More trees than there were 100 years ago? It's true!
Protection and responsible harvesting are the reasons behind the success story.
Photo: Wikimedia Commons
Comments
Interesting but not factual. Oceans are the larges CO2 sync and the larges source of CO2. CO2 is hardly measurable as a "green house gas" and has no effect on global temperatures. Water vapor makes up over 96% of green house gas composition. CO2 levels have been proven to rise AFTER warming periods, and accordingly are not the cause of the warming. Trees also expire CO2 at night. Yea, they take in more than they give off, however.
I think people are missing the point of the article and being a little glass-half-empty. Of course there was a ton of damage done, and it will never be the same. The good news the article is pointing out is that steps are going in the right direction to help what was hurt. What's done is done. Let's try and move from there and actually help something.
How much of this is hardwood?
Sure there are more now, we're planting them at a better rate than when we cut them down. but what about in relation to 200 years ago? Huge swaths of forest had already been cut down in 1900 without being replaced, so plenty of damage was done before these numbers were even recorded.
I should also mention that there's a big difference between a 15-year-old farmed tree and a 700-year old redwood.
Of course old growth forrests have been decimated through time. There were no tree farms to product our lumber. Now that we have the farms, most if not all US produced lumber comes from them. The tree farms will allow the return of the old growth forrest.
The habitat destruction has been done. Fragmentation by roads is still a major problem. So what if there are more trees? Are the trees in the same places and densities as a hundred years ago? Are they as healthy? We can't just take this as a victory until we look at the whole picture.
What about the effects of acid rain produced by fossil fueled electic generating plants? the article fails to mention anything about its impact.
In 1910, there were 91,972,266 Americans. In 2010, there were 308,745,538 Americans. As we are the most wasteful and environmentally detrimental country in the history of the world, I doubt having a few more trees is going to help.
In 1910, there were 91,972,266 Americans. In 2010, there were 308,745,538 Americans. As we are the most wasteful and environmentally detrimental country in the history of the world, I doubt having a few more trees is going to help.
We may have more trees but we dont have the same type of forest
This is a clear case of misrepresentation. Many of the comments above point this out. You can make almost anything look good if you only use part of the data available.
But a few have touched upon it, yes we need to go back alot longer than 50-100 years and compare America's topography and tree species to the America as it is today.
I find this article to be frank a pile of hogwash. Why are there more trees now than 50 years ago? Because there is a great need for timber, these trees are not indigineous hard wood forests people are planting, they are fast growing pines that have almost no biodiversity and when fully grown and cut ruin the land they have.... More
Excellent article. Sourcing products from well-managed forests plays an important role in maintaining our forests lands. You mention the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), but it is important to note that there are several great options for certification, including the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI). SFI is the largest single forest certification standard in the world, and more than three-quarters of North America’s certified forests meet or are recognized by the SFI standard. The.... More
Attention fellow Lumberjacks:
This article has proved what we have been fearing for longer than the length of said article. Our war with the trees, we are loosing it. Fight harder, faster! UNITE, LUMBERJACKS and LUMBERJILLS! KILL THE TREES!
While it's great to see reforestation in in the US, there are other very important factors to consider. 100 year ago, much land was cleared for agricultural purposes. While such lands are semi-pervious, they are not as good as forests for water and carbon management, so it is good to see the return of forests. However, the rate of reforestation should be compared to the rate of urbanization and the significant increase in impervious surface area. In that sense, our land and our water.... More
That is only because 100 years ago was a very bad time for America's forests. Poor practices denuded many hillslopes and the clear-cutting wasn't really abated for ~40 years or so. Even though there is a general recovery trend the great forest of the midwest will never be restored at this pace. We are really only replanting areas that are in active use (i.e forests where future harvest will take place or urban/rural areas). We would have to convert land in agricultural production back to.... More
I personally have seen them bulldozing large swaths of trees in Colorado that have been killed by beetles. I have seen large beetle kills in the trees from Alaska to Arizona. Miles and miles of dead trees.
Yes, but that just makes room for more trees to grow! At least that is what is happening in VA. The beatles killed the pine trees which had been planted after logging of the hard woods many decades back. Now maybe the hard woods will have a chance to come back!
living in Vermont - on an old remote hillside farm settled in the late 1700's
app. a century ago it was 80% treeless - due to sheep farming, and the high demand for wood - everything from spindles for weaving to wagon wheels - wood was the main construction / fabrication material - as well as heating and forging of metals
it is now app. 80% treed - forest -- and it is quite diverse - mixed hardwoods and softwoods - of all different ages -
there are a lot of forest.... More
In 1867, the US bought Alaska from Russia for cash.
In 1959, it BECAME A STATE, NOT A PART OF THE US. THAT TOOK PLACE IN 1867. Read your history, bozos.
In 1867, the US bought Alaska from Russia for cash.
In 1959, it BECAME A STATE, NOT A PART OF THE US. THAT TOOK PLACE IN 1867. Read your history, bozos.
Nicole,
This study was not conducted by MNN, but was compiled by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, who in turn used data from the USDA/Forest service. There is no reason to doubt the data, especially since the Forest Services primary function is to preserve lumber as a strategic resource for the nation to use if it needs it. (Not as an ecological friendly conservatorship as many people think) Interesting side note here, did you know that the Forest Service has.... More
I should mention that the greatest rate of growth is in the public lands sector, the private lands growth is on average almost even with the harvest. Which would be an indication of tree farms. So logically that would mean that the Forest Service is responsible for the most significant permanent growth of forests. How and what types of trees they are planting wasn't mentioned in this particular report.
Also included in the forest service data was percentages of forest in age classes,.... More
!00 years ago a lot of clear cutting had already been done. The truth is we have less than 10% of old growth trees now and very little diversity.
Tree farms have taken over and it has changed everything for the worst including the tremedous damage to our upper watersheds, water quality and quantity.
Also these younger trees are much more subject to fire and disease.
I don't think anyone was trying to imply otherwise. It's unfortunate, yes, but that damage is done. The point is that we're on an upward trend, and have been for a long time. It will take time, obviously, but regrowth will continue.
Mother Nature (the planet) will reclaim anything we ignore long enough. Wildlife still disperses seeds, rain still falls, trees still grow. Look to the foothills as you drive the Hwy 5 corridor through Nor-Cal, from Red Bluff to the border. There are lots of young trees growing where there used to be nothing but high desert scrub and pastureland. Hopefully I live long enough to witness the more of the transformation.
Can't forget about the wonderful thing that is a monoculture. When these logging companies do replace the trees they cut down they tend to plant all of one type leading to a monoculture. That cuts down on the ecological diversity and can actually cause the forest ecosystem to slow down or collapse. If we really want to be "sustainable" we need to look more into how to recreate the forests of old, not just plant more trees.
this is total crap.
MNN? Gee, who's your main sponsors? Um, Georgia-Pacific? Major producer of lumber. Southern Company? Huge mining firm. Need we go into Miller Coors? Coca-Cola? it's all suspect...
Trees don't store CO2, they store C. Trees take in CO2, use the C in their metabolic processes and release the O2.
The east coast is the biggest gainer in tree acreage. There is a simpler reason: a hundred years ago the east coast was all farmland. Now that we can bring a lot of food in from the midwest, where there are large swaths of naturally occurring fields, trees are now free to grow again.
100 years ago Alaska was not part of the united states, it joined in 1959.
So, yeah, there are more trees in the U.S. now then 100 years ago, due to Alaska joining the union.
this article FTL
