At 09:53 AM 7/11/94 +0200, David Orr wrote: > >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. > Shouldn't we look first at reducing the demand for wood to a "non wasteful" level (see final comment). Putting restraints on logging and wood exports will not reduce this demand. Assuming that the countries that agree to restrain exports would be those that have an ethos of responsible environmental management (why else would they agree?), will the continued demand be met by nations that do not manage their timber resources well? This is likely encourage these countries to continue in this way. In the US, is wood considered a luxury item in home building? If so, it stands to reason that a wealthy community will use more luxury goods (ie wood rather than plastic and concrete) in their homes. Consider two similar sized houses, one using wood based materials, the other non-renewable resources such as steel, fibro, and concrete. Which is better from an environmental perspective? I believe the wooden one is. What I am trying to say by this is that wood consumption is not bad per se, wasteful-consumption is. cheers Nick Disclaimer. The above comments are not necessarily the opinions of CSIRO Divsion of Forestry. ********************************************************************* Nick O'Brien Wagga Effluent Plantation Project CSIRO Division of Forestry P.O. Box 4008 Canberra ACT Australia 2600 ph: (06) 281 8272 email: Nick.O'Brien@cbr.for.CSIRO.AU fax: (06) 281 8239 *********************************************************************
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0