Definitions Of Environmentalism

[softwareNerd]

Thanks. I think I understand your categories of world-view.

What about actions? How would the actions of a non-environmentalist ANWR driller differ from the actions of a rational ANWR driller?

[Liriodendron Tulipifera]

Thanks. I think I understand your categories of world-view.

What about actions? How would the actions of a non-environmentalist ANWR driller differ from the actions of a rational ANWR driller?

In my opinion, there's probably no difference. Yet again, the typical environmentalists get all worked up about the wrong issues. Practically speaking, I really doubt drilling in ANWr will have much impact at all on the environment. Oil spills seem to come largely from accidents with moving vehicles by land or sea, from what I hear, and the migration of caribou, which everyone seems to be getting worked up about, will probably be well thought out by the engineers who lay out the pipes, due to public pressure and governmental regulation..... Anyway, there are the only two concerns I hear the enviros talking about. They don't seem very plausible.

A good example of a multi-use forest, in terms of oil extraction, is the Allegheny National Forest in Pennsylvania. There are oil rigs all over. It's a nice forest. The real problems in that forest are caused by deer overpopulation!

Also, it's possible to cause environmental damage because of knowledge errors or incomplete knowledge, but such actions wouldn't make one a non-environmentalist, IMO.

[Inspector]

So let me answer your question as to what I would consider a “non-environmentalist.”

Your definitions aren't internally consistant with each other. If an "environmentalist" is a religious wacko, then why is a "non-environmentalist" also a religious wacko? What is the option for someone who isn't a wacko?

The term "non-environmentalist" refers only to someone who ISN'T an environmentalist (i.e. a religious wacko). It doesn't say anything else about them...

I don't know if it is intentional or not, but by classifying everyone like that, you are loading things to say that people shouldn't be non-environmentalists... and, therefore logically, should be environmentalists. That is quite false!

Your definition would more closely fit one of the caracature-villians from Captian Planet. What makes you think a person like that actually exists? When has there ever been such a person? What would be an example of someone who engaged in an industrial activity that SHOULDN'T have happened, in your opinion?

I can't think of even one example of damage caused "to the environment" (excepting accidents) that wasn't BENEFICIAL to mankind inasmuch as more good came out of the industrial activity than harm.

Edited November 7, 2005 by Inspector

[Liriodendron Tulipifera]

Your definitions aren't internally consistant with each other. If an "environmentalist" is a religious wacko, then why is a "non-environmentalist" also a religious wacko? What is the option for someone who isn't a wacko?

The term "non-environmentalist" refers only to someone who ISN'T an environmentalist (i.e. a religious wacko). It doesn't say anything else about them...

I don't know if it is intentional or not, but by classifying everyone like that, you are loading things to say that people shouldn't be non-environmentalists... and, therefore logically, should be environmentalists. That is quite false!

Your definition would more closely fit one of the caracature-villians from Captian Planet. What makes you think a person like that actually exists? When has there ever been such a person? What would be an example of someone who engaged in an industrial activity that SHOULDN'T have happened, in your opinion?

I can't think of even one example of damage caused "to the environment" (excepting accidents) that wasn't BENEFICIAL to mankind inasmuch as more good came out of the industrial activity than harm.

i was responding to softwarenerd's questions. I think my definitions are now quite clear to anyone who will accept them, distinguishing between environmentalist, rational environmentalist, and non-environmentalist.

Conveniently, you avoided using the term rational environmentalist because you are not willing to accept it.

As for industrial activity causing more harm than good, just because net benefit has accrued that there hasn't been some level of harm in many cases. It was just outweighed by benefit. IN many cases, the net benefit is small or nearly negligible. For example, the deforestation going on in Brazil. The land is used for cattle ranching but unfortunately only viable for a number of years due to the poor soil conditions, which forces landowners to then move on to the next plot of land, rendering the old land useless not only for cattle ranching but also for reforestation. Thankfully, we don't have these problems in north temperate areas because our soils are totally different.

There are plenty of non-environmentalists around, including, I would guess, many people here who probably wish not to reveal themselves ("Cut all the forests down, the only purpose they serve is wood!" type of attitude). You've never met someone like this? Someone who is not only totally uninformed and uneducated about the complexity of biological systems, but when confronted with an overwhelming amount of evidence that can't be denied, stilll denies, claiming that they "just don't believe it"? Of course, what they really mean is, they just don't care. I don't need specific examples of these people, as we don't need specific examples of environmentalists or religionists to know that they exist.

[softwareNerd]

To test if "non environmentalist" is a valid category, I'd really like to "concretize" the idea of "non-environmentalist" (in the way you use the term). I'd like to understand: who they are, what have they done, and if I've made the same mistake . Toward that end, here's an exercise....

Suppose I temporarily put aside the environmental controversies of the last (say) 15 or 20 years on the basis that I know much less about hoe they will turn out. Suppose, I only consider the major environmental issues from before that time (from the 1980s and before). I've seen a lot of books that would point to issues where at least with hindsight the environmentalists turned out to be wrong (things like DDT and Alar). Those do not interest me for my current purpose.

What interests me now is this: what were the major issues where the non-environmentalists got their way, and now -- with hindsight -- we see that significant damage resulted from ignoring reality for the sake of a non-environmentalist world-view? Ideally, this would not be something that is still controversial, but rather something that is now (years later) very clear.

[Inspector]

Conveniently, you avoided using the term rational environmentalist because you are not willing to accept it.

You're darn tootin' I'm not willing to accept it. No way in the world is the rational party an environmentalist of any kind. As I said, "rational environmentalist" is a contradiction in terms, like "rational marxist."

As for industrial activity causing more harm than good, just because net benefit has accrued that there hasn't been some level of harm in many cases. It was just outweighed by benefit.

So, in your terms, what would be the status of someone who caused some level of harm that was outweighed by the benefits?

You've never met someone like this?

No. Never. You underestimate the ubiquity of environmentalist propaganda. I've never seen such a person outside of caricature such as found in said environmentalist propaganda.

Someone who is not only totally uninformed and uneducated about the complexity of biological systems, but when confronted with an overwhelming amount of evidence that can't be denied, stilll denies, claiming that they "just don't believe it"? Of course, what they really mean is, they just don't care.

I'm not sure what you mean by that? What, precisely, is such a person denying? The existence of a biological ecosystem, or the "necessity" to enact political measures to "preserve" said ecosystem. Because if it is the latter, then you can call ME an anti-environmentalist.

[Liriodendron Tulipifera]

softwarenerd, I think you should read my recent posts in the Bill Gates Malaria thread, and you should also google "Aral Sea Uzbekistan."

[Thales]

As for industrial activity causing more harm than good, just because net benefit has accrued that there hasn't been some level of harm in many cases. It was just outweighed by benefit. IN many cases, the net benefit is small or nearly negligible.

Benefit to whom? Values aren't detached from individuals.

For example, the deforestation going on in Brazil. The land is used for cattle ranching but unfortunately only viable for a number of years due to the poor soil conditions, which forces landowners to then move on to the next plot of land, rendering the old land useless not only for cattle ranching but also for reforestation.

You may be right, Liro. I don't know about the specifics of cattle ranching, but I do know that there is a great deal of environmental propaganda out there on so called "rainforests" (aka jungles).

Rainforest, for instance, are not the "lungs of the earth", nor have they been around forever. They're rather young.

The following is from Philip Stott, Professor of Biogeography,

http://www.probiotech.fsnet.co.uk/trf.html

Rain forests are quite unessential for maintaining the so-called ecological balance of the Earth. Compared with the oceans, the trees are 'noise' in the system. We no more need them than we did the forests of Europe, largely cleared by the 17th Century, or Thoreau's woods in New England.

The article at the link above is well worth reading.

He has several more similar articles here Forests

When you talk about people being uneducated, a great deal of the blame lies with environmentalists, who spread absolute garbage to the point where they've sullied science so that it takes extra work for a person to figure out what is really going on. Being uneducated is one thing, deliberately spreading false propaganda is another thing altogether.

Btw, professor Stott has his own blog:

Stott's Blog

Btw, on the viability of soil, I don't see why it wouldn't be possible for experts to find a way to replenish soil that goes bad. Free markets have a way of activating minds to find solutions for such problems. After all, problems are simply part of life. Obstacles will always be present. Clever people are always looking for solutions and they almost always find them.

[Liriodendron Tulipifera]

Rainforest, for instance, are not the "lungs of the earth", nor have they been around forever. They're rather young.

"What do lungs do? Take a deep breath - they gulp in oxygen and give out carbon dioxide! If the rain forests are indeed 'the lungs of the world', they should surely be cut down as quickly as possible!"

The quote above from the infamous Dr. Stott quoted by Thales.... ROFLMAO. He takes this phrase straight out of context, assuming that referring to rainforests as "lungs" means they must be emitting carbon dioxide. So while it's a stupid phrase, he doesn't need to add to the stupidity by taking it out of context. Plants grow by fixing carbon dioxide into useable form: first glucose, then they make structural molecules like cellulose out of it. So the only way that plants can grow larger is by a net fixation of carbon dioxide, larger than their output in respiration!!

The Earth has gone through plenty of temperature changes before, but Dr. Stott misleads people by thinking that just because what was once grassland savanna 12,000-18,000 years ago (a charge I will accept only for the sake of argument), that means that all the tropical species that are in the tropics now somehow magically appeared recently. I don't even need to investigate this statement to know that this is bullcrap. THIS GUY is the one spreading propoganda. I can't even think of a species that evolves that fast (maybe, MAYBE cichlid fishes!), let alone thousands of them. And there are certainly thousands of tropical plants. Such a feat of evolution would be published far and wide and I'm sure I would have heard about it.

As for the soil question in the tropics, we have enough problems repleneshing our own GOOD quality soils in the Midwest.... sheesh. Most of the solutions in agriculture lie in genetically engineering plants that can deal with crappy soils, not in improving the soils. Soils scientists already know what improves soils: an intact, functioning ecosystem.

Being uneducated is one thing, deliberately spreading false propaganda is another thing altogether.

Well, at least we agree on one thingj!

Edited November 8, 2005 by Liriodendron Tulipifera

[Inspector]

That's a very intimidating attack there, Liro, but I think he's right. Recent science has made a lot of noise about "rainforests" (jungles) NOT being net oxygen producers. (Discover magazine, for one)

That task has been shifted onto sea algae, and of course all sorts of arguments are being made about how we're killing it and we're all going to die and we need to enact legislation right away and kill all the businessmen.

Frankly, they're all full of it and there is no compelling reason to do anything except let the free market do its thing.

Edited November 8, 2005 by Inspector

[Liriodendron Tulipifera]

there is no compelling reason to do anything except let the free market do its thing.

And where, in this entire thread, I daresay in any of my posts in this forum, have I ever disagreed with that statement?? WHY on Earth would I be posting on an Objectivist forum if I hadn't already accepted the validity of free markets to "do their thing?"

[Thales]

I obviously touched a sore spot with you.

Stott’s quote:

"What do lungs do? Take a deep breath - they gulp in oxygen and give out carbon dioxide! If the rain forests are indeed 'the lungs of the world', they should surely be cut down as quickly as possible!"

The quote above from the infamous Dr. Stott quoted by Thales....

Infamous? I think not. Perhaps he is to environmentalists.

ROFLMAO. He takes this phrase straight out of context, assuming that referring to rainforests as "lungs" means they must be emitting carbon dioxide. So while it's a stupid phrase, he doesn't need to add to the stupidity by taking it out of context.

All he’s doing is poking fun at the inaccuracy of the phrase.

Plants grow by fixing carbon dioxide into useable form: first glucose, then they make structural molecules like cellulose out of it. So the only way that plants can grow

larger is by a net fixation of carbon dioxide, larger than their output in respiration!!

In sum what you’re saying here is that plants take in CO2 and give off O2. Right?

No one is disagreeing with that. However, Stott also points out that forests *decompose* and this is where CO2 is given off.

But the bigger point is that forests are trivial in terms of oxygen production (when they produce it) in comparison to the oceans, which are far and away the biggest source of oxygen.

The Earth has gone through plenty of temperature changes before, but Dr. Stott misleads people by thinking that just because what was once grassland savanna 12,000-18,000 years ago (a charge I will accept only for the sake of argument),

That’s his area of expertise.

that means that all the tropical species that are in the tropics now somehow magically appeared recently.

Why do you say that? It’s an accepted fact that there was an ice age. Right? Glaciation, I know for a fact, came right down into the St. Louis area. There is a place in Missouri called “elephant rocks”, which are huge boulders that were deposited by glaciers.

I don’t know for sure, but it seems to me that when places warm up, vegetation spreads and so would animal life. It doesn’t take any time for animals to spread when conditions are right.

I don't even need to investigate this statement to know that this is bullcrap. THIS GUY is the one spreading propoganda. I can't even think of a species that evolves that fast (maybe, MAYBE cichlid fishes!),

Where did he make any claim about evolution accelerating?

As for the soil question in the tropics, we have enough problems repleneshing our own GOOD quality soils in the Midwest.... sheesh. Most of the solutions in agriculture lie in genetically engineering plants that can deal with crappy soils, not in improving the soils. Soils scientists already know what improves soils: an intact, functioning ecosystem.

You answered the question! There is a solution. And the point I was making was that free human beings look for solutions to problems. I should also point out to you that the yield per acre for most crops is phenomenal in America. America produces enough food for the world.

Well, at least we agree on one thing!

Yep.

Edited November 8, 2005 by Thales

[Liriodendron Tulipifera]

In sum what you’re saying here is that plants take in CO2 and give of O2. Right?

No one is disagreeing with that. However, Stott also points out that forests *decompose*, and this is where CO2 is given off.

Yes, I am saying that plants give off net O2 IF they are growing. Plants also respire but if they are growing, they have net O2 production, not consumption. The most recent evidence suggests that the sink for CO2 is the boreal forest, based on slight depressions in CO2 concentration up there. It's an assumption on your part, that the reason I am concerned with deforestation in the tropics is because of a loss of O2.

Anyway, the phrase "forests decompose" means nothing to me. Of course they do. Everything decomposes, in every ecosystem. There's decomposition going on in the ocean, too. Decomposition of those little algae you talked about that are busy photosynthesizing. Is the following sentence what you really mean? That net respiration exceeds photosynthesis in the rainforest? If so, where are the data to back this claim? I already know that net O2 production is going on in oceans. But on the rainforests being a net producer of CO2, I'd like to see data, please, because i have never heard this before.

Anyone can claim anything and write a book about it. It wouldn't make me an expert on the issue. In fact, I nearly have my PhD in biology. Does that make me an expert on environmental issues? Does the fact that Rachel Carson wrote a book on DDT make her an expert on DDT? Does designing a website and labeling it "Junk Science" mean that everything on it is junk science? Primary sources are best, not books or articles for the general public filled with hyperbole, spreading whatever ideology. People that present graphs, charts, raw data, from experiments THEY have conducted. Even this does not guarantee the integrity of the research, but it's the best we have.

I don’t know for sure, but it seems to me that when places warm up, vegetation spreads and so would animal life. It doesn’t take any time for animals to spread when conditions are right.

Where did he make any claim about evolution accelerating?

We don't disagree on this point. So while forests may "come and go" on a landscape, those plants must have been existing ELSEWHERE, because species don't evolve that fast. So what is he saying? That the total area occupied by rainforest was smaller than it is now? How much smaller? he conveniently avoids this issue. I'd like to know. By avoiding that point, he is misleading folks into thinking that the rainforest ecosystem is some recent arrival on much of the Earth. It can "come and go" so to speak.

Finally, that he dismisses the fact that there are genetic resources there for us to store, read, and use tells me just about all I need to know.

[dondigitalia]

I already know that net O2 production is going on in oceans. But on the rainforests being a net producer of CO2, I'd like to see data, please, because i have never heard this before.

Do you know how the amount of O2 production in the oceans compares to that going on in rain forests? I had heard (I don't recall where, and I don't claim any sort of knowledge or expertise on ecology) that the rain forests do have a net O2 production, but is miniscule in comparison that produced in the oceans--that the amount of oxygen coming out of the rain forests is practically negligable. Would you disagree or agree with that claim?

[Thales]

I obviously touched a sore spot with you.

Just to make it clear. This wasn't my intention! nor would I want to.

I'll reply to your posting tomorrow when I have time.

[Liriodendron Tulipifera]

Do you know how the amount of O2 production in the oceans compares to that going on in rain forests? I had heard (I don't recall where, and I don't claim any sort of knowledge or expertise on ecology) that the rain forests do have a net O2 production, but is miniscule in comparison that produced in the oceans--that the amount of oxygen coming out of the rain forests is practically negligable. Would you disagree or agree with that claim?

I actually would agree with that claim. This makes perfect sense from my knowledge of northeastern forests, which generally accumulate biomass very quickly for about 80 years, and then gradually level off so that there is still net O2 production (which is negligible), but never net respiration.

Rainforests tend to grow on very poor soils, where any available litter is rapidly decomposed and taken up by plants. Because of these unique soil characteristics, agriculture doesn't really work very well on these soils. They are very different soils to what we have in the northern hemisphere, which enables us to be incredibly productive with our land in terms of agriculture and forestry. Still, there are issues with agriculture and monoculture forestry up here (introduced diseases and high disease rates, constant need to apply fertilizer because of nutrient loss), and a great deal of scientists devote a lot of work to figuring out the best way to harvest plants (whatever types - crops or trees) for profit while maintaining the integrity of the system to last for many generations. Most of our crop plants are very much genetically modified to deal with continually decreasing soil fertility in the midwest. We have a good handle on the genetics of corn, rice, and wheat. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, the entire rice genome has now been sequenced.

There are very good examples of forested habitats in the United States which have not been managed properly for long-term profit, and are now just old fields. If forestry had been done properly on those sites, ensuring tree regeneration, the situation would be much better for the landowner. For example, a friend of mine had a neighbor who cut down a lot of sugar maple trees on his land. Unfortunately, he did so in a year which there wasn't a very big mast of sugar maple seed and hadn't been for several years. So there were no seedlings there before removing the overstory. Furthermore, the land was angled at about a 30% slope, and instead of the skid trails being laid out parallel to the slope (as they should be on any land greater than 5% slope), they were laid out perpendicular, so that a lot of soil was lost down the slope after the tree harvest. Bad management techniques.

So while he has every right to do what he did with his own land, he actually could have made a lot more profit in the long run by waiting a couple of years by listening to me, and my friend, to ensure adequate regeneration of sugar maple saplings so that, years from now, he could again harvest those same types of trees. What's now growing there is a bunch of junk trees, weeds, and shrubs that will grow into a forest that will never be of use, economically, recreationally, or otherwise. So if he doesn't care, or if he needed the money right away, or wants to use the land for some other purpose (I can't imagine what!), that's fine. But he doesn't have a right to complain that 10 years from now, there's no sugar maple! This is like the people that took Vioxx for arthritis and then decided to sue because they didn't bother to inform themselves about the drug, or the possible side effects. All I'm saying is that there are an awful lot of people who fail to think beyond the immediate or inform themselves on things that SHOULD be important to them, when it comes to land useage. You can't eat your cake and have it, too.

We lose probably hundreds of tons of soil down the Mississippi each year, and I don't worry too much about it because the prairie soils of the Midwest had about two meters of organic matter available when we started farming them a few hundred years ago. But the soils in the tropics don't hold organic matter like ours do, because the rates of decomposition are so fast. That's all I'm saying, really, that nutrients are leached through the soil and disappear from the watershed faster. The tropical forests are not very resilient systems. Such things happen on northeastern soils, too, only at a much slower rate. (They've studied this at Hubbard Brook in New Hampshire.)

So when a field is abandoned here in the northern US, it can turn into an old field, which can then be reclaimed by trees, which can be cut down 80 years later or so for agriculture or a tree plantation, if a landowner so desires. It doesn't work that way in the tropics. Within a few years, the farmers or ranchers move on to the next plot of forested land (slash and burn agriculture), leaving the old one behind, which is pretty much useless. I don't know of plots of land in the tropics on which traditional forestry or agriculture is taking place that actually last more than a few harvest periods.

I get bothered when people just speculate that we can cut down rainforests and plant whatever trees we like,a definite implication in the article by Dr. Stott listed by Thales. While I believe that tropical forests SHOULD be managed for forest products (wood, rubber, medicine, etc.), tourism, and biotechnology, I haven't seen any evidence that we can use the same types of management techniques we use here in the US. It's not a matter of not knowing what to do down there! It's a matter of it (selective harvest!) not being done! Again, a failure to think beyond the immediate. It's the people in those countries who live there, and the companies here in the US that could be benefitting financially, and us, who could be buying those products, who will be the losers if the people down there don't smarten up.

I'm sure this has a lot to do with the political economic systems in these countries, but I wouldn't know enough about that to speculate, so I will leave those comments to someone who knows better.

[Inspector]

...So for the purposes of Thales' citation and the point Thales was trying to make, his reference was absolutely right. It's just that there are other implications of the reference he cited that you disagree with.

It helps to be clear.

And where, in this entire thread, I daresay in any of my posts in this forum, have I ever disagreed with that statement?? WHY on Earth would I be posting on an Objectivist forum if I hadn't already accepted the validity of free markets to "do their thing?"

Where did I direct that comment specifically at you? In fact I was directing it at the people mentioned in my second paragraph. Kind of a fist-shaking thing.

[Jon P]

Without getting into the fact that intrinsic value is a false concept, I'd like to ask for everyone's opinion on what environmentalism actually means TO YOU. What do you think of when you first think of the word? I can see the point that words ending in -ism generally imply an ideological viewpoint, i.e. religionist, evolutionist, etc. But what is this ideology, exactly? And what term would be best to describe those who wish to preserve the environment for man's sake - aesthetic, economic, or otherwise...

To me, environmentalism essentially means, many environmentalists - environmentalists who concern themselves with the ecological problems our world is facing. Big factories, fuel powered automotive transportation, etc – these things release gaseous fumes into the atmosphere which is causing our delicate system of life to directly react. There are men walking this earth today, who have in their life time witnessed an industrial age that has caused a breach in the ozone layer, has melted polar ice caps, and has caused rise in global warming. While environmentalists concern themselves with these ecological issues, that means discouraging things that capitalists generally feel dependant on.

Environmentalism indirectly attacks capitalism, and their current ways of life, factories, big businesses, pollution, and society as a whole. Environmentalist’s intentions are good. Their goal is to maintain a healthy planet that can sustain life. Capitalists have a different success story in mind. Capitalists want a healthy economy, and they want it to grow. These are two conflicting views. Continued rate of pollutants will not end in inevitable death of our species, per se, but consistent increase in pollution will end in nothing good, and it’s important to remember this. Without a world, where could Objectivists live and hold their values? No world, means no happy societies. I personally believe that it is important for environmentalism as I understand it, to exist.

While fuel remains, ethanol is on the rise, an environmentally safe alternative. Some people, like my neighbor, are buying hybrid cars, which use much less gas per the mile. I think the best term to refer to these people who are environmentally conscious, are "Nice guys". Nice guys like my neighbor, doing their part for the environment, while saving a buck or two on gas prices.

[dondigitalia]

The environmentalists you are talking about are the irrational quasi-religious kind. Correct me here, if I'm wrong, Liri, but our ecosystem is not particularly "delicate." I do agree that there is a valid reason for studying environmental issues--to maximize the amount of value we can extract from the planet, not because it's in danger of crumbling to pieces at the slightest change. Earth's ecology has never been stable, species have been going extinct for millenia, and climates have been constantly changing for billions of years.

There is absolutely no real evidence that global warming is caused by anything humans have done. That is an invention of political environmentalists; in the 70s, in fact, the big stink they were making was global cooling. Earth is not the only planet that is warming up. Astronomers have known for many years that the sun is getting hotter, and it's going to continue to do so for quite some time. Mars' polar ice caps are melting as well. Are our businesses at fault for that one, too?

[Inspector]

Jon P's characterization is PRECISELY what I would call the "popular conception" of what environmentalism is. It is the "man on the street" definition which I think the majority of people hold of what the environmental movement is and what its goals and motives are.

It is precisely what they want you to think. That they're perfectly harmless and they just want to have clean air and water.

It is, of course, blatantly, dangerously, even disasterously false.

See my above posts and the links given. (Especially the #10 post in THIS thread: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...topic=4925&hl=) It is imperative that this "popular conception" of environmentalism be wiped out before those monsters kill us all.

Edited November 8, 2005 by Inspector

[Liriodendron Tulipifera]

Yeah i would agree dondigitalia. I don't think the Earth is going to collapse anytime soon. In fact, at my university, which is the College of Env. Science and Forestry, a new seminar is being offered next semester discussing just that viewpoint: that we are not going to run out of resources anytime soon, and maybe never. Interesting!

Considering my state, New York, something like 40% of the land was forested at the turn of the century, and now 70-80% of the land is forested, due largely to the shift in agriculture away from NY State. You walk through forests here and see old farm fences.

In terms of global warming, I'm not that educated on this issue. I know global CO2 levels are rising, but are not dangerous to human health. I think that level of CO2 is something like 0.3%, and our current level is something like 370 ppm (parts per million). The lowest it's ever been, scientists think, is 275 ppm?? IF global warming is happening, it's probalby not due to CO2. There are more important greenhouse gases like water vapor and methane. But who cares what causes it? In any case, we'll still have to deal with it, if it's happening. Some aspects would be good, some bad. I'm pretty convinced it is happening, due to shifts in grasses geographically. Some grasses do better in hot conditions. They have a specific biochemical pathway that adapts photosynthesis to hot conditions. We're seeing these outcompete grasses now in more northern areas with the classic photosynthetic cycle. HOWEVER, this information is from a textbook, not from a primary source. And I don't necessarily trust textbooks on political issues. Anyway, we shall see. I don't care enough about this issue to go find the primary research articles, although I remember reading something about 5 years ago on it.

I acutally don't think the interests of those who want clean air and water is conflicting at all with capitalism. Capitalism is the solution to pollution problems because only in capitalist countries is there incentive to develop pollution control technology. It's the real environmentalists, in the true sense of the word, that value environment over man. They want all progress stopped at all costs. Period. Scientists studying environmental stuff don't particularly care for these Sierra Club Greenpeace types, because they take data produced by real scientists, and twist it into something it doesn't mean. Sierra Club actually has its own "journal", which is really a magazine and no one in science takes seriously. Unfortunately, as Inspector said, they prey on the public, because those people don't know any better.

[Thales]

Yes, I am saying that plants give off net O2 IF they are growing. Plants also respire but if they are growing, they have net O2 production, not consumption. The most recent evidence suggests that the sink for CO2 is the boreal forest, based on slight depressions in CO2 concentration up there. It's an assumption on your part, that the reason I am concerned with deforestation in the tropics is because of a loss of O2.

Well, actually, I wasn't assuming your position. I was referring to the position of environmentalists.

Anyway, the phrase "forests decompose" means nothing to me. Of course they do. Everything decomposes, in every ecosystem. There's decomposition going on in the ocean, too. Decomposition of those little algae you talked about that are busy photosynthesizing. Is the following sentence what you really mean? That net respiration exceeds photosynthesis in the rainforest? If so, where are the data to back this claim? I already know that net O2 production is going on in oceans. But on the rainforests being a net producer of CO2, I'd like to see data, please, because i have never heard this before.

Right, the net production of O2 can be negative, depending on the forest. I don't have any direct source, but I did find a secondary source to back professor Stott's point.

Here is the quote and zee link

Rainforests have been called the "Lungs of the Earth", but the term is misleading. Although rainforests do release vast amounts of oxygen into the atmosphere, they absorb just as much through the decay of organic matter. However, they do play an important role in regulating the Earth's atmosphere by storing carbon in their biomass. When forests are destroyed, the carbon they contain is released into the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide.

Anyone can claim anything and write a book about it. It wouldn't make me an expert on the issue.

Professor Stott is a seasoned professor in his field. So, yes, he's an expert.

Primary sources are best, not books or articles for the general public filled with hyperbole, spreading whatever ideology.

If you're an expert in the field, this makes sense, but most of us don't have the time to research such things, so we rely on experts. The key is to make sure the experts you find are logically consistent, and in harmony with the evidence. You do it to the best of your ability within time constraints. Professor Stott hasn't let me down yet.

People that present graphs, charts, raw data, from experiments THEY have conducted. Even this does not guarantee the integrity of the research, but it's the best we have.

Yes, I'm aware of this. The scientific method requires an open ended circular process of looking at the data, hypothesizing based on this, accumulating more data, rehypothesizing, going back to the data again, etc.

We don't disagree on this point. So while forests may "come and go" on a landscape, those plants must have been existing ELSEWHERE, because species don't evolve that fast. So what is he saying? That the total area occupied by rainforest was smaller than it is now? How much smaller? he conveniently avoids this issue. I'd like to know. By avoiding that point, he is misleading folks into thinking that the rainforest ecosystem is some recent arrival on much of the Earth. It can "come and go" so to speak.

What he is saying is crystal clear to me. Rainforests haven't been around forever. He says the following. Paraphrasing, at the end of the last ice age (that's the time) there were no jungles in the Malay Peninsula and much of the Amazonian (those are locations). The Link

What Professort Stott is doing is addressing the stuff he hears from environmentalists. This is not only legitimate, it's morally praisworthy that he stands up against the propaganda.

Another person who has done this in Europe is Bjorn Lomborg. He's a guy that started out a hard over envioronmentalists, until he seriously checked the facts.

Finally, that he dismisses the fact that there are genetic resources there for us to store, read, and use tells me just about all I need to know.

He's not done this. You assume a great deal, Liro. You need to read what he writes, and not see things that aren't there.

For the record, Stott is not saying "Hey, cut down the Amazonian jungles". He's simply saying it's not all it's been cracked up to be.

Btw, another point he makes is that the Amazonian jungle is 87% in tact.

Edited November 9, 2005 by Thales

[Jon P]

The environmentalists you are talking about are the irrational quasi-religious kind.

"The environmentalists you are talking about are the irrational quasi-religious kind."

I don't think we're talking about the same people. If you did respond to my post though, could you provide evidence supporting this statement?

"...reason for studying environmental issues--to maximize the amount of value we can extract from the planet, not because it's in danger of crumbling to pieces"

Maybe you can reply to the first post with what you think environmentalism means, and what comes to mind, instead of replying to mine.

Mars' polar ice caps are melting as well. Are our businesses at fault for that one, too?

Haha, funny. The answer is no.

Jon P's characterization is PRECISELY what I would call the "popular conception" of what environmentalism is. It is the "man on the street" definition which I think the majority of people hold of what the environmental movement is and what its goals and motives are.

I'm glad to see that most people agree with me.

It is precisely what they want you to think. That they're perfectly harmless and they just want to have clean air and water.

It's also what I want to think. I've had no problems believing that environmentalists have anything but good intentions

[Jon P]

Just to paint a clearer picture, I believe the intentions of environmentalists are golden. They are the ones who study the relationship between human and earth, they are the ones who may point fingers at what they consider the cause of environmental damage. Usually the fingers they point, are pointed at capitalisms way of life, as I was trying to say in my first post. They don't have any problems with how the government works, it's how the government effects the earth that they are interested in. This is not a communist party, this is a field thats sole purpose it to work toward protecting the natural environment from destruction or pollution. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=environmentalism)

[softwareNerd]

Jon P., I wish I could put intentions in my bank account!

Would you agree that the only (repeat only) reason to preserve any aspect of the earth is to serve some current or furture human need? Do you think there is any other reason to do so?