Efficient-Ad-3302 t1_j5o0isc wrote
Reply to comment by Acceptable-Village95 in Brazil's Lula appoints Indigenous ministers to reverse Amazon deforestation by loggiews
Canada is also decimating our forests at a quickening pace.
79r100 t1_j5oegxa wrote
The amount of lumber that goes into any residential structure is dumbfounding. I think about that a lot while cutting off the extra 12” from whatever board I’m cutting. And the dumpsters. Oh god, the construction debris.
SirrNicolas t1_j5p23fn wrote
Think about the metric tons of wood pulp we dispose of instead of recycling into paper products.
Like a cutting board that sends the scraps to the floor
79r100 t1_j5p6may wrote
It is stomach-turning.
No matter how I do the math when measuring for trim there is always waste. Mistakes, bad pieces, etc.
TBH, the high prices have probably contributed to people being mote cautious with their take-offs for lumber.
Rreknhojekul t1_j5q115a wrote
Trees are a renewable resource.
It doesn’t really seem like it’s a terrible problem.
You have to also consider that the wood you’re disposing off is mostly made from carbon that’s been pulled from the atmosphere too.
InfiNorth t1_j5q7k4u wrote
Trees may be renewable, forests are not. When you decimate an entire ecosystem that took thousands of years to become the diverse space that was, it never goes back to what it was.
Rreknhojekul t1_j5q90hk wrote
It is quite possible to sustainably manage forests. Obviously what is happening in the Amazon is not at all comparable to this.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_forest_management
>The stewardship and use of forests and forest lands in a way, and at a rate, that maintains their biodiversity, productivity, regeneration capacity, vitality and their potential to fulfill, now and in the future, relevant ecological, economic and social functions, at local, national, and global levels, and that does not cause damage to other ecosystems.
InfiNorth t1_j5q9zlx wrote
No, "management" is a human invention to try to take excessive control over the natural environment for the extraction of it's resources.
EverythingIsDumb-273 t1_j5qceft wrote
Well, true, but that's what we have always done. Even if you live in a cave, you'll still have to extract something.
InfiNorth t1_j5qm436 wrote
>always done
Sorry, explain to me which indigenous peoples of the Americas clearcut entire mountain ranges and river basins three hundred years ago?
LongFluffyDragon t1_j5qzniv wrote
InfiNorth t1_j5rks3d wrote
You are literally claiming that clearcut logging has "always been done." It hasn't. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary answers.
LongFluffyDragon t1_j5rl5ts wrote
I am quite sure i never said that, and i cant see any signs anyone else did either. All in your head, clearly time to take a long break.
godisanelectricolive t1_j5rq3p8 wrote
I'm pretty sure they meant some kind of forest management has always been done, not the practice of clearcutting. I would argue the ancient practice of controlled burning is the perfect example of sustainable forest management that's beneficial to both humans and ecosystems. Far from being pristine wilderness untouched by human activity, Indigenous North Americans have long controlled the types of vegetation in a region using fire. Through controlled burning, they turned forests into grassland, savannah, open woodland and cleared undergrowth in forests to make travel more accessible. Slash and burn agriculture is also a tradition used by the Maya since time immemorial. The Yanomami of the Amazon also used also and burn.
Humans are part of the ecosystem and human intervention has long played a vital role in shaping the natural environment. It's not unnatural to extract resources or actively manage our surrounding environment, we just have to find ways of doing so that is complementary with nature. Logging is not inherently unsustainable, better forestry practices that prioritize preserving old-growth forests and protecting biodiversity are possible. Continuous cover forestry and close to nature forestry are two models that does not destroy the ecosystem and can even help create forests that are more resilient to wildfires. Using lumber does not require the destruction of entire ancient forests.
EverythingIsDumb-273 t1_j5qc3ar wrote
True. Some places have laws to prevent clear-cutting and the like
InfiNorth t1_j5qm5av wrote
Name some.
joeminza t1_j5qmndb wrote
Algonquin park in ontario is a great example of sustainable forestry over a long period of time.
InfiNorth t1_j5qoy1e wrote
No, it isn't. A park should not be a harvesting space. It is an example of long-term impacts of green washing, misinformation, and the failure of our education system.
79r100 t1_j5q3uv8 wrote
Yeah man. Makes sense and is different than what this article is about.
spiralbatross t1_j5q5veh wrote
We should be using hemp for paper, but god forbid some stoner gets high!
Blondeambitchion t1_j5p6elq wrote
Almost 50% of trees cut down go to pallets
At least residential structures are somewhat permanent. Pallets have to be replaced every couple years.
79r100 t1_j5p7aox wrote
Omfg, is that true?
“Cancel that bonfire!!”
Ive always said high quality materials and labor is the greenest way to build. The amount of 10 year old remodels I have torn out is astounding.0
Blondeambitchion t1_j5p7t6k wrote
Unfortunately… it’s depressing
*in the US, not sure about international stats
the_clash_is_back t1_j5pfxvx wrote
Soft wood for residential comes from plantation tree farms. The trees are a crop just like corn, you grow them, cut them then regrow them.
shipshapeshump t1_j5p903w wrote
It's softwood. stop worrying about it. You can grow a huge pine tree in 10 years.
79r100 t1_j5pbimr wrote
I hope they are planting that shit fast enough.
Waste is waste.
shipshapeshump t1_j5pbwhj wrote
People are too selfish. We'll just keep consuming and reproducing and consuming more. these days people think typing shit on line will make a difference. Not so long ago, it was actually a thing that tiktok dancing can help the war in Ukraine.
People are fucked. That's it in a nutshell. We will collectively do ourselves in and the world will be fine without us or with us at hugely reduced numbers.
HobbitFoot t1_j5pinu5 wrote
It depends where it comes from. A lot of American wood now comes from industrial forests/tree farms.
seapulse t1_j5pst1q wrote
I’d adore getting wood scraps jsyk so I think you can probably find someone who’s interested
Hairybard t1_j5q4y42 wrote
Construction waste (hours and materials) is absurdly destructive. Work in constructing and tree planting. A housing revolution is needed.
JoaoMXN t1_j6lrnhx wrote
This is an american culture because in brazil most houses are made with cinder or ceramic blocks.
79r100 t1_j6ocoxo wrote
North American culture. Climate has a lot to do with it.
LloydAtkinson t1_j5pgem2 wrote
Meanwhile other countries use bricks, because they are civilized. You can literally dig clay from almost anywhere on the planet.
79r100 t1_j5phpza wrote
Have you tried to hire a mason lately?
Holy god, if anyone listening wants to make a good living and feels a little lost- become a brick tender and in 10 years you can name your price.
Make sure to get health coverage and cover yourself on your work comp policy. You’ll need it.
RoscoePSoultrain t1_j5pr64g wrote
I tried but didn't know the secret tickle handshake.
Seriously though, being a mason is some hard yakka. Very high wrist loads, often with impact, and constant exposure to stone and concrete dust.
Tzintzuntzan24 t1_j5pj18h wrote
Good luck in an earthquake with a brick structure.
Weegee_Spaghetti t1_j5qjyxb wrote
Wow, I hope you're a troll.
salalberryisle t1_j5rr5wq wrote
It's why most wet coast homes are built from wood
seapulse t1_j5ptluk wrote
Don’t bricks have some amount of sand/concrete in them, which we are also facing a global shortage of? I’m the first person to protest deforestation, but there is something beneficial about a building material being farmable.
oh god minecraft has had it right all along
Weegee_Spaghetti t1_j5qk1e9 wrote
sand and concrete shortage lmfao.
seapulse t1_j5qoc8i wrote
ask-me-about-my-cats t1_j5qd2xm wrote
Yeah great let's use brick housing in California. That won't kill millions of people.
LongFluffyDragon t1_j5r3qtx wrote
Mining is far from non-destructive, and you cant farm clay.
Building with bricks is also incredibly stupid in any area that gets hot or has earthquakes. We are going to see a lot of stone and brick buildings being torn down in europe in the next decade due to becoming uninhabitable.
HobbitFoot t1_j5pj4fj wrote
But what is the carbon offset of a brick?
Acceptable-Village95 t1_j5o1f2d wrote
Now what’s needed it’s a domino effect, this world had enough of mankind exploiting even the air for making money. A great move
Penguinkrug84 t1_j5oem7s wrote
Yeah, it’s heartbreaking, especially because it’s all to access the worst oil there is. So they’re destroying a carbon sink so as to access the worst type of carbon pollution. Makes no sense especially when considering we should be transitioning away from oil anyway. The forest is waaaaaay more valuable!
THEBLOODYGAVEL t1_j5ojai9 wrote
New Brunswick looking like a lunar surface as soon as you drive off the mains roads.
Efficient-Ad-3302 t1_j5ok607 wrote
There’s a logging operation just down the road from me. It’s fairly recent because they only started hauling wood a few days ago.
MacaroniBandit214 t1_j5ombaa wrote
Im pretty sure the law requires them to replenish whatever they chop down
sebirds t1_j5opixg wrote
Replenishing doesn't bring forests back. It merely brings back some trees. There is no biodiversity, and it takes decades, sometimes even centuries, for forests to gain back their native fauna and flora.
HobbitFoot t1_j5pjtpl wrote
Yeah, but if you start banning the cutting of virgin forests, you can eventually get a sustainable industry. Sure, the tree farms aren't as biodiverse as you want them to be, but it is better than the alternative.
sebirds t1_j5pmhn0 wrote
Yes I agree completely, but bulldozing virgin forest should stop asap. We need to start using the same land to produce timber instead of harvesting from new land. This isn't the case.
MacaroniBandit214 t1_j5ot23w wrote
Are there inaccuracies to these claims? I’m genuinely asking because as far as I’m aware it sounds like bad business practice to destroy your supply provider
[deleted] t1_j5ou071 wrote
[removed]
shipshapeshump t1_j5p9lgz wrote
Yes, massive inaccuracies and plenty of agenda and lies too for whatever reason.
acebandaged t1_j5q0x3s wrote
Businesses don't give two shits about what the landscape will look like in 50 years. Sustainability would require them to give up some profits in the short term, which is unacceptable for most. Just look at the fishing industry!
Also, new forests are nowhere near as effective at carbon capture and storage as old-growth forests.
shipshapeshump t1_j5p9i2w wrote
Incorrect. Look what happened when people shut themselves inside for a few months. Biodiversity started immediately.
RoscoePSoultrain t1_j5prdbq wrote
We certainly developed new species of fruits and nuts.
sebirds t1_j5pbzb7 wrote
Lol
teluetetime t1_j5pxlgw wrote
The process starts immediately, sure. But it takes time, and extinct species never come back. Nature isn’t magic.
Efficient-Ad-3302 t1_j5on04w wrote
I don’t know about other companies but I know Irving doesn’t always replant
MacaroniBandit214 t1_j5otuc1 wrote
Which Irving? The only one I see is JD Irving and claims that on average each of their tree planters plants 12,000-15,000 a week
shipshapeshump t1_j5p9c81 wrote
People are in hysteria in this thread. There is no reasoning with hysterical alarmists when they start going nuts about pine trees that grow back inside of a few years after cutting a patch.
People are stupid. Sitting there burning energy with slacktivism while complaining about stuff they are pretty much clueless about. Amazing.
Mental-Mushroom t1_j5pa71c wrote
Not boreal, but they just had to close a pulp mill in Prince George BC because they logged the whole area dry.
Logging trucks were driving 8 hours away to get logs.
And the government enabled all of the over logging.
the_clash_is_back t1_j5pfsee wrote
The bigger issue is the old growth in bc. The younger trees in the boreal forest can be responsibly harvested. But old growth never comes back.
Efficient-Ad-3302 t1_j5pg06n wrote
In the Maritimes they’re cutting everything
oh_am_i t1_j5s03tx wrote
They just realized in Finland that chopping the forests does not help in cutting down CO2 emissions. They were actually surprised about this turn of events.
I can’t even.
redneck_comando t1_j5qkd7d wrote
Need to build those houses for an expanding population.
sussyballamogus t1_j5tgfot wrote
Incredibly sad.
At least its not old growth forest, amirite? /s
shipshapeshump t1_j5p8wzb wrote
Not really. We replace pretty much everything that gets cut down. Much of the Boreal forest is untouched. Most of the trees that get cut are softwoods and take very short time periods to replace through replanting.
GANTRITHORE t1_j5pu473 wrote
60% of tree loss in Canada is from fires.
acebandaged t1_j5q48mq wrote
Much of the fire losses in the US are due to irresponsible management and a lack of natural fire cycles, I assume Canada has similar issues. Still doesn't negate the damage we're doing by cutting old-growth forests.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments