Is it truth, or is it propaganda? Or somewhere in the middle?
Help me discern the truth from the lies!
- Pseudo "are environmental groups as bad as they allege, or not?" Croat
-------------------- "At all events, people who deny the influence of smaller nations should remember that the Croats have the rest of us by the throats." - Norman Davies, Europe: A History
God wants spiritual fruits, not religious nuts. Posts: 4578 | From: Sunrise, FL | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Sure, some environmental wacko groups -- like the ones who are out setting fire to homes and other buildings -- are lunatic fringe cretins.
Some are "too extreme for my tastes." I don't much care for Greenpeace.
Some are "too conservative" for people's tastes: the Sierra Club and the Audubon Society are well known for accepting reasonable compromise in legislation.
One of the nicest is "The Nature Conservancy," which is using free-market (capitalist!) means to preserve the wilderness: they're *buying* it!
So, anyone who says that "environmentalists" are all involved in extreme or luddite or socialist viewpoints is -- well, name-calling aside, is just plain wrong.
Silas (environmentalist since 1978) Sparkhammer
-------------------- When on music's mighty pinion, souls of men to heaven rise, Then both vanish earth's dominion, man is native to the skies. Posts: 16801 | From: San Diego, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
Animal or god?
The Red and the Green Stamps
posted
Perhaps the originator got confused when environmental groups were talking about stopping our planet and society being wrecked.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Silas Sparkhammer: It's an idiotic overgeneralization.
One of the nicest is "The Nature Conservancy," which is using free-market (capitalist!) means to preserve the wilderness: they're *buying* it!
Silas (environmentalist since 1978) Sparkhammer
That's a bit of an over-generalization. They work with groups to form a plan for conservation. Land is purchased if it fits best with the over-all environemental plan for each particular eco-region. They would not be nearly as sucessful if they just tried to buy everything.
Excellent environmental organization though. I'm working on a model for my own environmental organization that will buy land (or request for donations). Alaska is my first target. We'll branch out to other areas once we've made progress in Alasks.
Beach...not an envrionmentalist in the traditional sense...Life!
quote:Originally posted by Beach Life: [QUOTE] I'm working on a model for my own environmental organization that will buy land (or request for donations).
If you are serious, another thing to consider is a program that Texas has in place. The government has made it possible to get the same tax exemption managing your land for wildlife as you get for agriculture. It's worked really well because so many people want land, but just don't have the energy or desire to farm it or run cows. You just create a habitat favorable for local species and do an occassional census. Cool stuff. I know Florida is looking into it now. You can start lobbying your state now.
quote:Originally posted by Beach Life: [QUOTE] I'm working on a model for my own environmental organization that will buy land (or request for donations).
If you are serious, another thing to consider is a program that Texas has in place. The government has made it possible to get the same tax exemption managing your land for wildlife as you get for agriculture. It's worked really well because so many people want land, but just don't have the energy or desire to farm it or run cows. You just create a habitat favorable for local species and do an occassional census. Cool stuff. I know Florida is looking into it now. You can start lobbying your state now.
jg
I am very serious. The nice thing about Alaska, not why I piced that state, is that they don't have any state taxes. Ironically this is because the oil money support a lot of the government. So the oil money is what will make it easier for me to put land aside to keep it untouched.
I'm working on a acquiring a domain name and have already chosen my web-designer. I plan to start with a web site and branch out to serious requests for corporate and private donations from there.
Beach...hoping to make my legacy several thousand acres of untouched wilderness...Life!
quote:Originally posted by jg: If you are serious, another thing to consider is a program that Texas has in place. The government has made it possible to get the same tax exemption managing your land for wildlife as you get for agriculture. It's worked really well because so many people want land, but just don't have the energy or desire to farm it or run cows. You just create a habitat favorable for local species and do an occassional census. Cool stuff. I know Florida is looking into it now. You can start lobbying your state now.
quote:One of the nicest is "The Nature Conservancy," which is using free-market (capitalist!) means to preserve the wilderness: they're *buying* it!
To the contrary, This is the best way to improve the environment. After all, government in most other areas is demonstrably inferior to the private sector, because the incentives that drive the behavior of politicians and government officials are very different from those that operate in the sphere of free, private enterprise. Why would stewardship of our natural resources be any different? That incentive is based on the principle of self-interest. A property owner has a strong self-interest in preserving or improving the value of his property; a disinterested bureaucrat does not.
Currently, land owned and managent by the goverment is less taken care of than land owned by the private sector, including lumber cie. This is because the private sector invested in the land in ownes and does not want it's investment to be devalued. All mesures are taken to make sure that the wood is insect-free, that the lumber is not over-harvested, causing the cie to lose money by purchase more land, or under-harvested, risking forest fire. Also, old forests have less growth, so less CO2 is exchanged, and they are less biologically diverse.
The federal goverment however, does not suffer from the mismanagement of it's lands. They are often over or under havested, insects and forest fires are rampant. Greens rarely realyse that the massive forest fires we had these last few years, the worst thing that can happen to a forest, are a direst result of goverment missmanaging forests. eg by under havesting, under pressure from the greens, by not harvesting older trees, by not building roads throught national forrests, all under the pretense of protecting the forests.
Examples of government hurting the enviorment are most commun, because what every body owns nobody takes care of. A good eg. would be the buffalo extermination, on public lands, a century ago. However, six men began to capture and breed buffalo in the 1870. Nearly all buffalo living today are descended from the private herds of these men, and it is estimated that roughly 90 percent of the 250,000 buffalo surviving today are in private herds. Capitalism saved the first endangerd species of America. Another eg. Og government wrecking the enviroment is lova canal.
All problems related to the pollution of water could be solved by letting the private sector own rivers. No river owner would ever allow toxic material to be dumped in his water, for it would reduce the value of his investment. This would force industries to contain their residues. Since money would be expended of this, new thech, develloped by capitalists investors, will appear.
IP: Logged |
ZenKnight, Jaded Desert Dragon
The Red and the Green Stamps
posted
It's a toss-up on which is worse here, the misspellings, the inaccuracies or the contradictions.
quote:Originally posted by Kilrati:
quote:One of the nicest is "The Nature Conservancy," which is using free-market (capitalist!) means to preserve the wilderness: they're *buying* it!
To the contrary, This is the best way to improve the environment.
So "preserving the wilderness" and "improving the environment" are mutually exclusive?
quote:Also, old forests have less growth, so less CO2 is exchanged, and they are less biologically diverse.
It would seem the remedy to this would be the removal of old growth, but apparently that's not the answer because you go on to say:
quote:The federal goverment however, does not suffer from the mismanagement of it's lands. They are often over or under havested, insects and forest fires are rampant. Greens rarely realyse that the massive forest fires we had these last few years, the worst thing that can happen to a forest, are a direst result of goverment missmanaging forests.
So which is it? Before man and his consumption of forests was nature with it's own rules and cycles, part and parcel of which were lightening strikes and forest fires. Does a burned out section of wilderness become a desolate wasteland after the fire, which would presumably be the inevitable outcome of the "worst thing that could happen to a forest," or does the growth cycle begin fresh?
quote:Examples of government hurting the enviorment are most commun, because what every body owns nobody takes care of. A good eg. would be the buffalo extermination, on public lands, a century ago. However, six men began to capture and breed buffalo in the 1870. Nearly all buffalo living today are descended from the private herds of these men, and it is estimated that roughly 90 percent of the 250,000 buffalo surviving today are in private herds. Capitalism saved the first endangerd species of America.
Capitalism also was the reason for the near extinction of a natural resource, I doubt seriously the government was the primary consumer of buffalo. So unless your point is "conservation of resources and concentration on renewal of scarce resources to prevent extinction is a good idea" you completely lost me.
quote:All problems related to the pollution of water could be solved by letting the private sector own rivers. No river owner would ever allow toxic material to be dumped in his water, for it would reduce the value of his investment. This would force industries to contain their residues. Since money would be expended of this, new thech, develloped by capitalists investors, will appear.
Sure, because a polluting corporation with vast resources would be the last in line to buy the river they were polluting and subsequently telling the EPA and environmentalists to piss off, everyone knows that, they would much prefer to pour money into pollution control rather than head the situation off at the pass.
IP: Logged |
Ceci n'est pas Paul Unwin
The Red and the Green Stamps
posted
quote:Originally posted by ZenKnight, Jaded Desert Dragon: It's a toss-up on which is worse here, the misspellings, the inaccuracies or the contradictions.
Why did you feel it necessary to say that?
IP: Logged |
Goes-hmmm
The Red and the Green Stamps
posted
IMHO, I think private industry would cut down all the trees they own, if that would make them the most money right now, this year, this quarter. Most corporations were always shortsighted and have recently become even more so, focused more on this quarter's bottom line or this year's annual report.
For example, what if because of some new technology, wood based paper and lumber product prices were to go so low that it was no longer economical to spend the money to replant. I firmly believe they would do exactly that, not replant. In fact if they could do something more profitable with the lands they have right now, they would cut them all down and graze cattle or build Wal-Marts and McDonald's.
As I've said before, there isn't many a corporation that have a conscience, morals, charity, or patriotism unless there is money to be made or saved or required to by force of law. See the Amazon Desert... I mean Amazon Rain Forest, if there is still one left. Look quick.
Goes-"No, I didn't vote for Nader, why?"-hmmm
IP: Logged |
ZenKnight, Jaded Desert Dragon
The Red and the Green Stamps
posted
quote:Originally posted by Ceci n'est pas Paul Unwin:
quote:Originally posted by ZenKnight, Jaded Desert Dragon: It's a toss-up on which is worse here, the misspellings, the inaccuracies or the contradictions.
Why did you feel it necessary to say that?
You ask much, grasshopper, and the flip answer is "why ask why?" but since I am at work I therefore have the time to properly research a studied response.
quote:Sequoias are unusually hardy trees. (This is why their reddish, decay-resistant wood was often sought after to make furniture.) Their bark can be 2-feet thick, which helps them withstand threats such as insects and fires. Ironically, throughout history, forest fires sparked by lightning provided the ideal living environment for the giant sequoia. Fire would heat the sequoia cones, which released the seeds. The fires also cleared out brush and other trees, providing the seeds with the bare soil they needed to germinate and the large forest openings the seedlings needed to get enough sunlight.
quote: Around 1900, however, people began thinking that they should try to control forest fires. The United States Forest Service began fighting fires in the Sierra Nevada in 1905.
It didn't take long before the new policy began affecting the ecosystem. By the mid-1900s, new giant sequoias were no longer taking root because thick vegetation on the forest floor was choking off the seedlings. Also, different types of shade-tolerant trees, such as the white fir and incense-cedar, were growing alongside the giant sequoias. In this way, whole generations of young trees were lost, either because the seeds failed to sprout, or because the young saplings couldn't compete with the surrounding trees for sunlight.
Today, the Park Service intentionally sets fires in sequoia groves to restore this natural process.
quote:Recently, foresters and park officials have begun setting fires called “prescribed burns” to mimic these natural fires. Prescribed burns are done to counteract years of fire prevention policy, which called for all fires to be suppressed as quickly as possible. The policy of blanket fire suppression has not only disrupted plant succession patterns in the forest and limited the variety of habitat available to animals but also resulted in a tremendous buildup of forest underbrush and litter. Therefore, when these forests do catch on fire accidentally through human error, the fire is very destructive. Ironically, prescribed burns are a type of fire prevention. In addition, since 1972 park officials have adopted a policy of letting most lightning-caused fires burn themselves out, within reason. Fires that threaten human lives, buildings, private property, or wildlife are extinguished.
quote: Does a burned out section of wilderness become a desolate wasteland after the fire, which would presumably be the inevitable outcome of the "worst thing that could happen to a forest," or does the growth cycle begin fresh?
That depends, if there is lot’s of rain shortly after the fire, the ground can be washed out and will take centuries before there is a dense forest again. It is worth nothing that pre-colombian forest were less dense and younger than ours because there was more forest fires. (Much like we now live longer because we can cure diseses.) What must be understood is than leaving land to itself is not the best thing for the envierment, humans must be there to take care of it, else it will deteriorate. This is the fundamental flaw of the green movement.
quote: Capitalism also was the reason for the near extinction of a natural resource, I doubt seriously the government was the primary consumer of buffalo.
My point was that the buffalo could be exterminated because it belongued to nobody, on lands that belongued to the goverment. You can't walk on a private lands and shoot somebody's herd without consequenses.
quote: I think private industry would cut down all the trees they own, if that would make them the most money right now, this year, this quarter. Most corporations were always shortsighted and have recently become even more so, focused more on this quarter's bottom line or this year's annual report.
First of all, if you really believe that, you realy ought to examine the facts, Look at how well preserved and replanted land belonging to the private sector are. There the beautyfull forest right next to the wreck of a land owned by the gov. If forest are not replanted the cost of paper will go up, and cie will be forced to purchased new land. To survive, a cie has no choice but to plan ahead, unlike a politicien, who only has to see to the next election.
If controlled fire are needed for the sequoais, than the owner of the land will provide them, to sell the trees. But last year, the west was devastated by fires that were in no way controlled. They were the result of missmanaged federal lands, often under cut and of closed roads. This was done under pressure from the green, and it hurt both the economy and the enviroment.
IP: Logged |
FrozenChosen
The Red and the Green Stamps
posted
quote:Originally posted by Beach Life: Excellent environmental organization though. I'm working on a model for my own environmental organization that will buy land (or request for donations). Alaska is my first target. We'll branch out to other areas once we've made progress in Alasks.
Beach...not an envrionmentalist in the traditional sense...Life!
OK. I'm a "new Alaskan" but from what I can gather, we're talking about the North Slope, aren't we? This is the bit of land that some people would like to get some oil from, and that others would like to preserve the natural beauty of. (Boy, I hate ending sentences with prepositions, but I am a blonde and fear I will lose the thought if I don't get it out there).
Have you ever BEEN to the North Slope? Nothing lives there. Caribou travel through it. Mosquitoes are there. Period. It is a desert wetland. Because it gets only a pittance of rain every year, it is a desert. Because it thaws and creates a knee-deep mosquito breeding ground, it is a wetland. No one will ever, ever live there. No animals live there. If it were to be developed for drilling, the animals could and would still pass through.
Ask an Alaskan about the North Slope. They will make a face at you similar to one that one makes when faced with a backed up toilet.
Frozen "Darn, this is a BIG state" Chosen
IP: Logged |
posted
That depends, if there is lot’s of rain shortly after the fire, the ground can be washed out and will take centuries before there is a dense forest again. It is worth nothing that pre-colombian forest were less dense and younger than ours because there was more forest fires. (Much like we now live longer because we can cure diseses.) What must be understood is than leaving land to itself is not the best thing for the envierment, humans must be there to take care of it, else it will deteriorate. This is the fundamental flaw of the green movement.
C for spelling. D for history. E for biology.
A passing grade if he'll share whatever he's smoking.
-------------------- "No matter what kind of a twisted sexual mutant you happen to be, you've got millions of pals out there. Type in 'Find people that have sex with goats that are on fire' and the computer will say, 'Specify type of goat.'" Posts: 1112 | From: Ohio | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by noreen: . . . What must be understood is than leaving land to itself is not the best thing for the envierment, humans must be there to take care of it, else it will deteriorate. . . .
This is slightly flawed, but contains a seed of truth.
Left to itself, the environment will enter into very broad swings of "boom and bust." You'll have vast overpopulation of ungulates, which leads to stripping of fodder, which leads to vast die-offs.
Nature corrects its own mistakes...but usually in a rather horrid way.
Human intervention can even things out, and produce an artificial stability. If avoiding mass die-offs due to starvation is a "good thing," then human intervention is justified.
"The lovely forms of the deer were sculpted by the teeth of wolves."
(I wish to heaven I could identify that quote: it was from a science fiction novel written by someone surnamed Foster. It is one of the best epigraphs I've ever seen.)
The question that is being begged is: do we want forests, or do we want parks?
Silas (I vote for a combination...) Sparkhammer
-------------------- When on music's mighty pinion, souls of men to heaven rise, Then both vanish earth's dominion, man is native to the skies. Posts: 16801 | From: San Diego, CA | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that it was in Greenthieves by Alan Dean Foster web page
-------------------- Wake up --- time to die So I'm Evil Get over it
People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people Posts: 1551 | From: NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Beach Life: Excellent environmental organization though. I'm working on a model for my own environmental organization that will buy land (or request for donations). Alaska is my first target. We'll branch out to other areas once we've made progress in Alasks.
Beach...not an envrionmentalist in the traditional sense...Life!
OK. I'm a "new Alaskan" but from what I can gather, we're talking about the North Slope, aren't we? This is the bit of land that some people would like to get some oil from, and that others would like to preserve the natural beauty of. (Boy, I hate ending sentences with prepositions, but I am a blonde and fear I will lose the thought if I don't get it out there).
Have you ever BEEN to the North Slope? Nothing lives there. Caribou travel through it. Mosquitoes are there. Period. It is a desert wetland. Because it gets only a pittance of rain every year, it is a desert. Because it thaws and creates a knee-deep mosquito breeding ground, it is a wetland. No one will ever, ever live there. No animals live there. If it were to be developed for drilling, the animals could and would still pass through.
Ask an Alaskan about the North Slope. They will make a face at you similar to one that one makes when faced with a backed up toilet.
Frozen "Darn, this is a BIG state" Chosen
Well let me start by saying that the North Slope is already heavily drilled for oil. That is where Prudoe bay is located. As for ANWR that's already owned by the government. There's also something called mineral rights which makes owning land a poor method for stopping the drilling of oil.
On the other hand, I don't plan to stop oil drilling. I plan to put as much land aside to prevent other developement. The sprall around the towns and cities of Alaska is pretty bad in a lot of place. Regardless, putting a few 1000 acres aside to remain untouched forever can't be a bad thing.
Ask an Alaskan you say. It is interesting that you assume I haven't and that I have very little knowledge of Alaska. This would be a totally incorrect assumption. I happen to have excellent sources in Alaska. The same people who are responsible for most of what you read about your own state.
Beach...constantly tryiing to further my education...Life!
posted
Beach Life - I certainly appreciate your point of view! I thoroughly enjoy the natural beauty that Alaska has to offer! I was wrong to assume that you didn't have much info on the state - sorry about that.
Since I have moved here, I have been approached by a number of people (I won't call them friends - I just know them) who have a history of being professional protesters. You know, those folks that are hired out to whatever cause is hot at the moment...They keep telling me that I can make a huge difference just by helping their cause from "the inside" (they are "outside" - in the lower 48). No thank you. Help their cause? Heck! I'm a self-employed virtual assistant/housewife/mom. Not a clipboard toter!
I'm all for keeping as much of Alaska pure as possible.
Sorry to have assumed that you were one of these nimrods that is constantly telling me what a wonderful place, full of cute moose and Coke-drinking, waltzing polary bears the North Slope is. My bad, truly.
Did I mention that I hadn't had much coffee when I posted?
Frozen "yeah, but my husband is an environmental defense atty so sometimes my head gets a little swollen" chosen
IP: Logged |
FrozenChosen
The Red and the Green Stamps
posted
Oooh, ooh - another thing...or two. Great that you're not planning on halting any of the present drilling (I knew that there was drilling up there already). And good, too about the sprawl. The towns that are here already are very crowded (I'm in Anchorage, which is akin to a mini Los Angeles - all crowded and full of bad drivers). There are many places that nothing is going to be built - EVER - all over Alaska. I'm glad of that.
We were at the Denali Park this past month and it is amazing. I think they said the park is the size of Massachusetts! That's outstanding. It will remain untouched. Beautiful place.
IP: Logged |
Does anyone else see the inherent paradox in this situation?
First "or maybe they just need more birth control" of Two
-------------------- "Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for western civilization as it commits suicide." - Jerry Pournelle Posts: 14567 | From: Pennsylvania | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
FrozenChosen
The Red and the Green Stamps
posted
Yes, I do see the paradox here - but there are many factors.
For instance - Juneau...there are these mountains, see, and one cannot reach Juneau by car. On the other side, there's this water, see, so nothing can be built there. Limited space.
Alaska is so mind-bogglingly huge that it's difficult to imagine, standing in my yard, looking at my neighbor's house (mere inches away) that there is so much "empty" space.
I, for one, don't want to use up the "empty" space in AK. On the other hand, I'm a little tired of hearing my neighbors saying "GO POTTY, ABBY...GO POTTY" at all hours.
There is land that is developable (is that even a word?) but tons that isn't - it's being used up by mountains, volcanoes, glaciers - that sort of thing. And the critters. Lots of critters.
IP: Logged |
quote: And good, too about the sprawl. The towns that are here already are very crowded (I'm in Anchorage, which is akin to a mini Los Angeles - all crowded and full of bad drivers).
I really like Anchorage. It is pretty compact as cities go without too much sprawl. If you want to see some ugly sprawl drive out the the vally, Wasilla and the road between there and Willow is pretty ugly.
I am glad you like Denali. I've been there twice and am convinced that it is the crown jewel of the National Park System.
Beach...now Kennicott, there is a really cool place...Life!
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
