3 ms·

The vital role of vegetation is often overlooked - we've significantly reduced forest cover over the past centuries. Global forest cover loss between 1990 and

• steve_adams_86 3y ago
  This is very high on my list. It seems most hydrologists interested in climate change are talking a lot about afforestation for all of those reasons. It isn’t something I hear about often at all, though. For a while I pointed people to a study showing that geohydrological model of the Amazon rain forest indicates that it is well past a breaking point in which the hydrology there will never be recovered, and the landscape will likely transform dramatically. It’s very poorly received though. Not because it’s a bad study but I guess no one thinks what’s happening in the Amazon happens anywhere else. As though it’s fear-mongering to point to this phenomenon despite that deforestation occurs the entire world over. My understanding is that there’s no known feasible way to improve future hydrology as inexpensively or low-tech, too. Here in British Columbia, Canada we have a fairly aggressive forestry practice which generates a shockingly small portion of our GDP. I seriously wonder if our GDP could be maintained or increased overall by converting forestry efforts to afforestation efforts. Were we to succeed in recreating healthy forests here, the impact on other sectors through improved hydrology (healthier rivers and lakes, better water retention in forests, better forest fire outcomes, eventually strengthened tourism, etc) actually seems like it could be a net positive. This would be an extremely long term project though, and virtually impossible to enact given jobs would be lost on the short term. This is also important for us because so much of our energy is generated from rivers. We need stable, consistent flows to power almost every home in the province. We should be hyper focused on efforts to improve hydrology, and forestry works directly against that. It’s such a big part of our history and so broadly evident and present in our lives here. Most people assume it’s a major part of our economy and that we could never function without it. I sincerely wonder if it’s a net drain on the province though. Not only does it visibly and measurably harm the environment here (even with our “green” forestry practices), but a lot of our forestry products are immediately exported for absurdly low prices. I think I would support a ban on exports and reducing our forestry to supporting domestic needs, based on what I know of the situation. It’s scary stuff, anyway. And it seems like not many people are aware or listening.
  • myshpa 3y ago
    Very good points. Also interesting: - atmospheric rivers (rainforest deforestation influencing rainfall even on other continents) - biotic pump theory (or something like it) - without continuous/significant forest we lose rain inland and get droughts - forestry practices - those sorry ass patches of trees (33% of land) surrounded by fields and pastures (50%) in europe should not be called forests, they don't force wind to go over them, because they're not multilevel canopies, so wind goes through and dries them up and they're dying more quickly and don't function as well as they could if they were larger and properly structured (like primaeval forests). Our foresters make them look like monoculture parks, even removing dead branches and stumps ... no wonder that they're almost biodeserts. - cca 50% of felled roundwood (paper, celulose, furniture) could be replaced with cca 5% of animal agriculture lands and hemp > It’s scary stuff, anyway. And it seems like not many people are aware or listening. Nobody cares. Nobody wants to care. Depressing.
    • steve_adams_86 3y ago
      All great points, too. These are all well documented in research spanning decades but yeah, not enough people are concerned about it. Forests are as much our lifeline as the seas in my opinion. They’re a major factor in stabilizing climate — they quite literally make it rain, in more ways than one. I’ve heard the biotic pump theory referred to as “rain hopping” quite often, recently. Is it still a theory, or very evidently real now? I know some hydrologists refer to it very plainly, but maybe it isn’t officially in the books as a known phenomenon. I seem to recall it was considered as a factor in the irreversible changes in the Amazon, but I’d need to review it. I might be assuming that.