im not like. '''''sad'''' about living in a country that doesn't have a lot of snakes. its cold up here we don't have a lot of reptiles, we also don't have a lot of big bugs. why would you want every single part of the world to have the same climate and the exact same flora and fauna??

I definitely have looked at that post and many similar posts and been so, so good about not saying anything.

It is definitely funny that people pick and choose what they believe to be the Ultimate Ecosystem, and then try to impose that picture on the living Earth.

They’re like, “the ultimate ecosystem has ancient named oak trees that are 500 years old and are covered in moss, that’s what the earth should look like everywhere. That’s what you should rewild your american yard to be. That’s what you’re aiming for.”

So I’m dubiously holding up the moodboard pictures they’ve chosen of like, ancient woodland from the UK, maybe Białowieża Forest in Poland/Belarus if they’ve unexpectedly stumbled upon especially mossy pictures on Pinterest, going “you’re sure? You’re sure the temperate primeval forest of Europe is what you want to terraform all over the planet? You know this takes several hundred years of intimate relationships between species and geology to achieve?” Like a contractor mildly worried by someone’s decision to put a washing machine in a dining room.

“Yes! And now put in all the creatures I have in my personal home state. Like my specific snakes and things.”

I look at their home state. I look at the mood board. I say, “They might not like it.”

“I’m fixing it. The uk has only three native species of snakes, which is just bad stewardship.”

“But you also want the UK’s … moss?”

“Yes, it’s the most aesthetic, which is good stewardship.”

“But you’re sort of mixing in some continental European geography into the fantasy here.”

“Yes, it’s the ultimate ecosystem. Maybe just copy and paste that whole thing from before the Europeans screwed everything up and killed all their snakes.”

“They don’t - that’s not - look, this is a primeval Polish forest where they have only five native snakes,” I say weakly. “They, that’s - that’s their ecosystem. That’s. That’s it.”

“We’re teaching them better. This is the ultimate ecosystem. It’s going to have moose. We’ll airdrop them over.”

“They have those in Europe,” I say helpfully, “so you can save on transport.”

“What do you mean?”

“Moose are indigenous to the ‘top part’ of the planet, so there’s sort of a belt of native moose around the North Pole - they’re one of the old ‘land bridge’ type megafauna. They’re actually more densely populated in Norway than Alaska.”

“Hmm! Maybe just copy and paste the Norwegian ecosystem over then.”

I bite a nail. “Norway only has three native species of snakes.”

“Well, and aren’t they sad about that? Don’t they know they’re missing out?”

“I think they comfort themselves with the fact that they do have Jörmungandr…”

“Wait,” my colleague is frowning, suddenly aware of the presence of an ocean of information on the edge of their own knowledge. “Why is it that the exact same species of moose are native around the world in a belt shape, but snakes aren’t everywhere?”

“That’s one of the exciting first principles of speciation!” I say brightly and excitedly, suddenly unpacking a PowerPoint. It was all a trap! “The pressures of climate, geography and geology on the constraints of evolutionary biology are what shape the relationships of ecosystems! Wait! Come back!”

Some people, it seems, would like an ecosystem alike to that image from a textbook that fits every single geographic structure.

I just hope they have enough sense not to actually bring any snakes any places they shouldn't be.

the eurocentric mind simply cannot fathom the idea that deserts are large carbon sinks, that they are complex ecosystems that host a large amount of life and a life that cannot exist anywhere else. and that is why they think turning deserts green is somehow a good, or feasible idea. a desert is not a wasteland. the dying plants that you plant on top of it because they cannot deal with the heat though? that’s a wasteland!

Wait deserts are effective carbon sinks? I knew a healthy prairie was but how can a desert sequester Carbon they can't sustain that much biomass or bury carbon quickly, cause Rainforest has high Biomass, and Prairies can bury carbon fast because of how prairie grass grows overtop itself but how do deserts sequester Carbon?

Most deserts actually have a lot of vegetation. The sandy deserts are the kind we usually think of, like the Sahara, but most look like this example in Australia:

Desert plants need to have deep roots to reach groundwater reservoirs. Those roots carry carbon deep into the soil, where it reacts with mineral to form calcium carbonate; not only do they sequester carbon, they sequester it in mineral form, where it's much more stable than carbon bound in plant tissues that will decay on a faster time scale!

A lot of carbon storage is done in the fungal networks around plant roots, as well, which are far denser and more extensive than the visible plant biomass on the surface.

i. fuckign thought thid. post was talkinh aboit desserts. the food. why am i so stupif

They also have a lot of carbon in them

Isn't it bad to artificially change any environment? Like, of course we shouldn't be trying to turn deserts into forests, but some areas are getting desert-ified because of human activity and that's the context where I've heard some anti-desert rhetoric?

You know what the most frustrating thing about the vegans throwing a fit over my “Humans aren’t Parasites” post is?  I really wasn’t trying to make a point about animal agriculture. Honestly, the example about subsistence hunting isn’t the main point. That post was actually inspired by thoughts I’ve been having about the National Park system and environmentalist groups.

See, I LOVE the National Parks. I always have a pass. I got to multiple parks a year. I LOVE them, and always viewed them as this unambiguously GOOD thing. Like, the best thing America has done. 

BUT, I just finished reading this book called “I am the Grand Canyon” all about the native Havasupai people and their fight to gain back their rights to the lands above the canyon rim. Historically, they spent the summer months farming in the canyon, and then the winter months hunter-gathering up above the rim. When their reservation was made though, they lost basically all rights to the rim land (They had limited grazing rights to some of it, but it was renewed year to year and always threatened, and it was a whole thing), leading to a century long fight to get it back. 

And in that book there are a couple of really poignant anecdotes- one man talks about how park rangers would come harass them if they tried to collect pinon nuts too close to park land- worried that they would take too many pinon nuts that the squirrels wanted. Despite the fact that the Havasupai had harvested pinon nuts for thousands and thousands of years without ever…like…starving the squirrels. 

There’s another anecdote of them seeing the park rangers hauling away the bodies of dozens of deer- killed in the park because of overpopulation- while the Havasupai had been banned from hunting. (Making them more and more reliant on government aid just to survive the winter months.) 

They talk about how they would traditionally carve out these natural cisterns above the rim to catch rainwater, and how all the animals benefitted from this, but it was difficult to maintain those cisterns when their “ownership” of the land was so disputed. 

So here you have examples of when people are forcibly separated from their ecosystem and how it hurts both those people and the ecosystem. 

And then when the Havasupai finally got legislation before Congress to give them ownership of the rim land back- their biggest opponent was the Parks system and the Sierra Club. The Sierra Club (a big conservation group here in the US) ran a huge smear campaign against these people on the belief that any humans owning this land other than the park system (which aims at conservation, even while developing for recreation) was unacceptable. 

And it all got me thinking about how, as much as I love the National Parks, there are times when its insistence that nature be left “untouched” (except, ya know, for recreation) can actually harm both the native people who have traditionally been part of those ecosystems AND potentially the ecosystems themselves. And I just think there’s a lot of nuance there about recognizing that there are ways for us to be in balance with nature, and that our environmentalism should respect that and push for sustainability over preserving “pristine” human-less landscapes. Removing ourselves from nature isn’t the answer. 

But apparently the idea that subsistence hunting might actually not be a moral catastrophe really set the vegans off.  Woopie. 

Hey, so I know you mean well with this. I know you do. But, ok, a few things. Different ethnic/racial groups are not different species. Calling non-native people an invasive species that can’t be part of a local ecosystem is…not helpful. It’s the same “humans are parasites” argument with some asterisks thrown in.

The problem isn’t that humans who are descended from one continent are now living on a different content, outcompeting the local species for resources because there arent any predators in the new ecosystem evolved to deal with them like rabbits released in Australia or kudzu vines in the deep south. The problem is that because of colonialism and capitalism, the majority of humans living in America (and many other places) are not doing so with systems and practices that are sustainable and mutualistic with the ecosystem.

Also- groups of people who ARE historically indigenous to an area can still have environmentally unsustainable economic systems for all sorts of historical and geopolitical reasons. *Gestures to China as just one example* it’s not a question of indigenous-ness, but of mutualism and sustainability.

Land Back and the general philosophy of looking to indigenous practices and knowledge for how to live in a more sustainable and mutualistic way are obviously awesome. But so are new technology and practices that would improve sustainability and mutualism. And that holds true world wide.

I want us to fight the urge to paint indigenous people as being magically more in tune with nature and white people as being irredeemable parasites who cannot be part of the natural world.

y’all PLEASE stop spreading the misinfo bird graphic. take ONE second to look at the notes or google something. begging yall.

"In one of Africa’s last great wildernesses, a remarkable thing has happened—the scimitar-horned oryx, once declared extinct in the wild, is now classified only as endangered.

It’s the first time the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the world’s largest conservation organization, has ever moved a species on its Red List from ‘Extinct in the Wild’ to ‘Endangered.’

The recovery was down to the conservation work of zoos around the world, but also from game breeders in the Texas hill country, who kept the oryx alive while the governments of Abu Dhabi and Chad worked together on a reintroduction program.

Chad... ranks second-lowest on the UN Development Index. Nevertheless, it is within this North African country that can be found the Ouadi Rimé-Ouadi Achim Faunal Reserve, a piece of protected desert and savannah the size of Scotland—around 30,000 square miles, or 10 times the size of Yellowstone.

At a workshop in Chad’s capital of N’Djamena, in 2012, Environment Abu Dhabi, the government of Chad, the Sahara Conservation Fund, and the Zoological Society of London, all secured the support of local landowners and nomadic herders for the reintroduction of the scimitar-horned oryx to the reserve.

Environment Abu Dhabi started the project, assembling captive animals from zoos and private collections the world over to ensure genetic diversity. In March 2016, the first 21 animals from this “world herd” were released over time into a fenced-off part of the reserve where they could acclimatize. Ranging over 30 miles, one female gave birth—the first oryx born into its once-native habitat in over three decades.

In late January 2017, 14 more animals were flown to the reserve in Chad from Abu Dhabi.

In 2022, the rewilded species was officially assessed by the IUCN’s Red List, and determined them to be just ‘Endangered,’ and not ‘Critically Endangered,’ with a population of between 140 and 160 individuals that was increasing, not decreasing.

It’s a tremendous achievement of international scientific and governmental collaboration and a sign that zoological efforts to breed endangered and even extinct animals in captivity can truly work if suitable habitat remains for them to return to."

-via Good News Network, December 13, 2023

Release the Oryx

Most conservation victories are small, slow, and go mostly unnoticed--so much so that it can be hard to tell that progress is being made. But every so often we get a big, emotional moment like this. There is something special about an entire species returning to their homeland.

I would like to emphasise the 'thanks to ZOOS' part of this, for those who think zoos are 100% badterrible. Zoos did this. Zoos are why this happened. Zoos do important conservation work because they have the facilities to care for and breed wild animals and nobody else does.

as a huge lover of birds, 90% of the concern against wind turbines being used for energy is literally just pro fossil fuel propaganda. birds ARE at a risk however there is a lot of strategies even as simple as painting one of the blades that reduces a lot of accidental deaths. additionally renewable energy sources will do more in favor of the environment that would positively impact birds (and all of us). one study found over one million bird deaths from wind turbines. while that is a shockingly high number and we should work to drastically shrink it, at least 1.3 billion birds die to outdoor cats on a yearly basis. it was never about caring about birds

there was a study done in 2015 that shows an even greater possible yearly divide than the 2012 one

This is why we need to keep cats indoors and switch to linux.

It makes me sad to see how common the hate for zoos is in leftist circles. To me, zoos are so symbolic of the determination and optimism in leftist thought that I often use these facilities as an example to keep me going. So when I hear fellow leftists wanting to abolish zoos it makes breaks my spirit a bit. Especially considering how necessary zoos are in the fight against the current environmental crisis.

I am the first to admit that no zoo is perfect. I have worked at a world class, accredited, non-profit zoo and it was FAR from perfect. The institution treated me and the other workers like shit. Burnout, lean staffing, and poor adherence to safety protocols resulted in poorer animal welfare outcomes for the animals. And this is a world class facility. There are many facilities out there that shouldn't exist at all that are hardly better than the menageries of feudal kings.

BUT

Zoos are vital if we want our ecosystems to survive the current mass extinction event.

No other type of institution on earth has saved as many species as zoos. From tiny snails to 1-ton bison, entire species have been returned to the wild thanks to their preservation in zoos.

There are approximately 40 animal species listed as Extinct in the Wild by the IUCN, most of which ONLY exist in zoos and aquariums. Many of these animals are only able to be taken care of because of the decades of animal husbandry science and institutional knowledge built up by our zoos and aquaria by working with other species.

There are many extinctions I cry for, but the ones that hurt the most are the ones happening in front of our eyes. The Javan rhino is all but gone. It's estimated that there would need to be about 100 rhinos for the species to survive genetically intact. There are now less than that, and none in human care. All it would take is a single tsunami or volcanic eruption and the entire population could be wiped out.

But if there were some in human care, if we had acted sooner and established a breeding population based on the centuries of knowledge we have of caring for their closest relative, the Indian rhino, we could have saved them.

So, when I see leftists talking about how all zoos are inherently destructive, I ask you to think ahead. To when polar bears, chimpanzees, or elephants go extinct in their natural homes, don't you want a place where we can save them? Where experienced animal care professionals can foster a population in human care so that one day these creatures can return to their homes? A global system of world class facilities dedicated to the survival of wildlife? So even more creatures don't end up like the Javan rhino; a species we could've saved if we'd had the will and the space to do so? If there had more zoos instead of less?

I'm not asking you to love zoos, I'm just asking that you recognize the practical necessity of their existence in the modern age. We won't survive the coming crises without other species. And they won't survive without us.

Also, besides functioning as a last, worst case scenario sanctuary for species going extinct, zoos also provide crucial funding for on-ground conservation projects, as well as nature education, which, you guessed it, is also important for effective conservation and a sustainable future!

Honestly I think the problems people have with pandas comes down mostly to phrasing and semantics.

What I mean by this is people have run with the flippant and funny "this animal is literally too stupid to breed and they basically have to be coerced!" Instead of the more nuanced "this animal has adapted to a very specific environment that isn't easily replicated in a concrete building and doesn't easily breed in captivity."

Or they go with "haha pandas are so dumb they have to be shown how to mate, it's like they don't even care" instead of "wow, obviously we're missing large pieces of how panda social structures are supposed to work and more research is needed."

Having a very strict diet, needing a certain amount of range and territory, and having very specific parameters for breeding is very common across a LOT of different animals. Passenger pigeons went extinct partially because they wouldn't brood if they didn't feel secure in a large group. Devil's Hole Pupfish spawn when there's a seismic event that triggers it. Salmon have to thrown themselves bodily up a river to breed in a specific spot and will kill themselves doing so. There are species of millipede that die in captivity because they only eat decaying wood from specific plants and nobody is sure what those plants even are yet. There are countless animals whose breeding activities range from oddly specific all the way to actively fatal.

The fact that a panda doesn't easily make babies like a domestic sheep in a captive setting doesn't make them stupid or useless or even really that much of an outlier. We can't even get most species of bats to reliably do well in captivity and nobody is laughing about how stupid and useless bats are.

Yes, the money and politics surrounding the ownership of captive pandas is incredibly stupid and convoluted. But that wasn't exactly the pandas' idea.

I guess I'm a little salty because I get really peeved by this idea that "Haha! We destroyed and fragmented this animal's habitat and then put it in a cage and tried to force it to breed and it's not succeeding, what a stupid useless animal for doing so poorly!"

Video Source | Yurok Tribe | Save California Salmon | Redwoods Rising

It’s solar and wind and tidal and geothermal and hydropower.

It’s plant-based diets and regenerative livestock farming and insect protein and lab-grown meat.

It’s electric cars and reliable public transit and decreasing how far and how often we travel.

It’s growing your own vegetables and community gardens and vertical farms and supporting local producers.

It’s rewilding the countryside and greening cities.

It’s getting people active and improving disabled access.

It’s making your own clothes and buying or swapping sustainable stuff with your neighbours.

It’s the right to repair and reducing consumption in the first place.

It’s greater land rights for the commons and indigenous peoples and creating protected areas.

It’s radical, drastic change and community consensus.

It’s labour rights and less work.

It’s science and arts.

It’s theoretical academic thought and concrete practical action.

It’s signing petitions and campaigning and protesting and civil disobedience.

It’s sailboats and zeppelins.

It’s the speculative and the possible.

It’s raising living standards and curbing consumerism.

It’s global and local.

It’s me and you.

Climate solutions look different for everyone, and we all have something to offer.

It *is* a problem that charismatic species are often focused on for conservation at the expense of less charismatic but important species, but threatened species that are the subject of a lot of public outreach and education are also typically strategically selected.

I suspect that monarch butterflies are an example of this. Milkweed is a highly valuable plant for pollinators and a host plant for like. 400+ insect species. Getting people to plant it to save monarchs is funny because you're essentially finessing people into saving a ton of other insects that they wouldn't ordinarily care about

"Save the bees" isn't misguided, it's just the version of the truth you would tell a 5 year old. If a small kid asks about the colors of the rainbow you don't start explaining that visible light has wavelengths of 400-700 nanometers

A lot of people don't even know that there are different types of bees. things like planting native flowers, stopping using insecticides, etc, benefit all bees and all insects generally

ALSO

it's actually a GOOD thing to have lots of conservation efforts focusing on "Charismatic megafauna," especially apex predators

Because big animals like tigers need a LOT of space

So creating a preserve to save tigers...saves thousands of other species, because the tigers need miles and miles of habitat to live on, and that habitat needs to be healthy to support the tigers

They're called "umbrella species" and they're a great thing.

I'm curious what actual good strategies for sustainable logging are.

Saddest thing ever is reading an academic paper about a threatened or declining species where you can tell the author is really trying to come up with ways the animal could hypothetically be useful to humans in a desperate attempt to get someone to care. Nobody gives a shit about the animals that “don’t affect” us and it seriously breaks my heart

“No I can’t come out tonight I’m sobbing about this entomologist’s heartfelt plea for someone to care about an endangered moth”

This is how I learn there's a moth whose tiny caterpillars live exclusively off the old shells of dead tortoises.

[Image description: text from a section titled On Being Endangered: An Afterthought that says:

Realizing that a species is imperiled has broad connotations, given that it tells us something about the plight of nature itself. It reminds us of the need to implement conservation measures and to protect the region of which the species is a part. But aside form the broader picture, species have intrinsic worth and are deserving of preservation. Surely an oddity such as C. vicinella cannot simply be allowed to vanish.

We should speak up on behalf of this little moth, not only because by so doing we would bolster conservation efforts now underway in Florida, [highlighting begins] but because we would be calling attention to the existence of a species that is so infinitely worth knowing. [end highlighting]

But is quaintness all that can be said on behalf of this moth? Does this insect not have hidden value beyond its overt appeal? Does not its silk and glue add, potentially, to its worth? Could these products not be unique in ways that could ultimately prove applicable?

End image description]

because we would be calling attention to the existence of a species that is so infinitely worth knowing

I was so inspired by this I made it into a piece of art for a final in one of my courses for storytelling in conservation

You are all lovely and kind and correct, but let’s also name the moth: Ceratophaga vicinella

I can’t find any information on how to promote or donate to moth conservation, but the tortoises are endangered, and support to habitat conservation in Florida, Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi are a good way to help both the tortoises and the moth! https://www.nature.org/en-us/get-involved/how-to-help/animals-we-protect/gopher-tortoise/

look i dont know when solarpunk turned into an aesthetic—maybe it always was, and i was just exposed to an odd part of the community at first—but i'm reclaiming the word <3

solarpunk, as I understood it, was:

a political movement based on the belief that (a) there exist (potential or current) societal models and lifestyles that reconcile the needs of humanity with the needs of the rest of the world (b) such a model would actually be best for humanity (c) such a model can only be achieved if the current structure is eventually overhauled

some core concepts related to that, at least to me:

(12 2-4 sentence bullets under the cut)

It *is* a problem that charismatic species are often focused on for conservation at the expense of less charismatic but important species, but threatened species that are the subject of a lot of public outreach and education are also typically strategically selected.

I suspect that monarch butterflies are an example of this. Milkweed is a highly valuable plant for pollinators and a host plant for like. 400+ insect species. Getting people to plant it to save monarchs is funny because you're essentially finessing people into saving a ton of other insects that they wouldn't ordinarily care about

"Save the bees" isn't misguided, it's just the version of the truth you would tell a 5 year old. If a small kid asks about the colors of the rainbow you don't start explaining that visible light has wavelengths of 400-700 nanometers

A lot of people don't even know that there are different types of bees. things like planting native flowers, stopping using insecticides, etc, benefit all bees and all insects generally

Collateral healing.

its so fucking funny that nuclear waste is such a contentious topic. like yeah those damn nuclear advocates need to figure out somewhere reasonable to put that nuclear waste. for now we will  be sticking with coal power because it puts its waste products safe and sound In Our Lungs, where they cannot hurt anybody,

you cant just put nuclear waste in the ground it might hurt somebdoy :/ put it in the air that everyone breathes like a responsible power source :/

ohhh noooo :( you can’t just produce three cubic metres of waste per plant per year, that’s so little how will anyone notice :( you have to produce 240,000 tons of toxic waste and emit 3.8 million tons of carbon dioxide per plant per year so everyone knows where the danger is :(

It was gut-wrenching when I realized that many people alive today have never seen a truly mature tree up close.

In the Eastern USA, only tiny remnants of old-growth forest remain; all the rest, over 99%, was clear-cut within the last 100-150 years.

Most tree species here have a lifespan of 300-500 years—likely longer, since extant examples of truly old trees are so rare, there is limited ability to study them. In a suburban environment, almost all of the trees you see around you are mere saplings. A 50 year old oak tree is a youth only beginning its life.

The forest where I work is 100 years old; it was clear cut around 1920. It is still so young.

When I dig into the ground there, there is a layer about an inch thick of rich, plush, moist, fragrant topsoil, packed with mycelium and light and soft as a foam mattress. Underneath that the ground becomes hard and chalky in color, with a mineral odor.

It takes 100 years to build an inch of topsoil.

That topsoil, that marvelous, rich, living substance, took 100 years to build.

I am sorry your textbooks lied to you. Do you remember pictures in diagrams of soil layers, with a six-inch topsoil layer and a few feet of subsoil above bedrock?

That's not true anymore. If you are not an "outdoorsy" person that hikes off trail in forests regularly, it is likely that you have never touched true topsoil. The soil underlying lawns is depleted, compacted garbage with hardly any life in it. It seems more similar to rocks than soil to me now.

You see, tilling the soil and repeatedly disturbing it for agriculture destroys the topsoil layer, and there is no healthy plant community to regenerate it.

The North American prairies used to hold layers of topsoil more than eight or nine feet deep. That was a huge carbon sink, taking carbon out of the atmosphere and storing it underground.

Then European colonists settled the prairie and tried to drive the bison to extinction as part of the plan to drive Native Americans to extinction, and plowed up that topsoil...and the results were devastating. You might recall being taught about the Dust Bowl. Disrupting that incredible topsoil layer held in place by 12-foot-tall prairie grasses and over 100 different wildflower species caused the nation to be engulfed in horrific dirt storms that turned the sky black and had people hundreds of miles away coughing up clods of mud and sweeping thick drifts of dirt out of their homes.

But plowing is fundamental to agricultural civilizations at their very origins! you might say.

Where did those early civilizations live? River valleys.

Why river valleys? They're fertile because of seasonal flooding that deposits rich silt that can then be planted in.

And where does that silt come from?

Well, a huge river is created by smaller rivers coming together, which is created by smaller creeks coming together, which have their origins in the mountains and uplands, which are no good for farming but often covered in rich, dense forests.

The forests create the rich soil that makes agriculture possible. An ancient forest is so powerful, it brings life to civilizations and communities hundreds of miles away.

You may have heard that cattle farming is a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions. A huge chunk of that is just the conversion of an existing forest or grassland to pasture land. Robust plant communities like forests, wetlands, and grasslands are carbon sinks, storing carbon and removing it from the atmosphere. The destruction of these environments is a direct source of carbon emissions.

All is not lost. Nature knows how to regenerate herself after devastating events; she's done so countless times before, and forests are not static places anyway. They are in a constant state of regrowth and change. Human caretakers have been able to manage ancient forests for thousands of years. It is colonialism and the ideology of profit and greed that is so destructive, not human presence.

Preserve the old growth forests of the present, yes, but it is even more vital to protect the old growth forests of the future.

@headspace-hotel thank you for your many posts about conservation. It’s because of following you that I’ve started to look at gardening, land management and resource preservation differently. When someone says “buy this and we’ll plant a tree!” I say “what kind of tree? Where are you planting it? Is it being supported after planting or are you just leaving it there?”

^usually the "we plant trees when you Buy Product" is just, like, a description of how the paper industry works.

Wood pulp used for paper is grown in huge monoculture tree farms that are harvested to be turned into pulp with the trees are like, 15-20 years old.

A company that claims to plant a new tree for every tree cut down isn't doing shit.