Addressing desertification of land is actually pretty smart. It's not pure charity. The land is actually more valuable when it isn't a desert anymore. If the land can support soil and hold water again, it becomes suitable for farming. If you don that sustainably (i.e. don't allow it to turn it back into desert), that adds to the economy.
There's a lot of degraded land all over the world that with a little bit of focus and attention could be upgraded back to something more valuable.
Some example:
- centuries of overgrazing by sheep and goats has turned much of the middle east into a waste land. Simply keeping sheep off the land with some fences can actually restore land within a few years.
- Places like the UK and Ireland used to be covered in Atlantic Rain forest. Forestry and overgrazing has turned much of both countries into land with very low bio diversity. Restoring forests would be a lot of work. But like the middle east, keeping the sheep from destroying new trees before they have a chance to establish themselves would help. Places like Dartmoor are effectively so barren that the only thing that grows there is a type of grass that even sheep don't like.
- Scotland has a lot of planted pine forests that have drowned out native species. Bio diversity is low.
- Parts of Germany have similar issues with lots of production forests having no bio diversity. There's a crisis in parts of Germany where insects are destroying parts of those forests now. The solution is actually just ripping out the production forests and re-introducing native species.
- Prairies in the US used to be kept in check by herds of bison that no longer exist and are no longer able to migrate around. Continuous cattle overgrazing of the same land destroyed much of the land. It no longer recovers in between grazing. And mono culture of low value crops like corn and soy beans isn't helping either.
There are many more examples around the world. The problems vary from area to area but they have in common that local farmers abuse the land and the land then degrades. Soil erosion, problems with water retention, vastly reduced bio diversity, etc. are the result. The other thing they have in common is that putting a stop to the negative behavior tends to revert some of the effects. In some cases fairly quickly even. And as the Chinese show, putting some effort in can actually work. There's no one size fits all solution. But there are plenty of things that can work.
My favorite story about revitalizing land: company dropped 12,000 tons of (waste) orange peels and left. Decades later and the wasted land has been revitalized after the nutrient infusion.
The 8-8-8 rule (8 hrs work, 8 hrs play, 8 hrs sleep) that unions lobbied for during labor reforms helped establish a common sustainable work week. Something similar for land management could go a long way.
33% for farming, 33% for human development, 33% for forest/dense wild. Just an example, but you get the idea.
I live in the UK. Most of our farmland is divided into relatively small parcels owing to geography and history (they were divided long before mechanisation).
However, when you come across a field of wheat, rape or corn it's notable how little diversity there remains. A complete absence of birds or insects for example. The agricultural deserts, I believe, are as damaging as their drought based cousins.
> centuries of overgrazing by sheep and goats has turned much of the middle east into a waste land. Simply keeping sheep off the land with some fences can actually restore land within a few years.
Lebanon was famous for its ceder trees, for example. most are long gone...
> Scotland has a lot of planted pine forests that have drowned out native species
Team Land management for Grouse hunting enters the chat.
https://www.mossy.earth/rewilding-knowledge/rewilding-scotla... ... "In the 1700s, large scale sport shooting and sheep grazing began to leave its mark on the landscape. Overabundant herbivores and over grazing, alongside regular burning, prevented woodlands from naturally regenerating, causing soil erosion, soil acidification, flooding, biodiversity loss and more"
In fact as much as 50% of the Amazon's rain can be attributed to the trees themselves. Both through evapotranspiration strategies and increased cloud-seeding particles
However, I think the more relevant dynamic for this region is the water-holding capacity of the soil. If you get lost in a desert you are more likely to drown than to die of thirst because the water-holding capacity of the "soil" is almost nothing making flash floods likely. But soil that is at an advanced stage of ecological succession will be dominated by mycorrhizal fungi that produce glomalose. This type of soil can hold as much as 50x more water than "dead" soil
Rainforests are tropical largely because of the trees. If you cut them down, it reverts to desert. Geography helps, but it's mostly the plants changing local climate.
Planting more trees regardless of region rather than cutting them down has a profound effect on the air quality. Forests are an enormous help to carbon recycling.
Alipay has a function called ant forest, you use the app more often, you get more credit. And when it reach certain amount, aliaba will plant a small tree in the desert. People used to be crazy about this shit, but not for now. I guess the main reason is that these effort are good activities, but it didn’t help that much, compared to the effort from the government. At least on the this topic, they did a pretty good job, it last for decades, and it will countinue.
Alipay has another function called zhima credit score, which is related to the ant forest, you can rent bikes and power banks with no deposit when you have a high score. and it’s the base block of so called ‘social credit score’ for Chinese people
Projects around planting trees have often failed, in part from the choice of tree, in part because it takes more than just planting a tree to restore the habitat. It's generally better to work with the existing flora to promote growth and expansion, and/or help the stumps of trees that have been cut-down grow fresh again (e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5g60g9vmlY)
I am left wondering why China is making all of these "green" changes; more renewables, planting trees at the edges of deserts, etc. I mean, I guess it could be altruistic, to help the Earth and it's people. However, I just don't see that kind of attitude coming out of China. So, again, I am left wondering what their angle is. Is it simply to "stick it" to the United States?
I think the real question is the other way around; why isn't the US the world leader in this?
China's answer is fairly straightforward - jobs, exports, energy independence, wind/solar is cheaper, and they have 1.3B people who don't want to live in a big polluted desert.
it kinda is? the us and Europe both have had year-on-year raw and trade-corrected negative ghg production, the us has since the obama administration, inclusive of trump I.
there are a lot of surprises, for example texas being the #1 state for renewable energy production
Because China wants to rule the world. That includes roughly being seen as a great bastion of awesomeness.
The huge solar rollout is very much because China thinks it might end up in a war, and they are currently very vulnerable to a blockade for energy resources, and grid scale solar is unblockadable for like 20 years. You can bomb it, but that's a hard mission.
If what I believe is correct, there would also be evidence of China creating unblockadable food transport lines and relationships.
Global Warming is well understood all over the world. China doesn't want the world to suck right before they finally undo their Century of Humiliation and retake their "rightful" place as mega empire that exports culture and tech and power. They want to be the super power ruling over an awesome world, not ruling over ashes.
I've heard arguments that China has fairly limited "Soft power", and they really want to fix that, which takes actions that at least look altruistic and win-win.
With the US self-defeating, China is in a great place to be the leader of a stable world, and even be a counterweight to an abusive USA.
Most of China's large projects are actually some type of competition with the US. The Tianjin Grand Bridge was basically built to eclipse the Causeway and showcase China's engineering prowess. The massive Shanghai subway buildout was a direct challenge to New York City's subway hegemony. Those 20+ story pig towers? Totally unnecessary way to do farming, but a source of national pride when compared to the already impressive scale of US factory farming. China is building record numbers of both solar and coal plants, which seem to be at environmental cross-purposes, but it makes sense when you consider they are trying to beat the US at both clean AND dirty energy. It's in the five-year plan.
Unlike the Soviet Union, China did not have much of a competitive mentality towards the United States, because for most of the time China lagged far behind the United States.
At least the Chinese rulers saw how smog was choking Beijing, and maybe they decided to try to technology their way into breathable air, compared to the US ruling class, who'd rather take oil/coal lobbyist money. Or EU ruling class, who liked BMW, VW and Mercedes-lobbyist money...
As a nice side effect, the Chinese tech will be needed all over the world. If you can't rule the world by controlling the oil (by bombs or being friends with Saudis), why not look at the next tech and try to rule that.. Paul Krugman was writing during Dubya's dumb regime how the US was surrendering the lead on climate technology to China...
Because renewable energy can ensure energy security, and afforestation to control desertification can guarantee the amount of arable land, unlike the US, China lacks sufficient agricultural land.
There is an interesting effect where deserts help rain forests and oceans grow new life. Winds carry desert sands and dust that are rich in iron and phosphorus into the oceans and act as fertilizer. Even lifeless deserts are important to the global ecosystems.
I’ve never heard this mentioned but it seems like an environmentalist could support increasing total life on a piece of land vs preserving specific sparse species.
I’d rather see a region of land be a thriving rainforest with millions of species vs protecting some specific tree.
A desert already is a collapsed biome relative to when it was not a desert. As such, it has a huge debt to repay to what was lost due to the desertification. If the desertification is not reversed, it will go only deeper into debt, killing what little life is left there via a continued rise in temperature. As such, what is being done to restore the biome is most appropriate.
Surely deforestation hurt native species as well. Is there any reason to not try to reverse some of that damage? Do you think they are going to make things worse overall?
Are you able to find it on Google Maps? Having a hard time locating it.
"Based on the results of this study, the Taklamakan Desert, although only around its rim, represents the first successful model demonstrating the possibility of transforming a desert into a carbon sink," Yung said.
A lot of the roads that cross the desert look like they're flanked by trees or by some kind scrubby grass mounds. This road is flanked by trees or bushes https://maps.app.goo.gl/JW3gxd8wxSiuwhnZ7
Certain areas can release more carbon than trees bind if there are trees there, for example peats (obviously not a desert) and tundras (more akin to a desert). These have often a lot of carbon bound in the ground which can be released.
> China finished encircling the Taklamakan Desert with vegetation in 2024, and researchers say the effort has stabilized sand dunes and grown forest cover in the country from 10% of its area in 1949 to more than 25% today.
The main problem with attempts at reversing the damage is that forests aren't fungible.
An old growth forest has a rich, balanced ecosystem. Newly planted forests tend to be susceptible to catastrophic damage by various critters, as the species mix is much less complex, and their fauna and flora is relatively impoverished.
An old forest is a result of multiple waves successions after disasters (fire, windstorms etc.), which are really hard to emulate. Some desirable seedlings are hard to grow artificially, others just won't prosper in situ unless/until very specific conditions are met...
After a long enough time, the forest will eventually revert to a fully natural state, but that time is way longer than human lifetime. It is a living organism of sorts and living organisms are much easier to kill than to re-create.
In the grand scheme of things having an old growth forest is probably better than having a new growth forest, but if a goal is to increase carbon absorption, new growth forests beat the pants off old growth forests.
And desertification has destroyed many existing biomes. I think, in the grand scheme of things, more forest is better than more desert, so this is a net positive.
An insufficiently nuanced perspective. In the grand scheme of things, when you destroy a biome it's gone forever. Note that China has a recent history of blockheaded moves like this, eg. mobilizing the entire human population to kill all the birds simultaneously across the country during the cultural revolution. India's discussing re-routing the Ganges. Humans never learn.
A desert is a collapsed biome relative to when it was not a desert. As such, it has a huge debt to repay to what was lost due to the desertification. If the desertification is not reversed, it will go only deeper into debt, killing what little life is left there via a continued rise in temperature. As such, what is being done to reverse the desertification and restore the biome is most appropriate.
So to plant a row of trees a bulldozer has to level sand dunes. I somehow doubt the exhaust from this process is factored into the CO2 sink calculation.
> Of course, we know that fuel consumption varies drastically from machine to machine, so we’ve looked at an example of a very high utilisation rate too. We found that an 8T excavator that spent 11 hours and 3 minutes working, 1 hour and 6 minutes of which were idle, it used 89 litres of fuel and resulted in 237.4kgs of carbon emissions. 4 hours saved on that machine would be a total of 84kgs of carbon emissions on average.
> To determine the amount of carbon dioxide a tree can absorb, we combine average planting densities with a conservative estimate of carbon per hectare to estimate that the average tree absorbs an average of 10 kilograms, or 22 pounds, of carbon dioxide per year for the first 20 years.
As long as they're not taking all day for one tree, I think they'll be OK.
That tree carbon capture estimate is probably conservative here if planting trees achieved de-desertification and resulted a larger thriving ecosystem.
China accounts for more than 25% of the global net increase in leaf area between 2000 and 2017, according to NASA data
https://www.livescience.com/planet-earth/plants/china-has-pl...
China's also been a major supporter of the Great Green Wall of Africa providing technology and funding.
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3302068/why-...
Addressing desertification of land is actually pretty smart. It's not pure charity. The land is actually more valuable when it isn't a desert anymore. If the land can support soil and hold water again, it becomes suitable for farming. If you don that sustainably (i.e. don't allow it to turn it back into desert), that adds to the economy.
There's a lot of degraded land all over the world that with a little bit of focus and attention could be upgraded back to something more valuable.
Some example:
- centuries of overgrazing by sheep and goats has turned much of the middle east into a waste land. Simply keeping sheep off the land with some fences can actually restore land within a few years.
- Places like the UK and Ireland used to be covered in Atlantic Rain forest. Forestry and overgrazing has turned much of both countries into land with very low bio diversity. Restoring forests would be a lot of work. But like the middle east, keeping the sheep from destroying new trees before they have a chance to establish themselves would help. Places like Dartmoor are effectively so barren that the only thing that grows there is a type of grass that even sheep don't like.
- Scotland has a lot of planted pine forests that have drowned out native species. Bio diversity is low.
- Parts of Germany have similar issues with lots of production forests having no bio diversity. There's a crisis in parts of Germany where insects are destroying parts of those forests now. The solution is actually just ripping out the production forests and re-introducing native species.
- Prairies in the US used to be kept in check by herds of bison that no longer exist and are no longer able to migrate around. Continuous cattle overgrazing of the same land destroyed much of the land. It no longer recovers in between grazing. And mono culture of low value crops like corn and soy beans isn't helping either.
There are many more examples around the world. The problems vary from area to area but they have in common that local farmers abuse the land and the land then degrades. Soil erosion, problems with water retention, vastly reduced bio diversity, etc. are the result. The other thing they have in common is that putting a stop to the negative behavior tends to revert some of the effects. In some cases fairly quickly even. And as the Chinese show, putting some effort in can actually work. There's no one size fits all solution. But there are plenty of things that can work.
My favorite story about revitalizing land: company dropped 12,000 tons of (waste) orange peels and left. Decades later and the wasted land has been revitalized after the nutrient infusion.
https://www.sciencealert.com/how-12-000-tonnes-of-dumped-ora...
Fascinating. The before, during, and after photos are incredible.
Orange you glad they got to try that
The 8-8-8 rule (8 hrs work, 8 hrs play, 8 hrs sleep) that unions lobbied for during labor reforms helped establish a common sustainable work week. Something similar for land management could go a long way.
33% for farming, 33% for human development, 33% for forest/dense wild. Just an example, but you get the idea.
yeah but stock prices need to go up
I live in the UK. Most of our farmland is divided into relatively small parcels owing to geography and history (they were divided long before mechanisation).
However, when you come across a field of wheat, rape or corn it's notable how little diversity there remains. A complete absence of birds or insects for example. The agricultural deserts, I believe, are as damaging as their drought based cousins.
> centuries of overgrazing by sheep and goats has turned much of the middle east into a waste land. Simply keeping sheep off the land with some fences can actually restore land within a few years.
Lebanon was famous for its ceder trees, for example. most are long gone...
> Scotland has a lot of planted pine forests that have drowned out native species
Team Land management for Grouse hunting enters the chat.
https://www.mossy.earth/rewilding-knowledge/rewilding-scotla... ... "In the 1700s, large scale sport shooting and sheep grazing began to leave its mark on the landscape. Overabundant herbivores and over grazing, alongside regular burning, prevented woodlands from naturally regenerating, causing soil erosion, soil acidification, flooding, biodiversity loss and more"
And - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuTV1SiYeu4 - is a longer story that bubbled up in social media a few months ago. Maybe not Hacker News.
There's a non-profit called "Planet Wild" that funds re-greening projects all over Europe, Africa and even India. Here's one in Scotland: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiDBAU2d7oE, or Spain https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1QJvRsjg8M. Forest plantations are monocultures that kill biodiversity.
We need a climate Stalin. Nothing will be done about it otherwise.
And most of their carbon dioxide production is due to “developed countries” consumption
That's not true.
[dead]
[flagged]
Meanwhile the US government is abandoning the regulation of emissions that cause climate change.
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/12/climate/trump-epa-greenho...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/feb/12/trump-epa-ro...
Here's a video about this effort from 2013 which gives a good view on how a lot of it was done:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Um6Fhw841p0
I wonder how the albedo has changed, and evaporation of water there.
That was my thought too
Is it possible the trees can change the climate in the region? Can trees dampen regional water flux, seed clouds down range?
Yes, they do, which has had implications for rainfall patterns:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/climate-change/china-accid...
(if that doesn't come up, search terms to find it were "news china rainfall forest tree planting change")
In fact as much as 50% of the Amazon's rain can be attributed to the trees themselves. Both through evapotranspiration strategies and increased cloud-seeding particles
However, I think the more relevant dynamic for this region is the water-holding capacity of the soil. If you get lost in a desert you are more likely to drown than to die of thirst because the water-holding capacity of the "soil" is almost nothing making flash floods likely. But soil that is at an advanced stage of ecological succession will be dominated by mycorrhizal fungi that produce glomalose. This type of soil can hold as much as 50x more water than "dead" soil
Rainforests are tropical largely because of the trees. If you cut them down, it reverts to desert. Geography helps, but it's mostly the plants changing local climate.
https://www.livescience.com/planet-earth/plants/china-has-pl... was posted in another comment. The tl;dr seems to be less rainfall in the eastern regions and more in Tibet.
[dead]
Planting more trees regardless of region rather than cutting them down has a profound effect on the air quality. Forests are an enormous help to carbon recycling.
Alipay has a function called ant forest, you use the app more often, you get more credit. And when it reach certain amount, aliaba will plant a small tree in the desert. People used to be crazy about this shit, but not for now. I guess the main reason is that these effort are good activities, but it didn’t help that much, compared to the effort from the government. At least on the this topic, they did a pretty good job, it last for decades, and it will countinue.
Alipay has another function called zhima credit score, which is related to the ant forest, you can rent bikes and power banks with no deposit when you have a high score. and it’s the base block of so called ‘social credit score’ for Chinese people
Projects around planting trees have often failed, in part from the choice of tree, in part because it takes more than just planting a tree to restore the habitat. It's generally better to work with the existing flora to promote growth and expansion, and/or help the stumps of trees that have been cut-down grow fresh again (e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5g60g9vmlY)
I am left wondering why China is making all of these "green" changes; more renewables, planting trees at the edges of deserts, etc. I mean, I guess it could be altruistic, to help the Earth and it's people. However, I just don't see that kind of attitude coming out of China. So, again, I am left wondering what their angle is. Is it simply to "stick it" to the United States?
What is everybody's opinion on this?
I think the real question is the other way around; why isn't the US the world leader in this?
China's answer is fairly straightforward - jobs, exports, energy independence, wind/solar is cheaper, and they have 1.3B people who don't want to live in a big polluted desert.
it kinda is? the us and Europe both have had year-on-year raw and trade-corrected negative ghg production, the us has since the obama administration, inclusive of trump I.
there are a lot of surprises, for example texas being the #1 state for renewable energy production
Is the year-on-year statement true? The EU’s data seems to show a slight increase in emissions for the US from 2023 to 2024. https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/report_2025
Because China wants to rule the world. That includes roughly being seen as a great bastion of awesomeness.
The huge solar rollout is very much because China thinks it might end up in a war, and they are currently very vulnerable to a blockade for energy resources, and grid scale solar is unblockadable for like 20 years. You can bomb it, but that's a hard mission.
If what I believe is correct, there would also be evidence of China creating unblockadable food transport lines and relationships.
Global Warming is well understood all over the world. China doesn't want the world to suck right before they finally undo their Century of Humiliation and retake their "rightful" place as mega empire that exports culture and tech and power. They want to be the super power ruling over an awesome world, not ruling over ashes.
I've heard arguments that China has fairly limited "Soft power", and they really want to fix that, which takes actions that at least look altruistic and win-win.
With the US self-defeating, China is in a great place to be the leader of a stable world, and even be a counterweight to an abusive USA.
Because it's good for China to have less desert and more forest. It isn't a very complicated question to answer.
Most of China's large projects are actually some type of competition with the US. The Tianjin Grand Bridge was basically built to eclipse the Causeway and showcase China's engineering prowess. The massive Shanghai subway buildout was a direct challenge to New York City's subway hegemony. Those 20+ story pig towers? Totally unnecessary way to do farming, but a source of national pride when compared to the already impressive scale of US factory farming. China is building record numbers of both solar and coal plants, which seem to be at environmental cross-purposes, but it makes sense when you consider they are trying to beat the US at both clean AND dirty energy. It's in the five-year plan.
Unlike the Soviet Union, China did not have much of a competitive mentality towards the United States, because for most of the time China lagged far behind the United States.
What? 超英趕美 has been a thing since 1958.
Did I say there was absolutely none? And this slogan is only for steel production. Is there anything else?
> However, I just don't see that kind of attitude coming out of China.
And if it was the US? Well I don't see that attitude from the US of 2025-present, or 2017-2021.
And what about the Europeans? https://geopolitique.eu/en/2026/02/12/the-unravelling-of-the...
At least the Chinese rulers saw how smog was choking Beijing, and maybe they decided to try to technology their way into breathable air, compared to the US ruling class, who'd rather take oil/coal lobbyist money. Or EU ruling class, who liked BMW, VW and Mercedes-lobbyist money...
As a nice side effect, the Chinese tech will be needed all over the world. If you can't rule the world by controlling the oil (by bombs or being friends with Saudis), why not look at the next tech and try to rule that.. Paul Krugman was writing during Dubya's dumb regime how the US was surrendering the lead on climate technology to China...
Because renewable energy can ensure energy security, and afforestation to control desertification can guarantee the amount of arable land, unlike the US, China lacks sufficient agricultural land.
Why don't you see that attitude coming out of China?
Do initiatives like these hurt native desert species?
There is an interesting effect where deserts help rain forests and oceans grow new life. Winds carry desert sands and dust that are rich in iron and phosphorus into the oceans and act as fertilizer. Even lifeless deserts are important to the global ecosystems.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=desert+sands+fertilize+oceans
The Sahara feeds the Amazon.
I’ve never heard this mentioned but it seems like an environmentalist could support increasing total life on a piece of land vs preserving specific sparse species.
I’d rather see a region of land be a thriving rainforest with millions of species vs protecting some specific tree.
have you ever been to a real desert? lots of plants and animals live there
A desert already is a collapsed biome relative to when it was not a desert. As such, it has a huge debt to repay to what was lost due to the desertification. If the desertification is not reversed, it will go only deeper into debt, killing what little life is left there via a continued rise in temperature. As such, what is being done to restore the biome is most appropriate.
Surely deforestation hurt native species as well. Is there any reason to not try to reverse some of that damage? Do you think they are going to make things worse overall?
Yes. But nobody cares about a few unimportant bugs and mice.
This is the way
Are you able to find it on Google Maps? Having a hard time locating it.
"Based on the results of this study, the Taklamakan Desert, although only around its rim, represents the first successful model demonstrating the possibility of transforming a desert into a carbon sink," Yung said.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Taklamakan+Desert/@38.8709...
I believe this is an example https://maps.app.goo.gl/aXtwERHb2pVxEVnV6
Those rows of greenery are the trees planted. They do a ton of this by hand, it's really fascinating.
> They do a ton of this by hand, it's really fascinating
They used to, but now they have robots that plant tree seedlings.
There's definitely a ring of green around it. If that's all human-made, good for them.
Maybe it's me but I couldn't see it.
Go to the link in GP's post then zoom out.
A lot of the roads that cross the desert look like they're flanked by trees or by some kind scrubby grass mounds. This road is flanked by trees or bushes https://maps.app.goo.gl/JW3gxd8wxSiuwhnZ7
This? https://maps.app.goo.gl/kATdsjnKnkWACzoc6
Does the title make sense? A desert should be carbon-neutral, therefore a single tree growing in the desert is enough to make it a carbon sink.
Certain areas can release more carbon than trees bind if there are trees there, for example peats (obviously not a desert) and tundras (more akin to a desert). These have often a lot of carbon bound in the ground which can be released.
So not really a carbon sink but a carbon perimeter.
50 years in on a 70 year project. It's not sexy / monumental like the pyramids, which was built in less time.
How much deforestation over the past decades has been reversed and is deforestation currently under control?
Per the article:
> China finished encircling the Taklamakan Desert with vegetation in 2024, and researchers say the effort has stabilized sand dunes and grown forest cover in the country from 10% of its area in 1949 to more than 25% today.
The main problem with attempts at reversing the damage is that forests aren't fungible.
An old growth forest has a rich, balanced ecosystem. Newly planted forests tend to be susceptible to catastrophic damage by various critters, as the species mix is much less complex, and their fauna and flora is relatively impoverished.
So you just need to be stubborn until they stick or cleverer in how you go about it?
Biology is complicated, ecology even more so...
An old forest is a result of multiple waves successions after disasters (fire, windstorms etc.), which are really hard to emulate. Some desirable seedlings are hard to grow artificially, others just won't prosper in situ unless/until very specific conditions are met...
After a long enough time, the forest will eventually revert to a fully natural state, but that time is way longer than human lifetime. It is a living organism of sorts and living organisms are much easier to kill than to re-create.
In the grand scheme of things having an old growth forest is probably better than having a new growth forest, but if a goal is to increase carbon absorption, new growth forests beat the pants off old growth forests.
True, growing forests are carbon sinks while stable forests are neutral.
As long as you can prevent forest fires, which would release the CO2 again...
IDK if you can prevent forest fires in Taklamakan, with its relatively high summer temperatures.
Forgive me if I don't trust Chinese researchers on research in China.
[dead]
[flagged]
And desertification has destroyed many existing biomes. I think, in the grand scheme of things, more forest is better than more desert, so this is a net positive.
An insufficiently nuanced perspective. In the grand scheme of things, when you destroy a biome it's gone forever. Note that China has a recent history of blockheaded moves like this, eg. mobilizing the entire human population to kill all the birds simultaneously across the country during the cultural revolution. India's discussing re-routing the Ganges. Humans never learn.
It's on the edges of the desert, to limit its ongoing expansion, which was directly due to human activity.
And may I ask where would you assume the highest diversity of life exists in a desert?
A desert is a collapsed biome relative to when it was not a desert. As such, it has a huge debt to repay to what was lost due to the desertification. If the desertification is not reversed, it will go only deeper into debt, killing what little life is left there via a continued rise in temperature. As such, what is being done to reverse the desertification and restore the biome is most appropriate.
[flagged]
I would assume that the unchecked human-generated expansion of the desert reduces the diversity of what was previously not desert.
This is not of the slightest interest to any politician in 2026.
Even if that were true, it'd still be a dumb position to take.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl
Exactly.
So to plant a row of trees a bulldozer has to level sand dunes. I somehow doubt the exhaust from this process is factored into the CO2 sink calculation.
https://www.sunbeltrentals.co.uk/news-and-blogs/decrease-you...
> Of course, we know that fuel consumption varies drastically from machine to machine, so we’ve looked at an example of a very high utilisation rate too. We found that an 8T excavator that spent 11 hours and 3 minutes working, 1 hour and 6 minutes of which were idle, it used 89 litres of fuel and resulted in 237.4kgs of carbon emissions. 4 hours saved on that machine would be a total of 84kgs of carbon emissions on average.
https://onetreeplanted.org/blogs/stories/how-much-co2-does-t...
> To determine the amount of carbon dioxide a tree can absorb, we combine average planting densities with a conservative estimate of carbon per hectare to estimate that the average tree absorbs an average of 10 kilograms, or 22 pounds, of carbon dioxide per year for the first 20 years.
As long as they're not taking all day for one tree, I think they'll be OK.
That tree carbon capture estimate is probably conservative here if planting trees achieved de-desertification and resulted a larger thriving ecosystem.
Likely very conservative considering the changes to the local biome, capture in the soil, etc : https://www.climate-forests.org/post/carbon-sequestration-an...