6 ms·

Forest cover has been increasing in most first world countries since 1970 https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.FRST.ZS?end=2020&locations=EU&start=1990 h

Forest cover has been increasing in most first world countries since 1970 https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.FRST.ZS?end=2020&locations=EU&start=1990 https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.FRST.ZS?end=2020... https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.FRST.ZS?locations=XU https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.FRST.ZS?location... edit: also https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/forest-transition-phase?country=~BOL https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/forest-transition-phase?c...

tluyben2 4y ago
Great, still everything here (most of eu), which was a thick forest, is now a desert or has a bunch of little trees. How to interpret that?
- david-gpu 4y ago
  > (most of eu), which was a thick forest, is now a desert According to the world Bank [0], that is not what is happening. Do you have a better source? [0] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.FRST.ZS?locations=EU&name_desc=true https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.FRST.ZS?location...
  - 11235813213455 4y ago
    yes the data is right, forests are maintained in Europe, but we would need even more vegetation to cope with the pollution, that's more the idea there
anemoiac 4y ago
That's not a bad trend, but such data has to be interpreted carefully. Throughout much of the (so-called) developed world, the past several hundred years of growth have seen large amounts of old-growth forests cleared. Replacing those forests, ecologically speaking, will take many human lifespans, and filling the void they once occupied (as well as land that was traditionally not forested and therefore provided different ecosystem services) with human-planned monoculture will do little more than inflate oversimplistic statistics that provide cover for those seeking to avoid taking responsibility for the health of the natural environment. To be clear, I'm not questioning your intentions, just pointing out that the data you cite isn't (necessarily) as encouraging as a superficial examination might suggest. I'm not an ecologist, but I'd imagine that measuring biodiversity levels, soil health, cleanliness of air + water, etc. would paint a better picture of environmental health than forest cover.
- mrjangles 4y ago
  I'm not religious so I don't feel old growth forest have any sort of spiritual value.
  - tluyben2 4y ago
    They don’t have to have spiritual value; they also look much better. What they planted instead is pretty horrible.
  - anemoiac 4y ago
    The value of old-growth forests (at least in the secular world) is ecological, not spiritual.

tluyben2 4y ago

Great, still everything here (most of eu), which was a thick forest, is now a desert or has a bunch of little trees. How to interpret that?

david-gpu 4y ago
> (most of eu), which was a thick forest, is now a desert According to the world Bank [0], that is not what is happening. Do you have a better source? [0] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.FRST.ZS?locations=EU&name_desc=true https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.FRST.ZS?location...
- 11235813213455 4y ago
  yes the data is right, forests are maintained in Europe, but we would need even more vegetation to cope with the pollution, that's more the idea there

anemoiac 4y ago

That's not a bad trend, but such data has to be interpreted carefully. Throughout much of the (so-called) developed world, the past several hundred years of growth have seen large amounts of old-growth forests cleared. Replacing those forests, ecologically speaking, will take many human lifespans, and filling the void they once occupied (as well as land that was traditionally not forested and therefore provided different ecosystem services) with human-planned monoculture will do little more than inflate oversimplistic statistics that provide cover for those seeking to avoid taking responsibility for the health of the natural environment. To be clear, I'm not questioning your intentions, just pointing out that the data you cite isn't (necessarily) as encouraging as a superficial examination might suggest. I'm not an ecologist, but I'd imagine that measuring biodiversity levels, soil health, cleanliness of air + water, etc. would paint a better picture of environmental health than forest cover.

mrjangles 4y ago
I'm not religious so I don't feel old growth forest have any sort of spiritual value.
- tluyben2 4y ago
  They don’t have to have spiritual value; they also look much better. What they planted instead is pretty horrible.
- anemoiac 4y ago
  The value of old-growth forests (at least in the secular world) is ecological, not spiritual.