Like the illusion of Wall Street, with its vast and powerful investment banks, now shuttered, China too is an illusion perpetuated by the Globalists that gave us the 15,000 mile Caesar salad, poisoned cat food and lead based paint on babies' pacifiers. Like the illusion that money would come from thin air to always push housing prices higher, China has spent a generation pursuing its illusion. Pursuing an unattainable dream to be like the West, while 6000 years of its carefully shepherded top soil blows into the sea.
Posted: Tue Aug 19, 2008 1:00 pm Post subject: Re: The Depletion of Forests
What an absolute failure of imagination here. I blame you all and your wallets and your fat cat lives sitting in front of the television.
None of the suggestions really demonstrably save or protect forests. From Lorenzo's suggestion to bring indigenous people up to middle-class standards of living, or blaming enviornmentalists, you're all a bunch of posuers.
The real defense ise staring everyone in the face, its a known tactic, it has concrete effects, and constitutes a demostrable deterrent. To wit, the scheme is simply this. Organize the world's largest, most technologically adept fighting force to combat deforestation. Thats right: bomb paper and lumber factories, subject poachers to summary court martial; sieze assets and imprison those trading in illegal lumber; liquidate multinational corporations trafficking in deforestation, death sentences should be commuted summarily with the perpetrators composted in a symbolic gesture.
Wage full-scale war on the enemies of the environment; obtain military intelligence by satellite; deliver pinpoint munitions on targets of opportunity; judicidal review of every corporate logging subsidy; the invasion and occupation of countries without infrastructure necessary to defend forests; so on and so forth. Countries which will not stop deforestation should be embargoed, sieged, and bombed, until they capitulate. Perpetrators of forest destruction should be summarily executed, and their property seized.
All of this follows a clear and articulate position statement, a realignment of national priorities, etc.
Sound extreme? Welcome to the world in 2020.
2008-2020: holding our dicks, spewing pablum into chat rooms on the internet, as the forests burn, baby, burn.
2020-2040: Cutting the hand off a the wrist as it reaches for the brass ring.
The CEOS of Weyerhauser, Diashowa, and other industrial powers should be pilloried; their companies dissolved, the charters siezed, their holdings repatriated, their property impounded, and so forth.
But please, stop bloviating about how economics is going to solve this crap... it is pathetic.
Joined: Jul 02, 2008 Posts: 595 Location: Canterbury, UK
Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 3:05 pm Post subject: Re: The Depletion of Forests
Wow, that was unexpected. I suppose you're joking, right? Nobody can't go around on killing spree to save forests; the results would be devastating and would not save forests. It would hurt people and force them to turn on violence-using governments.
Also, in a time of rising prices of oil, you can't pay for all the bombers, jet fighters, tanks and soldiers needed. It just not feasible. _________________ Environmental News and Clippings:
http://www.google.co.uk/reader/shared/10279555364898696533
Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 3:39 pm Post subject: Re: The Depletion of Forests
BlisteredWhippet wrote:
The real defense ise staring everyone in the face, its a known tactic, it has concrete effects, and constitutes a demostrable deterrent. To wit, the scheme is simply this. Organize the world's largest, most technologically adept fighting force to combat deforestation. Thats right: bomb paper and lumber factories, subject poachers to summary court martial; sieze assets and imprison those trading in illegal lumber; liquidate multinational corporations trafficking in deforestation, death sentences should be commuted summarily with the perpetrators composted in a symbolic gesture.
Wage full-scale war on the enemies of the environment; obtain military intelligence by satellite; deliver pinpoint munitions on targets of opportunity; judicidal review of every corporate logging subsidy; the invasion and occupation of countries without infrastructure necessary to defend forests; so on and so forth. Countries which will not stop deforestation should be embargoed, sieged, and bombed, until they capitulate. Perpetrators of forest destruction should be summarily executed, and their property seized.
Because that totally worked for the U.S.'s War on Drugs.
Posted: Wed Aug 20, 2008 8:15 pm Post subject: Re: The Depletion of Forests
Then the forests will disappear. If no one is willing or able to defend them, then who will?
Btw, this debate is coming along at the extreme end of a total history of global deforestation, so what we're talking about is the remaining 10%.
I still think its possible and feasible. Logging can be economically disincentivized easier than drugs. How? Turn the job over to the eyes in the sky. We'll vaporize them as they turn on their chainsaws. Predator drones will home in on airborne particles of two-stroke exhaust. If drugs were measured in board feet, how much easier would it be to spot and destroy those sources.
The fact is that logging is a mass industrial enterprise carried out by subsidized multinationals. I would think a coordinated campaign taking out the big players would significantly slow deforestation. These are the importers/exporters, buyers, developers, etc.
Joined: Aug 24, 2005 Posts: 442 Location: Costa Geriatrica, Spain
Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2008 4:58 am Post subject: Re: The Depletion of Forests
Lore wrote:
Serial_Worrier wrote:
Insanity. Thank god American forests are still thriving.
Really?... got some facts to back that up? That is, unless, you're just being facetious.
Good news and bad news.
Overall the total forest cover in the USA has been pretty stable since the early 1800's and increased during the 20th century. Marginal farmland is being abandoned and reverting to the natural climax vegetation, often forest. Bad news - although overall forest cover continues to increase, old growth (primary) forest area in the USA continued to decline between 2000-2005
Pretty much the same applies in the UK - total forest cover hit its nadir in the 19th century - the early part of the industrial revolution was fueled by charcoal, prior to the invention of the beam engine which allowed deep pit coal mining - and has since increased during the 20th. We dont make as much stuff out of wood as we used too (even my parents first TV came in a wood cabinet, and think vinyl sidings in the USA) , and the UK govt agency, The Forestry Commission, is charged with maintaining a 'strategic reserve' of live lumber.
the real bad news is from the tropics - see above link
"Globally, forest cover has generally been expanding in North America, Europe and China while diminishing in the tropics. Plantations help offset the loss of natural forests but essentially result in an overall decline in global biodiversity as single species plantations replace their biologically richer natural counterparts. "
Joined: Jul 02, 2008 Posts: 595 Location: Canterbury, UK
Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 8:27 am Post subject: Re: The Depletion of Forests
It's not all bad news, fortunately:
Quote:
Until a few months ago, the destruction of the forest was a familiar story of land grabbing, illegal logging and the allocation of government land to try to win votes. It began in 1997 when the government of Daniel arap Moi gave large plots away in exchange for electoral support.
Then, this year, the United Nations flew Odinga and other officials over the forest to show them the extent of the destruction, shocking them into urgent action.
The government is pushing ahead despite the fact that many of the area’s MPs and voters belong to Odinga’s ODM party. Unlike the past, political considerations are being pushed to one side in the national interest. U.N. officials call this process unique for a country long blighted by the depradations of powerful and greedy politicians.
This momentum is all the more striking because Odinga and Kibaki were bitter enemies before and during a bloody political crisis in the first two months of this year when around 1,500 people died in tribally-based clashes following the president’s disputed victory in an election.
Kenya isn't exactly what you would call an example when it comes to awareness about human rights and good living. But the fact their leaders are waking up to the problems and starting to act makes a point about their will to develop. This is, in my book, A Good Sign. Let's just hope the President doesn't get kicked out for his efforts.
Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 8:49 am Post subject: Re: The Depletion of Forests
I have yet to see mankind not manage to deforest or otherwise destroy their environment no matter what the challenges are.
First, though, I think we will see the easy trees go down, the ones in the neighborhood or in the local park. The rural people will be busy with real forests but the city and the suburbs will be stripped.
Anyone with a fireplace will be chopping down the nearest tree if they need it to stay warm.
Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 1:27 pm Post subject: Re: The Depletion of Forests
Quote:
I have yet to see mankind not manage to deforest or otherwise destroy their environment no matter what the challenges are.
It is not inevitable that humankind destroys it's environment, it is civilization as we know it that's the culprit. The birthplace of civilization is the formerly fertile crescent, now it's one of the most ruined regions. The birthplace of humanity, however, is sub-saharan Africa, which although it now has tons of environmental issues mostly started by us in the rich nations and our policies, until recently it has held onto its biodiversity and environmetal integrity much better than many other regions. Since it is the region inhabited by humanity for the longest, if all of humanity was the culprit one should expect it to be the most highly degraded, since instead the most highly degraded areas are those which civilization has impacted the worst, we must therefore conclude it is civilization that is the culprit.
One of the things our civilization has done to people is make them believe that humanity itself is innately flawed, and that civilization is humanity and our way is the only way to live. I'm not a hardcore primitivist, I don't believe tribal living is the only right way either, I hope there will be many ways of living practiced in the future, diversity is good. However I do agree with the primitivists about the tactics used by this version of civilization.
Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 4:24 pm Post subject: Re: The Depletion of Forests
Snowstorm wrote:
Quote:
I have yet to see mankind not manage to deforest or otherwise destroy their environment no matter what the challenges are.
It is not inevitable that humankind destroys it's environment, it is civilization as we know it that's the culprit. The birthplace of civilization is the formerly fertile crescent, now it's one of the most ruined regions. The birthplace of humanity, however, is sub-saharan Africa, which although it now has tons of environmental issues mostly started by us in the rich nations and our policies, until recently it has held onto its biodiversity and environmetal integrity much better than many other regions. Since it is the region inhabited by humanity for the longest, if all of humanity was the culprit one should expect it to be the most highly degraded, since instead the most highly degraded areas are those which civilization has impacted the worst, we must therefore conclude it is civilization that is the culprit.
One of the things our civilization has done to people is make them believe that humanity itself is innately flawed, and that civilization is humanity and our way is the only way to live. I'm not a hardcore primitivist, I don't believe tribal living is the only right way either, I hope there will be many ways of living practiced in the future, diversity is good. However I do agree with the primitivists about the tactics used by this version of civilization.
I think advanced civilizations only differ in how much they destroy in one fell swoop.
The Easter Islanders were not very advanced and they managed to do in their environment pretty nicely.
Perhaps I'm missing your point, how are you distinguishing a group of people ruining their environment as opposed to a civilization?
Joined: Jul 02, 2008 Posts: 595 Location: Canterbury, UK
Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:28 am Post subject: Re: The Depletion of Forests
Humankind has never had a paradigm of preserving natural resources. However, a few examples from the past and the present (like Japan) show that it is possible - I still believe that's what powerdown is for. _________________ Environmental News and Clippings:
http://www.google.co.uk/reader/shared/10279555364898696533
Joined: Oct 16, 2004 Posts: 1281 Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 5:18 am Post subject: Re: The Depletion of Forests
One eventual solution may be, using gas from wood to run machinery, then the leftover charcoal can be used as a soil amendment (improves fertility), or burned for heating the house, oven or forge. If you concentrate on growing the faster growing trees that coppice and only trim the others, rather than totally cut them down, you can have your trees and burn them too. Plus the charcoal used in the soil will be sequestering carbon for hundreds to thousands of years and the soil fertility will increase year by year. Win/win for everyone in theory.
The biggest problem will be overcoming the harvesting to destruction then burn the bejeesus out of it theme we have going with forests. Many species will regrow below cuts so you should be able to harvest a couple of branches from several trees rather than kill a few and get the same amount of wood. And the coppicing trees will regrow from the stump as long as it doesn't get burned. Of course some species respond well to fire, but you have to know your species. _________________ Kind regards, Katkinkate
"The ultimate goal of farming is not the growing of crops,
but the cultivation and perfection of human beings."
Masanobu Fukuoka
Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 8:07 am Post subject: Re: The Depletion of Forests
katkinkate wrote:
One eventual solution may be, using gas from wood to run machinery, then the leftover charcoal can be used as a soil amendment (improves fertility), or burned for heating the house, oven or forge. If you concentrate on growing the faster growing trees that coppice and only trim the others, rather than totally cut them down, you can have your trees and burn them too. Plus the charcoal used in the soil will be sequestering carbon for hundreds to thousands of years and the soil fertility will increase year by year. Win/win for everyone in theory.
.
Interesting idea on using the wood gas to run equipment. I imagine anything converted to run on CNG would run on compressed wood gas. You would have to have a way to separate the water vapor or steam from the wood gass before you compress it as even well dried wood is about 7% moisture and it will probably take energy to do that reducing your ER.
As a wood lot owner I can tell you to forget harvesting wood by trimming. Much better to pick the worst of three trees and prune it once six inches above the ground. Then put each part of that tree to its highest use, saw logs then fire wood then chips, often the small top wood and leaves are best left in the woods to amend the soil and resist erosion. The two adjoining trees will quickly grow into the sunlight coming through the gap left by the weed trees departure and their total growth based on mass will be as much or more than the three trees combined were before. I have a hardwood lot that has been selectively cut for over fourty years that is in full canopy sixty feet high with many stems over two feet through at the base. If you count the rings on a stump these trees are 125 +years old. Examing the rings you can see times when growth was restricted by trees competing with each other as well as droughts which have happened even in Vt. This is a truly sustainable harvest that I find quite profitable. I would estimate that I have taken on average one half cord, (64 cu,ft. ) of wood per acre per year and the total mass present is much higher now than when I was helping my father cut wood off it as a boy.
At the height of sheep/ subsistance farming here in VT mid 1800s about 90 % of the land was deforested with the remaining large tracts on high mountains and in the Northeast Kingdom on the Canadian border. Now with the decline of dairy farming in the last thirty years the forest have taken back abondoned fields and pastures to the point that now VT is about 92% forrested. On my own land I have lost considerable ground. fields I used to mow or plant corn on are now covered with thirty foot high second growth. Some of that I have already cut for pulp and sold. It makes excellent habitate for deer ,turkey and small game.
Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 10:16 am Post subject: Re: The Depletion of Forests
What about the minerals you are extracting from the area by removing the wood mass?
I think you will understand what I am driving at, and it is unlikely (I think) to be much of a factor in your lifetime or even your children's lifetime, but it is something that would be important in the "long" run if you are being sustainable.
I can't even tell you what the constituents of ash are. But they will have to be returned to the area for a true steady state.
The same applies to agriculture. Let's say we grow vegetables in an area for centuries. Even besides Nitrogen, Potassius, and Phosphorous other elements come out in each tomato, carrot, and potato.
It would be interesting to play with a sim game that did a living ecosystem with it's mass and energy flows. There must be some addition to an area from the odd living thing that comes in and dies or drops it's poop. And from mass deposited by running water or airborne particulates.
Other losses would be from erosion, both water and air, and human factors. Plus bears eating in your area and pooping in another.
Anyway, hard to define but it is something that really needs to be studied.
My instinct is it is a slow process, but I think someone once said of chinese agriculture in the context of thousands of years that "they were losing slow."
Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 10:59 am Post subject: Re: The Depletion of Forests
Everything is a slow loss. Nature's way is to grind up more rocks with glaciers and blow out volcanic dust to replenish minerals. It is all shifting nutrients from here to there and do the best you can to put things bck where you got them. _________________ Remember every mighty oak tree started with some nut who stood their ground.
Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 3:15 am Post subject: Re: The Depletion of Forests
Interesting point. As about half the wood I take off the lot is used to heat my home and the ashes stay on site there is no loss there. The saw logs and wood sold and trucked off site would be a loss however.
When I was farming at a higher level then now I trucked in loads of ground lime stone to counteract acid rain. Also commercial fertilizer was applied to corn fields that are now emerging forrest. And the cattle I raised were fed grain imported from the mid west so there pastures would have recieved a net gain. All in all I think I have a positive balance though it is not evenly distributed over the property.
A forrest left untouched tends to build topsoil so the natural process must lead to a gain. Nitrogen fixed from the air by some of the plants and minerals leached out from the subsoil and bedrock by the deeper roots. Trees left to rot in the woods combine with the annual leaf drop and become a deep black loam.
Most of your losses are from erosion. Once it is washed to the sea you get no more benifit from it. Just plow a field cross contour and wait for a big rain. Much faster way to make a dessert then hauling it away on a lumber truck.
All times are GMT - 6 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2, 3, 4Next
Page 3 of 4
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Interesting point. As about half the wood I take off the lot is used to heat my home and the ashes stay on site there is no loss there. The saw logs and wood sold and trucked off site would be a loss however.
