Canadian Mac Forums at ehMac banner
1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,367 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I was flipping through the Hamilton Spectator today and I read an article on Canada's plan to plant 50 million or 500 million trees over by 2025. This to me is a very smart move for climate change. I was wondering why land developers are not forced to re-plant trees somewhere else when they strip the land to build on? I realize they can't move some tree's but plant new baby ones somewhere else. They should be forced to replant the same amount as they killed. I get annoyed over this stuff...

In Guelph by Zehrs they bulldozed probably 100 tree's to build some townhouses. I thought what a waste. The least they could do is plant more tree's to replace those nice big mature ones...

I don't have a link to the original article sorry!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,903 Posts
Tree planting to claim as action against climate change is questionable. This is a weakness that I see in some of the current politically popular activity. The basic problem is dumping carbon from millions of years ago into the atmosphere now and in large volumes. Second, there is the problem of future fires etc. Who is liable for the ghg emissions? Third, growing and harvesting trees to build houses does "sequester" carbon for quite some time.

Plants trees because it is a good idea for other reasons with possible side-benefits.

[Edits: minor]
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,441 Posts
A Tree Plantation is not a forest.

The Harper gov't. is pushing tree planting to deflect from this government's appalling record on climate change.
"Hey, look at us, World! We're subsidising Alberta's destructive oilsands up the wazoo, refusing to take concrete action to reduce Greenhouse emissions (saying, 'Meh, it's impossible. We give up. Woohoo - sell and burn more oil!') but look, look, look, we're planting trees!"

Tree plantations subsidise deforestry companies. These companies cut down mature forests and then say "Look. we're planting trees to replace what we took! A closed loop of eco perfection!"
This is fetid fecal matter as marketing.

Forests aren't planted. Forests evolve and mature.
Forests contain various species of varying ages. Healthy forests contain a vast amount of diversity.
Deforestry companies want all the trees in a cut to be all the same, profitable species. For this reason, tree plantations are monoculture nightmares, ripe for infestation.
A true forest's diversity slows and eventually extinguishes species-specific infestations.

Healthy forests have fires. Fires in real forests work in tongues, creating open areas that are convoluted and usually narrow. This creates sun patches which further evolve the variety of tree/plant sizes and ages. Naturally occurring fires periodically reduce the amount of fuel available for fires.
Some seeds (eg; Western Pine) require high temperarures to fully ripen, fires assist with this. Fires also sow the soil with nitrogen. We've all seen how new growth shoots up after a field fire.
Fire suppression is endemic to tree plantations. Fire suppression also creates an ever-increasing amount of potential fuel and when a fire finally takes off, the accumulted fuel that has not been burned off in smaller, natural fires, reaches critical mass and we get the out-of-control fires that are becoming common-place.
Deforestry companies like to tell us that clear-cutting acts like a natural fire. More marketing feces. Clear-cutting puts nothing back into the soil. Clear-cutting removes windbreaks and severely reduces the fertility of the soil.

Large-scale tree-planting is merely a feel-good diversion from the roots (pun uninteneded) of ecological problems.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,670 Posts
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Top