Boreal forest the next battle

So I'm curious. Are the forests of Brazil and other countries not important? Will they be allowed to continue using thier forests for economic benefit? We've all heard of the deforestation taking place in Brazil. At least when Canada cut's down it's forests it replants a large percentage of them. In BC any timber cut on crown land must be replanted.

it's like that in all of Canada RUEZ. I work in areas that are heavily logged and I can tell you the regeneration and growth happens much faster than you can imagine.

50% is a crazy number, one they will never reach. I'm not saying protecting the forest is a bad thing, it's very good actually but let's get real...

Exactly, let's be realistic. We need our forests for the jobs they provide as well as for the beauty and habitat for the animals. To make 50% untouchable is unrealistic. The pine beetle alone will not allow that to happen. It is going to kill most of the lodgepole pine in BC, which will have to be harvested or allowed to rot on the forest floor.

This is such a load of crap. If you really want to use trees as a carbon sequestration measure, you HAVE to cut them down. If you don't, they'll burn, releasing it again, or die and decompose and release it again. If you want to use wood to store carbon, cut it down, preserve it, and bury it, and then replant new trees. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Selling carbon credits for NOT cutting down trees? Doesn't really do much to fight the stereotype of the lazy Indian, does it?

That sort of reminds me of the Indian band that wanted payment for cell phone signals that crossed over their land.

If some of these environmental groups, got their way, Canada would be 100% forest and we'd live in the caves...

Seeing as how we replant trees and protect a fair portion, they can go and bitch at Indonesia, who chops down huge swathes of their forests to make disposable chopsticks for Asia.

"During the first half of the 20th century, there were relatively few fires and insect outbreaks, so the forests continued to grow and sequester carbon, said Werner Kurz of the Canadian Forest Service, who heads the team assessing how carbon moves in and out of the forest.

In recent decades, the researchers say the area burned each year by wildfire has doubled, annual harvest rates have increased somewhat, and rates of carbon uptake by aging forests have slowed.

In extreme fire years, such as 1995, 1998, 2002, 2003 and 2004, the carbon dioxide released as the forests burned accounted for up to 45 per cent of Canada's total greenhouse-gas emissions, dwarfing emissions from big industrial sources."

Jesus they can admit they were always full of shit and still get people to think cutting an old forrest and planting a new vibrant one is a bad thing. It is a wonder they don't sell ice cubes to the Inuit.

Yeah well is sorta like that "new Swedish climate study" which the CBC trumpeted as proof of CO2 GW. These guys a cabal of , theorized that the arctic was warming due to CO2 rich warm southern winds. Problem is they either ignored or were unaware that the arctic melt is BS.

Same thing about this carbon sink boreal forest thing-----if you rely on the unfounded CO2 AGW theory it makes sense but otherwise it is a merely a discussion of the environmental impact of unicorn shit.

If it wasnt for environmentalists...there wouldnt be reforestation or protected areas, it would be a concrete jungle. We need environmentalists to keep corporations from destroying everything for a profit.

There would be reforestation. It's not economically smart to simply destroy all the forest and not ensure it grows back. The more forest you cut the further away from the mill you have to go cut it. Transportation costs rise while production decreases, it's vital for the sustainability of a mill to cut and replenish so they can return to that area to cut it later. With rising gas costs this is proving to be even more important, the further a truck has to go to get the wood the longer it takes and the more it costs.

There would be reforestation. It's not economically smart to simply destroy all the forest and not ensure it grows back. The more forest you cut the further away from the mill you have to go cut it. Transportation costs rise while production decreases, it's vital for the sustainability of a mill to cut and replenish so they can return to that area to cut it later. With rising gas costs this is proving to be even more important, the further a truck has to go to get the wood the longer it takes and the more it costs.

Not without public pressure...it hasnt always been that way, put the environment into the hands of for profit and there will be a disaster...need the ying and the yang...A little of both keeps a nice balance.

yeah I know what you mean, we take the best of both worlds

There would be reforestation. It's not economically smart to simply destroy all the forest and not ensure it grows back. The more forest you cut the further away from the mill you have to go cut it. Transportation costs rise while production decreases, it's vital for the sustainability of a mill to cut and replenish so they can return to that area to cut it later. With rising gas costs this is proving to be even more important, the further a truck has to go to get the wood the longer it takes and the more it costs.

Not without public pressure...it hasnt always been that way, put the environment into the hands of for profit and there will be a disaster...need the ying and the yang...A little of both keeps a nice balance.

Exactly! Take a look at L.A. or Chicago sometime, if you want to see what unchecked "highest bidder" concrete jungle looks like. Unbelievably FUGLY and nowhere for families to enjoy nature. Nothing was sacred so buildings and pavement were crammed into every available space, without mercy - and the quality of life suffers terribly as a result. People tend to be more wound up, stressed, pushing everyone else out of their way to get what they want, and don't even know who their neighbours are anymore.

Contrast against Portland, Oregon... a place where environmentalists reign supreme. Development is widely accepted as being necessary to accommodate growing populations, but they refuse to do it at the expense of greenspaces and places for people to gather for neighbourhood events. Consequently, people tend to be less stressed, better acquainted with their neighbours, and more polite to each other.

What's the difference between these two opposite ends of the spectrum? Public pressure.

Portland reminds me very much of our cities. Believe me when I say we have much to be proud of and fight for here. TG is right... carefully controlled and planned development is the key. Once you've seen the ugly alternative I think you'll agree.

People need places to live and work, but there's no excuse for overdeveloping until a place is no longer worth living in.

TattoodGirl wrote:


Reforestation has been around especially in europe for centuries. Environmentalism is a recent phenomina and currently applauds razing the rainforests of indonesia and brazil to grow bio-fuel.

In Britain, years back I saw centuries old stands of cultured (planted) "Banbury Oaks".....established specifically to provide ship timbers.