Re: OFFLIST - private post - global warming

[Guest guest]

Ooops, sorry Joe. I tried to send my comments about posting style

privately but it came to the list instead. I hope you do not take

offense.

Thanks,

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 06:53:07 -0800

slethnobotanist@... wrote:

>Hi Joe, very good post. I have a favor to ask of you. Could you repost

>this with your response under Heidi's comment rather than on top? I

>almost deleted what you wrote without reading it because I didn't know

>what was true or not true based on your first sentence.

>

>Again, thanks for your thoughts. I will be responding to Heidi myself a

>little later.

>

>

>ps. in case you deleted it I have reoriented it below

>

>

>

>Heidi:

>

>>> Actually until the government stepped in the environment

>>> was a WORSE mess.

>>

>

>Joe:

>

>>Hi, I think this is true and this is also not true. When I own a

>>piece of property, I take care of it because its in my best interest

>>to protect the value of that property. Damage to that property is

>>damage to me. This is why in general those that own their own home

>>take better care of it than those that don't. If someone throws

>>garbage on my property, I am going to pick it up. I am also not

>>going to pollute my own property.

>>

>>Now when it comes to parts of the environment that are not owned,

>>like air and water, they are going to bear the brunt of pollution.

>>Obviously, without regulation, there is no cost to me dumping as much

>>of my pollution in the water or air as I can get away with. This

>>goes for public lands too. So the presence of regulation gives us the

>>impression that the government is doing something great for us,

>>protecting us.

>>

>>But protecting environmental quality through regulations is a far

>>inferior way than through a system of private property rights. It

>>would be completely possible in today's world to establish property

>>rights in the air and ocean. Owners take good care of their

>>property. Government regulation is a product of who can muster the

>>greater political influence in Washington, will it be a big polluting

>>corporation or a wacky environmental group that believes cars should

>>be illegal? Either way we lose. There is a large body of work

>>called free market environmentalism, and I am sure it work much

>>better than the system we have now, but I am also realistic and know

>>the government is never going to want to give up control of the

>>environment, too much money and power there. The EPA, etc are huge

>>and powerful.

>>

>>So once again, the government breaks your leg, give you a crutch, and

>>says " see, you can't walk without me " .

>>

>>best regards, Joe

>>

>>

>

>

>

The Secret of Health

Stay away from the doctor, says Hein, MD.

http://tinyurl.com/td64

[Guest guest]

>>be illegal? Either way we lose. There is a large body of work

>>called free market environmentalism, and I am sure it work much

>>better than the system we have now, but I am also realistic and know

>>the government is never going to want to give up control of the

>>environment, too much money and power there. The EPA, etc are huge

>>and powerful.

I work with a lot of companies, and some of them

own land. Land with old growth forest, for example,

which they happily log, even over the salmon

steams which then become unusable for salmon.

They buy the land for the trees, then take the trees,

and if they can, turn the land into housing tracts. It's

all about money, not about what is good in the long run.

THAT is the problem, basically, with capitalism.

It's about short-term profits, not long-term care.

We saw it in the dot-com boom too. If all the companies

thought long-term and for the good of humanity,

there would not be a problem. But I'm old enough

to remember WHY the EPA got formed, and it wasn't

about gov't power. It was about unbreathable air.

Shoot, I even remember having to fight to get

seatbelts installed in cars. It was the same argument --

but a person who didn't want to go through the

windsheild had to pay big bucks for the privalage

of having seat belts. Until it became a law that

cars had to have them.

I'm not going to argue this any more -- I realize there

are a lot of folks who are so adamantly in favor

of " freedom " that they are willing to live with

whatever the corporations do. There is likely

a third alternative that doesn't involve big gov't

or big corporations, but in the end we'll probably

end up with the two merged: the corporation

state, which is what Mussolini tried but failed

to do. A lot of the complaints against " government "

-- such as banning raw milk -- are not actually

the government so much as corporations having

undue influence and basically hijacking the

political process.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/4/03 3:58:46 PM Eastern Standard Time,

jzbozzi@... writes:

> >I work with a lot of companies, and some of them

> >own land. Land with old growth forest, for example,

> >which they happily log, even over the salmon

> >steams which then become unusable for salmon.

> >They buy the land for the trees, then take the trees,

> >and if they can, turn the land into housing tracts. It's

> >all about money, not about what is good in the long run.

From people I've talked to in the forestry profession, this is highly

inaccurate.

If companies desire to turn land into housing tracts, of course they will

clear cut it, but this has nothing to do with making money from the utterly

unprofitable activity of clearcutting, but almost solely to do with the desire

for

housing land.

Comapanies that desire to profit from the wood itself would never opt for

clearcutting when there was another viable option, because they have to pay

taxes

on the dormant land while trees grow back. Foresters tell me it's like

talking to a brick wall trying to get a company to opt for clearcutting, which

is

sometimes necessary due to diseases and whatnot.

I personally believe there should be strict regulation barring the

replacement of forest with monocrop cultures on public land, but the

environmental

movement's push for the banning of clearcutting on public land is outright

stupid,

and based on the idea that the forest will " self-regulate, " that human

activity is an abberation from nature and even a curse upon it rather than part

of

it, when in fact the natural cycle of a forest is to kill itself over time.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>

> I work with a lot of companies, and some of them

> own land. Land with old growth forest, for example,

> which they happily log, even over the salmon

> steams which then become unusable for salmon.

> They buy the land for the trees, then take the trees,

> and if they can, turn the land into housing tracts. It's

> all about money, not about what is good in the long run.

250 million people all have a different opinion of what is " good in

the long run " . I would never assume my opinion about what is good is

right for everyone. But society needs to acheive a constant balance

based on every changing information and opinions. Take development

vs. preservation for example. Obviously American is not going to all

forest or all developed land. But in a true free market, if people

value virgin forest, as it disappears its price goes up. or, if more

people begin to value it more because of chaning opinions the price

goes up too, this is supply and demand. The more its value goes up

the more it will be preserved, and the balance society wants is

achieved. This is a far superior way for society to come to a

balance than the political process, which will always serve the

interests of rich corporations and special interest groups.

from what I understand, most forest that is logged is owned or

directly controlled by the government, not private. I know many

private land owners who go through great efforts to responsibly log

their land, because its in their best interest. And rivers as I

mentioned have no defined property rights so its no surprise they get

abused. Do you see that if that was my river, and I sold salmon from

it, I am not going to let some logging company destroy it? Its now

in someone's best interest to take care of it rather than hoping some

politicians do it out of the goodness of their heart

> But I'm old enough

> to remember WHY the EPA got formed, and it wasn't

> about gov't power. It was about un-breathable air.

the point of my original post, the reason the air got un-breathable

in the first place is because no one was taking care of it, it has no

owner. and guess what, with the billion dollar epa the air is still

un-breathable. and if the epa did make the air clean, they would all

be out of jobs, its not in the best interest of the epa to actually

take care of the air, just give the impression they are. I believe

the exact opposite of what you think I think. government serves the

interests of the most powerful in washington, aka corporations. The

air, land, and oceans would be in much better shape if owners took

care of them rather than corrupt politicians easily bought by

corporations.

> I'm not going to argue this any more -- I realize there

> are a lot of folks who are so adamantly in favor

> of " freedom " that they are willing to live with

> whatever the corporations do.

*sigh* i think such a statement shows you don't understand what I am

saying. Then I shall not post anymore about this either.

> A lot of the complaints against " government "

> -- such as banning raw milk -- are not actually

> the government so much as corporations having

> undue influence and basically hijacking the

> political process.

why do corporations do this? because the government is the only

group that has the legal power to FORCE people to do something. Now

imagine that that kind of power did not exist? The point is without

the government, corporations could never have forced pasteurized milk

down our throats in the first place. There are always people who

want to do bad things out of greed, why do we give them to tool to do

it?

Having a background in economics helped me understand these concepts

which are not commonly known, but which I really believe to be true

and in all our best interest. Heidi, I have the same goal as you. I

am a birdwather, astronomer, camper, hiker, animal lover, old growth

forest lovin guy. We just disagree, totally, on the best method to

help protect that which we love.

best regards, Joe

[Guest guest]

>I personally believe there should be strict regulation barring the

>replacement of forest with monocrop cultures on public land, but the

environmental

>movement's push for the banning of clearcutting on public land is outright

stupid,

>and based on the idea that the forest will " self-regulate, " that human

>activity is an abberation from nature and even a curse upon it rather than part

of

>it, when in fact the natural cycle of a forest is to kill itself over time.

>

>Chris

Sorry, I don't get this one. If it is *public* land, why clearcut it? Esp. the

old

forests? There are folks that go in and, say, take away some lumber, but frankly

those old forests have done just fine for the last say, 2,000 years without

clearcutting. Maybe a fire or two would help. But beauty has no financial value,

nor do owls, really.

The foresters I know like clearcutting because they can grow new crops, and to

some degree I agree. There are good " tree management " techniques. But with a few

good exceptions, few of them think in the long term, they work according to

regulations, and I'd hate to see what they'd do left to their own devices

(shoot, we've seen what they do with their own devices!). Private owners aren't

much better -- the thing to do around here is buy some land, log it, then sell

it. One guy had his granmother's farm sold (by his dad) after gleaning the

$20,000 or so of trees off it. Sometimes the trees are worth more than the land.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/5/03 2:15:25 AM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> Sorry, I don't get this one. If it is *public* land, why clearcut it? Esp.

> the old

> forests? There are folks that go in and, say, take away some lumber, but

> frankly those old forests have done just fine for the last say, 2,000 years

> without clearcutting. Maybe a fire or two would help. But beauty has no

financial

> value, nor do owls, really.

There should be *some* regulation on it, if it's public land, but an outright

ban of clearcutting is rather silly, because sometimes clearcutting is best

for management of the land, but otoh there are not the same profit motivations

to prevent unnecessary clearcutting on public land so it would be equally

ridiculous to simply let logging companies do whatever they want to the land.

> The foresters I know like clearcutting because they can grow new crops, and

> to some degree I agree. There are good " tree management " techniques. But

> with a few good exceptions, few of them think in the long term, they work

> according to regulations, and I'd hate to see what they'd do left to their own

> devices (shoot, we've seen what they do with their own devices!). Private

owners

> aren't much better -- the thing to do around here is buy some land, log it,

> then sell it. One guy had his granmother's farm sold (by his dad) after

> gleaning the $20,000 or so of trees off it. Sometimes the trees are worth more

than

> the land.

Interesting. I've only talked to a couple foresters, one was an

environmentalist and one was a hardcore conservative, and neither of them were

in favor of

clearcutting in unnecessary circumstances.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>There should be *some* regulation on it, if it's public land, but an outright

>ban of clearcutting is rather silly, because sometimes clearcutting is best

>for management of the land, but otoh there are not the same profit motivations

>to prevent unnecessary clearcutting on public land so it would be equally

>ridiculous to simply let logging companies do whatever they want to the land.

If there was no profit motivation I wouldn't have a problem

with it. The problem is that there are sweetheart deals

and porkbarrel profits involved -- they don't clearcut the

land that NEEDS it, often. I'd agree a wholesale ban on

*anything* is usually a bad idea.

Interesting. I've only talked to a couple foresters, one was an

>environmentalist and one was a hardcore conservative, and neither of them were

in favor of

>clearcutting in unnecessary circumstances.

Really? I wonder why it is so often done then. Around here they

pretty much cut a quarter of a hill at a time, you can just

watch, it's pretty ugly. I don't know that logging companies count

as " foresters " though. Some folks I talked to from, say, Weyerhauser,

were actually pretty far thinking. The loggers were more for

short-term profits, but they do buy up big chunks of land for

the trees. My point had to do with the fact that " land ownership "

doesn't really solve the problem. It's a little like corporate raiders --

buy a company, take the savings, then dump the company. There

is such pressure for short-term profits, there needs to be

some counter-pressure for long-term care for the ecosystem.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/7/03 3:36:46 AM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> Really? I wonder why it is so often done then. Around here they

> pretty much cut a quarter of a hill at a time, you can just

> watch, it's pretty ugly. I don't know that logging companies count

> as " foresters " though.

Maybe that's where the problem lies then. No, logging companies aren't

foresters. Logging companies hire foresters to make complicated decisions about

how to do the logging. They don't really need a forester to clear cut!

Maybe they just want to develop the land? Or they don't own it? I don't

understand why they'd clear cut (much less profit to tax ratio) if they weren't

going to sell it, or use it for something more profitable.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>Maybe they just want to develop the land? Or they don't own it? I don't

>understand why they'd clear cut (much less profit to tax ratio) if they weren't

>going to sell it, or use it for something more profitable.

>

>Chris

Really? I had not heard that. The reasons I'd heard for clear cutting

are that it's easier to get the trees out -- also most of the hill

around here would be filled with the same size trees (it's mainly

second growth) and they are all salable. On private property

it's usually a mix of alder and evergreens, and they'd just

take the evergreens, but I don't see many alder on the hills.

Also they usually re-plant, and the young trees grow faster

in a clearcut.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/7/03 1:28:27 PM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> Really? I had not heard that. The reasons I'd heard for clear cutting

> are that it's easier to get the trees out -- also most of the hill

> around here would be filled with the same size trees (it's mainly

> second growth) and they are all salable. On private property

> it's usually a mix of alder and evergreens, and they'd just

> take the evergreens, but I don't see many alder on the hills.

> Also they usually re-plant, and the young trees grow faster

> in a clearcut.

An extremely knowledgeable and experienced forester told me that the amount

of wood you get over a given time with selective foresting is vastly higher

than what you get for clearcutting, and logging companies prefer not to clearcut

because that offers a quick boost of profit followed by a decade of paying

property taxes with no revenue (for a given piece of land), rather than a slower

but larger and continuous stream of profits. He said that more often than not

he has a hard time " selling " a clearcutting recommendation when he believes

it is necessary for the health of the land.

He may have also added that inexperienced young and stupid people running

some companies have the opposite preference and that their profits suffer

because

of it, but I had this rather extensive discussion several years ago so I

can't recall perfectly.

Chris

[Guest guest]

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

From: <ChrisMasterjohn@...>

> In a message dated 11/7/03 3:36:46 AM Eastern Standard Time,

> heidis@... writes:

>

> > Really? I wonder why it is so often done then. Around here they

> > pretty much cut a quarter of a hill at a time, you can just

> > watch, it's pretty ugly. I don't know that logging companies count

> > as " foresters " though.

>

<snip>

> Maybe they just want to develop the land? Or they don't own it? I

don't

> understand why they'd clear cut (much less profit to tax ratio) if

they weren't

> going to sell it, or use it for something more profitable.

If she's talking about what I think she's talking about, they own large

tracts of land which they have on a thirty-year (I think) rotation. Each

year they clear-cut a section and plant new trees.

[Guest guest]

Quoting ChrisMasterjohn@...:

> An extremely knowledgeable and experienced forester told me that the

> amount

> of wood you get over a given time with selective foresting is vastly

> higher

> than what you get for clearcutting...

Do you know why that is? Is the rate of growth of a tree somehow affected

by what other trees around it are doing?

--

Berg

bberg@...

[Guest guest]

--- In , Berg <bberg@c...>

wrote:

> Quoting ChrisMasterjohn@a...:

>

> > An extremely knowledgeable and experienced forester told me that

the

> > amount

> > of wood you get over a given time with selective foresting is

vastly

> > higher

> > than what you get for clearcutting...

>

> Do you know why that is? Is the rate of growth of a tree somehow

affected

> by what other trees around it are doing?

,

At this point I'm no longer relying on my memory of my discussions

with the forester but on my own speculation. Unless you're a

woodchip company, it seems that big trees would have vastly more

value than little trees. I'm not sure, but I'd think really big cuts

would cost more beyond a certain point.

But as a little thought experiment, say a tree grew an inch in

diameter a year (for easy math). If boards less than six inches are

relatively useless, It will be six years before you can even get

*one* useful board out of a given tree. But after that point, not

only do you get about one more board a year, but over time more of

the area that would have gotten thrown off as slab, away from the

middle, could be used for boards too.

So I'd expect mature trees to accrue value much more quickly than

young trees, so that one would maximize one's profit by cutting down

only the biggest trees (or whatever other modifications manipulate

the ecology in a way that makes the forest more productive, as

decided by a forester.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>He may have also added that inexperienced young and stupid people running

>some companies have the opposite preference and that their profits suffer

because

>of it, but I had this rather extensive discussion several years ago so I

>can't recall perfectly.

>

>Chris

Well, at least he is thinking clearly!

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

Chris-

While your conclusion that older trees are more value on a per-year-of-age

basis than younger trees may or may not be correct for some portion of the

timeline, the basis of your thought experiment is flawed, because for a

tree to continue to grow an inch in diameter per year (or in fact any

constant annual amount) it would actually be growing much more with each

passing year since each year's successive ring would be progressively

bigger than the last's.

>But after that point, not

>only do you get about one more board a year, but over time more of

>the area that would have gotten thrown off as slab, away from the

>middle, could be used for boards too.

-

[Guest guest]

Quoting chrismasterjohn <ChrisMasterjohn@...>:

> At this point I'm no longer relying on my memory of my discussions

> with the forester but on my own speculation. Unless you're a

> woodchip company, it seems that big trees would have vastly more

> value than little trees. I'm not sure, but I'd think really big cuts

> would cost more beyond a certain point.

I understand that, but the size and number of the trees that you can

harvest is independent of your harvesting pattern given our current

assumptions. Suppose, for example, that the optimum harvesting age of a

tree is ten years, that you have enough land for a hundred trees, and that

there are a hundred ten-year-old trees there. If you harvest a hundred

trees every ten years, you'll be able to harvest six hundred trees in fifty

years (and have no trees at the end). If, instead, you harvest ten trees

every year, you'll be able to harvest five hundred ten trees in fifty years

(although these will be bigger, because some of the ones harvested in the

first ten years were older than ten years old), with ninety trees

remaining, ranging from one to ten years old.

Of course, the trees in a given area are probably going to be of varying

ages, so there's an initial inefficiency to clear-cutting (and, as you

mentioned, possibly some negative tax implications), but this becomes less

significant in the long run. For staggered harvesting to have any

significant long-run advantage over clear-cutting (ignoring tax issues,

because I prefer to deal with things that make sense), it would have to

make trees grow faster somehow, I think.

--

Berg

bberg@...

[Guest guest]

--- In , Idol <Idol@c...>

wrote:

> Chris-

>

> While your conclusion that older trees are more value on a per-year-

of-age

> basis than younger trees may or may not be correct for some portion

of the

> timeline, the basis of your thought experiment is flawed, because

for a

> tree to continue to grow an inch in diameter per year (or in fact

any

> constant annual amount) it would actually be growing much more with

each

> passing year since each year's successive ring would be

progressively

> bigger than the last's.

,

I don't know anything about foresting... but I don't understand how

the above is a reasonable critique of my thought experiment. First,

when you say each ring is large, do you mean there is more material

simply, or that it is actually a thicker ring? Second, if it is the

latter, doesn't that actually exaggerate the effect I was claiming

would occur?

Chris

[Guest guest]

--- In , Berg <bberg@c...>

wrote:

> Of course, the trees in a given area are probably going to be of

varying

> ages, so there's an initial inefficiency to clear-cutting (and, as

you

> mentioned, possibly some negative tax implications), but this

becomes less

> significant in the long run. For staggered harvesting to have any

> significant long-run advantage over clear-cutting (ignoring tax

issues,

> because I prefer to deal with things that make sense), it would

have to

> make trees grow faster somehow, I think.

You're right in terms of tree farms I think. I was thinking of pre-

existing forests.

I guess I don't know why it would be disadvantage then. I can't

continue to support the idea, as I'm just passing along someone

else's thoughts, which I assumed were reasonable given his experience.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>but I don't understand how

>the above is a reasonable critique of my thought experiment. First,

>when you say each ring is large, do you mean there is more material

>simply, or that it is actually a thicker ring? Second, if it is the

>latter, doesn't that actually exaggerate the effect I was claiming

>would occur?

What I'm talking about has nothing to do with forestry per se. Just think

of a piece of paper with a set of concentric circles drawn where each

successive circle has a diameter 1 " larger than the previous one. Each

successive circle will form a donut between its edge and the edge of the

next circle in, and every donut will be half an inch wide. Therefore, each

successive donut (or ring, if you're looking at the graph as a cross

section of a tree) will cover substantially more surface area on the page

than the last. IOW, for a tree's diameter to grow at a constant rate, its

actual growth (the surface area of each concentric ring (and therefore the

volume of each concentric layer of the tree) would have to

accelerate. This isn't impossible, but it's unlikely that a constant

increase in diameter is a good model of tree growth.

-

[Guest guest]

>IOW, for a tree's diameter to grow at a constant rate, its

>actual growth (the surface area of each concentric ring (and therefore the

>volume of each concentric layer of the tree) would have to

>accelerate. This isn't impossible, but it's unlikely that a constant

>increase in diameter is a good model of tree growth.

>

>-

If you look at a cross section of wood, this is easily verified.

Actually I'm not sure it's the same amount of wood even that

is added per year ...

The trees grow a LOT in the first few years, and less and less as they

get bigger. The really old trees and a tiny bit of diameter each

year. They don't grow much taller either. It's kind of like cows

and other animals: they do this growth spurt, then they

settle down to more or less one size. From a financial point

of view, there is an optimum harvesting size. I think for

Fir it's 40 years or so. They do get huge after a few

hundred years, but the logging companies don't wait that long.

There is also the issue of sunlight and competition. Evergreens

create a " dead zone " underneath them where nothing can grow,

esp. the old ones. There is no sun, and a thick layer of needles

that are toxic to most plants and don't hold water. So if you

are replanting, you need to have " thin " spots where the seedlings

can take hold. In the newer forests, you have a mix of trees,

undergrowth, and grass. In the old forests, you have wall to

wall big trees.

I wonder if this has something to do with the fire issues too. The

old growth forests have less undergrowth, and many species

of big trees are pretty fireproof themselves. But the younger

forests burn a lot easier. The Indians used to do a fair bit

of burning to clear undergrowth (to encourage deer and

make them easier to travel through) which probably kept

the major fire hazards down.

-- Heidi

[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.

>In the newer forests, you have a mix of trees,

>undergrowth, and grass. In the old forests, you have wall to

>wall big trees.

-

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/8/03 12:24:00 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> What I'm talking about has nothing to do with forestry per se. Just think

> of a piece of paper with a set of concentric circles drawn where each

> successive circle has a diameter 1 " larger than the previous one. Each

> successive circle will form a donut between its edge and the edge of the

> next circle in, and every donut will be half an inch wide. Therefore, each

> successive donut (or ring, if you're looking at the graph as a cross

> section of a tree) will cover substantially more surface area on the page

> than the last. IOW, for a tree's diameter to grow at a constant rate, its

> actual growth (the surface area of each concentric ring (and therefore the

> volume of each concentric layer of the tree) would have to

> accelerate. This isn't impossible, but it's unlikely that a constant

> increase in diameter is a good model of tree growth.

But there are more cells to reproduce each time. Am I correct in assuming

the growth occurs by mitosis? 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.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/8/03 1:59:39 PM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> The trees grow a LOT in the first few years, and less and less as they

> get bigger. The really old trees and a tiny bit of diameter each

> year. They don't grow much taller either. It's kind of like cows

> and other animals: they do this growth spurt, then they

> settle down to more or less one size. From a financial point

> of view, there is an optimum harvesting size. I think for

> Fir it's 40 years or so. They do get huge after a few

> hundred years, but the logging companies don't wait that long.

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

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/9/03 12:14:18 AM Eastern Standard Time,

heidis@... writes:

> 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.

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.

But now I'm just trying to discuss from a purely theoretical standpoint what

is most profitable, which is what the post of 's that you responded to was

responding to.

> (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).

Well when the time comes we can just start using marshmallows.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/9/03 12:17:05 AM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> 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.

I wasn't assuming that-- the trachea cells are dead and function to transport

water, I know that at least-- but the outermost shell is the only part

relevant to my point.

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 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.

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.

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.

Chris