How will converting farmland to forests help with climate change? It seems like it would have no particular impact or make the situation worse w.r.t. climate change for Denmark. If it is a good idea I'd imagine it would also be a good idea if the climate was not changing.

Denmark has no ability to impact global CO2 emissions at all. In fact nobody does except ironically the Chinese and their industrial-growth-at-any-cost coal based approach from the 90s and 00s.

▲ ZeroGravitas 10 months ago | parent | next [-]

Land use is one of the big topics covered by the IPCC:

https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/

	▲	roenxi 10 months ago \| parent [-]
		That isn't saying anything. Land use is a big topic covered by everyone.

▲ geysersam 10 months ago | parent | prev [-]

> how will converting farmland to forest

Farming is very carbon emission intensive if the farmland is reclaimed wetland. Converting the farmland to forest and stopping draining (making it more wet again) can definitely reduce carbon emissions significantly.

> Denmark has no ability to impact global CO2 emissions

This is such a tiresome and logically hollow argument. Denmark has the ability to reduce a fraction of the worlds emissions. The size of the fraction is proportional to the size of their emissions. Every country has a responsibility to reduce it's per capita emissions to sustainable levels. China has lower per capita emissions than most richer countries.

▲ addcommitpush 10 months ago | parent [-]

Note that China has no ability to impact global CO2 emissions either.

Let’s split China population in k Denmark-sized groups, plus one smaller-than-Denmark reminder.

None of the k groups has any ability to impact global CO2 emissions (same as Denmark).

We can reasonably assume that a smaller group has even less ability to impact global CO2 emissions than a bigger group. Hence the smaller-than-Denmark reminder has no ability to impact global CO2 emissions either.

Thus China is made of groups that have no ability to impact global CO2 emissions either. And therefore China as a whole has no ability to impact global CO2 emissions. (Otherwise at least one group within China would have to impact global emissions and we just saw that it isn’t possible).

This is known as the CO2 impossibility theorem, loosely based on Arrow’s concept of “(in)decisive” set.

▲ roenxi 10 months ago | parent | next [-]

Your logic is wrong - a Denmark sized group of Chinese people is probably all it takes to operate their solar panel producing factories.

The reason Denmark can't do anything isn't because there are few of them, it is because Denmark isn't a significant industrial cluster for energy technology and innovation. For example, India has more people than China and they aren't in a position to do much unless there is some sort of tech breakthrough that hasn't made it to my notice.

▲

ZeroGravitas 10 months ago | parent [-]

Denmark basically invented modern wind power and still makes a big chunk of it (though China has caught up in that area recently).

	▲	roenxi 10 months ago \| parent [-]
		Fair enough, but the major point still stands - Denamrk's industrial policies that enable Vestas are the only way they can have a significant impact on climate change. Farmland conversion does nothing; it isn't moving the needle on what is economic and industrially scaleable. Everyone still needs to eat.

▲ oezi 10 months ago | parent | prev [-]

Certainly you are just demonstrating the opposite. Everyone has the ability to impact global CO2 emmissions.

We certainly need international coordination or actors with a minimal set of morals to achieve it.

▲ fifticon 10 months ago | parent | next [-]

I think he was trying to demonstratea point with sarcasm and a group of one with him in it

▲ addcommitpush 10 months ago | parent | prev [-]

> Everyone has the ability to impact global CO2 emmissions.

I'm afraid most people are smaller-than-Denmark groups, and thus unable whatsoever to impact global emissions. It's just math.

▲ geysersam 10 months ago | parent [-]

1e-10 is reeeallly close to zero, therefore 1e10 * 1e-10 is also close to zero.

That's what your math sounds like to me.

▲ oezi 10 months ago | parent | next [-]

His math is x ~ 0, hence x / 10 = 0, hence x = NaN.

The starting point is just wrong that Denmark can't play a role when it comes to climate change. Denmark can make a change. It is like saying that when voting that no individual vote or county matters, when the opposite is true: every vote matters in the same way.

Every kg CO2 saved is good... (obviously we should strive for the most economic way to save CO2).

▲ addcommitpush 10 months ago | parent | prev [-]

Isn't it true?

    f = lambda x: (1/x) * x
    f(1e309)

yields NaN, not 1.

(So I guess Denmark is at least 1e309-sized in some metric).

	▲	itishappy 10 months ago \| parent [-]
		No.