How many trees?
woodlab at u.washington.edu
Thu Feb 29 21:39:40 EST 1996
D. Braun wrote:
> 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 is completely incorrect, David. In the forest products industry,
primary forest products are understood to be those products in which
the tree was harvested to be directly manufactured into a merchantable
product (solid wood, plywood, OSB, LVL, parallel strand lumber, some paper,
some pulp products, some corrugated products, etc., etc.). Mill residue is
NOT a primary forest product. Products manufactured from mill residue are
the **indirect** result of the production of primary products. These
residues, until very recently, were waste that was either buried or burned.
I don't know where you got your definition from, but it's certainly not the
one used in industry (e.g., see forest product marketing texts by S.U. Rich
or S.A. Sinclair or forest products texts by Bowyer, Haygreen, deZueew, or
> 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.
David, you really shouldn't be preaching when you obviously are not an expert
in the area. The pulp and paper industry does not rely on public forests
nearly as much as solid and composite forest products producers...mainly
because they have a substantial supply of reclaimed fiber available. There
are dozens and dozens of papers concerning this subject (government reports,
consulting reports, peer-reviewed publications, and research center reports).
Stick to ecosystems management, David....You apparently have never worked in
the forest products or the pulp and paper industry (at least not in the
production or corporate areas). You continually define everything in such a
manner so that it fits nicely into your ecosystems management framework and
anti-industry perspective. I suggest you brush on industry definitions and
industry statistics and stop attacking Jack as a "timber beast."
> 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.
This comment is totally uncalled for. HOW much money do pulp & paper
companies contribute in PAC money, David? It's next to nothing compared to
the money given to environmental groups to lobby legislators. Grow up and
use logic and undistorted facts - you are working toward a PhD, aren't you?
Center for International Trade in Forest Products, Marketing Section
University of Washington, Seattle
More information about the Ag-forst