[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: GBlist: Good Wood





----------
> From: John Salmen <terrain@seaside.net>
> > Personally I love forests and I'm moving into one. I certainly don't
> > intend
> > to cut it down!
> 
> Removing tires from a recyclable waste stream has the net effect of
> cutting down forests. You are not immune. I remember Thoreau lamenting

Tires? How did you know that I was considering an earthship? 

Anyway, tires are not recycled, they are landfilled.

Personally I'm using strawbale to build my home.

> the comparibly negligible effects of the imprint of his humble home on
> the forest floor - can you say the same. A tree is a big object and
> falling it has a big effect but what about all the small cumulative
> effects that can still result in that tree falling down. Redirection and
> contamination of water and air flows, disruption of the nutrient base,
> displacement of habitat, etc. Thoreau was unique in that he could see
> with such little evidence the effect of not only our indifference but
> our not knowing.

Firstly, I certainly am not holding myseff up as some sort of
super-ecologist. I just wanted to speak out against the complacency in the
original post about wood. Just because I am also guilty of environmental
destruction does not mean I should not try to speak out against it. At the
same time I am trying very hard to do better myself, and this house I'm
building is an expression of those aspirations. I'm not trying to hold it
over people's head to make them feel bad and myself feel superior. I am
just trying to show people that it can be done.

Secondly, the land Im builing on was already cleared by miners about 75
yeas ago, so what I will have to cut are young aspen groves rather than
old-growth.

Thirdly, I am not removing the trees I cut from the property, I'll compost
them.

> > And we certainly CAN live in the forest without destroying it. I can
> > think
> > of many examples.
> 
> I wish I could say the same and I wish I had some examples. The examples
> I have are of 3rd generation forest here and on the east coast falling
> over because their roots are spread shallowly on a thinned soil base.
> There is no cure for what is no longer here and to imply that all is
> fine because it could all be fine if we were no longer here...?

That's not what I'm doing. I'm saying that it is possible to live with
forests if we want to.

As for examples, I know plenty of people who live in wooded areas. The
whole state of Vermont is mostly wooded. Yes, it's not old growth so it's
clear that it was all cut down before, but that doesn't change the fact
that the people living there now are in fact living with the forest without
cutting it down.

Furthermore there are millions of people living in the rainforests for
millions of years. It's strictly a western problem to use up the
environment.

> I agree and that was in part my point that you can't universally say a
> material is benign and thereby make a prescription for its use. Rather
> we need to remember that every material is going to have an effect
> locally, globally and historically and that we need to live with the
> consequences locally, globally and over time

Yes, obviously.

> > It is not what we pay to live. It is what we pay to live plus what we
> > pay
> > to make living more enjoyable, plus what we pay to increase our status
> > whether we need it or not to live.
> > 
> > The living part is the smallest part.
> 
> I disagree. The living part, the understanding of what our basic needs
> are is the part that will allow us to reduce our demands.

Yes, it would allow us to reduce our demands, if we want to,. but we really
don't.

Of all the people on the road right now, how many are really there for
something important to their survival vs. going to visit someone or
someplace, or going to buy something they don't really need, etc.?

I'm in Boulder Colorado where all the new houses going up are MUCH bigger
than one family needs. Some are 3500 or 4000 square feet. This is not what
we need to live, this is what we need to stroke our egos and show off our
status. What we really need to live is probably abour 100 sf per person, or
double that for real comfort. That's about 10 times less than what these
houses are.

Who need to have a sports-utility vehicle to live? Very few. Yet there are
millions on the road.

I must repeat - we are taking MCUH more than we need to live.
__________________________________________________________________
This greenbuilding dialogue is sponsored by Oikos (www.oikos.com)
and Environmental Building News (www.ebuild.com). For instructions
send e-mail to greenbuilding-request@crest.org.
__________________________________________________________________