5 ms·

> Forest harvest followed by replanting is not deforestation. Nitpick on this point - economically, perhaps, but not environmentally when considering the biodi

> Forest harvest followed by replanting is not deforestation. Nitpick on this point - economically, perhaps, but not environmentally when considering the biodiversity and volume of undergrowth destroyed in the harvesting process. Some of it may come back quickly but millennia of niche/microclimate adaptation is easily lost.

hcurtiss 4y ago
Stand replacement events are natural too, driven principally by fire, wind, and landslides. The mistake many make, I think, is to presume there is some static “natural” state —- some mythic Eden —- in which, absent man’s influence, everything persists in perfect harmony. To the contrary, these are dynamic systems attuned to periodic violent change over time. Industrial forest harvest may not perfectly replicate nature, but that’s not the end of the inquiry. The question, I think, is whether the trade-offs are worth it given society’s profound need for homes, and given the relative impact of alternatives. Particularly given modern forest practices, I am highly skeptical lab-grown wood would scale with lesser impacts than utilizing the forests we already have, many of which are on their third or fourth harvest rotation. But all of that is beside the point I made above. In the US, forests of all age classes are trending up, not down. Much of this is driven by our radical curtailment of federal land harvest in the nineties (which came at the profound cost of sacrificing many rural communities).
- heurist 4y ago
  Yes, disaster happens. But usually not all at once. I discovered that all of the places I have lived so far were clearcut in the late 1800's/early 1900's. When I say clearcut, I'm not talking about the size of a neighborhood or city, I mean areas that are geographically significant - areas you can see from space, which encapsulated hundreds or thousands of distinct ecosystems. That's a much less frequent disaster and one that is very difficult if not impossible for an ecosystem to fully recover from. And homes could be built much more efficiently than they are (dense mixed use multifamily over single family residences), and at least in the US the claims of a housing shortage may not be entirely accurate. There are 140M housing units in the US and 120M families, according to the 2020 census. There's a difference between a lack of homes and lack of homes in places people want to live. I tend to agree that industrial production of lab-grown timber is not viable today. Hard to compete with the cost of soil and sun when relying on processed nutrients and energy for lighting and climate control. But it's an exciting development toward something that could someday be better than plastic.
  - hcurtiss 4y ago
    I don't actually think I disagree with any of that. I would note, though, that the pre-European burn scars could have definitely been viewed from space.[1] And today, at least in the PNW, clearcuts are limited in size (e.g., in Oregon and Washington, they're limited to 120 acres, and are on average much smaller). [1]http://www.nwmapsco.com/ZybachB/Presentations/2010-2015/20121205_AFE/Great_Fires_20121205.pdf http://www.nwmapsco.com/ZybachB/Presentations/2010-2015/2012...
- markandrewj 4y ago
  The ecology of a primary forest, and a tree farm, are not the same. Besides material use, forests also provide a number of benefits. There are a number of floods which have occured recently in over logged areas which highlight this. Saplings and young trees will not provide resilience to these kinds of natural disasters without being left to mature. Clean water provided by watersheds would be another example of a benefit provided by a healthy primary forest. It is true that natural events also impact forests, but in different ways then logging or damage created by industry. That is why many foresters implement controlled burns. Controlled burns leave nutrients that are required by plants in the understory to mature. Some species of plants actually require the heat to realse their seeds. Forests are also more then trees, they are a system with a number of symbiotic relationships, and modern research is revealing those relationships are more complex then once thought. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Un2yBgIAxYs https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Un2yBgIAxYs I do understand that as a material timber has a number of uses. I just don't know if I agree that the way way industry manages forests is sustainable, at least in Canada. The best mills I worked with were aware of this and were making efforts to find sustainable ways to manage their resources, so they could continue to both keep their natural resources healthy, and their businesses. One of the issues has been the demand for timber often outpaces the amount of time it takes to grow new mature trees, for either ecological or industrial use. Just as some background regarding my experience within the industry, I have provided a presentation below which is based on the presenters book. The presenter was involved with colleagues I worked with. People within the company I worked with were also involved changing how trees are planted in Canada. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bu-FbqFaFAQ&t=78s https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bu-FbqFaFAQ&t=78s You mentioned you were also involved in the industry. If you feel comfortable talking about it, could your provide some information about your experiences. I am open to other perspectives.
  - hcurtiss 4y ago
    I am general counsel for a large PNW landowner and lumber manufacturer. I will watch your presentation. Thank you for sharing it.
    - markandrewj 4y ago

hcurtiss 4y ago

Stand replacement events are natural too, driven principally by fire, wind, and landslides. The mistake many make, I think, is to presume there is some static “natural” state —- some mythic Eden —- in which, absent man’s influence, everything persists in perfect harmony. To the contrary, these are dynamic systems attuned to periodic violent change over time. Industrial forest harvest may not perfectly replicate nature, but that’s not the end of the inquiry. The question, I think, is whether the trade-offs are worth it given society’s profound need for homes, and given the relative impact of alternatives. Particularly given modern forest practices, I am highly skeptical lab-grown wood would scale with lesser impacts than utilizing the forests we already have, many of which are on their third or fourth harvest rotation. But all of that is beside the point I made above. In the US, forests of all age classes are trending up, not down. Much of this is driven by our radical curtailment of federal land harvest in the nineties (which came at the profound cost of sacrificing many rural communities).

heurist 4y ago
Yes, disaster happens. But usually not all at once. I discovered that all of the places I have lived so far were clearcut in the late 1800's/early 1900's. When I say clearcut, I'm not talking about the size of a neighborhood or city, I mean areas that are geographically significant - areas you can see from space, which encapsulated hundreds or thousands of distinct ecosystems. That's a much less frequent disaster and one that is very difficult if not impossible for an ecosystem to fully recover from. And homes could be built much more efficiently than they are (dense mixed use multifamily over single family residences), and at least in the US the claims of a housing shortage may not be entirely accurate. There are 140M housing units in the US and 120M families, according to the 2020 census. There's a difference between a lack of homes and lack of homes in places people want to live. I tend to agree that industrial production of lab-grown timber is not viable today. Hard to compete with the cost of soil and sun when relying on processed nutrients and energy for lighting and climate control. But it's an exciting development toward something that could someday be better than plastic.
- hcurtiss 4y ago
  I don't actually think I disagree with any of that. I would note, though, that the pre-European burn scars could have definitely been viewed from space.[1] And today, at least in the PNW, clearcuts are limited in size (e.g., in Oregon and Washington, they're limited to 120 acres, and are on average much smaller). [1]http://www.nwmapsco.com/ZybachB/Presentations/2010-2015/20121205_AFE/Great_Fires_20121205.pdf http://www.nwmapsco.com/ZybachB/Presentations/2010-2015/2012...
markandrewj 4y ago
The ecology of a primary forest, and a tree farm, are not the same. Besides material use, forests also provide a number of benefits. There are a number of floods which have occured recently in over logged areas which highlight this. Saplings and young trees will not provide resilience to these kinds of natural disasters without being left to mature. Clean water provided by watersheds would be another example of a benefit provided by a healthy primary forest. It is true that natural events also impact forests, but in different ways then logging or damage created by industry. That is why many foresters implement controlled burns. Controlled burns leave nutrients that are required by plants in the understory to mature. Some species of plants actually require the heat to realse their seeds. Forests are also more then trees, they are a system with a number of symbiotic relationships, and modern research is revealing those relationships are more complex then once thought. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Un2yBgIAxYs https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Un2yBgIAxYs I do understand that as a material timber has a number of uses. I just don't know if I agree that the way way industry manages forests is sustainable, at least in Canada. The best mills I worked with were aware of this and were making efforts to find sustainable ways to manage their resources, so they could continue to both keep their natural resources healthy, and their businesses. One of the issues has been the demand for timber often outpaces the amount of time it takes to grow new mature trees, for either ecological or industrial use. Just as some background regarding my experience within the industry, I have provided a presentation below which is based on the presenters book. The presenter was involved with colleagues I worked with. People within the company I worked with were also involved changing how trees are planted in Canada. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bu-FbqFaFAQ&t=78s https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=bu-FbqFaFAQ&t=78s You mentioned you were also involved in the industry. If you feel comfortable talking about it, could your provide some information about your experiences. I am open to other perspectives.
- hcurtiss 4y ago
  I am general counsel for a large PNW landowner and lumber manufacturer. I will watch your presentation. Thank you for sharing it.
  - markandrewj 4y ago