>David South writes . . .
>>
>>California has 10% of the US population but consumes about 25% of the wood
>>fiber.
>David Orr replies...
>>
>>But California has 30 million people today, and many of them are wealthy.
>>So they buy cheap wood, peddled on interstate and international markets by
>>colony states and nations (e.g. Oregon and especially Canada!).
>>
>>If there were effective restraints on logging, and on wood exports, there
>>would be little opportunity for Californians to profligately consume wood
>>products.
As a resident of a small potential "colony" I (and most New Zealanders)
would oppose any restraints on logging and wood exports that did not take
into account the source of the forest products. Here in New Zealand, we are
currently harvesting roughly 15 million m^3/annum. This is projected to
increase over 100% by 2010. Roughly 98% of this harvest comes from well
managed (mostly radiata pine) plantations which cover about 5% of the NZ
landscape. Current NZ consumption is around 10 million m^3/annum. This is
projected to remain static.
Most of the recent plantings have occurred with exports in mind. We would
like to export to markets which can afford to pay for our wood. Restraints
on wood exports would probably not make much of a difference to California,
but they have the potential to hurt NZ a lot. I strongly oppose policy
measures (no matter how effective) which fail to take into account the
economic side effects.
New Zealand has had similar problems in the past. One time far back into NZ
history the Australian ringtail possom was introduced to NZ to try and
establish a fur industry here. The possom found the forests to be pretty
good tucker and the climate suited them. They reproduced out of control.
Possom hunters made a pretty good living for a while and the animals were
under control. Then the fur industry collapsed (with the strong anti-fur
environmental lobby) and there is no longer much of a market for the skins.
Our native forests are being devistated as a result.
Possom fur from New Zealand is environmentally friendly. But you still run
the risk of being spray painted by wearing it.
I realize that the analogy is not perfect. The anti-fur problem is market
led. However, a tiny nation (3.3 million people) does not have the
resources to fight a strong international lobby.
I just wish to point out that what you might do because you think it is
"right" can have unforseen and unfortunate consequences.
Discussion is the best way to resolution.
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Ted Bilek, Forestry Economics |
| University of Canterbury, School of Forestry |
| Private Bag 4800, Christchurch, NEW ZEALAND |
| |
| e-mail: e.bilek@csc.canterbury.ac.nz |
| phone: 64-3-364-2121 fax: 64-3-364-2124 |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0