☰
×
Login Register an account
Top Submissions Explore Upgoat Search Random Subverse Random Post Colorize! Site Rules Donate
6

‘Forests are not renewable’: the felling of Sweden’s ancient trees

submitted by TFS to Nature 4 yearsApr 18, 2021 07:38:40 ago (+7/-1)     (www.theguardian.com)

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/gallery/2021/apr/16/forests-felling-swedens-ancient-trees-biodiversity-sami-environment



10 comments block

sort by: hot new top old low

[ - ] cyclops1771 0 points 4 yearsApr 18, 2021 09:28:24 ago (+0/-0)

LOL. Forests are not renewable?

Drive through New Hampshire. In 1900, New Hampshire was 95%+ cleared farmland, i.e. treeless.

[ - ] Antiliberalsociety 1 point 4 yearsApr 18, 2021 10:36:00 ago (+1/-0)

Not when they build townhouses and starcucks in its place

[ - ] cyclops1771 0 points 4 yearsApr 18, 2021 11:07:54 ago (+0/-0)

Are you suggesting townhouses built today, if torn down in 100 years, would not be able to grow trees on that land?

[ - ] Antiliberalsociety 0 points 4 yearsApr 18, 2021 11:19:49 ago (+0/-0)

Are you suggesting that the mass of immigrants won't breed and return to their respective lands thus defeating the purpose of them to create the need to tear them down?

[ - ] cyclops1771 0 points 4 yearsApr 18, 2021 11:25:19 ago (+0/-0)

Sweden is 70% forest covered today. 2x more than 100 years ago.

New Hampshire was clearcutted, with 305% forest cover in 1900. In 2021, it's 90% forested. Humans are retarded if they think they matter.

[ - ] Antiliberalsociety 0 points 4 yearsApr 18, 2021 13:05:55 ago (+0/-0)

Most of Minneapolis was forest at one time as well. Then farms. And now look at it.

[ - ] cyclops1771 0 points 4 yearsApr 18, 2021 18:04:17 ago (+0/-0)

Yeah, but that's 55 square miles, not 200k sq miles. Forests being cut down in Sweden is not an issue. You'd have to chop down and urbanize 3150 Minneapolis' to deforest Sweden. I think we're good.

[ - ] i_scream_trucks 0 points 4 yearsApr 18, 2021 18:28:10 ago (+0/-0)

are you suggesting cutting down a tree now and planting another one in the same place later implies continuity?

build something on top of where the trees are you cant plant trees until you take down the thing thats in its place.

how many places do you know of that tear down towns to replace it with trees? doesnt happen does it.

[ - ] cyclops1771 0 points 4 yearsApr 18, 2021 18:33:57 ago (+0/-0)

Like I said, New Hampshire was at 3% forested in 1900. Now one tore anything down. No one made a conscious decision. It's now 80-90% forested. No "program", no "human action", no "engineering". Humans just stopped farming, and "wa la" (hehe, 4chan) within 3 generations, forests cover the entire area.

So, yes, that is exactly what I am suggesting.

(Also - try growing grass on a brown patch of dirt. Fail. But shit will grow out of every goddamned crack in my concrete driveway.)

[ - ] i_scream_trucks 1 point 4 yearsApr 18, 2021 18:27:05 ago (+1/-0)

i think that might be slightly incorrect.

old growth forests are not renewable. still technically incorrect but timewise still kind of true.