“dropped its pledge from a corporate policy to not buy wood pulp from degraded forests”
Shouldn’t tree farms be the sustainable solution?
Yes and no. If you cut down trees and burn them then the carbon dioxide will go immediately to the atmosphere and increase radiative forcing. New trees (saplings) will be planted and eventually (re)incorporate that CO2 as they grow. Unfortunately the process takes decades (say, five or six or seven) and in the meantime the process is not carbon neutral.
DB2
2 Likes
We do have many tree farms already. Especially in the Southeast where climate is favorable. And they have declining need for newsprint and paper.
Once trees are planted they begin absorbing carbon dioxide immediately. For softwood 30 years is probably typical. Hardwoods probably take longer.
P&G should know its requirements and how many acres of tree farm is needed. Plenty of wood products companies could assist.
The policy implies cutting down tropical forests is cheaper. A sad state of affairs!!!
2 Likes
True, but the ‘payback period’ of burning trees to generate electricity is 80+ years even for a rapid 45-year harvest cycle.
DB2
Ok, but P&G uses wood pulp for toilet paper and diapers. Not for fuel.
Sorry, I’m slow on the uptake here.
This appears to be a case of P&G not wanting to make promises it couldn’t keep.
DB2