by Pops » Mon 31 Jul 2006, 12:37:27
I guess my point is to look at this from an economic perspective vis a vie the current investment and infrastructure.
Georgia Pacific alone owns almost 5 million acres of timberland, not to mention I’d guess, billions of dollars worth of timber related equipment and facilities
Here is the fiber part of wikipedia article on hemp (my emphasis):
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he use of hemp for fibre production has declined sharply over the last two centuries,...
... as other coarse-fibre plants were more widely grown, hemp fibre was replaced in most roles. Manila yielded better rope. Burlap, made from jute, took over the sacking market. The paper industry began using wood pulp. The carpet industry switched over to wool, sisal, and jute, then nylon. Netting and webbing applications were taken over by cotton and synthetics.
Hemp rope is notorious for breaking due to rot....
Hemp rope was phased out when Manila, which does not require tarring, became available.
Again, in all those industries huge investments were made in what I assume were better alternatives (although most have been replaced by synthetics now)
Of course jute, sisal and manila don’t have the cache of hemp, nor does soy which is a better protein source and a legume to boot (is hemp? I don’t know)
I would guess that at some point hemp may come into production in the US for specific uses, as will jute, flax, rapeseed, etc, but in my mind, converting millions of acres to hemp monoculture doesn't seem any more sustainable than the current millions in corn.
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)