• HugeNerd@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    That’s entirely renewable when it’s done with human labor. Renewable doesn’t mean “one with the earth” or whatever hippy-dippy thing you think.

    Fossil fuels on the one hand allow deforestation on an unimaginable scale but also allow artificial accelerated regrowth with mechanization and fertilization.

    Also, what “vast” swaths of land were deforested before coal power or oil power that threatened all of humanity or were not regrowing within a generation?

    • AviAdi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      I was referring to parts of Europe regarding the vast (Ireland comes to mind). And I question whether it was renewable because when you wipe out a whole forest it may change the ecology of the land. Technically you are correct on a long enough time scale the trees may grow back.

      • HugeNerd@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        It is renewable because no external source of energy besides wind and solar was accessible. It drastically limits the outlay of energy and sheer power humans can bring to bear to our projects as compared to fossil fuels.

        The Wright Brothers strapped a gas engine to a kite and in about half a century we played golf on the Moon.

        This wasn’t because of some miraculous species-wide boost in IQ in three generations: it was the 1.4 million pounds of kerosene that did it.