Paper prices continue to rise

  • Thread starter Thread starter mdane
  • Start date Start date
OK< I really don't want to prolong this because it is off topic and I'm
sure some people don't find it appropriate on this newsgroup, and I
can't argue that point.

I believe in balance. I also believe that man is not the sole valid
life form on the planet. We continue to expand our landmass and then
demand more resources to supply our needs. Much of the extinction is the
result of loss of habitat, change in climate due to human intervention.

We therefore need to limit out personal and social footprints, even if
it "costs" more under the current economic models we have accepted.
That means limiting waste, accepting some areas of the planet are
inhospitable to humans because it is just too environmentally costly to
maintain ourselves in those places , etc.

Going back to the original point at which I jumped into this, recycled
paper is only more costly than virgin pulp paper because we do not
properly evaluate the true value and expense of new wood pump.


Art
 
Arthur said:
The answer is balance.

Your reply suggest some of the answers, but living in an area where
pulping tree are grown as 'crops', I can tell you that selective logging
is a rare occurrence in all but the most private of forests. Paper and
lumber companies can't be "bothered" with selective logging. As I
mentioned, they grow monoculture forests that are all of the same age.
If, as has been occurring here, a pest or virus should come along, it
happily jumps from tree to tree, killing off thousands of acres at a
time, same for fires.

The answer is recognition that an old tree is not always a decadent one.
That old trees not only house many species that otherwise do not
reproduce successfully, but that they support soil placement, molds and
fungi necessary for healthy forests, and so on. Some old logs become
the platform for new ones to grow (nurse logs).

I am not suggesting we go without paper and wood products. I am
suggesting that in terms of paper, we need to spend the cost of proper
recycling to reuse as much pulp as possible, without going to the virgin
pulp because it is "less costly". As I stated previously, and this is
my main point, virgin pump is cheap because we do not properly value
pulp trees. If they were, the recycling process would be considered
"cheap" relative to harvesting new trees to make paper. That is my main
point... that we can reduce use, (as we already are, recent studies
indicate our paper use is dropping now) and recycling diligently, and
probably value live trees to make them too valuable to waste for paper
production when recycled fiber is readily available.

We also need to recognize that replanting seedlings doesn't eliminate
the obligation to make sure that enough forest are left "natural"
because no replanted forest will even emulate a real old growth one.

Art
Click to expand...

Well, speaking as one who may be selling a few trees in the next few
months, even though they are not pulp species, I'm all for valuing them
as high as possible! <grin>

TJ
 
Back
Top