| Find, explore and network a cause. |
|
Go  |
New |
Find |
Notify |
|
Reply |
|
Admin |
New PM! |
Registered: June 02, 2004
Posts: 8337
|
quote: There are more trees today in the United States then there were before we bagan cutting down trees "en masse". The Libs won't acknowledge that but it is true. There is nothing wrong with cutting down trees.
Start caring about more about unborn children and less about foliage.
Not that I oppose cutting down trees (as long as it is responsible) but I just wanted to remind you that you live in a different area of the country than most "Libs".
Live and Let Live. Love and Let Love.
|
Registered: September 19, 2001
Posts: 2202
|
There are more trees today in the United States then there were before we bagan cutting down trees "en masse". The Libs won't acknowledge that but it is true. There is nothing wrong with cutting down trees. Start caring about more about unborn children and less about foliage.
"Freedom is not Free"-Korean War Memorial, Washington DC.
|
Registered: September 28, 2006
Posts: 2
|
|
Registered: September 28, 2006
Posts: 2
|
awhats up
|
Registered: May 03, 2005
Posts: 258
|
Cutting down trees is bad for several environmental reasons (scientific ones). Firstly, forests are delicate ecosystems, which provide habitats and shelter to thousands of species of living creatures. Removing the forests obviously destroys their homes and upsets the natural ecological equilibrium of any given area on a large scale. This effect of deforestation speaks for itself and needs little explanation. Secondly, the destruction of forests can lead to erosion, which is not a good thing. over time, as the roots of the old trees decay, their grip will loosen on the soil. As the soil becomes more loosely packed, rain, strong winds, and other weather conditions can contribute to sandstorms, mudslides, and floods. Thirdly, in some extreme cases, deforestation can lead to desertification as is the case in Africa where every year rainforest land is turned to desert. This occurs naturally but is the result of slash and burn methods of farmers and actions of logging industries. On a side note, grass and grasslands are also ecosystems home to thousands of creatures, from microscopic bacteria to field mice and birds. So technically, mysta is right. However, although it is true that life could not exist without trees, it is not because of oxygen as everyone seems to think. Protists, in the worlds many oceans, lakes, and rivers, produce 98% of the world's oxygen as members of the protist kingdom contain chlorophyll and chloroplasts, the micro organs necessary for photosynthesis, the process of turning H20 and CO2 into usable O2. Trees and plants are necessary because they provid food and shelter to animals who in turn are sources of food for larger animals, who in turn are sources of food for larger animals, and so on.
"No, this trick won't work...How on earth are you ever going to explain in terms of chemistry and physics so important a biological phenomenon as first love?" - Albert Einstein
|
Registered: August 20, 2003
Posts: 1689
|
quote: Well then, mysta, according to your theory, cutting down grass would be a sin as well.
No...doesn't seem like grass would correspond to either of his two given reasons.
The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mystical. It is the source of all true art and science. --Albert Einstein
|
Registered: July 26, 2004
Posts: 2891
|
Well then, mysta, according to your theory, cutting down grass would be a sin as well. On a side note, not so sure if steel goes into making cars.
Evitere Les Contrefacons.
|
Registered: April 29, 2006
Posts: 1
|
Cutting down trees is bad because they are one of the beautiful creations of God, and are a place to escape to when the fakeness of man's steel creations (buildings, cars, etc) make us sick and sad. Also, they help to replenish the oxygen we need to live. this is especially important for those of us with asthma (it's minor for me, but I feel oxygen-deprived in big cities). And, ya, those are two good enough reasons for me.
Choadles
|
Registered: March 13, 2002
Posts: 3477
|
Mac, I never said large plants weren't going to be built, but they're never going to power the entire US power grid, only supplement it. And instead of building massive plants, if each home simply had a small set of solar panels on the roof, or somewhere, the would reduce thier annual power usage by a signfigant percentage, as well as having an independent power source that could be used during blackouts. You can even sell power back to the grid if you're producing more than you use. It's a win-win. Less stress on the power grid, jobs created, and lowerd costs for the homeowner.
"Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face?"
|
Registered: January 12, 2005
Posts: 750
|
quote: Originally posted by DrStrangelove:
And as for dams, perhaps it's a personal issue because my hometown sits in an area that was (and could be in the future) threatened by the creation of a resovior. Dams, solar, and wind are suppelements, not solutions. The best implementation of these programs, wind and solar at least, would be implementation into individual homes. That way you wouldn't have massive acreage chewed up, and it would create a cottage industry around maintaining these things.
They are currently building a 500megawatt solar power plant. That's not really small by any means.
Indecision may or may not be my problem
|
Registered: March 13, 2002
Posts: 3477
|
Limited harvesting does not destroy habitat, nor does it deforest the land. It simply culls the forest. We're not talking about clear cutting here. And will you please stop with the ozone thing. Deforestation does not affect it in any signifigant way. The amount of deoxygenation that takes place from deforestation, at least the levels it's occuring at today, are absolutely miniscule. And as for dams, perhaps it's a personal issue because my hometown sits in an area that was (and could be in the future) threatened by the creation of a resovior. Dams, solar, and wind are suppelements, not solutions. The best implementation of these programs, wind and solar at least, would be implementation into individual homes. That way you wouldn't have massive acreage chewed up, and it would create a cottage industry around maintaining these things.
"Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face?"
|
Registered: September 06, 2003
Posts: 805
|
quote: Not to mention windmills tend to chop up lots of our feathered friends during bird migrations.
Less birds die from windmills than from deforestation. I realize that flooding destroys habitats, but so does cutting down trees. Personally, as animal life can adapt to flooding over time, and as it doesn't cause depletion of the ozone, I just view it as the lesser of two evils. quote: As for the energy I seriously doubt Red was really talking about power production. He likely meant energy in a much more general sense, like all resources are sometimes called "energy" or some such term.
Ahh... I get it now.
"Fu*k me gently with a chainsaw" -Heather
|
Registered: March 13, 2002
Posts: 3477
|
quote: There aren't chemicals used in the upkeep of windmills/solar panels...
You have to replace solar panels frequently as they break down, you have to lubricate and repair windmills. Once you start building tens of thousands of these things they'll eat up land like nothing else and leave so much plastic and metal lying around it's not funny. Not to mention windmills tend to chop up lots of our feathered friends during bird migrations. quote: And flooding land doesn't hurt the ozone.
You're right, because deforestation doesn't hurt the ozone in any signifigant way. Flooding DOES tend to wipe out thousands of acres of forest and habitat though, not to mention destroying the ecosystems of the river downstream. Just look at the Colorado river. Hydroelectric seems to be an attractive option but there are many downsides that most people don't hear about. As for the energy I seriously doubt Red was really talking about power production. He likely meant energy in a much more general sense, like all resources are sometimes called "energy" or some such term.
"Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face?"
|
Registered: September 06, 2003
Posts: 805
|
I didn't think we were talking about it as energy until quote: Its better than letting lightning sourced forest fires destroy them, wasting all of that energy that could have been used for pratical purposes.
There aren't chemicals used in the upkeep of windmills/solar panels... And flooding land doesn't hurt the ozone.
"Fu*k me gently with a chainsaw" -Heather
|
Registered: March 13, 2002
Posts: 3477
|
quote: There are other, more efficient, ways of getting energy that don't cause harm to the ozone, or degenerate such as solar power and windmills and dams.
How many acres will be flooded by dams or covered in solar panels and windmills? How many chemicals and petroleum will be used in building, maintaining, and replacing these structures? And nobody's talking about actually using trees as a source for electricity.
"Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face?"
|
Registered: September 06, 2003
Posts: 805
|
I'd already stated that "it's only bad when its not in moderation.", but if that was what red meant, I misunderstood. quote: Cutting down trees is likeanimal control.
Animal control controls the animals that are not where they belong. Trees are not "invading our space" and are not a threat to society as the animals that animal control takes in are. There are other, more efficient, ways of getting energy that don't cause harm to the ozone, or degenerate such as solar power and windmills and dams.
"Fu*k me gently with a chainsaw" -Heather
|
Registered: March 13, 2002
Posts: 3477
|
quote: Originally posted by calcoastsurfer: quote: Its better than letting lightning sourced forest fires destroy them
There are a lot less trees that are "wasted" due to natural causes, than by humans, wouldn't you agree? We can't be going by the theory of "cut the trees down before lightning does gogogogogo!"
I think Red's point was that controled and limited logging is a better option to uncontrolled and unpredictable wildfire. He's focusing on the wrong thing though. What we should be asking is "How can we properly manage our forests while still providing adequate to abundant sources of lumber and other resources." The forests are there for a number of reasons, and a forest fire does not "waste" the wood.
"Do you realize that fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face?"
|
Registered: September 06, 2003
Posts: 805
|
quote: Its better than letting lightning sourced forest fires destroy them
There are a lot less trees that are "wasted" due to natural causes, than by humans, wouldn't you agree? We can't be going by the theory of "cut the trees down before lightning does gogogogogo!"
"Fu*k me gently with a chainsaw" -Heather
|
Registered: June 04, 2004
Posts: 3535
|
Its better than letting lightning sourced forest fires destroy them, wasting all of that energy that could have been used for pratical purposes. No one here is suggesting we cut down the Amazon. Cutting down trees is likeanimal control. You doit because its healthy. Too many trees is a powder keg for forest fires.
Honorable Senate Majority Leader (R-WI) "Liberals have gone stark-raving mad, yes,"- Euterpe
|
Registered: December 28, 2004
Posts: 27
|
haha .. look. this is like using a credit card. one of those 'buy now, pay later' deals. you buy something that's a thousand dollars and it takes you three years to pay it off or more (depending on interest). cutting down older trees means longer growing time for the 5 foot twigs they get replaced with.
|
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
