(David Orr Writes)
>I would suggest that, instead of debating which method gets greater volume,
>that we begin discussing how to go about reducing the consumption of wood
>and paper in the USA. It is probably realistic to achieve a reduction of
>well over 50% total volume of wood and paper consumed annually in the USA
>over the next 20 years, so let's do it!
>
>If our researchers were to focus on doing more with what we have instead of
>spending their careers stoking the engine of maximized volume production,
>then perhaps we might get closer to TRUE 'sustainability.'
>
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.
For example, I do not subscribe to a newspaper. Netters can subscribe
instead to electronic newspapers (e.g. Atlanta Constitution).
Netters could avoid printing e-mail messages. If printing must be done, do
not use new paper (use the back of once-used paper).
I also purchase and use recycled paper (10% post consumer). I am the only
faculty member at Auburn's School of Forestry to do so. Other faculty
members here use less expensive paper supplied by the School. I believe a
few Forestry Schools (like Washington State) routinely use recycled paper
(where there is a minimial cost difference). The US Forest Service now uses
recycled paper for many (but not all) of their publications. It is my
understanding that the pulp and paer industry has reached its self-imposed
goal of a 40% recovery rate.
I sometimes (but not always) photocopy memos using both front and back of
the sheet.
I collect my office paper and return it for recycling.
The amount of 'junk mail' could be reduced if senders were charged the same as
the public (29 cents/letter).
We can purchase old wood homes (I purchased one built in the last century).
We can purchase new homes built from other materials. Many of the new homes in
South Africa are not made from wood. This might cost more initially.
We can choose to live in multi-family housing units.
In the USA, fuelwood accounts for approximately 36% of our hardwood
consumption. Several years ago I switched away from burning hardwoods to
heat my home. I now mostly use propane gas (which I know is not truly
sustainable). The propane gas is more expensive and less environmentally
friendly (a fossil fuel). However, Alabama currently cuts more hardwoods
that we grow. The ratio is approximately 1.3 to 1. This might be in part
due to a lack of planting hardwood monocultures which would likely have
higher volume production/ha than natural stands. Private landowners have
been reluctant to plant hardwoods due to the expense. Of the few hardwood
plantations in Alabama, most have been established by the forest industry.
Therefore, most of the hardwoods harvested in Alabama are from natural stands.
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?
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).
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.
David South
School of Forestry
Auburn University, AL 36849-5418
dsouth@forestry.auburn.edu
205-844-1022
205-844-1084 (FAX)
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0