In the US how many fewer trees than 100 years ago?

Question

Also, are trees good or bad for the environment and global warming. If you think they're good, is the logging industry helping or hurting forests. If you think they're bad, please explain.

Answer 1

There are more trees in the US than there were 100 years ago.  This is because we grow trees as a crop.

Answer 2

there are actually more trees in the US than there were 100 years ago.

Answer 3

Since about the mid-1800s the Earth has experienced an unprecedented rate of change of destruction of forests worldwide.[3] Forests in Europe are adversely affected by acid rain and very large areas of Siberia have been harvested since the collapse of the Soviet Union. In the last two decades, Afghanistan has lost over 70% of its forests throughout the country.[4] However, it is in the world's great tropical rainforests where the destruction is most pronounced at the current time and where wholesale felling is having an adverse effect on biodiversity and contributing to the ongoing Holocene mass extinction.[5]

About half of the mature tropical forests, between 750 to 800 million hectares of the original 1.5 to 1.6 billion hectares that once covered the planet have fallen.[6] The forest loss is already acute in Southeast Asia, the second of the world's great biodiversity hot spots. Much of what remains is in the Amazon basin, where the Amazon Rainforest covered more than 600 million hectares. The forests are being destroyed at an accelerating pace tracking the rapid pace of human population growth. Unless significant measures are taken on a world-wide basis to preserve them, by 2030 there will only be ten percent remaining with another ten percent in a degraded condition. 80 percent will have been lost and with them the irreversible loss of hundreds of thousands of species.

Many tropical countries, including Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, Bangladesh, China, Sri Lanka, Laos, Nigeria, Liberia, Guinea, Ghana and the Cote d'lvoire have lost large areas of their rainforest. 90% of the forests of the Philippine archipelago have been cut.[7] In 1960 Central America still had 4/5 of its original forest; now it is left with only 2/5 of it. Madagascar has lost 95% of its rainforests. Atlantic coast of Brazil has lost 90-95% of its Mata Atlântica rainforest.[8] Half of the Brazilian state of Rondonia's 24.3 million hectares have been destroyed or severely degraded in recent years. As of 2007, less than 1% of Haiti's forests remain, causing many to call Haiti a Caribbean desert.[9] Between 1990 and 2005, the Nigeria lost a staggering 79% of its old-growth forests.[10] Several countries, notably the Philippines, Thailand and India have declared their deforestation a national emergency

Generally, the removal or destruction of significant areas of forest cover has resulted in a degraded environment with reduced biodiversity. In many countries, massive deforestation is ongoing and is shaping climate and geography.

Deforestation affects the amount of water in the soil and groundwater and the moisture in the atmosphere. Forests support considerable biodiversity, providing valuable habitat for wildlife; moreover, forests foster medicinal conservation and the recharge of aquifers. With forest biotopes being a major, irreplaceable source of new drugs (like taxol), deforestation can destroy genetic variations (such as crop resistance) irretrievably.

Answer 4

More trees in the US now, by a bunch.

Mind you, many of them are on tree farms, which grow trees but, being a monoculture, don't provide much habitat for wildlife.

The logging industry is good for trees, but bad for natural, diverse forests.

EDIT - I have no problem with growing trees and logging them, or logging "second growth" forests; if done properly.  I have big problems with logging old growth, diverse forests, that we don't know how to replace.

Answer 5

This is a repost from a similar question.  It was voted best answer.

Whoever said there are more trees/forest than in pre columbian times must be smoking something good. I've heard that nonsense before. It could be possible that there are more trees in actual numbers, but if so, it's because all that's left is 1000 toothpicks for every old growth real tree. And those woodlands are often not so healthy.

They are overcrowded with small trees

A real ecosystem would have a mix of mature trees of various species and small saplings etc, with some open spaces. The shade from larger trees keeps the small ones in check.

When Europeans first came to New England, it has been said, you could walk from Boston to somewhere in upstate New York without ever leaving the canopy of the forest. And the trees approached the size of trees you see in the northwest.

A tree farm is a far cry from a healthy complete forest ecosystem like an old growth forest.

Companies say they plant more than they cut, but the evidence says no. You may not have traveled much in the pacific northwest, where the forests look good from the side of the road but behind the facade are vast areas of clearcut. Many forests can't naturally regrow once they've been cut. Many trees seeds need a forest fire to start the process of germination. And an old growth forest with it's diversity of tree species and other fawna and flora is quite different from an almost monoculture replanted forest, which lacks that diversity. Loggers cut down these diverse forests and then plant only one species. The one they want to harvest.

There has been some improvement in logging practices.

We could be making paper from hemp, which is more sustainable.

I am a wood worker and appreciate the wood I use.

Logging can be done more sustainably than it is. I read about a company in Oregon called Collin Pine that uses sustainable logging practices, while making a profit. It is claimed that their woodlots actually improve with use.

The demand for paper, especially in the U.S., is threatening the great boreal forest of Canada.

It's the largest intact ecosytem in North America and it's being carved up to make things like consumer catalogues. It's been said that companies that put out the catalogues only get purchases from about 2% of the catalogues. That is very wasteful. Millions of trees are cut down each year to make these. And we aren't talking about tree farms.

Why are we shipping whole logs to Japan? Lumber companies complain that environmentalists are killing off lumber jobs.

Then they ship whole logs to Japan, instead of finished lumber products, thereby cutting out lumber jobs themselves.

I'm not so concerned with tree farms where they already exist, continuing operations. That's better than encroaching more on existing more natural forests.

There are other problems that most maybe don't know about. I work on wooden boats. One of the best boatbuilding woods is southern long leaf yellow pine. But only the old growth wood is any good. Tree farming for paper, pressurised lumber and the production of turpentine and it's derivatives has about eliminated old growth long leaf pine. And of course encroachment by growing population hasn't helped. There are three southern yellow pines, and they are all used, but for boatbuilding only the old long leaf is any good. It's been called the cadillac of boat building woods. It's now exceedingly rare.

This kind of thing is true in many species.

Teak is another prime boatbuilding wood, having excellent properties for that. But supplies are dwindling and are largely in Burma, with it's problems, and economic sanctions are threatening to stop the supply. There are now teak plantations but the wood grows too fast and is useless in boats, other than for decorative work or for lawn furntiture. Fast growing woods don't have tight annular rings or grain in most woods.

There is a growing use of other tropical woods, what are called underutilized species,to take the place of teak, mahogany etc. Many of these are from south america, southeast asia. At least part of the rationale is that it will take pressure off the more popular species.

Bamboo is becoming popular as a replacement for wood in many applications, and is probably more sustainable as it grows very fast. You may have seen some of the bamboo flooring that's becoming popular.

Answer 6

Trees are better protected now then they were 100 years ago.

Answer 7

There are more now IN THE U.S.  than 100 years ago. Deforestation is only a problem in other countries.

A quote from the source:

Between 1990 and 2000, United States of America gained an average of 364,600 hectares of forest per year. The amounts to an average annual reforestation rate of 0.12%. Between 2000 and 2005, the rate of forest change decreased by 56.9% to 0.05% per annum. In total, between 1990 and 2005, United States of America gained 1.5% of its forest cover, or around 4,441,000 hectares.

Answer 8

more tree than ever.The bad news is if 500 hundred old tree falls over in forest the environmentalist group say it must stay their for it`s natural decay. a real waste

Answer 9

Suggestions to count the number of trees is a red herring.  A little 6" diameter tree can be counted as a tree, but it's certainly not the equivalent to a 700 yr-old, 200' tall, 15-foot diameter Sitka Spruce.  A better comparison would be how many board feet of lumber is standing now vs. 100 years ago.

My family has a history connected with logging, so I'm not opposed to it at all.  But logging was a very negligent industry for many years (clear cutting, not replanting, not taking care of run-off into rivers and creeks, abandoning land in horrible conditions, etc.). While I'd never advocate chaining oneself to a tree, I have to admit that logging practices have improved greatly, in part, because of pressure put on them by environmental groups.

Trees raised on tree farms (i.e. grown 20 - 30 years and then logged) aren't necessarily good or bad for the environment, but they're good for the lifestyle we enjoy.  Old-growth forests (like the few remaining in the west) and protected forests in our national parks are certainly good for the environment.

Answer 10

There are more U.S. trees today than there were in 1920.

Don't believe all the environmental hysteria you read.

Trees are a renewable resource. By using more paper, companies are required to grow more trees for harvest.

If they don't use old growth forests, what is the problem?

Answer 11

Actually, with the establishment of national and state parks, we have preserved more trees than 100 years ago, when deforestation was running rampant.

Answer 12

I agree, it's more.  As far as the USA is concerned, the logging industry is the trees best friend, planting 3 trees for every 1 they take.  This is why the total number has increased over the past century.  

It's the old growth trees that were harvested in the 1800s that you hear about when people talk badly about logging.  They did indiscriminately devastate entire regions back then, not knowing the repercussions.  This is why the industry plants more than it can harvest, with the hope that there will be old growth forests again a century from now.

As far as rainforests go, that is a different story.  People in other countries rely on them to put food in their families mouths, since there is little other industries available.  

The notion that they cannot make a comeback is just hype.  Plants and trees are very resilient, and will grow up through the middle of a concrete highway. I've seen it happen in less than a decade on a nearby road that was closed and re-routed.  This once 2 lane highway now looks like a hiking trail.