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

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.