I may not have calculations or graphics, but I really prefer the bamboo over some of these FSC products. I think that using FSC Certified Hardwoods is commendable, but really it doesn't allow us to reestablish our old growth forests. It still makes these majestic trees into commodities. I would love to see us outlaw the harvesting of trees on a per region basis in order to encourage the growth of true functioning forests.

I would highly recomend everyone read a book by David Suzuki called "Good News For A Change". It's a really fascinating and eye-opening read. One of the things he emphasizes is the need to find local solutions to problems. Exporting technology and products from across the world rarely is rarely successful. Although he isn't specifically talking about this issue, I think the logic applies. In the chapter on forestry he talks about sustainably managed forests around the world and how it really is possible to harvest trees in a way that honors the integrity of a forest, encourages biodiversity and truly allows a forest to grow and thrive. He gives several very specific examples where businesses from small to medium-sized really are doing exactly that. Forests that have been managed adapting old methods to particular situations where the forest is now larger than it was when their business started decades ago. Where animals are coming back to the forest, not leaving it. Where species of plants rarely seen in recent decades are making a comeback. The methods put in place are actually centuries old, practiced by native peoples all over the world (each one specific to the region where it originated - local solutions always work best!).

Sure, in an ideal world we'd leave the natural world completly alone but the reality is that we do need construction materials and I firmly believe that, for the most part, the real solution is to use local materials and use them wisely. I just don't see mass harvesting of bamboo as a true solution to the problem. The issue is way more complicated than one of transportation. Think of the massive amounts of bamboo that would be needed to replace even just half of the wood used in N. America. What will that do to native forests in bamboo-growing countries? Is there really enough bamboo fields or 'empty' land in order to supply the massive amounts that would be needed without infringing on other forests or agricultural land (that is surely needed by the local population)? We need to look at wether this solution is good for the planet as a whole, not just wether it works for us. Sure it'll help our local ecology, but what will it do to the local ecology elsewhere?

We need to rethink how we use our forest products (ie stop waste in all forms!) and we need to find *local* solutions. I highly recomend the book I mentioned earlier. Although he doesn't address this issue in particular (at least not so far, I'm about 1/2 of the way through the book), he does talk about many other situations and the recurring theme really is local. Local products, local knowledge, local crops, local traditions etc...

Karen.

local is better and there is a bigger and bigger push for more goods, resources and products to be locally sourced. I would take your argument one step further though. Why look at virgin materials, even if they are local. You have to think about it. There are some localities where there are no trees at all. What do they do for wood? The everything local has a flaw when you are talking about virgin materials.

My argument would be more on the lines of harvesting the old "local" materials and reusing them to recreate our built world. An old abandoned house is a source of wood, and in some cases better wood than can be sourced from any forest today. The old CMU warehouse is a treasure trove of locally sourced materials.

There is something to be said about leaving nature be. To say that these new forests are succeeding is to miss the fact that we cleared the old forest and it can NEVER be regrown. It just never going to happen, especially if all we are doing is creating a safer means to harvest our building materials.

Of course, I totally agree. That would fall under the category of what I said about rethinking how we use our forests and stopping all forms of waste. Old wooden structures that are not recycled is a serious form of waste and that needs to stop. There are tons of changes we can make to how we view things, how we build them etc, in order to greatly reduce the need/want for new materials in the first place.

Ideally we would have no need for virgin materials, unfortunetly I fear that's just not realistic. But if we slash the demand for virgin materials and combine that with truly well managed local forests then I think that's a sustainable and healthy solution. Regions where there is no wood at all is obviously more complicated (although very rare because there are extremely few populated places on earth with no practical building materials at all). Looking to the past is often a great place to start, getting creative (there are other wonderful building materials other than wood) and sometimes importing materials if necessary. No one ever said that absolutly everything had to always be local. There's no reason we can't tolerate some exceptions in particular circumstances. Of course, one could argue that regions that desolate that they're barren of any practical building materials are perhaps not meant to have permanent human settelements in the first place. But that's obviously a whole other, very complicated and controversial discussion.

As for old growth forests, you're right they can never be regrown, I'm not missing that fact at all. But what's done is done. It's a great loss but we can't undo it. We need to remember the mistakes of the past and not repeat them. We need to look to the future, to the forests we have left (and there are some old growth forests left intact) and learn how to protect them. Leaving some of them completly untouched is necessary of course. Some ecosystems really are just too fragile. But there are others that we can sustainably harvest. If we are cautious, wise and respectful, we can harvest a certain amount of new wood while still leaving the entire forest and all it's biodiversity intact and even thriving.

Karen.

Oh, and when I say local I don't mean just local products. That's a huge part of it of course, but I also mean traditional local knowledge and techniques. Most every part of the world has traditional knowledge about everything from building to crop growing that needs to be reclaimed if possible. This knowledge and tradition has usually been learned, refined and perfected over centuries if not millenia, it's a very precious thing. Sure, some of it won't be practical (ie few of us are likely to want to live in teepees or igloos) but much of it can be adapted to be relevant and practical to us.

Karen.

old growth forests just need uninterrupted time to redevelop. I am talking decades/centuries without the greedy hand of man trying to figure out how to harvest the resource. Unlikely to happen and therefore we say that the old growth cannot return, but that just isn't true. If we are true stewards of the land, then we would stop practicing that which has scarred the surface of our planet and help return the ecosystem to its more natural state.

Bamboo is one of the world's best sustainable resources. It can grow up to a meter or more per day and matures in 4 to 5 years. Bamboo takes in nearly 5 times the amount of greenhouse gasses and produces 35% more oxygen than an equivalent stand of trees, making it an efficient replenisher of fresh air. By encouraging the growth and utilization of bamboo, we can begin to limit the negative impact we have on our environment.

Runka, you address the good and overlook the bad. Bamboo has environmental impacts as well as benefits. Shipping costs due to the fact that the vast majority of construction grade bamboo is grown in Asia, farmers turning away from food crops to grow more profitable bamboo, developers clearing forests in order to grow bamboo. While bamboo may process CO2 better than a stand of trees it does not support a varied biology like a multi-species forest would, chemicals and fertilizers used to increase the potential yield of bamboo diminish soils and biodiversity.

I won't say that bamboo is bad, but you have to talk about both sides of the story and not just the benefits.

I hear all the time about people in Florida and Southern California who have need for Bamboo removal. Now aren't we using that for the same products. Couldn't we grow it here?

hippie, I don't know if its the same species, but I am sure that it could still be used. I worry though about making it into a cash crop and pushing aside food crops for a big bamboo boom.

most bamboo comes from asia, that is true, but with the environments we save by reducing deforestation is much better than saying don't use bamboo because its not local. Local building supplies are only one part of the chain and if we throw the baby out with the bath water we won't get anywhere. I say use bamboo when it makes sense to use bamboo.

I am sure there are better options than shipping fast growing grass thousands of miles just so that we can say we are using a rapidly renewable resource. Tons of homes are empty and yet the homeless populations aren't exploding. Why is that? Perhaps we already have too many homes, too many apartments and too many buildings. Why are we so concerned with building green when the focus might be better shifted to utilizing what we have.