9 ms·

Based on the map, this looks like a problem that will be solved with money. The tropical regions are less wealthy than the temperate regions, and probably as th

Based on the map, this looks like a problem that will be solved with money. The tropical regions are less wealthy than the temperate regions, and probably as they become more wealthy, they will urbanize and improve farming techniques, both of which require less land, which nature is then able to re-capture.

sam_0123 5y ago
I'd worry that the improved farming techniques will not facilitate a release of land back to wild, but would simply intensify whatever acreage is already farmed + whatever new ground anyone can justify (like anywhere else I'm aware of).
- kavalg 5y ago
  and will produce lower quality food
- relax88 5y ago
  The total land area used for agriculture has actually decreased in the last few decades in some of the richer and more developed areas. Europe in general has seen some reforestation and is greener now than 100 years ago (though still much less green than several hundred years ago).
  - _Algernon_ 5y ago
    Is that due to more effective farming methods or just due to importing more foods? I have the suspicion that this is a case of patting ourselves on the back similar to our reduction in CO2-emissions that are merely being exported to China.
    - paul_f 5y ago
      Maybe you could actually go research this and let us know what you find.
rexreed 5y ago
The article says that deforestation peaked 30-40 years ago. "Global forest loss peaked in the 1980s – losing an area half the size of India. Since then, deforestation has slowed. In fact, many countries have now reversed the long-term trend and transitioned to a net gain of forests, reforestation." So clearly something is working. A lot of the responses are assuming that deforestation rate of growth is continuing or even accelerating, especially the random remarks attributing deforestation to all sorts of things. The world is on a re-forestation trend, according to the article.
- titzer 5y ago
  Good news! That flesh-eating bacteria which has been ravaging your body has reached peak de-skinification! With any luck it will stop eating your skin any year now! In fact, on your elbows, back of the thighs, and clavicle area, there's actually a net gain of skin! By 2200, your body will mostly be covered with pink scar tissue!
  - scrollaway 5y ago
    What’s the point of such a hostile, sarcastic and off base comment, man?
    - charbonneau 5y ago
      The point is to stop and think about what you're reading. Same goes for postwar economic booms.
      - rexreed 5y ago
        Ok,let's stop and think. The article is saying that the rate of deforestation stopped increasing in the 1980s, and since then we've made gains on reforestation as well as stopping the increase in deforestation rate. What exactly would you like the alternative to be? A re-increase in deforestation rates? A halt to reforestation? Yes, wishful thinking would be that it would be nice if we didn't have all that deforestation to begin with, but here we are, reversing that trend, and somehow there's an alternative that would be better than that? What alternative to reducing the rate of deforestation and increasing reforestation is there?
mc32 5y ago
Possibly. Certainly in the US we have regained forest as marginal farmland was allowed to revert to forest or in some cases converted to forest so that now many places that are conservation land wildernesses are forested as opposed to grazing land and farmland. On the other hand, a growing population means more demand for wood products (for building, for furniture, etc) and the alternative, plastics, are quite problematic.
- echelon 5y ago
  > On the other hand, a growing population means more demand for wood products In the US, increased demand can be met with renewable sources of lumber. This has the side benefit of modest carbon sequestration. Population growth is also slowing, which may actually pose a more serious problem for labor and innovation. Immigration helps, but it won't be enough. In other areas of the world, the problem is one of economics, as the parent mentioned.
  - soperj 5y ago
    >This has the side benefit of modest carbon sequestration There is no way that pulling timber out of the forest and converting into a product actually sequesters anything. Hauling the wood out of the forest to the mill likely releases more carbon than is sequestered by the tree in its lifetime.
    - putnambr 5y ago
      Your comment doesn't make sense. A tree growing in a tree farm, and being turned into lumber will sequester that carbon until that lumber is burned. I suppose it matters if you're talking about cutting down old growth for lumber, or using old farm land to put a tree farm on.
      - Teknoman117 5y ago
        Their comment is supposing that the energy costs of hauling the tree out of the forest and slicing it into boards / mulch / whatever (given our current logging technology) emits more carbon (from fuel usage and electricity generation) than the tree sequestered during it's lifetime. This probably not true, considering that for many decades steam powered logging equipment burned wood before coal became the dominant fuel source (and thus able to cut down and process a tree with less energy than we got from a single tree), although many mills were powered by flowing water. It's the same notion that "PV panels emit an equivalent of 50g of CO2 per kW/h (assuming a 25 year service life)". Even though the panel doesn't emit anything during operation, mining and manufacturing are still heavily reliant on fossil fuels. The tree itself sequesters carbon, but the carbon output from using the tree is what is produced burning it + getting it ready to burn.
blobbers 5y ago
While I wish this line of logic were true, generally as corporations improve their techniques, they try to scale up their business and are rarely content with what they have. Sad, but I think true.

sam_0123 5y ago

I'd worry that the improved farming techniques will not facilitate a release of land back to wild, but would simply intensify whatever acreage is already farmed + whatever new ground anyone can justify (like anywhere else I'm aware of).

kavalg 5y ago
and will produce lower quality food
relax88 5y ago
The total land area used for agriculture has actually decreased in the last few decades in some of the richer and more developed areas. Europe in general has seen some reforestation and is greener now than 100 years ago (though still much less green than several hundred years ago).
- _Algernon_ 5y ago
  Is that due to more effective farming methods or just due to importing more foods? I have the suspicion that this is a case of patting ourselves on the back similar to our reduction in CO2-emissions that are merely being exported to China.
  - paul_f 5y ago
    Maybe you could actually go research this and let us know what you find.

rexreed 5y ago

The article says that deforestation peaked 30-40 years ago. "Global forest loss peaked in the 1980s – losing an area half the size of India. Since then, deforestation has slowed. In fact, many countries have now reversed the long-term trend and transitioned to a net gain of forests, reforestation." So clearly something is working. A lot of the responses are assuming that deforestation rate of growth is continuing or even accelerating, especially the random remarks attributing deforestation to all sorts of things. The world is on a re-forestation trend, according to the article.

titzer 5y ago
Good news! That flesh-eating bacteria which has been ravaging your body has reached peak de-skinification! With any luck it will stop eating your skin any year now! In fact, on your elbows, back of the thighs, and clavicle area, there's actually a net gain of skin! By 2200, your body will mostly be covered with pink scar tissue!
- scrollaway 5y ago
  What’s the point of such a hostile, sarcastic and off base comment, man?
  - charbonneau 5y ago
    The point is to stop and think about what you're reading. Same goes for postwar economic booms.
    - rexreed 5y ago
      Ok,let's stop and think. The article is saying that the rate of deforestation stopped increasing in the 1980s, and since then we've made gains on reforestation as well as stopping the increase in deforestation rate. What exactly would you like the alternative to be? A re-increase in deforestation rates? A halt to reforestation? Yes, wishful thinking would be that it would be nice if we didn't have all that deforestation to begin with, but here we are, reversing that trend, and somehow there's an alternative that would be better than that? What alternative to reducing the rate of deforestation and increasing reforestation is there?

mc32 5y ago

Possibly. Certainly in the US we have regained forest as marginal farmland was allowed to revert to forest or in some cases converted to forest so that now many places that are conservation land wildernesses are forested as opposed to grazing land and farmland. On the other hand, a growing population means more demand for wood products (for building, for furniture, etc) and the alternative, plastics, are quite problematic.

echelon 5y ago
> On the other hand, a growing population means more demand for wood products In the US, increased demand can be met with renewable sources of lumber. This has the side benefit of modest carbon sequestration. Population growth is also slowing, which may actually pose a more serious problem for labor and innovation. Immigration helps, but it won't be enough. In other areas of the world, the problem is one of economics, as the parent mentioned.
- soperj 5y ago
  >This has the side benefit of modest carbon sequestration There is no way that pulling timber out of the forest and converting into a product actually sequesters anything. Hauling the wood out of the forest to the mill likely releases more carbon than is sequestered by the tree in its lifetime.
  - putnambr 5y ago
    Your comment doesn't make sense. A tree growing in a tree farm, and being turned into lumber will sequester that carbon until that lumber is burned. I suppose it matters if you're talking about cutting down old growth for lumber, or using old farm land to put a tree farm on.
    - Teknoman117 5y ago
      Their comment is supposing that the energy costs of hauling the tree out of the forest and slicing it into boards / mulch / whatever (given our current logging technology) emits more carbon (from fuel usage and electricity generation) than the tree sequestered during it's lifetime. This probably not true, considering that for many decades steam powered logging equipment burned wood before coal became the dominant fuel source (and thus able to cut down and process a tree with less energy than we got from a single tree), although many mills were powered by flowing water. It's the same notion that "PV panels emit an equivalent of 50g of CO2 per kW/h (assuming a 25 year service life)". Even though the panel doesn't emit anything during operation, mining and manufacturing are still heavily reliant on fossil fuels. The tree itself sequesters carbon, but the carbon output from using the tree is what is produced burning it + getting it ready to burn.

blobbers 5y ago

While I wish this line of logic were true, generally as corporations improve their techniques, they try to scale up their business and are rarely content with what they have. Sad, but I think true.