Jeff Gardiner
Sheril KirshenbaumWhen they pledge to โplant a tree,โ tell them you prefer they โprotect a forest.โ
Rokosun@Sheril Exactly! A forest is a lot more valuable than just the trees, its an entire ecosystem consisting of different plants, animals and other organisms which are interdependent on each other. So cutting down a forest will remove this complex biodiversity which is very hard to restore and will take many years even if successful.
Melzpetpals
Sudhir@Sheril Mostly (Leaders), they do it on Ceremonial occasions for publicity and forget about protecting Forests! On the excuse of Development they destroy Forests!๐โน๏ธ๐ก
robpennoyer@Sheril I have had this conversation with so many "plant a tree" nonprofits, all of whom seem surprised to be asked how many of the trees they planted five, or 10, years ago are still alive. Their only success metric is new trees planted. It's like if school systems were measured by number of entering kindergarteners.
Karen in Minnesota@Sheril or do both! ๐ฒ๐ฒ๐ฒ
KaraOhki@Sheril When my cousin died, I had trees planted in her memory. They were planted to help reforest in an area devastated by fire. Protecting is important. Helping rebuild is equally as important. We should support both.
The Evaporated Kid
Kenric@Sheril Agreed and doing that. Next month, Iโm signing an agreement with the Squam Lake Conservation Society to permanently preserve 35 acres of wetlands and forest.
Letโs cherish this planet. Happy Thanksgiving
Mathias Kronhjort๐ฉ๐ฐ๐ฆ๐ฅ@Sheril
Why not both?
Why not both?
PhoenixSerenity@Sheril I have been doing that for decades ๐ฒโค๐ฒ
Prehistoric Goth@Sheril the thing is about only planting a tree is a lot of trees take a very, very long time to get to the size they are. and the sizes a cut tree was would have been crucial for their contribution. Planting trees are potentially a future investment, but when they keep getting cut down and replaced thatโs like demolishing a house and leaving a brick to come back to rebuild much later. If you do that, no one may come back to it in the first place. In fact, no one may never.
CJ Booker 
@Sheril no.
This is incorrect. I know I'm in the minority, but this is toxic.
Instead, you first say: "Thank you," and THEN follow up with "Now let's protect a forest."
We do not get where we need to be by crapping all over people who are putting in the effort. They're trying. They've begun along the path.
Don't attack them for not yet being further down the road. Encourage their journey.
"Not good enough" means "you shouldn't have bothered." So why should they try again?
Kamil Andrusz@Sheril they should do both. Protect the forest first, AND plant new trees.
โญ๐ฅ๐ฏ๐ฆ๐ฐ โญ๐๐๐@Sheril call me a cynic, however, when I see a company say โweโll plant a tree for โฆ.โ I donโt see many forests springing up.
I envisage a forester rolling in cash for over selling the same sapling over and over again. ๐๐๐
I envisage a forester rolling in cash for over selling the same sapling over and over again. ๐๐๐
Aris Leepvogel, gelukzoeker โ
@Sheril Or to make a profit if and only if it does no harm.
@Sheril While that is what I would prefer, I have zero confidence in a company's commitment or ability to do that.
I have at least a small amount of confidence in their ability to plant trees.
It would be nice if they at least consulted with someone on how to give the trees the best chance. Or even if they instead put a bunch of the money towards a non-profit that owned the land with the intention of maintaining it for X years.
I have at least a small amount of confidence in their ability to plant trees.
It would be nice if they at least consulted with someone on how to give the trees the best chance. Or even if they instead put a bunch of the money towards a non-profit that owned the land with the intention of maintaining it for X years.
MrBadger42@Sheril Of course not mutually exclusive.