• Ooops@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    There are a lot of “forests” that are actually stupid monoculture wood farms. So even alleged forest protection can be purely about the money…

    • Tikiporch@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      Is monoculture the word of the week on Lemmy? Let’s be clear, carbon dioxide doesn’t care what kind of tree converts it to oxygen.

        • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          Compare and contrast the methods needed for harvesting a real forest vs a monoculture forest. You’ll expend much more than twice the carbon harvesting a real forest vs a farm “forest”.

          I’d much rather see a monoculture farm harvested for fuel or lumber than an old-growth forest.

          • Ooops@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 month ago

            I doesn’t need to convert CO2 when it helps to produce less CO2 in the first place.

      • Ooops@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        I don’t know. But maybe it should be word of the week, month, year or decade given that the concept seems to not have been stressed enough in education and people constantly miss the issues created by monocultures, wether it’s soil damage, higher need for fertilizers, susceptibility to diseases or parasites (reqiring again more chemicals) or the simple fact that plants for monocultures are rarely chosen based on perfect climatic conditions (so even more at risk with changing climate). Ffs… regarding trees in particular the ones planted are often just picked for their straight trunks, so the wood is easier to sell later…