People destroy 10 billion #trees annually. Though there are other factors causing this decline, humans have basically been the central destroyer. Will planting trees have any positive implications for #deforestation and #climatechange? - http://clapway.com/2015/09/02/46-perent-of-the-worlds-trees123/

A new study has found that there are about 3 trillion trees on Earth currently – a figure much higher than what scientists had previously estimated, but significantly lower than what it was in the past. Published in Nature, the study was led by Thomas Crowther, an ecologist at the Netherlands Institute of Ecology who did the research at Yale University.

THE LOSS IN TREES IS MAN-MADE

“The scale of human impact is astonishing,” Crowther said in a Nature news release. “Obviously we expected humans would have a prominent role, but I didn’t expect that it would come out as the as the strongest control on tree density.”

With his co-researchers, Crowther found 5.6 trillion trees existed prior to the existence of humans. And since 46% of trees have disappeared since their arrival, humans are unsurprisingly viewed as the source of the problem by the scientist.

“The negative relationships between tree density and anthropogenic land use exemplify how humans contend directly with natural forest ecosystems for space,” the study says. In other words: we made this mess.

WHY THE RESEARCH WAS DONE

According to the Associated Press, Crowther conducted the study after being asked by a United Nations-affiliated youth organization if planting a billion trees (which store carbon-dioxide, positively impacting the atmosphere) would be an effective action against climate change. He couldn’t say.

To figure it out, Crowther needed to figure out the amount of trees on Earth, which was previously thought to be just 400 billion. And though the new figure is trillions more than expected, the scientist warned against thinking that a higher number had any positive implications for climate change and deforestation: “We’re not saying, ‘Oh, everything’s fine’,” the scientist said.

People destroy 10 billion trees annually. Though other factors causing the decline throughout history may include pest outbreaks and wildfires, humans have basically been the central destroyer of trees. “Humans are diminishing that huge population on such a global scale,” the researcher said.

WHAT THE STUDY MEANS

Crowther’s study led him to believe that planting a billion trees wouldn’t by itself be a powerful action against climate change. Plant-for-the-Planet, the group that asked Crowther about their tree-planting goal, has since increased their objective to 18 billion.

HOW THE STUDY WAS DONE

The researchers used computer models, information from 429,775 measurements on the ground as well as satellite observations to make the models.

---

Save the trees and witness how beautiful they can be:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vD63kwQuZ2I

Humans Destroyed 46 Percent of the World"s Trees

We Could Lose Tropical Forests the Size of India #deforestation #india #forest - http://clapway.com/2015/08/25/tropical-forests-india123/

Approximately 289 million hectares worth of tropical forests ⎯ a size equivalent to India or four times Texas ⎯ could be wiped off the earth by 2050, if we don’t do anything about it. An analysis by the Center for Global Development has predicted that during the next 35 years we would burn through one sixth of the planetary carbon budget.

How was the data collected for this analysis?

The analysis led by Jonah Busch and Jens Engelmann projected future emissions due to deforestation using measurements culled from 18 million satellite images of forest loss between 2001 and 2012. The analysis covered factors related to topography, accessibility, protected areas, crop suitability and forest carbon stocks. They also looked at how land users have responded to cost fluctuations in agricultural produce in the past and used that to predict how they would respond to the costs of forest conservation policies.

What does the future of tropical forests look like?

The results of the analysis look scary, but we do have options to deal with it. It is estimated that the carbon emissions associated with the widespread deforestation will be close to 169 billion tons⎯that’s the same as keeping 44,000 coal plants running for a year. But the good news is we can avoid this by put a price on carbon. The emissions could be reduced by quarter by attaching a $20-per-ton carbon cost and by nearly half if tropical forest countries are charged $50-per-ton carbon.

Saving the Tropical Forests: Why is preventing deforestation better than other emission-cutting measures?

Curbing deforestation is a cheap, efficient means of reducing emission; it’s better than some of the other measures used. For example, the European Union produced the same number of emissions as deforestation did between 2001 and 2012. However, the cost of reducing emissions by forest conservation is just one fifth the cost of the European Union cutting emissions to the same extent. There is also an incentive in this strategy for rich countries to pay tropical countries to maintain their tropical forests. This way, the rich countries could reduce their costs for keeping the earth green, and the tropical countries could earn money by maintaining it so. Also, we can predict how future deforestation would change, based on future agricultural prices. Low prices result in low deforestation, which could help tailor the carbon costs accordingly.

This analysis outlined that reducing deforestation is one of the⎯if not the only⎯cost-effective means to reduce our carbon footprint. It would be interesting to see if the United Nations Summit in December would discuss how this initiative could be funded.

What do you know about climate change?

---

Tropical forests are too beautiful to die out. Make sure you preserve them.

We Could Lose Tropical Forests the Size of India

#Denver is weird. Would YOU want to wait to see a #flower resembling a #corpse that also translates to "giant deformed penis"? - http://clapway.com/2015/08/20/less-stinky-than-expected-denvers-blooming-corpse-flower-still-draws-thousands-324/

On August 19th, thousands of eager guests swarmed the Denver Botanical Gardens to witness—with eyes and noses—the long-awaited bloom of the corpse flower, a plant native to Southeast Asia whose strong stench resembles that of rotting flesh.

Just Thinking About Stinky Makes People Swoon

The corpse flower was donated to the Gardens in 2007 when it outgrew its Colorado owner’s greenhouse. After affectionately naming the plant “Stinky,” it was placed in the corner of a greenhouse and lived an inconspicuous life. But when Stinky began growing and swelling again in the past week, Garden employees realized it was preparing to bloom and release its foul musk. They informed the press and set up a live web feed of the blooming a week in advance, and by blooming day, excitement had reached a fever pitch.

Over 5,000 people waited in five-hour lines to have a look and a sniff at the corpse flower, a record attendance for Denver Botanical Gardens. Cars from throughout Denver and the Front Range packed parking lots for miles around, attracted by the uniqueness of the opportunity: not only does the corpse flower only bloom every 7-12 years and for only a few days each time, but also Stinky is the only corpse flower in the whole Rocky Mountain region. Deforestation in Southeast Asia has also made the corpse flower a threatened species.

Underwhelming Stench Leaves Some Visitors Disappointed

After coming from near and far and snaking through long lines, some guests felt that Stinky didn’t live up to its (his) name. (Come on, do you really think Stinky is a girl?) Visitors who sniffed the flower reported smelling an odor, but not the knock-your-socks-off putridity they had hoped for.

Though disappointingly dis-dank, many guests still walked away satisfied at their once-in-a-lifetime experience. It also raised awareness about the destruction of forest habitats in which corpse flowers live and thrive—perhaps where they are at their stinkiest.

Why Rotting Flesh? Methods of the Corpse Flower

The corpse flower—formally known as Amorphophallus titanum, which in Latin literally translates to “giant deformed penis”—emits an odor resembling rotting flesh in order to attract flies and other insects to land on it and pollinate it. All flowers do this to some extend, only most flowers try attracting insects with a sugar-tooth, not a taste for spoiled steak.

Would you wait five hours in a line to see and smell a corpse flower bloom? Share your thoughts!

---

 

A sense of smell can be a powerful tool, even getting you up:

https://youtu.be/oyhBhu7aq5U

Less Stinky Than Expected, Denver’s Blooming Corpse Flower Still Draws Thousands