G'day Bret, and welcome to the forest discussion group. We entertain someone passionately committed to the preservation of old-growth forests about once a year. Typically this starts with a mass posting (similar to yours) and moves to interesting and heated discussions about all sorts. Thanks for your courteous reply. I hope you'll stick around and fight it out, and maybe we'll all learn something. >And yes, I do think that in many cases timber companies create >markets for their products...it's called advertising. I think this is a tough statement to justify. Do you wish to assert that advertising *creates* the consumption of forest products? I guess timber companies would assert that they're fighting for market share against other, notably non-renewable, raw materials. >Newer technologies such as wafer board, microlams, and gluelams, have >greatly lessened our dependence ... This is all well and good, but the unresolved question is: who will pay for them? Consumers have shown a marked disinterest in paying more for what could (in their eyes) equally well be obtained by paying less. You note that it's profitable to fell old-growth; if that's true then I guess it's done because to do otherwise would not be competitive against the import markets from South America and Asia. Will the consumers pay more for 'manufactured' wood products than those 'grown', not necessarily in-house? In terms of the consumption of forests, as opposed to wood, nobody's innocent. I assert that the state of the forests accurately represents society's mores. Timber companies happen to be the thin end of the wedge, so you can demonize them. But really, they're just doing what our culture demands. I think the fundamental problem lies in the ambivalence which society displays towards forests as a whole. Consider: on the one hand, foresters are urged to shore up and protect the ecosystems. On the other, consumer-culture demands a steady supply of raw materials at a price the market will accept. And in the middle, the forester, being ripped in half. >Well, some of us aren't too >happy with their greed-based decision to clearcut the remaining >old-growth, so we're going to stop it. Marvelous. You certainly have the right to try. >Secondly, not only does the >industry want us to continue to consume wood at our current per-capita >rate, but their vision includes a 50% increase in that consumption rate >over the next 10-20 years, Can you please provide a reference for this statistic? Looking forward to your future contributions, Andrew Andrew Robinson EMAIL : arobinso@forestry.umn.edu PHONE : +1 612 625 5765 WWW : http://prism.fr.umn.edu/~arobinso FAX : +1 612 625 5212 No statements above may be inferred to represent my employer.
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0