Poll: Plant trees?

[lowtech1]

2.5 trees per minute...

Actually, I average about 17 sec per tree in the average West Coast land

 

[Wheatmaster]

i wish this could happen

 

[Staples]

Is this happening? We actually have people who think about the environment? From all the political threads, seems that most of the people here are "can't think for myself" Republicans and the one of the major Republican philosophies riding on success is to destroy the environment. As for the topic, sure we should plant trees but I have way to many on my proporty so I need to plant them elsewhere.

Edit: And Hackberry trees grow like weeds around here so I think even spreading their seeds is probably quite effective to in producing more trees.

 

[Staples]

And my mom is concerned about the environment but she continues to use paper plates because she says it is better to waste paper that to waste water. That has to be the stupidest thing I have ever heard. We are talking about 60 gals for the dishwasher. I need to find some proof that this is stupid to see if she will stop doing it. I always use glass plates but as long as she keeps buying them, the family will continue to use them. And if it means anything, I am from San Antonio and we have lots of water considering the dish washer uses 60 gals.

 

[Tominator]

Fact: Trees are a renewable resource.

Fact: There have been more trees in the US and the world at large than anytime in recorded history.

Fact: Too many trees CAN CAUSE pollution!

That last one will have you doing some research!

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: Tominator

Fact: There have been more trees in the US and the world at large than anytime in recorded history.

How come people are worrying about deforestation then?

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Tominator
Fact: Trees are a renewable resource.

Fact: There have been more trees in the US and the world at large than anytime in recorded history.

Fact: Too many trees CAN CAUSE pollution!

That last one will have you doing some research!

and the last one is actually reqiring you to do your own research because people wont just take your word for it

 

[Czar]

like someone posted here before, its not the oxygen the trees produce that we should look as the most important aspect of having more trees but the shelter they produce for thousands of other types of life.

 

[Tominator]

There are about 300 rabbits killed whenever one acre of wheat is harvested. So, we should not harvest wheat?


Where clear cut logging is done, the chances of devestating forrest fires are greatly reduced.

Paper and lumber companies plant more trees every year that all the tree huggers put together plant in a decade!

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Trivia

Most of the deforestation occurs from overpopulation. The South American ecosystem has all it's nutrients in the canopy, not in the soil which is very, very poor. More people need more food. They clear the land, and plant it. The soil structure is so poor, that no amount of fertilizer will keep it productive more than a few seasons. Fields become useless, so slash and burn some more.

Trees are renewable, rain forests are not. Too complex an ecosystem. You get fields of mud in their place.

There are more trees now in number, but few mature forests. I doubt if the biomass of trees today exceeds that of pre logging times

The huge forrest fires we have today is not due to lack of logging, but lack of smaller fires. In a "normal" forest, you have trees of various sizes and underbrush. Every so often you have lightening strikes, etc that trigger off a fire. The underbrush is killed and the smaller trees. The big ones survive and the forrest continues on regenerating at a fairly good rate. Some time ago, it was decided to agressive fight fires. Since houses were being built near forrests, and the use of public land increased, it seemed ok on the face of it. Unfortunately, the face of it is what won. The Forrestry Service knew it was bad policy, but the politicians as always won.

The result of this is that underbrush accumulated at unprecidented levels.When you think underbrush think kindling. With so much fuel and dry conditions, fires started and spread. Not only did they cover a larger area, but they were hotter, killing trees that would normally survive. Some of these areas will be many decades in recovery where it would have been years before.



There ya go

 

[McPhreak]

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: IamDavid
Didn't they figure out a while ago most of the earths oxygen is produced from other sources? I thought I heard something about sea plant-life doing most of it..

There's more plant life on the bottom of the ocean than there is above it. Most of the earth's surface area is under water, so it only makes sense that a higher percentage of oxygen conversion takes place below sea level than above sea level.

nik

There's no plant life on the bottom of the ocean. Sunlight can't reach down there. Hence, no photosynthesis. There's probably more plant life in the ocean than out, but unfortunately none of it's at the bottom.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: McPhreak

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt

Originally posted by: IamDavid
Didn't they figure out a while ago most of the earths oxygen is produced from other sources? I thought I heard something about sea plant-life doing most of it..

There's more plant life on the bottom of the ocean than there is above it. Most of the earth's surface area is under water, so it only makes sense that a higher percentage of oxygen conversion takes place below sea level than above sea level.

nik

There's no plant life on the bottom of the ocean. Sunlight can't reach down there. Hence, no photosynthesis. There's probably more plant life in the ocean than out, but unfortunately none of it's at the bottom.

just depends on how deep you go

so far the most valuable areas we have when it comes to plant and animal life... just any life are the coral reefs and rain forests, and its in these places we must start to protect.

 

[FoBoT]

Oxygen
One reason that the ocean is essential to plants and animals on land is because the tiny ocean plants called phytoplankton take in carbon dioxide from the air and convert it into oxygen during photosynthesis. Those ocean plants produce more than half of Earth's oxygen. In the process, they remove carbon dioxide (one of the greenhouse gases that contributes to global climate change) from the air.

its the little bitty plants near the surface

source

so instead of planting trees, seems to me we could do more good to increase O2 levels by melting the ice caps
this would raise the ocean levels, thereby providing more surface area for the phytoplankton to live in

so i think it would be more beneficial to raising O2 levels to do what we can to promote global warming to get the sea levels up, there is a lot more potential ocean area than space to plant trees, i think this might be a little less backbreaking also, from what lowtech has said about tree planting

 

[lowtech1]

Originally posted by: Tominator
There are about 300 rabbits killed whenever one acre of wheat is harvested. So, we should not harvest wheat?


Where clear cut logging is done, the chances of devestating forrest fires are greatly reduced.

Paper and lumber companies plant more trees every year that all the tree huggers put together plant in a decade!

I don't know where you get your fact, but as for intelligent I will be surprise if you don't have to think for breathing.

Paper and lumber companies do not plant more trees than all the tree huggers. First of all the federal government were the one that paid for the replanting since the late 50s to the mid 70s. Lumber company had to paid a portion of the forest renewal fee since the mid 70s till now. I believe that it range from place to place in North America, but lumber company could paid as little as 1/3 to 2/3 of the reforestation since the mid 70s, and the bulk of the cash came from the tax paying public. The government officials have been in bed with the logging companies, because the stumpage fees were $1.00 per tree and I?m not too sure how much now, but in the late 80s stumpage fees were jacked up to $5.00 per tree that they cut (it causes out rage through out the industry & I think it also apply to the Western US states).

As for actually doing the dirty work. The Loging industry has been slowing down due to global pricing & mechanization therefor loggers get less and less work. Most logger don't work much more than 22 weeks per year compare to the 30 weeks or more in the past, but the unions still demand that they should at least get paid as much as they have been in the past. In the late 80s, due to the union the lumber companies & government had to give loggers precedent over non-union seasonal student workers (loggers had to get more time & money). Therefor loggers get paid day rate of $175.00 day rate per tree, but will be compensated for more money if they plant over the requirement of 600-800 trees per day in the West Coast Canada. Theses so call program fail miserably in the first 3 months that it was implemented, because the loggers were averaging 400 trees per day that they could get the average student to plant 800-900 trees per day. The money were one point, but the other were that the work is much harder than the average logger can take (like I have said in the earlier post only 1/40 people metal & physical strength last up to 4 years). The union then soften there stance so that student once again can have the job if loggers don?t want it, and that year in BC/Canada there were less than 10 loggers that chooses to plant (and the year after that were non).

I don?t know where you get your fact, but if I were you I would spend more time studying instead of hanging out at the school parking lot. It is just incase you want to have a job that is better than bagging groceries.

Just to let you know 80% of the tree planter hugger have at least a bachelor degree and 25% us stupid people have at least a Master. And also about 10% of us are athlete that regular compete in international races such as bicycling, marathon, triathlon, soccer.

 

[mithrandir2001]

1000 new trees a year wouldn't do diddly.

 

[Tominator]

Originally posted by: lowtech

Originally posted by: Tominator
There are about 300 rabbits killed whenever one acre of wheat is harvested. So, we should not harvest wheat?


Where clear cut logging is done, the chances of devestating forrest fires are greatly reduced.

Paper and lumber companies plant more trees every year that all the tree huggers put together plant in a decade!

I don't know where you get your fact, but as for intelligent I will be surprise if you don't have to think for breathing.

Paper and lumber companies do not plant more trees than all the tree huggers. First of all the federal government were the one that paid for the replanting since the late 50s to the mid 70s. Lumber company had to paid a portion of the forest renewal fee since the mid 70s till now. I believe that it range from place to place in North America, but lumber company could paid as little as 1/3 to 2/3 of the reforestation since the mid 70s, and the bulk of the cash came from the tax paying public. The government officials have been in bed with the logging companies, because the stumpage fees were $1.00 per tree and I?m not too sure how much now, but in the late 80s stumpage fees were jacked up to $5.00 per tree that they cut (it causes out rage through out the industry & I think it also apply to the Western US states).

As for actually doing the dirty work. The Loging industry has been slowing down due to global pricing & mechanization therefor loggers get less and less work. Most logger don't work much more than 22 weeks per year compare to the 30 weeks or more in the past, but the unions still demand that they should at least get paid as much as they have been in the past. In the late 80s, due to the union the lumber companies & government had to give loggers precedent over non-union seasonal student workers (loggers had to get more time & money). Therefor loggers get paid day rate of $175.00 day rate per tree, but will be compensated for more money if they plant over the requirement of 600-800 trees per day in the West Coast Canada. Theses so call program fail miserably in the first 3 months that it was implemented, because the loggers were averaging 400 trees per day that they could get the average student to plant 800-900 trees per day. The money were one point, but the other were that the work is much harder than the average logger can take (like I have said in the earlier post only 1/40 people metal & physical strength last up to 4 years). The union then soften there stance so that student once again can have the job if loggers don?t want it, and that year in BC/Canada there were less than 10 loggers that chooses to plant (and the year after that were non).

I don?t know where you get your fact, but if I were you I would spend more time studying instead of hanging out at the school parking lot. It is just incase you want to have a job that is better than bagging groceries.

Just to let you know 80% of the tree planter hugger have at least a bachelor degree and 25% us stupid people have at least a Master. And also about 10% of us are athlete that regular compete in international races such as bicycling, marathon, triathlon, soccer.

I think you need to be involved in the industry awhile and maybe you would not be spouting statistics that are over a decade old! Many paper companies have been planting MORE trees than they harvest every year! That is the only way they can be assured of production as more and more public lands are considered off limits to logging. Today, the companies actually own much of the property that is logged.

Just look at the aftermath of the eruption of Mt. Rainier. Where the land was owned by companies with interest in logging and paper the land was replanted and no longlasting harm was done. Contrast that with public lands where nothing was done. Erosion has ruined thousands of acres!

No doubt there are labor problems, but the tree huggers have cost the forrest as much as they've saved.

Now, go get your head out of a Liberal Professor's butt and look around! Made up statistics do carry much weight out here where the sun shines...

 

[lowtech1]

Originally posted by: Tominator

Originally posted by: lowtech

Originally posted by: Tominator
There are about 300 rabbits killed whenever one acre of wheat is harvested. So, we should not harvest wheat?


Where clear cut logging is done, the chances of devestating forrest fires are greatly reduced.

Paper and lumber companies plant more trees every year that all the tree huggers put together plant in a decade!

I don't know where you get your fact, but as for intelligent I will be surprise if you don't have to think for breathing.

Paper and lumber companies do not plant more trees than all the tree huggers. First of all the federal government were the one that paid for the replanting since the late 50s to the mid 70s. Lumber company had to paid a portion of the forest renewal fee since the mid 70s till now. I believe that it range from place to place in North America, but lumber company could paid as little as 1/3 to 2/3 of the reforestation since the mid 70s, and the bulk of the cash came from the tax paying public. The government officials have been in bed with the logging companies, because the stumpage fees were $1.00 per tree and I?m not too sure how much now, but in the late 80s stumpage fees were jacked up to $5.00 per tree that they cut (it causes out rage through out the industry & I think it also apply to the Western US states).

As for actually doing the dirty work. The Loging industry has been slowing down due to global pricing & mechanization therefor loggers get less and less work. Most logger don't work much more than 22 weeks per year compare to the 30 weeks or more in the past, but the unions still demand that they should at least get paid as much as they have been in the past. In the late 80s, due to the union the lumber companies & government had to give loggers precedent over non-union seasonal student workers (loggers had to get more time & money). Therefor loggers get paid day rate of $175.00 day rate per tree, but will be compensated for more money if they plant over the requirement of 600-800 trees per day in the West Coast Canada. Theses so call program fail miserably in the first 3 months that it was implemented, because the loggers were averaging 400 trees per day that they could get the average student to plant 800-900 trees per day. The money were one point, but the other were that the work is much harder than the average logger can take (like I have said in the earlier post only 1/40 people metal & physical strength last up to 4 years). The union then soften there stance so that student once again can have the job if loggers don?t want it, and that year in BC/Canada there were less than 10 loggers that chooses to plant (and the year after that were non).

I don?t know where you get your fact, but if I were you I would spend more time studying instead of hanging out at the school parking lot. It is just incase you want to have a job that is better than bagging groceries.

Just to let you know 80% of the tree planter hugger have at least a bachelor degree and 25% us stupid people have at least a Master. And also about 10% of us are athlete that regular compete in international races such as bicycling, marathon, triathlon, soccer.

I think you need to be involved in the industry awhile and maybe you would not be spouting statistics that are over a decade old! Many paper companies have been planting MORE trees than they harvest every year! That is the only way they can be assured of production as more and more public lands are considered off limits to logging. Today, the companies actually own much of the property that is logged.

Just look at the aftermath of the eruption of Mt. Rainier. Where the land was owned by companies with interest in logging and paper the land was replanted and no longlasting harm was done. Contrast that with public lands where nothing was done. Erosion has ruined thousands of acres!

No doubt there are labor problems, but the tree huggers have cost the forrest as much as they've saved.

Now, go get your head out of a Liberal Professor's butt and look around! Made up statistics do carry much weight out here where the sun shines...

Yes you are right that my statistic is old & I haven't been a planter since 1996, but the people that actually doing the planting are the tree huggers not loggers or armchair generals. And, it is also true that lumber/paper companies are replanting more trees than they take is because the replanting practice has not been a big movement until the 80s. If I remember correctly that the usable trees in a clear cut are about 3.6% of the actual land, therefore more trees are being replanted per area than the trees that use. Many of the empty clear-cut pre 80s have to be replanted because the usable trees (spruce/pine/hemloch/cedar) hasn?t been regenerated.

The 2.67 meter method per tree would work if there weren?t for decease, insects & animals. The nature forest is more resistant to decease, insects & animals is because it is comprise of thousands of other plant life in stead of the majority spruces/pines/hemlochs/cedars. Therefor continuing replanting the casualties usable trees is a must and it add to the total sum of trees that have to replant each year.

Another point is that mega companies such as Macmillan Bloedel & Fletcher Challenge doesn?t operate much in Canada (not sure about the US) due to localize regulation so that small local companies are now the norm. And, yes local logging companies are doing their part of replanting the land that they are leasing, but they are not shelling out the cash to replant the pre 80s clear-cut by the mega companies. It is your tax dollar that is being use to replant the older clear-cut.

There are illiterate long hair pot smokers that have done more harm than good, but there are many of us legitimate huggers that chooses to do our battle quietly & wisely. Something that you might want to look at is that the majority if not all of the people that chain themselves to trees & blowing up bridges are not tree-planters & very likely don?t have much more than a high school education.

 

[Wheatmaster]

is their an association that is dedicated to planting trees?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Zap0602
is their an association that is dedicated to planting trees?

Check out this site Arbor Day Foundation

 

[Tominator]

..Of which I've been a member for years!

I view myself as pro-environment. I just think the environment can be managed to human benefit and humans ARE NOT the scourage of the earth that are ruining the environment.

Something that you might want to look at is that the majority if not all of the people that chain themselves trees & blowing up bridges are not tree-planters & very likely don?t have much more than a high school education.

Oh, you mean like Green Peace.....

 

[bleckywelcky]

Originally posted by: Staples
Is this happening? We actually have people who think about the environment? From all the political threads, seems that most of the people here are "can't think for myself" Republicans and the one of the major Republican philosophies riding on success is to destroy the environment. As for the topic, sure we should plant trees but I have way to many on my proporty so I need to plant them elsewhere.

Edit: And Hackberry trees grow like weeds around here so I think even spreading their seeds is probably quite effective to in producing more trees.

You sir, are a moron. Labeling all republicans as "can't think for myself" discredits any argument you may have. Sure, some people follow the Republican party beliefs without even thinking about them, but just as many if not more follow the Democratic party beliefs like drones too. And no, one of the major Republican philosophies is not to "destroy the environment" - I'm not sure where you pulled that from, but it seems like it was probably from your arse . If Republicans ran their campaigns with goals stating that they want to "destroy the environment" they would not be elected into office. Some of the extremist Republicans support big business initiatives over some environmental initiatives, but that is a choice they make, it doesn't mean that they like to randomly set fire to thousands of acres of trees or that they want to dump toxic waste into rivers. And in case you didn't know, a majority of Republicans are actually for environmentally-supporting initiatives. In case you haven't taken your high school government class yet, I'll let you in on a little secret. There isn't one class of Republican nor is their one class of Democrat. There is a spread of Republicans and Democrats that span what is called an ideological spectrum. To the far right we have the extremist conservatives of the Republican party, to the far left we have the extremist democrats of the Democratic party. It is a gradient from one side to the other, so in the middle we end up with Republicans and Democrats who have very similar sets of ideas.

I fit in on the right side, but I am close to the middle. I don't call myself a Republican nor do I vote a straight party ballot. However, my beliefs would quantitatively classify me as a Republican, even though I vote a mixed ballot. I think we should work to protect the environment for both ecological reasons and recreational reasons. I would rue the day that I couldn't take a hike into the mountains and enjoy the wilderness without seeing evidence of development.

And just for the record, a large portion of the Democratic followers are filled with people who are unable to graduate from high school and fill mindless jobs from day to day just in order to pay for food and daily sustenance. They don't understand the world around them and find most of the developed world mystifying. And you describe Republicans as "can't think for myself" - just take a look at the lower end of the Democratic party. Mind you I don't detest these people or look down upon them, because they do provide some important infrastructure for the nation, but they aren't exactly the freshest cookie in the jar.

-

 

[bleckywelcky]

Originally posted by: Staples
And my mom is concerned about the environment but she continues to use paper plates because she says it is better to waste paper that to waste water. That has to be the stupidest thing I have ever heard. We are talking about 60 gals for the dishwasher. I need to find some proof that this is stupid to see if she will stop doing it. I always use glass plates but as long as she keeps buying them, the family will continue to use them. And if it means anything, I am from San Antonio and we have lots of water considering the dish washer uses 60 gals.

Actually it isn't that bad of an idea to use paper plates. They degrade very quickly in land fills and provide very little pollution (the majority of which comes from the manufacturing process, which is heavily regulated and already fairly safe - other small amounts may come from dyes in the paper plates). I'm not sure what the tradeoff is for the water treatment, but for a ecologically-friendly solution, paper plates can provide a cheaper* alternative to heating up water and using electricity to run the dish washer.

* - It may or may not be cheaper depending on where you live.
-

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: Tominator
Fact: Trees are a renewable resource.

Fact: There have been more trees in the US and the world at large than anytime in recorded history.

Fact: Too many trees CAN CAUSE pollution!

That last one will have you doing some research!

Too many trees can cause pollution? What kind of crack are you smoking? What kind of pollution does a tree produce... oxygen? lol.... You don't seriously believe that "too many" trees cause pollution? WTF?

There's no such thing as too many trees...

 

[sandorski]

Lowtech and Tominator: I think you guys are talking about 2 different systems. Almost all logged land in Canada(especially in BC) is Crown land(public), whereas in the US it is mostly private land.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I am not sure if this is precisely what Tominator had in mind, but some trees can indeed increase pollution

Interesting read