Is deforestation a necessary evil? Twitter Poll Results

The results are in!

Is deforestation a necessary evil?

• Yes - 0%
• No, Never - 25%
• Sometimes - 63%
• Not Sure - 12%

The majority of the people that voted in this survey appear to see deforestation as a necessary evil to some extent/it sometimes is (depending on the context). 

The blog poll (on the top left) is still open and you can cast your votes.

Is deforestation a necessary evil? Part 2

Back in 2010, there was a huge amount of hype surrounding the finale of the TV series Lost and I would like to think this final post offers a similar amount of suspense in drawing together all the loose ends, questions and arguments formed throughout the past three months in order to answer the important question - is deforestation a necessary evil?
In the second part of this post I will be exploring why we should be stopping deforestation/why are the trees important? and whether we can achieve such as thing  as "sustainable deforestation"? Once again, I will be drawing upon past blogs as well as new academic literature.

I would love to hear your opinion - you can comment on the post or vote in the POLL at the top left of the blog.

Why We Should Stop Deforestation?
From the dark Gothic forests rolling across Siberia to the Kapok trees with their mighty buttresses in Amazonia, trees provide an irreplaceable beauty  that is destroyed by deforestation. No academic study can quantify (or qualify) the uniqueness and brilliance of the natural world held within the planet's forests.
With 70% of the world's land species living in forest biomes, deforestation is an ecological threat. Many of the world's endangered species are threatened with habitat loss due to deforestation:

• The Javan Rhino has been reduced to 60 left in the wild because of the conversion of natural forest to farmland (Fernando et al. 2006).
• Bornean Orangutan is critically endangered due to habitat destruction caused by illegal logging (Curran et al. 2004).
• Golden Lion Tamarin is endemic to the Amazon jungle but is endangered due to agriculture and logging (Keirulff and Rylunds 2003).

Hear Me Roar! A Golden Lion Tamarin with her offspring in the Amazon (Rainforest Alliance)

Furthermore, as I have mentioned already the natural and the anthropogenic world are consistently interlinked and the destruction of forests would have more than an environmental/ecologically impact but also a human one. Plants and animals provide food, medicine and fuel for indigenous communities and less developed nations around the world and removing this vital resource would limit economic growth (Butler 2012). However, as I pointed out with the case study of Madagascar sometimes local communities exploit the rainforest as much as the developed world to the extent that they see the forest as a source of income rather than a resource to be appreciated. 25% of global medicines are derived from plants found in the world's forests (Kirkman 2014). What would happen if these were no longer available? What about medicines for diseases we have yet to discover?

From a purely ecological/environmental perspective deforestation is dark and evil like the ace of spades. It degrades the environment irreversibly and results in the extinction of priceless plants and animals. However, Part 1 showed that deforestation is crucial for human survival so can we reach a compromise?

Can We Achieve "Sustainable Deforestation"?

David Horsey's "Environment and Climate" cartoons sum up environmental politics nicely (source)

The world watched the COP21 in eager anticipation to see what world leaders would do to tackle global environmental change. There was a pleasing emphasis on deforestation with many countries such as Brazil pledging to reduce net deforestation to 0 under the REDD+ initiative and 42 companies pledging to be sustainable with regards to deforestation.
However, there are real questions about whether this can be achieved or are we heading for a "tree apocalypse"?
I have talked extensively about corruption and problems with political motivation in Brazil and Indonesia but it also goes down to a smaller bureaucratic level. Particularly in developing countries, departments concerned with forestry, agriculture, water, town planning and land use fail to interact ad often work in isolation with a detrimental effect on the environment as each pursues their own aims. Bawar and Siedler (2015) found this to be the case in the Eastern Himalayas where forest conservationist, land-use departments and small-holder farmers failed to interact to address problems associated with deforestation. What about developed nations? How do we manage the bureaucracy and political motivations there? However, education is key in many respects, as illustrated in the Madagascar case study (Dauvergne 1994). Showing local people, as well as governments, the value in preserving forests and the detrimental effects that will happen if deforestation continues  is effective if you show how their actions will adversity effect their lives, and the lives of their children.
Furthermore, a focus on development goals, infrastructural improvements and improving quality of life within countries such as Brazil or Indonesia has put environmental issues on the sideline, in the case of Brazil increased them (Ferraira et al.2014). This paper in Science noted how Brazil's natural resource extraction had increased due to development/urbanization and their growing economy.
We can never fully replace the trees that we have already chopped down, but afforestation and reforestation (discussed on this blog post quite extensively) offers a way to partially restore habitats as well as continue to provide a carbon sink and mitigate against climate change. However, a solution such as this would only be effective if all countries where to monitor deforestation (something that is arguably hard to do) and plant trees to replace the ones that had been felled.

A Conclusion
So that I don't loose track of my conclusions I am going to display them as concise points:

• Whether we like it or not, humans require natural resources (such as wood) to grow and survive and maintain a quality of life that we take for granted. 
• Indigenous people have a right to fell trees and make a living off the land in which they live but at the same time should be educated on the negative impacts deforestation will have on their community and the world. 
• We must learn from the mistakes of past societies (e.g. the Maya) so that we don't repeat them. Although our considerable technological advancements would mean total societal collapse due to deforestation is unlikely. 
• Illegal logging and deforestation is very wrong and tougher penalties should be enforced on those that do not abide by the law. 
• As individuals we can purchase environmentally sustainable products so as not to fuel illegal or unsustainable forestry practices. 
• Deforestation practices need to be altered in order to meet a growing population or population policies must be implemented in order to ensure we have an adequate amount of natural resources. 
• Deforestation can be managed and mitigated in a way that saves endangered species and precious habitats but also provides humans with a source of wood. 
• Deforestation is not a necessary evil but wood is a necessity that humans require. Deforestation is a means by which we get this necessity. However, it can be undertaken in a more environmentally friendly way. We can manage and not waste the natural resources we have at our disposal (e.g. slash and burn methods are extremely wasteful or plant fast growing trees that we can then cut down). 

Deforestation is a complicated topic that has been explored within this blog. It is implicated within sensitive issues (e.g. population) and complicated ones (e.g. politics) but it is a very real environmental problem that needs addressing. I will also post the results of the Twitter Poll ("Is deforestation a necessary evil?") once it has closed in 17 hours time. The poll on the side of this blog is open until noon on the 13th January so keep voting!

Thanks to everyone who has commented and read this blog over the past few months. I hope you have enjoyed reading it as much as I have enjoyed writing and investigating deforestation. 

A cattle ranch in Mato Grosso, Brazil - was it really worth cutting down all those trees? (WSJ)

Is deforestation a necessary evil? Part 1

Welcome to the last post within this blog (although it has been split into two parts because it is of considerable length). Way back in the realms of early October this blog set out an assortment of slightly related aims: explore the consequences of deforestation; examine whether the effects of deforestation are always bad; explore solutions; look at past patterns of deforestation and examine how complicated the discourse on deforestation is. They have all been examined in one blog post or more and now it is time to draw conclusions and thought from what this blog has researched. The overarching question of this blog, and the title of this post - is deforestation a necessary evil? - shall be finally answered.
This blog post will examine four key areas of interest that have been discussed throughout the blog:

1. The relationship between global environmental change and deforestation. 
2. The relationship between humans and deforestation.
3. Why deforestation is a bad process.
4. Sustainable Deforestation and Is a tree apocalypse inevitable?

Drawing upon references and ideas discussed in other blog posts will bring in an element of repetition but it is ultimately a post to explore my personal opinions towards the topics being discussed, in conjunction with academic research. 

The Relationship between Global Environmental Change and Deforestation

Trees, and vegetation generally, are an integral part of the Earth system involved in various cycles including the hydrological cycle, carbon cycle, nitrogen cycle and countless ecological cycles/systems. 

The importance of trees in the global nitrogen cycle (source)

In terms of carbon, trees act as a major carbon sink taking up carbon dioxide during the process of photosynthesis (Malhi et al. 2008). 150-200 Pg of carbon is stored in the Amazon within biomass and soils (Brienen et al. 2015). This study demonstrated the importance of trees as well as other vegetation and biomass that stores carbon and questioned the future of carbon sinks within the Amazon. 

Deforestation removes this store of carbon and releases it into the atmosphere. It is estimated that 1.8ppm of atmospheric carbon can from deforestation of the Amazon (Exbrayat and Williams 2015). Fueling climate change will have a positive feedback mechanism in which a warmer world causes increased drought (and wildfires) in the tropics leading to the destruction of more forests which in turn release their stored carbon (Haog 2009). 

The effect of deforestation on regional climate is also severe with increased surface temperature (due to reduced albedo) leading to a decrease in evapotranspiration and precipitation. A reduction in cloudiness and increases in insolation creates an increase in high pressure systems and frequent droughts. Furthermore, the alteration of the land surface increases wind speeds and therefore desertification and soil erosion (IPCC 2007; Malhi et al. 2008; Shukla et al. 1990). 

Trees impact on climate and vice versa and are an important factor in influencing global climate - the Amazon is the engine for global atmospheric circulation - and an alteration to this precious system would change our climate. 

The Relationship between Humans and Deforestation

Like the mighty oak, human beings have become an integral part of the Earth system (see their influence in the nitrogen cycle diagram) and have an impact on the climate and landscape more so than any other species. 

The causes of deforestation have been discussed extensively whilst the relationship between urbanization and deforestation in Africa has also been explored. 

The reality is that like oil, food and water, the human population needs trees as a source of fuel (e.g. firewood), shelter and for basic necessities (paper, furniture etc.). It has been at the core of our civilization for thousands of years and the relationship between humans and the threes is as delicate as their relationship with climate. 

I won't drone on about this in much detail with two blog posts already exploring societal collapse on Easter Island and in Mayan Central America but a brief recap won't hurt. There are numerous studies that contribute the collapse of Mayan society to deforestation (Haug et al. 2003; Ogelsby et al. 2010; Shaw 2011). The studies illustrate how important trees are in local climate - influencing drought. However, archaeological evidence and paleoenvironmental evidence is not always complementary and their are disputes as to whether deforestation alone contributed to the collapse of Mayan society (MacNeil et al. 2009). In reality it was probably a combination of socio-economic and political factors exaggerated by detrimental environmental effects such as drought that was caused by over-deforestation. 

I have already suggested that the attitude past societies (such as the Mayans and the Polynesians) had towards deforestation is much the same as our own and that there is potential for us to eventually cut down all the trees. 

A quirky diagram to illustrate MacDonald's arguement (Cool Geography)

Humans need trees (as I have mentioned already) and an article by MacDonald (2012) offers a concise synthesis of the relationship between humans and climate change. He notes that the humble tree is a hindrance to human societal expansion (in terms of space) as well as food production but that without trees mankind could not survive. Trees create an idyllic and comfortable in which human beings can frolic and grow by taking in heat during photosynthesis. He interestingly draws upon the dated works of Thomas Malthus to explore how human populations grow and survive. MacDonald further offers a controversial (yet logical) view point to combating deforestation and climate change saying it is the responsibility of world leaders to keep the world's population in decline in order to ensure a good quality of life for the current population. I think for MacDonald, the root cause of the world's problems is overpopulation (draining resources, taking up space, degrading the landscape and producing pollution). To some extent he is correct but there are definitely alternatives to controlling population and implementing anti-natalist policies. 

It is true that we need trees for survival but I think (and this will be discussed later) we can do more to manage the way in which we use trees. What I want everyone to take from this post (is not the doom and gloom population comments) but that trees are vital in the Earth System and that everything is interlinked. 

The remainder of this posts (questions 3+4) will be explored in "Part 2" but please feel free to comment and vote on the poll in the top left of the screen - it will be interesting to see what everyone thinks. 

A Concise Summary of the Causes of Mangrove Deforestation

The majority of my blog posts have focused on rainforests such as the Amazon or Borneo but this blog post will focus on mangrove forests and the inspiration (like so often) comes from a news article.

In South East Asia (the focus of the news article), but in mangrove areas more generally, they provide important ecosystem services for local communities from a source of food, a source of income and as a natural barrier against storm surges. They also hold greater concentrations of carbon dioxide compared with other ecosystems (Donato et al. 2011) and are thus a vital carbon sink. More than 35% of mangrove forests have already been cleared and understanding why this is the case is important to try and stop it from continuing (WWF).

What are the causes of mangrove deforestation?

• In South East Asia, it is an expansion of palm oil plantations stemming from a greater affluence of the population (Phys Org).
• The 1970s saw the expansion of shrimp aquaculture (fueled by foreign aid) in Latin America that ate away at the coastal mangrove swamps (Hamilton and Stankwitz 2011). However, there has been little quantification of the extent of mangrove forest destruction in these regions. Data is often incomplete (Hilares-Cota 2010)
• Agricultural expansion of rice in Myanmar to ensure food security. 
• Population and infrastructure - humans need more space and mangrove forests are often replaced with ports to meet the growing needs of towns and cities (WWF).
• Dams and irrigation systems alter the amount of river and sediment reaching mangrove swamps increasing salinity causing a decline in marine organisms and plants (WWF). In the Volta Delta, Ghana, a combination of upstream damming and forest clearance has led to the devastation of the pristine mangrove forests (Rubin et al. 1999).
• Pollution - fertilizers, human waste, industrial waste etc.
• Climate change - mangroves will not be able to keep pace with rising sea levels (Gilman et al. 2008).

All Alone? The future for mangroves looks bleak (source)

Research into mangrove deforestation is focused on two central areas (south east Asia and Latin America) and in both cases there is a lack of quantification of the extent of mangrove deforestation. However, whilst Latin America mangrove deforestation is fueled by the expansion of aquaculture in SE Asia the mangrove deforestation (and deforestation generally) is fueled by a rapidly expanding population, economies and demand for space, food and goods. The studies are complementary in their accounts of the value of mangrove forest, particularly as a carbon sink, and note the effects in relation to climate change but there is a lack of interest in the socio-economic impact that mangrove deforestation has on individual lives - this could be due to the physical/environmental perspective of the studies above rather than a human geography focus. From the research conducted by Donato et al. (2011) and the WWF it would appear that mangrove forests are regarded as vital stores of atmospheric carbon, more so than tropical rainforests, despite occupying less areal extent. Like tropical rainforests they are a crucial ecocsystem and everything should be done to try and preserve them but can they survive a rise in sea level associated with climate change? Mangrove forests might soon be a thing of the past. 

This blog post, whilst short, offered an insight into a different ecosystem that has not been discussed on this blog before. Whilst there is potential to create a completely new blog from the extensive research and news articles on the topic, this blog offers a concise summary of the causes of mangrove deforestation (which are in many ways different to other types of deforestation). However, the effects of this deforestation are fundamentally the same as any other form of deforestation. 

Trees and Rain

Is deforestation increasing flooding events around the globe?

An article in the Buenos Aires Herald sparked my interest in writing this post. I have touched upon the effect deforestation has had on flooding, very briefly, in my previous blog post and I have decided to dedicate an entire post to quite a topical area of interest. The floods that have struck South America (Argentina, Paraguay and Brazil) occurred as a result of heavy rain brought on by an El Nino event. Interestingly, the countries that were most effected by this rainfall were the countries that had experienced the greatest amount of deforestation in recent years due to increased demand for Soya.

Citizens in Cobija (Bolivia) wade through flood waters that have destroyed their homes (Al Jazeera)

How does deforestation cause/influence flooding?

The relationship between trees and flood events is one that appears to be very simple in that trees reduce the impact of flood events but in reality it is much more complicated. In simple terms trees reduce runoff to a river in several ways:

• Intercept rainwater by capturing it in leaves
• Evaporation/transpiration
• Leaves reduce raindrop impact meaning there is less soil erosion. 
• Tree roots absorb water droplets from the soil.
• Tree roots hold the soil together reducing sediment movement and preventing landslides. 

With floods the most common natural disaster in tropical areas, most of the academic research has been focused on South East Asia and the Amazon. Tan-Soo et al. (2014) who explored flooding in Malaysia came to the same conclusion as the article in the Buenos Aires Herald. They concluded that the conversion of tropical forests to oil palm plantations increased the number of days flooding occurred, but only during the wettest months of the year. A similar study found the same to be occurring in Amazonian Peru where the height of annual flood waters had increased over the last decade in correlation with deforestation (Gentry and Lopez-Parodi 1980). However, there has been criticisms of this study (Nordin et al. 1982) because it drew conclusions that were not supported in the evidence/data. It assumed river stage correlated directly with river discharge which as Nordin et al. stated was not always the case. Furthermore, Gentry and Lopez-Parodi dismissed an increase in flood heights due to precipitation despite analyzing the years with unusually high precipitation. 

Clark (1987) is critical of research studies into land use change (mainly that of converting deforestation into farmland) suggesting that these studies are limited because they only ever focus on 1 or 2 catchments and that this is not representative of all catchments. This is indeed true, the two studies discussed already only focused on 1 catchment in a tropical region. Clark does make an interesting point that  the knowledge that trees can reduce flooding has been around for centuries - in 14th century Italy it was suggested that afforestation in upland areas could combat flooding - so why are we continually clearing forests and making the same mistakes?

Lets throw in some statistics - a 10% decrease in forest cover increased flood frequency between 4-28% and increased flood duration by 4-8% (Bradshaw et al. 2007). 

It is widely agreed that on a local scale trees mitigate medium scale flood events but on a large scale flood event this is not the case  (Tan-Soo et al. 2014; The Economist 2005). The Economist offers a very different take on flooding compared to the previous articles and blames economics as the cause of flooding rather than widespread forest clearing in South East Asia. Towns and cities are situated on hazardous areas such as flood plains because of the significant economic benefits of situated near a river or the coast - transportation, trade, sanitation, food source, employment etc. Despite looking at the cause of flooding in economic terms, the article says measuring flooding in economic loss rather than geographical extent of the water gives the impression that the floods are more severe than they actually are. 

It is a really interesting article and a great read - it can he found here

Deforestation on a floodplain (source)

Flooding within a river basin is influenced by other factors such as hydrology, as well as deforestation, but the focus of this post has been to explore flooding as a result of deforestation. It is a controversial topic with which different people have different opinions. It has further helped understand the overarching question of this blog - is deforestation a necessary evil? - by exploring some very negative impacts of deforestation. Flooding demonstrates how deforestation erodes human life and the economies of developing nations and illustrates the need for greater forest protection policies in areas that are already prone to flooding. 

Case Study: A History of Deforestation in the United Kingdom

As the jingle of Santa's sleigh approaches the inspiration for this post came from the dead tree standing next to me covered in baubles and tinsel. This blog post has examined deforestation on various corners of the globe - the Amazon, Borneo, America and Africa - but is yet to explore the deforestation of trees in the UK. This is what this blog post will do - it will explore deforestation in Britain.

A History of Deforestation

Woodland Cover in England (Forestry Policy Statement)

Long ago Britain was covered in a primeval forest of mighty oaks and sharp pines that stretched from North to South. The significant clearing of trees started during the Mesolithic and Neolithic periods of our history which can be shown in the pollen records (Brown 2002).  It was initially thought that deforestation was the result of conversion of woodland to agricultural land (Edwards and Hirons 1984) - similar to what we see in Africa and the Amazon today. However, archaeological evidence is contradictory to the pollen evidence that supported this hypothesis. The decline in tree pollen ad increase in grass pollen at this time was caused by purposive deforestation - a concept that embodies a theory of planned alteration to the environment. In this case the creation of clearing within the forests for hunting.

A post online offers a brief account of when deforestation occurred for different regions around the UK with most woodland (particularly that in the South East and East Anglia) clearing during the Bronze Age or the Roman Period. An article published in Science Letter in 2003 whilst brief showed the link between flooding and climate change  but also showed the importance of land use change in flooding. Flood risk has increased over the last 4000 years since the Bronze Age because woodland has been turned into farmland. In natural river basins, trees intercept rainwater and slows the runoff process or returns the water back into the atmosphere via transpiration. When deforestation occurs, this runoff increases creating a shorter lag time and a larger peak meaning it is more likely for the river to burst its banks. This was demonstrated in 2004 in the Cornish village of Boscastle in which land use change within the basin increased runoff (although it was a combination of many factors that resulted in the flash flood).

As the graph above demonstrates that was a rapid reduction in forest cover following and during the industrial revolution and during WWI. However, forest cover increases after the 1920s following the Acland Report in 1918 and the formation of the Forestry Commission in 1935 that implemented the formation of forest parks and afforestation techniques by 1935 (Smout et al. 2007*).

 In recent years, with a greater awareness of the environment, forest cover has increased under various government and non-government initiatives. Levy and Milne (2004) provide an intriguing synthesis into recent deforestation rates. Deforestation rates must be reported under the Kyoto Protocol with 500 hectares of unlicensed deforestation in the UK in recent years (since 1990). The article makes an interesting point that variations in techniques for estimating deforestation since 1990 yield different results. The results range from 1000 hectares to 7000 hectares. The article settles on the value of 1375 hectares since 1990.

Ecology, Soil Erosion and Butterflies - do we exaggerate the consequences of deforestation?

In weighing up the question posed within this blog - is deforestation a necessary evil? - the relative consequences of deforestation must be addressed and explored. the ecological and social effects of deforestation have not been fully examined within this blog and within this post their relative importance will be explored. The environmental and climatic effects of deforestation were discussed in a previous blog post about deforestation and climate change.


Ecology and Soil - are they important?
News articles and websites are extensive in their listing of the effects of deforestation placing prominent emphasis on ecological effects - the loss of plants, birds and microorganisms. With 70% of land species living in forests (National Geographic) it is not surprise that scientists, conservationists and policy makers are concerned with the destruction of the rainforest but why do a few insects and plants matter?

The rainforest is hot and humid, difficult to reach and riddled with insects and is an environment that is difficult to survive in so why would we need it? Butler (2012) offers a similar view that the ecological effects of deforestation are exaggerated and that we should place greater emphasis on our reduced quality of life from an unstable climate and local weather problems. To dismiss the ecological effects of deforestation is a bold stance but it is easy to see where Butler is coming from - surely we should put the quality of human life before animal, insect and plant life?

Academics are quick to emphasis the importance of ecological destruction such as Sodhi et al's (2010) research on Pulau Mengalum, Borneo, which has lost all its closed canopy forest and 40% of its butterfly species. I think a limitation of much of the ecological literature concerned with deforestation such as Sodhi et al.(2010) and Horgan (2005) is that the research isn't directly brought back to the impact a loss of ecology will have on humans. Humans and plants and animals are constantly linked.

The loss of plants and animals is not just an ecological loss but it also has a major impact on the word's poorest communities that rely on forest resources for medicine, food and fuel (Butler 2012; Oglesby et al. 2010). Furthermore, it is not just indigenous communities that depend on the rainforest with 25% of global medicines derived from plants within tropical rainforests (Kirkman 2014). This shows that the rainforest, in ecological terms, is vital for human life.

For many the jungle acts as a valuable resource to sustain their lives (National Geographic)

There is also extensive research into soil erosion, resulting from deforestation, in places such as Bangladesh (Sirajul et al. 2014), Iran (Hajabassi et al. 2014) and the Amazon (Live Science). Unlike the research into ecology, the authors note that soil erosion has a negative impact on the quality of human life causing desertification and the increase in soil enter water resources. It also increases flooding and landslide events. Interestingly, research by Navarette et al. (2015) concluded that the slash and burn approach to deforestation added nutrients to the soil. It built upon the "nutrient rich ash" hypothesis (Nye and Greenland 1960) and suggested ash increased soil pH and added nutrients resulting in soil fertility. Its unusual for a positive effect of deforestation but this benefit is short term and it is assumed the nutrients are washed and leached away.

The ecological and environmental consequences of deforestation are severe but often set aside from the impacts they in turn have on humans. Research into the effects of deforestation must be more holistic if it is to address these consequences by looking at everything.


Society and the forest
The effects of deforestation have been apparent for decades from the alteration of local and global climate (Rotmans and Swart 1991) to rises in temperature (Schultz 2014) and soil erosion. However, the effects deforestation has had on society have occurred over much longer time frames.

"The Last Truffula Tree" - every tree was chopped down and used on Easter Island (Sci News)

Rapid overpopulation leading to deforestation and the removal of every tree on Easter Island has been contributed to the likely collapse of indigenous people on the island (Diamond 2005; Mann et al. 2008). Charcoal records in lake sediments have shown the increase in slash and burn deforestation methods following periods of human colonization on the island (Mann et al. 2008). I would argue that the events that transpired on Easter Island - whether it was human or climate related (this is still up for debate) - that resulted in the total removal of all trees acts as a small scale proxy for what could happen to Earth if deforestation is not combated. The effects of a treeless Earth would me most detrimental to the human population and the species as a whole.

Easter Island is not the only case study many arguing that deforestation caused (or contributed) to the collapse of many Maya settlements (Diamond 2005; Haug et al. 2003; Oglesby et al. 2010). However, often academics have focused on evidence within their own field. Palaeo and archaeological evidence is not always complementary and deforestation was probably a contributing factor to socio-economic and political changes that eventually led to the "collapse" of Maya society.

As mentioned in an earlier post regarding deforestation and Maya civilization, the effect deforestation had on past societies demonstrates how much humans rely on forested land (for fuel etc.) and how important trees are to maintain a desirable environment. Without trees our climate would be harsher, it would be harder to grow crops and our quality of life would be severely reduced.

• Can the collapse of post societies be a prediction of things to come?

This blog post has examined the ecological and societal effects of deforestation and it is clear that the consequences of deforestation are severe - they should be examined, and researched in order to solve them. As population increases, more trees will be cut down and the consequences of deforestation will get worse. 

*Diamond (2005) is only available in book form although there are online summaries available.