I just finished reading the outstanding environmental epic, “The Overstory,” by Richard Powers, a 2018 book that won the Pulitzer Prize. In the book, one of the main characters, Douglas “Douggie” Pavlicek, an Air Force veteran, enjoys a job planting seedlings only to later learn that his effort does nothing to help trees and only contributes to their destruction at the hands of logging companies. There are myriad efforts like this by big business to mitigate environmental impact and raise the “annual allowable take” of ecosystems and endangered species. Environmental mitigation is a burgeoning industry and moneymaker of its own. What are your thoughts on this practice? Is it better than nothing? Or should companies find other ways to remain profitable without inflicting environmental harm? I’m genuinely curious as to your thoughts.
I'll start. Having just spent nine days on an island, an eco-paradise that is at grave risk due to climate change...there's a finite number of pristine natural areas in the world. The number of pristine natural areas is shrinking. They can't be replaced. I have a hard time viewing mitigation efforts as nothing but "greenwashing."
Previously untouched natural areas need full protection. Restoration unlikely to result in pre- intrusion results( due to inability to replicate complex systems). Ecosystems completely degraded by overuse essentially are probably best used as resource farms
I would like to read the book before I make an intelligent comment about environmental mitigation, so I'll just offer an observation about wood used in construction and renovation. I live in Chicago and currently there are 3 dumpsters on my short block. Two brick 2 flats are being gutted with only the brick walls remaining. All the interior woodwork, wood room dividers, supports and wood floors removed and tossed in a dumpster. None of it reused. New wood in renovations and new construction is many times wasted and tossed in a dumpster. There is no incentive to use wood wisely. Is the cost too low? I don't know. If the cost to fill a dumpster and send it to a land fill was to quadruple maybe developers would have more of an incentive to conserve and possible less need for new wood products and less cutting down trees.
I'll start. Having just spent nine days on an island, an eco-paradise that is at grave risk due to climate change...there's a finite number of pristine natural areas in the world. The number of pristine natural areas is shrinking. They can't be replaced. I have a hard time viewing mitigation efforts as nothing but "greenwashing."
Previously untouched natural areas need full protection. Restoration unlikely to result in pre- intrusion results( due to inability to replicate complex systems). Ecosystems completely degraded by overuse essentially are probably best used as resource farms
I would like to read the book before I make an intelligent comment about environmental mitigation, so I'll just offer an observation about wood used in construction and renovation. I live in Chicago and currently there are 3 dumpsters on my short block. Two brick 2 flats are being gutted with only the brick walls remaining. All the interior woodwork, wood room dividers, supports and wood floors removed and tossed in a dumpster. None of it reused. New wood in renovations and new construction is many times wasted and tossed in a dumpster. There is no incentive to use wood wisely. Is the cost too low? I don't know. If the cost to fill a dumpster and send it to a land fill was to quadruple maybe developers would have more of an incentive to conserve and possible less need for new wood products and less cutting down trees.