• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

A friend just told me that it takes 75,000 trees to...

The sad part is that we waste that many trees on a worthless news paper like the New York Times!
 
But like Christmas trees are those trees that are harvested grown specifically for this purpose? Still its a lot of chemicals that are used in the porcess.
 
They didn't mention that it includes what, 50 million copies of the paper? It's not 75,000 trees for one newspaper.
 
Originally posted by: notfred
They didn't mention that it includes what, 50 million copies of the paper? It's not 75,000 trees for one newspaper.
Click to expand...
Thanks for clearing that up, Tyler.

 
75,000 tress, is a lot of damn trees, but you gotta realize that the NYtimes sunday paper is one of the widest circulation papers in the world. Timber companies, grow trees and harvest their own trees more and more, it's not like they are going out and chopping down redwoods or endangered trees.
 
Originally posted by: notfred
They didn't mention that it includes what, 50 million copies of the paper? It's not 75,000 trees for one newspaper.
Click to expand...

I was really starting to worry about that.

I thought perhaps the NYTimes was just a really big paper😉
 
Originally posted by: notfred
They didn't mention that it includes what, 50 million copies of the paper? It's not 75,000 trees for one newspaper.
Click to expand...


Yes they did...that's what "edition" means.




😉
 
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
75,000 tress, is a lot of damn trees, but you gotta realize that the NYtimes sunday paper is one of the widest circulation papers in the world. Timber companies, grow trees and harvest their own trees more and more, it's not like they are going out and chopping down redwoods or endangered trees.
Click to expand...

Wrong. NY times is the 6th or 7th most circulated newspaper, it is very distant to the first two, both in Japan, which have around 30 million subscribers. The others ahead of it also have many more. NY times only has 4 million subscribers.
 
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
Timber companies, grow trees and harvest their own trees more and more, it's not like they are going out and chopping down redwoods or endangered trees.
Click to expand...

Thats what you think., I always get some guy dressed in red and black checkered flannel shirt and blue jeans chopping down some tree in my back yard while singing the Monty Python Lumberjack song and quickly running off with it. Gonna catch em one of these days...
 
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
75,000 tress, is a lot of damn trees, but you gotta realize that the NYtimes sunday paper is one of the widest circulation papers in the world. Timber companies, grow trees and harvest their own trees more and more, it's not like they are going out and chopping down redwoods or endangered trees.
Click to expand...

Wrong. NY times is the 6th or 7th most circulated newspaper, it is very distant to the first two, both in Japan, which have around 30 million subscribers. The others ahead of it also have many more. NY times only has 4 million subscribers.
Click to expand...

Does this include the number of NY Times papers sold around the world through newstands? I don't think I've ever seen an international hotel that didn't sell these.
 
Originally posted by: NuclearFusi0n
🙁

Yet another way the hemp industry can help mankind.
Click to expand...

If the government and society in general would pull their heads out of their asses for long enough to recognize the difference between hemp and marijuana, maybe....
 
Originally posted by: calvinbiss
..produce 1 Sunday edition of the New York Times (approximately). Can that be true??
Click to expand...

so what?

who cares?

what is the point of this information regardless of its accuracey ?

what are you, some kind of communist that wants to have the government dictate the use of renewable resources?!?!?

rolleye.gif
 
But there is no way that timber/paper companies could have forseen the need for this much paper, and planted that many trees, thats what i don't understand, how does the timber industry keep up without going out into the wild and chopping?
 
Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
75,000 tress, is a lot of damn trees, but you gotta realize that the NYtimes sunday paper is one of the widest circulation papers in the world. Timber companies, grow trees and harvest their own trees more and more, it's not like they are going out and chopping down redwoods or endangered trees.
Click to expand...

Wrong. NY times is the 6th or 7th most circulated newspaper, it is very distant to the first two, both in Japan, which have around 30 million subscribers. The others ahead of it also have many more. NY times only has 4 million subscribers.
Click to expand...



That doesn't make his statement "wrong".

Read carefully...he said "NYtimes sunday paper is < ONE > of the widest circulation papers in the world."

Being "The 6th or 7th most circulated newspaper" absolutely makes it "One of the most widely circulated"



 
Originally posted by: notfred
They didn't mention that it includes what, 50 million copies of the paper? It's not 75,000 trees for one newspaper.
Click to expand...

you'd have to be a complete retard not to understand that.
 
Originally posted by: FoBoT
Originally posted by: calvinbiss
..produce 1 Sunday edition of the New York Times (approximately). Can that be true??
Click to expand...

so what?

who cares?

what is the point of this information regardless of its accuracey ?

what are you, some kind of communist that wants to have the government dictate the use of renewable resources?!?!?

rolleye.gif
Click to expand...

wtf calm down man. 😛
 
Originally posted by: calvinbiss
But there is no way that timber/paper companies could have forseen the need for this much paper, and planted that many trees, thats what i don't understand, how does the timber industry keep up without going out into the wild and chopping?
Click to expand...
They do.

They still cut down trees "in the wild", most of the time its plantations that are 50 - 80 years old, but there are still logging operations on virgin forest too, unfortunately. It's stupidity.

I can see using wood for lumber, but not paper pulp. Trees are not renewable enough a resource to be used for such a wasted commodity. 50 year old trees are still saplings in the scheme of things.

Hemp, on the other hand, is an annual. It is renewable yearly. It also produces something like 4x more paper pulp per acre than trees. Plus, it can be used for a myriad of other things, like textiles.

:frown:
 
Originally posted by: calvinbiss
But there is no way that timber/paper companies could have forseen the need for this much paper, and planted that many trees, thats what i don't understand, how does the timber industry keep up without going out into the wild and chopping?
Click to expand...

Havent been to Washington State or Maine? They buy large swaths of land, strip it of strees, then sell em off and move on. You can buy giant parcels of land in Maine for real cheap but it's a sea of tree stumps and eroding soil...

 
It is an absolute shame that we have very few, if any, trees like this anymore.

IMO, it should be illegal to kill someting, anything, that is 7 centuries older than you.

Call me a damn treehugger all you want, you can't honestly say it isn't sad we don't have trees that large anymore.

That's not even a giant redwood, it's a damn douglas fir. Good luck finding a doug fir anywhere near that size, anywhere on the planet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top