[GRRN] forwarded without comment -Reply

Bill Carter (WCARTER@tnrcc.state.tx.us)
Fri, 05 Nov 1999 12:55:18 -0600

These fallacious recycling-is-garbage articles are beginning to remind me =
of the story about prison inmates who become so familiar with each others* =
jokes that they number them. Instead of telling jokes, a prisoner just =
says a number and the others laugh or groan as appropriate for the joke =
with that number. I am tempted to just say *1, 3, and 9=22 in response to =
Ms. Hart*s item and listen to your groans.

Just one point * Ms. Hart*s comparison of *saving* trees to *saving* wheat =
by not eating bread suggested a good illustration to explain the issue. =
*Saving trees* through recycling is a lot like *saving water* in a water =
conservation program. Yes, trees and water are renewable resources, but =
that does not mean that we cannot develop critical shortages of them (as =
we are seeing with water in San Antonio and El Paso). =20

In regard to tree plantations, Ms. Hart shows the typical ignorance of the =
fact that *saving trees* really means reducing pressure for harvesting, =
which allows more land to be managed as wilderness habitat instead of =
high-yield silviculture. Reducing paper consumption is not sufficient to =
ASSURE that more land goes into conservation management, but it is a =
NECESSARY step toward that goal. =20

Critics tend to unreasonably dismiss a specific conservation effort if it =
does not, in and of itself, provide a complete solution to the problems it =