Nelson Wong wrote: > > Dear Bruce Wilkey, > > > Nelson, Nelson, Nelson ..... What are you, a parrot ??? > > No, I'm a Chinese. Thank you ;) > > Thanks for your candid & thoughtful views which I greatly appreciate. > Sorry for the cheap shot, I just got a bit frustrated that you seemed not to be reflecting what I know you know (if you know what I mean)... > > The woodchip industry in the U.S., particularly in the Southeast, is > > engaged in wholesale forest destruction - by this I mean either > > stripping all useable wood fiber over hundreds of thousands of acres > > annually and moving on with NO regard for the many impacts of their > > activity, or converting thousands of acres of native forest ecosystems > > > > into chemically dependent pine monocultures. This is all driven by > > humanity's blind wastefulness spurred by relentless corporate > > advertising that says "use all you want - we'll make more..." The > > pulp > > and paper industry in the US exports huge volumes of this timber to > > the > > Pacific Rim for processing and, in the process, destroys many local > > sustainable economies based on sawmills utilizing 60 - 80 year old > > trees > > for lumber, pallets and a host of other long-term industries making > > everything from pencils to flooring and furniture... It's the tenth > > largest industrty in Tennessee, where I live, employing 60,000 > > workers. > > Two dozen high-capacity chippers operating twenty-four hours a day > > employing less than 200 people could destroy those jobs and the > > forests > > supported by them in ten years. Luckily we have fought off all but > > about > > three so far but there are now over 140 mills operating in our region. > > > > I've watched your posts and I know you are aware of all this. > > So Bruce, this is a forest resource management problem. You must also > understand that the USA is a rather large country to management. > Secondly, there's more to wood-chips than just paper & pulp. > Yes, and the approach to management is different in each state. In our state, the pulp and paper industry is very influential in our schools, subsidizing most of the training programs for our future foresters - so there is not an abundance of fresh, new science coming along. We critically need people who look closely at anthropogenic assaults which are showing up with alarming regularity, we need people studying the effects of ionization of soils and nutrient flushes and biomass cycling and carbon sequestration and carrying capacity for harvest. What we have is a state forestry department doing 'demonstration clearcuts' and a water quality law that exempts forestry activities from its stipulations and voluntary 'best management practices' with no teeth and no-one to check to see if they are followed. So, we have logging trucks using streambeds for roads and no regulatory infrastructure to oversee the chippers. Yes, you are correct, what we have is a forest resource management PROBLEM. The market has changed faster than our infrastructure could possible react to new conditions, thus we have called for a moratorium on new chippers and a study of regionwide cumulative impacts of existing mills so as to lay down baseline data from which to put together some meaningful policy decisions. In our region, if a chipper takes all the 40 year ageclass trees within reach of three sawmills, it puts them out of business because the trees they would have utilized in 15 years have gone to chips along with the rest. > Whether you are making wood-chips or wooden furniture, there a few > things to consider: > > 1) Jobs - the US economy is just beginning to pick up. House ownership > has gone up, retails are up. Yet everyone needs a job to support & to > provide for essentials & some luxuries in life - single or married. > But the chipping industry is highly automated and mechanized - employing only a handful of people. As I said, it uses up resources in a boom-bust economy destroying the resource that, if used sustainably and with selective harvesting, would keep dozens of local economies and hundreds of people in work for decades. > 2) Supply & demand - this is really a 'chicken & egg' situation. If all > Americans stop buying books, journals, newspapers, & other printed > material. Then there's a good chance that the chapter on wood-chipping > may be closed. In traditional economic theory, the factors of production > are - land, labor & capital. In this new era, they are - land, labor, > capital & INFORMATION. As most countries, including yours & mine move > into the next millennium, the demand for information will reach critical > mass. Thus the name - 'information age'. An engineer told me that > children of this age are receiving & digesting information 5X in > quantum, compared to those less than a decade ago. > > Hence, the call of the IT industry to move into a paperless (or less > paper) society. As an IT professional myself, I'm designing systems to > move my organisation into that direction. Yes, I think there's great > potential for environmentalists & IT folks to form great strategic > 'green' partnerships. You'll be surprised by the amount of resistance IT > folks have to face in implementing 'paperless' concepts in any > organisation. Personally, I find a lot of 'greenies' somewhat ignorant > & disinterested in the subject/discussion of a paperless > society/environment. > I agree, but it's because for all the talk about the paperless environment - the opposite has proven true. I create software and promote integration of handheld computers, barcode and transponder scanning and electronic data interchange, but many companies would rather continue losing money than spend some to reduce cost over the long run. And they have all discovered that IT carries a higher paper demand than their old methods did. Heck, most of the chips and pulp exported out of the US are for either high grade printing papers or relatively low grade computer paper (most). > Look this up too: > > Sleeping with the Enemy > > http://www.enn.com/newswire/080697/08069707.htm > > > What solidifies my resolve in this is the flippant way agroforesters > > peer through their blinders apparently unable or unwilling to see that > > > > the effects of widespread forest destruction and conversion to > > monocultures are bringing about many ominous ecological effects which > > will have far reaching impacts on all of us regardless of where we > > live. > > A rather somewhat generalisation here, Bruce. I'm sure foresters have > their share of problems too. > Again, what I mean is the science has not caught up with the pace of change and the evidence that is mounting that things are getting WAY out of kilter. > > I have seen the documentaries, as I'm sure you have, of people in > > Haiti > > who toil all day in dust to chop up the stumps of what used to be > > verdant rainforests to accumulate wood to burn into charcoal which > > they > > carry over fifty miles on the back of a burro to Port Au Prince to > > sell > > for enough to buy a sack of rice to feed their family for a week ... > > then repeat the process. Is this the life we shall look forward to > > when > > the woodchippers and monoculturists have depleted the soils of the > > life-giving earth to little more than moondust? > > Yes, my parents were survivors/victims of the Japanese Imperial Army > during WWII. We are no strangers to poverty here. That's also why I've > participated in the ITTO technical workshops over the last two years - > to help developing countries construct & implement IT infra-structures > for good forest management. > I can only hope that includes efforts to restore the WHOLE of the forest ecosystems. Monocultures leave a huge deficit if there is not an effort to restore NATURALLY balanced ecosystems. I do not believe man will EVER evolve the wisdom of a centipede in a nurse log - no matter how much intelligence we may claim. > > The Earth cannot "meet the demands" of the pulp and paper industry > > which > > are nothing more than the demands of a race of beings who will not > > accept the fact that resources on this planet are finite until they > > wake > > up to find them all gone even as commercials continue to try to soothe > > > > them into buying yet more. > > More accurately, the earth cannot meet the consumption patterns of the > First World. That's why the developing countries are put off by the lack > of commitment & followup by developed countries since Rio. At the recent > ECOSOC of the UN, Ms. Hurtado, Director of Global Policy & Campaigns for > Consumers International, commented, 'Developed countries are responsible > for 85% of the use of natural resources but have less than a quarter of > the world's population...that's where things have to change'. Yet their > failure to stand up & be counted at the ECOSOC in Geneva is tragic! > Last but not least, Bruce, I appreciate your contribution to this > discussion & hope to hear more from you. > I am appalled at the US's seeming lack of resolve as you are. And I share the blame as a member of an overconsumptive society - but I do attempt to limit my resource use, maximize my recycling and advocate for change ... only someone who never climbed a two hundred year old oak to see over the hill would do less. > God bless > > Nelson Wong > MTC Cheers, hope we can generate some activity on the list !
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0