> > > We complain about people on other continents destroying their rain forests, but we are removing forests at an alarming rate. Sure, our forests don't produce oxygen year around like rain forests do, but we may be destroying twice as much.
> >
> > Not really. There are more trees in this country now than there were two and three hundred years ago.
>
> I would tend to agree. Although I wasn't actually walking around counting trees a couple centuries ago, I have seen many old sepia photos of my city/region from a hundred years ago. It's startling at how sparce everything was; the contrast is amazing. Mind you, these are just pictures of areas that are now covered with houses, streets, and other buildings. I can only assume that similar growth would be experienced in more rural, or even remote areas.
>
> Tra "we's gots lotsa dem dare trees" nio

I suppose with greater environmental awareness and robust city policies toward the "greening of north America," there might indeed be more trees now than 2 centuries ago. But what kind of quality of trees are they. Decorative home-owners' trees, like Japanese Silk Lilacs, Catalpias, and Little-Leaf Laurel Willows? Or are they acres upon acres of "trash pine" trees replanted by lumber companies, after the clear-cutting an old-growth forest... Evergreens that had little environmental advantage other than that they grew fast? Actually, I've heard that squirrels are credited with perpetuating many rare, native tree species. They squirrel away large numbers of tree seeds and fruits. But then they sometimes forget where the cache was hidden when they buried it in the ground!

Wolf "maybe if we switched to the field hemp plant for making paper..." spirit