>fertile crescent

california's future

>>290172

What's your question, OP?

>>290172
Their shit got fucked up.

File: ForestCover.jpg (83KB, 539x425px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 539x425px

Forests BTFO

>>290218
tfw Lybia was always a shit-holic desert

File: Bergvik1659.jpg (853KB, 1181x786px) Image search: [Google]

853KB, 1181x786px

>>290218
Sweden and Finland are like some conserved proto-europe.

>>290239
Cyrene is pretty forested.
Thanks Greeks for fucking it up.

>>290218
>2005

>>290551
It takes time counting trees Anon.

File: canadian_tire_kek.jpg (138KB, 380x572px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 380x572px

>>290218
Canada stronk

File: hqdefault.jpg (10KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 480x360px

>>290639
>Canada stronk

>>290218
When was "original"'?

>>290695
probably sometime before mass deforestation for urban consumption.

perhaps (i'm literally guessing here) right before the industrial revolution?

>>290717
But agriculture and the need of building old wood navies would probably need as much if not more deforestation than building cities?

>>290172

>what is climate change

>>290218
>India losing all that forest
>even with all their fertile land thanks to the desginated fertilizer streets

>>290218
delete this

>I don't know what desertification is

>>290172
> only one fertile crescent in the area and it sticks out like a sore thumb
> call it 'the fertile crescent' because no one will confuse it for the other 'fertile crescent' because there's only one

DUDE YOU REALLY CALL IT THE FERTILE CRESCENT?

BUT THERE'S ONLY ONE!

>>290172
Blame hydroelectric power

>>290734
populations were way smaller though. but yeah wooden navies did deforest a lot of germany, eastern europe and england. the map might be from two to three thousand years ago then, or anything before

It was more like savanna in ancient times