Deforestation, or the elimination
of forests in order to benefit from their supplies and space, has come to the
forefront of political and scientific debates in the last few decades. According
to the World Preservation Foundation, 80% of our world’s forests have already
been lost to deforestation. The consequences of colonialism of the 1600s and
the industrial revolution of the 1800s combined with an increased awareness of
the biological importance of our world’s forests have secured deforestation as
a global concern.
The effects of deforestation are
numerous. Perhaps the most notable today is the fact that deforestation results
in an increase in global carbon emissions. Trees absorb carbon and other
greenhouse gasses, which is increasing important, as our carbon emissions
reached about 40 billion tons in 2013, according to Reuters. Without these
trees, these gasses enter our atmosphere and contribute to global warming.
Other effects of deforestation include soil erosion, loss of species, and a
disruption of the natural water cycle.
For obvious reasons, biologists and
forest managers have been looking for a solution. One answer lies in fire. In
the US particularly, the model for forest restoration using fire relies on thinning
out older, dying trees with a natural process and planting more fruitful
replacements. The issue, however, is controversial, given the dangerous effects
of forest fires. Another solution to deforestation is a rotation harvest model,
which ensures that both the harvest and replantation rates correspond to an
increase in trees by the end of each season. However, this process takes much
longer, and with climate change as a growing concern, I think a more efficient solution
is still the most desirable.
While the question of the most
successful model may still be up for debate, the heart of the problem lies in
the battle between scientific evidence and industrial progress. Whoever has the
louder voice controls the fate of our forests. Who are you listening to?
http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/deforestation-overview/
http://www.livescience.com/27692-deforestation.html
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/25060604?uid=3739728&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21103424634541
http://www.worldpreservationfoundation.org/blog/news/deforestation-statistics/#.UwWpb0JdW2s
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/19/us-global-carbon-emissions-idUSBRE9AI00A20131119
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/deforest/deforest.html
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/diary/january_2010.html
http://www.urgentevoke.com/profiles/blogs/food-crisis-15
It is interesting that you differentiate scientific evidence and industrial progress. I actually think that they overlap and can be difficult to differentiate between the two, with scientific evidence fuelling industrial progress. Of course, scientific evidence can be used for both good and harm. In the case of the decision between using forest fire and the rotation harvest model, I think that the voice of industrial progress will use scientific evidence to decide which option is best. So in a sense, the scientific evidence doesn't really have a "voice" but is rather a tool that is used by industrial progress and other parties.
ReplyDeleteThere seems to be a lot more considerations than if this process is good for the trees. How would burning an old forest down effect the local animal populations? Are we assuming that they are going to find a new habitat? Or that they won't be killed in the fire? Or that they have all left the habitat previously? What about local human populations? Are there communities near by? How can we guarantee the safety of the men starting and stopping these fires? I think it may be a good option, but there are a lot of things that these fires effect, and you have to consider all of the ramifications before such drastic action, right?
ReplyDeleteI think Aaron brought up a good point, which is why I think this debate is even more difficult than its face value. There is not only the issue that the absence of trees puts more carbon dioxide into the air to lead to a greenhouse effect, but also the fact that deforestation affects the ecosystem as a whole. On another note, solving this issue through the restoration of forests is not moral at its core, but is much more a result of the interplay of science and politics. You have many interests groups and companies who do such things for profit-related purposes and in some ways reject that deforestation is even a bad thing, while on the other hand, you have the scientists who preach how this worsens the effects of global warming and could become a catastrophe. It depends on which side is more convincing in the end to propose a sustainable and safe resolution. You have the rotation harvest model, which is time-consuming and likely to be costly, and then there are forest fires that could cause even more harm to the environment as well as surrounding communities. Weighing the pros and cons puts as a bit of a distance away from coming to any sort of agreement on the problem, I think.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that we should be messing with forests to the extent that we do. Preservation is the best way to go when it comes to human modification of our environment. No matter how much scientific research we can conduct, nature has billions of years of experiments and data over us. It's called natural selection. The genes that prove useful go on to reproduce, and the ones that fail are stamped out. Deforestation is a great example of how humans are over-reaching into too many areas. Through advancements in science, we have discovered that the ecosystem of any natural area is far to complex for us to accurately predict the impact of burning it all down to grow anew. And yet, we still try because of politics and economics.
ReplyDelete