A lot of marginal farmland in the United States has been returned to
forest land.
It's the same throughout much of New England -- lots of woods, but it's
all "second growth" because it all was farmland a century ago. It was
terrible farmland, but in the absence of the Interstate system and cheap
long distance transport, it was cheaper to grow the food locally than
try to bring it in from elsewhere at great expense. I thought that was
common knowledge.
This is a strong argument against the "Hundred Mile Diet" but has
nothing whatsoever to do with the supposed "question" of whether
anthropogenic greenhouse gases are behind the now very well documented
phenomenon of global warming.
Note that, while the United States has regrown some forests, far more
have been cut down, bulldozed, or burned elsewhere in the world.
This has strong implic
R C Macaulay wrote:
Howdy Jeff,
Same here in Texas. Before 1870 range prairie grass fires could sweep
across whole counties that acted to prevent forests from gaining a
foot hold.
Interesting arguments for and against "greenhouse" effect. Al Gore and
Rush Limburger cheese et al should both be proud of their ability to
keep the CO2 gas balloon in the air for so long before it becomes
obvious that a parallel exists.. similar to two divorce lawyers. There
is money in keeping the bickering going.
Meanwhile back at the ranch the whole place winds up broke and knee
deep in cockle burrs and Bushes. At some point the problem becomes
insoluable.. unless.. well.. err.. some kid playing with matches...
Richard
Jeff wrote,
I came across a study a few years ago that showed that the US
presently has
more forested land than it did in the year 1900. My personal observation
verifies that. The fields around the house I grew up in, and the house I
have live in now (33 yrs.) have all grown over with forest. Historical
photos of the Berks county Pennsylvania area of 1900 vintage show
surprising
areas of cultivation that are now forest.
