Amazon Rainforest....disappearing twice as fast... [Archive]

Nicholas Carey

10-21-2005, 08:09 PM

Originally posted by Victor:
Once it's been cleared it doesn't regrow, is that right?Actually, that's kind of true.

Rainforest soils are typically quite infertile and do not last long once cleared. The "O" horizon, the topmost layer of soil, made of decomposing leaf mold and other plant matter is typically less than an inch thick. The next layer down, the "A" horizon, a mixture of decomposed leaf mold/plant matter and mineral particles (aka "sand") is also quite thin, perhaps an inch. The "B" horizon, another layer down is almost entirely mineral particles (the afore-mentioned sand), fortified with nutrients that have leached down from the upper horizons. And below that is the "C" horizon, what we like to call bedrock.

The "O" and "A" horizons are what we'd call "compost" and topsoil. Below that is mineral soil.

In contrast, in the north temperate deciduous forests of the United States, the "O" horizon might be a 6 inches or a foot thick and the "A" horizon might be a foot thick.

In the Amazon, those two horizons might be less than two inches thick.

Once cleared, the soil is rapidly depleted of nutrients and becomes pretty sterile in just a few years of so-called "modern" agricultural use.

That's why slash-and-burn agriculture is historically practiced there. Burn the trees in a small area, farm it for a season or two and then leave it to regenerate itself, while the farmer moves on to another plot.

Another reason the rainforest doesn't just "grow back" is that it is a complex, multi-storied ecosystem. Most of the light is absorbed in th topmost and middle canopies. The under-canopy is quite dark, and quite damp. The plants and animals that live in the under-canopy were designed :D have evolved for those conditions.

Once the forest is cleared, the understory is exposed to much a lot of light and it quickly dries out. The understory plants soon die and the animal life leaves for darker, damper pastures, so to speak. It takes quite a while for equilibrium to be re-established and the forest to recover.

And this happens even with "selective logging": felling, for instance, a single mature mahogany or rosewood tree opens a rather large hole in the canopy, especially since there are vines (lianas) woven in, out and between the trees in the forest.

Tropical rainforests, for all their seeming fecundity, are much more fragile than they might seem.

Wild Wassa

10-21-2005, 08:33 PM

It is very difficult to find rainforest in Australia now growing where it was originally. Of the small remnants that we have left (apart from the wet tropics), many viable remnants tend to be World Heritage listed. A bit of a bandaid outcome.

Since colonization only about 12% of the total rainforest remains, with only 2 1/2% remaining as prime or old growth rainforest.

Rainforests are not easy places to be in, many things sting, cling or bite and you go moldy if given long enough ... one of the main reasons why European settlers wanted them gone. It staggers me to think of the energy that went into removing the Australian rainforests ... and now we are clinging on to the last of what we have.

The average wet forest or remnant wet gully should not be mistaken for rainforests. This is why Australians tend to think that we have more rainforests than we do.

One of the last of the prime rainforests on the mainland, the Errinundra Plateau in Victoria, is being logged like crazy at the moment ... when this cool temperate rainforest is gone a national treasure will be lost ... at least I got to see it and spent a lot of time in it, off and on. It is only a couple of hours away by road.

The saying goes, "We don't leave special places for our Grandchildren, we borrow those places from them."

Warren.

ps, I also read on the Forum, "Don't lend anything you expect to get back." Too true.

[ 10-21-2005, 10:53 PM: Message edited by: Wild Wassa ]

Frank E. Price

10-24-2005, 03:31 PM

Anyone read Mann's 1491 ? Another perspective and recent findings/theories regarding pre-15th century development and exploitation of the Americas (including the Amazon basin). Interesting stuff.

I live in a much different "rainforest," a 40 year old second growth forest. The distortions and untruths I see publicized about where I live make me pretty skeptical of sweeping generalizations I see about other regions. 1491 offers views that seem more in line with what I see happening around me than the usual babble.

Frank

Wild Wassa

10-25-2005, 05:01 AM

How many giant trees do you have around you Frank, genuine old growth trees. A second generation rainforest is still a depauperate rainforest. Post some shots.

Your posting is more general than the rest of us. How about some real nitty gritty then?

I'm pretty happy to post shots of depauperate rainforest where I live and I can post old growth. ... how about you?

I get the feeling that you think it is alright to take advantage of rainforests and that they bounce back quickly ... and that it doesn't really matter, is that the case?

Or have I misinterpreted what you have written?

Warren.

[ 10-25-2005, 05:09 AM: Message edited by: Wild Wassa ]

George.

10-25-2005, 02:50 PM

Originally posted by Frank E. Price:
I live in a much different "rainforest," a 40 year old second growth forest. I live in a forest that is mostly 40-80 years old second growth. It looks green enough to those who see it from a speeding car, or as a distant background to their second homes. But it incomparably poorer than the patches of old-growth rainforest still left. Less than half as many species of birds, less than 10% of the tree species, less than 5% of the orchids and bromeliads... even 100-year-old second growth forest is impoverished, and its largest trees don't even compare to the cathedral effect of the virgin patches.

Of course, as I mentioned, most people couldn't care less. Just as few medieval Romans worried about all the ancient statues being melted for their bronze, and the marble monuments being fired to make lime. And as few Christians or Muslims worried about the books in the library of Alexandira going up in smoke. They saw no need for anything more than their Bibles and Korans, and most of them couldn't read anyway... :(

werner

10-25-2005, 06:26 PM

if you can prove there is more money in protecting the rain forest and exploiting its real genetic richness only then it will be saved.there could be a missed investment there for pharma industries?
I remember reading books predicting the same problems in the sixties.So do not get your hopes up it will be saved in time because now atlast they can prove it is disapearing.
What is also interesting that there seems to be a method of making the soil permanently usable as farm land , a method used by the indians until the europeans came."terra preta" a mixture of the soil and active charcoal this could perhaps stop some of the wild burning for more new farmland.

10-25-2005, 07:40 PM

I live in 40-90 year old rainforest regrowth. When I moved here nearly 30 years ago most of the land was degraded ex dairy land, now most of it is secondary and primary regrowth and it all looks great BUT it's not old growth. Nothing compares to seeing trees hundreds of years old, we still have the odd old tree...usually in some hard to get at spot.
Some of the wild life is very unfriendly, I got stung on the thumb this morning by a Jumping Ant, and as a mate of mine said " they sure do smart a bit."

Wild Wassa

10-25-2005, 08:12 PM

Originally posted by WX:
" ... usually in some hard to get at spot."

WX, Like on the slopes around the back of Warning?

Do, these Bangalows ring a bell, it is what the tourists see as rainforests? The second image will.

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid26/p47e2347b37f302b1b3c458ccf61787ba/fd85734a.jpg

http://www.imagestation.com/picture/sraid22/p40fc67329095dde6903285c73dae8b17/fda7b32f.jpg

I have read, don't post a shot twice on the Forum (for the above photo of the Nightcap Range) but I just wanted to show WX.

Warren.

[ 10-25-2005, 08:26 PM: Message edited by: Wild Wassa ]

10-26-2005, 09:20 PM

Warren, most tourists wouldn't know old growth if it jumped out and bit them on the bum. There are a few beautiful old Flooded Gums and brushbox on the slopes of the mountain. I walked part of the Nightcap Track some years ago, there's a hollow New England Blackbut up there you could fit 12 people i side of...8 of us had no problems.
Grady's Creek in the Border ranges has Hoop Pine I can't get my arms around but it's an 80 minute walk from the road to see them.
That 2nd photo looks like it was taken down Nimbin way. It's amazing to think that only about 120 years ago it was all old growth with Aborigines wandering around quite happily....didn't take us long to stuff it up eh?

Frank E. Price

10-28-2005, 03:47 PM

Got you going, huh, Warren? What the heck is a "depauperate" rain forest? The 40+ year old second growth forest I live in the middle of (literally) is just that. There are no giant trees because they were clearcut and the second growth aren't nearly old enough to be giant. It's been my experience that the run of the mill monetary contributors to the scaremongers don't know the difference between old growth and healthy second growth once it's more than 30 years old.

I would be happy to post pix, but haven't taken many (don't feel the need, since I see it every day) and don't know how. As I don't have an Internet terminal at home and my access to public terminals is limited, I haven't had the opportunity to learn those neat tools. Nevertheless you'll get no disagreement from me that second growth doesn't match the aesthetic qualities of old growth until it gets "old." The biggest trees on my acre are about 24" at the butt and the average is 10"-14" diameter. They are Sitka spruce, western hemlock, and red and yellow cedar, all about 40-45 years old. It's not old growth, and not a stump farm.

The distortions and untruths I referred to are things like the Sierra Club sending out mailings showing pictures of fresh clear cuts and standing old growth that strongly imply that clear cuts will remain stump farms forever, and soliciting funds to "save the Tongass", the "last temperate rain forest." The clear implication was that my cash was needed to prevent the Alexander Archipelage from becoming one big stump farm, when in fact most of it would never be cut and most people don't differentiate between healthy second growth and old growth. And there is no "last" temperate rain forest.

I've had two nearly duplicate experiences with different people at different times in that regard. On both occasions we were walking in good looking second growth forests and my companion made remarks about how it was too bad the loggers couldn't be kept out of old growth forests like this. On both occasions I pointed out the square topped old stumps and other signs of timber harvest and the roughly consistent relatively young age of the biggest trees in the area. Both expressed surprise and "oh, they really do grow back." They were both outspoken urban types.

I responded years ago to a letter in our regional newspaper from a local enviro-freak who called places like where I live "biologically sterile second-growth plantations," a term that in my experience was not applicable to most of the older second growth I have seen, particularly as I could not think of a single wildlife species not present in abundance in the local second growth.

In my opinion people who want to preserve all the remaining old growth for aesthetic reasons should be up front about it and base their arguments on the aesthetic merits of the case, rather than on false assumptions.

My experience is all in the Pacific Northwest and SE Alaska. I know nothing about the Brazilian rain forest other than what I read.

Man, we're having fun now, huh? I think a point of Mann's book is that some of those radical ideas regarding the old civilizations of the '60's and '70's in the Americas and the true nature of "wilderness" have been further substantiated in the interim. Old growth forests all grew from something else; no particular stage of ecological change is sacrosanct. Obviously we do need to plan the changes we make carefully, and we often fail at that. The answer is not to stop planning.

Frank

Wild Wassa

10-28-2005, 06:42 PM

Frank, we didn't have much rainforest to lose but we have lost most of it. So I suppose that's why I value rainforests so highly. As we go through an extreme drought here, if not the worst drought in our Nation's history, that which ignorance has destroyed and wasted, is impacting on us greatly. Frank you live on a continent which has over 60% of the world’s fresh water? … we live on a continent that has less than ½ % of the world’s fresh water ... putting yourself in other's shoes or that's not done?

New South Wales National Parks (these guys aren't 'enviro-freaks' Frank) in their submission to UNESCO, when they applied to have the remaining viable remnants of NSW Rainforests listed as World Heritage sites, stated that only 2½% of Australian rainforests remain as old growth forests. You might live in a big rainforest Frank but some of our old growth rainforests are only measured now in hectares. Even a little bit of old growth should be left for posterity. No one has the rights to it all. The US lobby groups in our country at the moment, seem to think that they do.

I don't think that inaccessible rain forests (that is all the old growth tends to be here) have much aesthetic appeal to anyone at all. No one can gain much access to them, accept the fittest and strongest walkers here. It is the mere fact that they remain no matter how small, which is meaningful. We are not much as humans if we are so imperialistic that other creatures’ habitats don't really matter or that we think that they will return after disturbance. Maybe in Australia our thinking is different Frank, because we have the greatest number of major species to have gone extinct of all the continents and 3/4 of the continent is now desert.

National Parks also said in their proposal for nomination, that the species lists of both flora and fauna in each of the reserves nominated are incomplete because they do not actually know what is missing. You are a bit of a wiz Frank if you know what harm hasn't been done to the complete ecosystem of your region and that you know that your species lists are complete and intact. We are less as humans for disturbing pristine environments now, when we know what the consequences are.

Also don't over look that one compound found in a rainforest could be worth billions to humanity ... I put it into monetary terms for those that only think along those lines. When we disturb ecosystems, who knows what we could miss out on for the betterment of our species? In the long term not just in the short term ... as has been our practice with quick profits and short term thinking.

Warren.

[ 10-28-2005, 07:51 PM: Message edited by: Wild Wassa ]

10-28-2005, 11:13 PM

Well put Wassa ;)

werner

10-29-2005, 06:57 AM

Do try to imagine how future generations will look upon the last say 100 years and the scale of destruction left behind and imagine asking them if we had the right to do what we did.

Let's hope they will not have a clue what was lost; (in fact hearing the opinion of some people today there is no reason to worry about that)nature and human memory both have a tendency to clean up nicely.

George.

10-29-2005, 07:44 AM

Originally posted by Frank E. Price:
What the heck is a "depauperate" rain forest? ...I could not think of a single wildlife species not present in abundance in the local second growth.

With all due respect, I seriously doubt that. Maybe the larger, common, easily seen species are all there. I'll wager that there are literally hundreds of species missing altogether, or whose populations are not dense enough to be viable, in your 40-year old second growth. Of course, most of them would be invertebrates, fungi, small plants, and obscure bird and reptile species.

And that is in a temperate forest. In a tropical forest, even century-old second growth is often missing over half of tree and mammal species.

TimothyB

10-29-2005, 09:02 AM

Nature is resilient. That being said, its regenerative powers are geared for centuries and millenia, not decades.

I too am tired of both extremes of this ridiculous argument. You have, on the one hand, people whom argue that we need to preserve primeval forests and habitats at the expense of humanity. You have on the other hand people who would like nothing less than to put condominums, mines and mills all over everything.

Both points of view are stupid, as usual. The middle road, always the hardest one to travel, makes the most sense.

Why in the hell can't we just force folks to start converting forest management practices to 100, then 200, then 400 year rotation? If we did that, we would have old growth forests all over the place, we would have fantastic timber all over the place, and species would always have places to live. The idiots that are razing forests for grazing land could be forced to use sustainable practices.

But see, that takes something called 'restraint' and 'generational planning' and setting things in legal stone that can never be altered, except given provably BETTER ways to manage long rotatation renewables.

As soon as you start talking about stuff like this, people start yelling 'communism'. Mainly because they want to make bucks on raping the land themselves, damn the consequnces.

All of this also applies to fisheries too. The fact that we've lost something greater than 80% of the fish since the 1940s should set off warnnig flags for anyone looking, however we STILL have people that set the rules whom are fishing industry people, some of whom actually own boats. You would think this means they would actually care about the problem. No, even though biologists have said an absolute quota system, monitored by an independent agency and staffed with marine biologists, is the only way for the fisheries to recover to 50 year ago levels, nobody wants that because it would cost them profits.. it wouldn't put them out of business, but they wouldn't make quite as much money at it.

And on and on... fuel... food... I really wish people would wake up and realize that this blue ball is all we got, and the almighty temple of science knows almost nothing about how it works, regardless of what society may believe, in its own egocentric way.

I'm not an old guy, and even I remember things that were here when I was a kid, like reefs in florida that I snorkled when I was young, that just are NOT HERE now. Its frightening to think of what will happen as each generation loses more... I just hope folks like me who rant about this stuff often are growing in number.

PS: In case any old fisherman are here, the absolute quota system is simple. A yearly number for total tonnage taken out of any single fishery is set. Each operator can buy into that quota each year. The higher the total quota of a fishery, the cheaper the shares of quota (the total fishery quota price is a fixed number, adjusted ONLY by inflation, and the projected market price of that fish). Quota money partially covers the expense of management. This way, fisherman are incented to NOT overfish, and they will actually help police the water. In return, the fishery will recover, rebound and eventually become as healthy as it was since the advent of industrial fishing. It is practicable that fish populations would even return to turn of the century levels give careful management. Also, it would incent smaller fishermen to eventually rejoin the rank and file as the quota got large enough, and cheap enough to make it worthwhile.

[ 10-29-2005, 09:15 AM: Message edited by: TimothyB ]

Nicholas Carey

10-29-2005, 03:13 PM

Originally posted by TimothyB:
Why in the hell can't we just force folks to start converting forest management practices to 100, then 200, then 400 year rotation? If we did that, we would have old growth forests all over the place, we would have fantastic timber all over the place, and species would always have places to live. The idiots that are razing forests for grazing land could be forced to use sustainable practices.because the trees' growth rate slows down as the tree ages. The foresters figure that 40-80 years is the optimal harvest age to maximize "fiber production".

All of this also applies to fisheries too. The fact that we've lost something greater than 80% of the fish since the 1940s should set off warnnig flags for anyone looking, however we STILL have people that set the rules whom are fishing industry people, some of whom actually own boats. You would think this means they would actually care about the problem. No, even though biologists have said an absolute quota system, monitored by an independent agency and staffed with marine biologists, is the only way for the fisheries to recover to 50 year ago levels, nobody wants that because it would cost them profits.. it wouldn't put them out of business, but they wouldn't make quite as much money at it.It's a bigger problem with fisheries because nobody really knows what fish stocks are. It's a real crapshoot. That's why fisheries have collapsed even with stringent harvest limits. That being said, the fisheries biologists probably have a better notion of what the population size is and what it's health is like.

And on and on... fuel... food... I really wish people would wake up and realize that this blue ball is all we got, and the almighty temple of science knows almost nothing about how it works, regardless of what society may believe, in its own egocentric way.Hear, hear!

We should take care to husband well this ol' marble.

FYI, Husband is a verb that means
To direct and manage with frugality; to use or employ to good purpose and the best advantage; to spend, apply, or use, with economy.<blockquote>For my means, I'll husband them so well, They shall go far.Shak.</blockquote>

ssor

10-29-2005, 05:28 PM

I live in north-east Maryland and in the early years of the last century almost all of the land was clear and farmed, mostly for growing food for the draft animals that pulled the machinery for working the ground to grow food for people. Since that advent of internal combustion engines the use of draft animals has dropped to nearly zero and much of the land that was once pasture has reverted to forest. There are more acres of forest land in Maryland today than there was a hundred years ago.
That said we must also realize that too much rain and a very warm climate hasten the decay of organic matter which is why the rich layer of topsoil gets thinner the closer you get to the equator. I should think,( I do not know) that at the higher elevations in the tropics the topsoil layer is thicker and more quickly replenished. If it takes a thousand years to grow a prime tree then it follows that none of us will see the results of long term conservation efforts, but that is not a reason to count them as being futile.

PeterSibley

10-30-2005, 01:55 AM

Why in the hell can't we just force folks to start converting forest management practices to 100, then 200, then 400 year rotation? If we did that, we would have old growth forests all over the place, we would have fantastic timber all over the place, and species would always have places to live. The idiots that are razing forests for grazing land could be forced to use sustainable practices

I would suggest that the main reason is that economic requirements,return on investment etc at totally at variance with the realities of forest management.One needs a 80 to 150 year cycle ,the other demands 12% pa.And in our world the $ always wins....in the short term at least,and by then all the damage has been done.

George.

10-30-2005, 06:47 AM

Exactly.

If you put a forest in a 100-year rotation, that means that each year you may only cut 1% of the trees. That is equivalent to a 1% return on your capital.

That is sustainable - but if you cut all the trees in one year, sell them, and put the money in the bank, you will easily get 3-10% return on your capital.

Same reason why the whales got hunted to near extinction. They reproduce more slowly than money in the bank. :(

formerlyknownasprince

10-31-2005, 04:24 AM

If you put a forest in a 100-year rotation, that means that each year you may only cut 1% of the trees. That is equivalent to a 1% return on your capital.
George, I think you are confusing stock with capital. The return on capital is all about $ in each year as a percentage of $ invested. Lets say you spend $100k to establish a sustainable forest, but get $10k back for the 1% you cut each year - that's a 10% return.

That said, I "burnt" some dollars a few years back on a forestry investment in Tasmania. You'd be hard pressed to get a dollar out of me for another forestry investment. :(

Ian

George.

10-31-2005, 06:50 AM

Originally posted by igatenby:
Lets say you spend $100k to establish a sustainable forest, but get $10k back for the 1% you cut each year - that's a 10% return.

Yes, but that means that if you cut 100% of the forest on year one, you get $1000k. If you then invest that in a bank, even at the worst rates around, you'll get about $30k a year - three times more than if you kept the forest.

formerlyknownasprince

10-31-2005, 07:06 AM

You assume that all the forest is planted at the same time and grows to equal value at the same time and is harvested at the same time.

George.

10-31-2005, 07:13 AM

I am assuming that we are talking about virgin forest that we are trying to conserve, not a tree plantation.

Con LanAdo

10-31-2005, 08:39 AM

looks to me as we'll be lucky to get 10 yr. rotations the way we're going, sadly. The world is sure looking like India sans the mts. - no wildlife. I've read that the consesus of most people would prefer a challenge to the US's one world super power. If that's the case China sure won't come to the plate for sustainability either. Is there any ism out there which will promote such sustainability while not being founded on raw capitalist? What chance will the Greens have in organizing locally/globaly?

TimothyB

10-31-2005, 10:01 AM

because the trees' growth rate slows down as the tree ages. The foresters figure that 40-80 years is the optimal harvest age to maximize "fiber production".Well yes, of course. I understand the foresters are actually not foresters but Timberers (people concerned more with getting saleable lumber than the health of a forest). The thing is, you NEED to have dead trees standing/lying all about in order to start getting some of the more interesting and complex lichens, molds and other plants and animals that depend on them. And to have dead trees standing in any great number, you NEED to have century old forests. And some trees just will NOT get to any great size/quality unless they are growing in this sort of environment.

The thing that people always forget in their arguments about supply and demand is that our government has the authority to REGULATE SUPPLY when it comes to natural resources. So, the price will rise to meet demand. No, they won't be able to manipulate the market because the government will be regulating the supply in concordance with sustainable management principles. Yes, they will be able to make a profit because the market will rise to meet it.

And now, all you have to do is start charging heavy tariffs on ANY foreign import that is resource, or close to resource, based.

We just need to do some common sense things, some simple things that big business definitely does NOT want to do. That's the impediment. I guarantee that the average Joe would be in favor of conservation and land management practices that preserve, and even grow, those resources for our children. The trouble is you have hate mongers spouting platitudes that are just propaganda attacks on the common weal... unfortunately Joe doesn't always get that bit, and he sometimes believes that conservation is somehow Un-American as a result of these withering and relentless attacks.

[ 10-31-2005, 10:05 AM: Message edited by: TimothyB ]

werner

10-31-2005, 11:03 AM

Think the consequences of selective logging for the amazonian or african rainforest are somewhat different from others.In fact you can not plant a rainforest. we can not reengineer (for the moment)the species lost.In other words this problem can not be reduced to the level of treefarming.
If the consequences of selective logging were misjudged one could wonder if we have an idea yet what the immensly more complex consequences of destroying the remaining rainforests will be.
Simply put it is a question of "better Sorry than safe"

George Roberts

10-31-2005, 01:32 PM

If land has any sale value, planting timber may be a money losing proposition.

Prime log prices are about $2000/1000bdft delivered. Under $1000/1000bdft standing. A log about 30"diax24" is about 1000bdft. I expect $500/1000bdft for standing timber to be high.

Cutting 1000bdft/acre/year using an 80 year rotation might be difficult. (Especially in "natural" wood lots.)

$500/acre income places land at about $2500/acre and it requires about 100 acres or more to provide a reasonable income.

Others might have sharper pencils.

---

I am told a lot of small sawmills get all the logs they want for free - Makes standing timber worthless.

Frank E. Price

11-12-2005, 03:42 PM

Warren, I didn't intend to suggest that logging should go on unabated everywhere, just that my own observations in my own environment had made me generally skeptical of environmentalist claims that all logging was evil. Obviously clearcutting is inappropriate in some areas, but not everywhere. I live in a rainforest that has been clearcut and is still a rainforest, and acknowledge that doesn't happen everywhere. Blanket planning is not planning.

Regarding planting rainforests, specifically in the Amazon basin, I recommend again a reading of 1491 .

Frank

[ 11-12-2005, 03:44 PM: Message edited by: Frank E. Price ]

TimothyB

11-14-2005, 11:47 AM

Originally posted by George Roberts:
If land has any sale value, planting timber may be a money losing proposition.
*business analysis snipped*
Others might have sharper pencils.

---

I am told a lot of small sawmills get all the logs they want for free - Makes standing timber worthless.Look.. I don't give a rats arse about what, in dollars, you can get for standing Timber. We are talking about conservation in order to create a resource that future generations WILL be able to harvest for good dollars.

It is absolutely true that doing this will cost short term dollars, cause some pain, and tick some people off. But Long Term Gain(tm) is what the goal is, not making a quick buck. Environmental preservation is about preserving our food supply and wood supply, not finding the best way to make money off a given parcel of land.

Once my wife and I are flush, for example, and we start having extra money to throw around I intend on buying "worthless" timberland/ex-timberland and etc. and putting it into agricultural preservation. My small contribution, and my grandchildren will have a river to fish, woods to build treehouses in, plenty of firewood, and a clean conscience.

If more people thought like that, things wouldn't be so bad.

As far as there being more forests today than 100 years ago, that is completely untrue. It is true that there are more trees than when we were harvesting trees to near extinction about 100 years ago. It is not true that we have more forests, since most abandonded farmland is broken ground, parcelled up and only has small stands that are routinely culled down for firewood or land management. Now since most trees really don't start perking up and sinking carbon until they are past middle age, that seriously reduces the available sink we have as well.

Its OLD growth we are talking here. I've been in some of that (as I am sure many of you have) and it is vastly different than the mixed scrub "forests" people call that these days. Back in 'The Day' we had millions of square miles of old growth lying about.. the only limit was how easy it was to get the stuff out.

Standing timber is worthless the same way oxygen is worthless, and if we're not careful the one will follow the other.

Nicholas Carey

11-14-2005, 04:30 PM

Originally posted by TimothyB:
Look.. I don't give a rats arse about what, in dollars, you can get for standing Timber. We are talking about conservation in order to create a resource that future generations WILL be able to harvest for good dollars.

It is absolutely true that doing this will cost short term dollars, cause some pain, and tick some people off. But Long Term Gain(tm) is what the goal is, not making a quick buck.Check out the Long Now Foundation (http://www.longnow.org/), Stewart Brand's — yes, that Stewart Brand — current project.

The Long Now Foundation was established in 01996*…to become the seed of a very long term cultural institution. The Long Now Foundation hopes to provide counterpoint to today's "faster/cheaper" mind set and promote "slower/better" thinking. We hope to creatively foster responsibility in the framework of the next 10,000 years.

The term was coined by one of our founding board members, Brian Eno. When Brian first moved to New York City and found that in New York here and now meant this room and this five minutes, as opposed to the larger here and longer now that he was used to in England. We have since adopted the term as the title of our foundation as we are trying to stretch out what people consider as now.
.
.
.
* The Long Now Foundation uses five digit dates, the extra zero is to solve the deca-millennium bug which will come into effect in about 8,000 years.

Nicholas Carey

11-14-2005, 04:34 PM

George Roberts

11-14-2005, 06:26 PM

TimothyB ---

You should always give what you wish and have.

You wrote "that future generations WILL be able to harvest for good dollars." I expect that following your plan future generations will get what the current generation gets which is a poor return on investment. If you want future generations to get a good return, you need to make the resource scarce much like the oil people are claimed to have done.

I am all for an oxygen tax. If you can afford to pay it, you continue to breathe. I can afford better than a lot of people.

As I recall 11,000 years ago a good portion of the North American "old growth" forests were covered with hundreds of feet of ice. If you pick your time period carefully, anything you say about forests is true. I don't know what sort of plans you have for 1000 or 10,000 years from now, but I would suggest that there are far greater forces than man in play.

johnw

11-14-2005, 06:43 PM

Oh, geat, now I've got to worry about the deca-millenium bug. And I just bought an obsolete computer last year. I know it was obsolete, because it was for sale.

By the way, one of the major differences between temperate rainforests and tropical rainforests is that the temperate forests have better soil and can recover from logging better. Of course, if the soil washes into the creek, you've lost it and the salmon that would spawn there, but I think our Northwest forests are more resiliant than tropical ones.

A climax forest is break-even as far as carbon goes. Of course, that would include people living in that forest as long as they were part of the ecosystem.

Therefore, we need to cut down the climax forests, seal the wood in caverns (I suggest abandoned coal mines, more for irony than practicality) so that no carbon can escape, and plant new forests that we can log and put into more caverns, carefully not using any of the wood until the carbon problem is solved. If we build houses or boats of wood, they will eventually burn or rot, releasing the carbon.

Or, in a pinch, we could just be careful with what we've got.

We really do need to figure out how boatbuilding wood can be a sustainable resource. Not that I want my boat built out of straw, or any other annual crop I can think of. By the way, the first fiber-reiforced plastic boat built used palm fronds for fiber.

TimothyB

11-15-2005, 01:35 PM

TimothyB ---
You wrote "that future generations WILL be able to harvest for good dollars." I expect that following your plan future generations will get what the current generation gets which is a poor return on investment. If you want future generations to get a good return, you need to make the resource scarce much like the oil people are claimed to have done.
It won't be a poor return on investment if you factor in intangibles and connected costs. If we husband the environment well, it will return to us its fruits forever. If we do not, then we won't have to create scarcity, it will occur on its own and it won't be pleasant. It is conceivable that you could keep purchasing land surrounding your start plot and continue husbanding it very well ad infinitum, and ultimately someone would get a very good return.

The difference, I think, in how you and I are approaching this is simple. I am not approaching it as a money making opportunity for me, or even for my children, or even for their children. I am looking at it as a very long term investment in our future as a race, and a caretaking attitude that keeps what we have rolling along well enough to supply our needs without consuming our planet's natural capital.

In other words, we need to be conservative. :)

If we just approach nature as a capitalist SHOULD approach it, we shouldn't consume the capital.. that is a big nono. We should invest in building our natural capital so that returns are greater down the road. Compound interest will do the rest. As it is, we are consuming our natural capital at an astonishing rate which even the big oil and agro companies admit is unsustainable long term.

Besides, my heirs will have a place to build boats or cabins, and the wood to do it. I'm happy with just that, if that's all I can manage.

TimothyB

11-15-2005, 01:44 PM

Oh.. by the way.. it is ok to burn wood for fuel, as the carbon it is releasing was locked recently, and even when you burn it you are still not releasing all the carbon locked up in it. Burning wood for fuel is carbon negative. So is burning bio-diesel, alcohol, or any bio mass fuel. In addition to this, there are active marshes, swamps and tar pits that are, as we speak, locking carbon up as well. And other bits and pieces also extract carbon.

So, long term, biomass fuel reduces the total carbon load on the planet.

George Roberts

11-15-2005, 02:09 PM

TimothyB ---

A hungry capitalist often spends his capital on food.

As I read what you wrote above, you seem to think that there is a difference between the statements "there are more forest land in the US now than in prior times" and "there are more trees in the US now than in prior times."

I expect any amount of trees you could afford would never be a forest just a bunch of trees. That puts you in same lot as I. I own about 30 white oak trees. When mature, they will have about 12-15' of clear butt logs.

Now, those nasty softwood lumber companies in the US, they plant forests. But I guess you don't like those forests either.

As a capitalist I don't have the money to compete for land for preserving the type of forest you might want. But then no group of people does.