This is the fifth text about alleged reasons to put down trees in urban areas. The objective of the present texts (a total of twelve) is to throw some light in this issue, avoiding the choice for the easiest way to solve problems: take a tree’s life.
Trees are Oxygen Producing Units (OPU), they are living beings, and their presence close to human populations is a standard of living rate. It is always good to remember that their absence could lead to the desertification of a whole region.
In the previous text, we talked about trees covering up an architectural work. When using trees as a hideout, someone does it, because a tree is covering him up. The concept of “covering up a view to humans” is a common fact among trees (especially if many) and an unfortunate excuse to put them down. See some examples:
* A highway administrator does not allow trees along the roads, because they might cover up the view to cameras or satellites.
* In war operations, armies use defoliators on forests, arguing that under the top of the trees, enemy troops could be hiding.
* In tree-lined streets, rapidly growing branches cover up traffic signs, especially during the summer.
Public safety is important, and, absolutely, none wants to stay close to a hideout of thieves. Pruning bigger branches could be a solution, in many cases. It does not kill the tree and makes it “cover up” a little less what we want to see. Another solution, laborious, though, would be replanting the trees in another area.
The question goes deeper, however. It is difficult to offer solutions, in a simple text like this, to chronic social problems such as criminality, war or bad will. Once again, it will be the individual and collective consciousness to decide the trees’ destiny. Trees don’t have a way to defend from human conduct.
Natura Futura 