Re: OFFLIST - private post - global warming

[Guest guest]

>Heidi-

>

>I think that's partly a man-made issue, though. Virgin forest was much

>more ecologically diverse than anything we've created.

>

>-

Some of it sure is more diverse, but some

of the old-growth forests though are really

full of one kind of tree -- they like to take over a stretch, like

bamboo does. So you'll see mile after mile of cedars, with some

meadows and rivers between, and the ground between is

rather dry and has maybe ferns and some other plants. The

trees actually create toxins that poison other species.

We have one grove of cedars on our property, and NOTHING

but one kind of fern grows there. On the periphery are some

shrubs, but under the trees it is totally open. Nothing will grow.

It's too dark and dry, and cedar needles poison a lot of plants.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

Chris-

You're assuming that all the cells that are formed in a tree stay alive,

but in fact the living portion of the tree is the outermost shell. Even

so, you'd be right that there'd be more cells each time if each ring

maintained a constant thickness, but it's just not so -- look at the rings

of any tree and you'll see what I mean. There's a growth spurt, but

eventually the rings get awfully thin. They may even wind up being roughly

the same thickness after awhile, but it's not an inch a year indefinitely,

that's for sure.

>This may be way off and I don't know any more

>about botany than I do about forestry, but assuming the cells are mitotically

>reproducing, each time there are twice as many cells to reproduce, so the

>growth

>rate should be exponential and not linear in terms of volume.

-

[Guest guest]

Heidi-

Are we talking virgin forest, or just old-growth? (How much virgin forest

do we have left, anyway?)

>So you'll see mile after mile of cedars, with some

>meadows and rivers between, and the ground between is

>rather dry and has maybe ferns and some other plants. The

>trees actually create toxins that poison other species.

-

[Guest guest]

>Heidi,

>

>You seem to be making my point rather than 's here though, considering 40

>years is an awful long time. If profit is maximized by harvesting 40 year

>old trees, than you would make a lot more money over 20 years if you cut down

>only the trees that offer peak profits each year, no?

>

>Chris

Arrgh, I have no idea what is profitable for lumber folk. I think

their most profit is derived from clearcutting close to

the city and selling the land for cheap, crowded housing. There

isn't much profit in trees, I think -- they do land speculation and

other things for profit.

In my perfect world we'd grow hemp for paper and build houses

out of strawbales and reusable struts, and use wood mainly for

decoration. Wood isn't a very good building material, there was

just so MUCH of it when people settled here. Like cedar shingles --

horrid idea, now they are finally (after some bad fires) going

out of fashion.

(And I know someone is going to say we'll run out of straw,

but currently it is being burned off in some places, it's

a waste product mostly).

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

From: <ChrisMasterjohn@...>

> There would be more cells regardless of thickness each time, because

if each

> cell reproduces once, each successive generation of cells contain

twice as

> many cells.

But just like humans, plants don't grow at an exponential rate

indefinitely. There are various other factors that limit growth. I'm not

sure what they are, though.

[Guest guest]

>Heidi-

>

>Are we talking virgin forest, or just old-growth? (How much virgin forest

>do we have left, anyway?)

Well, the old-growth around here is about 1,000+ years old, which

I guess is about as virgin as you can get. And there isn't as much

left as I'd like. But it is very beautiful (if not economic -- hikers don't

pay much for the privilege of viewing old trees). The logging companies

are fighting hard to log it, under the guise of " healthy forests " . Of course

they want to take the big OLD trees, not the sickly ones.

(Sorry, this is one of my cynical hot buttons, having hiked in

forests slated for demolishment to make stair treads and other

important modern items).

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

From: " Heidi Schuppenhauer " <heidis@...>

> Well, the old-growth around here is about 1,000+ years old, which

> I guess is about as virgin as you can get. And there isn't as much

> left as I'd like. But it is very beautiful (if not economic -- hikers

don't

> pay much for the privilege of viewing old trees).

Perhaps that's the problem. If environmentalists were half as willing to

open their wallets as they are to open their mouths, logging old-growth

forests would be a lot less economical.

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>There would be more cells regardless of thickness each time, because if each

>cell reproduces once, each successive generation of cells contain twice as

>many cells.

Yes, but not necessarily twice as many. The number would depend on the

size of each new ring, because the cells of the previous ring would be

dying, not every cell is necessarily going to divide, etc. Besides,

there's going to be a genetic program governing these things, just like

with other species -- otherwise we'd all be giants by the time we reached

old age.

>That's what Heidi was just saying, but how long does the growth spurt last?

>If 40 years is a decent average, than it seems that that while not

> " indefinite " is long enough that my point was valid.

I'm just speculating here, but perhaps one factor in determining the

optimum harvesting age for a tree is wood quality. Just as green wood is

no good, maybe it's best to let the interior of a tree " age " for awhile. I

have no idea whether that's true, but it's certainly not implausible.

-

[Guest guest]

>Perhaps that's the problem. If environmentalists were half as willing to

>open their wallets as they are to open their mouths, logging old-growth

>forests would be a lot less economical.

Since 95% of the wealth is in the hands of 5% of the population,

the economic power is a little unbalanced, dontcha think?

A huge chunk of the population is below the poverty line,

and many folks are just making their house payments,

and a lot don't have medical insurance.

Now if we ALL

had 'N' dollars to start with, like in Monopoly and could

vote equally, that argument would have some validity.

But we start the came un-equally -- some are born with

$10, some with $1,000,000. So we have to fight with votes,

not with dollars.

And as far as taxes, many

of the corporations who get the bennies from public

lands pay NO taxes, they just take the goods and run.

Besides, my tax dollars DID pay for wilderness land

to be set aside for posterity and enjoyment. What right

to logging firms have to make money off stuff our

public money paid for?

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/10/03 3:24:58 AM Eastern Standard Time,

kacheson@... writes:

> Hmm- but there is the rub. They say " sustainable farming " when for all the

> world we all, at least here in Oregon and Washington drive down the road to

> miles of bare hills and mountains that in turn, turn into mudslides that

> they say have nothing to do with the clear-cut logging. Then they have the

> BA**s to talk about sustainable harvesting. Tree farming is NOT a forest!!

> Tree farming is rows and rows, acres and acres of single species trees.

> This is not and has nothing to do with what a forest is. No matter what they

> say they all want to clear cut.

I actually just meant a way of sustaining profits.

Chris

[Guest guest]

<<Right but in that case they're really in the development rather than

lumber

business in terms of practical applications. But I've given up arguing that

point because the fact is I don't know squat about forestry, and obviously

if

some companies are tree farming than not all companies reject clearcutting

as a

sustainable lumbering practice.>>

Hmm- but there is the rub. They say " sustainable farming " when for all the

world we all, at least here in Oregon and Washington drive down the road to

miles of bare hills and mountains that in turn, turn into mudslides that

they say have nothing to do with the clear-cut logging. Then they have the

BA**s to talk about sustainable harvesting. Tree farming is NOT a forest!!

Tree farming is rows and rows, acres and acres of single species trees.

This is not and has nothing to do with what a forest is. No matter what they

say they all want to clear cut.

Sustainable farming is just another politically correct name.

Kathy A

Native Oregon

[Guest guest]

<<> Tree farming is rows and rows, acres and acres of single species trees.

> This is not and has nothing to do with what a forest is. No matter what

they

> say they all want to clear cut.

I actually just meant a way of sustaining profits.

Chris>>

Oh!! Well -Sorry, i guess i just missed it.

Kathy A. a native Oregonian that remembers lots and lots of real forest.