’ll point to this as an example of why we can’t trust Republicans, and they’ll just come back with something about Clinton’s BJ

    • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      1 year ago

      They’re slowly walking from “it’s a hoax” to “it’s real, but fossil fuels didn’t do it” to “we’ll only push stuff which isn’t sufficient” to “oops”

    • OberonSwanson@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      No, they’ll eventually blame the other party if left alone to long. Attempting to gaslight younger generations into believing the GOP was trying to fix it and the left wanted to watch the world burn.

  • SpaceBar@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    1 year ago

    Go ahead, plant trees. It’s a good idea, just agree to the program being run by the US Forestry service. Also agree that in no way does this mean the US doesn’t have to meet our net zero emissions commitments.

  • spukas@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Critique? You mean a complex problem cannot be fixed by a simple solution?

    I know what to do!!

    Just plant more trees!

      • Trainguyrom@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        There’s actually some evidence that a variant of that would help green a desert. This is also a traditional method of farming, to farm under the shade of a tree since the partial shade helps yields of many crops by noticably reducing the amount evaporation affecting the plant

  • Iwasondigg@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s kind of surprising, and refreshing, that they even have a climate strategy, right? Looking beyond if it’s a good strategy or not, does this signify a shift from climate denialism?

    • flipht@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not really, imo. This is the standard republican MO - when it gets too hard to lie to people and have a full half of them believe you, switch it up and act like it was your idea all along. But also make sure it’s the slowest, least effective solution available, which gives you the ammo to claim 1) you’re doing something and 2) no one else needs to do anything.

      This is 100% an attempt to capture the narrative so that they can kill it off quietly in the background, but still campaign on it.

      If by chance this does get enacted, expect it to be an incredibly overpriced boondoggle where they contract with their donors’ companies and throw cash at them to beef up paper mill forests.

  • SuiXi3D@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    1 year ago

    Where will they be planted? Will the trees be native to the area? How long will they be cared for and maintained, to ensure growth?

    All those things matter, otherwise the trees just die and don’t do their job as carbon sinks (in this case).

  • quortez@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Mmkay.

    Where are they going to plant them?

    Also how will you manage them responsibly so that they don’t immediately become wildfire tinder?