Patrick Moore wrote:
> You are certainly persistent. I would not rant about "mining the earth".
> There is enough iron in the earth's crust to last into the foreseeable
> future. The real problem is not the material, it is the energy required to
> make it. All those "non-wood" steel studs you have grown to love require
> much more energy to produce than wood and therefore result in increased CO2
> emissions (climate change), or nuclear waste, or valleys flooded
> (biodiversity). I hope you enjoy feeling responsible for these
> environmentally destructive impacts of your work.
While the production of steel products may result in more CO2 emmissions, it
certainly would help the situation if we weren't cutting down 600 year old forests
and replacing them with 1/2" diameter seedlings. How much CO2 do those
seedlings scrub, patrick? And since when do CO2 emmisions have anything to do
with nuclear waste (which, I'd like to point out, most environmentalists oppose)?
> Not many 1200 year old redwoods are being cut down today. Most redwood
> harvest is in second growth.
That's because the robber barons of the 1800's and now the timber beasts of the
1900's have cut 95% of the 1,200 year old trees.
> There is a controversy over private old
> growth in the Headwaters in California. The problem here is that people
> want it preserved but are unwilling to pay fair market value even though
> they say it is priceless.
Charles Hurwitz, the corporate raider of once semi-sustainable Pacific Lumber
owes the federal government over $3 billion in bail-out money from his failed
savings and loans--I say we seize the headwaters forest as partial payment. What
a hero Hurwitz must be to the timber industry--first raiding savings and loans,
and now blackmailing the amercan people by threatening to cut down the world's
largest remaining redwood forest unless we pay him off.
> This is not true. Its just that the wooden structures have decomposed and
> all that is left of "the greatest civilizations" are the stone bits. The
> Babylonians, Etruscans, Chinese, Greeks, Romans, etc. etc. all used vast
> amounts of wood and it was there main building material.
If the Romans used such vast ammounts of wood, why did they invent concrete?
Why are all of the supports in the Great Pyramids, Aztec, Mayan, Incan, Greek,
ruins made of stone? Show me were a single support beam of wood was used in
the construction of the Parthenon, Pantheon, etc.
> What is so unhealthy about thriving second growth native forest? That is
> what is growing on the vast majority of land that has been logged here in
> the Pacific Northwest, especially in the National Forests where it is not
> permitted to convert the land to agriculture or towns.
There is nothing unhealthy about second growth forests. I've said it many times
on this list and others that the timber wars would virtually end tommorrow if
these three simple guildlines were followed re: the national forests--
1. Leave the last 5% of the old-growth alone
2. No more roadbuilding in roadless areas.
3. No more clearcutting in the PNW
That's it. It's pretty simple. Of course we would ask that in second growth forests
that riparian zones be protected with appropriate buffers, and that long on steep,
and/or unstable slopes be avoided so as to mitigate the massive landslides we've
had here lately. But that's it boys, that's all we really want. Given the PR
nightmare that clearcutting and old-growth logging pose to the timber industry, I
really can't understand why they keep pushing it, but I'm sure the industry
bean-counters, lobbyists, etc. have proven that it's worth it in terms of profit.
> The issue is not so much the volume of timber as it is the area of land
> where timber harvest is allowed.
Really? This certainly doesn't support the industry position that tree farms are
better than naturally regenerated forests!
> As it is even large areas of second growth forest are now locked
> up due to lawsuits, owls, etc. Once again it seems that your "Citizens for
> Sustainable Forestry" should really be called "Citizens for No Forestry".
Why is that Patrick? I mean, why have the courts sided with environmentalists
over, and over, and over again relative to the adherance to the law? And why is it
that the only real "victory" that the timber beasts have had was the salvage rider
that exempted logging from every know environmental law on the books? Why is
that?
> I suppose you are "anti-science" as well as "anti-forestry"? Science
> doesn't "create" trees. The fact is all you have to do is let them grow and
> hope that they don't burn or die from disease and they will become "old
> growth" all by themselves.
Patrick, could you please name a single timber products corporation, single ranger
district, hell a single tree, in the U.S. that is currently being managed under a
400-600 year rotation? Or isn't the truth of the matter that once our 400-600 year
old forests (or 700-900 year old up your way in BC) are gone, that we'll never see
them again? Why don't you just tell us the truth Patrick, where will the 400-900
year old forests--that we are so diligently fighting to protect--where will their
replacements come from????
>
> Greenspirit is an environmental consultancy focusing on the primary
> resource sector, environmental policy, and public participation in
> decision-making. It gets its income from clients, many of whom are beset by
> irrational, anti-science, anti-corporate, (and, in fact anti-environmental
> in the long run) types like yourself.
Oh. I thought so. "Greenspirit" has such a crunchy, earthy, kind of a grassroots
feel to it--the sort of thing corporations love to buy into because it makes them
look like they have support outside of those whose salaries they pay.
>
> Remember "Wood is the most renewable of all the material used by our
> civilization and the forest industry is the most sustainable of all the
> primary industries. Deforestation is not caused by greedy corporate
> overlords in multinational forest company offices, it is caused by friendly
> farmers growing our food and by nice carpenters building our houses.
Kind of like guns don't kill people--people kill people, huh?
"Those wishing to exploit the land
for their own private benefit will
never cease their political efforts.
Those who would protect the
natural world cannot afford to
do less." (R.F. Dasmann)
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0