>>1872172>>1872189>Imagine actually writing this. Projecting materialism, wew.i would love to hear you try to describe international forestry through the lens of regional productivity. scandinavia logs because their government subsidies it. south america and south africa are unstable and rely upon a very cheap labour pool with poor infrastructure, and are STILL global players. as these regions stabilise, europe will have literally no products on the market that are not cheaper and more readily available
managing a forest is not cheap. that's why the USFS doesn't do it, because it's really fucking expensive. when you have tiny little baby forests, like in europe, then sure you can just leave them alone and nothing too drastic will happen. that's fantastic for the tiny irrelevant forested land that you are around. for the rest of the world that has to supply everyone with wood, we can't just pretend that trees don't exist and try to ignore them, because we have actual responsibilities and people who rely upon the woods.
whatever irrelevant shithole you live in that has soviet missle silos dotting the landscape is obviously shit at forestry. california's private timber companies are really fucking good at managing the landscapes, which is why we have the best and healthiest working forests in the country, if not the world. we maintain wildlife, recreation, soil, water, and timber harvesting all at the same time, and everything thrives.
honestly you are just boring to talk to because you clearly don't know anything about forestry, global supply chains, timber production, the environment writ large, or any other subject that lets you talk about how forests work.
enjoy your shitty dead forest and butthurt while I continue to manage the redwoods
