Recycling 2h2d4o

c c involves processing used materials (waste) into new products to prevent waste of potentially useful materials, reduce the consumption of fresh raw materials, reduce energy usage, reduce air pollution (from incineration) and water pollution (from landfilling) by reducing the need for "conventional" waste disposal, and lower greenhouse gas emissions as compared to virgin production.[1][2] Recycling is a key component of modern waste reduction and is the third component of the "Reduce, Reuse, Recycle" waste hierarchy. Recyclable materials include many kinds of glass, paper, metal, plastic, textiles, and electronics. Although similar in effect, the composting or other reuse of biodegradable waste ± such as food or garden waste ± is not typically considered recycling.[2] Materials to be recycled are either brought to a collection center or picked up from the curbside, then sorted, cleaned, and reprocessed into new materials bound for manufacturing. In a strict sense, recycling of a material would produce a fresh supply of the same material² for example, used office paper would be converted into new office paper, or used foamed polystyrene into new polystyrene. However, this is often difficult or too expensive (compared with producing the same product from raw materials or other sources), so "recycling" of many products or materials involves their in producing different materials (e.g., paperboard) instead. Another form of recycling is the of certain materials from complex products, either due to their intrinsic value (e.g., lead from car batteries, or gold from computer components), or due to their hazardous nature (e.g., removal and reuse of mercury from various items). Critics dispute the net economic and environmental benefits of recycling over its costs, and suggest that proponents of recycling often make matters worse and suffer from confirmation bias. Specifically, critics argue that the costs and energy used in collection and transportation detract from (and outweigh) the costs and energy saved in the production process; also that the jobs produced by the recycling industry can be a poor trade for the jobs lost in logging, mining, and other industries associated with virgin production; and that materials such as paper pulp can only be recycled a few times before material degradation prevents further recycling. Proponents of recycling dispute each of these claims, and the validity of arguments from both sides has led to enduring controversy.



Recycling has been a common practice for most of human history, with recorded advocates as far back as Plato in 400 BC. During periods when resources were scarce, archaeological studies of ancient waste dumps show less household waste (such as ash, broken tools and pottery)²implying more waste was being recycled in the absence of new material.[3]. In pre-industrial times, there is evidence of scrap bronze and other metals being collected in Europe and melted down for perpetual reuse.[4] In Britain dust and ash from wood and coal fires was collected by 'dustmen' and downcycled as a base material used in brick making. The

Ô i i t t li t Ôi t t ii l

tit i i i iÔ t i l ll l li t Ô li Ô l l t Bj Ôi lt t i it Ô liB tl i iÔ t i lÔi l i iti il t i it it B tl ! l t Ôt l "tt t tl t"#

$liit t %& lÔiiÔ l Ô i i"#' t i li ti Ô

lÔ t i l; i Ô Ôt l t t t i t i i R il t l Ôt lit"tt t i tl tÔil it i it l '(tt M llt l l ÔÔit t t t t li i Ô i t t Ôt lB l t l Ôtt t )Ô i itit i t Ô t

t lt Ô Ô t i l itit i l ti*

‰ R t t l t l+ i tl li ,M i Ôt Ôti Ô i it i l i t ilit i iti t tÔt l i Ô tt i i i t t itiiÔ t R ti Ôt li i t tiiÔt iitt t l - t t





.ti itÔti li it"/(t ii t R li lÔiiÔl *0 t i i i ti; l Ôt l l Ô tit i i i t i l ti / i t li Ôill tiiltiC$ l i i "/'citation needed ti lt1 2li"/ ltB1i "

3- t i tit itti %it&t ttÔ t li RR "it l "/(ti ti " li "t il i tÔ Ôtilt ltllti t l lÔ t i l tt ÔtiÔÔ 4t t iti llit t Ô itiit %&Ô li i Ôt "/tM #((( l Ô3 t3 tC li ; it it tttBli ; it i ll1i ll t t t3 t ii tiitlt tii itÔi t ti l li iiti t t i iti t li " t i " t""(#

[





) li ii5 l MB C li i 1 li Ôt i l t ll l lÔ t i li i l l il titi t t l 6Ô t li lltit i itl il ti M t lltil t li t t itit iÔ ll it Ôt t t i t Ô t i lÔti t Ôtit tt Ô t t tit it il i tÔttit t' Ct i itl il tiil

i t t t it i t i ll l l ti Ôt l ti t i i Ô ll i tt ii l iÔ tÔ i t t i i t t lltiit Ô l t lti i (0 li t!it ltti tilltit

Ôl l Ôttit Ô tt ititt ti ÔiÔ ' )ti Ôt i l l tit ti l t iÔ t i l t tili ill tt iti t4 iÔ tiÔt

is to create a viable economy for proper disposal of banned products. Care must be taken that enough of these recycling services exist, or such bans simply lead to increased illegal dumping.[2]

]





Legislation has also been used to increase and maintain a demand for recycled materials. Four methods of such legislation exist6 minimum recycled content mandates, utilization rates, procurement policies, recycled product labeling.[2] Both minimum recycled content mandates and utilization rates increase demand directly by forcing manufacturers to include recycling in their operations. Content mandates specify that a certain percentage of a new product must consist of recycled material. Utilization rates are a more flexible option6 industries are permitted to meet the recycling targets at any point of their operation or even contract recycling out in exchange for tradeable credits. Opponents to both of these methods point to the large increase in reporting requirements they impose, and claim that they rob industry of necessary flexibility.[2][10] Governments have used their own purchasing power to increase recycling demand through what are called "procurement policies". These policies are either "set-asides", which earmark a certain amount of spending solely towards recycled products, or "price preference" programs which provide a larger budget when recycled items are purchased. Additional regulations can target specific cases6 in the United States, for example, the Environmental Protection Agency mandates the purchase of oil, paper, tires and building insulation from recycled or re-refined sources whenever possible.[2] The final government regulation towards increased demand is recycled product labeling. When producers are required to label their packaging with amount of recycled material in the product (including the packaging), consumers are better able to make educated choices. Consumers with sufficient buying power can then choose more environmentally conscious options, prompt producers to increase the amount of recycled material in their products, and indirectly increase demand. Standardized recycling labeling can also have a positive effect on supply of recyclates if the labeling includes information on how and where the product can be recycled.[2]





R li iii 7 Ô il t ti )Ô i

t tÔ iÔlÔttllt l t Ôt l tt Ô tÔttli l tt Ô t +

tli i Ôt .t Ô i t i llti " +

t "" + t " " illti"' ! +

t i t t t t l tt t ll tiit it ll Ôillltit ti t i l titl t it t lltitt lit

Ôl it lt tB + t i

it ttl l t t ii l iti ti t ll t+ Ô t i l tl ll ti it% t tl Ôtii tÔ + t i lt i i tt%it&t t3 ti&li tM Ôt )i tiitt %&8*(t t Ô t i li l l

%&8('

M i til6C illti C illtiÔ Ô tl i

t tÔii

Ôtl it t l t t l Ô i t i Ôi. tlltiÔÔi l l l ti') tlltiil ll it t

) li t llti ttt li iiC )t li )t tt ÔiÔi. tlltiii ll l t llt Ôi.iitt t t t ti Ô t i lit tt l t t l ti ilit i lti l Ôt l l t i ll i tilt t t ll6tit t t llti l t li tii) tiÔ t i l l li t ÔÔ t ll ti i t ll ti' CÔÔi l i l+t Ô tÔ ll l l llti Ôi.tt t Ôt ti tl t t+lltil i t i li ti tÔ t i l l l'# & tiitt .t Ô Ô t i lil t i t lltiiÔt i tl tt+llti ti t t l tti iti l ti t llti tÔ t i l) .tili ti Ôi l i iÔt li l t t Ôi tiit i' & titt Ôttti ti ti ÔÔi lllti) i ti tl 9 ti l: l ti t ti ll ;Ô i l ti Ô iittÔi lllti#



< l ti l lÔ t i l6 l l tittli$l 4ÔÔi l l t llt li t t lllti ilit t i

tt Ô t i lÔt tiii i t Ô i

involve automated processes such that a truck-load of material can be fully sorted in less than an hour.[4] Some plants can now sort the materials automatically, known as single-stream recycling. A 30 percent increase in recycling rates has been seen in the areas where these plants exist.[11] Initially, the commingled recyclates are removed from the collection vehicle and placed on a conveyor belt spread out in a single layer. Large pieces of corrugated fiberboard and plastic bags are removed by hand at this stage, as they can cause later machinery to jam.[4] Next, automated machinery separates the recyclates by weight, splitting lighter paper and plastic from heavier glass and metal. Cardboard is removed from the mixed paper, and the most common types of plastic, PET (#1) and HDPE (#2), are collected. This separation is usually done by hand, but has become automated in some sorting centers6 a spectroscopic scanner is used to differentiate between different types of paper and plastic based on the absorbed wavelengths, and subsequently divert each material into the proper collection channel.[4] Strong magnets are used to separate out ferrous metals, such as iron, steel, and tin-plated steel cans ("tin cans"). Non-ferrous metals are ejected by magnetic eddy currents in which a rotating magnetic field induces an electric current around the aluminium cans, which in turn creates a magnetic eddy current inside the cans. This magnetic eddy current is repulsed by a large magnetic field, and the cans are ejected from the rest of the recyclate stream.[4] Finally, glass must be sorted by hand based on its color6 brown, amber, green or clear.[4]

Environmental effects of recycling[12] Aluminium 95%[2][7] 95%[2][13] Cardboard 24% ² Glass 5-30% 20% [7] Paper 40% 73% Plastics 70%[7] ² [4] Steel 60% ²

There is some debate over whether recycling is economically efficient. Municipalities often see fiscal benefits from implementing recycling programs, largely due to the reduced landfill costs.[14] A study conducted by the Technical University of Denmark found that in 83% of cases, recycling is the most efficient method to dispose of household waste.[4][7] However, a 2004 assessment by the Danish Environmental Assessment Institute concluded that incineration was the most effective method for disposing of drink containers, even aluminium ones.[15] Fiscal efficiency is separate from economic efficiency. Economic analysis of recycling includes what economists call externalities, which are unpriced costs and benefits that accrue to individuals outside of private transactions. Examples include6 decreased air pollution and greenhouse gases from incineration, reduced hazardous waste leaching from landfills, reduced energy consumption, and reduced waste and resource consumption, which leads to a

tiii Ôt ll Ô i Ôii tiÔ tiit )t#(((Ôi l iti i t (( llÔÔ t l l til ÔÔ t t , ittÔ li =il '(/tiiÔ iÔl t '(/ t iÔl '('/)t t t illltit.t*(t((

" ittÔ iÔ t . iitit li=.t liti iilli tÔitttiÔit Ô + i l itÔi ll l t t l il ti titi t Ô lÔ t i l'%it&t t<i Ôt l$ tti) 9<$): li li i t t li

t tt Ôii t#"ÔilliÔt iti'((*#t%it2i Ôt t R )ti$ ÔÔt tt t7 tB it i li

t C4' Ôii (+*Ôillit #R li iÔ

iitil l t t Ôi lil' C t i i ÔtÔtÔt li tÔi ll il i Ôt ll

tiil t l t tÔt.t t t l t Ôt tt Ô t l i t l t tti lÔ t l tl tt i Ôt t l;ittt it i lÔ t tii tllt Ô t i l Ô Ô t tÔ t li iiÔlt i

tl "llti"' M Ôit Ô tll Ôtit tit i li i<Ôit tiÔit l i ti l .t lit ti tl ÔtiÔt l lli ti ilÔÔ 5 t tl i= i tÔii l li t i l it tÔ l) +Ô t iÔ lil titt Ô i it+i i t itit lit t it ÔtM ÔitÔt l i it Ôtit ii Ô titlittl .t liti>'(

±

CÔt i llt li t iti4l Ôi &t t

i t%it

C t it it i l t&Ô Ôl it ttltiÔ t

t l tlt t t i t Ô il illit ) i t ti)Ô i *(+(0 Ôt ti li t ll t l''' t ill l+ tiÔ ttCi

i iÔ tl lll Ôt iitti ti lt i Ôt l Ô tCi Ôt t ti it t lt i ttÔ''((t i l l tlÔÔt i i'(("C t?*@t Ô'((#A'(( t"'#C t i i i

ilt i . ti Ô Ô t i l t li lÔ iÔt ltit l 6tB it i t%&iÔ tl titi ittl i l Ô ti l itt ltit)Ô i Mitt it i tit ll t Ô t i l.t Ôt litili Ô t i l +i titt l tt Ô'# &iÔil l t tt %it&t t i

ilt ii Ô t l itl Ô lÔillit i ll t .iÔit t )i Ô tt t%& Ô it i

lt ti' Ô%&t t Ô llR lB litt l ii Ô Ôl lÔii liti t tiil ill iÔt t i lt Ô ii llÔ t i li tÔ ti ll t'*

iti ‰ $l iÔ titii t l Ô t i tiO ay 2009)

)t li lÔiiÔ li l Btt%&)%2 t l l lÔiiÔ li Ôi ti

)%2!$<l tittl li l %2l l ti li Ô Ô l

Main article6 Sustainable design Much of the difficulty inherent in recycling comes from the fact that most products are not designed with recycling in mind.[it ti ] The concept of sustainable design aims to solve this problem, and was laid out in the book "Cr l t Cr l: Rmki g th W W Mk Thi gs" by architect William McDonough and chemist Michael Braungart. They suggest that every product (and all packaging they require) should have a complete "closed-loop" cycle mapped out for each component²a way in which every component will either return to the natural ecosystem through biodegradation or be recycled indefinitely.[4] As with environmental economics, care must be taken to ensure a complete view of the costs and benefits involved. For example, cardboard packaging for food products is more easily recycled than plastic, but is heavier to ship and may result in more waste from spoilage.[26] The following are criticisms of many popular points used for recycling.

þ There is controversy on just how much energy is saved through recycling. The Energy Information istration (EIA) states on its website that "a paper mill uses 40 percent less energy to make paper from recycled paper than it does to make paper from fresh lumber."[27] Critics often argue that in the overall processes, it can take more energy to produce recycled products than it does to dispose of them in traditional landfill methods. This argument is followed from the curbside collection of recyclables, which critics note is often done by a second waste truck. Recycling proponents point out that a second timber or logging truck is eliminated when paper is collected for recycling. It is difficult to determine the exact amount of energy consumed or produced in waste disposal processes. How much energy is used in recycling depends largely on the type of material being recycled and the process used to do so. Aluminium is generally agreed to use far less energy when recycled rather than being produced from scratch. The EPA states that "recycling aluminum cans, for example, saves 95 percent of the energy required to make the same amount of aluminum from its virgin source, bauxite."[28] Economist Steven Landsburg has suggested that the sole benefit of reducing landfill space is trumped by the energy needed and resulting pollution from the recycling process. [29] Others, however, have calculated through life cycle assessment that producing recycled paper uses less energy and water than harvesting, pulping, processing, and transporting virgin trees.[30] When less recycled paper is used, additional energy is needed to create and maintain farmed forests until these forests are as self-sustainable as virgin forests. Other studies have shown that recycling in itself is inefficient to perform the ³decoupling´ of economic development from the depletion of non-renewable raw materials that is necessary for sustainable development[31]. When global consumption of a natural resource grows by more than 1% per annum, its depletion is inevitable, and the best recycling can do is to delay it by a number of years. Nevertheless, if this decoupling can be achieved by other means, so that consumption of the resource is reduced below 1% per annum, then recycling becomes indispensable ± indeed recycling rates above 80% are required for a significant slowdown of the resource depletion.



)Ô ÔÔ i t i tt

iili iCt li '((,l lÔ j i t l l Ôt Ô t ll t li t

ii t li Ôtittitt l&l +Rli t ttt li i t ÔÔit t t l l ill t Ôt i lt ttÔÔit ltt tt tÔÔitit tt Ô t t t li l Ôt ti t iti l t tÔ t t +tit " i i ti lltil @ t "' Ô tt l lÔ t i l l.tt Ô t i lBi i l ti it#(0lt l i)iti ll %it&t t <i Ôt l$ tti) 9<$):t t tt t i l l Ô-l *t) t'"" t tt t t Ô8#(t8,(#il %&7& tt ttt t ili Ô ""t""/ ll t8/ 8(*

"", til ± e New Yo ±i e-i t tittÔ Ô t ltt 3 Cit t itti iti l illi t tt li Ôl ltt iti l ti l ti iti Ô t t i ttÔ t t tÔ t t it Ôit l,i l t t t&li t)i ti 3 t)Ô i 9& )3):t t iti. ÔÔitiilitt " llt t i li Ô ll tÔti ti t+t+ ii t i tt t i l"/ i littt t"t i i Ô t i l Ô ti i Ôt l l l l& lÔiÔ t i i li it ÔÔl t Ô t i lÔiÔ"

‰ C iti t t til li Ô tjt tjitl t il i itij ÔtiÔi tÔ + jt tt Ô tt t tj itt Ô i Ôt l l ti @ ttijili li

i i ltil liti t t i ÔÔiti R li tt t ttjili l Ôt i i Ô t i l t jiÔ ti Ôii Ô t li Ôt l li citation needed

<Ôit&t t titl" )Ô3t <i Ôt lit"" l iÔt t li t ll t l ti5 t t Ô i itit lit tt l Ô l tl tC l Ô l t " Ô" t#(&iÔil Ôt . i ""* til 1 M t# ti Ô itt Ô l titi l Mt Ô

Ôl t i i ll ti/##'#M i Ôt lititt t t" Ô" t i i ti i ti l 1 Ô t t lt i.til il i i t i i il i t i i l Ôt tili= tÔ it iil t ii littlt il+li ii it Ô ti i t##)lt t l t t i tt t t t t Ôtt tt ill "Ô t "itÔlli t t tt ti li li lt it i tt i l tM l tÔitit t +Ô i i t i t ti t i l i

tt l t i li t ! t tiiÔ il l ti Ô Ô l ilt t ti t li lt Ô t t tl itt t i l i t#*





iti $l iÔ it i

i t l iÔÔ i &t tÔtiti l i i l Ô ÔM t ilÔ il ltt l Oly 2010)

Ô Ô l t iit ltt iti lj li i Ô tt i l t iC lt Ô ti jÔ itt ti l li i= ti t tÔ it lit l Ôi l#,#/t Ô lil t it t li t Ô t i Ô tÔ t til iÔtt it Ô t t iti l Ô it l Ôtl tt #it l t it i tltt il tl it tÔ li ti ii ll it lt l 5 iB =il ) ti ti @i Ô l l lt l i Ôti9Ôi: ti lli i Ô l li t l itiÔi= i Ôtj#"

Because the social of a country is likely less than the loss of income to the poor doing recycling, there is a greater chance that the poor will come in conflict with the large recycling organizations.[50][51] This means fewer people can decide if certain waste is more economically reusable in its current form rather than being reprocessed. Contrasted to the recycling poor, the efficiency of their recycling may actually be higher for some materials because individuals have greater control over what is considered ³waste.´[48] One labor-intensive underused waste is electronic and computer waste. Because this waste may still be functional and wanted mostly by the poor, the poor may sell or use it at a greater efficiency than large recyclers. Many recycling advocates believe that this laissez-faire individual-based recycling does not cover all of society¶s recycling needs. Thus, it does not negate the need for an organized recycling program.[48] Local government often consider the activities of the recycling poor as contributing to property blight.

4



Many studies have addressed recycling behaviour and strategies to encourage community involvement in recycling programmes. It has been argued [52] that recycling behaviour is not natural because it requires a focus and appreciation for long term planning, whereas humans have evolved to be sensitive to short term survival goals; and that to overcome this predisposition, the best solution would be to use social pressure to compel participation in recycling programmes. However, recent studies have concluded that social pressure is unviable in this context [53]. One reason for this is that social pressure functions well in small group sizes of 50 to 150 indiviudals (common to nomadic hunter-gatherer peoples) but not in communities numbering in the millions,as we see today.



(

! t tiit7 C $

! t ti i +ili it)Ô =R i t i i i t i Ô Ôtil i .t ti

t t ttii it ( itl t l i @ i 9l l l : ! t ti Ô 6t i l l l lÔ ill l i t litl t ti ÔÔiti ttlÔt Ô l t itt

iit t ti lti Ô t it tii it l iit t iÔ tit ti tÔ i i.i! t it i ll i i i i t il i tl it tl !i i it ii ll i ll . tÔ Ôt iiti Ôt ll Ô t t t t ll t tit

large scale. In many countries, deforestation is an ongoing issue that is causing extinction, changes to climatic conditions, desertification, and displacement of indigenous people. Among countries with a per capita GDP of at least US$4,600, net deforestation rates have ceased to increase.[1][2]

There are many causes of contemporary deforestation, including corruption of government institutions,[3][4] the inequitable distribution of wealth and power,[5] population growth[6] and overpopulation,[7][8] and urbanization.[9] Globalization is often viewed as another root cause of deforestation,[10][11] though there are cases in which the impacts of globalization (new Àows of labor, capital, commodities, and ideas) have promoted localized forest recovery.[12] In 2000 the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) found that "the role of population dynamics in a local setting may vary from decisive to negligible," and that deforestation can result from "a combination of population pressure and stagnating economic, social and technological conditions."[6] According to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) secretariat, the overwhelming direct cause of deforestation is agriculture. Subsistence farming is responsible for 48% of deforestation; commercial agriculture is responsible for 32% of deforestation; logging is responsible for 14% of deforestation and fuel wood removals make up 5% of deforestation.[13] The degradation of forest ecosystems has also been traced to economic incentives that make forest conversion appear more profitable than forest conservation.[14] Many important forest functions have no markets, and hence, no economic value that is readily apparent to the forests' owners or the communities that rely on forests for their well-being.[14] From the perspective of the developing world, the benefits of forest as carbon sinks or biodiversity reserves go primarily to richer developed nations and there is insufficient compensation for these services. Developing countries feel that some countries in the developed world, such as the United States of America, cut down their forests centuries ago and benefited greatly from this deforestation, and that it is hypocritical to deny developing countries the same opportunities6 that the poor shouldn't have to bear the cost of preservation when the rich created the problem.[15] Experts do not agree on whether industrial logging is an important contributor to global deforestation.[16][17] Some argue that poor people are more likely to clear forest because they have no alternatives, others that the poor lack the ability to pay for the materials and labour needed to clear forest.[16] One study found that population increases due to high fertility rates were a primary driver of tropical deforestation in only 8% of cases.[18] Some commentators have noted a shift in the drivers of deforestation over the past 30 years.[19] Whereas deforestation was primarily driven by subsistence activities and government-sponsored development projects like transmigration in countries like Indonesia

and colonization in Latin America, India, Java etc. during late 19th century and the earlier half of the 20th century. By the 1990s the majority of deforestation was caused by industrial factors, including extractive industries, large-scale cattle ranching, and extensive agriculture.[20]







Deforestation is ongoing and is shaping climate and geography.[21][22][23][24] Deforestation is a contributor to global warming,[25][26] and is often cited as one of the major causes of the enhanced greenhouse effect. Tropical deforestation is responsible for approximately 20% of world greenhouse gas emissions.[27] According to the Intergovernmental on Climate Change deforestation, mainly in tropical areas, could for up to one-third of total anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions.[28] But recent calculations suggest that carbon dioxide emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (excluding peatland emissions) contribute about 12% of total anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions with a range from 6 to 17%.[29] Trees and other plants remove carbon (in the form of carbon dioxide) from the atmosphere during the process of photosynthesis and release oxygen back into the atmosphere during normal respiration. Only when actively growing can a tree or forest remove carbon over an annual or longer timeframe. Both the decay and burning of wood releases much of this stored carbon back to the atmosphere. In order for forests to take up carbon, the wood must be harvested and turned into long-lived products and trees must be re-planted.[30] Deforestation may cause carbon stores held in soil to be released. Forests are stores of carbon and can be either sinks or sources depending upon environmental circumstances. Mature forests alternate between being net sinks and net sources of carbon dioxide (see carbon dioxide sink and carbon cycle). Reducing emissions from the tropical deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) in developing countries has emerged as new potential to complement ongoing climate policies. The idea consists in providing financial compensations for the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from deforestation and forest degradation".[31] Rainforests are widely believed by laymen to contribute a significant amount of world's oxygen,[32] although it is now accepted by scientists that rainforests contribute little net oxygen to the atmosphere and deforestation will have no effect on atmospheric oxygen levels.[33][34] However, the incineration and burning of forest plants to clear land releases large amounts of CO2, which contributes to global warming.[26] Forests are also able to extract carbon dioxide and pollutants from the air, thus contributing to biosphere stability. [itti ]

The water cycle is also affected by deforestation. Trees extract groundwater through their roots and release it into the atmosphere. When part of a forest is removed, the trees no longer evaporate away this water, resulting in a much drier climate. Deforestation reduces the content of water in the soil and groundwater as well as atmospheric moisture.[35]

Deforestation reduces soil cohesion, so that erosion, flooding and landslides ensue.[36][37] Forests enhance the recharge of aquifers in some locales, however, forests are a major source of aquifer depletion on most locales.[38] Shrinking forest cover lessens the landscape's capacity to intercept, retain and transpire precipitation. Instead of trapping precipitation, which then percolates to groundwater systems, deforested areas become sources of surface water runoff, which moves much faster than subsurface flows. That quicker transport of surface water can translate into flash flooding and more localized floods than would occur with the forest cover. Deforestation also contributes to decreased evapotranspiration, which lessens atmospheric moisture which in some cases affects precipitation levels downwind from the deforested area, as water is not recycled to downwind forests, but is lost in runoff and returns directly to the oceans. According to one study, in deforested north and northwest China, the average annual precipitation decreased by one third between the 1950s and the 1980s. [itti ] Trees, and plants in general, affect the water cycle significantly6 Ê? Ê? Ê? Ê? Ê? Ê?

their canopies intercept a proportion of precipitation, which is then evaporated back to the atmosphere (canopy interception); their litter, stems and trunks slow down surface runoff; their roots create macropores - large conduits - in the soil that increase infiltration of water; they contribute to terrestrial evaporation and reduce soil moisture via transpiration; their litter and other organic residue change soil properties that affect the capacity of soil to store water. their leaves control the humidity of the atmosphere by transpiring. 99% of the water absorbed by the roots moves up to the leaves and is transpired.[39]

As a result, the presence or absence of trees can change the quantity of water on the surface, in the soil or groundwater, or in the atmosphere. This in turn changes erosion rates and the availability of water for either ecosystem functions or human services. The forest may have little impact on flooding in the case of large rainfall events, which overwhelm the storage capacity of forest soil if the soils are at or close to saturation. Tropical rainforests produce about 30% of our planet's fresh water.[32]

þ

! t ti t l itB =ili it Ri- i illiti M C i- D %it t l t ill .iÔ tl 'Ôt it ilÔt 9, tt t:citation needed! t ti ll i t il i i i t Ôt

i t tti til Ô t litt i t i.il l t i l i til1 t titÔl li it tlÔt t Ô i=iÔt Ci $l t l tÔilli &itit i ti Ô tiii ll ii tiÔtt t itllRi it

lll t t t li t i itl 9t i i ÔCi : RÔ l t t l i i t t i i tt%& t i l t tÔl tl tt i it Ôi l il%& 1 t& iiB li 3 ti lMÔt . Ôlit i t t t

Ô tÔ i Ôi tt tiilt t i tili

iitl llt tttili l lii it l i Ô ltlit ll ilti t i l lii t tllii 5 Ôt t til

ttt t lli t ttt t ti tl li ! t ti ltiliiii it #( Ô l t ti

t lti i Ôtit ii it #1 t tii it ii it t illi ;#'Ô t t Ôii l ti# it titi i l l 9 t .l: t ti t ti i ti9 it :i t i l ##

Since the tropical rainforests are the most diverse ecosystems on Earth[45][46] and about 80% of the world's known biodiversity could be found in tropical rainforests,[47][48] removal or destruction of significant areas of forest cover has resulted in a degraded[49] environment with reduced biodiversity.[50] It has been estimated that we are losing 137 plant, animal and insect species every single day due to rainforest deforestation, which equates to 50,000 species a year.[51] Others state that tropical rainforest deforestation is contributing to the ongoing Holocene mass extinction.[52][53] The known extinction rates from deforestation rates are very low, approximately 1 species per year from mammals and birds which extrapolates to approximately 23,000 species per year for all species. Predictions have been made that more than 40% of the animal and plant species in Southeast Asia could be wiped out in the 21st century.[54] Such predictions were called into question by 1995 data that show that within regions of Southeast Asia much of the original forest has been converted to monospecific plantations, but that potentially endangered species are few and tree flora remains widespread and stable.[55] Scientific understanding of the process of extinction is insufficient to accurately make predictions about the impact of deforestation on biodiversity.[56] Most predictions of forestry related biodiversity loss are based on species-area models, with an underlying assumption that as the forest declines species diversity will decline similarly.[57] However, many such models have been proven to be wrong and loss of habitat does not necessarily lead to large scale loss of species.[57] Species-area models are known to overpredict the number of species known to be threatened in areas where actual deforestation is ongoing, and greatly overpredict the number of threatened species that are widespread.[55]

Damage to forests and other aspects of nature could halve living standards for the world's poor and reduce global GDP by about 7% by 2050, a major report concluded at the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) meeting in Bonn.[58] Historically utilization of forest products, including timber and fuel wood, have played a key role in human societies, comparable to the roles of water and cultivable land. Today, developed countries continue to utilize timber for building houses, and wood pulp for paper. In developing countries almost three billion people rely on wood for heating and cooking. [59] The forest products industry is a large part of the economy in both developed and developing countries. Short-term economic gains made by conversion of forest to agriculture, or overexploitation of wood products, typically leads to loss of long-term income and long term biological productivity (hence reduction in nature's services). West Africa, Madagascar, Southeast Asia and many other regions have experienced lower revenue because of declining timber harvests. Illegal logging causes billions of dollars of losses to national economies annually.[60] The new procedures to get amounts of wood are causing more harm to the economy and overpowers the amount of money spent by people employed in logging. [61] According to a study, "in most areas studied, the various ventures that prompted deforestation rarely generated more than US$5 for every ton of carbon they released and frequently returned far

lt %&8" it< Ô t

ttit +t tii i' 9 t%&8*:,'

tt iti it i l li, t Ô ll tt t t tt iti91:t t l t iitlÔt t i t i= i t l t ti t951!t i:'( t ti t l t9515!i t +i t ti t:

t i 915!l t +i t ti t: t t ti tl91!l t +l t ti t: t i t t ili= t ll t t i 1it El t > t tt ii l ti lt.t9 Ô l tiit t lÔt t t tÔ : l lÔi Ôtlii)t Ô lll t itt ili= itÔi tt lii ltE i >t tt iti 1it t .t l ti it i l tt tt tiÔ t t B)% t ti ti tt l t itt iti 951!:ilittt tiÔ tB)% t ti t i ttl t t 915! 1!: Ct iiti t .tt t l t t17!$ it t tt i t FÔilÔtiilitt tt t l ili ti t 7!$ it l

itllittt iit16 9i: t it t t it t i 9 i i t t:t tl t t t ili= ti; 9ii: ÔilÔt t tt

+ ÔÔl Ôt titi i titÔi t9Gi i 7!$ it : it ilit

ti ilt l t ti'(

1 t i Ô ti6iÔli i Ôt lt



) 3liti ti tili lt . il lii tl &Ô ll l t ti ti Ôiti t t t ii iili= ti,# i ti t ti it Mliti i,*t l t tl titÔ tÔ lt Ô iÔ l,# itt t ilt l t t i Ôt iÔtltl l < t i littllii /(((BCMliti i t ti il 7 tB it i +tl ti l itll =l Ôl ttlRÔ l t tlt t i ti lti it Ô ti l t i ilÔll < t#((+((BC /'((+/(((BCt ti it < ll Ôi tt7 tB it iÔ tl l i i t tt 3liti ilt 3liti i .ti t ti Ôi l ,,,/&t . i Ô Ô t(((BCtjt Ô litt Ô i it

Ô B it i 3 t)Ô i ll iltt l .it it< li !it it il t$Ô Ô i3 t l Ô t l tiR +t Ô l ll t i Ô lil ll t i i iiittl i tÔ i lt t t .t lÔ t ti i 1lit till Ô 7 iÔ7 t ÔÔ t Ôi < <i t ti iMi C t; . Ôlti t $ l 2 l titB =) , tÔt it Ô t t titi t Ôt t)Ô =tt iCt l)Ô i tC i ,"l

t t t t t liiiÔlÔtt

t i t i lÔ it7 j )l + it /(ÔÔ i=t i lti it i i lli ti t t ti.it Ô j i ll t*((+((( tit ti Ôi it i i 7 i Ôtl t 3lititt< l B =) t

lli tÔi+ i tÔilliÔBC< iit Ôitttl il i iÔ l it iilti t l tt t )i Mi 9e. . Cl t. Ôl <$ i Milt t tiltit tM : i t l& i i tl tt i BC

< t l

Ô il ii tt i t ilt t ti/- !i Ô i .tilittll t it< t l iiCollap ei til t Ôtiiit li itiili= ti t/t tt 5 tt ittll t t ti +.lit ti ll /'/ Ôilti t B iÔ tÔÔ t)t l ll i i ttlÔt t9 tl t ti:it i i l Ôi lRi=i $ lli lilt ÔtÔ ll i it i it ll iill itRÔ ttlÔti lliÔ ll Ôt titi ; tl t t ll Ri= i t t citation needed

! " # [ X o illia B. G eeley', ± e elation of Geo ap y to ±ibe Spply, Econoic Geo ap y, 1925, vol. 1, p. 1-11. So ce of "±oday" ap copiled by Geo e D affan f o oadle a ea ap in ± e Bi Otide A De c iptive Invento y of t e Bi! ilde ne A ea ! of t e United State , by Dave Xo e an and Howie ol e OHa ony Boo , 1992) Ô tl i i tlt&Ô t tttt i= .tt ,'(tl tii lti ti )t i l t t titi tilti t il i Ôit 9 t tiiili tt : t ti itt l ti ;l lliÔi

ilttt i t Ô iÔtitil i ttit Ôt tl i)it)i Mi B lÔii Ôt ll tlt t ti it Ôtcitation needed itÔt tl ti Ô ii tii9 ii tl t:t ilt l t tÔ i iÔt Ô il l i ttl Ôi < il ll l tt i 9 ti ll tllt i tiÔ it t =i : illi t Ô ii llit9ilit

higher clergy) protection of their own hunting privileges and game often protected significant woodlands.[it"ti#$ $%%&%& ] Major parts in the spread (and thus more durable growth) of the population were played by monastical 'pioneering' (especially by the Benedictine and Commercial orders) and some feudal lords' recruiting farmers to settle (and become tax payers) by offering relatively good legal and fiscal conditions. Even when speculators sought to encourage towns, settlers needed an agricultural belt around or sometimes within defensive walls. When populations were quickly decreased by causes such as the Black Death or devastating warfare (e.g. Genghis Khan's Mongol hordes in eastern and central Europe, Thirty Years' War in ), this could lead to settlements being abandoned. The land was reclaimed by nature, but the secondary forests usually lacked the original biodiversity. From 1100 to 1500 AD, significant deforestation took place in Western Europe as a result of the expanding human population. The large-scale building of wooden sailing ships by European (coastal) naval owners since the 15th century for exploration, colonisation, slave trade±and other trade on the high seas consumed many forest resources. Piracy also contributed to the over harvesting of forests, as in Spain. This led to a weakening of the domestic economy after Columbus' discovery of America, as the economy became dependent on colonial activities (plundering, mining, cattle, plantations, trade, etc.)[it"ti#$ $%%&%& ] *

In Ch'(g)s i( th) L'( (1983), William Cronon analyzed and documented 17th-century English colonists' reports of increased seasonal flooding in New England during the period when new settlers initially cleared the forests for agriculture. They believed flooding was linked to widespread forest clearing upstream. The massive use of charcoal on an industrial scale in Early Modern Europe was a new type of consumption of western forests; even in Stuart England, the relatively primitive production of charcoal has already reached an impressive level. Stuart England was so widely deforested that it depended on the Baltic trade for ship timbers, and looked to the untapped forests of New England to supply the need. Each of Nelson's Royal Navy war ships at Trafalgar (1805) required 6,000 mature oaks for its construction. In , Colbert planted oak forests to supply the French navy in the future. When the oak plantations matured in the mid-19th century, the masts were no longer required because shipping had changed. Norman F. Cantor's summary of the effects of late medieval deforestation applies equally well to Early Modern Europe6[74] Europeans had lived in the midst of vast forests throughout the earlier medieval centuries. After 1250 they became so skilled at deforestation that by 1500 they were running short of wood for heating and cooking. They were faced with a nutritional decline because of the elimination of the generous supply of wild game that had inhabited the now-disappearing forests, which throughout medieval times had provided the staple of their carnivorous highprotein diet. By 1500 Europe was on the edge of a fuel and nutritional disaster [from] which it was saved in the sixteenth century only by the burning of soft coal and the cultivation of potatoes and maize.

°

t"tt it ti t Ô tit%it&t t t t ti Ô j i tMiiiiRi iti Ô li ti Ôt l ltt Ô t t

Ôt i t ltt Ô iBt&ti t litt 4iRi ttttMiiii ÔÔ i ll it ll t ll )ttÔttiÔ i ti t ll t lti l i l t ((t'(( t9,Ô: Ôt & l1 li lt tlliiCt 2 i C i &t$ilillii l itl t"tt it lttlt l ti l /* l ll l t t ilt ll iÔ t t l tCt l t+ l t iti t t7 t $l i t%it&t t&i i lll it'(t+t t ti i iÔ li ti

c

4 it lt Ô t tii iti B j jti t Blii 7l l t ti l l t *'/,//t tiÔ tt t t l t< tÔ t t i l t;t/*Ôilli ÔilliÔ'9'" ÔillitÔilliÔi: t i i l*Ôillit,ÔilliÔ'9*Ôillit,' ÔilliÔi:t ttil"#/ tl t/; l /"(&Ô itit itt tli i i tÔ 9 i t tti l t tt t tit :/ t li i '(( t illl t t Ô ii /,/"it t t ti iti/,(0ill lt ittÔ t i l l i/, <tiÔ t il tt.tt t i l t ti'&itittiÔ tt t i t t lt i l i t t t",( ""(citation needed l iÔt tt t i t*( #0citation needed t ll l *+/0 t t llt i l till tÔil t 'tt )'((' l i tllitiÔ tt tt t t tiitÔi t i9 .iÔ tl *Ôillit : l '0l t tÔt ÔÔl t t#C l l i tllitiÔ lt t

deforestation of the Amazon rainforest is twice as fast as scientists previously estimated.[85][86] Some have argued that deforestation trends may follow a Kuznets curve,[87] which if true would nonetheless fail to eliminate the risk of irreversible loss of non-economic forest values (e.g., the extinction of species).[88][89] A 2005 report by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that although the Earth's total forest area continues to decrease at about 13 million hectares per year, the global rate of deforestation has recently been slowing.[90][91] Still others claim that rainforests are being destroyed at an ever-quickening pace.[92] The London-based Rainforest Foundation notes that "the UN figure is based on a definition of forest as being an area with as little as 10% actual tree cover, which would therefore include areas that are actually savannah-like ecosystems and badly damaged forests."[93] Other critics of the FAO data point out that they do not distinguish between forest types,[94] and that they are based largely on reporting from forestry departments of individual countries,[95] which do not take into unofficial activities like illegal logging. [96] Despite these uncertainties, there is agreement that destruction of rainforests remains a significant environmental problem. Up to 90% of West Africa's coastal rainforests have disappeared since 1900.[97] In South Asia, about 88% of the rainforests have been lost.[98] Much of what remains of the world's rainforests is in the Amazon basin, where the Amazon Rainforest covers approximately 4 million square kilometres.[99] The regions with the highest tropical deforestation rate between 2000 and 2005 were Central America²which lost 1.3% of its forests each year²and tropical Asia.[93] In Central America, two-thirds of lowland tropical forests have been turned into pasture since 1950 and 40% of all the rainforests have been lost in the last 40 years.[100] Brazil has lost 90-95% of its Mata Atlântica forest.[101] Madagascar has lost 90% of its eastern rainforests.[102][103] As of 2007, less than 1% of Haiti's forests remained.[104] Mexico, India, the Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, Myanmar, Malaysia, Bangladesh, China, Sri Lanka, Laos, Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Liberia, Guinea, Ghana and the Côte d'Ivoire, have lost large areas of their rainforest.[105][106] Several countries, notably Brazil, have declared their deforestation a national emergency.[107][108] The World Wildlife Fund's ecoregion project catalogues habitat types throughout the world, including habitat loss such as deforestation, showing for example that even in the rich forests of parts of Canada such as the Mid-Continental Canadian forests of the prairie provinces half of the forest cover has been lost or altered.

Main article6 Deforestation by region Rates of deforestation vary around the world. Southeast Asia and parts of South America are among the regions of highest concern to environmentalists.

c

c Main article6 Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation

Major international organizations, including the United Nations and the World Bank, have begun to develop programs aimed at curbing deforestation. The blanket term Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) describes these sorts of programs, which use direct monetary or other incentives to encourage developing countries to limit and@or roll back deforestation. Funding has been an issue, but at the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Conference of the Parties-15 (COP-15) in Copenhagen in December 2009, an accord was reached with a collective commitment by developed countries for new and additional resources, including forestry and investments through international institutions, that will approach USD 30 billion for the period 2010 2012. [109] Significant work is underway on tools for use in monitoring developing country adherence to their agreed REDD targets. These tools, which rely on remote forest monitoring using satellite imagery and other data sources, include the Center for Global Development's FORMA (Forest Monitoring for Action) initiative [110] and the Group on Earth Observations' Forest Carbon Tracking Portal.[111] Methodological guidance for forest monitoring was also emphasized at COP-15 [112] The environmental organization Avoided Deforestation Partners leads the campaign for development of REDD through funding from the U.S. government.[113]

New methods are being developed to farm more intensively, such as high-yield hybrid crops, greenhouse, autonomous building gardens, and hydroponics. These methods are often dependent on chemical inputs to maintain necessary yields. In cyclic agriculture, cattle are grazed on farm land that is resting and rejuvenating. Cyclic agriculture actually increases the fertility of the soil. Intensive farming can also decrease soil nutrients by consuming at an accelerated rate the trace minerals needed for crop growth.[it+ti,- -.././ ]





Efforts to stop or slow deforestation have been attempted for many centuries because it has long been known that deforestation can cause environmental damage sufficient in some cases to cause societies to collapse. In Tonga, paramount rulers developed policies designed to prevent conflicts between short-term gains from converting forest to farmland and long-term problems forest loss would cause,[114] while during the seventeenth and 18th centuries in Tokugawa, Japan,[115] the shoguns developed a highly sophisticated system of long-term planning to stop and even reverse deforestation of the preceding centuries through substituting timber by other products and more efficient use of land that had been farmed for many centuries. In 16th century landowners also developed silviculture to deal with the problem of deforestation. However, these policies tend to be limited to environments with 1 1 g00 r2i3f2ll, 30 r4 s52s03 and 65r4 4 0u3g s0ils (through volcanism or glaciation). This is because on older and less fertile soils trees grow too slowly for silviculture to be economic, whilst in areas with a strong dry season there is always a risk of forest fires destroying a tree crop before it matures. In the areas where "slash-and-burn" is practiced, switching to "slash-and-char" would prevent the rapid deforestation and subsequent degradation of soils. The biochar thus created, given back to the soil, is not only a durable carbon sequestration method, but it also is an extremely beneficial amendment to the soil. Mixed with biomass it brings the creation of terra preta, one of the richest soils on the planet and the only one known to regenerate itself.





Certification, as provided by global certification systems such as PEFC and FSC, contributes to tackling deforestation by creating market demand for timber from sustainably managed forests. According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), "A major condition for the adoption of sustainable forest management is a demand for products that are produced sustainably and consumer willingness to pay for the higher costs entailed. Certification represents a shift from regulatory approaches to market incentives to promote sustainable forest management. By promoting the positive attributes of forest products from sustainably managed forests, certification focuses on the demand side of environmental conservation."[116]

c Main article6 Reforestation In many parts of the world, especially in East Asian countries, reforestation and afforestation are increasing the area of forested lands.[117] The amount of woodland has increased in 22 of the world's 50 most forested nations. Asia as a whole gained 1 million hectares of forest between 2000 and 2005. Tropical forest in El Salvador expanded more than 20% between 1992 and 2001. Based on these trends, one study projects that global forest will increase by 10%²an area the size of India²by 2050. [118] In the People's Republic of China, where large scale destruction of forests has occurred, the government has in the past required that every able-bodied citizen between the ages of 11 and 60 plant three to five trees per year or do the equivalent amount of work in other forest services. The government claims that at least 1 billion trees have been planted in China every year since 1982. This is no longer required today, but March 12 of every year in China is the Planting Holiday. Also, it has introduced the Green Wall of China project, which aims to halt the expansion of the Gobi desert through the planting of trees. However, due to the large percentage of trees dying off after planting (up to 75%), the project is not very successful.[it7ti89 9::;:; ] There has been a 47-million-hectare increase in forest area in China since the 1970s. [118] The total number of trees amounted to be about 35 billion and 4.55% of China's land mass increased in forest coverage. The forest coverage was 12% two decades ago and now is 16.55%. [119] An ambitious proposal for China is the Aerially Delivered Re-forestation and Erosion Control System and the Proposed sahara forest project coupled with the Seawater Greenhouse. In Western countries, increasing consumer demand for wood products that have been produced and harvested in a sustainable manner is causing forest landowners and forest industries to become increasingly able for their forest management and timber harvesting practices. The Arbor Day Foundation's Rain Forest Rescue program is a charity that helps to prevent deforestation. The charity uses donated money to buy up and preserve rainforest land before the lumber companies can buy it. The Arbor Day Foundation then protects the land from deforestation. This also locks in the way of life of the primitive tribes living on the forest land. Organizations such as Community Forestry International, Cool Earth, The Nature Conservancy, World Wide Fund for Nature, Conservation International, African

Conservation Foundation and Greenpeace also focus on preserving forest habitats. Greenpeace in particular has also mapped out the forests that are still intact [120] and published this information on the internet.[121] HowStuffWorks in turn has made a simpler thematic map[122] showing the amount of forests present just before the age of man (8000 years ago) and the current (reduced) levels of forest.[123] These maps mark the amount of afforestation required to repair the damage caused by man.

To meet the world's demand for wood, it has been suggested by forestry writers Botkins and Sedjo that high-yielding forest plantations are suitable. It has been calculated that plantations yielding 10 cubic meters per hectare annually could supply all the timber required for international trade on 5% of the world's existing forestland. By contrast, natural forests produce about 1-2 cubic meters per hectare; therefore, 5 to 10 times more forestland would be required to meet demand. Forester Chad Oliver has suggested a forest mosaic with high-yield forest lands interpersed with conservation land.[124] One analysis of FAO data suggests that afforestation and reforestation projects "could reverse the global decline in woodlands within 30 years."[125] Reforestation through tree planting could take advantage of changing precipitation patterns due to climate change. This would be done by studying where precipitation is projected to increase and setting up reforestation projects in these locations. Areas such as Niger, Sierra Leone and Liberia are especially important candidates because they also suffer from an expanding desert (the Sahara) and decreasing biodiversity (while being important biodiversity hotspots).