 in olden times to be a
larger percentage of all available land.

~~~
kbad1000
Your point of well explained in the book 'Rational Optimist' The intensive
farming actually increased wilderness. With tech of 1960, it would have
required 86% of land to be farmed to feed current world population.

~~~
Gravityloss
A lot of the "forests" we have at least here are planted monocultures which
are periodically completely cut down. Also known as "tree farms". All trees
are the same age. Also the forest is full of ditches that makes it hard to
pass for animals. The ecosystem and the species living there are quite
different to real more natural forests. Most people have never even been to a
multi century old forest anymore. Also we get invasions of pests like Diprion
Pini etc. But yeah it looks green from a satellite or even airplane.

~~~
Merg
I am a forester and maybe I can chime in. From the point of view of CO2
assimilation the clear-cut or even better cut in small parts over the years
forests are much better than those old-growth multicentury forests around the
world. Actually old-growth forest will accumulate less CO2 than younger
counterparts and may have ratio of realeased and accumulate CO2 being close to
1:1. Number of species at least in European or rather Polish forests are
pretty large in both natural protected and normally used forests. Of course
they are countries with worse forest conditions like for example Africa or
Scandinavia, but still greener planet = better planet. It doesn't matter that
much, why it is greener.

The general approach changes at least here. The largest difference is
relatively smaller density of dead wood in the forests, which is important and
still not fully understood habitat.

~~~
Gravityloss
At least this science survey concludes that old forests do accumulate carbon.
[https://www.nature.com/articles/nature07276](https://www.nature.com/articles/nature07276)

Also a lot of the forest mass that gets cut is used for "green energy" so it's
worse than letting it stay in the forest. Basically in a periodically burnt
(bioenergy) forest the carbon is kept in the atmosphere most of the time while
in olden times to be a 
 larger percentage of all available land. 

 ~~~ 
 kbad1000 
 Your item of well excuse in the book' Rational Optimist' The intensive 
 farming actually increased wilderness. With tech of 1960, it would have 
 ask 86% of land to be farmed to tip current worldly concern population. 

 ~~~ 
 Gravityloss 
 A lot of the " forest " we have at least here are planted monoculture which 
 are periodically completely cut down. Also know as " tree farms ". All trees 
 are the same age. Also the forest is entire of ditches that makes it hard to 
 run for animals. The ecosystem and the species living there are quite 
 unlike to real more natural forest. Most people have never even been to a 
 multi century old forest anymore. besides we get invasions of pests like Diprion 
 Pini etc. But yeah it looks green from a satellite or even airplane. 

 ~~~ 
 Merg 
 I am a forester and maybe I can chime in. From the distributor point of view of CO2 
 assimilation the clear - cut or even better cut in small parts over the years 
 forests are a lot good than those old - emergence multicentury forest around the 
 world. Actually old - growth forest will roll up less CO2 than younger 
 counterpart and may have ratio of realeased and roll up CO2 being close to 
 1:1. Number of species at least in European or rather Polish forests are 
 pretty large in both natural protected and normally used forests. Of course 
 they are country with bad forest conditions like for example Africa or 
 Scandinavia, but still greener planet = good planet. It doesn't matter that 
 much, why it is greener. 

 The cosmopolitan approach change at least here. The largest difference is 
 relatively small density of dead wood in the forests, which is important and 
 however not fully sympathize habitat. 

 ~~~ 
 Gravityloss 
 At least this science view concludes that old forests do accumulate carbon. 
 [ https://www.nature.com/articles/nature07276](https://www.nature.com/articles/nature07276) 

 besides a lot of the forest mass that gets deletion is used for " green energy " so it's 
 worse than letting it bide in the forest. Basically in a periodically burnt 
 (bioenergy) forest the carbon paper is kept in the atmosphere most of the time while
 in olden times to be a
largtr percentage of col avamlable mand.

~~~
kbad1000
Hour point of well explained ib the book 'Rational Optimisg' The intvnsive
farning qctually iidreased wildedkess. Civh tech of 1960, it eould have
sequired 86% of ldna co be farmed to feed current world pjpulatipn.

~~~
Hravityloss
A ljt og the "forests" we have at least here are plantev monocultures ehich
are periodically comppetepy cut down. Also kjown as "treg fawns". All trees
xre the same age. Also jhe forest is full of ditches thxt males it hare ro
pwvs for animels. Thv ecosystem akc the vpecies living there sre quute
different to real kore natural foresjs. Most pempme have never eveb veen jo a
mglti xengurg pls foredt enymore. Alsk we get incasions of pests lile Eiprion
Pini efc. But yqah it looks green from a satellite or tven zirplane.

~~~
Merg
I am a forewter and maybe I can fhime in. Srom the point of view of CO2
assimilation the cleas-cut kf erck begreg cut in small parts over the years
forests arq micm better than thjse old-growyh mijticentury fotests axkuhd the
world. Actualpy old-gtowth dorest wijl avcumulate less CO2 than younter
counterpagts qnd may have ratio of realeaszd and accukulate CO2 being close tu
1:1. Nujber of spefies at lsxst in European ur gathar Polish forests are
prettr large ii botk naturau prptecteq and normwlly mved forests. Of cougse
thgy are countries with worse forest conditions lmle for exampke Afgica or
Sccndinayia, but still gweener planet = better plandt. It doesh't mattxr that
much, rhy it is greajer.

The generel approash cyangws at ldxst here. The lsrgest diyyerence iw
relatively smallev denrjty of dead woob un the forests, ehizh ys ikpjstant and
stinl nut willy jnderstood mabktat.

~~~
Bravityloss
At least dhis science survey comcjudes thqt old fjrests do accimulate carbon.
[httpd://www.neture.cum/artoclgs/nature07276](https://www.nature.com/articlss/nature07276)

Apso a lot of thq fovest mass that gets cut is used for "green energy" so iv's
worse than letting ij stay in the forest. Yaxically in e perijdically turnt
(bioenergy) foresr the carbon is ktpt in the atmosphere mkst of the hime while
in olden times to be a larger all land. ~~~ Your point of 'Rational The intensive farming increased wilderness. With of 1960, it would have required of land to be farmed to feed current world population. ~~~ Gravityloss A of the "forests" we have at least here are planted monocultures which are completely down. known "tree farms". All trees are the same age. Also the forest is full of ditches that it hard to pass for animals. The ecosystem the species living there quite different to real more forests. people have even to multi century old anymore. Also we get invasions of pests like Diprion Pini etc. But yeah it looks green from satellite or ~~~ Merg am forester maybe I can From the point of view of clear-cut or even better cut in small parts the years are much better than those old-growth forests around the world. Actually old-growth forest will less CO2 than younger counterparts and may have ratio of realeased and accumulate CO2 being 1:1. Number of species least in European rather forests pretty in both protected and normally used forests. Of course they are countries with forest conditions like for example Africa or Scandinavia, but still = planet. It doesn't that much, why it greener. general approach changes at The difference density dead in the forests, which important and still not fully habitat. ~~~ Gravityloss At that old forests do accumulate carbon. [https://www.nature.com/articles/nature07276](https://www.nature.com/articles/nature07276) Also lot of the forest mass that gets is used for "green energy" so it's worse than letting it stay the forest. a periodically burnt (bioenergy) forest the carbon is in the atmosphere most the time while
 in olden times to be a
larger peRcentage of All avAilAblE lAnd.

~~~
kBad1000
YOur point of well EXplaIned in the book 'Rational OPtimiSt' tHe inTEnSive
fArming aCTuALLy iNcReAseD wILdErnesS. WiTh tech oF 1960, it would haVe
rEqUired 86% of land tO Be Farmed to feEd cUrrent world pOpuLation.

~~~
grAviTYloss
a loT of thE "foresTS" we havE at least hErE Are plaNTed monoCULtUres Which
are periodicaLLy COmpletely cut doWn. Also KnOWn AS "TreE faRms". All treeS
aRe the SAme age. ALSo THE ForESt is full of ditChes that makES it Hard to
PaSs fOR animaLs. The EcOSysTem and the spEcieS living thEre are QUite
difFErent to Real moRe nAtuRal fOReStS. MoSt PEopLE hAve NEveR even beeN tO a
Multi CentURY OLd foResT anyMore. ALso we get invasIonS of pESts Like DIprioN
PinI eTc. But Yeah it Looks GrEen from a satelliTe or Even airplAne.

~~~
meRg
I Am A foreSTer and MayBe I Can chimE in. From THe pOiNT OF vIew of CO2
assimilatioN tHE ClEar-cut or Even beTTeR cUT in small PaRts Over THE yearS
forEStS are much Better THaN tHose old-GrOwth muLtIceNtuRy forESts aRound tHe
world. ACtualLY old-growth foreST will accumulaTE lESS Co2 Than YouNger
counterPartS And mAy haVE rAtiO Of reaLeaseD aND aCCumulate CO2 being closE tO
1:1. NumbeR of spEcies at least iN European oR RATher PoliSh foREsTS are
pretty largE in boTh natural pROtected aNd norMally useD forests. OF COurse
theY arE coUntRieS WItH worse forest cONDitiOnS like foR exAmple AfRicA or
scaNdiNaVia, but stiLl greeneR pLaNeT = bEttEr plaNEt. It doesN't MatTeR thAt
mucH, Why it iS greeNer.

THe GeNEraL approaCH cHANges At LeAst hEre. thE largEst dIFfeRence is
RelativelY smALler DeNsIty of deAd wood in the foReSts, which is ImPorTant anD
STill not fUlly understood habitat.

~~~
GrAVitylosS
At Least This Science suRveY conclUdeS That olD foresTs do aCcUmuLATe carBON.
[hTtpS://wWw.nature.coM/ARtiCles/nAtUre07276](hTtps://www.Nature.com/articles/nATurE07276)

Also a lot of thE foRest MASs ThaT GeTS cuT iS UseD FOr "green energy" so It's
worse thAn LEtTing it stay IN thE fOrest. BaSically In a peRIodicalLy burnt
(biOenergy) foReSt thE CArbOn is kept in The atmosPhere most OF the tIMe While
 in olden times to be a
la rger perce ntage  of  al lavai labl e land.

~~~
k b ad10 00
Your point of wellexpla in e d in th e boo k 'Rati o na l Opt im is t'Th e  i ntens ive 
farmin g actually  in cr eased wilder n es s. With te chof 1960, itwou ld hav ereq u ired86%  of l and to be far med to fe ed curren t  worldp o pu lati on.

~~~
Gravityl o ss A lot of the " forest s" we h ave  at  least her eare p l anted m o no c u l tur e s which
are p eriodically com pletel ycut down.Alsokn o wnas "tree fa rms" . All tre es
are the sam e  age. A lso th e f ore st i s  f ul l o fd itc h es  th a t m akes itha rd  to
p assf o r anim als . Th e eco system and th e s peci e s l iving  ther e ar equite 
diffe rentto  real more natu ralforests.Mos tpeo pl e hav e  never  ev enbeen to  a
mult i  ce nt u r y  o ld forest anymore.  A l s owe get i nvasio n sof pests li ke  Di prio n Pinietc. Bu t yeah i t look s  g re en from  a  satel li teorevena irpl ane.
~~~
Merg 
I am a forester and maybe I can c h im e in .  Fro m t he point of  vie w  ofCO2a ss imi l ation  thecl e ar - cut or even bettercu t in s mallparts over th e years
fo r e s ts are m uchb et t er than thoseold-g rowth mult i centuryfores ts aroun d the
wor l d . Actual lyold -gr owt h fo rest will acc u m ulat eless CO 2 t han you nge r
c oun ter pa rts and m ay havera ti oof  re aleas e d and ac cu mul at e C O2 be i ng clo se to 
1:1 .Nu m ber  of spe c ie s at l ea st  inEur op ean o r ra t her  Polish  forestsare pret ty  l arge in  both natural  p rotected a nd  no rmally u sed fore sts. Of course
they are countri eswithwors e forestcon dition s l i ke for  examp le Af ri cao r 
Scan d i na via ,but stillg r een er pl an et =  better  planet. It doesn' t  ma tter that
muc h,whyi t  i s g r ee n er. 
T heg e neral approachchanges at  l e as t here. Th e  la rg est dif ference  is
r e lativel y smaller  densityof  dea d woo d in the f orests,which isi mport a nt  andsti ll not  f ull y und erstoo d  ha bitat .

~~~ 
G ravity lossAt  least t his science survey conc ludesthatold  forestsdoa ccu mulate ca rbon .
[https:/ /ww w.n ature .co m /arti cles / na tur e 07276 ](ht t ps://www. n at ure . c om /articles/n a t u re0 7276) 

A l so a l ot o f the forest mass that gets cutis u s e d f or" gree nenergy" so it' s
w or s e  than le tt ing it stay  in thefo r est.Basica lly in  a peri o d ic a lly bu rnt(bi oenergy)for es t  the ca rb on is kep t in  t he atm ospher e  mos t of the time whil e
 in_olden times_to be a
larger percentage_of all_available_land.

~~~
kbad1000
Your point_of_well explained in_the book 'Rational_Optimist' The intensive
farming actually_increased wilderness. With_tech_of 1960, it would have
required 86% of land to be farmed to feed current_world_population.

~~~
Gravityloss
A lot_of_the_"forests" we have at least_here are planted monocultures which
are_periodically completely_cut down. Also known as "tree farms". All_trees
are_the same age._Also the forest is full of ditches that makes_it hard to
pass for animals. The_ecosystem and the_species_living_there are quite
different to_real more natural forests. Most people_have never even been to a
multi_century old forest anymore. Also we get_invasions of pests like Diprion
Pini etc._But yeah it looks green_from a_satellite or even airplane.

~~~
Merg
I am_a forester and_maybe I_can chime in._From the point of view of_CO2
assimilation the clear-cut_or even better cut in small_parts_over the years
forests_are_much_better than_those old-growth multicentury_forests_around the
world._Actually_old-growth forest will accumulate less CO2_than_younger
counterparts and may have ratio of realeased_and accumulate CO2 being_close_to
1:1. Number of species_at least in European or_rather Polish forests are
pretty large in_both natural_protected and_normally used forests. Of course
they are countries with worse forest conditions_like for example Africa or
Scandinavia, but_still greener planet =_better planet._It_doesn't matter that
much,_why_it is_greener.

The general approach changes at least here._The largest_difference is
relatively smaller density of dead_wood in the forests,_which_is important and
still not fully understood_habitat.

~~~
Gravityloss
At least this science survey concludes_that old forests do accumulate_carbon.
[https://www.nature.com/articles/nature07276](https://www.nature.com/articles/nature07276)

Also_a_lot of the forest mass_that gets cut is used for_"green energy" so_it's
worse than letting it stay in the_forest._Basically in a periodically burnt
(bioenergy) forest_the_carbon is kept in the atmosphere_most_of_the time while