Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

jeoeker531 t1_iudgt54 wrote

Reply to comment by NemeshisuEM in Ozone Hole Continues Shrinking in 2022, NASA and NOAA Scientists Say | Annual Antarctic ozone hole over the South Pole was slightly smaller than last year and generally continued the overall shrinking trend of recent years. by yourSAS

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