The environment depleting. Does no one care?

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by OCA
Hehehe I think he's contradicting himself a little by advocating an all white area and then advocating that we stay out of the forests. Myself, the couple of years I spent in the Northwest where my wife is from saw their ridiculousness up front. I became an avid steelhead and salmon fisherman while there and the enviromentalists are so contradictory its pathetic, case in point: there's a river called the Sandy that is about a 20 minute drive from downtown Portland that is a prime spawning ground for both species and has dozens of prime holes init perfect for fishing, it flows down from Mt. Hood and close to the source has a dam on it to stem the tide of the snowmelt. Well the enviromentalists have successfully won in court to have the dam torn down in 2008 which will wipe out that whole area including the spawning grounds for the salmon and steelhead which they propose at other times they are trying to save. All in the name of the evil hydroelectric dam that they claim is laying waste to the forest.

I believe that there has to be a halfy medium on the enviroment where species are protected but HUMANS are not inconvenienced such as losing work.

I use to see bumper stickers such as "due to a shortage of paper products you must now wipe your ass with a spotted owl" and "earth first, we'll log all the rest later" while I was there, love those!

Yes. Of all the subspecies of liberal, the environmentalists are the worse. Typically they are compulsively dishonest about their socialist agenda, when you call them on it they get all self-righteous and go into attack mode. I like to watch them squirm. It's kind of like clubbing baby seals.

 

[Said1]

Speaking of the environment, here is an interesting site.www.angelfire.com/extreme4/kiddofspeed/page2.html . It's a photo essay about the after effects of the nuclear disaster in Chernobyl. THe english is not the greatest, but you will get the point.

 

[Bern80]

Originally posted by Cousin Vinnie
Areas are dense with trees because of humans logging it out. My point still is that leaving it alone is far better.

Why exactley? What is wrong w/ dense forest other than the fact that it is difficult for you to get around in.

Animals survived for thousands of years without our help, and I can assure you that what logging companies do is everything BUT helping the environment.

You honestly believe that nothing good for the envirnment comes from logging? You need to take a forestry class my friend and possibly read what I wrote as I have listed a couple of the benefits as well

And another thing, stop trying to make me believe you care about the animals that live in the woods and how much food and shelter they have. If you did, you wouldn't be so conservative on this issue.

As a hunter you should, more than most, know that I and most other hunters are very concerned about animals. Most hunters long ago realized that if we want to continue to participate in hunting we have to find ways to help these animals thrive so that we can continue to hunt. There a many organizatins that raise money for animal habitat like Ducks Unlimited, Geese Unlimited, The Ruffed Grouse Society, Minnesota Deer Hunters Association, and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundationk, just to name a few, that raise millions of dollars each year through banquets raising money for animal habitat. These groups are made up of primarily hunters that want to make sure a resource they use is around for a long time to come. I don't think I'm that conservative on the issue at all. I'm just not liberal enought to think that no forest should ever be logged ever. I know that if done improperly logging can hurt the environment. The truth is though that a lot of research goes into logging by the logging companies themselves. They want enough trees to be there so that they can log again in another hundred years and in the meantime it usually provides better habitat for wildlife. It's not unlike planting a crop to harvest each year.

 

[Avatar4321]

"Well, your tastes don't count. We are talking about facts which state that global warming occurs."

Actually there are no facts to support global warming is being caused by the release of CO2 into the atmosphere. If so then we could stop it by cutting down more trees. You refuse to deal with the facts that it was alot warmer during the middle ages. The evidence that shows that the climate of the world is cyclical. Unless you think that somehow prehistoric man caused the Ice Age and we really have that much control over the environment. I see no point in making laws over a scare tactice by politicians like Al Gore to scare people into putting him in power. Ask anyone in New York that day when Al Gore made his speech about Global warming on one of the coldest days this century and you will see how many people really think the world is suffering from it.

"Ozone doesn't regenerate itself. That's what the whole problem is!"

What planet are you living on? The Ozone does regenerate and it will continue to regenerate as long as the Sun exists. You cant honestly tell me you are ignorant of all knowledge of the ozone layer from the past 20 years can you? The holes are disappearing because the Ozone is regenerating.

"That's one of the most wacky yet. You actually believe that America had more trees when our population was in the thousands compared to when it's about 295 million. Where did you hear that? I'm afraid you are very misinformed on that. We probably have half the trees we had at the time of the Revolution. "

Its not very wacky at all if you think about it. It was study that was released last year. There are more trees now then there were 200 years ago in North America. I mean do you think these loggers are complete morons and not going to plant new trees? If they didnt they would be out of business very quickly. You really ought to update your information to atleast the 90s if you are going to argue these stupid points.

"You just feel that you need to defend our way of life to live up to your conservative views which are, make as much money as humanly possible, damn the costs (even if the cost is depleting the environment to the point where natural resources run out)"

Well im sorry im not an anti capitalist socialist like you. I tend to look at the facts of things and make judgements according to the evidence I see. There is nothing wrong with making money. And the environment isnt in danger because no one in their right mind WANTS to destroy the environment, and even if they did I dont think mankind has the power to destroy nature. Just because you refuse to deal with the last 20 years of research and dream of your communist utopia doesnt mean the rest of us have to watch men and women die of cold and hunger so people like you can gain political power and ruin our nation.

"Don't be too cocky about capitalism saving the environment. It hasn't yet..."

If there are any problems with the environmental capitalism will save it because capitalism will push the technological advancements necessary to save it. Communism sure wont. Neither will socialism. (ok so i didnt have to say it twice). Before you start yelling at people to save the environment you might want to educate yourself on say the last 20 years of information on all these topics.

 

[Avatar4321]

"Most hunters long ago realized that if we want to continue to participate in hunting we have to find ways to help these animals thrive so that we can continue to hunt."

Which i think is why Rush is probably right on how to save endangered species. Start eating them, it will create a demand for them and people will start breeding them. Its not exactly something environmentalist would ever take seriously, but its true. If someone is making money off an animal they are going to make sure the animal breeds sufficiently to keep their business going.

 

[_dmp_]

Originally posted by Cousin Vinnie
Most people don't. That's the problem.

why is that a problem?

Are you naive enough to think this world was created to last indefinitely?

 

[Cousin Vinnie]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Cousin Vinnie. I think everyone appreciates the environment. I have a problem though with libs who want to stop the expansion of our economy(humans actually) to maintain a specific environmental ecosystem, of which a snapshot was taken at some point in time and deemed perfect. I have a problem with simplifying policy to rely on "indicator species". I have a problem saying "sorry folks, can't build the new facility it might displace the indicator species". But environmentalists don't care about people, do they?

Bottom Line: I would rather crank up the human sytem as much as we can, master biology, genomics, and energy and surge into the technopositivist future than condemn humanity and cease to reproduce from shame. Why do environmentalists hate themselves?

I really wounldn't call myself a full-blown "environmentalist," but "I" have a problem with selfish people who could care less about the environment--people who "only" care about the advancement of man kind. Advancement in technology is important, but we share this earth with millions of other species and we can't "completely" forget that they exist.

 

[Cousin Vinnie]

Originally posted by OCA
Does anybody find it strange that in one thread he or they are spewing some pseudoracist views and in this thread he's taking the stance of a rabid enviromentalist? Personally I find that sort of an oxymoron.

True. I have unusual views to most, but the people that live in this country and the environemt are 2 different things. I told I was a Democrat anyway. I don't agree with everything that Democrats do, but my experience with Republicans tells me that they care nothing about the majority of citizens in this country, they care nothing about the environment, and they care only about big business and the all mightly buck!

 

[Cousin Vinnie]

Originally posted by OCA
I believe that there has to be a halfy medium on the enviroment where species are protected but HUMANS are not inconvenienced such as losing work.

I actually agree with this for the most part.

 

[Cousin Vinnie]

Originally posted by eric
And in this statement lies your hipocrasy. I alone can't make a difference, so I will not try, but I will complain about it !!!

Well, I'm not going to stop driving, but I happen to own a hybrid powered car, so that's something. I'm not complaining for people to stop using polluting technology, but just so we can find an alternative energy source. There's absolutely no harm in that--only benefits.

 

[Cousin Vinnie]

Bern80,

I realize what you're trying to say. Now, I will hold my view that forests are much better off is they are left alone, but I realize that we need wood for paper, furnature, building, etc. Since logging is needed, they just need to go into a forest, cut down trees here and there instead of clear cutting (which they already do) and simply clean up after themselves (all the loose braches and scrap wood--they could always grid this wood up; they use wood chips to make things too).

 

[Cousin Vinnie]

Avatar4321,

I realize that the environment has been getting better, especially since the 1950s and 1960s. However, like I said, there is no harm in trying some alternative, clean, energy sources. Natural resources are running out anyway from our depleting them.

 

[Cousin Vinnie]

Originally posted by dmp


Are you naive enough to think this world was created to last indefinitely?

It can last much longer if we take care of it. It's not "that much" of an inconvienience for us to be mindful of our environment.

 

[Bern80]

Originally posted by Cousin Vinnie
Bern80,

I realize what you're trying to say. Now, I will hold my view that forests are much better off is they are left alone, but I realize that we need wood for paper, furnature, building, etc. Since logging is needed, they just need to go into a forest, cut down trees here and there instead of clear cutting (which they already do) and simply clean up after themselves (all the loose braches and scrap wood--they could always grid this wood up; they use wood chips to make things too).

And what i'm trying to get you to understand is that you're vison of a typical logging operation and how a logging company works simply is quite different from reality, (as is yor view of your average Republican by the way). Again i know because I've seen it.

We have also seen that forests that aren't logged pose a huge fire hazard. That is simply biology. Lumber companies cut down live trees. That is trees where the wood is of good quality. You just can't do much w/ dead or rotting trees. Trees which can stay standing a long time b/t death and actually falling down. The "benefit" of this dead wood if you heat your house w/ wood, which we do somewhat, is that it burns better. Healthy trees don't burn well at all becasue the inner wood is actually quite moist. Take a healthy piece of wood that has recently been cut and a dead one and see which burns better.

Again I understand your beef w/ some lumber companies not cleaning up after themselves, but why do you and many liberals insist on only complaining about it. If it bothers you so much take some initiative. Form a volunteer group or something to clean these areas up if you really have a problem w/ it. Maybe this is just my misperception of democrats, but it seems all they want to do is talk about problems and not actually do anything about it.

 

[Cousin Vinnie]

Originally posted by Bern80
And what i'm trying to get you to understand is that you're vison of a typical logging operation and how a logging company works simply is quite different from reality, (as is yor view of your average Republican by the way). Again i know because I've seen it.

We have also seen that forests that aren't logged pose a huge fire hazard. That is simply biology. Lumber companies cut down live trees. That is trees where the wood is of good quality. You just can't do much w/ dead or rotting trees. Trees which can stay standing a long time b/t death and actually falling down. The "benefit" of this dead wood if you heat your house w/ wood, which we do somewhat, is that it burns better. Healthy trees don't burn well at all becasue the inner wood is actually quite moist. Take a healthy piece of wood that has recently been cut and a dead one and see which burns better.

Again I understand your beef w/ some lumber companies not cleaning up after themselves, but why do you and many liberals insist on only complaining about it. If it bothers you so much take some initiative. Form a volunteer group or something to clean these areas up if you really have a problem w/ it. Maybe this is just my misperception of democrats, but it seems all they want to do is talk about problems and not actually do anything about it.

If forests are dead, then cut them down, but I'm not talking about dead forests, I'm talking about live, well-organized forests that get destroyed by logging. Believe me, I realize how logging companies work and what they really care about, which is money. Most of them could care less about the forests they cut down (which is stupid of them because if they don't help the forests regenerate, then their industry will soon fall).

As for volunteer groups, why should we have to do this when it should be the responsibility of the logging company. If volunteer groups were to be "more" common, then more and more logging companies would just leave the forests as they are after logging and depend on these volunteer groups. "They" are the ones cutting down the forests. The least they can do is clean up after themselves, especially since they are the ones equipped with machinery to do so.

 

[MtnBiker]

46 percent of Earth is still wilderness, researchers report

By Paul Rogers

Mercury News

Despite population growth, logging and other environmental threats, nearly half the land on Earth remains wilderness -- undeveloped and nearly unpopulated, according to a study released today. The study by 200 international scientists, the most comprehensive analysis ever done on Earth's wild places and population trends, was seen by some experts as a surprising cause for optimism. Biologists also viewed it as a warning, since only 7 percent of the wilderness is protected.

``A lot of the planet is still in pretty decent shape,'' said Russell Mittermeier, a Harvard primatologist and president of Conservation International, an environmental group in Washington, D.C., that organized the study.

``We should be happy about that, but we should do everything we can to maintain it. A lot of areas, particularly tropical forests, are under the gun.''

Using databases, computer maps and satellite photos, the study found that 46 percent of the Earth's land can be classified as wilderness -- from the forests of Russia, Canada and Alaska to the Congo, the Amazon, the Sahara and New Guinea.

That area, totaling 68 million square kilometers -- more than seven times the size of the United States -- is home to only 2.4 percent of world population, or 144 million people.

Antarctica and the Arctic tundra make up roughly a third of that wilderness, or 23 million square kilometers.

To qualify as wilderness, researchers required areas to have fewer than five people per square kilometer, or 247 acres; at least 70 percent of their original vegetation; and a size of least 10,000 square kilometers, about the equivalent of Yellowstone National Park.

The research was done over two years by scientists from such institutions as the World Bank; Cambridge and Harvard universities; Zimbabwe's Biodiversity Foundation for Africa; and the National Amazon Research Institute in Brazil. The results will be published in a 500-page book next year: ``Wilderness: Earth's Last Wild Places,'' by the University of Chicago Press.

The study was bankrolled in part by donations from Intel co-founder Gordon Moore, of Woodside, a major donor to Conservation International.

The developed world should do more to safeguard wilderness, said Thomas Lovejoy, president of the Heinz Center for Science, Economics and the Environment in Washington, D.C.

``There is also an ethical and moral reason,'' Lovejoy said. ``We are all -- every amoeba, every person, every rhinoceros -- the end point of 4 billion years of evolution. You just don't snuff that out.''

Others noted that civilization's footprint is worldwide.

``There's not a square centimeter on Earth that's not affected by humans and what we produce, from chemicals in the atmosphere to global warming,'' said Peter Raven, director of the Missouri Botanical Garden. ``But this is interesting. It makes the point that there are lots of little-affected areas, more than most people might think.''

link

 

[Big D]

All this talk about the environment and not one word about overpopulation?

At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1970, environmentalists heartily embraced stabilization of America s population as a core objective of their movement, without which they believed no amount of legislation or spending could stop and reverse the harm being done to the natural world.

But on the eve of Earth Day 2001, no national environmental group works for an end to U.S. population growth. This despite the fact that the 2000 census showed that the 1990s saw the largest population growth in American history, larger even than the peak of the postwar Baby Boom.

What happened?

The environmental movement of the 1960s and 1970s had a comprehensive approach to move toward sustainable environmental protection and restoration in this country. But virually no national environmental group today works for an end to U.S. population growth. Yet the effects of constant growth are among the most contentious issues in local communities: sprawl, congestion, over-crowded schools, habitat loss, destruction of open spaces.
One of the most important was the change in the source of population growth, from births by native-born American women to immigration and births by immigrant women. In the 1990s, immigrant-related growth was equivalent to 70 percent of U.S. population increase. This development caused environmental groups to lapse into silence on U.S. population policy for a variety of reasons, including the fear that advocating immigration cuts would alienate progressive allies; the transformation of population and environment into global, as opposed to national, issues; and concerns that funding might be jeopardized, since many foundation boards include left-leaning globalists and right-leaning representatives of multinational corporations, each with strong biases in favor of high immigration.

While most Americans realize that our rapid, immigration-driven population growth is affecting their quality of life, most leaders of environmental organizations and elected officials in Washington seem afraid to deal with the issue. To continue ignoring the large population component of our increasing environmental problems will certainly doom our grandchildren to a very bleak future. Only if we control our growing population will we have the time and resources to deal with the other problems facing us today.

Sierra Club Press Secretary Joanie Clayburgh blaming the negative consequences of relentless growth on a "lack of planning," told ProjectUSA that the solutions to the power crisis now occurring in California were efficiency, cleaner plants and renewable energy sources. But she would not even discuss population growth.

To test a person for insanity, the story goes, put them in a room in which a water faucet is open and the sink is overflowing. Hand the person a mop and tell them to clean up the flood. If the person begins to mop without first turning off the faucet, observers should deduce the person is probably insane.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Big D
All this talk about the environment and not one word about overpopulation?

At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1970, environmentalists heartily embraced stabilization of America s population as a core objective of their movement, without which they believed no amount of legislation or spending could stop and reverse the harm being done to the natural world.

But on the eve of Earth Day 2001, no national environmental group works for an end to U.S. population growth. This despite the fact that the 2000 census showed that the 1990s saw the largest population growth in American history, larger even than the peak of the postwar Baby Boom.

What happened?

The environmental movement of the 1960s and 1970s had a comprehensive approach to move toward sustainable environmental protection and restoration in this country. But virually no national environmental group today works for an end to U.S. population growth. Yet the effects of constant growth are among the most contentious issues in local communities: sprawl, congestion, over-crowded schools, habitat loss, destruction of open spaces.
One of the most important was the change in the source of population growth, from births by native-born American women to immigration and births by immigrant women. In the 1990s, immigrant-related growth was equivalent to 70 percent of U.S. population increase. This development caused environmental groups to lapse into silence on U.S. population policy for a variety of reasons, including the fear that advocating immigration cuts would alienate progressive allies; the transformation of population and environment into global, as opposed to national, issues; and concerns that funding might be jeopardized, since many foundation boards include left-leaning globalists and right-leaning representatives of multinational corporations, each with strong biases in favor of high immigration.

While most Americans realize that our rapid, immigration-driven population growth is affecting their quality of life, most leaders of environmental organizations and elected officials in Washington seem afraid to deal with the issue. To continue ignoring the large population component of our increasing environmental problems will certainly doom our grandchildren to a very bleak future. Only if we control our growing population will we have the time and resources to deal with the other problems facing us today.

Sierra Club Press Secretary Joanie Clayburgh blaming the negative consequences of relentless growth on a "lack of planning," told ProjectUSA that the solutions to the power crisis now occurring in California were efficiency, cleaner plants and renewable energy sources. But she would not even discuss population growth.

To test a person for insanity, the story goes, put them in a room in which a water faucet is open and the sink is overflowing. Hand the person a mop and tell them to clean up the flood. If the person begins to mop without first turning off the faucet, observers should deduce the person is probably insane.

Overpopulation breeds democrat voters.

 

[OCA]

Originally posted by Cousin Vinnie
True. I have unusual views to most, but the people that live in this country and the environemt are 2 different things. I told I was a Democrat anyway. I don't agree with everything that Democrats do, but my experience with Republicans tells me that they care nothing about the majority of citizens in this country, they care nothing about the environment, and they care only about big business and the all mightly buck!

I just went through each and every one of Vinnie's 85 or so posts and never once did he mention he was a Democrat before this.

Please see next post to see where i'm going with this.

 

[OCA]

You know, I am a Democrat, and I understand civil rights. I agree with the fact that blacks were discriminated against. Well, where I live, there are lots of black people, but there was not much discrimination at all before the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s. Civil Rights really stirred things up. The worst part of all of it is that the decency of black people in general has been going down hill ever since civil rights. Most blacks were good people, and many got discrimination that they didn't deserve. However, so many blacks these days are thugs, bums, druggies, and criminals. I don't know where this all came from. This world was once a good place. It has never been this violent: where I live, I see up close all the violence blacks in general cause. Of course, everything is not their fault, but these people are animals. Now, I have black friends, but most black people are terrible people that I don't like to be around at all. Many other people know this. Of course, though, this is considered racism and discrimination by blacks. I don't care if these people are black, white, red, yellow, or purple. They are menaces to society, and their influence is so great. Their so-called "culture" is corrupting many good kids. No one deserves being treated the way these people treat them, and no one deserves to be corrupted by these people. What makes me mad is how these blacks are constantly catered to out of fear. They get what they want a lot of times. All you hear from them is how they are being discriminated against though. When someone refuses to accept them because of their presence or bad attitude, they call it racism and everyone believes them. What should be done...?

NOTICE THE FIRST SENTENCE PLEASE! Plus the fact that Jimnyc said that Vinnie and 90210 were posting from same IP address. Y'all have been fighting with a high school freshman who's been brainwashed by a leftover hippie lib teacher.

This was from the locked Racism thread so it doesn't have all the goodies on it. Just go to 90210 profile and go to his very first post and this is it.