Save the Corn Stalks!

For decades now we have been assaulted by uncountable public service announcements and organized efforts to SAVE THE TREES. We have been constantly beseeched to reduce our paper consumption and to recycle the paper that we do use. A quick internet search turns up:

• How Many Recycled Newspapers Does It Take to Save A Tree? This simple question was posed by a grade school teacher and her students in Southern California...
• Getting Committed One Tree at a Time.  Saving trees by using high quality 100% recycled paper products is something virtually all offices can do...
• Friends of the Earth. Send an e-card and save a tree...

It goes on and on. And all of it is misguided, if not fraudulent. It looks right past one important fact. Trees used for producing paper are grown on tree farms much like corn is grown on corn farms. The biggest difference is that trees take longer to grow to harvestable size. When trees are harvested for paper production the land they occupied is replanted with tree seedlings and the cycle begins anew -- just like growing corn or cotton or soybeans. Did you ever hear of a 'Save the Corn Stalks' campaign?

There is, in fact, evidence that efforts to reduce paper usage and to recycle paper are producing undesirable results. Douglas Farver, in a letter to the Northwest Florida Daily News, says: "The Environmental Protection Agency has examined both virgin paper processing and recycled paper processing for toxic substances and found that toxins often are more prevalent in the recycling processes." He also cites "The Eight Great Myths of Recycling" by Daniel Benjamin, a professor at Clemson.

I can't say for certain that paper use conservation campaigns are the cause, but at least one paper producer and tree grower is turning to land development because it is more profitable than the paper business. The St Joe Company is diverting a lot of its tree farming property in Florida to housing developments. Take a tour of its website to see the beautiful properties it is developing and offering for sale. Obviously, most of the trees on those properties won't be replaced after they have been removed.

The 'don't cut down the trees' people remind me of the 'don't eat the animals' people. I've always wondered what result the animal rights activists want. If they succeed, for example, in convincing everyone not to eat beef, won't that eventually result in the near extinction of beef cattle? Or do they think ranchers are going to keep raising cattle that they can't sell? Do they believe that cattle would rather never live than to be slaughtered at a relatively young age? If I was a forward thinking cow I don't think I'd want them on my side.

The tree huggers achieve a similar result. As the demand for virgin paper declines, the price of trees declines and land owners reduce the acreage alloted to trees in favor of more profitable crops.  That is, the tree huggers achieve the exact opposite of their desired result.

Comments

Make a comment: