Didn’t read, but let me guess. We’re gaining more trees in countries like China where large scale project to prevent desertification exist or in places like Russia or Canada where warming climate is opening more space where trees can grow. All the while tropical countries like Brazil, Indonesia and Malaysia are losing tropical forest covers in ecological hotspots because of soybean or palm oil cultivation.
Tbh headlines like these do more damage to the climate change and ecological preservation conversation because they can be used to intentionally mislead what’s happening in the world.
If you cut a bunch of crappy pines and borderline brush (beyond whatever trivial exemption they give you) the environmental authorities will be on your case same as if you cut down a 120yo hardwood forest.
Climate change is a lot of different things. For the statement that the count matters and a "tree is a tree",
Carbon sequestration? A giant redwood stores more carbon than a fir.
Healthy ecosystems? Different trees fit into different roles in a healthy forest.
The loss of biodiversity? Once a forest dies, a new forest somewhere else doesn't bring back the lost biodiversity.
In theory, Carbon sequestration is the closest to "a tree is a tree", you can plant large amounts of fast growing trees can capture more carbon over time, but that's specifying the later tree, which then matters.
Not on a per tree basis. Young forests sequester more carbon per year because you aren’t losing old trees. IE a 50k year old forest is very close to carbon neutral.
But when you cut down an old forest and convert it into a young one the old forests root mass rots thus releasing a great deal of stored carbon.
that's just about the turnover period for fast-growing pine clearcuts
Didn’t read, but let me guess. We’re gaining more trees in countries like China where large scale project to prevent desertification exist or in places like Russia or Canada where warming climate is opening more space where trees can grow. All the while tropical countries like Brazil, Indonesia and Malaysia are losing tropical forest covers in ecological hotspots because of soybean or palm oil cultivation.
Tbh headlines like these do more damage to the climate change and ecological preservation conversation because they can be used to intentionally mislead what’s happening in the world.
The planet is actually greening due to warmer temperatures and more co2.
Trees are trees.
That is not true in any but the most literal sense.
If you cut a bunch of crappy pines and borderline brush (beyond whatever trivial exemption they give you) the environmental authorities will be on your case same as if you cut down a 120yo hardwood forest.
Is it true in the sense relevant to climate change?
Climate change is a lot of different things. For the statement that the count matters and a "tree is a tree",
Carbon sequestration? A giant redwood stores more carbon than a fir.
Healthy ecosystems? Different trees fit into different roles in a healthy forest.
The loss of biodiversity? Once a forest dies, a new forest somewhere else doesn't bring back the lost biodiversity.
In theory, Carbon sequestration is the closest to "a tree is a tree", you can plant large amounts of fast growing trees can capture more carbon over time, but that's specifying the later tree, which then matters.
Why did you mention ecosystems and biodiversity? Is the idea that those store more carbon, too, or was it just gratuitous?
No, a 3 foot tall sapling and a 300+ foot tall monster are both one tree but have very different impacts on the climate.
Fast growth commercial forests have high density because the individual trees are relatively small with a vastly smaller amount of root mass.
If I remember correctly, the youngest trees convert the most co2 (makes sense, they grow the fastest).
Not on a per tree basis. Young forests sequester more carbon per year because you aren’t losing old trees. IE a 50k year old forest is very close to carbon neutral.
But when you cut down an old forest and convert it into a young one the old forests root mass rots thus releasing a great deal of stored carbon.
Blog post 2018, data ending 2016
https://globalnaturewatch.org/blog/data-and-tools/new-gfw-tr... (2024) looks like the regional pattern is correct but the sign is wrong with higher-granularity data. 2024 is pretty bad for Amazon fires but last couple years have been better.