Comments by "Tespri" (@Tespri) on "Trees Are the Answer | 5 Minute Video" video.

  1. +IceManFX Topic was about North America not about whole world. Of course same wouldn't apply for rainforests.
    5
  2. +Darris B. Nelson And greenpeace doesn't PAY for their SPOKESPERSONS? HAHAHAHA. GMO is good example. Greenpeace and organic farmers pay lot money for people to speak against GMO, while GMO speakers are literally doing it for free. Sorry to break your delusion but greenpeace is no longer a force of good. They are eco terrorists who cause more harm to nature and mankind. Because of their delusional mindset. Edit: And just as you admited that greenpeece have gotten bit too political. You should realize that of course they would try to badmouth a person who claims that greenpeace got too political and lost the true sight.
    4
  3. +Dan Mac It takes longer grow a wheat than harvest it.
    3
  4. +Ian Belletti Yep it's the cold harsh truth that many people refuse to acknowledge... The fact that they chose cheaper products proves how little they actually care about environment and the health of employers of the company who produced the product. It's our responsibility to choose what we buy just like in democracy it's our responsibility to choose who we vote. Free trade capitalism is merely economic democracy. However in the end of the day, no one wants to think themselves as the bad guys and so they refuse to acknowledge this fact. And instead demand that someone else should pay the bill than themselves.
    2
  5. Dan Mac Irrelevant to the point.
    1
  6. Dan Mac "From the perspective of an individual lumber producer it is cheaper to cut down the trees and move on to the next bit of forest than to replant it as that producer will be dead by the time they run out of forest to cut." Being cheaper doesn't make it more profitable in long term. In longer term you gain more by planting.  Just like with planting grain. You gain more if you don't plant for next season, but in long term you end up losing. They are investing to the future. "In the West, where most of our trees have already been cut down we've instituted reforestation" That's funny because in west we have more lumber than in most parts of the world.  ", in those places where populations are still rising the forests continue to decline just like they did here and in Europe." Ironically in those places there isn't even forests. " Even the poster of this video recognizes that we continue to deforest land for our use;" IT doesn't mean that planting new trees wouldn't be good idea business wise. How does your comment counter anything in here? Can't be intellectually honest? "  it's never the other way around, " Forest killing us for it's own use? In case you didn't know mankind was near extinction in the past.  "supply continues to drop- how do you think this works out...?" Learn basics of business instead of crap told to you by someone.
    1
  7. Dan Mac "Do you think that North American lumber producers would replant land if they never had to re-use that land? " yes, because that's what they have been doing for long time. "do you think they would put out the expense for that when it has no benefit to them in their lifetime or in their children's? " It doesn't take that long, trees can live for long time, that doesn't mean that you cannot cut them before they are 1000 year old. " That wouldn't be a profit to them in the long or the short term." That is because you fail to understand basics of biology and economics. Which is typical for a hippie such as yourself. I bet you're against GMO too am I right? "If foresters naturally reforested lands as opposed to selling them for farms and homestead then North America's lumber industry would be several times the size that it already is." Probably, but same time you wouldn't be living now. In case you haven't realized lumber is pretty vital for humans. "-if South America and Southeast Asia follow the same course we did then most of the world's forests will disappear before we even start to react. " Rainforest is bit more complicated than a forest in northern parts of the planet.  You simply cannot replant it. "There are fewer trees overall each year than in the previous year, who is investing in the future...?" Companies " I'm not against growing trees just don't see how that's some cure-all for the world's environmental woes. " No one said it's cure-all ,but it's cure for not having trees. "You're missing the point, how many trees you would like to replant is irrelevant if the land available for planting trees decreases each year." Evidences stacks against you as shown in this video. "Farm land does not turn into forest, " That is why were focusing on making farming more efficient instead of taking more farmland. GMO has helped a lot in this, we need less acre than with traditional methods. " homes aren't turned into forest, " Why should they? Most human populations are concentrated far from forests anyway. Luckily we have skyscrapers and all the benefits that cities provide so that we don't need to live next to a forest. " there is always less and less forest- " more and more in western world.  " you can't argue that forestation is the cure for humanity's environmental" Again strawman, I have never argued that it's cure all to all issues. Simply stated that it's cure for lack of forests. 
    1
  8. Dan Mac "Then how did North America lose most of its forest cover since colonization....?" Do you really need to ask such stupid question? Because humans take certain amount of space in order to colonize something.  "The quicker you cut it the less wood you have, an older forest gives you more wood especially if it's hard wood." And? Doesn't address what I said at all.  "Apparently you don't understand the scenario I gave you?" Just like you failed to understand my farm analogy. "It's you who misunderstands economics if you think corporations are making plans based on perpetual renewability as opposed to profits in their lifetime." It's bad for business to run out of resources that they use. Not my fault that you're too stupid to realize that. And again new trees planted can be used faster than life time. Trees grow into adult faster than 100 years. "What evidence? He just says that we need to use more land for food and homes, that ignores the ever-decreasing forest-land." Watch again dimwitt.  "The title of the video is 'trees are the answer'- was I wrong to assume you agree with his points? " Title doesn't say what they are answer to.  I'm starting to lose all hope that you have any level of intelligence. " I'd just rather not walk through the woods to find row on row of the same damned tree in perpetuity; " Then don't. Go to a park which are made for people like you, instead of someone's land used for the paper you use to clean your ass in toilet.
    1
  9. +Ben ”bengjie” Perez First of all no business would make a residential properties for commercial use if no one asks for it. It would be bad for business in case you haven't realized. " By oversimplifying this issue, you are keeping the people in the dark." It seems that you're the only one keeping people in the dark by misrepesenting his argument. He never said that you only do deforestation or that there shouldn't be balance.
    1