extra0

granted, I have no reference to that statistic...but it appears neither do you to yours...and I don't know how old your stats are.

I can, however, reference the fact that oil sands are planning to destroy 25k acres of forest for expansion. The Canadian Boreal forest is the world’s largest terrestrial carbon storehouse and home to the largest forest wetland ecosystems left on the planet, so their environmental impact will be exponential.

http://dirtyoilsands.org/thedirt/article/quick_facts

Donutz

Can't argue with anything you said, and I agree strongly with a lot of it. You hit the nail on the thumb especially with the "can't prove it" comment. It's like that commercial (can't remember what for) where one guy says "I'm 99% certain it's this" and the other guy says "So you don't know." And the problem with evidence like that physorg article I posted is that it's too abstract and theoretical. Most people want something you can drop on their toes like a brick before they'll accept something they don't want to accept. And even then, they're liable to say "I didn't feel anything" with tears running down their faces.

__________________

Illegitimi non carborundum

Mountain Days: 30

ARSENALFAN

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.

Bones

This is the part of the global warming/climate change debate that drives me nuts.

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

C.B.

Actually I was saying there's less wild fires now than there was in the past, which is true partially because of our suppression efforts, and partially the because forest in noth America is maturing (relative to 100 years ago).

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.

Bones

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.

Donutz

Sorry, your statement set me off because it sounded too much like the old denialist canard about how global warming is a myth because the population of polar bears has actually doubled in historical times.

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.

__________________

Illegitimi non carborundum

Mountain Days: 30

C.B.

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.

extra0

o.k. you proved your point, but getting personal on my on me is strange. You know nothing about me other than I like to snowboard. I work from my home and rarely drive anywhere - pretty much only for the occasional surf and snowboard sesh and to take my father to the doctor. I actually walk or ride my bike to get groceries and anything/everything else I can do that doesn't involve driving. My carbon footprint is undoubtedly smaller than yours, so chill.

HoboMaster

I don't think he is personally attacking you, he is attacking the reality that you are an American, which means that unless you live 100% off-the-grid you have an unsustainable footprint.

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.

__________________
PowderHound and TreeNinja