The New Land Rush

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.

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...

[xoxoxoBruce]

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.

I have faith that drought, starvation and machete hacking will moderate those increases.

They actually take those things into consideration, Bruce. For example, they noted rather sadly that HIV probably will not slow population growth in the countries most heavily impacted by the AIDS epidemic as much as they first thought it would.

According to the study, population growth is all about the fertility rate of adult women (duh!) In the Mid East we all know that Abdul is going to keep Abdulette barefoot and pregnant, absent some massive cultural upheavel.

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I have faith that drought, starvation and machete hacking will moderate those increases.

Harsh.

...but true.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by marichiko

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.

They need not. For example, during the same time frame, advances in farming have radically changed how food is produced, massively increasing the amount of food that can be produced in that land.

Pre-industrialization, most civilized countries required 50% of their population to be farmers in order to produce enough food. Now that number is about 1%. Things change.

Naturally this amount will increase exponentialy if the growth rate remains constant.

If you can find the person who taught you math, sue them for malpractice.

and keep the lawyers around for the people who taught you spelling and grammar

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

If you can find the person who taught you math, sue them for malpractice.

That's more of a phrasing problem than a math problem, since it's true. "Rate" may not have been the right word, but growth is exponential.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

They need not. For example, during the same time frame, advances in farming have radically changed how food is produced, massively increasing the amount of food that can be produced in that land.

Pre-industrialization, most civilized countries required 50% of their population to be farmers in order to produce enough food. Now that number is about 1%. Things change.

Modern agriculture has not prevented famine in places like parts of Africa, India, and South America. Increasing population also means increasing degredation of the environment. Witness the pollution of the oceans, smog, the hole in the ozone layer, on and on. Technology will only take us so far, and its not nice to fool with Mother Nature.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

If you can find the person who taught you math, sue them for malpractice.

From your favorite source, Wikipedia (emphasis my own):

In mathematics, a quantity that grows exponentially (or geometrically) is one that grows at a rate proportional to its size. Such growth is said to follow an exponential law. This implies that for any exponentially growing quantity, the larger the quantity gets, the faster it grows. But it also implies that the relationship between the size of the dependent variable and its rate of growth is governed by a strict law, of the simplest kind: direct proportion. It is proved in calculus that this law requires that the quantity is given by the exponential function, if we use the correct time scale. This explains the name. An example of exponential growth is Human population, if the number of births and deaths per person per year were to remain constant

I'll send you the name of my lawyer if you wish to file a math malpractice suit of your own.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

and keep the lawyers around for the people who taught you spelling and grammar

As for spelling, Lord knows my teachers tried. I have been spelling challenged since Kindergarten.