Mike Beversluis

Monday, February 26, 2007

Billion tree campaign

I bring to the attention of the readers of this blog the "Billion tree campaign", promoted by the Nobel Prize for peace Wangari Maathai.

Every good thing has its own website, and there it is: http://www.unep.org/billiontreecampaign .

The North-East portion of the US, for what I have seen, is in any case pretty well set - there are trees everywhere: but you, blog-reader from Arizona ...

JTS

posted by JTS at Monday, February 26, 2007

8 Comments:

  • Arizona isn't as poorly set for trees as you might think. I've made several drives throught the state in the last 2 years, first driving my ex-wife's stuff down there in a moving van from Minnesota, then moving my daughter down to live with her and go to college in Phoenix. Approaching from New Mexico you pass through the Tonto National forest and the Green Mountain area, which is quite alpine.

    Another thing I've noticed in my many airplane trips across flyover land is that urban areas support more trees and greenery than the surrounding agricultural and undeveloped prairie. It's true in Phoenix as well. The valley of the sun, which otherwise would support cactus and scrub, is home to many more trees thanks to homeowners.

    By Blogger Unknown, at 27 February, 2007 23:14  

  • In fact generally speaking in Anglo-saxon countries the "billion tree campaign" is, using an italian expression, breaking through an open door - the passion and interest in trees is already deeply rooted in the culture of the UK, the US and so on. The problem for what regards tree culture are mediterranean countries, citing the only example that I know well; and according to what I read deforestation is proceeding quickly in Africa and South America.
    This would open the usual debate about whether things would fix themselves when an acceptable level of development is reached and they are unfixable till that point is reached. This is certainly something to be considered, but in the meantime I find the campaign worth supporting.

    By Blogger JTS, at 28 February, 2007 16:13  

  • The reforestation program is working in Niger. This was nice too:

    "Most of the trees are a kind of acacia that people in Niger call the gao tree. The trees are being grown mostly in densely populated areas. As the Times noted, this goes against the traditional thinking that population growth means a loss of trees and destruction of land."

    Apparently there is more forest-acreage in America now than there was in 1600.

    By Blogger Mike Beversluis, at 28 February, 2007 23:47  

  • I find it interesting when people living in affluent countries, such as the US, comment on the lack of environmental awareness of people living in third world situations. Often these farmers are just able to eke out a living off of one of the few resources available to them: trees.
    When panic sets in from comparably wealthy Americans about the deforestation of the Amazon, it makes me wonder why they are not more concerned about the poverty these farmers are facing, than a notably renewable resource.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 01 March, 2007 22:59  

  • Ok, step by step. I apologize in advance if I shall be a bit long.

    Mike - I do not know on Niger anything else than what the NY Times has published, and as far as I understood there is a key difference between the case of Kenya and the case of Niger. In Kenya reforestation proceeded mostly through the leadership of W. Maathai; this reforestation effort is what earned her the Nobel Prize for Peace (the reasons for which you can read at the Nobel Prize website). In the case of Niger at least from what I read in the NYT there was no leadership of a single person but the concerns and action arose more or less spontaneously.
    So we would have here two different models for action that both worked. I realize that the thing would deserve a better and more well informed analysis than what I have done, but this is all I can offer for the moment.

    Laura - I think you have a point but let me contradict you a bit on two issues. First of all I am not completely convinced that all people everywhere and in every moment act in their best interest. Let me make you an example which may be less controversial than others and that deals with a situation that I know a little bit, touristic development in Sardinia. There is in my island a strong push to cultivate the sector of tourism to the detriment of other sectors; the incentive is of course that you make more money that way. It is not clear at all to me that this is a good thing, and the debate at home rages.
    Coming back to our discussion on environment, I cite from the website of the Green Belt Movement the words of W. Maathai (http://greenbeltmovement.org/c.php?id=12) “In Kenya, few forests are left. The population is increasing and there is not enough land for everyone to grow crops. For the last 80 years or so we have been planting exotic species for the timber industry, often in indigenous forests. ... It is something I have been fighting to eliminate from indigenous forests. I have been trying to convince others in government and in the community that we need to stop cutting or cultivating crops in our indigenous forests. ... ”. The point is: she is Kenyan, she is smart, and she thinks that some people at her home are making mistakes.
    The second issue is, I fear that the forests are renewable resources only up to a certain point - if the ecosystem is too degraded, it takes a lot of time for it to regenerate itself.

    By Blogger John Travolta Sardus, at 01 March, 2007 23:56  

  • What human agency could cause an ecosystem to become "too degraded" to support trees, other than the land being used for crops and/or housing, or a lack of water due to agricultural and/or personal use ?

    Trees grow around Chernobyl, for instance.

    So, while I agree that humans should plant as many trees as the ecosystem can support, I don't think that they're more important than humans, and I don't see how human activity could so degrade the environment than no trees will grow.

    By Blogger Oroborous, at 02 March, 2007 04:01  

  • Well, desertification can be a problem.

    Wealthy Americans, and environmentalists everywhere, hate themselves and want to punish poorer people for their sins. Sometimes themselves too, if you count eating organic.

    By Blogger Mike Beversluis, at 02 March, 2007 22:34  

  • Following up on Oroborous' comment "I don't see how human activity could so degrade the environment than no trees will grow", it can happen easily in mediterranean areas, for example because of overgrazing. In Sardinia there are vast tracts of land covered by cistus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cistus) where other greenery used to be. One of the factors that make more or less difficult the reconstitution of a forest is the amount of rainfall. In mediterranean areas with long and dry summers and rainfall of the order of 700 mm/yr once that you have eliminated trees they will take centuries to regrow by themselves.

    The upshot of cistus is that it is so thick that in the humidity below many good mushrooms grow, such us Boletus corsicus, in Sardinian "Cardolinu e murdegu".

    By Blogger JTS, at 03 March, 2007 17:28  

Post a Comment

<< Home