digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

GREENPEACE co-founder slams DiCaprio's 'scare tactics' in movie

canada.com — Despite the anti-forestry scare tactics of celebrity movies, trees are the most powerful concentrators of carbon on Earth Dr. Patrick Moore is a co-founder of Greenpeace and chairman and chief scientist of Greenspirit Strategies Ltd. in Vancouver.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • 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.
      • 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
        • 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
        • bias, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2hmmmm... I don't think the rest of the 10 million tonnes of wood are sent to landfill every year.... it's more likely that people are still using the products?
    • Junkyarddawg, on 10/10/2007, -24/+16Patrick Moore is an industry-paid shill.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_%28environmentalist%29#Controversy

      He sells his credentials as "greenpeace co-founder" to the highest bidder, and have e.g. taken part in industry campaigns against global warming and in support of clear-cutting pristine forrests. Which, incidentally, this article is a part of too.
      • 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.
        • mightydavefish, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Let's see if any non-industry funded scientists agree.
          Don't you think that someone would have thought of this by now?
          Do you really think this guy is a visionary who's caught something every other climatologist has missed?
          Like the right winger you are you don't even question someone who agrees with your viewpoint, no matter how ridiculous or unfounded or contrary to known facts that may be.
          Try thinking. It's not as easy as watching Fox, but think for yourself.
          If this guy was saying the OPPOSITE you rightards would be screaming about how he doesn't know what he's talking about.
          It's amazing how a guy's view swings 180 degrees when the checks come in.
          • Charlotte_Web, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2And again.

            You're just spouting a lot of smear rhetoric.

            I'm still waiting to hear a solid refutation of what he said.

            Try thinking. It's not as easy as watching The Daily Show, but think for yourself and engage in a REAL debate on a topic.
          • VanillaStarfish, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I just hate Leonardo Dicaprio and his Hollywood fag party. So I'm agreeing with the Pat Moore.
            Problem solved.
      • hiPpymIck, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3i spose what it comes down to is whether what he has done in the past has..

        -merely been used to block progress in environmentalism (like a lawyer using delaying tactics)
        or
        -helped promote an intelligent unbiased debate (like,say, a good professor)

        it would take an impartial expert to know..
      • 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.
        • skyteria, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1You're an idiot. his lifestyle was the same before and after the film.

          Wikipedia:
          The film's distributor, Paramount Classics, is donating 5% of the box office receipts and Gore is donating all of his proceeds from the film to the Alliance for Climate Protection
          • VanillaStarfish, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Correction: Gore is donating all of his proceeds from the film to the Alliance for Climate Protection for publicity and your approval. And if it wasn't for publicity you never would have heard about it. You ***** sheep goat.
      • 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.
        • cygnus2112, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10Impressive, you summed it up in two sentences.
        • mightydavefish, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Wow. Spoken like a right wing shill.
          I guess we should leave the defense of the environment up to Exxon and Shell.
          ***** retard.
          Thank god we don't rely on people like you.
          • VanillaStarfish, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Why Exxon and Shell? We've got DiCaprio to save the planet.
        • 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.
        • skyteria, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Moore’s clients have included:

          * B.C. Hazardous Waste Management Corporation (1991-92);
          * Moore established the B.C. Carbon Project – ‘working to achieve a common understanding of the carbon budget and the implications of global climate change for B.C’ - which received a $C145,000 grant in May 1991. Moores involvement ended in 1994;
          * on retainer to the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association to tour European countries to counter advocacy by environmental groups for a boycott of British Columbian forest products (1992-96);
          * Westcoast Energy and BC Gas 1993-1994 “to design a public consultation process to address greenhouse gas emissions for the natural gas sector in B.C”;
          * BHP Minerals to facilitate a round table on proposals to use the abandoned Island Copper mine as a landfill site (1993-94);
          * Director and Vice-President, Environment and Government Affairs for Waterfurnace International 1995-1998 to “build awareness of the benefits of renewable earth energy technology”. According to his website, Moore remains a member of the Board of Directors.
          * Consultant to the National Association of Forest Industries in Australia for a national tour defending the logging of native forests (1996);
          * consultant to the Canadian Mining Association and the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada “on the role of biodiversity in environmental policy in the mining industry” (1996);
          * consultant to BHP Minerals (Canada) Ltd. to author a paper on the environmental impact of submarine tailings disposal over the 23-year life of the Island Copper Mine on Vancouver Island (1996);
          * speaker for numerous timber industry associations including the American Forest and Paper Association, the Council of European Paper Industries, State Forestry Associations in Texas, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, New York, Maine, and Florida, the National Hardwood Lumber Association (1998-1999);
          * gave evidence in support of bio-technology before the New Zealand Royal Commission on Genetic Modification and undertook at tour of Southeast Asia, hosted by the International Service for Assistance with Agri-Biotech Applications. “Led seminars in Bangkok and Jakarta on the benefits of biotechnology for farmers in developing countries”, Moore’s website states (2000);
          * speaker for groups including the Filipino Society of Foresters and the Agri-Food Canada (2000); and
          * consultant to the largest manufacturer of PVC in Canada, IPEX, to “intervene in the environmental policy of the Toronto 2008 Olympic Bid”. The environmental guidelines adopted for the Sydney Olympics recommended against the use of PVC wherever possible.
      • cygnus2112, on 10/10/2007, -5/+7Anyone who uses the word "shill" is likely a shill.
      • 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.
        • dan.stryker, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4I guess decaprio and gore are the experts then, huh?
          • Metman, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4Er.. what?
          • skyteria, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1No. There filmmakers. They have films about something pertinent, instead of Michael Bay Hollywood crap.
    • MOJIRA, on 05/17/2008, -9/+8New tree is better than old tree. Okay sounds good, but I think the problem with deforestation is that new trees aren't being planted.
      • 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?
        • 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."
      • 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.
      • 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.
        • Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1And the two kinds of forests are *not the same*.

          It's like comparing wild corn with a corn farm. Sure, they're both areas of land with corn growing, but one of them is by comparison a sterile monoculture, regardless of the physical age of individual corn plants.

          I'm not bashing lumber companies for doing something that makes economic sense, I'm just saying that you cannot treat all forests as equal solely on their tree density and types. One forest is an ecosystem, another is basically a cropfield.
    • wacki, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Before you believe Patrick Moore you should read what he said on an episode of Penn & Teller:

      http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/bullsheit.html

      He not exactly an environmentalist anymore.
  • 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.
    • Metman, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3I completely agree with your point you are trying to make but disagree with "They forget the only expertise they have is playing a role they are given". That is not always the case, there are many Hollywood type who actually get involved and learn the facts (from both sides). Sadly, these figures are not usually the ones who get in front of a camera and shoot their mouth off.
    • hiPpymIck, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Daryl Hannah has been known to protest sitting in a tree for weeks..
      http://digg.com/podcasts/daryl_hannah_s_love_life/8236

      SouthCentral Farm LA.. jul 06 - Joan Baez was there too
  • 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.
    • passive, on 10/10/2007, -9/+7Would this be the same co-founder of Greenpeace that is now on the oil industry payroll? Yep, it's that one.
      • Charlotte_Web, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1...uuh, because oil comes from trees?!?

        YEAH, I TOTALLY GET IT NOW!!!
    • 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.
      • VanillaStarfish, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I thought Roland Emmerich died. Maybe that was just his career.
    • 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.
  • vuedoo, on 10/10/2007, -15/+14Idiot Hollywood types. They get paid tons of money to hang out and mug for a camera and then for some reason think that they have the brains to go with the money that they are paid.
    • wageslaven, on 10/10/2007, -7/+1Funny, the Republicans are the ones who Elected Regan, and are looking seriously at the Fred Thompson... another actor. Its not Democratic voters unable to tell the difference between substance and mugging for the camera.
      • Metman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Somehow I knew some asshat would bring up partisan politics... grats!
        It is not like the Earth cares...
      • VanillaStarfish, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Who the ***** said anything about democrat or republican. Vuedoo said 'Idiot Hollywood types'
        Don't get all defensive with that.
  • booyaman1, on 10/10/2007, -10/+9DUGG! The last line in this piece says it all - "This film should be a good, clear reminder for us to put the science before the Hollywood hype." Hype(erbolic) and often tasteless appeals to emotion far too often take the place of true scientific analysis and open debate relying on reason, logic, and scientific evidence to make one's arguments (citing studies funded by people/companies who have an obvious conflict of interest concerning the matter being studied AND/OR ignore other crucial pieces of scientific evidence that seemingly contradicts its findings does NOT count - this seems to happen a lot on both sides of the environmental debate). Ahhhmmm..........if only i ruled the world.
  • 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!!!
    • Junkyarddawg, on 10/10/2007, -18/+7No, he left because the opposition paid more.
      • brstilson, on 10/10/2007, -5/+6and thank you for proving the original poster's point.
      • Metman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Do the research Junkyarddawg...

        Speaking of Hype...
    • 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.
      • 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)
        • wageslaven, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1A true environmentalist will say "Conservation" *WAY* before Nuclear.
      • enginbeering, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Agreed 100%. Nuclear power ftw.
  • 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/
  • TJATL, on 10/10/2007, -9/+15A sane environmentalist, that's not afraid to call shenanigans? Dugg.
  • Spentlife, on 10/10/2007, -11/+3All time movie to see if you care about human race..
    http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/
  • 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.
    • neoform, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1What in the hell is a "concentrator"?
      • Otto, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Something that concentrates something else. Seems pretty ***** obvious, huh?
  • Junkyarddawg, on 10/10/2007, -22/+14Geez, you guys will believe any shill, no matter how transparent, as long as he supports your personal views. This guy *is* on the payroll of the logging industry, and has earlier claimed that logging is OK because there is no such thing as global warming, and that more CO2 is good because it'll make the trees grow faster (so logging is OK). If you want an anti-environmental message out, and you want someone with supposed credibility to say it, this is your go-to guy.
    • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 10/10/2007, -9/+10And it is just happy coincidence that the 'solution' to AGW just happens to be more socialism, more government, and more taxes, right?
      • wageslaven, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2" more socialism, more government, and more taxes"

        How do you want the economy to capture the cost of pollution? And, our planet's natural resources arent replaceable (in many cases (including natural places, Forests are not the same as a post-logging Tree Plantation)) -- our current economy doesnt pay anything for the resource, only the cost to extract it.

        Have you ever heard the adage "You cant sell your furniture and call it income?" Our *ECONOMY* needs to capture these costs.

        How will you do this Mr. Libertarian? Or is your reactionary aversion to Democratic Social control of industry unable to see this reality? Are you willing to burn the planet to preserve your dogmatic world-view?
    • brstilson, on 10/10/2007, -11/+13"This guy *is* on the payroll of the logging industry"

      Wow, surrounding a word with asterisks makes whatever it says correct! I didn't know that.

      You're the shill. I'm betting you're a middle-class white kid who has always had enough food to eat, and thus always had the luxury of hating the capitalism that puts that food on your table. You attack Moore and others because they decide to look at things rationally instead of your chosen SENSATION!alist world view. You people are all the same, always willing to believe something without doing one iota of research, never questioning what you're told, never looking at anything rationally. No, the sky is falling and YOU'RE going to save it. It HAS to be falling, because then you wouldn't feel SPECIAL.

      Environmentalism is only a front used by Greenpeace to push their socialist agenda. It isn't about the environment, it's about hating capitalism.
      • 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.
        • 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...
        • RollFizzlebeef, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3Growing numbers of what, socialists? Have you seen how badly China is kicking our ass in the capitalism department?
          • 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.
          • TJATL, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1When the government of China owns parts of the businesses that you consider "kicking our ass ic the capitalism department", that is NOT capitalism. Who failed to teach your this?
        • brstilson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Socialism =/= communism
    • 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.)
      • Metman, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4I am from Missouri - "Show Me!"
        There are a number of agencies who make this claim. Yet, not a single one of them has proven this. He is a Honorary Member of Environmentalists for Nuclear Power (USA) and the Honorary Chairperson of Environmentalists for Nuclear Power (Canada). However, he receives no monetary compensation or barter for this positions. He is obviously a supporter of Nuclear power. As are several other members of Greenpeace (take a look at the member charter for both the above organizations and compare them to the Greenpeace Charter). So making your connections based off of Watson's claims is not very convincing.
    • 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."
      • RollFizzlebeef, on 10/10/2007, -6/+8Ah, yes: the Friend Is A Swell Guy, thus Corporation Is Good theorem. You just can't argue with facts and figures like that. All the people who worked at Enron, though? Total bastards, each and every one of 'em, all the way down to the janitorial staff.
        • dan.stryker, on 10/10/2007, -7/+3Why do all environmental wackos like rollfixxledbeef have anger management issues?
      • 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.
    • shark615, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3For ***** sake you post this ***** like its truth. Please show some proof instead of using * around words. Or should we believe you cause you are on digg?

      Lets see a well written and composed article from an experience and recognized environmentalist or an anon moron using specail characters to highlight so called facts....
  • texty32, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1There 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.
    http://www.textypisni32.com/pisni/queen/
    http://www.textypisni32.com/pisni/rufio/
    • 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...
      • steve9745, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0This is a cynical comment, but it made me realize the main missing point in the article. (my post is below)
  • logga0, on 10/10/2007, -14/+1shut it hippy.
  • Optimus, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Leave him alone, being called "*****" every day of your life growing up by your peers will mess a guy up bad.
  • Seventus, on 10/10/2007, -9/+9An old forest still absorbs CO2. To think that a tree with a larger size would need far less of it to live seems a little backwards, in my humble opinion. There are many other benefits to large older forests, like shelter for animals. Anyone who understand basics of an ecosystem can surely see where it goes from there.

    Or maybe we should cut down the entire Amazon rain forest, and replace it with fresh new trees. Who cares about the exotic life that thrives in it's environment?
    • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3Because clear cutting the entire rain forest is EXACTLY what is being proposed here.
      • Junkyarddawg, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4Actually, yes, it is.
        Moore is hired to lobby for clear-cutting in north american pristine forests, and that includes temperate rainforests. That's his job, and what this article is about.
        • Metman, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3PROVE IT! SHOW ME! LINK ME PROOF!
          YAP YAP YAP with no proof. I would think a PHd in ECOLOGY would speak louder then you rants
    • brstilson, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5People have this special affinity for trees for absolutely no logical reason. They're PLANTS. They GROW BACK. They're RENEWABLE. They are no different than grass or flowers. Trees are able to reproduce without our help. You'll see that whenever one falls in the forest, more sprout up to take its place.
      • 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, -4/+2But what about the cute fuzzy wuzzy widdle aminals that will live and migrate to other forested areas since most logging operations don't take out entire forests. Boohoohoo.. let's ask Mr. Squirrel if he can build a new nest, because when an old tree rots and falls down, his habitat and life is destroyed forever. Boohoohoo.. poor Mr. Squirrel.
        • shark615, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Read the article. Old Old trees apparently use very little carbon where a new tree gobbles it up. So you are wrongf based on that fact. A growing tree uses more carbon as it grows then an old tree.

          Also please post these special animals that require really old trees to live as opposed to smaller but still useable trees that are left by forest management.
    • miken32, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Thanks, that's what I came here to post. You have to think of a forest as more than "a group of trees." Does anyone honestly believe that you can clearcut a 1000 year old forest, replant it and you'll have the same thing back again in 20 years, or even a hundred?
      Moore is working for the forestry industry, so it's no surprise that he's proposing massive deforestation (yes, followed by re-forestation) as a solution to all our woes.
      An example of Dr. Moore's environmental views: "...there is no scientific proof of causation between the human-induced increase in atmospheric CO2 and the recent global warming trend..." -- Patrick Moore http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/September2006/21/c8839.html
  • BoyWithBigHands, on 10/10/2007, -13/+13So we've got a pro-logging industry editorial in a Vancouver newspaper?

    Surprise, British Columbia has a huge economic stake in industrial logging.

    "Industrial forestry - particularly clear cut logging - is still the norm throughout BC, and ancient forests are primarily targeted by timber companies. This is the case in the coastal temperate rain forests, which are being clear cut at an alarming and unsustainable rate. The government of British Columbia is in the process of changing the laws that govern how timber companies can log, replacing them with a "results-based" system that virtually allows the companies to monitor their own practices."...

    Keep in mind the source you're taking your news from; believing the Vancouver Sun about industrial logging is like believing Fox News about war and politics.
    • cygnus2112, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3Had to bring in and blame Fox News somehow, didn't you? Oh no, Global Warming, Bush and Fox News caused this post!
    • catalysis, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Hurry, attack the messenger before his messege gets out!!!
  • Flashman, 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.
    • 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.
      • aldebaran, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I sincerely doubt that oak is the most common wood used in the US....maybe pine...my guess is spruce is the most common!
        • brstilson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Ever buy cabinets or molding? I used to sell both, and as hardwoods go oak is the cheapest and most plentiful.
    • 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.
      • wiggles, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1not to mention the tariffs and subsidies applied to lumber that ensure what gets used in the US comes from US and Canadian sources.
    • Treoinmypocket, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Lumber Liquidators (Bob Villa & 'Bellawood Flooring"?) ships 70,000 tons of wood 22 times a day. Everyday. more than 60% of that comes from Brazil.
    • enginbeering, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The US imports the vast majority of its lumber from Canada.
  • texty32, on 10/10/2007, -5/+0NOT count - this seems to happen a lot on both sides of the environmental debate
    http://www.textypisni32.com/pisni/roxette/
    http://www.textypisni32.com/pisni/r-kelly/index.php
  • petzlux, on 10/10/2007, -13/+15Patrick Moore can hardly be called a neutral ecologist, if anything he is a die-hard lobbyist for the logging, mining and energy industry: Here is a selection of clients he has worked for in the past :

    - B.C. Hazardous Waste Management Corporation (1991-92);
    - on retainer to the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association to tour European countries to counter advocacy by environmental groups for a boycott of British Columbian forest products (1992-96);
    - Consultant to the National Association of Forest Industries in Australia for a national tour defending the logging of native forests (1996);
    - consultant to the Canadian Mining Association and the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada “on the role of biodiversity in environmental policy in the mining industry” (1996);
    - consultant to BHP Minerals (Canada) Ltd. to author a paper on the environmental impact of submarine tailings disposal over the 23-year life of the Island Copper Mine on Vancouver Island (1996);
    - speaker for numerous timber industry associations including the American Forest and Paper Association, the Council of European Paper Industries, State Forestry Associations in Texas, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, New York, Maine, and Florida, the National Hardwood Lumber Association (1998-1999);
    - gave evidence in support of bio-technology before the New Zealand Royal Commission on Genetic Modification and undertook at tour of Southeast Asia, hosted by the International Service for Assistance with Agri-Biotech Applications. “Led seminars in Bangkok and Jakarta on the benefits of biotechnology for farmers in developing countries”, Moore’s website states (2000);
    - speaker for groups including the Filipino Society of Foresters and the Agri-Food Canada (2000);
    - consultant to the largest manufacturer of PVC in Canada, IPEX, to “intervene in the environmental policy of the Toronto 2008 Olympic Bid”. The environmental guidelines adopted for the Sydney Olympics recommended against the use of PVC wherever possible.

    Source: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Patrick_Moore
    • 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.
      • Junkyarddawg, on 10/10/2007, -7/+4No, it isn't. He's not an environmentalist at all, just a random guy who happened to be an early member of Greenpeace and now uses that as his platform for lobbying for industry. Watch his interview in the Penn & Teller show someone linked to - NO biologist, much less any environmentalist, would ever say the stuff he says. He's simply a lobbyist, a shill.
        • brstilson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1first off, he was a founder of greenpeace, not an "early member." He's also got a PhD in ecology, so yeah that would qualify him in the field of conservation MUCH more than the neo-hippie middle class nature freaks who make up greenpeace today.
      • cygnus2112, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Takes one to know one, eh Junkyard?
    • steve9745, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Thanks for the link. Backgrounds of authors are always interesting.
    • Metman, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2Finally someone posted it! Thank you. Now please research on what was done by him. Also his reports are often available to the public. Interesting reads - again putting reason before hype...
  • 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.
    • RollFizzlebeef, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3Niger is the absolute poorest country in the world, land-locked in sub-Saharan Africa - so "far greener than it was 30 years ago" is pretty meaningless in a drought-stricken part of the world. It's main export is uranium, for Christ's sake - especially that non-existant kind we use to out CIA agents. Point is, that's some pretty sad-ass cutting and pasting you just did there.
      • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4I had no idea that poor countries were incapable of having trees. Or that countries that export Uranium could have trees. Or that countries that are part desert could have trees in the others parts of their country. Or that landlocked countries could have trees.
        • RollFizzlebeef, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2Hey, man - don't get mad at me; you're the one cutting-and-pasting to make dumb screeds about capitalism. Seriously, how paranoid are you nuts that you're still worried about commies?
          • Metman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Commies don't bother me. Countries that are devoid of human rights do.
        • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Who said anything about commies? I want to see you attacking EVERY digg users that quotes from the media (NYT in this case). Quoting parts of newspaper article to support an argument is a common practice used by people on the internets.
  • 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
    • wageslaven, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1A small narrative on #2. God made the planet for us to exploit to our sole advantage... Its not my opinion, but it is the opinion of a large Voting Block in the USA.... guess which party?
  • RollFizzlebeef, on 10/10/2007, -12/+11A little perspective here: The Vancouver Sun is owned by a right-wing media conglomerate and editorializes as such and Patrick Moore is literally making a business out being the go-to guy for conservatives and libertarians because of his "I once was in Greenpeace" pedigree. (He was also on Penn & Teller's "*****" program on the environment.) I'm not saying he's absolutely right or wrong here; just that he's got an agenda just like everyone else.
    • cygnus2112, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4At least he's right, unlike most of the ultra-ecoterrorists out there (like Junkyarddog.)
      • RollFizzlebeef, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3I didn't say Moore was "right", unless you're referring to his political affiliation - in which case, you're correct.
    • Metman, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5CanWest is Right Wing? Are you serious?
    • 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.
      • RollFizzlebeef, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Libertarian business philosophy is most certainly right-wing. Social philosophies like wanting to be able to pay for weed and sex doesn't change that fact.
  • Mier, on 10/10/2007, -10/+9to quote penn and teller: environmentalism is *****. The scare tactic here is that you whackos wanna run my life for me. You can have the keys to my big V8 truck when you pry them from my cold dead fingers.
    • RollFizzlebeef, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1Wrong bumpersticker wisdom there, sparky -- everyone knows only gun owners have their cold, dead fingers pried. (What a wonderful world that would be!)
      • Metman, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Worked for Hungary, Nazi Germany, modern day Congo, Chechnya....
    • tmbrwolf19, on 10/10/2007, -5/+7Thinking Penn and Teller are the absolute truth is *****. That show ignores many particularly important facts and has more spin Fox News on a good day. Just because some people who call themselves 'environmentalists' are morons doesn't mean we all are. Some of us are informed and some of us are more willing to admit that environmental issues are more complex then we can even begin to understand (but at least we are making the effort to).

      And I'll have your big v8 truck when gas prices become to much for you to bear. And that smaller I4 engine with hybrid technology is just to tempting for you to refuse. I won't take your truck from you, but I know rising oil prices and changes in product lines will get it away from you sooner or later. =)
    • Junkyarddawg, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Penn & Teller is *****: http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/*****.html

      Well, actually, they're not, but they're rabid libertarians who put their political beliefs above science, intentionally spinning the show to support their views. And that makes some of their claims *****, like their Environmentalism episode, where they e.g. invited the known industry lobbyist and paid shill Moore, who wrote this article.

      Remember kids: putting ideology above truth and science is a bad idea, regardless of what your political views are.
  • steve9745, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I forgot to mention: He does not talk about the fuel used for cutting and transporting the wood. That may change the whole calculation completely
  • Veretax, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4When Ever someone from hollywood starts talking about anything other than the lastest flick they are in I hear this silent coocoo clock that says "Wacko! Wacko! Wacko!"
    • wageslaven, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Ronald Regan. Fred Thompson.
      • Junkyarddawg, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Angelina Jolie. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

        Although there are a few wackos too, notably Charlton Heston.
  • 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.
    • Metman, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3He has never advocated the clear-cutting of the 'Amazon'. He spoke out in regards to the use of land in the Temperate Rain Forests along the coast by Warehouser, "The cost of wildlife far outweighs any benefit" - Seattle Post Intelligencer, May 2002
      I think you are missing the point of the article.
    • cygnus2112, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Clearcutting is also the only way to save the current BC forests from the beetle infestation, replacing the trees with a more diverse profile and thus leaving the forest not as susceptible to complete devastation. What happens after large forest fires?
      • wageslaven, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3"Clearcutting is also the only way to save the current BC forests " Yes, burn the village to save it. Second, how does "clearcutting" *ever* lead to "a more diverse profile" of trees? What is always planted is a tree-plantation, often with non-indiginous stock.
    • Junkyarddawg, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Thank you tmbrwolf19's, couldn't have said it better myself. Bravo!
  • steve9745, on 10/10/2007, -5/+6My opinion of this guy goes lower and lower.
    http://web.pitas.com/leonews/may_2000.html
    (read the second of the articles. btw contrary to the article i linked, Moore is not a scientist and his method of flying over and seeing green seems very disputable to me)
    • steve9745, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1I just realized that this article is on "leonews" . rofl
      Not that that changes anything
    • cygnus2112, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2Oh yeah, I'm more convinced now. Is leonews "Beautiful Boy" run by a 15 year old girl? ahh.. nevermind.. "THE VERY GAY LEONARDO DICAPRIO FAN CLUB" .. Steve, spend a week or two in timeout from the internet. You'll thank me later.
    • 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.
  • kindrobot, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3Even a shill is right sometimes.
  • wstrinz, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4look, I love moore and agree with most everything he says about the environment (though sometimes he can become a bit denialist). But it's not really fair to use greenpeace as his qualifications. He's certainly an environmentalist, but he's had nothing to do with greenpeace for a long time. And he's not technicially a founder or co-founder, he was just one of the early members.
    • cygnus2112, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Well, he was the Greenpeace President for 9 years~ Although I have to say that willfully leaving Greenpeace bolsters his resume more in my eyes.
    • Metman, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Actually he was present at all the 'founders' meetings which was technically the start of 'Greenpeace'. He has as much of a right as anyone who attended all those meanings.
  • 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.
    • cygnus2112, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3Somehow my plants (organic garden) do better with managed care and eventual retilling/amendments of the soil than if I just left it alone for dozens of years.
      • wageslaven, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1There's your problem. You have no concept of the amount of time involved in creating our healthy planet, and how quickly we are ***** it all up.

        Dozens of Years! ha!
  • kidvicious1973, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6I can't stand treehuggers ramming ***** down your throats all the time, but every once in a while I agree with them. At least they are not as bad as those PETA assholes. Just so you don't think I care, I planted a oak and maple in my yard along with a few palm trees..
  • compucomp2, on 10/10/2007, -9/+5Greenpeace are a bunch of freaking pirates. They blatantly attack ships on the high seas. Back in the day the navies of the powers would catch then and then hang them. We should do the same.
  • crazywarthog, on 10/10/2007, -4/+3I believe Hollywood people because they look good and most can play make believe to be someone they are not. Furthermore, I believe Al Gore because everyone knows politicians would never stretch the truth or lie to benefit themselves or to further their agenda.
    • STKD, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3I believe you're an idiot.
      Furthermore... I believe you just got dugg down.
  • 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."
  • stupidpoo, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3As someone that grew up in Vancouver and watched now for 40 years as the environmentslists spit at the forestry workers it is nice to see that there may be common ground.

    The one missing link in the article is how the old growth forests are important to the environment and have their own ecosystem. The trouble with reading these kinds of stories in isolation is that I am afraid that we do not get the full picture but instead an overview of one side.

    Can anyone point to a site that is balanced? I would like to know more then all of the propoganda from both sides that I heard growing up.
  • codehkr, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0you guys said "wood" uhhh... uhhhh..
  • londubh, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Isn't Moore pro-nuclear? I'll google it later. The headline and blurb are misleading. Here's what I do know forests in the tropics sequester more carbon than they give off. forests in the northern latitudes give off more carbon than they take up. It's a bit of an oversimplification but you can google it.
    • TJATL, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2What's wrong with nuclear energy? It's a hell of a lot cleaner then what we use now, cheap and the French seems to think it's ok because they have tons of plants.
      • Metman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Europe is somewhere near 70% nuclear power, if I remember right. I will have to look it up to verify that. I am not so much pro-nuclear as I am anti-coal/fossil fuels. By comparison, nuclear plants produce far less 'waste' by volume and todays breeder reactors allow them to run without 'refueling' and disposing of waste for over 90 years. They are also developing technology to drastically shorten the half-life of the waste and its volume.
    • Junkyarddawg, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Is someone paying him to be?
  • emjaychina, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I agree with many of the points he made except that we should not totally deforest areas, we need to be selective of the trees we cut as not to harm the ground they grow in, Many clearcuts suffer from massive errosion and have difficulty growing new trees.

    But it makes total sense that a growing tree will suck up more carbon than a huge tree that is at its max growth.
  • FatherVic, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4I love how global warming experts and scientists are completely infallible until they disagree with the left. Then they are scam artists. Way to remain consistent there...
    • wageslaven, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2"I love how global warming experts and scientists are completely infallible"

      Global Warming experts agree that Anthropogenic Climate Change is caused by human activity. Which of the US Parties agree with the experts?

      The man quoted here, is a known shill. Paid for his credentials for propaganda. He's not a scientist.
  • namgman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I was born in northwestern Bristish Columbia and spent numerous years there. Some aspects of Clear Cut logging are very evident as halves of mountain sides are now bare, other aspects have been argued in numerous articles. On the other side, I also understand that the industry has been cut down greatly at least partly due to environmental regulations, as the town I was from went from absolute booming in the late 80's and early 90's, to nearly a ghost town for the next 8 years or so.

    Regardless of any of that though, here's a link to a google maps satellite view of B.C. The coverage of Clear Cut logging is, well, very clear. Maybe the forests are growing and expanding like he states, but it sure doesn't seem like it. I guess I just hope that people study all sides of this topic before claiming support for any particular party. (As they should for any matter of society.)

    http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=53.709714,-125.002441&spn=0.760803,2.570801&t=h&z=9&om=1
  • necroprancer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Maybe I missed it, but not one of these comments or the article mentioned that the carbon trapped in trees really has no effect on global warming. A few hundred years is nothing on the geologic timescale and that carbon has been in flux through the ecosystem for a long time. It's only the release of old carbon from fossil fuels that adds to a real increase in CO2. That's an overgeneralization, but really this issue of foresting affecting global warming is a bit of a non-starter.
  • RottenHam, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Patrick Moore is a right-wing tool.
  • Guspaz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Darn it, now I'm going to have "Patrick Moore plays the Xylophone" stuck in my head for the rest of the xylophone! I mean, day!
  • jslapp, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0It is sad that people still believe (like so many other lies we are told) that CO2 is the reason for global warming. First off, the globe is warming (and cooling) by about 0.5 degrees C, just like it did in the past. CO2 is not the cause, it is the result. So what is the cause? The sun!... you know that object in the sky that is 333,000 times more massive than the earth... 109 times the diameter of the earth... and puts out 174 Petawatts (10 to the 15th power) of energy. This global warming phenomenon is directly related to sun spot activity and solar cycles on the sun. Oh by the way, the largest producer of CO2 on the planet is not humans, but the oceans..... by far. As the ocean warms more CO2 is released.... as it cools, the more the oceans absorb CO2. If you do a time-temperature-CO2 analysis, you will find that CO2 follows temperature, not the other way around. Oh, but if this info gets out.... there are a lot of jobs (and money) to be lost. When in doubt, follow the money trail.
  • ladybroadoak, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Sustainability is also about BIODIVERSITY. And that's where this looking at the planet in little boxes breaks down. The focus here has all been on TREES, but so much of what we use lumber for could be obtained by replanting all the hemp that has been taken out. It's cheap to grow, doesn't require pesticides or herbicides, would be a real economic boom crop in some financially devasted areas in the US. It is certainly a great crop growing in Indonesia and helping the economy there.

    Why don't we have hemp growing NOW? Because the powers that be wanted to make oodles of money off their lumber harvests and did not want hemp competition, so today there isn't much. Hemp could easily be used for "paper"-type products, clothing and many other things but it's value as a fuel is what would be fantastic. My point is that the plains states would become powerhouses in just a season or two.

    So here we are, 2007, after years of environmental activism still debating TREES. Seems kinda inane to me. We have to rethink (reduce, reuse, recycle, RETHINK) the very ways we approach "industries" altogether if we are to get the right solutions..... Sure trees can solve SOME problems, but surely aren't the ONLY answer needed just now. We could save more trees with right thinking.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.