CALIFORNIANS CUT DOWN OTHER PEOPLE'S TREES
In effect
"California's lumber production is at its lowest level in 20 years; its timber harvests have fallen 60 percent since 1988. Nationally, logging on federal lands has fallen to its lowest level in half a century. The state imports about 75 percent of its wood and paper products from Oregon, the U.S. Southeast, Canada and Europe.
The drop in harvesting timber coincided with the environmental movement's 25-year campaign to stop logging in California. If environmentalists really cared about the environment around the world, why haven't they considered the effect their policy of stopping the harvesting of timber in California is having on forests outside of the state?
From all accounts, they do not support us harvesting trees from the forests in California to supply even the 25 percent that we now get from in-state. Environmentalists continue to oppose meaningful forest management to thin dangerously overgrown stands, a practice that would help to provide for California's lumber needs and reduce the growing problem of deforestation outside California.
Do we not have a moral obligation to those forests outside our state to try to provide for our own needs? In light of the high tree density in many of our forests in California, and the opportunity to salvage damaged trees, wouldn't it be sound environmental policy to thin out our forests and salvage the timber from the fires to avoid affecting other forests? Much of the salvageable timber from burned areas is left to rot or buried in landfills or incinerated. Is this a wise use of this resource?
These areas, once the timber is salvaged or thinned out, could then be subjected to controlled burns (when the conditions permit), to remove any remaining debris. Seedlings could then be planted if needed to rehabilitate areas where trees were salvaged.
Wouldn't this make more sense than continuing to provide for our needs from forests outside our state? The environmentalists' agenda is elite and immoral; they prevent the harvesting of California's trees, even though it is a sustainable resource, without worrying about the impact on other forests outside of California. Is this sound environmental policy?
More here.
CALIFORNIA: A GREENIE FAD DIES
The rhetoric is familiar -- and so is the ultimate result -- government waste
"Burying state offices to save energy seemed like a fine idea in the 1970s, but today's state government is treating the grass-covered "subterranean" building much like an avocado shag rug: something that just has to go. The state Department of General Services, which acts as landlord to state agencies, has placed the sunken office complex at Seventh, Eighth, N and O streets in downtown Sacramento squarely on the chopping block. It plans to replace the single story of offices housed below a sculpture park with a complex up to 22 stories tall. "The underground building is very small," said Anne Cavanagh, General Services project director in charge of planning for the offices. "In modern planning, you want higher density." In other words, it's a waste of expensive downtown real estate.
The state's lack of regard for the underground building contrasts markedly with the fanfare it received in September 1977, when its design was chosen over 40 others in an architectural competition. Both the underground building and its companion structure, a solar-paneled building across the street, were among a group of then cutting-edge structures conceived under Gov. Jerry Brown. When the $17 million underground-and-solar complex was completed in 1982, the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration & Air Conditioning Engineers called it "the nation's most energy-efficient office building."
Enamored with the "small is beautiful" philosophy and squeezed by high fuel prices, Brown and his team of architects sought to showcase energy-saving technology and provide a hospitable place for people to work. They wanted designs to mesh with, not overwhelm, the surrounding residential community. "The whole focus was on using state buildings to demonstrate things we thought should be done," said Sim Van der Ryn, the state architect during Brown's first four-year term."
More here
*****************************************
Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless.
Comments? Email me here. My Home Page is here or here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site (viewable even in China!) here
*****************************************
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment