Is Deforestation A Good Thing

[John]

Everyoneis a major consumer of wood, which comes in hundreds of forms such as lumber, paper, chemicals, foods, clothing, etc. Emerging technologies are making wood an increasingly feasible source of clean and renewable energy. Few people are willing to do without so that means our increasing daily supply of wood (4 to 5 pounds) has to come from somewhere.

There are few ecologically valid reasons to avoid timber harvest. Cutting trees provides for regeneration, improved habitat for many species, maintains forest health, and helps us shape forests for the future. For forest owners, it does all this while providing revenue. The story is an exciting one for those that listen.

Harvesting, processing and manufacturing products from wood carries the lowest environmental cost of any raw material. So, substituting a wood product with some other material in order to save a tree can actually be ecologically unfriendly.

While forest management involves a great deal of well-established science, the important questions may very well lie beyond the science. What is right? What is self-serving? How will our grandchildren fare? From where will our future supply of wood come? Will our decisions of today compromise our future? Will visual quality continue to win the day over sustainability? Does fiction have more to do with action (or inaction) than fact?

These private forest lands hold the key to future economic, social and environmental stability. Yet, these forests are becoming increasingly unavailable to management and wood supply. The world is full of opportunities for good people to do good things and help correct bad situations. Tree cutting is just not one of those bad situations.

Michigan State University Extension programs and materials are open to all without regard to race, color, national origin, gender, gender identity, religion, age, height, weight, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, marital status, family status or veteran status. Issued in furtherance of MSU Extension work, acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Quentin Tyler, Director, MSU Extension, East Lansing, MI 48824. This information is for educational purposes only. Reference to commercial products or trade names does not imply endorsement by MSU Extension or bias against those not mentioned.

Green leaves produce sugars using energy from the sunlight to mix CO2 absorbed from the surrounding air with water and nutrients soaked up from the ground. These sugars, whose production helps eliminate CO2 from the atmosphere, are the source of food, fiber, and fuel for life on Earth. Based on this knowledge, more greenery sounds like a good thing.

It was surprising for us to find that intensive agriculture is driving so much greening in China and India because we previously thought that greenhouse gas emissions were the primary drivers of global greening through higher levels of atmospheric carbon (aka more food for plants) produced by the burning of fossil fuels. This is consistent with work from other research groups that have recently provided strong additional evidence for the connection between human land use and the greening phenomenon observed in sub-Saharan Africa and throughout Europe.

Crop rotation at least keeps the soil living unless there is high fertilizer and pesticide/herbicide use also. Bare earth can wash away easily and not be rehabilitated except over many year sometimes hundreds of years. ISHA in India is encouraging and helping farmers to incorporate trees

Into the farm which helps hold and build soil as well as slow down water loss. Shade can act like compost. Soil microbiology dies in full sun exposure. Thus cover crop and tree crop incentives can help increase the health of soils which in turn increases the health of our food and of course, us.

So China and India have turned barren land, desrts, into forests and farmlands and created a global increase in green land by 20%?

Sorry I dont buy that. Sounds like a desperate attempt to downplay a positive effect of CO2 fertilisation of the Atmosphere. Commercial plant growers raise CO2 to 1000 ppm at least in their greenhouses to get a better yield. Of course that effect is real, it is just petty and stupid to claim the opposite.

Some plants can adapt to increases in CO2 better than others. Outside of an enclosed greenhouse, there will be competition for space, resulting in a biodiversity change. The faster growth will also leech nutrients faster from the soil. The hot air and increase in evapotranspiration will mean plants will not have the water needed. This also ignore the effects on the ocean life. As a side note, CO2 levels of 1000ppm or higher have been demonstrated to cause cognitive decline in humans and gets much worse at even higher levels.

Yes, they are downplaying the role of CO2 in global greening. But they did it by first say it is happening then put it down by saying MAJORITY of that is due to increase in agriculture in China and India.

Agree that increased crops do cause planetary greening and do not significantly alter the CO2 nature in the atmosphere since crops are used quickly and their products are recycled just as quickly. However, as with any process, you cannot get more out than what was input, but can get less out than was input (unrecoverable waste) which will take longer to recycle. This creates a lag which should be considered in any model.

Reforestation and new forestation can be significant sinks for planetary carbon as long as they can retain the carbon for at least 8-12 years. Also, any forest products that fall into a reducing environment or are converted (by humans) into longer-term products essentially remove carbon from the cycle for even longer periods. While the IPCC claims that human-generated CO2 can stay in the atmosphere for 100 years, over 250 other peer-reviewed climate papers claim that 8-12 years is a more appropriate number.

As a procedural note, while models may provide insight into the operation and responses of a system, any model used for prediction should only be used for such once validated by closely replicating the past and by agreeing with verified experiments. Data is paramount, but data is available in the past as well as the present.

Earth climate change is indeed an important and complex process. The scientific community would do well to remember that climate change on Earth has been going on for over 4 billion years. Sea level, average temperature, and atmospheric CO2 concentration all have been rising at various rates (sometimes faster than current rates) for the past 21,000 years since the end of the last glacial period, and long before the presence of seven billion inhabitants and burning fossil fuels.

Careless tree removal and large-scale deforestation does adversely affect the environment and, indirectly, us. Trees do everything from provide oxygen to help regulate temperatures. Without them, the very environments in which we live are at risk of becoming uninhabitable.

Safe and proper tree removal is imperative for both your own safety and the safety of those around you. For this reason, you should leave tree cutting to a team that knows how to cut down a tree and that has all the proper gear and training.

Forests depend on cycles of life and death. These cycles used to be achieved naturally with wildfires, which would destroy older trees to make way for new growth. However, with the dangers fires pose to growing populations, we work to prevent fires. Tree removal services, whether on a small or large scale, can serve the purpose of fires but without the additional destruction.

Clearing large swathes of trees with no intention of replanting is harmful to the environment. However, conscious logging and modern tree removal, combined with strategic replanting efforts, not only offer an efficient collection of essential natural resources but also improve the forest habitat.

Given the rapid rate at which human populations cut down entire forests, it is understandable that you should be concerned about cutting down trees on your property. Despite reviewing the many benefits of cutting trees, you may still have several questions. Below are a few of the top questions regarding tree cutting and their answers.

Careless tree removal and large-scale deforestation does adversely affect the environment and, indirectly, us. Trees do everything from providing oxygen to helping regulate temperatures. Without them, the very environments in which we live are at risk of becoming uninhabitable, as loss of trees can lead to everything from soil erosion to increased flooding, and from fewer crops to loss of animal habitat. Widespread clear cutting is also responsible for increased greenhouse gases in our atmosphere and associated climate change.

That said, the type of tree cutting that has an adverse effect is the type that is done carelessly and without any concern for the natural environment at large. When we tackle tree removal projects, it is because we truly believe that cutting down trees is what is best for the surrounding landscape, wildlife and natural growth cycle.

The greenhouse effect is the natural warming of the earth that results when gases in the atmosphere trap heat from the sun that would otherwise escape into space. The process was identified by scientists in the 1800s.

Methane

Methane (CH4) persists in the atmosphere for around 12 years, which is less time than carbon dioxide, but it is much more potent in terms of the greenhouse effect. In fact, pound for pound, its global warming impact is almost 30 times greater than that of carbon dioxide over a 100-year period. In the United States, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), methane accounted for more than 12 percent of human-generated greenhouse gas emissions in 2021. While methane can come from natural sources like wetlands, more than half of all global methane emissions come from human activities like natural gas production and livestock-based agriculture.

3a8082e126