If you...

[Craig234]

If you poison a river or burn down a forest for no reason, you're a criminal.

If you poison a river or burn down a forest for a reason, in particular as a political act, you're a terrorist.

If you poison a river or destroy a forest to make a profit, you are a great businessperson.

If you try to protect a river or a forest, you are a commie pinko liberal who we need to make it legal to run over.

 

[Emily L]

Craig, I'm against poluting rivers, of course. (I was also against Joan Rivers, but that's another story. )

But the logging industry replants even more trees than they cut down. I saw on the Internet that it is estimated that the logging industry cuts down about 900 million tress per year--but they replant about 2.5 billion trees.

If the wood is being used for good things, then I don't see anything wrong with it. It's like planting a garden and eating the fruit.

(And no, I have no financial interests in the logging industry. )

 

[Integrityrespec]

Craig, I'm against poluting rivers, of course. (I was also against Joan Rivers, but that's another story. )

But the logging industry replants even more trees than they cut down. I saw on the Internet that it is estimated that the logging industry cuts down about 900 million tress per year--but they replant about 2.5 billion trees.

If the wood is being used for good things, then I don't see anything wrong with it. It's like planting a garden and eating the fruit.

(And no, I have no financial interests in the logging industry. )

As usual the liberals are exaggerating the facts because the facts don't support the story they tell.

 

[Emily L]

As usual the liberals are exaggerating the facts because the facts don't support the story they tell.

They don't realize that, without wood, they couldn't make those cardboard protest signs.

 

[Deuce]

Craig, I'm against poluting rivers, of course. (I was also against Joan Rivers, but that's another story. )

But the logging industry replants even more trees than they cut down. I saw on the Internet that it is estimated that the logging industry cuts down about 900 million tress per year--but they replant about 2.5 billion trees.

If the wood is being used for good things, then I don't see anything wrong with it. It's like planting a garden and eating the fruit.

(And no, I have no financial interests in the logging industry. )

Misleading figures.

They "replant" trees that they're just cutting down later. The numbers they fed you make it sound like they are personally causing forests to increase in area, which is laughably false. Furthermore, logging is not the only cause of deforestation. Have you heard of agriculture, by any chance?

The US lost about 2 million hectares of forest in 2020.

 

[Emily L]

Misleading figures.

They "replant" trees that they're just cutting down later. The numbers they fed you make it sound like they are personally causing forests to increase in area, which is laughably false. Furthermore, logging is not the only cause of deforestation. Have you heard of agriculture, by any chance?

The US lost about 2 million hectares of forest in 2020.

Deuce. it's probably a case of one set of statistics against another. It might be "laughably false" if you look at one set, and absolutely true if you look at another. But if they plant even one tree for every one they cut down, then we won't run out of trees--and running out of trees seems to be a lot of people's concern.

 

[Deuce]

Deuce. it's probably a case of one set of statistics against another.

No, it's not. Tree cover in the US is decreasing, not increasing. There are not two sides to this.

 

[Craig234]

Craig, I'm against poluting rivers, of course. (I was also against Joan Rivers, but that's another story. )

But the logging industry replants even more trees than they cut down. I saw on the Internet that it is estimated that the logging industry cuts down about 900 million tress per year--but they replant about 2.5 billion trees.

If the wood is being used for good things, then I don't see anything wrong with it. It's like planting a garden and eating the fruit.

(And no, I have no financial interests in the logging industry. )

I'm fine with responsible foresting that replaces trees, of course. We need lumber. It's estimated 2/3 of rainforests have been destroyed or 'degraded' (about the same as the reduction in animals on the planet) - those are not replenished.

Two-thirds of Earth's tropical rainforests have been destroyed or degraded, study suggests

A new report suggests that only about one-third of the world’s tropical rainforest remains intact.

www.ctvnews.ca

 

[Emily L]

No, it's not. Tree cover in the US is decreasing, not increasing. There are not two sides to this.

Deuce, I was about to suggest we each list a bunch of sites that support one view or the other--but we'd probably end up discrediting each other's list. So, instead of going through all that, I'll just say you might be right.

 

[Deuce]

Deuce, I was about to suggest we each list a bunch of sites that support one view or the other--but we'd probably end up discrediting each other's list. So, instead of going through all that, I'll just say you might be right.

That's not how evidence really works, so you're right that this is a bad plan.

 

[Craig234]

The topic of the thread is actually societal attitudes having a remarkable bias for harmful business, not the numbers of lost rainforests, though.