Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

brockwallace t1_iucuv0z wrote

Yup we fixed it!

Now let's stop clearcuting forests.

119

jeoeker531 t1_iucyodv wrote

Remember that over 70% of our oxygen comes from the ocean, not forests

Lmao who’s downvoting this? It’s simply a fact

85

brockwallace t1_iuczsbg wrote

Oh okay, well then who needs trees, may Aswell cut em all down.

40

jeoeker531 t1_iud01a4 wrote

That’s not what I said… I’m just saying that it’s not so harmful or detrimental that trees are cut down responsibly. They are a reusable resource. Also the corn belt in the USA in season provides more oxygen than the Amazon too

−14

elencus t1_iud8hng wrote

And oxygen isn't the only benefit of forests? this whole convo feels like an easy porque no los dos lmao

15

jeoeker531 t1_iud9q4z wrote

Ok I never said it was the only benefit of forests. I’m just saying, again, that cutting down trees isn’t bad when done responsibly. It’s a reusable resource

−12

elencus t1_iudc46s wrote

>that cutting down trees isn’t bad when done responsibly.

Well that's completely different from what the original comment you replied to said. They specifically criticized clearcutting forests, which is not responsible. I think to interpret their comment as anti-christmas tree farm or similar responsible forestry practices is... disingenuous.

14

brockwallace t1_iuenkct wrote

I was going to mention this but decided just to sleep, thanks bruh.

3

jeoeker531 t1_iudh31g wrote

I mean clear cutting trees isn’t inherently bad either. Again, they’re reusable and can be planted elsewhere. Clear cutting in certain areas isn’t bad. Indiscriminately clear cutting everywhere would be bad

−2

elencus t1_iudssu0 wrote

I think at the very best you can claim that in some cases clearcutting forests is controversial and provides niche edge benefits. Why you are so insistent to point out cutting trees can be good, I have no idea.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/is-clear-cutting-us-forests-good-for-wildlife

6

jeoeker531 t1_iuhmkog wrote

Because someone made it seem like it’s only bad

0

elencus t1_iuhsmnh wrote

which it arguably is?

1

jeoeker531 t1_iui005z wrote

It’s not though, clear cutting forests isn’t bad if it’s done responsibly and trees are replanted, which they are

0

elencus t1_iui1o5f wrote

Read the article I linked. It's controversial at best and not something that can always be done responsibly.

1

DrBrisha t1_iue5gda wrote

Well-oxygen isn’t the only benefit of forests. Diversity and thriving ecosystems provide services that are critical. I just don’t think you can justify cutting the Amazon to the point of no return is “meh”. That’s just one example. Oxygen isn’t the talking point there.

6

avd706 t1_iud0rqz wrote

It is ok, they grow back.

−14

Outlander_-_ t1_iud6ete wrote

And what about animal ecosystems?

Hardwood forest take close to 100 years to regrow fully. All those animals that require specific hardwood ecosystems can’t survive if we keep cutting down there homes.

18

MKQueasy t1_iuerbpa wrote

Those animals should have pulled themselves by the bootstraps and bought the forest as their property after investing in mutual index funds if they didn't want people cutting them down. They can only blame themselves for not participating in our capitalist society.

4

LoquaciousBumbaclot t1_iud8966 wrote

Fuck 'em

−26

laser50 t1_iueau7o wrote

Yeah, lets start campaigning against the trees for once, we need houses and I need to charge my Iphone!

4

sloopslarp t1_iudmlnp wrote

Good thing we're taking care of our oceans, right?

...right?

37

jeoeker531 t1_iudoyv8 wrote

The ocean STILL producing that even now, however bad it is at the moment. Also the ocean is extremely vast

3

Acrobatic-Rate4271 t1_iudze4g wrote

The part that produces the oxygen is only about 30 feet deep.

19

Koala_eiO t1_iufleri wrote

Oh nice, that's also the part in contact with surface CO2 and getting more acidic every second.

4

jeoeker531 t1_iuhm3yc wrote

Actually as of 2020 plankton numbers have been booming, not diminishing

1

Acrobatic-Rate4271 t1_iudyzdp wrote

I wonder how acidification of the oceans will affect phytoplankton...

https://news.mit.edu/2015/ocean-acidification-phytoplankton-0720

Oh... so we may want to start planting trees. A lot of trees...

12

jeoeker531 t1_iuhn931 wrote

We do… the US has more trees now than it did 100 years ago

1

Acrobatic-Rate4271 t1_iuib4dn wrote

That's mostly because originally logging didn't replant trees and so a hundred years ago our tree stock was down from previous levels. States began legislating that logging required replanting so we're starting to get back to pre-logging levels but a plane flight over states like Oregon will give you an idea of just what clearcutting did to our forests before replanting was required by law.

0

jeoeker531 t1_iuieqkq wrote

Regardless there’s a net gain of trees on earth

1

Acrobatic-Rate4271 t1_iuihiew wrote

Yes, it's good that we're planting trees but something to keep in mind is that photosynthesis (the reaction that consumes CO2 and produces O2) occurs in the leaves so older, more mature trees consume more CO2 and product more oxygen than younger trees. Even with replanting, the cutting of old growth trees and rain forests results in a net loss in CO2 capture and conversion to O2 unless your replanting significantly more trees than you're cutting. This also ignores the loss of undergrowth associated with logging.

I'm not saying we need to stop all logging, just pointing out that it's not as straightforward as it seems on initial inspection.

1

Traditional-Trip7617 t1_iud85o7 wrote

Woah really? That seriously astounds me! I’ve heard high numbers thrown around about the amazon but I’ve never heard of any numbers on the oceans. Makes sense just never really thought of it.

9

jeoeker531 t1_iud9wuo wrote

Yep planktons in the ocean contribute to about 70% of earths oxygen

9

Traditional-Trip7617 t1_iuda8v6 wrote

Expected scrolling through the news to be filled with sadness after this is a neat gleam of light poking through

4

NemeshisuEM t1_iudfckj wrote

And what would be the effect of fucking up 30% of the supply of anything?

6

jeoeker531 t1_iudgt54 wrote

Not so severe when you can replace it. Trees are replaceable. And supplies of one thing aren’t as vital as supplies as others. So fucking up 30% of something might not always be a big deal. Trees are reusable and don’t provide the majority of oxygen

0

NemeshisuEM t1_iudheha wrote

Yeah? How long does it take to replace a healthy, mature forest?

Also, have you looked at what is it in the oceans that produces oxygen and what things impact that?

Lastly, please link your post-doc, peer-reviewed source for "meh, 30% is not significant."

Thanks.

12

jeoeker531 t1_iudhs1j wrote

Trees don’t make 30% of oxygen either. The corn belt in the USA at its height of the year makes more oxygen then the Amazon. And nobodies cutting down all trees not even close. In fact there there are more trees in the US now then there were 100 years ago.

2

NemeshisuEM t1_iudix7l wrote

So how many new-growth trees equal to 1 old-growth one? Or are you going to tell me a 1' wide tree does the same work as a 10' wide one?

5

jeoeker531 t1_iudj5nh wrote

Why are we looking at what one individual tree does when we have data for all the trees? For millions of trees?

3

NemeshisuEM t1_iudjymh wrote

Because you stated "there are more trees now in the US than 100 years ago."

Commercial tree farming does not compare to an old-growth forest in numerous ways, so to compare apples to apples, we would need to know how the oxygen production of the two compare.

Got a link to a study doing that?

6

jeoeker531 t1_iudm7qy wrote

How much does the comparison of oxygen production matter when the vast majority of oxygen production isn’t been due to trees?

0

jeoeker531 t1_iudjcnm wrote

The point is that trees are renewable resources and that even that 1’ wide tree will grow into the 10’ tree

0

NemeshisuEM t1_iudkfza wrote

But tree farms do not wait until the tree is mature to harvest it. That's like counting male calves as full head of cattle when in reality they get culled at a young age. Using that analogy, it seems disingenuous to compare a 50lb calf with a 2000lb steer. Yeah, each one has a head but one is not like the other.

3

jeoeker531 t1_iudm3x8 wrote

Didn’t know you were the tree farm professor. You’re talking out your ass

1

NemeshisuEM t1_iudnmqt wrote

Says the guy that just asserted that we can just replant the forests without a clue as to what that entails.

4

jeoeker531 t1_iudp2hd wrote

I didn’t go into anything specific or any details, I simply said that trees are renewable resources. Which is objectively true

2

NemeshisuEM t1_iudpmpu wrote

Yeah, it is technically true but your comment came off as dismissive of a problem by oversimplifying it.

4

happygloaming t1_iue9b78 wrote

Reading this entire thread I now know we're all going to die.

1

jeoeker531 t1_iuhlo9i wrote

We were always going to die… everyone dies

1

r3b3l-tech t1_iuf1lww wrote

Not quite.

You can "reuse" trees in a economic sense but that doesn't account for externalities.

You have to also realize that there is life under trees that you just can't replant.

Yes, you can replant trees in a sustainable way but alas, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Lumber_Company stuff like this happens.

3

jeoeker531 t1_iuhmfwx wrote

Yep, but you have to find specific examples of this not working. It can and does work… finding exceptions to the rule doesn’t mean it doesn’t work

2

r3b3l-tech t1_iuhpsjp wrote

So it's a little bit the same with cattle raising. You can do it sustainably, but it is not as economically viable(you make money, but not as much).

Sustainability is the exception. Companies just want profit.

That's why I am saying "Not quite". Yes, it's a viable option but when you look at all the realities, it is just not happening the way you might envision it.

1

jeoeker531 t1_iui40bf wrote

Yes companies just want profit, but in capitalism, for companies to make profit and remain competitive they have to have quality and adhere to some degree to what customers want. If people don’t like what a company is doing the company will lose money. Unfortunately when the government gets involved it corrupts and degrades the free market and capitalism

2

r3b3l-tech t1_iui99ec wrote

Companies can and do make money, with sustainable ways, in a capitalistic economy. There has just been a lot of deregulation going on, which makes the free market unfair.

I don't really understand what you mean with government involvement degrading the free market?

I am currently reading this book: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/53167676-the-sustainable-economy?from_search=true&from_srp=true&qid=K4gGPesEM3&rank=2

If you are from the US I really recommend giving it a read. I have been very fascinated by it and the author provides lots of sources to verify the information!

1

[deleted] t1_iud8a7n wrote

[removed]

4

jeoeker531 t1_iud9sx0 wrote

Why? Animals do that to eachother. It’s literally nature. Our bodies are actually designed to eat meat

0

cnnrduncan t1_iuej465 wrote

Nature is full of rape and infanticide, should we legalise both crimes simply because they're natural?

4

jeoeker531 t1_iuhmisj wrote

No, because while we are animals ourselves we also have morals and society. The point is, our bodies are literally designed to eat meat

1

Geesemeece t1_iufmz89 wrote

They are legalized against other animals, because it would be asinine to make it illegal.

0

mods_r_jobbernowl t1_iufnis4 wrote

Forests do a shit ton to keep the earth cool though especially on the ground. They help cities prevent heat islands. They do a lot more than just suck up co2

4

STEVEusaurusREX t1_iueyjye wrote

Yes, but forests are better for storing Carbon. Oceans storing more Carbon results in carbonic acid formation, reducing marine pH, harming organisms that have shells like mussels, clams and corals. The issue isn’t just O2 in the atmosphere.

3

alpaka7 t1_iugf36i wrote

It's true.

It's also important to note the importance of the ecosystem for the production of that oxygen. It's all connected. There are very good documentaries explaining this process in detail.

Also, nearly all oxygen produced by the Amazon rainforest is consumed by the forest.

1

luke_sweatshirt t1_iugufzx wrote

Deforestation is not only a problem with oxygen production, but also carbon. Clear cutting forests releases co2

1

Sstavish1 t1_iue2qpu wrote

Clearcutting actually has some benefits in terms of enviromentalism- high light intensity trees grow back much faster in clearcut plots. A clearcut plot also somewhat mimics a natural disturbance such as a wildfire, providing habitats to animals that require stand-replacing disturbances to profilerate.

1

notyogrannysgrandkid t1_iug0ozy wrote

Logging is one of the few truly sustainable industries, when done correctly. Logging tracts in places like the PNW, East Texas, and Western Arkansas can be perpetually harvested and replanted in 30-40 year cycles (sometimes even as little as 25), meaning that the same piece of land can sequester a potentially unlimited amount of carbon, most of which will remain permanently sequestered in buildings and landscaping.

Brazilian beef producers obviously do not take this approach, which is an issue.

1

brockwallace t1_iug1agn wrote

"Clearcuting forests" is a fair bit different then "sustainable logging"

1

Cosmonaut15 t1_iucx62q wrote

Good idea. Tell people to stop eating meat!!! :)

−1

brockwallace t1_iucxwb9 wrote

Hah, deforestation was the reason I went vegetarian. I'm not a super strict vegetarian, but I limited eating meat to about once a month after I learned the environmental impacts of factory farming.

21

Cosmonaut15 t1_iucy45c wrote

Meat agriculture accounts for 1/5 of HABITABLE land. Due to "growth economics" the industry must always expand... Even though populations are currently declining we need to expand meat production because of misguided, and totally destructive capitalist principals. People must understand the immediate impact of letting the meat industry get away with destroying our planet for profits.

14

LudSable t1_iud4v1o wrote

And it's mainly the obsession with beef that requires so much land and cause so much pollution.

9

Sojurn83 t1_iucys8o wrote

Either solve it at consumer side, which seems unlikely as there’ll always be meat fanatics. Or charge carbon tax and drive it out of profitability, which also doesn’t seem very likely due to lobbying. Would be nice if everyone agreed on the problem so we could solve it rapidly, but it looks like a lot more change management is needed here.

3

Cosmonaut15 t1_iuczm78 wrote

I love the idea of a carbon tax. The key really is political corruption. Neither party would hurt their corporate donors like that. Even as the oil industry sells us out with price gouging, even as they lie about the impact of emissions, both parties leadership upholds this suicidal status quo. HOW CAN THEY SLEEP AT NIGHT???

I will say firmly and adamantly that the leadership of both parties are knowingly complicit in our extinction. This is genocide. The US oligarchy must be destroyed.

People need to rise together and demand or remove financial incentives and corruption from our political system. People need to demand accountability for our attempted murder. THAT'S THE ONLY WAY WE SURVIVE.

6

Sojurn83 t1_iuczsep wrote

Yep. But not enough people are doing that. Until it’s done, business will continue to do what businesses are designed and incentivised to do, increase profits at the cost of long term sustainability.

3

Cosmonaut15 t1_iud18qf wrote

No time to waste. That's why I support people throwing soup at paintings because most of us do not get the severity of the issue or the difficulty in changing it. Or they don't care which is just suicidal and dumb.

−5

LoquaciousBumbaclot t1_iud8se9 wrote

> No time to waste. That's why I support people throwing soup at paintings

Thanks for that, the most idiotic thing I've read so far today.

2

Cosmonaut15 t1_iud99y0 wrote

I just explained how politicians are paid off by oil lobbyists to purposefully fail to act. If the media was accurately portraying the severity of the issue, the public would in a total rage. The media ignores these issues, and whether you care to admit it or not much of the media STILL pushes misinformation that climate change even exists going so far as to ridicule the idea. The US public is COMPLETELY disarmed in terms of information and awareness. They are sleep walking onto a busy highway.

Those Activists are desperately trying to make headlines to bring attention to this critical issue which that powers at be choose to ignore for profit every single day.

Now explain what's idiotic about that be specific. If you're here to deny the immediate threat of climate induced extinction then feel free to carry on.

3

LoquaciousBumbaclot t1_iudapm2 wrote

And you think some scraggly hippies throwing soup at a painting is going to change any of that?

It may come as a surprise, but when the average person sees that on the news they don't think "gee, you know what, that girl with the tattoos and dreadlocks sure changed my mind by vandalizing that painting!" No, they think "what a bunch of fuck-heads," and carry on with their lives.

1

Cosmonaut15 t1_iudfjdh wrote

Your entire argument is just insulting the Activists who are risking their freedom. How weak.

I commend their bravery.

1

LoquaciousBumbaclot t1_iud8ohm wrote

> I will say firmly and adamantly that the leadership of both parties are knowingly complicit in our extinction.

Even if the worst predictions of the kookiest climate doomers were to come true, I can assure you that mankind would not go extinct. Pockets of population would survive (as they always have) and adapt to the changing conditions through technical means. On a longer scale, evolution would kick in and produce humans that are biologically adapted to live in the new climate.

−1

Cosmonaut15 t1_iud9ol2 wrote

Ok. That's still an unfathomable, dire scenario full of untold suffering for all life on the planet. Have some humanity.

We have to address overconsumption first. We can't innovate around the fact that western society is consuming far beyond their needs while feeling the LEAST impact compared to poor countries with competitively nonexistent emission levels. Again, have some humanity.

2

Shadow_Lazer t1_iudal1r wrote

Brilliant logic, with no signs of logical fallacies.

Humans will survive because they always have.

Humans will survive because technology.

Humans will survive because evolution.

#1 we have not always existed, and we are mortal.

#2 our technology requires a lot to function, it breaks down, need new parts, stable power, etc

#3 evolution doesn't work as fast as the environment is changing

Just more hubris for the pile

2

TheEnabledDisabled t1_iud5nat wrote

Most deforestation projects are for plant growth like coconut oil

8

continuousQ t1_iudn7ex wrote

Plant growth for animal feed. About 80% of agricultural land is for meat production.

8

Cosmonaut15 t1_iud6c0t wrote

I mean yeah plant oils are pretty impactful no denying that. Still though. ONE FIFTH of habitable land for meat agriculture is a horrifying statistic that's only getting worse as populations decrease and the ONLY excuse is capitalist greed.

5

cnnrduncan t1_iuejd3u wrote

Got a source for that? 80% of Amazonian deforestation is done for beef and the plants that get fed to cattle.

1

Cosmonaut15 t1_iud6k7w wrote

Plus we really need to stop reducing animals to objects or tools. It's culturally barbaric imo. We've normalized this abuse for too long. I'll be damned if we're going to let greedy capitalists reduce humanity to that kind of tribal nonsense.

0

HelpMeFindALampShade t1_iude27j wrote

Or we can just massively reduce it and shop local instead of relying on it being shipped overseas.

Something that would help if we did it for the majority of our food.

4

Cosmonaut15 t1_iudekax wrote

That should be said for our entire economy!!!!

Western overconsumption is criminal. It starts at the top our systems are all built around it - from food to transit. All at a cost to consumers and our environment!!!

It's tragically poetic that the economy seems to be collapsing in tandem with our environment. This capitalist system is not sustainable.

5

This-is-human-bot556 t1_iud054s wrote

I’m going to love the day all these environmental groups succeed in getting meat production cut because holy shit are their going to be a lot of dead cows and that’s when I’ll get my steak cheap

−1

SleepyTempeh t1_iudfno4 wrote

Do you honestly think that there’s going to be a cutover day and the final step is cow genocide?

3

This-is-human-bot556 t1_iudg9zz wrote

No it’s a joke with my friends. Not sure why I’m getting downvoted. Also cows are evil no souls look them in their soulless eyes and tell me I’m wrong. But really it’s just going to be boring the government will keep increasing the size of land needed for every 1 head of Cattle until it’s more sustainable

−1