4 ms·

Save The Trees - Use More Paper

3 points by apsec112 14y ago

gethoht 14y ago
What this article is describing (trees as a renewable resource for paper/etc) isn’t a natural forest, it’s silviculture. Sure Georgia Pacific etc. will plant a bunch of trees to replace what they mowed through but those trees are all one species and age. The “forests” they create are not good for the environment. They drain the water table, they limit biological diversity and do little ecological good. Ecology is more than just “how many trees are planted, period”, it’s the overall health of a forest/system. The forests that paper companies maintain are not ecologically sound; they’re just a crop, little different from corn or any other agriculture the article mentions. The best thing we could do to make paper more sustainable would be to switch to hemp.
facorreia 14y ago
It amazes me most people can't understand this. It's pure logic. The comparison with cows and beefs is a good one.
- allardschip 14y ago
  Beef especially is very taxing on the environment. It takes a lot of energy to get to beef and there is methane from cow manure causing greenhouse effects. I enjoy a nice steak but suggesting there is no negative side effect to the environment....
  - facorreia 14y ago
    That's where the comparision breaks down. The point is, the more beef people eat, the more cows there will be, not less. Same as the more paper people use, the more trees there will be, not less. Of course the impact of cows and trees on the environment is different and besides the point.
- gethoht 14y ago
  It's only pure logic if you think that more trees = healthy forests. The real equation is much more complicated and includes biodiversity and other factors.
allardschip 14y ago
Sounds rational but the numbers dont't add up. There is still a net loss of forests. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest#Forest_loss_and_management http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest#Forest_loss_and_manageme... Quote: In the United States, most forests have historically been affected by humans to some degree, though in recent years improved forestry practices has helped regulate or moderate large scale or severe impacts. However, the United States Forest Service estimates a net loss of about 2 million hectares (4,942,000 acres) between 1997 and 2020; this estimate includes conversion of forest land to other uses, including urban and suburban development, as well as afforestation and natural reversion of abandoned crop and pasture land to forest. However, in many areas of the United States, the area of forest is stable or increasing, particularly in many northern states. The opposite problem from flooding has plagued national forests, with loggers complaining that a lack of thinning and proper forest management has resulted in large forest fires.
greenyoda 14y ago
Unfortunately, the manufacturing of paper pollutes the environment, so increasing use of paper will increase the level of pollution. For example, the nice white paper that's used by your printer requires chlorine compounds to bleach it, and these get discharged into the environment. See, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_pollution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_pollution Also, transporting trees to mills and operating the mills requires energy, whose use and production also causes pollution (e.g., waste products from large trucks and oil refineries that end up in the atmosphere).

3 points by apsec112 14y ago

What this article is describing (trees as a renewable resource for paper/etc) isn’t a natural forest, it’s silviculture. Sure Georgia Pacific etc. will plant a bunch of trees to replace what they mowed through but those trees are all one species and age. The “forests” they create are not good for the environment. They drain the water table, they limit biological diversity and do little ecological good. Ecology is more than just “how many trees are planted, period”, it’s the overall health of a forest/system. The forests that paper companies maintain are not ecologically sound; they’re just a crop, little different from corn or any other agriculture the article mentions. The best thing we could do to make paper more sustainable would be to switch to hemp.

facorreia 14y ago

It amazes me most people can't understand this. It's pure logic. The comparison with cows and beefs is a good one.

allardschip 14y ago
Beef especially is very taxing on the environment. It takes a lot of energy to get to beef and there is methane from cow manure causing greenhouse effects. I enjoy a nice steak but suggesting there is no negative side effect to the environment....
- facorreia 14y ago
  That's where the comparision breaks down. The point is, the more beef people eat, the more cows there will be, not less. Same as the more paper people use, the more trees there will be, not less. Of course the impact of cows and trees on the environment is different and besides the point.
gethoht 14y ago
It's only pure logic if you think that more trees = healthy forests. The real equation is much more complicated and includes biodiversity and other factors.

allardschip 14y ago

Sounds rational but the numbers dont't add up. There is still a net loss of forests. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest#Forest_loss_and_management http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest#Forest_loss_and_manageme... Quote: In the United States, most forests have historically been affected by humans to some degree, though in recent years improved forestry practices has helped regulate or moderate large scale or severe impacts. However, the United States Forest Service estimates a net loss of about 2 million hectares (4,942,000 acres) between 1997 and 2020; this estimate includes conversion of forest land to other uses, including urban and suburban development, as well as afforestation and natural reversion of abandoned crop and pasture land to forest. However, in many areas of the United States, the area of forest is stable or increasing, particularly in many northern states. The opposite problem from flooding has plagued national forests, with loggers complaining that a lack of thinning and proper forest management has resulted in large forest fires.

greenyoda 14y ago

Unfortunately, the manufacturing of paper pollutes the environment, so increasing use of paper will increase the level of pollution. For example, the nice white paper that's used by your printer requires chlorine compounds to bleach it, and these get discharged into the environment. See, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_pollution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_pollution Also, transporting trees to mills and operating the mills requires energy, whose use and production also causes pollution (e.g., waste products from large trucks and oil refineries that end up in the atmosphere).