This is a follow-up to my previous question re how many trees are felled for a ream of paper...
2007-03-05 04:29:42 · 3 answers · asked by Abel M 1 in Environment
I know papers aren't the direct product of trees. I find it uncalled for when people include that fact when they answer. This is a self-explanatory question. Trees are felled for various reasons and my question relates felling trees for the purpose of producing paper...
2007-03-05 04:50:18 · update #1
It depends on the type of tree and where it grows. Trees aren't cut down to make paper. They are cut to make wood products and paper is made from the scrap saw dust and little bits.
If we didn't use any paper, we would still cut down trees. Good thing about trees is you can grow more and you can cut them down again.
2007-03-05 04:35:51 · answer #1 · answered by Grant d 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
from an environmental point of view, it would be great if the paper companies would wait until they are at least 80 years old.
Trees act as a carbon sink, they remove CO2 from the atmosphere. However, they also add some CO2 back into the atmosphere. The ratio of removal to addition evens out for most tree species at about 80 years, so at that point the tree is no longer functioning as a sink, so cut away.
2007-03-05 13:17:19 · answer #2 · answered by permh20 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It shouldn't. We can make rice paper, which means we grow all we require to make paper without having to clearcut.
Also there's paper you can make from the bark of a certain tree but I'm unable to find the tree name at this time.
2007-03-05 12:42:51 · answer #3 · answered by Luis 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋