So... you are blaming the colonists for the drastic deforestation that occurred between 1850 and 1989? When you get into your senior year of high school you will hopefully take an American History class where you will learn the colonial period of America was 1492-1763.
Your second map overlays your current map. You do know there were colonists in Georgia and you do know people were moving west into areas like Kentucky before 1800 right?
So, now you are blaming colonists in Georgia who migrated westward for deforestation that happened 100 years later?
No obviously those are the people later. Im just following the timeline. Also ranchers are responsible for the later deforestation. Do you eat meat?
Why else were they cutting down trees? Why are they burning the Amazon? The map moves westward just like the country. More meat more farmland. California is the leading agricultural state.
@NewRoxFan Deforestation in the United States is an ongoing environmental issue that attracts protests from environmentalists. Prior to the arrival of European-Americans, about one half of the United States land area was forest, about 1,023,000,000 acres (4,140,000 km2) estimated in 1630. Recently, the Forest Service reported total forestation as 766,000,000 acres (3,100,000 km2) in 2012.[1][2][3] The majority of deforestation took place prior to 1910 with the Forest Service reporting the minimum forestation as 721,000,000 acres (2,920,000 km2) around 1920.[4] The forest resources of the United States have remained relatively constant through the 20th century.[3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_the_United_States#Current_issues We have actually started adding forest since 1920.
The reason im defending American deforestation (God forbid someone defend America in this forum) is because American agriculture really made a difference in food price and supply. Secondly they didn't have the knowledge we have now about the importance of trees. If we all knew then what we know now.
I believe we have passed the point of planting trees to save the planet, now we will need more than that to stop it from heating up and killing all humans off. DD
Just gonna drop this here. https://www.forbes.com/sites/michae...ing-that-its-the-lungs-of-the-world-is-wrong/
Some more info: https://www.quora.com/Is-20-of-the-Earths-oxygen-produced-by-the-Amazon-rain-forest https://www.snopes.com/news/2019/08/23/viral-amazon-fire-photos/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michae...the-lungs-of-the-world-is-wrong/#201b7ef45bde Why Everything They Say About The Amazon, Including That It's The 'Lungs Of The World,' Is Wrong
Trying to tilt the narrative to "Oh, it's not that bad" is absolutely pathetic. It doesn't matter what cheesy article you quote about carbon storage or oxygen production, you have to stop destroying the Amazon for cattle... period. Stop destroying the Indonesian rainforests for palm oil... period. There are so, so many ill effects that hurt all of humanity beyond a small quip on oxygen production. As Americans, be willing to pay more for products that cost more or change your consumption habits. China's growing middle class wouldn't have the spending power to destroy the Amazon for beef if we didn't love their cheap products. Cheap, low quality beef from antibiotic and false hormone driven factory farms and all the trillions we spend on health care as a result wouldn't be a thing if we didn't invent it. What's wrong is only pointing to Brazil while you readily play into the hands of destructive capitalism... because it's a result of your spending power.
