| Author |
Message |
    
tjohn
Citizen
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 1636
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 3:21 pm: |     |
When Bush visited USS Abraham Lincoln, he dressed up as a naval aviator. Today, he visited a forest fire site in Montana to advocate clear-cutting as fire prevention. I expected him to dress as Smokey the Bear, but instead, he was wearing generic earth-tone casual clothes. Very disappointing. |
ffof
Citizen
Username: Ffof
Post Number: 1361
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, August 11, 2003 - 3:26 pm: | |
I agree. A new "Elite Force" action figure in civies just isn't going to cut it. |
johnny
Citizen
Username: Johnny
Post Number: 701
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 12, 2003 - 12:16 am: | |
Nothing is worse than the beige safari gear that Dan Rather wears every time he goes to the Middle East. |
notehead
Citizen
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 647
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2003 - 2:26 pm: | |
I didn't think of Smokey the Bear... I thought Bush would dress up as a smoke jumper and make his statement from a hovering red, white, and blue helicopter with a sunset behind him. |
-af
Citizen
Username: Java_drinker
Post Number: 266
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2003 - 3:22 pm: | |
When I found out that Georgia-Pacific co-wrote the opinion paper that the Bushies refer to in their “new” policy of selective deforestation I felt a little better. Once again, our government policy is up for sale, but at least it’s going to the high bidder.
You gave to laugh when you hear this guy actually say that we were going to PAY big lumber companies to cut down selected forests, and they (the companies) get to make those selections. The last time the forest service studied wildfires they found if you just let the naturally occurring small fires burn themselves out instead of mass suppression, we wouldn’t have these 5-state catastrophes.
Why not just let oil/energy companies write our emissions policies and energy positions? Ohhh, right..Nevermind
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 3
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2003 - 3:38 pm: | |
if you let the fires burn, do you increase greenhouse gases? If so, are greehouse gases by nature good, but greenhouse gases by man are bad? |
notehead
Citizen
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 654
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 13, 2003 - 5:03 pm: | |
Obviously, greenhouse gases are created when trees burn, regardless of the cause of the fire. Greenhouse gases produced by any source are bad if they are released in sufficient quantity to harm man and/or ecosystems. Ditto for the loss of trees and the myriad other kinds of material and life in a forest. The point is that the timber & paper industry and land developers want to consume vastly more of our forests than outdoor enthusiasts, environmentalists, and scientists do. Loggers would happily cut down every tree in the country, and then expect to be supported by hand-outs from our tax dollars when their industry (along with many others supported by forests) collapses. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 4
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2003 - 9:24 am: | |
Hoping for a little better back and forth. When you have a debate with anyone (your spouse, especially) and the words "never" and "always" and "every" come up as in "Loggers would happily cut down EVERY tree in the country....." -- it's over. Pointless.
Consuming implies non-renewable, I take it, when forests are actually a crop. It's OK to burn the stuff, but don't let the loggers take it. No sense, no balance there.
} |
-af
Citizen
Username: Java_drinker
Post Number: 269
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2003 - 11:05 am: | |
cjc,
While I agree that senseless back-and-forth wont get us anywhere I feel I must take issue with a couple of issues you bring up:
1) The greenhouse (CO2) issue - While the current administration makes every attempt to burry their own findings of global warming I will leave that to history to address. But small, seasonal fires don't put up as much CO2, ash or hydrocarbons as monstrous multi-state wildfire do. The atmosphere is pretty good at fixing itself from small problems, but catastrophes are a whole other kettle of fish.
2) Who is doing the cutting – I think tree farming is one of the best ideas of the last 50 years, what most opponents to the policy in question are upset about is the timber lobby’s free reign in old-growth, geologically sensitive areas. Harvesting trees off of farms, especially those located on lands that they raped and pillaged a few decades ago is a good start to correcting historical problems.
As long as the Bushies keep doling out contracts and policy to the highest bidder or (no explanation required) secret, no-bid processes, they will have 0% credibility with the public (you remember, those people who are supposed to vote). And I think most New Jersians were with me when even Mrs. Todd-Whitman had to separate herself from this administration and their “screw the environment” policies. That says a lot.
|
notehead
Citizen
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 658
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2003 - 1:25 pm: | |
Sorry, cjc, but I wouldn't have used the world "every" in my post if there wasn't ample history to support me. There is no indication that the mentality of forest harvesters is any different from those of hunters or fisherman. Plant and animal species have been made extinct by commercial exploitation over and over again. 90% of all the large game fish in the oceans are GONE, while the fish industry desperately competes to catch the rest (and the methods it uses to do so often destroy the entire ecology that could support the regeneration of those species). As long as somebody wants to buy products made from our trees, do you really think logging companies won't cut them down? Even if there's only 100 trees left? |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 8
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2003 - 1:32 pm: | |
-af -- It's the same type of legislation that Tom Daschle had passed in a last-minute addition to some Senate bill for his home state of SD. As well, the taxpayer is supposed to eat the costs of a mining clean-up that was a big contributor to Mr. Daschle's campaign in the same bill. Thinning - -like anything -- can be done poorly, and well.
Is Tom 'screw the environment' too? Sierra and Greenpeace were silent, so i guess he's a 'good' thinner.
As for global warming, the Admin admits it's taking place. The source and primary culprit is the disagreement. I think by the Clinton Administration's own calculations, following Kyoto (let china and india slide, while you're at it) would total to MAYBE reducing things 3/10ths of 1 degree over 10 years -- assuming the warming trend continues. My solution -- snuff out volcanoes. Or tax them. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 9
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2003 - 1:45 pm: | |
Notehead -- In that vein -- every environmentalist wants people to liberate zoos, bury their cars,destroy starbucks, and abort children for population control. Now...let's debate!
Come on -- on a purely greed-based level, it is not in the timber industry's interests to cut down "every" tree. It defies logic.
At least -af is on the planet. You're orbiting the moon here. And to paraphrase Betty Davis -- let's not ask for the moon when we have some stars here. |
-af
Citizen
Username: Java_drinker
Post Number: 273
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2003 - 1:47 pm: | |
cjc-
I think you are making some assumptions about me that are wrong. Just because I think the Bushies are wrong does not mean that blindly support all Democrats. Quite the opposite, I believe that most of official Washington has their pockets lined by lobbies and corporate support, that is why I supported McCain-Finegold and that is why the elected officials do not. I couldn’t support any party the way that Fox News Channel Republicans support theirs and still look my children in the eye. I have the benefit of a brain, and I try to use it.
And talk about a joke!!! Bush not signing on to Kyoto because it would ONLY reduce 3/10ths of 1 degree over 10 years, as if his “burn everything that isn’t nailed down” policy is better, get real. This is the same guy who refused to raise the CAFÉ standards because GM and Ford told him it was the work of socialists and god forbid we use any less petroleum products, that might hurt his and his friends stock portfolios.
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 10
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2003 - 2:16 pm: | |
-af.....burn everything that isn't nailed down? Hurt his and his friends stock portfolio? jeez....
What conservative (I use that term loosely with BUsh) republican WOULD support higher CAFE standards? Ford is now headed by the greenest member of that family ever, and while they have cars that get huge MPG, the marketplace likes SUVs which bring down the overall average of their fleet offerings. The market is talking on that one. Let's 'get real' by passing CA legislation for a zero emission car. While you're at it, how about a perpetual motion machine. You're right -- let history decide I'm right on the global warming issue. Just stop those trying to solve something they can't with my money.
"Burn everything that isn't nailed down" is looney. Very "notehead" of you.
PS -- I don't like Fox. It offers pedestrian political arguments on their talking head shows, but Brit Hume is great and the only program worth watching.
|
-af
Citizen
Username: Java_drinker
Post Number: 274
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2003 - 3:21 pm: | |
cjc-
I was recently on a business trip that took me to 7 European nations and you know what, I saw about 20 SUVs total. They (like I think we should) pay a premium tax on cars that get crappy mileage. It doesn't take a PhD to figure out that forcing people to take accountability for their sloppy environmental stance people wouldn't be so quick to buy land-yachts for runs to the Shop-Rite. Also, gas costs quite a bit more than here, further incentivising the citizens to think about their vehicle choices.
Zero and ultra-low emission cars are closer than you think; if the oil lobby would stop getting in their way they'd be here even sooner. But even I agree that "zero" is a hard number to get to, how about tax CREDITS or buyer rebates for using low(er) emission cars, hybrids, and keeping a vehicle longer than the US average of 3.2 years? The rest of the world seems to have figured this out years ago.
There’s plenty of things going on in Europe that irk the crap out of me, but on the topic of cars and petroleum use, I think they’ve got the right idea.
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 11
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2003 - 3:46 pm: | |
-af:
Can't agree there, but we're way apart on the global warming issue for starters. Lower MPG cars pay more in tax already by virtue of consuming more fuel. Why tax those that don't use more fuel? Or is socialism making everyone equal...equally miserable. That Europe taxes fuel "for the environment" when they use that money for the general fund instead (see: Tobacco Lawsuit Shakedown in the US) is disingenuous...so we won't agree there. Besides, taxing that fuel drives the costs of business and food up even more, hurting people that take mass transit, among others.
Cars are cleaner than ever. Car and Driver mag guy said "they're about 95% cleaner than 1960. It's that last 5% that's so hard and cost prohibitive."
Alternative fuels will come about when gas and oil become too expensive. Won't happen in our lifetime.
How about this for some European thinking -- how about we tax fat people? Puts a stigma back on that behavior (like cigarettes), we could use the money to offset the healthcare costs we suffer (or lie about it and use it for something else). But let's only tax the abusers -- those who are fat -- and not those who aren't. Let's not tax all gasoline, just those who use too much....or maybe just tax the rich people in general on their food and fuel use so the middle class can avoid all responsibility, which is a political winner.
Good talking with you, -af! |
James
Citizen
Username: Mcgregorj
Post Number: 32
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2003 - 4:02 pm: | |
cjc said:
"Cars are cleaner than ever. Car and Driver mag guy said "they're about 95% cleaner than 1960. It's that last 5% that's so hard and cost prohibitive." "
But they're 100% more dirty than 1860. |
notehead
Citizen
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 660
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, August 14, 2003 - 6:48 pm: | |
cjc, I'll bite. You said:
"on a purely greed-based level, it is not in the timber industry's interests to cut down "every" tree. It defies logic."
Of course it does. But even when a resource has become so depleted that virtually everyone agrees it's time to look for alternatives, there will always be some individuals who are too greedy or lazy or just too obstinate to make a change. Just ask a long-line fisherman.
As for the global warming issue (which has had its share of discussion on MOL already)... even if all scientific organizations were silenced, it wouldn't hide the fact that glaciers worldwide are retreating, the Ross ice shelf is breaking up, thousands of species of flora and fauna are moving further from the equator, etc. In today's London Independent it was announced that the 2nd-largest body of freshwater in Africa, Lake Tanganyika, which is one of the most biodiverse in the world, is experiencing plummeting fish stocks due to rising air temperatures, causing a health and economic catastrophe in local populations.
How bad must a problem become before some serious steps are taken to alleviate it? |
zoe
Citizen
Username: Zoe
Post Number: 311
Registered: 7-2002
| | Posted on Friday, August 15, 2003 - 12:53 pm: | |
How bad must a problem become before some serious steps are taken to alleviate it?
It all hinges upon perception. Is the problem uniformly recognized? Can cause and effect be established? Are the criteria appropriate for measuring the problem and solution correct?
Will the results of implementing the solution solve the problem? Or will the solution chosen lead to new problems? Cost benefit analysis should be weighed in, but not just in pure monetary terms. Care must be taken with social concerns and the potential impact upon the environment needs to be identified. And who is responsible for making the decision? Upon who's authority?
|
notehead
Citizen
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 661
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, August 16, 2003 - 11:39 am: | |
All good questions, and I'm glad to see the complexity of problem-solving acknowledged by a non-left-winger. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 12
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 18, 2003 - 1:09 pm: | |
Notehead -- please reframe your argument with this information. In 1906, there were 94 million acres of forest in our nation. In 2000, there are 187 million. There has been a steady increase of acres of national forest in our country since it's been recorded -- even during the evil days of Reagan/Watt and Bush 41.
Loggers are too stupid to not cut down all the trees, but it seems like they're SO stupid, they can't even find them.
Over 1/2 of the forest in the US will be 80 years or older -- meaning they are on the decline in health as well as approaching worthless in terms of major pieces of lumber (think telephone poles).
These figures are from the US Forest Service.
As for global warming -- I put the culprit as Nature, with man playing a limmited and minimal role. You're right -- plenty of discussion, no consensus. |
notehead
Citizen
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 663
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, August 18, 2003 - 2:13 pm: | |
cjc, I think you're not seeing the forest for the trees. Your figures support my position. Yes, forest cover has been steadily increasing overall in the last century. Before then, forest cover disappeared rapidly because there were no laws and protected areas to prevent it (and fewer alternatives to wood). The only reason loggers don't take more trees is because it is illegal for them to do so. Most of the truly valuable trees are on federal land where logging is prohibited. There's only a few thousand acres of them left, and the battle to protect them from loggers is continuous.
"Over 1/2 of the forest in the US will be 80 years or older -- meaning they are on the decline in health as well as approaching worthless in terms of major pieces of lumber (think telephone poles). "
What is that - a joke? An 80-year old forest is not even considered mature yet. Old growth forests such as those that the timber industry is pursuing in the Northwest are up to 10 times older. Today's fun fact: trees never stop growing until they die. Thus, older trees are larger, stronger, and more valuable. Please reframe your argument with that information. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 15
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 18, 2003 - 2:28 pm: | |
You're hung up on one tree, and can't see the overall forest. Yes...those majestic sequoias, the redwoods.... All 200 years old or more. Percentage of total forest population? Not much.
I myself in Maplewood need to take a tree down that is approximately....80 years old as it's beginning to rot and die, not uncommon for this species. This maple tree represents a much bigger population than the geezer trees you revere. It's still alive, but not getting 'larger, stronger and more valuable.'
When things are mature, they're at their optimum yield. You harvest crops when they're mature and they have their highest yield (before they go to seed and die, generally, and become less 'strong' and 'valuable' ). Trees are crops. THey've been harvesting this crop and growing the forest acreage at the same time. Biggest seller of lumber is the US govt, I believe. Can be quite profitable, and effective for managing forests as well. |
Dave Ross
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 5022
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, August 18, 2003 - 2:39 pm: | |
80 years is nothing.
http://www.newsgd.com/pictures/scenery/200305130190.htm |
tjohn
Citizen
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 1651
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Monday, August 18, 2003 - 2:56 pm: | |
If you've seen one redwood, you've seen 'em all.
Now, where's my chainsaw. |
Brett
Citizen
Username: Bmalibashksa
Post Number: 64
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Monday, August 18, 2003 - 3:04 pm: | |
I'm going to have to print this thread out. That should help the loggers |
notehead
Citizen
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 664
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, August 18, 2003 - 4:31 pm: | |
cjc, I'd swear you're trying to make a point. What is it? |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 16
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 19, 2003 - 11:31 am: | |
notehead - a good question, one i've asked myself. How useful is it to debate against someone who claims loggers would cut down EVERY tree if they could -- ALWAYS! FOREVER! CUZ BUSINESS AND LOGGERS ESPECIALLY ARE EVIL! -- as well as other doomsday claims which are easy to believe for the lazy among us. I'm arguing you can cut down a renewable crop without castrophic damage and -- I know you'll think this is ludicrous -- environmental benefits. There's a reasonable, sustainable way of doing things.
I'm reminded of Ted Danson in the early 90s saying we only have 10 years to live cuz we're wiping out the oceans. Did you believe that as well? |
notehead
Citizen
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 666
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 19, 2003 - 1:52 pm: | |
Of course there is a reasonable, sustainable way of doing things. Nobody on MOL pushes that assertion harder than I do. But unless that reasonable, sustainable course of resource exploitation is accurately determined by the government, and unless the proper methods and limits are forced down an industry's throat, there is NO way that the industry -- the timber industry, in this case -- will follow them. The evidence for this is abundant in virtually any industry you look at. In the case of logging, the mistake of thinking of forests as a renewable resource is often made. Yes, forests eventually grow back, but a forest that is merely decades old is just not the same thing as a forest that has existed for centuries -- not to tourists, environmentalists, and scientists, and not even to logging companies.
However, even a resource that can replenish itself in a relatively short amount of time, such as tuna, is not likely to be given the chance to do so due to demand. This is sad, but true. Only government is in a position to monitor the consumption of ALL resources and determine how the methods and amount of exploitation of any one resource affect other industries and human health, and make proper rules to benefit the entire system. That's definitely not the way things work these days. |
ashear
Citizen
Username: Ashear
Post Number: 674
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, August 19, 2003 - 2:44 pm: | |
Re notehead's post. Here is some info on the effect of logging: http://www.nrdc.org/land/forests/roads/eotrinx.asp
And how to do it right: http://www.certifiedwood.org/ |
notehead
Citizen
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 667
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 20, 2003 - 1:09 pm: | |
Interesting paragraph from the introduction on the NRDC site:
"Finally, the impact of roads or logging on forest fire hazard is an important issue that has not been addressed in this bibliography. Increased ignition frequency along roads has been well established. In addition, some published studies indicate that logging can increase fire hazard, perhaps because of slash left behind, drier forest conditions under open canopies, damage to residual trees, compromised soil resources, or disrupted ground water regimes. This is a complex topic that deserves separate consideration in its own right."
The idea pushed by the Bush administration on behalf of the logging industry that we should "thin" forests so that they are less prone to have significant fires is a fallacy. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 20
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, August 20, 2003 - 1:19 pm: | |
Bush is making the first stab at reasonable forest management. It's interesting in that the parpagraph sited says "Can increase.....perhaps because...." There are bad and good logging practices. Rather than have NO logging practices, we're finally moving in the right direction. If Daschle's South Dakota can have thinning and not bring environmental ruin, so can the country. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page