>>8352813 pb
>Dear Numbnuts,
>
>Except for timber, fruit and nuts, habitat and recreation, trees are unable to compete economically with hemp. If they could, zero acres would be planted to hemp.
Are you an idiot or just a fucking asshole?
Trees are better than hemp at paper.
Labor costs are lower. Trees get big by themselves, leave them unattended, spend nothing, wait, and you get much more biomass when you remove that biomass than hemp.
I wasn't saying that hemp couldn't make better t-shirts than a pine tree. Marijuana can replace many patented pharmaceuticals.
I'm 100% in favor of doing whatever you want with hemp. I'm just saying, the labor costs of hemp are high, and trees have lower labor costs, and for things like paper, trees are cheaper. Basic stuff.
You say this:
"trees are unable to compete economically with hemp. If they could, zero acres would be planted to hemp."
What you're missing is this - hemp is not being planted to compete with trees. I see hemp t-shirts made, I see the descriptions of those t-shirts, how they say that hemp is good for one reason or another. It appears that hemp is being grown, in this case, to compete with cotton or polyester. Not with trees. In the areas where trees rule, hemp is not competitive, or, it has high labor costs. But you don't seem to understand that we don't live in a world of only trees and hemp. We live in a world of trees, hemp, cotton, polyester, patented pharmaceuticals, and a whole bunch of other things. Hemp doesn't beat trees, because of the higher labor costs of hemp. But marijuana does beat patented pharmaceuticals, and hemp may very well beat cotton or polyester or whatever competitor of hemp seed oil there might be.
I get the feeling that I'm arguing with a bot that doesn't understand the basic point I've been making.
None of my points are directly addressed, despite the fact that I mention it in almost every post. Labor costs. Hemp requires labor inputs every year. That's costly and expensive. Trees do not require labor every year. They sit and grow for 50 years or so. Getting big, without labor costs. Hemp might push out more tons of biomass over 50 years, but you need to pay someone to cut down that hemp every single year, 50 times in 50 years. But you only have to do that 1 time in 50 years with trees.
I've typed that over and over, and no one addresses it. All of these "pro-hemp" happy stories never address how labor intensive hemp is compared to trees. And the fact that trees don't require labor inputs more than once is never factored into their models.