6 ms·

Just to let you know, there has been considerable forestation taking place in Europe during the last 100 years: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/

by jansan 7y ago

Just to let you know, there has been considerable forestation taking place in Europe during the last 100 years: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/12/04/watch-how-europe-is-greener-now-than-100-years-ago/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2014/12/04... Yet, somehow people in Europe think that a huge deforestation is taking place.

phito 7y ago
In my overly-populated European country, I think most people think that "nature" is going away because we're building more and more houses where fields were. It's weird to me that people here seem to think of fields as nature, when it's actually huge zones where a single species of plant grows and where insects are killed with poison
Dumblydorr 7y ago
Globally, we are losing forests and have lost them for hundreds of years. Iceland, Brazil, Madagascar, Indonesia, many places have lost huge amounts of trees due to humans.
- mytailorisrich 7y ago
  Europe as well, actually. It was virtually covered in forests then largely deforested to make way for agriculture. In the last 100 years or so rural exodus and agriculture industrialisation have meant that forests have started to expand again. That actually highlights a global issue: We, in Europe, scold developing countries for doing what Europe has done (but it was centuries ago so people don't realise it). That is reasonable considering what we now know and modern technology but to avoid hypocrisy this should be accompanied by offers of help to achieve development and jobs without deforestation, and perhaps by no longer buying commodities that require deforestation.
  - Sharlin 7y ago
    To make room for agriculture, yes, but even moreso to produce charcoal for the almost insatiable steel industry, to be used both as a fuel and a carbon source. Once the trees were gone, we moved to coal.
    - jansan 7y ago
      If you are in areas where lignite is exploited, the areas appear huge (and for the local population they are), but on an overall scale mining does not contribute much to deforestation.
      - Sharlin 7y ago
        Yeah, I didn't intend to imply that mining causes deforestation, on the contrary. Once the most economical source of carbon was used up, we started to dig it up from the ground.
vanderZwan 7y ago
I remember reading that in the Netherlands at least deforestation is taking place again. The reforestation effort had been doing quite well and then governmental policy changed. EDIT: I will look for a source for this though, so do remain skeptical of what I just wrote for now. EDIT2: this site claims a net loss in Dutch forest area of 3.8% since the year 2000. Clicking around on the map it seems like practically all European countries are losing forests faster than they are gaining them. At the moment I cannot find a source for the governmental policy claim though. [0] https://www.globalforestwatch.org/map/country/NLD?mainMap=eyJzaG93QW5hbHlzaXMiOnRydWUsImhpZGVMZWdlbmQiOmZhbHNlfQ%3D%3D&map=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%3D https://www.globalforestwatch.org/map/country/NLD?mainMap=ey...
- mantas 7y ago
  The devil is in details. Change forest area into other use, e.g. residential, is hard AF. So forest-as-land-use is AFAIK not decreasing in Europe. But re-forested areas are commercial forests, thus they're cut down. And the first re-forested forests reached their peak condition. So a lot of them are cut down. Usually they're given time to naturally re-seed from remaining trees (unless it was clear-cut, which are not advised in most cases nowadays), re-planting takes time and it takes time for that fresh cut to look like a forest again. Trees take in much more CO2 while they're growing. So if we keep cutting down trees at their prime age, don't burn them and replant new trees in their place... That's pretty efficient. If that wood replaces some concrete in construction, which is terrible for CO2, double win! We had a very heated debate about this in my country. Forest-land-use area is growing. But there're lots of clearings out in the forests. Cutting permits allow significantly less than theoretical yearly lumber growth. So sheer mass is growing too. But people see a clearing and think of that as deforestation. Another issue when old and bio-diverse forests are cut down and then commercial mono-culture forest is re-planted in it's place. But from CO2 side - that's better than keeping the old forest in place. Not so good from eco diversity perspective though.
smackay 7y ago
For anyone who thinks the Scottish highlands are beautiful. Here is what it used to look like and will again one day soon. https://rewildingeurope.com/rew-project/restoring-the-caledonian-forest/ https://rewildingeurope.com/rew-project/restoring-the-caledo... (The video at the bottom is a bit gushing but it's a decent view of what the reforestation projects want to achieve).
- baron_harkonnen 7y ago
  This is a great example of exporting your forest needs. About 1/3 of the UK's renewable energy is wood pellets shipped across the ocean from the US [1]. So yes you can have reforestation but for that to happen at the same time as your demand for wood pellets increases you have to burn a lot of bunker fuel to ship that wood across the ocean. But of course in the end you get to claim that you are using more renewable energy and increasing local forest coverage! [1] http://www.biomassmagazine.com/articles/16053/uk-bioenergy-capacity-generation-increased-in-2018 http://www.biomassmagazine.com/articles/16053/uk-bioenergy-c...
- sjmulder 7y ago
  I think the Scottish highlands are beautiful but wondered why those mountains are mostly bare whereas most mainland ones are wooded. Wasn't happy to read why.
paganel 7y ago
Don’t have the data open to the public but I’m personally mapping the forrests from Southern Romania as they stood in 1867 (give a take a few years, based on an Austrian map) and comparing them to the present day forrested area. There are now 40% less forrests compared to 1867, and in the plain area the situation is even more dire, in those places we now have 80% to 90% less forrests.
- jansan 7y ago
  If you look at the animated map on the Washington Post website it shows that especially in northern Romania deforestation has taken place in the second half of the 20th century, so the article does not contradict your data.
Sharlin 7y ago
It's difficult to deforestate Central Europe any further because almost complete deforestation already took place during the Middle Ages and the early modern period.
- richardhod 7y ago
  Southern Germany and surrounding areas are much more forested than, for example, the UK, so this is not exactly true. Can we have more precise information?
- vanderZwan 7y ago
  That reminds me of the discussions about overfishing. The amount of fish in the sea is a mere few percentages of what it was a century ago, but that already was way, way less than it was in the centuries before that. And we only went to fish in the sea after we had exhausted the rivers. This is the shifting baseline effect and it really negatively affects conservation efforts.
pjc50 7y ago
The problem is you can't create new "old" forest, and some of the old forest areas are under threat. In the case of Germany, some are even threatened by coal mining! Ancient forest can expand but it has to do so gradually to maintain the characteristic species mix. And in order to expand it has to be protected in the first place.
- jansan 7y ago
  Regarding climate change ancient forest is neutral, as it releases the same amount of carbon that it absorbs. Forestation on the other hand creates carbon storage, which is a very nice thing to have these days.
baron_harkonnen 7y ago
This is a common pattern of comments you'll see on almost any climate post: Person 1 - locally we (majorly developed nation) are improving resource X! Person 2 - ... but you're not accounting for exporting/externalizing demands for resource X that mask true usage by us. Person 1 - ah but XYZ group shows that even if you account for this (which is really quite tricky to account for accurately) then everything is fine and we are doing better. But the ultimate test of whether or not we're really improving anything always has to be a global view. Local resource improvement is meaningless and accounting for exporting of consumption/production etc is very tricky to account for unless you simply look at global trends. And globally percent of forest area has been in steady decline[1]. I have no doubt some think tank has written a report showing that "even if we account for europe's exportation of plant biomass needs, things are still doing better" but all that really matters is always the global trend. [1] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.FRST.ZS https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.FRST.ZS?
arnoooooo 7y ago
Europe is still financing deforestation around the world.
coldtea 7y ago
>Yet, somehow people in Europe think that a huge deforestation is taking place. That's because they have empirical knowledge on the ground -- for example in my country there is tons of deforestation taking place, and has been going on for decades. Note that statistics can be misleading, especially when governments want to paint a greener picture: e.g. areas can be de-characterized (from "forrest" to available for construction and commercial use, etc), after which cutting trees there is not "deforestation" anymore...
ourlordcaffeine 7y ago
In Ireland, reforestation is taking place, but they are planting non-native sitka spruce in extremely dense plantations. The plantations are dead wildlife-wise, and they alter soil chemistry such that native broad leaf trees will not be able to re-colonise.
hcurtiss 7y ago
That's also true in the US. We have way more trees today than we did 100 years ago. https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/america-trees-now-century-ago/ https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/america-trees-now-century-ag...

by jansan 7y ago

phito 7y ago

In my overly-populated European country, I think most people think that "nature" is going away because we're building more and more houses where fields were. It's weird to me that people here seem to think of fields as nature, when it's actually huge zones where a single species of plant grows and where insects are killed with poison

Dumblydorr 7y ago

Globally, we are losing forests and have lost them for hundreds of years. Iceland, Brazil, Madagascar, Indonesia, many places have lost huge amounts of trees due to humans.

mytailorisrich 7y ago
Europe as well, actually. It was virtually covered in forests then largely deforested to make way for agriculture. In the last 100 years or so rural exodus and agriculture industrialisation have meant that forests have started to expand again. That actually highlights a global issue: We, in Europe, scold developing countries for doing what Europe has done (but it was centuries ago so people don't realise it). That is reasonable considering what we now know and modern technology but to avoid hypocrisy this should be accompanied by offers of help to achieve development and jobs without deforestation, and perhaps by no longer buying commodities that require deforestation.
- Sharlin 7y ago
  To make room for agriculture, yes, but even moreso to produce charcoal for the almost insatiable steel industry, to be used both as a fuel and a carbon source. Once the trees were gone, we moved to coal.
  - jansan 7y ago
    If you are in areas where lignite is exploited, the areas appear huge (and for the local population they are), but on an overall scale mining does not contribute much to deforestation.
    - Sharlin 7y ago
      Yeah, I didn't intend to imply that mining causes deforestation, on the contrary. Once the most economical source of carbon was used up, we started to dig it up from the ground.

vanderZwan 7y ago

I remember reading that in the Netherlands at least deforestation is taking place again. The reforestation effort had been doing quite well and then governmental policy changed. EDIT: I will look for a source for this though, so do remain skeptical of what I just wrote for now. EDIT2: this site claims a net loss in Dutch forest area of 3.8% since the year 2000. Clicking around on the map it seems like practically all European countries are losing forests faster than they are gaining them. At the moment I cannot find a source for the governmental policy claim though. [0] https://www.globalforestwatch.org/map/country/NLD?mainMap=eyJzaG93QW5hbHlzaXMiOnRydWUsImhpZGVMZWdlbmQiOmZhbHNlfQ%3D%3D&map=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%3D https://www.globalforestwatch.org/map/country/NLD?mainMap=ey...

mantas 7y ago
The devil is in details. Change forest area into other use, e.g. residential, is hard AF. So forest-as-land-use is AFAIK not decreasing in Europe. But re-forested areas are commercial forests, thus they're cut down. And the first re-forested forests reached their peak condition. So a lot of them are cut down. Usually they're given time to naturally re-seed from remaining trees (unless it was clear-cut, which are not advised in most cases nowadays), re-planting takes time and it takes time for that fresh cut to look like a forest again. Trees take in much more CO2 while they're growing. So if we keep cutting down trees at their prime age, don't burn them and replant new trees in their place... That's pretty efficient. If that wood replaces some concrete in construction, which is terrible for CO2, double win! We had a very heated debate about this in my country. Forest-land-use area is growing. But there're lots of clearings out in the forests. Cutting permits allow significantly less than theoretical yearly lumber growth. So sheer mass is growing too. But people see a clearing and think of that as deforestation. Another issue when old and bio-diverse forests are cut down and then commercial mono-culture forest is re-planted in it's place. But from CO2 side - that's better than keeping the old forest in place. Not so good from eco diversity perspective though.

smackay 7y ago

For anyone who thinks the Scottish highlands are beautiful. Here is what it used to look like and will again one day soon. https://rewildingeurope.com/rew-project/restoring-the-caledonian-forest/ https://rewildingeurope.com/rew-project/restoring-the-caledo... (The video at the bottom is a bit gushing but it's a decent view of what the reforestation projects want to achieve).

baron_harkonnen 7y ago
This is a great example of exporting your forest needs. About 1/3 of the UK's renewable energy is wood pellets shipped across the ocean from the US [1]. So yes you can have reforestation but for that to happen at the same time as your demand for wood pellets increases you have to burn a lot of bunker fuel to ship that wood across the ocean. But of course in the end you get to claim that you are using more renewable energy and increasing local forest coverage! [1] http://www.biomassmagazine.com/articles/16053/uk-bioenergy-capacity-generation-increased-in-2018 http://www.biomassmagazine.com/articles/16053/uk-bioenergy-c...
sjmulder 7y ago
I think the Scottish highlands are beautiful but wondered why those mountains are mostly bare whereas most mainland ones are wooded. Wasn't happy to read why.

paganel 7y ago

Don’t have the data open to the public but I’m personally mapping the forrests from Southern Romania as they stood in 1867 (give a take a few years, based on an Austrian map) and comparing them to the present day forrested area. There are now 40% less forrests compared to 1867, and in the plain area the situation is even more dire, in those places we now have 80% to 90% less forrests.

jansan 7y ago
If you look at the animated map on the Washington Post website it shows that especially in northern Romania deforestation has taken place in the second half of the 20th century, so the article does not contradict your data.

Sharlin 7y ago

It's difficult to deforestate Central Europe any further because almost complete deforestation already took place during the Middle Ages and the early modern period.

richardhod 7y ago
Southern Germany and surrounding areas are much more forested than, for example, the UK, so this is not exactly true. Can we have more precise information?
vanderZwan 7y ago
That reminds me of the discussions about overfishing. The amount of fish in the sea is a mere few percentages of what it was a century ago, but that already was way, way less than it was in the centuries before that. And we only went to fish in the sea after we had exhausted the rivers. This is the shifting baseline effect and it really negatively affects conservation efforts.

pjc50 7y ago

The problem is you can't create new "old" forest, and some of the old forest areas are under threat. In the case of Germany, some are even threatened by coal mining! Ancient forest can expand but it has to do so gradually to maintain the characteristic species mix. And in order to expand it has to be protected in the first place.

jansan 7y ago
Regarding climate change ancient forest is neutral, as it releases the same amount of carbon that it absorbs. Forestation on the other hand creates carbon storage, which is a very nice thing to have these days.

baron_harkonnen 7y ago

This is a common pattern of comments you'll see on almost any climate post: Person 1 - locally we (majorly developed nation) are improving resource X! Person 2 - ... but you're not accounting for exporting/externalizing demands for resource X that mask true usage by us. Person 1 - ah but XYZ group shows that even if you account for this (which is really quite tricky to account for accurately) then everything is fine and we are doing better. But the ultimate test of whether or not we're really improving anything always has to be a global view. Local resource improvement is meaningless and accounting for exporting of consumption/production etc is very tricky to account for unless you simply look at global trends. And globally percent of forest area has been in steady decline[1]. I have no doubt some think tank has written a report showing that "even if we account for europe's exportation of plant biomass needs, things are still doing better" but all that really matters is always the global trend. [1] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.FRST.ZS https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.FRST.ZS?

arnoooooo 7y ago

Europe is still financing deforestation around the world.

coldtea 7y ago

>Yet, somehow people in Europe think that a huge deforestation is taking place. That's because they have empirical knowledge on the ground -- for example in my country there is tons of deforestation taking place, and has been going on for decades. Note that statistics can be misleading, especially when governments want to paint a greener picture: e.g. areas can be de-characterized (from "forrest" to available for construction and commercial use, etc), after which cutting trees there is not "deforestation" anymore...

ourlordcaffeine 7y ago

In Ireland, reforestation is taking place, but they are planting non-native sitka spruce in extremely dense plantations. The plantations are dead wildlife-wise, and they alter soil chemistry such that native broad leaf trees will not be able to re-colonise.

hcurtiss 7y ago

That's also true in the US. We have way more trees today than we did 100 years ago. https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/america-trees-now-century-ago/ https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/america-trees-now-century-ag...