Clearcut Values

[Moonbeam]

This is a deeply fascinating thread. In it are expressed a range of philosophies that are simply amazing. A single human can't do much to harm, but a corporation or a government can destroy the earth. It strikes me that this is possible only because of mental illness and the structures we create. Only man can destroy his own nest. With private property a group of individuals will individually destroy their little piece and the collective its big piece via the vote. We truly have a world in which market forces are in control and the market force that reins is insanity. When the mites eat enough of the cheese it will collapse and the mites will fall on each other to blame.

 

[Moonbeam]

Also, the work of buying the world has long been going on here.

 

[0marTheZealot]

Environmentalism is the #1 thing that will kill us economically. We can't use coal to bouy our thrist for oil. We can't explore many regions of the world due to environmental control, even though demand is set to outstrip supply for oil. Drilling is a huge no-no. The ANWR should be explored and drilled. Either we do it now, voluntariarly, or we will be forced to when oil gets prohibitively expensive in 5-10 years.

 

[TheGameIs21]

Debating the environment is as fruitless as debating rape/abortion/religion.

You have one side that says and has proof that the new forrests are growing at a faster rate and therefore replenishing themselves faster than anyone (even loggers) thought possible. Then you have the other side that says and has proof that there is no way that the environment will keep up with the current "Raping" of the land. It's amazing how both sides can "twist" test results to read exactly what they want them too.

All I know is that the loggers aren't going to do something (like over-logging) that will eliminate their job or their childrens jobs. I also know that I worked for 2 years at a power plant and the cooling water we took from the river was dirtier than than the water we released back out. Even with that fact, the plant was fined for the amount of pollutants (Parts Per Million) that we were putting out even though the water was cleaner due to the filters we had in the plant. We submitted water from the intake valve to submit with our outgoing water as proof to the lab and the government but they didn't care. There was something wrong with that.

Just like any "extreme" causes, there is a hint of truth and a need that needs to be listened to but you also need to hear both sides and not pre-judge either.

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: glenn1
So I think we've already established that the environmentalists won't put their money where their mouth is, and only support their cause when taxpayers are paying for it. They do this in the full knowledge that governments are the only entity to whom costs don't matter. If the land were private instead of public, how much do you think it would have taken you to agree to say letting Uncle Sam do atomic bomb testing on your land, thus rendering it basically permanently uninhabitable like the Nevada Test Site? Likewise, if it's public land and you refuse to purchase it, I don't want to hear your bitching if Uncle Sam decides to build a road through it.

I put my money where my mouth is. Just like large companies, the greatest bang for my buck is to support lobbying groups and groups like Earthjustice that defend the laws that the current administration will not.

While I don't have the money to do so, my father has put his money where his mouth is in a way similar to what you have proposed by donating what would otherwise be a very valuable (for development) chunch of land to a land trust.

You say "I don't want to hear your bitching if Uncle Sam decides to build a road through it.", I assume that you don't want to hear anyone bitching about anything. I don't want to hear you bitch about the illegitimacy of government, but hey, we are on a politics and news forum The land is ours. Besides, if you read the article :Q, you would see that the point is the disingenuousness of the current administration. Uncle Sam did not decide to "build a road through it", Uncle Sam said here is 58 million acres that will be protected from roads and then encouraged challenges that were not defended against.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
Environmentalism is the #1 thing that will kill us economically. We can't use coal to bouy our thrist for oil. We can't explore many regions of the world due to environmental control, even though demand is set to outstrip supply for oil. Drilling is a huge no-no. The ANWR should be explored and drilled. Either we do it now, voluntariarly, or we will be forced to when oil gets prohibitively expensive in 5-10 years.

You're on the right track here. People need to understand that increasing environmental regulations on a company costs them millions of dollars. This money will come straight from the pockets of the workers, resulting in either lower wages or less jobs.

I wouldn't have the ANWR drilled. There is enough oil to keep us going for quite a while. Instead, something should be done about oil companies price fixing - this is the real problem. They claim that supply is short, but it is only that way so they can milk more money out of their reserves. They can easily ratchet up production to well above what it is now without us being in danger of running out of oil.

 

[piasabird]

Sell your gas guzzling poluting lawn-mower if you care about the environment.

 

[Jhhnn]

Something should be done about oil companies' price fixing?

Given that you've already cast your ballot for GWB, it must mean that you figure he's the guy to do it, right? Just like he stepped in during the phony California energy crisis at the beginning of his term... wait, that must be some alternate reality...

Get real. Current Republican thinking places utmost faith in markets, even those where competition at the level of price is almost non-existent. Re-elect GWB if you want energy prices to reach their "true market value"... Answering this question will give you an idea of what that means- "What's it worth to keep from freezing to death in the Winter?"

 

[mercanucaribe]

There is so much misinformation in this thread that I had to register to explain some things.

First of all, the Tongass and Chugach (I don't know much about the Chugach so I'll focus on the Tongass) are part of the last small percentage of VIRGIN old growth forest in America. Around 5% of the nation's old growth forest remains. What is there is also some of the fraction of temperate rainforest in the world, and all that exists in North America.
This means that it is IRRELEVANT whether or not forests grow back faster than clearcutting. Once it is cut, a forest will never be virgin again. It will never be in the natural state brought about by 4.5 billion years of evolution.

Second, to the guy who said that roads should be built to fight fires... That is a great mis statement. First of all, natural fires are a GOOD THING. The reason we have huge forest fires in California is not because we can't fight them properly, it's because natural fires have been supressed for the past hundred years, allowing overgrowth of vegetation, which also allows fire to reach the canopy, and destroy even fire resistant trees. Bush is partially right when he says they need to be harvested. They don't need to be harvested exactly, but newer undergrowth needs to be thinned.

Also, the roadbuilding is being done in order to allow logging. These roads are built with TAXPAYER MONEY, which subsidizes logging in other ways. We are talking $36 mllion a year. Returns from the loggers are about $1.2 million. You libertarians should be trying to stop this, rather than talking about selling off land. By the way, these subsidies are given to maintain about 200 logging jobs.

http://www.akrain.org/action/default.asp?news_id=212

Senator John McCain (R-AZ), a stanch fiscal conservative, is stepping up to the plate to champion an amendment to end taxpayer subsidized logging in America?s rainforest. The amendment is supported by a broad coalition of taxpayer and budget watchdog groups, sportsmen and conservationists. Senator McCain?s amendment builds upon on a stunning bipartisan effort in the U.S. House of Representatives which voted (6/16/04) to prohibit taxpayer money from being used to build logging roads for private timber companies in the Tongass National Forest.

In the House, Representatives Steve Chabot (R-OH) and Robert Andrews? (D-NJ) Tongass subsidy amendment to the FY2005 Interior Appropriations bill won by a vote of 222 to 205.

The bill to end subsidies passed in the House, but has yet to be voted on in the senate.
If you are an e-libertarian, you ought to be concerned about loggers destroying national treasures (that means owned by us) that wouldn't be profitable to destroy without subsidies (paid for by us).


Here is a site that shows a map of the areas of the Tongass. http://www.inforain.org/maparc...ngass_timber_sales.htm

As you can see from the map, there is a very small area left of actual forest that is untouched by man, and a large amoutn of that will be affected by timber sales, despite what the numbers may say. I doubt anyone who knows the facts would support logging these relatively small completely natural areas to support a few local jobs and logging corporations, when we have massive secondary growth forests and tree farms in the south and west of the contiguous states waiting to be harvested.

Also, there are economic impacts to fishing and tourism. Salmon spawn in the rivers that flow through the Tongass. Logging over the past few decades has caused declines in catches, as streams silt up (also caused simply by roadbuilding) and as nutrients become unavailable to the river systems that feed the Pacific.
http://www.conservationgiscent...ps/html/fisheries.html

In any case, given the proper information, the reasons for protecting these places should be apparent. These aren't normal forests like the ones we lament burning in California. If you believe in God, consider them made by God, unaltered by man.

Edit: I forgot to mention that Clinton enacted the roadless rule after much public participation and research. Bush nixed it in a heartbeat to satisfy loggers.

 

[mercanucaribe]

Here are some more maps:
http://www.inforain.org/maparchive/chugach_proposal.htm
ftp://ftp.ecotrust.org/pub/ak/pdf/arca_tnf.pdf
http://www.inforain.org/rainfo...nforestatlas_page3.htm