The forest cover across most of the world has expanded greatly the last several decades. The worst ecological disasters have happened in communist countries and Eastern Bloc Europe, and continue to happen in third world countries where governments exert enormous control over markets. Market oriented societies do the best at protecting their environment.
>Market oriented societiesJeffrey Epstein neoliberals think young baby trees are ripe for exploitation? 🤔
<The claim that forest cover has expanded greatly across most of the world is misleading. While some temperate regions have seen increases in tree cover, global trends show a significant net loss of forests, driven largely by deforestation in the tropics. Despite some areas gaining trees, the planet is experiencing an overall net loss of forest cover. <Between 2000 and 2020, the world gained 130.9 million hectares of tree cover but lost significantly more, resulting in a net loss of over 100 million hectares.<This net loss is compounded by the fact that gains, which include commercial tree plantations and naturally regenerating forests, do not compensate for the loss of older, more biodiverse primary forests.<n 2024, tropical primary forest loss reached a record-breaking 6.7 million hectares, driven largely by fires and agricultural expansion. <Expansion in temperate zones: Europe and Asia have seen an overall increase in tree cover, primarily due to afforestation efforts and forests regrowing on abandoned agricultural land. For example, Europe had a net gain of 6 million hectares of tree cover from 2000 to 2020.<Decline in tropical regions: Central and South America, Africa, and Southeast Asia have suffered major forest losses. This is primarily due to the permanent conversion of forests for agriculture and other land uses.<Variable trends in other areas: In North America, the U.S. has experienced stable forest area over the last century, with regional gains and losses largely offsetting each other. In Canada and Russia, boreal forests often see temporary tree cover loss from natural fire cycles, though climate change is increasing the intensity of these fires. <It is also crucial to differentiate between "tree cover" and "forest cover," as these terms are sometimes used interchangeably but have different implications for biodiversity and ecosystem health. <New tree cover: Gains in tree cover often result from commercial timber plantations, which are monocultures of a single species and lack the biodiversity of natural forests.<Old-growth forest loss: The loss of older, more complex primary forests is especially detrimental because they store vast amounts of carbon and are critical habitats for a wide range of species. Replacing these ecosystems with new, younger trees does not restore the original ecological value>>2463840>that sure is a screenshot of a headline"AI is destroying our thinking" - girl who has spent hundreds of hours over the last fifteen years replying to screenshots of headlines she saw on Twitter
>>2463632This is the same sleight of hand they use to claim that the ice sheets aren't actually shrinking.
New growth isn't a 1:1 replacement for old growth.
>>2463632>communism is when markets dont fit my bourgeois ideal of freedom or whateverkill yourself /pol/tard
and of course the thread is leftards saying "ermmm sweetie my epic AES state did some posturing" or w/e