PDA

View Full Version : Environment! My Arse


Resource Consumer
01-03-2009, 09:43:51
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/feb/26/toilet-roll-america

Oerdin
01-03-2009, 10:45:20
Virgin forests in Virginia my ass. The paper all comes from tree farms where trees are planted as a cash crop.

Dyl Ulenspiegel
01-03-2009, 11:38:19
"softness equals ecological destruction"

:lol:

And Oerdin, there's a special :clueless: for you.

MoSe
02-03-2009, 11:53:37
Originally posted by Oerdin
tree farms

he played too much SMAC

MDA
02-03-2009, 14:44:36
Did I misread, when did Virginia become part of Canada?

I like the idea of recycled toilet paper. Its good to have a perfectly innocent reason to have your finger up your ass.

<insert lab joke about Kimwipes here>

Funko
02-03-2009, 14:49:28
The article doesn't mention Virginia does it? That's just Oerdin being dumb.

Venom
02-03-2009, 15:14:46
Now there's a shock.

notyoueither
03-03-2009, 05:54:44
Originally posted by MDA
Did I misread, when did Virginia become part of Canada?

I like the idea of recycled toilet paper. Its good to have a perfectly innocent reason to have your finger up your ass.

<insert lab joke about Kimwipes here>

Oerdin's geography notwithstanding, the trees that are used in the pulp industry are entirely renewable.

We're not talking old growth BC hardwood. We kill those for the Japanese for furniture, when the Japanese have cash to pay for it.

Funko
03-03-2009, 08:58:23
The article says the trees come from well managed forests in Canada, that happen to be virgin forests rather than those planted specifically as crops. The criticism seemed to be more about using 100% new wood, not just the type of wood.

Recycled toilet paper is just as good as the non-recycled.

notyoueither
04-03-2009, 02:28:22
The article is not very good. It is quite jumbled.

It says the problems are the chemicals from pulp (fair enough, but not really the focus of the article and debatable at that) as well as 'cutting down forests' (the focus).

It uses the terms 'virgin wood' and 'virgin forests' almost interchangeably. Which is it? And what does 'virgin' wood mean anyway? Are there trees of easy virtue?

It goes on to explain '98% of the toilet roll sold in America comes from virgin forests,' which is bullshit, point blank. The forest industry in Eastern Canada is mostly on private land that has been being logged for several hundred years. The forests used for pulp in Western Canada are predominately composed of fast growing species (poplar, pine, etc) that exist in forests that continually burned, regrew, burned, regrew... over the years, and lately logged, replanted, etc. While some of these areas may be being logged for the first time, calling them 'virgin' is not a very useful term.

There is one mention, near the end of the article, about 'sustainbly farmed forests in Canada' [sic] and then resumes the 'virgin forests' meme, which again, is bullshit.

It's a bad article. It makes me want to bring out my hakapik the next time I meet a Brit.

Koshko
04-03-2009, 02:53:02
I'd rather have soft toilet paper than a forest. Sorry.

notyoueither
04-03-2009, 03:31:54
You brute.

Dyl Ulenspiegel
04-03-2009, 09:00:11
I still think virgin toilet paper is just a marketing gag.

Funko
04-03-2009, 09:02:28
Virgin forest doesn't mean it's never been logged, it means it's originally not a man made forest.

In this case I think you are right that they are either misleading with their use of it, or the journalist doesn't know what it means.

MoSe
04-03-2009, 10:20:55
so, Virgin Records are for originally not man made music

notyoueither
05-03-2009, 03:46:17
Originally posted by Funko
Virgin forest doesn't mean it's never been logged, it means it's originally not a man made forest.

I'm not sure I see your distinction.

In this case I think you are right that they are either misleading with their use of it, or the journalist doesn't know what it means.

I don't necessarily blame the writer. Editors can make kindling of a good story. They certainly do choose what to publish and how to treat poorly written material submitted to them.

The more interesting discussion would be the different views about development that lead to articles like this one being published.

Funko
05-03-2009, 09:08:10
Originally posted by notyoueither
I'm not sure I see your distinction.

You can plant a forest from scratch for logging, we have tons of pine forests like that.

You can also log a historic forest, but keep replanting it with similar trees.

Funko
05-03-2009, 09:08:33
Anyway the point is, why no recycled paper in US bog roll?

notyoueither
06-03-2009, 02:49:34
Originally posted by Funko
You can plant a forest from scratch for logging, we have tons of pine forests like that.

You can also log a historic forest, but keep replanting it with similar trees.

And? Is the point that forest practice in Britain is different from in Canada? OK.

What is the difference between a tree that grew on a burned out piece of land 'in nature' after a fire 25 or 50 years ago, as opposed to a tree planted by a human?

And once again, a majority of the Canadian pulp industry is located in areas where most land used for lumber is privately owned and has been used for this purpose for a hundred years or more, ie. they are planted for logging.

Originally posted by Funko
Anyway the point is, why no recycled paper in US bog roll?

Read the article again, for what little it is worth. There are products made from recycled on the market. They are commonly used in work places and public facilities (that I've seen). Privately, people choose. I'm sure some do use it by choice.

Also, the pulp industry uses a lot of wood chips and other leavings from the lumber industry. That's 'virgin' wood, but it is also recycled of a sort as otherwise it would be burned or left to rot.

Koshko
06-03-2009, 03:56:12
The point is that assholes must be treated with care.

Venom
06-03-2009, 05:22:14
Trees r gay.

notyoueither
06-03-2009, 05:54:22
This may require some hard filosofy.

MoSe
06-03-2009, 12:42:57
or just a big branch poking in your bum

Funko
09-03-2009, 09:12:32
Originally posted by notyoueither
What is the difference between a tree that grew on a burned out piece of land 'in nature' after a fire 25 or 50 years ago, as opposed to a tree planted by a human?


In the UK it's breed of tree (normally non-native for farmed trees) variety of trees planted (normally no variety in farmed trees), location (although as most of britain was once forested this really is the same as just saying you've planted non native trees somewhere that was deforested hundred/thousands of years ago).

MoSe
09-03-2009, 09:21:27
"Environment! My Arse"

jj Woods Arson is bad for Environment

nye, I figure the distinction is that even if you're not free to log tree farms, you don't have more trees, as the very same tree farms would NOT be there.
If you can't log'em, you won't plant'em.
And there would be more pressure to log virgin ones.

The Mad Monk
09-03-2009, 18:28:16
Originally posted by MoSe
or just a big branch poking in your bum

http://somethingpositive.net/arch/sp05042002.gif

http://somethingpositive.net/sp05042002.shtml

notyoueither
10-03-2009, 04:13:40
Originally posted by Funko
In the UK it's breed of tree (normally non-native for farmed trees) variety of trees planted (normally no variety in farmed trees), location (although as most of britain was once forested this really is the same as just saying you've planted non native trees somewhere that was deforested hundred/thousands of years ago).

That's cool.

Would you accept that the same conditions do not apply here?

We have forest fires that consume an area of timber about the size of Great Britain, forested and not. Every year.

Logging it seems a good alternative to waiting for it to burn. Hense, if you cry about cutting down 'virgin' forests of pine and poplar the average Canadian might look at you as if you suffer from some form of retardation. It's like moaning about farming because you might exhaust the soil. Well yes, you might, if you're an idiot and no one pays any attention to what the idiots are doing.

There was a time when nobody paid much attention. People are paying attention now, and have been for some time. Forests that are on public land that are leased out for logging, those would be the 'virgins', have to be replanted with appropriate original species.

That being said, there are some forests that are populated by truely old trees. There are parts of British Columbia near the coast that do not have the same conditions as the rest of the country. They are like Northern rain forests. They have not been recycled by fire every 50 or 100 years and so there are trees that are many hundreds of years old. There are concerns about logging in these old growth areas. The Government of BC has to manage the demand for the extremely valuable wood from the species that have adapted to this area, vs sustaining these forests over the long term. The pulp industry does not use these trees.

The pulp industry, by and large, uses fast growing trees from the much, much larger forests in the interior of BC and the rest of Canada. Here pine, poplar, etc. grow like weeds. They have to. Fire wipes them out periodically. It gets dry. There's one of any number of summer thunder storms, a dozen lighting strikes... *poof* goes an area the size of Sussex, up in flames.

Why should we not harvest some of these trees before they burn?

MDA
11-03-2009, 15:39:50
cornhole attack :lol:

Funko
11-03-2009, 15:46:43
Originally posted by notyoueither
That's cool.

Would you accept that the same conditions do not apply here?

I don't think I condoned what they were implying by using the word virgin forest, just explaining it isn't completely innaccurate from a British perspective.

Anyway reading it again they say virgin wood, so they are talking about newly logged wood vs recycled paper and nothing to do with the forests.

notyoueither
12-03-2009, 03:16:03
What is the point of saying 'virgin' wood?

Are trees that have been knocked up common in Europe?

I see the article has been amended to switch 'virgin forest' for 'virgin wood.' The focus on cutting down trees remains.

"Making toilet paper from virgin wood is a lot worse than driving Hummers in terms of global warming pollution." Making toilet paper has a significant impact because of chemicals used in pulp manufacture and cutting down forests.

We've been through the nature of the pulp industry in Canada. The term 'virgin' wood has no meaning, other than as a negative connotation to harvesting trees for human uses.

The article continues to downplay recycled products, and ignores the use of tailings from the lumber industry in the pulp industry.

It remains a terrible article. It encourages ignorance as well as contributions to Greenpeace. I suspect the latter to be the real point.

The Mad Monk
12-03-2009, 06:40:44
Originally posted by MDA
cornhole attack :lol:

You should read this strip.


Everyone should, really.

Except my Mom.