This continual argument over alternative sources of wood or fiber is at best absurd. Yes it is a good idea to recycle paper or what ever. Wood pallets are recycled. Why would any one recycle a plastic one if they don't recycle wood ones. Concrete makes a lousy cross tie. They fracture under the jarring of trains. Concrete poles are more expensive than wood ones. It takes energy to make concrete. There is no conspiracy between building codes and the timber industry. If the price of 2x4's stay at this level or go up slightly, then the building industry will shift to steel studs. Houses in Florida have been built mostly out of materials other than wood for a long time. Houses that are predominately not wood are not new. I wouldn't want to own one in California though. What is the purpose of this hemp or ramey for paper. Is this an attempt to reduce the amount of forest that we have. What will happen to the amount of forest (area) if the consumption of wood significantly drops. The NIPLOS will convert to pasture or some type of agriculture. The overall effect of all of these loosely conceived ideas is to reduce the amount of forest land. The forest on public lands may be preserved and we can take real pleasure in driving to the surviving 6% of todays forest through cow pastures and corn fields. That would be an achievement. One other thing, when a tree is removed from a forest,(yes a plantation is a forest), mostly carbon, along with a little calcium, potassium and phosphorus are removed. When hemp or ramey are harvested, carbon, some calcium and a lot of nitrogen, potassium, phosphorus are removed. The removal rates of elements in trees is about the same as the natural input through rainfall or dustfall. This will not be true with hemp, ramey or giant ragweed. They will run a deficit.
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0