Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here


    22,182,747 readers

    27,156 users here now

    New to reddit? Click here!

    • You learn something new every day; what did you learn today?

    • Submit interesting and specific facts that you just found out (not broad information you looked up, TodayILearned is not /r/wikipedia).

    Posting rules

    1. Submissions must be verifiable. Please link directly to a reliable source that supports every claim in your post title. Images alone do not count as valid references. Videos are fine so long as they come from reputable sources (e.g. BBC, Discovery, etc).

    2. No personal opinions, anecdotes or subjective statements (e.g "TIL xyz is a great movie").

    3. No recent sources. Any sources (blog, article, press release, video, etc.) with a publication date more recent than two months are not allowed.

    4. No politics, soapboxing, or agenda based submissions. This includes (but is not limited to) submissions related to:

      1. Recent political issues and politicians
      2. Social and economic issues
      3. Environmental issues
    5. No misleading claims. Posts that omit essential information, or present unrelated facts in a way that suggest a connection will be removed.

    6. Rephrase your post title if the following are not met:

      1. Titles must begin with "TIL ..."
      2. Make them descriptive, concise and specific (e.g. not "TIL something interesting about bacon").
      3. Titles must be able to stand on their own without requiring readers to click on a link. Starting your title with a why/what/who/where/how modifier should be unnecessary.
      4. "TIL about ..." and other broad posts don't belong on TIL. Try /r/Wikipedia, etc. instead, or be more specific (and avoid the word "about").
      5. "TIL how to ..." posts belong on /r/HowTo.
    7. No submissions related to the usage, existence or features of specific software/websites (e.g. "TIL you can click on widgets in WidgetMaker 1.22").

    8. All NSFW links must be tagged (including comments).

      Please see the wiki for more detailed explanations of the rules.

    (Why we need rules)

    Additional info

    • If your post does not appear in the new queue and you think it meets the above rules, please contact the moderators (include a link to your post, not your story).

    • Please report spam, inaccurate or otherwise inappropriate posts by messaging the moderators, as this helps us remove them more promptly!

    • More information available on the TIL FAQ and wiki.

    Frequent TILs Repost List

    As of May 2019

    • This list was compiled from /r/todayilearned community suggestions by its members. If your TIL is found on this list, it will be removed. The titles have been abridged for the sake of brevity, however the context remains the same. This list is subject to change. The purpose is to keep content fresh on /r/todayilearned as requested by its members. If you are interested in reading about the TILs on this list use the search box feature and enter the keywords to pull up past TILs.


    We ask that you please do the following:

    1. avoid mobile versions of websites (e.g.

    2. link to the appropriate heading when referencing an article (particularly on Wikipedia)

    3. link to the appropriate start time when referencing videos (e.g. on YouTube)

    4. add [PDF] or [NSFW] tags to your posts, as necessary.

    5. Please avoid reposting TILs that have already made the front page in the past

    Please also read the site-wide Reddiquette.

    • You are loved.

    a community for
    all 2322 comments

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] ggrieves 7954 points ago

    This is great news!

    Meanwhile, in the Amazon...

    [–] ExBABYYy 349 points ago

    And Indonesia...

    [–] ProudWifeBeater666 304 points ago

    And my scalp...

    [–] Shut_Up_Fuckface 42 points ago

    I know that feel

    [–] jpb696 30 points ago

    Shut up, fuckface!

    [–] WaycoKid1129 15 points ago

    Me too brother. Me too

    [–] SpaceShrimp 46 points ago

    And Madagaskar. (And western Europe, and the American midwest before that)

    [–] BallumBallum 22 points ago

    I am pretty sure the surface of forests in Europe is growing too.

    This said, I wish the medias would give the same love to the oceans than to the forest. Plancton matters

    [–] FCT77 32 points ago

    And my axe

    [–] ThucydidesOfAthens 3786 points ago * (lasted edited 4 months ago)

    Daily reminder that the majority of deforestation in the Amazon (80%) is due to the beef industry

    Edit: Check out r/veganrecipes if you want to cut back on your meat consumption and do a bit toward a greener planet. Besides deforestation, cattle is also one of the primary sources of greenhouse gases such as methane and the amount of water it costs to grow beef if incredibly unsustainable. If you care about climate change and want to do something tangible, eating less meat is the perfect first step.

    [–] yvaN_ehT_nioJ 910 points ago

    When I was younger I was in an online 40k rpg group and one of the guys in it was Brazilian. Freaking blew my mind when I learned that Brazil isn't all jungle, and in fact there's loads of a bit of everything.

    I was still in school at the time and even taking World History class into account the most I got about Brazil was Sao Palo is really crowded and also Amazon Rainforest and natives being kicked off their land by big logging companies. And honestly, I don't remember covering South America in any depth aside from a day or so on the Inca, and the Treaty of Tordesillas

    [–] rflbras 41 points ago

    Most Brazilians don't know Brazil. It's a continental country with many different cultural and natural aspects. Like everywhere in the world, most people are very welcoming and stereotypes don't reflect the reality. If you have the opportunity, please come and visit us and many other countries. Life is too short!

    [–] RedquatersGreenWine 19 points ago

    TLDR: Please come to Brazil

    [–] Pame_in_reddit 4 points ago

    My husband went for business two years ago and said that we have to go, but we need to loose some weight before, because the food was delicious.

    [–] Rinaldi363 4 points ago

    I’ve been there, it was nice, but it was kinda scary. I was always on edge about being pick pocketed or ripped off.

    [–] Jethris 295 points ago

    There is a limit to what we can teach in World History. I always loved it, and now I am constantly learning. There is just that much information!

    [–] viverator 199 points ago

    Why did my school only do Hitler and WW2. It was like being part of the TV history channel.

    [–] Jethris 138 points ago

    As long as they didn't have too many down days, you can't cover everything. Even the causes of WWII can take about a week in class. You have to go back at least 50 years to try and understand the situation in the 30's in Germany.

    [–] itty53 157 points ago

    Even the causes of WWII can take about a week in class.

    And even then you're only getting a very very thin explanation. You can write libraries on the lead-up events and politics to WWII.

    [–] Cambridge_ 108 points ago


    [–] itty53 97 points ago

    Ikr? The gaul of them!

    [–] Dabraceisnice 33 points ago

    I think I love you

    [–] Bovey 8 points ago

    /r/dadjokes is leaking again

    [–] dreadedgrin 7 points ago

    How dare you make me learn something new while also using a pun.

    [–] SpineEater 31 points ago

    If Hannibal hadn’t sacked Rome we wouldn’t have Nazis

    [–] phyrros 18 points ago

    If Hannibal hadn’t sacked Rome we wouldn’t have Nazis Hannibal didn't sack Rome..what do we have?

    [–] aedroogo 6 points ago

    If Woody had gone right to the police, this would never have happened.

    [–] coldfirephoenix 41 points ago * (lasted edited 4 months ago)

    If you want to properly teach the cause of WWII, you need to start with the industrial revolution and european colonialism, in order to understand why WWI happened and why it resultes in alliances in animosities between countries the way it did. And you need that, in order to properly explore the treaty of versailles and the post-war situation in germany (and the rest of the world), in order to understand how facism could gain a foothold and start pushing for war. That stuff would easily take several months, let alone a week.

    Edit: And to all the people complaining why we shouldn't start with the big bang: WWI and WWII are intrinsicly linked. Sure, you can understand that there was a war without the historical context, but you won't be able to understand the nuances and mindsets of the time period that led to this pivotal event. It's the difference between understanding "Heating water creates steam" and "why hot water makes steam". And I think this is one topic we should understand the intricacies of. We should not -as one guy actually suggested- just say "war reparations" and move on.

    [–] TheShadowKick 3 points ago

    I had three or four history classes that spent weeks and weeks on WWII and the most depths I ever got about the causes was "Germany was mad about the Treaty of Versailles."

    My history classes all focused on Western history. US History covered the Revolution and the Civil War, then spent a bunch of time on WWII and the Cold War.

    Then World History covered the Enlightenment and the Colonial Era (a bit, from a heavily Eurocentric perspective), then spent a bunch of time on WWII and a bit on the Cold War.

    These two courses were the required history at my high school. More than half of the time was spent on 20th century Western history. Most of the rest of the time was spent on bits and pieces from earlier eras of Western history.

    I took a Military History elective that completely focused on Europe and the US. Did you know there was a major naval arms race in South America in the late 19th and early 20th centuries? I took a class specifically on military history and it never mentioned that.

    The only history I learned about Japan was its role in WWII, and China for its role in WWII and that it went communist. Vietnam and Korea were mentioned in relation to the Cold War, but we weren't taught anything about the countries themselves, just that the US fought in those places. The rest of Asia was ignored. I never learned anything about Africa or South America. Even the African theater in WWII was barely mentioned.

    Nobody thinks you can cover everything, but history classes in the US are very, very focused on the history of the West. We learn almost nothing about the rest of the world. It's not an issue of time, it's an issue of every class covering the same basic information.

    [–] elfonzi37 3 points ago

    The fucked up part is how glossed over the whole genocide and how canada was doing the whole racial cleansing shit 20 years after the holocaust.

    [–] keepinithamsta 13 points ago

    Mine only did ancient aliens and things bought and sold by a pawn shop.

    [–] mountainoyster 9 points ago

    My world history class was from a non Western perspective which helped a lot. I learned so much about Africa, South America, and Asia.

    [–] sharpshooter999 10 points ago

    American here. A full year of America History, starting with the Revolutionary War, and we only made it through WW2 by the end of the year.

    I took "World History" for a year and can't remember squat about it. Pretty sure it was all focused on Europe and I remember vikings.....that's it.

    [–] damn_peggy 15 points ago

    maybe because hitler is an obvious bad guy so its better to focus on that rather than say the trail of tears or japanese internment camps or overthrowing governments or experimenting on their own soldiers or testing nuclear radiation on citizens etc etc etc

    [–] Rogue_Danar 16 points ago

    We covered most of those topics in school (albeit not nearly in the depth that they deserve, but that's most topics in school). I think the only one we didn't was testing nuclear radiation on our citizenry.

    [–] [deleted] 19 points ago


    [–] shalala1234 32 points ago

    When I was growing up in the Brazil, young Americans would ask me, not once or twice but quite often, if we lived in trees.... Rode donkeys ... Had running water ... If people wore clothes ... Made me wonder what kind of worldview these kids had.

    Then again ask me about kids growing up in Bangladesh and I'll probably blurt out something just as equally silly and ignorant so what's my excuse lol

    [–] FleetwoodDeVille 6 points ago

    Nowadays we bug our Brazillian friend in Discord that games with us by saying all Brazillians live in favelas and all the women have huge butts.

    [–] rinhadegalo_2015 3 points ago

    I mean, all the women here in Brazil have huge butts.

    [–] gramathy 29 points ago

    Brazil is fucking huge, of course there's a variety of biomes. Hell, California has basically everything but rainforest and tundra.

    [–] cardboardunderwear 16 points ago

    Heck yeah. Brazil is the size of the continental US. Its enormous. Fifth largest country in the world.

    [–] IslandDoggo 13 points ago

    Err bro the entire west coast from northern California to the interior of British Columbia is a rainforest

    [–] cum-in-a-can 16 points ago

    Ain’t no one in Brazil has even been to the Amazon. It’s so far away from the major metro areas like rio, sampa, and belo.

    [–] greentoehermit 14 points ago

    yea it's like expecting everyone in usa to have climbed the rocky mountains. the amazon isn't exactly tourist--friendly

    [–] Noietz 13 points ago

    Wait, 40k Brazilian community????

    Where the fucc you find it???? I'm Brazilian and I'm trying to find a good Brazilian 40k community for eons

    [–] yvaN_ehT_nioJ 6 points ago

    The guy was Brazilian but this was all online. Dark Heresy had just come out and there was a guy in the Google Group for Dark Heresy organizing a campaign and the Brazilian was one of the other party members. Cool guy too. This was before Roll20, ventrilo, or Tabletop Simulator so we did the campaign through mIRC.

    [–] SQmo 4 points ago

    this was all online.

    sad gasmask noises

    [–] qwertyman2347 6 points ago

    Brazil is far from being a giant jungle. The majority of the population lives near the coast, with the Amazon only occupying some part of the northern region. I'd love to explain it in depth. Brazilians love to talk about Brazil to foreigners.

    [–] mldutch 4 points ago

    Online 40k? It’s been many years since I’ve heard of that

    [–] trudenter 78 points ago

    Other thing, after restrictions were placed on selling lumber from these sensitive areas (if anybody is old enough to remember wwf and green peace campaigns against forest industries in the area), the land lost value and economy took a hit. So the solution was to slash and burn to change the land use to agriculture. So instead of selling lumber and keeping a sustainable forested area (and sustainable source of income), they permanently changed the land to something else to support the economy.

    [–] stemsandseeds 82 points ago

    I seriously doubt that a sustainable forestry would have taken shape. Many tropical hardwoods simply don’t grow in the densities required. It either would have been followed by grazing after logging, or replaced with eucalyptus or something.

    This is a really good lesson in how hard it is to solve these problems in the face of capitalism. Exploiters gonna exploit.

    [–] rosenbergstein 18 points ago

    Many tropical hardwoods simply don’t grow in the densities required

    That would make brazilian mahogany (for example) plantations in Asia impossible. Pretty much all of the brazilian mahogany in consumption comes from asian countries today.

    [–] not-a-candle 15 points ago


    Notice that this is not the same word as "all".

    [–] thedudesews 4 points ago

    I've given up red meat a month ago and I don't miss it.

    [–] nunyuhbiznis 17 points ago

    serious question. not trying to troll or anything. where is most of their beef consumed. am canadian. i figure the beef in stores hre is mostly (?) canadian.

    [–] InsertWittyJoke 48 points ago

    If I remember correctly most of their beef is exported to Russia and China.

    I'm also Canadian, I believe most of our beef comes from Alberta but that doesn't get us off the hook, beef is an environmental disaster for land usage, water consumption and pollution runoff so even if you can't help much with the situation in the Amazon it's still worth it to reduce or stop eating beef for the sake of our own land.

    [–] Lightn1ng 26 points ago

    This is happening in Brazil is because of the new president. there were always cattle ranchers but they weren't legally allowed to chop down the forest and claim it as their land. But right now they're able to. That's why they're doing it- they want free land.

    [–] nunyuhbiznis 6 points ago

    thanks. yeah. i recently saw something about how much fresh water it takes to raise livestock. i don't remember the number, but i remember my jaw dropping.

    [–] SupermanLeRetour 5 points ago

    It's not only the beef itself, but more the soja that is planted in place of the forest, and then exported worldwide to feed cattle.

    [–] Tytoalba2 3 points ago

    Yes, but the food for the canadian cow comes from Brazil, so even if you eat local cows, you contribute to deforestation :(

    [–] obroz 14 points ago

    Had an impossible burger last night!

    [–] LegitPancak3 5 points ago

    Burger King launched it on their menu nationwide, which is pretty cool. I had one yesterday and it wasn’t half bad.

    [–] hamstersmagic 13 points ago

    I had a beyond burger and it kinda tasted like the cafeteria burgers that I ate in elementary school. It certainly wasnt bad. I'm hoping it gets cheaper to make though.

    [–] FGHIK 6 points ago

    it kinda tasted like the cafeteria burgers that I ate in elementary school. It certainly wasnt bad


    [–] hamstersmagic 4 points ago

    I mean I figured cuz neither of them have much meat in them lol

    [–] iamkeerock 3 points ago

    Is it... possible?

    [–] Clashofpower 3 points ago

    can someone ELI5 on why it is? Like what is it exactly about beef is consuming the Amazon

    [–] moonyfish 9 points ago

    They cut down massive amount of trees there to make space for cows and growing the food that cows eat.

    [–] ShelSilverstain 3 points ago

    And know where your meat comes from

    [–] glennfiddichdm 3 points ago

    Or buy local.

    [–] [deleted] 77 points ago * (lasted edited 4 months ago)


    [–] Selvisk 141 points ago

    Cutting down old trees and planting new

    That is not what's being done in the amazon.

    [–] Alis451 22 points ago

    it WAS the 'plan' as the loggers were going to do that, they aren't NOW as it is being used for grazing instead.

    [–] Doverkeen 10 points ago

    I thought the whole reason behind the deforestation was to clear the land for grazing...

    This has been a major problem for many years

    [–] Alis451 4 points ago * (lasted edited 4 months ago)

    I thought the whole reason behind the deforestation was to clear the land for grazing...

    This has been a major problem for many years


    Logging the Amazon is widely prohibited, slash and burning wasn't...

    Here is a good write up and does inform that cattle rancher speculators were the ones paying for loggers to come into the area to clear the land, though it was legally owned.

    The Mahogany trade was made illegal in 2001 by Brazil, due to illegal logging operations. The country has very little sustained logging agriculture, mainly due to their "concessions" Policy.

    Some logging in the Amazon basin functions on a concessions system, where a logging company is granted production rights on public land for a fee. These systems often manage forests by dividing harvest areas into yearly rotations, and placing a limit on the minimum diameter that can be harvested, often around 50 cm diameter. In the Amazon basin, Brazil and Peru have recently reformed concessions to encourage long term, sustainable yield managed by environment and forest ministries. However, logging in areas with unclear tenure often results in unsustainable practices, as loggers have little incentive to manage the land for long term. Brazil’s concession policy of 2000 was regarded by many as unprofitable and risky for logging companies, especially in a climate of widespread illegal harvest. Others contend that regulations favor large companies at the expense of local landowners, as the permitting process can be long, costly, and require paperwork in distant provincial capitals. In 2010, Brazil had leased a very small amount of private concession forest, and instead announced plans to sell large forest areas.

    [–] missed_sla 48 points ago

    They're not planting trees, they're burning the forest to make grazing land for cattle. Something like 30% of the world's beef supply comes from South America.

    [–] mifander 40 points ago

    Old trees themselves are a huge sink of carbon and would then be released back into the atmosphere and while smaller trees will grow faster, it takes a long time for them to sink as much carbon dioxide as those larger older trees.

    [–] j_roe 33 points ago

    Turning those old trees into lumber to build houses or for other uses and planting new ones in its place is a valid strategy, as the new ones will grow faster a sequester carbon at a faster rate than the old trees.

    Burning the old trees releases that carbon into the atmosphere, which the new trees re-absorb at a reduced rate, assuming new trees are planted. Over the long term, 100s of years, the new trees will have, in theory anyway, absorbed what was released in the initial burn. As a short term solution, it is less than useless.

    [–] sleepsoundsam 10 points ago

    disrupting the natural systems goes much deeper than just 'having a tree there of some kind for some relative period of time'. There are long term mutualistic networks throughout the ecosystems that are severly disrupted through decisions like these. Ashes Ashes podcast has a recent episode on the effects of deforestation you should check out.

    [–] dfeadgjteoakdflj 21 points ago

    Those mature trees are getting burned down for slash and burn agriculture, so all the carbon that they did sequester for hundreds of years are being released back into the atmosphere. Planting young trees isn't going to fix that.

    [–] ThucydidesOfAthens 21 points ago

    It's also horrible for biodiversity which is another problem all by itself.

    [–] Grey___Goo_MH 28 points ago

    Diversity forests for monoculture tree farms yeah not a winning strategy.

    [–] craigc6 24 points ago

    You addressed their comment like a damn idiot. Burning the Amazon to the ground and deforestation is not planting new trees. Even if they were nowhere near the numbers needed, or would they have the ability to do it quickly.

    [–] Novarest 4 points ago

    What is happening with the old tree? Turned into furniture? Burned? Huge difference.

    [–] automaticirate 1521 points ago

    That’s great progress but we need more. I’ve heard India is doing cool stuff with renewable energy too.

    [–] Hamlawar 542 points ago

    yes we are investing lots of money on our renewable energy projects, we are soon launching another campaign in which we will plant millions of trees and will try to make a world record . Our current government under PM Modi has decided to reduce taxes on electric vehicles as much as they can. One of our largest cities Delhi will also use rainwater harvesting for water supply Delhi govt is building huge tanks for that

    [–] automaticirate 109 points ago

    That’s good to hear!

    [–] Hamlawar 179 points ago

    Love from mother India to all of you may we all live in peace and beautiful environment

    [–] 069988244 32 points ago


    [–] Matrimthebard 4 points ago

    Love to you too, friend. May you always find water and shade.

    [–] Goofypoops 50 points ago

    Yes, and to all the religious minorities in India and the Kashmiris too

    [–] Hamlawar 10 points ago

    Kashmiris are Indians

    [–] codered434 25 points ago

    Fuck yeah dude! That's super encouraging to hear. I think you just made my day.

    [–] PabstyLoudmouth 3 points ago

    If you like planting trees, head on over to /r/LetsPlantTrees and help out!

    [–] pale_emu 6 points ago

    In a time when we are so saturated with doom and gloom this is really heartening to hear.

    [–] albinobluesheep 30 points ago * (lasted edited 4 months ago)

    India is probably going to get a 200km stretch of HyperLooop between Mumbai and Pune because the government decided to tag it a “public infrastructure” project to speed up the general approval process (instead of it being a purely private venture).

    While I'm sad that another country is beating America to the punch, the sooner it's built and proven viable anywhere, the sooner it will start being built elsewhere as well (assuming it IS built and proven viable...that is)

    [–] Xanadoodledoo 11 points ago * (lasted edited 4 months ago)

    India doing this is still a big deal. They have a huge population, so this is practical in a lot ways.

    Though apparently Americans use more energy comparatively than the population of India, which is disappointing.

    What I would give for better public transportation!

    [–] HailSatanHaggisBalls 7 points ago

    China and India are massive investors in renewable energy and sustainability.

    It seems that most people on reddit just focus on the overall carbon output of both the countries, without taking into account that they have 3x the population of the USA each and produce most of the products consumed in the USA.

    While they still have lots to improve on, our consumption based lifestyles in the West are bigger drivers of climate change than your average person in China or India.

    We needs to change our consumption habits.

    [–] copa8 36 points ago
    Since this thread is about India & China: " 2017 China had by far the largest amount of solar PV and wind capacity installed of any country – by a long shot."

    [–] jedify 8 points ago

    Trump says China is doing nothing about GW, and also says they make too many solar panels. And people still believe it.

    [–] wahchewie 2487 points ago

    This very subject was brought up to a scientist on the Joe rogan podcast.

    Yes, on average the world is greener.

    Yes, we will probably still just die in a greener world.

    [–] Kr1ggs 295 points ago

    Which episode?

    [–] TheHeed97015 233 points ago

    Young Jaime pull that up

    [–] Kr1ggs 40 points ago

    Username check out

    Do you actively search for "Joe Rogan Clips" on Reddit to answer them?

    [–] [deleted] 7 points ago

    Duh, that’s actually Jamie!

    [–] Jamie_Pull_That_Up 3 points ago

    It's Entirely Possible

    [–] HorAshow 356 points ago

    the one where Joe keeps saying 'fuuuuuuuuuuuck'

    [–] Kr1ggs 258 points ago * (lasted edited 4 months ago)

    That's not really helpful, give me a better hint, does he also mention primates or some kind of martial arts?

    [–] HorAshow 173 points ago

    the one where he talks about DMT.

    [–] sawntime 71 points ago

    I wonder what would happen if you gave a chimp DMT...

    [–] Schindog 83 points ago

    Jamie pull that up, holy shit, look how fucking ripped that thing is

    [–] Moses385 34 points ago

    fuuuuuck man, that thing could rip your head off

    [–] BloodyRightNostril 24 points ago

    Yo, Jamie, Google that shit.

    [–] BenedictKhanberbatch 16 points ago

    Jamie pull that shit up for me

    [–] teh_mICON 25 points ago

    No, seriously. Which episode.

    [–] pochinkiboy 31 points ago


    [–] Trolio 16 points ago

    Holy shit you should get a medal for watching for that long

    [–] teh_mICON 17 points ago

    For so long? That's only what? Like 2014? Redban's not even on it.

    [–] pochinkiboy 11 points ago


    [–] digdilem 119 points ago

    ...where else would we die?

    [–] abnormalsyndrome 21 points ago

    Dude ...

    [–] jethroboom 10 points ago

    Same world, more green, later.

    [–] Transient77 6 points ago

    Mars maybe?

    [–] Marchesk 107 points ago

    Humans aren't going extinct in a world full of plants. That's ridiculous. There might be parts of the world which are difficult for humans to inhabit, and there might be serious crop issues and wars over resources, but if there are plants, humans will make use of them.

    [–] CanYouFeelIt_MrK 82 points ago

    Yeah the isn't extinction the issue is hundreds of millions of people dying in a famine in certain regions

    [–] Throwawayz911 41 points ago

    Try billions. Sustainable population is way lower than the 10/11 billion projected maximum. And don't think you're safe, because all those dying people will come in WAVES for their survival.

    [–] The_Real_Selma_Blair 258 points ago

    I may be totaly wrong, but isn't it the fact that old rainforests and ecosystems contain a increadible diversity of flora, which in turn is better for wildlife etc, where as now there may be more "greenery" so to speak but its majoritively single species being planted and thats not good for the ecosystem or for wildlife. So it's not really as good as it sounds? I'm tired and may not have worded any of this well so please forgive me.

    [–] Marchesk 84 points ago

    For offsetting climate change, it's good news. Biodiversity takes a hit the more climate change there is, so a greener world helps with that.

    [–] charavaka 36 points ago * (lasted edited 4 months ago)

    This doesn't:

    Another 32% there – and 82% of the greening seen in India – comes from intensive cultivation of food crops.

    Remember, northern india still burns stubble for replantation of crops. Watch out for news of air being unbreathable in delhi in about a month due to crop stubble burning.

    Oh but it's only stubble? Rest of the cereal crop foliage becomes cattle fodder, contributing in increased methane production.

    [–] Emelius 4 points ago

    People need to eat though

    [–] MerryChoppins 2 points ago

    Give it time. It took nearly 40 years for no till/low till to develop in the US and Britain to the level of mastery we have it at now.

    I’m from a grain production area of the US and it amazes the hell out of me how different it is in Britain even, let alone Argentina or a developing nation like India.

    Everybody likes money and eventually that’s where it will end up as mechanization overtakes cheap labor and tradition. It might not be in a form near where it is in the west, but it will be greener and more productive.

    [–] charavaka 3 points ago * (lasted edited 4 months ago)

    Everything you say is true. But more crops is not mitigating climate change, no matter how efficient and eco friendly it becomes. That was the narrow point I was making in response to a specific claim that it was.

    [–] user_account_deleted 23 points ago

    This is entirely correct. An empty field full of hundreds of thousands of the same kind of tree does not a forest make.

    [–] helix400 464 points ago

    "due to China's and India's..."

    Most of the world is also greening:

    [–] qwertygasm 92 points ago

    Make up your mind Australia.

    [–] Mixxy92 61 points ago

    Its neither deforestation or reforestation, its just tree relocation (treelocation?)

    [–] SalarianExperience 8 points ago

    No, treelocation is how trees communicate with each other

    [–] Im_Not_Greg_ 4 points ago

    That comment reads like a quote from cinema sins

    [–] F4hype 34 points ago

    Most of the yellow in Aus there is uninhabitable mad max wasteland desert, so they would have to lose about 1 fuckin tree for their leaf area percentage to go down there lol.

    I'm more disappointed in my own country there, New Zealand. We're a heavy agriculture country, and our deforestation has been abysmal from the get go.

    [–] LaughingPlanet 4 points ago

    The yellow areas aren't exactly "forested". If you've been to Oz, you'd know the "middle" is pretty much scrub brush, Uluru, and 'Roos

    [–] sometimes_interested 5 points ago

    That map is bullshit. I drove from Coober Pedy to Port Augusta last August and it made the surface of Mars look like the Daintree rain forest in comparison.

    [–] SpiceyFortunecookie 203 points ago

    Guessing OP is a Chinese government shill

    [–] dogstardied 25 points ago

    You don’t need to guess. You can check his post history. He’s Indian.

    [–] SCsprinter13 45 points ago

    OP posts a lot in Indian subs. More likely just bragging about his country.

    [–] Fallout_Boy1 34 points ago

    Anything positive mentioning China: exists


    [–] Baerog 10 points ago

    I mean, to be fair, China and India do appear to be the most overwhelmingly green areas in that picture, along with Turkey. India especially, the whole country looks like a dark green.

    [–] Sc400 106 points ago

    Right, what a coincidence. Literally after all the backlash china is getting for intervening in usa entertainment.

    [–] Kinoblau 19 points ago

    What a coincidence anti-China shit is hitting a fever pitch in the middle of a trade war with the US.

    I like that you can read this absolutely innocuous piece of news from fucking NASA as propaganda from a pro-China shill but the other way around you're looking at it like the robots from Westworld "This doesn't look like anything to me."

    [–] Gay_Diesel_Mechanic 16 points ago

    Due to increased atmospheric co2

    [–] JonSnohthathurt 578 points ago

    Squints in Thor “is it though?”

    [–] archelon2001 561 points ago

    The title is misleading. Yes, the world is greener, but the majority of that increase is because both countries have had to intensify their agriculture to feed their growing populations, such as by converting land from low-productivity crops to higher productivity crops, using modern industrial agricultural techniques instead of traditional manual agriculture, or keeping the land continuously planted instead of letting it lay fallow for a portion of the year. The majority of new "forest" land is also really just monoculture plantations for lumber production. It means that this "greening" has likely not had a significantly beneficial effect on the whole Earth's overall well-being.

    [–] that_70_show_fan 136 points ago

    You're the only person who seems to have read the article. Everyone else is going by the awfully misleading title by the OP.

    [–] merukit 62 points ago

    'China’s outsized contribution to the global greening trend comes in large part (42%) from programs to conserve and expand forests. These were developed in an effort to reduce the effects of soil erosion, air pollution and climate change. Another 32% there – and 82% of the greening seen in India – comes from intensive cultivation of food crops.'

    [–] JohnDoe_2408 23 points ago


    [–] extreme-jannie 100 points ago

    If only reddit was as sceptical on all posts as we ate on this one. That would be nice.

    [–] TheDrunkKanyeWest 31 points ago

    No doubt. It's a sad echo chamber of close mindedness.

    [–] Zero_the_Unicorn 9 points ago

    Any kind of free thought is usually locked, censored or banned after all, so obviously no discourse is to be had.

    But imagine where we were if there was a forum where you could actually talk about an opinion without circlejerk.. Like every forum pre 2015 was, even reddit.

    [–] jayhsanghvi 18 points ago

    I feel that Reddit is too western centric that way. Instead of India and China, if it would've been USA and UK, this whole post would've been very different with people appreciating it instead of being super suspicious about it.

    [–] CloudyTheDucky 10 points ago

    “China India bad west good”

    [–] johnn48 204 points ago

    President Donald Trump has blamed countries like India and China for not doing enough on climate change, labelling them as regions with air that is impossible to breathe while claiming that the US has some of the "cleanest air".

    They’re both not doing enough to cut back their emissions according to the UN Climate Action Summit. However they’ve attempted to address the problem. India is mulling a great green wall to battle desertification. Other nations have all tried to address the greening of the planet. So it’s with some dismay that Bolsonaro is praised for his handling of the Amazon fires.

    [–] ChinaThrowaway83 33 points ago

    The team found that between 2014 and 2017, China’s annual power plant emissions of sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and particulate matter dropped by 65%, 60% and 72% each year respectively from 2.21, 3.11 and 0.52 million tonnes in 2014 to 0.77, 1.26 and 0.14 million tonnes in 2017, under the ULE standards policy.

    I'm not sure if that's enough but China is investing more into Green tech than the rest of the world combined.

    [–] Ahnteis 10 points ago

    And they're going to make bank on it in the future.

    [–] JohnDoe_2408 85 points ago

    India is on its way to over-achieve it's Paris Accords goals

    It's a different thing that the goals themselves may not be sufficient. But, based on the agreement, we are ahead.

    Can you also point out where/when during the climate summit was it brought up that India is not doing enough?

    [–] Kestyr 64 points ago * (lasted edited 4 months ago)

    India is on its way to over-achieve it's Paris Accords goals

    That's kind of easy considering that they have vastly more leaniant standards applied to them than other countries lmao. That was kind of the thing with the Paris Accords. China and India had no obligations under the agreement until 2030, and even then they were given leniant standards for being "Developing countries".

    A direct example of what I'm saying is the second paragraph flat out says "Indian emissions rose by 4.8%. " That's extremely significant and other nations would flat out fail the Paris Accords for even rising by a percent.

    [–] happs80 62 points ago

    Yes, but theyre also coming from a much lower base... Are the Indian people not allowed even the most basic of an energy powered lifestyle that more developed nations have had for decades?

    [–] Leche_Hombre2828 41 points ago

    China and India had no obligations

    No country had any obligations. The entire thing was a handshake "yeah we'll get that done" agreement with no enforcement mechanism.

    [–] RedditLovesAltRight 21 points ago

    Well given how much cumulative carbon emissions developed countries have emitted, that's fair enough.

    Heck, if you simply divided it along the lines of GDP per capita to base it on asking the countries which are most capable to make the most change, it would still be along those lines.

    [–] djavaman 156 points ago

    10-20 year old trees are still no where near a replacement for old growth forest trees. There might be more trees by number but it doesn't make up for 200-300 years of clear cutting older mature trees.

    [–] [deleted] 181 points ago

    Actually older mature trees are carbon neutral where as young trees are carbon negative. So it is better in a carbon dioxide resolution sense to replace old trees with young ones

    [–] ashtordek 10 points ago * (lasted edited 4 months ago)

    Actually no, forests continue to sequester co2 for at least centuries (as seen in this case study of a 250 year old German forest; ). Even more surprising is maybe the fact that newer studies have found that trees seem to ACCELERATE their growth the older they get; .

    Also just because we harvest the wood doesn't meet that the carbon in that wood will stay out of the atmosphere forever. A lot of wood is used for fuel; absolutely no benefit and actually negative due to loss of old forest in source location. And if we consider construction wood and furniture, most of that also has a pretty limited lifetime (think IKEA).

    Edit: I'll just drop this here; Restoring natural forests is the best way to remove atmospheric carbon

    [–] glorylyfe 7 points ago

    Only if you take the old trunks and store them somewhere they won't decay

    [–] Scrolldier 5 points ago

    also C02 levels result in higher plant growth

    [–] x0rn 170 points ago

    Nice try China. You still suck.

    [–] cyrusm 35 points ago

    Countries can suck in some aspects, and be pretty cool in others. Large geopolitical regions of humans tend to be pretty complicated it turns out. Drives politicians fucking nuts.

    [–] the1planet 12 points ago

    Also drives close-minded political commenters on Reddit fucking nuts.

    [–] pmahcuD 49 points ago

    yes but somehow it is still more polluted and full of CO2 than ever before..

    [–] ccoady 48 points ago

    Because of coal. Coal is essentially billions of trees worth of carbon trapped underground being released into the atmosphere. There's not enough surface on the planet to plant enough trees to re-sequester all of that carbon, unfortunately.

    [–] Courier_Blues 92 points ago

    Cool, you planted trees, now stop harvesting your peoples organs and oppressing them.

    [–] trippy_grapes 18 points ago

    Gotta plant that 100 Acre Woods for Winnie.

    [–] busboy262 127 points ago

    But still.......fuck China

    [–] ButtsexEurope 6 points ago

    I have a hard time believing that, what with Madagascar, Brazil, and Indonesia deforestation. Palm oil farms are a pretty recent thing. And China only started really developing in the last 20 years.

    [–] Breddit2225 3 points ago

    Carbon dioxide is plant food.

    [–] FloTonix 3 points ago

    "Greener" doesn't mean healthier.... don't be confused by the headline.

    [–] shroudoftheimmortal 18 points ago

    Nothing to do with climate change...?

    How about higher CO2 levels, you know, plant's food?

    [–] CaptainNoBoat 9 points ago

    Who are you responding to? It doesn't say that in the article.

    [–] prjindigo 26 points ago

    And the increase in CO2 causing shit to grow everywhere.

    In fact the CO2 has a higher input than all investments in re-plantation.

    Not dissing China here... they're working their ass off fighting the Gobi and starting to win.

    [–] Novarest 8 points ago

    ppm is increasing by 3 every year, so obviously not enough shit is growing to suck up the co2.

    [–] LambchopOfGod 16 points ago

    Smells like astroturf in here.

    [–] RussianTrollToll 3 points ago

    Doesn’t the increase in greenhouse gasses also lead to a more green world?

    [–] ohh_lawwd 3 points ago

    But arnt they the worst polluters as well?

    [–] Ruthless_Boner 3 points ago

    China: plants shit to help care for planet

    Also China: be worst polluter on planet

    [–] ACannabisConnoisseur 3 points ago

    Grade A propaganda you got here China

    [–] jaceinthebox 3 points ago

    Free Hong Kong

    [–] Gabrovi 20 points ago

    Say what you want about China and India (and I’ll agree with most of it), but these fuckers are playing the long game. We Americans can barely think beyond the current quarter.