yesterday was Tu Bishvat - the "jewish newyear for trees",

in this holiday we pay our respect to the trees, and remember their contribution to our lives.

the Jewish religion forbid cutting down trees, explaining "becuase man is like the tree in the field".

people are also encouraged to plant trees. some trees provide fruit after several decades, but still planting them ensure the next generations will have a good enviroment to live in.

as such it's a religius issue like any other - just like cherity.



as a result, Israel is the ONLY country in which the forest area grew in the last century,

and it grew significantly.

in Israel 230 million trees were planted, one per person per year,

effectively doubling the forest area in Israel 56 times !!!



have you planted trees this year?

have you contributed to stopping the destruction of trees?

if not - you may consider it as a way to serve G-d.

When I was in Israel about 12 years ago, a tree had been planted for every human lost.

These had all been burned down.

Where does the timber for building houses & making furniture come from?

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

And lo, did not man take this as true and generally fuck things up and say "Verily it art goodly."

Religion has got a lot of work to do before it makes up for the chaos it caused, but at least Ai21 has made a start.

they still build houses from wood in the UK? have you leaned nothing from the Great Fire of London?

in Israel, ordinary houses are not built from wood for several decades. houses are made from brick or cement.
houses before were imported from Sweden (my wife's grandpa built a kibbutz, and the first houses were called the Swedish homes). new vacation houses are produced in similar ways.
similarly - furniture come from IKEA, or from imported wood.
the amount of wood that forestation (cutting dead wood or clearing too dense part of a forest) provide is not sufficient to establish wood industry - just for firewood and supplement to recycled paper.


religion isn't about beautiful costumes and nice chants,
religion is about morality first - tradition second, unless it's just an act people forgot why they keep doing..

in this view - it should LEAD the moral issues we face today, and not ignore them.
the earth was given to man "to work and preserve", we are doing the work part, but are we preserving it?


btw, I just saw that the most planted tree in Israel - pinus halepensis, absorb 48 KG of CO2 each year.
meaning that the entire Israeli CO2 emission is absorbed by the trees it planted.
impressive contribution.


I suggest a new green slogan:
plant trees, or go to hell.

Yes houses question answered but where does the wood for furniture come from?

You are right religion should LEAD on moral issues. Show me one recent example where it was used to though?

wood for furniture come from the same source - Sweden.
and yes - it makes wood furniture much more expensive. this make IKEA much cheaper then it's competitors - it import the much lighter furniture, rather then the whole tree.



some are debatable, as they take a certain moral view you may disagree with.
the problem is that religions allow themselves to be limited to epic, but essentially useless struggles.
this is why there is no use in bringing examples - they will be limited to "allowed regions".

Ecumenism in the form of reducing the religious hate is one form of beneficial struggle. unfortunately - it is not yet successfully.

It's good that Christians are planting trees...Gaea will be pleased.

I guess there is a big demand for Tree Surgeon's then
Is that what you do ai21

oh no, just like some green issues - trees, anti-pollution, composting ext.
I'm a programmer in profession, and a student for 2 years now.
I used to work at Intel. for 5 years...

Is there no wood in the roof construction? How about doors, floors, skirting, architrave, windows & kitchens? What about fences, sheds & stairs?

In the UK most softwood timber used in the construction of a house comes from renewable sources.

roof construction? most roofs are made of concrete.
wooden stairs are fire-hazard. almost no wooden floors. no wooden sheds (except those "Swedish homes" that are now used as sheds).
wooden windows and fences need too much maintenance- they are no longer used.
in most cases using aluminum is cheaper and more durable then wood, and it don't require maintenance.

naturally, furniture, inside doors ext are made of wood - imported wood.
there simple isn't enough wood from forestation, and cutting down trees is a crime.

but why is it hard to understand? it is too hot and dry outside, which made the risk of fire much greater then the UK,
and when we consider the higher prices - it usually don't worth it.
when an old house is demolished, the concrete and metals are recycled, so the use of renewable don't contribute much.
the major question is - can wood be considered renewable source?
does the wood come from sustainable forestation, or from creating long term damage?

[quote name='ai21' date='Feb 18 2009, 02:14 PM' post='436327']
[quote name='rederic' post='436318' date='Feb 18 2009, 03:05 AM']
Is there no wood in the roof construction? How about doors, floors, skirting, architrave, windows & kitchens? What about fences, sheds & stairs?

In the UK most softwood timber used in the construction of a house comes from renewable sources.
[/quote]
roof construction? most roofs are made of concrete.
wooden stairs are fire-hazard. almost no wooden floors. no wooden sheds (except those "Swedish homes" that are now used as sheds).
wooden windows and fences need too much maintenance- they are no longer used.
in most cases using aluminum is cheaper and more durable then wood, and it don't require maintenance.

naturally, furniture, inside doors ext are made of wood - imported wood.
there simple isn't enough wood from forestation, and cutting down trees is a crime.

but why is it hard to understand? it is too hot and dry outside, which made the risk of fire much greater then the UK,
and when we consider the higher prices - it usually don't worth it.
when an old house is demolished, the concrete and metals are recycled, so the use of renewable don't contribute much.
the major question is - can wood be considered renewable source?
does the wood come from sustainable forestation, or from creating long term damage?

It's ok having concrete flat roofs when you have a mediterranean climate, but in this country average rainfall is anything from 900mm to 4500mm. Flat roofs here have a history of regulaly failing, therefore we have pitched roofs which are formed with timber. Practicality limits your choices.
There must be hundreds of thousands of Jews in the West living in houses made with mostly wood.

indeed, these rainfall quantities sound unbelievable. but they can't be the average in most of the UK. are you talking about all of the UK or just wet areas like wales?
in recent years many houses in Israel are built with pitched roofs . this don't say anything about the construction material - it is still concrete.

many Jews are not adherent, and even if they are - there isn't a specific requirement about housing (as in some places - it was the only material used).
the question is moral one - SHOULD we use wood, when other less damaging options are available?

I don't understand why using wood, which is a renewable resource, ( it is here) is immoral. Timber production is a managed industry & therefore no different to any other type of farming.

In this country concrete's main ingredient ( ballast ) has to be dredged from the sea, causing damage to the seabed or dug from huge gravel pits leaving massive holes in the ground.

Everything you do, has consequences.

Most of Scotland has an average rainfall of 1500mm - 2000mm annually. But some parts have 4500mm.

Most of Wales receives 1000mm - 1500mm. The mountains in north Wales regularly get 3000mm.

Most of England receives 1000mm - 1250mm annually, but some parts receive 2000mm.

No.



No.



I do not.

I argue that calling wood "renewable resource" don't mean using it don't have consequences.
if we assume a tree collect 45 kg CO2 per year (it do change for different tree types and ages, but we can take a mean),
it take 40 average 60 years old trees to build one house.
this means that for building 1 house, you create 50 ton of CO2 (assuming proper management).
this is the equivalent to 5 years of average CO2 consumption.

they don't make concrete from ballast, the main ingredient is limestone.
it don't hurt the seabed, unlike crab fishing (but it's usually flatten the side of a mountain). since there is huge amount of concrete in one mountain, there is little importance to the fact it isn't renewable. in it's making you also recycle some very hazardous material like fly ash.


anyway - I wasn't saying it's use was immoral,
I just questioned if the alternatives are checked along with the claim it's "renewable".
and, of course, called for planting trees in unused areas (such as foresting desert areas, as done in Israel)

[edit] Aggregates
Fine and coarse aggregates make up the bulk of a concrete mixture. Sand, natural gravel, ballast and crushed stone are mainly used for this purpose. Recycled aggregates (from construction, demolition and excavation waste) are increasingly used as partial replacements of natural aggregates, while a number of manufactured aggregates, including air-cooled blast furnace slag and bottom ash are also permitted.

There are three ingredients in concrete. Ballast or aggregates, cement & water. By far the bulk ingredient is ballast.



Yes you did, here.




Exactly what I said, here.

The romans were the first to make a concrete which would set under water. No idea what they put into it (maybe Christians ?) but that's how they got to build their aquaducts.

Perhaps it gave it a bit of body!

aggregates can be many things - sand, gravel (which can be basalt or limestone), recycled old building material, ext. I really don't see why they go to such trouble mining rocks from the sea.

exactly as I said - if wood is the really the best option - use it,
I just doubt it is the best option, and certainly that it's the "green" choice.
the fact that people CALL it "renewable", don't make it more green then non-renewable recyclable materials that can be found in huge amounts.

The link you provided was specifically about Portland cement derived from limestone. Silly me thought that as you provided a link to cement, you were talking about cement.



I don't know if you've ever been to the UK, but if you ever do you will find that sand & aggregate are not lying around on top of the ground. It has to be mined from holes in the ground or dredged from the seabed. Even Portland stone has to be mined.

I suggest you google the UK & look at some pictures. You'll find that most of the landscape is covered by grass & trees.

Portland cement is a main ingredient in most types of cements(either pure or diluted with recycled stuff), so It's quite obvious I pointed to it. the other ingredient - aggregates, can be made from many things - not specifically sea basalt. why not use land basalt?

of course aggregates are not lying around - they quarry and recycle them,
In Israel, quarries usually "flatten out" slopes of a mountain. forests don't grow on steep slopes.
after the quarrying is done, the flattened land can be used or restored - into a forest.
I understand that in the UK it is done differently, but I don't understand why.

You said the main ingredient of concrete is cement (limestone), & provided a link to cement. The bulk or main constituent of concrete is aggregate.


We don't flatten mountains to make concrete as this scars the landscape even more than digging holes.

Perhaps you don't have gravel off the coast of Israel.

I think they have an endless supply just west of Israel,
What untill a few weeks ago use to be Palestinian homes, shops, Hospitals, Schools.

Now that you mention it, the Palestinian did complain about lack of aggregates...

The big question is..What type of tree is being planted?

This depends on where you are talking about. In most of the world, softwood has seen a huge increase in use & production.

http://www.unece.org/timber/docs/rev-01/chap-6.pdf

What type of "softwood" ?

Force grown pine?...which is good for sod all except fencing gardens?

It's all well and good declaring you have just planted "x" acres of trees...not all trees are worth the effort. (Please remember wood is the medium of my trade.)

I like softwod 'cause if you get a splinter off it then it won't be too bad. Over here we only have dogs pissing on the trees.
However, the likes of your hardwoods like mahogony from these foreigh countries, you dare not get a splinter 'cause elephants piss on the trees. lol

I know pine trees are good.

they absorb high amount of CO2, and adapt well to areas with low water.

they used to be the most planted tree in Israel due to it's fast growing and spreading. now it is still the most planted in semi-desert and desert areas, while in wetter areas, other types are used, so that habitats of native animals can be increased.

And mine. I've been a carpenter for forty years.

I would of thought that a timber producer knows a hell of a lot more about his business that i do.

Evergreens are the best. More important than absorbing CO2, trees absorb NO2. Well done to Israel. The last I heard Scotland was doing a lot of reforestation.

Ever looked at the life under an evergreen forest?

There is none. Those pine needles are so acidic that nothing grows under that tree, those needles take an eon to rot and choke the soil with an acid poison.

Nature does not like forest of one type of tree, it always (given a choice) mixes its tree population, only stupid man plants acres upon acres of fast growing conifers, not for "green reasons" but for fiscal reasons.

'Evergreen forests cover 7% of the earth's land surface and harbour over half of the earth's plants and animals.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evergreen_forest

Pine forests are teeming with wildlife:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caledonian_Forest#Wildlife

'Because pine straw is actually a leaf (needle), it benefits the environment in the same way that decomposing leaves benefit the forest floor by recycling nutrients and maintaining soil organic matter'

http://www.pineneedles4sale.com/benefits.html

Harlequin, who do you get your information from? Beelzebub?

'Research done by many people including Dr Abigail Manynard at the UCONN Agricultural Research Station in New Haven, Conn has shown that there is no significant change in soil pH after years of adding oak leaves or pine needles to that soil.'

http://forums.gardenweb.com/forums/load/ho...4125512938.html

yes, I lived for 3 years next to a pine forest.
my cat used to bring home lots of small wildlife,
and I know bigger animals, like wild pigs, roam the area as well.

since it's a relatively new forest, lots of shrubbery grow under the pine.
problem is that in thick pine forests, over time the ground gets covered with thick layer of pine needles, and seeds can't get to the moist ground
there is also a problem of forest fires - as these needles are very flammable.

this is why they stopped planting thick pine forests, as they used to.
outside the desert they now plant for diversity,
and in the desert, the spaces between the trees allow growth of other plants.
the shade provide good conditions for growth.
and the thin pine needles layer is actually a good fertilizer.

I got my info from direct observation of the conditions in Macclesfield forest and Delamere forest, both close to where I live. They can say what they like in those aritcles, I have seen those mentioned pine forest, and there's sod all living under those trees.

And ai21, a thin layer of needles might be good, but that layer just doesn't stay thin, it builds fast until it's a few inches deep, then smothers the ground.

It turns out that it's not the trees that make the soil poor, it was already infertile.



http://www.ukbap.org.uk/UKPlans.aspx?ID=6

we are talking of different forests, meaning we have different experiences.
I have lived for 3 years 200 meters from such a forest, and hiked a lot in it.
part of this forest suffered from a forest fire, another part is a natural forest, and others were planted 60-20 years ago. I also visited the forests planted in the desert, which you probably didn't.
this gave me great perspective of pine forests, which you probably lack.

the original pine forest seemed far from being desolate. some trees were slower growing trees and under the pines grows thick shrubbery, serving both as a source of food for animals, and as a better source of soil. pine leaves don't compost well if in a thick layer, but when mixed with other leaves, it grew nice variety of plants.

in the planted forests, there is something somewhat different - the forest was originally planted very sparse.
it makes much more sense, since pines grow easily and provide shade for other, more delicate plants. planting it sparse allow to cover much more area for the same budget, and no thick leave layer dominates the area.


however, in the area after the fire there was a thick pine growth. this growth both prevented sunlight from lower plants and created a very thick layer of leaves - preventing other plants from growing.
the pines also grew badly as a result of not having enough sunlight.
the solution is easy - thinning down the forest, which is done where there is access to the trees.


meaning there was an original reason to the disappearing of life from the forest you saw.
either due to forest fires,

or due to the soil not being very good in the first place.