Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Map of the Trees of London

ianvisits.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 93 posts

Re: A Map of the Trees of London

#51

Post by renewiltord »

asdff wrote: post #49
renewiltord wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They realized a bit late. Europe razed her forests. Maybe they can track their trees because they only have so many. To compare: CA is about twice as big as the UK and Californians own more forests as individuals than the UK has in total. Four times as much area in California is forest as in the UK in total. They owe the rest of the Earth a terrible debt.

England used to be like 95% under the plow to feed itself in the middle ages. As agricultural techniques improved, it became possible to have land set aside for forests while feeding the population. This land use rate isn't an English problem, it is an entire agrarian world problem. Blame the farming cultures that slaughtered the pastoralists 10,000 years ago if you want to finger point. It's kind of cherry picking t…

And now that agricultural techniques are better. It's time for the UK to give back to the Earth. Their endless whinging about the developing world logging their forests stands as hollow if they will not undo the untold amounts of harm they have done the Earth.

I picked California because I live here and because we're good at this - for all of our faults.

Re: A Map of the Trees of London

#52

Post by renewiltord »

avianlyric wrote: post #48
renewiltord wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They realized a bit late. Europe razed her forests. Maybe they can track their trees because they only have so many. To compare: CA is about twice as big as the UK and Californians own more forests as individuals than the UK has in total. Four times as much area in California is forest as in the UK in total. They owe the rest of the Earth a terrible debt.

Before we go too far with the UK bashing. It’s worth noting that the UK’s population is ~66 million. California is ~44 million. California population density is ~251 people/sq mile. UK population density is ~727 people/sq mile. So the UK has almost 3x the population density, the UK simply doesn’t have oodles of unused space like the US. So a significantly reduced number of trees and forests isn’t much of a surprise.

Indeed, but more people isn't good for its own sake. Lest we forget, California produces almost as much in its economy as the UK does with 2/3rds the people. We are more forested, we are more people-efficient, we are just as power-efficient, our energy comes form just as good sources. They need to step up. Our conditions here will not last forever and it is time for them to reforest, and pay the debt they owe the Earth.

Re: A Map of the Trees of London

#53

Post by dharma1 »

This is wonderful, thank you for posting. So many times I have wondered what certain trees in parks near me are.

And now I have been able to locate 3 mulberry trees near me - will be visiting at harvest time this year

Re: A Map of the Trees of London

#54

Post by avianlyric »

renewiltord wrote: post #52
avianlyric wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before we go too far with the UK bashing. It’s worth noting that the UK’s population is ~66 million. California is ~44 million. California population density is ~251 people/sq mile. UK population density is ~727 people/sq mile. So the UK has almost 3x the population density, the UK simply doesn’t have oodles of unused space like the US. So a significantly reduced number of trees and forests isn’t much of a surprise.

Indeed, but more people isn't good for its own sake. Lest we forget, California produces almost as much in its economy as the UK does with 2/3rds the people. We are more forested, we are more people-efficient, we are just as power-efficient, our energy comes form just as good sources. They need to step up. Our conditions here will not last forever and it is time for them to reforest, and pay the debt they owe the Ear…

If feel like you’re arrogantly ignoring the fact that California is part of the much larger US economy, and all the benefits that entails.

And that despite the so called “good power sources” California still emits almost double the Co2 per capita than the UK (CA ~10 ton / capita; ~6 ton / capita; for 2017).

You’re also forgetting that most of the UKs deforestation periods occurred during World Wars I & II, so the US also benefited significantly from this deforestation.

The UK has also done a significant amount of _re_forestation. Increasing forest coverage from a low of 9% to 38% today[1].

So before you march around telling people to “step up” perhaps consider doing a little research, and examine your own impacts on the world. Don’t just belittle others.

[1]: https://www.ies-uk.org.uk/deforestation.php

Re: A Map of the Trees of London

#55

Post by avianlyric »

renewiltord wrote: post #51
asdff wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

England used to be like 95% under the plow to feed itself in the middle ages. As agricultural techniques improved, it became possible to have land set aside for forests while feeding the population. This land use rate isn't an English problem, it is an entire agrarian world problem. Blame the farming cultures that slaughtered the pastoralists 10,000 years ago if you want to finger point. It's kind of cherry picking t…

And now that agricultural techniques are better. It's time for the UK to give back to the Earth. Their endless whinging about the developing world logging their forests stands as hollow if they will not undo the untold amounts of harm they have done the Earth. I picked California because I live here and because we're good at this - for all of our faults.

> I picked California because I live here and because we're good at this

Source please

Re: A Map of the Trees of London

#57

Post by renewiltord »

avianlyric wrote: post #54
renewiltord wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, but more people isn't good for its own sake. Lest we forget, California produces almost as much in its economy as the UK does with 2/3rds the people. We are more forested, we are more people-efficient, we are just as power-efficient, our energy comes form just as good sources. They need to step up. Our conditions here will not last forever and it is time for them to reforest, and pay the debt they owe the Ear…

If feel like you’re arrogantly ignoring the fact that California is part of the much larger US economy, and all the benefits that entails. And that despite the so called “good power sources” California still emits almost double the Co2 per capita than the UK (CA ~10 ton / capita; ~6 ton / capita; for 2017). You’re also forgetting that most of the UKs deforestation periods occurred during World Wars I & II, so the US…

I'm carbon negative. I'm probably at the 0.01% in this world. Europe has led the world down a dark path and she needs to heal the wounds she has given Mother Earth.

Per-capita isn't as useful a measure as carbon intensity (/km^2) or carbon efficiency (/dollar). At this point, if the UK stopped doing its slow-motion destruction of the planet and started creating more with less, it can still redeem itself for the harm it's done all of humanity present and future.

Re: A Map of the Trees of London

#58

Post by renewiltord »

avianlyric wrote: post #55
renewiltord wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And now that agricultural techniques are better. It's time for the UK to give back to the Earth. Their endless whinging about the developing world logging their forests stands as hollow if they will not undo the untold amounts of harm they have done the Earth. I picked California because I live here and because we're good at this - for all of our faults.

> I picked California because I live here and because we're good at this Source please

My lease document? Probably not going to share a source for how I live here.

Re: A Map of the Trees of London

#59

Post by inamberclad »

leonroy wrote: post #43
Gravityloss wrote: post #16

I look to cities like London with awe and respect - that they have managed to keep so much old trees around. I get so frustrated at the local city and country level. It takes minutes to fell down a tree that took centuries to grow. That there are any old trees around is a sign of persistently maintained high values.

One of the things that still chills is me is how Palo Alto city council decided to fell an entire street of old trees to make it look tidy: http://www.paulgraham.com/californiaavenueoaks.html That said if you ever fly over the UK you'll notice it's a beautiful quilted patchwork of green fields and hedgerows. The UK used to be covered in old woodland forests. Much of it was felled over the centuries, with most of it b…

Decades later and that street still looks bleak.

Re: A Map of the Trees of London

#60

Post by dionidium »

simonw wrote: post #26

One of my favourite datasets to play with is the city of San Francisco's tree database. 190,000 records each with lat/lon, species, plant date, caretaking organization and more. Out of curiosity I set up a script to grab a new copy every day and diff it - turns out they post an update to it nearly every working day! https://simonwillison.net/2019/Mar/13/tree-history/

This is really great, especially the change tracking. I've been doing something similar with some public city real estate data. Maybe I'll set it up in a similar way. Thanks for posting this!
Post reply on HN