Save a tree? Why?

Starbucks has been running a commercial to encourage people to bring reusable travel mugs instead of asking for a paper cup.  The commercial shows people putting Starbucks paper coffee cups on the pavement, eventually creating a picture of a tree.  One of the slogans is "One person can save trees, together we can save forests." Ironically, they are not saving coffee beans.  As each person places a cup on the pavement, it is quite obvious that it still contains coffee!  That was lots of coffee to use for a single ad.  I will admit that the cups had to be weighted in case of a breeze.

Minnesota Public Radio has a campaign to get people to become sustaining members.  On the air they are saying "Save a tree" because it will reduce their mailings because sustaining members will be automatically charged each month.  Additionally, for each new sustaining member they will have a tree planted in the member's name.

I don't like to see waste and I like to conserve resources by recycling, but I think these "Save a tree" campaigns are somewhat misguided.

First, the much of the wood pulp for paper comes from private lands.  When held by a forest products company, they are managed for sustainability.  When a tree is taken from such land, it is replaced by planting or by natural regrowth.

Second, the primary source of wood pulp is aspen and balsam fir, both which regrow naturally.  In fact, I call them both weeds.  Aspen regrows quickly from root suckers.  Balsam fir grows from seed cones without much effort.  In fact, both kinds of trees continually spring up in any area of our Brimson property that we don't keep clear.

I am very allergic to balsam fir, getting a severe skin reaction any time I have to trim a balsam or cut one down.  I've talked to a logger friend about removing many of them, but he says there is no market for balsam.  I may have to hire him to remove some near the cabin; they are too close, especially with drought conditions.

"No market for balsam" may be an indication that many recycling efforts are "paying off".  Consider also that many paper companies have been downsizing.  One could change the slogan to "Save a tree; fire a logger."

Worse yet, the value of private forest lands is increasing so much that forest product companies are selling their land to real estate companies.  These companies are selling them off in smaller parcels to individuals.  When this happens the individuals take out trees for driveways and buildings.  See "Breaking Up the Forests".

The breakup of the forests could have consequences for wildlife.  One could change the slogan to "Save a tree; starve a moose."  Somebody long ago told me that if I wanted moose, clear cut.  When we bought our property, there was a recently cut area of aspen (aka poplar or popple).  The stand was about eight-foot high and we occasionally saw moose tracks.  Now the stand is twenty to thirty-feet high and we haven't seen a moose track for years.  Moose aren't completely gone from our area.  One of our Brimson neighbors found two dead bull moose with locked horns: "Shed Hunter Finds Two Minnesota Record-Book Moose Locked After Battle to the Death".

Moose aren't the only tree predators.  One could change the slogan to "Save a tree; shoot a deer."  We have made many efforts to plant trees.  Our most successful was white spruce.  We had some success with sugar maple with probably half the seedlings turning into twelve to fourteen foot trees.  We tried red oak and they are all gone.  We had hoped to plant hundreds and hundred of white pines, but deer took a big toll on them.  We initially stapled paper to the tips in the fall (the recommended practice), but the deer would bite the top off below the paper.  We tried putting circles of fencing around individual trees, but the deer would reach in with their tongues and pull the tips out.  We put screen around the fencing and that seemed to work.  Unfortunately, for all this protection, we couldn't protect against drought.  Several of the trees that survived the deer turned brown and died.  I think of the 200 or more pines that we planted over a two-to-three year period, only about forty have survived and only about twenty are taller than me.

We have been harvesting aspen for firewood, both for our cabin and for our Duluth house.  I think we used about eleven trees last year, almost all aspen.  We are starting to use some birch; it is finally getting to fireplace size after a big die-off several years ago.  But our job may have become easier.  One could change the slogan to "Save a tree; stop the wind."  Except for some trees that were in the way of other trees, we have been harvesting broken tops.  The best yet are the four-inch diameter trees that were snapped off in a big wind storm or two.  The woods looked like it was full of a jumble of toothpicks.  When we can get to those without bark, all we have to do is cut them into fireplace lengths, no splitting.  These are just great for having a fast, very hot fire to warm the cabin quickly.

Ah yes, fire.  One could change the slogan to "Save a tree; start a forest fire."  A mature forest is much more likely to burn and over a wider area.  If we reduce our harvest of trees too much, we will have more forest fires.  It is nature's way of providing for large-scale renewal.

I think where we really have to be concerned about trees is in urban areas.  I regret that we no longer have any of the back yard trees we once had.  A silver maple and a birch became too old.  An ash provided easy access to our attic for squirrels, and three smaller birch just got in the way of the power and telephone lines.  Other than our arbor vitae, trees in the front yard are out of the question because of sewer lines.  Boulevard trees are impossible because the boulevard is only two feet wide.

Overall it is going to be more difficult to have neighborhood trees.  Wider streets leave less room for trees.  The ongoing sewer work in Duluth is going to lead to more front-yard trees being taken down or fatally stressed.  Disease and age are going to do in many mature trees.

About the only places left for lots of trees are parks.  Do we want to spend the tax money to keep our parks green?  It's either spend the money on a healthier environment or spend the money on health care.

Be careful what you wish for, you may get the opposite.

Save a tree? Why?

One of the popular green advertising slogans is "Save a tree, use" less of this paper product or other. One of the extremes is not to take a receipt from a gas pump or any other place.

I am one that recycles a lot of stuff. Junk mail, newspapers, toilet paper rolls, beer bottles, beer caps, and on and on. I do feel that it is important that we recycle as much as convenient.

Every so often I wonder if we're trading one resource for another. Does the water needed to properly rinse food containers offset the value obtained by recycling the glass or plastic. Does anyone really get a tomato juice bottle or cap really clean? If so, what is the cost of the water (and time) against the marginal cost of producing new glass.

On save a tree, which trees are we saving? Those in parklands? In national forests? Or those on private land? If on many private lands and even some public land, for every tree cut down, one of more trees are replanted. If the trees weren't cut down, they might die, fall over, and rot. That has its benefits, but its sort of six of one, a half dozen of the other. Worse, the trees could get dry in a drought and put a hell of a lot of carbon back in the atmosphere.

We are currently cutting about a dozen trees a year for firewood. On the other hand we are planting 25 trees a year. Even if only half survive, we are replacing what we cut.

The economics can get really interesting on this. We drive a 14-16 mpg truck on a round trip of less than 100 miles. We cut a tree and haul back wood from previous cuttings. We burn the wood in our fireplace. If we burn wood in our fireplace then we are not burning gas in our furnace (or oil in our previous furnace). Is the saving in fossil fuel for heat offsetting the cost of fossil fuel for travel. Probably so, because we would go to our cabin just for recreation. In the winter or when we have lots of stuff to haul we take the pickup truck over the Prius.

Another tricky calculation is the capacity of trees to absorb carbon vs. the amount of heat reflected by snow covered ground. Someone suggested cutting down the trees in snow country would allow more heat to be reflected back into space. We do know that it was warmer last month in Montana where there was little snow on the ground than in North Dakota where the ground was covered. This was also in the same day when we traveled from Bozeman to Bismarck.

Somewhere in between the global warming skeptics and the global warming alarmists there is a common sense attitude towards having a climatologically comfortable and productive planet.

See also "Mission Impossible: Global warming debunking debunking", Reader Weekly, 2008-03-13

Saving trees or saving other green?

I received an email today from an organization asking me if I would rather not receive paper copies of its publications. The message title included "Save a Tree". I don't think that this organization or any other is so much interested in saving trees as they are in saving money. Putting out a glossy magazine ain't cheap.

Additionally, growing trees for pulp can be a sustainable enterprise. Cut the trees down and some more grow up. Let the trees stand too long and they rot and die. Of course, trees as a group were doing fine before the saw was invented.

What reducing the demand for paper might do is to reduce the opportunity and incentive for non-sustainable practices.

Still, I think most save-a-tree campaigns are either a feel-good endeavor or a cost-cutting move.