VB Dems

Timber!

12 Responses to “Timber!”

1. eileen Says:
   January 6th, 2010 at 3:22 pm

   It’s now obvious who was behind Virginia’s fraudulent enrollment in the 2007-2012 OCS five-year program. Let’s hope Sec. Salazar can smell that Bush skunk a mile away!

2. LittleDavid Says:
   January 11th, 2010 at 9:35 am

   Seems to me that exploitation of our forests could be some answer to our energy problems. If some of our energy needs were met from forests that would be called what?

   I understand the desire for some pristine forests. However insistence that every forest must remain pristine is unreasonable. Why must we allow every tree to fall down and rot on the ground to release CO2? I will not go into how allowing every forest to remain intact so it can be consumed by a wildfire is not really great either.

   If we include exploitation of forests into the definition of renewable energy I am all ears. For every tree consumed, we can renew the energy source by planting a new tree. Every new tree that grows will take out of the environment as much CO2 as it releases once it is consumed.

3. David Campbell Says:
   January 11th, 2010 at 2:24 pm

   Forests are more valuable as a carbon sink, absorbing carbon from the air and storing it, and releasing oxygen.

   Lumber companies harvest live trees, leaving the dead ones and piles of waste to rot.

   It takes many years for a sapling to absorb the same amount of CO2 as a mature tree.

   Wood waste is burned for energy and may even be converted to biofuel. I am not opposed to that, but it still releases CO2.

   Deforestation has a bigger share of global CO2 emissions than the entire transportation sector.

   “We cannot come to a meaningful solution on climate change without coming to grips with deforestation.” – Yvo de Boer, head of the UN Climate Change Secretariat, August, 2008.

   Nobody is “insisting that every forest must remain pristine.” I think that properly managed forestry is fine. I would prefer that lumber companies be regulated to make sure they are using best practices. I don’t trust the fox to guard the henhouse.

4. LittleDavid Says:
   January 11th, 2010 at 3:09 pm

   I will agree that deforestation without replanting the trees is a problem.

   Tree huggers demand every tree is sacred. I do not trust the tree huggers to guard the henhouse either. If we put a Vegan in charge of the henhouse, we would never be allowed to harvest the eggs or even get a chicken for dinner every once in awhile.

5. David Campbell Says:
   January 11th, 2010 at 4:08 pm

   Environmentalists do not “demand every tree is sacred” (The only tree I ever recall hugging was a 1,000+ year old giant sequoia which I did consider sacred.)

   Environmentalists do not oppose all logging. For example, the Sierra Club opposes logging that is “environmentally unsustainable,” including logging in the few “remaining old-growth forests” and “ecologically destructive clear-cutting.”

   Putting a lumber lobbyist like Domenech in charge of regulating the lumber industry is unwise. (I’ll ignore your gratuitous dig at vegans.)

6. LittleDavid Says:
   January 12th, 2010 at 10:44 am

   I think you added the adjective few to the quotation you gave yourself of “remaining old-growth forests”.

   My knowledge on the subject (most of which came from National Public Radio) is that tree huggers are opposed to logging on any wilderness area not previously logged and that they actively attempt to close off areas currently being logged.

   Not every environmentalist qualifies as being a tree hugger. There are sub-categories within the environmentalist movement.

   As for my dig about vegans, you were the one who provided the example of the henhouse that I just could not pass up. If it was up to environmentalists (subcategory vegans and PETA) we would not have any henhouses. All the chickens would be running free so that the foxes and the wolves could eat them out in the wild.

7. David Campbell Says:
   January 12th, 2010 at 10:59 am

   According to the U.S. Forest Service: “old growth forests are rare or largely absent in the southeastern forests of the United States. Existing old growth communities may represent around 0.5% (approximately 676,000 acres) of the total forest acreage (approximately 108,400,000 acres) in the Southeast.” They are in remote areas, usually on steep mountain slopes where it would be less cost-effective to harvest anyway. That’s about the only reason they haven’t been logged already.

   “Treehugger” is a somewhat derogatory term for environmentalists. Perhaps you have a false impression of environmentalists. Although I suppose it is possible that some small number of extremists oppose all logging, that is a mischaracterization of environmentalists.

8. LittleDavid Says:
   January 19th, 2010 at 11:08 am

   David,

   I was talking about old growth forests out west. There are vast areas out there that environmentalists insist must remain pristine. They even want to largely restrict access to these areas. They would be allowed in to conduct studies, but everyone else should be barred entrance. If you ever get out west, particularly the northwest, tune into the local NPR (National Public Radio) stations. Local stations will report on and discuss issues of particular concern to their regions on programming that is never aired in other parts of the country. That is one of the reasons why that, although I have satellite radio which includes two NPR channels, my preference is to tune into the local NPR broadcast station first. (Also the NPR satellite channels do not include Morning Edition or All Things Considered.)

   I believe I mentioned that not every environmentalist qualifies as being a tree hugger. Let me give a similar example. Some environmentalists are against wind turbines because they, especially the older designs, kill birds. They are not satisfied with newer designs that minimize this or new awareness that certain areas might not be appropriate due to concentrated migration patterns. But not every environmentalist is against wind turbines. Some, like Eileen, actively promote them.

9. David Campbell Says:
   January 19th, 2010 at 1:46 pm

   This post is about whether our new Secretary of Natural Resources will protect our natural resources in Virginia, not “out west.”

   When you say “treehugger,” most people will think you are disparaging all environmentalists, feeding the misconception that environmentalists are unreasonable people who just oppose everything. That is simply not so. If you want to know what most environmentalists stand for, read the position statements of groups like the Sierra Club, NRDC, and Nature Conservancy.

10. LittleDavid Says:
    January 20th, 2010 at 6:29 am

    Well, within the past few days there was an article posted over on Blue Virginia where the author implied the Sierra Club was not pro-environment enough for him (although he did describe the organization as a good neighbor). The Sierra Club does not speak for all environmentalists.

    I will note that all three of the organizations you mention are national groups and that they do not limit themselves to what is going on in Virginia.

    As for whether Doug Domenech will protect our natural resources we will see. Some conservative politicians have actually done quite a lot to protect our natural resources. I am just concerned by attempts to dismiss him automatically because of his ties to the lumber industry. Personally, I look at lumber as being a renewable natural resource. For all the trees harvested, more can be grown to replace them.

11. David Campbell Says:
    January 20th, 2010 at 11:15 am

    The Sierra Club doesn’t speak for all environmentalists, but their 1.3 million members are probably a more representative sample than your “some guy said” approach.

    You didn’t directly quote anyone as “demanding every tree is sacred,” portraying a caricature of environmentalists as unreasonable obstructionists.

    Saying “treehuggers oppose all logging” is like saying “Pro-lifers murder abortion doctors.” It may be true that some do, but it is an unfair overgeneralization.

    The lumber industry has not consistently demonstrated a record of practicing sustainable harvesting or protecting old growth forests. That’s why I don’t trust a lumber lobbyist to regulate the lumber industry. I will be happy for him to prove me wrong.

12. LittleDavid Says:
    January 20th, 2010 at 1:31 pm

    Look, can you find agreement with me on this? Environmentalism is like a funnel . At the top of the funnel there are those in wide favor of environmentalism who might not agree with those on the bottom. Just how in favor of environmentalism are you? At the top you have broad support, at the other end you will fall out the bottom. It is like a funnel.

    By the way, Vegans and PETA are near the bottom of the funnel. Most of us still enjoy our double cheeseburgers and chicken sandwiches.

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail