Page 1 of 2
#1
Watching videos of guitar factory tours made me wonder about all the trees that are killed to produce millions and millions of guitars every year. All that wood, a good part of which ends up on the shops' floor anyway. Not to mention in the production of drums and worse, drum sticks. I'm not some radical environmentalist but I am against wasting resources.

I suspect that by now it shouldn't be too hard to make a composite guitar with qualities similar to wood, which would (eventually) be cheaper to manufacture leading to more profits for guitar manufacturers and distributor brands. I can even foresee a composite guitar having some superior qualities. And with a good finish, who could tell the difference. Usually musicians are forward-thinking people. Industries however don't welcome change, unless there's a compelling rea$on to. I know that BC Rich made an acrylic guitar at some point (and Ludwig makes some acrylic drums) but is there any indication that the industry is revisiting materials and manufacturing? No doubt some customers wouldn't go for a "plastic" guitar and there's the whole issue of tradition and showing off "exotic" woods, but then again, young and future musicians might.
#3
Quote by dthmtl3
Usually musicians are forward-thinking people.

The vast majority are not
Quote by Axelfox
Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Quote by H4T3BR33D3R
I also have to do that. Cottaging this weekend
#4
Building a composite guitar is way, way worse environmentally than making one out of properly sustainable wood. The chemical processes involved are absolutely nasty, biologically speaking.

Trees are about as green as it gets. Just have to plant more when you cut them down.

Composite Acoustics, Rainsong, Blackbird, Luis and Clark are all companies making carbon composite instruments. Dozens more are making hybrid instruments with some wood parts and some synthetic, usually neck inserts or fretboards or in some cases the whole neck. There's a small market for these things because musicians, especially those who play acoustic instruments, and doubly-especially-so those who play stringed instruments, tend to be very conservative where materials are concerned. The good news is that these composite instruments tend to be pretty good sonically, and are extremely robust, so they're gaining a foothold in certain circles.
#5
I would say 1 out of every 5 musicians are forward thinkers so you have the other 4 wanting to keep their strats, teles, les pauls, etc.

Musicians are just hard pressed for change. I've played carbon fiber guitars, owned ones with richlite boards, you name it. There are good guitars out there with alternative materials and new ideas. We all just have the mindset of "if it aint broke don't fix it". Quality control issues aside...Gibson trys hard to slowly inject a new idea in with their guitars but we've all seen it...People laugh it off and prefer a 50s/60s reissue. I wouldn't say so much it's the industries fault as it is the consumer's demands.

Going green would just be a tough sell to the mass market.
#6
Who cares? Going green (read: saving trees) isn't actually any better for the environment. And wood is still the best material in terms of tonal quality.
#7
Almost no guitars are made with old growth woods. It’s all coming from carefully managed plantations. Even the cheap Chinese guitars made with Asian woods are coming from the managed forests grown around the Gobi desert. Taylor controls/manages almost the entire ebony supply to make it sustainable. Guitar companies have been lobbying for laws to control exotic wood use around the world—to such an extent that Gibson has twice been raided by the US government over laws Gibson helped establish. Most of the rare woods used in boutique guitars are coming from decades-old reserves. The guitar industry is about as sustainable as it gets.
#8
I think the biggest thing holding the guitar industry back is the conservatism of us musicians.

It's both a social issue and a economics issue.

On the social side, us guitarists, contrary to the images portrayed outside of the realm of guitar, actually are stodgy and stubborn traditionalists who won't venture very far out of our comfort zone of what our herores used. That is not ALL of us, that's just us in general. A famous guitarist once said "We all want the guitars our heroes used" - those guitars were made of specific woods, so therefore, we seek out those specific guitars and specific woods.

On the manufacturing cost side, small makers can afford, or even make these instruments out of alternative materials easily because they don't have to spend billions of dollars replacing machinery that costs as much as a S-class Mercedes or at the very least spending a lot of money having it modified for working with new materials.

Also, some materials (carbon fiber for example) require a totally different process from wood, ie, the body has to be MOLDED, not cut from a chunk of material, and because of this, there is further expense to major manufacturers to re-tool for that new material.

Corporations don't give a crap about the environment, the only thing they care about is that their shareholders are happy, and that they meet their bottom line - profit at the very least, and that maybe their celebrity endorsers and other cash cows are happy to keep the $$$$ moving in so their CEO's and Executives can afford a Mercedes that costs as much as the CNC milling machine that makes eight bodies at a time.

To top it off, in order for ANY guitar to be put into enough production to be a lasting item, and not a once-in-awhile novelty at best and a forgotten experiment at the worst - it needs some big name guitar player in some huge band or music project playing it to make it famous, and generate desire for the guitar. With the current state of the industry, I don't see that happening for a long time, if it even does happen again, especially with the current "everything that can be done with a guitar has been done" mindset that is so prevalent these days.
My Current Mains
- 1996 Fender Jag-Stang with EMG Pickups
- 1998 Fender Jaguar with Cool Rails
- 1982 Hondo Paul Dean II (DiMarzio Super II X2)
- 2010 "Fender" Jazzmaster (Home built)
- 2013 Squier VM Bass VI (stock)
#9
Quote by jpnyc
The guitar industry is about as sustainable as it gets.

And for good reason - the last thing they want is to run out of wood to work with. Trees are cheap, renewable with minimal input, there's plenty of variety, and the more there are, the cheaper they become. Guitar makers would be terribly short-sighted to not support planting more trees.

Obviously a tree farm isn't as pretty as an old-growth forest, but as mentioned above that's probably not what they're cutting down for Strats these days.
#10
Quote by crazysam23_Atax
Who cares? Going green (read: saving trees) isn't actually any better for the environment. And wood is still the best material in terms of tonal quality.


And that brings up another issue, you still end up with waste. At least with wood, it can be collected and reused for certain refurbish/rebuild functions, or sent to a Masonite factory.

What do you do with acrylic dust? Also, some of those materials that are not wood, when sawn, or sanded, generate toxic odors that make wood seem to smell and have the health safety like if someone plugged in a glade plugin by comparison.

On top of that, it still will require energy (Coal, nuclear, gas, electricity and the other energy it's "generated" from), and then there's the staff who still use water, use the toilet, and spend at least 8 hours in the factory a day building the instruments.

As far as tonality, whatever is best is in the eye of the beholder. Steinbergers are made out of carbon fiber, and some guys like using them. I actually like the tone I get out of southern yellow pine oddly enough, and some plywood guitars sound great too. But of course, guitarists generally will stick with what's "safe" and well known (ie. Ash, alder, Mahogany, Basswood, Maple, Ebony) both for social, career, and economical reasons. For example, I have yet to see a Steinberger in the sub $300 category, unless it's a Cort licensed by Steinberger.
My Current Mains
- 1996 Fender Jag-Stang with EMG Pickups
- 1998 Fender Jaguar with Cool Rails
- 1982 Hondo Paul Dean II (DiMarzio Super II X2)
- 2010 "Fender" Jazzmaster (Home built)
- 2013 Squier VM Bass VI (stock)
#11
Guitars use a surprisingly small amount of resources, and most are very sustainable. Some guitar companies (Taylor seems to be at the forefront, Gibson is not) are very green.

Mahogany (the "Honduras Mahogany" of 59 Gibson Burst fame) was replanted and is farmed all over Asia. It grows quickly and is highly sustainable. Ebony is also sustainable, but several governments have stopped allowing it to be logged because it was being done in a manner that wasted 80% of the trees cut down and because it was trashing habitat for endangered species. Taylor has actually taken over the logging of ebony in one country with the intention of maintaining its sustainability. Maple is easily sustainable (ask the folks who make maple syrup), and in fact some of the best figured maple comes from China. Koa, grown only in Hawaii, was considered a free "junk" wood that was literally lying around waiting to be used. Hawaiians used it for canoes, surfboards (longboards) and tourist trinkets, and were surprised and financially delighted when they found folks wanted to use it for guitars. No one thought to replant or renew it until supplies became limited. Several years ago all that changed, and now koa is being replanted and farmed. It will be a few decades before prices drop again, but it took a wake-up call to get things going. Brazilian rosewood is threatened, not by the use of the trees, but by the loss of habitat due to deforestation for farming, and by rodents who eat the seeds of the few fruiting trees in the wild (Rosewood is a legume -- beans). Not much guitar manufacturers can do about that, but CITES has listed it as illegal to trade.

Taylor is frequently buying and using old wood (bridges that are being torn down, trees that are already felled, etc.) in its guitars.

And some wood is threatened not because of logging practices, but because of global warming. One spruce, for example, is dying off in certain areas because warmer weather allows a second attack of borer beetles that have, in the past, attacked only once in a season. The trees had no problems recovering from one attack, but two are killing them.

Building guitars out of plastics would seem like a good idea if you didn't know what went into making those plastics and resins.

Taylor sprays its guitars using a paint process that uses nearly 100% solids applied via a robotic fixture and spray arm. It can apply a smoother, thinner coat than any human sprayer. This protects workers from the chemicals in the paint itself and it keeps the paint chemistry from getting into the air. It also assures a more consistent guitar. Gibson, on the other hand, uses nitrocellulose, which is both toxic and carcinogenic to Gibson workers, and which releases volatile organic compounds into the atmosphere. It's been banned for industrial use in most states and is no longer allowed in the automotive industry at all, but Gibson buys favorable legislators in Tennessee who maintain Gibson as "grandfathered in" and allow Gibson to continue to poison both workers and the community's environment in the name of "tradition" in guitar building. Gibson has exhibited questionable sourcing of its woods in the past and was recently cited for falsifying paperwork on shipments to skirt applicable international laws.

Understanding more about what goes into the materials used to make guitars will help the TS know where to place his efforts in suggesting green solutions. Simply assuming that plastic guitars are "greener" displays lack of knowledge of those processes.
Last edited by dspellman at Jan 5, 2015,
#12
Quote by dthmtl3
Watching videos of guitar factory tours made me wonder about all the trees that are killed to produce millions and millions of guitars every year. All that wood, a good part of which ends up on the shops' floor anyway. Not to mention in the production of drums and worse, drum sticks. I'm not some radical environmentalist but I am against wasting resources.

I suspect that by now it shouldn't be too hard to make a composite guitar with qualities similar to wood, which would (eventually) be cheaper to manufacture leading to more profits for guitar manufacturers and distributor brands. I can even foresee a composite guitar having some superior qualities. And with a good finish, who could tell the difference. Usually musicians are forward-thinking people. Industries however don't welcome change, unless there's a compelling rea$on to. I know that BC Rich made an acrylic guitar at some point (and Ludwig makes some acrylic drums) but is there any indication that the industry is revisiting materials and manufacturing? No doubt some customers wouldn't go for a "plastic" guitar and there's the whole issue of tradition and showing off "exotic" woods, but then again, young and future musicians might.


First of all, the amount of wood used by the entire music instrument manufacturing industry is but a fraction of the amount used in making furniture...which is in turn a fraction of what is used making paper products, etc.

Second, there are companies taking another look at sustainable guitar making. Some are making guitars out of composite woods.
http://www.flaxwood.com/home/

Others are signatories to organizations that are pledged to use only wood sourced from carefully managed supplies. Before it was bought by Fender, Tacoma primarily used woods from their own forests.

Third, there are guitars made of acrylics and other man-made plastics like Corian, but they are generally heavier than their wood counterparts. In addition, creation of those materials is not any more Eco-friendly than using wood...and is arguably less so.
Sturgeon's 2nd Law, a.k.a. Sturgeon's Revelation: “Ninety percent of everything is crap.”

Why, yes, I am a lawyer- thanks for asking!

Log off and play yer guitar!

Strap on, tune up, rock out!
Last edited by dannyalcatraz at Jan 5, 2015,
#13
Quote by BUZZARD__


It's why libtards continue to protest most industries they view as detrimental toward the environment. I've worked in the steel/mining industry for 9 years, the oil industry for 3, the lumber/forestry industry for 1. From my experience every clichéd stereotype I hear yups and hippies spurt out is pure falsity...ironically they blast big media yet it's their only source of information cause they've never had to do a dirty job to make rent.



That's probably as uninformed a statement as I've ever heard on either side of the issues. Hyperbole isn't any help. We've certainly seen it in the guitar industry from the mouths of people like Henry J, who gets coverage from Fox News when he claims he's just an American beset by Democrats who want to squash small businessmen like himself <G>. Oil, steel, mining and lumber industries have operated on the presumption that the resources are unlimited and that it's all about progress. Capitalists have operated to their own detriment if they think they can make a dollar off it.

Case in point: The steel industry world wide operated using converters designed and installed at the beginning of the 1900s for years. World War II destroyed steel industries in Germany and Japan. The US actually paid to have newer design more efficient converters installed in those countries' steel mills in the early '50's. American steel investors simply had the Congress tariff foreign steel for years, and told the public that union wages were to blame for the difference in price. But they didn't invest in new converters; it would have cost them money. In the end, it was the automotive industry that forced legislators to drop the tariffs, because Japanese cars were killing them, using better, cheaper steel. And that killed the American steel industry and made ghost towns of steel towns and paupers of steel workers.

The "American" oil industry has finally shown its true colors, with proud texas companies like halliburton, accused by the libtards of initiating the war in Iraq over oil interests, finally packing up and moving their headquarters to Dubai. The texas energy companies who bilked California out of billions manufacturing energy "crises" finally saw their houses of cards come tumbling down when Enron (and others) went belly up. Goldman Sachs and other banks lied and cheated for years (still do) and created the economic depression that began in 2008, but whined for a bail-out.

Working within those industries doesn't give any wage slave an insight into the industries. Otherwise those workers would have seen the ends coming a lot sooner and run. And sometimes just having a job means you turn a blind eye to what the job you're doing is inflicting on the world.
#14
Quote by dannyalcatraz
First of all, the amount of wood used by the entire music instrument manufacturing industry is but a fraction of the amount used in making furniture...which is in turn a fraction of what is used making paper products, etc.

That was actually my first thought. I don't think this issue is that important exactly because the scale isn't actually that big compared to many huge industries. The truth is, instruments are things made basically just for a small fraction of people and don't even use that big pieces of wood. There's plenty of stuff made of wood that's used by everyone in large quantities and if you want to campaign to save forests, I think targeting instrument makers first is kinda like raging about air pollution and picking Monaco as your prime target.
#15
Quote by dthmtl3
Watching videos of guitar factory tours made me wonder about all the trees that are killed to produce millions and millions of guitars every year. All that wood, a good part of which ends up on the shops' floor anyway. Not to mention in the production of drums and worse, drum sticks. I'm not some radical environmentalist but I am against wasting resources.

I suspect that by now it shouldn't be too hard to make a composite guitar with qualities similar to wood, which would (eventually) be cheaper to manufacture leading to more profits for guitar manufacturers and distributor brands. I can even foresee a composite guitar having some superior qualities. And with a good finish, who could tell the difference. Usually musicians are forward-thinking people. Industries however don't welcome change, unless there's a compelling rea$on to. I know that BC Rich made an acrylic guitar at some point (and Ludwig makes some acrylic drums) but is there any indication that the industry is revisiting materials and manufacturing? No doubt some customers wouldn't go for a "plastic" guitar and there's the whole issue of tradition and showing off "exotic" woods, but then again, young and future musicians might.

Go hug a tree hippy
2002 PRS CE22
2013 G&L ASAT Deluxe
2009 Epiphone G-400 (SH-4)
Marshall JCM2000 DSL100
Krank 1980 Jr 20watt
Krank Rev 4x12 (eminence V12)
GFS Greenie/Digitech Bad Monkey
Morley Bad Horsie 2
MXR Smart Gate
#16
:rolleyes - isn't this getting a little too political, different names, same game with a different strategy.
My Current Mains
- 1996 Fender Jag-Stang with EMG Pickups
- 1998 Fender Jaguar with Cool Rails
- 1982 Hondo Paul Dean II (DiMarzio Super II X2)
- 2010 "Fender" Jazzmaster (Home built)
- 2013 Squier VM Bass VI (stock)
#17
Quote by TheLiberation
That was actually my first thought. I don't think this issue is that important exactly because the scale isn't actually that big compared to many huge industries. The truth is, instruments are things made basically just for a small fraction of people and don't even use that big pieces of wood. There's plenty of stuff made of wood that's used by everyone in large quantities and if you want to campaign to save forests, I think targeting instrument makers first is kinda like raging about air pollution and picking Monaco as your prime target.


Well, if I were running some large guitar company, I wouldn't wait for the paper industry to make changes, what has one to do with the other. The issue is the future of the guitar manufacturing industry and whether there's anything they can do to be more efficient, less wasteful, and maybe even come up with a better yet more affordable product.
#18
Quote by Robbgnarly
Go hug a tree hippy


LOL. Is it too painful to have a mature discussion about something that interests us all here?
#19
Make me a guitar that's cheaper than a wood one, sounds as good, lasts as long and isn't worse for the environment and I'd buy one.


That's a lie. I'd still buy an LP.


Quote by dthmtl3
LOL. Is it too painful to have a mature discussion about something that interests us all here?



There's where you went wrong with your assumption.
Quote by zgr0826
My culture is worthless and absolutely inferior to the almighty Leaf.


Quote by JustRooster
I incurred the wrath of the Association of White Knights. Specifically the Parent's Basement branch of service.
#20
I think we should start making guitars out of whalebone with elephant-ivory fretboards inlaid with panda teeth. That'll save the trees.
Atmospheric dark metal w/ black and death metal influences:
(My Soundcloud page):

Pestilential Flood
#21
Quote by KailM
I think we should start making guitars out of whalebone with elephant-ivory fretboards inlaid with panda teeth. That'll save the trees.


Seems like it would be a PRS private stock guitar and it's going to cost more figures than I have inches.
Quote by zgr0826
My culture is worthless and absolutely inferior to the almighty Leaf.


Quote by JustRooster
I incurred the wrath of the Association of White Knights. Specifically the Parent's Basement branch of service.
#22
what has one to do with the other


Well, paper and furniture (and housing construction, etc.) are all competitors with the instrument manufacturing industry for the same resource. They do so at orders of magnitude greater than that industry, and have more lobbying dollars to work with, to boot.

The issue is the future of the guitar manufacturing industry and whether there's anything they can do to be more efficient, less wasteful, and maybe even come up with a better yet more affordable product.


And as stated, plenty of manufacturers are already investing in renewable wood supplies, reconstituted wood products, and alternative materials for specific parts or the instruments entire.
Sturgeon's 2nd Law, a.k.a. Sturgeon's Revelation: “Ninety percent of everything is crap.”

Why, yes, I am a lawyer- thanks for asking!

Log off and play yer guitar!

Strap on, tune up, rock out!
#23
Quote by H4T3BR33D3R

There's where you went wrong with your assumption.


No, not the environment. Like I said, I'm not much of an environmentalist either. But the future of guitar manufacturing. Any industry-wide changes, improvements, etc.
#24
Quote by Robbgnarly

Go hug a tree hippy


Cant help but to agree with you

Quote by dthmtl3
LOL. Is it too painful to have a mature discussion about something that interests us all here?


Why do you assume that turning a tree into an instrument is a destructive and wasteful? Of ALLLLLL the trees cut down each year (3,000,000,000 to 6,000,000,000), you are targeting a industry that crafts 2-5 million guitars a year, many of which are true pieces of art. Lets be realllly fair and say 1 guitar = 1 tree, which is not true, but if it was, you are targeting 7% of the trees cut down annually. Go bitch to the housing market, furniture, fencing, etc industries before targeting is, or better yet don't say anything at all. I could go on and on, but your type generally doesn't listen.
#25
Quote by Mad-Mike_J83

On the manufacturing cost side, small makers can afford, or even make these instruments out of alternative materials easily because they don't have to spend billions of dollars replacing machinery that costs as much as a S-class Mercedes or at the very least spending a lot of money having it modified for working with new materials.


Small makers can do it easily? Hardly. A £50,000 machine is a £50,000 machine regardless of who you are. Retooling a large factory will cost a lot more gross, but Big Guitar Company makes a hell of a lot more money than Little Guy Geetars, working to better margins because of it's bigger buying power. Little Guy Geetars may not have to spend billions, but I guarantee the cost of new machinery, as well as training for it, will cost a higher percentage of his profits than Big Guitar Company's.
#26
Quote by JGM258

Why do you assume that turning a tree into an instrument is a destructive and wasteful? Of ALLLLLL the trees cut down each year (3,000,000,000 to 6,000,000,000), you are targeting a industry that crafts 2-5 million guitars a year, many of which are true pieces of art. Lets be realllly fair and say 1 guitar = 1 tree, which is not true, but if it was, you are targeting 7% of the trees cut down annually. Go bitch to the housing market, furniture, fencing, etc industries before targeting is, or better yet don't say anything at all. I could go on and on, but your type generally doesn't listen.


Here we go with the "types" of people...

I'm not on a furniture forum, nor should one industry be concerned about what the other is doing or even more comically, wait until the other does something. It's irrelevant if they're cutting 1% of trees or 10%.

It just looks like there's room for improvement in the process and in the final product. No reason to get hysterical.
#27
Quote by dthmtl3
LOL. Is it too painful to have a mature discussion about something that interests us all here?


No, but I work in construction and everything I do is built from wood (I build docks) so not only do I use plank wood(2X6,ect) I also use complete debarked trees to hold it up out of the water.
This has become very sustainable because the logging industry must plant a tree for every tree they remove and the tree tracts are set for a 20yr re-harvest. My industry uses mass amounts of timber when compared to guitar/instrument making. If I'm not going out of business then neither are they.
2002 PRS CE22
2013 G&L ASAT Deluxe
2009 Epiphone G-400 (SH-4)
Marshall JCM2000 DSL100
Krank 1980 Jr 20watt
Krank Rev 4x12 (eminence V12)
GFS Greenie/Digitech Bad Monkey
Morley Bad Horsie 2
MXR Smart Gate
#28
Quote by dthmtl3
LOL. Is it too painful to have a mature discussion about something that interests us all here?

Why would you think EVERYONE actually gives a shit about "going green"?

Also, unless going green actually has benefit to it (which it doesn't in this case, since technically using wood is already green & cheaper than not using wood), then why would you do it?
#29
I would buy a guitar that's 100x worse for the environment if it was a good guitar (and I could afford it).
#30
Wood IS a green material. The majority of guitars, as mentioned, are made from plantation wood. Nothing wrong with growing trees and cutting them down for a purpose.
The rest of the components (electronics, plastics, paint, lacquers) are pretty much necessary with not many substitutes. I wouldn't be too concerned about the materials that go into making a guitar, considering that per person in the world there would be a lot less people who will buy a guitar in their lifetime compared to those who will buy cheap Chinese appliances like sub-$10 toasters, irons, etc. from Kmart which get thrown away every year or so.
#31
OTOH, "greener" practices would imply offering fewer cheap guitars made as poorly as those selfsame Chinese toasters...
Sturgeon's 2nd Law, a.k.a. Sturgeon's Revelation: “Ninety percent of everything is crap.”

Why, yes, I am a lawyer- thanks for asking!

Log off and play yer guitar!

Strap on, tune up, rock out!
#32
Usually musicians are forward-thinking people.


Are we talking about the same musicians that demand vacuum tubes for their amps?
#33
I wrote a whole paper on this during a few semesters at community college. Long story short, it's about as sustainable as an industry based around wooden products can get. The boom in the secondhand market helps matters significantly, too.

Obviously no industry that inherently involves cutting down trees is exactly a green business, but considering all off their future profits rely on a source of wood, companies are mostly responsible with this stuff, a pleasant break from most things corporate. If you want a much bigger culprit in deforestation, look to print publishing, or housing development, or furniture.
THE FORUM UPDATE KILLED THE GRADIENT STAR

Baltimore Orioles: 2014 AL Eastern Division Champions, 2017: 73-78
Baltimore Ravens: 2012 World Champions, 2017: 2-0
2017 NFL Pick 'Em: 24-7
#34
Quote by crazysam23_Atax
And wood is still the best material in terms of tonal quality.
The material makes no difference to tone

ZEN JUDDHISM
The new solo project, and spiritual philosophy... Album out now !
----------------------------------------------------------
hybrid 6.0
Debut album 'Silent Destruction' out now
Read the Two Guys Metal review here
#35
Quote by The Judist
The material makes no difference to tone




Out of all the political talk in this thread, I feel like this is the single most controversial statement in this thread.
Actually, I go by Dave, but there are already too many Daves on this forum.


Fender MIM Stratocaster
Fender Jaguar Bass
Epiphone EJ200 Super Jumbo
Fender Excelsior 13w
Acoustic B300HD (with matching 1x12 cab)
BOSS BD-2W
NYC Big Muff Pi
#36
Quote by necrosis1193
I wrote a whole paper on this during a few semesters at community college. Long story short, it's about as sustainable as an industry based around wooden products can get. The boom in the secondhand market helps matters significantly, too.

Obviously no industry that inherently involves cutting down trees is exactly a green business, but considering all off their future profits rely on a source of wood, companies are mostly responsible with this stuff, a pleasant break from most things corporate. If you want a much bigger culprit in deforestation, look to print publishing, or housing development, or furniture.



Quoting for truth.
OBEY THE MIGHTY SHITKICKER
#37
From a "green" site called Mother Natures Network:

"In the United States, which contains 8 percent of the world's forests, there are more trees than there were 100 years ago. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), "Forest growth nationally has exceeded harvest since the 1940s. By 1997, forest growth exceeded harvest by 42 percent and the volume of forest growth was 380 percent greater than it had been in 1920." The greatest gains have been seen on the East Coast (with average volumes of wood per acre almost doubling since the '50s) which was the area most heavily logged by European settlers beginning in the 1600s, soon after their arrival"

Read more: http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/stories/more-trees-than-there-were-100-years-ago-its-true#ixzz3O3ZKfrki
#38
Quote by necrosis1193
Obviously no industry that inherently involves cutting down trees is exactly a green business…


That’s not true. Trees don’t live forever. They get blown over, burn down, eaten by bugs, infested by viral and fungal diseases, etc. In the plantation forests managed by timber companies cutting down selected trees mimics deaths that would occur anyway. Old growth forests aren’t being clear-cut to build guitars. The trees cut down for guitars are carefully grown for the entire purpose of being cut down, replaced, repeat.
#39
Quote by The Judist
The material makes no difference to tone



Someone needs to tell this to the guitar manufacturers. They seem to think that maple>mahogany>basswood.
#40
A few days ago I watched a interview on a TV-program where someone argued that due to some reports of dogs being used as a source for leather in China, we should stop buying leather altogether and use synthetic materials instead.

Now, I don't like animals being tortured, but I have a very big problem with this sort of thinking (apart from the fact that most of the leather we use come from animals we have killed to eat anyway) and that is that these kinds of people think that synthetic products somehow are better for us and the environment.

1. The processes for making these material aren't green, especially not if plastics are used.
2. We don't know if there's toxics left in the products that could hurt humans or animals.
3. Synthetic materials don't break down as easily in nature.

We do know cutting down a tree and regrowing one is as green a process as it gets. And we are much better off being exposed to products made from animals and trees than some sort of synthetic crap we have no idea where it comes from.
"Your signature can not be longer than 250 characters."

How you know you have too many guitars...

Apparently once also known as PonyFan #834553.
Page 1 of 2