In my reading 41 (beside being one off the Adams' answer to all things :) gives the minimum portion of the resource you may liquidate sustainably (indefinately) in order to break even with immediate total liquidation now.

That is if you are able to liquidate 1/41 of the resource each  year indefinately you will be in financial tie with cutting it down right now. If you can sustainably take off bigger share per year you would (theoretically) prefer to do so.

I do agree that 10% is more real world discount rate, which immediately poses the question why lumber companies do not liquidate since it seems to be the most profitable decision.

My explanations go along these lines:

  1. If a company liquidates its principal resource in a snap it would have to invest additional resources for the liquidation process which along with the previous invesments will turn obsolate afterwards and will not payoff.

  2. Companies do price in the externalities which clear cut would cause. Ruined reputation, moonlike landscapes and Greenpeace members tied to trees are really bad for business.

  3. The companies (especially bigger once) have much less abstract view of the "market" as economists. Therefore they don't just "produce something" and expect the "market" to absorb it. It is all tied with contracts, and most of them are aware that overproduction by single one of them could cause significant price drop.

  4. Last but maybe most important, companies are made of people, and people usually have family, and most of them plan for retirement. Both of these lead people to prefer security over the long term than immediate profits in the short term. Whatever Adam Smith may have said greed is not always the dominant motivation.

All of these are very well applicable for all companies consuming non-renewable or slowly renewable resources. I think that both psychologically and economically people become worried if they see the business they run will deplete during their lifetime - some 20-30 years ahead or less. Usually you can not get humans to think 50 or 100 years ahead.
1/41th of the resource says nothing about what is sustainable, as far as I can tell.  What is sustainable is governed by ecological processes, not financial ones.

People are not rational actors, but rationalizers, and the math behind financial systems is a great excercise in justifying short-term interests over long-term inhabitability of the planet.  It basically tells people what they want to hear, given our inherent bias towards present rewards.  

Has anyone looked at Richard Douthwaite's work on the issue of responding to inflation from resource constraints by raising interest rates and how damaging that would be?

A quote: "Central bankers must therefore recognise that higher energy prices are necessary to enable the energy companies to develop more expensive sources of fuel, and that, consequently, they must allow the inflation to take its course. They must not choke it off by preventing the higher energy prices being reflected in the prices charged for the goods and services which use fossil energy. Inflation is the only relatively painless way that every price in the global economy can change by a different amount to reflect the new energy price level. The inflation needs to proceed for several years as, initially, firms will put prices up by only the amount their direct fuel costs rise. They will consequently require further increases later when the higher cost of the fuel used in the products they purchase works its way through to them and has to be passed on. Resisting inflation would essentially be an attempt to maintain the purchasing power of money in terms of the amount of energy it buys. This is obviously an inappropriate response if energy is getting scarcer and/or requires more resources to produce."

Source:  http://www.feasta.org/documents/energy/November2005.htm

Oh... think I was not clear enough. 1/41 is the financial threshold, not the physical (or biological etc). Compare this to the physical threshold and you will find whether financially it makes sense to go for sustainability or for caching in.

Example:

The forest has 5% of growth, so you can cut only 5% (1/20) sustainably. If discount rates are such (2.5%) the NPV of the forest would be higher if you manage it sustainably instead of clear cutting it.

If the discount rate is 10% the forest still renovates for 20 years but you have financial incentative to cut it right now, because you don't care that much for the future.

This has some very real world implication. Suppose I borrowed the money to buy that forest (with adjustable IR for simplicity). If interest rate is 2.5% and I get a return of 5% from my forest (skipping over some assumptions here) I could be paying the loan interest and get some profit. If IR of my loan goes to 10% then I will probably decide to clearcut the forest and repay the loan as I am forced to think short-term and get the cache now.

Sorry, missed to comment on the quote which is rather interesting indeed.

Personally as someone who lived once through hyperinflation I could not agree less with it :) What it misses is that with rising rates central banks targed containment rising of general price level, not the energy prices per se. If properly applied tighter monetary policy can suppress uncontrolled devaluation of the currency, while energy prices would be still rising relatively to the other goods and services though slower in nominal terms.

This would in fact benefit energy producers as they would still be facing rising profits in real term, while providing a stable monetary environment.