Save the forests: use more wood

Dordrecht

2014

S. 213-227

Artikel aus einer ZeitschriftUnselbständiges Werk

200194293

Wood, either as a fuel or as an industrial product, is and always has been one of the world’s most important raw materials. However, wood is almost always ignored in any evaluation of global resources. More wood is used globally than wheat, maize or rice for instance. In 2010 the world harvested just over twice as much wood as it did in 1920. However, over those 90 years the global population has increased almost fourfold so the per capita wood consumption has almost halved. This is despite wood being both renewable and sustainable as well as requiring little energy for its conversion into products. In spite an over a century of predictions of a global wood famine, the world’s supply of wood has increased and could even be slightly increased further. Tree growing requires at least 20–30 years before they are large enough to be harvested. We can only return to the per capita consumption levels of 1920s if there is a huge investment (many tens or even hundreds) of billions of dollars, even without allowing for compound interest) in plantations of fast growing tree species. Only pension funds and large companies have the scale as well as both the vision and the financial resources to invest in such a long term, capital intensive industry as forestry. The well meaning global environmental movement is often opposed to forest harvesting, even where the forests are responsibly managed. This is a totally misguided belief as trees are living organisms. Locking up forests and preventing forest management is a sure way of ensuring forests will eventually collapse (often with tragic consequences – e. g. a major fire). All forests are very capable of recovering from a catastrophic disaster (forest clearance, mega-fire, volcanic eruption, etc.). If forest preservation is the objective, the best means of achieving this is with responsible management and tree harvesting. Many environmentalists also are opposed to plantations, especially those of introduced tree species, but these can be very productive and unlike natural forests are likely to attract funding and be self-financing thereafter. Forest harvesting is often portrayed as deforestation, but we have the apparent paradox that those countries with the greatest wood harvest also have the least deforestation (Europe and North America). Is there any product that is more renewable, more sustainable, and more environmentally friendly, than wood?