The environment depleting. Does no one care?

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Cousin Vinnie, Mar 6, 2004.

  1. Cousin Vinnie
    Online

    Cousin Vinnie Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Modern technology really beats the environment up. Pollution is everywhere. Of course, people are becoming more aware of this as time goes on. However, the support of the environment is still not great enough to even begin to correct all the pollution and environmental depletion that has occured in the last 100 years. Why can't our society learn to live with our environment rather than destroying it completely for our benefit. For example, there are many ways to do things that will be safe for the environment; however, usually this is not done because people are too lazy or they don't want to spend an extra buck. When is everyone going to see that we need to respect our environment? For example, logging companies just continue to chop down our forests. Why can't we just enforce a stricter recycling program. If people can't recycle, that's just "laziness". That's one of my reasons like I said; laziness leads to depletion of the environment. The other thing that leads to the depletion of the environment is money. For example, oil companies need to eventually realize that there is not going to be any oil left within the next few decades. Besides, gasoline powered vehicles cause the most pollution ever. Of course, these oil companies don't care about the environment at all. They only care about themselves getting rich. Money depletes the environment. People need to come to their senses because once you destroy the environment, you can't restore it. It's gone.
     
  2. Bern80
    Offline

    Bern80 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,094
    Thanks Received:
    720
    Trophy Points:
    138
    Ratings:
    +726
    You're logging example is poor one. I live in northern MN where logging is a fairly major industry. We don't log just for paper you know. We need lumber for just about everything from the cabinets in your home to the house itself. Of the resources we use, forests are by far the most renewable. One could even make an argument that forests need to be logged. If they are not logged, trees die and fall down leaving less space for new plants to grow then if the land is not logged. This makes for a lot of dead, downed, dry timber in a small area. Not logging lead to the forest fires in CA last summer. Logging also creates excellent habitat for wildlife. Once logging is done the area begins to grow again creating better habitat and more food in the area then if the land had not been logged. Asd new trees grow they create better cover for some animals from predators.

    As for oil, I have asked this previously, what do you plan to do with the billions of people employed in some facet of the oil industry once we no longer are using oil?
     
  3. Cousin Vinnie
    Online

    Cousin Vinnie Guest

    Ratings:
    +0

    I understand that logging is a big industry. Of course, wood is needed for things other than paper. However, forests don't need to be logged, especially clear cut the way that it happens many times these days. Forests and their inhabitants survived fine in forests before humans came and cut forests down. As for dead trees, first of all, forests don't just die. In an "old-grown" forest, you might find one dead tree in every square mile. Forests don't die unless it has to do with the pollution we create these days.
    As for dead timber everywhere: when logging companies come in, things can't begin growing for a long time becuase of the dead branches they leave everywhere. Since they are only interested in the main trunk of the tree, they leave everything else. The area is destroyed and the forest will take at least 50 years to grow back to be even close to what it was. The bottom line is that forests worked fine before humans ever set foot on this country. WE are the ones that disrupted everything.

    As for jobs in the oil industry: there will be some other form of energy, hydrogen is very probable. What oil companies need to do is start making a gradual transition from oil to some other form of energy. That way, a large mass of jobs won't be lost.
     
  4. Isaac Brock
    Offline

    Isaac Brock Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2003
    Messages:
    1,104
    Thanks Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Ratings:
    +44
    Your view of forest cutting is common. While not inherintly wrong as forest can replenish themselves and hence forestry not inherintly a "bad" industry, the facts the your suggest about the benefit of forestry are not quite correct.
    1. Not logging does not lead forest fires. Not allowing small forest fire to burn is what causes forest fires. The difference between logging and allowing small fires to burn is the amount of biological energy returned to the forest after the burn. Here there should and can be some balance between industry and the environment.
    2. Logging does not create excellent habitat for animals, at least not using clear cutting. That is a misconception and any purusal of a first year university ecology textbook will show that mature forests almost always equate higher biological diversity. Forest are of course cyclical, but immature forests are not ideal for habitat for most animals.
    3. Forests do not need to be logged. Nature has taken care of the forests for a long time. If we are to log them, then fine, we can do it responsibly, but let's not rationalize it as a benefit to nature.

    As for oil:
    1. Jobs are not more important than the earth's and hence, all the rest of our well being.
    2. Jobs lots in oil could be easily recovered in the "new" energy sectors and will most likely be phases out over an entire lifetime. No different from shift from coal to oil. It is simply another industrial revolution where there will be a population shift from one sector to another.
    3. Billions of people in the oil industry? Maybe millions.
     
  5. winston churchi
    Offline

    winston churchi Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2004
    Messages:
    640
    Thanks Received:
    9
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +9
    I have to ask:

    Do you drive a car Vinnie?


    If you do - shame on you! If not that is wonderfull that you live by your beliefs.

    To be realistic, no one lives by their preaches. There was a story of Barbara Striesand telling everyone how to conserve energy. She told her listeners that driving a car was the biggest offense.
    Meanwhile, have you seen what B.S. drives around in?

    So I pay little mind to people who stand on a soap box and preach this message. Live by what you preach. If you do, than you are the stronger person and if you are not, find another hobby.
     
  6. Bern80
    Offline

    Bern80 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,094
    Thanks Received:
    720
    Trophy Points:
    138
    Ratings:
    +726
    saac and Vinnie,

    I don't know what logging sites either of you have been to, but I invite you both to come up to my hunting camp in Minnesota and see the logging sites there. We own roughly 90 acres of land which allow to be logged. Different parts of the area have been logged off an on since i've been going up there, (i'm 23 now) I can tell you first hand that it does not take a forested area fifty years to recover afterward. Trust me I've seen it.

    It does create excellent habitat for grouse. In all the places that were logged aspen trees tookroot and are now anywhere from 10-20 years old. These areas are very dense now and provide excellent cover for grouse to raise there young. On the logging trails themselves usually clover will grow which is excellent food for grouse. many of these areas were clear cut and new forest has grown hust fine.

    Again you are welcome to come up and I will show you first hand the benefits to natur of logging
     
  7. Isaac Brock
    Offline

    Isaac Brock Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2003
    Messages:
    1,104
    Thanks Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Ratings:
    +44
    Oh what you say I have no doubt. I worked two summers in higher school replanting trees for forestry companies in Northern Manitoba, I'm quite aware of tree planting. Forests do grow back and can be logged responsibily, but they are not biologically superior to the old growths. You're also right that it doesn't take 50 years for an aspen forest. Aspends mature around 15 years old. However that's not true with say Cottonwead, Oak or other broad leaf forests which have the best wood.

    When I replanted trees in Canada, we did it only with one species of trees, which did not promote the biological diversity required for a truly healthy forests. This of courses changes over time, but often you will find maybe one or two species in which that forest in heaven, but the rest could probably care less. But like anything, give it time to rebuild and it will become a diverse forest again. All I am saying is the logging does not "help" the forest.
     
  8. Cousin Vinnie
    Online

    Cousin Vinnie Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    I do drive a car. I understand what you're saying. I really do, but if I would turn to walking everywhere, it wouldn't make much of a difference on the environment if it's just me who decides not to drive a car. Of course, I'm not talking about getting rid of cars, just the way the cars get their power. Electric or hydrogen fuel cells happen to be a good alternative.
     
  9. Cousin Vinnie
    Online

    Cousin Vinnie Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    I happen to hunt too, and I can tell you that between logging and gas/oil wells, they are destroying the forests. The forests where I hunt are generally maple, oak, and pine. There are places that were clear cut 20 years ago that are not close to being full grown. Those areas consist of extremely thick areas of saplings only about 10 feet tall. It may be ideal for some animals but me as a hunter and just a person that enjoys the outdoors: i can't go hiking through an area like that. It's not a pretty sight like the old-growth areas of the forest. It's ugly to be honest. Now, clear cutting is not everything that companies do, some go in and just cut down trees here and there. Now, this is better. However, they leave all the branches and debris which completely cover the forest floor. This is the same with clear cutting too, and this doesn't encourage growth at all. Places like this could go years without seeing any growth at all, and these trees (maple, oak, pine) don't exactly mature over night. It takes a long time.

    Then, of course, there are the oil/gas wells. These companies come in, cut all of these roads through the forest, drill into the groud, and place these wells everywhere. It's ridiculous. We came in one year during deer season, and at that moment, they were drilling a well right where our hunting post once was. It was right there.

    Believe me, forests that are left alone are much better off.
     
  10. Bern80
    Offline

    Bern80 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,094
    Thanks Received:
    720
    Trophy Points:
    138
    Ratings:
    +726
    So basically it comes down to what is most aesthetically pleasing for you, not the wildlife. I encourage you to reread the sentence you wrote, "IT MAY BE IDEAL FOR SOME ANIMALS BUT ME AS A HUNTER AND JUST A PERSON THAT ENJOYS THE OUTDOORS: I CAN'T GO HIKING THROUGH AN AREA LIKE THAT." Did you really mean to say that, if so you are sounding more hypocrital by the post. So you can't hike every damn place you want to. You said yourself, nature is for all of us including the wildlife and what is best for them may not be as ideal as you would like it. you actually refuted your own statement when you said that we our destroying our forest yet you also state that the place you used to hike before logging are now to dense with trees.

    I know what you mean by the loggers not picking up after themselves so to speak because I have seen that as well at our camp. Instead pissing and moaning about it though, we just cleaned up ourselves.

    You also make the assumption that the best forest is the one that is the same as it was right before it was cut down. This is a false assumption. Again it may be prettier, but that doesn't mean it's what is best for the habitat in that area. There are old growth forest at our camp as well and besides the big old trees nothing grows there as far as undergrowth that an animal can actually eat. This is becasue the ground has so many dead leaves and dead fall that nothing can grow. It is quite beautiful, but it's not exactly a good food source.
     

Share This Page