Posted by: Thalean
Posting time: 3.5 years ago on
Last edit time: never edited.
Archived on: 9/6/2017 10:00:00 AM
Views: 673
SCP: 18
22 upvotes, 4 downvotes (85% upvoted it)
~1 user(s) here now
NSFW: No
Authorized: No
Anon: No
Private: No
Type: Default
view the rest of the comments →
[–] LazarusLong 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago (edited ago)
Bet it takes up less space than 88 thousand trees.
Also, how the journalist arrived at the $17k figure is beyond retarded.
"You can sponsor charities to plant trees for you at a grand total of 20 cents per tree."
That doesn't mean it only takes 20 cents to grow a full fucking tree.
Also, that figure is not accurate per the charity's own website...
So, not only can it go up to 2.50 per tree, but you have to provide 2.5 acres of land for them to come plant them all on, and they're very clear that low expectations should be maintained for overall tree survival.
This is also only eligible to specific areas.
Ah, I guess free labor was included in the $17,640 figure as well.
I'm all for planting trees and revitalizing the American wilderness, regardless of the veracity of various climate change claims. Its no fun hunting deer or camping in a parking lot.
I'm also very much for questioning the motivations and efficacy of various government initiatives, especially when they're sinking tons of money into it.
However, this article is a fucking joke.
[–] Thalean [S] ago
You're right. Building carbon capture plants and then releasing the carbon back into the atmosphere after the soda can is opened up is a much better idea, and planting trees might cost up to $40,000.
Then again, they might be free if we got prisoners to do the work as a form of community service. So who knows. I'm sure we could find a way to bring the costs down to nil.