For those looking for a source, I looked into it and yes the source is the CCPs claims. We all know how trustworthy CCP statistics are.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-07732-5
According to the Chinese NFI, national forest coverage has increased by 2.15% in the 7th NFI and by 3.41% in the 8th NFI
By contrast, the GFC dataset, which is considered to be more accurate than previous remote sensing datasets due to its unprecedented global high spatial resolution, showed that the change in forest area of China between 2000 and 2012 was a net loss of 38,743 km2, equivalent to a decline of 0.40% in national forest coverage
Basically, satellite imagery seems to “strangely” conflict with CCP figures.
That GFC study contradicts the many studies using both older datasets and newer datasets:
CAS: https://english.cas.cn/newsroom/mutimedia_news/202203/t20220322_302792.shtml
UNESCO: http://www.unesco-hist.org/index.php?r=en/article/info&id=1714
Journal of Geophysical Research: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2022JG007101
Remote Sensing: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/13/13/2592
International Journal of Remote Sensing: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01431161.2021.2022804
International Journal of Digital Earth: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17538947.2023.2190625
In science, we call this “cherrypicking data.” Colloquially, we understand this to be because someone fucked their experimental validation. In the real world, we call this “disseminating misinformation.”
global-scale data cannot reasonably represent changes in the regional land cover. Moreover, different studies may have different accuracies within the same region and even may reach opposite conclusions
I love how every thread with positive news about China will have at least one chud who can’t even spell CPC properly bleat about statistics from China not being reliable. Get back in your basement.
At least China is saying something is a good thing that I agree is a good thing. That’s progress of a sort.
Removed by mod
Actually it’s the opposite. CPC is the actual name of the party, and CCP is the name brainwashed western idiots use for some weird reason. It’s like if I started insisting spelling USA as SUA and then acting like that makes sense. Anytime somebody uses CCP they expose themselves as an utter imbecile whose opinions can be safely ignored.
American United States
AUS
Does it matter? It’s a translation of a foreign Language, and hardly anyone uses the real names of countries. They are usually longer and in languages you don’t speak.
Yeah, it does matter. There is an official translation from the party and there’s a made up one that edgelords in the west use for some reason.
CCP: Chinese Communist Party
CPC: Communist Party of China
They are basically the same and mean exactly the same thing. I don’t really see the issue.
I don’t think it’s edgelords using it I think basically everyone does. It’s used because it’s used. You are making it sound like its an intentional psyop.
It’s like when people say Democrat Party instead of Democratic Party.
United States of America and American United States is basically the same thing, we should just ignore what USA calls itself and use AUS instead. The question is why westerners choose to use a different name than the official one chosen by the party. Maybe you can enlighten us what the reason for doing this is.
Removed by mod
This article is nearly two years old. Also, I implicitly distrust any source which depicts Taiwan as part of the PRC.
The unofficial consensus between the KMT/PRC was that Taiwan and China are one country. The NED-funded DPP has been trying to break that status quo, though.
Imagine being so brainwashed by propaganda that you distrust your own government position 🤡
I’m not sure why you would assume I’m American. I mean, you happen to be right in this case, but I’m still not sure why you’d assume that.
Anyhow, there’s an irony in your assertion that disagreeing with the position of one’s government is “brainwashed.”
I’m not sure why you would assume I’m American. I mean, you happen to be right in this case, but I’m still not sure why you’d assume that.
Americans are very ease to distinguish based both on their political stances (which tend to be rather unique) and how they express them (which IS unique).
Y’all are like those pickup trucks with LED lights. Once you realize they exist, you can’t miss them.
actually, a lot of Canadians have similar political stance too…
Anti-China/pro-Taiwan sentiment isn’t exactly unique to the US. I think you’re alluding to an incendiary tone with respect to how you say Americans express their views, but that doesn’t seem to quite fit so I’m a little lost there.
I mean, clearly people can tell that you’re American, so maybe it’s time for some introspection?
You made an assumption and you’ve yet to expound on how you justified it beyond some vague assertion about American political discourse. Give me something to introspect on, then, for crying out loud.
I am always happy to hear about reforestation, but has somebody understood out of which source the numbers from china are coming? I mean they are sometimes quite the enthusiasts talking about their successes
Here’s your source https://youtu.be/3_lAb8m9MpI?si=IrfZYXXuC1BNf2op
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/3_lAb8m9MpI?si=IrfZYXXuC1BNf2op
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
programming.dev back at it with the shit takes
It’s not like forest cover is hard to verify by satellite imagery. Lying about reforestation and deforestation is hard.
The satellite imagery shows a net loss compared to CCP figures which show a net gain. China lies more easily than it tells the truth.
You don’t provide sources, so here are some that directly contradict your claim:
CAS: https://english.cas.cn/newsroom/mutimedia_news/202203/t20220322_302792.shtml
UNESCO: http://www.unesco-hist.org/index.php?r=en/article/info&id=1714
Journal of Geophysical Research: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2022JG007101
Remote Sensing: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/13/13/2592
International Journal of Remote Sensing: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01431161.2021.2022804
International Journal of Digital Earth: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17538947.2023.2190625
Where are your sources?
you managed to fit so much seething and coping into a single comment
The picture shows that Vietnam has more with 56.2%…
It’s in absolute area terms jfc
jfc?
Just factual content
I would be hesitant in claiming this as a win. I know that Japan has one of the highest number of trees per capita in the g7 but that was a hold over from post WW2. Where they planted a shit ton of a singular tree type. The monoculture wrecks havoc in their ecosystem. All this to say it’s good that they are planting trees I’m just hoping they are doing it planning it out carefully.
A monoculture only wrecks havoc on an ecosystem if a flourishing ecosystem existed there already…
In China, trees are mostly used to block desertification.
according to (checks notes) … “visualcapitalist”. Yeah that sounds like a totally unbiased and reliable source.
What the hell is PRK doing!?
I wonder if this includes tree plantations. Those should not be considered forests in my view.
China even includes shrubbery in their numbers so take that as you will.
Iceland and Uruguay got those numbers tho.
No sources given for the data used in the infographic. How surprising /s
reading comprehension problems?
Yay China. Say… isn’t this the same country that turns out 68% of the world’s air pollution?
What have they done about that?
Yes. And the same country that produces all the shit we order from them. So is it their pollution or ours?
Yes. It is.
It is… What?
Regardless who or why is to blame - the damage belongs to all of us.
That’s true, but pointing fingers saying China has to change when changing nothing ourselves, is pure propaganda.
When did I say that?
Removed by mod
Also the country that dominates green energy manufacturing… Which is what everyone else is using to reduce their emissions.
deleted by creator
In terms of particulates? China’s really cleaned that up in recent years.
But, well, China doesn’t have massive piles of natural gas it can burn instead of coal. Coal is notoriously dirty.
They’ve done a lot about that, like becoming the global leader in pretty much every renewable sector as well as nuclear. Also, worth mentioning that smooth brained liberals have all their stuff produced in China. It’s absolute idiocy to bleat about pollution without considering where consumption is happening. Per capita energy usage in China is far lower than in the west.
deleted by creator
The demand comes from people consuming the goods. I’m sorry you lack intellectual capacity to wrap your head around this concept.
deleted by creator
That’s a nice straw man there buddy. I never said anything of the sort. It’s the capitalist system in the west that’s responsible for creating western lifestyle and the consumption that goes along with it. Nowhere did I say that I expected this system to work either. Keep trying there.
sources that contradicts this is buried in the convo
https://lemmy.ml/comment/5738838once you learn to read, you’ll see that the sources provided are contradicting the claim in the parent comment which is
The satellite imagery shows a net loss compared to CCP figures which show a net gain. China lies more easily than it tells the truth.
Sure but what’s the forest growth per capita?
How is that relevant? Serious question, I don’t see a link between forests and per capita that actually matters. If we were talking about economic comparisons, sure. If anything, adjusting it as “per sq mile of forestable land” would make more sense.
It’s relevant because, as demonstrated multiple times in this thread, when the topic of pollution and emissions from China comes up everyone rushes to defend them with “but muh per capita”. As if the environment cares.
So you said something irrelevant as a jumping off point for an axe you wanted to grind? Good job
Alexa, what is rhetoric?
Link your Twitter. I bet you have a statue pfp
