|
Post by marchesarosa on Mar 25, 2011 4:26:38 GMT 1
Forests expand in Europe and North America21 March 2011 – Forested areas in Europe, North America, the Caucasus and Central Asia have been increasing steadily, growing by 25 million hectares over the past two decades, the United Nations said today, citing diseases, insects and storms aggravated by climatic factors as the major threats to the ongoing health of woodlands. (bit of a non-sequitur here, but the obligatory nod to thermageddon, I suppose!) “In addition to forest area, the volume of wood in pan-European forests is growing by over 430 million cubic metres every year due to the expansion of the forest area and increases in stock levels,” the UN Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) said on World Forest Day, as experts gathered in Geneva to review trends in forests and forest resources in Europe and North America. In total, the UNECE region has 40 per cent of the world’s forests, most of them classified as boreal or temperate. (this will be a surprise who think the rain forest is all there is)Forests play an important role in the conservation of biological diversity and the area of forest primarily designated for this purpose is also expanding, according to UNECE. In the UNECE region it increased by almost 25 million hectares – an area slightly larger than the United Kingdom – between 1990 and 2010, and currently accounts for about 8 per cent of the total forest area in the region. Most of this increase took place in Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia, where the area of forest specifically managed for conservation of biological diversity has been increasing by almost one million hectares annually over the past 20 years, while in North America it has increased by more than 5 million hectares since 1990......... www.webcitation.org/5xP9cDIBrSo not all doom and gloom after all. Good forest husbandry and the fertilization effect of CO2, no doubt. And, oh, yes, forest is a valuable RENEWABLE resource which can be HARVESTED to provide useful products - that is why it is conserved and expanded by its owners - geddit? Perhaps there is no clear ownership of the tropical rain forests. Maybe that is why they are subject to super expoitation and hence degradation?
|
|
|
Post by louise on Mar 27, 2011 12:05:59 GMT 1
Excellent news
Is the increase in North American, Asian and European boreal forests equal to or greater than the reduction in tropical hardwood forests?
I hope the latter but I suspect it's not even the former.
|
|
|
Post by louise on Mar 27, 2011 12:19:43 GMT 1
My point is that we might be losing more forest overall than gaining (I'd like to know what the balance is).
This may have some impact on the climate.
Clear enough?
|
|
|
Post by Progenitor A on Mar 27, 2011 12:19:49 GMT 1
Excellent news Is the increase in North American, Asian and European boreal forests equal to or greater than the reduction in tropical hardwood forests? I hope the latter but I suspect it's not even the former. Hi Louise Welcome back, My moral compass was flittering in your absence!
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Mar 27, 2011 12:22:23 GMT 1
"(I'd like to know what the balance is)". Then read this article in the New York Times in January 2009 "Tropical Forests Sprout in an Urban Age www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/science/earth/30forest.htmlWhy don't you do a little research and try to answer your own questions, Louise, for the edification of all? And don't forget to mention the "elastic" carbon sinks, please.
|
|
|
Post by louise on Mar 27, 2011 12:34:27 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Mar 27, 2011 12:45:09 GMT 1
It doesn't take much to "alarm" you, Louise. Have you seen a doctor?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Mar 27, 2011 12:49:28 GMT 1
Better still, try treeplanting therapy.
|
|
|
Post by louise on Mar 27, 2011 13:05:26 GMT 1
It doesn't take much to "alarm" you, Louise. Have you seen a doctor? I thought that I had made it quite clear that I was quoting a report - the word alarm was used by the authors, not me. I'm really not sure why you are trying to goad me in this manner when I am trying to have a discussion - it seems we both agree that the increase in the amount of boreal forest is a good thing. Do you think deforestation of non-boreal is a bad thing or a good thing?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Mar 27, 2011 15:40:04 GMT 1
It depends on your persepective. If you are a poor peasant farmer, slash and burn may the only way to lay hands on land to feed yourself. But that's an outofcontrolpopulationgrowthandpoverty problem, isn't it? Solve the povertypopulation problem and part of the loss of rain forest problem may go away to some extent. Then there is the illegal logging to deal with.
I do object to the COMMERCIAL raping of the rain forests. But I'm not quite sure why. Have YOU any ideas why it is such a bad thing, Louise? The world needs wood, doesn't it? Do you have any mahogany furniture? I have - but, of course, mine is antique so irrelevant to today's situation. I do have a bit of mahogany veneered contiboard in some bookcases I had made 25 years ago but, that's all.
A growing population needs ever more natural resources. At least wood is renewable - it's a "crop" like any other.
What's your solution? But tell us first what the problem is, please?
|
|
|
Post by louise on Mar 27, 2011 16:05:59 GMT 1
It depends on your persepective. If you are a poor peasant farmer, slash and burn may the only way to lay hands on land to feed yourself. But that's an outofcontrolpopulationgrowthandpoverty problem, isn't it? Agree 100% I do object to the COMMERCIAL raping of the rain forests. But I'm not quite sure why. Have YOU any ideas why it is such a bad thing, Louise? I think it is to do with the rate of growth of these tropical hardwoods compared to the rate of harvest - the latter currently exceeds the former, i.e. not like a 'regular' crop harvest where the farmer can ensure a crop supply for future years. The world needs wood, doesn't it? Yes - but does it need tropical hardwoods? Do you have any mahogany furniture? I have - but, of course, mine is antique so irrelevant to today's situation. I do have a bit of mahogany veneered contiboard in some bookcases I had made 25 years ago but, that's all. Nope - I have cheap pine. I'd like to own antique mahogany but out of my price bracket. A growing population needs ever more natural resources. At least wood is renewable - it's a "crop" like any other. As I said above, tropical hardwoods are only renewable if their harvest matches their replanting and growth. I don't think this is currently the case. Try to limit/ban the use of tropical hardwoods that are not from certifiable sustainable sources. But tell us first what the problem is, please? Once again (sorry for continuously repeating myself but I'm trying to ensure that I address all of you points) - I think the problem is rate of harvest compared to rate of regrowth. However, none of that addresses another reason for deforestation which is not the harvest of the trees themselves but the destruction of large swathes of forest to open up the country for rare metal mines which is I believe becoming more frequent.
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Mar 27, 2011 18:23:55 GMT 1
Is it more reprehensible to mine the forests than to make them into farmland? Metals are required to sustain the world's population as well as food. I imagine you consume more than your fair share of metals, Louise. Are you going to give them up for Lent or for EVER?
|
|
|
Post by louise on Mar 27, 2011 18:34:35 GMT 1
Is it more reprehensible to mine the forests than to make them into farmland? Metals are required to sustain the world's population as well as food. I imagine you consume more than your fair share of metals, Louise. Are you going to give them up for Lent or for EVER? Yes it's a real conundrum. Many of the new technologies that we hope will reduce our reliance on fossil fuels require rare earth metals (e.g. permament magnet motors and batterias for electric cars). I don't have the answer, however, it doesn't stop me recognising that there is a problem. What do you suggest marchesarosa?
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Mar 27, 2011 18:58:30 GMT 1
Let human ingenuity solve the problems IF they arise, Louise, as they always have done in the past re prophesies of shortages, etc. We are not at the end of history or at the end of human knowledge, you know! I have confidence. I am not alarmed by the prospects for beneficial change. In my relatively short lifetime I have seen huge changes already that have bnefitted mankind. There will be more, undoubtedly.
Quit worrying, it's a waste of energy. Your "half empty", doom and gloom mindset is perfectly illustrated by the first sentence in the opening post!
|
|
|
Post by marchesarosa on Jun 4, 2011 7:22:32 GMT 1
Louise says Well, even that staple anxiety of the alarmist may be not be quite as serious as perceived, it seems. BECAUSE population in the developing world is rapidly becoming urbanised leading to the abandonment of peasant smallholdings which rapidly revert back to forest. See this article in the New York Times in January 2009. www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/science/earth/30forest.htmlCHILIBRE, Panama — The land where Marta Ortega de Wing raised hundreds of pigs until 10 years ago is being overtaken by galloping jungle — palms, lizards and ants.
Jungle is developing again on old holdings around Chilibre. Instead of farming, she now shops at the supermarket and her grown children and grandchildren live in places like Panama City and New York. Here, and in other tropical countries around the world, small holdings like Ms. Ortega de Wing’s — and much larger swaths of farmland — are reverting to nature, as people abandon their land and move to the cities in search of better livings. These new “secondary” forests are emerging in Latin America, Asia and other tropical regions at such a fast pace that the trend has set off a serious debate about whether saving primeval rain forest — an iconic environmental cause — may be less urgent than once thought. By one estimate, for every acre of rain forest cut down each year, more than 50 acres of new forest are growing in the tropics on land that was once farmed, logged or ravaged by natural disaster. “There is far more forest here than there was 30 years ago,” said Ms. Ortega de Wing, 64, who remembers fields of mango trees and banana plants. The new forests, the scientists argue, could blunt the effects of rain forest destruction by absorbing carbon dioxide, the leading heat-trapping gas linked to global warming, one crucial role that rain forests play. They could also, to a lesser extent, provide habitat for endangered species. The idea has stirred outrage among environmentalists who believe that vigorous efforts to protect native rain forest should remain a top priority. But the notion has gained currency in mainstream organizations like the Smithsonian Institution and the United Nations, which in 2005 concluded that new forests were “increasing dramatically” and “undervalued” for their environmental benefits. The United Nations is undertaking the first global catalog of the new forests, which vary greatly in their stage of growth. “Biologists were ignoring these huge population trends and acting as if only original forest has conservation value, and that’s just wrong,” said Joe Wright, a senior scientist at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute here, who set off a firestorm two years ago by suggesting that the new forests could substantially compensate for rain forest destruction. “Is this a real rain forest?” Dr. Wright asked, walking the land of a former American cacao plantation that was abandoned about 50 years ago, and pointing to fig trees and vast webs of community spiders and howler monkeys. “A botanist can look at the trees here and know this is regrowth,” he said. “But the temperature and humidity are right. Look at the number of birds! It works. This is a suitable habitat.”........
|
|