By Andy Kerr
Hemp is a potentially
sustainable replacement for what is definitely
unsustainable forest consumption. We should grow
hemp to save and restore our forests.
People used to get most
of their fiber from farmlands. We also used wood,
for burning and building, but before the chainsaw
and the population explosion, humans were not
able to go through forests very fast.
In this century,
technological developments which allow paper to
be made efficiently from wood pulp have allowed
us to consume great amounts of wood fiber at
levels far above sustainability. We have
developed very efficient methods to mine fiber
that nature has been storing for centuries, even
millennia.
We've gone through most
of the world's forests, and for the first time in
a century, northern industrial humans are
thinking seriously about growing fiber, not just
mining it. We're discovering that
farmlands are more productive of fiber than are
forests. Plus, we have an excess of farmland in
this country; we do not have an excess of
forests.
When ONRC (Oregon
Natural Resources Council) started examining the
fiber problem, we looked for a plant that: a)
could replace wood; b) didn't require lots of
fertilizers and pesticides; and c) would be truly
sustainable.
We looked at kenaf,
which may work in the South, but not in the
Pacific Northwest. We looked for anything but
hemp; anything but marijuana. But our wanderings
and wonderings kept leading back to hemp. We
looked for a plant with long fibers in order to
produce paper that could be recycled numerous
times or pressed into strong construction
products. Hemp fibers can be as long as the plant
is tall. Douglas-fir fibers only reach about
three-quarters of an inch in length, no matter
how tall the tree.
Of course, there is a
problem. Hemp is basicallyalthough not
totallyoutlawed in this country. Most
people refer to it as marijuana and have very
strong opinions about it, which has made it
unavailable for industrial use, even though the
cultivars for industrial use and those for
personal use are very different.
Hemp is outlawed because
some versions of it contain significant
quantities of THC, a compound with psychoactive
properties. These versions are marketed as
marijuana.
Because of the political
problems associated with marijuana, ONRC kept
looking and hoping for other fibers. We simply
haven't found any as good as hemp. Nor has the
USDA or the pulp and paper industry in their
research.
Finally, we had to
conclude that if hemp was good enough for Thomas
Jefferson to grow and make the paper on which he
drafted the Declaration of Independence, then
it's good enough for ONRC. The forests shouldn't
all be cut down because some people have
hang-ups.
(By the way, in the
interest of full disclosure, I want to state for
the record that, yes, I did inhale. Twice. The
first time was with an elected official. [I
figured it could later be useful to have passed a
joint with him.] The second time was with a woman
with whom I was seeking carnal relations. I don't
recall getting off [from the dope] either time
as, in addition to the THC, the mood altering
variables of sleep deprivation and sexual lust,
respectively, were significant.)
We can look backward to
a long-cultivated plant for our future fiber
needs, because of significant new technological
advances in two areas: construction and
chemistry. Regarding technological advances in
construction, it is now technically feasible to
make beams out of waste paper. It is not
currently economically feasible, but that is
simply a function of price. As the price of
wood-based building products goes up, the
attractiveness of alternative building products
goes up as well.
Raising the price of
wood is good. To borrow a term from Oil War One
(some called it the Gulf War), a collateral
benefit of locking up the last of the
virgin forests is that the price of wood chips
will rise and send paper-makers scrambling for
new fiber sources. They are now looking to our
waste stream and beginning to look to the farm.
Regarding technological
advances in chemistry, chemists are learning to
crack the hemp oil molecule, as they did the
earth oil molecule. Anything humans now make from
an unsustainable hydrocarbon could be made from a
sustainable carbohydrate. The main problem is
that we've bred generations of petrochemists
instead of carbochemists. We can probably even
make the glue to bind together hemp fibers for
building products from compounds in the hemp
plant itself, rather than from toxic
formaldehyde-based petrochemicals.
Despite twice inhaling,
I came to realize the joys of industrial hemp in
a fully rational way. I was not aided in such
enlightenment by THC, as some others have been.
Unfortunately, the campaign to legalize hemp for
personal use has been mixed in with the campaign
to legalize it for medicinal, industrial,
religious and nutritional uses.
Certain
individuals--yes, they may have small minds but
those small minds are numerous--are turned off to
some potential uses of hemp because they fear
misuses of hemp. Politically, environmentalists
must keep industrial hemp issues separate from
those of marijuana legalization and/or
decriminalization, just as it is politically wise
to separate the medicinal use issue from the
personal use issue.
Taxonomically, hemp and
marijuana may be the same species, but hemp for
fiber and marijuana for THC are quite different
organisms. Your lungs will fail before your brain
attains any high from smoking industrial hemp.
Hemp, if we play it
right, can provide significant relief to our
forests. Our forests don't have time for us
humans to work out all our hang-ups about
Cannabis sativa. Let us begin to sow that hemp
now.
Andy Kerr is
Conservation Director of Oregon Natural Resources
Council in Portland. This article was adapted
from a speech to the Public Interest
Environmental Law Conference, Land, Air,
Water, in Eugene, March 1994.
Kerr, Andy. 1994. Hemp to Save Forests. Wild
Earth. Vol. 4, No. 2. Summer. 54-55.
|