[superchroma]

"There is no anti-tree lobby"

There absolutely is. In my country, logging companies release statements complaining bitterly about effects to industry when new areas of land are protected from logging by the government. They equally are quite happy to quietly log ancient trees when allowed. Just because people don't march around with their agenda printed on a badge doesn't mean they don't exist.

[ianbicking]

If you add the slight qualifier "there is no anti-tree-planting lobby" then it works... those logging companies will also enthusiastically support planting trees

[soperj]

There's no lobby, but you count me as part of an anti-tree-planting group. There's a specific reason why, and it's because of how it's done. The reason that they plant trees, is to grow specific kinds of trees that are good for logging companies. So they spray areas that are logged with glycosphate to prevent other plants from reclaiming the logged areas, and then plant round-up ready GMO trees in the area. It leads to these massive mono-culture forests that are prime for huge forest fires. The trees they want are fire-promoting trees (like pines), and the trees they don't (like aspen) are fire break species. They then blame the bigger forest fires entirely on climate change.

[rolandog]

The same way that wolves are pro-birthers when it comes to sheep.

[RobLach]

Yes but planting trees and turning it to lumber is an excellent way to sequester carbon.

[orangepurple]

Trees are not 100% carbon. Logging worsens soil conditions when no effort is made to preserve it. "Just keep planting lol" is not sustainable. Algae sequester carbon better.

[jandrese]

What logging does is create an economic incentive to plant the trees and let them grow. The problem with algae is that it doesn't have economic value currently. People dream about turning it into food or biofuels but that's not currently viable.

Although if you were only interested in sequestering carbon (which currently has close to 0 economic incentive) you could grow algae, filter them out of the water, and then pump them deep underground into old gas/oil wells. It's still a lot of energy but possibly more viable than most carbon capture proposals. Over millions of years that algae will probably turn back into coal/oil.

Also, farming algae in natural waterways tends to have its own environmental impacts.

[rolandog]

Oh, agreed. I just wanted to make an analogy about groups that have, in theory, competing interests but can in some cases have common goals.

[ajross]

Only timber species, though, not forests.

[RunSet]

> Needless to say, the logging industry was not happy about The Lorax. The book was banned from many schools and libraries near thriving timber communities. Timber industry groups even sponsored a rebuttal book, called The Truax, which helped kids understand the necessity of harvesting timber.

https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/the-environmental-messa...

[BurningFrog]

Harvesting and replanting trees is not anti-tree.