Deforrestation!

[small-fry666]

:shakefist::shakefist: So we may or may not need deforrestation, but what happens after ALL the forrest is gone!? Trees can't clean air, we suffocate to death, painfully, and wildlife is DESTROYED!!! THEN what do we do? :shakefist: I guess, we're kinda screwed. How would we deal with such a disaster? How would life survive? Would we ever recover????

[DanieMarie]

Re: Deforrestation!

To be honest, i can't see this happening, at least not everywhere. Where I grew up (British Columbia, Canada), most of the province is forest land, and forestry is a HUGE resource industry in the province, but the laws are also strict, and that also actually creates business (and money). Because the logging companies have to plant trees to replace the ones they cut down, tree planting farms make money planting and selling seedlings, the logging companies need to employ people to plant them, etc.
In Europe since there are fewer forests left a lot are protected as park land. There's a huge area around Berlin that's State park. Berlin actually doesn't have a lot of suburb because it's surrounded by State park lands.

[small-fry666]

Re: Deforrestation!

Ok, but what about the wildlife being destroyed?

[DanieMarie]

Re: Deforrestation!

There are laws regarding wildlife too. You can't clearcut too much of an area displacing too much of a population. Canada in general is actually a pretty environmental place (though a lot of laws are provincial and some provinces are better than others) Actually where I'm from overpopulation of some wildlife is more of a problem than underpopulation. And there is a TON of forest land, it's just that there are -that- many deer, cougars and bears.

Think about it this way...even if you want to be totally cynical, and say that big business runs the world....well as someone who studies business and works for a big company, there's more to it than that. Imagine you're in the logging business. If you run out of trees, that's bad. And a forest doesn't exist in a vacuum...it's a whole environment and one thing needs the others to survive. Deer eat plants that compete for soil nutrients, etc. So basically, you want to log, but also create a sustainable environment...that way you can log for years and years. Selective logging has also become more popular in recent years because when you only select the better trees, you can sell the lumber at a premium price. And then you also don't compromise the forest.

[small-fry666]

Re: Deforrestation!

What about the illegal logging?

[DanieMarie]

Re: Deforrestation!

You can't just illegally clearcut forests....people are going to notice.

I know that it happens in the developing world, but I was talking about Canada and Europe, and in Canada and Europe, I can tell you with 100000 percent certainty that you're not going to be able to cut down enough trees illegally to make a gall of difference. It's not like you can just do it overnight, and you need to buy equipment, and you need to sell it as well to actually make any money. Someone will notice, and it's not the kind of fraud you can just cover up with software or creative accounting.

[small-fry666]

Re: Deforrestation!

I meant in developing countries.

Macguyver looks happy!

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Deforrestation!

I meant in developing countries.

In developing countries, you got a real problem. The people who live there would like to be able to live half way decent lives - to do that, the country needs to develop. Land needs to be cleared for farming, mining, building. In addition, exotic hardwoods have enormous monetary value - up to several thousand dollars for a single tree... enough to feed a family in one of those countries for several years.

I do understand the concern for deforestation in those countries. I, personally, don't feel that I can or should do anything to interfere until such a time as I can offer a solution which does not involve locking people into a perpetual state of poverty. Can you suggest such a solution? Or is your concern for the forests pushing your concern for humanity out of the picture?

The majority of the oxygen you breath actually comes out of the ocean... compared to what the oceans produce, the entire Amazon rain forest produces negligible oxygen. I'm finding estimates that the oceans produce approximately 90% of the free oxygen in the atmosphere, leaving all terrestrial sources combined to produce the other 10%.

I suppose this isn't really a big issue for me, considering that I can walk out my backdoor and walk steadily for about a week before I get out of the forest... Then, add another hour for walking, and I'm back in the forest again.

Incidentally, FYI, a forest which is well managed and being harvested according to modern forestry principles will support far, far more wildlife than one which is in it's primordial state. Clearing out mature, harvestable trees allows sunlight to reach the forest floor, leading to thriving undergrowth - which is what the prey critters generally prefer to eat - and hide in.

Don't know about other places, but around here only poplars are clear cut (for the paper industry). Poplars are short lived trees to begin with (20-30 years, provided they don't get blown over in a storm which is what generally happens because they are extremely brittle. When they are clear cut, the tree grows back from the root. In ten years, you'd never believe the lot had been cut.

Clear cutting any other species of tree is an economically terrible way to go, unless you need to clear land for farming. The reason why is this - if you cut out all the scrub trees, along with the harvestable trees, you increase the lag time before the forest is harvestable again. Those scrub trees are important - they've grown fast, tall, and straight in a desperate attempt to reach the sun. When trees are selectively harvested, allowing sunlight in, those scrub trees take off quickly, producing very straight timber - perfect for lumbering. I don't think clear cutting is done much any more...

As near as I can tell, the threat of deforestation, like all those other Multhusian disasters we've been warned about, has been greatly exagerated.

[thalassa]

Re: Deforrestation!

The majority of the oxygen you breath actually comes out of the ocean... compared to what the oceans produce, the entire Amazon rain forest produces negligible oxygen. I'm finding estimates that the oceans produce approximately 90% of the free oxygen in the atmosphere, leaving all terrestrial sources combined to produce the other 10%.

...making ocean pollution, and overall ecological health of the ocean something to be concerned about (because it sucks).

Incidentally, FYI, a forest which is well managed and being harvested according to modern forestry principles will support far, far more wildlife than one which is in it's primordial state. Clearing out mature, harvestable trees allows sunlight to reach the forest floor, leading to thriving undergrowth - which is what the prey critters generally prefer to eat - and hide in.

...that would actually be because of something called the "Intermediate Disturbance Hypothesis" which basically says that at moderate levels of disturbance there is more diversity because more species are able to compete because the populations of highly competitive "climax community" species are reduced. Its sort of an artificial ecological state that (while it protects biodiversity), really doesn't protect or increase the overall health of the environment as a whole. The problem with logging (even with replanting) is that it disrupts the historic disturbance regime that all ecosystems already have.

I'm not saying that logging is necessarily *bad*--I do, after all, agree with the ideas of reconciliation ecology...but...conservation biology is pretty darn complex, and management for biodiversity isn't the only thing that should be taken into account when determining ecosystem health.

[Hawkfeathers]

Re: Deforrestation!

The older a tree, the more dense the wood at the core is. So many of the homes built in the big housing boom years have less-than Grade A hardwood flooring or outdoor decks because the lumber available at a reasonable price was "farmed" and not old enough. This is what I was told by quite a few people in the homebuilding industry. And I can say from personal observation, I have friends with older wood flooring in their homes that you could drop a safe on & it would hardly dent, while the newer Bruce or Armstrong, etc., will get dings in it pretty easily.
Is there a "shortage" of old-growth lumber? Or is this all just part of the general drop in quality craftsmanship? I don't really know.

[small-fry666]

Re: Deforrestation!

True, but they bulldoze RIGHT over homes of wildlife, and native villages!
What about the native tribes that live there?

[Shahaku]

Re: Deforrestation!

It seems you have a question for every response and are determined to prove deforestation as horrible. In a way it is, but it is also necessary.

Many village families don't have access to medical care or contraception so they end up have tons of children, many of whom die in the birth or early childhood, often due to neglect because their parents can't afford to feed or immunize them. The areas that are clear cut make room for new cities where more businesses can form, creating more jobs for the people in those villages who before could often barely scrape by. Chances are that many of the villagers were helping with the clear cutting to make some money for their family. As countries develop they also gain more resources, better education, etc. And clear-cutting is necessary to that development, at least to a certain extent.

That's not to say that they shouldn't be cautious. And many countries in underdeveloped countries are slowly coming into the modern world and beginning to implement plans to change things, but there is a difficult balance between doing what's right for their people and doing what's right for the enviornement.

[small-fry666]

Re: Deforrestation!

It is ok if the natives say it is, but sometimes they bulldoze the native villages against their will, so yes, deforrestation is both good and bad.

[DanieMarie]

Re: Deforrestation!

...making ocean pollution, and overall ecological health of the ocean something to be concerned about (because it sucks).



...that would actually be because of something called the "Intermediate Disturbance Hypothesis" which basically says that at moderate levels of disturbance there is more diversity because more species are able to compete because the populations of highly competitive "climax community" species are reduced. Its sort of an artificial ecological state that (while it protects biodiversity), really doesn't protect or increase the overall health of the environment as a whole. The problem with logging (even with replanting) is that it disrupts the historic disturbance regime that all ecosystems already have.

I'm not saying that logging is necessarily *bad*--I do, after all, agree with the ideas of reconciliation ecology...but...conservation biology is pretty darn complex, and management for biodiversity isn't the only thing that should be taken into account when determining ecosystem health.

I think I know where he's getting at....but naturally that's also supposed to happen because (at least where I come from) forests will naturally burn down every once and a while and start up a sort of cyclical growth. Of course, that doesn't happen to the extent it's supposed to anymore because we put them out....

---------- Post added at 06:41 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:39 AM ----------

I meant in developing countries.

Macguyver looks happy!

Yeah but you were talking about total deforestation on a global scale and I mentioned that it will never happen as long as the laws that are currently in place in developed countries continue. Because developed countries (especially ones like Canada, the US and Norway) have a whackload of forestland too.

[Tylluan Penry]

Re: Deforrestation!

It's no good bouncing questions around until you have set some parameters about definitions first. I mean - define deforestation. Is it simply cutting down some trees, any trees, all trees, all trees in one specific area, or everywhere? Then there are 'native populations.' Everyone is native to somewhere. I am native to my little neck of the woods, but I don't think anyone would describe me or my neighbours as native when they decide to cut down all the trees in my street for no good reason.

As for wildlife... well, rats could be wildlife, but also vermin. Anyone who knows me knows my ongoing battles with Ratwen Cambrensis and his family over the years. Do rats need consideration? Or rattlesnakes? (Luckily we dont have them in Wales).

We need to cut down trees for timber, and sometimes for safety reasons. Sometimes a LOT of trees go this way. Where do you draw the line? Is there a line anyway? Who is responsible for these lines (supposing they exist?)

Questions are easy. You can fling them off into the ether and sit back and wait for others to try and answer. There are no easy answers... and that's often because the questions themselves have never been properly asked.