13 ms·

More than half of the trees that grow only in Europe risk extinction, says IUCN

76 points by reddotX 7y ago

mrpopo 7y ago
On another article, a user is wondering why there isn't a public uproar and why isn't absolutely everyone writing to their representing politicians about car rental companies ripping them off of 15€ for their Hamburg-Milan cross country holiday family car trip. I dare everyone reading this to actually take the time and write to their politicians to act against climate change and urbanisation. Time is up already.
- SuddsMcDuff 7y ago
  > "Time us up already". Then what's the point writing to our politicians?
  - mrpopo 7y ago
    There are going to be drastic changes to our ways of life, and without any action it will be much worse later. But don't trust me, please read the latest IPCC and IPBES reports and make your own mind.
    - SuddsMcDuff 7y ago
      So time isn't up? I don't need convincing, I'm not a climate change skeptic. I'm just pointing out that you went too far with the FUD tactic. It's counter productive to your call to action, if you also insinuate that action is futile.
      - mrpopo 7y ago
        Thanks for the advice, I'll use another phrasing from now on. I don't want to convince skeptics. I want people who are aware of the situation to take actions themselves, and ask for actions from others, be it their representatives, local politicians, family, local associations, etc.
- ginko 7y ago
  Why act against urbanisation? Making more people move to densely populated cities is saving energy and natural resources.
  - mrpopo 7y ago
    I don't believe that cities in developed countries are becoming denser. Rather, the commercial area per person is increasing.
    - icebraining 7y ago
      Even if true, they're still more dense and car-free than non-urban areas. That's just a reason to advocate for increased density, not against urbanization.
pl-94 7y ago
Can anyone explain me what is the danger of losing 60% of the species? As soon as we maintain the same volumes in tree, it is overall fine, isn't it?
- smackay 7y ago
  A single tree can be an entire ecosystem in itself from all the fungi, lichens, insects, mammals, birds, etc. etc. A loss of tree species means a loss of others too. A lot of migrants birds and animals depend on seasonal fruits and nuts as they move south so the effects of species loss can be very far ranging indeed. While the idea that planting more trees to ameliorate climate change is a good one there is a risk that simple, ignorant, solutions such as planting fast growing eucalyptus or pine species could be seen as the fast path to success. Instead focussing on native species, which are slow growing in comparison, would actually solve the much greater problem that comes with climate change - habitat degradation and generate ecosystems that are generally most robust and able to withstand stresses better.
- hos234 7y ago
  It's not predictable what will happen - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVOHgztZ3XI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVOHgztZ3XI
- scooble 7y ago
  While it probably isn't the main concern, different species produce lumber with different properties. The loss of Elm trees in the uk removed a timber that was very useful for boatbuilding, for example (thought that is a bit of a niche concern).
  - nkurz 7y ago
    Wow, I hadn't known about that niche for elm! I searched because I unfairly doubted you, and thought you might be confusing elm with some other tree. Here's a comment thread that provides some more information: http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?212281-Elm-in-boats http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?212281-Elm-in-boa...
- 7y ago
mpol 7y ago
I do think there is something hypocritical in us pointing fingers to Brazil for destroying the Amazon forest. In Europe, most forests have been destroyed in the past centuries, all for economic gain. If we are so concerned, why not rebuild those forests. Apparently we are not that concerned, we still make the same choice for economic gain, just like Brazil does.
- johnisgood 7y ago
  > pointing fingers to Brazil for destroying the Amazon forest. That is rich, considering Brazil is the world’s leading exporter of both beef and poultry, exporting to more than 150 countries. Brazilian beef is the main reason for the massive deforestation in the Amazon. > A 2004 World Bank paper and a 2009 Greenpeace report found that the cattle sector in the Brazilian Amazon, supported by the international beef and leather trades, was responsible for about 80% of all deforestation in the region,[3][2] or about 14% of the world's total annual deforestation, making it the largest single driver of deforestation in the world.[4] According to a 2006 report by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 70% of formerly forested land in the Amazon, and 91% of land deforested since 1970, is used for livestock pasture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_of_the_Amazon_rainforest#Causes_of_deforestation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_of_the_Amazon_ra... People who eat meat imported from Brazil blames Brazil for destroying the Amazon forest? Even if you do not eat meat imported from Brazil, you should "blame" the consumers who do. If there would be no demand for it, there would be no financial incentives for all this destruction.
  - icebraining 7y ago
    The EU is not a huge importer of beef, since we produce quite a bit ourselves (net exporters). Hong Kong alone imported 2.5x more beef from Brazil than the whole of the EU in 2018 (some of it for resale).
    - johnisgood 7y ago
      I know. Sorry, I should have clarified that I was not necessarily referring to Europeans, but any people who blame Brazil AND buy Brazilian beef. I do not think we even have Brazilian beef around where I live, in Eastern Europe.
smackay 7y ago
While the basic message is probably true the way the article is so economical with the facts that it rightly belongs in the trash. The one example it cites is for a species of moth from the Balkans. Last time I checked the Balkans were still part of Europe so this species of leaf-mining moth could be expected to colonise more northerly parts of the continent as the climate warmed. So no real surprises there. It's probably happened in the past and yet we still have horse chestnut trees. Other weasel sentences such as "The study said 42% of the 454 tree species in Europe, which include some found elsewhere, could die out on the continent." So "some found elsewhere". What percentage are found elsewhere? Where exactly is elsewhere. Some species are probably very widespread indeed so losing a few at the edges of their range are inconsequential. The real story here is Europe's fragmented habitats means that a lot of trees are going to have a hard time adjusting to climate change - there's nowhere to go. Pollution puts a lot of stress on trees - remember acid rain? While there is a real problem with imported insects, fungi, etc. none of that is mentioned. A lazy article, written by a lazy journalist who just threw in "extinction" to spice things up and sow fear, doubt and uncertainly.
gdubs 7y ago
I consider myself somewhat of a permaculturist, but I try to stay pragmatic. Genetically modified seeds are something we should be heavily looking into — and people who care about the environment should support that research, rather than shouting, “something, something, Monsanto.”
dghughes 7y ago
An interesting point came up this past summer when discussing allergies in cities. The trees that are planted in cities tend to be male since female trees will bear fruit and are messy. I wonder if the lack of diversity (yes even in trees!) is causing problems. If there were a mix of male and female would trees be able to evolve or at least grow more offspring.
PeterStuer 7y ago
On top of the 'natural' threats mentioned in the article there are two specific EU policies that threaten trees in the EU even more. The EU has a policy to get the member states to reach a certain percentage of 'renewables' in the energy basket or face stiff fines. So far so good. However, commercial logging managed to get 'wood pellets' on the list of 'renewables'. The result? Forests and roadside trees are being 'harvested' like there is no tomorrow because it helps meet the quota. The EU set up a program for returning surfaces to more 'original' vegetation. Much of Europe's forests in low forested areas are created 2 or 3 centuries ago to serve as hunting grounds for the aristocracy. 'Nature' organizations (pretend green lobbies in reality) are now strip cutting forests in the name of 'planting more native species' and even 'landscape diversity' in regions that barely have tree left. 'Coincidentally' raking in nice subsidies to do so with a positive financial return, allowing them to buy more land to 'converse' raking in more subsidies... Yeah, I know you can see the excessive airquotes, but I'm mad as hell.

76 points by reddotX 7y ago

On another article, a user is wondering why there isn't a public uproar and why isn't absolutely everyone writing to their representing politicians about car rental companies ripping them off of 15€ for their Hamburg-Milan cross country holiday family car trip. I dare everyone reading this to actually take the time and write to their politicians to act against climate change and urbanisation. Time is up already.

SuddsMcDuff 7y ago
> "Time us up already". Then what's the point writing to our politicians?
- mrpopo 7y ago
  There are going to be drastic changes to our ways of life, and without any action it will be much worse later. But don't trust me, please read the latest IPCC and IPBES reports and make your own mind.
  - SuddsMcDuff 7y ago
    So time isn't up? I don't need convincing, I'm not a climate change skeptic. I'm just pointing out that you went too far with the FUD tactic. It's counter productive to your call to action, if you also insinuate that action is futile.
    - mrpopo 7y ago
      Thanks for the advice, I'll use another phrasing from now on. I don't want to convince skeptics. I want people who are aware of the situation to take actions themselves, and ask for actions from others, be it their representatives, local politicians, family, local associations, etc.
ginko 7y ago
Why act against urbanisation? Making more people move to densely populated cities is saving energy and natural resources.
- mrpopo 7y ago
  I don't believe that cities in developed countries are becoming denser. Rather, the commercial area per person is increasing.
  - icebraining 7y ago
    Even if true, they're still more dense and car-free than non-urban areas. That's just a reason to advocate for increased density, not against urbanization.

pl-94 7y ago

Can anyone explain me what is the danger of losing 60% of the species? As soon as we maintain the same volumes in tree, it is overall fine, isn't it?

smackay 7y ago
A single tree can be an entire ecosystem in itself from all the fungi, lichens, insects, mammals, birds, etc. etc. A loss of tree species means a loss of others too. A lot of migrants birds and animals depend on seasonal fruits and nuts as they move south so the effects of species loss can be very far ranging indeed. While the idea that planting more trees to ameliorate climate change is a good one there is a risk that simple, ignorant, solutions such as planting fast growing eucalyptus or pine species could be seen as the fast path to success. Instead focussing on native species, which are slow growing in comparison, would actually solve the much greater problem that comes with climate change - habitat degradation and generate ecosystems that are generally most robust and able to withstand stresses better.
hos234 7y ago
It's not predictable what will happen - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVOHgztZ3XI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVOHgztZ3XI
scooble 7y ago
While it probably isn't the main concern, different species produce lumber with different properties. The loss of Elm trees in the uk removed a timber that was very useful for boatbuilding, for example (thought that is a bit of a niche concern).
- nkurz 7y ago
  Wow, I hadn't known about that niche for elm! I searched because I unfairly doubted you, and thought you might be confusing elm with some other tree. Here's a comment thread that provides some more information: http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?212281-Elm-in-boats http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?212281-Elm-in-boa...
7y ago

mpol 7y ago

I do think there is something hypocritical in us pointing fingers to Brazil for destroying the Amazon forest. In Europe, most forests have been destroyed in the past centuries, all for economic gain. If we are so concerned, why not rebuild those forests. Apparently we are not that concerned, we still make the same choice for economic gain, just like Brazil does.

johnisgood 7y ago
> pointing fingers to Brazil for destroying the Amazon forest. That is rich, considering Brazil is the world’s leading exporter of both beef and poultry, exporting to more than 150 countries. Brazilian beef is the main reason for the massive deforestation in the Amazon. > A 2004 World Bank paper and a 2009 Greenpeace report found that the cattle sector in the Brazilian Amazon, supported by the international beef and leather trades, was responsible for about 80% of all deforestation in the region,[3][2] or about 14% of the world's total annual deforestation, making it the largest single driver of deforestation in the world.[4] According to a 2006 report by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 70% of formerly forested land in the Amazon, and 91% of land deforested since 1970, is used for livestock pasture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_of_the_Amazon_rainforest#Causes_of_deforestation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_of_the_Amazon_ra... People who eat meat imported from Brazil blames Brazil for destroying the Amazon forest? Even if you do not eat meat imported from Brazil, you should "blame" the consumers who do. If there would be no demand for it, there would be no financial incentives for all this destruction.
- icebraining 7y ago
  The EU is not a huge importer of beef, since we produce quite a bit ourselves (net exporters). Hong Kong alone imported 2.5x more beef from Brazil than the whole of the EU in 2018 (some of it for resale).
  - johnisgood 7y ago
    I know. Sorry, I should have clarified that I was not necessarily referring to Europeans, but any people who blame Brazil AND buy Brazilian beef. I do not think we even have Brazilian beef around where I live, in Eastern Europe.

smackay 7y ago

While the basic message is probably true the way the article is so economical with the facts that it rightly belongs in the trash. The one example it cites is for a species of moth from the Balkans. Last time I checked the Balkans were still part of Europe so this species of leaf-mining moth could be expected to colonise more northerly parts of the continent as the climate warmed. So no real surprises there. It's probably happened in the past and yet we still have horse chestnut trees. Other weasel sentences such as "The study said 42% of the 454 tree species in Europe, which include some found elsewhere, could die out on the continent." So "some found elsewhere". What percentage are found elsewhere? Where exactly is elsewhere. Some species are probably very widespread indeed so losing a few at the edges of their range are inconsequential. The real story here is Europe's fragmented habitats means that a lot of trees are going to have a hard time adjusting to climate change - there's nowhere to go. Pollution puts a lot of stress on trees - remember acid rain? While there is a real problem with imported insects, fungi, etc. none of that is mentioned. A lazy article, written by a lazy journalist who just threw in "extinction" to spice things up and sow fear, doubt and uncertainly.

gdubs 7y ago

I consider myself somewhat of a permaculturist, but I try to stay pragmatic. Genetically modified seeds are something we should be heavily looking into — and people who care about the environment should support that research, rather than shouting, “something, something, Monsanto.”

dghughes 7y ago

An interesting point came up this past summer when discussing allergies in cities. The trees that are planted in cities tend to be male since female trees will bear fruit and are messy. I wonder if the lack of diversity (yes even in trees!) is causing problems. If there were a mix of male and female would trees be able to evolve or at least grow more offspring.

PeterStuer 7y ago

On top of the 'natural' threats mentioned in the article there are two specific EU policies that threaten trees in the EU even more. The EU has a policy to get the member states to reach a certain percentage of 'renewables' in the energy basket or face stiff fines. So far so good. However, commercial logging managed to get 'wood pellets' on the list of 'renewables'. The result? Forests and roadside trees are being 'harvested' like there is no tomorrow because it helps meet the quota. The EU set up a program for returning surfaces to more 'original' vegetation. Much of Europe's forests in low forested areas are created 2 or 3 centuries ago to serve as hunting grounds for the aristocracy. 'Nature' organizations (pretend green lobbies in reality) are now strip cutting forests in the name of 'planting more native species' and even 'landscape diversity' in regions that barely have tree left. 'Coincidentally' raking in nice subsidies to do so with a positive financial return, allowing them to buy more land to 'converse' raking in more subsidies... Yeah, I know you can see the excessive airquotes, but I'm mad as hell.