[Newfie]

Driving around here I see two things that are contradictory.

This is a heavy agricultural area but also large amounts of woodland, frequently monoculture pine planted for future harvest. When left to grow naturally I see hard/soft wood mixes.

I occasionally see mixed woods being clear cut and turned into ag land. You can tell by the stumps there was a lot of hardwood.

But I also see ag land being planted in solar panels in roughly equal measure.

In aggregate it is the equivalent to cutting forests to plant solar farms.

[suxs]

The largest consumer of land in the United States is due to population growth of 2 million each year. Every 24 hours, 6,000+ acres are lost forever. That's 3,422 square miles each year.

According to the U.S. Forest Service, the United States is PERMANENTLY losing 6,000 acres of open land - much of it forested - to development each day. Suburban/exurban development is converting forested and agricultural land into housing, parking lots, roads, and other forms of infrastructure.

[yellowcanoe]

The largest consumer of land in the United States is due to population growth of 2 million each year. Every 24 hours, 6,000+ acres are lost forever. That's 3,422 square miles each year.

According to the U.S. Forest Service, the United States is PERMANENTLY losing 6,000 acres of open land - much of it forested - to development each day. Suburban/exurban development is converting forested and agricultural land into housing, parking lots, roads, and other forms of infrastructure.

Unfortunately the response of most environmentalists to this problem is to promote intensification, not stopping population growth. That's exactly the situation I see here in Ottawa, Canada. Our population of 1,000,000 is projected to grow 40% over the next 25 years to 1.4 million. Environmental groups are up in arms at more urban sprawl but they don't object to the population growth itself. Of course a significant percentage of people really want to live in a detached house so continued construction of roads and suburban neighbourhoods is inevitable.

[Newfie]

Chicken Coup Earth.

[suxs]

Environmental groups don't object to population growth.

Will you please flesh out this comment with a bit more detail?

I THINK what you are suggesting (although if I'm in error, my apologies) is all too often environmental groups are silent on the issue of human population growth. Yes, I'm afraid you are right and I will tell you why this is the case. As I know that you are aware, the subject of curtailing human population, even if presented as a non-compulsory, optional strategy such as birth control, is for a certain sub-set of the population (the anti-choice crowd) equivalent to concentration camps and forced sterilization. There is NO middle ground. Environmental groups have learned through the school of hard knocks that it's best to avoid this topic and focus on their stated objective.

[JuanP]

"Amazon rainforest now most likely warming Earth's atmosphere, not cooling it, scientists say"
https://www.rt.com/news/518111-amazon-r ... tmosphere/

The study actually refers to the Amazon BASIN, not the rainforest. I found very interesting the fact that the scientists made that distinction , which was lost on the article's writer. The Amazon jungle or rainforest is now longer the same thing as the Amazon basin, because so much of the Amazon basin has been already deforested.

Also, the writer confused positive feedback loops with negative feedback loops, a common mistake that people who don't know the definitions and difference often commit when dealing with environmental degradation and Climate Change related feedback loops because positive feedback loops normally have negative consequences in these areas, which makes the terms confusing for some people.

Another, Western, article on the topic for RT phobic people:
"The Amazon is likely emitting more greenhouse gases than it absorbs, new study says"
https://weather.com/news/climate/news/2 ... -emissions

[yellowcanoe]

Environmental groups don't object to population growth.

Will you please flesh out this comment with a bit more detail?

I THINK what you are suggesting (although if I'm in error, my apologies) is all too often environmental groups are silent on the issue of human population growth. Yes, I'm afraid you are right and I will tell you why this is the case. As I know that you are aware, the subject of curtailing human population, even if presented as a non-compulsory, optional strategy such as birth control, is for a certain sub-set of the population (the anti-choice crowd) equivalent to concentration camps and forced sterilization. There is NO middle ground. Environmental groups have learned through the school of hard knocks that it's best to avoid this topic and focus on their stated objective.

Canada and many other first world countries already have a birthrate lower than the replacement rate which should result in a shrinking population. A shrinking population should be considered a good thing in countries that have a very high per capita resource consumption. Unfortunately, a shrinking population creates financial challenges so there is considerable pressure in society to continue to grow the economy and population. Given a low birthrate the only way to continue population growth is via mass immigration. Some will argue that moving people from one country to another doesn't constitute population growth. That may be true, but when the majority of immigrants are coming from third world or developing countries where the per capita resource consumption is low the net effect is that their resource consumption will increase after moving to a first world country. Our biggest environmental problem is that we are consuming resources at a much faster rate than nature can replenish them and this is putting an ever increasing pressure on the biosphere.

Unfortunately, it is really hard to make the case for reduced immigration. Moving to a first world country certainly benefits the immigrants themselves and most people either personally experience or hear stories of immigrants who are making a positive contribution to society. There is also the fact that immigrants are increasingly holding more power - in Canada more than 20% of our population were not born here and have a strong interest in retaining a large immigration rate so more of their countrymen can get to Canada. Any political party or organization pushing for a lower immigration rate also has to contend with the fact that they are going to attract all the people who want immigration reduced for the wrong reasons (the racist, xenophobic lobby).

So the reality is that we are stuck with environmental groups that promote more economic growth and population growth via immigration. I find it hard to believe that we will make any real progress on dealing with environment problems while we are still preoccupied with the same factors that created our environmental problems. Research also shows that there is no reason for believing that we can reduce resource consumption via decoupling growth from resource usage or creating a circular economy.