Thank you! More people need to know about land-use change and about Millan's work. But the notion that forests were 'dense' and closed canopy has now been debunked (along with the anecdote about the squirrel, which was also said about the UK). We have removed the ecosystem engineers, the animals, the stewards of the land and that changes we way we have come to perceive woodlands. I can't say anything about the Americas, but I do know about Europe. Replanting closed canopy forests would result in more loss of biodiversity. Millan and his colleagues couldn't have known about this back in the '60s and '70s of course when they first wrote their reports. There is now overwhelming evidence that Europe was never covered in 'dense' forest. And a dynamic, mosaic landscape (as opposed to 'dense' oak forest) would not detract from Millan's work anyway, the water cycle would still be functioning as it should due to the extent of the biodiversity. As to the World Resources Institute, they are interested in 'resources' not in life and just look at the bios of the staff. The President worked for the World Bank, the vice-president for McKinsey (one of the nastiest organisations on the planet!), most of they other have backgrounds in international development and politics. But I know you write this blog with the best intentions, so I am taking the liberty of making these comments with the best intentions too. Thank you for caring!
I think it's a matter of nuance. I hear what your are saying about the myth of "dense" forests. I used that term when I described what happened in Almeria Province, where the forests were cut in the 1800's to fuel lead smelters. They may not have been dense, but clearly they were there, or what would they have fueled the smelters with? In terms of the Mediterranean, I describe it as "once lush, with vast oak forests, springs and extensive coastal marshlands." The forests may not have been dense, but again they were there, probably part of a mosaic, as you say. In any case, your point about the distinction between dense forest and mosaic forest is a good one.
Your point about closed canopy forests is also a good one. The current rush to plant trees without considering the local ecology often does more harm than good. It also can become an excuse for industrial mono-crop production. In Northwestern US, where I live, that lies at the heart of our struggle to save our forests. Once they're replanted for industrial use, dense and without diversity, they're no longer forests but tree plantations. I think what Millan is trying to do is kickstart the hydrology. He speaks of "cultivating storms," and is basically trying to rebuild the local hydrology. Trees move a lot of water, so it makes sense to bring them back, but as you say, in the context of the local ecology. I like Michal Kravcik's approach of holding water on the land and letting the land itself decide what to grow.
As for the World Resources Institute, I don't like the word "resources" either, and am aware of their development orientation. But they were willing to publish a report openly calling for an expanded concept of climate, to include hydrology, so they deserve to be credited for that.
By the way, the anecdote about the squirrel was said in the US too. Could it be that the forests, though not closed canopy and "dense" were extensive enough to create the impression? It's interesting that this anecdote appears in so many places in the world, uttered by by advancing colonial cultures that had already destroyed their own forests.
Thanks for your insights, Jacqueline. I've always appreciated your depth of knowledge.
I haven't worked out how to email subatackers, so adding this as a comment here, Rob. I found this excerpt from the Dark Horse podcast really interesting. On the effect of urbanisation on climate. https://youtu.be/Zb-NRa6H7VU?si=eC_38YudUGPmoxJh
This series is brilliant from start to finish, Rob, and beautifully written. Thank you for taking the deep, deep dive on a vital topic. I've just discovered you here - thanks to a thoughtful reader we share - and I'm excited to stay tuned. I'll certainly direct my readers to your writing, esp. this series, and will find a way to talk about the land-use side of climate more often. I've made a point all along to insist on the equal importance of the biodiversity/land crisis alongside the warming climate, and that any solution to one must also serve the other, but haven't had the insight you offer here on how vital living landscapes are for the climate. I'll work to spread the word. Thank you.
So fantastic, Rob, thank you! It is fascinating to learn this history of how the land-leg went missing, and very glad to hear your conclusion, although I think that story is still very much in the shadows of the CO2 leg.
Thank you! More people need to know about land-use change and about Millan's work. But the notion that forests were 'dense' and closed canopy has now been debunked (along with the anecdote about the squirrel, which was also said about the UK). We have removed the ecosystem engineers, the animals, the stewards of the land and that changes we way we have come to perceive woodlands. I can't say anything about the Americas, but I do know about Europe. Replanting closed canopy forests would result in more loss of biodiversity. Millan and his colleagues couldn't have known about this back in the '60s and '70s of course when they first wrote their reports. There is now overwhelming evidence that Europe was never covered in 'dense' forest. And a dynamic, mosaic landscape (as opposed to 'dense' oak forest) would not detract from Millan's work anyway, the water cycle would still be functioning as it should due to the extent of the biodiversity. As to the World Resources Institute, they are interested in 'resources' not in life and just look at the bios of the staff. The President worked for the World Bank, the vice-president for McKinsey (one of the nastiest organisations on the planet!), most of they other have backgrounds in international development and politics. But I know you write this blog with the best intentions, so I am taking the liberty of making these comments with the best intentions too. Thank you for caring!
Thanks for your comment, Jacqueline:
I think it's a matter of nuance. I hear what your are saying about the myth of "dense" forests. I used that term when I described what happened in Almeria Province, where the forests were cut in the 1800's to fuel lead smelters. They may not have been dense, but clearly they were there, or what would they have fueled the smelters with? In terms of the Mediterranean, I describe it as "once lush, with vast oak forests, springs and extensive coastal marshlands." The forests may not have been dense, but again they were there, probably part of a mosaic, as you say. In any case, your point about the distinction between dense forest and mosaic forest is a good one.
Your point about closed canopy forests is also a good one. The current rush to plant trees without considering the local ecology often does more harm than good. It also can become an excuse for industrial mono-crop production. In Northwestern US, where I live, that lies at the heart of our struggle to save our forests. Once they're replanted for industrial use, dense and without diversity, they're no longer forests but tree plantations. I think what Millan is trying to do is kickstart the hydrology. He speaks of "cultivating storms," and is basically trying to rebuild the local hydrology. Trees move a lot of water, so it makes sense to bring them back, but as you say, in the context of the local ecology. I like Michal Kravcik's approach of holding water on the land and letting the land itself decide what to grow.
As for the World Resources Institute, I don't like the word "resources" either, and am aware of their development orientation. But they were willing to publish a report openly calling for an expanded concept of climate, to include hydrology, so they deserve to be credited for that.
By the way, the anecdote about the squirrel was said in the US too. Could it be that the forests, though not closed canopy and "dense" were extensive enough to create the impression? It's interesting that this anecdote appears in so many places in the world, uttered by by advancing colonial cultures that had already destroyed their own forests.
Thanks for your insights, Jacqueline. I've always appreciated your depth of knowledge.
I haven't worked out how to email subatackers, so adding this as a comment here, Rob. I found this excerpt from the Dark Horse podcast really interesting. On the effect of urbanisation on climate. https://youtu.be/Zb-NRa6H7VU?si=eC_38YudUGPmoxJh
Thanks, Helen. Yeah, I haven't figured that out either. This is really interesting. I'll give it a listen soon.
Lol, I wrote "subatackers"! 😂
This series is brilliant from start to finish, Rob, and beautifully written. Thank you for taking the deep, deep dive on a vital topic. I've just discovered you here - thanks to a thoughtful reader we share - and I'm excited to stay tuned. I'll certainly direct my readers to your writing, esp. this series, and will find a way to talk about the land-use side of climate more often. I've made a point all along to insist on the equal importance of the biodiversity/land crisis alongside the warming climate, and that any solution to one must also serve the other, but haven't had the insight you offer here on how vital living landscapes are for the climate. I'll work to spread the word. Thank you.
Thank you so much, Jason. I look forward to reading some of your work.
Thank you so much Rob.
A living Earth story ❤️❤️❤️
So fantastic, Rob, thank you! It is fascinating to learn this history of how the land-leg went missing, and very glad to hear your conclusion, although I think that story is still very much in the shadows of the CO2 leg.
Yes, thirty years of "climate" education has pretty much buried it. But life wants to live, and it's a story whose time come.