maybe out of connection..
but my freinds and me are thinking of stsrting this thing to rescue birds..we are going to collect money and buy birds and set them free....
but the only hitch is that are we encouraging bird vendors in that process??? is it a good thing to do or whatever..ur opnions will be appreciated....

Hey goleafs! Look i dont know who u are and right now i don't care but answer your question OF COURSE WE CAN'T CUT DOWN THE TREES, THATS CRAZY!!!! THE TREES GIVE US OXEGYN WHICH IN TURN GIVES US LIFE!!AND WE JUST CUT DOWN THE OLD TREES B/C THEY WILL ROT INTO THE EARTH AND GIVE IT NUTREINTS THAT THE NEW TREES CAN FEED ON, DUH!!!!!!!!and they call me crazy......

Nononono guys, goleafs is really right. I mean, why should we care about our environment? why should we care when our oxygen runs out..heck, why should we care what this world is coming to? She's right, you all need to get a head and listen to goleafs.

(A/N: i was being sarcastic because goleafs of all people is wrong, and you are all right.)

Someone may have already said this, but clearcutting isn't the answer. Thinning is. It is a wise thing to cut down trees, but not all of them. Fires are getting bigger and wilder and further out of our control. We need to do something. Controlled burning is way out of the question; there is no control left. We need to cut them down. I agree that too much of that is happening. Log trucks come down every day and pass me while I wait for my bus. They log on the backside of the mountains so none of us can see it. They're clear-cutting. If we do keep cutting them down and not planting (which is what the loggers in my area are doing) there'll be no trees left. Trees provide oxygen, prevent erosion (and if you live on floodplane like me, that's a good thing) and provide a habitat for animals, some of which we hunt.

nothing is wron gwith logging so long as you use your resources wisel and resow what you cut down. yousee what happens with forest fires. we let trees becom too populous and the cause national crisises. it is alsogood for controlling purposes. like deer control. killing deer is always good so long as you dont go too far and dont squander your resources.

cause becuase of what we let happen, today 47 % of the rainforest in brazil is inhabited by human beings..gosh that is so alarming..i think in a few years there will be nothin left on this planet but human beings and our excesses..no green , no trees or any other living thing......

quote:

---

gasping for ether

---

Ether is the future.

You're not the only one, crucifix, i thought the same thing. But then, i guess there are more astounding threads than this.

. . .please tell me that this is a joke. because thats what I thought it was when I first started reading it.. . .oh suurrree, we'll just plant new ones, nevermind the fact that we are cutting them down at a rate thats a million times faster than it takes for them to grow back.(sarcastic tone). . .it has nothing to do with being liberal or conservative. . .it has to do with common sense.

...and What? you have to reply to the quotes.

I do not understand why people would want to cut rather than preserve, for, if nothing else, the old growth forests look better. And, if places are going to be stripped of their trees, please, for the love of ALMSIVI, do not, I repeat DO NOT, plant in them. It is better to have the trees regrow themselves.

Trees and forests are very important to the environment. In addition to holding water, trees hold the soil in place. Trees use carbon dioxide and give off oxygen, which animals and plants need for survival. And they provide homes and food for millions of types of animals.Cutting down large numbers of trees, to use the land for something instead of a forest, is called deforestation. Although people often have good reasons for cutting down trees, deforestation can have serious effects. In the Amazon rain forest in South America, for example, thousands of plants and animal species are being lost before scientists can even learn about them. (For more about rain forests, see page 175.) In the Pacific Northwest, there is a conflict between logging companies that want to cut down trees for lumber and people who want to preserve the ancient forests. so yes, THAT'S why

I do not understand why there is a debate on the topic. Wouldn't everyone rather have the trees, if only for decoration?

dude, are you serious? of course we need trees. Ok, if you think trees are so inconsequencial and that liberals who want to save the trees are stupid, then you go live in a sealed room where there are no trees. Hello? We need trees to breathe, to build houses and furniture with. We make paper out of trees, they provide us shade. And by the way, not only liberals love trees. Everyone who breathes oxygen should love trees.

totally vertical
just readina wwf report rite now and it says that we are consuming 20% more natural resources tahn teh earth can produce..species numbers territrial and marine ahs fallen by 40% fossil fuel consumption increase by 700%
the report also warns that the future pressure on the planet will result from spiralliing somsumption in asia
the countries which enjow economic prosperity are soley responsible for this major catastrophe...

just a quote gandhi said- earth provides enough to satisfy every mans need not every mans greed.....

Yeah in the long run, we're screwed. Once we finish this war and all these conflicts, we're going to realize how many other issues we have to deal with.

quote:

---

I completely question this number, and demand a source. Life has existed during MANY periods in the history of life without rainforests. Oxygen in our atmosphere started with, and has always been maintained by aquatic plantlife.

---

The only times in earth's history that there have not been rainforests are:

Precambrian
Cambrian
Ordovician
Surilian

The only four periods in history where there were no rain Forests. That is because there were no plants on land. Once the Surilian and the B]Carboniferous[/B] (noted for it's coal-bearing RAIN FORESTS, from whence it got its name,) came about, the insects were able to diversfy, and animals of the anphibious line were able to form.

quote:

---

You say that, with the exception of adolescent trees, old growth trees produce the most oxygen. This means, that in order to maximize oxygen output, we should maximize the amount of adolescent trees. This, ironically, is EXCATLY what the lumber farms do. TADA!

That said, large trees are not vital to maintaining our levels of oxygen. The vast majority (well over 70% of it) comes from algea and other microscopic aquatic plants. We've destroyed huges swaths of rainforest in the past century, but haven't seen a sizable correlating decrease in oxygen.

---

What is this, an industry in oxygen production? There are other things in the world besides the effects our screw-ups on us. We need old-growth trees and stands because we have to preserve the "order" that exists in these areas for posterity. When you plant trees, also, you plant two year old sapplings, not five year old trees. When you plant, also, I will repeat, you destry the boi-diversity of an area. If you cut, just leave it, and nature will heal itself.

quote:

---

This would work if animals and plants had any sort of property rights or higher forms of consicousness. Unfourtunately for your scenerio, they don't.

---

Does it matter if they have a higher form of conciesness? These animals and plants may be endangered or important to medicine in the future. ANd think about it, which would you like better, a field of trillium and wild orchids under a canopy of redbud and birch in the spring or a shopping mall?

quote:

---

Also, most of the time people don't replant. They chop down and make way for some big shopping mall.

---

Actually, the VAST majority of deforestation in the country occurs on lumber farms. This means, every time they cut down a tree, it's replanted. Long ago the lumber industry realized they couldn't just clear cut forever, now they're running a more or less sustainable system.

Most new development also occurs on old farmland, which is already open land anyway. Don't get me wrong, I am in NO way a fan of suburban sprawl. I've actually fought and voted to contain it in my area. But it's not a major source of deforestation.
All in all, forests have actually GROWN in this country in the last few decades.

quote:

---

Say it with me kid. Environmentalist. Being an environmentalist does not mean you use more trees- it means you use less.

---

No, you're talking about being a conservationist. An Environmentalist puts the environment above our own quality of life. A conservationist, such as myself, works to maintain and improve our quality of life while using a minimal amount of resources.

quote:

---

With every paper product that I buy, I check to make sure that it’s made with consumer recycled materials. Being an environmentalist doesn't mean that you don't use trees. It means that you're more aware of what you use and make an effort to reduce the use of non-recycled products.

---

You realize that, for the most part, recycled paper is a complete waste of time, and actually ends up being detrimental to the system? As I stated before, the lumber and wood pulp industry in the this country has reached a sort of equilibrium. Any non-recyled paper you buy is actually paying to PLANT new trees. The recycling process involves so many more resources, chemicals, and time than the raw production process. The sad fact is that recycling, in many cases, actually HURTS the environment.

quote:

---

Old and large trees make larger amounts of oxygen and resparate faster than smaller/younger trees (accept "adolecent" trees).

---

You say that, with the exception of adolescent trees, old growth trees produce the most oxygen. This means, that in order to maximize oxygen output, we should maximize the amount of adolescent trees. This, ironically, is EXCATLY what the lumber farms do. TADA!

That said, large trees are not vital to maintaining our levels of oxygen. The vast majority (well over 70% of it) comes from algea and other microscopic aquatic plants. We've destroyed huges swaths of rainforest in the past century, but haven't seen a sizable correlating decrease in oxygen.

And as for biodiversity, yes it's a nice thing to have, but it really doesn't serve any true puropse. Or rather, the purposes it does serve really aren't destroyed by the foresting industry. Biodiversity still exists, as do millions of acres of old growth forests. We shouldn't be looking for complete and utter untouched evironments. We should be looking for a sustainible equilibrium.

quote:

---

I would be like destroying several blocks of residential houses (with the people still in side them) and putting something permanent in its place. And then completely ignore the people displaced whose homes have been demolished.

---

This would work if animals and plants had any sort of property rights or higher forms of consicousness. Unfourtunately for your scenerio, they don't.

quote:

---

The rainforests give almost 20% of the OXYGEN, not air, in our atmosphere. We would be hard pressed to live without them.

---

I completely question this number, and demand a source. Life has existed during MANY periods in the history of life without rainforests. Oxygen in our atmosphere started with, and has always been maintained by aquatic plantlife.

not in the long run

Well right now I think we have more important things to worry about. If we get attacked we may be in more trouble than cutting down trees.