The environment depleting. Does no one care?

[Cousin Vinnie]

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.

 

[Bern80]

Originally posted by Cousin Vinnie
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.

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?

 

[Cousin Vinnie]

Originally posted by Bern80
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?

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.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by Bern80
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?

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.

 

[winston churchi]

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.

 

[Bern80]

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

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by Bern80
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

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.

 

[Cousin Vinnie]

Originally posted by winston churchi
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.

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.

 

[Cousin Vinnie]

Originally posted by Bern80
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

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.

 

[Bern80]

Originally posted by Cousin Vinnie
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.

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.

 

[Avatar4321]

Ive seen little evidence to make me worry about the environment too much.

Global warming? it was warmer during the middle ages and its way too cool for my tastes.

Ozone depletion? it regenerates itself, how can it be in that much trouble?

Deforestation? North America now has more trees then at the revolution (because people can plant trees to replace the ones they cut down, because if they didnt they would be out of work fast)

polution from oil spills? More oil spills into the ocean naturally through cracks in the ocean floor.

Im just not convinced we need to move back to the stone age to deal with these problems. In fact quite the opposite. we need to move forward and deveop greater technology to combat any environmental problems. Rather than Capitalism destroying the economy it will be capitalism that saves it.

 

[Cousin Vinnie]

Originally posted by Bern80
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.

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

 

[_dmp_]

I don't give a rat's behind.

(shrug)

 

[Cousin Vinnie]

Originally posted by Avatar4321
Ive seen little evidence to make me worry about the environment too much.

Global warming? it was warmer during the middle ages and its way too cool for my tastes.

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

Ozone depletion? it regenerates itself, how can it be in that much trouble?

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

Deforestation? North America now has more trees then at the revolution (because people can plant trees to replace the ones they cut down, because if they didnt they would be out of work fast)

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.

polution from oil spills? More oil spills into the ocean naturally through cracks in the ocean floor.

I don't know where you heard this one either. When have we ever come across a "natural" oil spill as you say.

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)
What do you think is happening to oil?

Im just not convinced we need to move back to the stone age to deal with these problems. In fact quite the opposite. we need to move forward and deveop greater technology to combat any environmental problems. Rather than Capitalism destroying the economy it will be capitalism that saves it.

I never said we had to go back to the stone age to correct the environmental problems we have. Technology can do the job so we can keep the technology. People really are so afraid to lose that technology. Everyone is so spoiled it's almost ridiculous.

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

 

[Cousin Vinnie]

Originally posted by dmp
I don't give a rat's behind.

(shrug)

Most people don't. That's the problem.

 

[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?

 

[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.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

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.

i don't get the oxy- part. But moron seems right.

 

[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!

 

[eric]

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

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 !!!