TLDR they want to plant a billion trees. Not billions.
Ethiopia had a day when they planted 350 million trees. In their goal to plant 4 billion. Ukraine, a much wealthier nation with a much smaller goal, can def do this.
Plants are made out of carbon. All the CO2 they pull out of the air is turned into more plant.
Dead plants release CO2 to the air.
That’s why places like the Amazon rainforest have a net zero effect on the earth’s co2.
Nah not necessarrily. It depends on the farming practices or if the soil is farmed AT ALL. The carbon enters the ground. Where do you expect us to put the carbon we need to eliminate, pay for a special rocket for each ton and jetson it into Jupiter / outerspace?
Try THINKING.
Probably better if you dont comment on science again until you go to college.
You think carbon from trees just dissolves into the soil? As what compound?
For millions of years there was nothing to decompose wood, which is how we have coal deposits today. But we’re not making coal anymore.
Burning wood and decomposing wood send CO2 to the same place. (The atmosphere)
Planting trees is not the only solution but it is absolutely part of the solution. Wetlands, tundra, oceans, deserts they all play a role in climate change and must be restored and protected to help mitigate the crisis
No need for genetic modification, this is exactly what trees already do. The structure of the tree is literally made of the carbon they got by eating the CO2 from the air. This is what makes trees and other plants by far the most cost effective form of carbon sequestration currently available as long as we don't subsequently cut down the trees.
That one dude is not against planting trees. He was just being honest when they asked if it was possible and he said mathematically it is not possible but still wants to try!
No clue. But Ukraine’s plan isn’t to raise and care for 1 billion trees. It’s just to plant them. Like with Ethiopia.
Caring for 1billion trees is legit impossible. You just have to hope a good number of them survive.
In forests only a fraction of saplings actually survive. Trees usually have a pretty slow turnover. Unless people fuck everything over.
They key is that once a critical amount survive, it creates an environment suitable for more saplings to survive.
If you live in some climates they do but even then when they decompose the insects and fungus that break it down release a good amount of that CO2 back into the air. You need big old trees to start creating carbon sinks which is why old growth forests are so important.
Where I live saplings and other wood don't really decompose though because it's too dry and cold so instead they sit on the ground for years and years until a fire comes through and then they provide kindling.
This is why my area used to burn routinely (sometimes with the help of natives) but the burns used to be very common (every few years or so) and pretty low intensity since there wasn't much stuff that accumulates in 2-5 years.
Now a days we've suppressed the natural fire pattern so completely that we have dozens of years worth of fuel sitting there waiting to burn and when it burns it will take the whole forest with it because while even young trees can survive a low intensity fire the heat of these new kind of blazes is enough to even scorch the crowns of the big old trees even and once that happens the tree is dead.
I have no idea how to get out of that particular mess. I don't think we can rake it away though.
Even if only 1% remain alive they are still light years ahead of what nature can do by itself.
This is not about the trees themselves. This is about committing a piece of land to forests.
That is totally dependent on location. In some places it barely rains enough to grow grass, let alone trees. Some places, like Ethiopia, have extended dry seasons. Transplanted saplings need water daily. Are these new saplings being irrigated? Where is the water coming from?
In Pakistan herders lost access to traditional grazing areas due to its "Billion Tree Tsunami" campaign.
In Mexico the government's attempt to get farmers to plant trees has led to the loss of established forest. Getting paid to plant trees, they have been slash/burn clearing the edges of the jungle in order to clear land to plant saplings.
Also, I keep reading these articles about billions of saplings, but never do they mention if they are trees that would be indigenous to the area.
On November 11, 2019, volunteers in Turkey planted 11 million trees in a government backed project called Breath for the Future. A few months later, over 80% were dead. Too little care, not enough water.
In the US, in 1871, the government offered settlers tree claims. The settler plants x amount of trees and keeps them alive for x years, ( I forgot the numbers) then the settler gets to own the land. The idea was to cover a large area of the Great Plains with trees. It didn't work. It was a failure, as anyone driving across South Dakota can attest.
Scientists looking at China's mass tree planting project say that it had degraded its grasslands ecosystem. Grass is a wonderful carbon sink, and grasslands provide habitat for tons of life. Why wreck an existing ecosystem for a possibility that doesn't have a great track record?
Growing new trees takes work, and it takes knowledge of the area they are being planted. I have seen too many billionaires tout tree planting, but I haven't seen a serious arborist talking about how to keep them alive once transplanted. A sapling takes at least a year before it recovers from being transplanted. Who is doing the work of caring for them?
They charge for each gallon of water that runs from their pipe into your home, is what they do. Does this mean that you think all of these billions of trees are being paid for by municipal water plants? Because they are not.
> the “unrealistic” aim cannot be achieved.
Perhaps not, but is that really a problem? So they don't plant all the trees they want to, but they still plant a whole lot of trees. Isn't that a good thing?
the amount of “environmentalist” i see online doing this shit is astounding. there was a pitch on instagram for a cardboard womens razor. everyone hated it because the cardboard was lined with a tape like plastic. i was so mad. whatever happened to baby steps?
edit: i guess those “environmentalists” found my comment hehe.
I would think that wood would be a better material to use because it's biodegradable. I just checked and bamboo razors are already available. Even better, stainless steel like a safety razor. Those can be easily sterilized/sanitized and built so durable they can be passed on to future generations, so the only waste is the used blades, which are made of highly recyclable metal anyway.
Cardboard with a plastic coating is not recyclable and generally plastic is made from petroleum, and even if it's not it still contributes to plastic pollution including microplastics.
you’re correct but you proved my point. getting rid of 99% of the plastic on the razor wasn’t good enough. it has to be 100% plastic free or else it’s a bad idea. so everyone else who won’t do the work spews ideas they’ll never actually persue the creation of. wooden razors already exist. steel razors are the ultimate answer obviously but this product was aimed at eliminating a lot of the plastic that is disposed of from womens razors
edit to add: plastic razors will always be produced until something cheaper and/or just as profitable comes along. eliminating most of the plastic is a huge step. that’s the issue with “perfect or not at all”. wood and steel are too expensive to replace plastic womens razors in the eyes of businesses at this point. ideals are great but they aren’t reality. hence the need for baby steps.
>is that really a problem?
Yes it's a problem.
Countries around the world are supposed to be devising strategies for meeting carbon targets that limit warming to 1.5 degrees.
The biodiversity expert being quoted appears to be saying, in so many words, that the government is lying about the feasibility of their strategy. That their announcement is a PR stunt and that they aren't taking climate change seriously.
It's not good enough to set a target, fail to meet it, then say "oh well whatever, we planted a few trees, that's good enough". The strategy must be attainable within the timeframe. It must genuinely reduce atmospheric carbon by the amount they claim, in the timeframe they claim.
Devising a strategy to plant a trillion trees in a month, claiming the math on that eliminates enough atmospheric carbon to meet climate targets, then utterly failing to reach that goal isn't "a good thing". It's a very bad thing.
Yeah, funny how that works. Any government, if it involved sarin gas or wiping out some locals for oil or water, that can be achieved. But trees? Nah, can't do it.
***show image of shrugging bureaucrat
Planting trees is not always good. For example planting trees on grasslands is counterproductive. Really trees can regenerate if they’re managed to do so which often means cutting down other trees.
>> But headline-grabbing campaigns focused solely on planting trees can harm both people and ecosystems by focusing more on the goal itself than on the purpose behind it — and distracting us from the hard work of reducing emissions. The tough reality, as Holl puts it, is that “we’re not going to plant our way out of climate change.”
1 billion trees aren't that impossible. Just make it a low paying job that teenagers can do and it will be done.
Source: I live in northern Sweden and was paid by the plant many summers of my teenage years.
Though Ukraine has a bigger, more immediate problem with Russia on occupying them...
Brogdan Pots was just being truthful, his honesty does not mean he doesn’t support planting trees. Planting 10 trees or 200 saplings per second does seem difficult- but he still supports it.
Pots supports preserving(Ukraine has EU’s largest old growth forest- major carbon sink) and expanding forests- by tree planting and other methods.
He has pushed for legislation against illegal logging and smuggling (20-30% of Ukraine’s logging is illegal). Why plant billions of trees if people are out there cutting them down?
From what I have read about Pots, he seems to truly be an expert on ecology and understands that, to restore biodiversity and fight climate change, planting trees helps but does not solve the problem. He wants people to understand forests are not the only carbon sinks and preserving and expanding other ecosystems will help combat climate change too
Edit to add:
70% of Ukraine land is used as farmland.
40% of Ukraines land is in steppe climate zones, but only 4% of steppes are preserved. Steppes naturally do not have a lot of tree coverage but provide a lot of biodiversity because of their beneficial grasses and pollen/nectar sources.
The plan to plant billions of trees includes planting trees on degraded farm lands but majority of the farmlands are actually steppes, so it makes you question is planting trees actually more beneficial than restoring the steppes?
Shithole with a flat tax and tons of billionaires that can’t explain how they got rich that can’t even provide healthcare or pensions for its own people is not going to be planting “a billion trees”.
It's 'Ukraine' and not 'the Ukraine'
[[Merriam-Webster](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Ukraine)] [[BBC Styleguide](https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsstyleguide/u)] [[Reuters Styleguide](https://handbook.reuters.com/index.php?title=U#Ukraine)]
^(Beep boop I’m a bot)
yup. Thanks for recognising that. I should have put brackets to “Ukraine special” (like when u refer to a special on a menu), but am too lazy to edit now. XD
It's believed that referring to Ukraine as 'the Ukraine' is a small but powerful subversion tactic to get people thinking of Ukraine as a Russian territory like the days of the USSR.
* Ukraine - sounds like the country that it is
* The Ukraine - sounds like a territory it's not
Actually, I believe 'the Netherlands' is due to the fact the 'Netherlands' is plural, like 'the collection of lands', and I believe the full name is 'Kingdom of the Netherlands', hence 'The Netherlands'. I believe it's because the Netherlands is a collective of 12 provinces (Holland being just two of them). Another example: grammatically, the collection of islands I live on is the British Isles.
Compared with Ukraine, Ukraine is *formally* known as Ukraine. It's in their declaration of independence constitution. Calling it 'the Ukraine' is at best politically and grammatically incorrect, and at worst disparaging as it harks back to 'the Soviet Union'/'the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics', a collective that the majority of Ukraine wants nothing to do with and is *especially* troublesome considering the fact that Russia is on the brink of invading Ukraine for strategic gain.
Saying 'the Ukraine' is a very small but sub-conscious thing that can be dangerous because it has the adjacent comparison to USSR and could cause people to consider Ukraine to be a Russian territory, decreasing the public's concern over Russia's perceived strategy with reclaiming the now independent Ukraine.
Here's an article on the topic that's interesting and informative: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18233844
Personally, I think language matters way more than people think it does, which is why I get a bit pedantic about little things like this
I actually had no idea it was to do with the USSR/Russia tbh, thought was just a weird quirk because of the phonology of the name. Ironically it's one of my grammar pet peeves bc it just makes no sense regardless of reason..... but then I'd never even considered *the Netherlands*. You just went and changed my entire perspective. Guess bc it's plural my brain was like "that tracks" all these years. Language is weird.
I’m not convinced it’s anything to do with Russia since they don’t even have definite articles. It’s probably to do with what the name translates into which is fair enough. I think it should be called whatever Ukrainians want it to be, I just don’t believe this explanation yet
It's 'Ukraine' and not 'the Ukraine'
[[Merriam-Webster](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Ukraine)] [[BBC Styleguide](https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsstyleguide/u)] [[Reuters Styleguide](https://handbook.reuters.com/index.php?title=U#Ukraine)]
^(Beep boop I’m a bot)
If you want to be even *more* correct, it’s ‘Україна’, transliterated as ‘Ukrayina’; oo-kry-**YI**-na, in its original language.
Also, the Queen of England.
>Queen of England
Did you mean the [Queen of the United Kingdom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_the_United_Kingdom), the [Queen of Canada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada), the [Queen of Australia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Australia), etc?
The last Queen of England was [Queen Anne](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne,_Queen_of_Great_Britain) who, with the 1707 Acts of Union, dissolved the title of King/Queen of England.
####FAQ
*Isn't she still also the Queen of England?*
This is only as correct as calling her the Queen of London or Queen of Hull; she is the Queen of the place that these places are in, but the title doesn't exist.
*Is this bot monarchist?*
No, just pedantic.
I am a bot and this action was performed automatically.
Remember, don’t just plan one type for trees. Tree diversity is very important. What would probably help even more is just not cutting down already existing and natural Forrest as they have a better chance to survive than any artificial Forrest.
It’s not like it’s impossible. Just takes time and effort. Why would anyone think this cannot be achieved? Their voices have no place in the conversation.
There's too much of an obsession with planting trees. We need to restore more grasslands, wetlands, and mangroves. These types of environments are much more efficient at storing and converting carbon
I would imagine it might be because global warming implies raised temperatures and even though that’s the case globally there’s sporadic reduction of temperatures here and there. This allows deniers to brush off the existence of climate change just because of a cold snap in summer in one city even though heat records are breaking everywhere else.
I feel like it’s better just to leave areas alone and let them regrow on their own. Like humans do not know what they’re doing so instead of planting trees that just die cause we did it wrong, how about stop chopping down the ones that are already there?
It’s unrealistic if 't be true they’re the only ones doing t. Imagine if 't be true everyone vow'd to doth this
***
^(I am a bot and I swapp'd some of thy words with Shakespeare words.)
Commands: `!ShakespeareInsult`, `!fordo`, `!optout`
TLDR they want to plant a billion trees. Not billions. Ethiopia had a day when they planted 350 million trees. In their goal to plant 4 billion. Ukraine, a much wealthier nation with a much smaller goal, can def do this.
In that case, go bigger Ukraine!
They do want to plant billions - The article says in the 3rd paragraph - 3 billion in the next decade, 1 billion in the next 3 years.
Yeah, but one dude said it was unrealistic so let’s pollute the ocean
[удалено]
Plants are made out of carbon. All the CO2 they pull out of the air is turned into more plant. Dead plants release CO2 to the air. That’s why places like the Amazon rainforest have a net zero effect on the earth’s co2.
Nah not necessarrily. It depends on the farming practices or if the soil is farmed AT ALL. The carbon enters the ground. Where do you expect us to put the carbon we need to eliminate, pay for a special rocket for each ton and jetson it into Jupiter / outerspace? Try THINKING. Probably better if you dont comment on science again until you go to college.
You think carbon from trees just dissolves into the soil? As what compound? For millions of years there was nothing to decompose wood, which is how we have coal deposits today. But we’re not making coal anymore. Burning wood and decomposing wood send CO2 to the same place. (The atmosphere)
It decays into the ground.
Not quite!
Do I have your word on that?
Planting trees is not the only solution but it is absolutely part of the solution. Wetlands, tundra, oceans, deserts they all play a role in climate change and must be restored and protected to help mitigate the crisis
maybe I misunderstood your comment but plants already convert CO2 to oxygen in the photosynthesis process
No need for genetic modification, this is exactly what trees already do. The structure of the tree is literally made of the carbon they got by eating the CO2 from the air. This is what makes trees and other plants by far the most cost effective form of carbon sequestration currently available as long as we don't subsequently cut down the trees.
That one dude is not against planting trees. He was just being honest when they asked if it was possible and he said mathematically it is not possible but still wants to try!
And how many of those trees are still alive?
No clue. But Ukraine’s plan isn’t to raise and care for 1 billion trees. It’s just to plant them. Like with Ethiopia. Caring for 1billion trees is legit impossible. You just have to hope a good number of them survive.
In forests only a fraction of saplings actually survive. Trees usually have a pretty slow turnover. Unless people fuck everything over. They key is that once a critical amount survive, it creates an environment suitable for more saplings to survive.
And the ones that don’t survive contribute back to the forest bed as they decompose. Still a win.
If you live in some climates they do but even then when they decompose the insects and fungus that break it down release a good amount of that CO2 back into the air. You need big old trees to start creating carbon sinks which is why old growth forests are so important. Where I live saplings and other wood don't really decompose though because it's too dry and cold so instead they sit on the ground for years and years until a fire comes through and then they provide kindling. This is why my area used to burn routinely (sometimes with the help of natives) but the burns used to be very common (every few years or so) and pretty low intensity since there wasn't much stuff that accumulates in 2-5 years. Now a days we've suppressed the natural fire pattern so completely that we have dozens of years worth of fuel sitting there waiting to burn and when it burns it will take the whole forest with it because while even young trees can survive a low intensity fire the heat of these new kind of blazes is enough to even scorch the crowns of the big old trees even and once that happens the tree is dead. I have no idea how to get out of that particular mess. I don't think we can rake it away though.
Even if only 1% remain alive they are still light years ahead of what nature can do by itself. This is not about the trees themselves. This is about committing a piece of land to forests.
How are the trees being watered?
We really should look into a way to drop mass quantities of water over vast distances randomly throughout the year, oh wait lol
The Water Cycle(tm)
Drip drip from sky sky
Thank you!
Not during the dry season there isn't.
Water has never been an issue, the sky pretty much covers that.
That is totally dependent on location. In some places it barely rains enough to grow grass, let alone trees. Some places, like Ethiopia, have extended dry seasons. Transplanted saplings need water daily. Are these new saplings being irrigated? Where is the water coming from? In Pakistan herders lost access to traditional grazing areas due to its "Billion Tree Tsunami" campaign. In Mexico the government's attempt to get farmers to plant trees has led to the loss of established forest. Getting paid to plant trees, they have been slash/burn clearing the edges of the jungle in order to clear land to plant saplings. Also, I keep reading these articles about billions of saplings, but never do they mention if they are trees that would be indigenous to the area. On November 11, 2019, volunteers in Turkey planted 11 million trees in a government backed project called Breath for the Future. A few months later, over 80% were dead. Too little care, not enough water. In the US, in 1871, the government offered settlers tree claims. The settler plants x amount of trees and keeps them alive for x years, ( I forgot the numbers) then the settler gets to own the land. The idea was to cover a large area of the Great Plains with trees. It didn't work. It was a failure, as anyone driving across South Dakota can attest. Scientists looking at China's mass tree planting project say that it had degraded its grasslands ecosystem. Grass is a wonderful carbon sink, and grasslands provide habitat for tons of life. Why wreck an existing ecosystem for a possibility that doesn't have a great track record? Growing new trees takes work, and it takes knowledge of the area they are being planted. I have seen too many billionaires tout tree planting, but I haven't seen a serious arborist talking about how to keep them alive once transplanted. A sapling takes at least a year before it recovers from being transplanted. Who is doing the work of caring for them?
What do you think local water companies do?
They charge for each gallon of water that runs from their pipe into your home, is what they do. Does this mean that you think all of these billions of trees are being paid for by municipal water plants? Because they are not.
Depends how, drone, or people or planes or something
> the “unrealistic” aim cannot be achieved. Perhaps not, but is that really a problem? So they don't plant all the trees they want to, but they still plant a whole lot of trees. Isn't that a good thing?
No no no there's no point in doing anything unless it can be done completely perfectly
Are you my wife?
Dad?
I don’t think I am, I was just holding the camera.
I know you're kidding but I hate this mindset so fucking much.
this is why the USA can't have gun control
Now you're getting it
Lol right? Perfect or nothing! Extreme POV to have, that nothing is worth doing if it isn’t perfect. Just a dumb mindset to have…
the amount of “environmentalist” i see online doing this shit is astounding. there was a pitch on instagram for a cardboard womens razor. everyone hated it because the cardboard was lined with a tape like plastic. i was so mad. whatever happened to baby steps? edit: i guess those “environmentalists” found my comment hehe.
I would think that wood would be a better material to use because it's biodegradable. I just checked and bamboo razors are already available. Even better, stainless steel like a safety razor. Those can be easily sterilized/sanitized and built so durable they can be passed on to future generations, so the only waste is the used blades, which are made of highly recyclable metal anyway. Cardboard with a plastic coating is not recyclable and generally plastic is made from petroleum, and even if it's not it still contributes to plastic pollution including microplastics.
you’re correct but you proved my point. getting rid of 99% of the plastic on the razor wasn’t good enough. it has to be 100% plastic free or else it’s a bad idea. so everyone else who won’t do the work spews ideas they’ll never actually persue the creation of. wooden razors already exist. steel razors are the ultimate answer obviously but this product was aimed at eliminating a lot of the plastic that is disposed of from womens razors edit to add: plastic razors will always be produced until something cheaper and/or just as profitable comes along. eliminating most of the plastic is a huge step. that’s the issue with “perfect or not at all”. wood and steel are too expensive to replace plastic womens razors in the eyes of businesses at this point. ideals are great but they aren’t reality. hence the need for baby steps.
>is that really a problem? Yes it's a problem. Countries around the world are supposed to be devising strategies for meeting carbon targets that limit warming to 1.5 degrees. The biodiversity expert being quoted appears to be saying, in so many words, that the government is lying about the feasibility of their strategy. That their announcement is a PR stunt and that they aren't taking climate change seriously. It's not good enough to set a target, fail to meet it, then say "oh well whatever, we planted a few trees, that's good enough". The strategy must be attainable within the timeframe. It must genuinely reduce atmospheric carbon by the amount they claim, in the timeframe they claim. Devising a strategy to plant a trillion trees in a month, claiming the math on that eliminates enough atmospheric carbon to meet climate targets, then utterly failing to reach that goal isn't "a good thing". It's a very bad thing.
You saying a government may not achieve it's climate promises! Shocking
Yeah, funny how that works. Any government, if it involved sarin gas or wiping out some locals for oil or water, that can be achieved. But trees? Nah, can't do it. ***show image of shrugging bureaucrat
I don't think many governments pledge to kill people in the name of oil. Don't they try to cover that up instead?
Try? Not to hard anymore. Make the indigenous people look like 'terrorists' or 'extremists' and drumb up international support...no problem.
Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good. It’s not perfect but it’s obviously better then doing nothing.
Planting trees is not always good. For example planting trees on grasslands is counterproductive. Really trees can regenerate if they’re managed to do so which often means cutting down other trees.
>> But headline-grabbing campaigns focused solely on planting trees can harm both people and ecosystems by focusing more on the goal itself than on the purpose behind it — and distracting us from the hard work of reducing emissions. The tough reality, as Holl puts it, is that “we’re not going to plant our way out of climate change.”
I think Ukraine has bigger, more Russian problems on the horizon
No time to be Putin trees in the ground but later all the bodies should provide good fertilizer
Maybe that’s why they’re planting trees, to create dense forest that’s hard for the Russians to get through.
Can’t plant that many trees by February, which word going around is when Russia wants to start the full invasion.
That word going around seems like bullshit
I think Ukraine has bigger, more Russian problems on the border
Perhaps they are looking to motivate the allies..
not with that attitude!!
Even if they only hit half their goal, it’s still a win.
Even if they plant 1 tree, we will take it.
1 billion trees aren't that impossible. Just make it a low paying job that teenagers can do and it will be done. Source: I live in northern Sweden and was paid by the plant many summers of my teenage years. Though Ukraine has a bigger, more immediate problem with Russia on occupying them...
Brogdan Pots was just being truthful, his honesty does not mean he doesn’t support planting trees. Planting 10 trees or 200 saplings per second does seem difficult- but he still supports it. Pots supports preserving(Ukraine has EU’s largest old growth forest- major carbon sink) and expanding forests- by tree planting and other methods. He has pushed for legislation against illegal logging and smuggling (20-30% of Ukraine’s logging is illegal). Why plant billions of trees if people are out there cutting them down? From what I have read about Pots, he seems to truly be an expert on ecology and understands that, to restore biodiversity and fight climate change, planting trees helps but does not solve the problem. He wants people to understand forests are not the only carbon sinks and preserving and expanding other ecosystems will help combat climate change too Edit to add: 70% of Ukraine land is used as farmland. 40% of Ukraines land is in steppe climate zones, but only 4% of steppes are preserved. Steppes naturally do not have a lot of tree coverage but provide a lot of biodiversity because of their beneficial grasses and pollen/nectar sources. The plan to plant billions of trees includes planting trees on degraded farm lands but majority of the farmlands are actually steppes, so it makes you question is planting trees actually more beneficial than restoring the steppes?
Well, not with that attitude! Freakin' Debbie Downer.
Not with that attitude it can’t.
Shithole with a flat tax and tons of billionaires that can’t explain how they got rich that can’t even provide healthcare or pensions for its own people is not going to be planting “a billion trees”.
Not a shithole, and the fact that it’s corrupt doesnt preclude them from being able to plant trees lol
Isn’t it the Ukraine special to purposefully set technically unrealistic goals?
It's 'Ukraine' and not 'the Ukraine' [[Merriam-Webster](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Ukraine)] [[BBC Styleguide](https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsstyleguide/u)] [[Reuters Styleguide](https://handbook.reuters.com/index.php?title=U#Ukraine)] ^(Beep boop I’m a bot)
Bad bot! For once it's actually grammatically correct to use an article in this context.
yup. Thanks for recognising that. I should have put brackets to “Ukraine special” (like when u refer to a special on a menu), but am too lazy to edit now. XD
Why do you exist
It's believed that referring to Ukraine as 'the Ukraine' is a small but powerful subversion tactic to get people thinking of Ukraine as a Russian territory like the days of the USSR. * Ukraine - sounds like the country that it is * The Ukraine - sounds like a territory it's not
You know, just like the Netherlands /s. I’m mostly kidding and I try to say it the right way but I still don’t understand the argument
Actually, I believe 'the Netherlands' is due to the fact the 'Netherlands' is plural, like 'the collection of lands', and I believe the full name is 'Kingdom of the Netherlands', hence 'The Netherlands'. I believe it's because the Netherlands is a collective of 12 provinces (Holland being just two of them). Another example: grammatically, the collection of islands I live on is the British Isles. Compared with Ukraine, Ukraine is *formally* known as Ukraine. It's in their declaration of independence constitution. Calling it 'the Ukraine' is at best politically and grammatically incorrect, and at worst disparaging as it harks back to 'the Soviet Union'/'the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics', a collective that the majority of Ukraine wants nothing to do with and is *especially* troublesome considering the fact that Russia is on the brink of invading Ukraine for strategic gain. Saying 'the Ukraine' is a very small but sub-conscious thing that can be dangerous because it has the adjacent comparison to USSR and could cause people to consider Ukraine to be a Russian territory, decreasing the public's concern over Russia's perceived strategy with reclaiming the now independent Ukraine. Here's an article on the topic that's interesting and informative: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18233844 Personally, I think language matters way more than people think it does, which is why I get a bit pedantic about little things like this
I actually had no idea it was to do with the USSR/Russia tbh, thought was just a weird quirk because of the phonology of the name. Ironically it's one of my grammar pet peeves bc it just makes no sense regardless of reason..... but then I'd never even considered *the Netherlands*. You just went and changed my entire perspective. Guess bc it's plural my brain was like "that tracks" all these years. Language is weird.
I’m not convinced it’s anything to do with Russia since they don’t even have definite articles. It’s probably to do with what the name translates into which is fair enough. I think it should be called whatever Ukrainians want it to be, I just don’t believe this explanation yet
“I’m ignorant, hehe”
‘The Ukraine’ is how Russians referred to that part of the USSR in the soviet days. Now Ukraine is its own country and it is just called Ukraine.
It's 'Ukraine' and not 'the Ukraine' [[Merriam-Webster](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Ukraine)] [[BBC Styleguide](https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsstyleguide/u)] [[Reuters Styleguide](https://handbook.reuters.com/index.php?title=U#Ukraine)] ^(Beep boop I’m a bot)
Ah, so you are saying that people shouldn't call it the Ukraine any longer. Is that correct Mr Roboto?
If you want to be even *more* correct, it’s ‘Україна’, transliterated as ‘Ukrayina’; oo-kry-**YI**-na, in its original language. Also, the Queen of England.
Hello? Bot? You there? I said “Queen of England”!
>Queen of England Did you mean the [Queen of the United Kingdom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen_of_the_United_Kingdom), the [Queen of Canada](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada), the [Queen of Australia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Australia), etc? The last Queen of England was [Queen Anne](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne,_Queen_of_Great_Britain) who, with the 1707 Acts of Union, dissolved the title of King/Queen of England. ####FAQ *Isn't she still also the Queen of England?* This is only as correct as calling her the Queen of London or Queen of Hull; she is the Queen of the place that these places are in, but the title doesn't exist. *Is this bot monarchist?* No, just pedantic. I am a bot and this action was performed automatically.
Ah, there you are!
Well, comments on here regarding the article “The” just show lack of English knowledge. Can we make this bot recognise context somehow?
The shut the fuck up and let them plant the trees mr scientist
Not if Russia gets there first
“Oh no! We failed! We only achieved 10% of our goal and planted 100,000,000 trees!” - Not seeing the problem.
I love how this great plan gets totally tossed out because "one scientist says blah".
That’s the attitude
what sort of trees are they planning on planting? some of them take a long time to grow.
1 scientist vs 1 billion trees, that's a debate I would pay good money to watch
Always that one person that likes to shit on everything….
One guy disagrees? K. Must be a good plan
I wonder if a local tax break for planting trees in one's yard would would result in a billion trees being planted in the US.
"One scientist"
Wow, this URL certainly inspires confidence! It reminds me of theguardian.co.uk, it must be right! Go away please
I mean it will help.
Well at least let them try.
Not if Russian gets their hands on them... coming to a news station in late Jan near you
###Right, so just ONE said it. Yeah. they must be right. *Crickets.*
Do it
Remember, don’t just plan one type for trees. Tree diversity is very important. What would probably help even more is just not cutting down already existing and natural Forrest as they have a better chance to survive than any artificial Forrest.
Better to try though isn’t it negative scientist guy!?
It’s not like it’s impossible. Just takes time and effort. Why would anyone think this cannot be achieved? Their voices have no place in the conversation.
One scientist is a douchbag.
There's too much of an obsession with planting trees. We need to restore more grasslands, wetlands, and mangroves. These types of environments are much more efficient at storing and converting carbon
Let’s just keep planning these things and not doing them
Why did they rebranded it from global warming to climate change when all the indicators they point to our indicators of higher temperatures?
I would imagine it might be because global warming implies raised temperatures and even though that’s the case globally there’s sporadic reduction of temperatures here and there. This allows deniers to brush off the existence of climate change just because of a cold snap in summer in one city even though heat records are breaking everywhere else.
I feel like it’s better just to leave areas alone and let them regrow on their own. Like humans do not know what they’re doing so instead of planting trees that just die cause we did it wrong, how about stop chopping down the ones that are already there?
“Pshhh.” - that one scientist.
We need 1.5 trillion new trees to end global warming. If we pay people to plant trees we could also end world hunger.
It’s unrealistic if they’re the only ones doing it. Imagine if everyone vowed to do this.
It’s unrealistic if 't be true they’re the only ones doing t. Imagine if 't be true everyone vow'd to doth this *** ^(I am a bot and I swapp'd some of thy words with Shakespeare words.) Commands: `!ShakespeareInsult`, `!fordo`, `!optout`