Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

jeoeker531 t1_iucyodv wrote

Reply to comment by brockwallace in Ozone Hole Continues Shrinking in 2022, NASA and NOAA Scientists Say | Annual Antarctic ozone hole over the South Pole was slightly smaller than last year and generally continued the overall shrinking trend of recent years. by yourSAS

Remember that over 70% of our oxygen comes from the ocean, not forests

Lmao who’s downvoting this? It’s simply a fact

85

brockwallace t1_iuczsbg wrote

Oh okay, well then who needs trees, may Aswell cut em all down.

40

jeoeker531 t1_iud01a4 wrote

That’s not what I said… I’m just saying that it’s not so harmful or detrimental that trees are cut down responsibly. They are a reusable resource. Also the corn belt in the USA in season provides more oxygen than the Amazon too

−14

elencus t1_iud8hng wrote

And oxygen isn't the only benefit of forests? this whole convo feels like an easy porque no los dos lmao

15

jeoeker531 t1_iud9q4z wrote

Ok I never said it was the only benefit of forests. I’m just saying, again, that cutting down trees isn’t bad when done responsibly. It’s a reusable resource

−12

elencus t1_iudc46s wrote

>that cutting down trees isn’t bad when done responsibly.

Well that's completely different from what the original comment you replied to said. They specifically criticized clearcutting forests, which is not responsible. I think to interpret their comment as anti-christmas tree farm or similar responsible forestry practices is... disingenuous.

14

brockwallace t1_iuenkct wrote

I was going to mention this but decided just to sleep, thanks bruh.

3

jeoeker531 t1_iudh31g wrote

I mean clear cutting trees isn’t inherently bad either. Again, they’re reusable and can be planted elsewhere. Clear cutting in certain areas isn’t bad. Indiscriminately clear cutting everywhere would be bad

−2

elencus t1_iudssu0 wrote

I think at the very best you can claim that in some cases clearcutting forests is controversial and provides niche edge benefits. Why you are so insistent to point out cutting trees can be good, I have no idea.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/is-clear-cutting-us-forests-good-for-wildlife

6

jeoeker531 t1_iuhmkog wrote

Because someone made it seem like it’s only bad

0

elencus t1_iuhsmnh wrote

which it arguably is?

1

jeoeker531 t1_iui005z wrote

It’s not though, clear cutting forests isn’t bad if it’s done responsibly and trees are replanted, which they are

0

elencus t1_iui1o5f wrote

Read the article I linked. It's controversial at best and not something that can always be done responsibly.

1

DrBrisha t1_iue5gda wrote

Well-oxygen isn’t the only benefit of forests. Diversity and thriving ecosystems provide services that are critical. I just don’t think you can justify cutting the Amazon to the point of no return is “meh”. That’s just one example. Oxygen isn’t the talking point there.

6

avd706 t1_iud0rqz wrote

It is ok, they grow back.

−14

Outlander_-_ t1_iud6ete wrote

And what about animal ecosystems?

Hardwood forest take close to 100 years to regrow fully. All those animals that require specific hardwood ecosystems can’t survive if we keep cutting down there homes.

18

MKQueasy t1_iuerbpa wrote

Those animals should have pulled themselves by the bootstraps and bought the forest as their property after investing in mutual index funds if they didn't want people cutting them down. They can only blame themselves for not participating in our capitalist society.

4

LoquaciousBumbaclot t1_iud8966 wrote

Fuck 'em

−26

laser50 t1_iueau7o wrote

Yeah, lets start campaigning against the trees for once, we need houses and I need to charge my Iphone!

4

sloopslarp t1_iudmlnp wrote

Good thing we're taking care of our oceans, right?

...right?

37

jeoeker531 t1_iudoyv8 wrote

The ocean STILL producing that even now, however bad it is at the moment. Also the ocean is extremely vast

3

Acrobatic-Rate4271 t1_iudze4g wrote

The part that produces the oxygen is only about 30 feet deep.

19

Koala_eiO t1_iufleri wrote

Oh nice, that's also the part in contact with surface CO2 and getting more acidic every second.

4

jeoeker531 t1_iuhm3yc wrote

Actually as of 2020 plankton numbers have been booming, not diminishing

1

Acrobatic-Rate4271 t1_iudyzdp wrote

I wonder how acidification of the oceans will affect phytoplankton...

https://news.mit.edu/2015/ocean-acidification-phytoplankton-0720

Oh... so we may want to start planting trees. A lot of trees...

12

jeoeker531 t1_iuhn931 wrote

We do… the US has more trees now than it did 100 years ago

1

Acrobatic-Rate4271 t1_iuib4dn wrote

That's mostly because originally logging didn't replant trees and so a hundred years ago our tree stock was down from previous levels. States began legislating that logging required replanting so we're starting to get back to pre-logging levels but a plane flight over states like Oregon will give you an idea of just what clearcutting did to our forests before replanting was required by law.

0

jeoeker531 t1_iuieqkq wrote

Regardless there’s a net gain of trees on earth

1

Acrobatic-Rate4271 t1_iuihiew wrote

Yes, it's good that we're planting trees but something to keep in mind is that photosynthesis (the reaction that consumes CO2 and produces O2) occurs in the leaves so older, more mature trees consume more CO2 and product more oxygen than younger trees. Even with replanting, the cutting of old growth trees and rain forests results in a net loss in CO2 capture and conversion to O2 unless your replanting significantly more trees than you're cutting. This also ignores the loss of undergrowth associated with logging.

I'm not saying we need to stop all logging, just pointing out that it's not as straightforward as it seems on initial inspection.

1

Traditional-Trip7617 t1_iud85o7 wrote

Woah really? That seriously astounds me! I’ve heard high numbers thrown around about the amazon but I’ve never heard of any numbers on the oceans. Makes sense just never really thought of it.

9

jeoeker531 t1_iud9wuo wrote

Yep planktons in the ocean contribute to about 70% of earths oxygen

9

Traditional-Trip7617 t1_iuda8v6 wrote

Expected scrolling through the news to be filled with sadness after this is a neat gleam of light poking through

4

NemeshisuEM t1_iudfckj wrote

And what would be the effect of fucking up 30% of the supply of anything?

6

jeoeker531 t1_iudgt54 wrote

Not so severe when you can replace it. Trees are replaceable. And supplies of one thing aren’t as vital as supplies as others. So fucking up 30% of something might not always be a big deal. Trees are reusable and don’t provide the majority of oxygen

0

NemeshisuEM t1_iudheha wrote

Yeah? How long does it take to replace a healthy, mature forest?

Also, have you looked at what is it in the oceans that produces oxygen and what things impact that?

Lastly, please link your post-doc, peer-reviewed source for "meh, 30% is not significant."

Thanks.

12

jeoeker531 t1_iudhs1j wrote

Trees don’t make 30% of oxygen either. The corn belt in the USA at its height of the year makes more oxygen then the Amazon. And nobodies cutting down all trees not even close. In fact there there are more trees in the US now then there were 100 years ago.

2

NemeshisuEM t1_iudix7l wrote

So how many new-growth trees equal to 1 old-growth one? Or are you going to tell me a 1' wide tree does the same work as a 10' wide one?

5

jeoeker531 t1_iudj5nh wrote

Why are we looking at what one individual tree does when we have data for all the trees? For millions of trees?

3

NemeshisuEM t1_iudjymh wrote

Because you stated "there are more trees now in the US than 100 years ago."

Commercial tree farming does not compare to an old-growth forest in numerous ways, so to compare apples to apples, we would need to know how the oxygen production of the two compare.

Got a link to a study doing that?

6

jeoeker531 t1_iudm7qy wrote

How much does the comparison of oxygen production matter when the vast majority of oxygen production isn’t been due to trees?

0

jeoeker531 t1_iudjcnm wrote

The point is that trees are renewable resources and that even that 1’ wide tree will grow into the 10’ tree

0

NemeshisuEM t1_iudkfza wrote

But tree farms do not wait until the tree is mature to harvest it. That's like counting male calves as full head of cattle when in reality they get culled at a young age. Using that analogy, it seems disingenuous to compare a 50lb calf with a 2000lb steer. Yeah, each one has a head but one is not like the other.

3

jeoeker531 t1_iudm3x8 wrote

Didn’t know you were the tree farm professor. You’re talking out your ass

1

NemeshisuEM t1_iudnmqt wrote

Says the guy that just asserted that we can just replant the forests without a clue as to what that entails.

4

jeoeker531 t1_iudp2hd wrote

I didn’t go into anything specific or any details, I simply said that trees are renewable resources. Which is objectively true

2

NemeshisuEM t1_iudpmpu wrote

Yeah, it is technically true but your comment came off as dismissive of a problem by oversimplifying it.

4

happygloaming t1_iue9b78 wrote

Reading this entire thread I now know we're all going to die.

1

jeoeker531 t1_iuhlo9i wrote

We were always going to die… everyone dies

1

r3b3l-tech t1_iuf1lww wrote

Not quite.

You can "reuse" trees in a economic sense but that doesn't account for externalities.

You have to also realize that there is life under trees that you just can't replant.

Yes, you can replant trees in a sustainable way but alas, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Lumber_Company stuff like this happens.

3

jeoeker531 t1_iuhmfwx wrote

Yep, but you have to find specific examples of this not working. It can and does work… finding exceptions to the rule doesn’t mean it doesn’t work

2

r3b3l-tech t1_iuhpsjp wrote

So it's a little bit the same with cattle raising. You can do it sustainably, but it is not as economically viable(you make money, but not as much).

Sustainability is the exception. Companies just want profit.

That's why I am saying "Not quite". Yes, it's a viable option but when you look at all the realities, it is just not happening the way you might envision it.

1

jeoeker531 t1_iui40bf wrote

Yes companies just want profit, but in capitalism, for companies to make profit and remain competitive they have to have quality and adhere to some degree to what customers want. If people don’t like what a company is doing the company will lose money. Unfortunately when the government gets involved it corrupts and degrades the free market and capitalism

2

r3b3l-tech t1_iui99ec wrote

Companies can and do make money, with sustainable ways, in a capitalistic economy. There has just been a lot of deregulation going on, which makes the free market unfair.

I don't really understand what you mean with government involvement degrading the free market?

I am currently reading this book: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/53167676-the-sustainable-economy?from_search=true&from_srp=true&qid=K4gGPesEM3&rank=2

If you are from the US I really recommend giving it a read. I have been very fascinated by it and the author provides lots of sources to verify the information!

1

[deleted] t1_iud8a7n wrote

[removed]

4

jeoeker531 t1_iud9sx0 wrote

Why? Animals do that to eachother. It’s literally nature. Our bodies are actually designed to eat meat

0

cnnrduncan t1_iuej465 wrote

Nature is full of rape and infanticide, should we legalise both crimes simply because they're natural?

4

jeoeker531 t1_iuhmisj wrote

No, because while we are animals ourselves we also have morals and society. The point is, our bodies are literally designed to eat meat

1

Geesemeece t1_iufmz89 wrote

They are legalized against other animals, because it would be asinine to make it illegal.

0

mods_r_jobbernowl t1_iufnis4 wrote

Forests do a shit ton to keep the earth cool though especially on the ground. They help cities prevent heat islands. They do a lot more than just suck up co2

4

STEVEusaurusREX t1_iueyjye wrote

Yes, but forests are better for storing Carbon. Oceans storing more Carbon results in carbonic acid formation, reducing marine pH, harming organisms that have shells like mussels, clams and corals. The issue isn’t just O2 in the atmosphere.

3

alpaka7 t1_iugf36i wrote

It's true.

It's also important to note the importance of the ecosystem for the production of that oxygen. It's all connected. There are very good documentaries explaining this process in detail.

Also, nearly all oxygen produced by the Amazon rainforest is consumed by the forest.

1

luke_sweatshirt t1_iugufzx wrote

Deforestation is not only a problem with oxygen production, but also carbon. Clear cutting forests releases co2

1