> I think the figures are something
> like less than one percent of newsprint is from some source other
> than tree farms or recycling. Good Sitka spruce is too darn expensive
> to use for paper pulp. On another front, the hardwood industry likes
> to point out that there are more trees now than there were 30 years
> ago, and the number of trees is growing. My son counters that the
> average age of the forests is still small as older trees are felled
> and replaced by (more) young ones. My riposte is that even if you
> do not cut the older trees, if you plant two new ones for every old
> one the average age of the forest will also fall. It becomes a political
> game with mathematical pieces, where the various sides manipulate
> the data to serve their ends.

One has to take into account that a lot of forest is cleared (i.e. clearcut) in order to create these tree plantations.

> Personally, I like the economic-based viewpoint. It states that
> scarcer wood, and that includes a lot of old growth timber, will cost
> more. A corollary to that is that if you buy cheap wood your conscience
> and wallet are both saved.

But it's a catch-22. As the market drives prices up due to scarcity, the economic incentive to harvest is that much greater.

> Anyone checked the price of lake perch or Atlantic cod recently?
> As these fish get scarcer the price for them rises. On the other hand,
> there is a salmon glut in the market.

The world's fisheries are shot. The reason there is a glut is that much of the fishing industry is subsidized. There has also been a shift to species that were once considered unfavorable and simply thrown over the side of the trawler. Now it ends up on your plate as a new, trendy fish dinner.

> There are plenty of environmental issues, and many points of
> view surrounding each. Pick your battles and stock up on your (verbal)
> ammunition.

Karl