The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.
Greenpeace urges EU and Africa to end deforestation
reuters.com — Greenpeace urged European Union and African leaders meeting in Lisbon over the weekend to take urgent measures to stop the destruction of African forests which cause carbon emissions responsible for climate change. Greenpeace activists unveiled a banner at Lisbon's Vasco da Gama tower on Friday that read: "Save the Climate-Save African forests."
mokki- 399 diggs
- digg it
- WordsnCollision, on 12/08/2007, -7/+9Hope the banner wasn't made of paper...
- boflaade, on 12/08/2007, -0/+2I hope it was. Tonnes of paper is being recycled every year.
- blast_flame, on 12/09/2007, -1/+1Which is bad for the environment. Research it, since most paper is grown on plantations recycling paper just uses up more energy.
- boflaade, on 12/08/2007, -0/+2I hope it was. Tonnes of paper is being recycled every year.
- mokki, on 12/08/2007, -2/+1http://www.agencialusa.com.br/fotos/img_1197077057 ...
- mokki, on 12/08/2007, -2/+1http://sic.sapo.pt/online/noticias/mundo/20071207+ ...
- philbutler, on 12/08/2007, -9/+12This is critical - deforestation has decimated so much of our planet - very few people even know.
- Jugalator, on 12/08/2007, -2/+3Damn, I dugg you down by mistake. :-(
Anyway, I agree with you -- this could be a much greater threat to the CO2 balance than the actual pollution taking place. Most focus their attention on hybrid cars, changing to low energy light bulbs or whatever, while trees keep being harvested in certain places of the world without being re-planted. What use is our efforts to cut emissions if there are not the forests and other nature left to keep the balance in check in the first place? This could be a major contributor to the climate changes we're seeing, as a whole lot on this world is based on simply photosynthesis. It was what brought us life beyond cyanobacterial life in the first place. :-p - blast_flame, on 12/09/2007, -1/+1Decimated eh? So they only cut down one in ten trees? Doesn't sound so bad...
(decimated means to kill one in ten)
- Jugalator, on 12/08/2007, -2/+3Damn, I dugg you down by mistake. :-(
- Rubab, on 12/08/2007, -6/+6This is the high time to learn that our responsibilities have changed towards this planet Earth...
- lekahe, on 12/08/2007, -2/+13It is time to stop the destruction of the rainforests.
Mostly I am afraid that they are going to claim that all wood will be illegal.
The Finnish forests are treated (mostly) the way they should, which means that some of the trees must be cut down for the others to survive. And new trees are planted all the time!- petrodollar, on 12/08/2007, -0/+9Finns are probably the most advanced nation on earth when it comes to forest management. Sweden is up there too.
- GMorgan, on 12/08/2007, -0/+8That would be counter productive. Forests are extended in Europe because they have economic value. They are just grown sustainably because the companies that maintain them are given ownership encouraging sustainability rather than 'take all we can get now' rushes that leases tend to create. Ban foresting and there is no longer an incentive to these companies to do the expensive work of planting and maintaining forests.
Europe has a good model that leverages economics rather than fighting it. That should not change, in fact the European model should be adopted across the planet. Give corporations ownership of the outer edges of the rain forests and you watch them take on the illegal loggers and slash and burners for you. It would only require turning over a tiny amount (< 1%) to them and you could even give them the desert left by the slash and burners for replanting.
- doublehead, on 12/08/2007, -4/+4Yeah and chances are they're burning the medicinal plants that might cure cancer and other diseases. But let's face it folks, they stopped printing their money on paper for a reason. When the trees are all gone, money will still be printable.
- petrodollar, on 12/08/2007, -7/+2I'm in full support of their message, but does Greenpeace need to put its name on every ***** sign it puts up? What good does that do anyone? At worst it discredits the message among people who reflexively think that everything Greenpeace does is ***** grandstanding.
- triskele, on 12/08/2007, -3/+6Why don't they just address deforestation as a habitat loss issue, rather than a ***** global issue? The anti-deforestation/desertification stuff they taught us when I was going through school was much easier to people to grasp and agree on than controversy ridden global warming. Not to mention I have no respect for Greenpeace, especially when they twist around environmental issues that have been going on long before 1970 or so when they claim Anthropogenic Global Warming began and claim they have something to do with it.
- boflaade, on 12/08/2007, -3/+1You are naive. Forests replaced by farmers fields have impacted weather conditions. Storms are in record number, now that the Amazon rain forests have been cleared. Weather effects the environment and the environment is changing. Mankind has built cities and continues to manipulate the environment by removing protective boundary's. The weather is changing because of mankind activities. Call it what you want, the end result is the same. Stand in an open field and tell us how the weather conditions are the same as when you stand in a forest.
- triskele, on 12/13/2007, -0/+1Standing in an open field as opposed to an forest at the same time and location, the weather would be exactly the same. How you experience the weather would differ though. Building a city will change local climate in the way NYC is warmer than the surrounding area because so much of the ground is paved and holds heat much better than bare earth. You also risk getting smog in areas like Salt Lake City. I'm not too sure what you meant by stating that building cities removes protective boundaries, but any fragmentation of habitat is a bad thing since it isolates both plants and animals.
- boflaade, on 12/08/2007, -3/+1You are naive. Forests replaced by farmers fields have impacted weather conditions. Storms are in record number, now that the Amazon rain forests have been cleared. Weather effects the environment and the environment is changing. Mankind has built cities and continues to manipulate the environment by removing protective boundary's. The weather is changing because of mankind activities. Call it what you want, the end result is the same. Stand in an open field and tell us how the weather conditions are the same as when you stand in a forest.
- harmo777, on 12/08/2007, -2/+1no no they have it wrong, it is "Save the cheerleader, Save the world"
but yeah the deforestation needs to be cut back, need an equilibrium between industry and nature and so far seems to be unbalanced at the moment - ElAssoWipo, on 12/08/2007, -2/+2All these efforts serve no purpose. As long as we don't control the growth of population, all efforts are useless.
The source of all environnemental problems is overpopulation. They cut trees because they need to grow food because there's a lot of people to feed. These people also need homes, more space required. They also need space to store waste. They also need all kinds of industries and infrastrucure: more space.
If people just finally faced the fact that an infinite growth in a finite environnement is a bad thing, we could start solving some problems. They can't stop cutting trees and using space if they keep growing.
Same goes for pollution, more people = more pollution.
Same goes for poverty, finite ressources divided by larger numbers = less ressources per individual.
We HAVE to manage our own growth. Either we do it volountarily or conflict will take care of it. Limited ressources + too many people = war. - AndrewMB, on 12/08/2007, -7/+6Greenpeace is full of *****. Where I live it is required they plant trees after they cut some down.
- ElAssoWipo, on 12/08/2007, -1/+4There's a difference between deforestation and forest exploitation.
Deforestation serves the purpose of creating more agricultural, residential, industrial or waste management space. The point is to remove trees permanently and build something in the same place.
Forest exploitation is renewable industry that needs to plant trees in order to exploit the same land over and over in order to make pulp and paper products and lumber.
This article talks about deforestation. - boflaade, on 12/08/2007, -1/+3You only live in one place and seem to think it's the whole world. Get off your stool and look beyond your nose.
- kinerry, on 12/08/2007, -0/+1Hence why it's a "plantation", they just reuse the land
- boflaade, on 12/08/2007, -0/+0For what?
- ElAssoWipo, on 12/08/2007, -1/+4There's a difference between deforestation and forest exploitation.
- Legato, on 12/08/2007, -1/+5in other news, the pope is catholic
- alex7575, on 12/08/2007, -4/+5Because people take Greenpeace seriously?
Greenpeace needs to get their ***** together first, they are in the terrorist list of many countries, their heart is in the right place, their brains, right next to their ass.
Digg me down, but people need more hugging than trees right about now. People first, all the rest comes second.- ElAssoWipo, on 12/08/2007, -1/+6Greenpeace is about people first. Why do you think they do what they do?
Uncontrolled exploitation and growth is not people first, it's money first. - Jugalator, on 12/08/2007, -1/+4Way to complain in an article on Greenpeace where they're actually acting LEGALLY. Pick your battles, Alex.
- ElAssoWipo, on 12/08/2007, -1/+6Greenpeace is about people first. Why do you think they do what they do?
- boflaade, on 12/08/2007, -1/+0Replanting trees is not the main solution. A seedling does little to prevent soil erosion, stop prevailing winds or contribute to the soil. A forest redirects wind, the dead trees creates the soil for the remaining trees and the roots prevent erosion. The American "Dust Bowl" is a modern example of clear cutting. In British Columbia, forest companies are required to replant after clear cutting. These seedlings have little root structures and only temporary, as they too will be logged in the future.
- Jugalator, on 12/08/2007, -1/+1Agreed on this; since far from all deforestation means replanting trees (wouldn't it be a nice utopia if this was true?), that could be a far greater threat to the CO2 balance than the actual direct pollutants.
- kinerry, on 12/08/2007, -2/+2Burried for inaccuracy.
It's in big business' interest to not develop land, they will be reusing this land over and over and replanting trees...hell you can see new trees in the picture if you spent the 5 seconds to look beyond the scare tactics.
The fact of the matter is that most new land that's developed in the rainforest is from the locals, they need the land to feed their families, and the soil isn't very suitable for crops for very long so they have to move and cut a lot.
There are more trees on this planet now than there were 50 years ago because of demand, if demand goes up, supply needs to as well, so new trees are planted. Hence more usage of paper = more trees. - Christbait, on 12/08/2007, -4/+4***** Greenpeace. If they aren't campaigning for money then they're getting money for a campaign.
- boflaade, on 12/08/2007, -1/+1How else can they function? If they don't have financial backing they can't exist. That's basic economics.
- solid12345, on 12/08/2007, -0/+2Don't worry Al Gore and the Kyoto agreement will save the day!
- sadomatic, on 12/09/2007, -0/+1War is the only answer.
- nickylouse, on 02/03/2008, -0/+1Why is it always the political nutcases like Greenpeace, the United Nations and those behind the Kyoto Protocol fiasco that are the centers for media attention? Any thinking person understands the importance of our rainforests. Can't the media find a list of right thinking people who will inform the public instead these political-minded lobbyists that have only their own survival at heart?
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is 