I hear the jagged revving of chainsaws in my neighborhood and I head outside to investigate. A few houses down the block from mine a tree removal crew is on the job, a crane extending high into the canopy, a chipper idling in the road ready to chomp.
Multiple trees are being taken down in the front of one of the shadiest houses on the block. Towering, majestic oaks I’ve always admired. They must be sixty or eighty years old or more, and with a few swipes of a chainsaw they are gone.
My spirit sags. I want more, not fewer, trees in my neighborhood.
The homeowners may have valid reasons for removing the trees. Trees growing too close to a house can present challenges: roots can extend and damage foundations or crack pipes, gutters get filled with leaf debris, there’s always the chance—however unlikely—of limbs falling in a storm and damaging the structure.
Oh, but what is sacrificed: Trees provide shade in a warming climate, helping to lower temperatures and save on energy costs. They suck carbon dioxide from the air and replenish with oxygen. They offer privacy and beauty along with food and shelter for animals. Trees are even associated with helping to reduce stress.
I get it. Sometimes trees need to be removed. I had to take two down on my property last year, a mulberry that was split and leaning toward the house, and a red maple that was about dead. I got a nice supply of firewood from it.
I’ve planted new trees to take their places. I won’t be around long enough to see those trees mature, but someone else will, and it’s a small way to give to the next generations and ensure the presence of trees.
I would be in full support of a law or local ordinance requiring homeowners, developers, and businesses to plant a new tree for every tree removed. Instead, in my town, it seems more and more trees are being taken down and fewer are planted.
I’ll deal with cleaning my gutters. I’ll repair any damage a tree might cause on my property. To me, it’s worth it: the shade, the natural beauty, the privacy, the peace.
