The Other Coast by Adrian Raeside

The Other Coast

Comments (19) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. tr.phipps

    tr.phipps said, over 4 years ago

    the difference between a contractor and an enviromentalist is that the enviromentalist already has his house in the mountains.

  2. PICTO

    PICTO said, over 4 years ago

    So did the contractor cut down the forest so we could see the trees?

  3. treesareus

    treesareus said, over 4 years ago

    The tree was cut into lumber to build the house. The timber industry that cut the forest down planted 10 trees for every one they cut. Thirty years later they do it all over again on the same land…because trees grow in spite of environmentalists attempts to convince you otherwise.

  4. cdward

    cdward said, over 4 years ago


    I suppose that means there should be more forest land in the world today than there was, say 50 years ago?

  5. Dani Rice

    Dani Rice GoComics PRO Member said, over 4 years ago


    Well, that would work if we all stopped breeding like bunnies.

  6. PoodleGroomer

    PoodleGroomer said, over 4 years ago

    Would the environmentally concerned people point out the trees that they have planted.

  7. agentadq

    agentadq said, over 4 years ago

    Can’t see the forest for the trees…

  8. route66paul

    route66paul said, over 4 years ago

    New trees are planted, but the lumber industry wants the old growth trees. The new growth is good for pulp and small dimensional lumber. The good stuff is heart wood and can be used as beams. Much of the wood salvaged from old churches and other large buildings is of a size that can’t be milled, since all the big trees have been taken in that area.

  9. SCAATY_423

    SCAATY_423 said, over 4 years ago

    That seems improbable, but the data should be interesting. “Land with trees on it” is not the same thing as “Still stands the forest primeval.”

  10. wildcatherder

    wildcatherder said, over 4 years ago

    Somehow the pro-Lumber people want you to believe that all of those ten-trees-planted-for-one-cut-down reach maturity. They also neglect that it can take decades for those that survive to reach maturity and that existing trees are still being cut faster than can be replaced. Also, Night-Gaunt is so right that replacing the trees doesn’t rebuild the ecology.

  11. flyintheweb

    flyintheweb said, over 4 years ago

    I think it is more trees than 1900 – back then, we cut down trees not for their wood, but for farmland. Farms are more efficient now, so they get more food out of less land. So some farms are sold off for building lots, and people put trees in their backyards

  12. hippogriff

    hippogriff said, over 4 years ago

    “Plant a tree, write a book, have a son.” Arab proverb. [Tree for the environment, book to share your ideas with the future, and son to carry on the family name] I have written several books, had a son and a daughter, and have planted a couple thousand trees versus cut down maybe ten which didn’t survive old age or drought and cut up enough naturally shed limbs to heat a bookstore instead of using gas.

  13. Ly Taylor

    Ly Taylor said, over 4 years ago

    When are we gonna admit that environmental problems are caused by OVER-POPULATION?

  14. johnmanjb

    johnmanjb said, over 4 years ago

    Okay, I’m back. Had to go throw up after reading these tree hugger posts. My question: How many of you huggers live in the wilderness, curled up in a pile of leaves, and how many of you live in a house built from limber?

  15. fishbulb239

    fishbulb239 said, over 4 years ago

    @Dani Rice

    The rate of population growth isn’t the problem – it’s the distribution. If people would live closer to the center of an urban area, in multi-family dwellings or at least in homes on smaller lots, then we wouldn’t need to mow down so much farm land or forest. Does anybody really need a 10,000 s.f. lot? (And that’s small by some communities’ standards.) If everything was built to the density of Manhattan, we could fit the entire population of North America into New Hampshire (with room to spare), leaving 99.9% of the continent in its natural state or using it for farming or resource extraction. Yes, of course that is unrealistic and the majority of people don’t want to live with that kind of population density. The point is simply that the degree of sprawl that we now have has far less to do with the population count than with the types of development that most Americans have chosen.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (4).