This is under appreciated. When you think of what makes a neighborhood nice, the accurate cliche is "tree-lined streets." Thanks for highlighting this.
Thank you for highlighting the urban tree coverage issue. I think that it’s a mistake to conflate it with commercial forestry, but that’s just my opinion. Is there a way to generate the tree coverage maps for other cities?
Phenomenal analysis linking redlining to current tree canopy disparties. The connection between historical housing policy and today's literal shade gap is something I hadnt fully grasped until now. What gets me is how these environmental inequities compound over time, essentially creating a feedback loop where wealthier areas stay cooler and healthier while poorer communities face exponentially worse heat outcomes. The $17.6 billion figure for correction seems almost modest when weighed against long-term public health costs.
"Since 2010, the country has lost 10% of its forest coverage."
I followed the link, but it didn't seem to get me to the evidence for this claim. Is it a claim about gross forest loss rather than net forest change? For net forest change in the US, the UN's Global Forest Resource Assessment 2020 seems to put us in the positive direction (a slight net forest gain).
I live in an area where if you stop mowing grass, the lawn will return to forest on its own. Low-income sections of town still tend to have less canopy coverage, but this is often because letting large trees grow near houses creates unexpectedly costly problems that are avoided by having only grass, shrubbery, and gravel. On the hook for some of these costs, home insurers are beginning to drop homeowners with trees too close to the house. Finally, tree protection ordinances, like other zoning restrictions, tend to drive up housing costs, especially if one also values density and proximity to town. If you don't value such things, wooded acreage far from town has always been cheap.
First of all I am amazed at how Christmas even has become the day when journalists talk about inequality, In a more friendly religious environment it would be a day of renewed hope and joy. Secondly, I just get so irritated when people talk about trees in this country, ie, our National Forests and other parts. Thanks to environmentalists and there fellow Democrats, we have significantly mismanaged and hampered those who could better manage our forests. I will cite just one of many examples out there. A company I worked for owned a significant area of land in the Gallatin National forest in Montana. The forest was suffering from a mountain baatle infestation and the correct method of containing the infestation was to cut down the affected trees. Of course this was denied and true to their form wanted nature to solve the problem. Natures way was to let the infestation to continue till there were almost no live trees left and then clear the ground with forest fires. One of the biggest contributors to forest fires (as also the case in LA) is to deny access to clearing the understories of forests and getting rid of the fuel which promotes these fires. This must be your way of solving inequality.
Clear-cutting is definitely controversial, and as far as I can tell there seems to be ample evidence on both sides that it (a) reduces the risks of forest fires and (b) can create habitat loss and less biodiversity. I think this article takes a pretty balanced view so I'd welcome your thoughts on it.
More generally, I'm grateful that you shared your real-world experience in Montana. I think it's really important to incorporate stories like that into articles like this because data doesn't always capture the full picture (especially across different regions).
And in the spirit of the holidays, my goal is to bring more justice into the world!
First of all, I do not recall that I even came close to mentioning Clear cutting. In some forests, like the NWern part of Washington and Oregon were the regeneration cycle is so short, clear cutting works well in terms of both habitat management and forest Management. As one works there way east to Montana, where it takes 80 to 100 years to regrow a stand of trees, selective cutting works well to help preserve a stand of trees from insects,, disease and fire reduction. When a forest burns, natures way, it has the same effect as a clear cut. Interestingly, Sequoia and I think redwood as well will only germinate from the heat of a forest fire. Again, one of the biggest optical to having a well managed forest, be it in the west, the south or NE, is off the cuff unfounded notions of what it takes to manage the forests
I like your genuine concern for minimizing inequality. But now and then, could you lay victimization aside to talk about how to encourage people to realize their potential? Could you talk about the shameful school systems failing to deliver real education to kids? And please don’t talk about funding. They’re awash in money and administrative jobs, but they’re not TEACHING.
Could you talk about toxic cultures and tragically dysfunctional homes, and the direct correlation between single-parent families and: lower educational outcomes, lower lifetime income, shorter life spans, higher drug use, higher incarceration rates, higher gang participation rates, higher violence rates, etc.?
These urban poor kids have POTENTIAL, like anyone else. Opportunity is there if they just got the education and family support they deserve. These crucial things can be supplied by those close to them- parents and teachers. Just seeing the commitment of parents who hang together is extremely educational.
I can’t escape the conviction that if the tree situation was reversed, then your article would be about how residents of shaded low-income neighborhoods suffer vitamin D inequality.
Finally, can you make any sense of the Bill Gates-supported plan to cut down trees and BURY them in the ground to keep them from releasing their carbon into the environment? What’s that about?
I learned so much in this article I could just cry.
I am thrilled to hear it Lisa!
This is under appreciated. When you think of what makes a neighborhood nice, the accurate cliche is "tree-lined streets." Thanks for highlighting this.
Absolutely. It's a phrase we hear all the time without fully appreciating how much value it really brings to an area, beyond the aesthetics.
Have a great end of year David.
You too, Jeremy.
Great article! Thank you
Always appreciate the note Julie!
Thank you for highlighting the urban tree coverage issue. I think that it’s a mistake to conflate it with commercial forestry, but that’s just my opinion. Is there a way to generate the tree coverage maps for other cities?
Phenomenal analysis linking redlining to current tree canopy disparties. The connection between historical housing policy and today's literal shade gap is something I hadnt fully grasped until now. What gets me is how these environmental inequities compound over time, essentially creating a feedback loop where wealthier areas stay cooler and healthier while poorer communities face exponentially worse heat outcomes. The $17.6 billion figure for correction seems almost modest when weighed against long-term public health costs.
Glad to hear that the article opened up a new idea for you. That’s the goal!
More trees, less crime. Never thought of this but it makes sense.
"Since 2010, the country has lost 10% of its forest coverage."
I followed the link, but it didn't seem to get me to the evidence for this claim. Is it a claim about gross forest loss rather than net forest change? For net forest change in the US, the UN's Global Forest Resource Assessment 2020 seems to put us in the positive direction (a slight net forest gain).
I live in an area where if you stop mowing grass, the lawn will return to forest on its own. Low-income sections of town still tend to have less canopy coverage, but this is often because letting large trees grow near houses creates unexpectedly costly problems that are avoided by having only grass, shrubbery, and gravel. On the hook for some of these costs, home insurers are beginning to drop homeowners with trees too close to the house. Finally, tree protection ordinances, like other zoning restrictions, tend to drive up housing costs, especially if one also values density and proximity to town. If you don't value such things, wooded acreage far from town has always been cheap.
First of all I am amazed at how Christmas even has become the day when journalists talk about inequality, In a more friendly religious environment it would be a day of renewed hope and joy. Secondly, I just get so irritated when people talk about trees in this country, ie, our National Forests and other parts. Thanks to environmentalists and there fellow Democrats, we have significantly mismanaged and hampered those who could better manage our forests. I will cite just one of many examples out there. A company I worked for owned a significant area of land in the Gallatin National forest in Montana. The forest was suffering from a mountain baatle infestation and the correct method of containing the infestation was to cut down the affected trees. Of course this was denied and true to their form wanted nature to solve the problem. Natures way was to let the infestation to continue till there were almost no live trees left and then clear the ground with forest fires. One of the biggest contributors to forest fires (as also the case in LA) is to deny access to clearing the understories of forests and getting rid of the fuel which promotes these fires. This must be your way of solving inequality.
Clear-cutting is definitely controversial, and as far as I can tell there seems to be ample evidence on both sides that it (a) reduces the risks of forest fires and (b) can create habitat loss and less biodiversity. I think this article takes a pretty balanced view so I'd welcome your thoughts on it.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/is-clear-cutting-us-forests-good-for-wildlife
More generally, I'm grateful that you shared your real-world experience in Montana. I think it's really important to incorporate stories like that into articles like this because data doesn't always capture the full picture (especially across different regions).
And in the spirit of the holidays, my goal is to bring more justice into the world!
First of all, I do not recall that I even came close to mentioning Clear cutting. In some forests, like the NWern part of Washington and Oregon were the regeneration cycle is so short, clear cutting works well in terms of both habitat management and forest Management. As one works there way east to Montana, where it takes 80 to 100 years to regrow a stand of trees, selective cutting works well to help preserve a stand of trees from insects,, disease and fire reduction. When a forest burns, natures way, it has the same effect as a clear cut. Interestingly, Sequoia and I think redwood as well will only germinate from the heat of a forest fire. Again, one of the biggest optical to having a well managed forest, be it in the west, the south or NE, is off the cuff unfounded notions of what it takes to manage the forests
I like your genuine concern for minimizing inequality. But now and then, could you lay victimization aside to talk about how to encourage people to realize their potential? Could you talk about the shameful school systems failing to deliver real education to kids? And please don’t talk about funding. They’re awash in money and administrative jobs, but they’re not TEACHING.
Could you talk about toxic cultures and tragically dysfunctional homes, and the direct correlation between single-parent families and: lower educational outcomes, lower lifetime income, shorter life spans, higher drug use, higher incarceration rates, higher gang participation rates, higher violence rates, etc.?
These urban poor kids have POTENTIAL, like anyone else. Opportunity is there if they just got the education and family support they deserve. These crucial things can be supplied by those close to them- parents and teachers. Just seeing the commitment of parents who hang together is extremely educational.
I can’t escape the conviction that if the tree situation was reversed, then your article would be about how residents of shaded low-income neighborhoods suffer vitamin D inequality.
Finally, can you make any sense of the Bill Gates-supported plan to cut down trees and BURY them in the ground to keep them from releasing their carbon into the environment? What’s that about?
I think you are going to like my upcoming book (or some of it)
Re: someone else’s good-faith work: If we like all of it we’re probably not thinking. If we like none of it, probably not thinking and not listening.
Well said