>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. WRONG! By far most pallets are used once, then tossed in the nearest landfill. Please check your facts before making such "absurd" statements! 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. There are probably any number of materials other than wood that can be engineered to accomplish the job of wood RR ties. Have you looked into it, or are you just reflexively coming to the defense of the wood-cutting industry? Concrete poles are more expensive >than wood ones. It takes energy to make concrete. Yes, that is true! I didn't, however, suggest we use concrete utility poles. I suggested undergrounding utilities (i.e., NO poles). While undergrounding uses concrete, the resulting infrastructure is far more durable, and has little or no long-term impact on visual quality of the area. 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. The price of wood lumber is going up, and the shift to steel is occurring. My point is that building codes in many areas are written so as to require use of structural lumber, and preclude use of other materials, or alternatives to frame construction. If the codes are changed, some creative - and safe - alternatives to high levels of wood consumption in the housing industry can begin to be implemented. >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 forest can be allowed to be forest, rather than logged, cleared for pasture, etc. >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. Why do you think that? There is already a surplus of production of most foodstuffs. Why would you expect people who are not in ag today to go into it in the future, using lands poor in fertility, relative to the highly fertile soils currently in use elsewhere? The drop in red meat consumption seems to be a long-term economic shift. Why would you expect that MORE cattle pasturage will be profitable? >One other thing, when a tree is removed from a forest,(yes a plantation >is a forest), Not in an ecologist's definition. Maybe in yours. So what's your point? Are you saying that we shouldn't try to reduce consumption of wood? Are you working for a wood products company or do you receive research grants from such an enterprise? Just curious. You seem to have a rather thin skin about this issue. David By the way, are you in Fayetteville? I lived there about half my life. How are the fall colors this year? ------------------------------------------- David G. Orr R-4 Program Coordinator Waste Prevention and Recycling ------------------------------------------- Office of Environmental Services University of California Davis, CA 95616 ------------------------------------------- Internet: DGORR@UCDAVIS.EDU Voice: (916) 752-6970 FAX: 752-7456 ------------------------------------------- Opinions expressed here are my own, and are not intended to represent those of my employer, the University of California.
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0