61–70 of 93 posts
Logistically speaking, I wonder what's the best way to create a tree map/database for my own town? Google maps will go a long way towards getting location. Is the rest just driving/walking around collecting data (species etc..) manually?
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…
I'm surprised by the stark difference in density between some of the boroughs. E.g. Dalston has very few trees compared with Islington. Is that because of actual difference in density or difference in tracking between various councils?
My guess is the latter. There are several woods and parks around where I live in Harringey that are showing no trees on the map
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…
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.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.