Battling Desertification with Forests

[Techno-Druid]

Drastic changes in climes and a mix of deforestation has led to desertification in China and Africa with the expansion of the Gobi and Sahara deserts. So many African countries, India and China have started building massive manmade forests to keep the growing deserts as bay.

China has seen 3,600 km2 (1,400 sq mi) of grassland overtaken every year by the Gobi Desert. Each year dust storms blow off as much as 2,000 km2 (800 sq mi) of topsoil, and the storms are increasing in severity each year. These storms also have serious agricultural effects for other nearby countries, such as Japan, North Korea, and South Korea. The Green Wall project was begun in 1978, with the proposed end result of raising northern China’s forest cover from 5 to 15 percent and thereby reducing desertification.

China seeks to end the project in 2050 and plans to cover most of Northwest, Northeast and Northern China to prevent expansion of the Gobi desert.

The Great Green Wall or Great Green Wall of the Sahara and the Sahel Initiative (French: Grande Muraille Verte pour le Sahara et le Sahel) is a planned project to plant a wall of trees across Africa at the southern edge of the Sahara desert as a means to prevent desertification. It was developed by the African Union to address the detrimental social, economic and environmental impacts of land degradation and desertification in the Sahel and the Sahara.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...bi-Desert.html

What are your opinions on man made and restoring forests to prevent widespread desertification?

[PC2]

What are your opinions on man made and restoring forests to prevent widespread desertification?

Overall dry places are suppose to grow slightly and many wet regions will get a bit wetter. You don't necessarily need to restore forests exactly as they were previously, you use the modern weather patterns to facilitate plant growth that will work for civilization going forward.

[Dazu]

I can see it being a good thing, if they are replicating the original (Pre industrial age farming) vegetation. If they just use random plants it most likely will fail long term unless they constantly adjust the ground nutrient level.

Although most of these issues (large scale drought + loss of any vegetation) in my country (and probably many other countries) have very little to do with climate change and are mostly the result of over clearing and utilising the land which was once bushland as thousands of acres pasture land for cattle (as in maybe 2-3 trees per acre type clearing). Further degraded by river and stream destruction via farming again, dredging and dumping coupled with altering the natural tracts of the rivers and damming/building on the banks which stops the natural expansion and recession of river banks. Thankfully its being addressed here somewhat so hopefully will improve for my country.

[Techno-Druid]

Overall dry places are suppose to grow slightly and many wet regions will get a bit wetter. You don't necessarily need to restore forests exactly as they were previously, you use the modern weather patterns to facilitate plant growth that will work for civilization going forward.

The major thing is that much of the people who inhabited these lands in China for example are cattle ranchers and the lack of trees has caused a decline in grass to a point where many cattle cannot graze. The planting of the trees has seen progress with many of the trees allowing grass to come back.

My major issue is the lack of biodiversity in the trees they are planting.

[PC2]

The major thing is that much of the people who inhabited these lands in China for example are cattle ranchers and the lack of trees has caused a decline in grass to a point where many cattle cannot graze. The planting of the trees has seen progress with many of the trees allowing grass to come back.

My major issue is the lack of biodiversity in the trees they are planting.

I take it those trees need to be spread out to help with grazing grass?

The forest area wiki page shows forest cover change is a net positive in East Asia.

[PosPosPos]

The problem is not that the idea of doing something like this is bad, but that there's insufficient political and economic will to put such measures into practice.

This is primarily due to the fact that extreme right wing will do anything to stop and gridlock measures that promote long term sustainability, but eat into short term costs.

[Deleted]

One way to "battle desertification" would be to stop the deforestation of the Amazon to create farmland. Deserts are the future of that area.

[Techno-Druid]

I take it those trees need to be spread out to help with grazing grass?

The forest area wiki page shows forest cover change is a net positive in East Asia.

I believe the trees are either or both planted in rows or wherever they can be supported. I believe it's a project undertaken by both government employees and/or scientists and paid farmers.

[PC2]

The problem is not that the idea of doing something like this is bad, but that there's insufficient political and economic will to put such measures into practice.

This is primarily due to the fact that extreme right wing will do anything to stop and gridlock measures that promote long term sustainability, but eat into short term costs.

People drive sustainability problems, so why don't you left wingers go after all the high fertility countries that are overpopulating the planet.

[breadisfunny]

People drive sustainability problems, so why don't you left wingers go after all the high fertility countries that are overpopulating the planet.

what ovepropulation are you babbling about?

[Wells]

People drive sustainability problems, so why don't you left wingers go after all the high fertility countries that are overpopulating the planet.

Liberals are pretty big on economic development in underdeveloped countries soooooo

[PC2]

what ovepropulation are you babbling about?

The one where 7 billion people has a bigger environmental footprint than a 3 billion person planet. If you don't care about human beings environmental footprint, then technically any population, even 10+ billion is fine.

[Milchshake]

Odd the article made no mention of the Great Leap Forward. Within a few years China felled somewhere between 30% and 50% of it trees to make charcoal for furnaces.


So I'd be skeptical of any big Chinese government project working out as intended.

[Powerogue]

It'll be a lot harder to rebuild than to destroy, but if we try hard enough I'm sure we can.

[breadisfunny]

The one where 7 billion people has a bigger environmental footprint than a 3 billion person planet. If you don't care about human beings environmental footprint, then technically any population, even 10+ billion is fine.

the earth can sustain around 10 billion people. we are fine.

[PC2]

the earth can sustain around 10 billion people. we are fine.

I agree, just remember that the next time doomsayers start freaking out about the climate.

Overpopulation also relates to environmental displacement, which isn't the exact same thing as sustainability. It has more to do with how many ecological areas and species you want to preserve.

[breadisfunny]

I agree, just remember that the next time doomsayers start freaking out about the climate.

Overpopulation also relates to environmental displacement, which isn't the exact same thing as sustainability. It has more to do with how many ecological areas and species you want to preserve.

rofl. the climate is a completely different topic and has little to do with how many people are on this planet. but keep trying to shoehorn that into your obvious climate denial agenda here.

[Jessicka]

What are your opinions on man made and restoring forests to prevent widespread desertification?

It depends on whether they're going to be left to become wilderness, or effectively just be heavily managed 'tree farms'. The former I can get behind, the latter however seems most likely since it's potentially profitable.

The real problem with desertification is industrial arable farming, the use of artificial fertilizers and over-irrigation that leeches everything out, and the harvesting machines which absolutely destroy the soil structure. That leaves it incapable of supporting anything, and then just blowing away.

- - - Updated - - -

rofl. the climate is a completely different topic and has little to do with how many people are on this planet. but keep trying to shoehorn that into your obvious climate denial agenda here.

Given the current refugee crises due to wars in Syria and Libya, population displacement is a very real issue.

[Kaleredar]

The problem is not that the idea of doing something like this is bad, but that there's insufficient political and economic will to put such measures into practice.

This is primarily due to the fact that extreme right wing will do anything to stop and gridlock measures that promote long term sustainability, but eat into short term costs.

I'm doubtful that the republicans have all that much to do with reforestation vis-a-vis desertification in China and Africa.

[Jessicka]

I agree, just remember that the next time doomsayers start freaking out about the climate.

Overpopulation also relates to environmental displacement, which isn't the exact same thing as sustainability. It has more to do with how many ecological areas and species you want to preserve.

The Climate is a problem, because while it may get warmer at higher latitudes, it doesn't significantly alter the growing season because there's still less insolation.