Reader comments
Planting more trees will benefit Utah

This is a nice thought, but the main problem with global warming is excess carbon in the air that is supposed to be locked up in oil/coal reserves deep underground. Unless we can figure out a way to to get all this carbon back where it belongs, or at least quit bringing it to the surface, no amount of tree planting is going to rectify this problem.

Anonymous, you've forgotten that trees, and other plants, remove carbon from the atmosphere.

Great idea! While planting trees should not be an excuse to continue pumping more CO2 into the environment, it is definitely a step in the right direction. Planting millions of trees should be one of the many efforts taken to protect our environment.

If one agrees that global warming is real or not, we all should be aware of the thousands of acres that are being deforested in South America. We cannot continue to deforest the world without a price to our environment. Let's do it!

This writer, though well-intentioned, doesn't appear to understand ecology. Anyone suggesting Russian olives be planted in Utah, for instance, needs to have their head examined (we'll leave off even discussing how well the species would do on the hills above SLC). That species is a disaster for Utah already, and introducing exotic tree species is always fraught with peril. A better idea would be to attempt to bring the forests and rangelands back to the healthy equilibrium they were in originally. Where native forests have been lost, restore them. Don't try to turn an ecosystem that spontaneously supports grasses, into a forest. Restore fire to the ecosystems, for their own health.
I noticed what appears to be the subtext at the end, where the writer starts bashing environmentalist's and their supposedly misplaced priorities. At least the environmentalists I know demonstrate a knowledge of Utah ecology.

Stupid article - There's a reason the Alps/Switzerland has more trees. It's called rain. Switzerland has it (most of the country at 40+ inches per year). Utah doesn't (areas <4000 feet have less than 10 inches per year). In Utah areas with precip (e.g. the Wasatch Mts) have trees. If the rest of the state had the precipitation we'd be western Oregon. Planting more trees isn't going to change that.

Yes. Let's get started on planting those trees. *picks up a shovel*

To JS: By giving nature only a minor assist I think it can be done. It's already been done in Nevada in a much dryer environment.

Pinchot:
Perhaps the Russian Olive is only an example? Don't throw out the baby with the bath water.

JS:
You need to go back and read the editorial again. The author made mention of similar efforts in climates (can you say Israel) much drier than Utah.

It is refreshing to see that there are only a dwindling amount of John Q. Citizens who are dragging their feet on the obvious problems of our environment and screaming "this is just a liberal/commie plot created by Al Gore." You don't thing some of them have actually turned off Limbaugh and turned on easy-listening music?

Surprising how many people seem unable to understand the English language. The whhole point of the tree-planting article was to show that tree planting programs have succeeded in climates even drier that Utah. And for the guy who wants a way to tie up climate warming atmospheric carbon dioxide, trees are the way nature has been dling this since the firsst life appeared on earth. Reducing emissions is important, but without trees the CO2 would just reemain in the eatmosphere forever.

As for Russian Olives, anyone who inows anything about willife knows that Russian Olives provide excellent cover and forage for quail, pheasants, and other birdlife. They've been planting them in Cache Valley for fifty years for this purpose.

That would just bring more tree huggers to our republican utopia.

92:
Now that's funny!

I've never considered myself a tree hugger, but I sure enjoy the beauty of the outdoors. And one doesn't have to take too many looks at a valley in Washington that has just been harvested of trees, to realize that the beauty is no longer there.

92 sounds like one of those conservatives who's mastered another trash-talking term. Makes you wonder just what it is they think they are conserving?

Russian olives are a scourge, and the most recent legal action I know of was San Juan and Grand Counties declaring it a noxious weed, which may not be sold or planted (July 2007). The claim about food for wildlife is bogus; sure, animals will sometimes make use of edible fruit from exotic species, but when that exotic species is devastating vast areas in the Great Basin and Colorado Plateau, it's an incredibly bad rationale. I haven't checked its legal status for Cache or other counties, but here in the Uintah Basin, the county extension is trying to educate people to eliminate it. How much better if the native species, which also produce fruit for wildlife, were being use?
Again, my main points; REforestation with native species is fine, but attempted AFforestation of areas that were not originally forest (except urban areas), is not a good use of our resources. And the discussion above tells me that we have a long way to go in educating the public about the dangers of using exotic species.

An excellent idea and a fine article, yet something doesn't feel quite right about it. Plant life is usually determined by water, light, and nutrients. If trees could grow successfully they would already be there. It would be good to understand how Israel and Spain forested dry hills without any irrigation. But any efforts to beautify the state and improve the enviornment are well worth the effort and investment.