Trees, do we really still want them?

I live in an area that in the past has been very much tree-lined and has a council that supposedly has good policies for keeping it this way.

In the last ten years I have noticed a lot of the trees disappearing, mostly because of redevelopment of individual houses into duplexes or apartments. Whether its by state planning policies or just the reality of development, trees are disappearing. A lot of the open spaces that we had were actually private property that was undeveloped or land reservations that are destined to be, so the amount of green space here is less than you would think by looking at first glance.

Does anyone care about having trees in amongst housing these days? Is it a thing of days gone by?

I like them, probably as I grew up in an area that had plenty. When I look at a house to rent or buy, I prefer trees, but when looking recently I have noticed not many people have them.

Do people actually like living in housing estates that have houses jammed together and no trees at all except for the obligatory parks?

It would be helpful if we took a holistic rather than a self-ish view of trees. What do they provide and how do they contribute to a less sterile environment? And then there is the novel concept of just allowing trees to exist as valid inhabitants of the planet and not as an opportunity or a problem.

I live in a suburb renown for its trees, but they are fast disappearing. I had about 10 very large gum trees on my property, including one that was only 2 feet from the house and had massive overhanging branches that would occasionally fall on the roof and smash a bunch of tiles, not to mention the foundations being lifted and cracks appearing in the walls. The council wouldn't let me touch it, but I had it cut down anyway. I was tired of water damage due to smashed tiles, and the future cost of repairing the house. Since I had so many trees, including about a dozen others in addition to the gum trees, there was zero visual impact to the area.

However, it seems that anyone doing a knock down-rebuild is allowed to totally clear a block. My in-laws used to live around the corner, and had a substantial 4 bedroom, double-storey, double-brick house that could hardly be seen from the street due to the number of trees, their back yard was like a botanic garden. The house next door to theirs was similar and was called "Tall Trees" due to the large number of trees in the front and back yard. Five years later, both properties have been sold and EVERY tree on each block cut down to build stupidly large houses.

Recently had a coffee with a self confessed tree hugger. I said I need to cut down a tree that was over hanging my house. It had recently dropped a branch which dented my roof and continually fills the gutters with fine leaves. No amount of discussion could convince my tree hugging friend that I had any right to cut down the tree. I wonder how my insurance company would see it.

Her option of trees was that if you live in the bush (I live in the suburbs) then you should not be allowed to cut trees down and that having them hang over your house is okay. Her words went like this. If a fire comes a long, then just leave the house. I'm pretty sure the rural fire service would like to have fire exclusion zones ( minimal fuel) around any asset you would like to survive a bush fire. Plus having the RFS put their lives at risk (for any reason) to save a property that the owners have made no attempt to reduce the risk of catching fire is just f%%king wrong. These RFS should never ever consider putting their lives a risk.

When I said to her that maybe the government needs to relook at how they manage fuel levels in forests and putting in fire exclusion zones/breaks that suit the changing climate conditions. No way was the reply. Beats me, my way of thinking goes a bit like, lets sacrifice 5% to save 95% of our natural forests. They're just numbers I plucked out of my head, but if we don't step up to the plate, admit we need to change what we are doing now, then god help us next year.

The first step to getting options changed in the general public, is for the Liberal, Labour and Greens to admit that they have got it wrong, instead of trying to blame each other in an attempt to score political points. Because, as long as these pricks leading these political parties are in denial, then so will be most of the sheep who vote for them.

I'm glad the population elephant was raised. It is the prime driver of so many issues and a cornerstone of policy that encourages limitless economic growth. That also drives policies to maximise profit etc by doing things like clearfelling in developments.

I take exception to the Green bashing. It's such a populist position to mindlessly stereotype all of them and their supporters. Consider the state of the country had not conservation minded people not advocated for preservation in National Parks and the like. You can bet they would have been mined or covered in cow **** and weeds without earlier foresight.

What is in question is the management and that's where we've been wilfully ignorant of indigenous expertise and guilty of
woefully under resourcing the protection of our natural assets and the communities that live in and around them.

I like trees and will be planting 300 soon. However they cause trouble when too close to buildings.

Trees are actually quite incredible. It's amazing they can circulate water and nutrients from deep underground in their roots right up to leaves far above the ground.

Are any species of tree better to reduce the risk of bushfire than others? Are eucalypts the only species that will survive, or would another species survive if managed by people, and reduce the risk from bushfire?