Dear Lauri, On Fri, 1 Dec 1995, Lauri Valsta wrote: > > From: Nelson Wong <nelson@MGATE.MTC.COM.MY> > > > > The question here is not whether old-growth forests are a renewable > > resource but whether timber by itself is a renewable resource. Secondly, if > > one wishes to discuss about whether current management practices are > > sustainable. One should compare timber with base metals. > > The fact that metal is nonrenevable and wood is renevable is not at all > the whole question. A couple of ore mines probably do not lead to > species extinction over a geograohical region (e.g. ecoregion) but > the cutting of old-growth forests affects a lot more species because > of the large area and may lead to species extinction. > That is true. Like I said earlier, I don't claim to have all the answers. But I thought that raising various points here may create a more rounded and wholesome approach towards a universal problem. In mining, one must also consider the management and the size of the particular operation. For example, gold mining in South Africa is a major scale operation by which there is total removal of both vegetation and top soil. The veins are rich in quality and quantity. Therefore, these operations carry on for decades. Can the geological and ecological environment of these mines be rehabitated or restored ? I would think a logged-over region can be renewed and rehabitated much faster than mined-over area. I am refering to both open-cast and underground mining. However, I do admit that mining in the Northern Territory, Australia, eg. gold mining is done at a very professional level. Most of these mines only dig for gold after core-sampling is performed. Low-yield areas are left alone. But their uranium mines are more "damaging". The other point is, both logging and mining operations produce pollution discharges into the surrounding area, especially if processing is done at site. Would waste eg. mercury, lead, acids, be of no importance ? Toxic chemicals are used to strip the gold deposits from the rocks. > I think we can't secure that no species will get extinct. That may even take > place in natural ecosystems. But I hope we can maintain habitats for > all species at some areas so that large numbers of species do not get > extinct. > Agreed. But the preservation of species should also bear upon the question of urbanisation, pastures for sheep and cattle, industrialisation. The issue or question for that matter should not focus on the forestry products sector, or timber producing countries alone. > > In my country, 80 per cent of the material in the wooden furniture > > industry comes from rubberwood. The rubberwood comes from the rubber tree > > plantations. Is this a problem ? > > Could be if the plantations take such a large area that natural ecosystems > areas are reduced to nonrenevable amounts. > How would one quantify non-renewable amount ? What parameters should we use ? What mathematical theory or modelling must be employed ? At the end, whose interpretations of the results should we accept and agree upon ? What assumptions must we make, if any ? I hope this has been a fruitful discussion and nothing should be taken personally. OK ? Nelson Wong Malaysian Timber Council http://www.mtc.com.my
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0