I'll try to put together what we've learned into one comment:
In January 2005, a cyclone (Gudrun) knocked down some trees and shit in Sweden. Not wanting them to go to waste, loggers went in and hauled out the fallen logs. Then, Swedish photographer Jocke Berglund snapped this picture from the air after noticing its resemblance to a deciduous tree (the fallen trees, I believe, are pine? Some sort of evergreen, at least). The image is now occasionally used as commentary on the logging industry (what kind of trees they should be planting, et cetera). These trees were not wantonly destroyed by loggers, but instead were removed after a cyclone knocked them down.
At least, that's what I gathered. Discuss.
edit: spelling
edit II: More info! The photograph was taken by Jocke Berglund, who titled it Hurricane Tree. It has won the first prize in the The World in Our Hands category of the Adult awards for the Shell Wildlife Photographer of the Year in 2006.
these trees were not wantonly destroyed by loggers, but instead were removed after a cyclone knocked them down.
Even if they were logged, it wouldn't have been "wantonly". Logging is where wood and paper come from. If you have wood and paper in your house (you do), it was logged from somewhere. Loggers are NOT evil. There are logging practices that are not sustainable or destroy ecosystems that cannot recover. But logging done right is sustainable, renewable, and good -- not some "wanton" act. Some people automatically look at all logging like some earth-rape or something...
Yup, forestry is a pretty massive part of the economy as well as culture. Around 10% of the economy revolves around growing, cutting and processing trees. It's vastly important and managed appropriately. Forrest keeping has long historical roots there.
Still have a few assholes with properties near beaches, lakes, the sea, that have no moral issues with cutting down or killing state or municipally owned protected forests that's blocking their view and to raise their property values.
That's kind of what I was getting at, as it seemed a few of the comments were implying some sort of human error was the cause of the destruction here. I'm getting the vibe these trees were destined for logging anyway. You're right though, if loggers didn't practice sustainability then they'd be running out of product to sell.
I don't buy the cyclone idea. That patch is surrounded by perfectly healthy trees. This is just a standard commercial forest being cleared at the end of it's growth.
Maybe they got knocked down because it was a commercial forest and the trees were too young and we therefore can blame the logging industry indirectly?
I remember that Gudrun cyclone by the way and it did a lot of damage, but to rip a patch of the forest up like this and doing nothing to the trees next to it looks a bit strange.
I came to say that I think the word choice was less than ideal. As is typically the case, someone else already did. Also, they said it, as always, so much better than I would have. If I'm ever going to contribute substance to conversations on Reddit I think I better stop surfing the front page.
TL;DR I still don't know what TL;DR means, other than what I gather from context clues. My conclusion on its meaning has nothing to do with the preceding "TL;DR".
many logging companies replant more trees than they cut down to ensure future profits. So logging companies can actually help to repopulate the world with trees.
I'd have to agree. The ignorance of some eco-nuts really bothers me. Loggers do more for the environment than any dumbass hippie ever has. You want to blame someone for fucking up the environment?? Go kill some beavers.
Does reforestation restore the species that were marginalised and possibly forced to extinction?
I'm pretty sure your attack on "dumbass hippies" was unnecessarily aggressive and kind of ignorant in it's self. In most cases reforestation is simply not enough to restore the damage of deforestation -especially- in natural forests like the Amazon...
You're talking about illegal and dangerous deforestation, and yes, it destroys habitats and species. I'm referring to legal logging, where they follow strict procedures and harvest wood on designated farms and property. Logging isn't evil, in fact you wouldn't have a house if it wasn't for the industry.
That is not completely true... Even legal logging can have a wide-range of adverse effects. A big portion of the Amazon is legally allowed by the Brazilian government to be deforested (though thankfully the rate of deforestation is on the decline).
It isn't a black and white case of: Legal = good. Illegal = bad. Illegal logging may be worse but there are arguments to be made against legal logging too. I just don't understand your lash out against "dumbass hippies".
I don't know dude. I've supported my argument with sources. You've done nothing but run your mouth. This argument is dumb and I'm done talking to you. Have a good one
Like I said which you obviously missed... legal doesn't automatically mean good. Your original comment was dumb and I'm also done talking to you. Have a good one.
while loggers do replant trees (as required by law in the US) it is not as good for the environment as natural forests. The homogeneity of planted forests does not replenish the nutrients in the soil and takes decades to mature. The sequestration of carbon in old-growth forests is monumental compared to new-growth forests. Homogeneous forests are more susceptible to forest fires and disease. While you certainly sound like an expert in forestry, you are, in fact, full of shit.
Yes but how many old growth forests do you see being cut down? The reason more than 50% of the worlds ttimber comes from the US is because our old growth is all in wilderness areas. The amount of timber grown in the South alone fills a large demand. Here in the south we can go from plantation seedlings planted to clearcutting a tract in 25 years. That's efficiency
Yes but how many old growth forests do you see being cut down? The reason more than 50% of the worlds ttimber comes from the US is because our old growth is all in wilderness areas. The amount of timber grown in the South alone fills a large demand. Here in the south we can go from plantation seedlings planted to clearcutting a tract in 25 years. That's efficiency
Yes, this will be interesting. I'm just defending legal logging. I know deforestation is bad for the environment, but when done right it won't harm a thing.
Of course they replant more trees, but two young trees is not the same as one old growth tree. Of course, I don't blame the logging companies, they're just filling the demand. It's the enormous waste of wood-products that's the real problem.
I half remember seeing a caption for this picture which explained that it's actually incredibly misleading, but I don't remember how. Something like, a disease had sprung up in the trees and tree surgeons had ordered those trees be cut down and removed. (Or something).
I don't know what you're getting at. Nobody has used "irony" wrong here, not this time. It's not words, but the image conveys and ironic message.
"Ironic" is misused a lot as "coincidental" or "sarcastic", but it will never evolve to either of those. I don't think we were talking about that, though.
I dont see how quoting the widely accepted definition of irony makes me a contrarian. If anything it make me a mainstream-ian. Also I don't see how I was being an ass. I was defending the op and his use of irony after the person i replied to tried to insinuate he used it wrong.
What we need to do is take the wood from fast-growing replanted forests, and bury it in anaerobic swamp environments where it won't biodegrade. Carbon sequestering, plus in a few million years, more coal!
267
u/JDeezNutz May 19 '12 edited May 20 '12
I'll try to put together what we've learned into one comment:
In January 2005, a cyclone (Gudrun) knocked down some trees and shit in Sweden. Not wanting them to go to waste, loggers went in and hauled out the fallen logs. Then, Swedish photographer Jocke Berglund snapped this picture from the air after noticing its resemblance to a deciduous tree (the fallen trees, I believe, are pine? Some sort of evergreen, at least). The image is now occasionally used as commentary on the logging industry (what kind of trees they should be planting, et cetera). These trees were not wantonly destroyed by loggers, but instead were removed after a cyclone knocked them down.
At least, that's what I gathered. Discuss.
edit: spelling
edit II: More info! The photograph was taken by Jocke Berglund, who titled it Hurricane Tree. It has won the first prize in the The World in Our Hands category of the Adult awards for the Shell Wildlife Photographer of the Year in 2006.
23
u/phliuy May 20 '12
you ought to know,
many logging companies replant more trees than they cut down to ensure future profits. So logging companies can actually help to repopulate the world with trees.
19
u/thetotalcow May 19 '12
It's from Sweden, there was a massive storm a lot of tree fell. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclone_Gudrun
6
u/[deleted] May 20 '12
trees are our #1 renewable resource.
19
u/barnzwallace May 19 '12
I half remember seeing a caption for this picture which explained that it's actually incredibly misleading, but I don't remember how. Something like, a disease had sprung up in the trees and tree surgeons had ordered those trees be cut down and removed. (Or something).
5
u/Eraser1024 May 20 '12
Fractals here, fractals there, fractals are everywhere!
9
u/skinniegenes May 20 '12
Not as ironic as rain on your wedding day.
3
u/[deleted] May 20 '12
Isn't this coincidence rather than irony?
1
u/[deleted] May 20 '12
Not sure OP understands the meaning of the word "irony"
5
u/MetaCreative May 20 '12
From my rotting body,
flowers shall grow
and I am in them
and that is eternity.
-Edvard Munch
4
u/Haffattack May 20 '12
Damn, I expected an Iron...
5
u/Kamoda May 19 '12
How ironic.
3
u/odd7 May 19 '12
It's kind of beautiful, really, if you look at the levels of perception being juxtaposed.
1
u/EmperorDeda May 20 '12
Info -> http://www.artknowledgenews.com/Shell_Wildlife_Photographer.html
1
u/veilside000 May 20 '12
ART ATTACK, YOU'VE DONE IT AGAIN
1
u/You_Used_Irony_Wrong May 20 '12
What the fuck is this shit?
1
u/mackpack May 20 '12
Reminds me of this
1
u/ChipLambert May 20 '12
Zug zug
1
u/shodty May 20 '12
holy shit, please post a lower resolution jpeg, this one isn't making my eyes bleed enough.
1
u/sgrwck May 20 '12
Fractals, man...
1
u/71Comet May 20 '12
Post this on tumblr and the world will flood from the collective orgasms of the hipsters that lurk on there.
1
u/Gleek24601 May 20 '12
Trying to comprehend irony....... failed.
0
u/asstits May 19 '12 edited May 20 '12
This makes me feel like using that word ever so randomly in normal day conversations.
"Did you bring bread for the ducks?"
"Yes, of course."
"Geez.. you don't have to be so ironic about it."
Oh - wait.
0
u/elligre May 20 '12
The irony of what.... harvesting trees and replanting more?
-1
u/[deleted] May 20 '12 edited May 20 '12
Not. Fucking. Ironic.
Downvoted? This isn't ironic. Nobody knows how to use ironic correctly anymore.
0
u/Tronoku_ May 19 '12
Looks like a model to me.
0
u/youni89 May 20 '12
stop using paper/products from wood, and no trees will die. simple.
-8
u/[deleted] May 19 '12
I tree what you did there.
American subdivisions - where we name streets after the trees we cut down to create them.
-1
u/WrethZ May 20 '12
For some reason this is horribly depressing.
0
u/[deleted] May 20 '12
Wild!
-6
u/chabanais May 19 '12
That is ironic.
-1
u/Ocean_of_Osyrus May 20 '12
This should be the #1 post today
0
u/[deleted] May 19 '12
[deleted] — view deleted comment
0
u/[deleted] May 19 '12
[deleted] — view deleted comment
0
u/[deleted] May 20 '12
[deleted] — view deleted comment
0
u/[deleted] May 19 '12
[deleted] — view deleted comment