Tropical Forests Suffered Near-Record Tree Losses in 2017

Out of sight, out of mind is not a good rule for living. This is truly tragic. In "doing the math" of global warming/climate change, the world's big wild forests are an important defense against rapid and yet more dangerous climate chaos. [They are one of the "wedges" in more comprehensive studies of what we have done, are doing, and can do to mitigate and adapt to a changing earth.] It's another form of looting; the "dominion" in Genesis has a lot to answer for. If only people would think about sustainable domination instead of all the (mostly negative) unintended consequences of helping billionaires make another billion. We live off the earth, but that's no reason to denude it of value and a future. For a sad look at how bad it can get, I recommend John Brunner's The Sheep Look Up. He got most of what's going on right, back in the 1970s! We need to back off and take inventory. Powerful megacorporations are increasingly at odds with the overall welfare of the people they employ and supposedly serve. The rules of profit have become more important than people, especially in the future. No corporate welfare is worth burning down our planet to attain. No wealth will compensate us for the debt that will be unpayable by the younger people upon whom we have foisted it.

I've read parts of the recent report on palm oil, and noticed two interesting "details". First, the comments have been closed for debate as soon as the articles were published - all questioning the conventional wisdom, but de facto prohibiting any debate. Boringly expected tactics from palm oil world companies.... Second, the report was mentionning Palm vs Colza, Sunflower, and Soy. Exclusively. Why they did omit olive oil is anyone's guess :-D)) For us Mediterranean people, omitting olive in this kind of report is a recipe for amateurism and/or fraud. Although the report gloats about hygiene and food products, omitting olive clearly underlines a motivation towards fuel production. So called green fuel. This kind of report, through this kind of bizarre omission, shows off amateurism in the spin doctoring of the topic : who would reasonably omit a full Mediterranean population - as potential readers and opinion makers ? From Aleppo soap to Mediterranean diets, the olive trees deliver fat without felling trees, killing elephants or orang-outangs. And without spoiling the aquifers. Be sure that the destruction of the rain forests isn't in any way a chaotic result of unleashed struggling poverty. It's based on a supposedly skilfully planned communication scheme - like this amateurish palm oil report.

All the more reason to support the makers of Durapalm and Plyboo! Eco friendly flooring and paneling that not only looks lovely but is also is formaldehyde free!

The ozone layer is depleting and trees can protect the earth from scorching.Without trees drought is sure to follow and fire is next. We need trees for oxygen. If oxygen levels drop we are not long here. So plant trees in your yard everyone, we need a tree planting frenzy to stay cool and to breathe. You can help,plant trees! Under a tree it is cool and the air is full of oxygen. Plant trees! And support family planning,contraception and even abortion. Yes! We need to try to stop human growth.

Look at Mars to see where we are headed.

This is insanity! Until the last leaf is picked, then will humanity care?

Anyone who enjoys breathing should be very concerned.

20%-25% of the CO2 that we generate is the product of the incineration of virgen tropical forest. This figure gives me perspective on the futility of our intention to contain carbon emissions or save wildlands. The center will not hold much longer.

Very confusing - - but I'd say that for the likely audience of the NY Times -- a reference to Georgia (state) is better, and Georgia and Bangladesh are about the same size. Then there is the issue of -- well how big a % of the global tropical land mass is this? It's .1%, give or take of the globe, but what % of tropical forest? The author then says the Maryland study doesn't account for trees growing back after "storms, fires or logging." So we don't know the net loss, but the author assures is there is a net loss. And what about the globe? I know the tropics are important but what is the net gain or loss for the entire globe? Do tropical trees store more CO2? And, some questions. Don't trees grow? So, while we're clearing x% of the tropical forests aren't the remaining trees growing? By what %? And what about new growth forests. Do they grow faster than the flattened rain forests? And if I read correctly -- the satellite data has only been available since 2013. While there were ground observations before, I bet the satellite data is both different and probably better. So saying that 2017 was the 2nd worst year for tropical tree loss is a bit of a stretch, isn't it. And combining the release of CO2 from burned trees the loss of cover -- what is the net effect on CO2 in the atmosphere? I like trees. They are important. But this fuzzy article doesn't really tell us much. It raises more questions.

It's interesting that this story received relatively low "billing" in the hierarchy of stories appearing in the online version of the the NYT. I would argue that the implications of this piece are much more significant than those of many of the stories that got more visible placement in the Times.

It all comes down to too many people, and almost nothing is being done worldwide to reduce the human population.

How long can this continue? Our planet will become one big Easter Island.

Roughly the size of Bangladesh is ridiculous as who but the commentator even knows how large the country is, maybe 2000 Olympic size soccer fields.

Why is this not the headline story in the paper? When will news outlets get a proper sense of perspective?

Trumpian felonies get 4000 comments, this story gets 4! Trump is winning.

Forests are the lungs of the world.

What our planet needs - more trees, fewer people.

We are witnessing a global catastrophe, driven by greed for profits, overpopulation and aspirations to rise above poverty. Yet a Times readership, obsessed to the point of blindness as it is with politics the culture war, can only generate 12 comments on this article.

What a 'crime'. Aren't we humans to defend nature, of which we are part of and depend on? Why are we this irresponsible, this greedy, and shortsighted?

Stop using products with Palm Oil, reduce/eliminate consumption of beef. Eliminate all plastic from your lives. Reduce soy products consumption. Spread the word. Only capitalism works. Even for sustainability.

Very interesting and troubling article. Besides the loss of oxygen and added carbon the burning of these fires produce, are the very unique flora and fauna loss, some that inhabit only very small regions of these jungles that are now gone forever. This always produces the giggle factor in Republicans, anyone caring about a beetle or lizard. But what if that lizard has a special gland that produces a chemical that could cure cancer? We will never find it now. I know, the world has hungry mouths to feed but does anyone ever even suggest thinking about having just 2 kids? Just a mature discussion? And the culprit is money as always, more mouths = more people buying. It won't stop. I truly feel we are doomed.

The world's tropical forests didn't "lose" 39 million trees. The trees were stolen by humankind.

Everyone should read Margaret Atwood's excellent book "Oryx & Crake." She was prescient when she wrote it and though it is fiction it looks like it's becoming a reality.

Why do climate change activists, politicians and most of the media remain silent about the environmental repercussions of the planet's rising population?

Terrible news, and our planet is in for some drastic changes and extinctions, with this only a small part of the overall devastation. This is why I can't get too concerned about it when a batch of humans die. Yes, Americans love to gun each other down every day, and shoot themselves dead too, but this is only a benefit for the environment. Sure, hurricanes kill hundreds or sometimes thousands of humans every year, but this is nowhere near enough to help our situation. Venezuela is starving due to its heinous dictatorship, but the more people that starve there, the less they will destroy the forests that remain. Sorry to be harsh but it's quite apparent, the number one problem on earth is too many humans. The number one solution to all the problems on earth is, achieve less humans. Humans are incapable of curtailing their birth rates, so if our species is to survive, and if the planet is to remain habitable for large mammals, then the death rate of humans must increase. For those who would snarkily say, start with yourself then, I'm not the problem. I'm not having children, I don't own a car, I have a minimal carbon footprint. But if a hurricane comes along and takes me out, I'll accept it as karma for being a member of the destructive human race.

since Bangladesh HAS no tropical tress a more appropriate area might have been chosen for comparrson , and I doubt that very many people could identify Bangladesh on a map but they might identify NJ or Florida.

Catastrophic damage is being inflicted upon this planet and earth's precious environment. We are digging ourselves deeper and deeper into the grave.

We live in a terrible era When jungles become the Sahara. If I were a tree From the tropics I’d flee And put down some roots in Canberra.

This is only one of the many environmental degradations that are continuing to guarantee a bleak future for a world decreasingly capable of sustaining humanity. Yet the subject is greeted by the general public with yawns and so-whats. Hard to see where any hope lies here.

Forest loss in North America can rival that in the tropics. The province of New Brunswick, Canada has lost 20% of its forest cover since the year 2000 to clear cutting according to Global forest watch. 5.1% forest was harvested since 2014 - 2017 to yield 34.4Mt of CO2 emissions from what previously had been conservation forest.

This is tragic. There is the old cliche about losing sight of the forest for the trees. Well, I feel that we have lost sight of a lot of issues that used to be fought effectively in the fog of debate about climate change (not that there is any real debate; clearly the forces of industry and greed simply pretend to debate it for the sake of obfuscation). But the comment that asserts that climate change is the great issue of our time and that most damage to ecosystems is caused by climate change plays right into the inertia intentionally created by those that intentionally create a climate change debate. At some point in prior decades we had as global society turned a corner on protecting tropical rain forests as the lungs of our planet and the cradle of biodiversity. Now the forests are burned and plowed under by the hands of man directly at greater rates than ever despite the proclamations that climate change is the great issue of our time. Unfortunately the only thing that will push us away from fossil fuels at this point is the economics of alternative energy and technological advances. So I really think that environmental advocacy should get back to protecting forests for their own sake, the sake of the animals that live in them, and for us because they do help buffer climate change, rather than wonder if this is a result of climate change that can be used as ammunition in that intentionally contrived debate that feeds into the agenda of procrastination on env'l prot'n.

Mr. Plumer - good article but there is some VITAL information missing from it that would be really good for readers like myself to know. What are the products resulting from this deforestation? There is a passing mention of cocoa in Colombia and beef cattle in Brazil, but that is all. I want to know what I, as a consumer, can boycott, so that I am not part of the market causing this destruction. Is Brazilian beef exported to the USA? Are there trade certifications on cocoa that can guide me to choose products not contributing to this destruction? What about palm oil? Is some of this destruction due to expanded palm oil plantations? Which individuals, which companies and which products are the problem here? What can I do to help.

We are losing millions of trees in California to wildfires, drought, disease, and insect infestations that are all associated with climate change. PG&E destroyed 1.4 million trees in 2017 and is now destroying millions more trees after being blamed for wildfires in the North Bay. And public land managers are destroying millions of trees in urban areas because they aren’t native. Only 6% of urban trees in California are native, which suggests that destroying our non-native trees will result in treeless cities. Treeless cities are more polluted and less able to absorb the carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels. Climate change is the environmental issue of our time. Most environmental problems are exacerbated by climate change. When native plants and trees are no longer surviving in their historic ranges, it is usually because of changes in the climate. Nativism in the natural world is shooting us in the foot...just as it is in human society. Thanks for this important article. A comparable article about tree destruction closer to home would also be helpful.

While each of us can and should reduce our consumption the cutting of the Amazon and Indonesian rainforests is driven by greed, not need. These are not small local farmers trying to eeke out a living. Most of this devastation is being driven by large landowners and international corporations who see short term profits while ignoring long-term disasters. Our best science shows that global warming equals climate disruption, not just warmer temperatures. The very drought that causes farmers to seek more land is made worse by clear-cutting. These disasters are already at our doorsteps. There are record droughts in eastern Brazil. A decade of drought in Syria. The entire city of Cape Town without water. Even in the Western United States, we have small towns where water has to be trucked in. We should sponsor a "peoples tribunal" as was done during the Vietnam war. Corporate heads and government officials should be put on trial for crimes against humanity. Lawyers should represent both sides and a distinguished panel of international judges should preside over the case. When a verdict is rendered, we should then ask our political representatives to enforce it with sanctions or any other legal steps at their disposal. We will then see who is on the side of humanity and who is not.

what’s a million acres? use square miles... better yet, also report numbers in metric units (square kilometers).

Norway made billions on north sea oil, which put carbon into the atmosphere. At least they are giving a little back now in Indonesian peat preservation enforcement. Texas made billions on their oil, which also put huge amounts of carbon into the atmosphere, and when they get devastated by a hurricane, they want the rest of the US to pay for their repairs, while they keep on pumping and refining hydrocarbons. Not fair.

In Japan, there are no paper towels in public restrooms to dry hands, instead people carry around tiny towels to dry their hands. We could spread that here and decrease some tree use for non-essential purposes. And the towels are very cute, tourist collector items even. Spur local economies.

Just a comment on clarity: why describe the size of the destruction as "an area the size of Bangladesh?" I'm pretty geographically savvy but that description really gives me no information at all, while "roughly the size of the state of Georgia" would be understandable to me and many more readers.

Western consumers must understand that buying products with palm oil (nutella included) is about as unconscionable as buying ivory. There was a heartbreaking video recently of an orangutan trying to fight off a bulldozer only to be chased away by the workers. Beyond our active deforestation efforts the effects of climate change are only going to increase in severity in coming decades. Most of California's forests will burn off. The Amazon is likely to burn and convert to grassland as rainfall patterns shift. It will be a century or two before the new, much hotter climate stabilizes enough for new forests to establish themselves. Whether humans will be around to appreciate them is another question.

When Nature flattens a tropical forest on Puerto Rico it is part of the ever changing and evolving pattern that has been going on for thousands of years -- and is not a disaster. It changes a mature rain forest into a rain forest recovering from hurricane damage, a new period of dynamic regrowth -- which creates a new and wonderful rain forest. This is how it should be. It is not something to mourn, but to celebrate. I have been to El Yunque (before the hurricane) and look forward to re-visiting the new, improved El Yunque in a couple of years.