Cut It, Please

Was looking over my bills yesterday, including my phone bill, which is one of the few I still get in paper form. I've been meaning to change that situation but always manage to get around to something else first. Apparently, I'm not the only person who dawdles about this: the envelope I opened yesterday promised me that should I "go paperless" I would not only spare trees in the future, but would have a tree planted in my name.


This is a well-established form of persuasion. Taken at face value it sounds unimpeachable, but I do wonder exactly where and in what circumstances the trees are planted. If they established along a crumbling riverbank to halt erosion, great. If they are added to the ranks of lumber plantation, not so good. Too, forests are not the only habitat in need of restoration. What about grasslands, which face the double threat of development and, if not maintained by cutting or fire, forestation. Where should the creatures that depend on that habitat go?

Perhaps companies or nonprofits that sponsor "plant a tree incentives" ought to offer a choice to have a tree cut on behalf of the customer or donor. They could not only cut trees to preserve grasslands, but offer to cut exotic, invasive tree or shrub species. They could cut overgrown forests that have animal populations in decline (which ought to appeal to hunters) or cut sterile pine plantations and sell the wood at a loss (for which of course they could claim a charitable deduction). To simplify the process, they might just present "native prairie restoration" as the feelgood bonus for accepting the offer at hand.

But reforestation is the embodiment of conservation in the public mind, the most iconic form of greening the land. This is not a bad thing, but there are deeper shades of green. Is there room for those within our routine household transactions? With only a little imagination, the answer could be, yes.