July 29, 2021
Early on in the pandemic, one of my favorite finance writers—Matt Levine at Bloomberg—coined the “boredom markets hypothesis.” It’s a fancy way of describing the pandemic-fueled surge in investors: folks at home during lockdown who couldn’t do other fun things for entertainment, so they started trading stocks in the giant casino that is the American stock market. There’s one company that’s been particularly popular among all these new, stuck-at-home investors: the trading app Robinhood. The app’s pandemic fame propelled it to this week, when it went public to much fanfare, offering up shares of itself to investors who think the company could be worth a lot. ($32 billion to be exact!)
Named after the wealth-redistributing outlaw of Nottingham himself, the Robinhood app rose to prominence by pioneering the ability for people to trade commission-free. It fashioned itself as the good guy of finance, out to democratize the highfalutin’ world of investing.
But that’s not quite how things have turned out. For our July/August issue, I investigated how Robinhood capitalizes on the youth and inexperience of many of its users to drive enormous profits to Wall Street—and itself. I told this story through the tragic tale of a 20-year-old investor who took his own life last summer, after the app’s misleading design mistakenly showed him that he’d lost $730,000 on the app. The tragedy led federal regulators to scrutinize the app and to slap it with more than $130 million in fines in the last year alone. There’s a lot more to the tale of this company—a golden child of Silicon Valley with a dark underbelly.
A new study finds that Republicans could gain up to 13 seats in Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and Texas.
BY ARI BERMAN
BY NATHALIE BAPTISTE
BY ISABELA DIAS
BY MARIA GALLUCCI
BY TIM MURPHY
Does running for office make him less dangerous—or more?
BY STEPHANIE MENCIMER
Support from readers allows Mother Jones to do journalism that doesn’t just follow the pack.Donate
SOME GOOD NEWS, FOR ONCE
When it comes to climate change research, most studies bear bad news regarding the looming, very real threat of a warming planet and the resulting devastation that it will bring upon the Earth. But a recent study in the journal Science offers a sliver of hope for the world: A group of researchers based in Switzerland, Italy, and France found that expanding forests, which sequester carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, could seriously make up for humans’ toxic carbon emissions.
In 2018, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world’s foremost authority on climate, estimated that we’d need to plant 1 billion hectares of forest by 2050 to keep the globe from warming a full 1.5 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial levels. (One hectare is about twice the size of a football field.) Not only is that “undoubtedly achievable,” according to the study’s authors, but global tree restoration is “our most effective climate change solution to date.”
In fact, there’s space on the planet for an extra 900 million hectares of canopy cover, the researchers found, which translates to storage for a whopping 205 gigatonnes of carbon. To put that in perspective, humans emit about 10 gigatonnes of carbon from burning fossil fuels every year, according to Richard Houghton, a senior scientist at the Woods Hole Research Center, who was not involved with the study. And overall, there are now about 850 gigatonnes of carbon in the atmosphere; a tree-planting effort on that scale could, in theory, cut carbon by about 25 percent, according to the authors.
In addition to that, Houghton says, trees are relatively cheap carbon consumers. As he put it, “There are technologies people are working on to take carbon dioxide out of the air. And trees do it—for nothing.”
To make this bold prediction, the researchers identified what tree cover looks like in nearly 80,000 half-hectare plots in existing forests. They then used that data to map how much canopy cover would be possible in other regions—excluding urban or agricultural land—depending on the area’s topography, climate, precipitation levels, and other environmental variables. The result revealed where trees might grow outside of existing forests.
“We know a single tree can capture a lot of carbon. What we don’t know is how many trees the planet can support,” says Jean-François Bastin, an ecologist and postdoc at ETH-Zürich, a university in Zürich, Switzerland, and the study’s lead author, adding, “This gives us an idea.”
They found that all that tree-planting potential isn’t spaced evenly across the globe. Six countries, in fact, hold more than half of the world’s area for potential tree restoration (in this order): Russia, the United States, Canada, Australia, Brazil, and China. The United States alone has room for more than 100 million hectares of additional tree cover—greater than the size of Texas.
The study, however, has its limitations. For one, a global tree-planting effort is somewhat impractical. As the authors write, “it remains unclear what proportion of this land is public or privately owned, and so we cannot identify how much land is truly available for restoration.” Rob Jackson, who chairs the Earth System Science Department and Global Carbon Project at Stanford University and was not involved with the study, agrees that forest management plays an important role in the fight against climate change, but says the paper’s finding that humans could reduce atmospheric carbon by 25 percent by planting trees seemed “unrealistic,” and wondered what kinds of trees would be most effective or how forest restoration may disrupt agriculture.
“Forests and soils are the cheapest and fastest way to remove carbon from the atmosphere—lots of really good opportunities there,” he said. “I get uneasy when we start talking about managing billions of extra acres of land, with one goal in mind: to store carbon.” Bastin, though, says the study is “about respecting the natural ecosystem,” and not simply planting “100 percent tree cover.” He also clarified that planting trees alone cannot fix climate change. The problem is “related to the way we are living on the planet,” he says.
Caveats aside, Houghton sees the study as a useful exercise in what’s possible. “[The study] is setting the limits,” says Houghton. “It’s not telling us at all how to implement it. That’s what our leaders have to think about.”
—Jackie Flynn Mogensen