4 ms·
Is there reason to believe they're using old-growth trees rather than managed forests? I would guess the former are more valuable in actual wood products.
by rory096 7y ago
Is there reason to believe they're using old-growth trees rather than managed forests? I would guess the former are more valuable in actual wood products.
- hjek 7y agoFrom what I can read here[0], I get the impression that turning unmanaged forests into managed forests is itself a threat to biodiversity: > These Southeastern coastal forests in the US are home to bears, endangered red wolves, salamanders and a number of bird species as well as many endemic plants. According to a 2015 report by the National Resources Defense Council, the potential pellet sourcing area for existing and proposed pellet mills includes “critical habitat for 25 species that are federally listed as endangered or imperilled”. The area has been classified as a biodiversity hotspot, meaning that it contains an unusually high level of biodiversity (2000 endemic species in all) and that it is threatened. The threats here come from forest degradation and fragmentation, caused by urbanisation and ‘forest industries’ such as biomass. [0]: https://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/2018/pellets-introduction/ https://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/2018/pellets-introduction/
- astrodust 7y agoValuable to whom? What if they're old trees but not suitable for lumber products, but are perfectly fine shredded up into chips and thrown into furnaces? Without protection everything's a useful asset to someone.