I recently heard that someone had said "all Conservatives hate the environment".
Then I spoke with several friends that had just gotten back from China. All of them said that the air pollution was awful.
So it seems to me that though China is supposedly Communist, they seem to embrace the Conservative belief that little or no regulations is the way to go. I mean we want growth, right? I mean people will make the right decisions, right? And we want low cost solutions, right?
Thoughts?
Facts and Details: China Environment
Google Photos
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Ok, I'll start with my own thoughts.
Conservatives do not hate the environment. In fact many of my most Conservative friends absolutely love hunting, fishing, the BWCA, watersports, etc in the pristine rugged wilderness. (ie I love animals, they taste delicious...)
I think Conservatives are simply a bit naive, too trusting or too anti-govt. They seem to think that people will inherently do right by the environment, just because it is the right thing to do. No matter the costs incurred or the profits foregone. Where as American History and China's current nightmare prove this to be incorrect.
Though a great many American's may forego profits in the name of maintaining our pristine environment, unfortunately there are others that would say "SHOW ME THE MONEY"!!! Especially if they lived away from the pollution. (ask someone who lives NW of a new feedlot or confinement site)
On the other hand, how green is green enough? Where do we go from environmentally friends to environmental zealots? I am guessing that is where the main difference between Liberals and Conservatives lie.
Conservatives do seem to believe that increased pollution is a price we have to reconcile ourselves to paying in order to stimulate the economy. That's why they want to limit or even get rid of the EPA. I don't think they would be willing to go as far as what's happening in China, but they do seem to think our current insistence on a clean environment has gone too far.
Maybe they are right.
--Hiram
In my humble opinion out current insistence on environmental protection has fallen far short of what is needed.
With Deaths of Forests, a Loss of Key Climate Protectors
It seems to me that environmental regulations often stimulate the economy and force invention. Now if we want to be on an even playing field with China, that is a different question. I am guessing most of us want a better and cleaner lifestyle than theirs.
As for trees, that was an interesting and relatively unbiased article. I had once heard that the actively growing trees pulled in more CO2, whereas the older trees just trapped it. That make me wonder how of the abundent corn fields do? I mean most farmers plow the stalks back into the ground, rather than burning it like cane farmers do.
I did my part this weekend. I blew 30 bags of fiberglass insulation into my attic. I hope it helps reduce my natural gas usage. The old celluosewas pretty thin after ~26 yrs.
There are so many mis-statements in this article that I lost count. There are far more forested acres in the. Continental United States now than there were at the turn of the last century. One of the greatest stressors on forests on the continent is overcrowding due to the removal of forest management goals that focused on maintaining forests in optimal condition with regular harvesting. Not only have forests become massively overcrowded, they have become aged and decadent making them more susceptible to insect infestation and less able to sequester carbon.
Our National Forests were originally established to by Theodore Roosevelt to " provide a cheap, available source of building material to benefit the American people...". The forest land in Northern Minnesota on private lands that are logged in regular rotation have been logged for over a hundred years. They continue to produce quality wood and remain healthy, vigorous carbon sinks. The same is true for forests in the Southeastern states.
The Western and Northwestern forests are victims of misguided management principles based on critical habitat designations for the Northern spotted owl. After twenty years of allowing increasingly dense overcrowded growth, the forests are so densely overgrown that they are stressed, susceptible to disease and insect infestation and fail to provide quality habitat for the spotted owl. In many areas the forest is so dense that it limits the owl's ability to hunt their preferred prey.
Forested areas have expanded and contracted due to climatic changes for innumerable generations as has been shown in studies of debris from the bottom of age old ponds.
Most conservatives I know are folks who make their livelihood from the land. They are very aware that they must manage the land wisely to continue to maintain that livelihood. I Could go on and on as I have researched and reported on this subject for many years but enough for one evening.
I won't argue that responsible timber growth and harvesting should be good for the environment. I agree.
I mean you plant trees, they grow, they breathe, you cut them, and put them in houses or in paper that is buried or reused.
However I have seen clear cut sites and I can see nothing responsible in that particular practice. Being from a farming background, I just see hills with a high liklihood of erosion. I never understood why they could not effectively take out a block or so of trees. (ie make a checker board)
Then replant the ones they cut while allowing the old growth to hold the soil in place. Then it would be their turn. It definitely would have been good for the industry's PR.
As usual, I am sure the greedy minority make it hard for the responsible majority.
Actually, enlightened self-interest and the free market are about all the environmental protection we need. A small government agency to "enlighten" interstate scale pollution should be all that is needed. After all, pollution is "resources out of place" and conservatives like to conserve resources.
j. Ewing
Post a Comment