CAP AND TRADE - Coming to your state soon?

[westwall]

First of all I am not in favour of dumping anything anywhere. I am a firm believer (and I practice what I preach) in recycling. However folks seem to forget that man didn't create heavy metals. They came from the earth in the first place people!!!

recycling is cute for the homeowner, and might make a ding with respect to the environment. even for businesses there could be some net reduction in environmental impact by virtue of it. it fails in application to heavy metals as by-products to industry and a no disposal policy simply dodges the fact that there needs to be a disposition on safe and environmentally considerate handling of waste. that toxins all come from the earth is a simpleton's conjecture. maybe you could reveal your point if you have one; it escapes me.

When things are dumped in the deep ocean there is nothing on the benthic plain to be bothered by them. They will stay there till they get subducted and returned to the mantle where in a few million years they will pop out again someplace else.

this is bullshit. the repercussions for presuming that we could dump heavy metals at sea are not as rosy as you paint them. now i guess i have to remind that the ecosystems in the ocean are vertically codependent, too. the ocean has a capacity to deal with a great deal of foreign materials introduced to it, and i know that you think that arsenic mercury are natural, no matter their concentration, but you personify the correlation between ignorance and shoulder-shrugging on the gravity environmental concerns.

i'm sure that with respect to your pet concern, the rainforest, that you have seen that folks unaware of what is going on, or what is so bad about the state of things seem more likely to write it off.

Prosperity and environmentalism go hand in hand as well I agree. Instead of keeping the Third World the Third World like the pseudo environmentalists want to do. The environmental movement needs to realize that the only long term change that can be affected is to elevate the Third World to First World status. When that gets done 90% of all the environmental issues will clear themselves up. Fewer people, far less pollution, recycling, ethical treatment of the planet...it all comes from the First World nations because the Third World can't defend itself and so is a target for the unethical companies that are out there. And there are many of them...in fact the majority are unethical.

But this methodology is false, will not prevent pollution, will not prevent the destruction of the rainforests, will not reduce populations, will not create "green" jobs, will not do anything that they claim it will. What it will do is cast more people into poverty which will increase all of the environmental strains that are currently in operation.

i'm not sure if economic agenda will improve ecology. economic activity has the most environmental impact. tenuous, that connection.

as to the merits of a c&t. what are your conjectures based on? i have some converse predictions, some are based on some proven successes from such a system, others are based on market responses proven in other mechanisms and which i have no reason to presume aren't transferable. is this like your presumptions about heavy metals?

It is a well founded correlation that wealth and the prosperity that goes with will result in a lowering of birth rates. Everyplace that has seen prosperity on the order that we have in the First World has seen a corresponding drop in birthrates. Even in Catholic areas. It is simple, wealthy people have more entertainment choices open to them and they are not required to produce children to help till the soil.

Industrial activity in wealthy countries is very heavily regulated (why do you think industry is leaving the US to go to China?). It is cheaper to go to China and pollute than it is to keep it clean here. However, if all countries are on the same level playing field then they all have to pay the same amount to keep their respective industries clean. Wealthy people like a clean environment.

This is not rocket science. So long as there are countries that don't regulate the production of waste products the companies will go there. Take away that ability and they all have to comply with the regs or be put out of business.

Now to the heavy metal issue. ALL elemental metals were produced by the earth(well actually the explosion of a supernova but we need not get too technical). The only heavy metal that has been produced by man in any abundance is Plutonium and for a while it was thought that only man could produce it but back in the 1970's early 80's naturally occuring plutonium was found in South Africa. Man certainly refines it which will of course condense it but the metal existed long before man came along.

The ions of heavy metals are so heavy that in general, without much help, once they are in place they stay in place. There are billions of dollars in gold in solution in the worlds oceans but try getting it out. the bonds are so strong that it costs more in energy costs to remove it than the gold is worth. That would be true with all the metals out there once they have gone into solution. The benthic plain of the ocean in thousands of places is absolutely devoid of life. Equally important there is no circulation between the lower levels and the upper levels in many of those areas as well. In those places you can quite safely leave pretty much anything and it will not come back to bother you. We are talking depths of over 5 miles here.

I am involved in mine cleanup so believe me I KNOW what can result with waste run amock, but you are demonstrating a very limited viewpoint. Metals can be safely dumped in certain areas. One place that they should not be dumped is in any water less than 5 miles deep. What we don't need is more myopic hazardous waste people who think that when a pool cleaning company drops a gallon of H2SO4 they should have to scrape up the dirt for thirty feet around and send it to a hazerdous waste dump a thousand miles away at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars, when the best way to deal with it is to hit it with water. When mixed with water it breaks down into water and table salt and yet the hysterical HAZMAT people will continue to make those poor business's pay ridiculous amounts of money....for nothing.

That is the point I am trying to make.

 

[Foxfyre]

Westfall writes

In those places you can quite safely leave pretty much anything and it will not come back to bother you. We are talking depths of over 5 miles here.

Is there not a huge oil slick moving into a large area of the Gulf coastline that is oozing from a rift five miles deep? Now admittedly oil is lighter than water but it is coming to the surface.

 

[westwall]

Hi Foxfyre,

I am considering only heavy metals here. The oil spewing up is another matter entirely. Of course if the oil is bonded with a heavier element it will sink to the ocean bottom and be covered up in due time by the silting that is continuously happening. The problem is making sure the bonding agent itself is not a problem. I must admit that I am far from current on what the petroleum guys are coming up with, not having worked for BP for over 25 years now.

Westfall writes

In those places you can quite safely leave pretty much anything and it will not come back to bother you. We are talking depths of over 5 miles here.

Is there not a huge oil slick moving into a large area of the Gulf coastline that is oozing from a rift five miles deep? Now admittedly oil is lighter than water but it is coming to the surface.

 

[Foxfyre]

Hi Foxfyre,

I am considering only heavy metals here. The oil spewing up is another matter entirely. Of course if the oil is bonded with a heavier element it will sink to the ocean bottom and be covered up in due time by the silting that is continuously happening. The problem is making sure the bonding agent itself is not a problem. I must admit that I am far from current on what the petroleum guys are coming up with, not having worked for BP for over 25 years now.

Westfall writes

In those places you can quite safely leave pretty much anything and it will not come back to bother you. We are talking depths of over 5 miles here.

Is there not a huge oil slick moving into a large area of the Gulf coastline that is oozing from a rift five miles deep? Now admittedly oil is lighter than water but it is coming to the surface.

Oh okay. I am actually not savvy enough on how it all works to debate it with any authority. From what I've been hearing and watching, they're trying to drop a big heavy 'cap' over the hole so they can channel and capture the oil, but so far it has been plugging up with ice before they can get it in place. I just wonder though whether oil, gasses, etc. seeping up from the ocean floor can carry with them trace elements of any toxic heavy metal present and thus make its way into the food chain or whatever.

 

[westwall]

Hi Foxfyre,

I am considering only heavy metals here. The oil spewing up is another matter entirely. Of course if the oil is bonded with a heavier element it will sink to the ocean bottom and be covered up in due time by the silting that is continuously happening. The problem is making sure the bonding agent itself is not a problem. I must admit that I am far from current on what the petroleum guys are coming up with, not having worked for BP for over 25 years now.

Westfall writes


Is there not a huge oil slick moving into a large area of the Gulf coastline that is oozing from a rift five miles deep? Now admittedly oil is lighter than water but it is coming to the surface.

Oh okay. I am actually not savvy enough on how it all works to debate it with any authority. From what I've been hearing and watching, they're trying to drop a big heavy 'cap' over the hole so they can channel and capture the oil, but so far it has been plugging up with ice before they can get it in place. I just wonder though whether oil, gasses, etc. seeping up from the ocean floor can carry with them trace elements of any toxic heavy metal present and thus make its way into the food chain or whatever.

Hello again,

When you are dealing with the deep oceans the water preasure is so great that nothing can come up. Your point has merit in the more shallow regions however. Oil does seep out from the sea floor all the time, as has probably been stated elsewhere the same amount of oil that is currently being spewed from the well is about the same that is seeped out naturally throughout the whole of the Gulf of Mexico. The amount of material that would bond with the oil or gas has not been measured to the best of my knowledge but until that was known I would agree that it could be a problem.

As far as what they are attempting just imagine a very large funnel being dropped over the broken well head. The idea is that the oil and gas is trapped in the funnel and pumped out the top.

 

[antagon]

It is a well founded correlation that wealth and the prosperity that goes with will result in a lowering of birth rates. Everyplace that has seen prosperity on the order that we have in the First World has seen a corresponding drop in birthrates. Even in Catholic areas. It is simple, wealthy people have more entertainment choices open to them and they are not required to produce children to help till the soil.

Industrial activity in wealthy countries is very heavily regulated (why do you think industry is leaving the US to go to China?). It is cheaper to go to China and pollute than it is to keep it clean here. However, if all countries are on the same level playing field then they all have to pay the same amount to keep their respective industries clean. Wealthy people like a clean environment.

This is not rocket science. So long as there are countries that don't regulate the production of waste products the companies will go there. Take away that ability and they all have to comply with the regs or be put out of business.

i'd apply some different reasoning behind the birth rates in developed countries and industry in developing countries, but the point is taken. how do you account for the fact that by virtue of consumption and production, that developed countries normally have higher per-capita pollution than do developing nations? this is before the impact of foreign production in developing nations designated for these same countries is taken into account.

Now to the heavy metal issue. ALL elemental metals were produced by the earth(well actually the explosion of a supernova but we need not get too technical). The only heavy metal that has been produced by man in any abundance is Plutonium and for a while it was thought that only man could produce it but back in the 1970's early 80's naturally occuring plutonium was found in South Africa. Man certainly refines it which will of course condense it but the metal existed long before man came along.

The ions of heavy metals are so heavy that in general, without much help, once they are in place they stay in place. There are billions of dollars in gold in solution in the worlds oceans but try getting it out. the bonds are so strong that it costs more in energy costs to remove it than the gold is worth. That would be true with all the metals out there once they have gone into solution. The benthic plain of the ocean in thousands of places is absolutely devoid of life. Equally important there is no circulation between the lower levels and the upper levels in many of those areas as well. In those places you can quite safely leave pretty much anything and it will not come back to bother you. We are talking depths of over 5 miles here.

I am involved in mine cleanup so believe me I KNOW what can result with waste run amock, but you are demonstrating a very limited viewpoint. Metals can be safely dumped in certain areas. One place that they should not be dumped is in any water less than 5 miles deep. What we don't need is more myopic hazardous waste people who think that when a pool cleaning company drops a gallon of H2SO4 they should have to scrape up the dirt for thirty feet around and send it to a hazerdous waste dump a thousand miles away at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars, when the best way to deal with it is to hit it with water. When mixed with water it breaks down into water and table salt and yet the hysterical HAZMAT people will continue to make those poor business's pay ridiculous amounts of money....for nothing.

That is the point I am trying to make.

perhaps chemistry is not your strong suit?

cinnabar and pyrite are natural. mercury and arsenic, per sa, are not. just because something is from this earth doesn't mean its all good. the concentration, solution and composition of industrial heavy metals waste is not natural, buddy. not safe.

additionally, just because it is a 'heavy metal' doesnt mean that it wont hop in solution with water, or that it will stay on the bottom of the ocean. most heavy metals make happy marriages with organic compounds. again, just because it is organic, it is not safe.
methylmercury will vegetate you... because the fish you ate came in good contact with it.

as to your sulfuric acid anecdote, don't you think steaming heavy metals out to sea-floor crevasses is in the same realm as your H2S04 soil? where there are cheaper, more environmentally conscious solutions?

plus... you left 'violently' out of your sulfuric acid hydration description. 'hit it with water'

 

[antagon]

Hi Foxfyre,

I am considering only heavy metals here. The oil spewing up is another matter entirely. Of course if the oil is bonded with a heavier element it will sink to the ocean bottom and be covered up in due time by the silting that is continuously happening. The problem is making sure the bonding agent itself is not a problem. I must admit that I am far from current on what the petroleum guys are coming up with, not having worked for BP for over 25 years now.

Oh okay. I am actually not savvy enough on how it all works to debate it with any authority. From what I've been hearing and watching, they're trying to drop a big heavy 'cap' over the hole so they can channel and capture the oil, but so far it has been plugging up with ice before they can get it in place. I just wonder though whether oil, gasses, etc. seeping up from the ocean floor can carry with them trace elements of any toxic heavy metal present and thus make its way into the food chain or whatever.

Hello again,

When you are dealing with the deep oceans the water preasure is so great that nothing can come up. Your point has merit in the more shallow regions however. Oil does seep out from the sea floor all the time, as has probably been stated elsewhere the same amount of oil that is currently being spewed from the well is about the same that is seeped out naturally throughout the whole of the Gulf of Mexico. The amount of material that would bond with the oil or gas has not been measured to the best of my knowledge but until that was known I would agree that it could be a problem...

make it stop.

physics hackery too? time to employ the dont talk about what you don't know about method. stat.

 

[westwall]

Oh okay. I am actually not savvy enough on how it all works to debate it with any authority. From what I've been hearing and watching, they're trying to drop a big heavy 'cap' over the hole so they can channel and capture the oil, but so far it has been plugging up with ice before they can get it in place. I just wonder though whether oil, gasses, etc. seeping up from the ocean floor can carry with them trace elements of any toxic heavy metal present and thus make its way into the food chain or whatever.

Hello again,

When you are dealing with the deep oceans the water preasure is so great that nothing can come up. Your point has merit in the more shallow regions however. Oil does seep out from the sea floor all the time, as has probably been stated elsewhere the same amount of oil that is currently being spewed from the well is about the same that is seeped out naturally throughout the whole of the Gulf of Mexico. The amount of material that would bond with the oil or gas has not been measured to the best of my knowledge but until that was known I would agree that it could be a problem...

make it stop.

physics hackery too? time to employ the dont talk about what you don't know about method. stat.

Hey at least I admitted I didn't know and said to err on the side of caution so cut me some slack!! I havn't done any real chmistry for 15 years so forgive me if I forget some of it! Also I made a mistake (which you didn't catch BTW) I meant to type HCL instead of H2SO4 (frankly I can't think of why anyone would use sulfuric acid on a pool) and HCL breaks down into salt and water calmly!! Sulfuric you are correct would be a tad exciting!

Also the last I checked arsenic is present in some abundance naturally. One third of the atmospheric arsenic is from volcanic eruptions (if my memory serves) while mankind is responsible for the other two thirds. Also I don't remember the relative valency's are but if I remember correctly the two main forms of naturally occuring in-organic arsenic are arsenate and arsenite (please correct any errors I make) I remember coming across sodium arsenate one time (I can't remember where though) that was entirely natural. I do know that there are organic arsenic compounds that are natural as well but I have zero personal experience with them.

And I seem to remember having to deal with some mercury sulfides that were naturally occuring as well....pretty darn dangerous. And while elemental mercury is rare in nature it certainly does exist.



As far as the economic realities we use tons of energy I'll grant you ......but we also produce a tremendous amount with it. The pseudo enviros allways neglect to point out that yes we consume 25% of the worlds energy but we produce 45-50% of the worlds products as well. There is a trade-off...and we can do it in a clean way as evidenced by the fact that the companies here do adhere to the rules.

 

[antagon]

please take all the slack you need, westwall.

i only mean to point out that the association of natural (a given) and non-toxic is errant. the association with heavy metal and non-soluble (in air or water) is errant, too. my larger point was that the earth is adapted well to compounds like CO2, whereas scarce compounds in unnatural concentrations can be devastating to life. inorganically, these compounds have a greater likelihood to affect environmental impact, too.

there's lots of arsenic, indeed. arsenic oxide, calcium arsenate, arsine, a bunch of sulfur compounds, plus arsenic pyrite, copper arsen(ate?), etc. many nasty. many useful. many naturally occurring.

i agree that humane and environmentally conscious production is stifling - costly at least. i'm not sure how fair it is to equate whistleblowing by developed nations with an effort to stifle developing economies. there's legit concern for the environment and other countries' citizens, despite said countries' relative apathy. after all, we'll benefit from the growth of external economies. we already benefit from the lower costs of production in these nations, even though some of the the cost is borne by the workforce and the environment.

i chalk it up to the wider concerns which governments are beholden to consider, where individuals, i think rightfully, are better served to ignore, but for the simpler implications of price and quality. in my opinion, the players on the field dont have to worry about the ethical justice of their play by virtue of the referee's obligation to. it makes sport better as does it trade.

 

[Foxfyre]

As far as the economic realities we use tons of energy I'll grant you ......but we also produce a tremendous amount with it. The pseudo enviros allways neglect to point out that yes we consume 25% of the worlds energy but we produce 45-50% of the worlds products as well. There is a trade-off...and we can do it in a clean way as evidenced by the fact that the companies here do adhere to the rules.

Which was not always the case. Like all developing countries, survival, keeping a roof over our heads, keeping food in the mouths of the children once consumed most of the focus and energy here in America. Environmental protection and preservation was not on anybody's priority list. But as we became prosperous and secure and acquired the luxury of leisure and discretionary income, we, like every other people, made clean soil, air, water, conservation, preservation, and aesthetics priorities.

The very best way to promote conservation, preservation, protection of environment, and appreciation for the value of myriad species is for people to become prosperous. Until they do, they aren't going to care all that much.

 

[antagon]

prosperity or education, fox?

maybe a bit of both, i guess, but prosperity takes its toll by way of wasteful consumption. what drives efficiency in prosperous economies is the cost of operation - heavily influenced by government and their standards. that's why i think we have smaller and smaller families and smaller and smaller workforces.

 

[westwall]

please take all the slack you need, westwall.

i only mean to point out that the association of natural (a given) and non-toxic is errant. the association with heavy metal and non-soluble (in air or water) is errant, too. my larger point was that the earth is adapted well to compounds like CO2, whereas scarce compounds in unnatural concentrations can be devastating to life. inorganically, these compounds have a greater likelihood to affect environmental impact, too.

there's lots of arsenic, indeed. arsenic oxide, calcium arsenate, arsine, a bunch of sulfur compounds, plus arsenic pyrite, copper arsen(ate?), etc. many nasty. many useful. many naturally occurring.

i agree that humane and environmentally conscious production is stifling - costly at least. i'm not sure how fair it is to equate whistleblowing by developed nations with an effort to stifle developing economies. there's legit concern for the environment and other countries' citizens, despite said countries' relative apathy. after all, we'll benefit from the growth of external economies. we already benefit from the lower costs of production in these nations, even though some of the the cost is borne by the workforce and the environment.

i chalk it up to the wider concerns which governments are beholden to consider, where individuals, i think rightfully, are better served to ignore, but for the simpler implications of price and quality. in my opinion, the players on the field dont have to worry about the ethical justice of their play by virtue of the referee's obligation to. it makes sport better as does it trade.

OK,

Point taken!!

 

[westwall]

prosperity or education, fox?

maybe a bit of both, i guess, but prosperity takes its toll by way of wasteful consumption. what drives efficiency in prosperous economies is the cost of operation - heavily influenced by government and their standards. that's why i think we have smaller and smaller families and smaller and smaller workforces.

This I will disagree with. Wealthy (comparitively) people have fewer children because they don't want them nor do they need them. The governments only influence IMO is to keep poor people producing children by enticing thm with welfare. The poor produce lots of children, the well off don't. Compare the birth rates of any First World Nation and there is a direct correlation between wealth and childbirth.

Prosperity can be wasteful, but it can just as easily be ethical as well. If the people are given a choice and have the money available they will choose 8 times out of ten to do the more ethical buying even though it costs them more. Take their income down to a certain level though and they MUST stop.

 

[Foxfyre]

prosperity or education, fox?

maybe a bit of both, i guess, but prosperity takes its toll by way of wasteful consumption. what drives efficiency in prosperous economies is the cost of operation - heavily influenced by government and their standards. that's why i think we have smaller and smaller families and smaller and smaller workforces.

This I will disagree with. Wealthy (comparitively) people have fewer children because they don't want them nor do they need them. The governments only influence IMO is to keep poor people producing children by enticing thm with welfare. The poor produce lots of children, the well off don't. Compare the birth rates of any First World Nation and there is a direct correlation between wealth and childbirth.

Prosperity can be wasteful, but it can just as easily be ethical as well. If the people are given a choice and have the money available they will choose 8 times out of ten to do the more ethical buying even though it costs them more. Take their income down to a certain level though and they MUST stop.

But there is a tradeoff even for 'wasteful consumption'. Consumption, wasteful or not, is what provides fuel for any economy and generates jobs and opportunity for others to become more prosperous.

And I hadn't put that into the equation, but it is correct that prosperity generally results in its own voluntary population control which results in less pressure on available resources.

But it is the rich, not the poor, who care most about quality of life issues, conservation, and preservation. So if those things are to be a priority, the only sure way to get there is by encouraging people to become prosperous.

And that might involve allowing them to exploit their own natural resources, just as we did, in order to become prosperous.

I can't find any way to twist the perspective on Cap and Trade as a practical means to help people become prosperous. I do see a strong probability of it consigning whole populations to more generations of crushing poverty.

 

[antagon]

prosperity in and of itself is not an environmental policy. it can afford one, perhaps.

 

[antagon]

prosperity or education, fox?

maybe a bit of both, i guess, but prosperity takes its toll by way of wasteful consumption. what drives efficiency in prosperous economies is the cost of operation - heavily influenced by government and their standards. that's why i think we have smaller and smaller families and smaller and smaller workforces.

This I will disagree with. Wealthy (comparitively) people have fewer children because they don't want them nor do they need them. The governments only influence IMO is to keep poor people producing children by enticing thm with welfare. The poor produce lots of children, the well off don't. Compare the birth rates of any First World Nation and there is a direct correlation between wealth and childbirth.

Prosperity can be wasteful, but it can just as easily be ethical as well. If the people are given a choice and have the money available they will choose 8 times out of ten to do the more ethical buying even though it costs them more. Take their income down to a certain level though and they MUST stop.

smaller households among wealthy can be a factor of the opportunity cost of having children as much as the real cost is considered for working-class people in the same economy. welfare recipients could tie larger families to their prosperity, rather than this converse, whereby the cost of children is a limiting factor to family size.

diversion in prosperous nations is a factor, but only to the extent of costs in a limited-income scenario, or opportunity cost for high-earners. this has a cultural effect, as do religious and ethnic traditions on family size. where family is considered a factor of prosperity, these cultures (including the social state culture) perceive family size as laudable.

 

[gslack]

prosperity or education, fox?

maybe a bit of both, i guess, but prosperity takes its toll by way of wasteful consumption. what drives efficiency in prosperous economies is the cost of operation - heavily influenced by government and their standards. that's why i think we have smaller and smaller families and smaller and smaller workforces.

This I will disagree with. Wealthy (comparitively) people have fewer children because they don't want them nor do they need them. The governments only influence IMO is to keep poor people producing children by enticing thm with welfare. The poor produce lots of children, the well off don't. Compare the birth rates of any First World Nation and there is a direct correlation between wealth and childbirth.

Prosperity can be wasteful, but it can just as easily be ethical as well. If the people are given a choice and have the money available they will choose 8 times out of ten to do the more ethical buying even though it costs them more. Take their income down to a certain level though and they MUST stop.

WHOA!

West we agree on a great many things but on this I have to disagree with you...

I cannot understand the logic behind your idea that poor people have more children because of welfare... The reason more poor have more children is the same reason most of them are poor in the first place. A lack of discipline, a lack of a firm grasp of reality, and a careless or complacent lifestyle where they are content to just get by....

Most of them I am sure do not plan to have children to get more welfare. I cannot imagine how the trade-off is so beneficial. They have more kids then get more money, but the money they would get will never match the costs and difficulty involved in having more children. I don't know how much they get per child or anything but I can't hardly believe it could possibly be so much....

 

[antagon]

in opportunity-rich economies poverty is of its own making, indeed.

there is validity, however, in the choice to obtain dependents when they constitute income. for an increasing amount of american women, that is an attractive option when faced with the underbelly of our economy. the last thing you or i might do is get a second or third kid, but with flat, rather than curved or capped compensation on a per-child basis, a higher household net income provides a better household than a lower one, notwithstanding the mouths there are to feed. it certainly doesnt inspire your discipline factor.

 

[antagon]

three positions. all plausible.

 

[westwall]

That my good man is the point. Up to a certain point even though a person may wish to be environmentally concious they simply can't afford it. Get them past a certain point and they will willingly cost themselves more to preserve what is there. Just look at the Canada Geese population. It wasn't environmentalists who saved them from extinction....it was the hunters that did it. They realised that if they were going to have anything left to hunt it was going to be them that saved them. So Ducks Unlimited was formed and THEY bought the threatened habitat and helped to pass hunting regulations so in effect they taxed themselves to generate the funds to accomplish the goal.

The reason why there is a stable population of game animals is because of hunters, without them there would be virtually none left. They have the money and the desire to do it. No environmental group comes even close to the preservation record of hunting organizations. But they had a vested interest in it.

prosperity in and of itself is not an environmental policy. it can afford one, perhaps.