I think most people reading a headline about tree count would care primarily about deforestation and loss of habitat of indigenous species.
This article isn't about that, and explicitely states it doesn't touch deforestation per se, just sheer tree count, including production targeted tree farms.
TFA:
> While the classification may seem simplistic, powerful conclusions can be drawn from the data, including assessing agricultural expansion, climate-driven expansion and contraction of ecosystems, and forest clearing and recovery.
bluGill [3 hidden]5 mins ago
There are certainly more trees where I lived than there were a hundred years ago, but there are also more trees than there would have been a thousand years ago. I live in an area that should be natural prairie and humans have planted a lot more trees than the ecosystem would support in a natural situation.
I don't know if this is good or bad from an environment situation, but it is a part of a reason I am suspicious of claims that more trees are good.
mc32 [3 hidden]5 mins ago
With efforts some desert areas get reclaimed with trees. Sure, ic nature took its course the deserts would grow, but there are efforts to push them back and some have had success. I think that’s positive despite going against the natural course of things.
> Agricultural land area expanded 7.6 percent between 1961 and 2020 and currently occupies 32 percent of the world’s land area. Irrigated area more than doubled.
bmitc [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Trees alone aren't enough. For example, ecosystems like the Amazon rainforest are highly balanced ecosystems that are in a perpetual recursive loop. You can't tear them down and then rebuild them by just planting trees. The rainfall the Amazon gets is itself generated by the canopied rainforest. And you can't bring back all the diversity of life that gets lost.
And this goes for any other ecosystem.
And the staggering statistic is that only 30% of the Earth is covered by forest now, a drop from 60% prior to humans going nuts.
Trees are awesome. Wood is probably the rarest material in the known universe :)
darth_avocado [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Didn’t read, but let me guess. We’re gaining more trees in countries like China where large scale project to prevent desertification exist or in places like Russia or Canada where warming climate is opening more space where trees can grow. All the while tropical countries like Brazil, Indonesia and Malaysia are losing tropical forest covers in ecological hotspots because of soybean or palm oil cultivation.
Tbh headlines like these do more damage to the climate change and ecological preservation conversation because they can be used to intentionally mislead what’s happening in the world.
wasabi991011 [3 hidden]5 mins ago
> Didn’t read, but let me guess
Why should we let you guess?
What do any of us gain by reading the opinion of someone who admits to being ignorant and who isn't willing to change that by reading TFA?
darth_avocado [3 hidden]5 mins ago
I read the article after commenting. What opinion do I need to change? Seems like I was correct?
goalieca [3 hidden]5 mins ago
The planet is actually greening due to warmer temperatures and more co2.
concrete_head [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Commenters who don't read the article do more harm than good.
protocolture [3 hidden]5 mins ago
>Tbh headlines like these do more damage to the climate change and ecological preservation conversation because they can be used to intentionally mislead what’s happening in the world.
The graphs show this pretty clearly.
But despite your misgivings the number of new trees growing 3 times faster than trees lost seems pretty good?
Like tropical countries have local issues for sure.
Honestly I prefer these bad headlines compared to "Lung of world gone we are dead in 15 minutes" sensationalism we usually get, and the data is good too.
deadbabe [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Trees are trees.
thfuran [3 hidden]5 mins ago
That is not true in any but the most literal sense.
card_zero [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Is it true in the sense relevant to climate change?
unsnap_biceps [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Climate change is a lot of different things. For the statement that the count matters and a "tree is a tree",
Carbon sequestration? A giant redwood stores more carbon than a fir.
Healthy ecosystems? Different trees fit into different roles in a healthy forest.
The loss of biodiversity? Once a forest dies, a new forest somewhere else doesn't bring back the lost biodiversity.
In theory, Carbon sequestration is the closest to "a tree is a tree", you can plant large amounts of fast growing trees can capture more carbon over time, but that's specifying the later tree, which then matters.
card_zero [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Why did you mention ecosystems and biodiversity? Is the idea that those store more carbon, too, or was it just gratuitous?
Edit after downvote: but why though? It looks like conflation of climate change with the entirety of environmentalism. That is a misleading thing to do.
Retric [3 hidden]5 mins ago
No, a 3 foot tall sapling and a 300+ foot tall monster are both one tree but have very different impacts on the climate.
Fast growth commercial forests have high density because the individual trees are relatively small with a vastly smaller amount of root mass.
kolinko [3 hidden]5 mins ago
If I remember correctly, the youngest trees convert the most co2 (makes sense, they grow the fastest).
Retric [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Not on a per tree basis. Young forests sequester more carbon per year because you aren’t losing old trees, however sustainable harvesting changes the dynamics here. IE a 50k year old natural forest is very close to carbon neutral, but you can harvest wood from an old forest and change the equation as you don’t need to let dead limbs or trees rot.
Unfortunately when you cut down an old forest and convert it into a young one the old forests root mass rots thus releasing a great deal of stored carbon.
kolinko [3 hidden]5 mins ago
Good points about the roots. TIL.
cucumber3732842 [3 hidden]5 mins ago
If you cut a bunch of crappy pines and borderline brush (beyond whatever trivial square foot exemption they give you) the environmental authorities will be on your case same as if you cut down a 120yo hardwood forest.
Can't have your cake and eat it too. Either they're all the same or they're not.
mmooss [3 hidden]5 mins ago
IIRC, there is no actual 'tree' biologically - there is no taxonomic group of 'trees'. It's a colloquial word for 'tall woody plant' or something like that.
HN.zip
This article isn't about that, and explicitely states it doesn't touch deforestation per se, just sheer tree count, including production targeted tree farms.
TFA:
> While the classification may seem simplistic, powerful conclusions can be drawn from the data, including assessing agricultural expansion, climate-driven expansion and contraction of ecosystems, and forest clearing and recovery.
I don't know if this is good or bad from an environment situation, but it is a part of a reason I am suspicious of claims that more trees are good.
> Agricultural land area expanded 7.6 percent between 1961 and 2020 and currently occupies 32 percent of the world’s land area. Irrigated area more than doubled.
And this goes for any other ecosystem.
And the staggering statistic is that only 30% of the Earth is covered by forest now, a drop from 60% prior to humans going nuts.
Here's also an article that provides some counter arguments to the original paper: https://www.weforum.org/stories/nature-and-biodiversity/plan....
Tbh headlines like these do more damage to the climate change and ecological preservation conversation because they can be used to intentionally mislead what’s happening in the world.
Why should we let you guess?
What do any of us gain by reading the opinion of someone who admits to being ignorant and who isn't willing to change that by reading TFA?
The graphs show this pretty clearly.
But despite your misgivings the number of new trees growing 3 times faster than trees lost seems pretty good?
Like tropical countries have local issues for sure.
Honestly I prefer these bad headlines compared to "Lung of world gone we are dead in 15 minutes" sensationalism we usually get, and the data is good too.
Carbon sequestration? A giant redwood stores more carbon than a fir.
Healthy ecosystems? Different trees fit into different roles in a healthy forest.
The loss of biodiversity? Once a forest dies, a new forest somewhere else doesn't bring back the lost biodiversity.
In theory, Carbon sequestration is the closest to "a tree is a tree", you can plant large amounts of fast growing trees can capture more carbon over time, but that's specifying the later tree, which then matters.
Edit after downvote: but why though? It looks like conflation of climate change with the entirety of environmentalism. That is a misleading thing to do.
Fast growth commercial forests have high density because the individual trees are relatively small with a vastly smaller amount of root mass.
Unfortunately when you cut down an old forest and convert it into a young one the old forests root mass rots thus releasing a great deal of stored carbon.
Can't have your cake and eat it too. Either they're all the same or they're not.