Skip to comments.Forest growth is encouraging, say researchers (Bush's fault?)
Posted on 11/15/2006 3:10:18 PM PST by DaveLoneRanger
Contrary to common belief, forests in many nations are expanding not shrinking, say researchers. They say that while the majority of the world's most forested countries are still losing trees, the number that are gaining forests is rising.
However, much of the new forest is cultivated, not natural, leading some experts to caution that planted forests do not support the same level of biodiversity.
The new work assessed the 50 most-forested countries around the world from 1990 to 2005. It reveals that forest area increased in 18 of the 50 nations, while total biomass increased in 22 countries.
There is a trend towards an improvement in forests both in terms of the area they cover and in terms of their condition, says Roger Sedjo of Resources for the Future, an independent institute in Washington DC, US.
Sedjo and colleagues say improved yields in the agriculture mean less land is needed to feed populations, allowing some to be returned to forest.
(Excerpt) Read more at newscientist.com ...
Sheesh. These urban and suburban envirofreaks are never satisfied. When I bought this house, our woods were a mess. I've put in a lot of time cleaning things up. But I don't go out of my way to destroy biodiversity, and I don't know anyone who does.
At least, not since FDR and his public works programs, which spent a lot of time here in Vermont planting nothing but red pine, because apparently they thought that was the environmentalist thing to do, so now you have stands of dying red pine wherever these government sponsored programs interfered.
When I bought this house, our woods were a mess. I've put in a lot of time cleaning things up.AAA! You ruined nature! You bad, bad little man!
Nope. It means the opposite.
Growing forests sequester Carbon, reducing the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Not only that, but by helping to control erosion, forests prevent the release of carbonates in rocks as a result of weathering. This further reduces the CO2 in the air.
The net result of all this is inevitable global cooling, a new ice age.
That's why I'm doing everything I can to release sequestered carbon dioxide from beer bottles as rapidly as I can.
Unfortunately, I'm only one man.
All that excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is spurring growth of trees.
It has been theorized recently that an Indian chief in the northeast may have had huge swathes of forest burned in the midwest, to turn it into grass and prairie, extending the existent western prairie much farther toward the east, so he could hunt buffalo without having to travel so far.
I don't know if it's true, but it's certainly possible. Native tribes all over the world practice slash and burn as a regular thing. It's only in America that we let the forests grow on former farmland.
I have big doubts about this, if there is evidence that there were trees were there is prairie now days and also if there is evidence that there was also fires that destroyed the trees my guess is that mother nature is the cause of the fires. For instance my guess is that lighten strikes probably started more fires that burn down more trees then any thing that man kind could do to the trees back then. The sure the Indians couldn't of done much to stop forest fires other then to throw a few buckets of water on them and piss on them.
Back a few years ago I remember reading that Buffalo killed a lot of trees. Their piss was so strong that it would kill the trees, Also because of their weight they would pack down the dirt around the trees and make it harder for the tree rootes to breath thus slowly killing the trees off. I don't know if all this is true, but I wouldn't doubt it. I've notice that along the fence rows of a few fields were cattle have roamed and eatten the grass (near where I live) I've seen dead trees or trees slowly dieing off.
Did you read the link I gave?
Why should I read that when I have my own opinions to inform me?
Actually, I have read it, (now). It comes across as reeking of BS. They say that forests in temperate zones contribute to global warming, but forests in tropical zones don't.
Look carefully at the reasons given. In both cases, trees behave in exactly the same way, yet the researchers ascribe different results to it!
It seems the US can't catch a break.
The informed way to look at it is to consider what is said about carbon dioxide. Apparently, its level is irrelevant. What counts more than anything else is insolation, the amount of sunlight being absorbed.
Carefully not being said is that deserts reflect solar energy very effectively. Do the researchers fear to state that producing more deserts will prevent global warming? (I would bet that they do fear to state that.)
If, if, if we could agree that global warming is occurring, and nothing we do on Earth will prevent it, would anyone object if we implement solutions off Earth?
Also to consider about the buffalo, is that between them trampling and eating everything in sight, the trees wouldn't have much of a chance to make it to maturity. And anywhere not near the edge of the prairie would not have a source for tree seeds.
It's contradictory. That's exactly the point. These media and white coats can't get their panic story straight.
But I'm all for colonizing the moon and mars, absolutely.
I am in a business dealing with hardwoods and it is a known fact that there are more forested land now than there was during the times of Christopher Columbus.
My brother-in-law works for Richmond and told me the same thing. . . when my daughter cited this fact to a liberal social studies student teacher, he told her she was wrong and thought like a nazi!
You're an optimistic sort of fellow, I can tell.
Obviously a great many private investors don't think there is any profit in space. At least, not that they'll be able to enjoy in the here and now.
But I figure, once somebody breaks out of orbit, what can the government do about it? Go after them?
The Treaty is like nailing the thoroughbred horse's hooves to the floor before the race. If it were just adding 200 pounds ballast there would be some motion anyway.
Heinlein said, "Once you're in Earth orbit, you're halfway to anywhere!"
But that first step is a tough one.
Don't ignore the Treaty. The Treaty is the reason there is no space industry now. Space development was technologically AND financially feasible 30 years ago. It hasn't happened. Why not? The Treaty.
All gov'ts will simply go to the corporate offices and wait. If the perp doesn't come back to earth, then he's gone and so what. Since there is no market out there, there would be nothing out there to tax anyway. But if he comes back he will find the IRS and probably Kofi Annan waiting.
Do you think the Chinese will respect the treaty?
Yes, indeed they will. The only country that has been impacted at all so far is the US because only the US has had the resources to do anything about space development. I can't imagine any possible benefit the Treaty has provided to the US. China has considerable space goals, and the big one is space farming. They will build farm satellites and that won't be covered by the Treaty unless they use regolith from the moon. They won't be using regolith from the moon: it's a bad idea and they can't afford it anyway. The only space development that makes business sense now and for the past 1/4 century is asteroid mining. Tourism is not space development.
Farm satellites would need a lot of material. It would not be feasible to use material from Earth.
Where would they get it if not from the Moon?
They will launch from earth. Their plan is not feasible. If they intended to mine asteroids they might get the benefit of the doubt, but they have presented no asteroid mining plan, and no one else has presented a feasible asteroid mining plan. I have seen only one feasible asteroid mining plan and no feasible moon mining plans.
The only way that makes any sense at all is if the satellite is something other than a farm satellite, (like military), and they wanted to disguise its purpose.
Colonization of space assets, and eventual travel to other stars, will depend upon the economic advantage of profit-seeking and opportunity.
If our governments preclude the possibility of a return on an investment, they doom us all. That is certainly not a way to provide for a common defense, or to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
If we go to a nearby star it will likely be in small steps through the Oort cloud, mine by mine. This will not be quick or soon.
Planets and moons exist to be colonized.
It is not the proper function of governments to stand in the way of that process.
You are correct. Correct a mundo. However, they do. My Senator says that the Treaty might have to be withdrawn from eventually, but I can't imagine why FedGov would do that on their own. If Alcoa and US Steel and Rio Tinto asked them to withdraw from the Treaty it might happen. But those corporations aren't about to do any such thing.
That depends. If my scenario for building a launch facility were to be accepted as a possible investment strategy, Alcoa and US Steel could become interested in providing the aluminum and iron to be used for the infrastructure and launch components, and Rio Tinto just might start salivating over the prospect of having an entire continent to exploit.
Heck, I'll bet we could even interest ADM, Valley Irrigation, and quite a few nation-states as well.
All the necessary technology exists. The cost would be $20 billion. Payday would be astounding, but it would be several years away. The existing big corporations cannot do that kind of thing since they operate close to the edge already. The problem is the Treaty. Withdrawing from the Treaty would make the proper level of investment possible.
I especially liked the idea of situating a lunar base at the lunar pole, and the reasons for it.
Too bad Heinlein is no longer around to be able to tell us about the men who stole the Moon.