People calling for a "moderate" response have morphed from the old Deniers league, nothing but a fully realized response to this coming tragedy will help now

Moderates are the new Deniers, they are the threat now

But some change is better than no change or am I wrong? This mentality of it's either all or nothing isn't just in politics anymore huh, wish that way of thinking would disappear already.

But some change is better than no change or am I wrong? This mentality of it's either all or nothing isn't just in politics anymore huh, wish that way of thinking would disappear already.

The problem is the same as with the idea from conservatives to plant trees to absorb the CO2.

As I calculated before in this thread you would need to plant 2-3 billion trees per year just to absorb the current production rates - and keep in mind they often only want to plant hundreds of thousands, so just less than 1% of what would be needed in a normal year.

Such half-assed actions may buy you a handful years if you're very lucky, but won't be enough to change course. At. All. It just kicks the can slightly forward.

China has reportedly planted 66~ Billion trees since 1978.
66 billion trees.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02789-w

A very interesting approach. But I wonder how many survived in that arid environment - and what the consequences would be if there were to be a fire in those plantations. Like the paper says, planting herbs, grasses and bushes would probably have been better for that region's climate.

Just plant Eucalypts... They thrive in low-water, fire prone areas.

Species endemic to an area should be the first priority, I know with Eucalypts they don't provide a food source for any animal except the Koala, they are very toxic, also due to the downward hanging leaves, they give poor shade in comparison to many other species leading to higher local temps that lead to more water evaporation after rains and of course fires, and in some circumstances they are good at extracting water, so much so they can reduce the water table beyond other species ability to reach it

Once Australia had many broadleaf forests, humans started using fire to open up grasslands and for hunting, eventually it was only the Eucalypt that survived, they spread and decimated many other species, and may have even changed Australia's climate to be dryer 

I wouldn't recommend Eucalypts to any country until they have at least tried their local species first, species that would better support local wildlife   

I once visited Portugal and noticed forests of Eucalypts there, I later found out Eucalypts have been planted there from 1866, the locals see them as weeds that dry up water sources, and harmful to the local environment. Portugal's Oak forests may have up to 70 species of undergrowth plants growing below them, in Portugal Eucalypt forests are lucky to support just 15, it has been devastating to wild life        

Species endemic to an area should be the first priority, I know with Eucalypts they don't provide a food source for any animal except the Koala, they are very toxic, also due to the downward hanging leaves, they give poor shade in comparison to many other species leading to higher local temps that lead to more water evaporation after rains and of course fires, and in some circumstances they are good at extracting water, so much so they can reduce the water table beyond other species ability to reach it

Once Australia had many broadleaf forests, humans started using fire to open up grasslands and for hunting, eventually it was only the Eucalypt that survived, they spread and decimated many other species, and may have even changed Australia's climate to be dryer 

I wouldn't recommend Eucalypts to any country until they have at least tried their local species first, species that would better support local wildlife   

I once visited Portugal and noticed forests of Eucalypts there, I later found out Eucalypts have been planted there from 1866, the locals see them as weeds that dry up water sources, and harmful to the local environment. Portugal's Oak forests may have up to 70 species of undergrowth plants growing below them, in Portugal Eucalypt forests are lucky to support just 15, it has been devastating to wild life        

Pistacia Chinensis would probably be the top choice of Chinese officials. For once, it's a local plant, very resistant to both cold and heat, can thrive in very dry conditions and it's nuts are used to produce biodiesel. If they went by those then I think they can handle the weather conditions there.

Ginkgo trees would be another Chinese Plant that doesn't need much water and could grow well there. However, they need a pollinator to reproduce, and in that arid climate, there simply may not be one to do the job.

I was thinking about the same when I read that and checked what they could have planted instead.

Bougainvillea would have been a good idea if the soil is still good, they need barely anything after that and are very resistant to dry climates. And their flowers look amazing.

Pistacia Chinensis would probably be the top choice of Chinese officials. For once, it's a local plant, very resistant to both cold and heat, can thrive in very dry conditions and it's nuts are used to produce biodiesel. If they went by those then I think they can handle the weather conditions there.

Ginkgo trees would be another Chinese Plant that doesn't need much water and could grow well there. However, they need a pollinator to reproduce, and in that arid climate, there simply may not be one to do the job.