3 ms·

From the title, I expected they were sounding an alarm that they are losing forests. It appears the opposite is happening. Really bewildering, given how just a

From the title, I expected they were sounding an alarm that they are losing forests. It appears the opposite is happening. Really bewildering, given how just a couple centuries ago for most European countries having less than 70%+ forest coverage would be an oddity.

Beltalowda 4y ago
> just a couple centuries ago for most European countries having less than 70%+ forest coverage would be an oddity. 70%+ seems a lot; I'm not sure where you got that number from? For example in [1] mentions about 15% in 1086 for England, [2] mentions ~2% 1750 for the Netherlands and ~11% in 1775 for Belgium. Numbers will undoubtable differ for other countries, but 70%+ is really a lot. Neolithic people already cleared a lot of forest for agriculture in Europe, which happened thousands of years ago. In some countries (such as the Netherlands) forests have actually grown in the last few centuries (from the ~2% in 1750 mentioned before to ~10% today). Iceland had "only" about 30% forest before settlers arrived. [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2013/jul/27/history-of-englands-forests https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2013/jul/27/history-of-en... [2]: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bos_(begroeiing)#Oppervlakte https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bos_(begroeiing)#Oppervlakte
- yakubin 4y ago
  I don't remember where I got the number, but a quick look at Wikipedia finds some claims that Free Germania used to have 70% forest area. I think I've also heard similar numbers in some museums given for Poland in Middle Ages. Can't find it now though. Sweden and Finland today have ~70%. 30% is the number for most of Europe today, and it's usually considered low, among the people I know. So it seems that Iceland historically already had very little forestation.
zip1234 4y ago
Iceland has almost no forest at all. It would not take much to increase the forest cover.

Beltalowda 4y ago

> just a couple centuries ago for most European countries having less than 70%+ forest coverage would be an oddity. 70%+ seems a lot; I'm not sure where you got that number from? For example in [1] mentions about 15% in 1086 for England, [2] mentions ~2% 1750 for the Netherlands and ~11% in 1775 for Belgium. Numbers will undoubtable differ for other countries, but 70%+ is really a lot. Neolithic people already cleared a lot of forest for agriculture in Europe, which happened thousands of years ago. In some countries (such as the Netherlands) forests have actually grown in the last few centuries (from the ~2% in 1750 mentioned before to ~10% today). Iceland had "only" about 30% forest before settlers arrived. [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2013/jul/27/history-of-englands-forests https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2013/jul/27/history-of-en... [2]: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bos_(begroeiing)#Oppervlakte https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bos_(begroeiing)#Oppervlakte

yakubin 4y ago
I don't remember where I got the number, but a quick look at Wikipedia finds some claims that Free Germania used to have 70% forest area. I think I've also heard similar numbers in some museums given for Poland in Middle Ages. Can't find it now though. Sweden and Finland today have ~70%. 30% is the number for most of Europe today, and it's usually considered low, among the people I know. So it seems that Iceland historically already had very little forestation.

zip1234 4y ago

Iceland has almost no forest at all. It would not take much to increase the forest cover.