Is Replanting Really Eco-friendly?

In terms of land used as timberland, planting new trees in place of the ones that were once there does not erase the impact to the land. In the same way that swapping wild grasses for imported manicured grass is not a 1 for 1 swap, neither is replanting.

It is estimated by some that as a species humans have modified at least 70% of the Earth’s land surface. That sounds like it could be fake, but once cities, farmland, roads, pastures, and factories (among other things) are taken into account, that statistic sounds more reasonable. Now consider this: wild grasses and weeds are more established in the environment as prior to human involvement this vegetation was able to thrive. Therefore, it is more suitable for the environment that it is growing in that anything that does not naturally occur than it grows.

In addition, because the vegetation is established, it will have a higher root density and deeper root penetration into the soil since it has had more time to cultivate over time than a new grass. Hence, lawns with fresh rolled sod do not always grow evenly, require more care, and are more likely to die than the wild grass and weeds that it was cultivated to replace. In addition, the creatures that rely on the native vegetation and anything that preys on them are also displaced as a consequence. This seems like nothing, but moving up the food chain it escalates quickly from vegetation to rabbits and foxes.

The same thing can be said of the impact of cutting down trees and replacing them with seeds or saplings. For example, a logger is going to take what they need from trees that have been well established instead of younger, smaller trees. Trees take quite a bit of time to grown and mature before they can be harvested again and the newer trees are not going to be the same as the old trees that once stood in their place. In addition, anything that was using the established trees as shelter has now been displaced, offsetting whatever ecosystem was established. Even if the ecosystem is "used" to being disrupted every 10 to 20 years, the impact to the wildlife that depends on the presence of certain vegetation could be substantial every single time a harvest happens.

These impacts are not fully considered by neither the consumers nor the companies that modify the land in the first place. What is marketed is a 1 for 1 swap with minimal environmental impact when in fact that is not the case. Are we surprised? No. Especially considering that many companies practice "do as I say but not as I do" as evident by the pollution caused by Duke Energy that has continued past their pollution scandal during their "protect the environment" campaign. In recent years, conservation biologists have done surveys and given their opinion that while replanting on cultivated land helps, it is still disruptive to the ecosystem and we still run the risk of displacing or killing existing species. The more you know!

Arbitrage is your source for business, finance, and tech info. Don't miss the podcast at https://www.arbitragetrade.com/podcasts