What is Digg?31 Comments
- mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -4/+32Thanks for cleaning up after us Canada!
- Trogdor420, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21You are welcome.
- mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16In his first year as president, we had some bad wildfires in the forests of Washington state, and Bush's solution the problem was to "get rid of the trees, because without trees, there is nothing to catch fire".
The local news anchors were cracking up when they heard that. - netdroid9, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13That's like saying that a heart-transplant costs a lot and therefore must be extortion.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Because years of "debate" have convinced people that environmentalism and economic growth are at odds when the reality is the exact opposite.
If you still doubt, consider the following examples. Which is cheaper, an industry adopting stringent standards early (whether voluntary or mandated by law) and having to clean up little, or an industry polluting freely until people get so fed up that an absurdly massive clean-up is needed? Which yields more fish, a free-for-all where anyone and everyone can fish all they want, or limits on the number of catches for a particular fish in an area? Which would you rather pay, a relatively small amount to limit release of greenhouse emissions now, or huge amounts when global warming really starts to affect climates?
In so many cases, the pro-environment option and the pro-business option are the same. What are at odds are short term thinking (pollute now and get out of the business before the consequences catch up with you) and long term thinking (invest in pollution-minimizing techniques so the consequences are mitigated or elimated). - mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Not sure why I was buried.. I was being serious.
- sonicdeath, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6why is it that here in america we never learn?
- CKR600, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4We have this nasty bug killing off a lot of the tree's here in BC. Do your part and step on / kill ~40 Billion bugs each and we should be ok for a few years.
- goodoldharris, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4CopperFalcon:
Good points. As you say, short-term thinking is the problem. But currently the rules of business encourage short-term thinking and it won't change until the rules change. Currently, business has a strong incentive to ignore the costs of pollution and long-term environmental sustainability. It's more "profitable" to pass these costs onto the public, who will be forced to deal with them at some point in the future at a huge expense (measured in both dollars and quality of life).
The Zortman-Landusky "heap-leach" Gold Mine in Montana dumped millions of tonnes of cyanide solution onto rock to leach out traces of gold. In 1998, the company went bankrupt and left Montana with a $33 million clean-up bill. The pollution from the mine poisoned the groundwater so severely that "expensive water treatment systems will have to be operated forever." Operating water treatment facilities "forever" will cost a lot more than $33 million and will dwarf any economic benefit of the mining operation. Only one example, but there are countless examples of similar disasters.
Certain business practices would be unprofitable if clean up and sustainability costs were factored in. And nothing will change until businesses are forced to account for these costs, as they should be forced to. Why should everyone else have to pay for them? - concertina, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@iChuckles
True, and the logging industry would have you chopping down old trees first before replanting, rather than reforesting entirely new areas which would be the real winning scenario. And as long as those old trees aren't consumed as firewood or charcoal or other carbon-releasing forms, the industry claims hold up. But if those old trees are burnt, the carbon is re-released and the net gain becomes more and more questionable. So it becomes a numbers game, with the logging industry duking it out with the environmentalists and scientists over the best way to manage a forest and improve carbon draw-down, with each side claiming a monopoly on the truth.
Or is there something I'm missing here? - CBTF, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Im sure they'd appreciate it if we didnt log them, though..
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Reaping an economic benefit is equivalent to extortion? What the hell? Even in the bizarro-world which scsikool inhabits (check his profile), that doesn't make sense!
- rojo21, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Whilst this is an admirable study let's not forget that sustainable logging via crown lease on forest mangement areas (as oppossed to rape n' pillage via US softwood lumber proposals) is an effective method of large scale carbon capture .As the wood is then locked long term into structures & furniture, replanting on an engoing FMA further increases carbon sinks.
Studies now show that sustainable logging is in fact better for the environment via carbon capture & regrowth. - drakethegreat, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Americans are in self-denial. Then again if I was Chinese then I would be in even deeper denial, but then again if I was Chinese I couldn't even write this...
- Scruffydan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"One thing I love about Canada is how -green- it is."
The real reason Canada is 'green' is because of our low population density. Our environmental policies/laws are not very good.
http://www.unnaturallaw.com/ : a great book detailing the problems with Canada's environmental policy, comparing it to other countries AND on possible solutions to some of our problems. - iChuckles, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2->rojo21
You get more (more efficient) carbon cleaning from a growing tree than an adult one. This is because the tree grows through consumption of carbon dioxide. While I am not for cutting all old growth, new saplings would clean more air for the same area. - jinexile, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Depends on the grain, but mostly it's a golden color, some yellow, some white, some green, some purple, also depends the part of the season.
- Zippo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Well, there are certainly a lot of trees here. You only have to look out your window in Newfoundland to see hills and mountains completely covered in pine trees, even in the cities... I can see one right now.
- smartssa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The best part is we don't have to pay the trees a cent. What a good deal, eh?
- smcavoy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6yes one economist speaks for the country.
- Salmonized, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Alaska is doing its part....damn buggers....it bugs me (pun not intended)
- aggrazel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So... money does grow on trees?
My dad is a big fat liar. - acespades, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What about the Amazon?
- DrinkPaint, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Y'know the best thing about trees?
Tree forts....LOL....AM I RIGHT?!?!? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Drink some more paint dude.
Sucks that we pay (paid actually) Michigan to take our garbage because our politicians have no balls, but we don't get a penny for the how many tonnes upon tonnes of air pollution blown our way every day.
Maybe we should build a big wall across the border to measure it heh - satori3000, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3white
- maukdaddy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Why is this filed under environment and not political opinion? This "article" is clearly from a conservative source espousing a conservative viewpoint!
- swankboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I love when people throw out obnoxious numbers like this and we're all just supposed to believe it.
- JapanisFull, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1
Yeah--- and if in totally concentrated form, an individual pinprick of the nastiest ***** that floats down the mississippi river every day could kill about, say, 300 or more people.
If the average cost of those funerals is $4,000 (being generous), then the mississippi river saves $438,000,000 every year in funerals costs alone, since, ya know, all those chemicals bein' diluted and all. - cal01, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1One thing I love about Canada is how -green- it is.
Unless, of course, you come down to the prairies. What's the color of that? Wheat? - scsikool, on 10/12/2007, -27/+3Oh great! For $93 Billion we won't cut down our forests. Sounds like extortion and pollution control are the same thing. Looks like Canada is angling to sell greenhouse gas credits.
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is