Quote:
Originally posted by slicer15:
NO NO NO NO NO!! Trees are important! You have to preserve them! Forest fires my butt! Who starts them in the first place? Man, if they did the same to the rainforest, we would all soon be slowly suffocating with the decreased amount of oxygen in the atmosphere. It does not take much to change the balance of gases in the atmosphere at the moment and we cause a catastrophic disaster that would change the whole face of the planet. (Whoa!! That is the deepest post I've done in along time. I guess I really careabout this!  )
All I am saying, is that they are WRONG with a capital W!
|
Ummmm...a couple of FACTS to stop the incipent hysteria.
First off: The O2 you breathe DOES NOT come primarily from trees! It comes from microscopic algae growing on the surface of all of the world's oceans. Cutting down each and every forest on the planet wouldn't appreciably affect the level of oxygen in the atmosphere.
Secondly: The majority of forest fires ARE NOT started by man. Only the most well publicized ones. There are MORE(NOT LESS) acres of forested land on this planet than there were a few centuries ago...you wanna know why?? MAN!! That evil, tree/land/fuzzy animal destroying entity that the eco-twits and environmentalist wackos would have you believe is the bane of the natural world. FEH! If it wasn't for our skill at fighting forest fires, there would be one heck of a lot fewer trees on this planet.
Thirdly: The whole 'we're destroying the rain forest' BS was just that BS!! It was a FALSE and MISLEADING campaign run by eco-twit groups to scare Americans and Europeans into donating billions to their(the eco-twits) 'causes'.
Now, a couple of caveats: I'm 1000000% for tree farming. Trees are a renewable resource, so RENEW! Create jobs, improve the economy, and decrease the cost of manufactured goods! The problem is twofold. One, you need the proper land to grow tree crops...and, where is that proper land you ask? Generally where the trees already are. So you have to clear away some of the old growth to make way for the new growth. The other problem is the aforementioned eco-twits. Let's get something straight...they dont really give a damn about the trees, not in the concrete. They just want to forward their particular cause, namely, convincing the rest of the world that men are the greatest evil to walk the face of the earth.
Sorry for the slight [img]graemlins/offtopic.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/rant.gif[/img] Timber. I'm in a fiesty mood today, I guess. [img]tongue.gif[/img]
Back to your topic...Well, being that I'm in favor of logging, and clearing out a few 'old growth' forests...well, I cant get *that* worked up about the bill. I'll be the first to admit though, I'm *VERY* skeptical about anything to come out of Capitol Hill. I've been exceedingly disgusted by the pork that is continually cropping up in the new spending bill. I, for one, CHEERED when Congress voted in the Line Item Veto(even though they were giving it to Slick Willy), and I ranted, hollered, and boooooooed when the Supreme Court declared it un-Constitutional. I think that the President really needs that power. I wish there was a way to get it back!
Point being, I dont think it's that bad a thing to clear out *some* old growth forests, and properly manage the rest. I just wish that we could find a reasonable middle ground, ya know? [img]smile.gif[/img]
[ 03-14-2003, 11:20 AM: Message edited by: Nachtrafe ]