Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TopCat who wrote (342702)	7/10/2007 6:55:22 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575604

Everything has its price, even trees THE ECONOMIST When the University of Texas was building a dormitory last year, an unusual sign hung nearby. "Do not discard or pour paint, mortar, trash or any construction material or debris on this tree," it declared. "The replacement value of this oak tree is $90,000." Strange but true: The trees in American backyards may be worth far more than the cars in the front drive, at least in theory. Much depends, of course, on what sort of trees they are. In Nebraska a sugar maple is worth more than an English oak, according to a 2004 guide. Trunk size, the tree's condition, its species and location -- one in Manhattan will be worth more than a comparable specimen in Buffalo -- will all affect values. Amid fears of global warming, tree hugging is on the rise, not least among politicians. Al Gore has made tree planting central to his message for the Live Earth jamboree on July 7. Michael Bloomberg has plans to plant 1 million trees in New York, which will further boost property values and clean the air. Of course, no amount of urban oaks can make up for the loss of rainforest in Indonesia -- but that has not stopped cities from boasting about the value of their greenery. A recent "tree census" in New York City, conducted at the behest of Bloomberg, values the city's nearly 600,000 trees at $122 million. A rough breakdown: $11 million for filtering out air pollutants; $28 million saved in ergy consumption (less need for air conditioners); $36 million for stemming storm-water runoff; and $53 million in "aesthetic benefits." The Forest Service values the urban canopy in all of America at $14.3 billion. What is the use of all these (rather shady) numbers? Bloomberg cannot sell off trees to patch a hole in his budget, after all. They are, literally, a fixed asset. But for politicians, numbers help. By claiming that every $1 put into New York's trees returns $5.60 in benefits, he may find it easier to galvanize New Yorkers to plant more and chop down fewer. seattlepi.nwsource.com

To: TopCat who wrote (342702)	7/10/2007 7:10:56 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575604

There you go again trying to be a forestry expert. I suggest you give it up. Nature restored the forests around Mt. St. Helens all by herself? I don't think so.... "The center recounts the seven-year effort of Weyerhaeuser foresters to replant 18.4 million trees on over 45,000 acres. Now, two decades later, some of those trees are more than 50 feet tall." Oh so quick to respond.........I bet you thought Saddam had WMDs and were eager to invade Iraq: Mt. St. Helens covered with sterile volcanic ash circa 1984, 4 years after the eruption. "Animals, from the tiniest wood-boring insect to the largest elk, appear to be having a profound influence on the developing vegetation. Animals are selecting and colonizing areas on the basis of habitat characteristics and, in turn, helping to shape habitat structure and composition. A comparatively simple system like Mount St. Helens offers a great opportunity to investigate developing habitat relationships." vulcan.wr.usgs.gov ""But it wasn't just one event," Dale said. "You had pyroclastic flow"—a mix of hot gas and ash that speeds down a volcano's slope—"debris avalanche, and heavy ash deposits. And each of these events had a different pattern of survival and then recovery." Traditional thinking on ecological succession—the pattern by which life-forms come back over time—held that first, certain species would recover, and then others would, along a particular order. For instance, grasses might appear, followed by rabbits and other animals that eat grasses. But the reality at Mount St. Helens has proved far more complex. Ecological succession has proceeded at different speeds in different areas. Succession proved to be highly unpredictable. "Chance factors, such as what time of day or year the eruption occurs, can strongly influence survival and the course of succession," Dale said. For example, the eruption occurred in May, when some of the mountain was still covered in snow. The snow proved to have a strong influence on plant survival. Also, many of the salmon that inhabit local rivers were out to sea when the volcano erupted—as they are every May."" news.nationalgeographic.com