beschizza at February 24th, 2014 09:22 — #1
jardine at February 24th, 2014 09:57 — #2
I'm having deja vu.
aliktren at February 24th, 2014 10:55 — #3
is there an impact crater in tennesse ?
beholder at February 24th, 2014 11:38 — #4
Let's be clear about the causes of deforestation. Suburban sprawl is the number one reason forests are cut down—they're not being decimated by our use of wood and paper. When the industry uses wood for industrial and consumer purposes, they use farmed trees, which are sustainable and replanted. In fact, the best way to get more forests on the planet is to move more people into dense urban areas, and use more paper and wood.
Why Using Wood is the Answer to Saving Forests
mallyboon at February 24th, 2014 12:30 — #5
I suppose it depends on how you define forest. If it's just trees, then your argument makes more sense. Most people would say a forest is more than that though.
You are correct that wood-framed suburban houses eat up a lot of demand for lumber. However, the sustainability of farmed trees should also be questioned - where I live, it usually means moving from an uneven aged hardwood-softwood forest to an even aged softwood monoculture. These forests support lower diversity of other plants and animals and are often inaccessible for other uses, even on publicly owned land. I'm not starry eyed - humans need to use forests in order to survive - but I think the best way to get more forests is to use paper and wood at a lower rate than it can be replaced.
rodedwards at February 24th, 2014 15:27 — #6
I don't know about this. I'm from Manitoba, and it shows large swathes of land that have been apparently decimated (or conversely, massively planted). However, driving through many of those areas on a regular basis as I do, I have not seen the same changes reflected on the ground, so to speak. I'm curious as to how this system handles things like cloud cover in the satellite imagery, shadows (i.e.: time of day), seasonality, etc. Something seems amiss, at least in the areas I can personally vouch for.
joelphillips at February 24th, 2014 17:19 — #7
The methodology is flawed. It shows tree loss on Ilkley moor in Yorkshire, most of which has had no trees for centuries (millenia?).
michael_john_ha at February 25th, 2014 05:48 — #8
Similarly, I associate the area around the West Australian town of Kalgoorlie with many things. An excess of trees is not one of those, as it is on the edge of the aptly named Nullarbor plain. The areas labeled as trees are generally closer to 'low lying desert scrub'
beschizza at March 1st, 2014 09:22 — #9
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.