4 ms·

Headline is a false dichotomy. Some of the content is good - certainly natural regrowth is vital. So is planting trees. Replacing cement and buildings in concr

by gz5 6y ago

Headline is a false dichotomy. Some of the content is good - certainly natural regrowth is vital. So is planting trees. Replacing cement and buildings in concrete jungles with trees puts the trees exactly where they are the most needed.

caturopath 6y ago
I don't quite follow. You're suggesting more trees in cities/towns?
- baq 6y ago
  not the OP but absolutely. if you're lucky you already live in a city with trees, not all of us are.
  - Polylactic_acid 6y ago
    One of the things I love about my city is it was designed with a ring of parklands around it so even people living in the city without a car can access fairly undisturbed nature. Visible on google maps here https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-34.9279778,138.6043731,3461m/data=!3m1!1e3 https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-34.9279778,138.6043731,3461...
- Jtsummers 6y ago
  Aside from aesthetics, more plants (trees especially) within cities can reduce the local temperatures, along with providing habitat (food and shelter) for a number of animals.
- gz5 6y ago
  Yes. The longer term environmental benefits are staggering and there are immediate quality of life and health improvements. There are also second order effects in jobs planting and maintaining trees and park areas, increased biodiversity, and better awareness of the need to take care of the earth which takes care of us. Regrowth is great but won't (directly) help those cities as much.
  - caturopath 6y ago
    Your point seems a little out-of-place to me...TFA was about fighting climate change by having plants absorbing carbon, and cities are...not the efficient place for that, right? Probably more interestingly, I am skeptical about the premise. Obviously, cities need parks and trees. Largely they have parks and trees. I see a lot of newer areas designed with mini-lawns and I always shake my head - in an urban environment, the name of the game is density and accessibility. Don't put a bush between the sidewalk and your shop: the shops are supposed to be on the sidewalk. Half of the time, these shops seem to be hiding their main entrance in the back, next to a parking lot, because it's actually a suburb with some apartments over a dentist office, not a real attempt at an urban environment.
- TheGRS 6y ago
  Not OP but I would absolutely advocate for that. Urban areas are like huge toxic wastelands to the natural world and inhibit so much growth and biodiversity. Its very possible to imagine cities that integrate nature into their design rather than just plowing over it.
  - caturopath 6y ago
    We could even surround all the homes with bushes and grasses and trees and it would just be wonderful https://i.imgur.com/JFeMEyO.png https://i.imgur.com/JFeMEyO.png
hinkley 6y ago
We know that intact ecosystem spreads out from the edges. They did studies in South America decades ago comparing recovery rates in rectangular versus square clearings, and the rectangular ones always won. So if we're talking about clearcutting, we ideally want to back up a step and make rules about the topology of a clearcut (not just shape, but holes as well). If it's a forest fire, we may want to know how far natural reforestation can be 'stretched', and replant areas that are outside of that range, accounting for how fast the artificial forest will spread.
- setr 6y ago
  >We know that intact ecosystem spreads out from the edges. They did studies in South America decades ago comparing recovery rates in rectangular versus square clearings, and the rectangular ones always won. I don't understand; the perimeter of a square and a rectangle are the same? The amount of "edge" to spread out from should be the same?
  - hinkley 6y ago
    When we clear forest or talk of devastation we tend to speak in terms of area. The perimeter of a rectangle with the same area as a square is larger, so there is more edge for the surrounding forest to encroach upon at the same time. The worst shape, from a 'fill from the edges' standpoint, would be a circle. (Although I suspect that a square turns into a roughly circular hole within a few years, since the forest encroaches on the corners from two directions at once)

by gz5 6y ago

caturopath 6y ago

I don't quite follow. You're suggesting more trees in cities/towns?

baq 6y ago
not the OP but absolutely. if you're lucky you already live in a city with trees, not all of us are.
- Polylactic_acid 6y ago
  One of the things I love about my city is it was designed with a ring of parklands around it so even people living in the city without a car can access fairly undisturbed nature. Visible on google maps here https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-34.9279778,138.6043731,3461m/data=!3m1!1e3 https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-34.9279778,138.6043731,3461...
Jtsummers 6y ago
Aside from aesthetics, more plants (trees especially) within cities can reduce the local temperatures, along with providing habitat (food and shelter) for a number of animals.
gz5 6y ago
Yes. The longer term environmental benefits are staggering and there are immediate quality of life and health improvements. There are also second order effects in jobs planting and maintaining trees and park areas, increased biodiversity, and better awareness of the need to take care of the earth which takes care of us. Regrowth is great but won't (directly) help those cities as much.
- caturopath 6y ago
  Your point seems a little out-of-place to me...TFA was about fighting climate change by having plants absorbing carbon, and cities are...not the efficient place for that, right? Probably more interestingly, I am skeptical about the premise. Obviously, cities need parks and trees. Largely they have parks and trees. I see a lot of newer areas designed with mini-lawns and I always shake my head - in an urban environment, the name of the game is density and accessibility. Don't put a bush between the sidewalk and your shop: the shops are supposed to be on the sidewalk. Half of the time, these shops seem to be hiding their main entrance in the back, next to a parking lot, because it's actually a suburb with some apartments over a dentist office, not a real attempt at an urban environment.
TheGRS 6y ago
Not OP but I would absolutely advocate for that. Urban areas are like huge toxic wastelands to the natural world and inhibit so much growth and biodiversity. Its very possible to imagine cities that integrate nature into their design rather than just plowing over it.
- caturopath 6y ago
  We could even surround all the homes with bushes and grasses and trees and it would just be wonderful https://i.imgur.com/JFeMEyO.png https://i.imgur.com/JFeMEyO.png

hinkley 6y ago

We know that intact ecosystem spreads out from the edges. They did studies in South America decades ago comparing recovery rates in rectangular versus square clearings, and the rectangular ones always won. So if we're talking about clearcutting, we ideally want to back up a step and make rules about the topology of a clearcut (not just shape, but holes as well). If it's a forest fire, we may want to know how far natural reforestation can be 'stretched', and replant areas that are outside of that range, accounting for how fast the artificial forest will spread.

setr 6y ago
>We know that intact ecosystem spreads out from the edges. They did studies in South America decades ago comparing recovery rates in rectangular versus square clearings, and the rectangular ones always won. I don't understand; the perimeter of a square and a rectangle are the same? The amount of "edge" to spread out from should be the same?
- hinkley 6y ago
  When we clear forest or talk of devastation we tend to speak in terms of area. The perimeter of a rectangle with the same area as a square is larger, so there is more edge for the surrounding forest to encroach upon at the same time. The worst shape, from a 'fill from the edges' standpoint, would be a circle. (Although I suspect that a square turns into a roughly circular hole within a few years, since the forest encroaches on the corners from two directions at once)