Needs Pictures: 0
Picture(s) thanks: 0
Results 1 to 15 of 28
-
27th July 2014, 11:14 AM #1
Constructing A Defensible Argument For The Utilization Of Furniture Timber
Yesterday I had an disconcerting encounter with an individual. This individual was one of these urban ferals, the bath abstaining bicycle riding variate. Who posited the argument that "timber should only come from rubbish skips", that timber should all be local that you buy direct from the sawmill. That "Bunnings is evil" and that people who shop at Bunnings are akin to pedophiles. That timber should not come from overseas because its bad for the planet.
I stated that when making furniture the density & workability are important when selecting timbers. That in Australia almost all furniture timbers are questionable in terms of there sustainability. With many of our traditional furniture timbers used in abundance before WW2, Aus. Red Cedar, QLD Maple, Blackwood, Myrtle, Huon Pine, Celery Top & Coachwood are now either restricted or available in ever smaller quantities. That New Zealand, North American & Europe have abundant furniture timbers with climates and regulatory schemes to ensure at least some level of sustainability.
I am not concerned where my timber come from, as long as it not a rainforest South East Asian, South American, developing world timber, whose timbers prodigy cannot be assured by any measure. We live in a global planet, we drink tea from India, pasta from Italy, coffee from East Timor, computers, smart phones from China & cars from Japan. The idea of local only is naive at best and fascist at its worst, in so far they believe that which comes from ones own country to be superior based on the notion of national allegiance. There is a great argument that it was more environmentally sustainable to eat New Zealand Lamb in the UK. Because even with the shipping the inputs like fossil fuels and chemicals required to grow sheep in the UK was greater then in New Zealand.
I mentioned to this individual that a large amount of radiata pine in Australia comes from New Zealand. Which has a better climate for growing softwoods then we do. It makes environmental sense to grow crops like a tree in climate that is most conducive. How rational is it to grow rice in a desert or mangoes at the north pole. Can it be done yes, is it however an effective use of planetary resources? An unequivocal no.
Now I know that such a person cannot be dissuaded by logical argument, they fall into the same basket as supporters of 'intelligent design', right-to-lifers and skin-heads, however I would like to be better able to mount a defensible position for the use of timber for furniture making. However a quick search on this topic brings up a whole bunch of wild claims, often with no academic rigor, by parties with ideologically vested interests.
Can anyone direct me to academic studies or non-pro-forestry & non-greeny so that I can garner some facts. Most information I have found is also extremely out of date, often going back into the 1980's.
On a personal note, I feel that people who oppose timber used in furniture, are being hypocritical, since most timber is turned into books, toilet paper, cardboard & used in house construction. Before they criticize the use of timber for furniture they should stop using timber to wipe their posteriors and refuse to seek shelter in any structure made my human hands. Maybe they can squat under a tree and use an organically certified leaf when natures calls.
PS. What would you tell such an individual?
-
27th July 2014 11:14 AM # ADSGoogle Adsense Advertisement
- Join Date
- Always
- Location
- Advertising world
- Posts
- Many
-
27th July 2014, 11:57 AM #2
To get what I'd call a true international picture - which would involve looking at government subsidies for fossil fuels, tax concessions for industry investment, regulatory environments and all those other hidden costs and subsidies - would be a pretty enormous effort; I'm guessing 2-3 years of 9-til-5 research effort.
Just tell your shaggy individual that it's all moot anyway, as on current energy use trends we'll be needing to harness the entire energy output of the sun in just 1,400 years...and the entire energy output of our galaxy just another 1,400 years after that.
Mind you, we'll all be cooked by waste heat well before then - in a mere 440 years we'll have raised the surface temperature of the earth to the boiling point of water!
Galactic-Scale Energy | Do the Math
Actually, I'd look at the UN website, as they collate a lot of environmental info from member countries.
-
27th July 2014, 12:54 PM #3
Tell him he's dreamin'. Then tell him he's entitled to his opinion and good luck with that. And lastly, tell him that you reject his reality and will substitute your own.
Rob
-
27th July 2014, 01:11 PM #4
Walk away, he is depriving a village somewhere. As you said, there is no use in having an adult conversation/argument with the fanatics. They have their opinion and everyone else is wrong. Luckily in Australia, our fanatics don't normally go around blowing up unbelievers, too often. Fanatic definition - someone that believes in an ideal/idea/concept to the exclusion of all rational argument, be it Health, Human Rights or Sustainable Earth etc.
Pat
Work is a necessary evil to be avoided. Mark Twain
-
27th July 2014, 01:37 PM #5
Yep, not worth the energy or time. Anybody of an extreme position will never be swayed otherwise. From your description he sounded pretty under-informed anyway.
-
27th July 2014, 01:59 PM #6.
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- Location
- Perth
- Posts
- 27,792
OK, I don't agree with the hippie but he does have a point.
In pure long term energy and pollution terms we should be sourcing/making more high volume low value products like timber locally and the only things that should be moved internationally are high value low volume products like gold / electronics and IP. The same even applies within Australia. If we truly factored the long term energy and pollution costs of trucking, fruit, beer or milk across this country then there would be much less movement of these commodities over these distances. The reasons anything and everything is moved all over the place is energy is too cheap and the disparity between living standards in different countries meaning labor is dirt cheap in many countries.
I guess when oil is $1000 a barrel, we are up to dolly's wax in packaging, the oceans are too acidic to sustain life, and we can't see where we are driving we might take some action.
-
27th July 2014, 02:28 PM #7Skwair2rownd
- Join Date
- Nov 2007
- Location
- Dundowran Beach
- Age
- 76
- Posts
- 19,922
While I like the other posts for their humour I absolutely agree with Bob.
I don't see how, in the long run, it is defensible to dig holes in the ground here, send the stuff thousands of kilometers away and buy it back as manufactured goods.
How is it possible for it to be sensible to import canned tomatoes from Italy,pickles from Poland and so on??
Yes, yes labour and scale is cheaper there but that should be the last, not the first part of the equation.
-
27th July 2014, 02:28 PM #8I got sick of sitting around doing nothing - so I took up meditation.
-
27th July 2014, 02:34 PM #9
The Life Cycle Analysis I have done always leads to inconclusive results so realistically your friend is going to have trouble getting objective results. But values driven people don't care for facts. Look at our current crop of pollies, they are no different.
My objection to excessive globalisation is cultural. When oil gets to expensive to drive ships around carrying stuff we used to make for ourselves what then? We have exported so much manufacturing expertise that I don't think we can make all of the stuff we consume. So in a way I agree with your mate. That said I cross the road whenever see a pollie...."We must never become callous. When we experience the conflicts ever more deeply we are living in truth. The quiet conscience is an invention of the devil." - Albert Schweizer
My blog. http://theupanddownblog.blogspot.com
-
27th July 2014, 02:43 PM #10
Saw a pie chart recently that showed most timber (from Tassie old growth forests I think) went to paper. The next to making chep pallets and only 3% to furniture. That's a hell of a lot of chep pallets.
Oh fond it. Actually it Vic forests. I don't think furniture and building is the problem.
anne-maria.
Tea Lady
(White with none)
Follow my little workshop/gallery on facebook. things of clay and wood.
-
27th July 2014, 04:12 PM #11
By a few peoples responses this topic touches on broader issues of economics, globalization, trade & sustainability.
While I agree that in an ideal world everything we consume should come to us from the shortest distance. However the reality is we have become addicted to having produce and products all year round from all over the world. So when I can try to purchase my timber from timber salvage people. however even this is unsustainable. I need a car to go the miller, the miller needed a truck, a saw mill, and sometime a kiln to cut, proccess season and store the timber. All distructive all consuming energy.
In short, the only thing that will appease the hippies/ferrals types is we all lay-down to die and then we self compost ourselves but then they would complain that we are spreading our organic waste.
Here is a basic example of the problem. How many Australians will give up their morning espresso? The beans were grown in Africa or South America, the shipped that transported the beans was made Japan, and the crew is Filipino. The diesel that powers it engines come from Saudi Arabia, the milk maybe shipped from interstate or even from overseas. The paper cup was made in China from Indonesian rainforest pulp. The sugar comes from interstate, shipped on truck driving on roads all built, run ,maintained by an ever increasing web of interdependency. Etc, Etc... If we broke the global connection today the world would be dead tomorrow. To paraphrase and old saying, No country is an island, not even Australia.
Its like the guy who says that there are to many people in the world and that the solution is to kill a few of billion people. If you ask him if he would go first, he politely declines.
I once saw this doco that showed how much crude oil it took to say plant, fertilize, grow, harvest, transport, package, display, refrigerate, wrap a single head of lettuce answer 3/4 cup of crude oil per lettuce.
We are rearranging chairs on the deck of the titanic, worried about what tune the band will play with our steak dinner.
The world is an interconnected system. When one part coughs the other part farts.
tea lady - thanks for the poster. 3% for all the furniture & construction - therefore my lifetime contribution would be in the order of
0.000000000000
0000000000000
0000000000000
0000000000000
0000000000000
0000000000000
0000000000000
0000000000000
0000000000000
0000000000000
0000000000000
0000000000000
0000000000000
0000000000000
0000000000000
0000000000000
0000000000000
0000000000000
0000000000000
0000000000000
0000000000000
0000000000000
0000000000000
0000000000000
0000000000000
0000000000001%
-
27th July 2014, 05:03 PM #12.
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- Location
- Perth
- Posts
- 27,792
The world is indeed an interconnected system which is why ecologically it's going down the gurgler. To survive the interconnects need to be sustainable and represent true long term cost. Thats basically why all other civilisations failed and died out.
I agree we should be growing WAAAY more coffee in Australia than we do. At one point my local roaster used to supply coffee from QLD and I thought it was pretty good and used to buy it even though it cost s few $ more, but he hasn't had it for years.
I agree about the too many people. The quickest way to fix this could be to educate women because the more educated they are the older they leave having kids or even having kids at all.
-
27th July 2014, 05:22 PM #13
You'll find that child-wise, we dropped below the natural replacement rate sometime in the 70's (ish).
It's only our immigrant intake that gives us population growth. (Australia is one of the very few developed nations with any significant population growth).
-
27th July 2014, 05:35 PM #14
Skew and I enjoy watching Antique's Roadshow.
Frequently there are pieces of exquisite furniture that are in excess of 200 years old, worth less than a woman's art deco compact.
(The devaluation of antique woodwork is an entirely nother rant of mine)
A well built, well maintained piece of furniture can and will last an extremely long time. That IS sustainable.
Manufacturing intended to only give a piece of furniture a short lifespan, bad maintenance and obsession for the latest trend. That's unsustainable.
The problem is social, good furniture is being thrown in the tip because it's not fashionable.
So tell your hippy friend good furniture IS sustainable, obsessive consumption IS Not.
-
27th July 2014, 05:39 PM #15
Sustainability | David Mitchell's Soapbox - YouTube
David Mitchell's Soapbox - Sustainability - Furniture
Similar Threads
-
buying timber from Australian Furniture Timber in Port Melbourne
By nagled in forum TIMBERReplies: 6Last Post: 30th October 2014, 09:01 PM -
Floor timber and Furniture timber recommendations?
By Lunah in forum TIMBERReplies: 6Last Post: 29th July 2009, 09:57 PM -
SAWSTOP - The Argument
By Ruddigar in forum TABLE SAWS & COMBINATIONSReplies: 323Last Post: 25th September 2008, 05:29 PM -
My last argument
By Timmo in forum WOODIES JOKESReplies: 3Last Post: 5th June 2008, 10:08 AM