As a renewable resource should we not be promoting the timber industry?

Question

Have the tree huggers , considered what their social security form is made from

Answer 1

I don't have a problem with managed forests where trees are planted as others are felled for timber to renew stocks for the future but of course something should, indeed MUST be done for those forests which help in the world's global climate such as the Amazon Rain Forest and the forests in Brazil and so on. It's not only bad for the planet but also bad for the animals who inhabit such forests and are consequently in danger of being wiped out, such as the Orang Utan to name but one!

The amount of reusable timber which gets thrown away or put into landfill is also a BIG worry and problem.

About 6 weeks before Christmas, I started working as a voluntary employee with a local community timber recycling project. There we collect waste timber, take it back to our yard and de-nail/de-screw it, sort it, stack it and resell it back to small builders, those doing DIY and home improvements and so on at a MUCH reduced cost than they would have to pay if they went out and bought NEW timber. It's good for them, it's good for us and it's good for the world. More timber which is recycled and re-used, the less goes into landfill! We also use other timber we collect to re-use and make into other useful things, such as tables, benches, compost bins, packing cases and so on. We use or sell all we can and the timber which is unusable or unsaleable goes to a wood recyling plant where it's then made into MDF or chipboard etc etc.

And forgive me for saying so but trying to suggest that those who care and are active in trying to get this message across are NOT always on social security - although we call it income support now. Those who are are NOT necessarily tree huggers or activists - I'm certainly not - but at least I go out and put my time and efforts to good use rather than sitting around on my B-T-M doing nothing!

Anyway I have to go collect me pittance of unemployment benefit and pay my bills and do some shopping so that's all I have time for and I'm grateful for the opportunity to put the other side of the coin and get this matter debated. That can only be good, no matter WHICH side of the fence you happen to be sitting.

So finally I've posted some interesting/informative/useful links. There are many others like them but these ones are mine! ... Well they're not but I love that movie, too! :)

Answer 2

We do, in many ways. We build roads into forests, hold public timber sales, do research in timber farming, etc.

It's tricky environmentally, though. The most lucrative way to grow timber is to clear cut existing forests, and plant a single type of fast growing tree (a monoculture). That makes timber, but it doesn't make a forest ecology.

So we balance timber as an industry against forests as a resource for all kinds of things. In some places we allow clear cutting and replanting as monocultures, while in other areas we restrict timber farming, preserving more diverse forests for other purposes.

Obviously the timber industry is going to feel one way about how that balance works, and environmentalists another. The government has to try to find a reasonable balance. The only thing they can be sure of is that both sides will be unhappy with the results.

Answer 3

A slightly biased questioner me thinks.

Timber can be a renewable resource, and I don't think even "tree huggers" have a problem with such cases; eg Scandinavia

the problems come with clear-cut logging in areas where soil errosion, water pollution and landslips without tree cover is likely, see legacy of Luna;
or where a unique eco-system is irretrivably damaged as in the case of old growth forest and illegal logging.

Social security forms should be made from recycled paper and not require unsustainable timber practices; paper can be made from any plant material and many are more sustainable than trees if the cost of re-planting and responsible land stewardship is accounted for.
A forest can often be more profitable when left standing, however governments often subsidise clearance and road building in the name of "progress"; and banks require stupidly short payback periods which impose unsustainable practices on companies who grow on debt.

And all governments have agreed to Citees and to not using illegal timber, 'though many can't be bothered to check.

Answer 4

Usually, though, most persons define renewable as something you can take advantage of again in less than 50 or so years. Wiping out an acre of timber and replanting it doesn't mean you can some back to it next week and get anything useful from it. So, timber is not a "renewable" resource in a practical sense. Convert to solar, it's going to be there at a constantly available rate for the next 5 billion years or so.

Answer 5

Yes, trees are a renewable resource, but we use too many of them too quickly. Trees reduce the amount of Co2 in the air. Moderation in ALL things!

Answer 6

yes and also hemp production

Answer 7

impecable reasoning