How does tree logging affect the natural environment?

Question

include stuff with global warming and green house gases if u could :D XP

Answer 1

There are many ways logging affects the natural environment. To deal with your question as it relates to global warming and green house gases, first:

1. Trees absorb carbon dioxide (and release oxygen). Carbon dioxide is one of the main greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming.

2. The process of logging trees requires big machines that emit gases (pollution and greenhouse gases) into the atmosphere.

Other natural environment effects include:

1. Trees are important to prevent soil erosion. They help to keep the soil in place by their roots. So, removing trees cause their roots to die and, so, it promotes erosion.

2. Removing trees impacts a lot of animals- animals require trees as a source of food (directly or indirectly) and a source of housing.

3. Removing trees prevent leaves from building up on the ground. Many organisms (not just animals, but fungi as well) rely on these leaves for food or cover from predators. Additionally, leaves put nutrients back into the soil as they degrade.

I hope that that's a suitable enough list.

Answer 2

touigh question as thereare a lot of logging pracices. But ne logging is not as bad as what the radical enviormentalist say itis . mist forest groesbck quite rapidly .Froestschavebenn burnt doen , avalanched mudlides , wiping them out . Svere drought ice ages , incerst infestation s . Out anscetors would set fires to aloow newpalnts to grow creating a easy kill hunting area . sometimes thier blazes got ut of contril anddid vast damage ,.

gren house gases have increaseed by . inytsingly forests arears have varied widly inthe 200 or less years we have b een keepig records,
those records were an are measured in cities heat sinks . so the data hasa major flaw ,.
grenhouse gass . Well that is intersting as they too eb and flow . Ice core amples s have shon that. . Desite what aclounist says , tre is not a consensus in the scientific comumnity about them . yes they are in a large pasrt cuased by human how large we do really not know and we also do not know if the re cuasing glabal warming or the i opposite? a newice ae . are clmate right now isveryuinsbale he gasesalso reflect sloar energy back befroe it hits the earth.
Trees absord some carbon an create oxy gern , that provide the moistuire that creates humid days and thunderstorms . Tress are place for many spices from microbve inscts brists nany mamales the rotwantprovidea heathy duff for new plant growth
OH theporvide t matial to build houses and papeer furniture
tey are renewable anmd will ast for averylong time if ued corectly ,
Loggingis not evil it isessnetail to the survial of hmans .
I know alot because i logg on my own to pay for grad School and travel .

We are not evel andi knnw itis nor PC but we need to log .

Answer 3

Cities are not disrespectful of nature. Because humanity is a part of nature, after all, being just another living thing. Its when humanity EXPLOITS and abuses the resources to build those cities is where the problem lies. As you must realize, indigenous groups have been torn apart, exploited, destroyed, scattered, enslaved or regrouped for many thousands of years. It's what humans do. If they didn't, we'd all be dead. We explore, we exploit, we conquer, we adapt. Nothing would be explored if we remained homogeneous. We'd stagnate as a species. Unfortunately some groups will disappear, absorbed into the larger whole. Where are the Meade's, the Phoenicians, Goths, even the mighty Assyrians or Spartans today, to name a few more well-known indigenous groups that are no more or forever changed. Not to diminish your offense in any way, but I don't honestly see you being overly concerned about their disappearance from human history. Culture and knowledge is absorbed through the annals of time. If not we would not have the medical, warcraft, seafaring, or metallurgy knowledge we have today, to name just a few contributions. Look at the big picture, not just the small. The big picture is made OF the many smaller pixels. But you are right. It is sad to see other cultures gobbled up in the name of mechanization. But its the nature of the beast. It's also not a good idea to diminish nature by giving it human characteristics. Nature is not human, but it is human nature to make it so in order to blame nature for our exploitations and resentment of being forever unable to master it.

Answer 4

Logging can be done in such a way that the effects on the ecology, if any, are minimal. In Maine, it is against the law to "strip or clear cut" forests - and the law is strictly enforced. Select cutting of only certain trees is allowed. Simply put, you cut a tree down - you plant another one in its place.

I would hope that there are similar laws in all or most of the states that rely on forestry for renewable energy and building materials.

The real problems occur when forests are "clear cut." All of the tress and vegetation are cut or destroyed in the complete harvesting of an entire area.

This completely eliminates the beneficial effects of the forest for many years. The bare ground is exposed to erosion and run off. The co2, which the forest normally would consume and convert to oxygen, is released instead into the atmosphere. This is really bad in two ways. First, the co2 isn't being converted into the oxygen I breath, and secondly, it is instead adding to the already over abundant green house gasses in our atmosphere.

Answer 5

Get ready for this one -- due to extreme forestry control, replanting, and management it appears the US now has MORE trees in the 48 states now than it did 100 years ago. Of course this does not offset the slash and burn method many third world countries practice in order to cultivate for farmlands, however, there are enough trees in the state of Oregon (numbers provided by scientists) to provide oxygen for the entire population of earth. There really is no more evidence to support global warming as a result of man-made enviromental destruction vs a natural cycle of warming and cooling that has a recorded history of millions of years. Of course enviromental diasters should be avoided at all costs along with the mindless destruction of forests, wetlands, oceans and jungles but don't let propaganda stand in the way of truth. We can have luxuries, technology and a clean enviroment if we stop harping about whose fault it is and pool our resources into a way to save it for us all.

Answer 6

It improves the environment because it reduces the risk of mega-fires which could put a lot of greenhouse gases into the air as well as particulate (mostly smoke and ash) matter.

It does not affect global warming -- man's affect on global warming is a bunch of hooey based on half-truths. One large volcano such as Mount Pinatubo or Krakatoa or Santorini puts so much CO2 and SOx's in the atmosphere that nothing from man even compares.

The earth's various systems are so complex and interrelated that to say one thing (for example, man's activity) is affecting the climate is a ridiculous and extremely simplistic thought -- especially when you look at all the facts and not just some half-truths or incorrect interpretations or "political fad".

Answer 7

For the best answers, search on this site https://shorturl.im/axrWo

As would be the case after any natural disaster, water-borne illness could run rampant and chemicals and oil could leak out of damaged storage facilities as a result of the magnitude 7.0 earthquake that ripped apart Haiti on Jan. 12. Surprisingly, no large industrial spills have been found during initial postquake rescue efforts, but of course the focus has been on saving human lives and restoring civil order. According to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the biggest issue is the building waste; some 40 percent to 50 percent of the buildings fell in Port-au-Prince and nearby towns. “Thousands of buildings suddenly become debris and this overwhelms the capacity of waste management,” says UNEP’s Muralee Thummarukudy, who is directing efforts to collect the waste for use in reconstruction projects. Even before the quake Haiti had major environmental problems. Intensive logging beginning in the 1950s reduced Haiti’s forest cover from 60 percent to less than 2 percent today. This lack of trees causes huge soil erosion problems, threatening both food and clean water sources for throngs of hungry and thirsty people. “If you have forest cover, when heavy rain takes place it doesn’t erode the land,” UNEP’s Asif Zaidi reports. “It doesn’t result in flash floods.” He adds that, due to its lack of forest cover, Haiti suffers much more during hurricanes than does the neighboring Dominican Republic. Compounding these ecological insults is Haiti’s fast-growing population, now 9.7 million and growing by 2.5 percent per year. This has pushed millions of Haitians into marginal areas like floodplains and on land that could otherwise be used profitably. “Most fertile land areas are often used for slums, while hillsides and steep landscapes are used for agriculture,” reports USAID’s Beth Cypser. The resulting sanitation problems have stepped up cases of dysentery, malaria and drug-resistant tuberculosis among Haiti’s poverty-stricken population. Trash-filled beaches, smelly waterways, swarms of dead fish and tons of floating debris stand testament to Haiti’s water pollution problems — now exacerbated by the earthquake.

Answer 8

deforestation, u are disturbing the equilibrium of the earth, so it causes a distrurbed piece of land.