Does planting more trees make up for deforestation?
Deforestation is the act of clearing trees from an area. The everyday person still has a relatively large dependency on trees for paper, cardboard, and other materials. It has now become a global crisis, and one for which a doubtful resolution was created: plant more trees every time old ones are cut down. Does this method work? Does it make up for what we do every day to benefit us and disadvantage the environment?
|
3
points
morally speaking, no, its despicable. practically speaking if we plant 3 trees for every one cut down, over time it should make up for it in terms of the ecosystem. however assumedly a forest of small trees does not sustain as much wildlife or produce as much O2 as those being chopped down, and when the planted trees do grow to a sustaining size, they are chopped as well. on top of this is the mortality rate for planted trees. while i can't seem to find any figures on this, i suspect that this is what will most affect the answer to your question. if around something like 0.25% annually (and most trees take 20 years to grow), then planting 3 in place of 1 may make up for deforestation (as 60% would survive) 2
points
I disagree both morally and practically speaking. As children we are raised to know and understand what is right or wrong. We learn that it is rude to point; that it's rude to talk back; and when you burp, etc, you are meant to say excuse me for politeness. In this moral context, it is right that we're trying to make up for our selfishness and narcissism. It shows we are aware of what we are doing to our planet. It's cause and effect. Humanity has a cause to repent (in terms of moral values), otherwise we have no ground to walk on and harvest from. Nonetheless, we don't just do it for fear of the consequences: humanity has compassion and without compassion, what are we? From another perspective- practically speaking. You did the maths. You've worked out the statistics. The question is, is it sustainable? We need seeds to plant. Economically the manufacturer of the seeds is going to experience a financial boost until the availability of them declines. We'll be harvesting seeds faster than they are available. Plus: where are we going to get them if the trees are in decline? My last point is to do with history. Hacking down trees obviously has an impact on preserving cultures, and some particular trees have historical and cultural significance. It's horrific that humanity is destroying its own histories and cultures because of our greed for material gain. I have two questions. One: Do you live in a house or some building with a roof? Second: Does that house or building have lumber as a construction material? There is no such thing as deforestation. A study done indicates that there are more trees growing now than were growing 100 years ago. Trees are vegetation and vegetation does not stop. I have five acres mostly in Douglas Fir trees, you should see the piles of Douglas Fir cones I rake out of my driveway and every one of those cones carried numerous seeds. "Hacking down trees" permits people to have rooves over their heads. In the recent years the human population has been growing rapidly and so has our demand for more classy products.We want high quality furniture and others that are made from very rare trees. Everyday we hear that politicians and environment workers are replacing and growing more trees. But is it not as i have learned that trees take many years to grow and hold the soil so that it is eroded or swept away. Yes maybe planting trees would make up for deforestation because they trees after all. But from another point of view its well known that many thousands of undiscovered species of creatures live on the treetops of trees so everytime a tree in the forest is cut down we might as well be putting a whole species to extinction.Yes this is not related to deforestation but it is being done for human wants. Paper manufacturers cut down old trees and place paper trees which are allowed to grow till maturity. But we can help And that is again to the point that is plant more trees for the effects of deforestation. "Politicians and environment workers" are not the ones replacing and planting more trees, that is being done by the companies engaged in producing lumber. Lumber is required in home construction. Logging, lumber, and construction. all very worthwhile and profitable businesses, or they were until loony environmentalists ( all with rooves over their heads) decided that they were evil destroyers of the ecosystem. 1
point
that is being done by the companies engaged in producing lumber. Many of which have been legally required to replace said trees by politicians who were lobbied by environmental workers. Lumber is required in home construction. Not really. It is useful in home construction, but homes most certainly can be produced without lumber. all very worthwhile and profitable businesses, or they were until loony environmentalists ( all with rooves over their heads) decided that they were evil destroyers of the ecosystem. When done correctly, they are indeed worthwhile and profitable businesses worth continuing (and that is coming from a "loony environmentalist"). That does not change the fact that it is often done incorrectly (in other words, harmfully). short answer: no. but it does give the forest a fighting chance to restore itself in a few hundred years... clearly, re-planting is not a sustainable way to go forward. we should be growing HEMP for all our fiber needs (paper, cloth). It IS sustainable, uses very little water, and the quality of the fiber is better than either the wood pulp trees we use now, or cotton. there is only ONE problem. racism. 1
point
1
point
Are you in need of Tree Trimming or Removal? Our local tree company is here to serve you. Just give us a call and we will gladly provide you a FREE (Yes, free) Estimate for your tree removal, tree trimming or stump grinding! We are based out of Scranton but travel to nearby areas for all types of tree care. Call Now! |
