Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

sebirds t1_j5opixg wrote

Reply to comment by MacaroniBandit214 in Brazil's Lula appoints Indigenous ministers to reverse Amazon deforestation by loggiews

Replenishing doesn't bring forests back. It merely brings back some trees. There is no biodiversity, and it takes decades, sometimes even centuries, for forests to gain back their native fauna and flora.

29

HobbitFoot t1_j5pjtpl wrote

Yeah, but if you start banning the cutting of virgin forests, you can eventually get a sustainable industry. Sure, the tree farms aren't as biodiverse as you want them to be, but it is better than the alternative.

4

sebirds t1_j5pmhn0 wrote

Yes I agree completely, but bulldozing virgin forest should stop asap. We need to start using the same land to produce timber instead of harvesting from new land. This isn't the case.

5

MacaroniBandit214 t1_j5ot23w wrote

Are there inaccuracies to these claims? I’m genuinely asking because as far as I’m aware it sounds like bad business practice to destroy your supply provider

Low deforestation

2

shipshapeshump t1_j5p9lgz wrote

Yes, massive inaccuracies and plenty of agenda and lies too for whatever reason.

−2

acebandaged t1_j5q0x3s wrote

Businesses don't give two shits about what the landscape will look like in 50 years. Sustainability would require them to give up some profits in the short term, which is unacceptable for most. Just look at the fishing industry!

Also, new forests are nowhere near as effective at carbon capture and storage as old-growth forests.

−2

shipshapeshump t1_j5p9i2w wrote

Incorrect. Look what happened when people shut themselves inside for a few months. Biodiversity started immediately.

−6

teluetetime t1_j5pxlgw wrote

The process starts immediately, sure. But it takes time, and extinct species never come back. Nature isn’t magic.

1