Patrick Moore wrote:
> What do you make your living from now? Plastic? Is there no work for
> carpenters? Can you tell me of a building material that is more renewable
> than wood?
I've built several buildings from metal studs, and after a small adjustment period
(I hated them at first) I actually like building with metal studs better. Now before
you go ranting and raving about "mining the earth for steel," I'd just point out that
we are currently only recycling about 40% of the steel we manufacture, and the
lion's share of that get exported. Also, straw bale homes are certainly on the rise
in popularity, with many counties in Oregon approving them via new building
codes.
Could/should we stop using wood products in construction? No. Can we
minimize the destruction of the last of our old-growth forests and pristine
roadless areas by utilizing alternatives? Yes. How many people do you think
would have a redwood deck built for their home if they had to cut down the 1,200
year old tree themselves?
> > Well, now that you mention it, there is helicopter logging, horse
> logging, etc. Now
> > that we've built several million miles of logging roads, what say we
> leave the few
> > remaining roadless areas alone, eh?
>
> I am very much in favour of roadless areas and wilderness.
Really? In your last post you seemd to long for "the good ole days" when you were
getting 9 billion bf off of the PNW forests. How much wilderness and roadless
areas do you think we'd have left in, say, ten years if we had continued to log at
those levels? The total mileage in logging roads has more than doubled since 1960,
fasr outstripping the number of miles of highway and street construction during
the same period. More than 350,000 miles of logging roads criss-cross the
PNW--enough to circle the globe 13 times! National forest in the U.S. average 3.5
miles of road per square mile of forest land. It's a veritable "roadless heaven," eh?
> > This is really funny. Kindly tell me how I would (wood) die without wood
> > products!!!???
>
> If we did not have wood products we could not have civilization as we know
> it. Even the Inuit, who live north of the tree line, have an absolute
> requirement for wood. Yes, you could survive temporarily on plastic, steel
> and cement, but it would be a miserable life and an unsustainable one. Try
> a world of plastic books, steel toilet paper, cement tables, etc. And don't
> tell me you are going to make everything out of hemp. It is a fact that if
> it were not for the substance called wood, the material embodiment of solar
> energy, life as we know it would be impossible. But I have a sneaking hunch
> that you would prefer it if more people had to suffer and die for their
> sins.
Methinks you could use an anthropology class or two. The greatest civilizations in
the history of the world used wood sparingly in the construction of their great
cities--some by choice, others by neccessity. As I stated earlier, I believe that we
can use wood products sustainably. This off course is a favorite strategy of the
timber beasts--paint anyone who questions our currently logging practices as an
extremist who wants to end all logging and have us wipe our butts on "plastic
books." My organization, "Citizens for Sustainable Forestry," is intent on
ensuring that we balance our need for wood products with our need for a healthy
environment.
I notice that you chose not to answer my question as to how many old-growth
trees "forest science" had managed to create so far. Why is that? Also, I'm
wondering if you could tell us a little about your organization, "Greenspirit."
where do you get your funding from?
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0