.jpg)
The following I learned from Paper University. Go check it out.
Paper comes from trees. Yes, but not just any trees. It comes from trees that have been planted and grown specifically to harvest paper. Most, if not all, of those trees would not be there, if they had not been planted for paper. Moreover, these crops are a renewable resource; trees that are cut down are replaced by new ones. So, (1) the trees of forests, city parks, and your backyard are not threatened by the manufacturing of paper, and (2) the paper industry has actually helped increase the number of trees in the world.
Also, it takes 10-20 years for trees to mature to the point at which they can be useful in making paper and other wood-based products. Because of this slow rate of maturity, paper crops create a rather stable ecosystem for various wildlife. Therefore, it is safe to assume that (3) animals are (excluding those who are squished by falling trees) overall benefited by the paper industry.
The Big Q: Why, then, should we recycle? Well, preserving the world's trees is not--if Paper University is to be trusted--a good reason. After all, if the production of paper actually leads to more trees and does not threaten already existing trees, then it is tough to sustain a "no trees for paper" policy. There is, however, another, perhaps less "heroic", reason to recycle, namely, to reduce the amount of paper in landfills. All things being equal, I think that less trash in landfills is a good thing. (Still, I suspect that all things are not equal and that fanatical doomsday tales of landfill ooze attacks are at best verisimilitudinous.) Perhaps there are more complex, scientific reasons to recycle paper, but I don't know what they are. Paper U probably discusses the issue in detail somewhere.
In short, if what I have said above is accurate, then we ought not to feel much compunction concerning our use of paper, especially if our uneasiness is based on the false notion that paper production contributes to deforestation. That's bunkum. And I'm sick of being told noble lies in service of supposed noble efforts to save some aspect of our world. I would rather know the truth (or that the *experts* are not sure what is the truth) than be deceived into doing what some elite group thinks is best.
3 comments:
Garrett! I don't even know how to thank you for this post.
Thank you.
This is a tricky one, it seems that paper farms are a way of promoting new growth while simultaneously ensuring a continuous supply of wood for the world's enormous appetite for pulp and paper products, as is the function of the scientific operated tree farm. Tree farms are defiantly a model of modern forestry, guaranteeing a perpetual harvest of wood while conserving natural resources.
However, what about the natural ecosystem that is clear cut, and destroyed to provide this form of harvest?
Well, I suppose that's something you must take on a case by case basis. It might be a little hasty to use the term "clear cut" to describe what goes on when tree "crops" are planted. I'm sure something is disrupted in the process, but there's really no avoiding that completely. I'm all for tree farmers being as sensitive as possible to the environments in which they choose to do their thing, but it's true that somebody is gonna get the short end of the stick. The goal should be to make sure the short end of that stick is as long as possible.
And let me re-emphasize that the core motivation behind this post is not to justify our massive consumption of wood and paper products but to combat the lie that harvesting trees for paper somehow is depleting the world's stock of trees or laying waste to vast chunks of, for example, the Amazon Rain Forest. I teach SAT classes to high school students; virtually all of them take such blarney for granted. And it's no fault of their own--they have been fed this stuff their entire lives. All for the "greater good" of course.
Post a Comment