[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: GBlist: Good Wood

Edward J Hartnett wrote:
> 
> ----------
> > From: John Salmen <terrain@seaside.net>
> > To: greenbuilding@crest.org
> > Subject: Re: GBlist: Good Wood
> > Date: Tuesday, May 13, 1997 8:52 AM
> >
> > Good wood ... bad wood. Funny use of terms. Culturally wood has been
> > 'bad' more often than 'good'. Wood in the sense of forested places,
> > places to avoid. I would venture to say that we have probably never
> been
> > comfortable with wood unless it is in some vanquished, processed,
>         <snip>
> 
> Well, speak for yourself. There is a strong tradition of living in the
> forests in american literature, including for example "Walden Pond"
> and
> Cooper's work.

I haven't read Cooper but I recently reread Thoreau (best thing I've
done in a long time) and I think you might find some supporting
references to what I said above in his work as my comments owe their
origin to him and others of his tradition.
> 
> Personally I love forests and I'm moving into one. I certainly don't
> intend
> to cut it down!

Removing tires from a recyclable waste stream has the net effect of
cutting down forests. You are not immune. I remember Thoreau lamenting
the comparibly negligible effects of the imprint of his humble home on
the forest floor - can you say the same. A tree is a big object and
falling it has a big effect but what about all the small cumulative
effects that can still result in that tree falling down. Redirection and
contamination of water and air flows, disruption of the nutrient base,
displacement of habitat, etc. Thoreau was unique in that he could see
with such little evidence the effect of not only our indifference but
our not knowing.
> 
> > The contradiction is that we cannot live without wood, living wood -
> the
> > stuff that makes up a forest. The catch is that forests do not seem
> to
> > survive in our company. Forests are dying and in the opinion of many
> are
> > already dead. They are not and never can be what they were and the
> > remaining question  is can they survive as they are. An american
> 
> They can indeed become what the once were, if only we would let them.
> If
> all humans vanished tonite, the forest would have taken over again in
> 300
> years or less.
> 
> And we certainly CAN live in the forest without destroying it. I can
> think
> of many examples.

I wish I could say the same and I wish I had some examples. The examples
I have are of 3rd generation forest here and on the east coast falling
over because their roots are spread shallowly on a thinned soil base.
There is no cure for what is no longer here and to imply that all is
fine because it could all be fine if we were no longer here...?
> 
> >
> > As to the use or disuse of wood or any other material the decisions
> are
> > so complex and cultural that I can never think of any particular
> usage
> > of a material as being positive or even rational. I like Terry's
> comment
> 
> I think this is a bit strong. Certainly the use of adobe in a SW arid
> climate with no trees is quite a positive and rational decision,
> whereas
> building a log cabin on the same spot (with logs shipped from Canada)
> is
> not a very positive or rational thing to do.

I agree and that was in part my point that you can't universally say a
material is benign and thereby make a prescription for its use. Rather
we need to remember that every material is going to have an effect
locally, globally and historically and that we need to live with the
consequences locally, globally and over time
> 
> > about the issue being the reduction of mass and energy flows through
> our
> > economy and the economy being what we pay to live on earth. I think
> of
> 
> It is not what we pay to live. It is what we pay to live plus what we
> pay
> to make living more enjoyable, plus what we pay to increase our status
> whether we need it or not to live.
> 
> The living part is the smallest part.

I disagree. The living part, the understanding of what our basic needs
are is the part that will allow us to reduce our demands.
> 
> >
> > I use a lot of wood in my projects and the contradiction is that its
> use
> > at this time helps to maintain this area as a forested region of the
> > world and that is my principal reason for using it. I think of my
> > relationship to the process and material usage as one of stewardship
> or
> > perhaps husbandry is a better term, where I am as responsible for
> > maintaining the viability of the source of the material as I am for
> > defining its end usage. Selective cutting of 2nd or 3rd generation
> > forested land and adding economic value to that cutting by defining
> it
> > as a sustainable building material has the ironic net effect of
> > increasing cultural value in that land and hopefully extending its
> > life as forest. Its not a good marriage because I know that each
> tree
> > that I have removed from a local forest represents future soil and
> > nutrient loss for the entire forest and that cumulatively such loss
> > might kill a forest. But I also know that I have the potential of
> > drawing more building material from these sources than if they were
> > given over to gravel extraction or straw production - with less
> > commitment of additional resources and maintaining our forested
> > canopies has probably more benefit to the world than anything else
> we
> > could possibly do.
> 
> I think that's a great idea and while I don't think I will use wood, I
> applaud your sustainable harvesting. No doubt about it, it could be
> done
> sustainably, but it's usually not.

Your right, it's usually not.
John
begin:          vcard
fn:             John Salmen
n:              Salmen;John
org:            TERRAIN E.D.S.
email;internet: terrain@seaside.net
x-mozilla-cpt:  ;0
x-mozilla-html: FALSE
end:            vcard
References: