Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Organic-Idiocy t1_j1p1t8k wrote

Reply to comment by dilletaunty in Logged forest compared with an unlogged forest could be better for climate change. A detailed assessment of vegetation growth, bird and mammal numbers, and energy flows in logged and unlogged forests offers some surprising findings. by Creative_soja

The roads are also a problem no matter what you do

43

Creative_soja OP t1_j1p22wy wrote

True. Except for mud trails, any paved road eventually divides the forest and somehow irreversibly damages the ecosystem.

39

Gastronomicus t1_j1py8yw wrote

> Except for mud trails, any paved road eventually divides the forest and somehow irreversibly damages the ecosystem.

Not sure what you mean by "mud trails", but depending on use and location, unpaved roads can experience significant problems with erosion and soil compaction.

8

Greypilgrem t1_j1ps2c4 wrote

False. Outsloping roads, frequent surface drainage structures, and hydrologically disconnecting the surface flows from streams are an immense improvement.

1

Gastronomicus t1_j1q8p6n wrote

This is harm reduction, not harm elimination. Their comment was very clear that roads are a problem irrespective of what measures are taken to protect the landscape.

4

Organic-Idiocy t1_j1q2p1k wrote

That doesn't make them not a problem. And all that chemical runoff isn't peachy either

1

Greypilgrem t1_j1q70xo wrote

It significantly reduces the erosion, sedimentation, and pollution into waters. Your comment offers a naive simple perspective. Of course, the forest would be better off if we became extinct, but we havent done that yet. Should rural properties only use helicopters to travel? Should we only use plastics for furniture? Educate yourself. The Rural Roads Handbook offers some insight: https://www.pacificwatershed.com/roadshandbook

−2

Organic-Idiocy t1_j1q9d0i wrote

Harm mitigation is not the same as lack of harm.

Educate yourself on simple logic and human communication friend. You can argue that logging is a necessity and better than alternatives while still recognizing that there are many aspects of it which are harmful to the environment.

I eat meat and I can argue that eating chicken is better for the environment than eating beef, but it's still problematic.

>Should rural properties only use helicopters to travel

Rural properties should be largely unsubsidized. The cities largely pay for all those roads, communication services, trash, water, utilities, etc, because some people like the lifestyle. I didn't grow up in a big city. I know that most small town folk are NOT engaged in farming/logging/mining. They can stay there all they want but I'm sick of paying for them to live unsustainably.

6

Greypilgrem t1_j1qbo3v wrote

My point is that rural roads aren't going anywhere. Therefore, they should be constructed and maintained appropriately. I agree, they are a problem, but we can limit the impact. Also, most rural areas are unincorporated.

3

Gastronomicus t1_j1q8tqb wrote

You're missing the point. "Reduces" isn't the same as "eliminates". Regardless of benefits and challenges, roads are problematic and that is their point.

0