Really! Seriously, really.
So here we have all about the feel good marketing schlock, and pay a premium for it. Ok, I get it, bamboo, a grass, is easy to grow, is a more sustainable product compared to wood based paper. Then there’s the processing. You never hear about what it takes, the resources used, to make that ecological product, marketed to save the planet from eminent demise.
Page 770 of 5228
What emissions are involved in the making of the batteries or producing the electricity????
Then when that’s done, what do you do with the toxic stew that’s left. The products are not designed with recycling in mind.
I personally think we should encourage both processes. Eco benefits or detriments may be based on location of crops and processor.lovesthedrive Thanks this.
The planet definitely needs good green lands. The one thing that is absolutely needed is the use of local native species. Trees, grasses, all the flora. The native plants have adapted to that environment, the fauna has adapted to the flora.
Understand that I absolutely look for the lowest impact, some things that may look like they are not ecological, actually are. I have become very skeptical of the marketing of salvation by feel good buzz phrases. I tend not to fall into the trap of the “ hip and trendy buzz of the week” when you put down facts, then your just a buzzkill, harshing the feel good.
So follow this. Have been in the recycle, ecological, repair, reuse, repurpose thing for some 50 plus years. Just how things were done by the people who had a hand in teaching me life’s skills.
So working for corporate America in the field of engineering, I was asked to part ways from an employer, because I was too ecologically militant. All I was doing is trying to find as much recycled and biodegradable packaging as possible.
I like forest land staying forest land and providing lumber and all the byproducts from lumber.
How the concepts are implemented is very important. Main thing is do no more (and preferably less) harm than the existing products.
I do not want to see wood pulp becoming land fill. If trees are planted for only pulp production, can those lands be transitioned to lumber production?
Humans are going to continue to demand more products and resources to be produced. Would be nice if we could maintain or expand the existing forest lands while meeting that demand. I'm good with it if Asia can contribute to that goal by growing Bamboo to be used as TP.Espressolane Thanks this.
I do believe we have similar views.
Here is one of the problems. Money. Any where along the life cycle of a product, the money is the problem. Corporations exist for the purpose of making a profit. Single digit profits are unacceptable. Add that if you don’t meet some arbitrary number some group of investment analysts says the company should, could literally kill it.
In some cases this has happened.
Interesting news article a few days back. IKEA is closing a furniture factory here in the US. This factory is state of the art, employs a few hundred workers. Just was not cost efficient for the company. They sited the high cost of raw materials as a primary reason for shutting down. They will move the production back to European facilities, that run at lower cost.
Manufacturing companies number one cost of goods is raw materials. Second is facilities, land, buildings and the overhead related to them. Labor is way down on the list, usually somewhere down in the list, like 5,6,7.
However it is the fastest to adjust to have an effect on the bottom line. Read profits.
How does this all link together. People are not willing to pay the cost associated with stewardship.
Expanding forested land is not only needed, but wanted.
It has a high labor cost, but you don’t see the impact or effects overnight. It takes time. Then you have people that think the microwave takes too long. Think those types are willing to wait 40 or more years for a tree to grow, let alone the cost of managing the land.
It seems most consumers don't think that far ahead.
Read someplace that on average every family needs about 2 trees to replenish oxygen for them to breath. I would like to see the reaction of some downtown multi story condo tenants if they were required to pay into a stewardship fund to purchase and maintain 3 trees per unit. Would be like telling somebody to justify the air they breath.
The immediate gratification consumerism that is running rampant is a major issue for me.
I am buying my property form a small logging company. They purchased a piece of property that could not be financed, logged the property and then sold it to me. Part of the logging agreement with the state was the property had to be replanted. Unfortunately the logging company planted all pine type trees after I requested a mix of Cedar and hardwoods thrown in. So as a good land steward I will be transplanting tree's that survive to fill in for plants that didn't make it and plant a more bio diverse mix in appropriate locations after the winter.
Page 770 of 5228