iirc a large reason is that trees for paper & lumber can be grown in areas less suitable for agriculture, whilst hemp competes with foodstuffs. Hence, despite the hemp being a more efficient producer of cellulose, it may be less economically efficient due to the relatively high value of alternate uses for the same land.
That’s largely what you see in China. Northern forests for paper, some hemp in the ag areas but mostly food. Finland and Sweden are major paper producers but they couldn’t grow hemp if they wanted. And Brazil grows eucalyptus in marginal soils(acidic post pasture that cant even support cattle grazing anymore, none the less hemp and what annual tillage would do for the erosion of already shitty soil) very quickly to produce a massive amount of paper(with it’s own ecological problems). None of these have anything to do with US drug laws or monopolies.
iirc a large reason is that trees for paper & lumber can be grown in areas less suitable for agriculture, whilst hemp competes with foodstuffs. Hence, despite the hemp being a more efficient producer of cellulose, it may be less economically efficient due to the relatively high value of alternate uses for the same land.
That’s largely what you see in China. Northern forests for paper, some hemp in the ag areas but mostly food. Finland and Sweden are major paper producers but they couldn’t grow hemp if they wanted. And Brazil grows eucalyptus in marginal soils(acidic post pasture that cant even support cattle grazing anymore, none the less hemp and what annual tillage would do for the erosion of already shitty soil) very quickly to produce a massive amount of paper(with it’s own ecological problems). None of these have anything to do with US drug laws or monopolies.