|
|
|
|
|
by makeitdouble
770 days ago
|
|
There's a few parts to it: - new growth is monoculture, and we're having health issues coming with it (Japan is trying to do something about its pollen problem, but not until two decades from now). It's also more fragile areas, including geologically. - new growth also means the process that took centuries to build forests is not starting either. - if the plan is to produce more paper (replace current plastic use with paper use) we can't just keep the current tree farms. It will be expanded and eat up on the legacy forest, as it needs the right niche to efficiently grow. On the last point, if we were really good at farming new trees, we'd have tree fields not far from manufacturing centers. That's not the case, we're still relying on favorable places where forests used to grow, which doesn't bode well for further mass production in the future. |
|
I will agree that monoculture is no good and neither is taking over virgin forest, but this isn't exactly the only industry on this planet that behaves like this either. Rather than trade paper for plastic we can instead consider how we protect virgin areas from any sort of development. Monoculture is also a risk for industry in the form of crop loss from disease, so I wouldn't be surprised if this begins to change in the future and we see more polycultures farmed, not just in trees either. So if there is a plastic ban favoring domestic paper products instead, as well as sufficient protections in place for existing virgin forest, you can probably expect the value of a tree farm to go up to the point where people who might be using their land for one thing being more inclined to farm trees on this land.