Cut the Trees to Save the Forests

I don\'t imagine anyone here would have any strong feelings about this matter, but for the sake of doing, I\'m putting this matter forward....

Just this morning, I was fortunate to be awake early enough to catch Lorry Oak\'s weekly political interview on Channel Nine\'s Sunday program. Accross his char was our beloved minister for forestry and some other obscure portfolio. (that only hard core intelectual and political types would be very familiar with - ie. not me)

After the minister\'s impressive display of integrity by his constant refusal to comment on what he described as "inapropriate" topics, he then proceeded to talk about trees. At which point, his moral fabric was torn to reveal a more shifty character......

Or as one would first think. What a first impression saw as illogical radicalism, actuallly turned out to be quite sound. Cut the damn trees to save the forest. Kill the few to save the many.

Now I\'m leaving the meat of this subject to be discussed by any respondents that would be willing. Opinions, ideas, questions, post \'em here! Make this thread one hell of a greenie\'s ultimate powow!

(just thought it\'d be an interesting diversion from the usual stuff)

this might be the only thing you and me agree on*gasp*

I support mother nature, not corporations who could care less about it and leave a waste land for our children 50 years from now(50 years ago the ozone was destroyed...50 years from now the climate will be destroyed)

and George(call me dubya) bush is a complete MORON on the subject....he slamed the kyoto treaty calling it "kyoto is dead" and alienated MANY corporations with those moronic comments he made not to long ago..

The reson for them being mad is simple: They(some) want to change and make cleaner more efficent factorys but if there is no standard they just can\'t do it..they can\'t let play in a un-fair game where one is going to spend billions to change while the other makes billions throwing more pollution in the air.

One CEO said "the language the bush administration used can be considered the work of bozos"

And these guys work for big oil or the fuel industry...

Some want to change some will need to have a gun put to their head to change...but bush\'s comments STOP any kind of progress the US could have done to stop air pollution and move towards cleaner and more efficent energy source\'s....in come the british;)


Tony blaire slamed Dubya\'s comments and said "we will be the leaders of this green energy revolution"(something like that)

The US really did elect the stupidest person it could find to be president.

I hope we change this crap soon...or 100 years from..we will be considered the generation who wasted all the resources and left a waste land for it\'s childrens.

Errr.. NPlayer, I would just like to point out that I am actually reffering to the Australian Channel Nine and the real Political Editor, named Lorry Oaks. I\'m not quite sure how the honourable President George W Bush and his Kioto policy relates to this subject, but at least its still in the same theme of environmentalism.......

(case point.. when I sayd "Lorry Oak\'s"  in the first sentence of the scond paragraph, I actually meant to say "Lorry Oaks". It wasn\'t a satirical name used to add critical humour to the piece, he\'s actually a real person!)

That said, I\'d just like to point out to everyone who\'d potentially fall to the same trap, that I REALLY AM talking about saving the forest by killing some of the trees. I\'d preffer it if people responded to that.

I\'d respond, but I have no idea what either of you are talking about.

I can´t understand neither... saving the trees cutting them?

The earth is not my mother.

Hemp, better known as marijuana, could be an alternative for trees being used for paper products. The insanity which is our(US) drakonian drug laws coupled with the oil industry(and timber) is holding this back.

Hemp oil is also viable for plastics, and fuel (sub for ethenol).

As far as Kioto goes. Do you actually know the treaty? I\'m all for cleanness and all, but I am also a stickler for a little thing called fairness.

The bottom line for me is this. So-called "rich" nations must reduce emmisions and the like to extreme levels, while so-called "developing" or poor nations are exemt from cleaning up their act. That, in a word is bull****.

Oh, I get it. The poor nations can continue to pollute at current levels because they need to catch up to our industrialized levels. I\'m sorry, but if you agree with that...

The thing is, cutting down on an industrialized country\'s pollution will probably mean a short term blow to their standard of living.  Cutting down on a third world\'s pollution can mean short term starvation and death for many poor people.

Personally:  Of course the treaty needs to be fair, all countries need to lower pollution levels, including developing countries, but the bigger industrialized polluters just quitting the treaty, and sayin\' screw the environment won\'t help matters either.  The fact is, maintaining a high standard of living is very costly to the environment, and consumerism is a very polluting living style.

Originally posted by FatalXception
The thing is, cutting down on an industrialized country\'s pollution will probably mean a short term blow to their standard of living.  Cutting down on a third world\'s pollution can mean short term starvation and death for many poor people.
 

Exactly, it\'s called equity. Why should the developing world suffer and not develop industrially and socially just because Europe, Japan and the US have already polluted the world over the past few hundred years so much that no one else is allowed to have heavy industry. THAT\'s not fair.

Not to mention that the industrialized nations produce far more pollution per capita than the developing nations. The United States alone produces 25% of the world\'s emissions, but has less than 5% of the world\'s population.

Of course by pulling out of the Kyoto agreement, the US has invalidated the agreement for everyone else since it\'s only legally binding when it is ratified by at least 55 countries, covering at least 55% of the emissions covered by the protocol. Now that the US has withdrawn their 25% from the protocol because George W. doesn\'t believe in global warming the treaty is uselsess.

The world isn\'t your mother Cygnus, but you still live on it. F uck it up, and you\'ll have to go to live on Mars.

Originally posted by Lavan


Exactly, it\'s called equity. Why should the developing world suffer and not develop industrially and socially just because Europe, Japan and the US have already polluted the world over the past few hundred years so much that no one else is allowed to have heavy industry. THAT\'s not fair.

Why would these "developing" nations even want heavy industry?  Industrial development DOES NOT equal social development, as you suggested.  There are only a few reasons they\'re doing it.  

1.  Transnational corporations want to move their manufacturing/production facilities to the third world to take advantage of cost savings in labor rates, raw materials, taxes, lack of environmental regulation, etc.  The majority of the products are exported back to the north, and the third world nation realizes virtually no benefit.  Profits go to the corporation, definitely not to the exploited workers.

2.  Same transnational corporations want to "open new markets" to vast untapped populations to fuel their continued stock price growth.  Corporation XYZ figures "indigenous people in central america need to start buying our alarm clocks and cell phones, and baby car seats!"  But they don\'t have factory jobs that depend on a time schedule, or malls to visit, or cars to put their baby car seats in, so we need to make them build INFRASTRUCTURE!  Corporation goes to central american country, bribes local government into pursuing development, incites them into taking out vast loans they can\'t even pay the interest on, and off we go.  Indigenous people start buying Nike shoes and cell phones and Playstation 2s, but their quality of life only decreases.

If the Kyoto treaty include provisions that third world nations can defer or avoid reducing industrial pollution, then I\'m sure that portion was written by Union Carbide and GE and Archer Daniel Midland and British Petroleum.  They had to hedge their bets in case Al Gore won the presidency, and actually got the damn thing approved.  I think you guys are dreaming if you think the corporate owners of this planet are upset with George W. Bush.  They are overjoyed, and he\'s following his orders to the letter.  If you voted for him, you can take a bow as well.

Originally posted by Avatarr
Errr.. NPlayer, I would just like to point out that I am actually reffering to the Australian Channel Nine and the real Political Editor, named Lorry Oaks. I\'m not quite sure how the honourable President George W Bush and his Kioto policy relates to this subject, but at least its still in the same theme of environmentalism.......

(case point.. when I sayd "Lorry Oak\'s"  in the first sentence of the scond paragraph, I actually meant to say "Lorry Oaks". It wasn\'t a satirical name used to add critical humour to the piece, he\'s actually a real person!)

That said, I\'d just like to point out to everyone who\'d potentially fall to the same trap, that I REALLY AM talking about saving the forest by killing some of the trees. I\'d preffer it if people responded to that.

Avatarr - Just two points:

First, it\'s not so easy to figure out where on the globe you are when your location field says "The Firey Pits of Hell!"

Second, I still don\'t understand the issue you\'re raising about "saving the forest by killing some trees."  Are you speaking literally, or figuratively?  I\'m left with the impression that you are talking about something other than trees, which would be very disturbing indeed.

Sowwy Coredweller. I\'ve grown so accustomed to everyone knowing where I\'m from, that I haven\'t considered our all important newbies. To be honest, I didn\'t expect many of said posters to respond to this. Only a few are able to decipher my cryptic speech, as exhorbetantly ludicrous that may sound....

Anyhooo, the Kiyoto hooplar is all good and well, but this isn\'t what I wanted to talk about. The TV interview I was reffering to, really was talking about cutting some trees to save the forest, in the most literal sense of the phrase.

Given the apparent controversy thats surrounding this topic, I didn\'t expect such a huge void to fill everyone\'s brain!!! So instead of discussing this matter as if we were all café going, young, university intelectuals, I put forward a simple question:

Who would you vote for?:
1. A politician saying that leaving the forest alone is best for the environment
-OR-
2. A politician saying that cutting down some trees is the way to SAVE THE FORESTS
????

OK, understood.

I\'m no expert on this, but I believe that cutting down trees for conservation purposes is a standard forestry practice.  It\'s sometimes necessary to reduce the spread of disease, create fire breaks, or reduce the risk of fire by reducing the quantity of undergrowth.  Of course it could be that your minister didn\'t cite any of these reasons, and was just talking out of his a**.  He could be right or wrong, but it\'s hard to tell from this distance.

The minister in question did mention that, but at the political risk of offending the 87% of Australians who are said to disagree with him. And there ends the thread, as I suspected, not many people here have any strong feelings on the matter..... dangit!! I guess all that\'s left to do is for you guys to Kiyoto away.....

[§ôµÏG®ïñD]

Stuff the trees.. Kill avvy and save the world..

:evil: Muahahhahahahaahha AHAHHAHHHAH!!! :evil:
>Resistance is Futile!<