3 ms·
Sounds to me like subsidizing old growth logging. More of those trees would have stayed in the ground if someone wasn’t buying 11% of the logs they cut to burn.
by kennywinker 4y ago
Sounds to me like subsidizing old growth logging. More of those trees would have stayed in the ground if someone wasn’t buying 11% of the logs they cut to burn.
- xyzzyz 4y agoWood pellet is around 4 times cheaper than construction lumber per pound. That means that these 11% of the logs capture less than 5% of the revenue of the entire operation.
- kennywinker 4y agoAssuming elastic demand, that’s 5% less logs cut. Why is the UK funding 5% of an old growth logging in BC as “sustainable energy”?