Monday, February 27, 2012

U.S. Urban Forests Losing Ground

February 27th, 2012
U.S. Urban Forests Losing Ground

Deforestation in Northern California
Link:http://www.inhabitat.com/wp-content/uploads/deforestation_housing3.jpg


Summary
Declining at a rate of about 4 million per year according to a study found by the U.S. Forest Service, forests are in rapid descension. 20 cities were analyzed in the study 17 of them declining in impervious cover. The greatest percentages of tree loss was founded in New Orleans, Houston and Albuquerque. Researchers believe New Orleans had a huge decline due to Hurricane Katrina in 2005. The U.S. Forest Service announced that with restoration of urban forests, benefits can reach up to three times as much money put in to the restoration. One main benefit is reduced heating and cooling costs. Still, with tree planting efforts starting to increase in cities, there is still tree loss, just not as much in some areas. Planting trees is just a start in a long process of urban forest restoration.

Opinion
From this article, I have learned a lot of things about the current deforestation issue occurring in a lot of cities in the U.S. I do think that we are far away from making a huge difference in saving trees. Although we are cutting down loss, we should try to get to the point where we don't lose any trees, at least in areas where we can. However, to do so, U.S. citizens need to join together and think of the rewards that can happen when we restore our urban forests. Heating and cooling costs are sometimes too much for some citizens, but if we make a drastic change in restoration, we can make a big difference in that aspect and many others.

Questions
1. Do you think that restoring forests drastically can be done?
2. How should the country face deforestation and what moves should we make?
3. Do you think deforestation is only an issue in certain  areas and should only be handled there?

4 comments:

  1. I think restoring forests would be a very long drawn out process and no one can stop a natural disaster, which could wipe out any effort citizens have put in to restoration. I think it's really a personal choice what you want to do for the forest, not something that the government should be able to make you do. I think that there is a possibility of deforestation almost anywhere, but there are places more prone to it because they may lay on a fault line or receive many hurricanes in their habitat. I think we can't really get a handle on it, we just try our best as individuals to get people together to help restore forests.

    ReplyDelete
  2. i think that it is very sad that all of the trees are all being cut down for nothing. i think that the goverment should try to do more and more awareness given to this topic. to anwers mikes questions i think that it can be rebuilt but not as fast as most people would notice. i think that deforestation is all over and should be handeled every where.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I believe that planting two trees for every one taken down can help aid the decline of deforestation. It will be a process but it is worth trying. Deforestation should be stopped. Why not build homes on the uninhabited grounds somewhere else. Why else should we stop deforestation?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Deforestation is not the most urgent issue and is often overshadowed by things such as fossil fuels, animal conservation, and pollution. However, this is still a major problem, or at least will be in years to come. Lisa's rule of two planted for every on cut down is a good way to try at the goal of total reforestation, though not every tree will grow, so this won't solve the problem for sure. Another possibility is to start tree farms in the US. It can create jobs, and can reduce the number of natural trees cut. These farms can either be sectioned off, or opened up so that animals can inhabit the trees. Then, the animals could be peacefully driven out before harvesting the trees. Also, because these trees would have been meant to be materials since they were planted, they wouldn't be part of a forest, so cutting them wouldn't actually be deforestation. It's a way to keep tree populations and our wood material supply both stable, maybe house some animals, and fight the mass deforestation.

    ReplyDelete