[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How can this not be clear after 30 seconds of thinking about it?

[/ QUOTE ]
Because while there is value in preserving a resource, there is often much greater value in exploiting it. When a forest is controlled by a private landowner, he may see the forest as nothing but valuable lumber. If he sells the lumber, he will become wealthy. If a regulator sells the lumber, he doesn't even get a bonus (barring corruption).

The private landowner may choose to preserve the forest for future sale and hope the asset appreciates, but the value of that forest is likely tied up in the lumber available, so the next owner will also have strong incentive to exploit it.

As far as global warming goes, I'm usually able to predict what the anarchist arguments will be, particularly on a topic I'm interested in like the environment and I have no idea where Borodog is going with that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Trees are a renewable resource... I'm too lazy to look up the numbers but I would bet the lumber companies plant more trees in a year than the govt, and the tree huuging orgs plant in 5 years.

Throw in the fact that govt protected forests are not maintained very well, and dry brush ignites and burns thousands of acres of land every year.... what is the harm in cutting trees down for profit? Is it better for them to burn at no profit? I like wood, you can build houses, make baseball bats, and pencils and toothpicks out of it. What can you do with a tree that has burnt to the ground?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's even better than that. Cutting down trees to make houses and baseball bats and pencils is GOOD. The carbon that is sunk in that wood then becomes "fixed". A house is less likely to burn, and hence release the stored carbon into the atmosphere, than trees in a forrest. Further, new trees absorb carbon from the atmosphere at a much, much higher rate than old trees (which grow slower).