>>1871672https://voca.ro/1kHwaIaNQet3>that is another fallacyplease explain how ceasing all human interaction with forests will solve the issues of climate change, introduced invasive species, beetle infestations, and extreme disturbances.
i would love to hear how you think the forest would respond if we stopped trying to control SODS and beetles and wildfires.
>Why is majority of this approach from the western Europe or Scandinavia?because they have been outcompeted by south america, australia, north america, and russia
>pulpbrazil/chile/australia/new zealand/south africa shit out 60-90mbf/acre in eucalyptus. nobody can hold a candle to that, it's absolutely fucking insane what they can do
>dimensional lumberalaska/oregon and canada supply the majority of doug-fir for the world, since they strip and replant entire mountainsides
california supplies almost all redwood to the world
>value-added mass timberthis is all europe has, and it isn't heavily adopted
europe has extremely high labour costs, is very mountainous, and has shit timber. your land ownership is very parceled, meaning that it's almost impossible to have a mass timber harvesting plan since you're dealing with 40 different stakeholders. thus, you have very small yarders and very expensive equipment in order to maneuver through small spaces without violating land border laws.
sure, your forests may be more aesthetically pleasing to look at, but they don't produce anything. you have essentially given up on your ability to make wood products without importing the lumber, which is fine, but you can't really talk about managing forests if you don't actually manage them.
as an aside, wood is our #1 renewable resource, so if you wish to stop using forests to produce wood (which grows back by the way), you might as well start slurping on saudi and chinese dick for all your plastic garbage
