8 Basic Ways of Preventing Deforestation

By Nathalie Fiset

There have been so many discussions on the effects of deforestation in our environment. These effects range from alarming to catastrophic. We have read newspaper headlines that show the wreckage that natural disasters have done. Flashfloods have not only damaged millions of properties all over the globe but it has also collected lives. Landslides have done the same. These two are the results of nature’s balance that has been disturbed–they are the effects of deforestation.

Deforestation is the act of converting patches of forests to become areas of residence or industry. More and more businessmen are pushing through forests to obtain more land. Environment is sacrificed in exchange for profit. And this is a highly disturbing fact.

As an individual or as a part of the global community, you can do something to help prevent deforestation. Maybe you can’t fight off illegal loggers with your bear hands but with some basic ways, you can make a difference–no matter how small. Here’s a list:

1. If deforestation is a negative event, then a positive event should take place to counter its effects–reforestation. Plant trees and begin doing this in your yard. Trees give off oxygen that is essential for human existence and they, in turn, capture the carbon dioxide that humans and animals exhale. Trees also help in containing water in its roots. With this simple act, you are able to prevent soil erosion, which is the root cause of landslides!

2. Use recycled items such as books or pad paper, toilet paper, even shopping bags. If you can, do not waste any of these products so that no new raw material would be required to replace them.

3. If you are a farmer (or if you know someone who works as a farmer), try to rotate your crops. Instead of using a different portion of land each year, why not use the same portion with different crops? This practice also helps in maintaining the fertility of the soil. With the rotation of crops, not only is there a variety on the harvest each year, there is also the possibility of keeping that portion of land for as long as you can.

4. Cut down only the mature trees. Do not kill baby trees. And for every tree that is lost, plant another one as a replacement.

5. Join environmental awareness groups that would help you be an advocate of reforestation. In Washington, specifically in the Washington Middle School, there was a group of students that established a service-learning project. In their project, they asked a penny from each person. They explained that this money would help in buying acres of the rainforest in Amazon. Once this pushes through, no deforestation could take place in that purchased area.

6. There is a report that in Indonesia and Malaysia, more and more trees are cut down to produce palm oil. This massive destruction in the forests of both countries resulted into the loss of habitat for the native orangutans. With the loss of more trees, more animals become homeless. You can’t help prevent this altogether but you can limit your consumption of products that contain palm oil such as breads, chocolates, and even some cosmetics such as shampoo, soap or toothpaste. As to your food consumption, you can begin a diet of roasted or boiled foods instead of frying them.

7. Instead of using firewood, use coals to heat up your fireplaces during the winter season. Remember that it takes only a few hours to consume the firewood but it would take years to grow a single tree. Think twice before purchasing firewood again.

8. Support the laws or programs that were made to protect the forests and to stop any form of deforestation. Programs such as the Tropical Forestry Action Plan have done a major difference on the way deforestation is looked at today. This program spearheaded the discussion of tropical deforestation.

It is imperative to know that there is no such thing as a small, insignificant act when it comes to defeating deforestation. No matter how small your deed maybe, the important thing there is ‘every act can make a difference’. Deforestation can be prevented and you can be an active force in achieving that.

No Comments

The Effects of Deforestation in our World

By Erin Hunt

The Effects of Deforestation in our WorldMany of the earth’s most delicate ecosystems have been affected by rampant and irresponsible deforestation. Although the dire effects are well known and documented by researches around the world, deforestation still persists by those who wish to flout the law. Why are forest ecosystems so valuable and what are the effects of deforestation in our world?

Among the ecosystems that currently exist, forest ecosystem have been widely recognized as one of the most efficient and delicate on earth. Forests are important ecosystems because they hold many important nutrients and help to recycle nutrients too. They are also important because they absorb and hold water thus making them a very rich and porous humus topsoil.

Deforestation happens when trees are cut down on a wide scale. This will lead to widespread disruption of a forest ecosystem. When a forest is cleared, the humus rich topsoil is left exposed leading to a number of dire consequences. The rain that falls on the exposed soil converts that rich topsoil into a sealed-off soil that is moist and muddy. It causes the soil to be washed easily into waterways. What is left behind is poor subsoil that leaves the land vulnerable to more natural erosion. In other words, deforestation leads to massive soil and land erosion.

When deforestation happens in tropical rain forests the effects are more devastating. It is because humus topsoil in tropical rain forests is known to be very thin and lacking in nutrients, so when deforestation occurs, the topsoil that is left behind is very vulnerable and will tend to wash away and erode easily. After deforestation in tropical rain forests, the only thing left is very poor nutrient, hard, clay-like subsoil that is not rich enough to sustain most forms of agriculture.

Sediments that are washed away eventually enter our drains, streams and rivers. These eroding sediments are often responsible for clogging up water channel leading to the problem of flooding. Soil erosion upsets surrounding ecosystems and has been known to be responsible for killing off the fishes and flooding reservoirs.

However despite all the ill effects, deforestation still happens around the world at alarming rates, especially in developing countries. A survey carried out by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that 33.8 million trees were cleared between 1990 and 1995 in developing countries. That area would be 3 times the size of France! Why? What is happening? It is because forests are ready source of timber and wealth and after the forests are cleared, there’s room for agriculture. Most of the agriculture is directed the to the planting of cash crops and grass and other crops to support greater beef promotion.

Global warming is a threat that will affect generations to come. The atmosphere surrounding us that supports life is a God-given gift. It must be protected. We should be leaders in efforts to curb global warming, not resistant followers.

No Comments

Environmental Issues For Real – Population Growth

By J. Mark Dangerfield Ph.D.

Twenty years ago I wrote an article entitled “What’s in a number?” It was about the challenge of a rapidly growing elephant population in northern Botswana that was confined to a large but finite area. At the time the wildlife managers, scientists and conservationists close to the problem argued incessantly about exactly how many elephants there were. Was it 80,000, or 110,000 or 92,421?

This was a peculiar focus given that the real challenge was not how many elephants there were, as everyone agreed that there were many, but what, if anything, was to be done about the consequences of each year there being more and more hungry herbivores the size of a truck. In effect the problem was the consequences of population growth.

Today in Australia there is a simmering debate about numbers. This time it is about the growing population of humans and how many there should be living on the island continent.

Would 26 million Australians or 36 million be best? Perhaps it should be some number in between. And at what rate should Australia get to whatever the final number should be, given that as at June 2011 there are 22.6 million residents?

Well known Australian entrepreneur Dick Smith argues for a stable 26 million. He proposes that the extra 3 million or so should be achieved by limiting annual immigration to 75,000 per year (from the current 185,000) and letting the number climb steadily. Typically for a modern economy birth rates have fallen so that population is stable without immigration. The main logic behind Smith’s 26 million is that this is the number of humans that the environment can handle.

Financial analyst Bernard Salt believes 33 million by 2050 is essential. Any less and Australia will run out of workers. His conclusion comes from the demographic numbers that see retiring Baby Boomers leaving the workforce and, as they struggle to pay for their retirement, not enough new workers leaving school to replace them. Annual immigration of 180,000 over the next 15 years would be necessary to prevent serious labor shortages and a stalling of the economy.

These two contrasting views capture the essence of the debate that has also begun to spread to the political sphere. Should the optimal population size be determined by available resources (Smith’s view) or by the need to maintain the economic system (Salt’s argument)?

Before we try to unpick this conundrum, some context is needed.

The global human population of 6.7 billion will grow to at least 9 billion over the coming decades. It may be more, 12 billion perhaps, but it will certainly grow before it contracts back to perhaps 5 billion post-2100.

An increase in population over the next decades is as inevitable as death and taxes, just as growth in numbers of a protected elephant population in northern Botswana was a biological certainty. There are already too many youngsters in big families who will themselves reproduce. We have to see out the demographic transition because it is a certainty.

Australia is big enough and rich enough to handle its share of a 50% increase in human numbers and so reach the 30 or so million Salt says is essential.

It is also capable of feeding far more. There is land, technology, a stable economy and the people smarts to overcome challenges of irrigation, nutrients and old soils to grow far more food that the resident population would require. In the future, as now, agriculture will be an important export industry for however many Australians live on the continent.

As a retail entrepreneur, Smith knows about the importance of growth. He would also be familiar with the political economy mantra of ‘more workers, more consumer demand, more tax‘.

Consequently his suggested shift from the economic model of growth at a time when the local population ages, is a huge call. Although he would probably argue that even under a stable population, people will expect standards of living to rise and that this is enough to maintain the paradigm of economic growth.

Salt’s 33 million will put enormous pressure on housing, transport and utilities. The cities will sprawl and the coastlines where people want to live will become more crowded. However, all the building and development, plus the goods and services to keep the people happy will, of course, fuel the economy. An extra 10 million people will buy a lot of refrigerators, toasters and flat-screen TVs.

Economic growth would happen if the number were 43 million or even 63 million. Indeed there are some politicians who see such large numbers as a laudable goal. But, as with the elephants, it is not the number that matters, it is the decisions on what must be done when they go up.

Given time and smart decisions on land management a doubling of population size is possible. It would put pressure on the environment and make it much harder to achieve current conservation objectives and pressure on the decision system. Planning departments would be snowed under.

Growth at a fast rate would stretch the system to breaking point. There would not be time to move to sustainable land management, planning decisions would be rushed and infrastructure would not be able to keep up. People would end up frustrated and stressed.

Rather than argue about the number it is smart to think about managing the rate of growth.

No Comments