Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The author of that article lies about clear cutting forests: that has not been done for commercial purposes for well over a century-- the foresters having come to their senses long ago, realizing they need to be better stewards of the forests in order to maintain sustainability and future profits....Clear cutting smaller patches is now done only to get rid of unhealthy stands of timber in order to plant & develop more healthy ecosystems.
The author also naively (or disingenuously?) uses the term "virgin fiber," implying that they are cutting "virgin forests."...Not the same....Virgin fiber is made directly from trees, as opposed to fiber from re-cycled paper. That's why re-cycling paper has limited usefulness--- The re-cycled fibers are damaged and shorter-- the resulting paper of inferior quality.....Virgin forests are those that have never been logged before-- precious little of that left in N.Am.
Using paper & wood products of any type for any reason is one of the most environmentally beneficial things we can do-- Trees are 100% re-cyclable-- Whether we use them or not, trees grow, taking co2 out of the air, die and decompose, returning co2 to the atm. NO NET CHANGE in atm [co2] Carbon Cycle. 5th grade science.;
Hemp pulp paper can be made without any chemicals from the hemp plant’s hurd (pulp). Moreover, the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture found that an acre of hemp could manufacture four times more paper compared to a single acre of trees.
The quality of hemp paper is superior to tree-based paper. Hemp paper will last hundreds of years without degrading, can be recycled many more times than tree-based paper, and requires less toxic chemicals in the manufacturing process than does paper made from trees.
Hemp can be used to produce fiberboard that is stronger and lighter than wood. Substituting hemp fiberboard for timber would further reduce the need to cut down our forests.
Hemp can be used to produce strong, durable and environmentally-friendly plastic substitutes. Thousands of products made from petroleum-based plastics can be produced from hemp-based composites.
It takes years for trees to grow until they can be harvested for paper or wood, but hemp is ready for harvesting only 120 days after it is planted. Hemp can grow on most land suitable for farming, while forests and tree farms require large tracts of land available in few locations. Harvesting hemp rather than trees would also eliminate erosion due to logging, thereby reducing topsoil loss and water pollution caused by soil runoff.
MANY more uses for hemp are listed in the rest of the article.
We need to define terms: I was referring to the complete deforestation of many sq miles at a crack done in the 19th century, although technically clear cutting is the opposite of selective harvesting of only some of the trees in a stand, area involved unspecified.
Now, clear cutting is done on boreal forest (conifers-- as opposed to hardwood beech/ maple or oak/hickory hardwood, climax forests), but only a few hundred sq meters at a time. Note in the attached reference, the drainage valleys are only separated by a few hundred feet: https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/earth-scienc...resources/9513
Over the years I have seen many pictures of our area at the turn of the 19th century and, yes, there were no trees left standing. Huge, old growth, hemlock trees were dropped so they could be stripped of their bark simply to tan hides. Many homes were heated by wood or used wood to start the coal fires. Plus many cities were built of wood. Then we had the trains and utility companies that used wood. All of that and more and nobody worried about replacing the vanishing forest. It wasn't until years later that the companies realized they could not continue down the same road.
One point in this conversation is that I presume that most people would switch to using a bidet if they had no toilet paper. I found this one link that claims we would also save water if we switched: https://www.bidet.org/blogs/news/how...es-a-bidet-use. However; that article might have the strong influence of the bidet lobby? I would like to see a response from the TP lobbies.
Over the years I have seen many pictures of our area at the turn of the 19th century and, yes, there were no trees left standing. . .
WI is now "The Dairy State" thanks to the loggers who wiped out the forests for lumber to build Chicago, Milwaukee and Minneapolis in the 19th century. Those first lumberjacks here were New Englanders looking for work after they finished off their home forests. When they started here, they were felling old growth white pines that were 20 feet in diameter. Today you'd be hard pressed to find one 4 ft in diameter. They left large swaths of denuded hill sides that were too steep & rocky to conveniently turn into crop land but could easily be turned into pasture for dairy herds.
There is almost no "old growth" forest left in the continental US. Foresters now replant with conifers as mono-crop stands which are eventually harvested (clear cut) like any other crop and the cycle repeated. In my area of oak/hickory forest in central WI, selective harvesting is the rule. One problem we do have is that most of the oak is now mature with few young oaks for replacement. Young oaks need a good deal of open area for adequate sunlight and the large deer population likes to munch on the tasty saplings, so few are surviving long.
The OP here claims Canada's virgin northern forests are being used for TP production. I find it hard to believe it's economically feasible to log remote areas and ship the raw product to mills for processing when there's so much "crop forest" in more geographically preferable areas to exploit.
In regards bidet-- water doesn't mix well with the lipid-laden material to be cleaned. Why turn to an inferior method when TP is 100% recyclable and it's production has little negative effect on the environment? Does anybody lament the fate of the cornstalk each year at harvest time? Why worry about a tree whose fate it would be to die and decay on the forest floor if it were not put to some useful purpose first before decaying? Either way, it decays.
WI is now "The Dairy State" thanks to the loggers who wiped out the forests for lumber to build Chicago, Milwaukee and Minneapolis in the 19th century. Those first lumberjacks here were New Englanders looking for work after they finished off their home forests. When they started here, they were felling old growth white pines that were 20 feet in diameter. Today you'd be hard pressed to find one 4 ft in diameter. They left large swaths of denuded hill sides that were too steep & rocky to conveniently turn into crop land but could easily be turned into pasture for dairy herds.
There is almost no "old growth" forest left in the continental US. Foresters now replant with conifers as mono-crop stands which are eventually harvested (clear cut) like any other crop and the cycle repeated. In my area of oak/hickory forest in central WI, selective harvesting is the rule. One problem we do have is that most of the oak is now mature with few young oaks for replacement. Young oaks need a good deal of open area for adequate sunlight and the large deer population likes to munch on the tasty saplings, so few are surviving long.
The OP here claims Canada's virgin northern forests are being used for TP production. I find it hard to believe it's economically feasible to log remote areas and ship the raw product to mills for processing when there's so much "crop forest" in more geographically preferable areas to exploit.
The OP should be worried about invasive insects. On my five acres alone I have 20 dying Ash trees from the Emerald Ash borer. I removed 12 Hemlocks because they were dying from the Woolly Adelgids. I removed my pear and apple trees because they had the fire blight. Many of my oak, maple, and Scotch pine are in trouble because of other invasive insects like the gypsy moths. Then my County is now in a quarantine zone for the lanternflies and a watch list for the Asian longhorn beetle.
I am starting to believe that the US is being terraformed with all the Asian invasive pest and invasive vegetation. I am curious what we will look like in fifty or one hundred years? Perhaps we will be harvesting bamboo and hemp to wipe our butts!
Many of the large land owners had their ash trees timbered off as the emerald ash borer moved into our area. But I see piles of logs laying, that had been harvested, and not being shipped off to the lumber mills; I presume the mills are swamped and the market for the trees has dried up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto
In regards bidet-- water doesn't mix well with the lipid-laden material to be cleaned. Why turn to an inferior method when TP is 100% recyclable and it's production has little negative effect on the environment? Does anybody lament the fate of the cornstalk each year at harvest time? Why worry about a tree whose fate it would be to die and decay on the forest floor if it were not put to some useful purpose first before decaying? Either way, it decays.
That website for the bidets was claiming that they saved so much water over TP. Like I said when I posted it; I wanted to hear the response from the paper mills. Whoever has a vested interest in their own product is going to paint a rosy picture.
The OP here claims Canada's virgin northern forests are being used for TP production. I find it hard to believe it's economically feasible to log remote areas and ship the raw product to mills for processing when there's so much "crop forest" in more geographically preferable areas to exploit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by guidoLaMoto
Read the penultimate paragraph of the article-- property owners can make more money by subdividing their land for vacation homes than by logging. That's the real complaint. Follow the money, as they say.
Yeah Guido, I have to agree with you that boreal virgin forest trees in northern Canada are not getting logged out. They aren't even getting looked at. There is no way to get into it in the first place, let alone take trees out of it.
I think the author of the article was confusing boreal forest with some other kinds of forests somewhere else where the land is accessible. He apparently doesn't know what Canada's boreal forest actually is, or what it is like and how there are no roads in it (it's not possible to build roads there), it's pretty much impossible to access except to fly over it, and impossible to take logs out. It's all millions of lakes and muskeg with stunted trees rooted growing up out of peat rafts floating on top of the water. A boat won't go through it and a person can't even walk in it without breaking through and sinking beneath the floating muskeg rafts and roots and drowning trapped beneath them.
There are no property owners subdividing land in the northern boreal forests, there aren't even any property owners. There are no people, no infrastructure, no roads, no nothing except endless swamp and peaty lakes, stunted trees and billions and trillions of biting and sucking insects that will swarm anything warm blooded and suffocate it while literally eating it alive. Literally eat it alive, no exaggeration. Nobody in their right mind attempts to go into the boreal forests. The northlands all belong to Canada's Crown and the Crown isn't selling, besides which, as mentioned above it is inaccessible and 100% inhospitable to humans so nobody would want to buy any of it anyway even if the Crown decided to put some of it up for sale.
It would have been better if the author had done some research about the impossibility of Canada's rugged, dangerous geography before jumping onto the band wagon about northern boreal forests. The boreal forests of the northern hemisphere (including the northern Eurasian continent too) serve an extremely important function for the environment but definitely not for accessing or for using the wood for anything.
Lol. You don't know much about boreal forests or Canada, do you? You don't have to go to roadless areas of remotest Canada to find boreal forests. There are boreal forests in a half dozen states in the US. There are roads into many parts of northern Canada, and they go farther every year. They also have winter roads and winter logging. And the boreal forests are being logged.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoisite
Yeah Guido, I have to agree with you that boreal virgin forest trees in northern Canada are not getting logged out. They aren't even getting looked at. There is no way to get into it in the first place, let alone take trees out of it.
I think the author of the article was confusing boreal forest with some other kinds of forests somewhere else where the land is accessible. He apparently doesn't know what Canada's boreal forest actually is, or what it is like and how there are no roads in it (it's not possible to build roads there), it's pretty much impossible to access except to fly over it, and impossible to take logs out. It's all millions of lakes and muskeg with stunted trees rooted growing up out of peat rafts floating on top of the water. A boat won't go through it and a person can't even walk in it without breaking through and sinking beneath the floating muskeg rafts and roots and drowning trapped beneath them.
There are no property owners subdividing land in the northern boreal forests, there aren't even any property owners. There are no people, no infrastructure, no roads, no nothing except endless swamp and peaty lakes, stunted trees and billions and trillions of biting and sucking insects that will swarm anything warm blooded and suffocate it while literally eating it alive. Literally eat it alive, no exaggeration. Nobody in their right mind attempts to go into the boreal forests. The northlands all belong to Canada's Crown and the Crown isn't selling, besides which, as mentioned above it is inaccessible and 100% inhospitable to humans so nobody would want to buy any of it anyway even if the Crown decided to put some of it up for sale.
It would have been better if the author had done some research about the impossibility of Canada's rugged, dangerous geography before jumping onto the band wagon about northern boreal forests. The boreal forests of the northern hemisphere (including the northern Eurasian continent too) serve an extremely important function for the environment but definitely not for accessing or for using the wood for anything.
I am starting to believe that the US is being terraformed with all the Asian invasive pest and invasive vegetation. I am curious what we will look like in fifty or one hundred years? Perhaps we will be harvesting bamboo and hemp to wipe our butts!
.
Maybe we'll get an unforeseen benefit to Trump's trade war? No more invasives hitching a ride on wood pallets.
Sounds like you've got some bad problems in PA. Luckily, we're cold enough here in winter to kill off and limit many of those evil bugs. When I first bought this property, we we're being over-run by Gypsy Moths, but the county & state did a mass aero-spray and eliminated the problem in one year. It didn't seem to hurt anything else. I'm over-run with all sorts of butterflies now.
To claim a bidet uses less water than TP must take into account the water used in the production of paper. You gotta flush the commode once with or without TP. The bidet would be extra water.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoisite
There are no property owners subdividing land in the northern boreal forests, there aren't even any property owners. There are no people, no infrastructure, no roads, no nothing except endless swamp and peaty lakes, stunted trees and billions and trillions of biting and sucking insects that will swarm anything warm blooded and suffocate it while literally eating it alive. Literally eat it alive, no exaggeration. Nobody in their right mind attempts to go into the boreal forests
.
Sounds lovely. I wish I had the bear grease concession there.
To Deserterer: I think Zoisite was talking about northern Canada. I'm in WI at 45*N latitude and live farther north than about half of Canada's population. There's a lotta empty territory up there, and he can look out his front window and see it. "Boreal forest" is dominated by conifers, as opposed to deciduous forest dominated by hardwoods. Pines have certain advantages due to waxy leaves and angled branches in drier, snowier areas with lower angle of sunlight.
Maybe we'll get an unforeseen benefit to Trump's trade war? No more invasives hitching a ride on wood pallets.
Sounds like you've got some bad problems in PA. Luckily, we're cold enough here in winter to kill off and limit many of those evil bugs. When I first bought this property, we we're being over-run by Gypsy Moths, but the county & state did a mass aero-spray and eliminated the problem in one year. It didn't seem to hurt anything else. I'm over-run with all sorts of butterflies now.
uggabugga just posted this link (https://www.theguardian.com/environm...risis-resource) on the forum on the decline of insects. You had better hope your too cold; because I do not think you're out of harm's way. It is possible it simply did not catch up to you.
Lol. You don't know much about boreal forests or Canada, do you? You don't have to go to roadless areas of remotest Canada to find boreal forests. There are boreal forests in a half dozen states in the US. There are roads into many parts of northern Canada, and they go farther every year. They also have winter roads and winter logging. And the boreal forests are being logged.
I was born and raised in northern Canada and I've lived in Canada for over 7 decades so I think I've had enough time to become familiar enough with it.
I was talking about the boreal forest region in northern Canada, which is what the OP's article was referring to, except in the article they've got the locations confused.
The northern Canada boreal zone is the boreal taiga ecozone. It's all wetlands with no infrastructure, as I described in my previous post. No clear cutting possible. Do an internet search of images of aerial views of the northern boreal taiga wetlands and you'll see for yourself why there is no access to foresters and forestry practices. Okay?
However, there is also the southern Canada boreal ecozone and there IS forestry industry happening in the southern boreal regions because that's where most of Canada's populations are, there is more infrastructure, more roads and bridges and railroads and river traffic and greater ease of accessibility into the southern forests.
There is only one USA state that has boreal forest and that is Alaska. There are no others so I believe that you must be thinking of some other kinds of forests in USA south of the Canadian border. You can find on the maps here where all of North America's boreal and other classifications of forests are. Boreal Forest in North America
There is also some information there about the forestry industry and management in the boreal forests in the more accessiblesouthern parts of Canada where the bulk of boreal forestry industries takes place, but again, there is no clear cutting in the northern boreal taiga wetlands region.
Yes, there are roads that go to most of the larger populated towns in the north, but the further north one goes the less roads there are and people become reliant on helicopters, float planes and small boats for transportation of people and goods.
.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
