Chop Locally- Wall Street Journal on Sustainable Forestry
by TreeHugger on 05. 6.05
There was an interesting article on May 5 in the Wall Street Journal, of all places, in support of sustainable logging practices. "Treecutting done right doesn't have to cause environmental damage or ruin views. Cutting some trees can boost a forest's overall health, promoting regeneration, improving wildlife habitat and increasing species diversity"
The article points out that getting wood from local forests makes a lot more sense and takes a lot less fuel than dragging it across the country. "Its easier on the planet for people to make more and better use of local resources- from vegetables to trees- than importing it from afar, where ecological safeguards can be minimal".
Last summer this treehugger spent a day tromping in the woods with loggers, consultants hired to watch the loggers, and Ministry of Natural Resources people hired to watch everyone. The forest areound our cabin was to be logged according to Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) procedures. We were there to protest but in the end were impressed how there was a reason for every tree that was to be cut or saved, and how the loggers had to take out the diseased crap as the price of doing business. It was clear that the forest was going to be better off after than before.
We can't say read more from the WSJ because it is subscription only. We will instead do our usual rant that perhaps the WSJ would not be losing money and readers if it did not hide itself from the rest of the world by fencing off its contents. by [LA]
I've had WSJ online for a long time and its now about $80/year. Problem is that editorial policy is polar opposite to their sometimes wonderfully researched stories on eco=efficiency. Its always painful to see the money go to them because captains of industry are so influenced by the op ed pieces that are so hostile to TreeHuggers.
That's more important to fix than simple access.