English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

19 answers

Ah! You're such a cold hearted Republican...bah.

2006-10-27 09:58:23 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Because tree-huggers and other environmentalist scare-mongers generally don't know much about the way the world works. Sad to say as I'm a huge environmental activist, but most just don't know the truth (which is why recycling is so prevalent).

Yes we can plant more trees, and a monoculture stand of new GMO plants can mature for harvesting in 30 years. Also, many places are switching to selective cutting so they can maintain local habitats and make money off of their lands in other ways besides selling lumber. Most people would be surprised to hear that the US has increased in tree cover every year for 30 years. In some places logging should be minimized to save species/scenery/prevent pollution. But in other places it makes a lot of sense to plant monoculture stands and use these lots over and over for logging (it's easy to replace topsoil nutrients too and we already do the same thing for agriculture).

Although many tree-huggers might not get these issues, you really can't be for cutting down the sequoia's and redwoods, can ya?

2006-10-27 11:57:05 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Sadly, in the past logging was without care to the environment, striping the land bare or trees and causing massive erosion. Now however, logging practices in the United States are for the most part environmentally sound. Probably the best forests in the US are privately owned, not federally. That is because logging is necessary today since we have eliminated fire from most ecosystems. Logging companies are not stupid, their goal is to be able to log in the future indefinitely. That means they will not cut their own throats by over logging. Most private timberland in the US is set on a harvest schedule based on the area and timber species so that it is harvest at a sustainable interval. And the US is still increasing it's forest cover everyday. These managed forests are some of the most beautiful. By not managing forests we are losing habitat types and creating a tinderbox for catastrophic fires.

Since most people are uneducated about sound forestry practices, they ignorantly become your tree hugging environmentalist that actually hurts our environment more than they help it!

2006-10-27 21:09:20 · answer #3 · answered by forestofblade 2 · 1 0

There aren't enough "tree huggers".
Too much demand for wood products. I'd encourage people to look into bamboo products instead of wood.
Bamboo grows so fast, takes up little space and is so strong.
We have bamboo floors in our house and our guests go nuts over how beautiful they are. I use bamboo cutting boards and cooking utensils (spoons), bamboo steamers...
Sure we can plant more trees but who really does? Who has the space to do that? The new subdivisions only have lots the size of house and a patch of grass. Majority of people I've encountered find trees a nuisance with their pollen in the spring and seeds and leaves in the fall. How do they have a chance with big companies when us, the regular folks, won't do our part?
If there are any young trees planted, they are so susceptible to the elements and some hungry wildlife.
Guess I'm a tree hugger. Trees are amazing, spend time studying one near you, watch it throughout the year... they are so cool. ;)

2006-10-27 09:45:32 · answer #4 · answered by Gigi 4 · 0 1

It may not simply be an issue of planting more trees.

The time required to grow new trees must be taken into consideration as only once trees are quite fully grown do they have a large positive effect on the environment. Simply chopping down big trees and replacing them with saplings is a poor way to go.

2006-10-27 09:11:23 · answer #5 · answered by Vanguard 3 · 0 0

It takes many years to grow a forest, but days to decimate a forest. The more Deforestation the slower forests grow back...Native soil is destroyed, wildlife habitat is destroyed, air quality suffers and the land is rarely used. New trees that are later cut, are week and make for poor construction materials. If we plant now and leave them alone, in 200 years the trees can begin to replenish the earths oxygen..If the pollution levels allow them to live that long.

2006-10-27 08:55:39 · answer #6 · answered by twostories 4 · 0 0

Of course logging companies are aware of the global warming issue, and "must plant more trees!". They've heard it among their complaints daily. The fact is, to maximize their profits, they do not want to spend any more money than is required by the law, to plant trees. Currently, many logging companies do not have the their gov'n have laws to plant one tree everytime they cut one. That law would be very hard to control, and the whole issue would become very complicated, for trees take a long time to grow, and many lands have already undergone erosion due to the lack of trees. Habitats are destroyed due to deforestation, and so if the law were to be created, the same species of trees would have to be planted to ensure an effecient ecosystem recovery, if one is going to happen.

2006-10-27 08:51:01 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

It takes 30+ years for most trees to mature enough to harvest for lumber. Our lust, or demand for wood is much greater than can be reasonably supplied. We have tried to curb our lumber lust by means of reforestation and select cutting, but there are still areas where clear cutting is a reality. Clear cutting is destructive to the environment in that it alters the eco-system by forcing it's natural inhabitants to leave (which in turn causes problems in neighboring communities) and causing the nutrient rich topsoil to wash away. We need to come up with alteratives to lumber as well as continue with responsible logging practices.
Myself, I have a certain amount of respect for trees, they are the foundation on which humans have been able to build or society into what it is today. They are more resilient than we could ever hope to be and if I could live to be nearly 3000 (like the sequoia) or 5000 years old (like the bristlecone pine) I would hope it might earn me some respect.

2006-10-27 09:19:55 · answer #8 · answered by CHRYSTAL I 3 · 0 0

I'm not a tree hugger type but can we plant more trees and have them grow at a rate more quickly than we are destroying them? I'm not sure.

2006-10-27 08:47:01 · answer #9 · answered by uke9999 3 · 0 0

Many of the trees that they try to protect are very old and cannot be replaced. They also hug the trees to protect habitat for species that would die out if the trees are cut down, like the Northern Spotted Owl in the Pacific Northwest.

You can disagree with what these people do, but it can help to try to see it from their point of view rather than label them.

2006-10-27 08:47:45 · answer #10 · answered by Dentata 5 · 2 1

But trees take so long to grow big and strong. Unless you plant one for every tree you cut down, that doesn't work. Don't you like big, shady trees? I do. They make neighborhoods and cities look comfortable and nice. Plus, they naturally clean the air.

But I generally don't hug them.

2006-10-27 17:55:20 · answer #11 · answered by Lanani 6 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers