Slashdot Mirror
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.
We are losing 15 billion trees a year to toilet paper
Looks like it's time to institute the Three Seashells.
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.
But these new numbers are completely right, and actionable. I am inspired with confidence.
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.
I'm sorry, but your opinion seems to be wrong.
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.
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.
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?
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.
God spoke to me
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..
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
Can you please refrain from bringing up facts? We're trying to have a discussion about global warming here. Thanks.
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!
--hongpong.com
Earth is still #1 in trees!
And how can you trust a Climate Change model that was off by 88% on the number of CO2 eating Trees ?
5 out of 6 people enjoy Russian Roulette & 6 out of 7 Dwarfs are not Happy
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.
I don't read AC A human right
" 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.