The most effective, available and scalable technology is reforesting our planet. There are practically no downsides to this. could become a driver for a new kind of eco-nomic growth. Imagine a tax-funded initiative to massively deploy forestry programs. This would be a jobs programme as well. Give people housing in the newly reforested areas so they can maintain them. Combine agro-forestry and permaculture techniques to feed the local populations and restore biodiversity. Make it possible for people currently in bullshit jobs or carbon-intensive jobs to retrain to this new system. It is possible. We have the means.

This is what we NEED and can demand. Any future socialist programme needs to be built around the idea of . Of habitats, of colonialisms, of patriarchisms, of inequality.

We have to refute any attempt by and corporations to squander public funds on 'carbon capture technology' and instead insist on ecological carbon capture approaches.

Here is an example how to do it the wrong way:

Let's analyze what is happening here:

The forests in question are commercial monocultures that are not indigineous to the area. If we want this to succeed we need to these processes, priviledging what is native to an area and making sure local communities have a say and have ownership of the process. Maybe its not the fastest grower or most economical choice. The point is of large scale local ecosystems. Restoration of historical landscapes. If there is some sustainable industry happening in the margins that is ok, but not the main driver.

@mango My brain read "agro-forestry" as "aggro-forestry", and now I can't get a picture out of my head of mohawk-sporting punk rockers randomly planting trees everywhere while flipping off everyone around them.
Can this be a thing?

@shatteredgears Sounds like the Zones Of Defense of Notre Damme Des Landes in France and the Hambacher Forest in Germany to some extent ;)


The people defending the Hambacher forest now also have a presence on the fediverse!

@shatteredgears @mango
Somehow reminds me of a misnomer-by-user classic:
The Aggro-Byte Reader…

@shatteredgears @mango Reclaim the Streets used to do stuff a bit like this in the UK. I recall they once held a protest with people on stilts with huge skirts and loud music playing. People would go in under the skirts with jackhammers and plant trees in the road.


Couldn't have said it better myself. ☮️

Techbros will soon realize they all share a largest blind spot in the equation, and it will be both sad and funny.

Trees live for a long time and when they die not all the carbon is released. A good amount is sequestered into the soil. If we har est trees for 'back to eden gardening' type of soil building we can bind good amounts of carbon in the soil, while making it more fertile and erosion resistant at the same time.

Afforestation is a good idea where humans have destroyed forests, but I don't like the way it gets incorporated into "carbon trading" markets. (I think this isn't what you're advocating, but I think it's an important thing to keep in mind).

I don't think it's really possible to "offset" the damage done by burning fossil fuels by planting a forest somewhere. Most ecosystems tend toward steady state, and most forests only sequester carbon until they reach it.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Sunbeam City 🌻

Sunbeam City is a anticapitalist, antifascist solarpunk instance that is run collectively.