[dj_mc_merlin]

"Here we analyse 35 years’ worth of satellite data and provide a comprehensive record of global land-change dynamics during the period 1982–2016. We show that—contrary to the prevailing view that forest area has declined globally—tree cover has increased by 2.24 million km2 (+7.1% relative to the 1982 level). This overall net gain is the result of a net loss in the tropics being outweighed by a net gain in the extratropics."

- Song, X., Hansen, M.C., Stehman, S.V. et al. Global land change from 1982 to 2016. Nature 560, 639–643 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-018-0411-9

This does not take into account loss of biodiversity or effects on climate, but the viewpoint that we are "running out of trees" is a common one. There are actually more trees on earth than stars in the Milky Way by an order of magnitude.

I would love to have my opinion changed on this however, so if further data contradicts the above study (not that one single study ever proves anything), please make me aware of it.

[imnotanerd]

When I started this project I also had that feeling that we were running out of trees.

But my motivation never was to alarm people that we were running out of them, my intention was to make actual deforestation data accessible and approachable to the public so they could decide how big of a problem this was. I have myself learned that I should probably worry less about it than I used to thanks to this bot, and that's fine.

I also think you are not seeing the big picture here. 30 years is pretty much just the minimum for the average tree to grow to a size where it can foster other biomass. On the bigger picture:

"Forests cover 31 percent of the world’s land surface, just over 4 billion hectares. […] This is down from the pre-industrial area of 5.9 billion hectares."

-Earth Policy Institute. http://www.earth-policy.org/indicators/C56/

1.9 billion hectares down in about a century and a half.

My viewpoint now is that there is a deforestation problem in the sense that we destroy forest dependant biomass faster than what it takes for it to recover, but we are still in the time window where the already made harm and the future impact of our deforestation can be reversed, from the viewpoint of Hansen et al we seem to have reversed the negative tendency in tree cover.

[dj_mc_merlin]

Hey, just to clarify this was not a jab at you, I just wanted to present a different viewpoint. Very often people fall into the habit of seeing every environmentalist point as good and true, and anything that contradicts that is false and harmful. A more nuanced perspective is the actual truth.

[imnotanerd]

I didn't take it as jab!

I actually appreciate that you put in effort to add to the discussion and I presume you made some research to find the Hansen 1982-2016 research paper.

That is a success to me because my work has achieved it's goal, discussion about deforestation is moving forwards! It's even more exciting that this is coming from someone who is not a close-minded environmentalist. In a way I agree that, despite taking care of our environment should be a priority, doctrine-like following of mantras and lack of proper criticism is actually harmful for any movement and individual.