"The Giving Tree" by Shel Silverstein comes to mind this year as the Earthkeepers' work to plant 12,000 trees across the Upper Peninsula.
If Mr. Silverstein were writing this book today, would he include other things the tree could give the little boy? This book, published in 1964, is a lesson in how the natural world contributes to humans in spirit, in basic needs, and in economic growth. In the twilight of the little boy's life, nature cycles back to give him rest and comfort. The tree gives the little boy, now an old man, a place to sit on its stump which is the only spiritual and creature comfort he needed.
The tree sustains the life cycle needs of the boy and yet it ends on a very human note - "the tree was happy." Is this happy ending from 1964 still viable? The problem as I see it is the math. It seems like it might take far more than one tree per person on the planet to sustain our recent rates of economic growth.
Last fall, I heard a radio report about work that NASA does where they look back to Earth, snapping pictures of the forests over time. This got one curious researcher, Nalini Nadkarni, interested in determining the number of trees on the planet and the ratio of trees to humans. Turns out there are over 400 billion trees on the planet. At the time of this work, a simple math exercise involving the number of trees on the planet divided by the number of people on the planet equals 61 trees per person.
The story went on to say that while not everyone uses that many trees in a lifetime, some use more and some use less. This depends on where you live and the resources available to you and the prosperity and economic model of your culture. The report also talked about all the ways wood products are used, but it did not mention the ecological contributions such as species preservation, biodiversity, habitat, water quality contributions, soil amendments, and as we are learning now, the contribution toward stabilizing global climate change.
Forests contribute a significant role in removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, a major greenhouse gas. In the process, carbon is sequestered in the tree over the life of the tree typically referred to as a carbon "sink." The carbon stored in a tree is limited when the tree reaches maturity and then the "sink" is full.
When trees are cut down, they are mostly put into manufacturing processes that then release carbon dioxide by producing the wood products we consume. Now, the key here is keeping the forest stocks greater than the use to let trees do their natural thing by removing carbon dioxide. In the tropical forest, each year, about 1.5 billion tons of stored carbon is converted by deforestation into about 6 billion tons of carbon dioxide and emitted into the atmosphere. Thus, although the stock of tropical forest carbon is very large, and only about a half percent of it flows from forest to atmosphere annually, this flow into the atmosphere is what matters for global warming, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists.
So, keeping a large forest stock and reducing our demand for consumption of forest products beyond what the forest can assimilate will help in reducing carbon emissions into the atmosphere.
Earthkeepers have been active over the past couple years in nudging us to reduce our carbon footprint. In partnership with the Superior Watershed Partnership and the Cedar Tree Institute, they have been advocating life style changes to reduce carbon emissions through conservation practices and reduced consumption of goods and services that either contributes directly or indirectly in carbon emissions.
Last year, over 3 million pounds of carbon emissions were reduced through conservation activities in one month alone by undertaking activities on a checklist. This year, planting 12,000 trees are estimated to capture 3 million pounds of carbon dioxide annually. That amounts to approximately 150 million pounds of captured carbon dioxide, assuming the trees live 50 to 100 years after being planted.
So, is the happy ending portrayed in Mr. Silverstein's 1964 book still viable? I would argue yes. As a global community, we need to act locally. I tend to agree with Professor Nadkarni, "I don't want people to feel guilty about their relationships with trees. We may be falling behind in our tree count, but it's not only possible, it's deeply appealing, to go out into the woods or the backyard or the hillside with a seed and a shovel and repair the damage."
This year, put your faith to work and act locally with your friends and neighbors, plant some trees.
Editor's note: Jill Martin resides in Ford River Township in Delta County.