Warming Climate–not Overgrazing–is Biggest Threat to Rangelands, Study Suggests
Key topics
A new study suggests that warming climate is the biggest threat to rangelands, contradicting the common narrative that overgrazing is the primary cause of degradation, sparking discussion on the implications for land management and climate policy.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Moderate engagementFirst comment
1h
Peak period
9
0-3h
Avg / period
4.8
Based on 19 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Oct 2, 2025 at 8:48 AM EDT
3 months ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Oct 2, 2025 at 9:55 AM EDT
1h after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
9 comments in 0-3h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Oct 3, 2025 at 10:35 PM EDT
3 months ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
Where I am, snow is a very rare event, usually it was not rare to have a little snow at the start of October. Now, we are lucky to see any snow in time for Sanata Claus :)
Last year was the first time the local lake froze and stayed frozen for decades, we were able to walk safely on it all winter. It was not that cold, but all winter it was below 32F (0C), but we never went much below 20F (-7C). In the past we would regularly go a bit below 0F (-18C). Now, it is usual we get a few days of temps in the 50sF (10C) every couple of weeks.
Even with this, I know many neighbors who say there is no climate change. With our lily livered politicians, we all know nothing will ever be done to avoid Climate Change here in the US.
In the late 1980s there were predictions that snow would entirely disappear in the UK (or at least England) by the end of the century and children would grow up never seeing snow.
We still have heavy snow every few years, and some snow most winters.
I remember those articles and I kind of believed them until President Carter brought up global warming.
As many of us know now, those where based upon studies bought and paid for by the oil companies.
I even got an account to a british newspaper database website [1] to try to find popular discussion of this claim. I was unable to find anything in maybe 10 minutes of looking.
[1] https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/search/results/198...
EDIT: I will also drop this citation for the general question of whether change is happening slower than previously predicted https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/201...
There are some land restore projects in the middle east where the primary action was simply keeping the sheep from eating anything green that sticks out above the soil with simple fences. That seems to work and can restore barren landscapes in a few short years. Some studies in e.g. Jordany and the UK (places like Scottland should be covered in atlantic rainforest instead of being grazed into a barren landscape) and elsewhere seem to indicate that keeping sheep away for a while gives plants and trees a chance to re-establish themselves.
Trees are really vulnerable in their first few years and a tasty snack for grazing animals that without natural predators can strip the land of anything green in no time.
Healthy pasture requires a certain rhythm/ amount of hoof traffic to stay healthy.
It's why land restoration in the (US) Midwest/West tends to do much better if it includes a reintroduced (managed) grazing component.
And why even wild pasture in Africa typically has a cycle of trample and/or natural burn as part of it's life cycle.
This may or may not apply to previously forested land, depending on what's in-situ, but grazing should be seen just as much as a positive requirement, as overgrazing is seen as a detriment/negative.
Now if your goal is reforestation instead of just healthy pasture or other sustainable ecotype, that's different .
But don't assume just because land can sustain forest, that forest is the 'natural' ecosystem. See: the US history of pasture vs forest. There's more forest now than there was pre-euro settlement.
The kind of ridiculous comment only an economist/business professor would make.
The agriculture equivalent of pastoralists also used to use slash and burn techniques to grow crops destroying and depleting massive troves of land. It was people in lab coats, suits and ties who figured this was wrong, found better alternatives and then passed policies and laws to switch to those better alternatives.
The appeal to folk wisdom is one of the most annoying rhetorical tactics and its use here only serves to undermine the credibility of the findings.
Sure, you won't convince anyone who has spent a minimal amount of time to learn critical thinking. However, they are a scant minority.
Translation to the global south works sometimes and sometimes it doesn't work.
This is the guy for context - it's a very interesting video that really highlights the impact that over-grazing has: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VZSJKbzyMc
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/2000%2B_...
10 more comments available on Hacker News