Advertisement
by The Remean Lordship » Mon Sep 02, 2013 12:14 pm
by Auralia » Mon Sep 02, 2013 12:19 pm
Hittanryan wrote:You do realize that Alberta doesn't have any tropical rainforests, right Auralia?
by The Remean Lordship » Mon Sep 02, 2013 12:33 pm
by Auralia » Mon Sep 02, 2013 1:01 pm
The Remean Lordship wrote:Auralia wrote:
I don't see why the land reclamation principles used for boreal forests wouldn't apply equally well to rainforests, especially when there is only partial ecosystem damage.
This isn't the boreal forest protection act being that this only applies to rainforests. As previously stated, don't compare apples + oranges.
by The Remean Lordship » Mon Sep 02, 2013 1:24 pm
by Auralia » Mon Sep 02, 2013 1:44 pm
The Remean Lordship wrote:Replanting forests after their destruction is an impossible task, especially when counting the actual forest, animals included.
by The Remean Lordship » Mon Sep 02, 2013 2:04 pm
Auralia wrote:The Remean Lordship wrote:Replanting forests after their destruction is an impossible task, especially when counting the actual forest, animals included.
You're wrong. The logging industry does it all the time.
by Hittanryan » Mon Sep 02, 2013 2:05 pm
by The Eternal Kawaii » Mon Sep 02, 2013 7:16 pm
by Chimericana » Tue Sep 03, 2013 12:13 am
by Horusland » Tue Sep 03, 2013 1:46 am
by Auralia » Tue Sep 03, 2013 6:39 am
Hittanryan wrote:If you don't see why, then you haven't bothered to look into it at all. Rainforests have a much greater amount of biodiversity than boreal forests, the species there tend to be highly specialized to a very specific niche in a single environment, and attempting to put one piece back at a time is essentially futile. Add to that the fact that many rainforest soils can be rapidly drained of nutrients by erosion and the very long lengths of time required to grow some of the forests, and anyone seriously looking at the issue will see that rainforest reclamation using the same principles as boreal reclamation is doomed to fail.
New methods are required, which will be much, much more involved than boreal reclamation. As I already said, rainforest reclamation only exists as a proof of concept on a small scale at present, and the rate of deforestation will always outpace the rate of reclamation with no protection in place.
Two of the largest aluminium mines in the Amazon are MRN Trombetas and Alcoa Juruti. They have massive bauxite deposits and both take great pride in their reputations for corporate responsibility.
[...]
Both operations strip-mine the expansive bauxite deposits just a few metres below the roots of the rainforest. First, the forest is cleared and the commercial timber stockpiled. Then the topsoil (about 50cm thick) and overburden (8-12m thick) are separately scraped off and stockpiled for later use in reclamation. This reveals the red bauxite below, which is excavated and taken for processing and export. The topsoil is replaced and planted with rainforest tree seedlings.
But the process of rainforest restoration begins before mineral extraction starts. Wildlife monitoring is set up two years earlier and continues during forest clearance. Rescue teams made up of trained local contractors scour the forest before clearance to remove slow-moving animals such as sloths and tortoises and move them to previously restored forest areas. They also save important plant specimens such as orchids, tree seedlings and the nests of stingless bees, which are vital for the pollination of many forest plants.
The restoration team’s ultimate goal is to regrow the jungle to become as close to the original as possible. Working in collaboration with Brazilian scientific institutions, Trombetas has been researching the best way to do this for more than 30 years, using a systematic nursery and field research strategy. Since 1997 about 50 MA theses and 25 PhD theses have investigated the developing ecology of these forests. On the other hand Juruti only began mining in the past couple of years, adapting and building on a generation of Trombetas forest restoration knowledge.
Of the 180 tree species found in the local forest at Trombetas, about 100 are chosen for replanting. Selection is based on their speed of growth for soil protection, their ability to attract animals through fruit and flower production to import seeds from outside the area and their use to people in terms of fruit and nut production, medicinal properties and timber. Around Juruti the jungle contains about 460 tree species, of which only 30 species – mainly pioneer ones – are planted in the restoration schemes.
[...]
Although the restoration team constantly pushes to improve its 70% success rate, the oldest planted areas at Trombetas are becoming indistinguishable to the casual observer from the rest of the forest. In the very first areas planted in the early 1980s, the translocated stingless beehives are full of life, epiphytes have been reintroduced from more recently cleared areas and a Brazil nut tree has already grown into a 40-metre giant.
Even at Juruti, trees planted less than three years ago in a small pilot area already stand at twice a person’s height. The shade-inducing canopy is closing. Light-loving weeds are shaded out. Forest understorey plants are gaining a toe-hold. New trees are coming in, spread from the faeces of animals attracted to the newly planted forest areas. Slowly the rainforest is recreating its own self-supporting web of life.
The tree species mix is subtly adapted during restoration to enhance social and economic opportunities for local people, while rebuilding the forest’s ecological integrity. Seeing such world-class work in action should start to offset the public perception of large-scale destruction and devastation. Concerned and talented people are making genuinely inspiring efforts to regrow the forests and provide new environmental, social and economic opportunities in a rapidly changing world.
The Remean Lordship wrote:Rather than having to rebuild an ecosystem from logging, why don't just let it grow?
HorusLand wrote:I agree with the Remean Lordship. You replant trees. So what? That will only change something in a bunch of years.
It's like some other country destroying the entire city you are in, and leaving you homeless and without food for several years. Then, they rebuild the city. They're like: 'It's fine, you'll be in good living conditions in just 20 years! Yay!'
by Horusland » Tue Sep 03, 2013 6:50 am
Auralia wrote:The purpose of the natural environment is ultimately to serve human interests.
by Auralia » Tue Sep 03, 2013 7:43 am
by Horusland » Tue Sep 03, 2013 7:45 am
by Auralia » Tue Sep 03, 2013 7:46 am
HorusLand wrote:Auralia wrote:How so? That is, after all, the rationale for sustainable development: to ensure that future generations can make use of the natural environment.
Obviously. Let's profit off of others. That's what the WA is for. Instead of helping countries, it has to help the ones that have certain views, not the rest.
Or does it, now?
by Horusland » Tue Sep 03, 2013 7:51 am
by Hittanryan » Tue Sep 03, 2013 2:15 pm
Auralia wrote:I concede that rainforests are different from boreal forests, and that these differences make land reclamation more difficult. That does not mean that land reclamation is impossible or even economically unfeasible. Indeed, a cursory Google search reveals numerous cases where rainforest restoration has been successful, at least to some extent: here, here, here, here, here and here.
One article was particularly fascinating:
So yes, a blanket ban on mineral extraction in the rainforest makes no sense.
Auralia wrote:Rainforests are not cities, and trees are not humans. The purpose of the natural environment is ultimately to serve human interests. Partial environmental damage is a reasonable tradeoff to economic development, so long as the damage is properly mitigated to ensure sustainable development.
by Dellin » Tue Sep 03, 2013 2:18 pm
Partial environmental damage is a reasonable tradeoff to economic development, so long as the damage is properly mitigated to ensure sustainable development.
by Auralia » Tue Sep 03, 2013 6:03 pm
Hittanryan wrote:Except the principal cause of deforestation generally comes from cheap slash-and-burn agriculture practiced by lower-income farmers, not mineral extraction. Agriculture requires leaving the topsoil intact, unlike the method you described. That same topsoil is then depleted of nutrients by constant rain and overgrazing, forcing farmers to move on in a short time frame.
Hittanryan wrote:You've essentially duplicated what I have already said, that the only rainforest reclamation projects so far have been small in scale and are still works in progress.
Hittanryan wrote:Furthermore, just because it is possible for a company to behave in an environmentally-conscious manner, doesn't mean that it will, necessarily.
Hittanryan wrote:And even if that claim was true, how do you expect the natural environment to serve human interests after it has already been destroyed?
Hittanryan wrote:It's easy to say "partial damage" without defining it. What does that mean? Does partial damage mean sustainable development, or does it mean devoid of life but humans can walk around without a biohazard suit?
Hittanryan wrote:So far, you have demonstrated you have little to no knowledge on how sensitive, fragile even, tropical rainforest ecosystems are to any outside influences. There's a reason they need to be protected.
Dellin wrote:Which is immensely ironic, seeing as the target resolution's whole purpose is to make sure that there is only "partial damage" by creating regulations that make sure some rainforest areas have protected status.
Dellin wrote:The only way to discredit the idea that you actually just directly endorsed the intention of the target resolution is to fall in with the conspiracy theory that this resolution makes ALL rainforest areas off limits.
by The Remean Lordship » Tue Sep 03, 2013 6:18 pm
Auralia wrote:The purpose of the natural environment is ultimately to serve human interests.
by Auralia » Tue Sep 03, 2013 6:22 pm
by The Remean Lordship » Tue Sep 03, 2013 6:28 pm
by Dellin » Tue Sep 03, 2013 6:30 pm
Auralia wrote:The Remean Lordship wrote:
Thank you for explaining your corrupt and anti-environmental reason for writing this resolution.
How is that anti-environmental? Part of believing that the purpose of the environment is to serve human interests is supporting sustainable development, which ensures that future generations can make use of the environment as well.
Also, would you please tell me, in your opinion, what is the purpose of the environment, if not to benefit humanity?
by Auralia » Tue Sep 03, 2013 6:48 pm
The Remean Lordship wrote:The environment is not an entity, but a collection of beings. Their objectives are up for debate but if you know anything about Charles Darwin, you might get the basic idea.
[...]
Naturally, to survive one must terminate some of the lives of these entities (another Darwin idea, [survival of the fittest])...
The Remean Lordship wrote:What are we getting on about? Logging? Is logging worth destroying the environment and disrupting everything????
[...]
...but the immense slaughter of plants and animals that industrial logging in rainforests commits is absolutely meaningless.
The Remean Lordship wrote:Animals may not be human but humans are animals, and what is the difference between animals and plants than some chemical processes?
The Remean Lordship wrote:You may reference the economy, but sometimes one has to forget about the economy in order to accomplish the greater good.
Dellin wrote:Is the sun's only purpose to keep us warm?
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement