How about forests

[Happy_Guy]

Simple thougth.

I fly a lot and often I look out of the window of the aircraft and when visibility allows I am amazed by the lack of forrest in Europe. We do have trees, but I know that hundereds of years ago, Europe was covered completely by trees. At present we have almost no forests. It is indeed a sad sight.

Yet we bully the people in the 'tropical rain forests part of the world'.

The attitude.

We should be ashamed of ourselves in Europe I think.

 

[Rob1000100]

You have it all wrong Happy_Guy, we need our land, we need it clear of trees. We need the land for shopping centres, roads, buildings. The lamers in the rain forests only need it to live.

On another note, most of the bullying is directed towards the logging companies and not to the people who use/manage the land

Most of the European forests were cleared back in the bronze age, then almost completely cleared in the Dark Ages, they were replanted again (or allowed to grow) mainly for Naval use. Most of the forests that are around today are the old Royal Forests. (at least in England anyway)

 

[Mushroomhead]

Yeah though its only america thats destroying the rainforests, well primarily anyway.
Global warming would be reduced if we had larger amounts of forestry.

 

[Bossk]

Around 46% of Austria country is covered by forest and every year there are 2000 hectar more forest. And Austria is only third behind finnland and sweden, so I believe not all europian countries have these problems.
Imo it's something different for developing countries, since many of them depend on their natural resources for export.

 

[Happy_Guy]

Around 46% of Austria country is covered by forest and every year there are 2000 hectar more forest. And Austria is only third behind finnland and sweden, so I believe not all europian countries have these problems.
Imo it's something different for developing countries, since many of them depend on their natural resources for export.

In the UK they plant a lot of forrest as well each year, but mainly along the motorways and stuff. Looks like a lot of forrest but it ain't (lookiing from above). Better some than nothing Like in NL (my home country)

We need and can support way more forrests in the EU. Carbon-dioxide is one of the main green house gasses. Need to knock them down. I know the oceans and the plant life in there are actully absorbing most, but there is too much polution there now Oh well what do I know.

I just notice it every time I fly, not enough trees in Europe (US is horrible as well)

 

[Bossk]

Additionally, another problem occuring mostly in southern europe are forest burnings. Even worse most of the burned down areas won't recover but instead used as space for new buildings.

 

[Cassius]

Yeah, as in many countries, but i'm glad in Norway that we still plant twice as much trees than we pull down

 

[Mushroomhead]

I know the oceans and the plant life in there are actully absorbing mos

even the oceans can't sustain infinite amounts as scientists once thought, some parts of the worlds oceans are starting to suffer, including the barrier reef.

 

[Dark]

I've already suggested the solution to the world's problems and in particular, global warming. Replace America with solid forrest (forget about the stuff in the middle where nothing grows, just cover that with Solar panels). Not only would you eliminate the single largest source of pollution, greenhouse gasses, deforistation and enviromental asshattery, you would also create a giant Carbon absorbtion sink. The thought of how boned we are in 50 years if nobody does anything is worrying, great time to have the biggest moron ever in charge of the country most responsible for enviromental decay. Having said that, China also need reigning in, they are starting to catch America. Fortunatley, controlling China is easier, they are so dependant on export markets for their goods, we can trade sanction their economy to it's knees if we have to.

 

[masterrr]

rising population and a rising need for bigger houses requires more space...

 

[Cutter]

Fortunatley, controlling China is easier, they are so dependant on export markets for their goods, we can trade sanction their economy to it's knees if we have to.

Mmm, love to see that happen in practice, but I doubt it would. Where would the western nations get all the cheap goods to fill their shops for consumders to buy? And for all people's clamouring about how dirty and polluting the Americans are, I don't see anyone boycotting their goods?

Its like cars- everyone knows they cause thousands of fatal accidents every year, pollute the environment etc, and yes, it would be great if there were less cars, but when push comes to shove, how many people actualy get rid of their cars?

Isn't it similarly amazing how the government is now seriously considering building more nuclear power stations, and how 10 years ago, you'd have been called mad to suggest this might be done?

Basically, people have realised that they like light and heat a lot, and if the choice is between (1) ever more expensive fossil fuel powering the power stations and creating ever more pollution and the lights going out, (2) switching to wind/wave/solar which will generate nowhere near as much energy as we are used to consuming, and the lights going out or (3) nuclear (fission) being adopted (until nuclear fusion becomes properly viable), then is it any wonder people are going for (3) ?