Comments atreyger has made

CLWeber,

I disagree with you:

1) I don't think that a carbon saturation point has been shown, particularly with recalcitrant carbon forms, e.g. humus. Furthermore, as a result of very slow lignin decomposition, any build-up of carbon in the humic layer is slowly leached down the soil horizons, thus C stays in soil nearly indefinitely, barring severe topsoil disturbances. The difference between best-case pasture and best-case grain-fed scenarios is also a bit murky, since nearly all pasturing is similar, with similar rates of C storage, whereas I have yet to see a non-pilot dairy farm in NYS that has methane capture. It's a good farm that has a permanent functioning manure lagoon... And nearly all farms spread the shit come late winter on top of the snowpack (which then immediately melts, creating 'interesting' water issues for us to study and create BMPs for).

2) Agreed, but every cornfield is losing C, or at best keeping neutral, whereas pastures are retaining some. Maybe not as much as forests, but still

3) That's true, but that is how ANY measurement works.

SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry

And yes, of course you know everything about propaganda, considering that is all you have. Anything can be overcome with repeated ignorance.

How does a systems engineer become famous in the blogosphere and his community? Pick a topic he knows nothing about, and start blabbing about it. Really, I'm done talking to you, I would also strongly suggest that you stop talking about things you obviously know nothing about.

Chris,

First, with ruffed grouse - 'thickets': how do you think you get these? It's obvious that you understand that, since that was one of the 'bad' things about clearcuts from your list. Second, grouse and woodcocks need a mix of habitats in close proximity for their life cycle, including forests, thickets AND open fields (or at least open patches, how else could a woodcock do the mating dance?). Just because a guidebook will tell you where to find them, does not mean that is how you manage for them. Luckily, that's not how wildlife managers work. Third, migratory songbirds in decline (threatened and endangered) across the board in the northeast are all open-field/shrub/early successional habitat species. Warblers are hardly game. Finally, wood is biomass, I don't understand that comment.

It's obvious that you are trying to do something that you think is right, but you have a layman's understanding of ecology, and it shows. It would be prudent for you to learn more than the snippets of information that you have presented, before you go on an activist campaign trail.

Mary,

I'm not quite sure what the harvest is in MA. It is likely that the tonnage that you refer to is current pulpwood/biomass harvest, not overall tonnage. For example, NY harvests approximately 2 million tons of pulpwood annually. The tonnage for the sawlogs is rarely reported, although it could be calculated. There are two aspects to your statement. First, from what I know Non-Industrial Private Forest (NIPF) landowners who own roughly 80% of all forestland, which makes up over 60% of MA land (of course the actual tree cover for MA is likely closer to 70-75%, with ag/suburban/urban trees) are undercutting the overall growth by approximately 60%, that is they leave 60% of growth in the forest. Second, there's a lot of poor trees out there that are not being cut, and are actually depleting the forest genetics, and the bulk of these makes up the 60% figure. While I'm not suggesting that we cut growth 1:1, there's a lot of leeway out there in terms of sustainable harvest. 

Furthermore, there's about 2.5 million tons annually of unused biomass WITHOUT harvesting any more trees:

http://www.mass.gov/dcr/stewardship/forestry/utilmark/supply_report.pdf

And there's a further 2 million tons of unharvested annual growth.

Meg,

It's not MY article. My last name is nowhere on it. I have nothing to do with willow biomass, either from a professional or academic standpoint (I guess the second is the first for me). I know a lot about it, because it's a product of the college where I work, and I interact with people in the know. I cannot answer your question, since I haven't read the paper that you refer to. I would guess that the authors of the paper is who you can approach to find out what it was that they did. However, I hope you understand that you cannot release more CO2 than is stored in the burned biomass during combustion, and the biomass burned takes up the same amount of CO2 in 2-3 years. It is axiomatic, and simple logic will get you to that point. If you have another quibble with the methodology of the article, please contact the authors.

I think this is my last post, I have wasted way too much of my time educating and arguing (to some extent) with you people. If you don't care to learn what I know or learn the actual facts, that is your problem, but don't be surprised if you don't understand why people are supporting biomass. It's got less to do with money than you think, after all, cutting for pulpwood will make precious little money for the landowner* and VERY little money for the logger. What loggers would love is if they could keep high-grading forever (they can't).

*It does allow for offsetting the costs of properly managing a forest and may provide a way to pay off taxes. 

I have no idea what you are talking about, pg. 395, etc. Willow biomass is about as carbon neutral as it can get, especially if the transport costs are ignored. These are similar to any transport/manufacture costs with PV solar or wind.

You're right, it does take 80 years for 1 tree to grow to merchantable size for sawlogs. It takes a lot less for one tree to grow to merchantable size for biomass, as soon as 10, but 20 is also possible. All hardwood trees at that age reproduce by sending stool sprouts, that absorb CO2 with no break in photosynthesis.

The argument for biomass isn't purely for storage. We aren't talking about carbon offsets, with deep ocean C sequestration by dumping large sawlogs. We are talking about a three-fold issue: producing energy, while reducing the carbon imprint of said energy and improving our energy independence.

Do you prefer coal?

Also, I never said that this was THE silver bullet, just another part of the solution.

I think what you are referring to when you say "2-3 years in the south" is my comment about willow biomass. While it is true that many Eucalyptus and pines grow to merchantable sizes in the tropics within 10 years, I was referring to shrub willows grown in the northeastern US, in particular NY. There is already a push for growing these in marginal land and this project is maybe 20 years in the making already. Many willow crosses were selected for fast growth and resistance to disease (and in order to prevent monocropping), so that biomass productivity in NYS, even on marginal land is quite exceptional.

So, that's what I was talking about, when I was talking about 2-3 year cycle of CO2. Check out:

http://www.esf.edu/willow/

Also, the CO2 emissions versus offsets was precisely my point. If the plants are burning the biomass, then the amount of CO2 that is taken up by the plants should count as an offset to the plant. I think that's the reason for why these plants already have an exception, because there is a trade-off between renewable C-sequestration and power generation. You might be right, as I previously said, that these should not be 1:1, due to time scale differences and delivery logistics, but at worst it should not be over 1.5:1. I agree with accountability, and I am not against some penalty for the produced CO2, but the first step is to attack the obvious holes in our energy-carbon management, which is fossil fuels, not biomass. Furthermore, I seriously dislike blanket statements like "THIS IS NOT A CARBON NEUTRAL STOCK".

You say potato... I say you're looking at a cow.

Mary (I think that's who you are since the agenda is identical, and MA examples are consistent).

First off, there are some bad 'foresters' out there, I put that in quotes, because I hesitate to ethically call somebody a forester who does not do the job the way it's supposed to be done. I guess you can call someone a house builder, but if their houses fall apart in three years, would you? The majority of cutting that takes place takes place without a forester (or at least someone who has the credentials, I'm not sure if a forester has to be certified in MA, but in NY anybody can call themself a forester).

Markets are what drive the timber industry, with what sells driving the trees that get cut. Thus, without a market for low-quality wood, there will be and is low-quality wood all over the place in the northeast, including NY and MA.

Shocker to you: small to medium clearcuts (up to 15-20 acres, if done use successive strip cuts) are not bad. They provide horizontal structural complexity in wildlife habitat, and more importantly provide sunlight and nutrients to future trees. It is better to clearcut than to leave shit trees that are spaced poorly, grow poorly and produce poor seed crops with poor genetics. Have I said 'poor' enough times yet? Poor... And while I'm at it, I love how people rile against clearcuts, when nearly every forest you have been in has been clearcut, and surprise, lo and behold there is still a forest there. The young ones may not be as pretty as an uneven-aged forest or a 120 year old even-aged forest but it's still there taking up CO2 that has been released with prior burnings. It is a full-fledged forest by 60 years of age.

Second, carbon neutrality of power plants with wood, coal and natural gas, is still a strawman. First off, you cannot cite a handout created by a NIMBY organization. Second, even if it is true that there is more CO2 released, which I have not seen personally, the CO2 came from recently taken-up carbon, and not from something that has been stored underground for the last million years (after all that is the major argument against the fossil fuels, ahem).

Third, are you familiar with growth and yield functions of trees? There is an inflection point that, in the northeast, occurs at about 80-100 years of age (depending on site and species), when trees start to grow slower, and add less diameter to the boles. That does not exactly equal the inflection point in carbon uptake per acre, but that would come at about 110-150 years, when there is enough death in the main canopy to reduce any future carbon uptake to essentially zero, when new seedlings would replace dead trees. At that point there is relatively little new carbon taken up. Thus, the majority of carbon uptake occurs between 10-100 years of a clearcut stand.

I agree that there is some loss of carbon due to burning versus decay; however, as I have previously stated (or maybe not), many of the poor-growth, slated-for-biomass trees are not only already rotting on the stump, nearly all are smaller than the mean size of a stand (or at least median). The remainder, approximately two thirds by biomass (assuming that a forest stand has been properly managed, which is already a huge assumption with the current situation, see the 80% figure above) of the stand will go into long-lasting (actually increased storage time) wood products. Thus, the loss of carbon is relatively low, I would say that during one cutting operation, no MORE and quite likely less than 40% (including transportation, which is also inherent with coal) of carbon is lost.

I think that what you are trying to state sounds an awful lot like a NIMBY attitude with no real background of the topic. Or, maybe it's more sinister, maybe you are a coal lobby intern, using the same tactic employed by Inhofe. Nah, I think it's the first.

I never claimed that biomass was perfectly carbon neutral, but it is carbon neutral by comparison to ANY fossil fuel-feedstock power plant. I also never claimed that it would be the best solution, either, since it is probably better to use biomass for heating, since much less is lost during inefficiencies of producing and transfering energy via transmission lines. Wind, solar, geothermal, and the remainder of the renewable energy types are well suited for energy generation (maybe geothermal not so much, but whatever), while wood is good for heating. Also, there is not enough tree GROWTH in NYS to keep everyone warm in NYS, it's only good for maybe 1 -1.5 million homes per year. That's still a lot of new carbon kept out of the atmosphere.

see bottom  

"No no Atreyger we do not use herbicides."

We = you?

Well,

I saw the episode and I thought it was pretty funny. It is very much in the same vein as the King of the Hill series, with similar character relationships and pilot-style developments. It wasn't as funny as many other shows that I watch, but for that matter, neither was King of the Hill. It was still enjoyable to watch the Goode Family, with the S.African-American adoptee being one of the funnier characters by far. I also enjoyed the mom passing out drunk, as well as doing the whole bit about minority conventions. It was not mean-spirited skewering, but rather highlighting peculiarities of a specific culture. If anything, if the center-conservative crowd does watch the show, they will be able to understand that we are all humans and are all motivated by similar things.

True, some of the characters were stereotypical, but if you somehow feel offended by them, well, take a look at yourself, and if these characters are like you, maybe you can't laugh at yourself. Or you just don't have a sense of humor. I bet you there must have been at least a few Texans who sold propane that embraced the Hank character, and what does that say about their ability to laugh at themselves?

If you don't like the show, tough... But don't state your own beliefs as the ultimate truth. Only time and revenue will tell how the rest of the nation like the show.

Actually, it was a United States governmental policy to drive bison to extinction in order to eliminate an important food source for Native Americans, with the species saved only by a few persevering ranchers. Skin was the only immediately collected portion of bison, with most of the meat of the millions upon millions of bison was left to rot on the carcass, until bones could be collected for subsequent use.

While I agree that baiting deer is not a good way to hunt, I fully disagree that hunting from a tree stand is as pejorative as you make it out to be. Comfortable or uncomfortable as some models are (I have two tree stands that are both damn uncomfortable, from having to use a rope to get into the tree every time, to having to haul the stand up, luckily only once per season, to usually finding myself without a comfortable back) sitting almost absolutely still for hours on end is uncomfortable even if any one of them was of couch quality, which none of them are. Also in New York, the weather is only nice for the early bowhunting season, and by middle of regular season, you are just as likely to endure snow as a random heat spike (damn you, global warming!). Also, the deer down in your neck of the woods are small, because you live in the south. It is axiomatic that the further south you go, the smaller the representatives of the species get.

This article appears to me to suggest that the cattle numbers may not be all that bad in greenhouse gas terms alone. After all, despite the burgeoning number of cattle, these new heads are replacing the decimated free-roaming ruminants, of the bison and buffalo type. Clearly, I am only using logic to support this claim, but if there were millions of free-roaming bison and other ruminants all over the world that are now exterminated, and these have in turn been replaced by CAFO cattle (which emit four times less CO2 than the free roamers), then the overall impact of the meat-industry farts is likely to be neutral. Of course, there's the destruction of carbon stores during the growing of corn, and the growing of corn using tractors and fossil-fuel based fertilizers, and delivery of said corn to stalls, and subsequent delivery of cattle to slaughterhouses and meat to markets, which are all likely to be less than neutral. I'm just saying though, I'm not sure if the sheer numbers of new cattle makes a difference in terms of greenhouse gases produced.

So what do we do with it?

So, umm, clearly the response to the avian flu should have been to kill off all the migrating waterfowl. ;)

There's some good rebuttal posts on this website. I think that there is a definite lack of understanding of influenza transmission and origination that feeds a hysteria and sometimes gut-based connections to a non-existent culprit. Clearly, flus have been around for a far longer period of time than Homo sapiens, thus it seems silly to blame a recent development (CAFOs) on the propagation and dissemination of the virus. It appears that the majority of the finger-pointing is caused by people who are not only ignorant but frequently malicious. The locals blaming a CAFO in Mexico as the cause of the flu are just peeved at the plant (probably with good reason). Most likely this flu is not at all connected to that or maybe any CAFO, particularly as it appears that not one pig is currently sick. This is somewhat similar but less malicious (maybe) to Egyptians attempting to eradicate all pigs in Egypt using the outbreak as a reason, primarily as a way to pressure the resident Christian population into following Muslim practices.

I will agree that there are strong ethical, health and ecological concerns regarding CAFOs; however, the link between them and the flu stated above is nothing but hearsay at best, and malicious posturing at worst. Thus, it is no surprise that the story above is purported as the 'ground-breaking' piece of journalism and is disclosed by someone who has NO training in medicine or public health management. So far, any attempt to point a finger is nothing but an uneducated opinion.

So, this seems misplaced. While I understand that some people, especially of the type to have a first name like Ginger, are extremely opinionated about things they do not know very much about, I do not understand why they use their opinions as truths. Dude, that's like... your opinion, man.

I actually fully agree that there is no reason to use 100% virgin fiber, but the fact is, paper cannot be made with 100% post-consumer recycled content. Toilet paper can, but it will be of inferior quality. I am not sure about tissues, but I would assume that if tissues were 100% recycled, they would fall apart in your hand with a sneeze.

Furthermore, touching campaign about boreal forests, but judging by the size of the logs in the youtube video, they are no older than 80-100 years of age, plus no forester in his right mind would want to sell a high quality sawlog (read: older than 100 years old) for pulpwood. So, unless you consider your grandparents as being ancient, your statement is just full of umm, excrement. These are not 'ancient' forests, and to be honest, I am not even sure what an 'ancient' forest is. After formally looking through several textbooks (I knew it to begin with, but these are the textbooks: general bio, general ecology, forest ecosystems, silviculture), not one of these contains the word 'ancient' anywhere with any relevance to forests. I think the word that you are striving for is 'old-growth'.

So, like I said: misplaced and full of holes. I am not an apologist for Kimberly-Clark, but know your case and your reasoning as to how you go about your case. Which, in my opinion, is going to be full of holes, unless you educate yourself from a neutral standpoint.

sea shepherd

I disagree with these jackasses, destroying property, endangering lives of others and antagonizing everyone whose viewpoint they do not like.

The fact that they have a skull on their flag is very telling. On Militant activists charged in seal protest posted 12 months ago 23 Responses

yup,

experience.On The wackiest ads of this year's election posted 1 year, 1 month ago 2 Responses

randino

Yes, I have a forestry background (technically forest ecosystem scientist).

I don't believe in tree farms (at least my concept of it, not the certification), I disagree with the approach taken down South to continually dump fertilizer into the system in order to maintain growth. However, in our world, it might be a necessity, since it seems like most people do not see the connection between wood and trees, and frequently oppose the 'timber beasts', while putting on a brand new addition to their house.

That said, every forest you have seen has been or will be logged. And every logger is going to want to take the biggest and best trees, which grow fastest and have excellent genetics, while leaving the rest. So, the forests are becoming degraded. All silvicultural systems will either retain or improve genetics within a stand, whereas "haphazard" logging typically will not for the above reason.

So, unless you want to leave our children and their children shitty trees, then you would support the market for low-value wood, just like I do.

I got into the field because I love forests, not because I love cutting trees. On Duke Energy announces investment in wood biomass on first day of the Clinton Global Initiative posted 1 year, 2 months ago 18 Responses

randino: confusing issues

1. MTR removes everything, including trees. Cutting trees removes trees, which will grow back.

2. Salvage logging is a strawman at best, and at worst a non-issue that became an issue in the hands of some crafty Earth Firsters (who, frankly, that they have now become equivalent to Mormons (or Saudis), and are nearly as much of a joke, which would be funny if it wasn't so sad)

3. GMOs in NE US forests are currently in the form of a) American chestnuts b) American elms, i.e. spp. that have been wiped out, and are currently being worked on in order to reintroduce them back.

4. WTF does Eucalyptus have to do with Ohio?

5. 'Strip mining' for biomass is not likely, since bigger, better growing trees produce more money for sawlogs.

6. I am not sure what your final remark meant, and I doubt that most readers will understand it as well.

precautionary principle

I have a somewhat gut reaction to people invoking the precautionary principle, no offense intended to anyone that does. I think in most situations it's a bunch of BS.

Yes, there are clear situations where an action carries risks that are overbearing. For example, outright atmospheric mercury release, or allowing sewage to enter drinking water supplies. These actions/events are clearly deserving of the invocation of the precautionary principle.

There are situations where risk is minimal, for example, I leave the house today to take a walk. In principle, barring any catastrophic event, including other's mistakes, this action should not have any important risks.

There are events in between that have a much stronger risk, but the risk may not be overbearing. This is the area, where precautionary principle starts to wither. Where do we draw the line in terms of how far do we take the principle? There are inherent risks in nearly every decision made by humans, including the possibility of striking an endangered animal in a car, etc. These risks can be relatively high or relatively low, but in all cases they exist. Even the minimal risk example above contains a certain amount of risk. This is where cost-benefit analysis typically comes in to assess the cost of taking action versus the cost of not taking action.

However, I find that typically the same group of people that asks for the precautionary principle to be considered ask for cost-benefit analysis to not take place. At that point, it becomes a self-serving request for the first, in essence a means to stop an action from happening based on the set of beliefs that are inherent to that person.

I believe that this becomes the crux of my argument. Any one who asks for the precautionary principle should immediately ask for cost-benefit analysis by an independent unbiased third-party.

My post was not intended as an argument against the above topic, but rather as a concern for the use of 'precautionary principle' that I typically see.

End transmission.On Wired: Two top Obama science advisors are tied to Monsanto and Amgen posted 1 year, 2 months ago 8 Responses

wiscidea,

I am not trying to say, don't eradicate non-natives, or that non-native invasives are good. I am arguing that there every case is different, and that in nearly all situations there will be another side of the fence, where there may be some positive to an invasive spp., similar to my Eurasian milfoil example, or even the Phragmites example.

However, invasives are in the public eye, and as such there will be a majority opinion on it (in this case, 'bad'). It is rare to hear the moderating voice within the chorus of 'bad, bad, bad', and that is why I like the above study and that is why I am taking the time out to write about it.

Basically, I am taking a step away from my ecological training (with environmentalIST overtones), and going towards my vegetation management side with a more rational scientific (and unbiased) approach. If anything, I am promoting an invasive spp. 'triage' solution if you will. Attempt to eliminate the 'super-invasives' (although you will never succeed), leave the sporadic invasives and exotics (unless you know them to be a problem elsewhere), and leave the rare non-invasive species alone. I think that there already is a very good system in place for attempting to do the above (I guess I'm sort of pro status quo, then), since resources are limited, and managers realize this.

Also, it will be impossible to get rid of the 'super-invasives', the best we can do is relegate them to a background level.On NYT critiques alien biology posted 1 year, 2 months ago 27 Responses

good discussion

Basically, once again, much of the discussion seems to fall along the line of training or beliefs. However, that is an interesting topic in itself, in that audiences that the issues appeal to are different. On one hand, we have Wolverine, whose diatribes have at this point essentially become a religious prophecy carried down through a prophet and related to us by a mere mortal, Wolverine.

On the other hand, we have picoallen, who seems to have worked quite a bit in the field. However, the analysis seems to focus away from the original article, and dubiously begins with foxes, rabbits and canetoads. The next argument is that you cannot use herbicides to control the invasives. One issue with that is, basically that unless Australia puts its entire GDP into handweeding out the invasive weeds, the results are going to be abysmal. So, it appears that picoallen, while passionate, has missed the mark.

Wiscidea brings up some good but emotional points, not necessarily looking to consider the issue as is, but rather how it should be. That may be a good way to approach philosophical endeavors, but vegetation management is a different endeavor. Furthermore, it appears that he uses questions more than answers: white clover, honeybees, etc., with lots of what ifs, but few as is's.

C4Nier,
You are correct that there are other, not readily observable effects. But, the idea that in 250 years (is that right?) only 3 plant species have disappeared in NZ, counteracts this argument. Now, granted that there are actual and 'effective' extinctions, but then what metric would YOU use to determine what an 'effective' extinction is?

Also, 'biodiversity' is a very slippery subject. Are you talking about alpha, beta, gamma, epsilon, or delta diversity? That is are you talking about a single community, between two communities, landscape, broad geographic region, or between communities between geographic regions? While it may not feel diverse when you walk in one invaded community, you are right for alpha, but may be way off for beta, gamma, or epsilon.

What I find interesting is that no one up to now has attempted to consider the effects of native invaders.

Once, again, training. (Hulk voice) Native good, non-native bad.On NYT critiques alien biology posted 1 year, 2 months ago 27 Responses

quick addition

Close to Tolovana Park, there are good examples of what an aerial shot of a clearcut looks maybe 5 years after the fact (i.e. the lighter green). Also right next to that are several good examples of a strip cut, with long parallel lines. The forest in between the cut portions is likely to be cut within the next twenty years. I think it is interesting that these are oriented east-west, since that will create interesting opportunities for diversity between shade-tolerant versus shade-intolerant species.On Google knows what you're doing posted 1 year, 2 months ago 13 Responses

amazing and jabailo

You two are a bunch of quacks, completely unfamiliar with the story, and spouting purely preconceived notions without educating yourselves about the issue and the general state of global politics.

Please refrain from posting about issues until you decide to leave the country and see for yourselves what is going on in other parts of the world.

Thank you.On Oil wealth contains the 'seeds of its own destruction' posted 1 year, 3 months ago 17 Responses

go Binghamton!

Sweet, alma mater got on the top ten for at least one reason.

I don't know how it's extra green though.On Snippets from the news posted 1 year, 4 months ago 1 Response

Wolverine:

Eco-Nazi

Yep, you should embrace that term and cherish it, because that is exactly what you are.

Senseless name-calling, for sure, but if you're saying things like:

"all life is sacred and everything in the natural world is alive"

Amen, brother, you're an Eco-Nazi with a religious twist. And guess what, that makes you a fanatic. Not a good place to be if you want to maintain your cool and move things forward, considering that most actions by fanatics tend to move civilizations backward.On Convicted eco-vandal sentenced to six years in prison posted 1 year, 5 months ago 57 Responses

Etymology

Canis,
You are right, humane does indeed come from the word human, it would be silly to argue that. And yes, humane indeed used to mean human (as I had found out).

But that is the fallacy of using that word. If you were to stick to the dictionary definition of the word, you may have more of an argument: to be compassionate is to not kill.

But to use a word as meaning to treat like a human is to suggest that there should be little regard for their well-being. Lots of people are stuck in  CAFOs (i.e. offices), lots of people have been tortured, killed, genocides still occur, etc.

We are not divine: 'to err is human, to forgive divine'. To describe someone as human means that we describe the great qualities of humankind, such as literature, art, poetry, love, as well as the negative ones, such as brutality, invasion, rape, murder. Many ancient and extant cultures worshipped strengths, which led to great atrocities, yet these same cultures produced great jewels of thought, and to the present day, they created what is now our culture. Without strengths, these values would not have been possible. Name a great civilization, or a great leader, and I will name a great crime that has been committed.

In as much as that may sting our senses, that is the way that it has been, the way it is and the way that it will be. Humane treatment of animals implies my definition of the word, not yours, because if your definition prevailed, any current treatment of animals would be considered 'humane'.On The all-powerful talk-show host ends her vegan cleanse posted 1 year, 5 months ago 30 Responses

I guess I should have added:

Nowhere in that definition does it say anything about treating 'like humans'.
On The all-powerful talk-show host ends her vegan cleanse posted 1 year, 5 months ago 30 Responses

So wait a second,

Arson is not a crime? Maybe then I will go over to Wolverine's house and burn it down, because he annoys me. Or maybe I don't like former Marines, so I will burn down his crops, because apparently he has nothing but potatoes. Or better yet, I will use a clothes iron on spaceshaper and take his whole savings account.

Thank you guys, I now understand.

Crime no longer exists, the society does not care what I do to you people. Maybe that's the way it should be.On Convicted eco-vandal sentenced to six years in prison posted 1 year, 5 months ago 57 Responses

So,

Let me get this straight, prosecuting loggers, miners, ranchers and scientists is good.

Prosecuting arsonists is bad.

I see, that's not perverted at all. Radicalism finally makes sense.On Convicted eco-vandal sentenced to six years in prison posted 1 year, 5 months ago 57 Responses

mmkay,

I personally have no experience with the desert bighorn sheep or the regular bighorn sheep. However, I suspect that wendigo's message may be as speculative as mine. After all, bighorn sheep are mobile mammals with a range in habitat, moving up and down with seasons. You are correct that the bighorn will want to avoid construction by miles.

However, and correct me if I am wrong, isn't the new powerline replacing an old one? And if the construction of the old powerline didn't eliminate bighorn populations, why would the new one?On Huge Calif. solar plant would run transmission lines through state park posted 1 year, 5 months ago 39 Responses

Several issues,

Sigh,

A. Powerline corridors in the Northeast are some of the best bird and mammal habitat around, because they are corridors for grass and shrubland species, with proximity to forestland habitat. If an ecological 'health' assessment was to be made based on avian/mammalian/vegetative biodiversity in a corridor encompassing the powerlines plus 60 foot wide inclusion of woods on each side, powerlines would typically be the 'healthiest' habitat around, much 'healthier' than forests. Quotes are necessary because habitats, unlike organisms, do not have an actual state of health.

Out west, this may not be the case, but due to the low stature of desert vegetation, the habitat is likely to be unchanged.

B. It is unfair to compare loud gas and oil rigs to essentially noiseless powerlines in terms of effects on wildlife.

C. Access roads are not different from hiking trails in the area, except that instead of one one-foot path there are two parallel one-foot paths separated by three feet.

D. Typically powerline companies in the Northeast clear vegetation about 7-10 years, and only trees due to the high costs of controlling all vegetation. As much as I would love to conduct vegetation sampling on a closely mowed golf-course like surface, usually I battle through thick growths of Rubus, Rosa, arrowwood, gray dogwood, hawthorn, willows and a ton of other shrubs, which all collectively blow to walk through.

This is in the typically very productive temperate forest region, where plant growth is fast. In the deserts, plant growth is minimal, and plant heights are not tall enough to interfere with power transmission, i.e. there are no treatment cycles. There will be one to two vehicles traveling the access road per year to make sure that the powerlines are in good shape, and the occasional chopper for security reasons.

So, the only reason that 'environmentalists' oppose it is due to aesthetic reason. So, thus, in effect Wolverine's argument is not Gaia-centric or whatever he proposes that approach to be, but really anthropocentric.On Huge Calif. solar plant would run transmission lines through state park posted 1 year, 5 months ago 39 Responses

holi!

I have a hard time believing that systems modeling (and somehow holism) was brought up, or maybe not...

In any case, systems modeling is based on an underlying set of assumptions just as much as the cost-benefit analysis. In fact, cost-benefit analysis is a subset of systems analysis. Invoking 'systems thinking' is, in many ways, tantamount to invoking cost-benefit analysis.

For example, current climate models predict an increase of global temperatures between 1.6 and 8.0 degrees C. This is based on a set of scenarios, such as the baseline emission scenario, reduced emission scenario, or increased emission scenario. It is also based on a certain amount of equations and parameters determined using the reductionist approach that approximate the current understanding of how the global climate works. These equations and parameters may have a solid ground in describing current conditions and try to predict a 'typical', but non-existent future. These same factors may not have a solid ground in the future, when there is a whole-scale change in ecosystem functioning, thus changing descriptive equations and parameters, which may make the current models obsolete. Also, clearly we have to assume (and this is HUGE!) that the equations are actually describing what is happening, rather than being serendipitously correct.

However, I am not suggesting that we do not consider modeling as important. No, no. I can find many reasons for why a particular model does not make sense, but I would never suggest dismissing the model, particularly if it has gone through rigorous sensitivity analysis and validation.

Several things to consider:

CBA is a reductionist model, not a complicated multiple-run phenomenological model with a statistical distribution, but it is based on a similar approach to modeling the future.

Scientific holism postulates that the behavior of a system cannot be perfectly predicted, no matter how much data are available.

So, essentially, I am arguing in favor of cost-benefit analysis as a tool in regulatory framework, based on:

1. Natural (and I would say most artificial systems) are not perfectly predictable.

2. Discounting is a factor: 'A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush'.

3. Money is a finite resource. Not the conceptual numbers, but the physical values that money represents.

4. Decisions have to be made by regulators in terms of dispensing money to appropriate causes.

5. CBA is an appropriate tool to be used in such cases.

OMB in the past decade was primarily run by Bushies, so umm, you wonder why the response is Bush-like?On Lisa Heinzerling responds to Richard Revesz on cost-benefit analysis posted 1 year, 6 months ago 38 Responses

problems with this article

1) Nitrogen oxide is not a greenhouse gas, nitrous oxide is.

2)Rapeseed is not canola, although canola is a conventionally genetical engineered  rapeseed variety.

3)There is no citation for the requirement of five times land area for energy from soy versus corn.

For someone trying to 'expose' someone else, you are not doing a good job.On Traditional print media and complex issues posted 1 year, 6 months ago 16 Responses

wiscidea,

I don't know if I have a real good way to prepare bison burgers, they are after all low fat, and that's not what us humans go for. I would maybe suggest going on a lower heat for a while and then toward the end singing the outside for the char-grill flavor. Another suggestion is maybe adding a bit of olive oil to the ground meat, the farmer's wife suggested that would be good to prevent them from getting dry. I mostly eat the hot italian snausage (mmm, snauce), which is already spicy and prepared, but the main concern is to not overcook them. I think it's a matter of that more so than with beef, which seems to be more forgiving (what with the fat content and whatnot).

Hope that helps.On Are you a vegetarian? posted 1 year, 7 months ago 53 Responses

canis,

"Thank you, Jonas,

but going nuts is NOT efficient, by most standards."

What?On Are you a vegetarian? posted 1 year, 7 months ago 53 Responses

yum,

So two days ago I ate hot italian buffalo sausage from a farm 40 miles away from my house. It was unbelievable! And to boot, it is from bison, who were essentially saved from a near local extinction (continental maybe even) by ranchers and farmers. I hate to bring up the obvious point, but that 10 lbs of 'food' for 1 pound of meat conversion that vegans or vegetarians bring up does not work for grass or leaves or twigs. You can't digest it, while the ruminants can. 'Nuff said. On Are you a vegetarian? posted 1 year, 7 months ago 53 Responses

So,

You will pick apart specific subjective points, and average over those periods only? That just shows how scientifically inclined you are. For the next one, maybe you will average over 3 years, followed by 2 months, followed by a couple of years, followed by several days, in order to prove a point? I can prove a lot of things that way, too bad they will all be wrong.  

I'm done talking to you.On 'There is no consensus'--If this is not consensus, what would consensus look like? posted 1 year, 7 months ago 109 Responses

why, manacker, oh why?

Maybe because those numbers are from as follows:

1860-1879...+0.39......2,   19 years
1879-1906...-0.13......5,   27 years
1906-1940...+0.56......14,  34 years
1940-1976...-0.07......25,  26 years
1976-1998...+0.39......33,  22 years
1998-2008......0.00......20,10 years

What kind of a way is this to look at data? And also, the last 10 years look very suspicious, which makes me think that you 'fudged' the dataOn 'There is no consensus'--If this is not consensus, what would consensus look like? posted 1 year, 7 months ago 109 Responses

Pangolin,

'Let's just be absolutely clear; if Adam and the people he represents "win" you can kiss the ecosystem as we know it goodbye.'

Umm, I guess you didn't realize it, but the 'people who Adam represents' have already WON. It's a bit silly to think that the major oil, coal, computer, auto and other corporations are losing. Don't you think? When there are as many if not more vehicles on the road in US as there are people, when nearly every household has a computer, when nearly every US inhabitant shops or shopped at Wal-Mart, it is a losing argument to try to appeal to the 5% that are the true 'eco-warriors'. Sure, you can badmouth Wal-Mart and Adam all you want, but it won't get you and your goals anywhere.

I don't like to be badmouthed, and when some rabid 'enviro' brands me a hypocrite or worse for making a decision about where I shop, it makes me really not want to deal with that 'movement'. It's less of a movement now, more of a religion. I think that personal choices are important, even as an illusion, but a marketing campaign is all that will change behavior and choices of the consumers. Yes, there is lots of greenwash, but when I see commercial 'green' products like Seventh Generation in a supermarket mixed with the rest of the products, I believe that a strong marketing campaign is what got it there. Even if it is a word of mouth, 'let's help the environment' campaign, it's still marketing.

So, please, be a little less hysterical, which you are, and try to address Adam's follies in his speech. Like 'Blue', do we really need a new color to ascribe to a movement? What the hell is that all about? I thought that the word 'sustainability' was confusing enough, now we're going to stick a color to it? How about a number: 7, or a letter: E, or some other symbol? I guess that's just more marketing, oh well.On Adam Werbach calls for a new movement of a billion consumers posted 1 year, 7 months ago 73 Responses

So, you're an alarmist?

Is that a good thing?

I don't think that you can expect people to follow your alarms if you base it on one year. What if next year we have 9 of the hottest months ever, but January and February are colder than average? Or if there are only three tornadoes, and your idea is in shreds?On Where is the media coverage of February's incredible warming and extreme weather? posted 1 year, 8 months ago 11 Responses

one sided considerations abound

There is a bit of a problem in the above analysis: it seems to consider only the opportunity costs of growing switchgrass vs. corn for ethanol production. OK, interesting, but what about the millions of acres of forests, with little or no market for low value wood? The opportunity costs there are minimal, and will only benefit the landowners, and increase forest management opportunities.

Also, I believe the greatest downfall of cellulosic ethanol (or ethanol in general) is its lack of transportability under current infrastructure limitations, and a lack of savings when considering delivery by truck. Corollary to that, localized production systems will have a great  advantage over a centralized system in Iowa.On New study from mainstream ag economists at Iowa State posted 1 year, 9 months ago 46 Responses

funny...

I wonder if twenty years down the line, when the climate shifts to an obviously different pattern, people like benp will still be disputing the idea. Yea, sure the average minimum temperature in New York in February is now 45, and yea sure, this happened way quicker than in any other time for which we can derive data, and yea sure, there is no other explanatory reason besides GHGs, but can you define 'climate'?
On What happens when a group's position statement does not reflect its members accurately? posted 1 year, 9 months ago 89 Responses

benp,

You arguments are weak, you latch on to 'natural' and 'balance' as an argument or really a life-saver. While I believe you are capable of reading, maybe even at a twelfth grade level; your reading comprehension suffers, and I would be surprised if you did well on that portion of the GREs. You have a hard time understanding sentences and your arguments are glued to key words. In other words, your argument fails. Try again.

Furthermore, and this irks me a bit, any science is conducted based on a set of assumptions and personal perspectives. There is no pure science that exists in a vacuum. Closest attempts to pure science receive Ig Nobel Awards, or obscurity, which is the appropriate reward. Science is a human endeavor aiming to, at least hypothetically, impact human lives or perspectives.

Also, while Steven Earl's statements are off topic, and very difficult to address, they are a crucial part of the current global climatic, ecological and economic system. However, it does belong in a different thread.
On What happens when a group's position statement does not reflect its members accurately? posted 1 year, 9 months ago 89 Responses

Yea, pissing match is right

I agree with bringing in wolves, I figure anyone who might be in a position to be attacked by a pack already carries a gun.

Now, the political nonsense is quite possibly a result of corruption, with the helicopter company 'lobbying' (don't you love that kickbacks can be explained by 'lobbying'?) some high level fed to take 20$ million of taxpayers' money. Why not increase the amount of hunting permits or lower the price for out-of-staters? I know that I wouldn't want to shell out the typical 350$ that go toward a hunting license for out-of-state residents on top of the plane, lodging, etc to go hunting in ND. On Elk populations getting out of control in some national parks posted 1 year, 9 months ago 21 Responses

two cents

Jon Rynn: something about your post doesn't add up, quite literally

Pricing carbon, particularly at 7 $/ton, does not work, consider this: a year's worth of tree biomass sequestration on a hectare (2.5 acres) in the Northeast is about 2.5 tons/ha, so 1 ton/acre. In the long-run, on a rotation of about 20 years, Northeast forests would sequester about 140 $/acre.

Supposing that there is a medium to large (more than 20 acres) Non-Industrial Private Forest (NIPF) land-holding, the value of the trees for lumber or firewood would far outweigh the cost of retaining the sequestered carbon for any time. Which isn't a bad thing, but still since there is some C sequestration, maybe the landowner gets some sort of a small rebate for practicing good forestry. However, in most cases, say for a 20 acre property and supposing a full pay-off of 7 $/ton for good stewardship, 2800$/20 years will not be enough for him to remain a good steward, and the owner may very well diameter-limit cut (or butcher) the property and sell it to the next sucker, who will say well, let's develop. Or plain develop it outright.

That's one extra forest economics example of why pricing the carbon will not do much in terms of affecting behavior. It will only lead to more speculation and bubbles, a la housing bubble, internet bubble, Great Depression-esque bubble, the tulip bubble in Netherlands of I believe 1700s.

Peace out.

P.S. I'm all for CFLs, they keep my bills down, especially in the dreary NorthOn Have you been naughty with your light bulbs? You need some good old command and control. posted 1 year, 9 months ago 33 Responses

I foresee a huge spike in

bottled water sales.On Orange County opens recycled-water plant posted 1 year, 10 months ago 8 Responses

lodgepole pines

As usual, this is a case of multiple causes, not just climate change (which is still an important factor). The drought, warmer temperatures (lack of prolonged temps less than -20 deg F), old age of the pines (to many foresters this would be reason number one), cyclicity of beetle outbreaks and close spacing of mature pines with many suppressed old trees, make the entire population susceptible.

I would suggest that while climate change plays an important role, poor forest management practices are more responsible for the current outbreak. I also suggest that there will be isolated pockets of healthy trees and once the overstory of the decadent trees is removed by beetle kill, regeneration will be the apparent outcome.

It would be quite interesting to see how right I am in about ten years. Unfortunately, the 'public' is rather stupid when it comes to understanding that forests are not static, and the immediate results (i.e. massive kill) are not permanent.

BUT, I would like to cover my behind by saying that climate change is likely going to affect the distribution of the species, and thus should be mitigated and emissions should be reduced.

Amen.On Climate change disrupts ecosystems that provide valuable services posted 1 year, 10 months ago 29 Responses

Nucbuddy

See mihan's comment above regarding James Watson.On NYT's Revkin gives Inhofe a pass posted 1 year, 11 months ago 66 Responses

hayden

You're a douchebag...

Sorry, slipped out.

Dyson is a physicist with no training in climate science, ecosystem ecology or any other science relevant to the discussion at hand. Plus, we have had several senile (you yourself mentioned 'he's forgotten more science than...') scientists that have proclaimed 'facts' that they thought to be true, for example the recent James Watson incident. So, until you get your ass out of Dyson's ass, please refrain from posting about climate related topics.

Peace, homes.On NYT's Revkin gives Inhofe a pass posted 1 year, 11 months ago 66 Responses

Quick thought

This is to sort of 'debunk' Jerry Taylor's Cato Institute libertarian position.

Insurance companies are run by who? Statisticians and economists, some of the most important 'players' in the realm of public policy; you know, what with the whole payout and weighing of risks.

They are extremely worried about the effects of global warming, because they are 'on the ground' and they will be losing money. That's part one.

Part two is that Cato Institute is supposedly run by the same people. Well, maybe not statisticians, which may be the root of the problem. And they're not worried about GW at all. They (Jerry Taylor's position) are actually CHEERY about it. Seems that they're either absolutely misguided, or funded by people that tell them to be cheery. I find it hard to be convinced by their position, which uses MODE as a reasonable statistic.

After all, there could easily be 100 estimates, with two of them producing the same number. If no other estimates agree on the same exact number, than those two are MODE, which means NOTHING.

I have never seen ONE statistician using mode, which is why one of the posters had to google it. I cannot side with Jerry Taylor on this one. And because of that and many other reasons (including underlying assumptions of typical economics), I cannot relinquish 'public policy' to economists, particularly at the Cato Institute.

P.S. environmental economics, which I have seen mentioned several times, are not ECOLOGICAL economics. Environmental economics are a subset of  the common, neoclassical economics, with the typical assumptions, applied to resource use and commodity production.

At the same time, ecological economics are based on a different set of assumptions, that ground economic theory to biogeophysical reality, rather than hypotheses working off supply/demand curves.On Cato's Jerry Taylor responds to Michael Tobis posted 1 year, 11 months ago 131 Responses

bookerly,

I urge you to send me $750, upon receipt of which and signing of a contract, I will produce you with an assessment of carbon production via fossil fuels, land clearing, as well as C uptake in terrestrial biomes based on China and USA. If you so incline, you may spend extra money for publishing, and become a co-author with me on a publication in a peer-reviewed journal. This is a cheap proposition for you, you essentially get a relatively high-end publication at bargain prices. Until you agree to this arrangement, I will not burden myself with extra work.

However, if you are unconvinced, and prefer to not pay, look up Woodbury, Smith and Heath (2006) publication in Forest Ecology and Management, Brown and Schroeder (1999) Ecological Applications publication, Caspersen, Pacala and others (2000) Science publication.

I bid you adieuOn There is no comparison between Chinese and American GHG emissions posted 1 year, 11 months ago 41 Responses

P.S.

I meant to say that 10-13% of annual anthropogenic C output is taken up by forests.On There is no comparison between Chinese and American GHG emissions posted 1 year, 11 months ago 41 Responses

how's about cross country skis?

While they are slower than a bicycle, in 10 inches of snow they are the fastest and safest mode of travel (human powered).On Holy December, Batman! posted 1 year, 12 months ago 4 Responses

precautionary principle

I love how this 'principle' is thrown around. I should have used the 'principle' today in the morning and should have stayed in bed. Or better, use the precautionary principle and wear a helmet all the time. Duuuuuuh. Drrool.

Are the opponents of carbon sequestration freaking serious? SO... Let's not do anything, and keep pushing for a VERY slow conversion to renewable sources of energy. I was thinking about much of these issues seven or eight years ago, this was a pretty big issue then, and umm... Guess what, it still is now! And umm... you know the Kyoto Protocol? Still not ratified? And how about the inability of many of the European countries to actually keep up with their commitments?

That doesn't matter apparently, so let's wring some hands about any possible solution. Geez... Global climate change is already in its positive feedback cycle, and not much will be done to stop it. And the leakage that Montague keeps talking about will most likely be taken up by the terrestrial biota, especially if it's managed for it.

I needed to rant.

Clearly, we don't want to keep coal as a source of power, but this is bigger than that!On A guest essay from Peter Montague raises questions about the rush to sequestration posted 2 years ago 12 Responses

horsies in war

Already seeing American cavalry in action in Afghanistan:

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2002/Feb/Sp ...On Disturbing news is more likely to be ignored posted 2 years ago 41 Responses

Ahhh, the sound of cities

Well, the sound of cities creating suburbs.

I challenge both of you to name one large dense city that has not spread into surrounding area, creating suburbs, which then further became redeveloped, and created more dense development, which then further pushed out the suburbs.

No, really, find me one.

Just one.

Well, I guess you will start talking about Portland. The reason it's an outlier is due to the lack of population in that area and the way that the area of a city vs. suburb is defined. By that I mean, do you count the cities that are incorporated over a much larger area than its core and suburbs, similar to San Antonio?

Also,
I challenge the notion that Manhattan and New York is 'the greenest city' simply because I have lived there, and it strikes me as one of 'the most steel and concrete cities'. There's hardly a tree in sight, except for the Ailanthus trees, which themselves have spread into the burbs and beyond.

And finally, when Peak Oil does wind down to No Oil, who's going to feed the hypothetical 40 NYC's  and their fine array of professionals who have never seen a tomato plant? Or maybe they'll engineer it out of sewage?

And still, find me that one city that has not pushed out and created sub-urban sprawl. Maybe they call it URBAN sprawl for a reason? On Why I don't agree with James Kunstler about peak oil and the 'end of suburbia' posted 2 years ago 65 Responses

Carbon Sequestration

That's legitimately our ONLY hope to reduce GW. The feedback cycles assure that if we stop emitting any extra CO2, the globe will STILL warm for the next 50 years. So, umm, if anyone has a better idea, make it happen.On The many ways big money seeks to avoid reducing fossil fuel use posted 2 years, 1 month ago 11 Responses

I would like to find out,

why these caribou love old growth forests so much. Considering that the rest of the populations don't, and survive perfectly well in second-growth, treeline, taiga or in tundra. Seems dubious, and likely subversive.On How chainsaw toting underwear models helped save America's most endangered large mammal posted 2 years, 1 month ago 7 Responses

JR, JDS

JR,
Clearly, one person represents the entire population of 8 million. I am being snotty, but what about the rest of the people that choose to buy a car? And how about the negative aspect of concentrating so many cars and so many people with the detrimental aspects of nitrogen oxides and ozone? And how about the lower emission controls on public transportation and utilities?

JDS,
I challenge you to name those species. I know the answer, but do you? Plus, how are you exactly supposed to move the food and fiber to the cities? Teleportation does not yet exist.

Also, I am by no means saying that everyone should live in the burbs, I was talking about downsides of big cities. In my opinion, local urbanized centers of between 25-100K people are a good way to go.
And finally, in my opinion cities create a clear and obvious disconnect from the natural surroundings breeding precisely the kind of a society that we have: consumerist, selfish, striving for stardom, and the rest of it.

Pick the evil.On Even the greenest suburbs can't touch low urban emission rates posted 2 years, 1 month ago 8 Responses

more on Donato's study.

So, I read (not in depth) the article. It seems exactly like what I thought it was going to be: spin  from a forester's perspective. I am not saying that this is bad, especially since I agree with that perspective. I'm just saying that this is counter-spin to the spin provided by previous proponents (the likes of 'eco-centric' Society of Conservation Biology). And, this is really the funny part: the Evergreen article, ahem, fully agreed with the findings of the paper, in part by citing a previous paper (Roy 1957?) and in part saying that increased down woody debris was part of the silvicultural prescription. All while saying that these guys are wrong. How does that make sense?

So, the authors of this article go on to do a whole bunch of other 'expose's', that are really basically a counter-spin for a particular world view. So, I find it hard to climb aboard that train, even if I do agree with the perspective that we need to cut wood, and we need to cut it sustainably. It's all a matter of perspective, and attacking science as 'junk science', when it is in fact agreeing with previous research, is total bullshit.

Out.On Nobel Prize award and Clinton highlight importance of climate science posted 2 years, 1 month ago 15 Responses

Backcut,

The observations by Donald Donato were about as legitimate as they come. If you bring in equipment and people for salvage logging, natural regeneration will suffer. There's not much arguing about that. The spin is up to the people that want to use it to their advantage. I mean, if you only need 300 trees per acre within 50 years (not sure what the stocking guides are out West), does it matter if 3000 seedlings die, yet there's another thousand left?On Nobel Prize award and Clinton highlight importance of climate science posted 2 years, 1 month ago 15 Responses

ah the results

And what are your solutions for our infrastructure? Cellulosic ethanol makes sense for the current vehicle fleet.On A closer look at producing ethanol from poplar trees posted 2 years, 2 months ago 39 Responses

still not convinced...

...that either 'carbon offsets' should be a consumer subsidy to developing industries and still be called an 'offset':

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/7/2/1300/61086/#com ...

or that the original study was either conclusive (by the author's language and actual conclusion of the paper) or backed-up experimentally, particularly on less than regional scale:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/7/2/1300/61086/#17

I don't mean to skirt the reforestation/afforestation issue on its own terms, either for wildlife, water, recreation or wood, but I find 'carbon offsets' to be an important point worth discussion.On Emphasis on the 'rare' posted 2 years, 5 months ago 23 Responses

This whole topic is dubious

I'm just saying nobody should pay people money to plant northern trees as a climate solution.

Let me step back from the above statement.

First of all, I don't think I fully understand the concept of a carbon offset. A consumer buys an 'offset' to redeem the amount of carbon that she put out into the atmosphere by, say, taking a flight to Zamibia. The 'offset', from what I understand, is meant to take up carbon or reduce carbon in some other sector through renewable energy or efficiency increase. It would seem to make sense to buy an 'offset' to remove the carbon rather than induce energy efficiency, as the latter only reduces the impact of somebody else's action, rather than actually 'negate' some or all of the action of the customer. It seems, at best, contrived to combine these two aspects under the same umbrella term, as they have very different implications.

OK, now that I stated my lack of understanding, let's consider only calling 'offsets' only those things that sequester carbon, as the other 'offsets' do not actually 'offset' the atmospheric carbon input. The latter, coincidentally, seems to be the big push by J. Romm, since he pretty much rules out the first, and is in fact a physicist with a solid track record of work in energy efficiencies and energy technologies and applications.

Mind you, I am not saying that we should only call sequestration projects 'offsets', partially because it is currently the case, and partially because I don't understand what 'offsets' are, remember?

But, here's where I am going with this: if I put out a certain amount of carbon into the air, and I am willing to pay a certain amount of money in order to negate the effects of my carbon output, I would want that carbon to be sequestered. Instead, it seems that the current push is for another industry to receive a consumer subsidy to be developed, and that is already something that either should be done or is done anyway, as with the renewable energy credits purchased through utilities.

As a result of my ecological knowledge, I am led to believe that reforestation and afforestation, if done properly and in right locations is an appropriate carbon 'offset'. This includes reforestation in both northern latitudes and southern latitudes, and should especially includes appropriate thinning and selection cutting regimes as the quickest way to get to a 'steady-state' forest. Also, it would include things like the Planktos project, or other bio- or geosequestration projects.

As long as 'carbon offsets' are aimed at reducing the carbon footprint, it matters little if the speculated regional effects of the reduced albedo warm a proportion of the earth. Carbon is being stored, which is the ultimate goal of the customer. On A good reason we shouldn't love trees, at least not in this case posted 2 years, 5 months ago 40 Responses

That study was erroneous

This is the only study to explicitly state that tree warm the climate. However, even in the study itself, which is one hundred percent reliant on a simulation model with no experimental back-up, the suggestion was that the cooling provided by lack of forest cover was a) local to regional climate cooling, and b) a temporary effect.

Furthermore, the amount of sunlight reaching high latitude forests is minimal during the majority of the snowpack months, the angle of incidence is too oblique, and the amount of clouds is too large (as an e.g. Syracuse typically has two or three sunny days per month during the winter) to provide considerable warming.

That said, and I believe firmly that this model is reliant on too broad a scale without any substantial experimentation, there is an interesting feedback between trees and snow. The trees keep in radiative efflux from the snow, thereby reducing the snowpack quicker than in the open. This is a local phenomenon, and would have an effect on a larger scale. The major difference between the existing model and the above example is that it does not account for carbon storage within the soil as a result of peat or organic matter build-up in northern forests, nor does it account for the cooler temperatures during the summer, which reduces carbon efflux.

Plus, carbon sequestration in the tropics and mid-latitudes is a total myth: old growth forests consume exactly as much carbon as they put out. Not so in the high latitude forests, which store more carbon than they put out. It is, however, equally as important to retain the old growth forests, since the wood and plants contain a large amount of carbon. So, au contraire, my climate friends from Carnegie Insititute, ecological and biogeochemical knowledge is on my side. On A good reason we shouldn't love trees, at least not in this case posted 2 years, 5 months ago 40 Responses

Good critique

David,
I have to give it up to you, you presented one of the most questioning critiques on this thread so far. I don't want to speak for Planktos, and will try to avoid doing it as much, but I would like to bring up several points in regard to your post.
One, I do not know the full history behind the pro and con arguments for Planktos proposal; although ocean iron fertilization as a means of carbon sequestration has been around for at least six or seven years and probably longer than that. It seems like a contrived way to sequester carbon, but in my opinion, since  the increased CO2 is already having an impact on greenhouse gas cycles and will increase the effect of positive feedback cycles, we cannot focus on decreasing CO2 emissions alone. Mind you, I say ALONE. We need to find a way to get CO2 out of the atmosphere, because otherwise it's here to stay.
Planktos project appears like it might work, so I say that the proposed trial should be a good way to determine that.

Two, and this is maybe where I am putting words into people's mouths that do not belong there, I think that "it is clear the single most critical ocean issue is the decline of available iron..." maybe should have stated "it is clear the single most critical ocean issue [with regard to carbon sequestration?] is the decline of available iron...". As far as the actual "single most critical ocean issue", it likely varies from the field of the researcher, the location of the scientist, and the granting agency's preference for funding.

Three, the Haida project's mission seems to be well spelled out on their web site. I would also like to add that many locations up north (and this does not apply to this particular project) are candidates for monocultural plantation type plantings, because of the original nature of the taiga ecosystems.

That's all I have to say,
ArtemOn In an op-ed, Russ George claims his company has been unfairly maligned posted 2 years, 5 months ago 29 Responses

this is interesting

There are some confounding issues with this comparison:

a) It's haphazard how the countries were chosen: for example, Vermont (0.6 mil people) was compared with Cote D'Ivorie (16 + mil, incorrectly called Ivory Coast) while neighboring New Hampshire (1.2 mil) was compared with Estonia (1.6 mil).
Side note: The latter is actually a very favorable comparison, since Estonia is smaller in area and warmer due to the Baltic Sea as opposed to mountainous regions of NH.

b) I think the major issue is the difference in area when comparing carbon emissions per state with populations of the countries. The emissions in many of the other countries are likely lower per capita due to the higher density of the population and lesser need to commute. Which is fair in terms of carbon emissions, but remember that these countries' natural capital in many cases is depleted. I mean that nearly every corner of these countries is either unusable or is used for agriculture and other anthropocentric activities.

However, I do think that this might be an effective graph for a non-discriminating viewer.
On Feel guilty yet? posted 2 years, 5 months ago 7 Responses

I don't know

jabailo has been making more sense recently, while Zarkov just keeps yammering about bizzare topics.

As for refusing to understand climate change, probably half the country sounds exactly like Bailo, so it might be important to understand where they're coming from instead of writing them off and kicking them out of the conversation.

ArtemOn Hansen says scientists need lovin', too posted 2 years, 5 months ago 6 Responses

off topic...

What's wrong with hemp? It's an excellent source of fiber, with great potential for almost any industry (alpinists have been using hemp ropes without too much of a problem until much stronger and more elastic rope material was invented so that now for increased safety, people use this instead), while the seeds provide one of the most full complements of amino acids. And the cali smoke is irie.

Also, these fruitcakes on the boat are just that, freaking fruitcakes. But the problem with them is that they are infiltrated into the higher echelons of power and have the clear capability to drive us all into ruin and war. These fruit loops just want to bomb. Idiots.On Take a National Review cruise to find out posted 2 years, 5 months ago 22 Responses

Who's talking about sequestration??

Ron,
I don't understand why carbon sequestration is the ultimate end goal in the $500 figure. It appears that one of the best yardsticks is energy production, which can more than double (in some cases up to 500%) the return of energy investment to power our vehicles. That, and create more money for farmers; and produce incentives (at least on the East Coast) for proper forest management.

Yes, as a carbon sequestration project, cellulosic ethanol is a relatively poor money investment. But that ain't the end all...

Also, as Jeremy pointed out, these aren't subsidies (whew, thank heavens I don't have to talk about these any more), these are tax breaks. There is a blatant difference between getting a welfare check every month and not having to pay taxes. THIS IS THE POINT OF INCENTIVES!

Sorry for all the caps there. Incentives are supposed to start a program, which otherwise might not be attractive due to initial starting costs. If there were more positive incentives on production of fuel efficient vehicles, we might have some sort of an efficiency increase.On Johnny jumped off the Brooklyn Bridge ... must ... jump ... posted 2 years, 5 months ago 110 Responses

Jeremy,

Thanks for the most intricate explanation of the bill that I have seen yet.

JMG,
Subsidies are everywhere, and they are especially useful for industries at their start-up, such as the biofuels industry. Subsidies are a way to level the market for a newcoming technology or an underrepresented sector, which otherwise may not be economically feasible.

I do not specifically condone subsidies, because there may be better ways of doing things: Libertarians (preferably with a big L for the individual freedoms) might be right about the free market. Or maybe not. Our system is not libertarian. And there are already some heavy handed players.

So with due respect to all of Ron's failed subsidies, it does not appear that this one will lead to Armageddon.

ArtemOn Johnny jumped off the Brooklyn Bridge ... must ... jump ... posted 2 years, 5 months ago 110 Responses

huh?

I'm not sure what you mean, but I doubt that giving U.S. money to achieve the wanted end is going to do anything.On That you won't hear in the mainstream media posted 2 years, 5 months ago 18 Responses

true,

I do agree that they need to reduce their climate footprint as well as we do. I just don't think that we should do it by giving them money. It happens time and time again: aid in almost any form gets held up by someone with power, that person starts to either sell the aid or straightaway embezzle it.

I think that because China is a world-wide power, and it truly is, we don't have to give them money, we have to give them incentives. Something along the lines of: we will reduce imports until a certain percentage is created sustainably, or maybe give stated preference to sustainable products. On That you won't hear in the mainstream media posted 2 years, 5 months ago 18 Responses

Sam Wells,

From what I understand, the rebounding of the cod population, while helped by the restrictions on catch, is also helped by a recent warming of the northwestern Atlantic. Apparently, these fish reproduce and survive better in waters that are warmer than recent conditions.

Also, I am done procrasting...On I'm lovin' it posted 2 years, 5 months ago 7 Responses

yep,

noolympics, and strangely enough jabailo are totally right. This is not a country that deserves pity based on: 'O poor industrializing country, we should pay them togo green...'.

This is an oligarchy based on provincial strongmen with a complete lack of care for its citizens: one of the largest capital punishment programs in the world, anyone? It's a corrupt state that is capable of the production based on a cheap and plentiful workforce and an idealistic attempt to 'modernize' at the expense of its natural capital, people included.

I don't think that we need to help them by giving them money. That is ludicrous, it's something like giving Google lots of money two years after its inception, only because they haven't been in the game as long as Microsoft has.

Horrible reasoning.

Maybe if we provide orders on green tech, and pressure their gov't, we might do a better job.On That you won't hear in the mainstream media posted 2 years, 5 months ago 18 Responses

Rune and biod,

Rune,
Depressing, ain't it? I'm more of an optimist and think that there is not one single solution, but things will turn out for the better. And if not, then I'll be dead, and it probably won't matter to me then.

Biod,
Plug-in hybrids are a result of entrepreneurialism? I think it's a result of a successful corporation, which I believe, and correct me if I am wrong, has been and is being helped out quite a bit by state, federal and international governmental bodies through tax breaks and improved tariffs. Of course, there is clearly a certain amount of ingenuity in it, but is this really a good example of a non-subsidy free market? Also, it's clearly a result of a good ad campaign and a good market strategy, at which ethanol and flex fuel people are obviously not as successful. On With the right rules in place, it could work posted 2 years, 5 months ago 115 Responses

OK,

I have very casually browsed the website, and no clear mission statement jumped out at me, so thank you for the elaboration.

I really have no specific intentions with regards to subsidies, because I am not an economist nor do I have a clear understanding (not that many people do) of the whole subsidy world. Insofar as biofuels go, I am in full favor of cellulosic biofuels, specifically in terms of low value wood. I am not quite familiar with the actual energy numbers, but it would appear that wood co-generation and flexible feedstock power plants, such as the one in Burlington, VT are the best implementation of low value wood. This is particularly true, as the high value wood and associated genetic material are being mined out across the northeast, with poor form trees with low disease resistance as the remaining stock.

Beyond that, I believe R&D into cellulosic feedstocks for materials (a la David's post) are very promising for future goods production. At the same time, there is also some potential for liquid fuel production. These aspects require subsidies for R&D and infrastructure, since, for starters, the co-generating power facilities are almost as rare as the Dodo.

I can go on about conservation and efficiency, which are both important, but I believe we have already have multiple commenters who covered the topic well enough to an almost zealous fervor.

At the same time, I cannot foresee in the near future any sharp change in our society and economy to reduce fossil fuel consumption. This IS the primary driver for climate change, jabailo notwithstanding, and it stems from previously existing infrastructure and consumer goods in the marketplace: most cars are made for using gasoline. While an effort to reduce the use of fossil fuels is commendable, it is still a REDUCTION, not a cessation. What I believe we need to do is to create alternative renewable fuels that would provide some transitional liquid fuel for the majority of the fleet, combined with creating more efficient vehicles and creating a carbon tax (or cap-and-trade, which appears to be sketchy) to reduce the use of vehicles to the point where we would only need to use only renewable sources of power.

While a tough sell, this can be achieved from a regulatory standpoint, but the need to create an infrastructure to create a transitional liquid fuels would most likely require some sort of a subsidy, whether a governmental one, or a large monetary infusion from the likes of Richard Branson.

I think that's about where I stand.On With the right rules in place, it could work posted 2 years, 5 months ago 115 Responses

response and question

GreyFlcn,
I misunderstood what you meant by 'offset', since it's thrown around so often. I agree with you about the stupidity of using corn for ethanol.

Biod, harvesting wood for burning right now can make people bankrupt. The reason for that is the lack of demand from the industrial energy production sector. No other reason. And the reason for that? Previous subsidies to other forms of energy production? Solution to this? Subsidies to infrastructure creation? A benevolent rich person? A cadre of investors? A combination of the above?

I don't think attacking subsidies for undeveloped or unimplemented technologies is a rational decision. I think once the initial subsidy is in place, then the subsequent subsidies should be removed at a gradual rate to allow for an easy economic transition to the free market.On With the right rules in place, it could work posted 2 years, 5 months ago 115 Responses

Inuit

Well, we can try to move those uncouth barbarians down to Westchester and give them literature on vegetarianism and how they should not eat lots of fish and seal meat and provide some organic tomato seeds. But, why spend all that effort right now if in 30 years we can move up there and do the same thing at pretty much the same climatic regime?On What a nice idea posted 2 years, 5 months ago 45 Responses

GrayFlcn

It seems like you haven't read your own link: if we converted all of our corn into ethanol, it would substitute 19% of all miles driven.

Nice way to make a point though: If we convert all our corn, we'll get ONE percent...
On With the right rules in place, it could work posted 2 years, 5 months ago 115 Responses

umm

How did you swing this awesome position, and... can I volunteer? I would have to drive out tommorow, but I would love to do this.

ArtemOn I'm baaaack ... posted 2 years, 5 months ago 4 Responses

I commend you on defending your friend

It seems that we are way off topic of the actual discussion, we started getting into personal issues.

I agree with Patzek's personal principles and I can understand where he's coming from, myself having grown up for half of my life in communist Russia. He sees the disparity in resource use between this country and his life in Poland as he was growing up and I bet that is at least part of the reason (because that is part of my reason) for why he would like to see conservation implemented.

I actually do not disagree with his or your basic premise, except that it seems like you are talking about CORN ethanol, which is not to be confused with cellulosic ethanol. The crops for the latter do not have to take up agricultural land, which is going to feed the freaking cows anyways. You seem to really enjoy railing against ethanol (with some good reason), yet I do not see a rational solution to the current environmental problems, which have not been solved. Umm, deforestation in the Amazon? Not really due to ethanol... Desertification of Africa? Again, not due to ethanol... Climate change? Umm... hmm... definitely not due to ethanol. If anything, people that are working in the research on cellulosic ethanol are attempting to reduce the latter.

But to respond to your main points: it seems like you have a degree in policy. And tum tum, you work in policy. Oh jeez, what a stretch. Communist Poland as an excuse is a complete bulls#!t copout, there were lots of degrees that he could have gotten besides petrochemical engineering. I'm not taking away Patzek's right to publish on underground seismic disturbances as related to microbial growth on Io, but I reserve the right to say that he is not an expert in this field. Period.On Global warming, agriculture, and fossil fuels posted 2 years, 5 months ago 47 Responses

damn

I'm a total jerk, he is an engineer after all.

Sorry to post so many damn times about the director of the UC oil consortium.On Global warming, agriculture, and fossil fuels posted 2 years, 5 months ago 47 Responses

I'm REAL sorry, guys

It appears to me that a PETROLEUM ENGINEER flipping out about cellulosic ethanol must be absolutely right.

I guess I didn't mean patsy, more of a spokesperson for oil drilling education. And you're right the large corporations don't care what they sell. I guess the comment about this petro engineer afraid of biofuels' research was completely unwarranted. He's not threatened.On Global warming, agriculture, and fossil fuels posted 2 years, 5 months ago 47 Responses

Tad Patzek seems like a ..

...patsy for the oil business.

Sorry to the followers.On Global warming, agriculture, and fossil fuels posted 2 years, 5 months ago 47 Responses

Billhook

Same would apply to most cellulosic bio-fuels: willows and switchgrass, cause ahem, they're perennial. It seems silly to lump the above piece with cellulosic (not corn) bio-fuels, because the fuel crops actually protect the soil compared to regular agriculture.

I do agree though that we cannot sustain our collective lifestyle with these fuels alone. They may make up a fifth? or even less of energy that we need for current U.S. lifestyle.On Global warming, agriculture, and fossil fuels posted 2 years, 5 months ago 47 Responses

I wonder...

...why the spotted owl habitat out west is slated for clearcuts rather than put under selection system cuttings, which actually gets the forest to old growth faster (if it's second growth, for example) or maintains the old growth.

It appears that this is typical of both the environmentalists (any cutting is bad) and the conservatives (forest owners? forest managers?: stupid environmentalists). There is a middle ground for both wood production and habitat protection, and this is particularly true with increasing insect outbreaks and tree species declines as a result of infestations and multiples of other reasons (warmer winters and droughty summers?). On How wildlife biologists are becoming hospice workers posted 2 years, 5 months ago 3 Responses

whoops!

The least densely populated states use the most energy per capita in the three categories but the least for commercial energy.

Hehe, ummm... Yea, definitely not.

But another thing that I noticed is that residential energy usage (which is still high for Alaska and Wyoming) is not the real driver for overall energy usage per capita. The other categories seem to be more important.On Images of dense development posted 2 years, 6 months ago 28 Responses

Love this:

staggering forward like a hysterical zombie with Tourette's

And amazingdrx: meth precursors are widely available in every state, in every pharmacy. Counties and states with a major meth problem have restrictions on how much cough medicine and such a customer can purchase per visit.On I shall speak now and then forever hold my peace posted 2 years, 6 months ago 20 Responses

umm?

I don't know if it's the TV that made women this way, but many women in the real world fit the mold of Grey's Anatomy, filled with insecure, indecisive, twitterpated drama queens.On Network TV's best show is cancelled posted 2 years, 6 months ago 8 Responses

and before canis gets on my case for style

I meant 'grander'.On Green the Pope way posted 2 years, 6 months ago 29 Responses

umm...

Improving the efficiency of city buildings is obviously much more important than improving the efficiency of the world's iron kilns.

I'm not sure what the exact percentage breakdown is, but I definitely see a problem with that statement.

Iron kilns: several thousand degrees, many of these are larger than almost all commercial buildings, and there are many of these as well. Seems a bit archi-centric (I'm going to trademark that one sometime).On New financial instruments may one day plug cities' building codes into global carbon market posted 2 years, 6 months ago 13 Responses

another good post:

 notice you "conveniently" left out the data before 1962. Close scrutiny of the entire time series will show that over the long term, Republican senate membership is much more strongly tied to the length of the solar cycle, all the way back to the election of President Lincoln in 1860. Your mistaken correlation is simply due to the "urban liberal bias" in the historical record.

And well before that, I can show strong correlation between solar intensity and conservative-vs-liberal dominance in politics. Contrary to IPCC claims, I can prove that the "medieval conservative period" was in fact even more conservative than modern times. Using Beryllium isotope abundances in meteor fragments as a proxy for solar activity, and the consumption of cheap beer as a proxy for conservative control of politics, I have shown a near-perfect correlation all the way back to Julius Caesar's triumph over the bleeding-heart liberal Gauls.

Just because I don't have any actual data, doesn't mean you can discount my theory.

I came, I saw, I correlated.

Comment by tamino -- 9 May 2007
On Who says scientists aren't funny? posted 2 years, 6 months ago 4 Responses

spaceshaper,

Don't take this seriously, but:

'Nazis had little pieces of flair that they made Jews wear' in little communities called concentration camps.

But seriously, global community? Are you freaking serious? I have a hard time finding a community in the place where I live, but across the entire globe?On Travel to exotic lands ... posted 2 years, 7 months ago 82 Responses

travel

It is human nature to want to roam. It is also human nature to stay in one place (most human beings for most of human history before the 20th century seldom went more than 20 miles from home).

Agreed, land-locked illiterate peasants definitely had no reason to travel, either because they lacked money or motivation. Although at the same time, I doubt that 20 miles was that magic number, it likely varied greatly and up to hundreds of miles with proximity to lakes, rivers, sea shores, affordability or culture of horse posession and presence of land masses.

I agree with your point regarding air travel and I'm mostly posting this for procrastination purposes.On Travel to exotic lands ... posted 2 years, 7 months ago 82 Responses

spaceshaper,

I do so hope that your final sentence quoted above will be proved wrong: if it's not we're really in trouble.

I really hope that the above is untrue, because if we as a civilization get to that point, we will have tons of boring people around. I will quickly agree that some people get too far with the 'stuff'.On Travel to exotic lands ... posted 2 years, 7 months ago 82 Responses

apologies

I didn't mean to call you anything you did not want to be called. I do not mind being called elitist, since I never understood what was wrong with being better than others. Hypocritical might be a little harsh, but hypocrises really depend on the original point being spoken, and sometimes I am guilty of losing track of my thoughts and stating the opposite of what I stand for. That said, airplanes are as cool as it can get (maybe a little less noise would be even cooler), the impacts of thousands of flights per day are not.On Travel to exotic lands ... posted 2 years, 7 months ago 82 Responses

Oh and P.S.

This is not the social equivalent of a can of HFC. Explorers have existed forever: Darwin, Magellan, Cook, Hudson, blah blah blah. The mode has changed, that's the problem.On Travel to exotic lands ... posted 2 years, 7 months ago 82 Responses

'hair shirt' environmentalism

I'm curious what that term stands for.

JMG,
The problem with voluntary individual responses are that this approach will not work. It's really quite simple, because reasonable people WILL do things that benefit them despite their environmentalist inclinations. Only zealots (or true followers, depending on the perspective taken) will do things that are detrimental to themselves in order to better everyone else. The rest of the five point nine nine nine billion people in the world will do everything to benefit themselves. The true change will not come from cessation of the Sierra Club's or NOLS' or any other eco-tourist organization, which account for a minimal portion of the problem; it will come from political and market forces that change the infrastructure of GHG induced climate change. And in the meantime, it seems almost ridiculous to not take advantage of what is available to us.

Your reason for disliking Sierra Club's/NOLS''green veneer' is that it still creates demand for tourism. True enough, but is education about survival in the wilderness, or education about the ecology of a faraway place bad? Because without education, some people would not be aware of a disappearing species, or people would not bring environmental injustices or problems in those lands. Anyways, this bone that you pick seems like a very minor component of nearly any environmental agenda.On Travel to exotic lands ... posted 2 years, 7 months ago 82 Responses

canis,

What I meant regarding finding fit partners, and what I thought of as the flaw in my phrasing, was that, yes, obviously, there's less fit women in Patagonia than in central NY. What I meant to say was that by undertaking a grueling trek, and having stories to tell about it, is attractive to people of both sexes, probably increasing genetic fitness as a result.

I am not particularly fond of philosophical reasons for existence of life, me and everything else around. The reason is not that I do not buy it or that I do not like to think about them and have my own conclusions; it is that they are as ephemeral as that particular school of philosophy, despite the fact that these schools hang on for thousands of years.

My statement comes as close to the ultimate TRUTH as possible. Our existence is quite seriously and unequivocally based on reproduction and continuation of self-organization that is life. I have no problem with people finding their own meaning within this framework; I know I have found it for the meantime, and I will continue finding it throughout my lifetime. But anything besides this TRUTH is really as ephemeral as the individual organism, in our case 80 years if lucky. That is hardly a long enough period of time to have MEANING, considering that known life has existed for 50 million times that period.On Travel to exotic lands ... posted 2 years, 7 months ago 82 Responses

umm...

Clearly, the root causes of the climate change is not the three hundred people or so that take part in the NOLS courses. It's the billion cars and people and machines and industry and land clearing and Amazon deforestation and a hundred other systemic causes.

Singling out travelers, who once arriving at the destination hike for hundreds of miles is unfair. Jealous?On Travel to exotic lands ... posted 2 years, 7 months ago 82 Responses

You missed my point entirely re: food = population

First, herbicides: I was just saying that herbicides are not an 'evil' if used properly; I am personally all in favor of reducing their usage. The case of Monsanto v. people of New York is another strawman: it had to do with advertising practices. But, in general, we are in agreement, I was just pointing out the fallacy of combining every -cide without considering the effects.

Second, food increases population. You are right, there are plenty of other reasons for the decline of population in the Eastern block besides food availaibility, such as the cultural differences and life expectancy. But I would bet that one of the more important reasons for the reduced births is the lack of food and resources in an urban setting. Studies regarding ' limiting food supply below this won't decrease life expectancies, harm the health of a large number of people, and increase infant mortality rate ' are rare, because there are very many confliciting correlated variables: increased food production at the same time as manufacturing increases, at the same time that health breakthroughs increase life expectancy and decrease infant mortality.

I'm not even sure, and I'm not so sure I would even want to get into looking this up due to limited time, that anyone has attempted to look at this at a regional scale in order to isolate the effects of food production from the rest of the confounding variables. However, the following works on almost any level of ecology, except for marine and probably freshwater systems: with increased food supply, regeneration/reproduction and subsequently population increases. Arguing against this is basically, well... stupid.

Once again, you are right about empowering women and all the rest of the jazz that you said. BUT, it's probably not as important as reducing the amount of available food in terms of decreasing birth rate. There are plenty of situations where under the woman-empowerment scenario, increased food production (and other resources) will inevitably lead to higher birth rate than death rate, resulting in increasing population. Or my original point: more food = more people.On Feeding the world sustainably posted 2 years, 7 months ago 36 Responses

Very quick post

I think from the common knowledge and empirical data, which is also known as Jevons' paradox, efficiency tends to lead to 'do more with less' (per usage), which inevitably leads to using the same or more material/energy usage as the original inefficient usage. As a matter of fact, our technological, and especially computer-related progress in the past 50 years is based squarely on this assumption. This has not led to less usage, but more. Efficiency is important, but completely irrelevant by itself.On Indirect greenhouse-gas savings posted 2 years, 7 months ago 41 Responses

sigh

I guess absolving our sins is much more important. I don't blame you guys, I'm too smart for everyone, not just y'all. Sigh.On Canada needs help saving it posted 2 years, 7 months ago 15 Responses

Sustainable forest management...

...does not imply sustainable timber use, you're absolutely right. Nor does it imply that these lands will be managed continuously, that is, it does not mean that the company/private owner/government will not pull out of the contract twenty years down the road.

However, with certifications, a forest management plan is created, with preferences for future options based on the region, type of stand, forest, etc. At the same time, after the management plan is created, a certification program auditor checks for compliance with current practices. This ensures at least current accountability, and if the landowner wants to pursue forestry as a source of income, they will likely remain in the program as it is rather expensive to get into it. Also, the land tracts that get certified are usually very large in size, with many stands ready to be cut throughout the entire rotation age (whatever it is). Overall, this ensures sustainability on the land being certified at least within the framework of business as usual. Of course, if a giant asteroid crashes into earth, or there is a gigantic volcano explosion in the area, there might be other caveats, but that's not the point.

What you are talking about is unsustainable wood use, from a perspective of someone who wants to maintain old-growth forests. Well, from a carbon management program, it would be better to maintain these forests at the top of their productivity, most likely at about 30 year rotation age with selection logging in the boreal forest, although I am not sure how often that is employed due to fire hazards with selection system creating a fuel ladder. With clearcuts, on the landscape scale, the rotation age would increase, but as scale increases, it becomes more of a research issue to figure out what is the appropriate rotation age for highest productivity. Old growth productivity and diversity actually decrease compared with maturing stands, by the way...

Oh and landscape: collection of ecosystems encompassing multiple stands. Stand: a contiguous land area with similar species assemblage, history and may or may not be bounded by external boundaries. Ecosystem: well, this is kind of a tough one, depends on scale, but most ecologists would place it at about stand level.

P.S.: the main problem with certifications is that there is little financial incentive to enter into the programs, i.e. not enough people buy the wood.On Canada needs help saving it posted 2 years, 7 months ago 15 Responses

Steve C,

I am a forest ecosystem researcher working south of you in New York, and I agree with you, and brought up essentially the same points as you did. For some reason, people on Grist don't necessarily understand or believe that line of reason. I think it is because the majority of people here have a certain set of beliefs that do not accept certain logic, if it goes against their belief.

Anyways, my question to you is whether you guys consider soil C fluxes with burning versus cutting and also consider albedo effects with radiation fluxes as they couple with C fluxes in cut/burned/intact forests. Basically, I find that study out of BC on albedo effects on regional/global scale pretty fishy, that is, I don't think they looked at the whole picture.On Canada needs help saving it posted 2 years, 7 months ago 15 Responses

population carrying capacity

As much as I adore science and progress (man, Wii is COOL), there will never be a point at which I say: "Man, those food synthesists got the fossil fuel proteins just right, mmm... oil". Period. Sorry, something about knowing that the plant or animal grew from somatic cells is a good feeling. Of course, this might change in a thousand generations when we live in crystal ships in the sky, commuting to our very easy and straightforward job (press button when light turns on) on planet Zbrolg in a nanosecond, while spending the rest of our time educating ourselves about the works of Billy Shakesperr the First ("to be or not to be, who cares"), all while chowing down on green mush that provides us with all the amino acids and fiber and taste ("mmm, sugar alcohol, titanium dioxide") that the nutritionist said we needed when we went to Burger King, MD. Damn, that was a long sentence!

Where was I? Oh yea, carrying capacity: it is technologically limited for a period of time, until a developed technology resolves one problem and creates another bigger problem like depletion of a much needed stock, and space limited, since it makes no sense to talk about densities of population unless talking about the density of food production or acquisition.

And resource conflicts? Constant, both World Wars are examples, current Iraqi war, Israeli/Arab conflict, and pretty much EVERY single other war. They have other trigger mechanisms, but the underlying causes are attempts of one population to expand outside of their area in order to get more resources, whether necessary for survival or expansion of quality of life. On Quit talking about it already posted 2 years, 7 months ago 92 Responses

Gar,

How do you figure albedo is not a 'problem' in the tropics? There are definite changes in albedo with bare ground, pasture, early forest, and mature forest. Mature forest retains the most, while bare ground may or may not, depending on the soil type. I think what you might mean to say is that albedo does not cause a large variation in the heat balance in the tropics. It does matter though for water and proximately nutrient balances.On How to save the last carbon sinks posted 2 years, 7 months ago 14 Responses

Wait a second...

How is a higher female/male ratio a problem? I wish that it was about 3 to 1, at least.

*Spoken like a true male.On Due Deferens posted 2 years, 7 months ago 5 Responses

wiscidea

Slaves mostly? I believe cheap labor was responsible for weeding.On The sorcerer's apprentice running amok in ag? posted 2 years, 7 months ago 4 Responses

sustainable consumerism

Umm, at the risk of sounding silly, aren't we all consumers? We need to consume to live, in simple biological terms, since we are not plants (which also consume minerals). The problem with 'consumption' is consumption in the American sense. So 'sustainable consumption' is entirely possible, just not at current levels with as many people as we have. Maybe not, maybe it is sustainable the way it is, many technocrats would propose as much.

And 'sustainable consumption' by who? The rich will always have their consumption sustained at much higher relative levels, no matter what the rest of the society does. This is a silly topic. 'Green consumption' might be a better conversation starter.On Steffen makes good points posted 2 years, 8 months ago 10 Responses

wait a second...

How is having fewer babies going to make people want to eat less beef? Some people might start eating more, as they smoke cigarettes...On Growth promoters in beef may damage sperm posted 2 years, 8 months ago 6 Responses

Can you elaborate on solar in 'Cuse?

There's very little sun for 2/3rds of a year. Biomass around here is a better way to go.On Just doesn't (or shouldn't) make sense for conservatives posted 2 years, 8 months ago 38 Responses

backpack covers

They sell those at places like EMS, REI or your local outfitter.

http://www.ems.com/catalog/subcategory_simple.jsp?FOLDER% ...On Bike commuting fashion tips posted 2 years, 8 months ago 52 Responses

David Roberts

The answer is David Roberts.

c"/

Wouldn't it be fun?On Some call for action posted 2 years, 9 months ago 17 Responses

Jabailo

I think I'm also bored and like procrastination. SO2 (sulfate aerosols) and aerosols cool the atmosphere, because they dissipate incoming solar radiation via increased albedo.

SO2 aerosol is produced by burning coal, and in many industrial processes, as well as by volcano eruptions. While the latter occurs naturally, none of the above are a positive from a human-based point of view.

Sulfates were the leading cause of acid rain, which damages infrastructure, and agricultural and natural ecosystem productivity. For example, many lakes in the Adirondacks became abiotic (ain't nothing living there) and forest productivity declined and tree mortality increased as a result of sulfate-driven acid rain. It also creates major health problems downwind (asthma, etc.) when present as an aerosol.

All of the above were caused by persistent sulfate outputs at coal burning plants and other industrial activities, which is what caused the EPA to regulate it through a cap-and-trade scheme. This is why the temperature remained stable during increased industrial activity post WWII.

I can find a bunch of citations, but do not see the need for it as the above is well established in the literature.

Transmission out.On 'One record year is not global warming'--Luckily, there are plenty more years to consider posted 2 years, 9 months ago 19 Responses

Interesting topic

I'd like to raise issues with some of the points:

First of all, any restrictive regulation is politically unattractive, because there is money coming in from the industries, and because nearly half of the population does not support government intervention (in pure hypothetical cases). I think that this argument should be left alone from an economical perspective. However, as a practical one, cap-and-trade would have more backing, even if the caps were tighter, because income from selling credits would increase, stimulating a decrease in use and costs for the polluters may be decreased.

I am not sure that Kyoto can be used as a good example of cap-and-trade not working, because it is a voluntary agreement, with many countries opting out. It is also not a very good example, because the market is not established and is only in the developing stages. Sulfur dioxide cap-and-trade system is a better example.

With government taxes vs. cap-and-trade (last part), the difference between taxes and cap-and-trade was well covered by Ronald Coase's Theorem. The theorem supposes that in trading both parties benefit, whereas government intervention through taxes or legal action tends to punish the party that harms the other party. Both parties under a trading scheme would benefit financially with the understanding that the overall economy may have to be reduced somewhat through caps but to a lesser extent monetarily than with taxes. I would also like to add to this that private parties, which are involved in a trade are much more efficient at profit and presumably resource maximization than is the bureaucratic machine, which spends much money and resources on following procedure. This may be the real crux of the discussion: carbon taxes WILL be more inefficient economically per unit carbon reduced than cap-and-trade.

Transmission out.On Rebutting some common criticisms of the carbon tax posted 2 years, 9 months ago 2 Responses

'tis a good point.

I am still hoping for a link to an analysis along the lines of fuel efficiency vs. needed energy.

I really hope it falls out of the sky on my desk.On A message from Kenya and Biopact posted 2 years, 9 months ago 48 Responses

alrighty then...

I am fully with canis on this one, and thank him for doing this. The two opponents: Durkin and Tracy in this case, seem to have made very little attempt at making a coherent argument against the Cape and seem to invoke a politician who seemed to turn the tide of America's support for environmentalism into a conservative (not the good kind) free-for-all. Carter's principles seem to be outdated by 27 years, and thus have become irrelevant, contradictory, as canis has brought forth, or in some cases at best neutral (see Jevons' principle for why conservation and efficiency might not be the best answer). My opinion is that he did not take the most fair and balanced approach, but that might be only my opinion.

Further, the opponents in this case, Durkin and Tracy, seem to invoke several drastically unrelated arguments and use them to back up their position without merit or weighing the issues.

And finally, EIRs and EISs are required to provide an alternative, which this one did, and the reviewers and decision-makers are very capable of making their own choices regarding that.

Transmission over.On It's not the view: it's the vision posted 2 years, 9 months ago 132 Responses

Durkin

Are you a BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothin Anywhere Near Anything) person? I am not trying to offend you, just asking. Because anywhere we go, we are harming some aspect of environment or society or most other factors. It is impossible mathematically and physically to maximize for both sides of an equation, which can be seen in the fact that ANY project has its opponents.

I have no opinion on the final analysis of avian impacts in this particular project, except to say that we can either wait for an extra twenty years for better assesment techniques to come out and the data to be collected, or we can do our best with currently available data and technology. I say we use the second option, because development of renewable resources cannot wait for that long. Plus, I have seen opposition to wind farms anywhere where they may be sited. I think it says that people either don't like them or that they are inherently much worse than nuclear reactors and coal plants, although I'm pretty sure every time one of those was built there was plenty of opposition also.

I guess if some of the members of the rich person club on Cape Cod wanted to, they could pay for a separate avian study that would show that there is an impact on avian populations. But that would also be biased, because it's paid for by the opponents of the study. Too bad NSF mostly worries about water strider genital size. On It's not the view: it's the vision posted 2 years, 9 months ago 132 Responses

wow!

While I am all about the basic premise of humanitarian help, environmentalism is about the environment and the relationship of humans to the environment. I guess you can throw malaria under that umbrella, but I think in general Biod is correct about the cornerstones, or something like that, of environmentalism.

This discussion is somewhat similar to the following hypothetical situation:

Let's suppose there is a blog called Mist, it's about helping Third-World and of course topics span environment, children mortality, diseases, lack of economic opportunities, etc. Then, a blogger comes along and says we have to prioritize: first, let's save all the endangered species. That would confuse and probably make some people mad on the Mist blog, because endangered species are important, but not the scope of the blog, and they feel like it is none of their concern, except as it may relate to the above topics. Second, this blogger suggests that we drop every other priority along the likes of malnutrition, AIDS rates, etc. and focus on saving forests. That would probably confuse some more people and create a continuing rift in the discussion.

My point, J.S., isn't that you are wrong, it's that you are talking to the wrong crowd. There are six billion people in the world and plenty of soapboxes, corners, blogs, conference rooms and other places to talk about why and how we must make saving children in 3rd world our number one priority. I'm not sure that it should be ours here on Gristmill, because we are not the Mistmill.

I agree that it should be a priority, but from I know of the natural and human world and natural resource management, it is this: it is generally better to eradicate long-term problems before they become short-term problems. NONE of us are structured to think this way, but suppose there was an abolitionist, anti-racist and anti-colonialist movement at the time of European expansion. How great would it have been to live in the world today when no one was slighted by five centuries of colonialism and slave trade?

By saving children now, we are doing a great thing, but we are not saving the next generation, because there will have to be more inputs, same as USAID constantly having to support the 3rd world. But teach a man to fish, and he will... overfish... Wait, umm, what I meant to say was teach a man to fish and make sure there are regulations, laws, and appropriate social barriers to overfishing, and he can feed himself, and maybe his children and their children indefinetely.

There is nothing wrong with developing cures for malaria, but with that we would also have to figure out a cure for sickle cell anemia, as the two diseases are very intricately and closely related. You say we must prioritize and get away from 'everything is connected' mindframe. Your own example just shows how everything is intricately and closely connected.On How do you choose yours? posted 2 years, 9 months ago 54 Responses

Ban windows and buildings!

I'll second that, even if I don't like amazin's argument style. For now, wind installations are far less critical than buildings.

How about banning stupid birds?

I'm kidding of course, but there are several issues with Durkin's chiming in: that letter by MA Audubon was written as a response to DEIS/DEIR, and this is in fact the FEIR, which by law had to consider those comments. Two years later, they came out with the same conclusion, and actually lowered the number to ~260.

I'm not particularly keen on that letter's reliance on 'staff scientists', who are they and what are their credentials. I would think that a careful read-through of the technical attachment and full findings for FEIR would provide a much better picture. Also, there is obviously an obligatory thirty day period where interested parties can review the document and make necessary adjustments.

Anyway, BAN BUILDINGS!!! They kill a lot more birds.On It's not the view: it's the vision posted 2 years, 9 months ago 132 Responses

maize?

I'm not talking about maize, actually, when I am in support of biofuels. Maize is the worst idea that has been proposed. There are plenty of other crops that have a much higher energy return than maize: in the northeast, willow is an example. Plus biofuels do not imply ethanol, they could mean biomass for burning, etc. biofuels are diverse, and when people equate biofuel with maize, it only detracts from the argument. On A message from Kenya and Biopact posted 2 years, 9 months ago 48 Responses

gar

I didn't mean any offense, but I think you made your point about accounting for the exact amount averted a long time ago. That's what I meant with the 'blah blah blah' and since the argument, or the phrasing didn't change, that's why I called it a broken record. In the same time, as any statistician would know (including myself who at this point took way more statistics than I would have thought after high school), a sample of the whole is representative of the whole. Take that for what it is.

With CFLs, you might be right that a proportion would get broken, however, from having purchased and having several of my relatives' households purchase CFLs, many of them break within a few weeks of use: so they either work for a long time, or they break really quickly. Maybe different brands are different, but so far it held true for two or three. So, in other words, the proportion that will break immediately, will get replaced by the ones offered by the carbon offset company or energy company. The net impact of them giving out 100% of bulbs is lower than 100% of those bulbs, but not eliminated, and I would guess probably above 75%, but not at an immediate time frame.

Another aspect is the high heat, which is kind of an unproven argument. First of all, I thought that South Africa was one of the cooler African countries. Second, I'm not sure what the effect of high heat is on the bulbs. And finally, and this has nothing to do with heat, culturally, other countries' people are much more thrifty with their belongings than Americans who live in the throwaway age. Not saying that none will get broken, but I think that you're hanging onto an argument because it sounds good.On A new report posted 2 years, 9 months ago 22 Responses

poor people vs. food

The idea seems to be this: Encourage farmers in the southern hemisphere to sell into the global commodity market, and with the foreign exchange they earn, they'll ... buy food on the global commodity market.

This seems like a backwards argument, sorry, Tom. In our economy, producing food can be for two reasons: for subsistence or for sale. Farmers that are complaining about the local movement are growing it for sale. They cannot sell the food to poor people, because they do not have any money to pay for it. The economists in the government may tax the producers either through monetary exchanges or through direct food give-aways. Both would work to feed the hungry, but if the goal of the economy to increase its GNP (which isn't necessarily right, but it is the model), then give-away is not the way to go about it.

By the way, most farms that I have seen (temperate) overproduce at certain times, and some of the overripe or unsellable food goes straight to compost, even if it is edible.

Biofuel crops compete with food crops. Already the price of corn is up, driving up the price of tortillas in Mexico so much that it has led to a political crisis.

No, from what I understand the rising price of tortillas in Mexico has nothing to do with biofuels, it has to do with corn export tariffs and ADM's influence (pushed through NAFTA).

Although as Ron says, biofuel crops do not necessarily mean cutting down rainforests, they certainly do require bringing new land into production.

To equal the amount of fossil fuels currently used, not necessarily to sell as a commodity.

Intense cropping puts pressure on the soil, especially in the tropics, causing erosion and nutrient depletion.

Right, and that's different from status quo, how? The only sustainable practice is small slash-and-burns left after 7-8 years of cultivation for about 50 years + .

Export-driven agriculture favors plantations and large producers -- not the sectors that I want to support.  

Kenyans might have a different opinion. And that may already be the case with current producers.

Biofuel production at an immense scale, as Ron proposes, is unsustainable. The appetite for liquid fuels continues to grow (especially as the middle classes in India and China buy cars by the millioins).  The interests of the poor and the environment are shunted aside in the rush.

I agree, but that's because 7 billion people living at our consumption rates is unsustainable. Period.

I'm not trying to attack you, Bart, but I am sure that you can come up with better arguments than those.On A message from Kenya and Biopact posted 2 years, 9 months ago 48 Responses

good point, DR

Another question is what about the heavy inputs of fossil-fuel produced fertilizer in order to grow the biofuel crops? I'm not sure of the requirements of possible crops, but I would think more research would need to be conducted into a tropical plant with low NPK requirement before saying we can do this across the board. I would also like to find out if the costs (either CO2 or real costs) of fertilizer production and transportation were included in the analysis. It would be good to know.On A message from Kenya and Biopact posted 2 years, 9 months ago 48 Responses

suggestion

If anyone wants to find that paper, the most readily available format that I know of is Valuing the Earth: Economics, Ecology, Ethics edited by Daly and Townsend. The book also includes Hardin's seminal paper: Tragedy of the Commons.On Creation care idea is spreading posted 2 years, 9 months ago 32 Responses

Apocolypse

I just read Kenneth E. Boulding's 'The economics of the coming spaceship Earth'. This is a classic paper worth reading for every Grist-reader, but the part that struck me as being interesting with relevance to this discussion is this from the conclusion:

'On the other hand, it may also be true that a long-run vision, as it were, of the deep crisis which faces mankind may predispose people to taking more interest in the immediate problems and to devote more effort for their solution.'

This is a very deep insight into human (maybe even ape) psychology that I'm not so sure Boulding even implied: there will be a deep crisis in far off future and there may be a way that we can do something to alleviate the actual problems right now, so we should act.

Boulding was implying 'environmentalists' as the people doing something about it, i.e. the environmental (pollution) and resource-limiting crises. At the same time, exactly the same can be said for the majority of Chrisitianity: there will be a Judgement Day, so the best you can do is do as much to alleviate it right now.

However, he also has an interesting part about future discounting, where we are inclined to discount not only our progeny's future, but our own as well. This is the cause for the religious zeal that most people have in either religion or environmentalism, that is, a socio-psychological response to our lack of concern for the future. Not sure if the argument for the concern of the future is fully developed for every person: see Kinison (in that he died) from http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/2/20/113310/948#com ... .

By the way does anyone know of a either a quick or a permanent cure for bronchitis? I had a bronchitis-like cold maybe three weeks ago, and now I got another, it's wicked annoying.On Creation care idea is spreading posted 2 years, 9 months ago 32 Responses

wow!

Jabailo,
That was the most ret... misguided statement ever. Sustainability does not imply lack of inputs, au contraire, it implies the right amount of efforts: change is a constant, in order to keep something going you have to apply work. Think of a car in motion: sustainability for the car is to remain in motion, but in order to remain that way, inputs of gas, pressure on the pedal, and steering of the wheel are required.

Geez!On And what you can do about it posted 2 years, 9 months ago 55 Responses

Thanks for the response,

I have a limited amount of time, but I just wanted to mention that the majority of aquifers are renewable, unless they become polluted or are drastically overdrawn. That's also true for many other renewable resources, like wood and wildlife (I know what you're going to say, but in many ways the critters are a resource: Native Americans couldn't have survived without it, period).

The appropriate amount can be taken out and if allowed to replenish, there is no problem. Private use of renewable resources is an inherent basis of our society, and while I disagree with private property in terms of trespassing, I don't necessarily see a problem with well-managed renewable resource use. I don't see a problem with hiking through someone's property, of course our system is set up against that, plus someone would have to maintain those trails and answer if a person hurts themselves, but that leads back to our system. On Environmentalism's confusing accounting posted 2 years, 9 months ago 59 Responses

naturescene,

Good point, keep it up!

An interesting cost-benefit analysis would have to be undertaken, particularly for water-filtration. Let me use NYC drinking water: the entire city is fed by three or four large reservoirs in the Catskills and a smaller one in Westchester county. The city used its influence on Albany to regulate the use of forests, ag lands and development around the reservoirs: i.e. incorporating best management practices (BMPs) and preventing forest cutting. I am actually not sure what is the level of regulation on forest management, but for some reason I thought it was relatively large. Anyhow, the main problem arose with development: the locals didn't like the fact that they couldn't develop and make money off of that, and in this region, money is desperately needed (to have the American lifestyle). I don't think the city is paying all that much in conservation easements, but the locals are forced to comply through laws and regulations.

Anyway, the city planners love the idea, because they don't have to create a water filtration plant at a cost of 4-5 billion dollars.

Clearly, the goals of and benefits to the city are great, but the costs to the local landowners are much greater on a per capita basis. If there are people out there (I guess I could find some in my school or possibly on-line, but geez, I have to do something?) that have better knowledge of this issue, please don't be shy. My example needs more filling out.

I guess the point is that I would like to find out how much the landowners are receiving as a result of the regulations on their land and whether it compensates their potential income through development or clearcutting (there are financial issues with clearcutting versus selection system, i.e. clearcutting is a 'maturing' asset, while selection cuttings are a never-ending series). And if the actual economic value is approximately the same, it becomes even more difficult when we consider that the plant is a one-time investment with maintenance fees but it would be decommissioned after 50 years?

I'm losing it...On Environmentalism's confusing accounting posted 2 years, 9 months ago 59 Responses

So, d4something

Last I looked, words were not a business in themselves, you have to do something with them: such as, for example
a) write
b) etymology
c) get paid for bulk e-mails

What do you do with words?On And what you can do about it posted 2 years, 9 months ago 55 Responses

so dnumbers

What does your business do? I don't think you ever responded. Kind of a crucial point for a continued conversation with you about subsidies, since it would allow for an evaluation of your position. On And what you can do about it posted 2 years, 9 months ago 55 Responses

d#######

What's your business? Selling clothes?On And what you can do about it posted 2 years, 9 months ago 55 Responses

J.S., SM and biod

J.S., I think you meant 'anthoropocentrism' instead of 'anthropomorphism'. But a valuable point nonetheless.

SM, once again aesthetics are difficult to define, particularly with nature: do we have an auction so that the highest bidder's bid is the value for that particular view and then base the decision-making process out of that? Sidenote: in order to maintain that view, we might have to do some 'unnatural' things, since nature is dynamic at every level.

By the way clean water is not a 'commons' in the more technical sense of the word: it can be private, State (state or federal), commons or open-access. The majority of flowing water right now is a State-controlled resource, although some states are worse at controlling it then others. Private ponds without an outflow are just that: private. Commons would be something like a pond in a community park, or an isolated (not flowing) body of water used by a certain community, which still might be controlled by the State. The open-access is something like deep sea fisheries, without any control, not applicable to fresh water. (Sweet, got a chance to use something I learned)

I like the way you think SMLowry, but it does not mean that this is the way the majority of the world does: we live in a human world, and it is nearly impossible to get away from that. Even you, in a somewhat remote location have neighbors and internet. By the way, your parents or ancestors came to live on the spot where you live, and this was the beginning of the current tide of people: I dislike the second home idea, but permanent residents that are moving in have nearly as much right (in a moral sense, in a legal they have as much) to be there as you do. Of course, I would guess, the problem isn't the new people, but the second-homers for you, but I will let you elaborate.

Biod, the problem isn't the extinction of any particular one species, despite the fact that there are many keystone species, which support existing structure of a community. If we drop those out, e.g. beavers, sea otters and humans (yes, in many cases we are a keystone), then the communities are not crucially dependent on any one particular species. They will merrily keep on truckin' despite the loss of a particular Asteraceae as an example. The problem with the current extinction event is that we have so many spp. going, many of which are in same functional groups. Once the loss reaches a particular level, we will start to see actual deterioration of community and ecosystem functions.

At the same time, it is very hard to remember what things were like more than 60 years ago for the population as a whole, because they are either not old enough, or senile (no offense to anyone that is that old). This is especially true for the natural world, since envi attitudes only began to be sparked in a major way around then. But my point with this is that we will move on despite deteriorated ecosystems: many people right now either love the idea of so many deer because of how cute they are or because of the hunting, no one seems to care about the deteriorated woods.

Apologies for the long-winded post.On Environmentalism's confusing accounting posted 2 years, 9 months ago 59 Responses

I think that the majority of us...

... are in some levels of agreement: Nature is priceless, but a monetary value has to be put on it (parts of it, anyhow) in order to consider it in policy-making decisions. It is like 'Mona Lisa' or any other great work of art: in reality it's priceless because it is unique, but in order to have insurance on it you have to give it a value. Imagine if you were the sole owner of a magnificent piece of art and it burned: sure, it's lost, but it would be good to get some compensation for it, especially if you paid an insurance company.

I think I got too far with the analogy. My question: how do we approach this issue politically, where do we (I'm sure there are people who are using this method) start using the value as full-on leverage on politicians and courts. I also believe that EIS's (Environmental Impact Statements) are a way of approaching this: include an actual value per acre. However, as we all know, there are constant attempts at eroding the value of these, and oftentimes the findings are discarded.
On Environmentalism's confusing accounting posted 2 years, 9 months ago 59 Responses

I agree with bio-d

In that people will cabin-plunk, and particularly people that don't care specifically about the negative aspects of development. There are very few people like Grist-readers and very many like the rest of the population.

But by and large, the game remains the same: money rules the world, not ideals of a group of people that are on the outskirts of main-stream society. As such, assigning monetary values to ecosystem services will provide for a way to support conservation. Let's try to move away from moral issues with this idea, because flailing our collective arms about how the world should be will not affect in any meaningful way the reality of the world.

I would like to see a more robust discussion on how we can make the ecosystem services' monetary values work within our system, i.e. where do we get the money to counteract development: regulatory 'tax' on development? HOw about the argument that economic development is very necessary?On Environmentalism's confusing accounting posted 2 years, 9 months ago 59 Responses

Great post

I think that this should resonate among people who could care less about the intrinsic value of nature. I agree with Adam Stein's analysis of the situation, i.e. littering and our sense of right vs. wrong not being a good guide, however I do see potential problems with the concept in terms of undervaluing the services.

I disagree with SMLowry, because ecosystem services do not imply separating out value of bees and individual plants, rather delineating various ecosystems and assigning a value to the ecosystem services as a whole per ecosystem. This is the iffy part: how do we properly assign a value to the existing values versus potential values. For example, a bog in the mountains completely separated hydrologically from the rest of the hydro unit but containing rare plants might have a much lower value than an invaded Phragmites australis wetland which is filtering highway run-off, even after including recreation values.

There are other potential problems with putting values on ecosystem services, such as figuring out where the money would come from for landowners, who could easily make money off development, but not ecosystem services. If there is a framework of paying for destroying an ecosystem, landowners will argue that this is in fact a tax, and Adam Stein's argument that this is not a tax will be challenged.

Great post overall, I would love to see a discussion on this topic.On Environmentalism's confusing accounting posted 2 years, 9 months ago 59 Responses

beats two feet of snow everewhere

On second thought, I love snow. Sorry, Dave.On I sense a theme posted 2 years, 9 months ago 2 Responses

Correction

I actually think that small-city thugs are worse than large city thugs, partially because they have more to prove. By that I mean Newark, NJ, Camden, NJ, Bridgeport, CT, Hartford, CT, and Syracuse, NY (the place where I reside) in some ways (per capita) are much more dangerous than NYC. But all we have to do is just stay out of those areas and neighborhoods and everything will be gravy, right?On Is it greener after all? posted 2 years, 9 months ago 76 Responses

Coupla points

"... people who drive less and mostly use city streets subsidize those who drive more and mostly use highways."

The highways that I drive on seem to be very well maintained, partially due to fewer vehicles per mile, so less deterioration, easier construction due to diversion, etc. NYC streets are constantly gridlocked and poorly maintained because of such a high density of vehicles per mile. NYC people drive less miles per year, but there are more of them and they all drive in gridlock. I would venture to say that gas consumption per vehicle is not different in NYC despite less miles driven. Similarly, emissions are higher per mile driven. And there's millions of cars packed into a much smaller area. That's one health argument for not living in a city.

I also seem to recall a study about mice placed in high density (mouse density) enclosures, and low density enclosures. High density mice tended to be much more aggressive, lost weight and male reproductive capability decreased. I would like to find out how they figured that one out! It reminds me of people in NYC, they don't call it the rat race for nothing. On top of it all, the more 'rural', talking about upstate towns by comparison, people are much more friendly: they will smile to you and will shoot the shit about the day, weather, etc. NEVER in the city.

I don't know about that miserable lifestyle, I'm with wiscidea.On Is it greener after all? posted 2 years, 9 months ago 76 Responses

manhattan

People talk about Manhattan as if it is the biggest borough in NYC. Brooklyn is the biggest borough. Jabailo brought up an excellent point: a large proportion of the buildings in Manhattan are not populated yet they use electricity and heating day and night (less electrcity during the day).

My question is why do people tout Manhattan as the end-all? It's not even that densely packed with people that LIVE there. And what about the outer boroughs and the tri-state area? People love to drive everywhere but Manhattan: and plenty of people drive and work outside of it.

I'm sorry to all you city-lovers: NYC is grimy, and to love it is to love that (and obviously take it with a grain of salt). I know, I lived there.On Is it greener after all? posted 2 years, 9 months ago 76 Responses

Mini-rant

I think it's pretty amazing that there is a free-market attempt to control carbon in the first place. I just got back from Russia where people know about global warming, but could give two S#!ts about their carbon emissions. The fact that the people in Europe and US have enough of a conscience to pay for offsets and similarly reduce their footprint (I absolutely agree with Adam that these are usually the same people) is a sign that the tide is turning and attitudes are changing. Deriding the offsets as 'guilt alleviators' allowing continued pollution is counter-productive and will not achieve anything.

Another thing, which was stated by birdboy, is that carbon emissions are 'bad' or a 'crime'. They are not, that's not even an issue. It is absolutely impossible to not emit carbon, i.e. flatulence or exhalations or smoke from a fire. It is an issue of how much carbon we emit, which is an issue that the 'carbon offsetters' are working on, unlike the preachy types who go around telling people not to drive or fly. Obviously those people are right, but they will never achieve that goal, since the majority of the population will not pay those costs (and the inability to commute is a huge cost). Anyway, this was somewhat unfocused, but I am still jetlagged and sleep deprived.

P.S. To the preachy types: try not to fly when your family lives all over the world and there is a tragedy. I reduce my carbon footprint as much as I can, but there are limits from ethical (proffesional requirements) and moral (family, etc.) perspectives outside of environmental ones.On Setting some facts straight about the future of carbon regulation in the U.S. posted 2 years, 9 months ago 17 Responses

Forests...

I like this topic because this is what I think about, so thank you, Jangal, for bringing it back up. I don't feel like writing a lot, so I would like to suggest that the primary reason that carbon offsets are not properly implemented with forestry projects is because foresters are not contacted. I would think that there are zero foresters who are concerned with this issue right now in the NE. They do their best and do a pretty good job (the ones that are standing by their ethics), but communication and incentives for landowners and agencies are required to make this work.

There needs to be a unified forest policy in the United States and other forestes countries, which would promote carbon sequestration in forest management (let's start with having forest management).On They're not a silver bullet, but they generally work posted 2 years, 10 months ago 35 Responses

I would like to say that I am not...

... for carbon offsets through tree planting specifically, I just think that the recent modeling study that came out (the one that suggests that albedo effect is the biggest driver in carbon balance of forests) is flawed, or realistically very incomplete.

I will not go to the point of suggesting that the modeling study is bunk or seriously flawed, I just do not see how it is a legitimate 'proof' that we should not conduct tree planting.

Furthermore, I think it is ironic that Gar rallies behind this study (which is, once again, incomplete, but points to albedo in the higher latitudes as negating carbon storage), and the social aspects of planting trees in the tropics. These are the only examples that he actually produces, and these areas are exactly where forests should be regenerated, essentially creating a very confused logic: we should plant trees in the tropics, but we can't because of the people down there, and we can plant them up here, but we shouldn't, because albedo is the problem.

Tree planting in some cases conflicts directly with human well-being, it is true, but the reason is mostly due to overpopulation issues, not inherent problems with the forests. In many cases planting (and specifically forest restoration within an appropriate social context, since that is what I am arguing for, not blind planting) will only benefit the locals. By the way the Coldplay mango trees have benefited the successful locals that now have mangos.

Also, tree planting on 'degraded' land is an appropriate technique, specifically if the trees or shrubs are facilitative or 'nurse' organisms, in that they provide the appropriate habitat for older successional communities to develop. On Tree plantations are bad for people and no good for offsetting carbon posted 2 years, 10 months ago 9 Responses

you guys are so lame

Imma troll for a little bit, and say that some of you guys ARE seriously lame.

I actually totally agree with DR in that whining is not cool. I guess constructive criticism is what some people think they are doing, but in reality, and this is what DR picked up on, is that you guys are whining. And also, might I add, whining from a hypocritical standpoint, i.e. we all still have adverse (and sometimes positive) impacts on the environment, because we are not dead (Thank you Laurence Aurbach for the excellent citation). So instead of complimenting the actual change, some are just complaining that it's not enough. In some cases the statements are legitimate if the terminology is being addressed (e.g.: carbon neutral should be future carbon neutral).

In general, constructive criticism differs from a complaint in starting with a compliment, then following into areas of improvement needs, then finishing with an overall approval, or suggesting that this is a step in the right direction. Otherwise, yep, you're whining.

P.S. If we really want to seriously reduce human impact on the world, then maybe, and I am not an advocate, we should start a suicidal cult to achieve the Grandfather Clause. On Everything is lame posted 2 years, 10 months ago 68 Responses

correction

I just realized that the paper might be out in print, but Syracuse does not yet have the issue, and their electronic subscription to the journal is not yet working, so it's not out in print for me...On Football's biggest day will be carbon neutral posted 2 years, 10 months ago 19 Responses

trees?

Goddamnit, trees are a good thing!

They take up CO2, and while eventually more than half of it is released back into the environment, this will happen a hundred plus years later.

Albedo effect is real, but I believe it's overstated: deciduous trees have lower albedo than conifers, but conifers up north protect soils from emitting methane and CO2 during the summer when the soils would warm. Snow is important only during the winter and early spring, when the impact of incoming radiation is minimal. The only time albedo at the surface would really make a difference is about April. Once again, this will be offset by carbon sequestration due to leaf litter decomposition and incorporation into the lower (i.e. geologic)soil horizons.

P.S. I will read that paper and tear it apart soon...On Football's biggest day will be carbon neutral posted 2 years, 10 months ago 19 Responses

p.s.

Saugier, B., J. Roy, and H.A. Mooney, 2001. Estimation of global terrestrial productivity: toward a single number? pp. 543-557 in Terrestrial Global Productivity. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.

percentages of global carbon stored in soils by biome:

13% trop. forest
8% temp. forest
9% savannah
13% boreal forest
11% grasslands
15% wetlands
14% tundra
12% crops
6% deserts

from Perry, D.A., 1994. Forest Ecosystems, p. 40. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London.On Umbra on tree planting posted 2 years, 10 months ago 18 Responses

well...

While I have not read the study, it would seem that this would be predominantly true for boreal forests and conifer plantation more than other types of trees. Deciduous trees obviously have higher albedo, while evergreens do not. If factoring in methane evolution with boreal conifer removal with the warming of the soil during the summer, I would believe that this thesis would drop out as well. I guess the main thing that can be said about this is that there should be less conifers planted in temperate zones, but this is a difficult proposition for some since conifers are much easier to establish then deciduous trees (but worth less also, so an interesting caveat).

I find it somewhat of a dubious statement that boreal forests contain the least organic carbon in the soil. They are net sinks of carbon, due to peat production and Podzols, which is not the same as SOC. Basically what I think happened with wiscidea's citation was the various authors were measuring soil organic carbon in the upper profile or the pedon. Depending on the climate, and type of soil much of that carbon will be continuously leached from the upper horizons into lower ones, creating a sink (this might change with warming).On Umbra on tree planting posted 2 years, 10 months ago 18 Responses

marky mark

Stop being a player-hater and present your own game: Where's your damn climate model???

All you can do is give predictions on future warming out of thin air. The numbers that you provide are one hundred percent meaningless. Get out of the game until you learn the rules of modeling. You should stop your asinine attacks, and if not then you are a troll. Period.On Some thoughts posted 2 years, 10 months ago 72 Responses

'fixies' are track bikes...

...meant for riding in track competitions. I don't know why people would like it anywhere where there are hills, like one of my buddies. But to each his own.On Young bucks make cool bikes posted 2 years, 10 months ago 16 Responses

testes and hummers

There have been several studies that show a cross-species correlation between testes size and amount of polygyny, i.e. bigger balls, more ladies and vice versa, and less investment in other areas. Or simply put, if an animal has to put out tons of sperm, the food that the animal eats is going to production of more sperm and not more muscles. Of course, this is not perfect for every species or individual, but it is a general trend. I'm not sure how this applies to hummers (at least SUVs, ;)).On Some are really, really big posted 2 years, 10 months ago 9 Responses

One more citation for Wigley

Santer BD, Wigley TML, Gleckler PJ, et al., 2006. Forced and unforced ocean temperature changes in Atlantic and Pacific tropical cyclogenesis regions. PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 103 (38): 13905-13910.

From the abstract:
'Model "20th-century" simulations, with external forcing by combined anthropogenic and natural factors, are generally capable of replicating observed SST increases. In experiments in which forcing factors are varied individually rather than jointly, human-caused changes in greenhouse gases are the main driver of the 20th-century SST increases in both tropical cyclogenesis regions. 'On The former says nothing about the latter posted 2 years, 10 months ago 21 Responses

carbon deep ground sequestration

Who's in it for a start-up???

We can make lots of moneeeeyyyy...

I seriously think that this is one of the only ways (well that, methane and nitrous oxide sequestration) that can reduce or alltogether do away with global warming.

Anyway, I think I will go look it up and try to see if I can get in on some sort of a scheme. Heh heh...On It muddles the science and policy debates together posted 2 years, 11 months ago 47 Responses

Zarkov

We are all trolls somewhat. There's just a limit to how much idiocy can come out of a poster before the administrators remove him/her. That person did not say anything except for negative statements and unsupported attacks. Furthermore, he/she has done this before on a different website as one other poster has brought to our attention. This person was clearly not suited for intelligent conversation. Good riddance.On Ignore them posted 2 years, 11 months ago 21 Responses

J.S.

This might be me, but I am a firm believer that when a country is at war, the majority of the countries' citizens should be able to point out where the war is happening. From what I understand, the majority of Americans have no clue where Iraq is located.

Not dumb?On Global warming is one of his top priorities posted 2 years, 11 months ago 23 Responses

global warming...

...is not real. It's all lib propaganda!!!

Al Gore is personally responsible for the different weather patterns across the United States with his pompous ego!

Lib media made up all these stories to ramp up the destruction of the US economy!

Hear more about this in Fox News (the only real and unbiased news channel)!!!On Vancouver's submerged seawall posted 2 years, 11 months ago 31 Responses

J.S.

so you're saying that we can't preserve ecosystems for any values except extractive? who says that we couldn't block mining operations even if there wasn't a major fishery with fish we ate? there are large ecosyystem effects and non-use values- i care about rivers and streams and am willing to pay for their protection even though i don't eat fish and so do many others

Of course you do, and plenty of others also, but as an economist, you yourself are preaching a reduction of subsidies and a free market. Clearly, you understand that a free market deals with ecosystems as resources rather than their intrinsic values. As such, ecosystems can be maintained and used... Or stripped for mines or strip malls. Hmm...
Which one do I prefer?On Umbra on eco-choices posted 2 years, 11 months ago 23 Responses

DIck

What an asshole.On The top 10 green stories of the year posted 2 years, 11 months ago 4 Responses

just a quick point amazingdrx

Knowing two dairy farmers, they don't have time off during the winter, unless they're willing to have extra help while they leave. I don't think that this one organic dairy couple has taken off for much more than one weekend in over ten years. They love it though.On Maybe, maybe not posted 2 years, 11 months ago 51 Responses

ahem

Those who think that coffee-producing nations have a future in focusing on coffee should read a little about the history of economic development- I for one would like to see more doctors, computer programers and engineers in the developing world and less farmers, but hey, I'm just an economist who wants people to live middle class lives instead of slaving away in fields all of their life so don't pay attention to what I say

So how the hell (pardon my french) are we supposed to get coffee, or potatoes, or carrots, or greens, or whatever? You seem to think that fieldwork is done away with as soon as you get doctors, or lawyers, or economists. But despite all of this, the clear majority of the food that we eat (i.e. good fresh food hopefully) is picked and given to you by people who are not 'slaving' away, but rather do it because they like it.

That's a bit of a sentimental argument, but the truth is that the people that pick the crops are absolutely necessary. On Maybe, maybe not posted 2 years, 11 months ago 51 Responses

J.S.

I would like to see how theories within conventional economics deal with poverty and production of 'low value goods', such as agricultural commodities. Plus, I would like to understand how it is that 'the ag business is so hugely responsible for Brazil's rise', yet coffee production (coffee is a relatively expensive item by the way) can not do the same for other countries.

I believe it is inherent that the wealthy population of the world requires poor (and sometimes downright impoverished people) in order to produce for them. I cannot see a way, particularly with current economics, how this issue can be resolved. I would like your opinion on this matter as an economist from the conventional model of thought. On Maybe, maybe not posted 2 years, 11 months ago 51 Responses

quick comment about Brazil

jimbeyer,
Brazil is slightly smaller than US, they have approximately 6.9% arable land, while the US has 18% arable land (remember we are still larger) (cia.gov). Brazil is a tropical country with a longer growing season but lower amounts of light during the growing season (mostly 1:1 ratio). That is, plant respiration during the night cancels out photosynthetic gains during the day much quicker than it does up here, where the ratio can climb to 2:1.

The soils in Brazil are generally much lower in quality due to their very old age. US has a mixture of soil types, some bad, but mostly good. It has been frequently shown that agricultural productivity in the tropics is lower than in temperate zones, and while many people like to contribute it to laziness or lack of technological advances of tropical workers, in reality it's the soils and the climate that is not as conducive to agricultural production. Forest productivity in the tropics is higher due to long periods of evolution and very tight niche differentiation allowing for both intense competition and filling of ecological space. That does not apply to agriculture except for small scale slash and burns.

The only difference is that there are 190 million Brazilians, with much less per capita usage of energy. If we implemented major conservation and planning measures, did not drive everywhere, and used efficient biofuels such as willows, grasses, algae, and utilized 'waste' methane, we actually might be able to grow ourselves out of the petro age, while creating a more carbon-neutral economy. However, we also should develop every other possible means of alternative energy supply, such as wind, geothermal, tidal, hydroturbines (not dams) and whatever else we can imagine, since Americans will never bite the bullet unless forced to.On An interview with Greasecar founder Justin Carven posted 2 years, 11 months ago 12 Responses

quick comment about Brazil

jimbeyer,
Brazil is slightly smaller than US, they have approximately 6.9% arable land, while the US has 18% arable land (remember we are still larger) (cia.gov). Brazil is a tropical country with a longer growing season but lower amounts of light during the growing season (mostly 1:1 ratio). That is, plant respiration during the night cancels out photosynthetic gains during the day much quicker than it does up here, where the ratio can climb to 2:1.

The soils in Brazil are generally much lower in quality due to their very old age. US has a mixture of soil types, some bad, but mostly good. It has been frequently shown that agricultural productivity in the tropics is lower than in temperate zones, and while many people like to contribute it to laziness or lack of technological advances of tropical workers, in reality it's the soils and the climate that is not as conducive to agricultural production. Forest productivity in the tropics is higher due to long periods of evolution and very tight niche differentiation allowing for both intense competition and filling of ecological space. That does not apply to agriculture except for small scale slash and burns.

The only difference is that there are 190 million Brazilians, with much less per capita usage of energy. If we implemented major conservation and planning measures, did not drive everywhere, and used efficient biofuels such as willows, grasses, algae, and utilized 'waste' methane, we actually might be able to grow ourselves out of the petro age, while creating a more carbon-neutral economy. However, we also should develop every other possible means of alternative energy supply, such as wind, geothermal, tidal, hydroturbines (not dams) and whatever else we can imagine, since Americans will never bite the bullet unless forced to.On An environmental-justice advocate responds to the biofuels boom posted 2 years, 11 months ago 12 Responses

pandu

You are correct, both in that I was not using remorse correctly and that we probably need not continue the definition discussion. However, regret was used in terms of remembering with a feeling of loss or sorrow; or mourning. Peace, indeed.On They don't ignore it posted 2 years, 11 months ago 90 Responses

canis

this is a comment by willa, it can be found at the following link:

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/8/93823/5936

Atreyger,

1. Go to Hell.

2. "Free range" as a term slapped on product labels is completely meaningless...

oh and herbivores?

Have you heard of wolves? Sharks? Cougars? Lions? Cheetahs? They eat... drum roll please... herbivores. Why? Because there are more of them, and because they have a much higher reproductive rate as a result of selection pressures by predators. You are an herbivore by choice only, using you as an example of an herbivore is a bit ridiculous in this context.On They don't ignore it posted 2 years, 11 months ago 90 Responses

wait

I definitely think that carnivory should be restricted. I just don't think that it is unethical to kill herbivores for food. Of course we should restrict the amount of meat we, as a species should eat, considering we (as a sp.) have exterminated the majority of large mammals both historically and currently. Also, clearly, mass-production of meat creates both ethical and environmental problems.

My personal ethics do not find it wrong to kill for food. There should be regret for killing, no question about it. I think it would be very wrong not to feel remorse, but the act itself is not wrong. Why do I think there should be remorse? Because one: the animal is beautiful, and two: the day that someone stops feeling remorse after killing is probably a day that a potential serial killer (of humans) is born. Of course, I believe that if one cannot bear the thought of an animal being killed, one should not eat its flesh. However, I do not think that the way that many others view this has any influence on the way that I do, because I have reached my own ethical conclusions after a period of consideration. I also don't think that I need to have their opinions imposed on me, as I have already considered them for a long period of time, while actually 'walking the walk'.On They don't ignore it posted 2 years, 11 months ago 90 Responses

late night, bored...

In order for this to happen we need to drop the false dichotomy that some here on Grist continue to subscribe to and work on articulating more precisely what "protecting" animals and life on earth means. It's not as hard as it may seem.

Clearly, as pretty much every poster has shown, it is not as easy as it would seem to be, J.S.! What about the house sparrows? It seems that willa cares more about cats than non-native birds, and I think that throws a cog into any argument...On They don't ignore it posted 2 years, 11 months ago 90 Responses

Unfortunately...

...the dichotomy presented by Pandu is not one of 'environmentalists and conservationists'. It is one of 'preservationists and conservationists'. As has been pointed out in some previous blogs, 'environmentalism' did not exist at the time of John Muir and Gifford Pinchot, at the origins of this debate.

Therefore, the question that I have for J.S. and everyone else here regarding this is not per se regarding animal welfare, but the question of 'preservation v. conservation', which side of it do we stand on? I am personally on the side of conservation, because we will use our natural resources, gifts from our land essentially, which can be either abused or managed. I have a feeling that from the relatively liberatarian position of Jason Scorse, he would say that he is more of a conservationist unless talking about animal welfare. Thid brings up a whole another bag of issues regarding personal ethics, but which points us to the very clear summation by Dave Roberts:
'As a matter of historical fact, lots of mainstream environmental organizations have spent time and energy on animal welfare issues, and have included lots of people who care about those issues.'

Does it mean that they are the same? I would argue that CAFOs are, yet hunting and pasture-raised meat (depending on the intelligence of the practitioner of either) are entirely separate.On They don't ignore it posted 2 years, 12 months ago 90 Responses

what?

canis,
Tsk tsk tsk.

I was merely pointing out that the appeal to those mission statements is ridiculous, because they include plants. By suggesting that we focus on one (plants) instead of the other (animals), you use your own value judgement in reading the statement, thereby misrepresenting the intention of the statement. If the mission statements did not include plants, then you can use these quotes.

By the way, 'protection' can be read in several different ways, including protection of the species, considering that you can never protect a wild individual. If you could, then they would be domesticated or caged.

Those organizations (Ducks and Trout Unlimited) did a hell of a lot more to conserve streams and wetlands than the majority of other organizations. To suggest that they are not doing good work is tantamount to saying that the Allies should have tried to fight World War II without Russia. Gun'n'hook crowd are different from survival hunting, agreed, but the amount of meat that these hunters and fishers have brought in reduced CAFO meat consumption by an equal amount, all the while being organic, maintaining the ecosystem and teaching their own children about the necessity of conservation. Furthermore, I think it's ridiculous how city people (and I said this before) use their own agenda and criteria for dealing with ecosystems and pushing their own values onto others, despite the fact that so many are too far removed from it and do not understand its workings.

I am not against vegans, and I am pro-reduced meat consumption, it just seems a bit ridiculous to me to try to gerry-rig our ecosystems and social systems to conform to morals of a select few individuals. No one that I have heard from on this website has suggested that we should retain our levels of meat consumption, so there.On They don't ignore it posted 2 years, 12 months ago 90 Responses

my reason...

...for on a rare occasion to use that argument is really the anthropocentric roots of the environmental movement in any case. Because we know that the earth and the processes that drive it will be here after we and many other species are long gone, we can safely assume that the only reason that all of us humans should be environmentalists is for our own and our children's sake. I want my children to go cross-country skiing, I want them to see an old-growth forest, etc. That's the reason.

P.S. Ironically, in order to increase carbon storage through forests, old-growth forests should be logged.On Huh? posted 2 years, 12 months ago 13 Responses

So...

First, what about plant rights? That's included in those mission statements! You eat plants! And use them, especially in academia (think tons of paper that gets used). So quite clearly protection of 'wild plants and animals, including endangered ones' does not imply cessation of use, unless they are endangered hopefully.

There is once again a difference between continued torture, a la CAFO environments, and killing of a domestic or wild animal or plant (for that matter) for food.

Second, how peculiar that you chose two wildlife organizations, who will obviously care about animals and a vague statement about protecting everything on Earth from NRDC. If I were you, in order to maintain a relationship with the people who care about the same things minus the veganism, I would also include statements from Ducks Unlimited:

mission statement:'The vision of Ducks Unlimited is to have sufficient wetlands to fill the skies with waterfowl today, tomorrow and forever.'

and ethics: 'We act to uphold the reputation of DU, treating people and wildlife with respect.'

Trout Unlimited: Trout Unlimited's mission is to conserve, protect and restore North America's trout and salmon fisheries and their watersheds.

Sierra Club:

1. Explore, enjoy and protect the wild places of the earth.

2. Practice and promote the responsible use of the earth's ecosystems and resources.

3. Educate and enlist humanity to protect and restore the quality of the natural and human environment.
   

Noah,

Way to sweep fairly narrow references with broad generalizations:

1. Hawaiians have always eaten fish, just like the Japanese, Norwegians, Icelanders, etc. See post about eating according to where you live by benjamin2012. It makes sense energetically (both biological and oil-based) to eat foods that are immediately available to you in your locality. The Hawaiian example holds true, despite your hand-waving about industrial capitalism. You also never quite state what the problem is, so it's hard to approach your line of thinking.

2. Ok, no one forced him to live in Colorado, but who forced you to live in a temperate climate? Obviously, there's no need to argue about choice of location. Moral issue? Not sure if you are trying to separate the morality of being a vegan from the global climate change perspective. You are right about CAFOs, I am not an apologist for the meat industry.

3. BS statement all around, you should probably support all three of those professions becoming sustainable, unless you live in a cave with no computer (whoops), do not use any wood products (and you know that you do), and do not eat fish (check).

4. I agree that industrialized agriculture requires elimination (not to say that it hasn't found some useful approaches). The change of practice is necessary, after all that's exactly what you are trying to promote. If you're proposing something like getting rid of a system, and reducing our economy to anarchy, then obviously you're in the wrong discussion, I would suggest that you join some anarchist militia. I'm not trying to say that's what you're trying to achieve, but you do not really provide a reasonable approach (except prohibition, yea, those work).

5. No, draining wetlands and tilling soils creates major amounts of GHGs, and is probably one of the major parts of all GHGs emitted by agriculture. And I wasn't saying that to subvert the discussion, I was using it in conjunction with the bison example. Well maybe a little bit of subversion, but only to point out that we cannot divorce some of the realities of the biogeochemical cycle from globabl climate change.

But anyway my points are:

 1. You did not address the replacement of prior large ruminants with new ones (bison v. cattle).

 2. You seem to be suggesting a change in the world. Great, how are you going about it?

 3. Practices need to be changed. If you're saying that the standard practice is poor, then you and I are in full agreement.

 4. You are attempting to change the opinion of as many consumers as possible to become vegan. I say that's unnecessary and undesired, sensu benjamin2012's point about locality of food supplies and displacement of land for vegetable production.

 5. You need to outline the problem you're trying to solve, it appears that you're attempting to solve two problems with one solution: your own moral perspective on veganism and current global climate crisis. Not sure if that's possible.

I'm out.On Umbra on sustainable sushi posted 2 years, 12 months ago 54 Responses

willa

You know I actually talked to that kid fairly often, and the more I talked to him the more I realized that he's a jack-off just like most other self-righteous douchebags that espouse their bullshit (I've done my fair share of it). Take it for what it is...On Umbra on sustainable sushi posted 3 years ago 54 Responses

willa

I'm going to do one of these:

Death is irrelevant to the dead, only the living.

The carcass of a dead chicken is better off eaten than buried.

Death is as important to life as life itself.

Period.On Umbra on sustainable sushi posted 3 years ago 54 Responses

It's funny

Cause Fred is a 'hobbyist' who follows a logical conclusion based on a a faulty model of a 'greenhouse'. Just because the gases have a similar effect as a greenhouse does not mean that they are exactly like a glass pane or plastic sheeting. And kudos to Dr. G (I'm guessing mihan) for trying to explain it to him.

But I think the main problem with today's scientists is their inability to communicate their knowledge to the public at large, and that's where I am saddened to see Dr. G quitting too early. If he can't convince people of his research, then what good is it? Pure science? No such thing, we're all vested in it somehow. So I think we're all doing it to make the world a better place (generally), so we have to explain it to the laymen (no matter how dumb they are).On RenewAmerica Fred Hutchison writes a column about a Gristmill convo posted 3 years ago 3 Responses

ha

Corn is not only used for meat production. By the way I totally agree with you guys about the whole thing, I have worked on remediation of nutrient pollution for my Master's. But anyway, corn is used for a plethora of processed foods that goes to feed us as well as the cattle. I was arguing precisely for the point that Tom made about pasture-raised meat. CAFOs are a poor practice. Pasture beeves would be a bad practice if they were allowed in the streams too.

Noah, how about this for a headline:
Wetlands and soils are a leading cause of global warming?

It's true. They pump out CO2 and Nitrous oxide (N2O) which are the worst. Draining them for ag probably caused a major pulse back in the day, but even now they still pump out methane (and in very large quantities worldwide). So what's the plan? Let's tarp them all? And how about the fact that all those cows replaced bison, another ruminant with large methane production? Does that not matter? Or were the settlers thinking ahead to make sure that the bison didn't contribute to global warming?On Umbra on sustainable sushi posted 3 years ago 54 Responses

Noah

The collapse of the fisheries isn't due to fishing, it's due to overfishing. Obviously, humans have been eating fish for millenia without destroying the fisheries, but only recently has this become a problem due to the proliferation of cheap oil and nearly exponential human population growth.

Clearly, if not eating fish works for you, then go ahead, but the reality is that the majority of people (who have no particular ideals) will eat fish regardless of how many idealists decide not to. And there is nothing wrong with that, as long as the fisheries are sustainable, which would mean a price hike to the levels that closer reflect the actual costs. On Umbra on sustainable sushi posted 3 years ago 54 Responses

obviously...

...there is a reason for why humans started using charcoal. I was just talking about the strict energetic gain, that is if you could store biomass, then it would be better to do that, since we would get far more energy out of it.

But then if using energy density, storage and transport criteria, the question remains: why not keep on using fossil fuels?

If we are using biomass (or charcoal) to have a carbon neutral energy source, then biomass is the winner. If we are talking about any high density energy source, then natural gas and oil are the winners.On Yes, charcoal posted 3 years ago 11 Responses

syracuse

Yep, that gray cloud never goes away. It was actually sunny today, too bad I'm too hung over to make it out.On Gloom and doom with a sense of precipitation posted 3 years ago 13 Responses

For some reason...

... this reminds me of monorail in Ogdenville, North Haverbrook, and Brockway.

I'm not down on the idea, it just really smacks of the Lanley Institute of monorail conducting with an eventual MCAT certification (Monorail Conductors Aptitude Test).On Public transit that would work in Houston posted 3 years ago 29 Responses

i'm with dave here

What are these refined arguments?On 'There is no evidence' -- Yes, there is posted 3 years ago 59 Responses

wiscidea: Biomass, wood, and dung...

...is greenhouse gas neutral, and thus is not a big deal from that standpoint. If we need to argue for reductions, let's argue the correct facts. I like the solar cooker idea anyhow due to increased health benefits of removing particular matter, but that will not completely eliminate biomass burning (which isn't a problem from a climate change perspective).

As far as the rest of the points, I think it's absolutely possible to reduce emissions and promote poverty reductions. However, there is a whole ballpark of issues, from transportation to industrial agriculture: fertilizer is industrial unless organic, and it is also harder to farm and get large yields in the tropics, due to a combination of poor soils, limiting climatic conditions and lower sunlight per day compared to high latitudes during the growing season. These agricultural problems are inherent, and there is almost nothing that can be done about it, with the exception of population reduction.On Poor countries can't afford to tackle climate change posted 3 years ago 57 Responses

I shall attempt to answer

J.S.

1. so does that mean different regulations and standards for different size producers? is there any precedent for that? i'm curious- do you have examples?

Yes, precisely or general deregulation of smaller scale producers, tighter controls on medium ones and tightest controls for largest. The precedent is the 200 chicken or less slaughter rule, where small farmers making small slaughters can sell those directly, while more than 200 hundred would have to go to a facility, which would add extra money to the eventual price of the chicken.

2. would that then lead to mandatory labelling of these different standards? of course, the consumers should know about this right?
With small farmers, if the farmers are sketchy enough to not let the consumer (I don't like that word, I would almost prefer the 'food evangelist') see the operation or the slaughter, then the consumers probably won't buy the meat. I know I would question the operation. With large killing factories, they do not let consumers in under any pretenses, so that's not really an issue and thus the labeling is irrelevant. Do we see it right now? So what does it matter?

3. how do you determine scale? income? acres? numbers of cows? number of workers?

Simply: less than 50-100, small, 100-250 medium, 250 plus large. The numbers are not that relevant, since the farmers will adjust one way or another. All regulations are set up arbitrarily and should be left up to the locals anyhow.

And that's the point, to go local right? That 5% you talked about matters a hell of a lot more than your hypothetical dismissive hand gesture, since that is what we are trying to promote.

Anyhow, the following is meant to attack the current basis for economic models. The input-ouput scenario is reduced to: capital and labor go into one side, product and jobs come out the other. Money is the driver, energy is assumed to be something external and axiomatic to the system, pollution is regarded as an externality. It's extremely simplified and there is no systems approach to thinking about economics. Good models that take into account the entire system are nearly non-existent. Maybe I'm not explaining this too well, but the current state within economics is poor in my opinion.

I do not mean to criticize you J.S., I am only saying that the assumptions of the economic model that is inherently taught to all economists from high school on do not account for more than 10-20% of what's happening. And it only looks at the money, and not the whole household of the 'ecos', and definitely faring very poorly at the 'nomos' or the management.

Let me give you an example: the economics that are taught to foresters basically show that uneven-aged silvicultural systems (and trust me, in most cases that's what the environmentalists want) have a lower return than even-aged silvicultural systems, despite consistently bringing in more money. Seems a bit ridiculous. AND maximization of profit is the CORE assumption and seems to be the real driver behind the development explosion.

Anyway, sorry about the rant.On Calls the Mounties -- someone's enjoying locally raised meat in rural Ontario posted 3 years ago 28 Responses

for once i agree

with j.s.,
that's not right.On Shark finning divisive issue posted 3 years ago 10 Responses

willa

OK, whatevs...
Is death animal abuse? How do we work on preventing death?On Go veggie -- a poll posted 3 years ago 41 Responses

umm well actually

Methane produced by the ruminants is not as bad as the methane produced by tilling and the nitrous oxide which is produced in the same vein. Nitrous oxide for ya'll is the worst (most efficient) ghg out of the big four. Pastured soils do not have that effect. Putting bison on the pastures would have the same effect as cattle, since the cattle displaced the bison. Kind of a silly, uneducated analysis, with a definite lean into animal rights, without a consideration of ecology.On Go veggie -- a poll posted 3 years ago 41 Responses

I'm not so sure

You can't really state that without providing some experimental proof.On Does biology work against religious sentiment? posted 3 years ago 59 Responses

Yea,

Do you only eat root vegetables in the winter? I guess in Cali, things are different. There aren't any greens that late here. And one gets pretty sick of and off of just potatoes, garlick, shallots, onions, and the occasional remaining beet or turnip. I mean obviously, my diet is not 100% organic or local, but in trying to be true to that, it would be ridiculous for me to be 100% vegetarian. I would need at least milk products.

Here's actually the real reason that I switched to eating meat from a full vegetarian diet: I felt more and more skeeved out about eating as much cheese as I was. I can't imagine why cheese is allowed in vegetarian diets, after all it's so much less 'natural' than meat. And it's also pretty weird: cheese is basically a product of mold shit off of milk that is bad. I mean thinking about it can make me feel sick. I still eat it though, cause it tastes good. ;)On Does biology work against religious sentiment? posted 3 years ago 59 Responses

O and getting back to religion

I think that there are some serious lessons to be learned from religions and their approaches to diets. For example, maybe we should ask why Jews and Muslims do not eat pork, and the reasons for fasts across most religions. The religions tend to be adapted to local customs and conditions, and are very useful for those who want to follow them.

Healthwise, being religious is a very good thing, which has been shown in some studies. Why ain't you promoting that?On Does biology work against religious sentiment? posted 3 years ago 59 Responses

didn't proof it

 well-educated, and (those) who believes in it.On Does biology work against religious sentiment? posted 3 years ago 59 Responses

biodiv

WORD, HOMEY...On Does biology work against religious sentiment? posted 3 years ago 59 Responses

oy

Vegans should be particularly concerned with adequate intake of vitamins like Vitamin A, Vitamin D and Vitamin B12. However, adequate amounts of vitamin D may be obtained by spending 15 to 30 minutes every few days in the sunlight.(Campbell, Colen T. and Campbell, Thommas M. The China Study, page 179, Benbella, 2005). Vegans are at a higher risk of vitamin A deficiency because in its true form (also called retinol) it is found only in animal foods such as fish oils and liver. This form is readily absorbed by the body. Plants do not contain vitamin A, but rather provitamin A and despite consumption of such provitamin A rich foods there might be vitamin deficiencies because of the consumption of insufficient amount of fat together with carotene-rich vegetables, and dietary deficiencies in iron and zinc (Robert I-San Lin. Nutritional Requirements of Vegetarians).

Vitamin B12, a bacterial product, cannot be reliably found in plant foods. While it would take three to five years to exhaust the body's reserve of vitamin B12, serious health consequences are a very real risk (Vitamin B12 (cobalamin). Merck Manual Home Edition.). In a recent laboratory study, 60% of the strict vegan participants' B12 and iron levels were compromised, as compared with the lacto- or lacto-ovo-vegetarian participants (who were able to acquire vitamin B12 from these animal sources) (Obeid R, Geisel J, Schorr H, Hubner U, Herrmann W. (2002). "The impact of vegetarianism on some haematological parameters". Eur J Haematol. 69 (5-6): 275-9.). In addition, lower counts of lymphocytes (the white blood cells responsible for immune system responses) and platelets (responsible for blood coagulation) and alterations in the iron metabolism and transport, were demonstrated.

Another B12 study was conducted in rural Africa, partially backed by the U.S. based National Cattlemen's Beef Association, which demonstrated a dramatic improvement in the health of individuals who had, prior to the study, been on diets completely lacking in animal products. The study concluded that the added nutrients, especially vitamin B12 contained in the meat and milk improved the health of the children in the study (Michelle Roberts. "Children 'harmed' by vegan diets). The author of the study, Professor Lindsay Allen of the United States Agricultural Research Service, declared: "There's absolutely no question that it's unethical for parents to bring up their children as strict vegans, unless those who practiced them were well-informed about how to add back the missing nutrients through supplements or fortified foods." (Danielsen, Christian. "UCD professor's comments on vegan diet hotly debated", California Aggie, 2005-03-02., Former Beatle Paul McCartney Calls GL-CRSP Nutrition Study 'Rubbish' (PDF). Ruminations Newsletter (Spring 2005). Retrieved on 2006-10-31. ) However, the British Dietetic Association contended that the findings of the study were not applicable to vegan children in the developed world. They note that B12, reliably found only in animal products, is now included in many fortified foods generally available. Noting that the impoverished children in the study had diets deficient in zinc, B12 and iron, they concluded, "There is no evidence that our vegan and vegetarian children in this country suffer impaired development". They did note, however, that young children, pregnant and nursing women are vulnerable as vegans, urging parents to review their children's diets to be sure that they have a well-balanced diet (Left, Sarah (2005-02-21). Raising children as vegans 'unethical', says professor. Guardian Unlimited. Guardian Newspapers Limited. Retrieved on 2006-10-31).

For what it's worth, that was from wikipedia (with their resources included). There is also something called Hypospadias which sounds like it sucks, and a vegetarian diet has been implicated as the cause. I'll let ya'll look it up.

These are some abstracts from the Web of Science:

Iron is an essential nutrient, playing a central role in oxygen transport and cellular energy metabolism. The importance of ensuring adequate bioavailable dietary iron stems from the severe consequences associated with iron deficiency (ID) and anemia, including reduced immune function and resistance to infection, developmental delays and irreversible cognitive deficits in young children, impaired physical work performance, and adverse pregnancy outcomes.
Specific populations: Poor dietary iron intake and ID exist in Canada, particularly in women of reproductive age. Data from the provincial nutrition surveys suggest that the prevalence of inadequate iron intakes (and low intakes of absorbable iron) among women under 50 years of age is over 10%, which may reflect poor iron status. Teenage girls are at risk for low iron stores because of the adolescent growth spurt and the onset of menstruation; those who are vegetarian are at even greater risk.

Cooper MJ, Cockell KA, L'Abbe MR
The iron status of Canadian adolescents and adults: Current knowledge and practical implications
CANADIAN JOURNAL OF DIETETIC PRACTICE AND RESEARCH 67 (3): 130-138 FAL 2006

The study aimed to evaluate the dietary vitamin B-6 intake and determine the vitamin B-6 concentration in blood samples of German vegans.
Design and setting Cross-sectional study with 33 examination sites all over Germany.

Subjects Ninety-three vegans (50 females) with a mean (+- standard deviation (SD)) age of 43.7 +- 15.7 years who took no vitamin supplements.

Methods Dietary intake was assed using a semi-quantitative food-frequency questionnaire. Erythrocyte aspartate aminotransferase activity coefficient (EAST-AC) was calculated as the ratio of stimulated (pyridoxal 5 '-phosphate added) to unstimulated activity in blood samples that were provided after an overnight fast.

Results Mean +- SD vitamin B-6 intake was 2.83 +- 0.98 mg day(-1) and mean +- SD protein intake was 56.6 +- 21.7 g day(-1). Of the participants 4% showed vitamin B-6 intakes lower than daily recommended intakes for Germany, 16% showed EAST-AC > 1.85, and a further 58% showed EAST-AC of 1.5-1-85. Moderate vegans were affected to a lesser extent than strict vegans. None of the established confounders was a significant predictor of EAST-AC. In logistic regression analyses the contribution of nutriments and cereals to pyridoxine intake was the only predictor of EAST-AC classified as l1.85 and > 1.85, respectively.

Conclusions In spite of the high total intake of vitamin B-6, an adequate concentration in blood samples could not be realised for a majority of the participants. Due to the health implications of a marginal pyridoxine status, vegans should be encouraged to include foods with a high bioavailability of pyridoxine, such as beans, lentils and bananas, in the daily diet.

Waldmann A, Dorr B, Koschizke JW, et al.
Dietary intake of vitamin B-6 and concentration of vitamin B-6 in blood samples of German vegans
PUBLIC HEALTH NUTRITION 9 (6): 779-784 SEP 2006

OBJECTIVE - We sought to investigate whether a low-fat vegan diet improves glycemic control and cardiovascular risk factors in individuals with type 2 diabetes,
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS - Individuals with type 2 diabetes (n = 99) were randomly assigned to a low-fat vegan diet (n = 49) or a diet following the American Diabetes Association (ADA) guidelines (n = 50). Participants were evaluated at baseline and 22 weeks.

RESULTS - Forty-three percent (21 of 49) of the vegan group and 26% (13 of 50) of the ADA group participants reduced diabetes medications. Including all participants, HbA(1c), (A1C) decreased 0.96 percentage points in the vegan group and 0.56 points in the ADA group (P = 0.089). Excluding those who changed medications, A1C fell 1.23 points in the vegan group compared with 0.38 points in the ADA group (P = 0.01). Body weight decreased 6.5 kg in the vegan group and 3.1 kg in the ADA group (P < 0.001). Body weight change correlated with A1C change (r = 0.51, n = 57, P < 0.0001). Among those who did not change lipid-lowering medications, LDL cholesterol fell 21.2% in the vegan group and 10.7% in the ADA group (P = 0.02). After adjustment for baseline values, urinary albumin reductions were greater in the vegan group (15.9 mg/24h) than in the ADA group (10.9 mg/24 h) (P = 0.013).

CONCLUSIONS - Both a low-fat vegan diet and a diet based on ADA guidelines improved glycemic and lipid control in type 2 diabetic patients. These improvements were greater with a low-fat vegan diet.

Barnard ND, Cohen J, Jenkins DJA, et al.
A low-fat vegan diet improves glycemic control and cardiovascular risk factors in a randomized clinical trial in individuals with type 2 diabetes
DIABETES CARE 29 (8): 1777-1783 AUG 2006

Optimal athletic performance requires optimal nutrition. It has been a concern for some coaches and professionals that vegetarian athletes may not receive the proper nutrition required for optimal performance. However, if these athletes are educated on proper nutrition, their energy, carbohydrate, protein and fat needs can easily be met. Vegetarians must also make sure they ingest adequate amounts of nutrients that are found less abundantly in vegetarian foods or are less well absorbed from vegetarian compared to omnivorous diet. These nutrients include: calcium, iron, zinc, iodine, vitamin D, vitamin B-12, and riboflavin. Those working with vegetarian athletes should understand the athletes' reasons for being vegetarian and properly educate them on nutrient sources that fit their personal beliefs and values.

Aarsby HM, Larson-Meyer DE
Vegetarian athletic diet for exercise, athletic training and performing
AGRO FOOD INDUSTRY HI-TECH 17 (2): XX-XXIII MAR-APR 2006

I believe that should do it for the wealth of info out there. I tried to be very unbiased with the choice of recent scientific publications to show the cross-section of recent research. I did use the wikipedia article to show that there are potential dangers. Clearly it is not impossible to have a diet that is healthy when one is vegan, but it is harder, and supplements have to be used. This is a by-product of our technological society, and that is all I was saying in my earlier post. On Does biology work against religious sentiment? posted 3 years ago 59 Responses

can someone kick this ass off of here?

Jabailo is obviously a troll.On 'Global warming stopped in 1998'--Only if you flagrantly cherry pick posted 3 years ago 170 Responses

wiscidea

You are exactly right. Some of the research by David S. Wilson, my buddy Omar Musraine and numerous other previous workers show that the interaction that you outline is theoretically and empirically (with slightly less emphasis) is actually happening. This came out of game theory and prisoner's dilemma research and is well supported. For example, building on your analysis, Musraine's work supposes that a 'selfish' punisher of a selfish individual in an altruistic society construes many benefits on himself. Or something along those lines, probably best understood by actually reading his paper.

But your analysis is exactly right.

To Jason, I am not saying that raping and pillaging because dolphins do it is right for humans. But I do not understand the point of applying human morality to food species. Dolphins are not that for me, and as a matter of fact I am a big fan of their intelligence and playfulness. I am not pro-whaling or dolphining. But I am for recognition of the fact that there is no reason for why some people cannot view them as food, as it is not cannibalism (that confers a major evolutionary disadvantage since it becomes much easier to receive pathogens). I agree that en masse murders of dolphins and whales (alhough it would be hard to make the last one en masse) are not a positive thing. It is tantamount to CAFOs and an industrialized version of meat production, which I am against.

However, I do not see an inherent reason for wasting dolphin, or any other meat caught as by-catch (provided of course that it is by-catch and not sole purpose of netting). There is no specific place for animal rights activism within environmentalism, as the two are not one and the same, and the marriage of the two is at best contrived, and quite frequently harmful to alliances of groups that can get very important things done. Things like habitat and species protection, which are far more important than any one individual life.On Does biology work against religious sentiment? posted 3 years ago 59 Responses

Perfect!

'But an ethic that views humans apart from and above nature has no basis in reality.'

Right, so why would we stop being omnivores, Jason?On Does biology work against religious sentiment? posted 3 years ago 59 Responses

reply (you're quick with the questions)

1. I think I covered it with the remark about 'supernatural magician'. I reject the notion that we are supreme beings and should treat other species with remorse just because we are human. There is nothing inherently different about our biology that would suggest that we are extra-terrestrial or godly.

And the way we treat humans should be inherently different than the way that we treat other species just because we are all human and are all extremely close in ancestry and genetic make-up, culture, tool use, etc. We are inherently the same species, and thus should be treated equitably.

2. Veganism: well, if you eat the strawberries flown in, then maybe we can have the discussion about that too. But since I do not and i suspect and hope that you do not either, then we should skip that discussion. I am not a proponent for GMOs, Big Macs, or strawberries grown in a greenhouse half-way around the world.

Although, my previous evolutionary argument does imply that both technology and meat-eating are a part of our heritage. I am compelled to say that veganism is purely a by-product of our individualistic technological society. Further, I fail to see how you can keep on supporing increased material wealth and living standard at the expense of doing away with what began our tool use in the first place: the hunt and meat-eating.

I believe that it is wrong for two reasons: one, if you are concerned with 'environmental effects, do creatures suffer in the process of its production, and what does it do to human health and well-being', then you would be wrong to push for increasing the standards of living, since it connotes a decrease in all of the above three criteria.

However, the middle criterion seems very contrived. If it was one of those tests on which one is least like the others, I would pick that one, because all creatures suffer, and the other two really imply a change from status quo that existed before about 20,000 years ago, while that one does not.

I am not saying that you should stop being vegan, I am just saying that it only makes sense in an overly technological society, where a personal choice regarding reduction of personal impacts on the environment is a way for some to deal with the guilt created by living in that society.

Furthermore, vegans are more susceptible to b12 and iron deficiencies due to a much lower rate of occurence of these in plants.On It's not driven by demand posted 3 years ago 39 Responses

J.S.

What about the fact that the two most intelligent cetacean spieces (or groups of species) are involved in a clear predator-prey relationship? By that I mean orcas and smaller dolphins, which are frequently food for orcas, arguably some of the most intelligent cetaceans.

And what about occasional murders of male dolphins from smaller species by bigger species for their female mates and sexual gratification. And what about essentially gangbang rapes by males of species as a method of procreation? Should we concern ourselves with dolphin ethics, and try to re-educate them on what is wrong? I see your point about killing a sentient creature, but I fail to see why we, as a species, should treat cetaceans as better species, when they are guilty of the same behaviors that we are.

I also buy your argument for why, from your belief system, we should not eat them. But that is because your idealistic belief system entails a complete cessation of animal product use. From that position, it becomes absolutely inherent that whaling is stopped. But what about the people who disagree with veganism, as an unnatural order of things that is very much a by-product of our current societal trends? I am unconvinced that killing a 'sentient' being is a 'wrong'.On It's not driven by demand posted 3 years ago 39 Responses

canis

'In short: whaling is environmentally irresponsible, because we do not know enough about their populations, we do not know enough about their life cyles, we do not know enough about the environmental pressures that they encounter, and we do not know enough about their ocean ecosystems.'

We know enough about them to focus on the pressures: anoxic dead zones (reduction of habitat and food sources), global climate change (reduction of habitat and food sources), ocean acidification (reduction of habitat and food sources), uncontrolled whaling (scores of individual deaths), and cruise ship collisions (individual deaths).

Clearly, although not citedly (is that a word?), the majority of potential problems arise from pressure on the habitat and food sources, not individual deaths. Of course uncontrolled whaling is really something that we are all against, so I'm not really even considering it.

Carrying capacity (ya'll familiar?) of the habitat will be reduced with ever-increasing pressure through inadvertent effects and fisheries' collapses, which will reduce the health of the herd, possibly killing more whales through starvation, quite an unpleasant experience, from what I gather. I am not very familiar at what point the capacity population and real population will intersect for different species of whales at different locales, but when they do it will not be pretty or pleasant. Is that enough reason to cull some members of the herd? I.e., to reduce the suffering of most, if not all, by killing the few?

I think so.On No demand for Iceland's whale meat posted 3 years ago 61 Responses

New Wind Energy

I interned with the above offshoot of Community Energy, Inc., and if the above and RCE are at all similar, which I believe they are, then the 'power cards' are essentially a donation for these companies to put more money into building more wind-mills. I am not going to argue whether or not payment to these companies is or isn't a donation, but if one gets a feeling of empowerment and an ego boost by telling all their friends that they are a proud owner of whatever (even if it's a relatively abstract energy credit) then maybe the company is in reality providing some sort of a service.

But, from what I understand the real benefit of the extra money that you give the companies is that it goes into litigation, production, and placement of new wind farms. That's a good thing.On Are the wind credit cards deceptive? posted 3 years ago 20 Responses

response

1. I am not trying to impose a belief, I am explaining my position in terms of our evolutionary heritage.

2. Imposing your belief will not work unless you can reach out and educate the people and change the culture rather than the symptom of it. Whales notwithstanding, you cannot change many appearances of an Islamic or Christian or cannibal culture without changing the culture.

1. Robbing it of its family is a pretty good way to think about it: but are you not robbing a kitten of its family when you take it into a home? I am not against your position, I just disagree with the assessment that we are inherently the same as whales (not better, just different). Whales eat fish who are also sentient, but there are so many of them, they're slippery and definitely not pretty, so that no animal rights activist is behind the save the individual sardine campaign. I wonder why. In the same time from a sustainability perspective, one sardine is much more sustainable than one whale.

2. Vegetarians do not 'restrict' their own gene pool. But there is an incentive to be with other vegetarians, think of all those pain in the ass moments when all your friends are going to a steakhouse. If you do not have friends that go to steakhouses, case in point. And if you do, then you become restricted socially when you cannot or do not want to go to one.

Wildlife

I love the concern that many 'environmentalists' have for big, usually fuzzy things with big eyes that look cute. I absolutely agree with Coby that those wildlife corridors might help some species but not others. What about the species that they depend on that cannot move by themselves? How about most plants, where the seeds do not go much further than 100 yards? What will be the costs to foresters to replant whole ecosystems 200 miles up north? And what about isolated islands of biodiversity (whether real islands or mountain peaks or whatever), which the warmer temperatures will simply wipe out?

Suggesting wildlife corridors in a warmer world really helps only a few genera of organisms: felines, canines, mustelids and a few others. These are generally generalist in their habitat preference, without a real need for corridors anyhow. The corridors only make sense for animals that need places to get to, such as alpine meadows or spruce-fir forests, and if those places aren't there, then it doesn't really matter whether or not the corridors are there.On Some reservations about global warming policy posted 3 years ago 20 Responses

evolution, property rights, my rant, etc.

I do not have a strong conviction either way for or against property rights. However, please consider this: the most populous vertebrate species (compared to the wild strain) are the ones that have been domesticated and changed by human influence. Compare the numbers of maize and its ancestral graminoid. Same goes for dogs and wolves: maybe 10,000 of the latter and 50 million of the former! How about bison and cattle? Guess which one is on the verge of extinction? And which one was brought back from that verge of extinction by ranchers? The answer to that is bison.

I think one of the points that I was trying to make regarding our 'Nature' is not so much that we should go out and kill as many animals as we can, rather it is in our evolutionary and cultural heritage to eat meat as well as plant materials. If we try to get away from that Nature through technological advances by using fermentation to achieve receiving the necessary B vitamins, then maybe that is a part of our evolutionary saga. But, the question remains: is that a prudent direction? One way to 'end' this is to look at the REALIZED reproductive and survival potential of both groups of humans: whether the vegans or the meat-eaters have more babies and how many of them survive. It is irrelevant if the vegans choose not to have as many children, it only matters whether or not they do. That is the ultimate evolutionary 'solution' to this question. Of course it may very well change with different food availabilities, but that's not something we can model. I do have a strong suspicion that when there is a pressure for food, vegans will convert to eating meat, or risk dying (and if they choose that path; well, they will be moronic and an evolutionary dead-end).

Anyhow, one of the fallacies of economics and most other current social trends is that they have only been shaped to the way they are now in the past hundred years or less. It boggles my mind when people dismiss our evolutionary and cultural history just because we are 'modern'. Our modern selves exist because of our past selves, and while we will have an important impact on future generations, our current state is mired in thousands upon millions years of our own evolution. Another factor that I find curious is the attempt by a culture that is in no way its own (American) to impose its beliefs and systems on cultures that are... That's exactly why the Iraqis met us as liberators and love us to death. Hah! Get it? An attempt to impose a vegan belief system on meat-eaters is tantamount to an invasion of a cultural system and will not work.

I actually was vegetarian for a number of years, close to four or so. Eventually I caved... No, I changed my mind, because it stopped making sense to me. We cannot eat grass or tree leaves, therefore we should eat something that can convert it to something we can eat. That is the basic reason for why we could and should eat grass-fed beef. I know I said that before, but it hasn't changed.

Getting back to whales: they are not human, they eat zooplankton, krill, and small fish fry. We could eat those minus the plankters, but we are already overharvesting those, so by going straight to the source we would be outcompeting whales anyhow. To suggest that we should not eat those is to transfer that pressure onto some other 'resource'. Further krill and fish fry are more diffuse and more costly to retrieve energetically. I do believe that's why humans started killing whales way before they got to the krill. I'm running out of steam for the wise use part of the discussion, because it has been eloquently covered by many others in this thread (TokyoTom, davidintokyo, etc.) By the way, do you guys know each other?On No demand for Iceland's whale meat posted 3 years, 1 month ago 61 Responses

Animal rights

I believe that by suggesting that we give individual animals rights, we are explicitly stating that we are outside nature: super-natural if you will. I am a firm believer that we are, in fact, a part of nature, something that our city-bred culture no longer recognizes.

Let me elaborate on the concept of our conceited notion that we are 'super-natural': animals do not give other animals individual rights. If an animal, such as a mountain lion sees another animal, such as a deer, it does not concern itself with its individuality, it sees it as dinner or, if it is too full to chase it, as Deer, one of the individuals within the species of deer, otherwise indistinguishable from other individuals and hopefully eaten by the puma at some point. Vice-versa, deer would see the puma as a Puma, a predator to be avoided.

By suggesting that we view individuals of other species as individuals rather than as a representative of the species, we are in fact skirting our own natural instinct to lump things into groups or species. By suggesting that we should be worried about individuals, we are in fact using the very quality that was afforded to us by our strictly liberal individualistic society that led to suburban sprawl and car use. Here, we are attempting to use it on Nature, something that does not 'care' about individual animals. Well, in all honesty it doesn't 'care' about species either, since it is an abstract thought, but species matter within food webs, which is somewhat of a proxy for 'Nature' and its 'care'.

I have to run, but I will elaborate some more in the future.On No demand for Iceland's whale meat posted 3 years, 1 month ago 61 Responses

Economics are a science?

Really? I thought it was modeling of economic activity without any controls or experimentation. Ergo, not really a science...On Denialists are not the only ones posted 3 years, 1 month ago 27 Responses

oopsy daisy

I should have used sp. since we're only one species. Oh and Icelanders? They're 'native' also, as are Norwegians...On Iceland resumes commercial whaling posted 3 years, 1 month ago 8 Responses

Somehow,

I don't think that Jabailo gives a shit about the tens of millions of starved and diseased Africans. Call it a hunch...On Decades after Silent Spring, pesticides remain a menace -- especially to farmworkers posted 3 years, 1 month ago 7 Responses

Corridors

Corridors are not a one size fits all solution to preserving 'biodiversity'. There are conflicting stuides on the ability of connective corridors to preserve and enhance biodiversity. They only work for animals with huge home ranges, i.e. large predators. Granted many are endangered, but the reasons for that are past hunting pressure and farmers' and ranchers' concern with livestock predation.

Furthermore, most predators with small populations would be perfectly capable of moving around through various land use types, except urban/suburban ones, and putting connective corridors through these creates a public image problem: who the hell wants a pack of wolves to be behind their house? Crazy environmental types nowithstanding, most people would be against this.

I like the idea of unification, but it's hard to push a scientific idea of connective corridors, which works well for endangered populations of large predators into the political arena without getting burned or without a major consideration of what we are trying to do. We should focus on reintroduction first, and that would have to be coupled with a good PR camaign aimed at the farmers/ranchers.On No, seriously posted 3 years, 1 month ago 13 Responses

Environmentalism?

Once again, there needs to be a clarification of what it mean to be an environmentalIST. I find it hard to be one, when the entire premise for too many is essentially a belief system, without a concern for actual facts.

But anyway, let's consider the term itself.
Dictionary.com defines it as:

1. an expert on environmental problems.  
   
2. any person who advocates or works to protect the air, water, animals, plants, and other natural resources from pollution or its effects.  
   
3. a person who believes that differences between individuals or groups, esp. in moral and intellectual attributes, are predominantly determined by environmental factors, as surroundings, upbringing, or experience

3. does not apply, despite being the original meaning of the word.

1. may be an important one for a scientist or a professional in an 'environmental' field.

Anyhow, what I am trying to get at is that David Roberts is absolutely right: there is no room for animal rights activism in environmentalism sensu strictu. Maybe somewhere on the periphery, very sensu lato, environmentalism picks up people from animal rights movements (think Venn diagrams), and hunting proponents, but the majority of what we as a group are working for (I would hope) is a reduction of harmful pollutants, habitat destruction and species extinction.

Therefore, I side wholeheartedly with David Roberts.On Do you care? posted 3 years, 1 month ago 22 Responses

So if earth doesn't care...

Who are we environmentalists for? I would like to say that it's nearly axiomatic that we care about our human selves before we care about the Earth. So, the human footprint is really something we need to control for own well-being, not the 'Earth'.On It's easy if you try posted 3 years, 1 month ago 35 Responses

i disagree with J.S.

No big surprise there for some reason. I think that if you want people to think about environmental problems, it is good to reach them where they listen. And if they go to church and don't listen, then I guess it is a bad place to reach out. Somehow, I think that the people who go to church do talk about the sermons and the messages within them.

Many church goers will listen to the preacher, but never read a book, magazine, whatever, and certainly wouldn't want to listen to some egghead from up North or from California. Church is a social and a religious experience with opportunities for education. After all that is how the majority of families either learn their morals or reinforce them.

I am by no means religious. I am, as a matter of fact very anti-organized religion; but churches, synagogues and other places of worship are very important places to way too many people to say that we should not court the religious folks.On Energy is better spent elsewhere posted 3 years, 1 month ago 93 Responses

earth-lover?

That might be illegal in some southern states.On Vote! posted 3 years, 1 month ago 26 Responses

right,

This is entirely too much killing. It's really not different from factory farming. We have to put it into the context of our food production system as a whole. This is a byproduct of people who are so far removed from their food source, that they don't know or care how this happens. This in turn creates the people who want to do this as cheaply and easily as possible within our centralized system.On Japanese dolphin hunt underway posted 3 years, 2 months ago 9 Responses

intelligence?

I think one of the main fallacies that I keep seeing is that intelligence is brought up time and again.

The definition applied in this case, according to dictionary.com:

capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc. .

Somewhat broad, and imprecise. Wikipedia (I know, I know) provides a glimpse for further controversy. I have heard the same criticisms from psychology and evolutionary students time and time again. I even heard the term 'plant intelligence' in a refereed paper.

I guess what I am getting at is if you define intelligence as a human (not exclusively) property, then you run into the problem of testing it with animals. At best, you will run into data that will resemble that of a mentally challenged human being. The problem with doing that is these animals are not subjected to the same evolutionary pressures as we are and were, and their adaptations are drastically different. We cannot base our arguments on intelligence. Emotions may be something that is a different matter, but why isn't the human race worried when I hurt physically, mentally, or emotionally? Personally, I think more than anything gregariousness and social hierarchies are very important variables, since it reminds us of ourselves.

P.S. Cuteness and cuddliness are not a good measure either, since aesthetics are very subjective and with larger animals depend on proximity to them. A lion would be real cute behind bars, windows of a car, or half a mile away. Not so much when he or she is gnawing at your leg.On The state of play on the animal welfare question posted 3 years, 2 months ago 23 Responses

aavery,

Isn't that the reason why them scientists use them statistics, you know to compare different sample sizes... you know from more than one group? Them ANOVA tests, you know to pick up significant differences? You know instead of background variation because this is, what do they call that? O jeez, not a population, but umm, jeez, um...
um...
... a sample? you know, cause I heard them samples have them sample variances inherent to umm... lack of our ability to test the whole population or something like that?

Oh, but I guess you wouldn't know anything about that.On Why the Hudson Insitute needs to compost its manure a little better. posted 3 years, 2 months ago 12 Responses

interesting topic

I, too, have struggled to figure out what it is that draws me in to the idea of 'species conservation'. The basic answer, the way that I perceive it is for 'human well-being' with a healthy dose of respect for mother nature's design and I guess somewhat of an aesthetic appreciation for the variety.

The argument of

again, your reasoning is largely suspect and factually untrue. Not every single species is necessary for ecosystems nor is every single niche ecosystem necessary for the survival of larger ecosystems. The concept that "everthing is connected" sounds nice (and may be true on some level) but as far as the survival of humanity and most species it simply is irrelevant. This is something environmentalists have a hard time with- we and most creatures can and DO get along fine without the perpetuation of every single species. In fact, the history of the Earth completely disproves this thesis since 99.9% OF ALL SPCECIES THAT HAVE EVER LIVED ON EARTH HAVE ALREADY GONE EXTINCT.

is faulty for several reasons. '99.9% of all species extinct' is tantamount to arguing that making it to the meeting on time does not matter since a half an hour is much much less than 1x10^-20 of all time that has elapsed. Try using that one, see how far you will get. Basically, it's a ridiculous argument even in a purely hypothetical discussion.

The question of species redundancy is another one. There are empirical studies in ecology that question how important is biodiversity (see much of Peter Vitousek's work). And the answer is that there is a level of species redundancy that exists for a continued ecosystem function (nutrient cycling, biomass gain, trophic level support), and the amount of species required is lower than the amount available. However, at the threshold, the ecosystem functions reduce drastically. This is not to say that ecosystems are perfect assemblies, they are merely a result of convergent tolerances for biophysical gradients (I am not a Clemensian follower for anyone who is an ecologist out there).

The loss of any one of those redundant species (except for keystone spp.) is not dangerous to ecosystem functions, but the continual loss or even a threat of loss (for example due to global warming or unregulated hunting) may throw the system off-balance and reduce or eliminate some of those functions.

So that brings us to the question of why we care. I guess the answer is not so much that we should specifically care about any one particular spp. but the overall system functions as a result of the presence or lack of those spp. And while we may not be able to prevent every extinction out there, the continued extinction of every 'niche' spp. is dangerous to ecosystem functions that actually ARE our life support system.

P.S. Once again, I struggle to understand why J.S. attempts to argue ecological subjects from a philosophical/(economical?) perspective. While there are certain value judgements (objectives, if you will) made from the start in ecology (continued ecosystem functioning is important), this does not mean that the results and conclusions are not worthy of merit or scientifically rigorous. On Value judgments are inescapable posted 3 years, 2 months ago 17 Responses

J.S.

I don't want to sound sarcastic, but it's hard to contain myself regarding your second statement: ' your facts are simply wrong.' Oh, MY facts are SIMPLY wrong. It's curious how you, an assistant professor of economics try to tell me how ecology and food webs work... You know, me being an ecologist and all.

Anyway, my point was that you seem to live in sunny Monterey. And from what I surmise, before that you lived in New York, which is the state where I hail from. And in neither of our cases, we know what it's like to live in extreme environments such as the extreme North of Canada. It's hard for either of us to pass judgement on the people that live there until we go there and live there for a while. Period.

As far as private land. Private land would mean that the owner has exclusive rights to it, barring eminent domain and tax truancy. I am actually curious to hear your position on eminent domain; personally I have reservations about it. But anyway, since the land is the owner's, he has the right to do next to anything that he wants with it including hunt on it, and set up CAFOs. I was under the impression that the freedom to do almost anything with the land is precisely the reason for the owner to have it. If they cannot do what they want with it, then I don't see why anyone would spend money on purchasing land (or water) that they can't use? Why not in that case keep it public?On If environmentalism doesn't include animal welfare, why not? posted 3 years, 2 months ago 65 Responses

here we go again, part 2

I wrote a long, sort of funny post. The computer poo-pooed it. Not going to write it again, but I will give you the gist. There is a definite difference between hunting and wholesale slaughter of animals.

The seals that die will most likely die as a result of other means, since their environment is only capable of supporting so many of them. They will most likely go to feed polar bears or orcas or gators. Still with me?

None of us live there. We don't know jack shit about what it's like to live near the poles. We have the luxury of sunlight during the winter and darkness during the summer, and the bugs are not as bad. We should ask the Eskimo or Inuit elders about their take on it based on their morality and tradition.

Question to JDS: how do you synchronize personal beliefs re: animal welfare and working hypothesis re: public and 'commons' privatization? I do not see these as being coherent.On If environmentalism doesn't include animal welfare, why not? posted 3 years, 2 months ago 65 Responses

SUVs

Just curious about how true is the statement that 90% of people with pick-ups do not put use them for their purpose. I mean it might be true that 90% of trips made by pick-ups are not with the original purpose in mind, but I'm not sure that only 10% of people actually use pick-ups.On And why is it still around? posted 3 years, 2 months ago 10 Responses

dwm376s

I agree with you, but in defense of my previous statement regarding 'not being able to afford to go to the market'.

Clearly the majority of American people are capable of sustaining themselves without having to hunt. That was not the point that I was trying to make. I was saying that rural people that hunt get a large part of their meat diet from it. And considering that rural people tend to not make a lot of money up North, this relieves them of some of their bills. Especially if they would hunt anyway.

I suppose that their is a different amount of wealth distribution between rural people in different parts of the country. Many Appalachian rural people are poor, while many of the Southern and Midwestern ruralites are living off their land, which is cheap, yet productive. On Enviros should adopt some animal welfare concerns posted 3 years, 2 months ago 31 Responses

Murder?

What about the murder of plants? Plenty of those are killed intentionally, do we say that we murder them? Please elaborate on the difference between botanical and zoological organisms in moral definitions.On Can you 'murder' a chicken? posted 3 years, 2 months ago 25 Responses

'challenged dolphins'

no, most of those animals wouldn't want to kill me... unless they were hungry, which more often than not they aren't.

There are plenty of cases of animals killing humans either for food or not: plenty of male African elephants kill humans, rhinos and other animals during a rut. Lions and tigers usually not hungry? True, but with humans being able to preserve meat it is the same as if they were hunting when they were hungry (at least things like deer).

In my opinion, Pbrazelton's comment:

It's probably closer to a human mother stomping the shit out of a rattlesnake who was innocently cruising around a corner past her fawns (chicks?  larvae?  (I kid, I kid)).

does not necessarily bring the 'moral' finality as much as bring up more questions: so what if the human mother killed a protected rattlesnake in New York, where they are protected? Does that not mean that she deserves to get a fine? Or how about that case of an alligator in FL who attacked a dog, and the female owner shot the gator seven times in the head. The gator survived, was removed by the pest people, and she got a ticket for hunting without a license. Morally, she was right, but the law says not.

Ultimately, anyone who suggests that morality is not relative is probably not aware that they are wrong, since morality is not an intrinsic quality. It is a superego institution, placed on us through years of development and upbringing, and thus is an extrinsic quality. The morality of Taliban is probably 'stronger' than of any Westerner, but we still perceive them to be wrong, because it contradicts our set of values.

I do not ascribe human qualities to animals, since they have their own qualities of which I am quite well aware. Comparing them to mentally challenged humans is like comparing a human to a 'challenged' dolphin. And we all are mentally and physically challenged dolphins. We, as humans, have to work within the confines of our 'Umwelt' or our subjective universe. Our Umwelt includes the confines of economics and legal hassles, specific to a locality.

Circumventing the actual logic and about a page of reasoning, I would say that the confines of our Umwelt and relativity of morality means that killing individuals to save a species is one thing that we should have in our toolbag of 'saving the Earth'.

Also, it seems curious that JDS will conceed that killing deer might be good sometimes, but other creatures are off the list completely. Is it because you have certain admiration for them? So why not earthworms, or mosquitos or any other admirable creatures?

Where would we get the money to pay for land and species conservation? Taxing the locals? Taxing the tourists? The first would not work, the second might work, but there is only so much that a reasonably well-off person would pay to see an elephant. I would bet that there is hardly a limit on how much a rich asshole would pay for shooting one, if he is really stuck on that idea.

And by the way, personally I am sort of a purist, I prefer the bow and do not own a rifle, but there is nothing wrong with rifle or shotgun hunting either. The problem is when people take shots at animals out of their shot range. On Enviros should adopt some animal welfare concerns posted 3 years, 2 months ago 31 Responses

Cruelty does not equal to murder

Blanket statements and beliefs edge too much on the side of radicalism and that is ultimately what is responsible for conflicts and wars. I realize that this is a stretch but that