Global Deforestation Demoed In Google Earth 207
eldavojohn writes "On Google's official blog, they claim a 'new technology prototype that enables online, global-scale observation and measurement of changes in the earth's forests.' Ars has more details on what Google unveiled at Copenhagen. If you have Google Earth installed, you can find a demonstration here. Many organizations and government agencies are on board with this initiative to put deforestation before the eyes of the public. If only satellite data of North America existed before the logging industry swept in!" It's interesting to contemplate the implications for intelligence gathering of Google's automated tools to compare satellite photos.
Oregon (Score:5, Interesting)
We have more trees here in Oregon now than were here 100 years ago or even 200 years ago. (Unlike nature, we don't let forest fires burn them down.)
We plant them all over the place and take care of them. Every time we cut one tree down, we plant 3 to 10 more of them.
We really are not deforested to the west of the Mississippi. Now east of the Mississippi is a different story. But no one is talking about deforestation on the east coast. They only talk about it out west where we have plenty of trees to go around.
School kids went out 30 years ago on filed trips here in Oregon to plant trees. Why? As a reminder that most of the income in this state came from logging, and that timber was a renewable resource. If we plant trees today, then in 20 years when you are old enough to work a timber job, there will be plenty of trees to cut down.
I live in a county that has been devastated by the loss of 80% of the logging industry. We have as many trees now as we had 30 years ago. The only difference is we have 15% unemployment and we can't cut and replant trees to actually make a living.
Earth first -- we will log the rest of the planets later
You might not be as right as you think (Score:4, Interesting)
Depending on your timeframe.
Forests covered about half the land before settlement, now about a third.
But the amount of forests have been going up in the last decade. One reason is because most of the forests belong to the evil logging industry, and they have an economic incentive to expand forestation if they want to expand their businesses. Today we have about as much forest as we did 100 years ago.
The advent of the automobile and other forms of transport, plus better farming techniques, also helped spread the forests, since we don't need so much land dedicated to feeding us and our livestock.
Re:Trees (Score:5, Interesting)
8 Trees per acres sounds about right for centuries old trees in pristine forest.
I have a quarter acre with 5, 30-40 year old maples on it, we also have 2 Japanese Cedars and a Cherry tree.
200 trees in an acre would be pretty closely spaced young trees, maybe like an orchard or nursery.
Now what we should be looking at is not how many trees we have per acre, but how many of those are young AND carbon absorbing trees, compared to carbon producing trees from decomposition. Forests have a carbon life cycle, and their balance shifts during that cycle, also some species of tree are better absrbers than others.
Re:Oregon (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, it helps that Oregon has rain 60% of the time throughout the year. In California the state has to do controlled burning to limit the damage a wildfire might cause. Plus Oregon's heavy rain system makes it easier to grow plants there; the only other place I've seen that has the same capacity have been the Hawaiian islands. Those benefit from frequent rains and fertility from volcanic soil. But, overall you make a good point. Planting more trees than you cut down leads to a more sustainable and pretty environment.
Re:Trees (Score:5, Interesting)
It's important to note that the North American forests were not "pristine" when the white folks showed up. The people who had lived there for a few thousand years had practiced some fairly sophisticated forest management. For instance, they would regularly clear undergrowth to make it easier to travel and hunt, and put significant effort into managing herd sizes. They also cleared some spaces for agriculture, which the Pilgrims in particular took advantage of when they went to set up their own colony.
There's more to the story (Score:3, Interesting)
Just as long as people keep in mind that satellite photos don't always tell the whole story. A team of Canadian scientists went north recently in an ice breaker. Satellite imagery indicted that the pack ice had expanded rather than contracted, which was totally at odds with Global Warming models.
What they found when they actually got to the location where the satellites indicated the pack ice started, it wasn't there. It had retreated more than a hundred miles beyond where it was thought to be. The satellite cameras had been looking at a slurry of rotted ice fragments that were so broken up the ship just blasted through them at full speed without even noticing it.
Basically, the reality on the ground was very different from what appeared to be happening on cameras located a few miles overhead.
Re:Stop using trees for paper - use hemp! (Score:3, Interesting)
Seriously, we want to slow down deforestation? Stop using trees for paper products. The US needs to get over their high and mighty "We can't use hemp because its taboo" crap.
I was going to reply with a highly sarcastic rebuttal, but closer inspection shows that you may be right.
Wikipedia reckons hemp grows at 'up to' 25 tonnes/hectare/year of dry above ground matter. This [greenwoodresources.com] gives 'up to' 13 tonnes/hectare/year for fancy 'high yield' hybrid poplar, intended for papermaking.
There is a huge amount of wiggle room with those figures, 'up to' is often meaningless (I'm going to give you 'up to' 100 billion dollars) and both sources are doubtless from organisations trying to promote their different 'crops'. Also theres the problem of how much actual paper you get from a tonne of almost-unspecified plant material respectively for each crop, and the required fertiliser and labour inputs etc etc.
I would also wich to point out that despite my name on here I'm usually very skeptical of "HEMP: The Wonder Plant!" type suggestions (even though I do approve of one particular use of certain varieties, at least).
Re:You might not be as right as you think (Score:3, Interesting)
They're going to apply GM methodologies to trees just like food, because it is very profitable.
The paper and lumber industry wants fast growing trees of uniform dimension, with blemishes from blight or sickness. GM methodologies deliver that. The trees become much easier to factory harvest. The trees all reach maturity at the same time. The mill gets set up to chop up everything to the same dimensions. The experts that determine how a particular log will be cut to get the most value from it are no longer needed.
There is just to much money left on the table when trying to log old growth forest.