>David South responds: > >In 1952, the per capita consumption of paper and boards in the USA was about >167 kg/capita. Today it is about 317 kg/capita. By the year 2030, some >predict it will increase by 33% (to 442 kg/capita). There are certainly >several things that we as individuals can and should do to reduce the >consumption of wood and paper in the USA. > ... > >Future wood demand depends not only on per capita consumption, but also on >expected population growth. By the year 2030, it is predicted that the >population of the USA will increase by 26% (to 319 million). Even if we >reduce per capita consumption by 25% (about the level of 1962), wood demand >in the year 2030 would be the same as today. The question then becomes, if >we do not plant pine trees today to meet the increasing wood demand in the >future, will the environment be better off or worse off in the future? >Would more or less of our native stands be cut in the future if we do not >establish more high-yield pine plantations (either on agricultural fields or >on cutover land)? In the South, it is expected that 60% of our conifer wood >harvested will come from plantations in the year 2030. Currently, we are >harvesting about 75% from native stands. Do we really want to reduce the >establishment of high-yielding plantations and harvest more extensively from >native pine and hardwood stands? Good points, David. I appreciate your thoughtful comments. I believe that your assumptions are too narrowly construed, though. You assume that we NEED to keep producing lots of wood. I challenge that assumption in my comments below. You have made, with aggregate industry figures, a compelling case for the continued growth in demand for wood products into the next century. But to what uses are all that wood being put? Are those uses really necessary? For example, railroad ties and utility poles. What would the consumption figures look like if we decided to underground all utilities, and use (concrete?) alternative materials for RR ties? While there are certainly environmental impacts from switching to other materials, isn't it true that concrete lasts a LOT longer than wood, there are no problems with toxic wood preservatives, and that getting power lines off poles will improve visual quality? What if we could get the building industry to drastically reduce the use of wood in houses? I have contacts who research non-wood and reduced-wood structures, and they tell me that feasibility of non-wood and reduced-wood housing is here right now, and it's not done primarily because of the influence the timber industry has on the Uniform Building Codes. What if we could just change the building codes to allow people to build homes that don't use wood? What if we could ban the use of wood in pallets? As I understand the industry, most pallets are cut from native hardwood stands, used once, and then landfilled. Pallets should be constructed of durable (plastic?) material, and reused many times, as are milk crates. It's criminal the waste that occurs in the pallet industry. What if we could get the newspaper industry to agree that the sustainable way to go is to cease printing on paper, and publish electronically? They're already going out of business even as we speak, and if they don't do something different, they're going to be history anyway. What if we could get the telephone companies to agree to stop printing phone directories? Just make calls to Directory Assistance free again? And offer phone book access via modem? That would reduce paper consumption dramatically. What if we could place a surcharge on all cut-sheet xerographic paper, and use the money to fund a national campaign to get people to stop making copies (especially one-sided copies), and to stop printing documents off their computer screens? What I am suggesting is a public-spirited campaign to reduce the consumption of wood by at least 50% over the next 20 years. I don't have the figures to be able to assess what all the above-mentioned measures, if adopted, would result, but I believe there are many other opportunities for reducing consumption I have not even thought of. Even if population continues to increase, the ONLY way this ever-increasing demand could be met is through intensive tree farming. But, step back a moment and think: what have the Chinese done, in a nation that was stripped of its forests long ago? Somehow they have managed to survive and, in many cases, live sustainably, for decades and centuries without wood. Don't you think that with our technological advancement, our society could get off this wood binge, and figure out a better way? >My wife and I choose to have only one child. This is likely the best thing >we as individuals can do to ensure "true sustainability." As world >citizens, we need to take voluntary action to limit population growth (or >our discussions about resource management options will be ephemeral). Bravo! I applaud your decision. I have chosen to have no children. Should I ever wish to raise a child, there are MANY children aching to be adopted all across the US. You could view adoption as possibly the best kind of Reduce-Reuse-Recycle philosophy (I don't mean to offend anyone by this, just to "play on words") >We need to ask now where we are going to produce the wood for our >grandchildren. In my opinion, establishing pine plantations makes sense if >we want to protect our hardwood stands. This option could allow our >grandchildren to have about the same amount of land in upland hardwoods as >was present in the South in 1952. If we do not invest today in planting >more pine, our grandchildren may have few options other than to harvest most >of the upland hardwoods for their wood needs. Let me rephrase that question: we need to ask now where we are going to have FORESTS for our grandchildren. We already have pine plantations. There are some serious problems with tree farms. We have established these tree farms with the assumption that we NEED more wood as raw material for economic activity. But can we not envision a society that uses other materials, perhaps at lower cost, to accomplish the same task, to fulfill the same function, and perhaps with greater beauty and durability? Could we rethink some of our fundamental assumptions about our relationship to forests, and start to envision our forests as intrinsically valuable, more valuable standing than as sawtimber or as pulpwood? Why do we need paper, in this age of the computer? I submit that we have today the tools and the technologies to go "on the wagon" away from wood, in one of the greatest economic shifts in history, and create a better society that will provide new, meaningful jobs for people, and provide a healthier environment for all. That is my vision, and I would welcome your comments. David Orr dgorr@ucdavis.edu
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0