|Topic Review (Newest First)|
|12-03-2012 07:01 PM|
Yeah, Snowolf...that's scary!
Frankly, the only way that I see 1st world people changing is if you hit them in the wallet.
It worked during the energy crisis of the 70's and I have no reason to believe that it won't work now.
And it will SUCK! (but it will work)
|12-02-2012 10:14 PM|
Sorry, dude. I didn't mean "you" in the personal, individual sense. Please mentally change all the "you"'s in my diatribes to "one" as in "if one argues that, then"
No personal slight or attack intended.
I get a bit pissed when my country and primary industries like mining, forestry, oil production get blamed for all the environmental ills of the world. And I hate defending some of their practices because I think they should and could do a lot better. But I also think that they're a convenient bogeyman that lets us all avoid looking in the mirror. The real truth of the matter is that pollution is not driven by primary or secondary industries, it is driven by the consumer.
And now that the world's great population groups (India and China) are emerging as nations of consumers, the problem is rapidly compounding. We, as the original 1st world economies, would be hypocrites to suggest that they can't have what we have. And yet, we won't give anything up (like convenience or luxury)
The various environmental groups have targeted Alberta's Oil Sands in a media campaign for one reason: they might be able to win this battle. They won't go after King Coal, it's not sexy, it doesn't resonate with people, it's freakin' powerful and...gasp....it's American! All the coal industry would have to do is run a few ads showing hard working coal miners with the stars and stripes on their hard hats and maybe mention the "terrorists winning" and the media war would be over.
The contrived outrage over the oil sands is BS. Shut it down tomorrow and global carbon emissions won't change, OPEC will just pump more for the world to burn.
And yeah, I admit that I get my back up when Americans target Canada as an enemy of the environment while still operating coal plants that have a carbon footprint 600x the size of the entire oil sands combined.
|12-02-2012 09:52 PM|
Simply using basic services we have developed and take for granted spawn from unsustainable processes. He's just trying to demystify the ideology many Americans have that if they shop at the CO-OP and ride their bicycle to work they magically become exempt from the over-consumption conversation. Not saying that those things don't make a difference or that you should just be apathetic, it's just important to realize you are likely buying into "green" propaganda.
|12-02-2012 09:20 PM|
Originally Posted by Bones View Post
|12-02-2012 08:36 PM|
Well clear cuts grow back, more often than not it is a better harvest method than selective harvest, it's a way for us to mimic a forest natural disturbances while still utilizing forest products.
There's a flip side to developments as well. While developments aren't exactly Ecofriendly, peple generally like to have trees in their yards. There are a lot of urban forests in places that didn't traditionally have trees.
You also have to look at the 100's of thousands of acers of tree plantations in places like north Dakota and Nebraska that never had trees pre human development.
|12-02-2012 08:08 PM|
Originally Posted by C.B. View Post
Anyway, my objection is still valid. If there are more trees now than there were a hundred years ago, and if there are more clearcuts now, and if there are more developed areas, then the supposed additional trees have to also make up for the clearcuts and developed areas. So where are these new trees?
I suspect the answer is similar to the polar bear claim -- a cherry picked statistic designed to imply a conclusion that simply isn't true.
|12-02-2012 07:43 PM|
Oil sands pollution comparable to ‘large power plant’, NASA data shows | News | Financial Post
25,000 ka of boreal forest to be destroyed? That's nothing. Canada has over 1 billion acres of boreal forest and that's only about 30% of the world's total.
25,000ka is the figure if the Oil Sands are expanded to maximum capacity and that can't happen for a long time even if it is economically viable. That's potential, not actual. By contrast, some estimates have over 50 million acres of rain forest being cleared annually right now, some 600 coal plants operate in the US right now, 52 coal mines producing 4 million tons of coal annually in the US are running right now.
The % of boreal forest that could affected by oil sands expansion is miniscule. The boreal forest extends around the world, part of it in Canada and the oil sands area is a small part of the Canadian Part.
If you want a target, then take a look in the mirror. You want to have an immediate effect? Close all coal fired generating stations in the US.
Not politically palatable to be sure. I wouldn't want to be the one to tell all those coal miners that they're out of a job. But to bitch about the potential future effects of the oil sands when there's immediate things you could do but won't is hypocritical. In terms of CO2 emissions (2008 UN numbers), China produces 23.53%, USA 18.27%, the EU 13.98% and Canada a mere 1.82%. It's pretty obvious that the problem lies south of the 49th parallel, not north.
|12-02-2012 07:19 PM|
Originally Posted by Donutz View Post
Clear cuts are often the best way to harvest trees because they mimick catastrophic fires. That's basically the only way we harest trees in the lake states (the primary exception being when the water table comes into play)
I'm actually a forestry student at a very liberal college, and anything but a "republitard" nothing I ever said was politically motivated. I was simply providing some information about things that I study every day that is mostly missunderstood by the general public.
If anything we should be utilizing our forest as a sustainable resource, and that's my point.
|12-02-2012 07:17 PM|
Originally Posted by HoboMaster View Post
The hypocrisy of suburban soccer moms pointing the finger at "Big Oil" while driving around in a V8 SUV that could house a small family.
Golfers in Arizona buying an acre of Amazonian Rain Forest so they can feel better about spending millions on building a fake course in the desert.
Consumers who buy every new electronic gadget that comes out bitching about open-pit cooper mining.
Home owners who think that installing a few compact florescent lights somehow makes them an "environmentalist" All the while keeping their house heated or a/c'd to 70F all year round. And who wouldn't even consider taking the bus to work.
Snowboarders who bitch about the lack of snow due to climate change, but still drive their SUV's to hill, want more lifts, more skiable acreage, fewer crowds and cheaper lift tickets
|12-02-2012 07:17 PM|
Originally Posted by Donutz View Post
Shall we take this over into the religion section? ROTFL! Off to Sunday night mass I go. I will pray for Colorado snow as promised.
|This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.|