From: billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson)
Subject: Re: "Rainforest Destruction Has Many Victims"
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Company, Corvallis, Oregon USA
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 23:45:38 GMT

gph@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (G. Paul Houtz) writes:
: >In article <1992Dec23.073527.2561@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com>, billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
: >> tip@lead.aichem.arizona.edu (Tom Perigrin) writes:
: >> : >: >countries.  Another fact - the rate of deforestation in Brazil has
: >> : >: >been at the rate of 0.5%/year.
: 
:    This is used as an argument that the deforestation is "sustainable"?

That is the rate it was being cut. After a couple of years, the farmers
abandon the fields and move on. The land reforests by itself - although
slowly.

I was not claiming that the rate was "sustainable" - only that it was
not as rapid as many of us thought.

:    Even if it is 0.5% per year, there is absolutly nothing sustainable about
:    deforestation.

It depends on what is done with the land after the trees are cut.

:                     Mr. Nelson is posting from Oregon.  I grew up there. 
:    Much of the Douglas Fir that is used in the housing industry comes from
:    Oregon.  

True.

:    The do not "deforest" there, they cut down forests in strips and re-plant.

Actually, they clearcut the trees - no strips at all, but large blocks.
Unfortunately, when it is replanted, the replanting is all one type of
tree. Monocultures are not very viable. Also, many/most of the planted
trees do not survive - a fair share of the trees in the clearcuts are
natural seedings (either windblown or by animals).

:    They do not turn the land the trees were cut from into pasture for cattle.

Nor is much of that done in Brazil. Most of the cutting is for agriculture
by small farmers - it is abandoned after a few  years, when the soil gives
out.

:    So how do you figure that 0.5% per year is "sustainable"?

I never claimed it was - although it is possible that it may be. I do
not have enough information to have a firm opinion.

: >Mostly because 0.5% of the forested area of Brazil is still a *LOT* of
: >square miles, and makes a big impression when shown on TV.
: >
: >Which makes me suspect that the fraction of "deforested" wood that
: >actually makes it onto the world market is very small...otherwise we'd
: >see rosewood used for hurricane repairs in south florida :-)
: 
:    Your reasoning here escapes me.   You said that 0.5 percent of the 
:    forested area of Brazil is still a *LOT*, so this means you think
:    that a lot of area is deforested, and the obvious conclusion is that
:    a *LOT* of wood can result from this.   Then you turn around and say
:    that the percentage of deforested wood that makes it onto the world
:    market must be small.   
:   
:    It would seem to me that the conclusion from your statement that 0.5%
:    is a *LOT* of area and a *LOT* of wood should lead us to conclude that
:    a *LOT* of the wood on the market is deforested wood.  

Nope - most of it is cut for farming. Tom is right - very little of the
hardwood ends up on the international market.

:    There are a lot of other questions I would ask about this situation.
: 
:    For instance, the sampling taken from the shuttle covers what period 
:    of time?   Was the sampling done over the course of 10 years?  5 years?
:    5 minutes?   Remember that Brazil has been under extreme pressure from
:    the envrionmental movemnet and from other countries as well as the
:    rubber tapers and indigenous people to curtail the slash and burn
:    policies.

Yes, the government is working to reduce the amount of cutting. I don't
know how much they have been able to reduce it.

:    Perhaps the shuttle is detecting deforestation at a record low rate
:    because of these factors?

Maybe, but it is the rate - regardless of why it is occurring.

:    Also, did the shuttle look at Africa?  Sumatra?  Borneo?  
:    Southeast Asia?    If  so, why do we not have similar figures for these 
:    areas?

Apparently, they are not areas of concern to the environmentalists. There
are a few other countries that are being stripped. Maybe the environmentalists
will give them some attention now.

:    I just can't believe that the ground and air surveys have been so 
:    far off, and only the SHUTTLE could detect the actual amount of 
:    deforestation, nor do I believe that scientists have purposely been
:    exagerating the amount of deforestation over the last decade.

You forget just how large the area is. You cannot get good estimates from
low altitudes. I doubt if the scientists were exaggerating - they were only
doing the best they could, with what information they had.

:    There is a huge descrepancy here, and I do not want to assume anything.
: 
:    I would like to know the facts.

No real discrepancy - just better information is available. 

Bill

Newsgroups: rec.woodworking