| Find, explore and network a cause. |
|
Go  |
New |
Find |
Notify |
|
Reply |
|
Admin |
New PM! |
Registered: November 29, 2003
Posts: 1891
|
Trees provide oxygen for our breathing. Trees secure the earth to prevent landslides. Trees provide shade. Trees are food for many animals. Trees are also beautiful. That's my hippie statement for the day. Bushism of the day: "It seemed like to me they based some of their decisions on the word of — and the allegations — by people who were held in detention, people who hate America, people that had been trained in some instances to disassemble — that means not tell the truth." —George W. Bush, on an Amnesty International report on prisoner abuse at Guantanamo Bay, Washington, D.C., May 31, 2005
"If there was hope, it must lie in the proles, because only there, in those swarming disregarded masses, eighty-five percent of the population of Oceania, could the force to destroy the Party ever be generated," p.60, "1984," by George Orwell
|
Registered: June 04, 2004
Posts: 3535
|
its not bad, so long as you dont do it in excess. sure whole forests cut down look bad, but if you replant then you are sing your resources wisely. some of comes along the guidlines of overpopulation. if trees become too thick, it is a hotbead waiting for a forest fire and then what happens. all the trees we cold have used for energy are gone. all a waste.
Honorable Senate Majority Leader (R-WI) "Liberals have gone stark-raving mad, yes,"- Euterpe
|
Registered: June 21, 2005
Posts: 202
|
First of all, seeing treeless neighborhoods makes me sick b/c it looks ugly. I am very fortunate to live in a neighborhood with tons of trees. Second of all, when they plant them again they plant little scrawny trees. It;s like wow, thanks for the stick...
|
Registered: March 29, 2003
Posts: 2612
|
well need to know what green is all about a few years from now when clean air will become a rare happening i guess
Dont let ur studies interfere with ur education!!!!!
|
Registered: June 09, 2005
Posts: 4
|
quote: Originally posted by Scottie: quote: Might I reiterate that without trees, most living things on Earth would die off because of the lack of oxygen!?
Oxygen comes mostly from the ocean. I think plankton or kelp, but the ocean nonetheless. Also, if we lost all plants, we would die within two years and still have oxygen left. The oxygen would be there, but the plants would not. If there is no plants, there is no food. No plants means no animals within a few weeks, a month at most. Canned food lasts about a year before it spoils and no irradiation plants exist large enough to cover the demand for reliable food storage (irradiation kills bacteria effectively enough to be a good long-term method of storage). I got the bit about us dying before the O2 ran out from my Biology teacher (he makes class interesting by saying stuff that I never think of), and the rest from memory. The idea is (I think, didn't write this part down) that at the current rate we use oxygen we will run out after a hundred or so years (or a few hundred years or so) assuming that we have food and no way to convert CO2 to O2.
|
Registered: May 22, 2005
Posts: 114
|
quote: Why is it bad to cut down trees. I see nothing wrong with it we will plant them again. All the liberals thes days not wanting to cut trees down makes me sick. I would just like to know what is wrong with it. We use them every day. If you are an Environmentist think again becasue you use trees every day. you arethe ones hurting nature becasue you use the most of it.
3 Good Reasons: 1)Oxygen - As has been brought up plants do supply us with an easy way to recycle gases. And yes, most of the oxygen is comming from phytoplankton and kelps, but that's not to say that the contribution from forests is not substantial. 2)Soil Erosion - More important in my mind is the soil erosion that takes place when trees and other plants are suddenly removed from an area. While some parts of the US may have regulations on how much can be removed and then how much vegitation we put back, in other countries slash and burn land clearing has lead to massive soil erosion and desertification. What does this mean? Land slides are one reprocussion that stike humans and then, of course the fact that it strips the soil of nutrients meaning that the land cannot be used for plants (forest or farms) in the future. 3)Loss of Habitat (rare species) - I'm sure you know about this which is why it's so alarming that you're not bothered by it. Forests can be home to rare species of flora and fauna. There have been found many cures for diseases amoungst these flora. And of course endangered fauna is nothing to go shooting at... it upsets the balance which eventually affects humans. If thats not enough there's always the aesthetic value. I don't feel like living on a mass of barren desert... the dust bowl was no fun.
-Kim
|
Registered: May 17, 2005
Posts: 1
|
|
Registered: April 29, 2005
Posts: 4
|
These days, people have gone crazy with paper and cutting down trees. It may seem like there are so many trees in the world that we could never run out, but how false that is. At the rate the world is going, in the next hundred years or so, the world will become extremely low on trees.
Every tree is a home to lots of organisms; birds, bugs, squirrels, parasites, moss, etc. So, cutting down a tree is like cutting down someone’s home. Even though, it may seem that there are lots of trees and that if you cut one down that animals and plants can just go to another tree. But it is not really that simple. It takes years to redo what cutting down a dozen trees can do to nature. First, it will scare all that animals away for a couple of days, because of the loud saws and/or the big, loud machines and/or trucks. Then the organisms have to rebuild their home and/or find a new place to stay. Cutting down trees may even kill the creatures!
The trees roots keep the soil in place, preventing erosion. Erosion can lead to destruction of natural habitats of animals. Trees help slow down the run-off by holding or absorbing water and, they reduce damage caused by flooding.
The time it takes for a tree to be full grown is about 20 years, while cutting down a tree takes about an hour or two. So, in about 20 years you could cut down about 1,000 times more trees that the one took to grow. The only time the cutting down trees can be OK, is when you grow them on a farm so you will plant trees in replacement of others you cut down or if you really really need them for paper uses. But most of the time, when we cut down trees, we use the space that they filled with shopping malls, not replacing them.
Every human of the face of this earth needs oxygen to survive. Well, trees contribute to that oxygen supply so, cutting them down, is not just affecting the small organism’s homes; it is affecting your health. Another way trees affect you health is because they absorb pollutants we put in the air every day.
Concluding that humans should really think twice about cutting down a tree for fun, or for reasons that are not really important, they should consider the great damage they could do to their environment and their health.
|
Registered: April 29, 2005
Posts: 4
|
Trees don't really matter to me, i say "cut them all down!" I say!!!!!
God, go eat dirt tree huggers!!
|
Registered: April 03, 2005
Posts: 113
|
quote: Might I reiterate that without trees, most living things on Earth would die off because of the lack of oxygen!?
Oxygen comes mostly from the ocean. I think plankton or kelp, but the ocean nonetheless. Also, if we lost all plants, we would die within two years and still have oxygen left. The oxygen would be there, but the plants would not. If there is no plants, there is no food. No plants means no animals within a few weeks, a month at most. Canned food lasts about a year before it spoils and no irradiation plants exist large enough to cover the demand for reliable food storage (irradiation kills bacteria effectively enough to be a good long-term method of storage). I got the bit about us dying before the O2 ran out from my Biology teacher (he makes class interesting by saying stuff that I never think of), and the rest from memory. The idea is (I think, didn't write this part down) that at the current rate we use oxygen we will run out after a hundred or so years (or a few hundred years or so) assuming that we have food and no way to convert CO2 to O2.
Nose-On! Spray directly up your nose! (May cause blindness, hives, or immediate death. Do not take if...)
|
Registered: October 06, 2004
Posts: 3372
|
quote: Originally posted by layna_4111983: As long as some of the trees are replanted which is already being done I don't think it's that big of an issue. There are already certain regualations put in place to keep the environment healthy and coporations are actually trying to meet these guidelines. So don't be so negative about the whole issue. Senior with a major in wildlife ecology, 
holy gosh... quote: Originally posted by northstar316:
goleafs, you are talking to the wrong person about botany. Old and large trees make larger amounts of oxygen and resparate faster than smaller/younger trees (accept "adolecent" trees). Also, when you cut down a stand of old hard-wood forests and plant new ones, I doubt that you are going to put back all the kinds of trees, shrubs and other plats so that the bio-diversity of the region is restored. If you cut down trees in a large stand, it is better just to leave nature work it's course over hundreds of years, so that the woods will return to a more natural state. Furthermore, when a great blocker of sunlight (ie. trees) is destroye, different kinds of plants can grow. Now, faster growing flora will overtake such plants as hostas, ferns, oxalis, orchids, and other shade-loving plants and strangle them in brambles, thus destroying possibly precious populations of flaura. But when you cut down trees, not only other plants are killed, but animals. Forests support many different kinds of animals that are dependent on large stands of hard-woods to survive, and these populations are jepreodized when one cuts the forest. If you have forgotten, though, trees also hold soil, and erosion has caused many areas a lot of trouble, because of strip-mining in mountains, especially in Pennsilvania and West Virginia. But goleafs, do you want to cut down trees? You seen to want to destroy forests and biodiversity. Have you forgotten, that, after it is all said and done, a stand of stumps looks bad?
O of where dost thou hail, Celephanil, Celephanil? Why dost thou wander in Tengelwar great, why on the sea do you sail?
|
Registered: April 11, 2005
Posts: 3
|
As long as some of the trees are replanted which is already being done I don't think it's that big of an issue. There are already certain regualations put in place to keep the environment healthy and coporations are actually trying to meet these guidelines. So don't be so negative about the whole issue. Senior with a major in wildlife ecology,
Layna
|
Registered: September 18, 2004
Posts: 236
|
quote: Why not? A couple hundred acres is not that large of a pice of land.
I'm sure the animals that live in that space wouldn't agree...
It's ironic that the human race exerts such considerable effort to locate other habitable planets while being so hellbent on destroying the habitability of our own planet.
|
Registered: October 06, 2004
Posts: 3372
|
quote: Why not? A couple hundred acres is not that large of a pice of land.
I'd like to see you to replant 900 acres of woodland
O of where dost thou hail, Celephanil, Celephanil? Why dost thou wander in Tengelwar great, why on the sea do you sail?
|
Registered: January 12, 2005
Posts: 750
|
quote: We don't replant hundreds of acres of forests, you just can't.
Why not? A couple hundred acres is not that large of a pice of land. quote: People can't live without trees and deforestation is (as cliched as it sounds) destroying the ozone which raises the risk of skin cancer among other problems. There's nothing wrong with using recyclable paper when you can.
True however sustainable forestry is entirely posible and many companies do use sutainable forest harvesting.
Indecision may or may not be my problem
|
Registered: February 22, 2004
Posts: 13911
|
|
Registered: March 29, 2005
Posts: 2
|
quote: Originally posted by hunting23:
Because us hicks like tress for hunting resources so cuttind down da trees aint good for u so lets all go huntin I like big trees for cover so lets all smoke becas da deers like smoke for fire and trees are goopd cover so dont cut down my trees hey hey hey hey hey signed hicks r us hey hey
|
Registered: March 29, 2005
Posts: 2
|
Because us hicks like tress for hunting resources so cuttind down da trees aint good for u so lets all go huntin
|
Registered: September 06, 2003
Posts: 805
|
quote: I see nothing wrong with it we will plant them again.
We don't replant hundreds of acres of forests, you just can't. People can't live without trees and deforestation is (as cliched as it sounds) destroying the ozone which raises the risk of skin cancer among other problems. There's nothing wrong with using recyclable paper when you can.
"Fu*k me gently with a chainsaw" -Heather
|
Registered: March 05, 2005
Posts: 2
|
quote: Originally posted by northstar316:
goleafs, you are talking to the wrong person about botany. Old and large trees make larger amounts of oxygen and resparate faster than smaller/younger trees (accept "adolecent" trees). Also, when you cut down a stand of old hard-wood forests and plant new ones, I doubt that you are going to put back all the kinds of trees, shrubs and other plats so that the bio-diversity of the region is restored. If you cut down trees in a large stand, it is better just to leave nature work it's course over hundreds of years, so that the woods will return to a more natural state. Furthermore, when a great blocker of sunlight (ie. trees) is destroye, different kinds of plants can grow. Now, faster growing flora will overtake such plants as hostas, ferns, oxalis, orchids, and other shade-loving plants and strangle them in brambles, thus destroying possibly precious populations of flaura. But when you cut down trees, not only other plants are killed, but animals. Forests support many different kinds of animals that are dependent on large stands of hard-woods to survive, and these populations are jepreodized when one cuts the forest. If you have forgotten, though, trees also hold soil, and erosion has caused many areas a lot of trouble, because of strip-mining in mountains, especially in Pennsilvania and West Virginia. But goleafs, do you want to cut down trees? You seen to want to destroy forests and biodiversity. Have you forgotten, that, after it is all said and done, a stand of stumps looks bad?
Exactly. Great points were raised there.... But anyway goleafs.. Is there any particular reason that you seem to think trees are somewhat insignificant? Might I reiterate that without trees, most living things on Earth would die off because of the lack of oxygen!? Trees take in carbon dioxide and "exhale" if you will, oxygen. Without trees, most living creatures, yourself included, would be suffocating to death right now, if not already dead. In addition, in the rainforest, where a large percentage of logging occurs, there are species of animals found no where else on the planet, depending solely on this unique ecosystem to live. So if you go in there and chop down all the trees, you'll probably end up making many species extict or endangered. And if you are saying to yourself, "So what, it's just a bunch of animals," then you have severe moral issues. Also, in other places where logging occurs, there are large species of animals also depending on that ecosystem, making them have to leave their habitat once it has disappeared. And this easily pushes wild animals closer to cities as their habitat dwindles. That increases danger for both humans and animals because of the increased contact. So basically, we need trees, and logging threatens to destroy whatever hope many animals in the wild have left, as well as scarring the planet forever. So where in that do you find basis for an argument that trees are expendable? (Answer: THERE ISN'T ONE) |
|
