Unchopping A Tree (VIDEO)

We lose 90 acres of rain forest every minute. That means that New York's Central Park would be completely obliterated in 9 minutes, London's Hyde Park in 4 minutes, and Copenhagen's Tivoli Park in 1 minute. Maya Lin's video for WhatIsMissing.net asks, if deforestation were happening in your city, how quickly would you work to stop it?

WATCH:

Maya Lin - Unchopping a Tree from What is Missing? Foundation on Vimeo.

Get HuffPost Green On Facebook and Twitter!

Comments

[JScott]

04:13 PM on 12/19/2009

Uh just go to Google maps and go to the Amazon, see the fish bone deforestation taking place.

[JScott]

04:11 PM on 12/19/2009

Too controversial I guess, it's been removed. Ah corporate media at work, has it popped up elsewhere?

[TheAlchemist]

12:27 AM on 12/18/2009

Scientists have known about the global warming trend for >30 years. It has only amplified since then. Back then we thought it was all due to deforestation. Now we also recognize the role of using fossil fuels.

We can not afford to sit on our hands. We need to stop behaving like humans are the only species that matters.

It's time to plant some trees. Make compost. Use ATP as our energy source. Urge businesses to do the same.

Mitakuye Oyasin

[bobbobato]

10:37 PM on 12/17/2009

Hmmm... If central park is lost in nine minutes, then I guess that means that the city of New York would go in a day. 365 days in a year, decades of deforestation... How on earth do we have any trees left on the planet?

[publanski]

10:15 AM on 12/18/2009

It's a big planet.

[socialmistfit]

06:30 PM on 12/17/2009

The stu ped end game for global warming fanatics is a world with significantly less people all living in communal villages comprised of hemp tents eating sustainable wild fruits and grains and free range rodents.

[TheAlchemist]

12:28 AM on 12/18/2009

Looks like that's what your avatar is eating...

[socialmistfit]

03:07 PM on 12/18/2009

He is eating a koolaid drinking liberal lemming before it jumped off the cliff.

[the-lexicon]

01:35 PM on 12/18/2009

I think the really dumb end game for global warming fanatics, is that by sitting on our hands and doing nothing, that WILL be the end game, whether we like it or not.

It's not a matter of preferring or not preferring it.

Our society is based on stable resource and supply chains, that are themselves based on a pretty stable ecosystem, all things considered. When that ecosystem goes for a bit of a roller coaster ride, we will quickly, and disastrously find we're unable to feed ourselves nor keep ourselves warm and dry.

The population "adjustment" will be completely out of our control. You will then have very little CHOICE but to live in a hemp shack and feed on whatever forage you can find near you.

It's not a matter of preference or perception of the value of that lifestyle. It will be awful.

[socialmistfit]

06:25 PM on 12/17/2009

Anti-capitalist propoganda. Let's call it what it is.

[publanski]

10:16 AM on 12/18/2009

Yes, science is anti-capitalist propaganda.

[QUO-VADIS]

11:53 AM on 12/18/2009

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020126/climategate-goes-serial-now-the-russians-confirm-that-uk-climate-scientists-manipulated-data-to-exaggerate-global-warming/

Good reading

[the-lexicon]

01:44 PM on 12/18/2009

I am told that gay lovers have a terminology for describing which role an individual plays within the relationship. One is called a "top" or one is called a "bottom". I think I can let imagination take me the rest of the way, in deciding what those terms mean.

Now, capitalism, works very much the same way, with some notable differences. In capitalism, not everyone can be a "top"....but interestingly enough, almost everyone CAN be a "bottom", and in fact, there are far more "bottoms" than there are "tops" in capitalism.

Another striking difference between capitalism and gay relationships, is that it is decidedly undesirable and awful to be a "bottom" in capitalism. It's awful, because nobody chooses to be a bottom in capitalism, and if you are one, you're pretty much stuck being one.

All-in-all though...being a "top" is a pretty gosh darned fine thing, in capitalism. If you ARE a "top", you might even find yourself thinking, "hey, how could anyone not like this system?"

[TheAlchemist]

11:35 AM on 12/17/2009

Scientists have known about the global warming trend for >30 years. It has noly amplified since then. Back then we thought it was all due to deforestation. Now we also recognize the role of using fossil fuels.

We can not afford to sit on our hands. We need to stop behaving like humans are the only species that matters.

It's time to plant some trees. Make compost. Use ATP as our energy source. Urge businesses to do the same.

Mitakuye Oyasin

[socialmistfit]

06:27 PM on 12/17/2009

When science is politicized scientists deserve as much respect as politicians.

[Loveforlife]

11:53 PM on 12/18/2009

Nice.

[William Waterway Marks]

08:13 AM on 12/17/2009

Yes, I agree - maybe in lieu of buying a tree for Christmas that gets thrown away after a week or so - people can make a gift to our Earth and its future by planting a tree instead of killing a tree

[fumes]

10:21 PM on 12/17/2009

best!

[Cinnamonape]

02:28 AM on 12/17/2009

It's time to spike the forest.

I've travelled through many rainforest areas in Southeast Asia and discussed this issue with indigenous people and they agree that their preferred livelihoods are based on forest economies...but illegal loggers, often bribing local officials, destroy their means of subsistence. Even National Parks are destroyed along rivers and roads, and increasingly further in.

They say if they were given them the tools (high-powered nail guns and 9-inch nails) they'd spike the forests near the roads and rivers, and even the economically valuable trees deep in the forest. We've discussed these issues into the night. They would mark and post the areas they've spiked. They say that they would be perfectly happy going back to the old methods of using an axe to obtain the necessary wood to build their own huts, canoes, and other implements.

This is what the money to "protect the forest" should be used for...give the money to local communities to start "spiking" the forests surrounding their villages, along roads, and rivers and spike the already illegal felled trees.

[PRONESE]

05:52 AM on 12/17/2009

Oh Yes
*
*
Great Idea, Injure and Maim the loggers.
*
Posish!
*
R/ PRONESE

[Kaviraj]

07:20 AM on 12/17/2009

Indeed a great idea. Those loggers will make it impossible for you to survive. You like that?

[mzrecycle]

07:42 AM on 12/17/2009

Did you miss the part that the areas spiked would be marked and posted?!?!

[William Waterway Marks]

01:22 AM on 12/17/2009

Yes, deforestation is a curse of these times - given the brutally efficient technology we have created for the purpose of cutting and milling trees. The evolution of trees preceded the evolution of higher terrestrial life forms. Trees allow for the manifestation of extremely complex ecosystems while at the same time facilitating groundwater recharge, keeping flood waters in check, and nurturing rivers.
Relative to climate change - the area of rain forest burned each year in the Amazon Basin - produces a quantity of green house gases that about equals the green house gasses produced by all of the world's trains, planes, and automobiles.

[Kaviraj]

07:21 AM on 12/17/2009

Fanned and faved.

[Richard2]

08:07 PM on 12/16/2009

Thanks to the slowly rising level of CO2 in the atmosphere, tree growth in the future is likely to exceed tree growth in the past, when less CO2 was available. This will be a big plus for large forested areas, and for agriculture.

[wdw505]

10:35 PM on 12/16/2009

sounds good

[MaximMaximus]

12:04 AM on 12/17/2009

Just the opposite actually. It is predicted that the surface coverage of greenery will increase indeed. But the conditions imposed by such a shift in nature will not necessarily be conducive to human life.

[max08]

01:22 AM on 12/17/2009

Uhh....Check the US Navy figures for submarines. The amount of CO2 that is dangerous for human life is over 8,000 ppm in some circumstances, 10,000 ppm for others.

[fumes]

06:31 PM on 12/16/2009

who knew..

Higher Carbon Dioxide May Give Pines Competitive Edge
"Scientist's analysis found that high-CO2 loblolly seeds were similar in nutrient content, germination and growth potential to seeds from trees growing under present-day CO2 concentrations. "If anything, they actually seem to be slightly better seeds rather than more seeds of poorer quality," Way said."
http://www.physorg.com/news168527465.html

[realpolitic]

03:33 PM on 12/17/2009

Except pine trres across Canada and the western U.S. are being ravaged by pine beetles due to climate change.

"Beetles that turn 100-year-old trees into dead, gray sticks are ripping through forests in western Canada. Many experts say the infestations are caused by warmer weather linked to global climate change. And that's not all. According to a new study, these beetle outbreaks could also end up making global warming worse. "

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89905032

[fumes]

06:24 PM on 12/16/2009

scientists ''surprised'' and ''wrong''.. no way!!!
way..
CO2 May Help Some Trees Weather Ice Storms
"Researchers working at a Duke University outdoor test facility found commercially important loblolly pines, growing under carbon-dioxide levels mimicking those predicted for the year 2050 -- roughly one and a half times today's levels -- fared somewhat better during and after a major ice storm than did loblollies growing under current concentrations of the gas.
The results came as a surprise, the researchers said.
"Before the storm, I was absolutely certain the pines would be more susceptible to ice damage under elevated concentrations of carbon dioxide," said Ram Oren, a Duke ecology professor. "My impressions were absolutely wrong. Instead of increasing the sensitivity to ice-storm damage, carbon dioxide decreased the sensitivity."
http://www.physorg.com/news75054187.html

[fumes]

06:21 PM on 12/16/2009

Trees Advance in a Warming World
Matt Walker
Editor, Earth News

"Trees around the world are colonising new territories in response to higher temperatures.
From the US west coast to northern Siberia and south-east Asia, trees are growing at higher elevations, and at higher latitudes as the climate warms.
Of 166 sites studied, trees are advancing at more than half, while they are receding at just two sites.
The shift is revealed by the first global analysis of treelines published in the journal Ecology Letters."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8218000/8218335.stm

[SvrWx]

05:35 PM on 12/16/2009

Actually, the amount of trees in the world has increased.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/16/another-al-gore-reality-check-%E2%80%9Crising-tree-mortality%E2%80%9D/#more-14222

Now to most people, “rising tree mortality” raises the specter of a world with less greenery. But how does real world data compare with the virtual modeled world? Is the world getting less greener? Is there any hint of the virtual world in the real world data?

Satellite data for the real world can help give us an idea.

Global

Globally net primary productivity (NPP) has increased. As the IPCC’s WG II report (p. 106) says:

Satellite-derived estimates of global net primary production from satellite data of vegetation indexes indicate a 6% increase from 1982 to 1999, with large increases in tropical ecosystems (Nemani et al., 2003) [Figure 1]. The study by Zhou et al. (2003), also using satellite data, confirm that the Northern Hemisphere vegetation activity has increased in magnitude by 12% in Eurasia and by 8% in NorthAmerica from 1981 to 1999

[Cinnamonape]

02:48 AM on 12/17/2009

Well that's interesting...but if there has been an increase globally by 6% in that time and even greater increases in Northern Hemisphere vegetation activity (12% in Eurasia and by 8% in NorthAmerica) from 1981 to 1999...then I don't see how there could be "large increases in tropical ecosystems".
There would have to be much lower increases, if not negative growth, in South America and Africa.

Furthermore these reports come from 2003 dealing with data before 1999. Most authorities reporting satellite data have reported up to 10-20% loss of forest cover since then in the tropics.

[joebaggadonuts]

05:41 PM on 12/17/2009

Your source is lying.