People will be losing jobs, but the jobs they had were based on something that was harmful to the environment to begin with, though of course, people should try to provide alternative employment to those who have lost their jobs so that they won't have to be hit too hard by this.

@ bolded: This argument can be applied to most jobs today. Makers of automobiles, loggers, drilling and mining for natural resources; it comes down to weighing cost vs. benefit.

Trees are renewable crops, so there's an added benefit to it. It's just a matter of replanting them after you're done (which is pretty much status quo these days, IIRC). A far more profitable and USEFUL idea would be, instead of cracking down on logging entirely, is to modernize the means by which they do their work. Replace snatch-and-grab logging with scientific logging and more substantial reforestation. Plus, if you build houses from the wood but let the forest grow back...you sequester carbon in the wood AND allow the new tree to sequester more.

This would again provide work for the natives and a newly-revitalized village.

As with regards to oxygen, you'd be more on-target if you were talking about a threat to, say, plankton. Plankton on their own are the source of half of Earth's oxygen, with the rest being supplied by other more familiar forms of vegetation: trees, grass, shrubs, bushes, flowers, etc.

Don't think the rioting's a smart idea though.

People will be losing jobs, but the jobs they had were based on something that was harmful to the environment to begin with, though of course, people should try to provide alternative employment to those who have lost their jobs so that they won't have to be hit too hard by this.

@ bolded: This argument can be applied to most jobs today. Makers of automobiles, loggers, drilling and mining for natural resources; it comes down to weighing cost vs. benefit.

Trees are renewable crops, so there's an added benefit to it. It's just a matter of replanting them after you're done (which is pretty much status quo these days, IIRC). A far more profitable and USEFUL idea would be, instead of cracking down on logging entirely, is to modernize the means by which they do their work. Replace snatch-and-grab logging with scientific logging and more substantial reforestation. Plus, if you build houses from the wood but let the forest grow back...you sequester carbon in the wood AND allow the new tree to sequester more.

This would again provide work for the natives and a newly-revitalized village.

As with regards to oxygen, you'd be more on-target if you were talking about a threat to, say, plankton. Plankton on their own are the source of half of Earth's oxygen, with the rest being supplied by other more familiar forms of vegetation: trees, grass, shrubs, bushes, flowers, etc.

Don't think the rioting's a smart idea though.

IIRC "substantial reforestation" wouldn't be as feasible for rainforests and it's hard to make rainforests grow back after being cleared... though again I'm mostly basing this off stuff from back in middle school which I might slightly misremember... and from what I've heard since, even making the rainforest logging "sustainable" would still cause lots of jobs to be lost... though yeah, a balanced approach based on sustainable development would seem more logical...

As for plankton, even if it's more of an oxygen source the difference is that it's not being actively destroyed as much as rainforests are, and even if rainforests aren't the main source they still supply a significant amount (more than a quarter of our oxygen according to Wikipedia) and should still be protected. It's odd, when people talk about banning smoking in public places, including bars, they're talking about how it's "everyone's air" but at least you can get away from the effects of it if you walk out of the bar... the same can't be said about pollution and deforestation...

"Trees are renewable crops, so there's an added benefit to it. It's just a matter of replanting them after you're done (which is pretty much status quo these days, IIRC)."

Yeah, it's not like trees age incredibly slow. =/

Trees are renewable crops

Ultra... Do you even READ what you type anymore?

~Tobe

Trees are renewable crops

Ultra... Do you even READ what you type anymore?

~Tobe

Given that trees are used for a variety of purposes (and can be cultivated as such purposefully in many cases), do you really think it's that much of a stretch to consider them a crop of sorts?

EDIT:

Yeah, it's not like trees age incredibly slow. =/

*points*

A far more profitable and USEFUL idea would be, instead of cracking down on logging entirely, is to modernize the means by which they do their work. Replace snatch-and-grab logging with scientific logging and more substantial reforestation.

AKA: go for the older ones. Leave the new ones alone to grow for a period of years. Most likely, a large portion will be left untouched for environmental reasons. They grow slowly, yes, but that's why it would be spread out over a period of many years.

It's not rocket science.

OMG! no-one's gonna do that! I don't wanna paste a source >:[