this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2025
711 points (98.8% liked)
People Twitter
8561 readers
937 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician. Archive.is the best way.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Almost all paper comes from byproducts if the lumber industry or recycled. Its the processes of papermaking that have huge impacts to the environment.
Yeah, TP is renewable by design, since it comes from trees. Being from a grass like bamboo doesn't change that, and bamboo isn't absorbent, so I'm very concerned about the process they're using to produce something that's supposed to be somewhat absorbent.
Bamboo is great for TP, and since the first NRDC report (mentioned in my other response which shows my comment has data behind it) shows the shift to using bamboo fibers in many major brands, too.
Personally, I find bamboo way better than recycled (and bamboo use vs tree use is perfectly sustainable, bamboo grows faster than it can be farmed). We find the brand we use comparable to Charmin "normal" paper (not the overly plush stuff). Happy to recommend a brand to try if asked, but don't want to sound like a shill/advert. Plenty out there on a search 😉
Also, don't negate a bidet.
Data? The NRDC says otherwise. They do a report every year on virgin forest use in Canada. https://www.nrdc.org/resources/issue-tissue
For the record, it tracks recycling use, renewable fiber use, and bleaching. I think you're minimizing the impact.
Noone is going to virgin forests to send logs straight to a paper mill unless they are too small for the saw mills (byproducts of clear cut logging). The logs are far more valuable as lumber. But the byproducts are chiped and sent to paper mills so nothing is wasted. Your source is completely missing that point and not directing the enegry to the real culprit. Logging in virgin forests is no doubt a problem, but noone is logging them exclusively for paper.
First, your just assuming that the only use for pulpwood is toilet paper. "Wasted" is figurative with the context above.
But more importantly, from your quote:
36% is small trees that could still be in the ground. Sometimes this is from those surrounding old growth, but it is commonly from out-skirting areas or the way in, and could be avoided.
No... i assume its all paper produced by wood pulp.
In managed tree plantation, one stratgey is to plant trees very densely so the planted trees smothers out any competition. Once they get about 15-20 years, the forest is thinned, producing tons of pulpwood. Leaving the rest to mature for lumber. Some managed forests are exclusively grown for pulpwood and clear cut every 20 years, but those are less common.
Environment wise, young trees consume more CO2 than old growth forests. The downside it creates large vast monoculture forests devoid of a diverse ecosystems.
So again, its not the problem of paper production... its the lumber industry and their unsustainable practices.
Not old-growth. Irrelevant to the stats and report.
You are quite dense.