Earth Home To 3 Trillion Trees, Half As Many As When Human Civilization Arose

sciencehabit writes: Earth today supports more than 3 trillion trees—eight times as many as we thought a decade ago. But that number is rapidly shrinking, according to a global tree survey released today (abstract). We are losing 15 billion trees a year to toilet paper, timber, farmland expansion, and other human needs. So even though the total count is large, the decline is "a cause for concern," says Tom Spies, a forest ecologist with the U.S. Forest Service in Corvallis, Oregon, who was not involved with the work.

Comments

Three Seashells

[The Rizz]

We are losing 15 billion trees a year to toilet paper

Looks like it's time to institute the Three Seashells.

Re:Three Seashells

[Anonymous Coward]

Minus one for linking. Never explain the joke!

Re:Three Seashells

[The Rizz]

I considered not linking, but I did it as a public service announcement to everyone under the age of 30 (who have no idea this movie exists).
The More You Know, right? And Knowing Is Half The Battle!

Re:Three Seashells

[Nethemas the Great]

Not sure about the seashells, however I wonder if there might not be benefit in using say bamboo instead of traditional trees for paper products such as bumwad. It grows substantially faster and by my reckoning would translate into a smaller footprint required to produce.

Re:Three Seashells

[FlyHelicopters]

The More You Know, right? And Knowing Is Half The Battle!

Yo Joe! :)

Re:Three Seashells

[Firethorn]

would translate into a smaller footprint required to produce.

This brings up an important point that detracts from the article. Toilet paper and timber today are overwhelmingly produced from farmed trees. Timber is, generally speaking, sequestering the wood. Discounting the costs of processing and shipping, toilet paper is actually renewable. After all, after you harvest a field to make into TP, you simply plant more trees.

Remove them, and you might run into the problem seen by African Rhinos - where complete bans on their horns actually increases their vulnerability to poachers, because you've removed much of the economics of having them, thus reducing money available to protect them and even breed more of them.

Lions aren't easy to farm either, but at least the Chinese are doing it.

Re:Three Seashells

[Nethemas the Great]

An interesting point but hopefully the answer isn't to put it all "under the plow" for the sake of poachers. To my understanding, young growth forests aren't as environmentally productive in some respects as compared to old growth. There are also costs related to harvesting that I would guess exceed that of a bamboo farm.

Re:Three Seashells

[lgw]

Not sure about the seashells, however I wonder if there might not be benefit in using say bamboo instead of traditional trees for paper products such as bumwad. It grows substantially faster and by my reckoning would translate into a smaller footprint required to produce.

No, it's not even relevant. As much as hippies like to pretend there's something you can do in your home to help the environment, this is not a US problem. Forest coverage in the US has grown substantially since the 50s, as crop yields increase there is simply less farmland, and more forest.

Almost all paper used in the US comes from tree farms, which are just a different kind of cropland, raised and harvested on a longer cycle than corn, but still a normal-ish cash crop.

At this point, increased paper use in the US likely increases forest coverage, as more land is used for tree farms to meet demand.

Most forest loss is simply not about paper use, but about clearing land for people to live and (mostly) farm, and we've seen that the pendulum eventually swings the other way, with high-tech farming taking so much less land.

Re:Three Seashells

[Firethorn]

An interesting point but hopefully the answer isn't to put it all "under the plow" for the sake of poachers.

Hell no. But there are already ranchers in Africa that are raising Rhinos and humanely cutting the horn regularly, storing the currently illegal to sell product. Allow them to profit from it and the practice would relatively explode, even if still confined to said ranches. Meanwhile, they make enough money from their operations to hire sufficient security that poachers would find getting the limited amounts of horn from Rhinos on the ranch which have their horns regularly trimmed too little return for the risk - besides the whole idea that it'd crash the rhino horn market at least a bit.

As for costs of harvesting from a tree farm - that's complicated. You can grow trees further north, for example, than bamboo. Even then, we know how to make products from wood that we don't have experience with for bamboo. I'm sure substitute processes can be developed, and should probably be explored, but you can end up with a sugar cane/sugar bean split where 'both' is the ultimate answer.

Re:Three Seashells

[Nidi62]

I considered not linking, but I did it as a public service announcement to everyone under the age of 30 (who have no idea this movie exists).

Hey, I'm 28 (well, almost 29) and I know about the movie, you insensitive clod! And let me tell you, I would much rather choose running around naked covered in green jello singing "I'm an Oscar Meyer Wiener" than having the only restaurant be a vegetarian Taco Bell.

Re:Three Seashells

[Jawnn]

No, it's not even relevant. As much as hippies like to pretend there's something you can do in your home to help the environment, this is not a US problem. Forest coverage in the US has grown substantially since the 50s, as crop yields increase there is simply less farmland, and more forest.

Bullshit. The same utter bullshit that the forest products industry has been spewing for almost as long. "Trees - America's renewable resource". Well, if by "trees" we mean large swaths of Douglas Fir or Poplar monoculture, sure. If we mean a mature and diverse climax forest, no. Not even close. If, by "renewable", we mean "we grow as many board feet as we harvest", again, no. Not even close, the boast about "we plant ten trees for every tree we cut down" sounds good, but it is nowhere near actually replacing what was lost.

Re:Three Seashells

[Anonymous Coward]

If those companies had any brains they'd be making paper from hemp which is far cheaper to grow than trees and has a much higher yield per acre year.

Then both the hippies and people such as yourself would be happy!

Re:Three Seashells

[Anonymous Coward]

Good points. I am glad my new house has already been framed and floored. We can stop using wood now. But, back in the real world - you are absolutely right about diverse old trees. That just doesn't happen with the mass replanting of tiny trees which are all of the same type and will take 100 years to be harvestable.

Re:Three Seashells

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Or better yet, just institute the Oregon Protocol as international law: plant three trees for every one you cut down.

Re:Three Seashells

[Marxist Hacker 42]

The most common replanted tree clone, Weyerhouser Supertrees, take 30 years to mature. You're also an idiot to plant monocultures of any tree, even Bamboo, which takes a few short months to mature. The reason is evolution and disease. Your chance of having those trees reach maturity is very low.

Oregon's done a lot since the "plant three for every one you take" rule came into effect; we now have forest fires instead of clear cuts. I am assuming the ecoterrorists like Tre Arrow actually prefer fires.

Re:Three Seashells

[morgauxo]

How much natural old growth forest is left in the US*?
How much of that is getting cut down to make toilet paper or even timber for that matter?
How much of that natural old growth isn't currently protected as part of a national forrest?

I've seen woods that were cut down to make paper in northern Michigan. They already were exactly the same monocultures you are talking about. The land being cleared was land that had been cleared many times before! Maybe that land held an old growth forrest 100 or more years ago. Then again it could have been a swamp which has since been drained or prairie that started growing trees because people wouldn't let it burn naturally. At this point I cannot tell.

Whatever the case is there really much old growth forest getting cut down in the US today?

* - grandparent post was US-centric thus this one is too

Re:Three Seashells

[lgw]

Well, if by "trees" we mean large swaths of Douglas Fir or Poplar monoculture, sure. If we mean a mature and diverse climax forest, no.

And so what? Why should any non-hippie care. It's not a theme park for your amusement.

If, by "renewable", we mean "we grow as many board feet as we harvest", again, no. Not even close,

Yes, 90%+ of all wood used in the US comes from tree farms now, and basically all paper (it's just cheaper for paper).

is nowhere near actually replacing what was lost.

Sure, that's not the job of the paper company anyhow. Most forest land lost over the centuries, and with farms now being very small compared to "peak farmland", forests are coming back (the natural process isn't quick, but more every decade since the 50s).

Re:Three Seashells

[tburkhol]

But there are already ranchers in Africa that are raising Rhinos and humanely cutting the horn regularly, storing the currently illegal to sell product. Allow them to profit from it and the practice would relatively explode, even if still confined to said ranches.

I think the underlying question here is whether a rhino in a paddock, eating Cheetos and having its horn shaved every full moon, counts as a "real" rhino. Are the conservationists interested in the mere existence of rhino animals (which may have genetic diversity reduce by selective breeding), or are they interested in restoring the majestic, roving herds of rhinos that roamed Africa before the white man? My guess is that a lot of them would rather see the species extinct than reduced to domestic cattle.

Re:Three Seashells

[Red Flayer]

and basically all paper (it's just cheaper for paper).

A lot of the paper pulp is coming from tropical palm plantations; they are much quicker to yield than temperate forests. Paper pulp demand is still causing deforestation in tropical areas, just not so much in the US.

Re:Three Seashells

[Falos]

You could interpret a captive rhino as one less hunted. It's oversimplified, but grow 1000 farm trees and that's 1000 wild ones not getting chopped.

Re:Three Seashells

[pipingguy]

"Discounting the costs of processing and shipping, toilet paper is actually renewable."

And it comes with its own fertilizer!

Re:Three Seashells

[Firethorn]

My guess is that a lot of them would rather see the species extinct than reduced to domestic cattle.

Then they're asshats. Seriously. Right now there's not enough Rhinos period for healthy genetic diversity.

Anyways, the ranchers mentioned don't keep their animals tightly confined, and horn harvest is about once a year, not monthly.

Besides, if you can fulfill enough of the demand with legal product, the economic motive to poach is decreased, meaning less pressure on the herds, leaving population growth and land takeover as the biggest threats. Get Africans up to even 2nd world standards and their birth rate should drop like the others, they'll become concerned about the environment like we did, etc...

So you can end up with a situation like in Europe - plenty of wild boars still exist, even though pig farms do as well. Heck, USA and it's feral populations of pigs and horses.

Re:Three Seashells

[stephenmac7]

Or, just use a washlet.

Re:Three Seashells

[drinkypoo]

And let me tell you, I would much rather choose running around naked covered in green jello singing "I'm an Oscar Meyer Wiener" than having the only restaurant be a vegetarian Taco Bell.

But are you ready to eat rat burgers? You see any cows around here? Er, wait...

Re:Three Seashells

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah! And, and, and the guy who said that the decline is cause for concern? Of course he'd say that! He works for Forestry! He has to say that, it's what he's paid to do!!

Re: Three Seashells

[Anonymous Coward]

You sure licked his ass!

Re:Three Seashells

[kenai_alpenglow]

to add to that, we (tree farmers) are also (usually) growing sawlogs. To do that, we have to thin the pines at a certain size. These culls go to the papermills. Those trees have to come out (google "Southern Pine Beetle"); we either send them to the paper mill/chip-n-saw mill/etc or they rot on the ground. Growing up, I've seen a lot of former farmland change over to tree farms--more trees now then in the past...

Re:Three Seashells

[thinkwaitfast]

Most trees in the US were chopped down in the 1800's. There are more trees now than there were 100 years ago. Not old growth, but younger, faster growing (with more co2 gobbling).

Re:Three Seashells

[Anonymous Coward]

Young growing forests and plantations are bigger carbon sinks. In fact it is important to distinguish between clearing and harvesting. Forests come back readily if you don't put farmland or houses in the way. Trees are renewable, you need to do something with the bits left over from timber production, so you make chipboard, MDF and paper.

Re:Three Seashells

[dryeo]

Toilet paper is usually, at least around here, made from Poplar, mainly Cottonwood though the farmed Poplar are hybrids.

Re:Three Seashells

[dryeo]

Forest fires are part of the cycle. Most every (natural) stand of Douglas Fir owes its existence to fire as they are shade intolerant. Vancouver Island has burned about every 1000 years. Trees such as the Jack Pine depend on fire to open their cones. Lodgepole are similar.
Clearcuts also burn, especially in the days (30+ years ago here) when if a tree wasn't 16 inches at the top, it was left. Where I am, the last fire was about 95 years ago, which was when it was first logged.

Re:Three Seashells

[dryeo]

If those companies had any brains they'd be making paper from hemp which is far cheaper to grow than trees and has a much higher yield per acre year.

Then both the hippies and people such as yourself would be happy!

Hearst made sure that wouldn't happen, as he had heavily invested in wood pulp paper. It's amazing that such a useful plant such as Hemp can be made illegal in such a short time, capitalism at its best.

Re:Three Seashells

[KGIII]

I own a significant quantity of land and a good portion of that is land that was once owned by the International Paper Company. Some of that growth is harvested today but it goes to chip or a different paper mill now. At the same time, there's still a lot of unmanaged woodland here though I am learning timber stand improvement and a neighbor deals with most of it.

What I'm curious about, and have never found, was an average. I can't find a table that is applicable to my zone that I can use to find an estimate of how many trees are on the property. Somewhere, I do have those numbers for the replanted trees where harvesting was done.

Many people think that clear cutting is the norm. I used to to think that. In fact, properly managed growth is fantastic for the environment and ecology. Animals hang out where there are breaks (there's another word for it but I've forgotten it). So where you cut a tote road, have a clearing, or things like that? Animals thrive along those breaks be they natural or man made. Where the intersection between one zone and another is is where you find animals and diversity in the flora. It needn't even be a large break - look at all the animals that surround a small stream.

Anyhow, if anyone knows of such a table for an average tree growth in my area (NW Maine, mountains/foothills region - lat 43-47) I'd love to see it. It needn't be exact and won't be but I've smoked a lot of weed and wondered how many trees are here.

There are some cars (trucks often) that have an old bumper sticker. "Question 2" was a ballot question back in the days before I retired here. I don't specifically know the exact question but it involved something to do with hindering logging operations more than they already are around here. We have some pretty good regulations here in Maine but I digress. The bumper sticker says, "If you want to vote yes on Question 2 then try wiping your ass with plastic." That generally makes me chuckle but I'm easily amused. It's pretty typical Maine humor.

Finally, properly managed tree growth is a fantastic renewable resource. This doesn't mean cut it all down and chop up the rain forest. It means managed wood lots are a viable solution. On top of that, you can bring paper back to pulp and reuse it a number of ways and times. I've heard people suggest that all tree harvesting was wrong - yes, all. Fortunately that's not the norm and, I think, most people are more pragmatic than that.

Re:Three Seashells

[KGIII]

It would still be grown as a mono-culture crop so we'd still hear complaints. The varied definitions people use for 'natural' is just another form of intellectual dishonesty.

Re:Three Seashells

[riverat1]

They're not going to use old growth* to make paper (except the trimmings). It's too valuable as lumber.

*At least not the old growth we have in Oregon.

Re:Three Seashells

[jandersen]

As much as hippies like to pretend there's something you can do in your home to help the environment, this is not a US problem.

Oh, grow up, why don't you? Just like climate change and pollution, deforestation is a global problem in a global economy: when you go and buy things made from illegally or irresponsibly cut timber, you are contributing to the global problem of deforestation, whether you like to admit it or not. And becasue of the way the sacred 'free market' works, consumers in the rich nations keep buying cheap, so the producers keep sourcing the cheapest wood, which very often turns out to be illegally cut in vulnerable, wild forest. So there are things you could do: insist on buying things that are sourced locally, for example. And start taking an interest, would be another good move.

And then, you should try to gain some insight into what the hippies were and the legacy you now enjoy. Yes, they were naive and quite often misguided, but a lot of the freedoms you now take for granted were not at all obvious rights back in the 1960es; the hippie-movement played a significant role in changing this. I don't have a problem with people not seeing things my way - I could after all be mistaken, it wouldn't be the first time - but I find it hard to respect arguments that are simply based on wilful ignorance and prejudice.

Re: Three Seashells

[Anonymous Coward]

We got the Pizza Hut version here in OZ. That scene made for very awkward viewing.

Re:Three Seashells

[Anonymous Coward]

It's took 100,000 years to get rid of half of them so far, there must be something more we can do to get rid of this terrible plague which blights the earth.

Re:Three Seashells

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but those poaching sub-humans do not understand what resource management is, so...

Re:Three Seashells

[dryeo]

It has been a long time since I've done silviculture but if I remember, we'd plant at 8ft which is 300 trees an acre and thin them down to 12ft which is 200 trees per acre.
To measure, you'd take random plots, eg throw a weighted flag into the air and wherever it landed, take a piece of rope to measure a circle and count the trees in the plot, repeat after going in a pre-chosen direction x distance (important to be random rather then the easy route). I forget the length of rope but it worked out to the radius of a 100th of an acre so easy to work out how many trees per acre.
Tree growth is going to depend on a lot of things (soil, altitude, type of tree etc) so hard to have a standard chart

Re:Three Seashells

[ihtoit]

virtual sex is already in the bag.

Redtube.

Re:Three Seashells

[ihtoit]

hemp grows practically everywhere. That's one reason the paper lobby came out with "Reefer Madness" as part of the propaganda campaign to turn public attention to the wonders of tree fibre (which is actually inferior in nearly every respect: it takes a LONG time to cultivate as opposed hemp, which grows relatively quickly, has medicinal as well and many and varied industrial uses like rope, paper and cloth, it's also useful as food).

Re:Three Seashells

[ihtoit]

wild boar were exterminated in Britain around 700 years ago, and accidentally reintroduced from Western European stock about twenty years ago. They're not doing too well, given that their old habitats are completely changed. They're woodland creatures, most of the woodland in Britain is now managed, what little is left, most of the rest of the land not given over to urban growth is now given to growing crops for food for humans and animals, and biodiesel. Inevitably the small herds are finding their way onto farmland, digging it up and meeting the business end of shotguns.

Re:Three Seashells

[ihtoit]

are you referring to firebreaks, by any chance?

Re:Three Seashells

[KGIII]

Nope. Thanks but no.

Re:Three Seashells

[KGIII]

Yeah, I have the information for the land that was replanted by the paper company. I may get the gumption up to do your 1/100 of an acre count. I could do that in some random areas and it might not take too much time.

Re:Three Seashells

[weweedmaniii]

And then, you should try to gain some insight into what the hippies were and the legacy you now enjoy.

Like the proliferation of STDs because they were banging everything that had a hole? Or perhaps the increased trafficking of illegal drugs..the hard stuff not the weed, the coke trade by the CIA (don't let anyone fool you kiddos the CIA controls the coke trade in the US) exploded after the love-ins and other types of "Free Expression" or is it the porn industry which sees the 70s & 80s as it's "Golden Age" before STDs that would kill you became an issue...gee those hippies brought us so much I don't know where to start...yeah there were a few tree-huggers here and there along with the ones who spit on and threw things at the GIs returning from overseas duty that most did not volunteer for..oh in case you think I'm some young brat who knows nothing...all those hippies are old enough to be my parents...I was born in the 60s, my babysitters were the younger hippies, and I watched and paid attention to what happened in my neighborhood as a child...

Re:Three Seashells

[perih60]

just thought people should know that taco bell has been redubed to say " pizza hut " think of all them saved treesif they told us what to do with the seashells

Re:Three Seashells

[Firethorn]

This isn't entirely true, I remember a study where they found that processing hemp into paper is more expensive than wood, and the savings from 'quickly growing doesn't counter weigh the ability to just leave trees alone for the requisite time.

IE yeah, you can harvest every year, but you have to harvest every year to get the biomass - the extra harvesting, for less useful mass, ends up being more expensive than planting trees and coming back for harvest 15 years later.

Re:Three Seashells

[ihtoit]

question: who sponsored this study?

Re:Three Seashells

[Firethorn]

It was a university study, I don't remember any sponsors other than that.

Toilet paper and timber?

[ArmoredDragon]

Last I checked, trees earmarked for that purpose were specifically grown for that purpose, and aren't wild trees (thus when they're harvested, they don't count as a lost tree anymore than eating a potato counts as a lost potato.)

Namely, these kinds of farm raised trees:

https://photos.travelblog.org/...

Those kind of trees are even preferred over wild trees because their growth pattern is much better suited to their end purpose.

Re:Toilet paper and timber?

[He Who Has No Name]

Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

We appear to have checked off all three boxes with this article.

Re:Toilet paper and timber?

[pr0fessor]

If you would like to have more trees build a chain link fence... Mine appears to grow plenty of trees.

Re:Toilet paper and timber?

[StikyPad]

That's probably true in the US, at least from what I've heard, but is it true everywhere? China? India? South America?

Re:Toilet paper and timber?

[Nethemas the Great]

While what you say is largely true. What isn't accounted for in it, is that the land originally was wild and presumably contained a natural ecosystem with old-growth trees, etc.. I don't know if that makes a difference or not. Given that natural systems evolved to get along with one another and these "farms" are not natural it might be nice to know if the scale pans are being made imbalanced and what the consequences are.

Re:Toilet paper and timber?

[Anonymous Coward]

No one will give a fuck until it's too late anyway, so I don't know why anyone even bothers. Even if you can get 1st world countries on-board with stopping the damage we're doing to the planet, good bloody luck getting China and India to go along with it. Fact of the matter is we're fucked. At least I'll probably be able to live out the remaining 30 or so years of my life before everything goes completely to hell.

Re:Toilet paper and timber?

[grimmjeeper]

You say that as if you think trees are a renewable resource...

Re:Toilet paper and timber?

[EvilSS]

That's probably true in the US, at least from what I've heard, but is it true everywhere? China? India? South America?

Not sure about India and South America, but China is planting trees for paper production. They don't have a choice. They literally don't have enough natural forests left to support their paper production these days. China has become the world's largest producer of paper. They have been importing timber and pulp from all over the world for a while now but even that isn't sustainable forever. Their low prices have been kept that way by government subsidies for now.

There is a pretty good article on China's paper business on Pulitzer Center.

Re:Toilet paper and timber?

[Hadlock]

Thanks yeah I came here to post this. Not only are trees farm-grown for paper/wood products, but importantly there are more trees now in North America than in 1850 thanks to more efficent planting and better resource planning.
 
It's very likely that due to deforestation for agricultural purposes, there are fewer trees. But paper products are a 100% renewable resource and the wood products industry is actually on top of keeping things replanted etc for a long term crop/resource point of view. So the western world need not worry, it's all the literal dirt-poor farmers in the Amazon who are burning up forest land to plant crops and graze cattle on notoriously nutrient-poor soil. You can help with this by stop eating McDonald's beef products most of which come from that region. The box and bag your Big Mac came in however, were probably made in the USA with renewable materials.

Re:Toilet paper and timber?

[msauve]

Yep. No way can it be taken seriously. Really, off by 800% over a 10 year period, but the author wants to claim a current accuracy of less than 0.2% (assuming he's only rounding to nearest 5 billion)? Nonsense.

Re:Toilet paper and timber?

[thule]

It wouldn't make any sense to take a nice large, straight tree and turn it into paper of any sort. If you need a roof or wall, you have to start with a large straight tree. With paper, the tree is crushed. Why would you need a large straight tree for that? Economics re-enforces this. You're not going to pay extra for a large tree just to crush it

It amazes me that people think they are saving a tree when they don't use paper. I highly doubt they have even seen what kind of trees paper is made from. When I explain this, people usually tell me, "That makes sense." Of course it does!

This reminds me of the Mike Rowe's TED talk about how a lot of people talk about things they think they know. Until a person actually tries sheep farming, they really don't know a thing. I ask my dad (grew up on a farm) about the subject Mike Rowe covered in his talk, and sure enough, he knew about it.

Also of note, the abstract mentions that the number of trees has been too low in previous estimates. I wonder how this new estimate will change climate/CO2 modeling:

"This map reveals that the global number of trees is approximately 3.04 trillion, an order of magnitude higher than the previous estimate."

Re:Toilet paper and timber?

[fourthrail16309]

There's a certain very large paper company who claims they plant 10 trees for every 1 they harvest.

Re:Toilet paper and timber?

[thule]

It is largely true. But, in other words, what is stated in the article about toilet paper is a lie. She doesn't know what she is talking about.

Re:Toilet paper and timber?

[operagost]

I guess because there's that small strip you can't mow, which kills off the saplings. Except for the cedars, those things keep coming back.

Re:Toilet paper and timber?

[OakDragon]

Thanks, I was going to say it if no one else did. :)

In the summary, the phrase " toilet paper, timber, farmland expansion, and other human needs" conflates all of these things. On balance, the paper producers could be actually increasing the number of trees, but be totally offset by clear cutting, etc.

Also, was anyone else actually impressed that we still had half the trees? I kinda am...

Re:Toilet paper and timber?

[ArmoredDragon]

Well, that's not to say that there aren't fewer trees than there are now. I honestly don't know, but I suspect it is true that there are fewer now.

Where I think that mostly comes from is people clearing land for farming in tropical regions (so the Blame America crowd need not apply here.)

IMO the best cure for this? GMO foods. The whole purpose of GMO food in most cases is purely to increase crop yield. Most anti-GMO people are against it because they view it as a quick way to save a buck, but that's the advantage: Saving a buck usually translates into consuming fewer resources, and in the case of GMO food, it means needing to use less land for farming.

And no, contrary to popular belief, GMO food never harmed anybody.

Re:Toilet paper and timber?

[Solandri]

It amazes me that people think they are saving a tree when they don't use paper. I highly doubt they have even seen what kind of trees paper is made from.

There was an insightful /. post years ago which pointed out that recycling paper may actually be bad. When you throw away paper in a landfill, you are sequestering carbon. The tree pulled CO2 out of the atmosphere, we turned it into paper, and threw it away in a landfill. Core samples into old landfills have turned up newspaper fragments a century old in still-readable condition. So that CO2 is being sequestered underground in a landfill. Exactly the opposite of what we're doing with oil (taking it out from the ground, burning it, and releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. So throwing away paper and not recycling it may actually be the best thing for the environment (and by extension, chopping down trees to turn them into paper, as long as you plant new trees to replace the ones you chopped down).

Also of note, the abstract mentions that the number of trees has been too low in previous estimates. I wonder how this new estimate will change climate/CO2 modeling:

That would depend on the biomass of vegetation (not just trees). I haven't read TFA but it appears to only be counting trees. Have they revised their estimates about the amount of plant biomass? (To be precise, only the living plant biomass matters. The wood in the core of a tree is dead, and does not contribute to converting CO2 into cellulose.)

Re: Toilet paper and timber?

[rickb928]

Straight thin trees are similar to harvest mechanically. Monocultured trees mature more predictably and concurrently, and so simplify harvesting. Replanted cuts have been the norm for decades, primarily by the paper industry, but in very limited circumstances for lumber operations.

I'm not surprised that trees are more plentiful now than in the past, not that many will find every possible reason why that is actually bad. Pathetic.

Re: Toilet paper and timber?

[rickb928]

Yes trees are a renewable resource.

You can plant more from seedlings, or preserve some old growth mother trees in the case of northern white pine, seeding naturally, and you will replenish the forest.

What does renewable actually mean to you?

Re: Toilet paper and timber?

[grimmjeeper]

I was being facetious. I probably should have put some kind of indication of that in my post. :)

Re:Toilet paper and timber?

[Anonymous Coward]

I usually go for a week's camping trip in Northern California every summer. I see the logging trucks, I see the trees marked for harvesting - typically with either a ribbon or paint (they try not to get the ones right next to the highway - but instead go way back in over dirt roads to cut them). They are definitely NOT farmed trees, they are original old growth.

Re: Toilet paper and timber?

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem to have overlooked the statement at the end of the article.

âoeTree size, species identity, and tree qualities matter hugely in accounting for the importance of forests and trees outside of forests,â says Robin Chazdon, a forest ecologist on leave from the University of Connecticut, Storrs. âoeThis study does not take those attributes into account.â

You should also be aware that the rate of growth in terms of mass is important and differs from species to species. If you ever visit Sequoia National Park, you may learn that 1% of the old growth trees in a forest can account for as much as 50% of the mass.

This study is only a preliminary exercise in an effort to quantify the importance of trees and forests as they relate to climate change, the global ecology or the sustainability of human populations on earth.

Alone, it could be printed on toilet paper and discarded, much like most of the opinions about it posted here on Slashdot. But that's really nothing new. :-)

Re:Toilet paper and timber?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

"Most anti-GMO people are against it because they view it as a quick way to save a buck"

Have you ever read a Michael Chriton novel at all? I'd have to say most people against GMO are really against using the wild for laboratory accidents.

Re:Toilet paper and timber?

[ArmoredDragon]

Using the wild? Explain.

Re:Toilet paper and timber?

[Anonymous Coward]

Saving a buck usually translates into consuming fewer resources

What? No it doesn't. Lowering the price of a resource generally increases consumption.

Re:Toilet paper and timber?

[Oligonicella]

You understand that a novel is what is known as fiction. This includes many 'facts' the author chooses to inject into the fantasy. So, using a fiction novelist's work as a bolster isn't really a good idea.

Re:Toilet paper and timber?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Most anti-GMO people are against it because they view it as a quick way to save a buck"

Have you ever read a Michael Chriton novel at all? I'd have to say most people against GMO are really against using the wild for laboratory accidents.

Yeah, I can't wait for the T-Rex that can't see objects that sit still.

IOW, I'm LMAO at you.

Re:Toilet paper and timber?

[bill_mcgonigle]

With paper, the tree is crushed. Why would you need a large straight tree for that? Economics re-enforces this. You're not going to pay extra for a large tree just to crush it

What? Have you even been to an active paper company forest?

This reminds me of the Mike Rowe's TED talk about how a lot of people talk about things they think they know.

Yeah.

Re:Toilet paper and timber?

[Firethorn]

Not every tree farm is located where there used to be old growth forest.

Every tree in North Dakota, for example, was either planted by a human or descended from a tree planted by a human.

Re:Toilet paper and timber?

[pipingguy]

Since when do most modern environmental claims make sense? Nowadays it's a lucrative government/crony capitalist megabusiness.

Re:Toilet paper and timber?

[thule]

With paper, the tree is crushed. Why would you need a large straight tree for that? Economics re-enforces this. You're not going to pay extra for a large tree just to crush it

What? Have you even been to an active paper company forest?

Yup! My cousins used to cut trees for the paper mills.

Re:Toilet paper and timber?

[Anonymous Coward]

Natural systems did not "evolve to get along with one another". Especially on the border regions of an ecosystem, where it is an endless knock-down-drag-out biological war for space and resources. Additionally, farms are as natural as anything else animals engage in.

I'll agree that humans have been "winning" the war on a lot of fronts, and this is causing imbalances all over the place. This, likely, will eventually be to our own detriment. But this cycle is also quite natural and occurs repeatedly in many ecological spheres. That's not to say we shouldn't do anything about it, only that your characterization of what is happening is way off.

Re:Toilet paper and timber?

[Anonymous Coward]

There was an insightful /. post years ago which pointed out that recycling paper may actually be bad. When you throw away paper in a landfill, you are sequestering carbon.

That's may be true in third world countries, where waste is litterally dumped in landfills, but in developed countries, non-recyclable waste is typically incinerated before the remains are put in a landfill, so carbon dioxide will be emitted anyway.

Re:Toilet paper and timber?

[Obfuscant]

If you need a roof or wall, you have to start with a large straight tree.

Only if you want a wooden house and want to pay a premium for specialty products. Otherwise, you buy SCL.

Or you use concrete and steel, aluminum and stryrofoam and vinyl.

Re:Toilet paper and timber?

[Anonymous Coward]

You can help with this by stop eating McDonald's beef products most of which come from that region. The box and bag your Big Mac came in however, were probably made in the USA with renewable materials.

While I agree that not eating McDonald's products is a sound advice, they do claim that all of their beef is from Europe. However, it could very well be that some of the cattle are fed soya from South America.

Re:Toilet paper and timber?

[wyHunter]

It depends on where. If it's in the eastern US that may be the case. On the great plains, not so much. And there ARE tree farms on the great plains.

Re:Toilet paper and timber?

[laie_techie]

Saving a buck usually translates into consuming fewer resources

What? No it doesn't. Lowering the price of a resource generally increases consumption.

Methinks he meant it takes fewer resources to produce.

Re:Toilet paper and timber?

[Applehu Akbar]

Instead of recycling or incinerating waste paper, let's retort it into charcoal, which can then be added to farm soil to enrich it while sequestering the carbon for as long as if it wee in a landfill.

Re:Toilet paper and timber?

[fafaforza]

GMO foods won't grow tentacles and become self aware, but companies making them can go to hell. Honestly, it only takes a Monsanto seed to be spread on a field a mile away from yours for you to become an involuntary customer of theirs. And if you want to fight them, their lawyers will bankrupt you That's what I have a problem with.

Re:Toilet paper and timber?

[dryeo]

GMO is just a tool. It can be used to grow lots of pretty, non-nutritive, long lasting food or nutritive food. As long as their is a higher profit margin for non-nutritive food that looks really nice and stores and ships really well, that is what GMO (and regular selective breeding) will be used for. Now whether a diet of food that is lacking in minerals and vitamins hurts people is something that I think can be argued.
Note that growing nutritive food also includes things like crop rotation and leaving fields fallow, which can also eat into profits.

Re:Toilet paper and timber?

[dryeo]

That really depends on the type and size of the tree. Around here, it is mostly Cottonwood that is used for toilet paper, big straight wild trees as often or not. Cottonwood is mostly useless as lumber so it doesn't make sense to use for lumber.
Up until a couple of decades ago, Hemlock was also used for paper, as they only grew about a hundred feet tall, were nice and straight so easy to handle and were considered inferior for lumber. That changed as they ran out of the more desirable wood but lots still goes for pulp.
Up the page someone else mentions farmed Pine being used for pulp as it is a simpler use for the trees as they're thinned. It's hard to use a pecker pole for lumber though it is happening a lot more now. You see 8` 2x4s that are actual several pieces of wood with finger joints holding them together.

Re: Toilet paper and timber?

[dryeo]

Yes trees are a renewable resource.

Yes and no. Like so many things, they need husbanding. Soil will run out of nutrients and need to be replenished. I've heard that often you can only get 3 good harvests before the growth and quality start deteriorating. Of course that will depend on how good the soil is to begin with.

Re:Toilet paper and timber?

[Hognoxious]

Well they don't grow on trees, do they?

Re:Toilet paper and timber?

[Anonymous Coward]

#1 There are more trees now in the U.S. than in 1776.
#2 The Amazon tropical rain forest never was just a "jungle" like in "Predator". Most of you nit wits don't understand that. You should read the journals of the early explorers to the region. Vast plains areas dotted with trees, not a "jungle" by any means. Like #1 there are more trees in the Amazon now than there were in 1776.

Are there more people? Yes, in both regions; hence, more "feelings".

If people would quite being so full of "feelings" and actually go plant a tree you will have done something in your life. I planted trees when I was a kid and now they produce pine cones the size of grapefruit. That's only 30 years ago, from a 6 inch seedling.

Feel good do nothing hippie weed smoking bastards that don't get a damn thing done in life. It's like the bastards in Alaska that keep bothering the bears up there. They film their documentaries, pretending they snuck up on this bear and have been tracking it for days to learn about how it's dealing with GW. So I'm watching this show, seems convincing, then the cameraman accidentally pans back and low and behold they aren't the only film crew there. No there are 20 film crews from all around the world, about 80+ people lined up not counting the people back at base camp, pissing this bear and her family off. I'm sure this is year round. Burning fuel, jet-setting around the world, littering, shitting in the woods without burying it properly, pissing off the bears and other wildlife. But because they smoke weed they care about the environment.

Fucking do nothing hipsters that will believe anything they are told as long as they have a phone glued to their hand.

Go plant a tree.

Re:Toilet paper and timber?

[driblio]

Saving a buck usually translates into consuming fewer resources

What? No it doesn't. Lowering the price of a resource generally increases consumption.

Methinks he meant it takes fewer resources to produce.

...which means we produce more of it, using the same amountor more resources than before.

Re: Toilet paper and timber?

[rickb928]

Forest farming is measured in decades. The Tree Farm system in America started is 1941, despite opposition from the federal government...

It's likely that even the oldest Tree Farm has only been through 5-7 cycles. And while a 'Tree Farm' might sound like it's a first is nice, polite trees lined up in rows, truly it is mostly trees well organized but still growing through the underbrush, grass, and other litter...

Re: Toilet paper and timber?

[dryeo]

I'd think 30 years would be the minimum from planting to harvest, and that would be for quick growing Poplars. Here (BC) it is closer to 60 years, but the tree farms aren't really your traditional farm.

Re:Toilet paper and timber?

[ArmoredDragon]

#1 There are more trees now in the U.S. than in 1776.

This is true.

#2 The Amazon tropical rain forest never was just a "jungle" like in "Predator". Most of you nit wits don't understand that. You should read the journals of the early explorers to the region. Vast plains areas dotted with trees, not a "jungle" by any means. Like #1 there are more trees in the Amazon now than there were in 1776.

When I say tropical regions, I'm not just referring to the Amazon. Even so, I doubt the Amazon has more now than previously.

Re: Toilet paper and timber?

[rickb928]

Some softwood intended for pulp can be harvested in 10-12 years. 12-18" trunk size is easily processed. Long is better than wide.

Re: Toilet paper and timber?

[dryeo]

By softwood do you mean the traditional softwood equals conifer or referring to species such as the various Poplar that have softwood?
Either way, an inch or two growth of girth per year is pretty impressive. Are they pollacking (cutting the top of and allowing it to grow back) them?

Re:Toilet paper and timber?

[ihtoit]

French cattle are fed meal containing bovine bone.

Yup, French cows are cannibals.

Re: Toilet paper and timber?

[rickb928]

Conifers are preferred for pulp. Never topped.

Re: Toilet paper and timber?

[dryeo]

For toilet paper, Poplar (Cottonwood) seems to be preferred. Used to cut it when I was young and it went to the Scott Paper mill. Now they have acres of hybrid Poplar growing along the banks of the (lower) Fraser river, all owned by Scott Paper and earmarked for toilet paper.

Re:Toilet paper and timber?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

experiments with genetics have a tendency to get loose and crossbreed with other stocks.

Re:Toilet paper and timber?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Doesn't matter to the motivation of the people who are anti-GMO. Most of what they're afraid of can't happen, but economics is not what they are worried about.

Not only fewer, but smaller

[Anonymous Coward]

Having lost much of the virgin timber, the actual size of the trees today should be much smaller and as a carbon store above ground, that can have a significant effect.

Our previous numbers were completely wrong.

[halivar]

But these new numbers are completely right, and actionable. I am inspired with confidence.

Re:Our previous numbers were completely wrong.

[hey!]

The world is big, and hard to measure. So big that you can't measure a lot of things perfectly, you have to estimate them based on some kind of sample. For example to arrive at the three trillion number they obviously didn't go out and count every last tree on Earth. They took observations of samples and based on the best understanding they have extrapolated.

And even though that process is obviously not infallible, it is rational. Ignoring a problem because some of the numbers related to it might get revised in the future, or assuming different numbers because you prefer the outcome aren't rational. You have to use numbers, and use the best supported numbers you have. Or give up and go with something a bit more certain of its results, like astrology.

Re:Our previous numbers were completely wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

Would you prefer it if people didn't improve their estimates?

Re:Our previous numbers were completely wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

We are at war with East Asia and have always been at War with East Asia.

Re:Our previous numbers were completely wrong.

[hcs_$reboot]

Satellites make a difference...

Here we go...

[Anonymous Coward]

...another "humans are killing the plant" story.

And yet another claim to be able to describe the past from proxies or some other Rube Goldberg nonsense. These people have no idea how many trees there were hundreds of thousands of years ago.

Re:Here we go...

[scsirob]

I think 'research' like this is great. It shows that we need to grow more trees and bigger trees. The best way to do that is with more CO2.

Now where are the keys to my Hummer..

Re:Here we go...

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you please refrain from bringing up facts? We're trying to have a discussion about global warming here. Thanks.

Re:Here we go...

[msauve]

...another "humans are killing the plant" story.

The flora are coming! The flora are coming! Every fauna for themself!

(It's not like poison ivy and stinging nettle haven't been out to get us for years)

Re: Here we go...

[Anonymous Coward]

But then what if the trees hyperventilate???

Real solutions.

[Anonymous Coward]

The two largest causes of global weather change (note avoidance of charged term) is deforestation and methane releases, both naturally like N of Russia and by man like at most oilfields. Methane is 80x the greenhouse gas as CO2. More trees means less CO2 since they drink the stuff.

Reverse deforestation and position LNG collector systems N of Russia.

JJ

Faster

[SuperKendall]

Younger trees store far more carbon as they grow rapidly than ancient old growth forests.

That can have a significant effect.

Re:Faster

[Anonymous Coward]

Trees can continue to sequester carbon at an increasing rate well into adulthood. Even though they are adding only a small amount of girth each year, adding it over 100+ feet of height amounts to a huge amount of volume. Although not true for all species, among the giant sequoias, the largest known specimen named General Sherman, may also be the fastest growing. It is estimated to be putting on enough new wood each year to construct a 5 or 6 room house. For a seedling to match this growth rate it would need to grow to a height of 50 feet and diameter of one foot in a single year.

Re:Faster

[SuperKendall]

You have far more seedlings growing in the same space as a single mature tree, and the last time I checked most trees don't grow as fast as the giant sequoias.

Re:Faster

[Anonymous Coward]

Total nonsense. Older trees store more carbon. See http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v507/n7490/full/nature12914.html

Carnegie Airborne Observatory

[pr0t0]

I met a grad student attending Stanford who was part of the Carnegie Airborne Observatory (https://cao.carnegiescience.edu/). She said they flew it over the Central and South America, and her job was counting trees and studying their migrations (if that's the right word). She thought it was a boring subject that few people found interesting, but I was fascinated.

It didn't hurt that she happened to be beautiful.

Re:Carnegie Airborne Observatory

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't leave us in suspense. Did you fuck her?

Re:Carnegie Airborne Observatory

[Anonymous Coward]

No, he migrated his tree into her forest.

Re:Carnegie Airborne Observatory

[CrimsonAvenger]

She thought it was a boring subject that few people found interesting, but I was fascinated.

It didn't hurt that she happened to be beautiful.

Rule One: ANYTHING said by a beautiful woman is fascinating....

Re:Carnegie Airborne Observatory

[Anonymous Coward]

Girls are cute when they think they can science.

Re:Carnegie Airborne Observatory

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, you know you're on slashdot, right?

We already know the answer.

Re:Carnegie Airborne Observatory

[Greystripe]

I doubt anyone has found the line "I just want to be friends" fascinating.

Re:Carnegie Airborne Observatory

[Anonymous Coward]

Cool story, bro.

Re: Carnegie Airborne Observatory

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you mean her bush.

Re:Carnegie Airborne Observatory

[Anonymous Coward]

There's nothing more exciting than a herd of migrating trees.

Re:Carnegie Airborne Observatory

[Anonymous Coward]

this had me audibly chuckling. guess I am an asshole.

Re:Carnegie Airborne Observatory

[Anonymous Coward]

Knowing Slashdot: it may not be fascinating but it would be a positive sign of future hopes and dream fulfilment.

Re:Carnegie Airborne Observatory

[hcs_$reboot]

I met a grad student (...) she happened to be beautiful.

Tl;dr

Regeneration

[tomhath]

FTFA:

They think that about 5 billion new trees are planted or sprout annually, yielding a net loss of 10 billion

They don't say where that number came from, most likely pulled from someplace where the Sun doesn't shine. When a section of forest is cleared either by cutting or burning the ground is soon covered in tree sprouts. Take a look at regeneration in Yellowstone National Park after the fires burned about 1/3 of it in the late 80's.

Re:Regeneration

[EvilSS]

FTFA:

They think that about 5 billion new trees are planted or sprout annually, yielding a net loss of 10 billion

They don't say where that number came from, most likely pulled from someplace where the Sun doesn't shine. When a section of forest is cleared either by cutting or burning the ground is soon covered in tree sprouts. Take a look at regeneration in Yellowstone National Park after the fires burned about 1/3 of it in the late 80's.

You have to take into consideration land cleared for building or agriculture where trees won't be allowed to regrow. If those types of land use are happening at a higher rate than other uses where trees are replanted or allowed to come back naturally, then you will have a net loss. Even in those areas where they are allowed to regrow naturally, there will be attrition as the trees grown and compete with one another for space, light, and resources.

Re:Regeneration

[Grishnakh]

That's fine when you have an area that is set aside to be a forest. Even if it burns down, no problem, just wait a couple decades and it'll grow back, so all the lost trees are replaced. But this was at Yellowstone National Park, a place that's specifically off-limits to human development (aside from a handful of NPS-owned buildings for tourists and such).

The problem is with places which aren't protected this way: humans decide to take land that used to be a forest, and then turn it into a subdivision or a shopping mall (oh sorry, those are out of vogue now; it'll be a "lifestyle center"). Those trees aren't coming back. With too many humans using too much land, there's not enough space for the number of trees we used to have. It doesn't have to be that way; if more land was set aside for forests, and more humans lived in more dense environments (cities), and there was more recycling of wood products (esp. paper), everything would be fine. Also, for wood products, they could switch to using bamboo for more stuff, since bamboo grows so quickly and usually works just as well if not better, depending on the application.

Re:Regeneration

[Garfong]

You have to take into consideration land cleared for building or agriculture where trees won't be allowed to regrow. If those types of land use are happening at a higher rate than other uses where trees are replanted or allowed to come back naturally, then you will have a net loss.

This is true, as far as farmland expansion, but doesn't explain why toilet paper & timber are counted as a net loss.

Even in those areas where they are allowed to regrow naturally, there will be attrition as the trees grown and compete with one another for space, light, and resources.

I don't see how this follows. The old trees also competed for space, light & resources.

Re:Regeneration

[operagost]

In the northeast USA, most new housing is built either on formerly commercial land or farmland. No trees.

Re:Regeneration

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like their estimate of only 400 million before this study. Once they realized how far off they were, they still had to provide some doom and gloom to rally the treehuggers to their cause...

Re:Regeneration

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone who took down a tree that was pretty close to the house, I can confirm that my yard is now covered with tree sprouts that show up at an alarming rate :p

Re:Regeneration

[FlyHelicopters]

more humans lived in more dense environments (cities)

What if I don't want to live in a city?

Or did someone die and make you King? :)

A better solution might be to stop encouraging people to have so many kids. We pay people to have kids. Between increased welfare checks, more food stamps, and higher child tax credits, we subsidize people having kids who can't afford them.

Reverse the process. Give everyone $3,000 a year, but subtract $500 for each kid you have. You want 6 kids? Sure, go for it, but you're paying for them.

Re:Regeneration

[EvilSS]

You have to take into consideration land cleared for building or agriculture where trees won't be allowed to regrow. If those types of land use are happening at a higher rate than other uses where trees are replanted or allowed to come back naturally, then you will have a net loss.

This is true, as far as farmland expansion, but doesn't explain why toilet paper & timber are counted as a net loss.

While Europe and North America paper industry does a lot of forest management, that's not true in developing areas of the world.

Even in those areas where they are allowed to regrow naturally, there will be attrition as the trees grown and compete with one another for space, light, and resources.

I don't see how this follows. The old trees also competed for space, light & resources.

You mentioned "covered in tree sprouts". Cut down a tree and you will get dozens, sometimes hundreds, of competing saplings in its place. But those eventually will be whittled down to only one or maybe a few surviving trees in the long term. It wouldn't be accurate to count those samplings on a 1:1 basis for replacing lost, fully grown trees. I'm not saying that's what you meant to imply, just making sure we're on the same page. That's all.

Re:Regeneration

[EvilSS]

In the northeast USA, most new housing is built either on formerly commercial land or farmland. No trees.

And your implying that the majority of the rest of the world does the same thing?

Re:Regeneration

[Obfuscant]

Reverse the process. Give everyone $3,000 a year, but subtract $500 for each kid you have. You want 6 kids? Sure, go for it, but you're paying for them.

You wouldn't start "paying for them" under this system until you had seven, and then only if you forced payment on the negative balance. Most handouts don't work that way.

Re:Regeneration

[tomhath]

You wouldn't start "paying for them" under this system until you had seven,

Actually, you start paying with the first; $500 a pop.

Re:Regeneration

[Anonymous Coward]

someplace where the Sun doesn't shine

Such as underneath a tree.

Re:Regeneration

[Garfong]

I'm not the poster you were originally replying to. Not that this changes anything of substance, but just so we're clear.

You mentioned "covered in tree sprouts". Cut down a tree and you will get dozens, sometimes hundreds, of competing saplings in its place. But those eventually will be whittled down to only one or maybe a few surviving trees in the long term. It wouldn't be accurate to count those samplings on a 1:1 basis for replacing lost, fully grown trees.

Fair enough. But my naive assumption would be that absent land use changes (such as converting the land to farmland) logged forest would eventually, through naturally processes, regrow into a similar forest. Forest management practices would merely either (1) accelerate this process, and/or (2) favor the growth of more economically profitable trees for future harvesting.

Re:Regeneration

[Obfuscant]

Actually, you start paying with the first; $500 a pop.

No, you wouldn't. You'd get a check for $2500 instead of $3000. There is a difference. It wasn't your money to start with, so you aren't losing it when it isn't handed to you.

But I understand the confusion. Many people also buy the line that the government is "losing money" when there is a tax cut, when the truth is that people are getting to keep more of their money, not that they're being allowed to keep more of the government's money.

Re:Regeneration

[Harlequin80]

It depends on the type of forest, the quality of the underlying soil and the weather in that location. Rainforest dirt tends to be of a very very poor quality and the trees and other plants live of the detritus dropped by other plants and animals. Also those areas tend to have higher levels of rainfall, in particular monsoon weather.

So if you clear old growth rainforest you end up with a poor quality soil, that often has what little nutrient in it washed away by rains. This mud is then baked hard and it is very very difficult for things to grow. I guess eventually you will get the regrowth, but in rainforests near me the cleared sections are still clear over 100 years later, despite being surrounded by old growth.

Re:Regeneration

[Harlequin80]

If only $3k made any kind of meaningful impact to the cost of a child your plan might work. But when you are looking at 10k in medical costs if you have a caesarian section, $500 to $1k for your pram & baby seat and losing 1 income stream for a period I don't think your 3k makes fuck all of a difference.

Lets not even talk about the cost of reproductive assistance such as IVF.

Re:Regeneration

[Grishnakh]

The reason you're able to live outside the city right now is because fuel prices are insanely cheap, and the cost of transportation is subsidized. If road users were forced to pay for both the entire cost of road construction and upkeep, as well as the pollution problems caused by their fuel usage, transport costs would be much, much higher. Raise gas prices to $10-15/gallon and see how many people continue to live out in the sticks. On top of that, enact strict anti-pollution laws which make it very difficult or even impossible to keep older cars on the road (meaning you'll have to buy a newer car, which means a car payment plus the high fuel costs, though at least you'll get higher mpgs so it'll offset things a little bit), and everyone will be living in the city (or at least a very built-up suburb) except a few rich people who can afford to drive their Ferrari to work from their 100-acre estate.

Re:Regeneration

[FlyHelicopters]

If that is the case, then you wouldn't mind removing all the existing benefits for kids, since they don't make a difference? Right now you get a 500 or 1,000 dollar child tax credit. That isn't much, so we can remove it, right?

Re:Regeneration

[FlyHelicopters]

If road users were forced to pay for both the entire cost of road construction and upkeep, as well as the pollution problems caused by their fuel usage, transport costs would be much, much higher.

Nonsense... they would be higher a little bit perhaps... but not...

Raise gas prices to $10-15/gallon and see how many people continue to live out in the sticks.

Raise prices that high and watch a revolt on your hands. Prices aren't that high in Europe, even with their crazy high taxes.

TL:DR version - you're nuts and your ideas are rooted in fantasy.

Re:Regeneration

[Harlequin80]

I don't get a tax credit as I don't live in the US and our tax system doesn't have an equivalent. Personally though I would have no issue in removing any payments / benefits associated with having children. There are payments in Australia for having kids but they are means tested, meaning I did not qualify for them.

Re:Regeneration

[thinkwaitfast]

I live in the sticks and have only filled once since November. A lot of food is grown out here to take to the city, supposedly so they can eat locally grown food despite being a few hours away.

It would definitely be an inconvenience, but I'd do fine if all gasoline went away. At least until the throngs of hungry zombies showed up.

Re:Regeneration

[Anonymous Coward]

The population of the developed world is not increasing, and in most developed countries it is decreasing. To solve overpopulation, you need to reduce population growth in sub-Saharan Africa, MENA and India.

Also, the US is by no means overpopulated. I just drove across the country, and most of it is empty.

Re:Regeneration

[Grishnakh]

Oh please, you're trying to imply that higher gas prices would somehow lead to a famine, which is ridiculous. Higher fuel prices would simply increase the cost of transport, which would result in some higher prices as that cost would be passed to the consumer. But they'd have more money to pay for it because their taxes could be reduced, since they wouldn't be subsidizing road costs through non-road-related taxes any more. (Of course, politicians never seem to reduce taxes like that, and once the original justification is gone for a tax they find another one, but that's another argument.)

Re:Regeneration

[thinkwaitfast]

You can fit all 7 billion people on Earth in less than half the area of the US with a population density similar to Dallas, TX. Studies have shown that all seven billion people could be fed with the arable land of only Africa.

Re:Regeneration

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever heard of medical insurance? And in what country maternity leave unpaid?

Re:Regeneration

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason you're able to live outside the city right now is because fuel prices are insanely cheap, and the cost of transportation is subsidized. If road users were forced to pay for both the entire cost of road construction and upkeep, as well as the pollution problems caused by their fuel usage, transport costs would be much, much higher.

Right now, fuel tax, road tax and new car tax add up to several times the cost of road construction in pretty much every Western country*. Motorists are subsidising other government expenditures (including the public transport you mention, which is typically paid for by taxes for at least 2/3).

On top of that, enact strict anti-pollution laws which make it very difficult or even impossible to keep older cars on the road.

That would be a huge waste of many perfectly functioning cars. Very bad for the environment. Maybe this would have made sense when cars where getting much cleaner by the year, but that has not been the case for over twenty years. Nowadays, car manufacturers are mostly balancing different emissions to suit regulations.

*The U.S. may be an exception, with its exceptionally low fuel taxes

Re:Regeneration

[Grishnakh]

The population of the developed world is not increasing, and in most developed countries it is decreasing.

Wrong. The population of the developed world IS increasing. It's all from immigration, but it's still increasing. The US population has increased every single year. Are you trying to claim that immigrants aren't people?
And the population is growing in the 3rd-world countries too; so much that the excess is moving to the developed nations. Overall, it's increasing everywhere.

Also, the US is by no means overpopulated. I just drove across the country, and most of it is empty.

Yeah, because a lot of it is used for agriculture. Where do you think the food's going to come from when you pave over all the fields and replace them with subdivisions full of McMansions? There's also a serious lack of water in the Western states. Population growth is constrained by freshwater supply. You can't build a bunch of subdivisions in southern Utah when there's zero water there. I guess you're one of those people who won't be happy until every natural place has been eliminated and all land is filled with development, right?

Re:Regeneration

[Grishnakh]

Those studies sound like BS. For one thing, there isn't that much arable land out there, esp. with the freshwater shortages going on. You're talking about an entire continent full of arable land (Africa is a really, really big continent, despite what your crappy Mercator projection maps would have you believe; it's much much bigger than Greenland in case you didn't know). Africa doesn't have that much arable land; 1/3 of it is a big desert (which is growing), and the rest isn't all that great for growing either, or else Africa would be the "1st world" now, not Europe. Most of the world's landmass is simply not very suitable for growing crops.

Finally, it sounds like these studies never accounted for all the other stuff populated/developed land is used for: commercial space, industrial space, etc. Filling half the US with Dallas-style subdivisions isn't going to be very helpful if people don't have places to work, shop, go to parks, etc.

Re:Regeneration

[Grishnakh]

*The U.S. may be an exception, with its exceptionally low fuel taxes

Exactly; I was talking to someone who's obviously an American who lives in a rural area. All our taxes on cars are much lower than in Europe; fuel taxes are far, far less, but also sales taxes are much lower. There is no "road tax" (except maybe on commercial trucking). I understand there's high taxes on car sales in Europe based on things like engine size, which is why in Norway Teslas are so popular: the gas-car taxes end up doubling the cost of a car over there, but Teslas are exempt so $85k for a car doesn't look so bad compared to a $40k Audi that costs $80k after taxes, plus the Tesla doesn't need fuel at $8/gallon (or whatever), just electricity which is comparatively cheap.

That would be a huge waste of many perfectly functioning cars.

They're not perfectly functioning; they're spewing out enormous amounts of pollution. Brand-new cars barely register when you measure the pollutants, but 20-year-old cars can be really bad. Engine technology has really improved a lot in that time, plus older vehicles typically aren't maintained that well: piston rings and such wear out over time, leading to higher emissions. Maybe you don't have so many problems with smoke-spewing cars in Europe, but here in the US there's lots of shitty old cars on the road belching smoke. That was one of the motivations for the (poorly-executed) "cash for clunkers" program early in the Obama administration.

Maybe this would have made sense when cars where getting much cleaner by the year, but that has not been the case for over twenty years.

Huh? That's BS. Cars absolutely have been getting cleaner by the year. LEV, ULEV, and SULEV ratings did not exist 20+ years ago. Fuel economy has improved enormously in that time too, and carbon emissions are directly proportional to fuel economy.

Re:Regeneration

[ihtoit]

the rest of the world is populated by ragheads running around large oil-rich deserts shagging camels and drinking their own piss.

True story. ~

Half as many

[Anonymous Coward]

as when civilization arose, but still many more than we need. Good news since I heat my house with wood.

Re:Half as many

[Anonymous Coward]

What a waste.

Re:Half as many

[Harlequin80]

Why? Timber is a great option for heating your house. It is cheap, renewable and if you live on acreage it is often free. I haven't had to buy timber in the 10 years I have lived here. I have gotten away completely with dropped timber and wood from trees that fell or had to be removed for safety.

Report: Sky is Falling

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot's ace chicken reporter is on the scene!

So sick of this shit

[Anonymous Coward]

Every day, another 'how horrible human beings are' story. Look, humans are the pinnacle of this planet's long slog towards producing intelligence and of course we're going to modify our environment if we can. Any organism that has the ability to alter its environment does it to make it more habitable. Is this a bad thing? I say no. Do you want us to live in trees? Not reproduce? Keep to a nice, uncomfortable stone age existence? Yup, we cut trees. Yup, there are fewer of them. Big fucking deal. Trees are a renewable resource, and they can replenish themselves quickly. Frankly I think most of the people writing these stories have absolutely nothing useful to do with their time. The planet is changing. Deal with it. Or not, I don't care. Just shut the fuck up.

Re:So sick of this shit

[FlyHelicopters]

Every day, another 'how horrible human beings are' story. Look, humans are the pinnacle of this planet's long slog towards producing intelligence and of course we're going to modify our environment if we can. Any organism that has the ability to alter its environment does it to make it more habitable. Is this a bad thing? I say no. Do you want us to live in trees? Not reproduce? Keep to a nice, uncomfortable stone age existence? Yup, we cut trees. Yup, there are fewer of them. Big fucking deal. Trees are a renewable resource, and they can replenish themselves quickly. Frankly I think most of the people writing these stories have absolutely nothing useful to do with their time. The planet is changing. Deal with it. Or not, I don't care. Just shut the fuck up.

^ Shame you posted AC, that deserves to have a name put to it...

While you were harsh in your post, your feelings are fair. The "humans are evil" articles are getting old.

Re:So sick of this shit

[Pseudonymous Powers]

Every day, another 'how horrible I am for killing all my neighbors' story. Look, I'm the pinnacle of this neighborhood's long slog towards producing intelligence and of course I'm going to modify my environment if I can. Any neighbor that has the ability to alter its environment does it to make it less crowded. Is this a bad thing? I say no. Do you want me to live with neighbors? Not murder them in their sleep? Keep to a nice, uncomfortable suburban existence? Yup, I murder neighbors. Yup, there are fewer of them. Big fucking deal. Neighbors are a renewable resource, and they can replenish themselves quickly. Frankly I think most of the people writing these stories have absolutely nothing useful to do with their time. The neighborhood is changing. Deal with it. Or not, I don't care. Just shut the fuck up.

Re:So sick of this shit

[Anonymous Coward]

Every day, another 'how horrible I am for killing all the Jews story. Look, I'm the pinnacle of this continent's long slog towards producing the master race and of course I'm going to modify my environment if I can. Any race that has the ability to alter its environment does it to make it less crowded. Is this a bad thing? I say no. Do you want me to live with Jews? Not murder them in their sleep? Keep to a nice, uncomfortable mixed race existence? Yup, I murder Jews. Yup, there are fewer of them. Big fucking deal. Jews are a renewable resource, and they can replenish themselves quickly. Frankly I think most of the people writing these stories have absolutely nothing useful to do with their time. The continent is changing. Deal with it. Or not, I don't care. Just shut the fuck up.

Yeah, I went there.

Re:So sick of this shit

[sabbede]

I blame 70's era hippies. We're not perfect, but there's no objective reason that reshaping the environment to our advantage is wrong. They're just trying to force their preferences on everyone else.

Bad humans!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Humans did it, it must be bad.

Great. More bog-standard misanthropy.

Needs and Wants

[stu72]

I don't know that I would call any of those things, "needs"

You may say, "semantics", but it's precisely this sort of cultural blindness to the idea that life could be any different than it is today, that prevents us from discussing solutions. Toilet paper and ranchland aren't needs, Hygiene is a need, and food is a need, but if we believe that the only way to fill those needs is to carry on what we've been doing for the last few decades, then we are dumb and deaf to any alternatives.

Re:Needs and Wants

[Anonymous Coward]

"Toilet paper and ranchland aren't needs"

Well, without Toilet Paper and RanchLand IN THE PRESENT, there would be major issues, so I would classify them as a need. Until a replacement solution for the core need exists, the existing solution becomes a need. If you took my toilet paper away right now, my hygiene would suffer immensely until a replacement was implemented. Therefore, I need toilet paper for hygiene. Progress is not totally stymied by acknowledging that you need the current solution to the problem. Although it's true that taking it away can speed up another solution.

Using similar logic, you don't NEED food, you need sustenance, you need an energy source. That doesn't NEED to be food if we just had some other solution.

Re:Needs and Wants

[Talderas]

Washable rags. Now you can store your shit on cloth until you're ready to wash it away!

Re:Needs and Wants

[Anonymous Coward]

This. The "72" in "stu72" refers to his IQ.

Bad article.

[pubwvj]

This /. article totally fails to cover the reality that the number of trees has gone up (entire planet covered) and down (almost no trees in ice ages) over the course of the Earth's life. That's how life is.

Re:Bad article.

[Nethemas the Great]

Isn't that how it normally works. Scientists collect data, make projections, etc.. Politicians and pundits then interpret these studies in a manner compatible with their views.

That said, the reality is that trees are a rather handy thing to have around. That we are losing them for whatever cause is a troubling thing and needs to be paid attention to.

Re:Bad article.

[Anonymous Coward]

I read the article and thought "DUH, there are less trees now than when humans first came about". We don't live in tree-houses, do we? We practice agriculture on land that typically reduces the number of trees, right?

Unless we remained hunter gatherers and chose to live in trees, I would expect that tree volume would have gone down. Or I suppose if we lived in the oceans, then tree volume wouldn't have gone down, but we would likely have had to find other ways to make living space for ourselves in the ocean that would have caused some other sort of reduction.

Re:Bad article.

[Anonymous Coward]

You are confused, that's not reality, that's history. The reality is humans are destroying the very planet they are reliant upon to live.

Re:Bad article.

[Anonymous Coward]

> This /. article totally fails to cover the reality that the number of trees has gone up (entire planet covered) and down (almost no trees in ice ages) over the course of the Earth's life. That's how life is.

That is the thinking that put us here where we are regarding climate change (it always has changed).

The point is we're overwhelming the planet defenses like a sepsis. Other things might be helping, we may even be secondary, but at least we can think and change our ways.

Planting trees is doable -- even a single man can do a lot: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jadav_Payeng

We can fix it if we act together, for we are the most powerful force on this planet.

The only thing who can stop us is ourselves.

The ones who don't wish to help, please don't get in the way.

Re:Bad article.

[Anonymous Coward]

The trees are still around near the equator and regions +/-30 degrees latitude during an ice age. Now, there was a snowball Earth phase, and that might have reduced there numbers.

Re:Bad article.

[jbengt]

This /. article totally fails to cover the reality that the number of trees has gone up (entire planet covered) and down (almost no trees in ice ages) over the course of the Earth's life.

Yeah! they didn't even mention that 400 million years ago trees didn't even exist yet.

Re:Bad article.

[argStyopa]

But how can FUD be effectively delivered when you constantly cloud the issue with "facts"?

Re:Bad article.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Isn't that how it normally works."

No, Politicians take the numbers and say how be you should feel about how you are killing everything. They when fly off for the weekend to their $2K resort for a "conference".

Re:Bad article.

[Anonymous Coward]

Except we're not in an ice age, so the numbers should be going up, but they're not, because humans are assholes.

Re:Bad article.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup.

And BTW it's perfectly normal for atmospheric CO2 to increase by an order of magnitude in the span of 200 years.

Tide goes in, tide goes out... you can't explain that.

Re:Bad article.

[thinkwaitfast]

The Story of B (good book), is a story about how humanity has gone downhill since the first agricultural revolution and dawn of civilization.

Re:Bad article.

[thinkwaitfast]

We are in an ice age (in the interglacial period). Ice Age

It once covered most all the world at max growth!!

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Oh thank god! We're finally beating back that terrible green goo scenario!

Natural causes

[operagost]

How many trees are we losing due to natural causes?

Re:Natural causes

[Firethorn]

Wildfires in Alaska 'cost' us tens of millions even in a low-fire year.

Trick is, it's like Yellowstone. You get 2-3 years of opportunistic plants (fireweed), then the forests start regrowing.

If I don't mow my yard regularly the trees around my house would spread TO my house within 2 years. As is I'm trying to push them back a bit.

Re:Natural causes

[PPH]

But we can still cry over them.

Why are Bidets not as popular in America?

[goruka]

Bidets (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bidet) consume very little amount of water (in comparison to flushing a toilet, showering, washing machines, etc) and clean your private parts more efficiently than paper. They are mandatory in many countries, why not in America?

Re:Why are Bidets not as popular in America?

[The Rizz]

Well, let's see - right from the article you linked:

They are not necessarily meant to replace the use of toilet paper. Often they are used after some paper to achieve full cleanliness without immediately having to take a shower.

Also:

The expense of remodeling a typical North American bathroom to accommodate a traditional bidet fixture is large, in the thousands of dollars

However, it does go on to say that recent advances in combination toilet/bidets are causing more widespread adoption in North America.

Re:Why are Bidets not as popular in America?

[Anonymous Coward]

Americans also almost always put toilets in their bathing rooms. What were you expecting? ;)

Re:Why are Bidets not as popular in America?

[PPH]

more widespread adoption in North America.

Assuming people can figure out what they are for.

Re:Why are Bidets not as popular in America?

[cyberchondriac]

I think we'd save a lot more trees if we started putting restrictions on the ridiculous amount of junk snail mail we get everyday. It's both amazing, and sad.

Timber Ho. Woah this timbers gotta roll.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow!! Imagine you're entire existence is solely for the purpose of wiping my ass!!

Help the poor- Plant a tree

[GoodNewsJimDotCom]

For about a decade, I've envisioned the way to help the poor in countries that get deforested is to replant some of their forests with fruit trees. Even if farmers don't farm, or the country sees unrest, the fruit trees remain. A steady source of food is good in third world countries. Thankfully 'Food For The Poor' saw this too and there is a program for planting fruit trees that I try and endorse to people. If we have a good job, and are on our feet, we should be helping our fellow man, and this is a good way to do that.

Re:Help the poor- Plant a tree

[Anonymous Coward]

For about a decade, I've envisioned the way to help the poor in countries that get deforested is to replant some of their forests with fruit trees. Even if farmers don't farm, or the country sees unrest, the fruit trees remain. A steady source of food is good in third world countries. Thankfully 'Food For The Poor' saw this too and there is a program for planting fruit trees that I try and endorse to people. If we have a good job, and are on our feet, we should be helping our fellow man, and this is a good way to do that.

What are the profits on this?

Re:Help the poor- Plant a tree

[PPH]

What are the profits on this?

Not as good as opium poppies, coca and hemp (for clothes and rope. Yeah, that's the ticket!)

Re:Help the poor- Plant a tree

[Anonymous Coward]

The fruit trees argument sounds a bit naive. I would assume the core reason for reforestation programs is to counter erosion. Massive deforestation usually leads to loss of soil and eventually even to desertification.

Fruits, while important are not the main source of food, better a field of storable grain than quickly spoiling fruits.

Re:Help the poor- Plant a tree

[HornWumpus]

Excess fruit is easily made into nutritious delicious brandy.

Re:Help the poor- Plant a tree

[JimSadler]

There are ethnic groups that avoid eating fruits which is one problem. The second idea might be that nut trees are more reliable and sort of universally accepted by all people. so maybe encouraging nut trees alongside the fruit trees would get more peoples' attention. But the real answer is to shrink population and shrink the areas under human occupation. Growth is the real enemy of humanity as well as nature.

Re:Help the poor- Plant a tree

[Anonymous Coward]

Fruits can be refrigerated, frozen, dried or canned.

This article is not biased at all.

[Anonymous Coward]

"eight times as many as we thought a decade ago"

Yes of course however, they still need to blame humans for something by making up the bull crap stat that there are now half as many as there were before humans arrived. What a load.

Re:This article is not biased at all.

[FlyHelicopters]

"eight times as many as we thought a decade ago"

Yes of course however, they still need to blame humans for something by making up the bull crap stat that there are now half as many as there were before humans arrived. What a load.

So the solution is... to kill all the humans?

Re:This article is not biased at all.

[Obfuscant]

So the solution is... to kill all the humans?

We won't have to do it. If the Ents ever find out that we've been cutting down the Entwives to use for paper to wipe our asses, they'll take care of killing all the humans for us.

Go humans!

[Anonymous Coward]

Earth Home To 3 Trillion Trees, Half As Many As When Human Civilization Arose

We're half way there! Fuck living in harmony with nature. We'll consume her until she's gone. That's what we do! (That's also why we'll be a flash in the pan over the course of earth's history.)

Re:Go humans!

[thinkwaitfast]

Mammals have a species lifespan of about 10 million years. And the homo sapiens sapiens is 200k years, so we have a ways to go.

Where has all the carbon gone?

[Latent Heat]

A little bit more than half of all the carbon emitted from burning fossil fuels and making cement ends up adding to the CO2 in the atmosphere. The fraction is a little bit less than half if you count chopping down rain forest towards human-generated emissions.

Of the "missing" half of emitted carbon, a bit less than half of that is the net carbon flux dissolved into the oceans. We know that by a really clever bit of mass-balance accounting. We can determine to total CO2 emissions from accurate quantification of the ongoing depletion in atmospheric O2. Dissolving CO2 into the ocean in inorganic form does not change O2. Photosynthesis takes up CO2 and in the process releases back O2, but this takes place on a different slope as combustion of fossil fuel on the plot of atmospheric O2 against CO2. The reason for that is that fossil fuels are largely pure hydrocarbons whereas plant matter -- cellulose, lipids -- incorporates substantial oxygen.

So the biosphere, and someone can correct me on this, it is widely regarded that we are talking about the terrestrial biosphere, is soaking up fully one quarter of the emitted CO2. We are talking mass balance here -- there is nowhere else for it to go.

Main culprit is agriculture

[GLMDesigns]

We're losing it primarily to farmland. There are more trees, more forests today (in North America) then there was in 1900. Take a look, for instance at pictures of NH "wilderness" in the 1930s and today. What was farmland is now "old growth" forest. That story has played itself out all over North America.

Now the opposite is true in other parts of the world - South America, and Indonesia. But it shows that the true culprit is farmland; and as farming techniques become more productive that less is needed.

Re:Main culprit is agriculture

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed. I live in Utah. The records of the 1840's say that the Salt Lake Valley was all scrub brush with a single tree to the whole valley.

Now it's hard to find a single lot that doesn't have an cluster of oak, walnut, chestnut, willow, or honey locust trees. The valley is downright forested.

Re:Main culprit is agriculture

[Anonymous Coward]

I personally blame it on Malthus. Indonesia (Java) is one of the densest populated areas in the world.

It is not farmland that is the problem, it is the mouths that need farmland.

Cabon bunk

[Anonymous Coward]

Grasslands store carbon faster then forests....

I love it how the US Forest Service sponsored this; they are an arm of the lumber industry....

Re:The Republicans are succeeding!

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, I give. What the fuck are you trying to accomplish?

This is why we need industrial hemp for victory

[HongPong]

See the original 1942 propaganda film: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

There is no reason to focus on wood for the paper supply - except the economics of state-imposed rules driving customers to buy solvents. It would be far better and less impactful to use hemp instead of trees for paper, TP and the rest of it. The consequences are huge!

Re:This is why we need industrial hemp for victory

[Anonymous Coward]

>The consequences are huge!

Exactly! For example, one of the consequences of using less paper is that paper producing companies plant fewer trees.

Oh. Wait a minute. You figured you'd be keeping them safe.

Ha.

Re:The Republicans are succeeding!

[Notorious G]

I may be mistaken but I believe they are demonstrating the absurdity of it all by being absurd. It's like a cousin to sarcasm. A hot cousin.

Yeah but we have like 3 trillion more than mars

[netsavior]

Earth is still #1 in trees!

Re:Yeah but we have like 3 trillion more than mars

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but I'll be happy when every other planet isn't tied for #2.

Reading is fundamental

[Anonymous Coward]

Almost 3 years ago, Plant-for-the-Planet, which took over the United Nationsâ(TM)s Billion Tree Campaign, wanted to know whether it was making an impact. In its first 5 years, the campaign had planted 12 billion trees in 193 countriesto promote the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Re:Reading is fundamental

[thinkwaitfast]

They increased the number of trees by 0.17%.

WTF

[Hognoxious]

How is it possible to be off by almost an order of magnitude when counting trees? It's not as if the fucking things fly around, is it?

Re:WTF

[pr0fessor]

There are like two dozen new ones in my fence line every week when I mow.

Re:WTF

[pipingguy]

Environmentalist math. Rarely correct, never in doubt.

Re:WTF

[Tulsa_Time]

And how can you trust a Climate Change model that was off by 88% on the number of CO2 eating Trees ?

Re:WTF

[thinkwaitfast]

I have close to 1,000 full grown trees on my property. Every spring, around March, I have literally hundreds more trees than I did a few months earlier. They're really cute, bonsai looking midget trees. Sadly, most of them are dead by the end of summer.

Paper goods

[bubbageek75]

As someone who has worked in the printing industry my entire life, I find it insane that it is still illegal to farm hemp. It grows quickly and can produce multiple yields per year. It produces more paper per acre than trees and is a more sustainable resource. It is also a good alternative to the cotton that is used in many specialty papers. Not to mention all of the other uses it has.

Re:Paper goods

[thinkwaitfast]

Whatever happened to the digital paperless world promised in the 90's? Personally I rarely touch or see paper. Back in the 80's and 90's I would consistently generate a few pounds of printouts every week at work. Anyone remember line printers?

fires not just for ecoterrorists

[Firethorn]

Oregon's done a lot since the "plant three for every one you take" rule came into effect; we now have forest fires instead of clear cuts. I am assuming the ecoterrorists like Tre Arrow actually prefer fires.

As we're figuring out, the occasional fire is actually good for the environment. I'd still rather harvest a lot of the trees up here rather than suffer through the fires. Even if the result is simply burning them in a clean power plant(compared to uncontrolled forest fire combustion), that's a lot of green energy right there.

That being said, farmers are idiots a lot of the time because there's lots and lots of monocultures out there. They seem to do mostly fine.

Re:fires not just for ecoterrorists

[DarkOx]

The forest fire bit is tricky. The problem we have is that lots of little naturally occurring lighting triggered fires are probably good. At least some of the larger older trees could survive them and therefore remained to provide habitat for displaced animals to return to and to reseed the forest. The fire at the same time burned away most of the dead and smaller brush.

Then we started building all over the place and for a good 75 years or so largely kept the forests from burning as they should. The fuel piled up. The fire ecology changed. Now when a fire gets started it burns decades of pent up fuel, it burns hotter and higher, it spreads over larger areas and kills EVERYTHING.

Re:fires not just for ecoterrorists

[Firethorn]

Now when a fire gets started it burns decades of pent up fuel, it burns hotter and higher, it spreads over larger areas and kills EVERYTHING.

Alaska and Yellowstone both show that even that doesn't last very long in the scale of things. When most of yellowstone burned, some scientists were predicting that they figured that the soil itself must have been so scorched that nothing would grow in it for decades. A couple decades later you had trees shooting up like weeds.

I'm not saying to abandon all firefighting efforts, but instead they should let 'as much burn as practical'. Yes, that means that they should probably update building codes and encourage renovations to make homes that can survive such blazes. Clear out trees and foilage that's too close, plant the fire-resistant stuff, etc...

We'll have smokey summers for a while until the excess is burnt away, but we'll be the better for it.

Re:fires not just for ecoterrorists

[Applehu Akbar]

" Now when a fire gets started it burns decades of pent up fuel, it burns hotter and higher, it spreads over larger areas and kills EVERYTHING"

Here in Arizona, as in many other forested places, the Forest Service burns strategic areas of built-up fuel in the offseason, to limit catastrophic fires. But whenever they do this, there's a local controversy as small towns wake up to valleys full of smoke for day after day, complaining that they were "promised that this week's winds would be blowing the smoke in a different direction." A direction, of course, in which there are still other little towns that will complain.

Re:fires not just for ecoterrorists

[brantondaveperson]

nothing would grow in it for decades. A couple decades later you had trees shooting up like weeds.

Which sounds to me like they got it about right then.

Re:fires not just for ecoterrorists

[Firethorn]

I'm sorry, I misstated - the trees actually sprouted within 2 years. After 20 years they were too tall to be used as christmas trees.

Re:fires not just for ecoterrorists

[brantondaveperson]

Ah hah. I see. Sorry, I couldn't resist the nitpick.

I'm surprised at the statements about the area being barren for decades. Life tends to find a way. Just check out my back yard.

Re:fires not just for ecoterrorists

[ihtoit]

The problem and the biggest reason for these huge wildfires that're hitting the news lately is the fact that the new growth managed woodlands are single species firs and pines with no hardwood stands. Conifers are fuel ladders and bloody efficient at it. Even though they're fast growing (for trees), they carry that risk that with dense planting (anything more than two hundred trees per acre and you're asking for trouble) and no track-width breaks (10-30 feet wide down to mineral soil layer or even hardcore trackbeds or roads) to slow the spread of fires, what you get is what we see: entire counties going up.

And so you thought you were the dominant species

[Anonymous Coward]

6-7 billion vs 3 trillion, still some way to go.

Empires!

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

Earth Home To 3 Trillion Trees, Half As Many As When Human Civilization Arose

Yeah, I built too many villagers. Sorry!

Re:The Republicans are succeeding!

[Anonymous Coward]

He's just doing the "Aristocrats" joke, except replacing the punchline with a political party that he doesn't like. He's a silly partisan.

Re:The Republicans are succeeding!

[Anonymous Coward]

To attract attention, that's what. Thanks, you just gave it to him (or more likely them).

Sanity check of that number?

[CrimsonAvenger]

Three teratrees on Earth...

That would mean that trees average about 25 feet (8m) apart over the entire land area of the planet.

I think their definition of "tree" might include things a bit smaller than my definition of "tree"....

Re:Sanity check of that number?

[ihtoit]

yeah, I've seen seedlings six inches apart to saplings on plantations 3 feet apart in rows 5 feet apart, to mature trees in managed woods eight to ten feet apart (they're ten to thirty years old at this point), to old growth 20-40 feet apart. As they get bigger they get harder to move so they're simply culled. But you can tell the sprout managed woods, because they're still in military-perfect rows. I manage rabbit populations in a ten acre ornamental wood plantation among other sites, the trees in there are saplings to 15 years old and even the older trees are still packed that close together you can't actually walk between them.

Here we go again.

[Anonymous Coward]

Go hug a tree.

Been a while greenwow

[Anonymous Coward]

But you are still an asshole

So...

[rshol]

...given that it is now believed that the estimate of the number of trees was off by a factor of 8 a decade ago (and we were sure and sure we were sure we were right back then), what makes us think any of these numbers are correct?

Just more proof

[Anonymous Coward]

That we're not evolving and we're getting worse at managing this planet. ;-(

I love this story!

[Anonymous Coward]

better a field of storable grain than quickly spoiling fruits.

When you give an African a field, he's going to ask for a tractor and fuel to harvest it.
If you give an African a tractor and fuel, he's going to ask for someone to repair it.
If you give an African a repairman, he's going to ask for more fuel to harvest the field.
If you give an African more fuel, he's going to ask for guards to protect the field from thieves.
If you give an African guards, he's going to ask for them to be armed... etc.
If you give an African everything he needs to harvest grain for the rest of his life, he's going to ask for way to thresh it.
If you give an African a way to thresh the wheat, he's going to ask for a mill to process it.
If you give an African a mill to process it, he's going to ask for someone to maintain the mill... etc.

If you want to eat a mango, you pick it off the tree, peel it with your teeth and chew on it.
If you want to eat wheat, you have to harvest it in bulk, from a field, thresh it, grind it, add oil to it, and cook it.

Africans can't go to Home Depot or Farm Supply to get everything he needs to turn his fields into food. They gotta order that stuff from Europe. Because Europe holds a brutal exchange rate for all African currencies, it ends up costing him roughly 3-years' worth of income to import a single farming appliance. If he and his neighbors all pool together and get that appliance (say, a tractor) then they're going to run that thing into the ground very quickly (as it's tractoring several farms, nonstop) and they'll have no one educated to repair it (or have the parts). Worse, since much of African culture has a "Robin Hood" attitude, having your expensive tractor disappear from your fields is not uncommon.

It's not a solution that hasn't been tried many, many times only to end in abject failure again and again.

So you can give them a field of grain and everything they need to turn it into a fully-operational farm to feed a few dozen mouths, or you can plant 30,000 (!!!!!!!) fruit trees.

Re:I love this story!

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, and in addition to this (almost forgot!) is that farming actually requires an education.

Zimbabwe was once Rhodesia. Rhodesia fed half of Africa with its extremely-productive farms. When the Rhodesians were forced out, at gunpoint, and those farms and orchards were turned over to the militaries as spoils of war, the farms stopped producing. It turns out warlords and their cronies don't know much about rotating crops, maintaining irrigation, preventing overgrazing, growing seasons, weeding, etc. and now Zimbabwe's number one import is food.

Trees require much less maintenance than a grain farm.

Boogie-Woogie and trees

[colinwb]

Sort of On-Topic: if you read "A Left Hand Like God: A History of Boogie-Woogie Piano" by Peter J. Silvester (1989) you not only get an informative history of Boogie-Woogie (although I think he gets Wesley Wallace's "Number 29" wrong - it doesn't sound "primitive" to me, as isn't the same pianist's Fanny Lee Blues), you also get two maps showing the tree coverage of the Eastern USA in 1850 and 1942:

page.20: "Originally, much of the United States of America was covered with primeval forest: great areas in the western half and a vast area in the eastern half. In the eastern half, this primitive forest stretched westwards from Maine, around the Great Lakes, to about halfway through Minnesota; ..."

page.21: "It was not until the 1830s, however, that really large-scale lumbering operations commenced, turning lumbering into a major industry of an importance and status equal to that of the railroad and iron industries.
By 1850, as can be seen from Map.1, quite substantial inroads had been made into the virgin timber of the vast forest area in the eastern half ..."

page.23: "As Map.2 vividly shows, by 1942 there was not a great deal left of the vast virgin forest which originally covered all the eastern part of the United States ..."

[I've read the book at least twice, but I can't find my copy: the above is all I can get from Google Books.]

In short, USA citizens removed a lot of those lost 3 trillion trees!

my dad's farm - a tree story

[Anonymous Coward]

My dad owns a farm and also a forest which he was able to get the government to declare a reserve. He is constantly being approached with offers of money to cut down some of the trees which are hundreds of years old. They almost salivate at the thought of getting at those ancient trees. He keeps refusing. But, when he dies one of my brothers will probably agree, because they don't give a shit.

Re:my dad's farm - a tree story

[ihtoit]

maybe see if he's willing to bequeath it to the National Forest Service on the proviso that they classify the area as a Category VI wood? This would mean that the area sees not a single chainsaw with the sole exception of removing dead trees and for public safety (backcutting overhanging growth over roads and tracks, for instance).

Buried the lede? Do they have a time machine?

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, ffs, upon which wild ass grab do they decide that they have *any* idea on how many trees existed before human civilization? What kind of fantastical proxy measurement did they do from some single square foot of land to convince them that they know even by an order of magnitude how many trees we had when human civilization arose...when in fact their CURRENT fucking measurement is 7.5 time larger than their last estimate within modern times?

If they believe their pre-civilization proxy data, that means they thought that pre-civilization had about 6 trillion trees. Their prior estimate showed about 400 billion trees (off by an order of magnitude of their current estimate). Did they really believe for that moment that we had more than 90% deforestation since the beginning of human civilization? Really?

Where would all those fucking trees *fit*?

Oh, and by the way you fucking hippies, trees get old and die. Just because it's been there for a thousand years doesn't mean it's destined to be there forever.

Don't worry

[Anonymous Coward]

Somewhere, somehow, a white christian guy is to blame for all this. Find him, if unable, just vaguely put the blame on Europe, colonialism, whiteness, etc.

OK, rant time over. Going back to read the day's newspapers again.

Victory within our grasp!

[sabbede]

Join the battle of Man vs Nature! Buy a chainsaw and we can finally defeat this ancient enemy!

Math.

[DarthVain]

3 Trillion / 15 Billion = 200 years

So unless my math is wrong, according to those numbers we will run out of trees on Earth in 200 years? Somehow I find that hard to believe.

Air-drop tree planting could do it

[h00manist]

Dropping millions of trees a day could easily get us lots of forests.

http://science.howstuffworks.c...

There are simple technical solutions for most problems - the challenge is getting all the parts to agree on anything.

Re:Buried the lede? Do they have a time machine?

[fuzzy2k]

Seriously, ffs, upon which wild ass grab do they decide that they have *any* idea on how many trees existed before human civilization?

dunno. I did not read tfa. did you?

Note that I said Europe, not England

[Firethorn]

Note that I said 'Europe' and not Britain or England or anything like that. As you mention, they were re-imported from western Europe, where they still have healthy populations.