The Wisdom of Zero-Cut

Trees inspire some people so much, that they will go to great lengths to hold onto each and every tree. One such idea is the call to have no tree harvesting whatsoever–Zero-Cut.

Zero-cut proponents want to halt the “corporate and commercial exploitation of public lands” including commercial timber sales. It’s a simple demand.

Remember, for every complex environmental problem there is a solution that is elegant, simple, and wrong.

The statement lumps commercial timber sales into extractive exploitation of public lands. Who wouldn’t be for the halting of exploitation of anything? Yet, it’s a false choice.

Wood is the most renewable and sustainable of building materials. According to a Harvard University report [PDF]:

“Lumber is the least energy intensive construction material and its production releases much less carbon dioxide and toxic products than substitutes. In addition, wood is renewable and forest growth may contribute to carbon sequestration, thereby yielding even greater trade-offs.”

Wood’s smaller footprint on total energy use, greenhouse gasses, air and water pollution, solid waste, and ecological resource use beats any other building material. So why halt harvests on public lands? Is it because a recently harvested area looks bad for two or three years a harvest? Has our society become that needy of instant gratification?

Trees grow back.

But, aren’t old-growth stands threatened and dwindling? Nope. Why then do so many believe when people use wood, they cause the loss of forests and the wildlife? I believe it is to scare people and increase their coffers. Even though we Californians consume more wood per head than any other region in the world, the truth is North America’s forests are not disappearing. In fact, there is about the same amount of forest cover today as there was 100 years ago (see graphic below).

The results of our cupidity reaches worldwide. Due to our misguided efforts, virgin forests on other continents that should be left undisturbed are being damaged irreversibly through truly primitive logging practices. According to a United Nations report, for every 20 acres taken out of production in North America or Europe, one acre of forest that has never been harvested before in Asia, South America, Africa and Russia is removed from forest cover forever. To harvest these untouched forest areas, roads are constructed. The cleared land is then converted to agriculture and the wildlife is wiped out through habitat conversion and hunting.

I cannot agree with environmental policy that sets aside our productive second and third growth forests (already set aside for timber production) at the expense of the world’s truly pristine areas.

Suggesting that trees should not be sustainably harvested is misguided at best–dangerous at worst.

Zero-Cut campaigns push consumers away from renewable forest products and toward nonrenewable, energy-intensive materials—such as steel, concrete, and plastic—that contribute greatly to greenhouse gases and global warming. Even other renewable crops can be a worse choice, consider hemp which compared to grain crops, requires more than two times as much nitrogen, over three times as much phosphorus, and more than ten times as much potassium per acre. And grain crops require fertilizer and pesticides.

Meanwhile, while we argue, we ignore the concrete steps we can take to begin getting our environmental house in order:

1. Decrease consumption of wood products and substitutes.
2. Increase recycling rates.
3. Pursue a balanced approach to forest conservation.

There you have it. Not rocket science. Not drilling for oil in sensitive wildlife areas. No, it’s using timber that keeps CO2 bound in the finished lumber and planting new trees which use sunlight and CO2 to produce more trees. Cool.

Be Sociable, Share!

•