I remember learning The Man Who Planted Trees (L'homme qui plantait des arbres) [1] in French class in primary school.<p>Even though many of the trees aren't surviving, I'm cautiously optimistic about the Green Great Wall project. I think that trees breaking the wind can stop more air pollution than grass. They will use more water, but when the wind is blocked, the humidity can stay local, so even rotting dead trees can fertilise the next generation of plants.<p>There's some skepticism about corruption and incompetence of government planning, which is probably true. But has the American government put so much effort and money into an environmental project?<p>[1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Planted_Trees" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Planted_Trees</a>
86% or 60% dying is really not a big deal if the remaining surviving 14% or 40% are, in absolute numerical terms, greater than the amount it takes to transform the desert.<p>The article unfortunately doesn't talk about what we think the latter is.<p>edit: explain the down vote. you think planting trees to die is immoral, or something?
This reminds me of Roosevelt's Civilian Conservation Corps from 1933 to 1942, which at one time comprised 300,000 people and planted over 3 billion trees in America to combat the extensive deforestation brought by industry[1]. The town where I live was almost abandoned at one point in the early 1900s because our local sawmill had stripped the surrounding area of all trees for miles. It was the CCC that brought them back.<p>I think preserving our commons is the most important role of government.<p>[1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Conservation_Corps" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_Conservation_Corps</a>
I suspect science writing like this is one reason why public trust in science is at a low. I read a passage like this:<p>> But plenty of scientists remain unimpressed. Many of the trees, planted in places they don’t grow naturally, eventually die. The survivors soak up precious groundwater that native grasses and shrubs need, causing more soil degradation. Meanwhile, thousands of farmers and herders are forced off their lands to make way for the trees. China may be winning its war against nature for now, but at what cost?<p>I was a STEM major, but my first reaction to this is still: so what the hell is the takeaway? Science news coverage is all like this: “some scientists do X; other scientists say Y; I’m a journalist so f--k if I know who is right.” Science gets turned from something that offers clarity to something that underscores humans’ inability to understand the world around them.
Maybe synergies can be used here! On HN 1 month ago: The World Is Running Out of Sand: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15739917" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15739917</a>
Israel has had a lot of success with their desert agriculture, even on soils that are predominantly salty in composition. While there is no significant precipitation, some of the water is captured from fog, through nets.
Sea Buckthorns are considered a much better desert fighter in China than poplars or pines:<p><a href="https://books.google.ca/books?id=6XfgBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA293&lpg=PA293&dq=sea+buckthorn+china+desert&source=bl&ots=SnLviA_vXY&sig=Pk-IfxHkG2nfCLMNRrwqJgS8cVY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwisyMuA_5XYAhVIylQKHQQPDPEQ6AEISjAI#v=onepage&q&f=false" rel="nofollow">https://books.google.ca/books?id=6XfgBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA293&lpg=P...</a><p>I have one in my front yard, it's a neat but very aggressive and very thorny shrub.
People talk shit about china's one child policy but these guys know how to act decisively and restrict individual freedoms for the greater good ( i know the one child policy didnt have the intended consequences im more reffering to decisiveness and purpose behind such an action... there is no first world country that can pull off such a feat.)<p>Environmental problems which are largely based on over population can only be solved with drastic controversial action.
I find it amazing that in some places in the world, there's too much sand, and we're planting new ecosystems to control it.<p>And in other places in the world, there's not enough sand, and we're stripping it away for concrete and killing the ecosystems that depended on it in the process.<p>I know the two sands might be different, but is there a reason we're not developing concretes that work with the invasive sands?
Would like to see them try and do this, get the ground a bit more fertile and planting native grasses perhaps to get it going somewhat?
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI</a>