Forestation of the desert, and general terraforming thread

Az · September 5, 2003, 07:32

as some of you may know, there are effort to plant forests in desert areas. We have those in Israel, as well, and they are very successful. Now the question is, is the enviromental impact positive or negative?

discuss.

finkian · September 5, 2003, 07:35

aside from the displacement of species native to the desert, there wouldn't be much negative impact... in fact, we would have the benefit of more oxygen producing forests as well as providing habitats for endangered species. I think.

Az · September 5, 2003, 07:39

That's my pov. Personally I think that just like in the case of Hydroelectrical power, the global benefits outweigh the local negatives. (though in the case of the hydroelectrical, the local negatives are larger).

Generally, I think more should be invested in such projects, on a massive scale. It used to be a large employment creating thing around here, once.

General Ludd · September 5, 2003, 07:58

Quote:

Originally posted by finkian
aside from the displacement of species native to the desert, there wouldn't be much negative impact... in

That's a pretty big "aside".

Sandman · September 5, 2003, 07:59

The Middle-East used to be forested anyway, did it not? Anyway, this is a good idea, although if it needs to be watered with aquifer or river water, then it's a senseless peice of whimsy.

Az · September 5, 2003, 08:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Sandman
The Middle-East used to be forested anyway, did it not? Anyway, this is a good idea, although if it needs to be watered with aquifer or river water, then it's a senseless peice of whimsy.

No it doesn't need to watered. crops do, however.

In previous times, he middle-east wasn't forested, esp. the desert. the hillside was bare, as long as human settlement existed, because of the need for firewood.

Osweld: that's not a big aside at all. the loss of native populations is barely relevant, since it will be a local problem. just like in the dams (spawning fish are a different issue. )

BeBro · September 5, 2003, 08:10

Aren´t such projects extremely expensive? Esp. water supply? I mean does the effect justify the money spent? I really don´t know, just interested

edit: just saw your last post

finkian · September 5, 2003, 08:11

it's too easy to relocate most desert species to a different desert.

finkian · September 5, 2003, 08:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Sandman
The Middle-East used to be forested anyway, did it not? Anyway, this is a good idea, although if it needs to be watered with aquifer or river water, then it's a senseless peice of whimsy.

The middle east was forested, but it's definitely been a loooong time. If it hadn't been forested, there wouldn't be all that nice oil.

Az · September 5, 2003, 08:25

I don't think he meant THAT long time ago.

finkian · September 5, 2003, 08:26

(blushes and hides)

BeBro · September 5, 2003, 08:30

In the early middle/dark ages there was forest in some areas that are desert today

alva · September 5, 2003, 09:04

If done on a massive scale, wouldn't it 'pull' water away from other parts?

JohnT · September 5, 2003, 09:12

You know, this planet is becoming just one huge park/nature preserve.

General Ludd · September 5, 2003, 09:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel

Osweld: that's not a big aside at all. the loss of native populations is barely relevant, since it will be a local problem. just like in the dams (spawning fish are a different issue. )

There's no such thing as a local enviromental problem.

And endagering one ecosystem so you can have pandas climbing around in the mid-east or whatever is pretty ridiculous.

lord of the mark · September 5, 2003, 09:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel

I don't think he meant THAT long time ago.

IIUC the hill country of eretz Israel - Judea, Samaria, (nothing political in using these terms for this period) and I believe the Galil were forested through the Bronze age. They were converted to terraced agriculture in the early iron - IE the beginnning of the Israelite period. Leading at least some archaeologists/historians to identify the settlement of the hill country (by ex-serf refugees from Egyptian dominated lowland Canaanite cities?) as the ultimate basis for the Exodus story.

Mt. Lebanon continued to be forested well into the iron age - the famous cedars of Lebanon.

So forest would seem to be the natural ecology for the hill country, NOT desert.

Urban Ranger · September 5, 2003, 10:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
Now the question is, is the enviromental impact positive or negative?

If forestation is done to prevent further desertification, or to reverse previous desertification, excellent. Though turning deserts like the Sahara into a huge forest could be very bad for overall climatic patterns, even if doing so is realistic (e.g. no need to use huge amounts of water, etc.).

CerberusIV · September 5, 2003, 10:59

It really hinges on why the area isn't forested. If it is "normal" climate change then leave it be. If it is because humans once chopped down all the trees then it is worth looking at. Even then it may not be feasible or economic.

Az · September 5, 2003, 13:02

lotm: the area wasn't heavily forested. At times of lack of human population it had many trees, but at times of human population it was bare. You can see it from an early pic of the road to Jerusalem. Completely bare hills. Now, of course, it is covered by trees.

Osweld:

noone's talking about having that. there are forests in the region, with local species, though the places that I am talking about were mostly arid.

UR:
a)explain how and why.
b)I hardly think that forests in the depth of the Sahara are sustainable, though I do think that the edges have plenty of potential.

lord of the mark · September 5, 2003, 13:04

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
lotm: the area wasn't heavily forested. At times of lack of human population it had many trees, but at times of human population it was bare. You can see it from an early pic of the road to Jerusalem. Completely bare hills. Now, of course, it is covered by trees.

.

Az - you have a bronze age pic of the road to Jerusalem??? Flabbergasting!!!

End of bronze age - circa 1200 BCE.

VetLegion · September 5, 2003, 16:21

I always thought forestation is great idea

Forests are much better than deserts. When I was in Holland, I saw the area they reclaimed from the sea. There are some great forests there now.

And "desert species" seem to be an unimportant category. What, scorpions, ants...?

If Israel can financially do it, I think forestation is a great idea. But how to do it? Desalinization of sea water is pretty expensive. Libyans spent 5 billion dollars (AFAIK) on a pipeline that will bring water from an inland oasis to the coast. They would not have done it if desalinization was feasible. So the money involved in massive forestation seems, well, massive.. to me at least.

Az · September 5, 2003, 16:28

Quote:

Az - you have a bronze age pic of the road to Jerusalem??? Flabbergasting!!!

I was talking about the beginning of the century.

Quote:

End of bronze age - circa 1200 BCE.

yes, and that was approx. the time when the population in the area has significantly dwindled, though the terasses were already constructed on the hills ( which hold on to this very day, and were one of the earliest in the world!! ).

But this is irrelevant. the forestation was more of a dense bush, and not of a dense forest.

VetLegion: in many desert areas, the limited rainfall is actually quite enough to sustain a forest!

VetLegion · September 5, 2003, 16:39

Another thing, forests are great for guerrilla warfare...

Sarxis · September 5, 2003, 16:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Osweld

That's a pretty big "aside".

How do you figure? So a few scorpions, cacti and nomads have to move on, so what.

Sprayber · September 5, 2003, 16:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel
UR:
a)explain how and why.
b)I hardly think that forests in the depth of the Sahara are sustainable, though I do think that the edges have plenty of potential.

Far be it for me to talk for UR but I what I read into his statement was that it's ok to do these projects if it's to reclaim land from the desert if deforestation was caused my human interference but to just go around trying to turn all deserts into forest isn't so great. I believe the Sahara example was an example of a project best not tried. Although prevention of the desert from expanding seems to be an attainable goal.

lord of the mark · September 5, 2003, 16:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Azazel

Quote:

Az - you have a bronze age pic of the road to Jerusalem??? Flabbergasting!!!

I was talking about the beginning of the century.

Quote:

End of bronze age - circa 1200 BCE.

yes, and that was approx. the time when the population in the area has significantly dwindled, though the terasses were already constructed on the hills ( which hold on to this very day, and were one of the earliest in the world!! ).
!

My understanding is that the population was limited in late bronze (after being substantial in early or middle bronze - i forget which) The area was forested in late bronze, and the forests were cleared and the terraces built in early iron - the land was agricultural throughout the israelite period - see tanach, as well as archaelogical sources - all those judean, ephraimite villages, etc were in the hill country. The low country was the home of the canaanite cities and commercial agriculture - the hill country was the self-sufficient israelite farmers with their relatively egalitarian social code (and of course when David conquered the low country he led to a more hierarachical royal society, opposed by prophets with roots in the old israelite hill country tradition)