EcoTopia

[assmonkey]

Stinky ass mother-fuckers.

 

- a s s m * n k e y

[RobBob]

RoboBob, pull your condescending geriatric head out of your ass and re-read my post. Nowhere in it did I give the logging industry, or even my company a "pass on environmental issues", nor did I say that I have control over, or even know by heart the laws that we obey, but I absolutly would bet my life on the fact that I know a LOT more about the workings and policies than you do...

 

This is too rich!!! Oh yes you did give your beloved Whorehouser a pass. Look, my reaction was intended to be condescending. Your arrogance, as a young intern in a major company, is absolutely over-the-top. I would venture a guess that I know a good deal more than you think abt forestry and Weyerhaeuser...but judging from the pomposity of your original post, you appear to know a lot about a lot!

 

Carry on, oh intern. One day old geriatric RobBob will challenge ya to a friendly scrambling race or sumthin. We'll just have a friendly wager of $1K or so. I haven't ever seen you and you haven't ever seen me. It might be fun to see whose ego lets who lose a little walking-around money. Are you on?

[dukiebird]

sure thing, gramps, but $1K's a little rich for my blood, I wouldn't be working if I didn't need money, make it a Benjamin and you're on. Be careful though, wouldn't want you to break a hip. Unless you have some sort of experience in forestry, I'd say you calling me pompous is a "kettle calling the pot black" situation. I'd love to see the line in which I excuse Weyerhaeuser from following environmental laws. I'd say you should take a nap, and get over your Napolean complex. BTW which one of our tree farms are you a "neighbor" to, next time I'm up there doing grunt labor for research I could swing by...

[RobBob]

The claim that the loggin industry gets away with murder is bullshit, you are flat out wrong, and ignorant for not doing more research. I work as an environmental forestry intern for Weyerhaeuser, and I have been all over the field to make sure that my company is obeying and exceeding laws, yes laws, children, that are set down to protect habitat in and anywhere downstream of one of our tree FARMS, emphasis on FARMS. We own land, and certainly cannot do whatever we want with it, but to conduct a farming operation (which, by the way, produces less pollution, and provides infinitely more wildlife habitat than a similarly sized farm), we need to make sure that we protect sensitive areas, large rivers are left with buffers of forest that are upwards of 50 meters, and even high mountain trickles are given at least 20.

 

Hmmm...I'd say this sounds to me as if you believe that your company is above reproach. It's also just flat-out wrong. The guys in the corner offices must think they've got a live one in you, my friend...an environmental true-believer on their staff who's willing to argue that the sky is green for them. I'm going to take a couple of pics on the way home tonight so you can look at beautiful Weyerhaeuser buffers and re-plantings.

[dukiebird]

If someone fucked up on our end I'd love to know about it, and I don't know why you think that I am soppy-eyed in love with Weyerhaeuser. Again, now pay attention and listen this time... I am saying that we CANNOT just do any damn thing we want, and must obey LAWS on land use. I also never claimed that fresh cuts and buffers are happy, Bambi-style wildlife filled havens, but its a start. Reproach all you want, just don't put words in my mouth, like you seem to get your jollies doing to me. I am trying to offer a fair and balanced view overall, and it is still true that, although it may not be the absolute best habitat ever, tree farms still provide habitat and pollute less than most other commercial land use, perhaps any.

 

Just as a point of curiosity, do you have an opinion? Or would you rather just continue trying to disprove me?

[ashw_justin]

it's about 10x more efficient to feed grain directly to people than it is to feed grain to cows and then feed steaks to people.

 

Word

 

No, wait, carbs are evil!!

[RobBob]

Just as a point of curiosity, do you have an opinion? Or would you rather just continue trying to disprove me?

 

I started the thread, didn't I? And your writing style, with both pop-guns blazing from the hip, is one more ounce of proof that the answer to my initial question is "Yes."

[dukiebird]

I meant on your current Weyerhaeuser fixation, you seemed cleary conservative at the beginning of the post, but you almost seem to be arguing against logging, a more liberal view, so now it seems like you're just an asshole out to stir shit up. I would have thought that my willingness to compromise and work WITH people like Weyer instead of blindly battling against them would have shown that there are reasonable, realistic environmentalists that don't expect the impossible, so long as there are similarly reasonable people on the other side (I'd say YOUR side, but I don't really know if you're on one... ). If by relaxed, conservative environmentalists, you mean people that care, but are too lazy to really stand up for anything, then I think you're looking for quite a few people. If you think that my descision to defend my views is over-the-top and extreme, I'd say you need a re-calibration. How 'bout this: get over yourself, I'll put my foot in my mouth and do the same. If you want to continue this banter, we sure can, but I'll be damned if I'll waste another iota of concern on an unreasonable nit-picker without a cause that seems to think that he's got it all figured out 'cause he's got a couple of years on me.

[E-rock]

having worked in a lab that produces climate change data

 

how? random number generator? (don't most labs gather data?...)

 

Dear RobBob,

 

Although certain types of data can be GATHERED (for example strike and dip measurements on a bedrock outcrop, or the number of bald eagles along the shore of lake superior) some data are not obtainable through DIRECT OBSERVATION. These data are often produced in a laboratory after careful sample preparation and analysis. In many stable isotope labs the data is produced from gas and water samples using MASS SPECTROMETERS. Your rather semantic point of vocabulary is clearly not fully informed and merely a cheap jab. Many laboratories around the country PRODUCE or GENERATE data that can not be directly observed. And the word "produce" is widely used.

 

Understand?

 

 

As for the albedo argument. Decreased albedo from soot, rising snowlines, and faster snowmelts does contribute to global warming. However soot is produced by much more than hippy bio-diesel, as Fairweather's links point out. Also it's still unclear to me how Fairweather is suddenly convinced that ANYTHING anthropogenic contributes to global warming.

 

[AlpineK]

If you're referring to the bio-diesel Kurt professes to use in his chippers, I believe the benefit of such is currently under serious scientific reconsideration. Diesel and bio diesel ash have recently been found to be accelerating the melting of Greenland's icecap.

 

As for the chainsaws and the truck; does he have any more right to use these tools than a mother taking a team to soccer practice in a big, bad SUV?

 

I've been busy doing real world shit and trying to get ready for vacation.

 

Foulweather you need to stay current. I've owned an Isuzu dump truck for 1.5 years now and that runs on biodiesel; I bought it so I could burn biodiesel. I spend 3.25/gal on fuel for my company rig and chipper. So you see I do put my money where my mouth is, any you know what my company turns a profit.

 

As for your last sentence. Making a living is much different from personal recreation choices. Everybody has to eat and pay rent, but not everybody has to play soccer, or at least they could ride their bike to practice like I did when I was a kid.

 

PS have fun trying to win pointless internet battles while I'm on vacation.

Edited July 20, 2004 by AlpineK

[johndavidjr]

Brian (Fairweather) -- if you support zoning then I must assume you support the idea that everyone has a right to have their interests represented in land use.

 

Why don't you agree that land values are supported soley by the economy? What other basis could there be?

 

"The economy" merely defines the outcome of various competing interests. If there weren't these various interests, which actually includes both yours and mine, as well as those of the extremely wealthy and even those of people in prison and on welfare, there would be no economy and land would have no value.

 

If you insist on arguing against these points, maybe you should consider Margaret Thatcher's famous quote against Democratic Socialism (stuff like Social Security): "There is no such thing as 'society.' "

 

 

_____________

[AlpineK]

As a side note I'm just about to walk down to the post office and send the state and federal government about $4,800. I love it. You republicans are too wimpy to pay taxes.

[RobBob]

I meant on your current Weyerhaeuser fixation, you seemed cleary conservative at the beginning of the post, but you almost seem to be arguing against logging, a more liberal view, so now it seems like you're just an asshole out to stir shit up. I would have thought that my willingness to compromise and work WITH people like Weyer instead of blindly battling against them would have shown that there are reasonable, realistic environmentalists that don't expect the impossible, so long as there are similarly reasonable people on the other side

 

I've been consistent in this and other threads: The part I don't like about wetlands law is that the logging industry is given a 'pass.' It's inconsistent with both the letter and spirit of the law as it applies to the rest of us. I can look at specific places near my home where the timber industry has turned hardwood or mixed growth forest and habitat into shit. Complete with logging to the waterline in low-lying areas.

 

Look at the first line in your original rant---you imply that you know all about the forestry industry, and anyone who thinks that the logging industry gets a pass is ignorant. Yet all I have to do is jog, bike or drive out my lane and my eyes are assaulted by habitat destruction as a result of logging. I don't need you to tell me that the sky is green---I can see with my own eyes that it's blue, thank you.

 

You go on to make a big point that the timber industry is FARMING, FARMING, FARMING. Well then, if we agree on this, then all timber land is in fact prior-converted wetland, is it not? So I ought to be able to purchase tracts of timberland, and root-rake the land and plant it in corn, right? On the other hand, if you argue that timberland that qualifies as wetland cannot be farmed, then why should Weyerhaeuser be allowed to root-rake the land and plant it in pine? The timber industry IS farming. It should have to conform to the same wetland rules as the rest of agriculture.

[dukiebird]

This is goin' nowhere quick. There's apparently nothing I can do to convince you that we have many laws that we have to follow, all of which are designed to protect waterways. Again, I do not think that what we do now is enough, in my mind, and wish that we had more stringent laws, but in every case I've seen, Weyer has done what the laws require, and often more than is required. If you see a forestry mispractice, by all means, call the USFS and report us, have them size it up, whatever. If you want it to change, put someone in office that will support tighter harvest laws, I certainly intend to this November. You use our products every day, so you can easily boycott us if you feel the need, but the rest of the logging industry tends to be less concerned with the details of laws than Weyer. If you want proof, go check out some Boise Cascade land up the West Fork of the Teanaway River near Cle Elum and compare it to one of our farms. On that note, you never told me which one of our farms is so nearby that you can keep tabs on it better than us, and AGAIN, if you think we fucked up, CALL US ON IT!

 

Now, the "farm" idea. We do not use fertilizers on our "farms", nor do we harvest the same area every year, or harvest our entire crop at once, or plough, or spray pesticides. You're right, we don't replace the trees we cut with an identical, dappled forest, but we don't plant "pines" everywhere, we plant damn near every tree you could think of, depending on the geography, the soil, and the moisture levels. Trees grow the best in places where they're native, so those are the ones we plant. What you end up with is habitat that, while it is not the ideal and original, still supports the native wildlife of the region, while your average corn field supports a fraction of its original wildlife. I am not slamming the agriculture industry, nor am I putting the logging industry on a silver pedestal, we all use products from both, and need them; I am simply showing that a tree farm leaves viable habitat while we grow our "crop", and is a lot more sustainable than people like to think. Nevertheless, there are smarter ways to run both, and both are improving from the monstrocities of the past, but have a long ways to go.

 

You're damn right, I think that anyone that thinks that the logging industry "gets a pass" on regulations is ignorant, and naive to boot, I don't know how many times I've drilled this point: WE HAVE LAWS FOR LAND AND FORESTRY USE THAT WE ALL ARE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR!!!!! My family and many of our family's friends wrok for Weyer, so yes, I know a good deal about the loggin industry, not from my internship alone, but from a lifetime of work-related discussions, investigations, reports, and the like. If you think I'm some wet-behind-the-ears intern, go check out the local state and federal LAWS about forestry and land use, see what you find, I assure you, we are held to ALL of them. And no, numbnuts, all timberland is NOT prior converted wetland, and neither is farming. You must be referring to the fact that the very fertile soils that some farms use occur in floodplains, and are filled and converted to farms. You may be in one such area, so maybe you just overlooked the fact that most commercial forestry land is in the highlands, where floods occur less and tree populations are less likely to drown or get knocked out by debris torrents. Your experience must have come from a lowland area, but if we logged to the waterline, then it was a mistake. Unless you're referring to a seasonal freshet that doesn't exist 10 months out of the year, just which water body specifically did we log to the waterline of? Looking back, I can see that ONCE AGAIN, there is apparently nothing I can say to convince you that we follow laws like everyone else, so go check it out your goddamn self. I'm not gonna chase this around in circles any more, or waste my time with another post on this thread. RobBob, if you're so convinced this is a cut-and-dry matter, and you are as right as you think you are, then good for you. I won't try to explain myself or my posts to someone who is doing everything they can to not listen anymore. See ya 'round.

[rbw1966]

There are quite a few LAWS that are routinely disregarded. Just because a law was enacted doesn't mean its automatically obeyed, or for that matter, even enforced. The federal regulatory agencies associated with enforcement of the CWA, CAA and other environmental legislation are notoriously understaffed. As a matter of fact, in most cases compliance is self-monitored and self-regulated. Your argument that there are laws taht must be obeyed is pretty weak in my experience.

[JayB]

After reading through this thread, I feel compelled to ask - who is going to bring the All Counting Crows Mix to Smithfest this year?!!!

 

If I recall correctly it was spirited away in a blue 4-Runner for safe keeping last year....

[rbw1966]

Hey Jay--

 

You're close: it was a green 4runner (mine). The CD in question belonged to Fejas and it, along with his boombox, eventually found its way home.

 

Not even 4 cases of Busch beer could make that CD palatable. Nonetheless, if you PM Fejas maybe he will bring it again this year.

 

You planning on attending this year? We met briefly on the last day.

[cj001f]

There are quite a few LAWS that are routinely disregarded. Just because a law was enacted doesn't mean its automatically obeyed, or for that matter, even enforced.

Amen! If you've ever lived south of the mason dixon line, much common recreational sexual conduct (like what occured in the Oval Office between a certain intern and a certain president) is a felony - even in the privacy of your bedroom.

[RobBob]

and dukiebird doesn't realize that I live south of the mason-dixon line. I even took a pic for him on my way home yesterday, of a Weyerhaeuser-logged tract that trims up a cypress swamp tighter than a Brazilian bikini-wax. I'm too damn tired to post it up, and I'm done for the day. Rest assured, oh intern, that your company's standard practice is to log the Hell out of everything on the east coast---I haven't seen a wetland buffer yet as you described.

[JayB]

Hey Jay--

 

You're close: it was a green 4runner (mine). The CD in question belonged to Fejas and it, along with his boombox, eventually found its way home.

 

Not even 4 cases of Busch beer could make that CD palatable. Nonetheless, if you PM Fejas maybe he will bring it again this year.

 

You planning on attending this year? We met briefly on the last day.

 

Yeah I will be there - maybe for a 3 day outing this time to make the driving-to-climbing ratio a bit more favorable - but I must say that the prospect of hanging out without Adam Duritz perpetually wailing in the background has considerably diminished my enthusiasm for the whole affair.

 

Per the parting discussion last year, I am also going to invest in a cordura lined yoga mat so I can get some serious inner peace and harmony going on on top of one of the formations.

 

Look out for some posts like this when I get back...

 

"Now, even when I’m practising yoga inside a room, I try to recapture the intensity of that morning practice on the banks of the Muskwa River. When I look up between my hands in full Tadasana, I imagine clouds drifting by. I let myself sway gently to a rhythm I felt through the sandy earth at my feet. That connection reminds me there are wolverines loping over high passes in Jasper National Park and wolves traveling along pack ice on the Tuchodi River. In northern BC, for the time being, they are free to move to that rhythm.."

 

Cosmic.

[Dru]

fawk d00d there are wolves in pemberton... and cougars in the bars of vancouver

[Fairweather]

As for the albedo argument. Decreased albedo from soot, rising snowlines, and faster snowmelts does contribute to global warming. However soot is produced by much more than hippy bio-diesel, as Fairweather's links point out. Also it's still unclear to me how Fairweather is suddenly convinced that ANYTHING anthropogenic contributes to global warming.

 

 

Can you demonstrate that global glacial recession (undeniable!) is a result of anthropogenic CO2/greenhouse global warming and not primarily attributable to diesel/biodiesel soot particulate matter darkening glacial surfaces? In the post above, you have made the jump from diesel soot to [/i]greenhouse global warming[/i] as it relates to worldwide glacial recession. A truly skeptical mind would not just automatically link the two.

 

I've answered your original question re diesel soot, (which you apparently knew nothing about) but now you seem intent on changing the preminse of the original question and tagging me with beliefs I do not necessarily hold.

Edited July 22, 2004 by Fairweather

[Fairweather]

Dukiebird, your posts are the most nauseating tripe I have yet read on this board. A real life flaming eco-nut if ever I've seen. ...And proof that if you give a whiney little liberal a bachelors degree and an internship, he'll think he's God in very short order.

 

I hope we never meet.

[RobBob]

The numbnutz can't write, either.