3 ms·

>Trees are felled somewhere. They could be planted for that purpose (fun fact: almost all paper comes from trees grown for that purpose, which complicates the s

by SilasX 4y ago

>Trees are felled somewhere. They could be planted for that purpose (fun fact: almost all paper comes from trees grown for that purpose, which complicates the story of recycling) or they could be in the wild. These places are typically remote. Tangent: That just blows my mind how that can be a thing. The trees take like, 20 years to be harvestable? And lumber at the source isn't that expensive? So, how can it be profitable to buy land and guard/maintain the trees for 20 years before you get any profit?

frosted-flakes 4y ago
In the case of Canada, most timber lots are owned by the government (Crown land), and the right to harvest* it is awarded by auction (I think). Harvesters must also plant new trees. How is it profitable? There is a lot of land. You can drive for many hours down well-maintained logging roads through the BC interior and never see a building anywhere, or even come across any other cars. * This is a point of contention for the US government because they feel that the Canadian lumber industry is government-subsidized and unfairly competes with US lumber producers. As a result, the US applies import taxes on Canadian lumber.
- throw0101a 4y ago
  > This is a point of contention for the US government because they feel that the Canadian lumber industry is government-subsidized and unfairly competes with US lumber producers. As a result, the US applies import taxes on Canadian lumber. This has been going on for decades: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada–United_States_softwood_lumber_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada–United_States_softwood_...
genocidicbunny 4y ago
You should check out exactly how much land is owned/used by some of the companies. Check out for example a satellite view of southern Oregon. You'll see a checkerboard pattern in the forests all over the place. Those are big patches of managed forest that are in various stages of growth. It's like a pipeline -- yes it might take 20 years to grow a patch to harvest quality, but you have 100 of these patches and only harvest 5 a year. By the time you get around to needing to reharvest patch #1 it'll have been 20 years and it will have regrown.

by SilasX 4y ago

frosted-flakes 4y ago

In the case of Canada, most timber lots are owned by the government (Crown land), and the right to harvest* it is awarded by auction (I think). Harvesters must also plant new trees. How is it profitable? There is a lot of land. You can drive for many hours down well-maintained logging roads through the BC interior and never see a building anywhere, or even come across any other cars. * This is a point of contention for the US government because they feel that the Canadian lumber industry is government-subsidized and unfairly competes with US lumber producers. As a result, the US applies import taxes on Canadian lumber.

throw0101a 4y ago
> This is a point of contention for the US government because they feel that the Canadian lumber industry is government-subsidized and unfairly competes with US lumber producers. As a result, the US applies import taxes on Canadian lumber. This has been going on for decades: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada–United_States_softwood_lumber_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada–United_States_softwood_...

genocidicbunny 4y ago

You should check out exactly how much land is owned/used by some of the companies. Check out for example a satellite view of southern Oregon. You'll see a checkerboard pattern in the forests all over the place. Those are big patches of managed forest that are in various stages of growth. It's like a pipeline -- yes it might take 20 years to grow a patch to harvest quality, but you have 100 of these patches and only harvest 5 a year. By the time you get around to needing to reharvest patch #1 it'll have been 20 years and it will have regrown.