Hacker News Reader

Comment by pkphilip | Hacker News Reader

Buy some land in a cheap rural place and fill it with fruit trees and contribute that towards the community each year. That will sequester far more carbon and help the environment more than contributing funds towards these sorts of programmes - and you will likely build up some immovable assets over time.

View on HN

Or buy some land and leave it alone, let nature do it's thing. Sadly this is not possible as in most places there is legislation in place that prevents you from "mismanaging" land like this.

I'm thinking about doing something like this, but it involves work. I'm going to find native species, maybe focusing on some insect that's in decline, find it's nursery/food plants and fill an area with them, along with any other plants and fungi that have symbiotic relationships with them. Then apply for a grant that specifically targets the threatened species. That way, it's official. It's a ton of work though.

I just realized how much I'd like to see a website summarizing legislation for various countries in the world, and venues into purchasing land for the respective locations. I want a hometurf.eco :)

I think it is more fun and fulfilling to attempt to do something with the land - to make it useful towards the local community, than leaving it to nature to just fill the land. For instance, if you make a small pond, you could suddenly have a very interesting ecosystem in this land

This makes a lot less sense as an impact strategy than buying solar.

I'm not saying solar is optimized, versus say competent lobbying or something smarter, but at least it directly addresses long term climate issues and has a clear causal effect not just on personal consumption but unit price also (and thus others' future energy purchases as consequence).

Building up top soil is better than trees.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com