In rationalizing their decisions, public officials have often suggested that the choice is between funding such activities as policing and firefighting and funding tree programs. Dozens of other budget line items can be considered in finding dollars for trees. Because many city administrators aren't aware of the value, importance or potential of trees in their communities, we should not let them off the hook when they try to give us limited options. Making budget decisions without data on the environmental values of urban forests is tantamount to killing the trees. Data supporting the ecological and social values produced by trees has been mounting.
Studies show that city trees substantially reduce energy costs and help lower pollution.
Some estimates suggest we could double those energy savings if we could shuffle the locations of the nation's existing urban trees. Add to those values the ability of trees to control stormwater and contribute to physical and mental health, and you have a strong case for having more trees in our communities. Public opinion and good old common sense agree overwhelmingly that we can grow healthy urban forests if we try, and that communities will be much better off if we do. Yet many city administrators cut the heart out of their tree management programs at budget time, and helped fuel the decline of their urban forests. In truth, the average downtown tree lives 13 years, the residential tree 37 years, and the average tree citywide 32 years.