San Lumen wrote:Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
"You dick, you just cut down that tree!"
"Nothing of the sort. I created some lumber."
"You killed a tree!"
"Economic growth!"
Seriously we should stop counting stuff dug out of the ground as "production" because it's not literally produced, it simultaneously glosses over the way we use up natural capital, and pumps the economic growth figure deceptively.
Forests are renewable, and if only we could source it all from tree farms (ie we'd planted enough 20 and 30 years ago), production of lumber and woodchip could validly be counted as economic gain.
Wood is still one of the best things to build a basic house from, and while not carbon neutral (soil degradation spoils that) it still has a very low impact compared to steel, brick or concrete. It's very difficult to strike the right balance here: I want to bring tree farm supplies up to demand, so no old growth has to be cut in the US or elsewhere ... but there's no way of making a tree grow more quickly. For once I don't want to use the tax hammer. The price of wood has to go up, way up, to bring the demand down to renewable supply for now. That means huge profits for the few companies still able to fell and process wood, but that is unavoidable because that demonstrates to farmers with marginal grazing land (and not too much debt) that tree farming promises more future reward for them than barely surviving running stock.
I am certain that wood will still be in demand 20 or 30 years from now when it becomes available in quantity (AND renewable) again. But for now, banning imports and restricting access to public forests, creating artificial scarcity and driving up prices of all wood products, is the only way to guarantee that future generations have access to affordable wood products AND beautiful old-growth forests.
But more likely government will just protect the forests in the US, do nothing at all to stimulate tree farm planting, and simply import however much wood or products is necessary to keep prices down. Canada or Brazil (etc) can cut down their forests ... not our problem right?
National forests are supposed to be protected from logging.
Yeah?
The Republican imperative to reduce imports will still be there when Trump is gone. They can't resist the nationalism of it, and I doubt Democrats will push back hard because of Jobs.
That puts a limit on how much wood and wood-chips and paper can be sourced from foreign countries. Well unless they make an exception for Canada ... they're not all that foreign.
I want you to acknowledge (or refute) my claim that there aren't enough tree farms to provide all the wood and wood-chip American industry wants at current prices.
Saying "don't cut down our forests" is perfectly valid and I agree. I do need to hear your proposal of what to do instead. Maybe it's "build with steel instead, and tax paper to reduce consumption while increasing recycling" and fine. I'm not going to monster you if your idea is different from mine, I just want to hear your alternative to cutting down American forests.
