How many trees?

D. Braun dbraun at u.washington.edu
Thu Feb 29 12:59:27 EST 1996



On Wed, 28 Feb 1996 jack.perdue at afpe.com wrote:

> 
> 
>  > If trees are not used to make paper, we have a hugh number of pulp 
>  > wood trucks and operators here in 
>  > the south that are going to be very surprised at this revelation.-  
> 
> I didn't say trees weren't used to make paper. I was making a point that much
> of the fiber that goes into making paper comes from mill residue. This source
> is not a primary product, but one that use to be pushed up into piles not too
> long ago. And I don't think there is much that would surprize the loggers these
> days. "Producing America's Wood and Paper Products"
> 
> --Jack Perdue


Dear Jack:

You may have noticed the discussion your post of several weeks ago 
engendered regarding "how many trees", which I participated in.  I guess 
this is your answer. It is still wrong. "mill residue" IS a "primary 
product" --- it comes directly from trees.  Only post-cosumer waste --- 
newsprint, cardboard, etc. that has been used in products, collected , 
and pulped is out of the primary product category.  This material, in 
addition to cutting scraps from paper/cardboard plants, reduces the need 
for additional primary product --- pulp made from round wood.  Why do you 
insist on continued obfuscation?  There really is nothing to get confused 
about here, unless you are still trying to claim that the paper industry 
does not covet our public forests for pulp. The issue there, as you know, 
is whether or not they should get in line with the rest of the public, or 
retain the inside access that PAC money brings.

		---- Dave Braun   



More information about the Ag-forst mailing list