🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1994Feb04.051139.4170@debug.cuc.ab.ca>,
 <Ravachol@debug.cuc.ab.ca> wrote:

>I ff you had bothered to do your research as opposed to just reacting
>wildly to a perceived threat, you would have discovered that the main goal
>of GP's forests campaign is not to "destroy the BC forest industry".  The
>GP forsest campaign is based on three main pillars:
>--->1)  Log less.  Fact is , we here in Canada are cutting trees at a
>faster-than-sustainable rate.
_____________
Where is your research? After reading your post a few times I still can't
find it, in spite of the controversial claims you make

>... inefficient mill technologies (such as Kraft pulping
>which jettisons the lignen and thus nearly 50 per cent of the tree volume)
>and towards more-efficient techniques (such as C-TMP) we can reduce the
>overall demand for raw logs.
_____________
Where'd you get the idea that conifer wood is 50% lignin?  Pulp yields are
often 50% of raw material but not because of lignin loss alone, as the
chemicals in kraft pulping attack the Cellulose and Hemicelluloses as
well, depending on how long the pulping is done for.  Organic pulping
chemicals have been proposed but they are ***expensive*** and pretty hard
to justify in a depressed market with ever increasing competition from New
Zealand and Swedish pulp log farming.

>--->2)  Log better.  Logging less means less jobs...  or so the industry
>tells us.  [snip]
> Unions tend to be more concerned about employment
>than induysstry...
_____________
Unions don't care if the shareholders make profits or if the forests are
there for your grandchildren either.  Corporations outlive workers and if
you are seriously going to argue that Unions represent long term interests
you are out to lunch.  Where BC Forest companies have secure, long term
tenure they invest heavily in incremental silviculture with an eye to the
future.  Decisions like Clayoquot throw a wrench in long term planning and
demonstrate once again why any investor with half a brain puts their money
elsewhere, especially with the risks involved in long timber rotations. 
Unions have a simple answer: Pass a law that requires money to stay here. 
Fine, then the foreign and domesic investment that builds a healthy
economy goes where the returns are better, namely elsewhere and not to
incremental silviculture, or to your children's future.
 
>800 year
>old trees in temperate rainforests don't regenerate.  
_____________
You are out to lunch.  Where do you think they came from?  All of the
forests within an hour's drive from Vancouver are stately, healthy and
*impressive* second growth forests, regenerated *naturally* following
early logging.

>So, there you are, Mr. Schuck.  I hiope I;'v've saved you the painful
>trouble of actually having to do research before you sit down at your
>keyboard.
_____________
Take your own advice.



-- 
....Robert Froese

                                                .....taganov@unixg.ubc.ca