[odyssey7]

This makes me want to see designated areas for old-growth forests to re-establish, and yet there’s almost no chance that the people living in those areas 2000 years from now will have continuously held the same values and kept the project going.

[Slevin11]

Plenty of people in California are doing this. Basically they buy a large amount of acreage up where nobody cares (mostly Mendocino county or Humboldt county, but sporadically throughout Sonoma County / Marin County/ rest of the Bay) then spend about a decade putting the land into a trust, and marking each separate trees to make sure people don’t poach them. The largest one is the ‘Save the Redwoods’ league, but I’ve spent many days hiking through redwood preserves just from some random person who died and made a land trust as their legacy.

People 2000 years from now will also be enamored with Redwoods (provided they still exist), they’ve been highly regarded for thousands of years already, and they will for thousands more.

[odyssey7]

I hope these efforts work out. Interesting approach.

[tomcam]

Cynic. I plan to prove you wrong.

Day 1: Trees in backyard are fine. Sent a triumphant note to Odyssey7.

[odyssey7]

Amazing. Keep me posted!

[tomcam]

I’LL SHOW YOU BUDDY

[wesleyd]

Maybe the Chernobyl exclusion zone will become an old growth forest some day!

[graphe]

The idea of using nuclear waste to protect pristine natural environments is a good one. It's the most effective one we have today. After a few generations I heard animals aren't affected anymore, it also depends on the kind of fallout.