Re:The Planet Now Has More Trees Than It Did 35 Years Ago
by birksherty on Thursday August 23, 2018 @07:31AM
(#17826322)
Nobody is wishing death. People just want pure truth, not sugar coating like this headline implies.
The biodiversity has been lost, rainforest lost. One tree contains a whole environment. Various insects, birds, animals depend on it. So all of that is lost when the tree is cut.
Now some people planted industrial timber plantations, because of money. None of that is same as what was before. The trees that are planted are not even the same type.
Suppose a bank takes away a family's home with all objects in it. After that the bank gives them a plastic chair. There is some positivity in it because they gained one chair. People are asking why they are not happy about the chair. Why they bring the home into discussion every time we talk about the chair? They probably just want to hear sad things and hate the good news.
Re:The Planet Now Has More Trees Than It Did 35 Years Ago
by marcus_holmes on Thursday August 23, 2018 @07:59AM
(#17826459)
but that's not the situation. Biodiversity loss is measured in loss of habitat. More trees = more habitat.
Re:The Planet Now Has More Trees Than It Did 35 Years Ago
by monkeybutt on Friday August 24, 2018 @01:24AM
(#17832968)
What? They are planting "genetic deserts" of hundreds of acres ofof industrial trees. Biodiversity is lost, habitat is lost because these are not the age, type and woodland mix of plants that made an aan actual habitat. Rows as far as the eye can see of lumber pine trees are no more of a proper habitat than mile after mile of cotton or rice or almonds in the CA central valleyvalley are a reasonable replacement for the habitat and biodiversity that was there previously, not to mention the critical loss of micro wetlands.
Re:The Planet Now Has More Trees Than It Did 35 Years Ago
by 3x on Thursday August 23, 2018 @10:35AM
(#17827599)
Biodiversity loss would be measured in loss of biodiversity, I would think.
Re:The Planet Now Has More Trees Than It Did 35 Years Ago
by marcus_holmes on Friday August 24, 2018 @01:52AM
(#17833057)
yeah you'd think so. But that's not how it works. Ecologists estimate species loss by habitat loss. If a million-hectare forest contains a thousand species, and half of it is cut down, then 500 species are assumed to be lost.
Re:The Planet Now Has More Trees Than It Did 35 Years Ago
by 3x on Thursday August 23, 2018 @10:30AM
(#17827541)
We're in the middle of a mass extinction, what more indication do you need that this in not going to go well? The immediacy and stern tone of environmental news reporting is totally appropriate as climate change compares only to nuclear war as a probable doomsday scenario. The environment is not going to "adapt" toward any state that is either pleasant for humans or conducive to our collective progress.
If the article had said that there are less trees now than there were 35 years ago, that would be bad news. So the fact that there are more trees is indisputably good news. It's not the best news. There is undoubtedly better news that could be announced. But it is good news. It is better than the assumption that I think most of us had, that global tree cover is declining.
Can't we just be a little bit happy that it's not all utterly terrible?