*sigh* Treehugging

[amanda_lodden]

A got yet another "green living" tip in my email that included the idea that if you use less paper, there will be more trees.

This, my friends, is bullshit.

It gives us all a warm, fuzzy feeling to think that we're saving noble redwoods when we decline to use paper, and I'm definitely advocating the use of less paper-- but not for the trees.

Paper production is a business. Like any good business, it needs supplies. Supplying the business of paper production is in and of itself a business. Trees are grown for the express purpose of being cut down and turned into paper. In fact, very specific types of trees are grown, because the people growing them know what their customers (the paper manufacturers) want-- they don't care about how many nutrients the tree soaked up during its growth, or whether the foliage is beautiful in September. They want trees with soft fibers that mash down into pulp really well-- there's a reason that you can't go out and buy teak paper. Tree farmers plant trees that grow quickly and provide those easy-to-make-into-paper wood fibers.

So if we cut our demand for paper, those tree farmers will have trees left over, which can be considered "saving" them if you'd like. But tree farmers are in it for the money. Economically, it doesn't make sense for the farmer to spend time, energy and resources (all of which cost money) to grow trees that can't be sold. Unless they can find someone else to buy those trees, all the farmer is going to do is plant fewer trees the next year.

There ARE perfectly good reasons to reduce paper usage, but it has to do with the fuel used to transport the cut logs, the chemicals used to bleach the wood fibers, the dyes used to turn some of the paper a color other than white, and the fuel used to transport the paper to consumers. The trees could care less. So quit trying to sell me on saving the damned trees already.

Comments

[roseneko.livejournal.com]

On a bit of a tangent, I seem to remember Brian was telling me that his uncles (who work in a paper mills in Eastern Washington) hated the day they had to switch to cottonwood trees - the fibers were tougher than the native timber they were using previously and blunted the blades faster. I guess their fast-growing and easy-to-maintain properties outstripped the extra wear on equipment.

That said, it amazes me how many "green living" tips *don't* take into account nonobvious energy costs. For instance, using your own mug is better than using paper cups from a waste-reduction standpoint, but in terms of energy consumption (from manufacturing, shipping, and washing) it's a much closer thing.

[backrubbear.livejournal.com]

We'd be better off not using trees for paper - they produce significant waste compared to other products. Unfortunately the most obvious contender is generally not legal in the US.

There's some arguments that commercial tree harvesting for pulp hurts the health of forests as an ecosystem. I'll mostly leave it that the corporations involved aren't concerned with the ecosystems. See part of your argument about soft vs. hard woods.