Why is Clearcutting Bad for the Environment?

animals environment

The environmental effects of clearcutting are often cited by activists who are trying to put a stop to the practice. They include a range of negative results, from loss of habitat to an elevation in stream temperatures which can cause fish to die off, but all of them reflect major changes that will take decades to correct. Numerous activists have suggested more environmentally sustainable alternatives to clearcutting, such as selective logging, and it is the hope that as more consumers become aware of the dangers of clearcutting, they will seek out sustainably-harvested timber.

Clearcutting, or clearfelling, is a logging practice which involves completely clearing an area of trees, regardless as to their size and usability. Remaining scrub and brush are usually burnt in large burn piles that can cast a smoky haze over the area for several days. A clearcut area may be relatively small, or may span for miles, and is clearly visible through the air, along with the scars of logging roads cut to access it. The abrupt deforestation has a serious environmental impact on the surrounding area.

Clearcutting profoundly alters local rivers. If logging comes close to the banks of the river, as it often does, it eliminates the shady shield of trees, which can cause the temperature of the river to elevate. Even a few degrees can make a huge difference to native plants, fish, and amphibians, and can cause a significant population decrease. Numerous organizations monitor global rivers and have warned that extensive clearcutting could result in the extinction of some fish species, as they are driven out of their native habitats. Clearcutting also softens the banks of the river by enabling erosion, which can cause them to collapse into the water.

In addition to harming rivers, clearcutting also alters the water cycle in general. While trees are growing, they help to trap and retain water, along with precious topsoil. When trees are removed, water runs over the surface of the earth rather than filtering into the aquifer. The water runoff can cause flooding, taking valuable topsoil with it. As the water trickles downhill, it carries the topsoil into the river, turning it brown and muddy and carrying the useful nutrients out to sea. The excess of nutrients in the marine environment can be harmful to marine organisms, and cause further population damage, which can sometimes extend for several miles offshore.

Clearcutting also destroys habitat for a wide variety of animals, including many endangered species. Birds, reptiles, and mammals all face habitat destruction due to clearcutting. Many of these animals have difficulty seeking out new habitats because the surrounding areas may be clearcut or filled with human inhabitants. Some animals have adverse interactions with humans, especially large predator species and animals such as raccoons which adapt readily to human encroachment on their habitat. Others are simply incapable of adapting and quietly die off. While this alone is tragic, the effects extend into the surrounding ecosystem as well, by removing a link in the local food chain.

The results of clearcutting are not only felt in the immediate area. Clearcutting also has an impact on the quality of the atmosphere, beginning when the trees are cut down. Trees help to filter pollutants from the air, and are also an important part of the carbon cycle. Removing trees has a direct impact on the environment, especially when combined with slash-and-burn practices which result in scorched earth and in a serious increase of environmental pollutants.

Because of the numerous negative effects of clearcutting, many people concerned about the environment are trying to educate consumers about the practice. It is possible to obtain sustainable lumber, such as that labeled by the Forest Stewardship Council. By purchasing sustainably harvested lumber, consumers send a message to logging companies that they want healthy wood from healthy trees, and an environment which is healthy in the long term.

Related wiseGEEK articles

Category






  
  
	

		

New: Discuss this Article

Posted by: Gemraticus
Clear cutting can certainly be bad for the environment, for ecosystems, for animal populations. However, one really cannot say that clear cuts are *all* bad. It depends on the size of the clear cut, whether or not stream buffers were left, and how the site was prepped. The type of clear cut you describe, particularly the miles-wide one, is more of an equatorial type of clear cut - definitely not an example of sustainable forestry! In the United States, we have fairly sustainable silvicultural practices (in general... not always). Forests in the temperate regions also bound back relatively quickly from a clear cut. And many forest types, particularly southeastern hardwoods, respond well to clearcuts. Not usually so in the tropics, however, due (often) to the soil characteristics.

I'm not a proponent of clear cuts. However, I recognize several things: (1) people use wood, (2) wood is a renewable resource, unlike plastic which is typically derived from petroleum, or metals which are mined from the earth and have a much more severe and lasting effect on the planet than most all logging practices; and (3) people in the United States buy wood products, and they couldn't care less about where that wood is from - hence if you walk into Walmart or Crate & Barrel or Pottery Barn or Pier 1 Imports, you will find many beautiful, cheap 'hardwood' things that are made in Indonesia or China.

We have created a system where, on the one hand we can enjoy our forests and be proud of our 'National Heritage,' and on the other we can purchase cheap wood products from countries like Indonesia. Indonesian forests are being decimated at an appalling rate (~83% of all logging in Indonesia is illegal, according to WWF). But are we concerned with this? Not really... we're concerned with whether or not there's a clear cut in a National Forest nearby, or in the Redwoods, but beyond our borders the whole idea of sustainable silvicultural practices is conveniently forgotten.

This is my dilemma. I have been thinking about this for a while now. We have a relatively decent, relatively sustainable forestry service here in the U.S. (by comparison). But buying wood that was actually harvested here and MADE here (interestingly, it is cheaper to ship our logs to China, have folks there make stuff, then send it back here to sell - is that mad or what!?!) is almost an impossible task, although it would do so much for our environmental karma.

Ultimately (I need to get off my soapbox and get to bed), at the very least if we were in the habit of buying wood products from home, it would be our problem to deal with. As things are now, we have taken our consumption problem and shipped it overseas, putting pressure on poor equatorial countries to rapidly deplete their landscape of natural resources for a quick buck. So back to my original point - clear cutting might be bad, but it isn't all that bad. If we, in the United States, were to consume our own forests instead of other peoples' forests, then we would probably have to have more clear cuts, but we have such a strong appreciation of our forests here that we would certainly be better equipped to deal with the problem than a country like Indonesia. So... more small clear cuts. Beyond that, it would be more a question of whether it would be single species, or mixed species, what thinning practices would be used, if prescribed burning is necessary, etc. All dependent upon the region. Sounds horrifying? Maybe, but at least it would be us dealing with our own rapacious consumption, instead of forcing it upon others.

Sorry if this wasn't organized well. It's late and I'm tired! :o)


FREE: Subscribe to wiseGEEK

 
    learn more

our strict privacy policy ensures that your email address will be safe



Written by S.E. Smith

copyright © 2003 - 2008
conjecture corporation