Ms Lib R Tea Doesn't Hug Trees
I am not an environmentalist. Don't get me wrong, I like nature just as much as the next person, but not at the expense or inconvenience of people. To me, the bottom line regarding environmental issues is this-the planet takes care of itself for the most part, and the parts that humans need to take care of are better left in the hands of private citizens than delegated to the government.
Let's talk global warming. First of all, yes-the Earth is getting slightly warmer (just under a 1% increase in average temperature). However, the earth will also cool down. It is a part of a natural larger cycle. Think of it, for simplicity's sake, like the seasons we experience each year. No one freaks out when the general nutrality of spring turns into a blazing hot summer, or when a crisp but warm fall turns into a freezing winter, because we know that the seasons will once again change. Just like we have yearly seasons, Earth's climate has seasons as well. These seasons are beneficial to the planet and are not really affected by the minisule changes that humans make.
150 billion tonnes of carbon go into the atmosphere from natural processes every year, while humans emit more than 30 times less, accounting for roughly 3.5% of CO2 emissions. However, these "greenhouse gases" aren't warming the planet in any unnatural way. [For a detailed scientific explaination, go here-but bring a pencil and paper.]
Now let's talk about the flora and the fauna. I live in the Pacific Northwest-this is logging country. If you go out to rural towns like mine, you can see the loggers loading into their trucks around 3am, going out to do their job. What they do is not at all what the hippie environmentalists (who, by the way, mostly live in cities) think it is. Their primary job is to maintain a healthy forest. Not only is this environmentally responsible, but a thriving forest ensures their job security.
It is a well documented, if little known, fact that the people who take the best care of the environment are the people who make money off of it and who are held accountable for it. If a private land owner or a logging company doesn't take care of their land, they will not only lose money but they will eventually have dangerous conditions on their hands leaving them open to millions of dollars in liabilities. The federal government on the other hand loses no money-they can just tax us more-and you can only sue the US government if they decide that you are allowed to. They have no real liability, they don't stand to make a profit, and they wouldn't lose any real money if the whole thing burnt to the ground (as it often does-see: California, more than half of which is government owned property).
Statistics show it's loggers and other private owners who take better care of the land-but that's not the only thing that tree huggers don't know. Clear cutting, despite it's bad press, is actually a vital tool in renewing aging and damaged forests. Careful planning regarding planting, cutting, and brush removal actually make private forests less likely to succumb to out of control fires. It is important to note however, that forest fires are actually very important to the environment, and that a controlled fire is a part of healthy maintanence of any large piece of a land. A part the US government does not recognize, as it suppresses 99.9% of forest fires.
So, you say, that's fine about the trees but what about the animals? Well that's simple. If you want to see an endangered animal saved, eat it. I'm serious. If you can make it edible or otherwise profitable, you will save it's entire species. Case in point: despite the fact that they are, by far, the stupidest animals on the planet chickens are no where near extinction. Come on-these are flightless birds with no natural defenses-the only reason they're still around is because people eat them. The same goes for cows and sheep. Sheep are so stupid that if you put them next to a cliff they will literall walk off the edge and die-and yet they're still around. If you really want to save the polar bears, get McDonalds to start selling McBear sandwiches or train them to carry heavy loads or miniturize them into domesticated animals.
The bottom line is this-nature, for the most part, is perfectly fine on it's own. People have only a minuscule effect on nature, and nature is designed to make up the difference. Whatever nature can't make up people will, because by and large it is profitable and in their best interests to do so.
October 9, 2009 at 12:59 AM
WOW! I might not need to even write mine. LOL
Totally in agreement :)
October 9, 2009 at 9:05 AM
For the most part you are right, we don't have much effect on nature as far as the climate but that will change if we continue to grow like we are and it makes sense that it's easier to do something now when there isn't really a problem then later when there is. Prevention is easier then repair. Also, we are the number one enemy for every animal. We kill them by destroying their food and homes for our own gain. The only reason chickens, cows and sheep have survived is not because they are food but because we have domesticated them and thus replaced their food and homes that we destroyed in the first place. We can't do that with all animals. For one thing, there are some animals like pandas that just don't seem to breed well in captivity so we would still be killing them off faster then they could reproduce.