this post was submitted on 21 Jan 2026
18 points (95.0% liked)
Climate
8384 readers
187 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
But what about the climate mitigation (e.g. preventing soil erosion) or potential ecological impact (e.g. habitat restoration). Is it really trivial to compare that to the climate use?
I don't claim to have comprehensive knowledge on any parts of the equation or how they stack up to each other, I'm just saying that if you have an economical policy that incentivices one measure over the other – which at the of the day is what we're talking about – it seems sensible to base it on the sum of the measures' value. If we, for instance, want to disincentivice afforestation that should not strictly be made on the basis of how much carbon it can offset compared to other options.
But maybe that is just my general scepticism towards the promises of future CCS technology talking.
Reforestation is great for the reasons you describe, but the alternative is not some future carbon capture technology; its a faster fossil fuels phase out.
Oh, I agree fully about the focus on phasing out fossil fuels. My impression was that the article argued that it was a temporary method and therefore less valuable than other methods of capturing and storing carbon in terms of offsetting/a carbon credit system.