Likely only talking to myself here in this old thread, so here goes anyway: amazondk, I do note much nuanced thought in your writings and I applaud that, but a few discrepancies have easily been spotted. First, way back up yonder, you speak of the methodology of a "sustainable" harvest, whereby only trees of large size are removed, the rest being left to grow on. Well, many decades ago here in the US, this was recognized for the mistake it is, and is known as high-grading. It can amount to the systematic removal of a given stand's best genetics for profit, leaving the weaker and less vigorous stems behind. Then, you also speak of how in the US PNW, there is so much replanting post harvest. Sure, sure, but it's all one species, so where you had doug fir, w. hemlock, w. red cedar, perhaps grand fir, etc. you now have just doug fir. That's hardly environmentally wise and is certainly not preserving the previous forest genetics. Also, in speaking of, for example, ipe's rapid growth, you do not mention that it is precisely the huge expanse of time which has allowed that and other species' gradually slowing growth rate (As they near maturity) that allows for such high-quality product. Finally, you repeat the long-discredited notion that it is young forests which are sequestering the most carbon. This erroneous thought came about when researchers initially only measured height increment in determining overall use and hence, sequestration of carbon. In fact, the old-growth tree is still, by dint of its immense overall size, still growing "faster" than the young pup, its growth simply being spread all over its many growing points. I learned that 20 years ago. All that said, I do certainly agree with some of your other points. For the best example, the often erroneous portrayal of a logged-out stand as a ruined one. If that's the case, I sure do wonder where all this great woodland here in Wisconsin came from! We supplied half the country with the wood to build this nation, in the case of a little town called Chicago, twice! Yes, nature is resilient and it can bounce back impressively. It is too bad though that your buddy seems to only want to hurl names and stereotypes around in this thread. Everybody else had reasonable things to contribute.

This article-> http://www.thegormleys.com/downloads/articles/Synthetic_Decking.pdf (on the web site of someone who has posted on this site before) talks about Polyethelene vs Polypropolene vs Plastic type composites. I used Correct Deck on my deck last year. I've noticed recently I have black mold spots. Composite wood tends to mold according to many who have used Trex, Correct, and others. Can't speak about Evergrain specifically. Correct Deck has a new Anti-fungal product Correct Deck CX So, the pluses- you don't have to stain periodically, just clean. It will last longer. Negatives: It will fade, it can get hot under your feet, it can stain, you will have to clean it. TerriLLBean

Do Not Use trex decking for anything but land fill,of course its not all that good for that either. Money is a funny deal, I do ipe projects for hmmmmm between $25 a sq ft to $45, belive me if I could get $ 60 I would do it real quick. I am not understanding a deck not including foundation,railing, or substructure etc,but if I could get paid for a project missing all those things Hey Man I would do that as well at $60 a sq. J.

You should be a lot leery even thinking about using T=junk, drift on down to the trex brasilia post. Evergrain is another soft composite I suggest puting a finish on it right off,twp116 has worked for me. John