

Save The Trees - Use More Paper - apsec112
http://rationalconspiracy.com/2012/07/15/save-the-trees-use-more-paper/

======
allardschip
Sounds rational but the numbers dont't add up. There is still a net loss of
forests. See:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest#Forest_loss_and_manageme...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest#Forest_loss_and_management)

Quote: In the United States, most forests have historically been affected by
humans to some degree, though in recent years improved forestry practices has
helped regulate or moderate large scale or severe impacts. However, the United
States Forest Service estimates a net loss of about 2 million hectares
(4,942,000 acres) between 1997 and 2020; this estimate includes conversion of
forest land to other uses, including urban and suburban development, as well
as afforestation and natural reversion of abandoned crop and pasture land to
forest. However, in many areas of the United States, the area of forest is
stable or increasing, particularly in many northern states. The opposite
problem from flooding has plagued national forests, with loggers complaining
that a lack of thinning and proper forest management has resulted in large
forest fires.

------
gethoht
What this article is describing (trees as a renewable resource for paper/etc)
isn’t a natural forest, it’s silviculture. Sure Georgia Pacific etc. will
plant a bunch of trees to replace what they mowed through but those trees are
all one species and age. The “forests” they create are not good for the
environment. They drain the water table, they limit biological diversity and
do little ecological good. Ecology is more than just “how many trees are
planted, period”, it’s the overall health of a forest/system. The forests that
paper companies maintain are not ecologically sound; they’re just a crop,
little different from corn or any other agriculture the article mentions. The
best thing we could do to make paper more sustainable would be to switch to
hemp.

------
greenyoda
Unfortunately, the manufacturing of paper pollutes the environment, so
increasing use of paper will increase the level of pollution. For example, the
nice white paper that's used by your printer requires chlorine compounds to
bleach it, and these get discharged into the environment. See, for example:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_pollution>

Also, transporting trees to mills and operating the mills requires energy,
whose use and production also causes pollution (e.g., waste products from
large trucks and oil refineries that end up in the atmosphere).

------
facorreia
It amazes me most people can't understand this. It's pure logic. The
comparison with cows and beefs is a good one.

~~~
allardschip
Beef especially is very taxing on the environment. It takes a lot of energy to
get to beef and there is methane from cow manure causing greenhouse effects. I
enjoy a nice steak but suggesting there is no negative side effect to the
environment....

~~~
facorreia
That's where the comparision breaks down. The point is, the more beef people
eat, the more cows there will be, not less. Same as the more paper people use,
the more trees there will be, not less. Of course the impact of cows and trees
on the environment is different and besides the point.

