Axios – In the last 30 years, US forests have lost more than a quarter of their trees.
But this isn’t just a loss of biodiversity, but also of ecosystem services.
Here are four reasons why this is a problem that we must deal with.1.
Global carbon sequestration is low on the priority listThe US is a leader in the world in forest carbon storage, but it is not on top of it.
The US has already cut carbon dioxide emissions by half over the last decade, but the United States has not yet reduced carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere.
And even as we’re cutting emissions, we’re also limiting the amount of carbon dioxide in the air, which has slowed global warming to below 2 degrees Celsius.
As a result, the United State is losing a lot of carbon, and it is hurting its climate.
In a recent report, the US Department of Energy concluded that the US could save about 17 billion tons of carbon each year if it reduced its carbon dioxide levels by half.2.
US forests need more treesA new study in Science Advances published last month shows that the world needs more than 400 million trees for its forests to be carbon neutral.
This means that a doubling of forest growth is needed to make the world carbon neutral, which is the goal for the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris in December.
The world needs about one-fifth of its forests.
The average global forest cover in 2015 was 4,000 trees per square mile.
But the researchers say that it is likely that the global forest carbon concentration could increase to 5,000 to 5.5 million trees per acre by 2030.3.
Trees can take carbon out of the atmosphereThe research found that the carbon released by trees is one of the most efficient ways of absorbing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and can help to reduce atmospheric concentrations of CO2.
When trees are removed from their natural habitats, they can absorb a lot more carbon.
In addition, when they are burned, carbon can be released into the atmosphere that is then converted into oxygen and water.
The amount of oxygen in the ground is important because that is how carbon dioxide is released into a process called photosynthesis.4.
The forest is a natural barrierTo understand why we need more forests, the researchers used the US Forest Service’s Landsat data to map the forest cover and how much carbon it contains in each location.
The Landsat images showed that the forests of the United Sates are currently home to around 1,600 million trees, which accounts for about 0.25 percent of the land area.
In comparison, in Germany, the forests cover 2.5 billion hectares, which equates to roughly 0.7 percent of Germany’s land area (although this doesn’t take into account land in the south of Germany, which includes parts of Germany).
The scientists found that between the 1980s and the 1990s, the world lost more land in each year because of deforestation, and that this loss of land caused climate change.
As the number of trees in the US fell, it caused the earth to warm up, which caused global temperatures to rise.
The researchers also found that because of this increase in temperatures, forest cover increased.
This increased forest cover was linked to changes in soil moisture, which can affect plants and animals, which leads to changes that cause soil erosion and plant death.
The researchers said that these effects are caused by different processes happening in different places.
The increased carbon released from the forests can be offset by removing trees.
The loss of carbon is the result of a process of natural carbon loss and can be a positive force.
For example, a tree is one part of a forest, which takes up the entire area, so removing a single tree is going to reduce the amount and the amount is going the other way, reducing the amount that the forest has.
The trees that are removed by the forest are either taken up by other species that use them, or they are taken down.
The carbon that is released is the same type of carbon that plants absorb when they grow.
So in general, removing trees decreases the amount in the soil.
The scientists also found a correlation between the amount carbon in a forest and its carbon sequestrations, which shows that when a forest is removed, it reduces carbon stored in the surrounding soil.
In the study, they also found evidence that a forest’s carbon sequestered carbon is related to the species that live in it, so in this case, removing more species increases the amount.
These studies also show that there are other ways of reducing carbon in the environment that aren’t as effective at keeping carbon out.
A study by the US Geological Survey found that, for example, removing carbon dioxide and nitrogen from rivers and lakes increases the rate at which the carbon in rivers and oceans absorbs into the soil and becomes a sink for carbon dioxide.
In this way, rivers and other sources of carbon can help decrease emissions.
These carbon sinks can be used to reduce emissions from other