3 ms·

> The single biggest reason to fell trees, according to official figures, is to create new pastures for cattle... I doubt there's going to be much regrowth. It

> The single biggest reason to fell trees, according to official figures, is to create new pastures for cattle... I doubt there's going to be much regrowth. It's still a huge and increasing number, regardless of whether it's a small fraction. It's how we go "Oh that's not so bad, we can allow more of it." And more and more of it. Let's say 10x that number is where you draw the line and don't allow any faster. In a lifetime (80 years) 60% of it is gone, but it never happened quickly. Pretending large numbers don't matter because they're small fractions only counts when they're really small fractions and there are other forces at play to fix it.

autoexec 7y ago
Even if there is regrowth, new growth isn't the same as old growth. You also can't replace the unique species of plants and animals that took millions of years to evolve in that environment. Any major removal of rainforest is a huge loss. The fact that it's happening because of cows and greed is just an insulting waste of a very unique and important resource.
- SmellyGeekBoy 7y ago
  > Even if there is regrowth, new growth isn't the same as old growth. To be fair (and I'm not one to defend deforestation in the slightest) new growth does capture more CO2. Of course the other points in your comment are more important, to me at least.
  - pvaldes 7y ago
    > New growth does capture more CO2 If we cut a tree it seems that the new rings are much thin than the older rings, we could assume that the tree is growing slower each year but this image is deceiving Is true than the older tree is investing much more energy on reproduction, flowers and (most) fruits do not capture CO2 But the tree's work of a year, a cilinder of wood of just 5cm thick has much more mass than a solid stick of 50cm (young tree), because the diameter of the older ring is 6m and its height 30m, whereas the younger tree is a solid stick of 50cm x 5m. The older tree can be putting much more mass over its shoulders each year than the younger tree = capturing more CO2. Second: We don't want faster growing trees to capture CO2. We should aim for slow trees instead. The faster a tree grows, more "spongy" its wood. More brittle and less durable. Hard woods instead are really slow growers, specially when young, but weigth much more (much more CO2 captured in the same space) and this wood lasts intact much more decades. The CO2 capture is much more reliable. The ultra fast tree lives 30, maybe 50 years and then is over, the slow three can live for 500-1000 years easily.

autoexec 7y ago

Even if there is regrowth, new growth isn't the same as old growth. You also can't replace the unique species of plants and animals that took millions of years to evolve in that environment. Any major removal of rainforest is a huge loss. The fact that it's happening because of cows and greed is just an insulting waste of a very unique and important resource.

SmellyGeekBoy 7y ago
> Even if there is regrowth, new growth isn't the same as old growth. To be fair (and I'm not one to defend deforestation in the slightest) new growth does capture more CO2. Of course the other points in your comment are more important, to me at least.
- pvaldes 7y ago
  > New growth does capture more CO2 If we cut a tree it seems that the new rings are much thin than the older rings, we could assume that the tree is growing slower each year but this image is deceiving Is true than the older tree is investing much more energy on reproduction, flowers and (most) fruits do not capture CO2 But the tree's work of a year, a cilinder of wood of just 5cm thick has much more mass than a solid stick of 50cm (young tree), because the diameter of the older ring is 6m and its height 30m, whereas the younger tree is a solid stick of 50cm x 5m. The older tree can be putting much more mass over its shoulders each year than the younger tree = capturing more CO2. Second: We don't want faster growing trees to capture CO2. We should aim for slow trees instead. The faster a tree grows, more "spongy" its wood. More brittle and less durable. Hard woods instead are really slow growers, specially when young, but weigth much more (much more CO2 captured in the same space) and this wood lasts intact much more decades. The CO2 capture is much more reliable. The ultra fast tree lives 30, maybe 50 years and then is over, the slow three can live for 500-1000 years easily.