Saving Trees?

[DanvillRob]

I'm a simple man.... but....aren't trees a "renewable resource"?

 

Aren't there more trees in the US than there was 200 years ago?

 

I hear about people worried about the lack of trees....but.... I live in one of the most densely populated areas, (San Francisco Bay Area),

in the most populated state, (California), in one of the most advanced countries in the world, (United States), and I couldn't count all the trees

I can see from my house..... along the streets...... along the freeways..... if I spent a solid month!

 

I my yard....my personal yard that surrounds my house where I live....there are more than 50 trees!

 

In my opinion, one of the best things about a tree is when you cut it down and make something out of the wood!

 

Hopefully, if we're all good stewards of our world, we'll replant one or more trees for each one that gets consumed,

(which MUST be happening if there are more trees now that there were 200 years ago!)

[MissouriPicker]

Good points. I attended a seminar at The University of Missouri at Columbia about three years ago, put on by The Missouri Conservation Department. The guest speaker told us that re-growing trees was an absolute necessity. Then he literally dropped a bomb when he told us that that there are more trees now in North American than when Columbus and other Europeon explorers first came here. Personally, I don't know what to believe anymore. The alarmists claim the world is ending because of mankind. Others claim there is no real problem and that sensible restoration of the forests is what we need. If the preachers of both sides were not making hundreds-of-millions of dollars from their agendas, I'd be more likely to believe them or at least listen to them.

[DanvillRob]

Good points. I attended a seminar at The University of Missouri at Columbia about three years ago, put on by The Missouri Conservation Department. The guest speaker told us that re-growing trees was an absolute necessity. Then he literally dropped a bomb when he told us that that there are more trees now in North American than when Columbus and other Europeon explorers first came here. Personally, I don't know what to believe anymore. The alarmists claim the world is ending because of mankind. Others claim there is no real problem and that sensible restoration of the forests is what we need. If the preachers of both sides were not making hundreds-of-millions of dollars from their agendas, I'd be more likely to believe them or at least listen to them.

 

Larry, I'm with you. I'll listen to anyone on the subject, but I won't take what they say on faith if it doesn't make sense to me.

 

Just like when we were all told that oil was dead dinosaurs, and that since there was a finite number of dinosaurs there is a finite amount of oil.

 

It didn't make sense to me then, and still doesn't.....

 

Oil is manufactured by the earth..... I'm sure it's possible to use it all up, but the earth will just make more.

 

I've never seen a dead animal turn to anything other than dust.

 

Again, I'm a simple man, (but I'm not a gullible one).

 

 

[heymisterk]

I give this thread about 20 minutes before it's shut down.

 

Your argument is very simplistic, and it's one Limbaugh loves, when he is not calling women sl*ts. The reason there are more trees now than 200 years ago is the abandonment of farming in the Northeast and vast portions of the South and Midwest. Trees have returned, though not necessarily trees originally native to that area. In addition, "a forest is a forest is a forest" is not accurate: environmentalists' main concern is the rapid destruction of old growth forests - some of the richest in terms of animal habitat - in North America. Only 11-16% of old growth forests remain.

 

Cutting down a tree is not like weeding your garden: you get silt run-off that fouls watersheds, in addition to the obvious downside of destroying land-based animal habitat. You can't cut a tree down and expect another one to pop up in a decade; Mother Nature doesn't work that way.

 

Unfortunately, man does. You are right: if we were good stewards of the environment, we would be in the clear. but we aren't and we ain't.

[surfpup]

Yes, forests are a renewable resource if properly managed. At one point our continent was almost entirely forested. So I don't think there are not more trees on our continent than there were 200 years ago. I guess then the argument is over how much forest is enough.

 

However, I think much of the concern is global, not just continental. There are place in the world where forests are being cut an not replaced. That deforestation in some areas has led to erosion and those forests and the species they contain therefore become not replaceable.

[Guest farnsbarns]

If the preachers of both sides were not making hundreds-of-millions of dollars from their agendas, I'd be more likely to believe them or at least listen to them.

 

And there in lies the problem with every green and conservation measure that's ever been put in front of me, someone's making a profit.

[DanvillRob]

I give this thread about 20 minutes before it's shut down.

 

Your argument is very simplistic, and it's one Limbaugh loves, when he is not calling women sl*ts. The reason there are more trees now than 200 years ago is the abandonment of farming in the Northeast and vast portions of the South and Midwest. Trees have returned, though not necessarily trees originally native to that area. In addition, "a forest is a forest is a forest" is not accurate: environmentalists' main concern is the rapid destruction of old growth forests - some of the richest in terms of animal habitat - in North America. Only 11-16% of old growth forests remain.

 

Cutting down a tree is not like weeding your garden: you get silt run-off that fouls watersheds, in addition to the obvious downside of destroying land-based animal habitat. You can't cut a tree down and expect another one to pop up in a decade; Mother Nature doesn't work that way.

 

Unfortunately, man does. You are right: if we were good stewards of the environment, we would be in the clear. but we aren't and we ain't.

 

I disagree.....(but ain't that a wonderful thing?), but as far as I'm concerned...so far so good!

 

If the cost of having achieved our standard of living, (in the world), is the loss of some trees...seems like a good compromise!

 

By the way I SAID I was a simple man...what did you expect?

[Kelvinator]

One reason there are more trees now is that 200 years ago they couldn't fight forest fires - they just burned until there was nothing left.

[pippy]

Oil is manufactured by the earth..... I'm sure it's possible to use it all up, but the earth will just make more.

That's possible, Rob.

 

Mind you; It will take another 500 million years to do it.

 

I don't know how your diary is shaping up....

 

 

P.

[D-poland]

I give this thread about 20 minutes before it's shut down.

 

Your argument is very simplistic, and it's one Limbaugh loves, when he is not calling women sl*ts. The reason there are more trees now than 200 years ago is the abandonment of farming in the Northeast and vast portions of the South and Midwest. Trees have returned, though not necessarily trees originally native to that area. In addition, "a forest is a forest is a forest" is not accurate: environmentalists' main concern is the rapid destruction of old growth forests - some of the richest in terms of animal habitat - in North America. Only 11-16% of old growth forests remain.

 

Cutting down a tree is not like weeding your garden: you get silt run-off that fouls watersheds, in addition to the obvious downside of destroying land-based animal habitat. You can't cut a tree down and expect another one to pop up in a decade; Mother Nature doesn't work that way.

 

Unfortunately, man does. You are right: if we were good stewards of the environment, we would be in the clear. but we aren't and we ain't.

I can say livin in IOWA the trees have been on the wain for the last 40 yrs.now with corn prices higher more are going!Iam not sure that there is a tree recovery goin on here!if things keep going we're gonna be annexed into Nebraska soon!thats where you drive FOREVER and all you see is CORN!!

[Guest farnsbarns]

That's possible, Rob.

 

Mind you; It will take another 500 million years to do it.

 

I don't know how your diary is shaping up....

 

 

P.

 

You sure about that. I would respectfully say that no one knows...

 

A peice by Dr Howard Hayden, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut, USA, in the context if energy in general.

...

 

Coal is carbon mixed with minerals. Being a solid, it retains physical features that divulge its origin. The existence of fossil fern leaves in coal tells us that coal came from prehistoric plant life. If that weren't enough of a clue, the world has many peat beds where decaying vegetable matter, in the absence of oxygen is found in various stages that will ultimately lead to coal.

 

Oil, however, is not so easily understood. How, one may ask, can coal arise in one place and petroleum in another? It is all too easy to say, without providing specifics, that sometimes geologic heat and pressure lead to coal, and sometimes they lead to oil. There are no fossil remnants in oil. If oil is actually the remnants of living matter of bygone geologic eras, the ferns and dinosaurs could hardly leave a trace in liquid oil.

 

And, if oil retains no fossil images, natural gas is an even worse candidate to retain footprints of theropods. We know that methane is produced in swamps as a result of biological decay, and it may seem reasonable to conclude that all natural gas came from vegetable matter that decayed eons ago and has remained trapped in rock beneath the surface of the earth.

 

It remains, however, only an article of faith that oil and natural gas are biological in origin; scientific proof is absent. Recently, information from the Gulf of Mexico has caused geologists to rethink the origins of these so-called "fossil fuels." Eugene Island is a subsurface mountain in the Gulf that started producing oil in 1973 at the rate of 15,000 barrels per day.

 

By 1989, the production had dropped to only 4000 barrels per day. But then, the production began to rise to its current rate of 13,000 barrels per day, and the probable reserves have increased from 60 million barrels to 400 million. Oil exploration has advanced tremendously since the advent of computers. It is now possible to map the subsurface with techniques ("3-D seismic technology") that are not appreciably different from those of ultrasound that is used to count the fingers of fetuses.

 

Dr. Roger Anderson did some time-lapse mapping of the Eugene Island facility and discovered that crude oil is entering the oil well site from a very deep source, evidently carried by huge amounts of natural gas at an abnormally high pressure. The crude oil from that very deep reservoir is of a much older geologic age.

 

Other information that may be related is that the petroleum reserves in the Middle East have doubled over the last two decades, "despite half a century of intense exploitation and relatively few new discoveries." The term reserves refers to identified and measured quantities; that they have increased may simply reflect the fact that more effort has been put into estimates of oil in the ground. On the other hand, the Middle East oil wells may be experiencing the same infusion of deep petroleum that the Eugene Island facility is.

 

How much petroleum is there on the earth?How much natural gas? In short, nobody knows, because their estimates are all model-dependent. If their model is that petroleum is a fossil fuel, then their predicted total amount depends ultimately on the amount of biomass of past eons that has been converted into petroleum. There would be a finite amount that, once burned up, would simply be gone.

 

If the predictor's model says that natural gas is a remnant of the earth�s primordial atmosphere, then the total amount of natural gas remaining might be huge, enough to last for many millennia. If the model says that petroleum is being continuously created from elements residing miles deep within the earth, then there will always be some available, and could conceivably be created faster than humans burn it up. Thomas Gold, 1 Professor Emeritus at Cornell is a champion of this view.

 

I would not like to stake the future of mankind on an unproven model of geologic processes. What if the model says there is a nearly infinite supply of petroleum but reality turns out differently? And if the model says petroleum will run out of petroleum in 2030, what measures should Congress adopt to prepare for the catastrophe? And what if the measures are catastrophic, but we find that we are awash in oil in 2030? Models are for prospectors; a few decades' worth of proven reserves are for the rest of us.

 

1 Power From the Earth,by Thomas Gold.

 

*Dr Howard Hayden is Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut, USA.

[mikekefr]

I'm a simple man.... but....aren't trees a "renewable resource"?

 

Aren't there more trees in the US than there was 200 years ago?

 

I hear about people worried about the lack of trees....but.... I live in one of the most densely populated areas, (San Francisco Bay Area),

in the most populated state, (California), in one of the most advanced countries in the world, (United States), and I couldn't count all the trees

I can see from my house..... along the streets...... along the freeways..... if I spent a solid month!

 

I my yard....my personal yard that surrounds my house where I live....there are more than 50 trees!

 

In my opinion, one of the best things about a tree is when you cut it down and make something out of the wood!

 

Hopefully, if we're all good stewards of our world, we'll replant one or more trees for each one that gets consumed,

(which MUST be happening if there are more trees now that there were 200 years ago!)

Hey Rob,my house is surrounded by a <pine> tree farm,i own 5 acres with mixed oaks and pines...pines are trash value round here to home owners unless u can get loggers to buy them since ya cant burn pine in a woodstove..the problem i see here in Va..is the loggers dont let the trees mature fully...they come in, grab about 4 or 5 tall but yet skinny pines at once,cut them and drop em,and continue till they clear the lot,or just make paths,possibly to divide the land in smaller plots to sell? I believe they prefer this size as the machinery isnt designed to handle the heavier more top heavy mature pines...imo people choose to live in the sticks due to it being quieter and more laid back and land is generally cheaper vs. the city,in most cases less crime,less traffic,the luxury of shooting firearms in your yard w/out cops being called,and the ever popular luxury of doin a #1 outside The population has greatly increased here in the last 30 yrs and slowy,im seeing this county turn into the 'city scene' that we moved from ages ago.I realize trees are used to make great things <paper mill 20 miles from here>. Being born in the city,i cherish every plot of trees and/or fields they leave alone just for privacy/seclusion purposes as well as small sections of scenery this county once was covered with.Sure the pine trees they strip leave sapplings behind, but its the 5,10,20,50 acre plots i hate to see them just come in and strip down like a $2 'entertainer'.Some lots they clear like on the main hwy bring new strip malls,which stay half occupied or new businesses open and close within a year.Im not a tree hugger by any sort but ya cant help but let out a sigh everytime ya see a new lot ripped to the stump.Just a laid back dudes .02

[pippy]

You sure about that. I would respectfully say that no one knows...

No, farns. I'm not sure about that.

 

But, then, neither is the writer of that article. In it he uses the word "if" nine times - which is not a good starting point if he's going to argue-the-toss with a belligerent Scotsman who's just opened the Rioja. And, of course, he, too, says "nobody knows"...

 

He suggests one 'fossil fuel' site is being replenished at an astonishing rate but he doesn't conjecture as to 'How?' or 'From Where?' or even 'From what?'.

 

Until we know more with 100% certainty I still think mine's a pretty good guess.

 

 

P.

[Guest farnsbarns]

No, farns. I'm not sure about that.

 

But, then, neither is the writer of that article. In it he uses the word "if" nine times and, of course, he, too, says "nobody knows"...

 

He suggests one 'fossil fuel' site is being replenished at an astonishing rate but he doesn't conjecture as to 'How?' or 'From Where?' or even 'From what?'.

 

Until we know more with 100% certainty I still think mine's a pretty good guess.

 

 

P.

 

Indeed, no one knows, and I'd agree that the fossil fuel conjecture makes a lot of sense. And that regardless of how much oil there is we should probably be looking for cleaner alternatives. My fear, however, is that those who spend our money for us would have us believe that it is fact that oil will run out. Furthermore, rather than genuinely trying to find genuine alternatives they would rather throw our money at schemes such as electric cars which charge off the national grid while playing down the fact that thus means coal power delivered in a staggeringly inefficient way.

 

The same goes for rain forests. even if the entire land area of the planet was rain forest it would still only be responsible for 5% of carbon to oxygen conversion. Algae is really the big player. Businesses don't need algae so there is no insensitive for massive taxation and legislation on the premise of deterrent.

 

Going back to no one knows...

 

My frustration is in the lack of information. Nearly everything we get can be picked apart and makes no sense when analysed as part of the bigger picture.

 

Personaly I am poised to take action and work toward a ling term solution to all matters of the environment but not until there are measures in research and action which aren't derived from someone's desire to tax and or profit from the rest of us. A real solution based on the real threats.

 

Just my opinion of course.

[D-poland]

Indeed, no one knows, and I'd agree that the fossil fuel conjecture makes a lot of sense. And that regardless of how much oil there is we should probably be looking for cleaner alternatives. My fear, however, is that those who spend our money for us would have us believe that it is fact that oil will run out. Furthermore, rather than genuinely trying to find genuine alternatives they would rather throw our money at schemes such as electric cars which charge off the national grid while playing down the fact that thus means coal power delivered in a staggeringly inefficient way.

 

The same goes for rain forests. even if the entire land area of the planet was rain forest it would still only be responsible for 5% of carbon to oxygen conversion. Algae is really the big player. Businesses don't need algae so there is no insensitive for massive taxation and legislation on the premise of deterrent.

 

Going back to no one knows...

 

My frustration is in the lack of information. Nearly everything we get can be picked apart and makes no sense when analysed as part of the bigger picture.

 

Personaly I am poised to take action and work toward a ling term solution to all matters of the environment but not until there are measures in research and action which aren't derived from someone's desire to tax and or profit from the rest of us. A real solution based on the real threats.

 

Just my opinion of course.

as far as the elec concerns go besides corn covering the country side we do have a growing wind gen.industry which seem like a real good way to go so far! I'll get back with you on that in 20 yrs or so in case it do'nt work out

[heymisterk]

And there in lies the problem with every green and conservation measure that's ever been put in front of me, someone's making a profit.

 

So...wait...You are saying that green/conservationists make more profit than the timber industry? Boy, I would love to see those statistics.

[Guest farnsbarns]

So...wait...You are saying that green/conservationists make more profit than the timber industry? Boy, I would love to see those statistics.

 

Actually I didn't say that but I bet all green industries added together amounts to many times the revenue of the lumbar industry as it happens.

 

I had a quick look and in 2008 (some time ago now) the carbon credit trading industry alone was worth $64bn. That's a drop in the ocean of the green industries. So yeah, I reckon so. I spend about £1000 per year off-setting the carbon footprint of my company. For that, someone plants 3 trees. There's some serious profit there!

 

The worst thing about trading carbon credits is that it does nothing to reduce the amount of carbon produced overall. Just a profit machine.

[milod]

I think the point is that some of the "activist organizations" keep themselves in business through donations. And yes, they're making money. Spending it too, but generally on whatever is their idea of what likely will be most helpful to maintain their revenue streams.

 

Here's part of the problem:

 

Where I live there is plenty of documentation of trees. There are so many more today than 135 years ago there's no comparison. The mountain pine forests were both increasing cover and serving a thriving logging and sawmill industry until the enviros shut nearly all of it down and killed about 700 good blue collar jobs.

 

The result? Tree disease, trees drinking streams dry and incredible fire danger.

 

But I've been called a liar for showing photos of open hillsides in 1874 that today are full of dead trees and various underbrush.

 

Another one: Where I live the population densities are small. So... a cupla million prairie dogs driven to extinction in more populated states are declared "endangered" one way or another, and are allowed to damage the prairie and carry plague. That latter, literally. Then there's the sage grouse driven by increasing populations elsewhere into near extinction so the "local" population of 200,000 or so may end up shoving ranchers off their land as well as killing nascent petroleum exploration.

 

I don't "blame" the enviros, though, as much as quite frankly I blame a population worldwide that is double what it was when I became a teenager. There are two choices when it comes to the resource pie. You either make it bigger, or everyone gets a smaller slice.

 

Current "western world" policy is to see that everyone gets a smaller slice of a shrinking pie while current Asian policy is to make a bigger pie.

 

Meanwhile there are more people wanting their own slice of whatever size pie. Other than the Chinese, though, it seems few are willing to look at options other than lessening the lifestyle of growing populations.

 

Interesting, ain't it?

 

m

[Riffster]

You can immediately tell the difference in fauna going from a tree plantation to a new-ish forest to an old growth forest.

 

The other thread about trees though was silly, at least the OP, guitar companies HAVE to manage their wood supplies, no good tone woods no business. I bet they do more to keep their wood supplies in check than many other industries.

 

The Goose That Laid The Golden Eggs comes to mind.

[heymisterk]

Actually I didn't say that but I bet all green industries added together amounts to many times the revenue of the lumbar industry as it happens.

 

I had a quick look and in 2008 (some time ago now) the carbon credit trading industry alone was worth $64bn. That's a drop in the ocean of the green industries. So yeah, I reckon so. I spend about £1000 per year off-setting the carbon footprint of my company. For that, someone plants 3 trees. There's some serious profit there!

 

The worst thing about trading carbon credits is that it does nothing to reduce the amount of carbon produced overall. Just a profit machine.

 

Again, I would love to see the evidence of people working to protect trees and their profit vs. people who work to cut trees down and their profit.

[heymisterk]

Look...I lived in Idaho for four years, and I saw the profit, greed, and environmental degradation that came from clear-cutting forests in Idaho and Montana. And it was all to make the biggest buck by spending the smallest buck. If you think that timber companies are going to be good environmental stewards, you are living in a fantasy land. I saw old growth forests reduced to nothing, watersheds ruined, and now...? Those "good blue collar jobs" are completely gone because the logging companies cared less about the worker than they did the forest.

 

People who live in many Western rural areas tend to thing that we Easterners don't know jack about living in the West and about logging. What I have found is that some rural folk in the West - and I was one for four years - have an antiquated livelihood similar to a mining culture that cannot be sustained. These logging jobs will not last without good forestry practices, but until those practices are sustainable, I have no sympathy for people who claim "green" people are out for money and self-interest. Their self-interest is a liveable planet, which is more than I can say for the timber companies.

[Searcy]

I'm a simple man.... but....aren't trees a "renewable resource"?

 

Aren't there more trees in the US than there was 200 years ago?

 

I hear about people worried about the lack of trees....but.... I live in one of the most densely populated areas, (San Francisco Bay Area),

in the most populated state, (California), in one of the most advanced countries in the world, (United States), and I couldn't count all the trees

I can see from my house..... along the streets...... along the freeways..... if I spent a solid month!

 

I my yard....my personal yard that surrounds my house where I live....there are more than 50 trees!

 

In my opinion, one of the best things about a tree is when you cut it down and make something out of the wood!

 

Hopefully, if we're all good stewards of our world, we'll replant one or more trees for each one that gets consumed,

(which MUST be happening if there are more trees now that there were 200 years ago!)

 

Yes, there are many more trees in the U.S. today than there were just a few hundred years ago. The whole "Green Movement" has really become just another religion of Earth worship. To the faithful no amount of evidence is enough.

 

As a much younger man I worked as a city Parks and Recreations worker. I was sent to classes on horticulture and trained well. Part of my job was to evaluate the trees in the parks I was responsible for. When I found problem limbs that were likely to break and open the trees bark to illness and parasites I knew the proper way to cut them. I would also thin out the more aggressive wild growth to keep it from taking over the park and choking out the other trees.

It was rare that I was ever able to trim these trees without being accosted by someone yelling "Save the trees!" or "I pay your salary so do what I say and put down the chain saw!" On more than one occasion my partner and I were spit on and had rock thrown at us by kids who were "saving the planet". I would try to explain that trees like Live Oaks need proper care to stay healthy. That we weren't killing the trees we were there to help them.

 

No use. Man with chain saw = bad.

 

Most of those kids are well into their 20's and 30's now. They are still faithful to the new religion and think $50 light bulbs are great. They think it's wonderful that evil companies like Gibson are being punished for buy Indian Rosewood. They don't bat an eye as they walk past the 4 foot high kokopelli carving as they make their was through the Earth Bound Trading Company looking for the perfect hat made out of hemp.

 

My buddy Allen makes money farming trees. If he cuts more trees than he plants he goes broke.

[Kelvinator]

Yes, there are many more trees in the U.S. today than there were just a few hundred years ago. The whole "Green Movement" has really become just another religion of Earth worship. To the faithful no amount of evidence is enough.

 

As a much younger man I worked as a city Parks and Recreations worker. I was sent to classes on horticulture and trained well. Part of my job was to evaluate the trees in the parks I was responsible for. When I found problem limbs that were likely to break and open the trees bark to illness and parasites I knew the proper way to cut them. I would also thin out the more aggressive wild growth to keep it from taking over the park and choking out the other trees.

It was rare that I was ever able to trim these trees without being accosted by someone yelling "Save the trees!" or "I pay your salary so do what I say and put down the chain saw!" On more than one occasion my partner and I were spit on and had rock thrown at us by kids who were "saving the planet". I would try to explain that trees like Live Oaks need proper care to stay healthy. That we weren't killing the trees we were there to help them.

 

No use. Man with chain saw = bad.

 

Most of those kids are well into their 20's and 30's now. They are still faithful to the new religion and think $50 light bulbs are great. They think it's wonderful that evil companies like Gibson are being punished for buy Indian Rosewood. They don't bat an eye as they walk past the 4 foot high kokopelli carving as they make their was through the Earth Bound Trading Company looking for the perfect hat made out of hemp.

 

My buddy Allen makes money farming trees. If he cuts more trees than he plants he goes broke.

 

 

Well there ya go again - making perfect sense!

[Riffster]

Just to clarify, there are not more trees than when the first European settlers came to America,

 

Trees were heavily harvested for domestic use and for export to Europe where forests we decimated at the time,

 

So there maybe more trees now than after Europeans cleared a ton of land of trees, sure.

 

It's like saying there are more Buffalo now than 50 years ago so everything it's alright.

 

It's like saying there are more polar bears now than 20 years ago, sure, after a 150-million program.

 

I am no environmentalist but the truth is we humans are the biggest pest of this world.

[Searcy]

How many trees would be enough? How many polar bears?

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtrT5oG_IVc