Comment by strainer | Hacker News Reader

Comment by strainer | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Cutting it in that manner is definitely not good because it doesn't regenerate when done so, for complicating ecological reasons. It is the regeneration stage of forestation which is remarkably good at capturing CO2.

Logging could be done in an ecological manner enabling and even stimulating natural regeneration but the industry culture has been powerfully opposed to ecological concern and campaigns that have struggled against its practices for many decades past[1]

Despite potentially offering insightful, fit and adventurous outdoor employment opportunities for humanity, global logging industry has politically lobbied to maintain a brutal strategy of maximum impact and immediate return towards its resource.

These practices are developed and carried out wherever profitable, by well established Western logging companies and professionals. Wildlife is poisoned and culled before work begins to simplify operations - the nature of the whole area is eliminated by design :

" Clearfelling, as the name suggests, first involves the complete felling of a forest by chainsaws and skidders. Then, the whole area is torched, the firing started by helicopters dropping incendiary devices made of jellied petroleum, commonly known as napalm. The resultant fire is of such ferocity it produces mushroom clouds visible from considerable distances. In consequence, every autumn, the island's otherwise most beautiful season, china-blue skies are frequently nicotine-scummed, an inescapable reminder that clearfelling means the total destruction of ancient and unique forests."[2]

[1] https://www.google.com/search?q=eg+greenpeace+logging&tbs=cd...

[2] https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2007/may/1348543148/rich...

BC law requires planting 3 trees per logged one. So in theory regeneration is there.

No one thinks the logging industry is especially echo friendly. It’s as exploitive as any other.

It has been characteristically eco-destructive and defended its business to be so, even where standards exist and are enforced to require replanting - this has practically resulted in dense monoculture plantations not sustainable forest habitat.

It simply has to be transformed, its legacy of habitat devastation must be outlawed and could even though unlikely -justly be retrospectively prosecuted.

>even where standards exist and are enforced to require replanting - this has practically resulted in dense monoculture plantations not sustainable forest habitat.

This comment is not accurate with current industry practices, or frankly practices in the BC forest industry over last 30 years. The comment suggests that cut blocks are not re-planted? While this was the practice in up to the late '60s, things have changed. There was a massive investment (and resultant industry) focused on silviculture. Historic cut blocks were planted, and subsequently managed (brushed, thinned, fill planted) up to the the mid 90s. I would suggest that the historic backlog was significantly reduced by 1990. Today, it is at an equilibrium, with periodic deficits resulting from fire or the massive pine beetle infestation in the province.

Cut blocks are not planted with a single species, but with a mix of species. Trees are grown from seeds taken from the same area and elevation as the areas harvested.

I am not in the forest industry, however I paid for school and my student loans by planting trees (1988-1993). I am an engineer and earlier in my career I was heavily involved in habitat (aquatic and riparian) rehabilitation resulting from past forestry practices. They were horrific. The industry has adapted and continues to adapt. It ain't perfect, but to base an opinion on one side of a long standing heated debate -- as presented in the article -- is uninformed.

As with most thing, the truth lies somewhere in between.

I tried a bit of treeplanting work myself in 90's Scotland, but couldn't stick the physical workload to be honest. Forestry there and in the rest of the UK is in the main still quite ecologically insensitive and also massively under-developed with national parks kept quite barren through generations of strange policy decisions and over-subsidised sheep farming. Policies seem to be on the verge of improving though.

I take your advice about industrys adaptation in Canada - but I think its adapted to external regulation and environmental oversight. Horrific, internationally contracted and equipped logging business continues around the world. I can appreciate how investors and wage seekers become insensitive to it, and in other industries to combustion, pollution, waste.. so examination, regulation, forcing industry to adapt at home and abroad is the only hope.

To point out the obvious, referencing a 15 year old article about Tasmania (and an irrelevant google search) that describes historic practices on that Island does not strengthen your position, or add to discussions about forestry practices in British Columbia.

I didn't reply to a point that was at all limited to regulated forestry in British Columbia.

The google search was relevant to illustrate that concerned organisations have been campaigning against clearfelling for decades.

Tasmanian rain forest is still be destroyed in the same manner today.

https://www.wilderness.org.au/news-events/end-rainforest-log...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com