4 ms·

Sounds like there will be a sustained demand for wood products in the future. Maybe we can cut down some trees, and plant new ones in their stead, then repeat a

Sounds like there will be a sustained demand for wood products in the future. Maybe we can cut down some trees, and plant new ones in their stead, then repeat as necessary as the market demands. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_farm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_farm

Sharlin 5y ago
Unfortunately tree farms are absolutely disastrous when it comes to biodiversity, and biodiversity loss and climate change are not separate problems but deeply intertwined. You cannot solve one and ignore the other. Regular managed forest is better but not good either.
- jankeymeulen 5y ago
  How's that? I could see climate change decreasing biodiversity for sure, but how would decreasing biodiversity lead to climate change?
  - otikik 5y ago
    Nature is the only one capturing CO2 at the moment. Biodiversity is what nature does. It starts with soil, then small plants, and gradually you get trees. It's very energy efficient, but it's a very slow process. Industrial monocultives are nothing like that. It's much faster, but it works out of the paths nature has. Usually by emitting CO2 directly, which impacts climate change. For example, the natural process of building the soil of a forest takes decades of tiny plants and animals living and pooping and dying, while artificial lumber forest soil is brought in trucks, and set in a single season, with fertilizer extracted from a mine (more CO2). The pooping and dying part releases some CO2 as well, but it cannot compare. On top of that, cultivation tends to take land from wild forests and jungles. So that doubles the effect. Permaculture is a way to produce food and wood products using methods that mimic what nature does. Give it a look if you are interested in these things.
- paul_f 5y ago
  A tree farm is clearly better than a barren field. I am afraid you're gonna have to post some backup links to the claims you're making here
  - Sharlin 5y ago
    The GP talked about cutting existing trees and planting tree farms in their stead, which is different from reforestation of barren fields.

Sharlin 5y ago

Unfortunately tree farms are absolutely disastrous when it comes to biodiversity, and biodiversity loss and climate change are not separate problems but deeply intertwined. You cannot solve one and ignore the other. Regular managed forest is better but not good either.

jankeymeulen 5y ago
How's that? I could see climate change decreasing biodiversity for sure, but how would decreasing biodiversity lead to climate change?
- otikik 5y ago
  Nature is the only one capturing CO2 at the moment. Biodiversity is what nature does. It starts with soil, then small plants, and gradually you get trees. It's very energy efficient, but it's a very slow process. Industrial monocultives are nothing like that. It's much faster, but it works out of the paths nature has. Usually by emitting CO2 directly, which impacts climate change. For example, the natural process of building the soil of a forest takes decades of tiny plants and animals living and pooping and dying, while artificial lumber forest soil is brought in trucks, and set in a single season, with fertilizer extracted from a mine (more CO2). The pooping and dying part releases some CO2 as well, but it cannot compare. On top of that, cultivation tends to take land from wild forests and jungles. So that doubles the effect. Permaculture is a way to produce food and wood products using methods that mimic what nature does. Give it a look if you are interested in these things.
paul_f 5y ago
A tree farm is clearly better than a barren field. I am afraid you're gonna have to post some backup links to the claims you're making here
- Sharlin 5y ago
  The GP talked about cutting existing trees and planting tree farms in their stead, which is different from reforestation of barren fields.