Hypocrisy Merit Badge

A month ago I wrote here about Stephen Colbert and his Alpha Dog of the Week award to the Boy Scouts of America for Chain Saw Scouting. He finished the award with, “… [the Boy Scouts] will have to start a fire using the apparent friction between what they say and what they do.”

I commented at ColbertNation.com with “A wag of my finger for confusing preservation with conservation…We should not simplistically fob off the providing of our country’s wood needs to other countries with low environmental standards and call it conservation. Unless, it’s a good idea to log elsewhere (or mine for the substitutes) and the deforestation of the Amazon is a good thing?”

Heidi Siegelbaum of Marketplace’s The Greenwash Brigade blog has also wagged her finger at the BSA, “How about reverence for nature as opposed to cash?” Hmm, “A great many people think they are thinking when they are really rearranging their prejudices.” – William James
I left a comment. In case they don’t print it, here it is:

Heidi, I completely agree that BSA’s exclusion of gays, atheists, agnostics, and United Way funding runs counter to many of the virtues to which the Boy Scouts aspire. You are right to point out these inconsistencies.

However, as a Registered Professional Forester in California, I take issue with “Intensive timber harvests and development= 34,000 acres of potential conservation learning… poof!… gone.”

Logging does not equal deforestation. The Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) defines deforestation as “the conversion of forest to another land use or the long-term reduction of tree canopy cover below the 10% threshold … Deforestation implies the long-term or permanent loss of forest cover. Such a loss can only be caused and maintained through a continued man-induced or natural perturbation.” (World Forest Resource Assessment in 2000, On Definitions Of Forest And Forest Change) The Boy Scouts explicitly said they replanted the areas following logging. There is no “long-term or permanent loss of forest cover,” where that is the case.

I am especially troubled with the conflation of cause and effect that their “Myopic and hateful exclusion [of gays, atheists, agnostics, and United Way funding]” inevitably “leads to clearcutting forests, yet insistence that they are a good land steward.”

Really? Being anti-gay, anti-atheist, anti-agnostic makes one want to clearcut? And in turn, harvesting trees somehow shows the Boy Scouts organization to be poor land stewards?

Along with being an RPF in California, I am an agnostic who I voted for California’s Proposition 8, so, I take issue with your Manichean depiction that clearcutting, a legitimate silvicultural practice, as evil. Trade-offs and gray areas are part of life. As noted, I have my differences with the Boy Scouts, but we should give them credit for wrestling with forest stewardship, rather than simply perpetuating the illusion that wood comes from the lumber yard. Greenpeace co-founder, Patrick Moore points out, “Wood is the most renewable and sustainable of the major building materials. On all measures comparing the environmental effects of common building materials, wood has the least impact on total energy use, greenhouse gases, air and water pollution, solid waste and ecological resource use.”

I take issue with your statement that state forest regulatory agencies provide “wholly insufficient monitoring and enforcement.” According to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer story, “Trees are a renewable resource, said some [Scouting spokespersons], adding that their councils practice only sustainable forestry. … Forestry records uphold such claims in many cases.” So, “many cases” of properly practicing sustainable forestry adds up to “wholly insufficient?” That dozen of their councils “have implemented long-range management plans with assistance from professional foresters to help better manage [their] woodlands,” adds up to “wholly insufficient?”

We should not fob off providing this country’s wood needs to other countries with low environmental standards and call it conservation. That just makes us hypocrites. In fact, I’d say the hypocrisy is on those wagging their fingers at the Boy Scouts:

If we are going to continue using more and more wood, then we have a moral responsibility to grow more wood to meet that demand. By not striving to grow our own wood, we inevitably shift that burden to other nations and regions not able to do it as responsibly and sustainably as we do. That makes us a nation of hypocrites, preaching the virtues of environmental protection while encouraging other nations to disregard those virtues for our benefit. – Jess D. Daniels, Ph.D.

There are a couple peer-reviewed papers (PDF) on the subject of ignoring where our wood comes from and what using substitutes means to our environment, I highly recommend them, they are very readable and not dense at all. The first is from the Journal of Biogeography is “The Illusion Of Preservation: A Global Environmental Argument For The Local Production Of Natural Resources” by researchers at Harvard University and the second is “American Forest Policy-Global Ethical Tradeoffs” written by Donna L. Dekker-Robertson and William J. Libby, Printed in BioScience, Volume 48 No. 6.

Thank you for allowing me to comment.
Norm

I would hope that you also comment here in favor of America taking responsibility for providing the wood our country’s needs. Logging is no more the prelude to deforestation than the sunrise is. Deforestation is the conversion of forest to another land use.

Under some erroneous definitions this is deforestation
This is not deforestation
This conversion to another use is what deforestation looks like.
This is what deforestation looks like.


Trash Talk – Why I Won't Buy a Kindle Anytime Soon

Sony prs-700 eBook Reader
Are e-book readers going to save trees? You're asking the wrong question.

boggslogging_02As a forester, I’d wondered about the claims that ebook readers such as the Amazon Kindle or the Sony PRS-700 would save trees and therefore, be better for our environment than a physical book made from like…trees.

I concluded that the question, “Do ereaders save trees?” is not the right question to ask.

First question, if it’s not grown on trees where does it come from? Answer: If it’s not grown, it has to be mined.

My friend, resource geologist Sarah Andrews (and author of the Em Hansen, Forensic Geologist mysteries) said, “Welcome to my world.”

You can get really caught up in research. I’ve been to the Environmental Protection Agency‘s (EPA) and the Minerals’ Institute, learned about hard rock mining, heap leaching, soy based inks, pulp mills, statistics on our disposal habits. I’ve talked with experts in waste management and mining and read their reports. I’ve followed threads on the recycling of e-waste such as news reports such as The Electronic Wasteland, a story by CBS Sixty Minutes:

Then, I read about our problem with plastic. Plastic hangs around, perhaps for eons. Eventually, something will come along that can feed on PET and PVC but that’s a long way off. Here’s a sobering TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) Talk by Charles Moore on Sailing the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, 270,000 square miles and 100,000,000 tons of plastic floating on the ocean.

more about “Capt. Charles Moore on the seas of pl…“, posted with vodpod

My back-of-the-envelope calculation (based on things like the Ecological Rucksack developed by the Danish Friends of the Earth, another estimate from Earthworks, this PBS Frontline report  The Toxic Shimmer of Gold, and Robert Moran Ph.D.’s paper on the Chemistry, Toxicity and Analysis of Mining-Related Waters), and Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition Toxics in Electronics that leads me to believe that each Kindle, mobile phone, etc., leave about 100-200 pounds of toxic garbage in its wake. Our carbon footprint is more than CO2, it includes CN (cyanide).

A side note, according to the EPA the metal’s mining industry used 1.5 million pounds of cyanide compounds in 2006. A human’s lethal dose is a teaspoonful of 2% cyanide solution.

It’s these externalities that convinced that we have a cure that is worse than the disease. To his credit, Amazon’s CEO, Jeff Bezos doesn’t claim the Kindle will save any trees. Even if it did save trees, the pollution from the mining, manufacturing, and the disposal of the ewaste and plastic that makes technology something that will make me consider the (total) cost to the benefit. An E-book reader, or just technology in general, is responsible for more pollution than logging of the trees some proponents think it can save. You can look it up.

Other resources:
The Economist Special Report on Waste

The Blacksmith Institute: World’s Worst Pollution Problems
World Bank: Waste Management in China: Issues and Recommendations

The Ocean Conservancy: A Rising Tide of Ocean Debris and What We Can Do About It


Be the first on your block to get Timberati updates:

Trash Talk – Why I Won’t Buy a Kindle Anytime Soon

Sony prs-700 eBook Reader
Are e-book readers going to save trees? You're asking the wrong question.

boggslogging_02As a forester, I’d wondered about the claims that ebook readers such as the Amazon Kindle or the Sony PRS-700 would save trees and therefore, be better for our environment than a physical book made from like…trees.

I concluded that the question, “Do ereaders save trees?” is not the right question to ask.

First question, if it’s not grown on trees where does it come from? Answer: If it’s not grown, it has to be mined.

My friend, resource geologist Sarah Andrews (and author of the Em Hansen, Forensic Geologist mysteries) said, “Welcome to my world.”

You can get really caught up in research. I’ve been to the Environmental Protection Agency‘s (EPA) and the Minerals’ Institute, learned about hard rock mining, heap leaching, soy based inks, pulp mills, statistics on our disposal habits. I’ve talked with experts in waste management and mining and read their reports. I’ve followed threads on the recycling of e-waste such as news reports such as The Electronic Wasteland, a story by CBS Sixty Minutes:

Then, I read about our problem with plastic. Plastic hangs around, perhaps for eons. Eventually, something will come along that can feed on PET and PVC but that’s a long way off. Here’s a sobering TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design) Talk by Charles Moore on Sailing the Great Pacific Garbage Patch (I’d embed it but TED videos start immediately and I find that annoying), 270,000 square miles and 100,000,000 tons of plastic floating on the ocean.

My back-of-the-envelope calculation (based on things like the Ecological Rucksack developed by the Danish Friends of the Earth, another estimate from Earthworks, this PBS Frontline report  The Toxic Shimmer of Gold, and Robert Moran Ph.D.’s paper on the Chemistry, Toxicity and Analysis of Mining-Related Waters), and Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition Toxics in Electronics that leads me to believe that each Kindle, mobile phone, etc., leave about 100-200 pounds of toxic garbage in its wake. Our carbon footprint is more than CO2, it includes CN (cyanide).

A side note, according to the EPA the metal’s mining industry used 1.5 million pounds of cyanide compounds in 2006. A human’s lethal dose is a teaspoonful of 2% cyanide solution.

It’s these externalities that convinced that we have a cure that is worse than the disease. To his credit, Amazon’s CEO, Jeff Bezos doesn’t claim the Kindle will save any trees. Even if it did save trees, the pollution from the mining, manufacturing, and the disposal of the ewaste and plastic that makes technology something that will make me consider the (total) cost to the benefit. An E-book reader, or just technology in general, is responsible for more pollution than logging of the trees some proponents think it can save. You can look it up.

Other resources:
The Economist Special Report on Waste

The Blacksmith Institute: World’s Worst Pollution Problems
World Bank: Waste Management in China: Issues and Recommendations

The Ocean Conservancy: A Rising Tide of Ocean Debris and What We Can Do About It


Be the first on your block to get Timberati updates:

If it’s not grown, it has to be mined.

It pains us to cut trees for their wood. One recommended technique for escaping the pain of cutting down trees for paper is to substitute electronics.

The technique reminds me of a comedy I watched. As I remember it, in an opening scene, a wounded tough-as-nails soldier breaks his own finger to take his mind off the excruciating pain caused by the wound. Later, when a friend complains to him about a minor ache, the soldier smiles and says, “Let me show you a trick.”

Now, I’m all for cutting down on waste. We Americans consume three times more wood per capita than the world average, and we use one-third more paper than the average European. So the idea of moving from the printed page to a digital screen seems a simple choice.

Digital technology obviously improves lives. Consider the isolated African farmer who uses a mobile phone to locate the best price for his crops, and uses the same device to do his banking. What a glorious convenience. Yet, except for the color of the currency used to buy electronic marvels, the technology cannot be called “green.”

The manufacture and ultimate disposal of one e-book reader, cell phone, or computer can harm the environment more than the harvest of a thousand trees. You see, everything comes from somewhere, everything must go somewhere, and all actions have consequences.

Name one part of your computer, mobile phone, personal digital assistant, or e-book reader that is grown in the soil-one part, any part, that was once alive. (Petroleum doesn’t count.)

If it’s not grown, it has to be mined.

We want electronics, and electronics require metal to conduct electricity; therefore, we have an appetite for ore. By substituting technology for paper, we stop using renewable trees but instead we start using non-renewable resources such as metals, chemicals, and petroleum products. According to the Mineral Information Institute, each person in the United States consumes over twenty-four tons of mineral products a year, mostly as rock used for roads and other construction.

Consider this. A mine strips approximately thirty tons of material to obtain one ounce of gold, just one of the metals used in today’s electronics. Miners crush the mineral-rich rock and splash cyanide over this ore to leach out the metals. The waste rock (tailings) account for more than ninety-nine percent of the material moved in the process. These leftovers contain every element in the periodic table.

Tailings amount to the nuclear waste of the mining industry. It’s around for a long time, it’s hazardous, and no one really knows what to do with it. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, hard-rock mining produces more toxic waste than any other industry in the United States.

As a forester, I support conserving trees, but I also support using trees. With four decades in the field, I have marked trees for harvest, have seen them cut down, and have planted seedlings in their place. I have watched those seedlings grow more than forty feet on their way to becoming three or four times that height.

Bottom line: Forests replenish. Mines and oil reserves dwindle, and their toxic scars remain. If you think clear-cutting is ugly, imagine an open-pit mine two miles across and three-quarters of a mile deep. Within ten years, the cutover forest area will be covered with new growth, whereas Kennecott Copper’s Bennington Mine in Utah will still be visible from outer space.

Besides the mess that strip-mining for minerals makes, we need to consider how we dispose of electronic devices. By some accounts, discarded electronics account for seventy percent of the overall toxic waste currently found in landfills.

So can’t we recycle those electronics? Unfortunately, recycling is not wholly benign. More often than not, recyclers dump no-longer-used devices on Third World countries, where untrained workers employ hazardous methods, such as burning plastics and using chemicals like sodium cyanide and acids-nitric, hydrochloric, and sulfuric-to dissolve the metals.

Before asking how many megapixels an electronic device has, or how fast its graphics are, we need to consider the device’s total cost and include the external costs. External costs, or what economists term “externalities,” are what the rest of us might call “making a mess and not taking responsibility for cleaning it up.”

So what should we do? First, use wood and other renewables whenever possible instead of plastics, metals, and other non-renewables. Second, design products that reduce the quantity or the toxicity of the materials used. Third, make products easier to reuse. Fourth, pay to clean up our own mess by including in an item’s price the cost of mining reclamation and First-World-quality recycling. For instance, that price could include a deposit fee, as some states have for cans and bottles; the more hazardous the recycling, the bigger the deposit.

Forests return. Plastics and cyanide dumps don’t go away.

I know that up-front design costs and deposits can hurt you in the wallet, but here…give me your finger, let me show you a trick.

==========================================================================

23 March 2009

I remember watching a comedy where a wounded soldier breaks his own finger to take his mind off the excruciating pain caused by the wound. Later, when a friend complains to him about a minor ache, the soldier smiles and says, “Let me show you a trick.”

Because I’m a forester, the soldier’s trick reminds me of our society’s technique for avoiding the pain of cutting down trees. Instead of harvesting trees for paper, we substitute electronics.

Now I’m all for cutting down on cutting down trees. We Americans consume three times more wood per capita than the world average, and we use one-third more paper than the average European. So the idea of moving from the printed page to a digital screen seems to be a simple choice.

Digital technology obviously improves lives. Consider the isolated African farmer who uses a mobile phone to locate the best price for his crops, and uses the same device to do his banking. What a glorious convenience. But except for the color of the money used to buy the phone, such technology cannot be called “green.” The manufacture and ultimate disposal of one e-book reader or computer can harm the environment more than the harvest of a thousand trees. You see, everything comes from somewhere, everything must go somewhere, and all actions have consequences.

Name one part of your computer, mobile phone, personal digital assistant, or e-book reader, that is grown in the soil – one part, any part, that was once alive? (Petroleum doesn’t count.)

If it’s not grown, it has to be mined.

Because we want electronics, and electronics require metal to conduct electricity, therefore we have an appetite for ore. By substituting technology for paper, we stop using renewable trees, but start using non-renewable resources such as metals, chemicals, and petroleum products. According the Mineral Information Institute, each person in the United States consumes over 48,000 pounds of minerals a year, mostly rock for roads and other construction.

Consider this. A mine strips approximately thirty tons of material to obtain one ounce of gold, just one of the metals used in today’s electronics. Miners crush the ore and splash cyanide over it to separate the metal from the rock. The waste rock (tailings) account for more than ninety-nine percent of the material moved in the process. These leftovers contain every element in the periodic table.

Tailings amount to the nuclear waste of the mining industry. It’s around for a long time, is hazardous, and no one really knows what to do with it. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, hard-rock mining produces more toxic waste than any other industry in the U.S.

As a forester, I support conserving trees, but I also support using trees. With four decades in the field, I have marked trees for harvest, have seen them cut down, and have planted seedlings in their place. I have watched those seedlings grow more than forty feet on their way to becoming three or four times that height.

Bottom line: Forests replenish. Mines and oil reserves dwindle, and their toxic scars remain. If you think clear-cutting is ugly, imagine an open-pit mine two miles across and three quarters of a mile deep. Within ten years, the cutover forest area will be covered with new growth, whereas Kennecott Copper’s Bennington Mine in Utah will still be visible from outer space.

Besides the mess made by strip-mining for minerals, we need to consider the disposal of electronic devices. By some accounts, discarded electronics account for seventy percent of the overall toxic waste currently found in landfills.

So can’t we recycle those electronics? Unfortunately, recycling is not wholly benign. More often than not, recyclers dump disused devices on Third World countries where untrained workers employ hazardous methods, such as burning plastics and using chemicals such as sodium cyanide, and acids—nitric, hydrochloric, and sulfuric acids—to dissolve the metals.

Before asking how many megapixels a piece of electronics has, or how fast the graphics are, we need to consider the total cost and include the external costs. External costs, or what economists term “externalities,” are what the rest of us might call “making a mess and not taking responsibility for cleaning it up.”

So what should we do? First, use wood and other renewables whenever possible instead of plastics, metals, and other non-renewables. Second, design products that reduce the quantity or the toxicity of the materials used. Third, make products easier to reuse. Fourth, pay to clean up our own mess by including the cost of mining reclamation and First-World quality recycling in an item’s price. For instance, that price could include a deposit fee, as some states have for cans and bottles; the more hazardous the recycling, the bigger the deposit.

Forests return. Plastics and cyanide dumps don’t go away.

I know that up-front design costs and deposits can hurt you in the wallet, but here…give me your finger and I’ll show you a trick.

==================================================================================================

Older Version:

There’s a comedy called “Major Payne” that stars Damon Wayans. He plays a tough soldier who, when wounded in battle, breaks his own finger to take his mind off the pain. Later, when another soldier complains to him about a minor ache, Wayans smiles and says, “let me show you a trick.”

I’m a licensed forester, and this technique strikes me as a metaphor for our preoccupation with saving trees by substituting technology in their stead. In order to get away from the pain of cutting trees, we turn to something that hurts us far worse. You see, while using digital bits and bytes instead of paper may save trees, the manufacture of one ebook reader or computer causes more pollution than the harvesting of the thousand trees it might save. Worse still is the ultimate discarding of these devices.

Technology obviously improves our lives. Today, people in the Third World use cell phones in ways unimagined a decade ago. In Africa, farmers use cell phones to locate the best market prices for their crops and the same cell phone device to do their banking. Yet, except for the color of the money to buy it, electronic technology, like mobile phones, is not very green.

Name one part of your computer or personal digital assistant, mobile phone, GPS, eReader, television, radio, refrigerator, etc, that is grown in the soil—one part, any part, which was once alive (petroleum doesn’t count), as in carbon-based plant? Nothing, right?

Everything comes from somewhere. And, if it’s not grown, it has to be mined.

Because we want electronics, and electronics require metal conductors to move electricity around, we have an appetite for ore. According to the Mineral Information Institute, each person in the United States consumes over 48,000 pounds of minerals, mostly rock, each year.

And that’s just the part we use.

The companies mining these minerals leave their mark. If you think clear-cutting is ugly, try an open-pit mine 2½-miles across, and ¾-mile deep—so large it’s visible from outer space. Those dimensions describe Kennecott Copper’s Bennington Mine in Utah. For one ounce of gold, a metal used in circuit boards, a mine strips off some thirty tons of material. The world’s largest man-made excavation, Kennecott Copper’s Bennington Mine in Utah measures 2½-miles across, and ¾-mile deep, and is so large it’s visible from outer space.

The miners crush the heading ore then splash cyanide over it to separate the metal from the rock. The tailings (the waste rock) then account for more than 99% of the rock moved and contain everything in the periodic table. Tailings amount to the nuclear waste of the mining industry: around for a long time and no one really knows what to do with it all. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, hard-rock mining produces more toxic waste than any other industry in the US.

Now I’m all for cutting down on cutting down trees. Americans consume three times more wood per capita than the world average, and we use one-third more paper than the average European. Nevertheless, the law of conservation of energy remains: everything comes from somewhere, everything must go somewhere, and all actions have consequences. By substituting technology for paper, we move from using something made from a renewable resource, namely trees, to one manufactured from non-renewable resources: metals, chemicals, and petroleum products.

Bottom line: forests grow back, mines and oil reserves don’t, and their toxic scars remain.

As a forester, I support conserving trees and I support using trees. With four decades in the field, I have marked trees for harvest, watched them be cut down, planted seedlings in their place, and seen them grow to over forty feet on their way to three or four times that height. Because forests grow back, we need to use wood whenever possible instead of plastics, metals, and other non-renewables. Not the other way around.

We ask the wrong questions when considering a new piece of electronics. We ask how many megapixels, how fast, how powerful, or how good are its graphics. When we ask how much, we’re given only a partial price, because the external costs are ignored. External costs, or what economists term “externalities,” are what the rest of us non-economists might call “making a mess and not taking responsibility for cleaning it up.” Presently, the American taxpayers, through the EPA’s Superfund, or Third-World peasants bear these external costs.

Besides the mess made by strip-mining the minerals, there’s also disposal. By some accounts, discarded electronics contribute seventy percent of the overall toxic waste currently found in landfills.

What about recycling? Sadly, recycling is not wholly benign. More often than not, recycled electronics are dumped in Third World countries where untrained poor employ hazardous methods. They often burn the plastics to get to the metals and use chemicals such as sodium cyanide, sodium hydroxide, and nitric, hydrochloric, or sulfuric acids to dissolve the metals.

What should we do?

First, we pay to clean up our own mess.The alternative I like the best is to include by including the cost of mining cleanup and recycling in an item’s price. But for For a start, the price of the item has to include a deposit like we the way some states have on cans and bottles. The more hazardous the recycling, the more required for the deposit. We will reap dividends of fewer diseases and a better environment.


Second, we use renewable alternatives whenever possible—trees grow back, cyanide pits are forever.

I know this may hurt your wallet but let me show you a trick.


If it's not grown, it has to be mined.

It pains us to cut trees for their wood. One recommended technique for escaping the pain of cutting down trees for paper is to substitute electronics.

The technique reminds me of a comedy I watched. As I remember it, in an opening scene, a wounded tough-as-nails soldier breaks his own finger to take his mind off the excruciating pain caused by the wound. Later, when a friend complains to him about a minor ache, the soldier smiles and says, “Let me show you a trick.”

Now, I’m all for cutting down on waste. We Americans consume three times more wood per capita than the world average, and we use one-third more paper than the average European. So the idea of moving from the printed page to a digital screen seems a simple choice.

Digital technology obviously improves lives. Consider the isolated African farmer who uses a mobile phone to locate the best price for his crops, and uses the same device to do his banking. What a glorious convenience. Yet, except for the color of the currency used to buy electronic marvels, the technology cannot be called “green.”

The manufacture and ultimate disposal of one e-book reader, cell phone, or computer can harm the environment more than the harvest of a thousand trees. You see, everything comes from somewhere, everything must go somewhere, and all actions have consequences.

Name one part of your computer, mobile phone, personal digital assistant, or e-book reader that is grown in the soil-one part, any part, that was once alive. (Petroleum doesn’t count.)

If it’s not grown, it has to be mined.

We want electronics, and electronics require metal to conduct electricity; therefore, we have an appetite for ore. By substituting technology for paper, we stop using renewable trees but instead we start using non-renewable resources such as metals, chemicals, and petroleum products. According to the Mineral Information Institute, each person in the United States consumes over twenty-four tons of mineral products a year, mostly as rock used for roads and other construction.

Consider this. A mine strips approximately thirty tons of material to obtain one ounce of gold, just one of the metals used in today’s electronics. Miners crush the mineral-rich rock and splash cyanide over this ore to leach out the metals. The waste rock (tailings) account for more than ninety-nine percent of the material moved in the process. These leftovers contain every element in the periodic table.

Tailings amount to the nuclear waste of the mining industry. It’s around for a long time, it’s hazardous, and no one really knows what to do with it. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, hard-rock mining produces more toxic waste than any other industry in the United States.

As a forester, I support conserving trees, but I also support using trees. With four decades in the field, I have marked trees for harvest, have seen them cut down, and have planted seedlings in their place. I have watched those seedlings grow more than forty feet on their way to becoming three or four times that height.

Bottom line: Forests replenish. Mines and oil reserves dwindle, and their toxic scars remain. If you think clear-cutting is ugly, imagine an open-pit mine two miles across and three-quarters of a mile deep. Within ten years, the cutover forest area will be covered with new growth, whereas Kennecott Copper’s Bennington Mine in Utah will still be visible from outer space.

Besides the mess that strip-mining for minerals makes, we need to consider how we dispose of electronic devices. By some accounts, discarded electronics account for seventy percent of the overall toxic waste currently found in landfills.

So can’t we recycle those electronics? Unfortunately, recycling is not wholly benign. More often than not, recyclers dump no-longer-used devices on Third World countries, where untrained workers employ hazardous methods, such as burning plastics and using chemicals like sodium cyanide and acids-nitric, hydrochloric, and sulfuric-to dissolve the metals.

Before asking how many megapixels an electronic device has, or how fast its graphics are, we need to consider the device’s total cost and include the external costs. External costs, or what economists term “externalities,” are what the rest of us might call “making a mess and not taking responsibility for cleaning it up.”

So what should we do? First, use wood and other renewables whenever possible instead of plastics, metals, and other non-renewables. Second, design products that reduce the quantity or the toxicity of the materials used. Third, make products easier to reuse. Fourth, pay to clean up our own mess by including in an item’s price the cost of mining reclamation and First-World-quality recycling. For instance, that price could include a deposit fee, as some states have for cans and bottles; the more hazardous the recycling, the bigger the deposit.

Forests return. Plastics and cyanide dumps don’t go away.

I know that up-front design costs and deposits can hurt you in the wallet, but here…give me your finger, let me show you a trick.

==========================================================================

23 March 2009

I remember watching a comedy where a wounded soldier breaks his own finger to take his mind off the excruciating pain caused by the wound. Later, when a friend complains to him about a minor ache, the soldier smiles and says, “Let me show you a trick.”

Because I’m a forester, the soldier’s trick reminds me of our society’s technique for avoiding the pain of cutting down trees. Instead of harvesting trees for paper, we substitute electronics.

Now I’m all for cutting down on cutting down trees. We Americans consume three times more wood per capita than the world average, and we use one-third more paper than the average European. So the idea of moving from the printed page to a digital screen seems to be a simple choice.

Digital technology obviously improves lives. Consider the isolated African farmer who uses a mobile phone to locate the best price for his crops, and uses the same device to do his banking. What a glorious convenience. But except for the color of the money used to buy the phone, such technology cannot be called “green.” The manufacture and ultimate disposal of one e-book reader or computer can harm the environment more than the harvest of a thousand trees. You see, everything comes from somewhere, everything must go somewhere, and all actions have consequences.

Name one part of your computer, mobile phone, personal digital assistant, or e-book reader, that is grown in the soil – one part, any part, that was once alive? (Petroleum doesn’t count.)

If it’s not grown, it has to be mined.

Because we want electronics, and electronics require metal to conduct electricity, therefore we have an appetite for ore. By substituting technology for paper, we stop using renewable trees, but start using non-renewable resources such as metals, chemicals, and petroleum products. According the Mineral Information Institute, each person in the United States consumes over 48,000 pounds of minerals a year, mostly rock for roads and other construction.

Consider this. A mine strips approximately thirty tons of material to obtain one ounce of gold, just one of the metals used in today’s electronics. Miners crush the ore and splash cyanide over it to separate the metal from the rock. The waste rock (tailings) account for more than ninety-nine percent of the material moved in the process. These leftovers contain every element in the periodic table.

Tailings amount to the nuclear waste of the mining industry. It’s around for a long time, is hazardous, and no one really knows what to do with it. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, hard-rock mining produces more toxic waste than any other industry in the U.S.

As a forester, I support conserving trees, but I also support using trees. With four decades in the field, I have marked trees for harvest, have seen them cut down, and have planted seedlings in their place. I have watched those seedlings grow more than forty feet on their way to becoming three or four times that height.

Bottom line: Forests replenish. Mines and oil reserves dwindle, and their toxic scars remain. If you think clear-cutting is ugly, imagine an open-pit mine two miles across and three quarters of a mile deep. Within ten years, the cutover forest area will be covered with new growth, whereas Kennecott Copper’s Bennington Mine in Utah will still be visible from outer space.

Besides the mess made by strip-mining for minerals, we need to consider the disposal of electronic devices. By some accounts, discarded electronics account for seventy percent of the overall toxic waste currently found in landfills.

So can’t we recycle those electronics? Unfortunately, recycling is not wholly benign. More often than not, recyclers dump disused devices on Third World countries where untrained workers employ hazardous methods, such as burning plastics and using chemicals such as sodium cyanide, and acids—nitric, hydrochloric, and sulfuric acids—to dissolve the metals.

Before asking how many megapixels a piece of electronics has, or how fast the graphics are, we need to consider the total cost and include the external costs. External costs, or what economists term “externalities,” are what the rest of us might call “making a mess and not taking responsibility for cleaning it up.”

So what should we do? First, use wood and other renewables whenever possible instead of plastics, metals, and other non-renewables. Second, design products that reduce the quantity or the toxicity of the materials used. Third, make products easier to reuse. Fourth, pay to clean up our own mess by including the cost of mining reclamation and First-World quality recycling in an item’s price. For instance, that price could include a deposit fee, as some states have for cans and bottles; the more hazardous the recycling, the bigger the deposit.

Forests return. Plastics and cyanide dumps don’t go away.

I know that up-front design costs and deposits can hurt you in the wallet, but here…give me your finger and I’ll show you a trick.

==================================================================================================

Older Version:

There’s a comedy called “Major Payne” that stars Damon Wayans. He plays a tough soldier who, when wounded in battle, breaks his own finger to take his mind off the pain. Later, when another soldier complains to him about a minor ache, Wayans smiles and says, “let me show you a trick.”

I’m a licensed forester, and this technique strikes me as a metaphor for our preoccupation with saving trees by substituting technology in their stead. In order to get away from the pain of cutting trees, we turn to something that hurts us far worse. You see, while using digital bits and bytes instead of paper may save trees, the manufacture of one ebook reader or computer causes more pollution than the harvesting of the thousand trees it might save. Worse still is the ultimate discarding of these devices.

Technology obviously improves our lives. Today, people in the Third World use cell phones in ways unimagined a decade ago. In Africa, farmers use cell phones to locate the best market prices for their crops and the same cell phone device to do their banking. Yet, except for the color of the money to buy it, electronic technology, like mobile phones, is not very green.

Name one part of your computer or personal digital assistant, mobile phone, GPS, eReader, television, radio, refrigerator, etc, that is grown in the soil—one part, any part, which was once alive (petroleum doesn’t count), as in carbon-based plant? Nothing, right?

Everything comes from somewhere. And, if it’s not grown, it has to be mined.

Because we want electronics, and electronics require metal conductors to move electricity around, we have an appetite for ore. According to the Mineral Information Institute, each person in the United States consumes over 48,000 pounds of minerals, mostly rock, each year.

And that’s just the part we use.

The companies mining these minerals leave their mark. If you think clear-cutting is ugly, try an open-pit mine 2½-miles across, and ¾-mile deep—so large it’s visible from outer space. Those dimensions describe Kennecott Copper’s Bennington Mine in Utah. For one ounce of gold, a metal used in circuit boards, a mine strips off some thirty tons of material. The world’s largest man-made excavation, Kennecott Copper’s Bennington Mine in Utah measures 2½-miles across, and ¾-mile deep, and is so large it’s visible from outer space.

The miners crush the heading ore then splash cyanide over it to separate the metal from the rock. The tailings (the waste rock) then account for more than 99% of the rock moved and contain everything in the periodic table. Tailings amount to the nuclear waste of the mining industry: around for a long time and no one really knows what to do with it all. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, hard-rock mining produces more toxic waste than any other industry in the US.

Now I’m all for cutting down on cutting down trees. Americans consume three times more wood per capita than the world average, and we use one-third more paper than the average European. Nevertheless, the law of conservation of energy remains: everything comes from somewhere, everything must go somewhere, and all actions have consequences. By substituting technology for paper, we move from using something made from a renewable resource, namely trees, to one manufactured from non-renewable resources: metals, chemicals, and petroleum products.

Bottom line: forests grow back, mines and oil reserves don’t, and their toxic scars remain.

As a forester, I support conserving trees and I support using trees. With four decades in the field, I have marked trees for harvest, watched them be cut down, planted seedlings in their place, and seen them grow to over forty feet on their way to three or four times that height. Because forests grow back, we need to use wood whenever possible instead of plastics, metals, and other non-renewables. Not the other way around.

We ask the wrong questions when considering a new piece of electronics. We ask how many megapixels, how fast, how powerful, or how good are its graphics. When we ask how much, we’re given only a partial price, because the external costs are ignored. External costs, or what economists term “externalities,” are what the rest of us non-economists might call “making a mess and not taking responsibility for cleaning it up.” Presently, the American taxpayers, through the EPA’s Superfund, or Third-World peasants bear these external costs.

Besides the mess made by strip-mining the minerals, there’s also disposal. By some accounts, discarded electronics contribute seventy percent of the overall toxic waste currently found in landfills.

What about recycling? Sadly, recycling is not wholly benign. More often than not, recycled electronics are dumped in Third World countries where untrained poor employ hazardous methods. They often burn the plastics to get to the metals and use chemicals such as sodium cyanide, sodium hydroxide, and nitric, hydrochloric, or sulfuric acids to dissolve the metals.

What should we do?

First, we pay to clean up our own mess.The alternative I like the best is to include by including the cost of mining cleanup and recycling in an item’s price. But for For a start, the price of the item has to include a deposit like we the way some states have on cans and bottles. The more hazardous the recycling, the more required for the deposit. We will reap dividends of fewer diseases and a better environment.


Second, we use renewable alternatives whenever possible—trees grow back, cyanide pits are forever.

I know this may hurt your wallet but let me show you a trick.


Timber's Term of the Week: Section 37

    Section 37

    n

  1. Where all good bushelers go when they go beyond the vale.  A logger’s paradise where every tree is straight, tall, without flaws, and eight feet in diameter. And no underbrush, scalers, or inkslingers can be found: John’s gone to Section 37 and won’t be coming back.
  2. A mythical place.
  3. Something not supposed to exist: Let’s just say I found this in Section 37 and leave it at that, okay?

Why Section 37?
Pretty much all the arable land not within the original thirteen colonies is supposed to have been placed into a grid known as the Public Land Survey System. Its basic units of area are the township. Each township is supposed to have thirty-six sections.

township
If people were perfect and honest the sections could have looked like this.

Within a 6-mile by 6-mile township, the upper right section is Section 1 the section west of number is Section 2 (see image). The numbering moves left to all the way Section 6, the section south of Section 6 is section 7 and the number and progresses in a serpentine manner all the way to Section 36. There should be no Section 37.

There shouldn’t be any Sections numbered 37. However, anything people devise can be screwed up. Below is a map showing the sections of the Milk Ranch on Case Mountain in Tulare County, California. Not many perfect squares in the bunch.

Sections 37 do exist.
Sections 37 do exist. Click on the map to expand it and look northeast of Hammond.

Timber’s Term of the Week: Section 37

    Section 37

    n

  1. Where all good bushelers go when they go beyond the vale.  A logger’s paradise where every tree is straight, tall, without flaws, and eight feet in diameter. And no underbrush, scalers, or inkslingers can be found: John’s gone to Section 37 and won’t be coming back.
  2. A mythical place.
  3. Something not supposed to exist: Let’s just say I found this in Section 37 and leave it at that, okay?

Why Section 37?
Pretty much all the arable land not within the original thirteen colonies is supposed to have been placed into a grid known as the Public Land Survey System. Its basic units of area are the township. Each township is supposed to have thirty-six sections.

township
If people were perfect and honest the sections could have looked like this.

Within a 6-mile by 6-mile township, the upper right section is Section 1 the section west of number is Section 2 (see image). The numbering moves left to all the way Section 6, the section south of Section 6 is section 7 and the number and progresses in a serpentine manner all the way to Section 36. There should be no Section 37.

There shouldn’t be any Sections numbered 37. However, anything people devise can be screwed up. Below is a map showing the sections of the Milk Ranch on Case Mountain in Tulare County, California. Not many perfect squares in the bunch.

Sections 37 do exist.
Sections 37 do exist. Click on the map to expand it and look northeast of Hammond.

Tree Seedlings Available for Planting on California's Post-Fire Forest Restoration

California experienced a severe fire season last year. Many thousands of forested acres have burned both on private and public lands.

CAL FIRE assistance programs can help California forest landowners whose forests were affected by fires. One of these programs is the Tree Seedling Nursery Program. This program sells tree seedlings for reforesting forest ownerships. Tree seedlings are available to the public for reforestation, erosion control, watershed protection, windbreaks, Christmas tree and fuelwood plantations, and approved research projects. All seedlings grown are from seed well adapted to the various climate zones, growing conditions and elevations found within the state.

At present, CAL FIRE Magalia Reforestation Center still has good inventories of appropriate seedlings available. Yet, demand may overwhelm the supplies. Therefore, landowners need to first check with the Magalia Reforestation Center’s staff to determine what is available and before submitting their orders.

The CAL FIRE Nursery Program also has a staff of foresters who can provide free reforestation advice to landowners. In addition to these foresters, CAL FIRE has forestry assistant specialists at most local Unit Offices who can also provide free reforestation advice or direct individuals to the type of professional consultant they may need to assist them. These specialists also can provide information on limited State or Federal cost-share funding that may be available.

Keep in mind, seedling prices vary by age (one or two year old), how they were grown (bareroot or in containers) and by the quantity purchased. Seedlings grown cover the majority of California’s timberland conifer species, with a few hardwoods and some non-natives grown for specific landowner objectives.

For more information, please contact the Magalia Reforestation Center at 6640 Steiffer Road, Magalia, 95954, Phone: (530) 872-6301 (email: cdfnursery@fire.ca.gov).

Tree Seedlings Available for Planting on California’s Post-Fire Forest Restoration

California experienced a severe fire season last year. Many thousands of forested acres have burned both on private and public lands.

CAL FIRE assistance programs can help California forest landowners whose forests were affected by fires. One of these programs is the Tree Seedling Nursery Program. This program sells tree seedlings for reforesting forest ownerships. Tree seedlings are available to the public for reforestation, erosion control, watershed protection, windbreaks, Christmas tree and fuelwood plantations, and approved research projects. All seedlings grown are from seed well adapted to the various climate zones, growing conditions and elevations found within the state.

At present, CAL FIRE Magalia Reforestation Center still has good inventories of appropriate seedlings available. Yet, demand may overwhelm the supplies. Therefore, landowners need to first check with the Magalia Reforestation Center’s staff to determine what is available and before submitting their orders.

The CAL FIRE Nursery Program also has a staff of foresters who can provide free reforestation advice to landowners. In addition to these foresters, CAL FIRE has forestry assistant specialists at most local Unit Offices who can also provide free reforestation advice or direct individuals to the type of professional consultant they may need to assist them. These specialists also can provide information on limited State or Federal cost-share funding that may be available.

Keep in mind, seedling prices vary by age (one or two year old), how they were grown (bareroot or in containers) and by the quantity purchased. Seedlings grown cover the majority of California’s timberland conifer species, with a few hardwoods and some non-natives grown for specific landowner objectives.

For more information, please contact the Magalia Reforestation Center at 6640 Steiffer Road, Magalia, 95954, Phone: (530) 872-6301 (email: cdfnursery@fire.ca.gov).