This is a very weak argument for something that is so damaging as letting the forest be destroyed for what is virtually zero economical gain to the population.
> When a woodlot gets cut, high grade gets sawn for lumber, stuff that doesn't make the cut for saw logs but can be pulped becomes paper and stuff that doesn't work for either of the above becomes firewood.
OK, but making complete use of the wood is hardly the same as harvesting timber specifically for firewood.
Also, relatively speaking, little of the species you're burning are used for lumber. And you can't throw a rock without hitting a dead ash tree these days.
At least felling trees to build things serves a purpose. Are those things worth the cost? Debatable, but at least there’s some attempt at justification.
This one is particularly heartbreaking because you can’t even apply that cynical utilitarian logic to it. It seems like a completely wanton act of vandalism.
For those confused by the dangling modifier, he means the combined act of cutting the trees and selling the wood is restrictive. Also, a terrible analogy since trees are an exhaustible resource within a meaningful time range.
> As to burning forests, fast growth wood can be harvested in decades not centuries.
Yes, but the main problem being pointed to here is the logging of old forests (they are nature preserves), this isn't about the fast industrial tree plantations of marginal ecological value.
The access to nature is sold, but not by the people advocating for it.
Imagine if people who advocate for cutting timber on public land proposed that the government should cut down the trees and sell the results, because they just love lumber and want everyone to have access to high-quality lumber.
Logging helps a lot too. I don't get why it's such a controversial topic, I don't advocate chopping down entire forests, but why on earth are commercial loggers not allowed to thin things out?
and the corollary to this is that logging can absolutley be done sustainably, providing direct benefit to the environment. But this is a politically offensive fact, so people often find elaborate ways to navigate around it to support their faith.
It also incentives for hostage taking like behavior. "Oh wow sure is a nice forest I own, it would be a shame if I cut it down if only someone would pay me to keep it."
You can heat and cook with wood. If so much tree material is falling on your property every year, and you're carting it elsewhere, you're just throwing away a useful resource.
There’s limitless profitable reasons to chop it down.
Don’t understand why people want to play whack a mole to get to the end goal all while making everyone’s lives worse, esp on the lower income levels who can’t afford organic meat.
When if you want the trees saved then pay them to keep them and hold them to it. Like that’s the actual goal no? And easier than completely retooling society as a backwards way to cause that change.
In my country people leave their wood burner running all winter regardless of the weather. People are never going to turn it off just because of weather conditions.
And there is moralising on the other side of the argument, it is just less explicit. The old fashioned "natural" manliness of chopping and burning wood is definitely considered virtuous by a lot of people. Maybe this is restricted to middle class though.
reply