On 11/11/95 Andrew Robinson writes: > > 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. Thanks for the welcome Andrew, and I think you've addressed the single most important issue, that being that hopefully 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. No, I don't think that advertising alone creates the demand for wood products, but on the other hand, I think people here in our country are being misled by the industry that constantly tries to improve it's PR with ads that say things like "since 1900, there has been no net loss of trees in the U.S." Well, this may be true, but there is a big difference between a seeddling and a six foot diameter old-growth doug fir. Yes, timber can be a renewable resource if it is done sustainably, but there is no doubt in my mind that A) our forests were drastically overcut in the late seventies and all of the eighties, and B) once what little is left of our old-growth is senselessly cut down, we will never see old-growth again. > >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? People already are paying for these technologies, gluelams, microlams, and waferboard exterior sheathing are now standards in the construction industry. The industry is slowly making the shift to using smaller logs, but reluctantly. They just can't understand why we don't want them cutting any more old-growth. The reason they want old-growth is simple; there's more board-feet per acre, and there's less work to get more of a return. WE DON'T NEED OLD-GROWTH TREES TO MAKE BUILDING MATERIALS! > 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. Yes, they are meeting supply, but they are also exporting 50% of the logs that come from the Pacific Northwest to Japan. They also are responsible for the passing of the sufficiency rider, a law that suspends every known environmental law or regulation our country has until January 1, 1997. This law was heavily lobbied for by the timber industry because it essentially gives the carte blanche to log wherever and whatever they want. They fooled the American public into believing that the law was needed to speed up slavage sales, yet the no salvage sales have been bid on, the industry is taking advantage of a loophole in the law that allows them to cut live green trees; not just the beetle-killed, drought-stricken trees that they originally sadi they needed to cut. > > 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. I truly sympathize with the foresters, they are under immense pressure. > > >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? Spring, 1993, Spokesman for Boise-Cascade at Environmental Ethics Plenary Session, Southern Oregon State College. Bret
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0