View Single Post
Old 02-14-2006, 12:49 AM   #12
marichiko
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kitsune



Do I read this correctly in that it is not environmental restrictions that are hurting these areas, but rather slow sales?

Hmm.
The following is about the closing of a pulp mill in Port Angeles owned by Rayonier Inc. This is a perfect example of what I was saying earlier in this thread. Its from a story published in The High Country News which contains more information about the economy, people, and the environment out West than anybody east of the Mississippi ever wants to know:



Then the supply of wood abated. The price of pulp plummeted. Some locals said it had nothing to do with the spotted owl and the Endangered Species Act. There just weren’t enough big trees anymore.

The shortage was no surprise. In the 1970s, the government made the unprecedented move of opening federal land to clear-cutting. It was a way of flushing fresh cash through the economy, booming the Northwest. The result was simple to predict: Once the forest is clear-cut, second-growth timber will not make near the profits. Rayonier Inc. knew this. Official predictions of it were published 10 years earlier.

When a Northwest coastal forest starts from leveled ground, the biomass of greenery hits a peak after 50 years. Wood, however, continues expansion for another 600 years. If you cut it before 600 years, you’re only getting scraps. The thing to do was to move to Port Angeles, make as much money as possible off old-growth harvest, then brace for the inevitable crash. But a lot of children were born in that time, mortgages acquired, V-8 extra-cab trucks purchased, loans taken.

When forests thinned, when certain regions were closed to timber harvest due to declining spotted owl populations, the industry faltered. Rayonier went from using 242 million board-feet in 1985 to 13.6 million a decade later.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Undertoad
Sorry you only read the ones that agree with you.
Sorry you don't read. The world population was around 2.5 billion in 1950. A world population of 9.1 billion is more than triple. I haven't noticed forests tripling or arable land tripling or the size of the earth tripling. Yes, population growth rates have slowed. The growth rate in 1950 was 1.47%. It is expected to be around .5% in 2050. No one is predicting that the population growth rate will then stay at .5% forever after. Scientists simply don't want to make more long term predictions than that. There are simply too many variables involved. A growth rate of .5 % of 9 billion means that about 45 million more people will be added to the world's population every year. Naturally this amount will increase exponentialy if the growth rate remains constant. Do the math UT, all is far from rosey with the world's population growth. From a report on world population growth done by The US Census


The U.S. Census Bureau’s long-term projections indicate that the globe’s population will grow to approximately 9.1 billion in 2050, an increase of over 45 percent compared to its size in 2002. The largest gains in population
between 2002 and 2050 are projected to be in Sub-Saharan Africa and the Near East. In these regions, many countries are expected to more than double in size by 2050, with some more than tripling. More moderate gains are expected in that time period for North Africa, the Americas, Asia, and
Pacific. Although some countries in these regions are expected to more than double in size, the typical country is likely to experience a smaller increase.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, a majority of the countries Europe and the New Independent States of the former Soviet Union are expected to experience a decline in population between 2002 and 2050.


Isn't that nice? The first world nations will lose population, while the third world becomes more over-crowded and desperate than ever. Interesting...

Last edited by marichiko; 02-14-2006 at 12:55 AM.
  Reply With Quote