Superbowl

There are some caveats to consider here. When is a tree not a tree? When it's not the right tree.

Old growth diverse forest is not the same as a monoculture tree farm. Let's look at both sides of this claim.

From NELMA%20of%20forest%20products.) (Northeastern Lumber Manufacturers Assoc)

Let’s back up for a minute. Prior to the arrival of European-Americans, about half of what is now known as the continental United States consisted of forest. From about 1620 to the dawn of the 20th century, millions of acres of forests were cleared to cultivate land and build structures. But initiatives to preserve forests, including reverting abandoned farm lands and developing sustainable forestry standards, have made a big impact.

We now have roughly two-thirds the amount of trees we had in the year 1600, and most of those gains have been concentrated along the Eastern coast, where the majority of the losses occurred in the first place. In fact, average wood-per-acre volumes have almost doubled since the 1950s. The United States has more trees today than we had 100 years ago (and a global study even found that the number of trees on Earth is around 3.04 trillion, a much higher number than previously believed.)

The United States is the world’s largest consumer (and second largest producer, after Canada) of forest products. While wood was once harvested mostly from federal lands, a shift to private lands has helped preserve vast areas of forest for public benefit while also encouraging landowners to keep forests intact. Responsible logging practices ensure that forests managed for the production of wood products contribute to healthy ecosystems while maintaining a steady supply.

So we have acknowledgment we've cleared a tooooon of our trees. The eastern US does have a bunch of trees today though, but as stated, these are new trees. Biodiversity is not specified here, so we'll ignore that right now. They also state demand for timber and wood products is higher than ever. But we're close to replacing what we take. One tree in exchange for one tree, so we're cool, right?

From The World Economic Forum

Scientists at the University of Maryland analysed satellite pictures showing how the use of land on Planet Earth has altered over a 35-year period. The study, published in Nature journal, is the largest of its kind ever conducted.

The research suggests an area covering 2.24 million square kilometers - roughly the combined land surface of Texas and Alaska, two sizeable US states - has been added to global tree cover since 1982. This equates to 7% of the Earth’s surface covered by new trees.

But what may sound like good news for the planet actually represents mixed news for the environment.

skipping some stuff

However, an important distinction needs to be made between tree cover and forest cover.

The study points out that industrial timber plantations, mature oil palm estates and other specifically planted forests add to global tree cover. On paper these areas compensate for the primary forest that has been cut down; 100-hectare loss of primary forest is perfectly offset by a 100-hectare gain on a man-made plantation, for example.

But while they may be equal in area, they are not equal in biodiversity. Primary tropical forests and savannas harbour a wealth of flora and fauna which is lost when these areas are cleared.

And man-made forests do not compensate for the damage and degradation done to ecosystems through land clearance.

skipping stuff

So while trees are being replaced, there is damage to more of the environment than just to the trees. Every plant or animal that needed those trees to survive many no longer be able to return.

The trees may not be of the same species that was removed. They may be trees not native to that area and not suited to support local wildlife. They may not even have been replanted on the same continent.

Young trees cant support cavity nesters like owls, and dont harbor the insect life without cracked and weathered bark, and birds like woodpeckers that would eat those insects are out of luck.

Even a planted biodiverse forest takes 100-200 years to become old growth forest. And replacing a rainforest or old growth forest with pine trees grown specifically to quickly harvest new timber is nowhere near an equivalent exchange.