Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

I was hoping for some good news on rainforest deforestation, but meh, you take what you can get ;P

I don’t know so much about that in general, but I did live in Brazil for a couple of years. It is both better and worse than we think.

On the one hand, in some soils the forests can grow back if left alone and they grow back very rapidly. Other soils erode rapidly and it might take a long time to bring them back, if it can be done at all.

The interesting aside I learned from a local ecologist. He told me that he was against making lands into public parks. Why? As long as land is privately owned, landowners will shoot at anyone who tries to move in. When it becomes public land, squatters move in and start to slash and burn.

“There’s no place like home, there’s no place like home.”
If all we had to do was say our mantra and click our heels together like Dorothy, then all would be better…
Undoing the damage of the industrial revolutions took many, many years. Rolling back the protections for a few dollars more is short sighted. Those goals listed by JAM are too little and too slow for current technologies. There’s no reason to not be more agressive.
And, if Kyoto was so bad for developed nations, why did just about everyone else sign it?

Kyoto isn’t bad for developing nations, it just asks nothing of them. They can sign on at no cost. The big future polluters are exempt from the rules. In other words, Kyoto is backward looking.

Many have signed; few will live up to the goals in any case. And even if everyone did as promised, global warming would be barely affected.

The problem is that we cannot acceptably solve this problem with the technologies available today. As of today, there would be only two alternatives: limited economy growth in a crippling fashion or widespread conversion to nuclear energy.

We are also talking about different things. CO2, regulated by Kyoto, is not pollution in the sense we used to use the term. That is why it was not addressed earlier. In fact the goal of earlier pollution legislation was to reduce emissions to “harmless” CO2.

When you say “more agressive” what do you mean? If we push some things too fast, we encourage cheating and discourage new technologies. The SO2 program so successful in fighting acid rain, was criticized back in 1990 for not being agressive enough. It turned out to work better than the more agressive proposals. The key to success is making people want to cooperate by giving them incentives. It makes them respond in a smarter way. The alternative is to threaten punishment, which makes people figure out how to get away with things.

Jack,

Sorry I don’t have more time but:
a) I said “developed” not “developing” countries.
b) You’re generalizing: slow economic growth vs. nuclear power. A reduction in pollution generation is, when done properly, a reduction in waste.
c) As you said, the developing nations have less of a burden. How would more agressive goals engender cheating by developed naitons? You either meet the goals, or not. The technology will grow to meet the requirement.
d) Assumption: 1990’s S02 program more effective than the more aggressive program. Do you have evidence of this claim?

I agree 100% with your position that positive incentives are the way to go. For example: we’re going to run out of oil this generation anyway, why not force greater efficiency to help it last longer? No mercury is OK, why not be more agressive here as well? Reward confirmed meeting of goals with trade leeway. Perhaps this could be a good way to stem the flow of Chinese goods to the US.
Anyway, in the end I think you either remember running indoors to escape black clouds of smog or you don’t. I do. I don’t want to do it again. Don’t want my kids to have to do it. I’ll incent for clean air and water anytime.

Dave

I remember the black clouds. They are no longer with us in America. Our air is cleaner now than it was in 1970. It is cleaner now than it was in 1990. It is cleaner now than it was in 2000 and it will be cleaner in 2010 than it is now.

I suppose you are one of those guys worried about the Bush policies.

The whole idea that the environment in the U.S. is getting dirtier is just wrong. Take a look at this article re http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1114653/posts It is about how the MSM (New York Times) overplays the pollution story. IF you don’t want to read the whole thing, just look at the last paragraph.

“And in January the Bush EPA promulgated a new set of rules intended to force power plants to make another round of reductions in acid rain and nitrogen oxides. Grudgingly, on the last of its 13 pages, the Times Magazine article allows that Bush’s January regulations might accomplish the goals of the Clinton new-source standard anyway, though doing so at lower cost. Poof! The entire story just disappeared. But how many people read all the way to the third-to-last paragraph, versus how many saw the doomsday cover?”

The SO2 was reduced by 40% in ten years, despite economic growth. Projections for command and control were lower. In any case, it worked. We could argue that it could have been better, but it is better than it was.

The best way to conserve oil and make mileage higher is to allow the price of gas to rise. We will never run out of oil in this generation or any other. The price may go so high that alternatives take its place.

The Problem with focusing in on the good news is that it is demotivating - placating - and excusing.

That is not to say we should not measure our successes, but, far more important is keeping focused on what yet needs to be done. Our water situation in America is, by previous decades standards, as bad or worse today than in the last 4 decades. And Bush has taken his eye off that ball because water management comes with a high price tag. But how much higher will it be if contamination and lack of conservation continues?

In the SouthWest, it is becoming crucial, and small businesses selling water are springing up all over the place. In some places, water is becoming the new oil of the 21st century - a fast price rising commodity in increasingly short supply.

One problem I have always has with mainstream environmentalism is that it is way too depressing.

In 1970, I was a true believer. The movement terrified me. I read all the usual books: “Population Bomb,” “Limits of Growth,” “Silent Spring,” “A Moment in the Sun.” They all predicted gloom and doom and soon. Thirty-five years have passed and none of the dire predictions have come to pass. In fact, almost everything is better. But you wouldn’t know that to listen to the organized groups.

Recognizing success does not mean ignoring problems. The most successful problem solver I know are optimistic (one of my themes, I know). The Bush record on the environment is good. It is just not the socialist approach of command and control so dear to the fund raising of mainstream groups. Let me be clear. The command and control (rules and regulations) were needed, but they are not the way to make further improvement.

The problem with water in the SW is that it is too cheap. Those places are deserts, after all. Water should be expensive. That way people will be more careful in how they use it.

I am in favor of higher prices for water in the SW and higher prices for gasoline all over.

The united states has never paid the world “standard” on gasoline before. Therefore the american companies have always made gas guzzling automotives. The european and asia car companies are gaining popularity because the people save money on gas because those corps. have been taking intrest in that area of marketing (its working for them, mabey we shold give it a shot).

However, i do agree with raiseing the prices on water in the american southwest. That would be the logical thing to do but god forbid the locals get mad.

This argument that US Environment is better is stupid and idiotic. That’s like me cleaning my yard and dumping trash on my neighbors. Air is not limited to one country and just because we have trees in the US does not mean we are safe. What? Do you really think the melting Ice Caps will not affect us? Do you really think those US Companies tearing down the Rainforests in Brazil won’t hurt us?

As for the Bald Eagle, I would be more worried with the population of frogs than that scavenger. Frogs are more sensitive to the environment than pretty birds and frogs have been dying out everywhere.

Kindly get into your little brains that we are all in this together.

Jack, I agree, water in the SW is too cheap. Las Vegas has no right to exist where it does with is 1 million (or whatever) fountains and swimming pools, except that Las Vegas can pay for it until they alone have the last drop available, anywhere in the region, and are last to become a ghost town.

So, you see, money is not the cure-all, sensible rationing and conservation, sensible urban and rural design are what is needed, but profit and capitalism don’t not want to hear it because that limits both their marketing and profit potential.

Water born heavy metals from industry and diesel have polluted about have of American homes drinking water and birth defects and child development are being affected in some key areas. This is the kind of thing that should be top priority. But, where are the right to lifers on this issue? Where are the educational policy makers on this issue as it is a known scientific fact that heavy metals dumb down children’s learning potential?

You want to say its better. In some ways it is not. Lake Eerie was brought back to life back in the ‘80’s after being killed by industry in the previous 6 decades. Now, Lake Eerie is dying again. Can we not at least maintain our successes, or is this capitalist system bound and determined to repeat the same mistakes and force the public at large to repeatedly remedy the situation at tax payer expense?

Aldous

Hatred for the U.S. is not always informed by the facts. I lived in Brazil for three years. Blaming U.S. companies for the destruction of the rain forest is a stretch and maybe a bridge too far. It makes the blame U.S. folks happy, but to the extent that they actually believe it impairs actual solutions.

The world environment is important, and I mentioned it in the second last paragraph. But that is a different subject. I didn’t have the time or space to write about everything in the world. The quality of the world environment in the next couple of years will depend, as I wrote, on decisions made in China and India.

David

All decisions should be made using accurate information and sound assessments of the relative risks and benefits. Overestimating a threat (an perhaps devoting too many resources to it) can be as bad as underestimating it. And not properly identifying the cause is even worse. Heavy metals are a good example. They are a serious problem. President Bush’s policies address both heavy metals and diesel off the road machinery. This diesel rule is very far reaching and is certainly the biggest improvement in the last 15 years.

All that said, most of the heavy metals that find it way into humans come from old mining areas or natural sources. The mercury contributed by industry and through air pollution has been declining and will continue to decline. Beyond that, it is a small (and dropping) percentage of the total. The heavy metals scare is more public relations than problem, or put more precisely, it was a much greater problem ten or twenty years ago than it is today and it is on the way to being solved.

The free market in partnership with the authorities is the best solution to environmental problems. The worst pollution in the world was concentrated in the socialist countries of E. Europe and the Soviet Union and still is worst in those places where government management and or control of the economy is strongest.

I remember a conversation I had with radical environmentalist in Europe. To my surprise, they told me that they preferred the free market to socialism for the environment. In a free market, they told me, firms could be pressured and they always tried to use efficient (and usually less polluting) equipment. State firms, on the other hand, were usually under funded and would preserve the status quo and jobs at the expense of the environment.

Of course, in an example of the triumph of hope over experience, they supported left wing politics.

I hope it is clear from Jack’s writing that conservatives care just as much about environmental issues (and any issue, for that matter) as those on the left. We just differ on which policies and approaches we think will work. I notice a consistent anti-capitalist theme in David’s writing. I am of the opinion that the way to not only create but maintain a healthy environment is to improve the wealth and freedom of the entire world. Laws preventing the Slash-and-Burning of the rainforests don’t mean anything to a farmer who can’t feed his kids. Environmentalism is a sweet luxury, so thank God for capitalism which pays for it. Problem is, the developing world wants us to buy it for them (Kyoto) without enacting their own reforms.

Jack and Aldous;

Water subsidies in the arid SW is a good example of federal policies that distort the natural economy. I am all for minimizing those manipulations and setting realistic goals and objectives on all issues, not getting into some hysterics one way or the other.
The problem I have with the current Bush environmental policies is the lack of trust I have in the President. His administration has agressively maintained a lock box approach to their policy decisions. He has a proven willingness to lie and distort facts in order to obtain his objectives. Even with the predisposition to believe he’s making choices he believes are best for the nation, applying those two facts means any choice he makes is subject to extreme skepticism.
He has an excellent spin machine at his disposal which he does not hesitate to use. So, I tend demote the facts from any source with a record of Rah-Rah to “we’ll see about that.” I often can’t find unbiased sources suporting his claims. I’ve plagarized a leftists post on the Bush record below. I randomly verified a few of these claims and found them supportable, even if “agressively” worded.
Summary:
- I don’t trust Bush with the enviroment.
- It takes alot longer to clean something up, than to mess it up.
- Even if a treaty’s not perfect, it’s a place to start.
- The less pollution, the less waste, the more efficient an operation is.
- The less pollution, the healthier we are.
- Let’s not turn back the clock for a return to dead lakes and rivers that catch fire.

LIST::
+ Delayed implementation of mining regulations intended to protect watersheds + Tried to shrink boundaries of nineteen national monuments and to allow oil and gas drilling on all public lands + Froze environmental rules finalized by Clinton, including one to minimize discharges of raw sewage + Defunded program to implement court rulings in Endangered Species cases brought by citizens + Suspended the right-to-know regulation requiring utilities to inform consumers about arsenic in their water + Rejected freedom-of-information request for a list of corporate participants in Cheney’s energy policy task force + Supported nuclear industry’s proposal to store waste in Yucca Mountain, despite scientific objection + Cut 270 positions from the EPA’s enforcement division + Announced a plan for recycling radioactive waste into consumer products, from lawn chairs and zippers to spoons and baby cribs + Stalled implementation of rules requiring utilities to reduce toxic emissions from expanded power plants + Relaxed nationwide permit rules so coal companies, developers, and others can fill in thousands of streams, swamps, and other wetlands, without public notice or comment + Issued a new policy abrogating the national goal set by Bush I of “no net loss” of wetlands + Announce new targets for power plant emissions, allowing 50 percent more sulfur emissions (acid rain) than current law, three times more toxic mercury emissions, and tons of additional nitrogen oxide (smog) + Killed funds to support environmental education in public schools + Eliminated funds for EPA grants for graduate student research in environmental sciences + Increased taxpayer subsidy for timber company purchases of trees from our national forests by 35 percent + Tried to strip the state of California’s right to review Bush proposals to allow oil drilling off its coast + Eliminated scientific committees that disagreed with its policies, stacking new committees with scientists who have ties to regulated industries, including on PC&E hireling who fought Erin Brockovich + Expanded oil exploration in Colorado’s Canyons of the Ancients National Monument + Killed a proposal to establish a citizen review panel to oversee the trans-Alaska pipeline + Supported plan to let chemical giants in Louisiana emit more cancer-causing pollutants in exchange for reducing emissions of less dangerous pollutants + Doubled the number of open-pit limestone mines to be opened in the Florida Everglades, eventually creating a thirty-square-mile hole in the middle of this irreplaceable water wonder + Put industry-backed amendment into Homeland Security Bill that effectively exempts chemical plants, utilities, and other polluters from the public’s right-to-know laws, which require corporations to tell their neighbors what poisons are being spewed on them + Sent memo to all EPA employees urging them to “express support for the president and his program” when off duty + Withdrew Clinton rule requiring cleanup of polluted rivers and substituted a voluntary program + Cut the civil penalties that polluters have to pay by half + Stacked the CDC advisory committee on Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention with industry scientists + Instructed EPA to discount by 63 percent the value of lives of senior citizens when assessing whether to impose new restrictions on industries that pollute the air::

The best thing we could do for our natural enviorment in the US would be to sell our national forests to timber companys with the stipulation that the public has access for rec.

Timber companys protect and restore the resorce far better than the forest service ever has.

Use that money to buy and protect all of our marshlands.
You could dump raw sewage and DDT in one end of a cattail marsh and after it filtered through one mile of it, drink the water.
Cattails have the ability to break down and clean most any chemical.
Manage the forests, protect the marshlands and floodplains.

As far as the big decline in frogs goes, it started about 15 years ago and you can thank the animal rights nutballs for most of that.

The big push to ban fur has allowed the raccoon population to explode, along with mink, possumn, skunk, and any number of other varmits. Ditto for the decline in songbirds and most all groundnesting birds like pheasant, grouse, quail, and ducks.
Areas once teeming with frogs still have lots of toads(few animals will eat a toad), both are subject to the effect of chemicals assorbed through the skin, think about it ?

Everything has a balance. BTW… good article Jack.

As I wrote in a another section, it is difficult to whack-a-mole a wide variety of accusations.

In looking at that list, it is mostly a matter of administrative decsion. They come and go and you can easily point to them and question them. Let me look at a couple that I know something about (not too many. I don’t do whack-a-mole)

Froze rules finalized by Clinton. Did your source say when those rules were finalized? You would find that it was in January 2001. Clinton never enforced the rules in his eight years and knew they were not “finalized”. He knew that he would not be able to make them work and neither would Bush. Just politics.

Arsenic in water was among the Clinton last minute regs. Poison is in the dosage. Arsenic occurs naturally in water in mountain areas. Some of the rules would require that the water utilities discharged would be much purer than the water people were already drinking. Good thing in theory, not necessary in practice and do you want to pay for nothing?

Yucca mountain was supported by Dems until it became a campaign issue. Science cuts both ways. So you advocate keeping nuclear waste in temporary storage in populated areas?

The thing about the toxic power plant and mercury being larger is just plain wrong. I addressed it in this article. Follow the link for more. That is a lie.

I promised no whack-a-mole. Whack-a-mole is so crass. Better to say, it is a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. I think that comes from Hamlet.

Jack,

Macbeth, not Hamlet.

On retrospect, the post was a bit rambling. But, as I noted, the few items I checked panned out, even if they were rhetorically phrased, and can’t be summarilly ignored or dismissed. (I will chide for playing whack-a-mole with the selected few cherries.)
My general point is still “Without transparency, I don’t trust the guy.” His decisions (administrative or otherwise) have consistantly been for a culture of money and politics. The ecology or any other anti-$$$ component a seemingly unwilling add-on to the equation.
We can point to improvements in pollution levels and to failures of prior policies but the question remains the direction of the current agenda. Without confidence that the facts are presented openly and honestly for full discussion, then the validity of that direction is in doubt.

Dave

Thanks for the quote correction. That is why I usually stick to whack-a-mole.

I don’t trust government in general, but then I don’t trust any organized groups. In my experience, most environmentalists are also not paragons of truth. Considering always the source is good policy. And watch what is happening, not what people are saying.

The Bush environmental policy is based on the use of market principles as opposed to the command and control method. I was in favor of command and control back in the 1970s. At that time we needed to stop the big polluters AND it was easy to identify them. That worked. We are not going back. But now the sources of pollution are more diffuse. Environmentalists used to like to quote Pogo, “We have met the enemy and it is us.” (I hope I got that quote more or less right). It has never been truer.

But the fundraising arms of these organization still like to outside enemy. Blame the corporation etc. This doesn’t work. The only way to continue to improve the environment is to get everyone – including the corporations – involved in using intelligence to solve problems. That is the market-based approach.

There is a philosophical difference hidden in the agenda. Some environmentalists see humans and environment as separate and antagonistic. It is like the old religious distinction between corrupt flesh and spirit. You can guess which is which. Some of the radical groups see humans as a disease on the earth. I don’t see it that way. Humans are on earth. They will be on earth for a long time. This is not a bad thing. Humans cannot destroy the environment. It is way too big for that. What humans can do is destroy the environment for themselves. It is in our interests to make sure this doesn’t happen and we must work with nature (which is a lot like the market) to coexist. But the goal is coexistence, not separation or preservation of a pre-human environment.

I love trees and have planted thousands (literally) Each spring I buy fifty trees and give them to friend and coworkers. But I also believe there are times to cut trees down. There are times to preserve nature untouched and a time to touch it and change it. We are arguing methods, not goals.

“There are times to preserve nature untouched and a time to touch it and change it. We are arguing methods, not goals.”

Jack,

I agree and I dissagree. I would say that there are places to preserve nature and not touch it, and places to use it. We need to be able to show our children the places that have been left untouched, so that they know what untouched looks like. There are few of these untouched places left, and belive me, for the most part, they aren’t in the national parks.
I brought up the subject of the air polution at the Grand Canyon in a previous thread. How Grand is the Grand Canyon if you can only see the other side on a good day?
I don’t know which route you took west to east but the polution between Phoenix and L.A. is terrible.

The Colorado River doesn’t make it to the Gulf of California anymore. Hell, it barely reaches Yuma. Lack of water in the southwest isn’t just about lawns and fountains. We are growing water intensive crops in the deserts of Arizona and California.

Yes, Rocky. Market rates for water will solve the problem of water in the SW.

I have been to the grand canyon many times. I would like it to be clean and pristine. President Bush’s policy will help make it so.

By the way, take a look at my last grand canyon trip - http://www.geocities.com/johnmatel/71103.html

I think it is plainly clear that neither the left nor the right wants our children to grow up with health problems resulting from environmental pollution. The left want to regulate via the government and the right seems to want incentives for corporations and market pricing to solve the problem. I think a combination of both, which is essentially what our government is doing now, will serve us well.

I don’t entirely trust capitalism (i.e. corportaions) or the government. If one thinks that our beloved corporations will solve the pollution problem if given incentive….I urge you to go back in time and buy some stock in Enron, Tyco, or any number of these entities that “lied” to make a buck. The government enforces rules by either incentive or fines. I think both can work. However, I know several corporate environmental lawyers that specialize in opportunity cost. In other words, if we break the rule how much cash can we make even if we pay the fine…or the flip side, if we forgo the incentive how much more cash can we make. This is how things work and always will as long as money can be made…even at the publics expense.

Tom

Firms are good at cutting costs. If you structure incentives and costs, they will cut them. The analogy is workmen’s comp. People complained that it was immoral to put a price on health and that those prices were too low. But firms worked hard to cut their liabilities and it worked. It also worked with SO2 in the 1990s. You are right that we need a combination (and we have it) You are also right about rogue firms. The thing that is true about Enron etc is that they broke the law and that they were punished both by the legal system and the market. You can’t stop everyone from breaking the law, but you can make them suffer the consequences. In this respect, Enron enforcement was a success.

Market incentives mixed with the base of regulations. This is what the Bush administration is proposing. We really don’t have much of an alternative if we want to have both a decent environment and a decent economy.

Jack,

It seems we are, indeed, on different sides of the same coin. I don’t subscribe to tree-hugger human pestilence mentality any more than the bible-thumper God put the earth here for our service philosophy.
But we have some real disagrements.
“The only way to continue to improve the environment is to get everyone ? including the corporations ? involved in using intelligence to solve problems. That is the market-based approach”
Market based approach means financial incentives driving towards certain choices. To have closed door meetings with industry only serves to support the opinion that any financial incentives support industry first, not some common purpose. The PAC system makes politics adversarial. To listen to one side only in deciding policy does not give good hope to a balanced result. Besides, market principles don’t always work. There is some cost benefit to improving efficiency by lowering waste (pollution), but that’s limited by diminishing returns and you don’t need to reward someone to do it. On the other side, the external costs of pollution start to outweigh the economic benefits. At some point, the only choice is to mandate controls and the Bush choice has been to let industry decide what they can get away with.
“Humans cannot destroy the environment. It is way too big for that. What humans can do is destroy the environment for themselves.”
No other animal burns hydrocarbons or uses heavy metals. The metals poison the entire food chain. Acid rains destroyed entire lake systems. We have the ability to destroy habitats on a fairly large scale and if global warming science proves out, which it has so far, then we are influencing global climate.
What humans have are choices. We can control the impact on the environment we have. The beaver doesn’t care or know what happens down stream from his dam but we can and should care where we put ours. The tiger doesn’t care about maintaining a sustainable supply of meat-on-the-hoof, but we can and should be aware of the entire food chain. The elephant doesn’t care where he defecates, but we can and do take care with our waste.

The environment is only one place where we need to pay now before paying much more once more, later.
Later…

Jack,

Both you and Dave have very good points. I do agree that a combination of both incentives and enforcement (fines) are the way to control pollution output from our industries. I also agree with Dave that only approaching one side (industry) and working with only one side is extremely close-minded. As long as we can police agreements and check on promises, even though I feel the approach is close-minded, there may be some benefit. The key is policing the system…which is why we have the EPA and other agencies.

I think we all agree that each individual automobile, industry, and other pollution generating device has been improved over the years. Our sollution to pollution is essentially dilution. This is not a wrong choice and does have benefits. However, there are many, many more polluters now than there were 20 years ago. So, even if we reduce each individual polluter the overall number of polluters has grown also. So, improvements on INDIVIDUAL devices has benefits; BUT, it can only acheive so much as the number of devices increase. Don’t get me wrong…we have to decrease the pollution output. However, I think more importantly our government could give VERY LARGE tax incentives to change our type of energy sources. I have done extensive research on fuel cell technologies and know that we can use the devices to power subdivisions, industrial parks, and automobiles (just to name a few). The problem is the initial capital investment required to get the process started. If corporations had an incentive to get off of the fossil fuels they MIGHT actually do it. It would have to be one hell of an incentive though. Especially when one considers this administration’s close relationship with the oil industry and the oil industries political and capital clout.

Tom,

I think we need to encourage the Japanese automobile maker’s business model for all domestic companies. Look at the Honda Accord Hybrid. It has 160HP(?+/-) and gets almost 50MPG.

US companies always fight regulation. Japanese companies take the hint and make it work. That’s one reason why they dominate the market. “Enlightened self-interest” should be a common practice, not some marketing differentiator for Famous Amos, Ben, and Jerry.

I’m in technology. When there’s a problem put before an Engineer, their job is to figure it out. The industry reps, they just want all non-customer based requirements to go away.

The correlation I see is to what one of the SALT negotiators said his approach was: “I go in wanting the other guy to give me all his missles.” We can do better than that.

One of you suggested:
The best thing we could do for our natural enviorment in the US would be to sell our national forests to timber companys with the stipulation that the public has access for rec.

IF that were to happen NO ONE WOULD WANT TO USE those TREE FARMS for recreation.
Come out to my neck of the woods sometime (northwest, where Lumber was King for too long) and see just how well the Timber Co’s “managed” their forests. — When driving thru an area that is mixed National Forest and Private Timberland, the difference is staggering — if it isn’t totally clear cut for miles, then the second growth that has grown to a decent size is sooooo thickly planted that very little light reaches the “forest” (tree farm) floor — what you can see of it, usually it is so thick you can’t (or don’t want to) walk more than a few yards from the road.
As for wildlife — forget it.
The only area where you even have a chance is at the boundry areas between the old growth and the clear cut with some new saplings. — the oldgrowth for shelter and food and the new growth for additional food.
What a laugh — the only reason the Forest Service’s record is so poor is because the Timber Industry has had it in it’s pockets for YEARS — why do you think the taxpayer was taking a huge loss on timber sales all these years??
or why clear cuts on unsuitable sites were allowed (causing huge mudslides and sediment sloughs into streams — many of our salmon runs are depleted partly due to past (and present) logging practices) — There are laws currently on the books that prohibit clear cutting within 200 feet of streams, but any drive thru a clear cut area will show you that THAT law is not even being enforced CURRENTLY.
Grow up and quite believing the corporations are going to look out for anything other than their own SHORT-SIGHTED interests (i.e. the next quarter only)

Those of you crowing about how Bush’s policies are “not hurting” and that the air and water are cleaner now than ever!!!
GET REAL — The cleaner air and water is due to the policies of his predecessors NOT THIS SHRUB.
His policies have not yet had time to show their true color.
Wait until all those gas and oil leases in Colorado and the other parts of the west really get going and start spewing their crap — then let’s talk.
When the water and air start showing decline because his “only administrative orders” are allowing corporations to spew more and pay less.

Please note — pay me now or pay me later — the costs that the corporations are now allowed to save are being passed on to the taxpayer — just WHO do you think is going to be called in to clean up the mess?? — The corporations?? We have a superfund site near where I live that has been in the process of being cleaned up for DECADES — and the Gov’t is footing the bill due to all the corporations involved pleading poverty.
NOTE: IT IS CHEAPER TO CONTAIN AND ELIMINATE THE TOXINS WHILE STILL AT THE SOURCE — ONCE RELEASED INTO THE ATMOSPHERE OR OCEAN IT IS NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE TO CLEAN. — consider putting one drop of gasoline into a 50 gallon container of water — the entire container is contaminated — and have fun cleaning it to the point of being palatable — now consider the effort and cost to NOT PUT THE DROP OF GAS INTO THE BARREL IN THE FIRST PLACE.
I LOVE the arguement that we are FORCING costs onto the corporations — Heh dude it is YOUR air and YOUR water they are polluting — using as a dumping ground in order for THEM to make a buck — and essentially asking YOU to pay to clean it up!! The fact that CONSERVATIVES support THAT sort of activity just SLAYS me!! AND THEN to have the GALL (in another post) to CLAIM PERSONAL RESPONSIBLITY AS A CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPLE!! — Oh, I forgot it is INDIVIDUAL responsibility — I guess that doesn’t apply to CORPORATIONS??
How about they come and dump their toxic waste in your front yard for free?? Same thing.

Russ,

I’m not sure how much timber land you own, but my guess would be none.

I’m not counting public forests, everyone owns them, but the very best managemet is on private lands.

I agree that clear-cuts shouldn’t be anywhere near a stream/river, but the best management of some softwood timber(paper pulp) can only be viaable with clearcutting.

A clearcut softwood forest, can be next to impossible to walk through, but wildlife thrives in those areas.

I own mostly hardwood timber, and if managed properly, you can harvest 2-5 trees every 5-7 years per acre, depending on climate and grouth rate in your area.

Jack,

Nice pictures. Next time you should try the North Rim. I am just a few hours south, you should have dropped in.
Point of refference. The haze in the third, second to last, and last pictures is caused by the Four Corners coal fired power plant. Belive it or not, it looks like you were there on a reletively clear day.
I have been there when you couldn’t see accross the canyon at all, and barely see the river from the rim.
I don’t see how Mr. Bush’s policies will change anything in the Grand Canyon, short of shutting down the plant and retro fitting scrubbers on the stacks to clean the outputs.
Business will hardly make these changes on their own, as the affect the bottom line too greatly.

As long as there is a buck to be made it won’t matter who sets policies…unless they are policed extremely close…which is VERY costly.

Fossil fuels…therein lies our problem. Changing that involves much cost to infrastructure and manufacturing processes. Not to mention the change in mind-set of our country. The benefits are easily stated: Reduced pollution, less foreign dependence, weaker terrorist nations, and less large-scale power outages. The obtstacles are also enormous: Large oil companies, automotive corporations, Utility companies, a change in mind-set, and an administration with strong ties to the oil industry.

Do I think we can ever become totally independent of fossil fuel? Probably not. However, we could reduce our dependence greatly. Especially if the public were better educated about the benefits/risks of nuclear power and the pure benefits of fuel cell technology.

Beagle
I was talking about Private Timber Lands
how many acres do you own?
Out here we have several firms that are nationally known that own and manage hundreds of thousands of acres of their own lands — (and have sold off quite a few for development as well)
They also had access to National Forests.
Your response sounds as tho it applies to the Northeast or Southeast
Try coming out to the West/Northwest where we are talking about Mountainous Forest Lands (private and public)
Again, the private lands were not managed well
The public lands were not managed well (gosh, could it be that the same people were responsible for both?? — DUHHHHH.)
Again, I would agree from what I know about SMALL timberland owners, THEIR management has been shown to be progressive and better, but those are NOT the people who manage the LARGE tracts that are the mainstay of timber production — or what we have out here in the West.
(by the way, softwood farms for paper pulp, etc that I have visited are NOT very recreationally appealing — about as appealing as a corn field — altho they are a good way of producing paper pulp without depleting old growth to do it — ala Tongass National Forest in Alaska)
most of the large “Timber” firms are not managed by “Timber” people anymore, but by MBA’s — with the predictable results.
There was a huge tract of Redwoods in Calif that was taken over in a hostile bid a few years ago by a “junk bond king”. The original owners had owned and managed that tract for decades and harvested responsibly and sustainably — the new owners immediately began cutting as fast as possible to get their profits out of their “investment”
THAT is your current generation of “Timberland Owners”
Ciao

I didn’t read through every comment in this thread, so this might have been mentioned. But if anything is cleaner or better, it is due to the efforts of environmental advocates and votes of liberals and conservation-minded legislators.

It burns my craw that the auto companies fight any efficiency requirements tooth and nail, then boast about how much cleaner their vehicles run. So if the air is a bit cleaner, that’s not time to celebrate, it’s time to redouble our efforts to ensure there is never a “code red” day again.

Russ,

I seldom respond to anyone that would end a comment with “DUHHHH”, but I’ll make an exception.

I personally own only 40 acres of hardwood timber, but I manage a lil more.

It consists of mostly walnut, cherry, white and red oaks, in the greatlakes area.

If you like timber management in the northeast perhaps that could be applyed in the northwest?

In the west perhaps private ownership of timberlands would be in larger chunks, say 400-1000 acres, but few private owners would allow their property to be turned into a mudslide if it was mountainous areas.

Timber should never be harvested in the northern states except when the ground is frozen and the tree’s are dormant.

Frozen ground = no damage to the soil, and dormant trees = less damage to the existing un-cut trees( when the sap is “down” trees suffer little from the scarring that occurs in logging.)

In areas that the ground doesn’t freeze, other methods should be used for harvesting that wont disturb the soil.

All cutting ( execept clearcuts for paper pulp) should be “selective” and private ownership will move that forward.

My main point was to break up the public ownership of some of the forests and use that money to protect the marshlands that DO really have the ability to clean the water, and have little monatary value for resale if left alone.

Beagle

I like you better all the time. I studied forestry at the University of Wisconsin - Stevens Point. Never actually worked in the field, but would love to be doing what you are doing.

Jack my friend,

If its something you wish to do, you should!

It doesn’t need to be full time, just a hobby.

Interesting, according to 3 separate studies that came out last month, drastic measures will need to be taken to improve the impending environmental disaster. One of the studies was conducted by the UN.

Zeek

There are real problems in the environment, as there have always been. It will be as it has been, a challenge to keep it clean. There are a couple of important points, however.

1.The U.S. environment is cleaner than it was thirty years ago. We should build on success, not pretend there was none.
2.The way to make further progress is to work with market-based incentives.
3.The biggest environmental challenges of the future will come from the developing countries (i.e. not the U.S., Europe of Japan)

Market based incentives? Wha-? Like what exactly?

Zeek

Cap and trade are classic examples. They were successful in the 1990s with reducing the pollution that creates acid rain. This is what Bush proposes for heavy metals.

Generally, the market-based solution sets a goal or requirement and then allows the firms or individuals involved to choose how to reach it, rather than the earlier practice of mandating particular technologies. It also allows flexibility. For example, if a firm has two plants, one old and dirty one new and cleaner, it might be better to shut down the antiquated plant entirely and move production to a newer one rather than retrofit both. Total pollution is less, but purists complain that we are still allowing and maybe even increasing pollution from the newer plant. But it works over the whole ecosystem to reduce pollution and do it faster. The requirement can be made progressively tighter, stimulating the use of new and better methods.

As far as I can tell, this system is the best of all possible systems. Those that oppose it tend to do it on moral, not practical reasons.

Aldous,

Do you really think the melting Ice Caps will not affect us?

Melting. The arctic wind blows the ice around all of the time. It changes places. It melts in the water and refreezes on another glacier. The ice caps are not static.

We’re doing fine with cleaning up the environment- cleaning up what we have put there- and we can probably do more.

Conservation is a good thing. Waste is not a good thing.