Shared Successes Under Dubya

[allthumbs]

* Alaska Wolves Gain Protection *

The Alaska Board of Game voted in October to provide increased

protection to Denali National Park's Toklat and Margaret wolf packs --the two most viewed wolf packs in the world. After NPCA's Alaska office delivered thousands of your messages and urged protection for these wolves, the board voted to make permanent a temporary no-wolf-hunting buffer zone adjacent to the park and approved the creation of a buffer zone to protect the Margaret wolves on state land adjacent to Denali.

 

* Big Cypress Protected *

The threat of miles of new roads, thousands of dynamite charges, and

drilling for oil and gas landed Big Cypress National Preserve on our

2002 list of America's Ten Most Endangered Parks. In May, the Bush

Administration promised to protect the park from drilling by buying out the mineral rights from Collier Resources.

 

* Buffalo National River Saved from Dam *

In response to a lawsuit filed by NPCA and other environmental

groups, the Army Corps of Engineers recently revoked a permit for

construction of a dam on a tributary of the Buffalo National River in

Arkansas, one of the few remaining unpolluted, free-flowing rivers in the lower 48 states. Setting a major precedent in river protection, this decision means that the National Park Service must concur with the Corps before a permit can be approved for dam construction that would directly impact park waters, including the tributaries of any river protected by Section 7 of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

 

* Channel Islands, You Are Surrounded *

Twenty-five percent of waters immediately surrounding Channel

Islands National Seashore -- 175 square miles -- were declared off limits to fishing and protected from other activities. This action creates the largest marine reserve area off the continental United States and should boost fishing in nearby waters.

 

* Civil War Battlefields to be Preserved *

In December, the president signed the Civil War Battlefield

Preservation Act, authorizing $50 million for the preservation of

endangered Civil War battlefields outside the National Park System.

The president also signed into law Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park, Virginia, the 387th unit of the park system. A turning point in the Civil War, the battle fought there in 1864 broke the back of the Confederacy in the Shenandoah Valley.

 

* Glacier's Sister Park Expanded *

In October, Canada's prime minister announced plans to expand

Waterton Lakes National Park, which lies immediately north of Montana's Glacier National Park. These parks comprise the Waterton-Glacier International Peace Park and are famous for their stunning mountain scenery, spectacular lakes, and world-class wildlife habitat. The prime minister also announced the creation of 10 national parks and five marine conservation areas over the next several years.

 

* Grand Canyon's Quiet Skies Restored *

After years of hard work and vigorous action by park activists, a

panel of judges ordered the Federal Aviation Administration to write more stringent rules for restoring natural quiet to Arizona's Grand Canyon National Park. A rapidly eroding resource, natural soundscapes allow visitors to experience the sounds of nature.

 

* Historic Farm Saved from Development, Added to Harpers Ferry *

The National Park Service announced in October that the 99-acre

Murphy Farm, threatened with development for housing, will be added to Harpers Ferry National Historical Park, which spans Virginia, West

Virginia, and Maryland. Adjacent to the park, the farm was the site of a Civil War battle, an abolitionist's temporary fort, and a meeting held by civil rights leader W. E. B. Du Bois.

 

* Jet Skis Banned *

On Earth Day, April 22, the Park Service announced permanent bans on personal watercraft (PWCs) in five parks: Cape Cod and Cumberland

Island national seashores, Delaware Water Gap and Whiskeytown-Shasta-Trinity national recreation areas, and Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore. You sent more than 20,000 letters this year to

urge the Park Service to ban PWCs from parks, where they are clearly inappropriate.

 

* Mojave Saved from Water Project *

Mojave National Preserve and four Bureau of Land Management

wilderness areas were saved from a deeply flawed water project. The

project, which would have caused water shortages and dust storms, threatened the Mojave Desert's fragile ecosystem, home to desert bighorn sheep and desert tortoises.

 

* National Historical Park Expanded *

Tumacacori National Historical Park in Arizona awaits just the

president's signature before it can be increased sevenfold, adding 310 acres. This southern Arizona park encompasses the abandoned ruins of three ancient Spanish colonial missions. Two of the missions were established in 1691, making them the oldest missions in Arizona. Historic events at Tumacacori illustrate how different people interacted and ultimately learned to live together, and the park's preservation honors America's cultural and ethnic diversity.

 

Yep, he sure is anti-earth isn't he?

 

[icegirl]

uh, I don't read any of those to have been directly instigated by him. Federal courts decisions mostly (they are leaning towards the liberal these days - but then look at who appointed them) "Administration" (of course how could you support drilling on an endangered area) and prime ministers... etc...

 

Oh well, as long as Roe v Wade makes it through his term, I'll be sort of happy.

[allthumbs]

Icegurl, I'm not saying George was directly responsible. What I wanted to impress on the libs. around here, was that George didn't veto or nix these bills. He went with the flow, you might say. Now that's a far cry from calling him an enviro-disaster pres.

[Dr_Flash_Amazing]

Ha ha! George Bush is a land-raping redneck devil guy!

[allthumbs]

What George says, goes, you cockbite. Get a clue odoriferous one.

[sexual_chocolate]

The bacon was bad?

[mattp]

Yo Trask -

If you want to point to something us "liberals" would appreciate, check out today's story about the new rules regarding diesel-burning construction machinery. I bet GregW and his friends are not too happy with that one.

[MtnGoat]

"uh, I don't read any of those to have been directly instigated by him"

 

Why is it anything enviros don't like that happens while Bush is in office, wether or not it's instigated by him, is attributed to mean ol Bush, but anything positive must be instigated by him for him to get credit? Curious.

[allthumbs]

Gotcha, I'll check to see if the Cato Institute is covering this blasphemy.

[sexual_chocolate]

False dichotomy.

[j_b]

Why is it anything enviros don't like that happens while Bush is in office, wether or not it's instigated by him, is attributed to mean ol Bush, but anything positive must be instigated by him for him to get credit? Curious.

 

bush has absolutely no credibility w.r.t. the environment. You saying otherwise won't change that. Let him first sign kyoto, drop plans to drill for oil wherever he can, reinstate power plants emissions standards, impose reasonable car emissions rules for most vehicles, enforce reasonable grazing/logging rules, etc ... then we can reassess whether or not the few crumbs he is throwing toward a vastly environment-conscious public amount to more than a drop in a big bucket.

[glen]

I think that Bush is primarily concerned with protecting the Shrubya species. If he keeps fucking up, it may become endangered.

[Fairweather]

JB,

 

the "vastly environment conscious public" to which you refer will (and is) jump off your enviro-ship in a heartbeat when it hits their wallets hard enough. And all the intent-of-the-law twisting environmental lawyers in America won't be able to keep them on board. Sad, but true.

 

 

 

[j_b]

Are you trying to say that a many-million dollar media campaign is all that is needed to convince the public of the conservatives’ selective way of accounting for cost?

 

Well, in fact all the public has to know is that if we ever get to the point when we are forced to wean ourselves from oil, any tree worth cutting is gone, our aquifers and soils are depleted, etc ...the 'magicians in funny economics' will jump on the bandwagon of the newer technologies they criticize so hard today for being too expensive and will cash in on the new markets as if nothing had happened.

 

Edited January 10, 2003 by j_b

[MtnGoat]

"Let him first sign kyoto,"

 

Why should any nation sign onto a plan that wastes so much money for such a miniscule effect, and ignores many many nations?

 

"drop plans to drill for oil wherever he can,"

 

oh my gosh, drilling for oil? How horrible.

 

"reinstate power plants emissions standards,"

 

Are you now telling us there are no emissions standards?

 

 

[Rainierwon]

News update.......

More jibberish of the Goat from planet Gonad !!!!

read on !

[MtnGoat]

"Are you trying to say that a many-million dollar media campaign is all that is needed to convince the public of the conservatives’ selective way of accounting for cost?"

 

Not at all. All it takes is the everyday person seeing the reality of what the green socialists with their religion wind up doing to their everyday life. A falling standard of living, state control every place they turn, immensely expensive energy, and constant demands to match the green ascetics pushing their religion and hatred of the twin eco evils, consumption and free choice. Oh, forgot, they care and they know what's best. Everyone else is just too stupid to understand.

 

 

"Well, in fact all the public has to know is that if we ever get to the point when we are forced to wean ourselves from oil, any tree worth cutting is gone, our aquifers and soils are depleted, etc ...the 'magicians in funny economics' will jump on the bandwagon of the newer technologies they criticize so hard today for being too expensive and will cash in on the new markets as if nothing had happened."

 

Geez, someone's been reading too much Malthus. We didn't end the stone age because we ran out of rocks, and we didn't end the steam age because we ran out of steam, or the candle age because we ran out of candles. They ended while all these things were still available, because better alternatives entered a free market all by themselves, no top down big mega plan needed.

 

Oil won't just run out and bang, prices skyrocket. Supply and demand is a wonderful thing, as things get more expensive to find, price pressures drive alternatives all by themselves, in places no planner can predict, in ways so widespread no beurocrat can dream of imposing, all simply because the advantage is self evident. No govt program or top down socialist manipulation necessary.

 

When the use of oil became linked to cutting all trees and depleting the soil, I have no idea, but it sure shows the kind of doomday scenario some have in mind when we argue over something simple like oil and it's prices and uses. Drill for oil, my god we'll have to cut all the trees and deplete the soil too!

 

Ya wanna talk soil depletion, talk to the folks against biograins and who are big on opposing fertilizer. They're the experts in using more land instead of less, for lower yields, as well as being caught in an enormous catch 22 over soil depletion that is the dirty little secret of "organic" farming pushers.

 

 

Edited January 10, 2003 by MtnGoat

[j_b]

so .... do you get paid by the word?

 

Geez, someone's been reading too much Malthus

 

how many years of oil reserves are left at our present rate of consumption?

 

How many trees worth cutting are left compared to what was once?

 

How fast are the major aquifers inherited from glacial times being depleted per year? at the present rate of water use how many years are left in, say, the aquifers of the great bread basket of the midwest?

 

I'll wait for your answers showing that none of these issues are critical, but please don't stay up for me.

[MtnGoat]

"how many years of oil reserves are left at our present rate of consumption?"

 

I don't know. I don't need to know, though I suspect it's many decades, if not centuries worth, given current consumption *and* fixed price, which is not likely.

 

All we need to know is given normal market operation, higher prices drive alternatives without central planning needed at all. And that they are inherently cost effective, because market action itself is driving their development in the first place. Unlike programs that aim to force "cost effectiveness" by artificially increased prices, which encourage avoidance, cheating, special deals for preferred industries, and all the rest.

 

No one escapes *actual* market driven price increases, because there's no alternative. In order to encourage actual, market based energy efficiency, remove subsidies from producers, and buyers, and let the market work.

 

Also, we must remember that what are considered reserves are measured in large part by market price, and as that goes up the number of previously economically marginal oil fields goes up.

 

I think it's reasonable to assume the density and richness of oil fields in the earth is probably some kind of random function following a gaussian curve or somesuch, and since we only drill the best ones now, I'd guess that as prices rise, the number of newly economically viable fields will actually increase. Which when combined with the lower usage that higher prices represent in the first place, means even longer supplies.

 

But back to basics. The notion of reserves being innately linked to price is well established, and is identical to any market for raw materials. When I worked gold exploration, reserves were measured on the basis of market price vs size of deposit, among other factors. Trying to determine reserves without price, is like trying to do toxicology without taking into accout dosage of a toxin.

 

"How many trees worth cutting are left compared to what was once?"

 

I don't know. Again, like all markets, what is "worth" cutting depends on supply and demand. You seem to have the idea that supply and demand are not flexible. How does this relate to discussing oil and then launching into cutting all the trees down? Did I somewhere comment I thought all trees should be cut down?

 

I like trees. I have been offered much for the large cedars on my property, but I refuse because I like the trees. Cedars are worth a hell of a lot, and one concern my wife and I have is how to protect them if we ever sell. We may donate that portion of property to the city in return for waiving the costs of subdivision to do so.

 

If you wish to discuss trees at length, I'd appreciate more detail.

 

"How fast are the major aquifers inherited from glacial times being depleted per year? at the present rate of water use how many years are left in, say, the aquifers of the great bread basket of the midwest?"

 

Don't have an answer for you. Have I claimed to know this? I do know that water, unpriced or held at an artificially low price, will result in higher usage rates like any other market good.

 

"I'll wait for your answers showing that none of these issues are critical, but please don't stay up for me."

 

To my knowledge I didn't claim any were non critical, water is pretty nice and so are trees. I merely stated someone had been reading Malthus (seemingly without noticing that markets are inherently flexible, and people are ingenious), and that I didn't understand why a conversation about oil turned into a doomday screed about all kinds of other things.

 

And no, I don't get paid by the word. I don't get paid at all. I don't need to be paid to defend people's self determination, choices and the incredible ingenuity of the free market.

 

If people want soundbites, they can and do skip these posts, (and complain and gripe) but folks who understand complex issues cannot be discussed in bite sized chunks deserve more. There are a few, I know they exist.

 

By providing details such as how "reserves" are not just fixed, but depend on other factors such as market price, which is rarely if ever mentioned when enviros carry on about running out, I provide interested folks with a few tools necessary to examine more closely what they are being told by many. If they're not interested, there's a scroll bar on the right hand side of the screen.

 

 

Edited January 10, 2003 by MtnGoat

[RobBob]

j_b and Goat. I'm looking at the times of your last posts. You guys need to get laid!

 

Speaking of tree cutting, I was surprised to read recently about how much of the cleared land in the US has been returned to forest. Goat's got a point that if rowcrops "go organic," and more and more land continues to be re-forested and forever lost as cropland, we will have a harder time feeding ourselves in a few decades. (Oh yeah, and if Jim is successful in taking agriculture's water away from them, things'll be even worse.)

[j_b]

so what stopped the expansion of an ozone hole with deadly consequence for life on earth? supply and demand? of course not! it was top-down regulatory measures.

 

go chew on this and please do make sure to write another couple pages of nonsense to ever decrease signal to noise ratio.

[j_b]

oil production will peak ~2005 and the current rate of consumption is 4 times the rate of discoveries. This should give you an idea of how rapidly reserves will fall. Oil reserves will last a few decades (~30years). The oil reserves on paper are grossly inflated and are often unavailable with today's technology. There is perhaps a little longer worth of natural gas. We have known this for a while (over 30 years) now but little has been done to develop alternative sources of energy and/or lower consumption to a sustainable level.

 

the Ogallala aquifer is dropping a foot per year. Entire basins of the Midwest will soon have to move on to dry farming which is not profitable in today’s economy. These regions have no agricultural future according to the current economic models.

 

we have used up to 85% of the US topsoil mineral resources over the last century. We have no alternative but keep adding nutrients and fertilizers in ever growing amounts that leach into our water supply.

 

etc ...

 

in the face of dwindling natural resources across the board, no attempt whatsoever to adjust the infinite growth economic model demanding ever higher income per capita, widespread corporate welfare, etc ... it is plain loony to expect the market to automatically start accounting for sustainability. It is even loonier to except us developing technologies that will offset the broad decrease in natural resources when the planet could not support its present (but increasing) population if it attempted to live at the standard of industrialized nations.

 

[j_b]

it is plain ridiculous to accuse organic agriculture of being responsible for the loss of crop land. Why don't you discuss the role of land speculation and suburban development instead?

[MtnGoat]

"so what stopped the expansion of an ozone hole with deadly consequence for life on earth? supply and demand? of course not! it was top-down regulatory measures."

 

now you're gonna claim it was regulation, when like human driven warming, the ozone/ CFC linkage was never actually proven?

 

From what I understand, proxy studies show that like temperature, Ozone levels rise and fall all on their own for unknown reasons, have done so in the past and will do so in the future. And ozone is likely related to solar activity as well.

 

On the other issues.... Why don't you explain how the reality of reserve vs price is "nonsense"?

 

"oil production will peak ~2005 and the current rate of consumption is 4 times the rate of discoveries. This should give you an idea of how rapidly reserves will fall. Oil reserves will last a few decades (~30years)."

 

Fine. I knew whatever I said you'd have a different version.

 

Anyone so enthusiastic about getting oil out of use should be *thrilled* reserves are so short lived, because it will achieve their goals that much sooner. I have no problem at all with small reserves, as long as market forces are allowed to drive alternatives.

 

"we have used up to 85% of the US topsoil mineral resources over the last century. We have no alternative but keep adding nutrients and fertilizers in ever growing amounts that leach into our water supply."

 

No one growing food or removing plant material on a continual basis has any alternative but to replenish nutrients lost, regardless of topsoil erosion or not. Even organic farmers in their holy gaiain state of grace must fertilize. There is no alternative to replacing nitrogen, sorry. If you grow and then remove crops, the nitrogen goes with them. If you have one I'd be glad to hear it.

 

As for adding nutrients "in ever growing amounts", that makes no sense. Once you replace what is removed, there isn't a need for more. Farmers lose money by using more than they need. In the past when proper fertilization and pollution issues were less well characterized, fertilizers have been a problem, yes. since we know better now, and over fertilization is not only waste but damages the fields themselves, growers are far more careful.

 

Now if you're using more land, you may be using ever increasing amounts, in which case you'd be using more anyway, no matter how minimal your usage per acre was.

 

"in the face of dwindling natural resources across the board, no attempt whatsoever to adjust the infinite growth economic model demanding ever higher income per capita, widespread corporate welfare, etc ... it is plain loony to expect the market to automatically start accounting for sustainability."

 

If you have a belief in stasist/socialist economic models, with no cognizance of the role of innovation or replacement, of course not.

 

The reality is that markets adjust themselves to shortages, the attempts you speak of are market driven by actual need and cost effectiveness as they become necessary.

 

"It is even loonier to except us developing technologies that will offset the broad decrease in natural resources when the planet could not support its present (but increasing) population if it attempted to live at the standard of industrialized nations."

 

Only if you view economies as fixed pies, ignore innovation and replacement. People don't want tin, they want what tin does. People don't want oil, they want what it does. We are not irretrievably tied to any one way of doing things, markets and needs are not static and fixed.

 

You go ahead and do your planning and distribution, and a free market system will do so with greater efficiency and more innovation at lower cost every time. Count on it. Market forces are true magic, resulting in spontaneous organization and structure without the need for some ascetic directing who shall use what "dwindling" resource, based on their elitist morality.

 

If you are so concerned about dwindling resources, I can't see how you can justify anybody using anything, after all we're just taking it from the people of 102,345 AD. If we each use one nail less per year, we can stretch that out to the year 102, 650 AD. Or don't you care about the future?

 

Need I point you to the famous bet made decades ago concerning the price of supposedly dwindling resources, between a malthusian such as yourself and a free market advocate?

[MtnGoat]

"it is plain ridiculous to accuse organic agriculture of being responsible for the loss of crop land."

 

I did no such thing. You seem to have difficulty with recognizing what I actually write. I suspect my posts are often so visceral to you it kicks some impulse and you take right off on that tangent, instead of reading what I wrote.

 

What I said was along these lines. Organic agriculture uses more land and give lower yields, thus keeping more land under cultivation than industrial agriculture for the same total yield.

 

I never claimed organics lost crop land, I said they used *more* of it.