[HN Gopher] The world has more trees than it did 35 years ago (2... ___________________________________________________________________ The world has more trees than it did 35 years ago (2021) Author : bilsbie Score : 95 points Date : 2022-09-12 20:37 UTC (2 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.goodgoodgood.co) (TXT) w3m dump (www.goodgoodgood.co) | dexwiz wrote: | I wonder what the ratio of this is good samaritan tree planting | versus timber industry. Timber plantings account for a large | portion of US land. Timber is a very popular investment among | long term land owners. Not all land is suitable for farming, and | timber is a relatively passive way to extract value form the | land. | | Additionally timber likes to make claims like "we plant 2 trees | for every 1 harvested." What they don't tell you is that half the | trees won't make it to the next clear, and often | smaller/weaker/sick trees are culled before a full clear to make | room for better ones to grow. | legitster wrote: | At least in the West, the vast majority of forestry land is | managed by the NFS. Private land is really only used for | Christmas tree farms or specialty trees for the paper industry. | | For public lands, the timber industry is responsible for their | own replanting, but it's largely irrelevant. More timber is | lost to wildfire than logging every year, so most replanting | falls on the Forest service anyway: | https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/reforesta... | | _Edit_ : Apparently this is all wrong and out of date! | | While the NFS still owns the majority of forestry land in the | West, it only accounts for a tiny portion of the overall lumber | produced. From the CRO: | | > Since the 1990s, FS timber production has decreased, totaling | around 2 billion board feet annually since FY1999.56 In 2011, | NFS supplied 2% of U.S. wood and paper products. The decline is | attributable to a multitude of factors, including (but not | limited to) changing legislative directives and related forest | management policies and practices--such as increased planning | and procedural requirements--as well as changing market | dynamics for wood products, public preferences, and litigation. | | Basically, it became too hard to log NFS land, so logging | companies turned to private or state lands instead (and states | set their own criteria for how private forestry land needs to | be replanted). | soperj wrote: | > More timber is lost to wildfire than logging every year | | Gotta wonder how much of that is because of the way they | replant? (ie: spray with round up, and then plant GMO pine, | eliminating fire break species like aspen). | pluc wrote: | You're failing to account for all the "buy one we plant a tree | // for every N$ spent we'll plant a tree" promotions finally | coming to fruition | xwdv wrote: | Wow, they actually did it? I figured those were just empty | promises that no one would follow up with to see if it was | actually done. | bombcar wrote: | Companies sell it - but as pointed out they're sometimes | charging to plant trees they would have planted anyway. | dexwiz wrote: | I lump those into good samaritan planting. Also I am dubious | on how many of those promotions just end up subsidizing | replanting lumber tracts. I am trying to find numbers but | anything by the timber industry just seems to tout "we are | replanting more than we harvest on a national level," but | doesn't seem to differentiate who is planting what. | onlyrealcuzzo wrote: | I wonder how much of this is The Great Green Walls of Africa | and China... | TremendousJudge wrote: | I was under the impression that the Great Green Wall of | Africa doesn't really exist at the moment, and that no | project goals were ever reached. | onlyrealcuzzo wrote: | True - the GGW of China has 88Bn trees. That's compared to | 390Bn in the Amazon Rainforest. | | The GGW of Africa only has 1Bn trees so far. | | So not as noteworthy. | | I would imagine planting a forest 1/5th the size of The | Amazon is the major driver here... | r721 wrote: | Here's an article from 2020: | | >What happened to Africa's ambitious green belt project? | | https://www.dw.com/en/what-happened-to-africas-ambitious- | gre... | jonas21 wrote: | > _Additionally timber likes to make claims like "we plant 2 | trees for every 1 harvested." What they don't tell you is that | half the trees won't make it to the next clear, and often | smaller/weaker/sick trees are culled before a full clear to | make room for better ones to grow._ | | Sure, but the number of trees doesn't matter so much -- the | amount of carbon sequestered by those trees is more important. | Presumably, thinning out the weak trees allows the stronger | trees to grow larger. | | The US timber industry is actually pretty good for sequestering | carbon because their economic incentives lead them to: | | - Select fast-growing species of trees | | - Harvest the trees before they reach their terminal state | (when they stop acting as a carbon sink), then replant new | trees. | | - Promote the use of timber products as substitutes for carbon- | intensive building materials, like concrete. | | There was an interesting life-cycle analysis of this published | a few years back: | | https://www.fpl.fs.usda.gov/documnts/pdf2011/fpl_2011_lippke... | throwaway894345 wrote: | > Timber plantings account for a large portion of US land. | | Really? I can't imagine it's very big compared to agriculture, | but maybe that's my midwestern bias? Do you have any figures | handy (specifically for commercial timber rather than timber | for other purposes e.g., hunting)? | | > Additionally timber likes to make claims like "we plant 2 | trees for every 1 harvested." What they don't tell you is that | half the trees won't make it to the next clear, and often | smaller/weaker/sick trees are culled before a full clear to | make room for better ones to grow. | | That sounds pretty slimy, but the headline is that there are | more trees. If timber is driving it, I would think the bigger | concern would be over the homogeneity of the trees and the | incumbent ecosystem damage? | | Lastly, I would guess (perhaps wrongly) that palm oil and | banana plantations are driving the inorganic growth (I haven't | yet read the article--shame on me, etc--so perhaps I'm | speculating unnecessarily) | Manuel_D wrote: | I think the idea is that timber is a lot less labor | intensive. Agriculture almost certainly produces more $ per | M^2, but it takes a lot of work planting, fertilizing, and | harvesting every year. Timber plantings, judging by what the | above commenter wrote, probably consists of planting saplings | from a tree nursery then waiting a decade or two for them to | mature. | misterprime wrote: | There could also be a higher risk in an agricultural crop | completely failing due to unlucky weather compared to the | risk of a timber crop failing. | jameshart wrote: | Forests have a nasty habit of catching fire though. | jameshart wrote: | This article has some great visualizations of US land use: | https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-us-land-use/ | | About a quarter of US land is dedicated to 'unprotected' | timber. About ten percent of that belongs to one single | business - https://www.weyerhaeuser.com/ | | Agriculture is a little less (about a fifth), pasture is a | little more (about a third) - although that includes range | land which is barely 'land use' at all. | legitster wrote: | Not sure where you are getting your math here. From the | article: "Weyerhaeuser Co. is the largest private owner of | timberlands in the U.S. With 12.4 million acres, the | company controls 2.3 percent of all commercially available | timber" | | We have some Weyerhauser "timberland" by us - I can say | they are much more like intensive agriculture than forests. | I wouldn't worry about replanting on them - you better | believe Weyerhauser uses every square foot of their land to | grow trees on. | sthu11182 wrote: | beat me to posting that. I do agree its a great | visualization. | [deleted] | poulsbohemian wrote: | This is both surprising and unsurprising, but also potentially | misses the point. If the trees lost are in the Amazon and that's | a giant filter for the planet, then it doesn't really matter if | we planted trees somewhere else if the environmental impact isn't | directly offset. Also, it was only about 45 years ago that we had | _rivers catching on fire_ so an improvement over that doesn 't | mean that we've magically fixed all of our environmental issues. | 40four wrote: | Why _wouldn't_ it matter if we've planted trees elsewhere? | Nobody is suggesting we've _magically_ fixed every | environmental issue, but wouldn't you rather see trends like | total number of trees (or number of rivers catching on fire, as | you put it) trend in the right direction? I take it as a | cautiously optimistic signal that people / governments are | paying attention to the problems at hand, and making progress. | This is a good thing, unless you really ARE hoping for some | sort of magical one off fix. | poulsbohemian wrote: | It's not that it isn't positive, but as another poster said | astutely, a tree <> tree. Love me some trees, glad we are | planting them, but that doesn't mean that putting a rando | tree in my front yard is actually having any meaningful | impact over _not_ cutting down a tree in the Amazon. | senko wrote: | Do you have influence over those that cut down a tree in | the Amazon? If so, it would definitely be better if you | could persuade them to stop. | | If you don't, planting a rando tree in your back yard still | does more good for the planet than not doing so. | tern wrote: | There are huge geopolitical forces fighting to preserve | the Amazon. The cost of deforestation is quantified and | states pay millions if not billions (I forget the | numbers) to people in order to leave it untouched. | | Of course, it's political and 'we're not doing enough,' | etc. but individuals have more influence over the Amazon | than most things. | | Great podcast on the subject: | https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/people-i-mostly- | admire... | lupire wrote: | Preserve is a long way from restore, though. | tomrod wrote: | AFAIK we are more like 53 years past that point | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuyahoga_River | | EDIT: Ah! you updated to 45 from 35. That makes more sense. | poulsbohemian wrote: | You did the homework, I estimated. | guilhas wrote: | "Sadly, the research also confirms a large-scale loss of our | planet's most biodiverse ecosystems, particularly in the tropical | rainforests." | | Single species trees planted for paper is not the same as native | trees and ecosystems that existed for 1000s years and that we | keep destroying for some IKEA furniture | anotheraccount9 wrote: | Should we make a distinction between numbers of trees in a forest | versus trees on a "farming tree"? Would there be an ecological | difference? | simonebrunozzi wrote: | Tree <> Tree | | Meaning: a 4 year old tree in the Amazon is not equivalent to a | 100 year old tree in the Amazon. | | We might have more trees, but I doubt we have the same CO2 | recycling capacity that we had 35 years ago. | oasisbob wrote: | The writer is clearly conflating canopy coverage area with | individual trees. | skitter wrote: | Though I don't think looking at e.g. Pando and adding one to | your count is particularly useful in this context. | tooltower wrote: | What would be a better measure? Tons of carbon locked up in | the wood? The amount of carbon they can remove from the | atmosphere on an average day? | pvaldes wrote: | yes, and yes. | Y-bar wrote: | Yes. And I'm willing to bet that biodiversity is not so good in | many of these "forests" which should probably be called | something like "plantation". | Kaibeezy wrote: | Maybe they applied the principle of: _little trees, fresh as a | breeze._ | | Maybe not. | dexwiz wrote: | Trees are overhyped when it comes to CO2 capture/recycling. | Algae already outproduces trees globally by 2x. It is also much | easier to industrialize. For example, algae ponds could be | built alongside fossil fuel plants to capture carbon on site. | | Oil is predominately captured algae that died, sank to the | bottom of the ocean, and was sealed in by salt deposits/other | nonpermeable layers. Coal is carbon captured by trees, but it | only formed in a relatively narrow period after cellulose | evolved but before bacteria/fungus evolved to eat it. Oil will | continue to form, but it's unlikely any new coal will form in | the future. | | https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/60/9/722/238034 | jandrese wrote: | In theory younger trees should consume more CO2 as they are | still growing. Older trees that are maintaining a steady state | should consume a net of almost 0 CO2. | spiderfarmer wrote: | Exactly. That's why sustainable forestry is a great way to | capture both CO2 and building materials, which will store the | carbon for decades. | Scarblac wrote: | But the 100 year old tree that was removed (and everything | growing on it and in the soil near it) added a lot of CO2 to | the air, and it's unlikely that was grows back now will be as | rich in biodiversity and CO2 binding capacity than the old | one. | NAHWheatCracker wrote: | Forgive me if I misunderstand, but the carbon is in the 100 | year old tree and when it's cut down and turned into | something it's still there. So that carbon is sitting the | walls of a house, furniture, or sheafs of paper, isn't it? | | Disregarding cutting the tree down to just burn it for | heat, obviously. | GenerocUsername wrote: | Many trees grow continuously until they literally kill | themselves with unsustainable weight. | | Big trees likely add more biomass per year than young trees | dangus wrote: | It's not all about CO2, preserving habitats and biodiversity | is another concern. | peyton wrote: | There's a lot of underhandedness in how climate change is | marketed to mass audiences that I think we could do | without. | [deleted] | hourago wrote: | > Older trees that are maintaining a steady state should | consume a net of almost 0 CO2. | | They are a storage of CO2. If we replaced all old trees with | new ones we will gain a lot of potential for CO2 capture but | at the cost of releasing massive amounts of CO2 to the | atmosphere. | | You are right. But I think that the point was to notice that | we may have lost many good trees even if we are trying to add | new ones. | standeven wrote: | The CO2 is only released if we burn them. If we use the | wood for building materials or other goods with long-term | storage, the carbon continues to be locked up. | pvaldes wrote: | And if we let them growing and rooting for another 100 | years instead we would have a much faster CO2 sink. | [deleted] | pvaldes wrote: | This would not matter, because a dozen of those trees still | weight like 0,00001% of what the old tree has stored. | oasisbob wrote: | I believe this piece is referring to this 2018 Nature paper: | | https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0411-9 | [deleted] | 13of40 wrote: | A couple of years ago I was playing with the King County | (Washington) online parcel map and found out you can get pretty | decent resolution aerial photography of Seattle and its | surroundings from 1936. One of the things that struck me most was | that a lot of the areas that are heavily wooded now were very | much less so back then, presumably because 1936 was only a few | decades removed from when they clearcut all of the old growth | forest. If you think about it, that means someone like my | grandfather who grew up here in that era would have had a much | different understanding of the idea of a forest than myself, and | not in an especially good way. | [deleted] | Terr_ wrote: | There's also some interesting Kitsap history there, with | respect to shipyards and cutting down most of Bainbridge | Island. | enviclash wrote: | Yes but. Forget about simple linear relations. Where are those | trees? What is their biogeochemical role? How change in them and | the surfaces they occupy interacts with global dynamics in Earth | system components? These are some of the questions that matter. | peyton wrote: | I think broad trends matter more than little details. | pvaldes wrote: | Very comforting but most probably false. In 2021 we had big | wildfires in Australia, Russia, US, and Brazil chopping at warp | speed... | proee wrote: | Do more trees equal more forrest fires? What, if anything, can be | done to prevent mass fires down the road as we plant more trees? | Should we be promoting controlled burns or thinning out of | forests? | dexwiz wrote: | Don't plant eucalyptus trees. California is full of eucalyptus | imported from Australia. They are oil soaked trees that drop a | large amount of debris, both in the form of twiggy branches and | the bark the peals off. This is great fire fuel and is in part | the reason behind California's wild fires. Obviously they | aren't the sole reason, but selecting proper trees can go a | long way in managing fire risk. | | https://firesafemarin.org/plant/eucalyptus | | https://www.gardeningknowhow.com/ornamental/trees/eucalyptus... | tomrod wrote: | Typically letting fires burn is the best way to prevent future | large forest fires. | subsubzero wrote: | I know the US has more trees than 100 years ago: | https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/america-trees-now-century-ag... | | The US east coast has seen massive gains in tree plantings. | | I wonder if the gains in the US offset the loss in the amazon? | malfist wrote: | Fun data point from Kentucky. When Daniel Boone discovered the | cumberland gap and made way for settlers to settle in Kentucky, | kentucky was ~80% forest land, and most of that was because | native americans burned sections of kentucky for crops and | living space. | | ~~100 years ago, kentucky had below 50% forest coverage, today | it's over 90%, more than it's ever been in recorded history.~~ | | These numbers came from a speech the head of ketucky's forestry | service gave to my college polsci class, they disagree with | what google says is the truth. These numbers may be false. | bombcar wrote: | Does that mean all inhabited areas of Kentucky are in 10% of | the land? | quickthrowman wrote: | Everything I can find online says Kentucky is about 48-52% | covered by forest/timber. Maine is the most heavily forested | state at ~89-90%. | malfist wrote: | I'm seeing that on google too. My numbers came from a | speech the head of kentucky's forestry service gave to my | college political science class. He may have been wrong, | I'm gonna edit my post if I still can to make it clear my | numbers might be wrong. | laweijfmvo wrote: | I wonder if there's any benefit for a (poor/non-rich) country | planting a bunch of trees now and ransoming them when the climate | is truly fucked... | renewiltord wrote: | No thanks to Europe | https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jul/01/europe-l... | | Europeans are deforesting at an alarming rate _and_ they are | increasing the rate of deforestation. It is time for Europe to | pay nations with responsible forestry (e.g. India) for the work | the latter are doing to protect the Earth 's ecosystems. | timellis-smith wrote: | I expect this trend to increase now that we've passed peak | farmland https://ourworldindata.org/peak-agriculture-land | Melatonic wrote: | As animals that likely evolved based on the benefits of tree | dwelling it would be pretty ironic if we were also their demise | tern wrote: | I think it's vital to start shifting the default narrative around | this type of thing to match current historical understanding. | | The Amazon rainforest is a _garden_. | | North America was deforested by humans thousands of years ago, | and many trees were planted by people. | | "Biodiversity" is an imprecise term in a way that muddles the | broader relevance. We're losing previously _managed_ forest (high | biodiversity in a way that's relevant to humans) and gaining | "wild" land, which often enough is not as beneficial, even as | merely a carbon sink. | | The real story is that we've lost the ability to cultivate the | land in a way that serves our interests, plus there are almost 8 | billion people around now. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-09-12 23:00 UTC)