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 manufacture of bathroom tissue — particularly the soft, fluffy kind marketed for American bottoms — is one of the most "environmentally destructive" processes on the planet, according to the NRDC.”
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.;
Lolz, clearcutting has not been done commercially since before 1919 you say? Not true, not even close. Did I imagine those huge areas of recent commercial clearcuts I worked in during the 80s and 90s? Is this 2008 article a figment of someone's imagination? Was the massive clearcutting that happened in British Columbia during most of the 20th century all fabricated?
It went on long past 1919 in the vast majority of places, and it still goes on. It didn't get cut back because "foresters came to their senses", it was cut back because pressure was put on timber companies and public lands managers to manage the land for more than just aq quick buck.
Furthermore, and most importantly, most of Canada's boreal forest is virgin timber. The fact that virgin pulp simply means non-recycled is an irrelevant distraction that steers us away from the point of the article: Ancient, virgin boreal forests are being cut so we can wipe our butts.
When my father passed away recently, my mother had to sell the ranch which was partially timbered. The buyer clear cut it all; not a stick of wood, any kind of wood, was left standing. This was in Oregon. It looks like hell.
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
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
Ehh sorry, you dont get to redefine terms that already have accepted definitions.
Ehh sorry, you dont get to redefine terms that already have accepted definitions.
OK. I concede. You're smarter than me.
BTW- did you read your article or just look at the pictures? That photo shows a 20 ft section of erosion-- on a 100 ac clear cut (out of a couple million ac of forest). As the article states, with proper management, a healthy new forest will grow in a short period of time, replacing the unhealthy stand removed.
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.
BTW- did you read your article or just look at the pictures? That photo shows a 20 ft section of erosion-- on a 100 ac clear cut (out of a couple million ac of forest). As the article states, with proper management, a healthy new forest will grow in a short period of time, replacing the unhealthy stand removed.
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.
The page you linked to was an exercise for school children. There was no article, and there was nothing about an unhealthy stand.
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.
