Soon there will be no tree's left!

[rschanke]

This thread’s title is a common source of hysteria around the world, but it has no root(pun intended!) in reality.

Today, the majority of the United States use of wood comes from tree’s chopped down in American forests. There are currently three times as many tree’s in the US compared to the 1920s. The tree’s arent going anywhere. This is because the tree’s are grown specifically to cut them down and create paper. The more paper we use, the more tree’s will be planted.

Conclusion? If you want more trees, buy and throw away paper. The supply will meet the demand.

[etaoin]

Please cite your sources. I’ve been trying to find the “root” of this myth you are repeating for some time but to no avail. Deforestation is a massive problem; and certainly not just in the US.

[user3 (Алёша)]

Even overlooking the very important distinction between “ancient woodland” and “secondary growth forest”…

[d0rkyd00d]

I haven’t researched the subject, but I’ve read that most trees that are cut down are used for homes. Most paper comes from the clippings leftover from wood used for houses.

[Kriswest]

You ever see what clear cutting does? it ain’t pretty. It ain’t healthy and it can cause massive amounts of errosion. Animals and humans alike are affected by clear cutting and forced planting. watershed is affected a flowing creek or river may become blocked or stop flowing. This happened to the acreage behind our place. A nice creek flowed then with all the clear cutting heavy equipment going through and changing things, that creek became blocked, it does not flow above ground now. This affects the wild life in the area. It ain’t just the removal of trees it is also how they are removed and or replaced if ever.

[rschanke]

@etaoin

Please cite your sources. I’ve been trying to find the “root” of this myth you are repeating for some time but to no avail. Deforestation is a massive problem; and certainly not just in the US.

If your interested in reading up on it, I suggest this link.

query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h … A960958260

It is a New York Times article, a fairly long one, and addresses many things related to not only cutting down tree’s, but also recycling. This is far from the only source, and theres definately those who would claim that its contents arent entirely factual. After reading the article, I suggest reading this:

environmentaldefense.org/doc … m#endnotes

That is basically a retort against the article. Reading both will allow you to see both sides of the argument and make up your own mind.

[etaoin]

I’ve read this article before. This is the same guy who says that America doesn’t produce much garbage, just a land-fill 35 km (EDIT: miles; p.5) cube; but overlooks the fact that the worlds deepest shaft mine (nevermind open pit) is only three-and-a-half km deep.

Anyway, thank-you for posting this, I wanna find the part about the trees…

EDIT (again)

[rschanke]

@etaoin

I’ve read this article before. This is the same guy who says that America doesn’t produce much garbage, just a land-fill 35 km (EDIT: miles; p.5) cube; but overlooks the fact that the worlds deepest shaft mine (nevermind open pit) is only three-and-a-half km deep.

Anyway, thank-you for posting this, I wanna find the part about the trees…

Actually if I remember correctly, the claim is that a 35 square mile landfill can hold 1000 years of garbage in USA at the current rate. I’ve yet to find proof for this, but I’ve read it several places so there could be something to it. I’d be very interested if someone knew more about that particular aspect.

[etaoin]

You’re right about the garbage pile. I’m totally off; 100 yards deep!

But, this is not overly convincing,

We’re squandering irreplaceable natural resources. Yes, a lot of trees have been cut down to make today’s newspaper. But even more trees will probably be planted in their place. America’s supply of timber has been increasing for decades, and the nation’s forests have three times more wood today than in 1920. “We’re not running out of wood, so why do we worry so much about recycling paper?” asks Jerry Taylor, the director of natural resource studies at the Cato Institute. “Paper is an agricultural product, made from trees grown specifically for paper production. Acting to conserve trees by recycling paper is like acting to conserve cornstalks by cutting back on corn consumption.”
p.5

Cato Institute
cato.org/
Big business think tank, no?

---

EDIT: (conserve posts)

Here’s the relevant part of the other link,

The article correctly points out that more trees are being planted than cut, but fails to address the severe and continuing loss of natural forests that has accompanied this tree planting. In the U.S. South, for example, where most of the trees used to make paper are grown, pine plantations are replacing natural pine forests at an alarming rate. While pine plantations are excellent at growing wood, they are far less suited than natural forests to provide animal habitat and preserve biodiversity. Since 1950, the portion of Southern pine forest in plantations has grown from 2.5% to more than 40% in 1990, with a concomitant loss in natural pine forest;[20] during this decade the acreage of pine plantations will overtake the area of natural pine forests across the South, and is projected to approach 70% of all pine forest in the next few decades.[21] By extending the overall fiber supply, paper recycling can help to reduce the pressure to convert remaining natural forests to tree farms.[22]

20. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, (1988) The South’s Fourth Forest, Forest Res. Rept. No. 24 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govt. Printing Office), 1988.

21. Haynes R.W. et al. (1995) The 1993 RPA Timber Assessment Update, USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report RM-259 (Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, March 1995).

22. Ince, P.J. (1994), Recycling and Long-Range Timber Outlook, Gen. Tech. Rept. RM-242 (Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, February 1994).

But I still can’t see where the more forest part comes from. I heard this from a co-worker a few months ago and also it was stated on Penn and Teller’s Bull Shit!. Maybe the correct isn’t “three times more wood today than in 1920”, from which “forest” was misinterpreted, but three times more secondary-growth forest? That is what the sources indicate, yes?