• EU nations are living far beyond the Earth's means: report
    50 replies, posted
How much natural land is left in Europe? I'm pretty ignorant to how much of the continent has been urbanized into large cities and towns.
I can't speak for other countries, but Denmark is only ~10% forested, and whatever land doesn't have a forest or city is used for agriculture. That said, we do produce enough food each year to feed 15-20 million people, so. But that said, we're currently facing a major issue (dare I say crisis) with regards to pesticides. It's increasingly being found in ponds, creeks, and even in our drinking water.
In Europe at large there's probably still a fair amount of undeveloped land, but we've probably urbanised a lot more than we should.
Countryside can be relatively "wild" - you can have 15+ miles between two villages in the most remote parts of france. But outside of mountain ranges, it feels most of the space between small towns is farm fields or wood industry forest. French geography textbooks say that not a single large forest in france is natural, it was all planted by men at some point - seems about right to me. So by some standards not much is "wild".
You seriously have absolutely zero old growth forest? That's fucking appalling.
I'd say for most of Europe unless you're in the mountains you literally can't get so lost that you can't just walk to a road or a village
This is why I don't take their 0 Carbon Emissions goal seriously; because the original habitats and systems that grew naturally to absorb and flourish against carbon build up were wiped out a century ago by Urbanization, Industrialization and two World Wars. The natural predators that used to roam Europe are basically gone and Europeans, historically, have had a big penchant for just wiping out entire species of a whim of a king. Europe has been a lost cause from the onset; focus should be placed on Brazil, the United States, Russia, China and Australia. Especially Australia and Brazil.
To be honest I'm surprised Malta is even at 1%. That place is just a bare rock and when you happen upon any kind of plant that isn't dead you're like "Oh yeah, now I remember what the color green looked like!"
That's what I was told years ago - I looked it up and there's still *some* but only a few thousand acres, and very few of that is officialy protected. France has 37 million acres of forest, and out of that about 3k-10k acres are old growth forests (finding different estimates). So basicely nothing. https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/297971/731c6cfb-a6a1-460e-882b-98f9edefb3f4/image.png This is only counting metropolitan france btw, french Guyana is mostly old growth forests.
Tbh I don't really see the point of an analysis like this without factoring in population density somehow (Luxembourg will always rank terrible no matter the measures they take considering how little biocapacity they have within their borders). There are generally very few old growth forests in Europe, they represent (very) roughly 0,7% of the existing forest cover (in my country the largest patch is like 140 acres, a really tiny amount). https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/1195/84c462d0-65c0-43c0-88f9-290d9eb0ab9e/fig5_output_classified_insets_18mar.png https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/1195/9081299c-db69-41f9-b1bb-76e32874b5c2/20178724_dddd60226aca47fe05dbe1e36133570a_wm.jpg https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/1195/908410e8-5a9f-4ca8-a765-bfe9714dd413/153.PNG Residential, commerical, industrial areas account around 8-15% depending the survey.
Seems that majority of the forests are on the national borders.
A lot of theses borders are on mountain ranges, inhospitable areas with low population historicaly, thats likely why
Giving up on zero emissions is stupid, everyone should strive for it. Also why Australia? There was no mention of it in the article or source material.
Everyone should strive for it but the onus is on nations that directly impact the environment and as much as we love the land we live on. The ocean is far more important. Guess who has one of the largest reefs? The Aussies.
This is known for decades not only on the EU, but just every single country of the First World/Russia/China ( remember all these news about "the current consumption made by the humanity requires almost two Earths" and "a lot of important minerals will go rare on the following 100-150 years"? ). Spain having more forests than Germany? yeah, sure it looks legit. Especially when they cover like no more of 30% of the total territory after being reduced to the north and some isolated places on natural reserves. Please, we lost a ton on the last years of massive summer fires, and then revoked some laws protecting them so more fields are being cut down. 80% of our landscapes are just fields and fields of harvest, which most of the year remains empty so it looks like the wastelands. There's no way that graph is legit, especially without a source.
Main Details Main Details 37% is not right, correct (although they used this source). Spain 34% and Germany 31%
What are you even talking about? How do you save a coral reef from sun bleaching because it's too hot? Like what do you expect Australia to do in regards to saving the reef from global temperature? The LNP put money towards a huge scale testing program to closely monitor the reef. The LNP haven't dismantled anything in regards to this, and why would they? It's one of Australia's biggest tourist destinations that earn money. Keeping the reef alive is in everyone's interest.
easy solution, convert europe to an Ecumenopolis, works in stellaris
Coral Reef bleaching is caused by climate change as well as local pollution. https://www.marineconservation.org.au/coral-bleaching/ The stunning colours in corals come from a marine algae called zooxanthellae, which live inside their tissues. This algae provides the corals with an easy food supply thanks to photosynthesis, which gives the corals energy, allowing them to grow and reproduce. When corals get stressed, from things such as heat or pollution, they react by expelling this algae, leaving a ghostly, transparent skeleton behind. This is known as ‘coral bleaching’. Some corals can feed themselves, but without the zooxanthellae most corals starve. Normally reefs go through a period of dieing and rebirth as temperature changes and sea levels rise and fall throughout the year, but the stress created by pollution and climate change means they can't recover. In some instances corals can recover from bleaching. If conditions return to normal, and stay that way corals can regain their algae, return to their bright colours and survive. However prolonged warmer temperatures and other stressors, like poor water quality, can leave the living coral in a weakened state. It can struggle to regrow, reproduce and resist disease – so is very vulnerable to coral diseases and mortality. It can take decades for coral reefs to fully recover from a bleaching event, so it is vital that these events do not occur frequently.  If we continue burning fossil fuels at our current rate then severe bleaching events are likely to hit reefs annually by the middle of the century. This would be devastating for coral reefs as they would have no chance to recover. Coral reefs are highly affected by local pollution. How does pollution threaten coral reefs? Impacts from land-based sources of pollution—including coastal development, deforestation, agricultural runoff, and oil and chemical spills—can impede coral growth and reproduction, disrupt overall ecological function, and cause disease and mortality in sensitive species. It is now well accepted that many serious coral reef ecosystem stressors originate from land-based sources, most notably toxicants, sediments, and nutrients. The Liberal party has cut funding to the Great Barrier Reef foundation and instead awarded a $400 million contract to protect the great barrier reef to an unaccredited company made up of mining lobby executives and lead by a former liberal party member, effectively using the crisis as an excuse to give a large lump sum payment to their corporate allies over reliable and trusted climate authorities. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-05-22/great-barrier-reef-funding-labor-accuse-due-diligence/9785782 Great Barrier Reef Foundation funding would be clawed back under.. https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/morrison-government-gives-former-staffer-a-350-000-job-managing-the-great-barrier-reef-20190315-p514ki.html And of course there's the environmental concerns with the proposed Adani coal mine, which the liberals have been a major supporter of despite the concerns of the plans not meeting scientific environmental safety standards and its effects on the local environment. Stop Adani Wrecking Our Reef The mine would drive massive industrial port expansion along the Reef coastline at Abbot Point. Over a million cubic metres of the seafloor would be dredged for a new coal terminal, threatening the habitat of vulnerable dugongs and turtles and dolphins. There would be hundreds more coal ships ploughing through the Reef’s waters every year, increasing the risk of accidents. Just one collision, one mistake or one spill could result in an environmental catastrophe in the Great Barrier Reef. Adani can’t be trusted with our delicate Reef. We’ve seen the evidence, when Adani exceeded its permitted pollution discharge limit to the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area by more than 800 per cent at the Port of Abbot Point, and spilt coal laden water into the neighbouring fragile Caley Valley Wetlands, and onto the beach next to the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area. Adani did not 'accept in full' changes sought by scientists duri.. Handwritten documents obtained by the ABC appear to directly contradict the Environment Minister Melissa Price that Adani "accepted in full" changes sought by scientists to limit the impact of its controversial Queensland coal mine. Announcing her decision to approve Adani's water management plans for its Carmichael mine earlier this month, Ms Price said Adani "accepted in full" advice from the CSIRO and Geoscience Australia. Prime Minister Scott Morrison also maintained the Government would "make all decisions based on the expert advice from ... Geoscience Australia and the CSIRO". The advice was provided in a damning review in February of the company's plans. But documents provided to the ABC showed Adani refused to accept key scientific findings and recommendations about its water management plans. The ABC has obtained notes taken by three attendees of a phone hook up on April 5 involving senior officials from the Department of Environment and Energy and staff from Geoscience Australia. The documents show the government science agency was concerned the water plans could allow Adani's mine to breach the conditions of its environment approval.
That is the exact opposite; in every measurable way the Coalition government has dismantled several of the core protections put in during Labor's run and has, even against Economic sense, been pushing for massive coal fields right on the coast right next to the Great Barrier Reef. As pointed out by Zyler, the LNP government has willfully ignored standards. In addition, the Darling River a few months ago had one of the most damaging and largest fishkills we've seen on Earth. Mostly due in part to the Liberal Party's inability to control and contain the cotton farmers pulling in more water than they're actually allowed to have. In other reports, its been alleged that Liberal party is privy to this and looks the other way on purpose.
It's really not though? Other than the coolness factor of something existing for so long, what does an old growth forest really provide over ones created and managed by humans? Trees are replaceable resources, and it's good that France has such a sophisticated and well maintained land management system.
Old growth actually supports specific ecosystems in unique ways that can't be replicated by younger forest growth.
Is it a difficult concept to grasp that maybe us being younger than those fucking trees might have something to do with creating stable and unique ecosystems capable of performing various feets that young growth simply aren't equipped with having? Like, seriously, in this thread and the one about the 'mechanical tree' there's this pompous attitude that just because we have a very shallow concept of how nature works that we can just automated with machines and everything will be better! No you brain dead toss pots, we barely understand the very most basic layer of how our ecosystem works on both a macro and micro scale. We know more about space than we do about how the Northeastern US feeds into the Southeastern's marshes. It is an incredibly anthroporpmorphic and instrumentally rational line of thought to believe that we've learned enough to manufacture the planet in the way we see fit. We tried that, it was called the Industrial Revolution; the end of its results are a mixed bag at best.
Hairy countries unite ✊
Idk I think the industrial revolution turned out pretty good what with the surviving childhood stuff and all. And what do you mean by “younger than us”? Younger than the oldest people alive, younger than civilisation, or...? Not that I don’t like my woods old, but man have been burning and cutting down forests since forever - few truly natural forests exist in Europe.
Older forests are more diverse, bond more CO2 in the soil and are more resilient to weather extremes and pest invasions. The idea of "lol you can just replace a tree it grows back dummy" is a tale told by the industries using up these forests to make people who like simple solutions to complex problems side with them.
I'm not so certain that lower child mortality is worth the prospect of complete civilizational collapse and a major extinction event that can lead to the entirety of the human race being wiped out. Industrialization would have been fine if it happened after our governments evolved to a point where they aren't susceptible to corporate corruption and are selfless enough to care about what happens decades after their term ends. But it's been two centuries now and we're still not remotely there yet.
Excellent, then that's just more reason to preserve them as much as possible, and it really sucks that there are so few of them remaining in France, but that's even more emphasis on how astonishing they and other European nations have been able to rebound and regrow their forests. According to this research paper, estimates of the forest coverage in France go as low as 17% at the height of the industrial revolution, and likely even lower due to the first couple of World Wars, so to see that we're up to 34% is pretty damn remarkable considering we've had to balance the needs of industry and other people with it. Thank goodness for the conservation efforts of the post-war years. I'm sure they've set aside some of those forests to become old growth areas... And your cynical mystification of nature is even more pompous and dangerous than having faith that we can and will be able to understand the mechanisms of our environment. Humans have always been connected to the forests, since the dawn of time. We have and will continually shape the environment to our will. Forests didn't just go unmanaged throughout time. People have been cultivating forests for a long time in order to grow herbs and attract game. None of the forests we have now in conservatories would look anything like a forest in medieval times. And we do the same thing now, except instead of growing specific herbs and attracting game, we know how to cultivate and develop complex ecosystems with the help of statistical models and mathematics. Do we understand everything about how specific ecosystems interact and develop? No, but human knowledge will always be expanding. We already know more than enough to affect our environment to get what we want. And I think you forget that someone in that thread actually proved that those mechanical trees did actually take more carbon out of the atmosphere than normal trees. The fact you're actually arguing that we should have just ignored the industrial revolution and instead had millions of people constantly dying from diseases with an average human lifespan 40 years younger, a drastically lower quality of life for nearly every person except those at the very top, and the stopping of technological progress is just so fucking absurd. Don't get me wrong, it'd undeniable the negative effects of climate change and we should do everything we can to stop them because, yes, there is a chance of those things happening, even if slim, but to say you'd trade the last 200 years of human progress for it is melodramatic at best. Besides, that's not how governments work anyways. The forms of government we have have always been tied to our evolving and changing technologies. The monarchies never would have fallen if it weren't for industrialization and the subsequent spread of knowledge and education to the common people. It's hard to teach people how to read and write without the books and writing utensils to do so, and to educated a bunch of people you have to have a lot of them. It's always so easy to forget the scale of materials and goods that industrialization provided.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.