View Full Version : People who talk of saving trees are ignorant
Saving trees. I'm sure we've heard it from people telling us to use both sides of a piece of paper, or to recycle. Please, the next time someone tells you to save trees, ask them their reasons for thinking trees are endangered. I guess we should put it on the list with bald eagles before they go the way of the Do-Do.
Heres the thing about trees, you plant them and they grow. See that, its a renewable resource. Saving trees is like trying to save oranges or apples. Guess what, just about every single tree outside of national and state parks have already been cut down, and entire new forest have grown up in their place.
Theres two types of forest, old growth and new growth. Old growth trees are 300+ years old and take about four people to wrap their arms around it. Once you cut down a tree like that its gone forever, as least to you it is because it won't be growing back to that size in your lifetime. You won't find an old growth forest anywhere except for parks. Outside of that 99.99% of old growth trees have been cut down.
So you'd think that there would be no forest left in the country. Heres the thing though, when the lumber company cuts down trees, they plant new ones and then leave them their for years and years to grow up so they can cut them down again. If they didn't, there would be no woods left and the lumber company would be out of business because they wouldn't have any trees to cut down.
In conclusion, the only trees really worth protecting are already protected. Those who talk of saving trees and using both sides of the paper makes no difference in the world and are ignorant jackasses. The only thing you accomplish is pissing me off.
deus-redux
2007-11-28, 20:31
Old growth trees are 300+ years old and take about four people to wrap their arms around it. Once you cut down a tree like that its gone forever, as least to you it is because it won't be growing back to that size in your lifetime. You won't find an old growth forest anywhere except for parks. Outside of that 99.99% of old growth trees have been cut down.
You're right in that a decent amount of softwoods are farmed. However, hardwoods are still desired for furnature etc., and it's these that make up substantial areas of tropical forests, eg. the rainforests. These do take a long time to grow back, and so logging companies don't see the point in replanting them.
So yeah, it's over the top to cry over every hardwood that's felled. But there is merit to regulating softwood logging to the same degree.
-deus-
-deus-
Trousersnake
2007-11-28, 22:02
What a Bitch & Moan.
Ever consider people tell you to use both sides of the paper because it's making full use of something someone has paid for? Do you only eat half your big mac too?
Really your gripe is flawed just because people are farming trees doesn't mean resources need to be wasted so they can continuously roll out new products for their profit margins. It's comparable to saying, don't buy normal cows milk, buy goats milk or soy milk because it's available too.
Never have I seen nor heard of any tree preservists wanting a sustainable tree farm tree to be saved.
As for all your other bullshit, well I live in an area of large forest activity, it takes like the biggest weed of a tree (the pine tree) like 20 years at least to mature. You're saying, just plant them, just plant them, jumping up and down. It takes a lot more time and effort then you think and then you have to worry about the new trees surviving with all the shit that can happen to them.
Also dipshit tree farmers don't take into consideration disasters - Just about this time last year a giant fire broke out and fucked up all these pissant forestry trees - Morons. I'm glad it has fucked them nicely, serves them right for being stupid and having "they'll be fine, we can grow more" mentalities similiar to yours.
Finally if a tree isn't a dollar sign to someone and it's not unsafe why the fuck would you want to drop it?
Are you the kid that talks this shit because your daddy works for a logging company /paper mill or something because this bullshit subject came up a few months back and I'm trying to figure out if it was you.
Trousersnake
2007-11-28, 22:05
Also check out my thread on the free sample of G magazine...page 23 - nice little piece on why recycled office paper is better then virgin paper. You know just in case you really do care.
What a Bitch & Moan.
Ever consider people tell you to use both sides of the paper because it's making full use of something someone has paid for? Do you only eat half your big mac too?
Actually I have considered. People don't say to use both sides of the paper because its a waste of money, they tell me its about "Saving trees". I of course understand not wasting money, but thats not why people tell me to use both sides of the paper. They say shit like "Use both sides of the paper, they had to kill a tree to make that", and it pisses me off to no ends. I of course use both sides anyway if its just scrap or I'm just doodling.
Like I said though, I've been to many logging lands. These tree hugger would have you think its a barren wasteland. Its not. Theres plenty of animals and trees there. Like I said though, they've logged just about every inch of this country and grew it all back. Its sustainable, its renewable.
Trousersnake
2007-11-28, 23:03
You could say oil is renewable, you just have to wait awhile... :p
You could say oil is renewable, you just have to wait awhile... :p
No, because it takes too long to renew. The last time I went to logging land it was more overgrown than the game preserve my Grandpa lives on. I didn't see any of those huge empty fields like you'd see in Tiny Toons. There's plenty of trees, and we can grow them back fast enough to meet demand. If we couldn't wood wouldn't be so readily available. Logging isn't some new practice, its been going on for a long ass time.
If done right, logging can have very little impact. In fact, it says it right on wikipedia:
"Well planned and well managed logging operations often have very low impact on the environment."
Read all about logging here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logging
And my final argument against jackass tree huggers is this: If you don't like cutting down trees, try wiping your ass with plastic.
Without wood, we wouldn't be able to have this nice, comfortable, polite society that we live in. Hell, even if we didn't have polite society, we'd still have to cut down trees for wood.
And no, my Dad doesn't work for a logging company. I don't know anyone that works for a logging company actually. I just hate people running thinking their shit doesn't stink because they're being "Earth-friendly" when really there just being ignorant. If you want to run around feeling good for no real reason, just get really drunk and/or stoned like I like to do.
Hell, theres a good comparison. Remember the biggest drug bust ever and how it failed to make even a tiny dent in the illegal drug trade? Its just like those that wage the war on drugs, a bunch of idiots running around telling others how to live and what do, and at the same time thinking all their bullshit is making a difference when they really aren't doing shit besides giving me a headache.
MasterPython
2007-11-30, 07:57
You could say oil is renewable, you just have to wait awhile... :p
Not really the conditions that formed oil are unlikely to ever take place again. same with old growth forests. The wood from replanted trees will nevr be the same as the stuff from natural forests. Thats why people pay big buck for logs that were cut hundreds of years ago and sank to the bottom of the great lakes.
Not really the conditions that formed oil are unlikely to ever take place again. same with old growth forests. The wood from replanted trees will nevr be the same as the stuff from natural forests. Thats why people pay big buck for logs that were cut hundreds of years ago and sank to the bottom of the great lakes.
Replanted forest are about all we have left that aren't in parks and already protected from being cut down. Thats why I'm saying theres no point in worrying about cutting down trees, at least in America.
boozehound420
2007-12-02, 02:59
The more paper you use the more demand, and more money for the logging company. Which equals more trees planted. So wasting paper is helping the environment.
More ignorance = more trees.
What?
Wait, I thought you said that!
oh ok
---
I understand that there are a lot of uninformed environmental advocates, and this bothers me as well.
But seriously, forests are critical to life on earth. And the most critical forests, the rainforests, are being destroyed.
See illegal logging, deforestation, desertification and rainforest on wikipedia.
In the last two decades, Afghanistan has lost over 70% of its forests throughout the country.
...
About half of the mature tropical forests, between 750 to 800 million hectares of the original 1.5 to 1.6 billion hectares that once covered the planet have been felled.
...
Unless significant measures are taken on a world-wide basis to preserve them, by 2030 there will only be ten percent remaining with another ten percent in a degraded condition. 80 percent will have been lost and with them the irreversible loss of hundreds of thousands of species.
Many tropical countries, including Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, Bangladesh, China, Sri Lanka, Laos, Nigeria, Liberia, Guinea, Ghana and the Cote d'lvoire have lost large areas of their rainforest.
90% of the forests of the Philippine archipelago have been cut.
In 1960 Central America still had 4/5 of its original forest; now it is left with only 2/5 of it.
Madagascar has lost 95% of its rainforests.
Atlantic coast of Brazil has lost 90-95% of its Mata Atlântica rainforest. Half of the Brazilian state of Rondonia's 24.3 million hectares have been destroyed or severely degraded in recent years.
As of 2007, less than 1% of Haiti's forests remain, causing many to call Haiti a Caribbean desert.
Between 1990 and 2005, the Nigeria lost a staggering 79% of its old-growth forests.
Several countries, notably the Philippines, Thailand and India have declared their deforestation a national emergency.
...
There are significantly large areas of forest in Indonesia that are being lost as native forest is cleared by large multi-national pulp companies and being replaced by plantations.
...
A major source of deforestation is the logging industry, driven spectacularly by China and Japan.
...
(Australia) Victoria and NSW's remnant red gum forests, including the Murray River's Barmah-Millewa, are increasingly being clear-felled using mechanical harvesters, destroying already rare habitat. Macnally estimates that approximately 81% of fallen timber has been removed from the southern Murray Darling basin, and the Mid-Murray Forest Management Area (including the Barmah and Gunbower forests) provides about 80% of Victoria's red gum timber.
...
Some estimates suggest that the illegal timber trade may comprise over a tenth of the total global timber trade, worth more than $150 billion a year. Although exact figures are difficult to obtain, given the illegal nature of the activity, reliable estimates indicate that more than half of all logging activities in particularly vulnerable regions – the Amazon Basin, Central Africa, Southeast Asia, the Russian Federation and some of the Baltic states – is illegal.
...
Actually, though Mainland China is primarily responsible for the increase in illegal logging which we have seen in recent years. For example, Global Timber, a UK-based non profit, makes the following estimates for the proportion of exported timber from each listed country to China that is sourced from illegal logging:
Brazil: 80%
Burma: >90%
Cambodia: 100%
Cameroon: 80%
Congo (Brazzaville): 90%
Equatorial Guinea: 90%
Gabon: 80%
Indonesia (timber): 90%
Indonesia (pulp and paper): 90%
Malaysia: 50%
Papua New Guinea: 90%
Russia (timber): 60%
Russia (pulp and paper): 10%
Solomon Islands: 90%
Of course, US and EU demand for imported furniture and paper products from China contributes to much of this activity.
You can understand from reading this why some people may be concerned about forests and their uses, even if they don't know much about it.
Rich, developed nations such as Australia, China, Japan, United States and the UK import timber and timber products from areas where old growth forest is being logged illegally.
Environmentalists who know what they're talking about suggest sustainably managed plantations as an alternative, although there are problems with plantation practices at the moment.
If they don't know what they're talking about, and they're interested, why not refer them to some information so they can learn the context of the problem?
Richard:
These tree hugger would have you think its a barren wasteland. Its not. Theres plenty of animals and trees there. Like I said though, they've logged just about every inch of this country and grew it all back. Its sustainable, its renewable.
The plantations are often very simple compared to the original forests. The complexity of the forest takes a long time to regenerate. This is a big problem for habitat, for both plants and animals, not to mention insects, fungii, etc.
It's not sustainable at the moment, because of the significant lack of habitat. I agree though that it can be sustainable and renewable.
What's the point of being wasteful?
We're living in a time of significant environmental catastrophe. We're all in this together. We all depend on the environment to live. Take care.
boozehound420
2007-12-04, 00:04
The plantations are often very simple compared to the original forests. The complexity of the forest takes a long time to regenerate. This is a big problem for habitat, for both plants and animals, not to mention insects, fungii, etc.
It's not sustainable at the moment, because of the significant lack of habitat. I agree though that it can be sustainable and renewable.
Ever go visit a forest a year after a forest fire?. You'd be amazed at how fast it regenerated. Its the same with clear cutting. It actually comes back faster when you clear cut (as opposed to selective logging) because theres direct sunlight. Where normally the low level plants and small species of tree are living in shade. Now picture what happens naturaly all the time, but aided by us humans. Going out and planting trees to speed up the process even more. Here in BC ALOT of trees are planted. I dont have the exact numbers but I know the tree planting occupation for the logging companies employes alot of people. I have a few friends who do it and for about half a year (when the season is right) they go out and plant around 500 trees per day.
Yes, I've visited forests that have been burned. I am familiar with ecological succession and regeneration.
Some forests thrive on fire. In Australia, there are forests that are very adapted to frequent burning. But there are also rainforests.
Rainforests support much more biodiversity than dry forests. In Australian forests, it has been shown that the fire frequency is one of the main causes of the type of forest that exists in a certain area. More frequent burning means less biodiversity. More frequent burning means a dry eucalypt forest instead of a wet schlerophyll or rainforest.
This generally applies to rainforests. Rainforests only burn very rarely or they lose species.
We have rainforest species here that cannot tolerate any fire, and will die out in an area if it is burned. They wont come back until birds bring them back.
Another problem with burning and clearing is the invasion of exotic species. These disturbances allow invasive species to take hold, and these species can cause significant disruptions, including extinctions.
There are a number of problems with the plantations that replace cleared areas. The problems depend on the size of the clearings, and generally the smaller the clearing, the better ecologically. It would be much better to clear an area like a chessboard than to completely clear an area half that size.
Although clearing often creates good conditions for pioneer species to establish, forests create these conditions even better. In a forest situation, partial shade and deep leaf litter retain moisture in the soil so the trees can survive dry times. The soil in a forest is healthy and often quite loose, and roots establish well.
Also, there are complex fungal relationships in forests. Many trees thrive with the right fungii, and the absence of fungii is detrimental to them. (In fact, many trees fuse their roots with trees of the same species growing around them, so that they share nutrients and water, which helps them establish).
When a large area of forest is completely cleared, most of the forest life dies. So, as well as fungii, the diversity of insects and microfauna which are essential to the health of the forest are not present in the establishment of the plantations.
When large areas are cleared, it takes longer for these fungii and microfauna to return to the area. In fact, it takes longer for all species to return to the area except the most common ones (including invasive exotic species).
When logging companies clear and then plant out plantations of trees, they don't do it in the most effective way. It is possible to harvest timber from a forest much more efficiently.
The plantations usually consist of just a few species.
Because there are a lot of young trees all the same age trying to get going, they can be very susceptible to pest attack. Also, timber companies tend to select useful species of trees to replant, which is understandable, but sometimes they replant inappropriate species, such as locally exotic or exotic species. This can have a detrimental effect on the health of the forest.
Also, clearing riparian areas (edge areas of water bodies, wetlands) and steep areas causes significant damage.
Clearing riparian areas can have detrimental effects on health of the water organisms. For example, exposing shaded areas of waterways to sunlight, which alters the habitat.
Clearing steep areas often results in erosion damage to these areas.
Regarding selective logging, well, you're right that the pioneer species (which are often the most common species) come back faster in a cleared area than a mature forest. But the overall diversity takes longer to recover. Also, the habitat suffers a temporary shock if the area if cleared and replanted, but if it is selectively cleared, the habitat remains much more intact during the transition period.
In summary:
The frequency of clearing/burning an area directly affects the diversity of life in that area.
Clearing large areas usually has detrimental effects on a forest, even if the area is replanted.
It is better for the health of the forest to clear mosaic areas rather than complete areas.
The regeneration process is much more effective if mosaic areas rather than complete areas are cleared.
It is best to leave riparian areas and steep areas undisturbed.
It is important to carefully consider which species are being used to replant an area.
Slave of the Beast
2007-12-07, 08:35
But seriously, forests are critical to life on earth. And the most critical forests, the rainforests, are being destroyed.
If we run out of fresh paper and teak armchairs, will the human race die off?
deus-redux
2007-12-07, 18:46
If we run out of fresh paper and teak armchairs, will the human race die off?
A fair few artists would top themselves. ;)
-deus-
Prometheus
2007-12-09, 22:59
Fact: Most paper is made from trees farmed specifically for their wood.
Fact: Tree farms are replanted when a crop is cut down.
Fact: Paper contains significant quantities of carbon which was formerly CO2
Fact: When you throw out paper it ends up in a landfill.
Fact: Stuff in a landfill doesn't decompose in the absence of oxygen.
Conclusion: Don't worry about throwing out paper, you're sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere that way.
With this sort of thing, the tree is just another farmed crop, it just takes longer to make it to market.
Now, I am an adamant supporter of protecting woodlands and old growth forests. Don't be confused.
If we run out of fresh paper and teak armchairs, will the human race die off?
What? No... Why? :)
If we keep destroying the rainforests, as we are now, we're going to lose a lot more than the potential to 'produce' forest products.
If for example the rest of the Amazon basin is cleared, there will be countless extinctions. The river system will erode and silt up. Weather patterns will be significantly affected. There may be a lot less rainfall in that region. The soil will be degraded. Oxygen production will be reduced. The carbon dioxide in the trees will be released.
Not the end of the world, and not the end of the human race. Still, one of the most significant events of our time.
Prometheus, that's an interesting synopsis.
I suppose if it gets reused or recycled it can still eventually be put in a landfill, though. The paper being thrown in the bin represents all the energy used in manufacturing the paper, not just the carbon, so it makes sense to me to get the most use from it before disposing of it.
VolatileShiftInPersona
2007-12-30, 04:17
Fact: Most paper is made from trees farmed specifically for their wood.
Fact: Tree farms are replanted when a crop is cut down.
Fact: Paper contains significant quantities of carbon which was formerly CO2
Fact: When you throw out paper it ends up in a landfill.
Fact: Stuff in a landfill doesn't decompose in the absence of oxygen.
Conclusion: Don't worry about throwing out paper, you're sucking CO2 out of the atmosphere that way.
With this sort of thing, the tree is just another farmed crop, it just takes longer to make it to market.
Now, I am an adamant supporter of protecting woodlands and old growth forests. Don't be confused.
Don't trees eat up more CO2 than if you had just had it made into paper?
StealthyRacoons
2008-01-02, 16:06
Well one problem with recycling paper is making it blank again. You have to get all the ink and color off of it. What do you do with that toxic sludge?
Mr. McBee III
2008-01-03, 06:32
Well one problem with recycling paper is making it blank again. You have to get all the ink and color off of it. What do you do with that toxic sludge?
Penn & Teller?
But still a very valid point!
Theres two types of forest, old growth and new growth. Old growth trees are 300+ years old and take about four people to wrap their arms around it. Once you cut down a tree like that its gone forever, as least to you it is because it won't be growing back to that size in your lifetime. You won't find an old growth forest anywhere except for parks.
I heard the same thing in a movie in my science class. Word for word. Copypasta.
ChickenOfDoom
2008-01-09, 16:49
Here's why I don't use both sides of the paper:
when I write in a notebook on the right side of the page, my hand can rest on the paper and then whatever surface is to the right of it as I'm writing. When I write on the left side, the metal swirly thing digs into my hand as I do it and as I get closer to the far side of the page the angle of the thing makes it so I have to write more vertically, slowing me down.
I always intend to go to the end of the notebook and then flip it over and make the left side of the page the right side from the other end, but when I finish a class and I haven't gotten to that, it seems like a bad idea to start with that for another class because merging subjects like that just seems awkward, and writing on both pages often causes them to rub together and smear over time, something that's only really safe to do in classes with non-cumulative tests and material since you only ever need to look at recently written, non smeared notes. Also my parents buy me new notebooks regardless of my need for them and it feels good to put old books and notes somewhere I can never look at them again.
There's also the fact that I don't care because I'll probably be dead before we run out of trees.
Oh, but at the same time it isn't necessarily renewable; supplies of effective fertilizer are limited, and paper isn't really put back into the ground in a way that's at all dispersed. So people who actually care about the future and the world might want to worry about that sort of thing.
http://www.photius.com/images/do03_04a.jpg
that image is from the border of Haiti (on the left) and the Dominican Republic (on the right). Just shows what deforestation can do even if it's just to the appearance of the place.
Slave of the Beast
2008-01-09, 19:23
that image is from the border of Haiti (on the left) and the Dominican Republic (on the right). Just shows what deforestation can do even if it's just to the appearance of the place.
Aesthetically speaking, the physical contrast makes the landscape far more interesting than it otherwise would have been.
chrislol
2008-01-10, 05:31
someone was watching penn and teller
ingutted
2008-01-10, 05:38
Not really the conditions that formed oil are unlikely to ever take place again. same with old growth forests. The wood from replanted trees will nevr be the same as the stuff from natural forests. Thats why people pay big buck for logs that were cut hundreds of years ago and sank to the bottom of the great lakes.
omg i saw something on THC about that its pretty incredible isnt it?
(The History Channel)
Xpenguin17
2008-01-10, 07:23
True. The globe enjoys 3x more trees than it did 75 years ago, and put into consideration that statistically 13 new mature trees arrive in the world every second, and about 3,800 KG of lumber/s -- which must mean the environmentalists have triumphed and put us in the right direction since then. And don't forget the law that states you must plant 2 trees every time you cut one.
However, I agree that forests should continue to be grown regardless if there's a demand or not.
Moreover, it's true that most bitch-ass amateur whack "tree huggers" are such who bitch and whine without cause, not to mention without any idea what the fuck they're protesting against.
EDIT: Lead can be easily extracted from the paper mass. Ink can't, which is why some recycled paper appear tinted brown somewhat.
True. The globe enjoys 3x more trees than it did 75 years ago, and put into consideration that statistically 13 new mature trees arrive in the world every second, and about 3,800 KG of lumber/s -- which must mean the environmentalists have triumphed and put us in the right direction since then. And don't forget the law that states you must plant 2 trees every time you cut one.
Well comparing with 75 years ago isn't exactly the best comparison because forests were in such a 'bad' state especially in the developed world because of over exploitation. The only reason why forests have regrown in developed countries over the last 75 years is because of the advent of natural gas, oil and electricty as cheap and easily available substitutes for wood in heating and cooking. How long before that is forced to change is questionable.
wolfy_9005
2008-01-12, 11:42
if they care about tree's then why print their tree hugging shit on paper made from tree's?
Xpenguin17
2008-01-12, 16:04
if they care about tree's then why print their tree hugging shit on paper made from tree's?
Because that's the medium most of us fascists use to be informed of news so it's the most effective way to "get the word across" to us -- using paper is murdering trees, but in this case, they are murdering a couple trees to stop a tree massacre. Cool tradeoff methinks.
glutamate antagonist
2008-01-16, 18:22
Fuck those who tell me how I shouldn't waste paper. It's my paper and I'll do whatever I damn well please with it.
Fuck those who support, both by action and by inaction, any government who does not sanction the illegal logging of rainforest or old trees.
Conversely, fuck anyone who looks down on me for building my office out of imported mahogany. If they're selling, I'm buying, and it's a governement job to step in and regulate the deforestation, not mine.
thizz all day
2008-01-18, 06:57
Trees take too long to renew too you fucking dipshit.
You're the stupidest motherfucker next to derdache, you are the reason humans are disgusting. At the rate we consume lumber, replacing is too late.
Just because we have it, doesn't mean we have to waste it. Such as OIL, see what happens now? You're straight retarded. Everything you said in this thread was so moronic I can't believe that you actually believe yourself...
Why are the majority of humans so pathetic? So dependant on the government like poster above me, you're sadly pathetic....The government doesn't do shit thats helpful, I believe it's sole purpose is just for profits and big time corporations. Besides that though glutamate antagonist, the world is going to shit nowadays and you only have yourself to blame in the end. Nobody is saying you have to step in and take action, but is there really a need to be so glutonous, wasteful and retarded? Look what happened to the romans.
wolfy_9005
2008-01-19, 11:48
Ever go visit a forest a year after a forest fire?. You'd be amazed at how fast it regenerated. Its the same with clear cutting. It actually comes back faster when you clear cut (as opposed to selective logging) because theres direct sunlight. Where normally the low level plants and small species of tree are living in shade. Now picture what happens naturaly all the time, but aided by us humans. Going out and planting trees to speed up the process even more. Here in BC ALOT of trees are planted. I dont have the exact numbers but I know the tree planting occupation for the logging companies employes alot of people. I have a few friends who do it and for about half a year (when the season is right) they go out and plant around 500 trees per day.
Sure, the forest grows back very quickly after being burnt(the ash contains lot's of nutrients which are concentrated and act as a "fertilizer"), as it's already esablished, but once you log it, the water table rises, bringing salt water, which the smaller shrubs and bushes cant survive with, and so the whole forest will eventually die, as the small shrubs are essential in keeping the big tree's alive, and the big tree's keep the small shrubs alive. Also, out of these 500 tree's they plant, atleast half is expected to die in the first 1 month-1 year.
boozehound420
2008-01-19, 20:53
Sure, the forest grows back very quickly after being burnt(the ash contains lot's of nutrients which are concentrated and act as a "fertilizer"), as it's already esablished, but once you log it, the water table rises, bringing salt water, which the smaller shrubs and bushes cant survive with, and so the whole forest will eventually die, as the small shrubs are essential in keeping the big tree's alive, and the big tree's keep the small shrubs alive. Also, out of these 500 tree's they plant, atleast half is expected to die in the first 1 month-1 year.
decomposing roots add all necessary nutrients into the soil. And your rant on salt water getting into the forests is fucking retarded. Not all forests are at sea level, majority are (in north america atleast) forests that are logged are in the mountains. Yes lots of planted trees are expected to die, and they know this. And thats why if they cut down 10, there goal is to plant 20 (if the planting rate is 50% survivable)
note: america has more trees then it did 10, 25 and 50 years ago.
note: america has more trees then it did 10, 25 and 50 years ago.
So? A hummer is more fuel efficient than a formula one car.
The overall trend is a decline the area of forests world wide. 13 milion hectares lost each year with 5.6 million hectares gain each year in. Over all loss of over 7 million hectares.
ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/008/A0400E/A0400E00.pdf
So? A hummer is more fuel efficient than a formula one car.
The overall trend is a decline the area of forests world wide. 13 milion hectares lost each year with 5.6 million hectares gain each year in. Over all loss of over 7 million hectares.
ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/008/A0400E/A0400E00.pdf
good. we can sell our surplus air.
BrokeProphet
2008-01-27, 01:48
I love anti-environmentalists. It makes a lot of fucking sense.
Why would the logging industry, the oil industry or their shared media corporations lie to us? It is not like they have anything to gain by it.
i use both sides of paper to save money
EtherFreak
2008-02-13, 18:26
Jesus Fuck.
sure America may have more trees, but what size are those trees. you know mini trees don't count, nor do those trees in the wall mart parking lot. actually very few trees are right next to the coast, unless you consider next to the coast 100+ miles, which then the salt has NO effect whatsoever. how many 10ft+ redwood trees are around? only ones I know of are on national parks, and the few pieces of private property.
yes trees are renewable, yes they are faster then oil, no they are not really renewable in a persons lifetime by my definitions. renewable is 10 year at most, and more like yearly.
may Darwin strike you from the food chain.
Slave of the Beast
2008-02-13, 19:28
...no they are not really renewable in a persons lifetime by my definitions. renewable is 10 year at most, and more like yearly.
There are several species which can grow at a rate of several feet a year, Willow hybrid probably being the most noticeable example (6ft+). I would classify those as renewable, or at least good potential carbon sinks.
And with the ever increasing knowledge of genetic manipulation, who knows what could theoretically be achieved with tree growth rates.
Trousersnake
2008-02-14, 00:00
...Willow hybrid...
Dirty, dirty weed.
glutamate antagonist
2008-02-14, 00:09
I love anti-environmentalists. It makes a lot of fucking sense.
Why would the logging industry, the oil industry or their shared media corporations lie to us? It is not like they have anything to gain by it.
I'm not an anti-environmentalist.
I'm against anyone imposing their moral view of the planet on me, or trying to control my actions via me, rather than lobbying the government like any good political movement would.
Trousersnake
2008-02-14, 00:26
I'm not an anti-environmentalist.
I'm against anyone imposing their moral view of the planet on me, or trying to control my actions via me, rather than lobbying the government like any good political movement would.
Because Politicans aren't driven by money either.
Slave of the Beast
2008-02-14, 08:08
Dirty, dirty weed.
A weed is a plant that happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. If growing "dirty weed" trees is a possible solution (partial or otherwise) to a far greater problem, then so be it.
smokemon
2008-03-09, 23:41
So I am ignorant because I want to save trees and their associated ecosystems?
Okay, sure.
More trees now than 50 years ago? Yeah, but how about 300 years ago, before industrial man raped everything in sight? The "woods" around here is just a bunch of choppy, inconsistent new growth.
Trees aren't just for the sake of trees, but the whole system of life they support.
Trees planted because "lolz we gotta plant sum trees naow!" are like those thousands of retarded squirrels that shred the antiquities in your attic and then go scavenge the mini-mall parking lot for abandoned french fries.
They're bored, and not doing any particularly important job, except generating cash/stash.
To "look how many moar we planted" people;
-Kiss my penis.
To "omg saev the treez" people;
-Kiss my penis.
To "Lets work together to preserve a wonderfully complex system of life and scientific wonder";
-Pardon me while I kiss your penis.
moldykorn
2008-03-16, 22:58
Pave the planet.
TheShepherd
2008-03-20, 02:22
People aren't talking about logging plantations when they advocate "saving trees" they are mostly concerned about illegal logging, forest clearing for agricultural, residential or industrial uses, felling old growth forests and the destruction of habitat that goes hand in hand with most clearing processes. To take the "don't waste that paper, a tree died for that" comment and use it carte blanche against the forest/tree conservation movement is the most ignorant thing I have ever heard. Please think hard about all the facets of an issue before posting otherwise post in Bitch And Moan.
areyouchunkanese
2008-03-21, 03:53
You're right in that a decent amount of softwoods are farmed. However, hardwoods are still desired for furnature etc., and it's these that make up substantial areas of tropical forests, eg. the rainforests. These do take a long time to grow back, and so logging companies don't see the point in replanting them.
So yeah, it's over the top to cry over every hardwood that's felled. But there is merit to regulating softwood logging to the same degree.
-deus-
-deus-
Dude, what hardwoods are you even talking about? Hickory, ash, oak, maple etc are all grown primarily in a temperate climate i.e. North America.
Slave of the Beast
2008-03-21, 13:32
You're right in that a decent amount of softwoods are farmed. However, hardwoods are still desired for furnature etc., and it's these that make up substantial areas of tropical forests, eg. the rainforests. These do take a long time to grow back, and so logging companies don't see the point in replanting them.
So yeah, it's over the top to cry over every hardwood that's felled. But there is merit to regulating softwood logging to the same degree.
-deus-
-deus-
Dude, what hardwoods are you even talking about? Hickory, ash, oak, maple etc are all grown primarily in a temperate climate i.e. North America.
Which bit of rainforest don't you understand, you Amerocentric nitwit?
As for the hardwoods he's talking about: Mahogany, Teak, Bocote, Brazilian Cherry, Idigbo, Ipe, Santa Maria... Liquorice, the list goes on.
riempire
2008-03-22, 04:11
Op Rip:(
BrokeProphet
2008-03-24, 00:38
Who do you think forced logging policy to replant the trees?
Who do you think protected what old growth we have left?
Whose ideas were those?
Those "ignorant" tree lovers.
Recycling is also a way to help keep landfills from filling up so quickly. If more people buy recycled goods then more recycling centers will spring up, and the ones already in place will double or triple their recycling.
So before you label someone as ignorant, you ignorant fuck, you might want to look at things from a bit broader of a perspective and stop just seeing what you want.
Sorry if this has been pointed out before, but what about the amount of ENERGY it takes to make all that paper? All the logging machinery, the factories making it, the transportation of new products? I don't understand why people would want to be wasteful just for the sake of it, it doesn't make any sense.
grossnutz
2008-04-04, 04:47
[QUOTE=Cullz;9307690]What?
The carbon dioxide in the trees will be released.
The c02 in the trees never get realesed fuck tard its called photosynthisis the prosses of converting c02 into oxygen so get your tree hugging hippi ass facts str8 before you rant about shit you know nothing about
Prometheus
2008-04-04, 11:51
Sorry if this has been pointed out before, but what about the amount of ENERGY it takes to make all that paper? All the logging machinery, the factories making it, the transportation of new products? I don't understand why people would want to be wasteful just for the sake of it, it doesn't make any sense.
I don't know about paper mills, but I know many lumber mills burn the scrap to power the equipment.
The c02 in the trees never get realesed fuck tard its called photosynthisis the prosses of converting c02 into oxygen so get your tree hugging hippi ass facts str8 before you rant about shit you know nothing about
It does get released, fuck tard. It's called starting a fire to burn idiots like you!
Myron Mujadi
2008-05-27, 19:00
op was talking about paper you stupid morons. rainforest trees aren't used to make paper. they are used to make expensive furniture and dashboards for luxury cars. not paper. not that most rainforest trees end up being used productively anyway. self-proclaimed "environmentalist" are so fucking stupid. op is right, environmentalists do more harm than good to the cause they claim to support.
Rizzo in a box
2008-06-21, 04:07
trees are people, too.
Nagasaki Nightmare
2008-07-13, 10:31
Ever go visit a forest a year after a forest fire?. You'd be amazed at how fast it regenerated. Its the same with clear cutting. It actually comes back faster when you clear cut (as opposed to selective logging) because theres direct sunlight. Where normally the low level plants and small species of tree are living in shade. Now picture what happens naturaly all the time, but aided by us humans. Going out and planting trees to speed up the process even more. Here in BC ALOT of trees are planted. I dont have the exact numbers but I know the tree planting occupation for the logging companies employes alot of people. I have a few friends who do it and for about half a year (when the season is right) they go out and plant around 500 trees per day.
Its the carbon left behind from burnt trees/ash that allows those burnt forests to replenish themselves so quickly, not necessarily the direct sunlight.
Clearcutting trees disrupts the natural balance of the forest. Fragmenting the habitat and displacing squirrels and birds and whatnot. It can't continue whether there is a demand for wood in our economy or not, because when it comes down to it we can't have an economy without our landbase in the first place.