2 ms·

I had the chance to ruminate about wood burning recently during a conversation. The conclusion I came to was that when there's few people and they're all manua

I had the chance to ruminate about wood burning recently during a conversation. The conclusion I came to was that when there's few people and they're all manually whacking at wood with axes you're (as a group) okay. When the wood collection is essentially strip mining a forest for millions of customers it just isn't the same thing. Not really comparable. Manual labor and using an axe is an efficient system in the sense that it ultimately limits use and production of wood per person.

b112 5y ago
Yup, it's all about population density. At the turn of the century, Canada was >70% rural or some such. Now, it's reversed. >70% urban. When you live on a farm, in the county, and own 100 acres, a few extra acres for wood provides a long supply of wood, with time for more to grow. Every farm tended to have rocky, unusable bits, but still ok for trees. Back then, before everyone had backhoes, removing large rocks, even small rocks, was work. So some fields were best left for trees. And one of your neighbours would likely own 1000 acres or more of bush land, ok for trees, but too rocky or swampy for farming. Or local crown land would be used for harvesting trees. Back when people went in with sleighs in the winter, felled trees by hand with axe and hand saw, no one strip cut. Why would they? (It is easier with horses to pull logs out on sleigh, in winter, than over uneven, soft ground. Especially in frozen swampy land. Even today, people will use snowmobiles and sleigh to get trees out for personal use.) Anyhow back then, it was only people living in higher density locations, away from nature, which exceeded easy supply. Of course, population growth happens, and wood burning can be dirty, so now we warm homes with other methods typically.
PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
Problem is of course that nobody threw a switch to go from one to another. Those two approaches to wood harvesting exist along a smooth spectrum and there was likely no point that you could easily identify as "the breaking point", even though each end is clearly distinct.
Nasrudith 5y ago
That is just wrong however. Europe outright depleted its forrest reserves in the age of sail, let alone farming uses. It took longer to reach but it was reached.

b112 5y ago

Yup, it's all about population density. At the turn of the century, Canada was >70% rural or some such. Now, it's reversed. >70% urban. When you live on a farm, in the county, and own 100 acres, a few extra acres for wood provides a long supply of wood, with time for more to grow. Every farm tended to have rocky, unusable bits, but still ok for trees. Back then, before everyone had backhoes, removing large rocks, even small rocks, was work. So some fields were best left for trees. And one of your neighbours would likely own 1000 acres or more of bush land, ok for trees, but too rocky or swampy for farming. Or local crown land would be used for harvesting trees. Back when people went in with sleighs in the winter, felled trees by hand with axe and hand saw, no one strip cut. Why would they? (It is easier with horses to pull logs out on sleigh, in winter, than over uneven, soft ground. Especially in frozen swampy land. Even today, people will use snowmobiles and sleigh to get trees out for personal use.) Anyhow back then, it was only people living in higher density locations, away from nature, which exceeded easy supply. Of course, population growth happens, and wood burning can be dirty, so now we warm homes with other methods typically.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago

Problem is of course that nobody threw a switch to go from one to another. Those two approaches to wood harvesting exist along a smooth spectrum and there was likely no point that you could easily identify as "the breaking point", even though each end is clearly distinct.

Nasrudith 5y ago

That is just wrong however. Europe outright depleted its forrest reserves in the age of sail, let alone farming uses. It took longer to reach but it was reached.