5 ms·
The author also mentions that their forest cover graph is "old growth", and even claims that this strengthens their point! So if I plant a tree today, or did so
by betwixthewires 4y ago
The author also mentions that their forest cover graph is "old growth", and even claims that this strengthens their point! So if I plant a tree today, or did so 30 years ago, this does not count against their deforestation graph, even though the tree exists, this somehow makes their plot more accurate.
- actionfromafar 4y agoTree farms are not at all the same environment as old forest growth. I'm all for the critique of S-curves in other responses but this resembles dog-piling. Or would you say an old meadow full of species of bird, foxes, rabbits and insects, is equivalent to a wheat field? Planting trees is better than not planting trees, but it's not going to restore the ecosystem that came before it.
- betwixthewires 4y agoDog piling? I've made one comment on the matter. I know that old growth is not the same as a freshly planted pine farm. But that's not my point, my point is the author talks about reduced forest cover in aggregate across the land surface of the earth, which is not true, then admits to limiting it to old growth only and hilariously claims that it strengthens his point. It doesn't. When you basically say "forest cover older than 100 years is all that counts" of course the numbers look bad, you're preventing the measure of any repair to the forest cover by definition.