Are you a tree hugger?

Do you understand the value of a tree? Do you wonder about the welfare of a single tree? Forest? Do you think trees communicate and feel pain like humans can? Trees communicate with each other, by releasing chemical drifts, they can warn the trees around them if they are in danger. Well, lets take a step back and think about how important our forests and trees are.

In California alone, 129 million trees have died alone due to different variables of climate change since 2010. Trees are extremely generous; they provide nutrients for animals and other plant species in addition to help generate energy. But, with all of the extreme weather patterns: droughts, rainfall and fires trees have been struggling to survive. But, we are all aware of the benefits that trees and forests bring. They provide habitats for animals, they provide income for many resources in different industries, and they cultural recreation.

To put this in perspective, there is 1.7 million acres of forestland in Seattle. This land is worth “more in the total value than the annual revenue of Amazon.”

–>  with this perspective, it leads me to question why our president is trying to develop unprofitable coal plants? Developing coal plants on forest territory will not only destroy the habitats of many species and it takes away resources for other industries for their productions. Our president’s mission to create coal plants will cost consumers “hundreds of millions of dollars.” At the end of the day, is it worth it? Is it worth for unsubsidized industries that base their success based on the beauty of nature have to fight against the administration? Who wins?

–> Well trees are significantly important because they are extremely profitable and are crucial to help keeping us alive by providing us the necessary oxygen.

The graph below shows the significance and the rate in which trees are dying each year. This data only includes from the California, but if our President actually implements coal plants, the graph will spike dramatically. Also, one of the graphs shows the deforestation rates over the past decades. It shows a significant drop during the industrialization period throughout the 1900s.

What do you think? Do you agree with our president that we should develop and build coal plants? Or do you think we should try to preserve our forests?

Are you a tree hugger?

4 thoughts on “Are you a tree hugger?

  1. After reading your post, I am more informed and concerned about the fact that in California 129 million trees died due to climate change. It is terrifying to witness this destruction taking place within our own country, and it is interesting that you pointed out that the 1.7 million acres of forested land in Seattle is worth more than the entire annual revenue of Amazon. It is alarming to see our wooded area have declined so heavily since 1960, and as a country, we should work towards conserving what we have left while working to regrow all that we have lost.

  2. Really interesting data and facts, and I agree that not everyone understands the gravity of the reckless deforestation we are experiencing in this country let alone the rest of the world. The fact you related the worth of the acreage of wooded areas in Seattle to the annual revenue of Amazon really puts things in perspective. Especially since that is such a small area of one state of the US. I agree that we should oppose the building of coal plants and focus our energy on conservation.

  3. I don’t think that a lot of people can conceptualize the amount of environmental damage that results from coal emission and deforestation. In our busy day to day lives which, as students, most of us are not consumed about environmental sustainability and I definitely appreciate the article you chose and wrote about because I now am more aware and informed about the importance of preserving trees.

  4. Interesting stuff, I never really thought about the monetary value of trees as a whole. In response to the question you posed at the end, I think returning to coal mining/coal use is not a smart decision for several reasons. Coal supply in mines is only going down, and will likely run out relatively soon. Coal is also a pretty severe pollutant, and plays a large role in putting GHGs in the atmosphere. I think Trump’s goal with his coal rhetoric is to appeal to the unique voter base of coal miners who are trying to find work. The thing is, these miners could find plenty of jobs in renewable energy if that route were to be taken.

Leave a Reply