What is Digg?Sponsored by Gilt Man
It's a Gilt Man's world view!
giltman.com - Get gear and gadgets at up to 70% off. Shop like a guy, dress like a man. You're invited.
185 Comments
- markgl, on 10/10/2007, -9/+50Wow, I never knew that about deforesting. it actually helps the environment by planting new young trees that suck in more CO2 than an old tree.
- Charlotte_Web, on 10/10/2007, -5/+44Article dugg for promoting common-sense environmentalism, rather than knee-jerk, "what's the latest fad" environmentalism.
- norman619, on 10/10/2007, -12/+46This is coming from the founder of Greenpeace of all people. Sad thing is way too many people look to clowns like DiCaprio as if they actually know what they are talking about. They forget the only expertise they have is playing a role they are given. Yet people take their word as gospel. They do more harm than good by spreading their uninformed messages to the lazy and/or ignorant masses. I wish they would leave this to the scientists who actually spend significant amounts of time in actual research.
- markgl, on 10/10/2007, -7/+34The Co-Founder of Greenpeace left cause they were turning into nutjobs. he is a guy i'd follow. he is a smart guy with real solutions to environmental issues. cause that is what the world needs today. understanding of how things work and how things need to change and what is the right way to change and what is it that is working for us today but needs fixed for tomorrow!!!
- nufan00, on 10/10/2007, -1/+24A resume of Dr. Patrick Moore point of view:
- Trees are the most powerful concentrators of carbon on Earth. Through photosynthesis, they absorb CO2 from the atmosphere and store it in their wood, which is nearly 50 per cent carbon by weight.
- North Americans are the world's largest per-capita wood consumers and yet our forests cover approximately the same area of land as they did 100 years ago. According to the United Nations, our forests have expanded nearly 100 million acres over the past decade.
- There is a misconception that cutting down an old tree will result in a net release of carbon. Yet wooden furniture made in the Elizabethan era still holds the carbon fixed hundreds of years ago.
- Although old trees contain huge amounts of carbon, their rate of sequestration has slowed to a near halt. A young tree, although it contains little fixed carbon, pulls CO2 from the atmosphere at a much faster rate.
- To address climate change, we must use more wood, not less. Using wood sends a signal to the marketplace to grow more trees and to produce more wood. That means we can then use less concrete, steel and plastic -- heavy carbon emitters through their production. Trees are the only abundant, biodegradable and renewable global resource. - brstilson, on 10/10/2007, -9/+30Patrick Moore saw Greenpeace hijacked to become an organization with purely political motives. Greenpeace isn't about saving the environment, it's a club for middle-class white children to hate the capitalism that is responsible for their comfortable lives in the first place.
- kevinisms, on 10/10/2007, -6/+20If you want to hear more from Patrick Moore there is an amazing interview with him from the Penn Jillette Radio Show. For most of the show they talk about nuclear energy. I thought that I knew plenty about nuclear energy, but this conversation gave me more solid info while putting it in an easy to swallow package. Patrick, (and Penn), are great to listen to.
http://www.pennfans.net/view/Audio_Archive/PennRadio/The.Penn.Jillette.Radio.Show.2006.06.08/ - tmbrwolf19, on 10/10/2007, -2/+15These articles are becoming progressively more and more sound bites. Its like condensing a novel down to a post-it and expecting to still know all the same information.
Couple things he missed (whether intentional or not, I dunno):
- Clearcutting only really works well in a fast growth forest where forest fires are the primary disturbance, such as a boreal (taiga) forest. The forest (when managed properly) can bounce back quickly within a couple decades and the impact is minimal, since normally about every 50 years most those trees burn down anyways, cutting isn't to much different.
-Clearcutting a rainforest of ancient trees, pretty much kills the land. Rainforests while they look like they would be fertile, have horrible soil which is dependent on dead trees to add nutrients. This is why these trees take centuries to grow, and are impractical to every try to commerically log.
-There is still questions of a good sustainable method of logging. Clearcutting in its present form isn't great, but could easily be improved massively by leaving tree litter (branches that are cut off) to rot and add to the soil, and more random trees should be left to help with regrowth.
-While cutting down almost all of the trees is just fine. Replacing them all with the same one isn't. Monocultures are extremely vulnerable to disease and infestations. The pine beetle in BC is a good example. It is also horrible for the eco-system making it difficult for native species to adapt.
-Cutting some forests poses huge threats to bio-diversity and species.
It's call sustainability, not environmentalism. It's using our resources and environment in a way that creates the smallest impact to insure that future generations still have something to use. - ATHEISTinHELL, on 10/10/2007, -11/+22DiCaprio, leave the disaster movies to Micheal Bay(No body can destroy New York better than him). I'm glad Patrick Moore came out against the scare tactics in this movie. It just goes to show you, reason outweighs hysteria every time.
- shark615, on 10/10/2007, -3/+14Is environmentalist a new word for moron? Seriously get educated before you become an activist of any kind.
First off old growth forests are cut down on a managed timeline and although new trees are not planted ,by selectively clearing certain old growth trees in specific patterns new growth is encouraged. When the area is revisted in 10-20 years there is new growth and the now oldest tress are ready to be removed.
Secondly a lot of wood like OSB, particle board, paper, finger jointed etc is created with wood grown on a tree farm which grows trees that "mature" in 3-5 years and are continuously replaced like normal farming.
Of course this doesnt apply in certain countries. - Charlotte_Web, on 10/10/2007, -10/+20Whether that's true or not, how does that negate the facts stated in the article?
It's not a refutation of the facts, it's just a smear. - brstilson, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12Being that oak and pine are the most common woods used in the US, I'm betting not much. Most of the Amazon is actually cleared by local farmers looking to raise livestock and plant fields.
- shark615, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13That methane can be used to create power. There are tons of landfills around the world that take that by product and create energy.
problem solved - Otto, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10There are more trees in North America right now than there have been since 1920.
Lumber companies *do* plant new trees. It makes economic sense for them to do so. - jonnyeh, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9A way to determine a true environmentalist (one that uses science and reason) vs a nut is to ask about nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is our solution to global warming, and it's completely safe (if it's not done by the Soviets)
- ZenFountain, on 10/10/2007, -3/+12It's true that he did leave, because he saw his organization being hijacked by fringe groups that were more concerned about politics than environmentalism. For example, there is actually a split among environmentalist about the use of nuclear power. Some see it as a necessary evil that produces emission free power, while others will do anything to stop it, even if it means building more coal fired plants. The fringe people won't compromise on anything and would like to see the global economy recede until people are again living in huts and farming with oxen in a civilization devoid of technology. I'm not exaggerating here, that's honestly what they want to see the world go back to. I'm very liberal and am active in conservation and environmental protection, but even I can see that world view is entirely irrational. It will never happen and their end game would actually be more destruction to the environment because they refused to budge on rational environmental policies.
- Metman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10There is a lot more to the story then just one man's claim. The only member of Greenpeace to make this claim is Paul Watson, who coincidently was expelled from the organization. Many claim it was due to the 'tossing of a Sealer's (seal club'r) club into the sea". It was actually over the death of 4 Greenpeace members who dangled themselves in the Strait of Juan de Fuca from bridges to stop the movement of Alaskan bound fishing/crab vessels. Unfortunately for the members who volunteered to do this, the crew of the vessels were unable to see them in time do to visibility that morning and they were ripped from the bridge and fell to their deaths. This was a demonstration reported to be organized by Watson. So I am a little uneasy when Watson claims that Moore 'sells out' to corporate lackeys - especially since this has never been substantiated past Watson's mouth.
- Brutusfly, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11Patrick Moore is wrong about trees rotting, and wrong about harvesting. The most ancient trees will often have thick mats of organic (carbon) life on all the large branches, and rotting trees don't just give up all their carbon to the atmosphere. Rotting trees give up much of their carbon to the diverse life that consumes them and become part of the thick rich loam of a healthy forest floor. You can't even begin to compare the ancient forests to the forests we have regained since the early 1900's. Most of today's American forests are rows of twigs by comparison.
- Cappez, on 10/10/2007, -4/+12This beggs the question though - what happens to those old trees? "Every year 10 million tonnes of wood is produced for disposal in the UK, and yet still only 1.5 million tonnes is recycled. The rest is sent to landfill. Land filling organic materials such as wood leads to emissions of methane. This is 21 times more damaging to the environment than carbon dioxide."
http://www.ukwoodrecycling.co.uk/background_to_wood_recycling.htm - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -7/+14"North Americans are the world's largest per-capita wood consumers and yet our forests cover approximately the same area of land as they did 100 years ago."
How much timber consumed in North America comes from forests in South America? I bet the Amazon isn't the same size as 100 years ago. - cygnus2112, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10Impressive, you summed it up in two sentences.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -9/+15A sane environmentalist, that's not afraid to call shenanigans? Dugg.
- steve9745, on 10/10/2007, -4/+10He is somewhat right, but he oversimplifies a bit.
1.) Using wood from a known sustainable source is good. Not all wood comes from sustainable sources.
2.) The greenhouse effect is not the only environmental effect to consider. If ancient forests are cut down and replaced with economically valuable kinds of trees, the list of threatened species will get longer.
3.) The carbon that is bound in your furniture is really not much compared to your overall carbon footprint - DRINKxREDxBULL, on 10/10/2007, -7/+13And just how many millions of personal profit is Al Gore making from both his movie and from the AGW scam? Just one look at his lifestyle will be all you need to know about just how seriously he takes his scam.
- Metman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Do the research Junkyarddawg...
Speaking of Hype... - Metman, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Not disagreeing with you, but you may want to look into the 'Fall of the Soviet Union" again. The growing numbers across the pond suggest it may not have fallen that far...
- jonnyeh, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5I disagree, Roland Emmerich is way better at destroying New York. I don't think anyone has done it as many times as him. Independance Day, Godzilla, The Day After Tomorrow.
- dan.stryker, on 10/10/2007, -6/+10So you think the logging companies are going to put themselves out of business? They HAVE TO plant more trees in order to log them later... DUH....
- Metman, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Did you read the article?
- DRINKxREDxBULL, on 10/10/2007, -5/+9"Recent studies of vegetation patterns, based on detailed satellite images and on-the-ground inventories of trees, have found that Niger, a place of persistent hunger and deprivation, has recently added millions of new trees and is now far greener than it was 30 years ago."
After the Nigerian government allowed the private owership of land (and the the use of the trees on that land) "farmers began to regard the trees in their fields as their property, and in recent years the government has recognized the benefits of that outlook by allowing individuals to own trees. Farmers make money from the trees by selling branches, pods, fruit and bark. Because those sales are more lucrative over time than simply chopping down the tree for firewood, the farmers preserve them."
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2007/02/tree_owners_are.html#comments
Making trees private property leads to more trees under capitalism. - Metman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Commies don't bother me. Countries that are devoid of human rights do.
- Swift2, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6You'll notice that that article was written in pure PR flackery language. First: what did the DiCaprio movie actually say? An environmentalist -- you know, a scientist -- would say, here's the thesis, and here's where it goes wrong (or right). But from the first paragraph, the article is clear. This is an "alarmist" film. No mention of what the real thesis is. Just, "He's a crazy environmentalist celebrity hippie doomsayer." Then, there's paragraph after paragraph of industry blah-blah. Deforestation isn't real. Everything's fine with your favorite local industry.
I have no idea what the DiCaprio thesis is, or how true are the "facts" that the industry flack with good pseudo-environmentalist cred puts forward. It's just the dumbing-down of the culture. Nobody presents real arguments. Nothing there but, "DiCaprio's a dirty f_in' hippie." - Metman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Russia's GNP has risen 46% since 2002. They are re-establishing their industry.
In regards to China, well no *****. They do not have unions force-pricing their product. They do not have labor organizations screaming over health benefits. I hardly consider China capitalism. Let us see what happens to China with the expansive middle class they are creating begins to see the effects of industrialization on their communities. - cygnus2112, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Takes one to know one, eh Junkyard?
- RollFizzlebeef, on 10/10/2007, -5/+8Yikes...thank you, Senator McCarthy. You know you're talking to a genuine wingnut when they're still red-bating 15 years after the fall of the Soviet Union.
- andyd273, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4When has reason ever outweighed hysteria??
You get a hysterical mob with torches and pitchforks, and you send someone out to reason with them, you better hope that there's a back way out of the building while the mob is distracted.
People like hysteria, its an excuse to do what they want to do but are to controlled by society to do normally. - brstilson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Wtf? Is "shill" on everybody's word of the day calendar?
And way to go on the false dichotomy there dave, yeah just because I don't believe the SENSATION!!!alist environmentalist groups I'm some sort of paid crony. Yeah, anyone that disagrees with you MUST be on the payroll of your enemies. Way to argue, ad hominem boy. - STKD, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I forgot about all the heavy machinery like chainsaws and bulldozers they had in the Elizabethan era that belched out carbon.
Oh, wait... - BulkHedd, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3From the article:
"North Americans are the world's largest per-capita wood consumers and yet our forests cover approximately the same area of land as they did 100 years ago. According to the United Nations, our forests have expanded nearly 100 million acres over the past decade." - Metman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Right because a Phd in Ecology has nothing to do with science....
- STKD, on 10/10/2007, -5/+8Well I sure hope the idiot commenters above go and research the claim for themselves. Dr Partrick Moore is indeed paid by the people who just happen to be "anti environment" (for lack of a better term.)
- johnnliu, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3If you are talking about treated wood for timber floor tiles, may be that could be imported. But solid wood for building would be quite difficult (and expensive) to get imported I think.
- philz, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Growing trees takes time in which an older try could absorb more CO2 and animals could live in/on/under it.
I have this non-logical affinity to animals - they are ANIMALS. They GROW UP. They can REPRODUCE!
See where this is going? - cygnus2112, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5I don't know the industry and thus can't quote the figures, but the company that he works for has the reputation and resume to back it up. Just because you want to knee-jerk and compare all logging companies to Enron, doesn't make your delusions more real.
- thrallie, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Libertarian is NOT right wing. We don't believe in corporations owning the country OR big government owning the country. I am not "skeptical" of global warming, I know the science. But I do think these scare tactics and carbon footprint is *****. I know that we replant the tree's we use in the united states, outside the united states is none of our business unless we are doing it.
More regulation won't fix anything either. Just look at bush's increased ethanol percentage into gasoline, it has caused gas prices to sky rocket since Ethanol is so expensive. - cygnus2112, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7My best friend for 20+ years is a Master Forester in a logging corporation that plants more trees than they cut down. They intentionally mark trees that are harmful to forests (beetle rot) and for soil erosion. Oh yeah, he was also an Eagle Scout and is one of the most environmentally-conscious people I know. This is not some evil industry bent on tearing all of America's trees down. You're just alarmists that are ill-informed about the transformation of the logging industry in the past half century. That's called "ignorance."
- shark615, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4wow.
Just a hint if you want to prove a point don't link to pages like that, seriously it devalues you as a human being. - Metman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Worked for Hungary, Nazi Germany, modern day Congo, Chechnya....
- brstilson, on 10/10/2007, -5/+8Could it be that he was consulting with these organizations in order to help them IMPROVE their ecological impact? Nooooooo, that wouldn't be SENSATION!!!!alist enough for you and your socialist agenda.
There is also no evidence that Genetically modified foods are harmful, none, zero, zip, nada. The only people that think so have watched too many horror movies. - Charlotte_Web, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Yup, nut.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 186 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is