Canada's degradation of pristine, intact forests leads world

[WestCoastRunner]

Well, let's stand up and applaud Canada. We are leading the world again, only this time, in our degradation of pristine and intact forests.

The degradation of pristine "intact" forests threatens species such as our caribou and Asia's tigers that rely on huge unbroken expanses of natural ecosystems in order to survive, accordng to Nigel Sizer, global director of forest programs with the World Resources Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based research institute focused on resource sustainability.

A new global map along with an analysis of how those landscapes have changed since the year 2000 has been released. The maps are available as part of the institute's Global Forest Watch online forest monitoring and alert system.

Canada has the largest share of intact forest degradation in the world. The fragmentation of intact forests in Canada represents about 21 per cent of the global total.

The Global Forest Watch tool was named this week as one of two winners of the United Nations Big Data Climate Challenge.

[Guest]

Gotta build houses out of something.

[-1=e^ipi]

This isn't even an issue of deforestation, but an issue of 'forest fragmentation'.

It's not like caribou can't cross roads...

[bush_cheney2004]

More nonsense from Google and America....just ignore it.

[On Guard for Thee]

The expert has weighed in. "Just ignore it" or.....

[waldo]

This isn't even an issue of deforestation, but an issue of 'forest fragmentation'.

the article clearly speaks to degradation... although typically develping country focused, I've drawn attention to the UN-REDD program in several past MLW posts. You know... Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD). Care to dance over your attempt to minimize forest degradation? If you do respond please make sure to qualify, up front, which derivative umbrella you're choosing to speak within, hey!

[Accountability Now]

Well, let's stand up and applaud Canada. We are leading the world again, only this time, in our degradation of pristine and intact forests.

The degradation of pristine "intact" forests threatens species such as our caribou and Asia's tigers that rely on huge unbroken expanses of natural ecosystems in order to survive, accordng to Nigel Sizer, global director of forest programs with the World Resources Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based research institute focused on resource sustainability.

A new global map along with an analysis of how those landscapes have changed since the year 2000 has been released. The maps are available as part of the institute's Global Forest Watch online forest monitoring and alert system.

Canada has the largest share of intact forest degradation in the world. The fragmentation of intact forests in Canada represents about 21 per cent of the global total.

The Global Forest Watch tool was named this week as one of two winners of the United Nations Big Data Climate Challenge.

I'm confused. When I look at the IFL site linked in the article, it says this:

"The countries with the highest IFL degradation in both absolute terms (area) and relative terms (percentage) are Paraguay, Australia, Bolivia, Myanmar, Gabon, Cameroon, and Malaysia."

Am I missing something? Where does it show Canada as the worst when it's not even listed in that group? Eyeballing the map on the IFL I can see a lot of red in Canada, Russia and Brazil.

I'm looking at this on my phone which isn't great for the World Forest Watch site. Maybe there is more info there?

Edited September 6, 2014 by Accountability Now

[WestCoastRunner]

Gotta build houses out of something.

As per usual, judging by the responses, the linked articles were not even read.

Besides logging, degradation is also caused by the oil and gas industry and fires caused by human infrastructure.

Why should we be concerned about degradation? I'm glad there is a display of concern:

"In addition to playing a critical role in maintaining biodiversity, such forests also regulate air and water cycles and store carbon to slow and prevent climate change"

[WestCoastRunner]

I'm confused. When I look at the IFL site linked in the article, it says this:

"The countries with the highest IFL degradation in both absolute terms (area) and relative terms (percentage) are Paraguay, Australia, Bolivia, Myanmar, Gabon, Cameroon, and Malaysia."

Am I missing something? Where does it show Canada as the worst when it's not even listed in that group? Eyeballing the map on the IFL I can see a lot of red in Canada, Russia and Brazil.

I'm looking at this on my phone which isn't great for the World Forest Watch site. Maybe there is more info there?

I'm confused. When I look at the IFL site linked in the article, it says this:

"The countries with the highest IFL degradation in both absolute terms (area) and relative terms (percentage) are Paraguay, Australia, Bolivia, Myanmar, Gabon, Cameroon, and Malaysia."

Am I missing something? Where does it show Canada as the worst when it's not even listed in that group? Eyeballing the map on the IFL I can see a lot of red in Canada, Russia and Brazil.

I'm looking at this on my phone which isn't great for the World Forest Watch site. Maybe there is more info there?

You missed the first part of the paragraph:

IFL existed in 64 countries in year 2013. Most of the world's IFL area is concentrated in a small number of countries - 11 countries contain 90% of the total IFL area. Three countries - Canada, Russia and Brazil - alone contain 65% of the world's entire IFL area and 56% of the total IFL degradation area 2000-2013.

[WestCoastRunner]

It's not like caribou can't cross roads...

A very short sighted response, but to be expected.

[WestCoastRunner]

The expert has weighed in. "Just ignore it" or.....

as per usual.

[Accountability Now]

You missed the first part of the paragraph:

IFL existed in 64 countries in year 2013. Most of the world's IFL area is concentrated in a small number of countries - 11 countries contain 90% of the total IFL area. Three countries - Canada, Russia and Brazil - alone contain 65% of the world's entire IFL area and 56% of the total IFL degradation area 2000-2013.

No....I did see that. That lumps Canada in with Russia and Brazil. The article says Canada has 21% of that yet the site that should be backing this up also states those other countries are worse in both absolute and relative.

[Shady]

The amount of forests affected in Canada amounts to a grain of sand on an entire beach. This is just more alarmism.

[Guest]

As per usual, judging by the responses, the linked articles were not even read.

Besides logging, degradation is also caused by the oil and gas industry and fires caused by human infrastructure.

Why should we be concerned about degradation? I'm glad there is a display of concern:

"In addition to playing a critical role in maintaining biodiversity, such forests also regulate air and water cycles and store carbon to slow and prevent climate change"

It's true, I rarely read articles in an OP, instead just basing any response on the OP itself.

That's why it's not very in depth.

With all due respect though, It always surprises me, with posts like yours, and some of the AGW posts we see, that there seems to be an idea that we can populate the planet with billions of people and still hold on to everything that was there before we did so. There will be more logging, and more fires, and more oil and gas related degradation, because there will be more people.

This time next century I daresay there will be no forests to speak of. No big mammals either, in the wild.

[WestCoastRunner]

No....I did see that. That lumps Canada in with Russia and Brazil. The article says Canada has 21% of that yet the site that should be backing this up also states those other countries are worse in both absolute and relative.

• The countries with the highest degradation proportional to their initial area in 2000 are Paraguay, Australia, Bolivia, Myanmar and Gabon.
• The countries with the highest total area of degradation since 2000 are Canada, Russia, Brazil, the United States and Bolivia.

This may make more sense to you.

http://www.wri.org/blog/2014/09/8-percent-worlds-remaining-pristine-forests-degraded-2000

[WestCoastRunner]

It's true, I rarely read articles in an OP, instead just basing any response on the OP itself.

That's why it's not very in depth.

With all due respect though, It always surprises me, with posts like yours, and some of the AGW posts we see, that there seems to be an idea that we can populate the planet with billions of people and still hold on to everything that was there before we did so. There will be more logging, and more fires, and more oil and gas related degradation, because there will be more people.

This time next century I daresay there will be no forests to speak of. No big mammals either, in the wild.

Again, some very closed minded thinking.

[WestCoastRunner]

The amount of forests affected in Canada amounts to a grain of sand on an entire beach. This is just more alarmism.

Coming from an expert on climate and environmental issues.

[Guest]

Again, some very closed minded thinking.

Well, that's very easy to say.

If you would be so kind, tell me what you see in 2114 with regards to the environment.

[-1=e^ipi]

Care to dance over your attempt to minimize forest degradation?

Look, deforestation is an issue. But this concept of 'fragmented forests' is arbitrary and absurd. You could have hundreds of thousands of acres of untouched wilderness, but put a single pipeline or road through it, even if there are several animal crossings over this road/pipeline, and suddenly all this forest counts as 'degraded'.

By this definition, how much of this 'fragmented' forest do the wonderful environmental Europeans have? Zero (except a very small amount in Northern Sweden and Finland). How about the US under Obama? Basically zero (except Alaska). How about the majority of the rest of the World? Basically zero.

In fact, Canada has the largest amount of 'unfragmented' forest, followed by Russia and Brazil. So is it any surprise that Canada would have the highest rate of loss of fragmented forest? It is difficult for European countries to 'lead the world' in fragmented forest loss when they have zero 'unfragmented' forest to begin with.

This is just a pointless and phoney definition in order to make Canada feel guilty about developing it's land. Apparently, Canada shouldn't be allowed to build roads or pipelines through it's land, even though the vast majority of the rest of the world has already done so. This concept makes about as much sense as defining 'poverty' to be 'half the median income', as many so called 'poverty activists' do.

But I guess it is easier to make phoney environmental issues and attack Canada, than it is to tackle real environmental issues in countries like China or Saudi Arabia.

Edited September 6, 2014 by -1=e^ipi

[bush_cheney2004]

At the extreme of the last glacial maximum, North America had very serious forest degradation, but there were not many oil companies or logging firms to blame. Fittingly, Canada was one big ice hockey rink:

[WestCoastRunner]

Are folks not responding to my post because I'm a woman and there is more credibility responding to the other thread started by a man?

[Guest]

Probably not. To what other thread are you referring?

How come you didn't respond to my question(request) earlier? Because I'm a man? British? Albertan? Middle aged? White? Atheist? Balding?

Edited September 7, 2014 by bcsapper

[-1=e^ipi]

Are folks not responding to my post because I'm a woman and there is more credibility responding to the other thread started by a man?

Yes WestCoastRunner. We are all misogynists working for the evil patriarchy who are purposely trying to suppress your opinion through lack of responses on an online forum because you claim to be female (even though for all we know, you could be lying about your gender/sex). How did you ever figure out our plot?

Edit: btw, this was sarcasm

Edited September 8, 2014 by -1=e^ipi

[Bob Macadoo]

Probably not. To what other thread are you referring?

How come you didn't respond to my question(request) earlier? Because I'm a man? British? Albertan? Middle aged? White? Atheist? Balding?

British and balding? Cripes.....how did we let you in?

[Bob Macadoo]

Are folks not responding to my post because I'm a woman and there is more credibility responding to the other thread started by a man?

You play that card too often. Much simpler than that. The other is by an antagonist. Squeaky wheel gets the grease.