Social media algorithms are designed to make you angry, and the old media is only interested in sensation or ‘if it bleeds, it leads.’ So you might be surprised to find there’s lots of good news in the world.
Here’s some - globally, more and more land is being rewilded and going back to nature, and the trend looks like it’s permanent. Decades-long productivity trends mean more and more food is being produced per square kilometer. With lab-grown meat and vertical farming in our future, these rewilding trends might even accelerate. Even if the human population finally peaks at 9 billion or so in a few decades, it won’t reverse the trend.
It is always good to focus on the wins, and not just the losses. However, the article borders on the ridiculous. For instance, it states that humanity decreases sugar cane usage by switching to artificial sweetener - sorry, but these are chemicals?! There are many more such flaws in the arguments presented: sorry, for me that spoils the party. At least they see the issue themselves; “Overall, the steady slowdown in agricultural land use is welcome. However, it’s not guaranteed to continue, nor is it fast enough to bring about the land use change we need to achieve our global climate or biodiversity goals.” Before you open the champagne, I advice you to read: https://open.library.ubc.ca/soa/cIRcle/collections/facultyresearchandpublications/52383/items/1.0437324
Oh no chemicals! We should indeed not consume chemicals, which is why starting today I will no longer consume anything that has water in it.
It was just one example of what was wrong with this BBC article. But anyway, here you go: https://www.who.int/news/item/15-05-2023-who-advises-not-to-use-non-sugar-sweeteners-for-weight-control-in-newly-released-guideline
Why is that ridiculous, though? It’s not a recommendation, it’s an analysis of trends. A reasonably believable one.
You’re right. But are those trends really the outcome we wish for? Sure, farming is more efficient - but is the use of pesticides and herbicides what we want to achieve ? Another example: The article also states we have replaced cotton and wool with synthetics… I wonder whether that is actually a blessing? Many people are actually turning to wool, as it doesn’t release microplastics into the environment. The article is littered with such explanations… each one showing (and promoting) our continuing reliance on fossil fuels. After rereading the article, I’m not so sure I’m happy that more territories are re-wilding, as the rewilding seems to have a tremendous CO2 cost hidden behind it.
Big oli propaganda tbh. All of those all petroleum -derived
You called the article ridiculous, though. It’s not ridiculous. You might wish the facts were otherwise, but that’s not the article’s fault.
Regrowing trees and forests is one of the biggest and most practical carbon sinks we have.
Here you go: https://theconversation.com/how-would-planting-8-billion-trees-every-year-for-20-years-affect-earths-climate-165284 But that doesn’t mean I disagree that we need regrowing trees. In fact we should - but not by using more oil to achieve it.
Would you like to return to the original point about why the article is ‘ridiculous’?
Also, you’re posting a 4 year old article about deforestation when the current article is informing us about how reforestation is increasing and actually overtaking deforestation.
sugar from sugarcane is a chemical too.
Don’t be a jerk.