If Iceland can grow bananas, then oil palms don’t seem like much of a stretch. But whether they are grown outdoors in the lowland tropics or in a greenhouse somewhere else, that’s land that cannot be native forest. At least in the tropics, it’s possible to implement an agroforestry system that includes both oil palms and native trees, but in a greenhouse somewhere cold… nope. Even if the yield would be greater than that of more cold-tolerant oil crops, more energy would be needed for heating in the winter, so intuitively, it doesn’t seem practical except where there would be large amounts of “waste” heat anyway, like near geothermal vents or power plants.

Fortunately, palm oil is not essential for nutrition, and many industrial applications could use (e.g.) hemp oil if palm oil is not available, so it’s not necessary to increase production of palm oil. About half of world production goes to “livestock” feed anyway.

THIS is the actual definition of Veganism, directly from the people who coined the term:

That definition is from 1988, so it’s questionable whether it came “directly from the people who coined the term” in 1944. Here is a re-publication of the 1951 Leslie Cross definition:

“The object of the Society shall be to end the exploitation of animals by man” and “The word veganism shall mean the doctrine that man should live without exploiting animals.”

Allegedly someone read The World Peace Diet (by Will Tuttle) to Donald Watson on his deathbed, and Donald Watson said that the book encompassed everything that he intended when he founded the Vegan Society. Make of that what you will.

Probably ‘Silk’, AKA Latundan, from the Philippines.

We need both, obviously. Ending animal agriculture is the most practical way to achieve it.

Did you ever find an answer to this re: reforestation projects? Could be useful to relocate termites in order to introduce the microbes to grasslands.

All systems of oppression must be dismantled, no matter how inconvenient or unpleasant that process may be.

For those finding this post for the first time, OP is now an admin of https://lemmy.vg/ which is a Lemmy instance run by vegans for vegans.

Thank you for taking the time!

Even if you cover the whole planet in forests, there is a finite amount of fossil fuels you can burn before it is negated.

I think that this is the crux of the matter, and of course you’re right. The total amount of carbon stored in fossil fuels is (presumably, without searching for the numbers) much greater than the amount currently stored in living organisms, so there is a finite amount of fossil fuels that can be burnt before the carbon emissions exceed the capacity of forests/vegetation to capture it. Do you know what that “finite amount of fossil fuels” would be? From what I have seen, it is quite large, though humanity is rapidly approaching it. What’s needed is for the rate of emissions to be reduced below the rate of capture, and so a reduction in fossil fuel use is urgently needed, but I wouldn’t say that completely eliminating fossil fuel use is more important than protecting forests. All that’s needed in the long term is for carbon capture to at least equal carbon emissions. In the short term, the planet is already close enough to the “point of no return” that reforestation is necessary in order to bring down levels of carbon dioxide, regardless of how quickly fossil use ceases. It has to be both. Burning fossil fuels is not a sustainable way to meet the energy needs of 8 billion+ humans. Cutting down forests for biofuel is not a sustainable way to meet the energy needs of 8 billion+ humans. Deforestation for biofuel would be sustainable for a much larger population than would burning fossil fuels (due to the extremely slow renewal rate of fossil fuels), but we’re past that point. There’s not enough land. Either energy consumption needs to drastically decrease, or non-combustion sources of energy are needed.

I get the impression that we are essentially “on the same side” and just quibbling over details. You make an excellent case against fossil fuels! Looking at it in terms of the broader carbon cycle makes the necessity of ending fossil fuel use very obvious even ignoring any concerns about pollution, destructive extraction practices, or other harmful effects.

I understand what you’re getting at, but I don’t see it as being so simple.

Fossil fuels are essentially just ancient soil carbon, so in a way, we’re talking about the same thing on different time-scales. My point was/is that the combination of deforestation and burning of the cut biomass actually reduces the amount of carbon that can be stored in the soil on a given area of land, not just releasing it once and then recycling it. To capture the same amount of carbon again would require a greater area under management than the area originally cut. On a finite planet, there is a limit to how much this deforestation for biomass production could be scaled up without net-positive emissions. (I’m tired, so this may not be the most articulate.)

The world’s forests capture a substantial amount of the carbon dioxide emitted by humans, and extensive reforestation could capture even more. By reducing the carbon capture potential of forests, that’s less carbon dioxide absorbed year after year. Over a very long period of time, “releasing it one time” is what burning fossil fuels does: it releases stored carbon once, and then trees and other plants recycle it. Deforestation reduces the recycling.

Even though mature forests can store more total carbon, it seems that young forests, with more small trees, may actually be able to absorb more methane, so there can definitely be some advantage to managing trees for wood production on a short cycle. Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, so this is one way in which the overall situation is complicated.

Of course, avoiding both deforestation and fossil fuels is even better.

I’m glad that we agree on this point. It doesn’t need to be one or the other. The most effective approach to addressing climate change would involve reforestation and eliminating dependence on fossil fuels by developing clean energy technologies.

Ultimately, carbon capture just needs to match carbon emissions (plus a bit extra at first to compensate for current overshoot), and realistically, it will take both reforestation and a reduction in emissions to achieve that. Ending animal agriculture makes the most progress toward both.

I don’t think it’s so easy to say that burning biomass is superior (from a carbon sequestration perspective) to preserving old-growth forest even if that means relying on fossil fuels (e.g. natural gas for heating). I don’t know the answer, but considering that burning biomass does not allow that carbon to accumulate in the soil over time as it would in a mature forest, the alternative to burning biomass would need to have very high emissions in order to come out ahead.

Of course I am not advocating for burning fossil fuels; I am only advocating for protection of forests. I don’t think that biomass would be a viable fuel for air travel in particular due to the energy density needed, but if so, and if non-combustion energy sources could be used everywhere else, then farming some young trees to continually cut to use for biofuel for air travel wouldn’t have so much of an impact if that land would not be forested anyway. Freeing up land currently used by animal agriculture to use it for this purpose would be an improvement, but “chopping down a forest” would be highly questionable.

Do you have any hard numbers comparing the total lifecycle emissions of fuelwood to those of other fuels (coal, gas, jet fuel, whatever), taking into account soil carbon as well? If the carbon emissions argument for protecting forests doesn’t make sense, I will stop using it. Deforestation brings plenty of other problems (biodiversity loss, habitat fragmentation, increased run-off and erosion…) that I/anyone could focus on instead.

OP: Whenever you’re looking for a specific plant, it helps to give the scientific name, as many plants share vernacular names or go by different vernacular names in different areas. I think that “white clover” pretty much always refers to Trifolium repens, but including the scientific name is still a “best practice” to keep in mind.

For anyone else reading, Fedco (Not Sponsored™) sells bulk white clover seed in the USA:

• Dutch white clover
• Alice white clover
• Ladino white clover
• Rivendell white clover

That’s what this guy was trying to tell people nearly 25 years ago: https://www.albartlett.org/articles/art_forgotten_fundamentals_overview.html

video presenting the same information

Let’s all remember that while jet aircraft emit much more than other forms of transportation, this is nothing compared to the emissions of animal agriculture.

I agree that while reducing emissions from air travel is beneficial, it isn’t enough of a solution. However, I think that “pissing off many normal people” is inevitable in the process of arresting climate change, as eliminating animal agriculture is necessary in order to solve the problem. People won’t like that.

Old-growth forest stores more carbon than younger trees, so continually “recycling” fast-growing plants is not superior to letting the forest grow. A combination of syntropic agriculture and forest conservation would probably be more effective.

Syntropic agriculture practices achieve this and some semblance of a forest at the same time. Chop and drop. Smother the grass with mulch.

As others have suggested, shade out the bullshit with a diverse array of fruit trees and other useful vegetation in order to reclaim the land and grow an abundance of food at the same time. Even if you can’t devote much time and energy to it, planting some vigorous (ideally native) pioneer species and hardy fruit trees and then just tossing seeds in there on a regular basis will go a long way toward exterminating the grass. I also second the recommendation of clover as a groundcover.

Let us also not forget the importance of syntropic agriculture practices for sustainability. Tree-based food production is the most effective way to maintain (and even improve) fertility, biodiversity, and habitat for free-roaming animals.

Let us also not forget the importance of syntropic agriculture practices for sustainability. Tree-based food production is the most effective way to achieve “a healthy, diverse ecosystem” on the veganic farm.