Talk:Deforestation

Greenhouse effect

I think this is one reason explained in two different ways:

This is often cited as one of the major causes of the enhanced greenhouse effect for two reasons: 1) the burning or decomposition of the wood releases carbon dioxide; and 2) trees that once removed carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in the process of photosynthesis are no longer present and contributing to carbon storage.

Changed it to:

This is often cited as one of the major causes of the enhanced greenhouse effect. Trees remove carbon (in the form of carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere in the process of photosynthesis. Burning of the wood releases this stored carbon carbon dioxide back in to the atmosphere.

Much improved thanks. --maveric149

Advertising

I left out the GreenSpirit: for a sustainable future link on purpose. Too much advertising, too little immediate information. Femto 17:51, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

All tropical forests gone by...

I see that an anon changed 2070 to 2090 - does anyone have a source for this figure? All of these figures are higly speculative, so they are only meaningful if you include a source - X say that, at current rates...and, of course, "current rates" is probably not a meaningful figure, since deforestation rates are not constant and are influences by both supply and demand - e.g., in the Mata Atlantica in Brazil, deforestation rates have fallen sharply, because (i) most of the forest is gone, and (ii) most of what remains is privately owned - there is no frontier here, small farmers are not clearing land. Very context dependent. Guettarda 13:05, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There are a number of differant rates at http://www.mongabay.com/08defor_rates.htm. Also I do not know ca. change? There also seems to be other problems with this article.KAM 13:24, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The rates of deforestation are pretty easy to establish (with some range of error) - it's the statement that "at current rates all tropical forest will be gone by..." - I'd like to see a source on that part. Of course, "current rates" is meaningless because rates change, and are driven by local forces (often policy), not globally constant forces. In addition, changing climate, changing rainfall patterns, are sure to exacerbate deforestation. Rates, I think, are anything but constant, and if you can speak of constant rates it is because you are averaging a lot of different processes (including forest recovery). Guettarda 14:31, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)It also hurts the animals

Maybe it should be stated as a percent of the remaining forest, from 1960 to 1990 one fifth, is that right? then a change in 1990 to a much higher rate? Or a range of rates from differant sources?KAM 19:14, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Now that I look at it...there are so many problems in this article... The article goes from "tropical rainforest" destruction (20% lost) to "tropical forests" - which is in no way the same as "rainforest"...although it depends on how one defines RF. Guettarda 19:26, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well its better now, much better. I am very impressed. First paragraph is especialy very well done! Thanks!!KAM 23:31, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This linked map shows significant reforestation in the US between 1920 and 1992 http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/gg97rpt/chap7.html#fig11 (See figure 11). Please note that earlier maps are for virgin forest only and the 1992 map is not. Tobyw 11:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

One reason for pre-1900 deforestation was for shipbuilding. Large wooden ships could take over 1M board feet of timber each. Tobyw 11:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Agricultural

In New England, until about 1910, a lot of forest was cleared for agriculture. When agriculture shifted further west, many farms in New England were abandoned and the land reverted to forest. In 1909 Maine was about 70% forest, today it is 90%. In terms of volume, the U.S still produces lots of timber. Most imports today are from Canada. Forest degradation is another story.KAM 17:55, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

i say that deforestation is totally barbarick so just leave the poor trees alone because when they die one human dies.

Hotspots

What do people think of detailing specific hotspots or case studies, and adding a global map of recent deforestation (and aforestation) rates? First to mind are Amazonia, Madagascar, historic Loess Plateau, and the California coastline. This may offer a more tangible way to illustrate the processes involved. It's not my forte, so I can't offer much. Daniel Collins 22:37, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

How to do it exacly? Should this page list hotspots in general then more discussion at that forest's page i.e. Amazonia? a map would be greatKAM 22:59, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

nice map at http://forests.wri.org/index.cfmKAM 13:45, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh\

TREEEESS\

LSD-WoodPROJECT_AUTUMN

Water

I think this article is missing something. I dont know much about it and dont have time at the moment for research but I believe there a large impacts on water flow/temp. This effects the entire ecosystem (fish, bears, type of plants etc). I also this article makes deforestation seem 100% bad when it can be a good thing in some cases. Tardigrade 05:22, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

The ecohydrological impacts of deforestation are mixed, but relevant. Here are a couple of examples:

• In cases where post-deforestation leads to reduced transpiration, less moisture is circulated back into the lower atmosphere. This moisture, had it been there, and depending on the climate, may be responsible for rainfall not too far away, either through convective thunderstorms or canopy interception (aka, cloud forests). I believe an example of this is in Costa Rica, where a nearby forest received significantly less rainfall than before. (Incidentally, in this case, that may have led to the loss of a particular frog species.)
• In Hawaii, the native Koa (a tree) has been extensively replaced by non-native species, I think including trees. But not all trees are alike. Koa's leaves are well-suited for absorbing cloud moisture, better than the invasives, and perhaps also transpire less. As a result, the new forested areas reduced the input of water to the groundwater, with deterimental effects for agricultural production "downstream".

So there are various changes that happen wrt water when the landuse - forest cover - changes: infiltration, evaporation, transpiration, runoff. I hope to get to these sometime. Daniel Collins 15:17, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I found this link maybe someone can do some cross referencing and form something useful. http://smig.usgs.gov/SMIG/features_0902/clearcut_inline.html#concepts Tardigrade 05:43, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Under normal circumstances trees and bushes and the forest floor act as a "sponge" for rainfall, Without the buffering effect of forest cover, rain impacting bare soil runs off faster and in greater quantities, carrying away topsoil

I think this needs to be changed, removal of trees alone will not cause rain to impact bare soil, but the ground cover and litter layer beneath itKAM 14:50, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

It's not an easy thing to describe succinctly and accurately. Hopefully it has no more flaws and can be built upon. Daniel Collins 19:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Invariably in the second sentence might be too strong “ This is from FAO Forestry and food security 1992.. “A study in the Central Congo Basin found no evidence of any influence of forests on rainfall. It was suggested, however, that forest clearing, by increasing the heat reflectance, might introduce some instability into weather patterns which can be equally important as total rainfall to production systems (Bernard, 1953)” Also from the same document: “Throughout much of the tropics, most local precipitation is the result of monsoons or major storms generated by large weather systems, or else is caused by moisture-laden air being forced upwards as it passes over hills and mountains. In neither case is tree cover likely to have any dramatic influence on total rainfall.” http://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=/docrep/T0178E/T0178E04.htmKAM 15:02, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deforestation will invariably change the water cycle, by changing the fluxes throughout the system, but it might not be observable if you don't look hard enough. Flux towers and neutron probes perhaps weren't used much around the time of the 1953 report the FAO cites. As for invariably leading to dessication? To me, that's vague. Dessication of what? The soil, the groundwater, the lower atmosphere? It invariably varies. Deforestation can lead to more water availability, or less. I would advocate something like the phrase: "Deforestation alters the hydrologic cycle, potentially increasing or decreasing the amount of water in the soil and groundwater and the moisture in the atmosphere." Does this thread right the wrongs? Daniel Collins 16:22, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Could a general statement be made? Removal of the forest often or usually causes........On the other hand instead of trying to make world wide generalizations which might not hold true 100 % of the time it might be better to do as you suggested before and talk about hot spots. Rather then say deforestation causes this problem, give a specific example. Loss of this forest has caused these problems etc. This has already been done for China. Perhaps this could be done for other places. KAM 18:16, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Removal of the forest is extremely harmful to the environment and an explanation shouldn’t need material that may not withstand close scrutiny

NASA satellite data are giving scientists insight into how large-scale deforestation in the Amazon

Basin in South America is affecting regional climate. Researchers found during the Amazon dry season last August, there was a distinct pattern of higher rainfall and warmer temperatures over deforested regions. KAM 19:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

economic development

It does seem to be true that this article does not discuss the benefits of deforestation. Rich countries cleared their forest for economic development. It has been argued that it is unrealistic to expect counties like Brazil to restrict economic development to accommodate environmental concerns of the north. Perhaps this article should discuss this.KAM 14:19, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Anon additions

An anon added: * When the loggers are cutting the trees down, the engine oil releases chemicals into the soil, causing the trees to grow back deformed. Also, trees have a chemical in them, and seep soil into the ground. I have removed this material as overly vague and not terribly accurate. Guettarda 16:14, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fear for the forests

To those who wish to continually fearmonger with doomsday and apocalyptic predictions of a planet without forests you should study forest ecology in greater detail. I live in a land that was entirely "deforested" 15,000 years ago by glaciation. It is now covered by over 80 % forestlands. While working in what I thought was old growth rainforest in Costa Rica I was suprised to learn that 80 years prior the land was completed deforested through slash and burn agriculture. If you visit Spirit Park in Vancouver you will be hard pressed to realized the whole area was logged 100 years prior. Until very recently agricultural humans have been fighting back forests to create farmlands. If these lands are left without human intervention trees will come back and the forest ecology will be restored.

I am not a proponent of unsustainable forest practices, however it is fear invoking statements based on ignorance such as "Tropical forests will be gone by 2080" that really amaze me. If you want to help the forests and their ecology go study them and support the sustainable use of forestproducts.

But soon the forests will all be gone and then we will be without any way to convert carbon dioxide into oxygen and then we will all die! Curse all loggers and developers and all idiots who cut trees! I wish that they would get crushed by the trees they cut, damn them! I hate them! They go to their death, and the death of us all! Help us!!! 4.158.60.59 03:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, with statements like that, it is only a matter of time before environmentalism becomes a new religion. Like most religions, they believe the world will end. "Deforestation denial" has become blesphemy. And, of course, they truly believe they are right and everyone else is wrong, and promote violence and intolerance in the name of "saving the earth." I wonder how much money is being made from all this fearmongering?

Environmentalism already is a religion! The writings of John Muir are full of religious expressions for wild nature. Luckily, religion need not be dogmatic and apocolyptic, or intolerant of the unbelievers. Environmentalism has its zealots to be sure, but so does the religion of capitalism. :-) Pfly 16:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

deforestation doesn't cause flooding

I have edited the page to say that deforestation causes the precipitation to travel faster to it's outlet, causing floods that occur faster, and maybe are a little bigger due to some of that water recharging a well or being lost to evapotranspiration. But while forests make floods less extereme, they do not prevent flooding. Flooding is a natural event.

I think I left in how important forests are in this regard without saying anything that suggests forests stop floods. Should this article link to Sponge Theory?

Published earlier in 2005 the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR) say there is no scientific evidence linking large-scale flooding to deforestation. “Forests and Floods: Drowning in Fiction or Thriving on Facts?” is a timely analysis that should prompt a close examination of the many issues involved in a major flood event —and an abandonment of the myth that deforestation is the root cause. KAM 13:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I added a link to Sponge theory which was imediatly deleted as trashing. The FAO article is a pretty authorative source and much as I like the idea of forests preventing flooding, if the most current research contridicts this then we need to highlight this in some way. The Sponge theroy article seems the best place to cover this, but a lot of work is needed on that article to get it to NPOV. --Pfafrich 22:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Should the well-established fact that deforested slopes are not subject to mudslides also be addressed? --Wetman 10:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

That FAO report has some problems, and this "sponge theory" is a meme apparently started by the report. The idea that large rainfall events overwhelm the storage capacity of forest soils is sound, but the FAO made a sweeping generalisation. Also, do realise it was a policy document by the FAO joint with another organisation, both of whom are keen in forest clearance for development. Daniel Collins 23:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

How do y'all feel about a new article just on deforestation and flooding?

I am trying to tighten this article up a little. I think that the FAO report did say the deforestation causes silting in rivers which can cause them to flood. Perhaps all the effects on the envionment can be put in one place? KAM 11:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

first of all the FAO is not the best authority on flooding. they are neither the top technical source and they are hardly NPOV. now as to the facts:

• deforestation clearly can greatly amplify surface runoff and significantly enhance the potential for a flood event and enhance the magnitude of such flooding.

• deforestation clearly produces greater soil loss through water erosion involving surface runoff. Thus deforestation is a significant cause of siltation.

• siltation by itself does not "cause" flooding.

• Anlace 13:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course you are right. Siltation alone does not cause flooding. What I should have said is that this article has a section "Environmental effects" but silting of rivers is not mentioned. Since we have a source (the FAO report) previously cited which has shown deforestation causes rivers to silt which in turn cause them to have reduced capacity, this information should be added to the article. KAM 14:19, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Tree plantations vs hemp/potato plantations

The article says:

Although an intensively managed tree plantation does not fully recreate the biodiversity found in less intensively managed forestlands, it still will provide more biodiversity than a monoculture hemp or potato plantation.

Can anyone verify this? A monoculture tree plantation vs a monoculture hemp plantation doesn't seem any different to me Barrylb 05:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

In the UK at least there does seem to be a move away from monoculture tree plantations, and they are now very keen on creating a mosaic of habitats, see [1]. So maybe comparing monoculture tree plantation vs a monoculture hemp plantation is a bit of a strawman. --Pfafrich 11:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

There is good reason to believe that a tree plantation wouild support a more diverse community than would a potato or hemp plantation. To begin with, there's the issue of structural diversity. There is much more usable space in a tree plantation than in the other kinds. While a tree plantation tends to support less wildlife than a natural forest, it is still likely to be used by birds and mammals. Tree plantations also often support understoery vegetation, and ephiphytic species (at the very least mosses and lichens) at a level that hemp or potato fields coiuld not. Another issue is the rotation time - tree plantations are grown on 15-150 year rotations. The soil is disturbed much less often, resulting in a more complex soil community. There tends to be less chemical use. Etc. So even at the monoculture level this should be true. Guettarda 14:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. I suppose the article seems to suggest that hemp is a bad alternative to tree plantations, which I don't believe to be true when all things are considered. Barrylb 15:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know anything about this very important subject, but surely it must be at least intuitively clear that attempts to objectively obtain benchmarks of biodiversity in a forest plantation are not the same as a truly biodiverse forest that has never been cleared. It is very very different.

Article Improvement Drive for Wilderness

Wilderness is progressing slowly but surely in the Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive. You may wish to support the article with your vote. Jtneill - Talk 15:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC) '

Map

There is a mismatch between the definition in the first lines and the map. Either the map should move to Old Growth or the definition should be expanded to show that deforestation is being used as the loss of old growth. By almost any definition of forest there is in fact forest where the map shows there is none. KAM 23:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the map of "virgin forests" is definitely mismatched with the article. The "Today" map is based on roadless areas rather than anything having to do with forests, which makes it completely deceptive. Anyone have a better map?--Bibliophylax 02:07, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is the same "virgin forest" but different today (1992) map.http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/gg97rpt/chap7.html KAM 23:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Moving forward

Perhaps we can focus on hot spot as has been suggested. I think the forest and hydrology has been covered well (too well?) Maybe not enough about habitat lost. Migratory birds. And...I do use spell check. KAM 22:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Reforestation

Is there no policy that requires people to plant a tree for each one they cut? If that was being followed faithfully, deforestation wouldn't be removing our trees! What are we trying to do anyway—turn Earth into a desert planet?!!! 4.158.60.59 03:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Article tone caues loss of biodiversity

Many articles about forest in Wikipedia, including this one, suffer from a POV tone. The format is factual statement, explanation as to why it is a bad thing, factual statement, etc. Not that the added sentences are untrue but in my view, this make the article tiresome to read. I feel like someone is beating me with a stick while I read, (which causes a loss of biodiversity). For example simply define Deforestation in the first paragraph with perhaps one sentence saying it is considered a bad thing. KAM 14:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Causes

"The largest cause as of 2006 is slash-and-burn activity in tropical forests." Is this true? Can it be supported with a source? KAM 19:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

this is true and there are many sources. i ll try to plug some in as i have time. i m busy now on europe and usa topics. ill get back to the tropics at some point. Anlace 16:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

In places like Borneo, the deforestation caused by slash and burn practices has been greatly amplified by industrial logging. The cause-and-effect is not always simple. Pfly 22:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I'm right in saying too that change of land use to palm oil plantations (driven by desire to reduce dependence on petroleum, as well as to make money of course - no bad thing per se) immediately precedes or accompanies deforestation and burning by small farmers/entrepreneurs. This may also be the case in parts of Borneo? Dendrotek 14:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Trends in the United States

The current article states "From 1850 to about 1920 the amount of forest land in the United States actually increased. Today the trend in forest cover increase has reversed as urban sprawl causes conversion of forest as the forest is transformed to suburbs.(Forest on the Edge Housing Development on American's Private Forest (USFS))" The statement that the trend has reversed is wrong. The trend has continued with the US netting an increase of 614 square miles of forest from 2000-2005 according to the 2005 United Nations "2005 Global Forest Resources Assessment". What has increased is the compartmentalization of forest land and the growing urbanization of forest land (which the attached article, if you actually read it, provides evidence of). To characterize this as a REVERSAL of a trend in forest cover increase is just incorrect. zimmhead 15:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

strongly agree with zimmhead. this "reversal" POV is the same bjorn lomborg "uniformed optimism POV" that clouds many wikipedia environmental topics. Anlace 16:28, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the supplied source does not support the orginal statement. It seems to apply to only loss of private forest. Perhaps the losses in private forest has been offset by gains in public forest. Here is a source from SAF (Trends in forest land area)that says net change in forest cover in the U.S. is negative. [2]. This is the USFS source sited by the SAF [3] It seems to show a net loss since the 1950s. It may be different interpretations of the term forest cover between the FAO and the USFS. KAM 22:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

um

im doing a project on this (deforestation).my teacher mrs.planchard is giving me 3 days to work on it and i am clueless.so i came here for help. but i still aint finding the stuff i need!! 65.69.27.29 16:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)shelby65.69.27.29 16:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

deleted link

The link recently deleted by User:Eagle 101 "per external link guidelines" was "Do We Have Enough Forests?" by Sten Nilsson, Ph.D., a researcher at The International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Austria. He is also a working member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Agriculture and Forestry and an Academician of the International Academy of Informatics, Russia. (This is the article, in case you're interested in what is being deleted.) No doubt some guideline is being thoughtlessly applied: the justification will be as interesting as the deletion. --Wetman 19:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

English

At school I have been assigned a project on 'Deforestation'. I took great intrest in this article. I understood most of it but I have trouble deciphering some parts of the article. I was wondering if any other people were experiencing this and could anyone do a simpler version on this article.

 Brainbox'07

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brainbox '07 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

Under attack

If the platitudinous incontrovertible statement "(deforestation) usually results in a significant loss of biodiversity" is challenged, it becomes quite clear that the subject of this article is under attack. Is that not it? --Wetman 07:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Huh? I just think that the claim needs a source. Personally, I'm not sure of its truth, so I was hoping someone could reinforce that claim with a reference. The subject of this article-"deforestation"- is valid regardless of the effects of deforestation. johnpseudo 16:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Attact? reinforce? There are a number of definitions here: DEFINITIONS OF FOREST, DEFORESTATION, AFFORESTATION, AND REFORESTATION} - I didn't see any that match the one this article uses. I propose something like: The term deforestation may refer to either the removal of trees from an area or the removal followed by the conversion of the land to agriculture, pasture, development, or some other non-forest use. WHAT IS DEFORESTATION?. KAM 14:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The definition given in the first line doesn't appear to match any of ones found by Lund. It may differ from the source given as well Sucoff writes: Deforestation is the complete removal of a forest ecosystem and conversion of the land to another type of landscape. It differs from clear-cutting , which entails complete removal of all standing trees but leaves the soil in a condition to regrow a new forest if seeds are available. ( Deforestation By Edward Sucoff Environmental Encyclopedia Copyright 2003 The Gale Group, Inc.) KAM 21:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Living Space

Deforestation and global warming are primarily anthropogenic in nature. As human population increases the need for more living space increases and more land is cleared for the growth of cities, agricultural use and other activities. The loss of forest results in less CO₂ being removed from the atmosphere and subsequent global warming. "Surface chemistry" contributes to the state of the atmosphere so perhaps the environmentalists should include more human activity in their climate models. --Jbergquist 14:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Djouce Mountain

In regards to the caption for Djouce Mountain This article in the Irish times says: "The old charge that Ireland's ancient woods were swept away to satisfy the needs of Tudor colonists and British men-o'-war is long debunked." [4]- It may be a confusing picture of deforestation, to the left what looks like a planted forest can be seen. The country to the right must be open by choice. KAM 02:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

pov

"why would you remove that paragraph?" - The first paragraph in particular should reflect a neutral point of view. The article does not contain a single line about the benefits of deforestation let alone the first paragraph. The article is written from the view point of an mainstream environmentalist living in a wealthy, highly industrialized country. What would an forest advocacy article look like? It would start with a little fear, the impending irreversible loss of the earth's species, then a little misleading information, the forest is a blanket protecting the earth, the soil acts which is a sponge etc (the article no longer says this) then end with a place to send money. (Organizations such as The Nature Conservancy, World Wide Fund for Nature, Conservation International, African Conservation Foundation and Greenpeace also focus on preserving forest habitats.) What would a neutral article look like? I am interested in the causes of forest loss and hope that it can be reversed and it effects mitigated. I have read many article about forests, however I would not spend time reading an article that I though merely regurgitates talking points as if they are a mantra. I am looking for factual, unbiased information. I believe in a bottom-up approach to environmental protection in which people, armed with relevant facts make changes - which coincides with wikipedia's NPOV policy. KAM 12:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The recent additional text was apparently lifted from a web site called Genesis of Eden Diversity Encyclopedia and is an article called The Holocaust of the Green Cathedral [5].Deforestation causes problems that are local, for example, erosion, silting of rivers, soil degradation, loss of sources of fuel wood etc, concerns that effect local people. It also causes problems - loss of habitat and biodiversity, concerns that are the priority of many environmentalist in wealthy industrialized nations, usual places outside areas that are losing forest. Should this article be written as if the concerns of habitat loss were the primary concern? KAM 16:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Response to KAM

Please note the following:

1. Please conduct the deforestation discussion here to keep the thread intact: not on my talk page.
2. Please sign your posts with four tildas (You failed to sign a post on my talk page).
3. I am having difficulty following your logic or analysis regarding the above thread for these reasons

• I was not the one who originally posted the paragraphs in question (Another editor did). I did revert their deletion, performed editing and added some sources. I am not familiar with the source you allege was one of the original sources of the material.
• Your assertion that "deforestation causes problems that are local" is puzzling. I can't reconcile your assertion with large scale impacts of siltation and erosion (as has occurred in the Madagascar central highlands and extending all the way to silted rivers discharging to the Indian Ocean.
• Your assertion that "wealthy industrialized nations, usual places outside areas that are losing forest" is also puzzling. The USA, Canada and some European countries are also losing portions of their forests which many residents of those countries are concerned about. Furthermore, China is highly industrialized and is losing considerable forest.
• You seem to imply that residents of underdeveloped countries are not concerned about biodiversity loss as the "wealthy" are. Surely you don't mean that. There is considerable evidence that LDCs care deeply about the losses of their forests for many reasons.

Like you, I am interested in seeing this article develop on a factual basis and I will work with you toward that end. Deletion of sourced text is generally not a fruitful avenue. I prefer to edit material and seek sources to buttress the articles I work on. Best regards. If yourespond, try to respond point by point to issues I have raised above in this thread. Also try to spell my name correctly next time if you choose to use it. Sekolov 17:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the misspelling, it was inadvertent.

• Regardless of the original editor I believe you support keeping the text in question. However much of it was lifted from this web site [[6] which is contrary to Wikipedia policy. I don't have access to the most of the sources you cite but the one I did check (Sucoff) appears to have been incorrectly cited, I confess this has put a strain on my assumption of good faith as to the others. As far as my remarks about the POV of this article I'll leave that for other editors. Here is a explanation of local vs global [7] - LDCs may care deeply about decrease in biodiversity but on a list of priorities it would rank lower than a similar list made by an environmentalist in a wealthy developed country , I don't think this is reasonably in dispute. As to deforestation in the United States it depends upon the definition of the terms forest and deforestation, according to the FAO and the United States Forest Service the United States has gained forest since about 1920. - Research has shown a link between forest loss and GDP, nations with $4,600 GDP per capita or more are gaining forest with the exception of Canada.[8] KAM 02:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Thanks for your courteous and thoughtful response. I only support keeping parts of the text that we can edit and source to make a positive addition to this article. I think, at best, it is rough in its present form. I believe the independent editing and sourcing keeps it clear of copyright vio, but i welcome your further editing to put it more on track. I understand but dont fully agree with your concern of article POV. why dont you add a section on the ==Benefits of deforestation==? There clearly are some, like the short term feeding of lesser developed countries' people, (at risk of long term loss of soil productivity). Another benefit is the present comfort of "the wealthy" who can enjoy more immediate products. I'm actually not being sarcastic, and I really would welcome such a section. It s really not up to wikipedia to place great value judgments on these benefits. Hopefully we can work together on this article as I can see you are quite earnest and knowledgeable. By all means re-source or edit the Sucoff matter; i don't mind being bettered on an edit. Best regards. Sekolov 03:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that a section 'Benefits of deforestation' would be POV in itself, as are many statements taken from biased "environmental" sites now. The article should clearly state why deforestation occurs (which would explain its benefits} and what it causes. Unfortunately, this article is quite a mess so we gotta work on it.--Svetovid 08:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that if it was clearly stated why deforestation occurs that would explain its benefits.KAM 11:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

update tag

This article is old, vague and incorrect.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by StaticGull (talk • contribs) 15:54, 21 June 2007.

Maybe that claim is valid, but unless it's actually backed up by concrete criticism and facts, it's just your point of view.--Svetovid 16:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)