(US) Climate plan calls for forest expansion

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/environment/2009-08-19-forest_N.htm

Climate plan calls for forest expansion

By Traci Watson, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — New forests would spread across the American landscape, replacing both pasture and farm fields, under a congressional plan to confront climate change, an Environmental Protection Agency analysis shows.

About 18 million acres of new trees — roughly the size of West Virginia — would be planted by 2020, according to an EPA analysis of a climate bill passed by the House of Representatives in June.

That's because the House bill gives financial incentives to farmers and ranchers to plant trees, which suck in large amounts of the key global-warming gas: carbon dioxide.

The forestation effort would be even larger than one carried out by the Civilian Conservation Corps during the Great Depression, says the U.S. Forest Service's Ralph Alig. The CCC, which lasted from 1933 to 1942, planted 3 billion trees, says the Civilian Conservation Corps Legacy, an alumni group for workers and family members.

…

[Fotoware58]

1. By 2020...

another 100 million acres of forests will have been vaporized, sending over 1 BILLION TONS OF GHG'S into our atmosphere. How many food-producing acres will be planted with more lucrative trees?

[OKIsItJustMe]

2. I suppose you're right

It's much better to do nothing at all, than to make a tremendous, but insufficient effort.

[Fotoware58]

3. Hmmmm

Shouldn't the re-planting of the southern cotton fields have staved off global warming already??

Preservationists have already decided to do nothing at all about deforestation, thumbing their noses at the Precautionary Principle, while allowing bark beetles and catastrophic fire to run rampant, and calling it "natural".

[OKIsItJustMe]

4. Allow me to take a different tack

What course of action would you advocate?

[Fotoware58]

5. MY take??

Well, it obviously doesn't matter what I would advocate because no one trusts a retired timber beast/true environmentalist. I've already stated that eco-forestry is the solution but.... Yep, my thoughts are tainted even before they come out of my mouth. Hardcore eco's have already promised lawsuits and resistance against any proposed "restoration" efforts. The law has already been passed, but not funded. It's "interesting" how the Democratic Secretary of Agriculture gives a groundbreaking speech and no one cares for his style of "restoration", even when he hasn't yet defined it. The only way to bypass lawsuits is to not cut trees. The only way to restore forests is to cut trees. The only way to make eco-groups happy is to do nothing and let fires burn. Hey, eco's don't even want to talk about it. Vilsack is already an enemy with extremists and the rest of the public will resist whatever he says.

The last option, that eco's WILL embrace, is massive "re-wilding" by catastrophic wildfire. If there's no merchantable timber, foresters will leave the National Forests alone. THAT is the goal!

[OKIsItJustMe]

6. So, as much as it may matter what I think…

If I'm following you, you want to manage existing forests, by cutting trees where and when it is appropriate.

Do you oppose planting new forests? (My guess is no.)

Do you advocate clear cutting existing forests? (My guess is no.)

[Fotoware58]

7. Ad Nauseum

"If I'm following you, you want to manage existing forests, by cutting trees where and when it is appropriate."

Whatever technique it takes to restore a given forest. It takes a keen eye and vast experience to be specific about what a forest needs. Many forests are radically overstocked and removing trees is the first step to "restoration". If there are too many trees for the amount of annual rainfall, the entire forest will be unhealthy.


"Do you oppose planting new forests? (My guess is no.)"

If we can't restore and manage existing forests, why do we need MORE new forests?


"Do you advocate clear cutting existing forests? (My guess is no.)"

Why does this issue always keep coming up?!? No one in the Forest Service is advocating that! The last clearcut I helped to install was way back in 1989, and that was an entire hillside of bug-infested trees!



The goal of extremists is to create forests that are the most unnatural of all. Forests with no humans living in them.

[OKIsItJustMe]

8. I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth (or the forest service's)

I was just trying to find out what it is about your views which is supposedly so repugnant.

Assuming that we were managing our current forests in a way which you viewed as appropriate (which, I realize, we are not) would you oppose planting additional forest land?

[Fotoware58]

9. Thanks for listening, OK

However, the rest of the people here would MUCH rather label me as a troll, bury their heads in the sand and embrace dead forests, rather than discuss the issues. Since they cannot back up their feelings with science, they choose to do nothing in the face of a disaster MUCH bigger than Katrina.

There is a group of environmentalists who would rather we DIDN'T plant trees in dead forests. Some burned forests can no longer support their previous forests, due to the intensity of today's wildfires and their effects upon soil structure and chemistry. I guess we will have to reap what we're sowing (or not sowing).

I guess the Precautionary Principle has an escape clause.