4 ms·

"It’s simple maths. We are chopping down about 15 billion trees a year and planting about 9 billion. So there’s a net loss of 6 billion trees a year." ehhhhhmm

"It’s simple maths. We are chopping down about 15 billion trees a year and planting about 9 billion. So there’s a net loss of 6 billion trees a year." ehhhhhmmmm no. It's not simple math. Or if it is, those are the wrong numbers to pick. Trees can reproduce themselves without human help and there are around 3.04 trillion trees in the world so a lot of potential for these net loss figures to be waaay off. As far as we know, the number of trees in the world is actually growing. Higher levels of CO2 and the arrival of plastics and aluminium have contributed to reforestation of large areas of the world (we used to make everything out of wood). There are more trees now than there were 100 years ago. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), in the US, forest growth nationally has exceeded harvest since the 1940s. Same goes for Europe. The story might be different in Asia and certain parts of South America but in aggregate numbers I'd bet that we have net growth.

cup-of-tea 9y ago
It should be pretty obvious that trees can't reproduce anywhere near as quickly as we can pull them down. It's simple maths that the net loss due to human activity is 6 billion. Trees will reproduce at a higher rate than they die if they have the space to do so, but why do you assume that they do? The problem is those trees were pulled down to make room for other things and the trees can no longer replace themselves in that area.
- wklauss 9y ago
  > It should be pretty obvious that trees can't reproduce anywhere near as quickly as we can pull them down. Of course not, but they do reproduce and can do quite fast for animal propagated tree species. We are talking about 3.04 trillion trees. Even if the natural germination rates are low, it would still be significant enough to make a difference in the assertion this article uses as introduction. Like I said, a lot of things have to be taken into account, including local deforestation and its effect on desertification. Higher averages temperatures are forcing forests to move to higher latitudes, but they are also clearing areas of growth that are not yet inhabited by humans and were far too cold before for trees to propagate to. I'm not suggesting that there's not a problem with the way we use our forest resources, just that the oversimplification of the starting premise of the article doesn't help at all.
  - manicdee 9y ago
    > Even if the natural germination rates are low, it would still be significant enough to make a difference in the assertion this article uses as introduction. If self regeneration is low, it doesn’t matter what the absolute numbers are, they are still tiny compared to the level of deforestation. Then there’s the attrition rate of forests, which is probably in the same order of magnitude as natural reforestation. “Rate at which humans plant trees - rate at which humans destroy trees” is a good first order approximation of the general trends simply because the numbers are so large compared to all other factors. In every environmental context, human action is the greatest impact by an order of magnitude simply because there are so many of us. For example, the greatest sources of methane in the environment are from human activities such as mining and cattle (64% according to USA EPA), way ahead of swamps and other natural sources. Studies in Brazil suggest that natural reforestation is a process that takes between 60 years (some trees are back) to 4000 years (this patch has regenerated to be the same as the forest around it). It takes so much less time to clear a patch of forest than to regenerate, that the regeneration is a rounding error in calculations with two significant digits.
robbick 9y ago
Can you give any sources?
- wklauss 9y ago
  Evolution of forest surface in western Europe in the last 100 years: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/12/04/watch-how-europe-is-greener-now-than-100-years-ago/?utm_term=.7ac3636e49b1 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/12/04... US Forests History and trends (FAO): www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/x4995e.htm WorldBank has numbers for global trends but only with data starting in 1990 and for forest surface: https://data.worldbank.org https://data.worldbank.org It shows a slight decline, but as FAO points out, forest density (trees pr sqmt) is also growing so forest surface area numbers don't tell the whole story.
alkonaut 9y ago
Self replicating trees?? This technology needs to be put under regulatory control before we are all turned into trees.
- wukerplank 9y ago
  I trust Monsanto is on it.
  - allengeorge 9y ago
    We'll use the blockchain to do a rights payment when a tree using our patented DNA grows. There are also milestone payments: survives for 1 year - a small payment; survives for 2 - another payment...
    - FilterSweep 9y ago
      back in the old days, we used to get a ring for each year.
z0ltan 9y ago
What a crock of bullshit.
EADGBE 9y ago
> There are more trees now than there were 100 years ago. You may be correct. However, coming from an avid guitarists who looks at this particular industry in isolation from most people; there isn't "old growth" which is a unique problem in my industry. And what trees there are, less of them are considered musical instrument grade. Also, the types of trees matter a lot (for certain things). We simply can't use Brazilian Rosewood for new builds anymore. It doesn't exist, and what does is heavily, heavily protected (To the point where instruments made before the export ban -worth $$$$$$$- are getting confiscated. Others similar to rosewood have been confiscated simply for looking like it's made from the Brazilian kind). I think, in general we were aware of our problem as consumers of trees. However, we underestimated (for musicians) how the age and growth patterns dictate what makes a good tree for X. What was untouched for centuries simply makes better wood. Essentially, the niche markets are really, really feeling this squeeze. So much so that Fender has switched to an alternative Rosewood for most if not all of their guitars, Taylor often uses (and pioneers in this subject in many ways) alternative "tonewoods" and has for years, simply because the wood that exists for these instruments even 50 years ago is simply unattainable now. Some boutique builders are forced to harvest "forgotten" logs which sunk to the bottom of lakes and rivers decades ago.

cup-of-tea 9y ago

It should be pretty obvious that trees can't reproduce anywhere near as quickly as we can pull them down. It's simple maths that the net loss due to human activity is 6 billion. Trees will reproduce at a higher rate than they die if they have the space to do so, but why do you assume that they do? The problem is those trees were pulled down to make room for other things and the trees can no longer replace themselves in that area.

wklauss 9y ago
> It should be pretty obvious that trees can't reproduce anywhere near as quickly as we can pull them down. Of course not, but they do reproduce and can do quite fast for animal propagated tree species. We are talking about 3.04 trillion trees. Even if the natural germination rates are low, it would still be significant enough to make a difference in the assertion this article uses as introduction. Like I said, a lot of things have to be taken into account, including local deforestation and its effect on desertification. Higher averages temperatures are forcing forests to move to higher latitudes, but they are also clearing areas of growth that are not yet inhabited by humans and were far too cold before for trees to propagate to. I'm not suggesting that there's not a problem with the way we use our forest resources, just that the oversimplification of the starting premise of the article doesn't help at all.
- manicdee 9y ago
  > Even if the natural germination rates are low, it would still be significant enough to make a difference in the assertion this article uses as introduction. If self regeneration is low, it doesn’t matter what the absolute numbers are, they are still tiny compared to the level of deforestation. Then there’s the attrition rate of forests, which is probably in the same order of magnitude as natural reforestation. “Rate at which humans plant trees - rate at which humans destroy trees” is a good first order approximation of the general trends simply because the numbers are so large compared to all other factors. In every environmental context, human action is the greatest impact by an order of magnitude simply because there are so many of us. For example, the greatest sources of methane in the environment are from human activities such as mining and cattle (64% according to USA EPA), way ahead of swamps and other natural sources. Studies in Brazil suggest that natural reforestation is a process that takes between 60 years (some trees are back) to 4000 years (this patch has regenerated to be the same as the forest around it). It takes so much less time to clear a patch of forest than to regenerate, that the regeneration is a rounding error in calculations with two significant digits.

robbick 9y ago

Can you give any sources?

wklauss 9y ago
Evolution of forest surface in western Europe in the last 100 years: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/12/04/watch-how-europe-is-greener-now-than-100-years-ago/?utm_term=.7ac3636e49b1 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/12/04... US Forests History and trends (FAO): www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/x4995e.htm WorldBank has numbers for global trends but only with data starting in 1990 and for forest surface: https://data.worldbank.org https://data.worldbank.org It shows a slight decline, but as FAO points out, forest density (trees pr sqmt) is also growing so forest surface area numbers don't tell the whole story.

alkonaut 9y ago

Self replicating trees?? This technology needs to be put under regulatory control before we are all turned into trees.

wukerplank 9y ago
I trust Monsanto is on it.
- allengeorge 9y ago
  We'll use the blockchain to do a rights payment when a tree using our patented DNA grows. There are also milestone payments: survives for 1 year - a small payment; survives for 2 - another payment...
  - FilterSweep 9y ago
    back in the old days, we used to get a ring for each year.

z0ltan 9y ago

What a crock of bullshit.

EADGBE 9y ago

> There are more trees now than there were 100 years ago. You may be correct. However, coming from an avid guitarists who looks at this particular industry in isolation from most people; there isn't "old growth" which is a unique problem in my industry. And what trees there are, less of them are considered musical instrument grade. Also, the types of trees matter a lot (for certain things). We simply can't use Brazilian Rosewood for new builds anymore. It doesn't exist, and what does is heavily, heavily protected (To the point where instruments made before the export ban -worth $$$$$$$- are getting confiscated. Others similar to rosewood have been confiscated simply for looking like it's made from the Brazilian kind). I think, in general we were aware of our problem as consumers of trees. However, we underestimated (for musicians) how the age and growth patterns dictate what makes a good tree for X. What was untouched for centuries simply makes better wood. Essentially, the niche markets are really, really feeling this squeeze. So much so that Fender has switched to an alternative Rosewood for most if not all of their guitars, Taylor often uses (and pioneers in this subject in many ways) alternative "tonewoods" and has for years, simply because the wood that exists for these instruments even 50 years ago is simply unattainable now. Some boutique builders are forced to harvest "forgotten" logs which sunk to the bottom of lakes and rivers decades ago.