The planet now has more trees than it did 35 years ago (2018)

bbookofjoe about 5 hours ago 36 commentsRead Article on psmag.com

ZH version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

75% Positive

Analyzed from 945 words in the discussion.

Discussion (36 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

makeitdouble•about 2 hours ago

I think most people reading a headline about tree count would care primarily about deforestation and loss of habitat of indigenous species.

This article isn't about that, and explicitely states it doesn't touch deforestation per se, just sheer tree count, including production targeted tree farms.

TFA:

> While the classification may seem simplistic, powerful conclusions can be drawn from the data, including assessing agricultural expansion, climate-driven expansion and contraction of ecosystems, and forest clearing and recovery.

bluGill•about 2 hours ago

There are certainly more trees where I lived than there were a hundred years ago, but there are also more trees than there would have been a thousand years ago. I live in an area that should be natural prairie and humans have planted a lot more trees than the ecosystem would support in a natural situation.

I don't know if this is good or bad from an environment situation, but it is a part of a reason I am suspicious of claims that more trees are good.

mc32•about 1 hour ago

With efforts some desert areas get reclaimed with trees. Sure, ic nature took its course the deserts would grow, but there are efforts to push them back and some have had success. I think that’s positive despite going against the natural course of things.

stvltvs•27 minutes ago

Tell that to the desert-dwelling species that rely on that habitat for survival. Deserts aren't empty wastelands that are valueless without human development.

mc32•20 minutes ago

It’s not taking back historical desserts but rather reclaiming more recent desertification or simply stopping the advance of desertification.

smallerize•about 2 hours ago

"Deforestation and degradation rates remained stubbornly high in 2024, pushing the world even further off track from the shared goal of halting and reversing forest loss by 2030." https://forestdeclaration.org/resources/forest-declaration-a...

bmitc•about 2 hours ago

Trees alone aren't enough. For example, ecosystems like the Amazon rainforest are highly balanced ecosystems that are in a perpetual recursive loop. You can't tear them down and then rebuild them by just planting trees. The rainfall the Amazon gets is itself generated by the canopied rainforest. And you can't bring back all the diversity of life that gets lost.

And this goes for any other ecosystem.

And the staggering statistic is that only 30% of the Earth is covered by forest now, a drop from 60% prior to humans going nuts.

Here's also an article that provides some counter arguments to the original paper: https://www.weforum.org/stories/nature-and-biodiversity/plan....

ColdStream•8 minutes ago

Exactly. I have seen some estimates that if you tear down a forest and then let it re-grow it is estimated to be upwards of 300 years until it starts to resemble the kind of diversity that was originally present.

Tree counts or green coverage is an awfully reductionist statistic. It can use a truthful statistic to imply something that isn't as clean cut as presented.

blondie9x•23 minutes ago

Wait this post was made about 10 years ago why is it being posted now?

hunterpayne•about 2 hours ago

We also use far less farmland than we did in the past, mostly due to the "green revolution" in the 1970s.

bmitc•about 2 hours ago

That's isn't true globally. For example, see here: https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2024/september/global-c...

> Agricultural land area expanded 7.6 percent between 1961 and 2020 and currently occupies 32 percent of the world’s land area. Irrigated area more than doubled.

ruined•about 4 hours ago

that's just about the turnover period for fast-growing pine clearcuts

sebastianconcpt•about 3 hours ago

Awesome. And remember CO2 is food for plants.

blondie9x•22 minutes ago

Not without steady water. Photosynthesis has 3 inputs. Sunlight energy, CO2, and water. Easy to forget the water but that is the most variable and volatile.

l1n•about 4 hours ago

Blog post 2018, data ending 2016

l1n•about 4 hours ago

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.

Razengan•about 3 hours ago

Trees are awesome. Wood is probably the rarest material in the known universe :)

red369•39 minutes ago

Agree trees are awesome!

Wood the rarest material? Pfft! I know you're joking, but I'm glad you raised that things that are common on Earth can actually be rare in the universe, and vice-versa. I forget that unless reminded. There must be zillions of times more gold than bronze in the universe.

I tried to think of the rarest thing in the universe, but decided it's probably whatever short-lived element was created recently that hasn't decayed yet. How many people in the world know whether there's any Mendelevium in existence today? There are plenty of gold and silver price-tracking websites. Is there one for Mendelevium? Commodities futures?

Thinking instead of the rarest naturally occurring material would just depend on how specific you wanted to get. Do Oak Apples just count as wood? How about Saint Helena Olive seeds?

darth_avocado•about 4 hours ago

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.

wasabi991011•about 3 hours ago

> Didn’t read, but let me guess

Why should we let you guess?

What do any of us gain by reading the opinion of someone who admits to being ignorant and who isn't willing to change that by reading TFA?

darth_avocado•about 3 hours ago

I read the article after commenting. What opinion do I need to change? Seems like I was correct?

goalieca•about 4 hours ago

The planet is actually greening due to warmer temperatures and more co2.

concrete_head•about 3 hours ago

Commenters who don't read the article do more harm than good.

protocolture•about 2 hours ago

>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 graphs show this pretty clearly.

But despite your misgivings the number of new trees growing 3 times faster than trees lost seems pretty good?

Like tropical countries have local issues for sure.

Honestly I prefer these bad headlines compared to "Lung of world gone we are dead in 15 minutes" sensationalism we usually get, and the data is good too.

deadbabe•about 4 hours ago

Trees are trees.

thfuran•about 4 hours ago

That is not true in any but the most literal sense.

card_zero•about 4 hours ago

Is it true in the sense relevant to climate change?

cucumber3732842•about 3 hours ago

If you cut a bunch of crappy pines and borderline brush (beyond whatever trivial square foot exemption they give you) the environmental authorities will be on your case same as if you cut down a 120yo hardwood forest.

Can't have your cake and eat it too. Either they're all the same or they're not.

mmooss•about 3 hours ago

IIRC, there is no actual 'tree' biologically - there is no taxonomic group of 'trees'. It's a colloquial word for 'tall woody plant' or something like that.