Even if they replant, that doesn’t undue the ecological harm. Look at what happened when palm oil started to show up in everything. They cut down all the natural habitat (rain forests with lots of old growth!) and planted tons of palm trees. It killed all the wildlife, but to an uninformed person, it still “looked” like nature. And the fact that they were replanted (so it wasn’t just stripped bare) was a facade that made it not seem bad.
Comment on Do you think the US will actually log its national parks?
Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I hope it doesn’t happen, but logging doesn’t work exactly like the lorax. They need to ensure a future to the industry, so they’d do chucks and replant. No, it’s not the same as it would have been, but it’s at least less devastating than strip mining the Grand canyon.
fitgse@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
untorquer@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Old growth doesn’t work like this. Logging companies are constantly trying to take bigger swaths than they’re allotted because there’s no active enforcement leaving orgs like BARK OUT et. al. To do the ground truthing and sue in court, often after the damage is done. Often they want this wood because it’s much higher quality than second growth. The dense wood is a higher grade and sells for a higher premium. If you’ve seen wood in an old house versus modern you’ll notice the ring structure much more tightly packed and less knotting. It’s much stronger.
Here’s a maps image of old growth in the mt. Hood wilderness: Image
And here’s the Oregon coast range: Image notice the patchwork? That it’s roughly 1/3 unplanted clear-cut now?
The first image is 100% old growth in a national forest. The second is 0%, in mostly privately owned land owned by logging companies or less so under BLM/FS. Patchwork logging doesn’t sustain biodiversity. Replanting is almost always done with a monoculture of trees that make logging easier in later harvests. These second growth forests hold less water, sequester less carbon, and are less drought resistant. This in turn makes them more prone to wildfire, flooding, erosion, and desertification. They are also less food abundant so they can’t sustain as much wildlife.
Most of western Oregon looks like the second image, and the old growth is only 10% of the original area nation wide. We don’t need to log old growth at all. There’s plenty of second growth. Just manage it.
conditional_soup@lemm.ee 1 day ago
Well, it depends. On short leases, it does work exactly like the lorax. They just clear cut that shit as hard as they can to maximize how much money they can make on it. Montana and some other northern states eventually figured out that you should set these companies up with 100 year leases that pierce the corporate veil, so that even if the company strip cuts the plot and declares bankruptcy, you can go give the owner a big fat financial wedgie for the next 100 years. I think it’s a pretty smart solution, and from what I’ve heard, the companies in these arrangements do pretty good forest management.
FlashMobOfOne@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I’ve honestly never heard of this. Could you link me to an article or something that I could read to learn more?
conditional_soup@lemm.ee 1 day ago
Jared Diamond wrote about it in Collapse, where he covers how we handle extractive industries and how we could better regulate them. That’s where I learned about it. I tried finding an article about it, and I could find stuff talking about the policy indirectly, but nothing directly about it.