Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
wow. Hope you are better on Real Estate than Environmental Engineering.
Once polluted or destroyed many natural resources will never recover in 100s to 1000s of years.
Oil, Chemical, Nuke Waste spills are presently wiping out entire areas and water sources for 1000s of years.
Are you doing okay?
That’s nonsense. We’ve had huge gargantuan oil spills and everything is fine in a few years. Wipe off the birds, skim the oil, learn from the mistake and move on. The planet is here to use and exploit for an amazing lifestyle. It’s not a museum to store for unborn zombie hordes of the future. Build, build, build. And occasionally do some cleaning. It’s just like your house.
Wildfires have doubled in size and intensity since the 1970's, so what changed? There are a number of factors that play into this, 1) we have been suppressing wildfires for over a 100 years, which takes nature out of the equation and upsetting the balance. 2) The environmental movement of the 1970's to save the trees have restricted the harvesting of trees on State and Federal controlled lands. 3) The lack of forest management on Federal controlled lands have exacerbated the problem of wildfires.
So, how does all this fit together to increase wildfires, fire suppression leads to overpopulated forest and the growth in fuels that would normally burn that would reduce undergrowth and therefore reduce the intensity of the fires. Fires also open the forest canopy to allow for new healthier growth. The "tree hugger" movement of the 1970's has done more damage to our forest than any logging could accomplish. They seem to be "loving our trees to death". By not allowing these forest to be thinned it has created a tender box of fuels that after several decades have built up into an explosive situation. The lack of forest management by the federal government, who is suppose to manage these lands in which we have entrusted to them, have done nothing but make the problem worse.
So, when you couple hot dry weather and poor maintenance of our forest lands, well, you can see the results. Wildfires that burn so hot that they sterilize the soil and burn with such an intensity that they are almost impossible to control. So, no, it isn't climate change that is the fault here, it's the combination of many factors. They choose to blame climate change to take the focus off their own ineptitude.
This isn't a "modern" matter, created recently. If you look deeper and actually do research, you can see examples from hundreds of years ago, such as industrial England or Europe from the 18th century. Or even farther back, with poor sanitation, rats, disease, pollution, etc. We've just accelerated the matters more quickly and more extensively.
Wildfires have doubled in size and intensity since the 1970's, so what changed? There are a number of factors that play into this, 1) we have been suppressing wildfires for over a 100 years, which takes nature out of the equation and upsetting the balance. 2) The environmental movement of the 1970's to save the trees have restricted the harvesting of trees on State and Federal controlled lands. 3) The lack of forest management on Federal controlled lands have exacerbated the problem of wildfires.
So, how does all this fit together to increase wildfires, fire suppression leads to overpopulated forest and the growth in fuels that would normally burn that would reduce undergrowth and therefore reduce the intensity of the fires. Fires also open the forest canopy to allow for new healthier growth. The "tree hugger" movement of the 1970's has done more damage to our forest than any logging could accomplish. They seem to be "loving our trees to death". By not allowing these forest to be thinned it has created a tender box of fuels that after several decades have built up into an explosive situation. The lack of forest management by the federal government, who is suppose to manage these lands in which we have entrusted to them, have done nothing but make the problem worse.
So, when you couple hot dry weather and poor maintenance of our forest lands, well, you can see the results. Wildfires that burn so hot that they sterilize the soil and burn with such an intensity that they are almost impossible to control. So, no, it isn't climate change that is the fault here, it's the combination of many factors. They choose to blame climate change to take the focus off their own ineptitude.
Great post! I am certain we are facing several environmental issues and I am willing to do what it takes to solve those issues properly. Labeling them as climate change is a cop out and counterproductive.
The planet can support 50 billion people with the right technology and attention to freedom, productivity, and creativity. What we need to avoid is the tyranny of conservation and redistribution. Common good usually means someone wants to take what doesn’t belong to them. We are not our brother’s keeper. The individual is the unit of society, and we need to keep individual rights sacrosanct. That is the type of society that will yield the type of individuals who will solve environmental issues with innovation, technology, and ideas.That’s how Americans solve problems. Not through curtailing, conserving, and cowering.
Conjecture is the enabler for those who wish to view "the world" as that which lies within five miles of their existence. All the while, political assumptions and ideologies march alongside conjecture in that parade of faux freedom fighters who have mistaken liberty as the freedom to get more stuff.
Addressing the common good isn't something to fear, and dismissing oneself from societal obligation is not a constitutional victory of the individual over the potential of tyranny. Add to that, the fact that the natural world is not, and never has been, in conflict with the notion of individual rights. But moreover, our presence in nature imposes a reality on us which transcends all human constructs. IOW, the planet, and not just the government--Makes demands on you.
Political ideologies all too often support a type of logic which supposes a human supremacy over nature, thinking that technology in one hand, and our proclamations of freedom in the other, will triumph over natures responses to man's excesses seems laughable. Referring to the poor treatment of our natural world as an "environmental issue" only serves to dismiss the fact that WE willfully cause environmental damage and that in turn allows our lifestyle to become "the issue" of concern.
Conservation and curtailment of certain practices doesn't equate to cowardice, the coward in all of this can be found running from the truth while embracing all manner of nonsense which offers him the security of technology as his imagined savior. We can find common ground once we realize that-- as individuals--we're on this planet together and that our individual freedom doesn't include serving ourselves at the expense of others.
Great post! I am certain we are facing several environmental issues and I am willing to do what it takes to solve those issues properly. Labeling them as climate change is a cop out and counterproductive.
I agree, I also am doing what I can to help the environmental issues, but we must first admit we have a problem in specific areas and quit throwing them into a generalized term called "climate change".
The Klamath Indians in Southern Oregon for hundreds of years routinely set the forest ablaze, they did this about every 5 years. What this accomplished was it kept the undergrowth to a minimum and provided better habitat for wildlife.
I've see forest here in Southern Oregon that are so choked with undergrowth that you can not walk through the forest and these forest are for the most part completely devoid of wildlife, the only wildlife you see are birds and rodents and this type of forest is not healthy.
I agree, I also am doing what I can to help the environmental issues, but we must first admit we have a problem in specific areas and quit throwing them into a generalized term called "climate change".
The Klamath Indians in Southern Oregon for hundreds of years routinely set the forest ablaze, they did this about every 5 years. What this accomplished was it kept the undergrowth to a minimum and provided better habitat for wildlife.
I've see forest here in Southern Oregon that are so choked with undergrowth that you can not walk through the forest and these forest are for the most part completely devoid of wildlife, the only wildlife you see are birds and rodents and this type of forest is not healthy.
I wonder how much of the undergrowth you speak of is due to Asian invasive species. Imagine if all the climate change cheerleaders decided instead to help physically remove the invasive species how much better off we would all be?
That’s nonsense. We’ve had huge gargantuan oil spills and everything is fine in a few years. Wipe off the birds, skim the oil, learn from the mistake and move on. The planet is here to use and exploit for an amazing lifestyle. It’s not a museum to store for unborn zombie hordes of the future. Build, build, build. And occasionally do some cleaning. It’s just like your house.
The volume of oil seeping naturally into the ocenas dwarfs the amount from oil wells https://www.livescience.com/5422-nat...seeps-sea.html It's well documented that the Exxon Valdez spills that were "cleaned up" by volunteers took longer to return to normal ecology than those left alone....And what ever happened to all that damage the Gulf spill a decade ago was supposed to cause?
Many good posts from you, Paul-- can't rep you again. You know where the center of the Earth is, as Dan George would say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thoreau424
This isn't a "modern" matter, created recently. If you look deeper and actually do research, you can see examples from hundreds of years ago, such as industrial England or Europe from the 18th century. Or even farther back, with poor sanitation, rats, disease, pollution, etc. We've just accelerated the matters more quickly and more extensively.
??? Where do you live? I hope I never have to visit there. Things have gotten a lot better in the last hundred years in most places....You've got to admit that was an absurd statement based on emotions, not facts...That's why we have these argument-- one side romanticizes about the environment while ignoring the realities of ecological science....
We need to make sound, scientific decisions as we utilize natural resources, recognizing that we need to conserve for continuing success in that utilization. We don't want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.
Conjecture is the enabler for those who wish to view "the world" as that which lies within five miles of their existence. All the while, political assumptions and ideologies march alongside conjecture in that parade of faux freedom fighters who have mistaken liberty as the freedom to get more stuff.
Addressing the common good isn't something to fear, and dismissing oneself from societal obligation is not a constitutional victory of the individual over the potential of tyranny. Add to that, the fact that the natural world is not, and never has been, in conflict with the notion of individual rights. But moreover, our presence in nature imposes a reality on us which transcends all human constructs. IOW, the planet, and not just the government--Makes demands on you.
Political ideologies all too often support a type of logic which supposes a human supremacy over nature, thinking that technology in one hand, and our proclamations of freedom in the other, will triumph over natures responses to man's excesses seems laughable. Referring to the poor treatment of our natural world as an "environmental issue" only serves to dismiss the fact that WE willfully cause environmental damage and that in turn allows our lifestyle to become "the issue" of concern.
Conservation and curtailment of certain practices doesn't equate to cowardice, the coward in all of this can be found running from the truth while embracing all manner of nonsense which offers him the security of technology as his imagined savior. We can find common ground once we realize that-- as individuals--we're on this planet together and that our individual freedom doesn't include serving ourselves at the expense of others.
If conjecture is the enabler, then hostile whining is the disabler. And this is what we see from climate armageddonists. Who seem very similar to their fundamentalist brethren who always see the end of the world just over the event horizon. And who believe it is people they don’t like who cause it and will suffer eternal damnation or environmental apocalypse. The parallels between these two are uncanny.
Except, the world never ends. It just keeps on truckin’. And so must we. Some cleaning along the way is fine. But we are supreme on this planet, and it is ours to own and operate and exploit for our material benefit. We are not supreme over nature, we ARE nature. Everything we do is natural, and every substance we create is natural. I reject the notion of man apart from nature. We ARE nature, and nature is us.
We also have a nature. As rational social animals. And the system that maximizes wealth and well-being for men is individual rights and private property rights. Getting lots of stuff is natural, moral, beneficial, and good. We are physical beings in a physical world and making ourselves comfortable and happy with lots of toys, comforts, and money is a fantastic way to spend our limited time in existence. I don’t apologize for it, and I don’t intend to give in to the armageddonistic tirades coming either from the fundy right or the eco-tyrannical left. Both are the same, and both are haters of man, life, and success following malevolent goals of curtailment and confinement.
If conjecture is the enabler, then hostile whining is the disabler. And this is what we see from climate armageddonists. Who seem very similar to their fundamentalist brethren who always see the end of the world just over the event horizon. And who believe it is people they don’t like who cause it and will suffer eternal damnation or environmental apocalypse. The parallels between these two are uncanny.
Except, the world never ends. It just keeps on truckin’. And so must we. Some cleaning along the way is fine. But we are supreme on this planet, and it is ours to own and operate and exploit for our material benefit. We are not supreme over nature, we ARE nature. Everything we do is natural, and every substance we create is natural. I reject the notion of man apart from nature. We ARE nature, and nature is us.
We also have a nature. As rational social animals. And the system that maximizes wealth and well-being for men is individual rights and private property rights. Getting lots of stuff is natural, moral, beneficial, and good. We are physical beings in a physical world and making ourselves comfortable and happy with lots of toys, comforts, and money is a fantastic way to spend our limited time in existence. I don’t apologize for it, and I don’t intend to give in to the armageddonistic tirades coming either from the fundy right or the eco-tyrannical left. Both are the same, and both are haters of man, life, and success following malevolent goals of curtailment and confinement.
That's quite passionate. Man as nature, man as ruler, man's creations as an equivalent to natural creations, and, proclaimed with such an emphatic and assertive stance. Your proclamations seem to align with an equal level of passion expressed by those armageddonists who see doom as an inevitable payback for our collective sins. Your views seem extreme, and in that vein those of us in the center find ourselves surrounded by extremist responses. One side yelling about the excesses of logging, fishing, mining, seeing a kind of terror in any and all resource extraction. On the other extreme we have those who feel the earth is their personal toy store and exploit the natural world for all their needless stuff, both are on the fringes of any valid ecological discussion, and both are just as certain of their opinions..
I think this sums up my hesitation to discuss things with either side:
“The opinions that are held with passion are always those for which no good ground exists; indeed the passion is the measure of the holders lack of rational conviction. Opinions in politics and religion are almost always held passionately.”
― Bertrand Russell, Sceptical Essays
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am certain we are facing several environmental issues and I am willing to do what it takes to solve those issues properly. Labeling them as climate change is a cop out and counterproductive.
