These projects should be closely studied by anyone making the case for an ecosocialist GND, of the Hawkins variety more so than the watered-down AOC variety.
Agreed. Stopping desertification is good. Greening a historical desert is maybe good. Posting picture of sand hillside and green hillside next to each other when they’re obviously not the same hillside is bad.
As long as they’re not wiping out desserts, I say keep going China.
On a serious note, the articles themselves aren’t that bad, but the headlines are a pretty poor choice of words considering the topic.
Can we get some remote sensing/ geography academic articles about instead of horrifying clickbait with stock photos and by side pictures from different locations?
We can do better than Q-pilled boomers folks. If this is true , it should be well published. Better propaganda is made with verifiable facts than clickbait. We cant clickbait ourselves into a revolution.
Edit: the whole desert didnt disappear and only greened a little bit actually. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ISPAr42.3.2127Y/abstract
Good point, I would love to see more evidence that these policies are doing what the headlines imply.
Here’s a documentary posted here a while back
Here’s an interview with a woman who was part of the forest farm project from the beginning
Also looking up Hebei province on a satellite map shows just how much more green it is compared to the surrounding area.
I agree but also disagree, the right shows every day that you can just make shit up that sounds good, I think it’s about tailoring to your audience. If I wanted to convert a load of dumb chuds, I wouldn’t just straight make stuff up but I’d sensationalise the fuck out of propaganda. It’s like when leftists debate conservatives, the right-wing viewers just want to see a lib get owned, they don’t care about facts, which is why I want to see a leftist who is good at roasting people just straight bully Shapiro or Crowder. Maybe we can train one up, raise funds for an improv class lol
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ISPAr42.3.2127Y/abstract
The effects are very slight
So where exactly did you get this notion of “very slight”? Did you even read that article?
Another more recent article also including 2017 data: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-78665-9
If this argument is about “vanished form the map” or “wiped out” then yeah those headlines are trash.
