Earth has more trees than it did 35 years ago - but there’s a huge catch
However, an important distinction needs to be made between tree cover and forest cover.
The study points out that industrial timber plantations, mature oil palm estates and other specifically planted forests add to global tree cover. On paper these areas compensate for the primary forest that has been cut down; 100-hectare loss of primary forest is perfectly offset by a 100-hectare gain on a man-made plantation, for example.
But while they may be equal in area, they are not equal in biodiversity. Primary tropical forests and savannas harbour a wealth of flora and fauna which is lost when these areas are cleared.
Comments
-
But but but
-
But how many trees compared to 400 years ago?
-
But the big issue is CO2 capture which is greater in young trees. Biodiversity in an old growth Douglas Fir forest is minimal. Mammal and bird diversity explodes after a clear cut and replant. Just a little knowledge bomb for you leftards.
-
We always loose to Cal -
Maybe more considering we used to burn wood chips for fuel, maybe less because population has exploded. I guess about the same, given how much we replant them. I also hear trees are the earth’s lungs.2001400ex said:But how many trees compared to 400 years ago?
@ThomasFremont @collegedoog -
That’s literally what they do.PurpleJ said:
Maybe more considering we used to burn wood chips for fuel, maybe less because population has exploded. I guess about the same, given how much we replant them. I also hear trees are the earth’s lungs.2001400ex said:But how many trees compared to 400 years ago?
@ThomasFremont @collegedoog -
You are correct of course. Funny how the left manipulates the truth to force us all to live like they want us to.WestlinnDuck said:But the big issue is CO2 capture which is greater in young trees. Biodiversity in an old growth Douglas Fir forest is minimal. Mammal and bird diversity explodes after a clear cut and replant. Just a little knowledge bomb for you leftards.
Last week we were treated to an explanation of why the smallest recorded hole in the ozone near the South Pole was no big deal and "probably" didn't have anything to do with human efforts to limit pollution but was "probably" the result of "freakish weather" . I thought that was a funny one. An entire movement based off of repeated references to a growing hole in the ozone layer and when it has shrunk and is the smallest ever recorded it seems to mean nothing. Hilarious. Billion dollar bullshit. -
You guys are weird
-
Nice rebuttal with facts.Gwad said:You guys are weird
-
Where did you read that one at?Bendintheriver said:
You are correct of course. Funny how the left manipulates the truth to force us all to live like they want us to.WestlinnDuck said:But the big issue is CO2 capture which is greater in young trees. Biodiversity in an old growth Douglas Fir forest is minimal. Mammal and bird diversity explodes after a clear cut and replant. Just a little knowledge bomb for you leftards.
Last week we were treated to an explanation of why the smallest recorded hole in the ozone near the South Pole was no big deal and "probably" didn't have anything to do with human efforts to limit pollution but was "probably" the result of "freakish weather" . I thought that was a funny one. An entire movement based off of repeated references to a growing hole in the ozone layer and when it has shrunk and is the smallest ever recorded it seems to mean nothing. Hilarious. Billion dollar bullshit. -
A NASA scientist hailed the shrinkage as "really good news," though it seems more a result of freakish weather than reduced pollution.2001400ex said:
Where did you read that one at?Bendintheriver said:
You are correct of course. Funny how the left manipulates the truth to force us all to live like they want us to.WestlinnDuck said:But the big issue is CO2 capture which is greater in young trees. Biodiversity in an old growth Douglas Fir forest is minimal. Mammal and bird diversity explodes after a clear cut and replant. Just a little knowledge bomb for you leftards.
Last week we were treated to an explanation of why the smallest recorded hole in the ozone near the South Pole was no big deal and "probably" didn't have anything to do with human efforts to limit pollution but was "probably" the result of "freakish weather" . I thought that was a funny one. An entire movement based off of repeated references to a growing hole in the ozone layer and when it has shrunk and is the smallest ever recorded it seems to mean nothing. Hilarious. Billion dollar bullshit.
https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/ozone-hole-near-south-pole-shrinks-smallest-size-ever-seen-ncna1070211 -
Yeah.... That's what a scientist says. So I'll take his word over yours.Bendintheriver said:
A NASA scientist hailed the shrinkage as "really good news," though it seems more a result of freakish weather than reduced pollution.2001400ex said:
Where did you read that one at?Bendintheriver said:
You are correct of course. Funny how the left manipulates the truth to force us all to live like they want us to.WestlinnDuck said:But the big issue is CO2 capture which is greater in young trees. Biodiversity in an old growth Douglas Fir forest is minimal. Mammal and bird diversity explodes after a clear cut and replant. Just a little knowledge bomb for you leftards.
Last week we were treated to an explanation of why the smallest recorded hole in the ozone near the South Pole was no big deal and "probably" didn't have anything to do with human efforts to limit pollution but was "probably" the result of "freakish weather" . I thought that was a funny one. An entire movement based off of repeated references to a growing hole in the ozone layer and when it has shrunk and is the smallest ever recorded it seems to mean nothing. Hilarious. Billion dollar bullshit.
https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/ozone-hole-near-south-pole-shrinks-smallest-size-ever-seen-ncna1070211
The 1987 international Montreal Protocol — the only United Nations treaty ratified by every country on Earth — banned many of the chlorine compounds used in refrigerants and aerosols. The ban resulted in a slightly smaller ozone hole in recent years, but this year's dramatic shrinking isn't from those efforts, Newman said. -
Shrinkage is never good news.Bendintheriver said:
A NASA scientist hailed the shrinkage as "really good news," though it seems more a result of freakish weather than reduced pollution.2001400ex said:
Where did you read that one at?Bendintheriver said:
You are correct of course. Funny how the left manipulates the truth to force us all to live like they want us to.WestlinnDuck said:But the big issue is CO2 capture which is greater in young trees. Biodiversity in an old growth Douglas Fir forest is minimal. Mammal and bird diversity explodes after a clear cut and replant. Just a little knowledge bomb for you leftards.
Last week we were treated to an explanation of why the smallest recorded hole in the ozone near the South Pole was no big deal and "probably" didn't have anything to do with human efforts to limit pollution but was "probably" the result of "freakish weather" . I thought that was a funny one. An entire movement based off of repeated references to a growing hole in the ozone layer and when it has shrunk and is the smallest ever recorded it seems to mean nothing. Hilarious. Billion dollar bullshit.
https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/ozone-hole-near-south-pole-shrinks-smallest-size-ever-seen-ncna1070211
-
Noted HCH ecologist heard fromWestlinnDuck said:But the big issue is CO2 capture which is greater in young trees. Biodiversity in an old growth Douglas Fir forest is minimal. Mammal and bird diversity explodes after a clear cut and replant. Just a little knowledge bomb for you leftards.
-
Anyone else watch the Biggest Little Farm documentary?Gwad said:https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/08/planet-earth-has-more-trees-than-it-did-35-years-ago/
However, an important distinction needs to be made between tree cover and forest cover.
The study points out that industrial timber plantations, mature oil palm estates and other specifically planted forests add to global tree cover. On paper these areas compensate for the primary forest that has been cut down; 100-hectare loss of primary forest is perfectly offset by a 100-hectare gain on a man-made plantation, for example.
But while they may be equal in area, they are not equal in biodiversity. Primary tropical forests and savannas harbour a wealth of flora and fauna which is lost when these areas are cleared. -
Couldn't put it downBennyBeaver said:
Anyone else watch the Biggest Little Farm documentary?Gwad said:https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/08/planet-earth-has-more-trees-than-it-did-35-years-ago/
However, an important distinction needs to be made between tree cover and forest cover.
The study points out that industrial timber plantations, mature oil palm estates and other specifically planted forests add to global tree cover. On paper these areas compensate for the primary forest that has been cut down; 100-hectare loss of primary forest is perfectly offset by a 100-hectare gain on a man-made plantation, for example.
But while they may be equal in area, they are not equal in biodiversity. Primary tropical forests and savannas harbour a wealth of flora and fauna which is lost when these areas are cleared.
