Yeah I am not sure about some of this framing. While I agree with hatrack about feelgood bs, some of the language from Joelle Gergis and in that article reproduces a style of neoliberal bs I never liked (especially from the sleazy Breakthrough Institute types).
Approximately 1bn hectares – an area larger than the United States of America – is needed to achieve net zero pledges. More than 40% of this land would need to be converted from existing uses like food production to carbon sequestration projects by 2060 at an unprecedented rate. And even if this regenerative utopia could be realised, we know that forests take time to mature and can burn down so cannot be thought of as a quick or permanent carbon storage solution, especially in a rapidly shifting climate. As extreme heat and aridity engulfs more of the planet, these well-intentioned efforts could literally go up in smoke.
It is getting called out more lately. I have noted a change in environmental writing lately which is very welcome to me: It occurred as the sort of left represented by Chris Ketcham, Nandita Bajaj, Nathan Robinson, Samuel Miller MacDonald, Alex Skopic, Maria Bolotnikova and other Current Affairs writers took over from both neoliberal “green” growth types and new-agers (who seem to be going Maha and RFK Jr - no big loss).
I like this newer crew which is earthily pragmatic and wise to the Breakthrough types while also not being wacky like those morons RFK jr, Naomi Wolf etc. I never cared for even before they went Trump.
I am not bright enough myself to reason and articulate as well as those people I listed, but when they pinpoint something that is off, I get it. I used to read some of the claptrap they attack with dour suspicion myself, but not be able to quite put my finger on it on it.
= new reply since forum marked as read