Leatherman Tools in hot water!

Thats right Munk, it gets cut in Brazil, Malaysia etc. instead by .. by the big five,Texaco,Global Pacific,Boise Cascade , Mitsubushi, & Crown pacific.

Its a small world. Most of those companys are the same companys clearfelling you forests & your Canadian & Alaskan cousins as well.

Do you trust them with your childrens futre enviroment?

Spiral
 
munk said:
...If you don't do it here right, under proper controls, it gets done for the American consumer in a third world nation without any controls at all...
Click to expand...
We are talking about the exploitation and mismanagement of the American forests. What does that have to do with third world nations?

And as far as "doing it right, under proper controls" the last people I would trust to do it right or provide proper controls are those who are profiting from it, or the politicians they have in their pockets.
 
T<<Thats right Munk, it gets cut in Brazil, Malaysia etc. instead by .. by the big five,Texaco,Global Pacific,Boise Cascade , Mitsubushi, & Crown pacific.

Its a small world. Most of those companys are the same companys clearfelling you forests & your Canadian & Alaskan cousins as well.

Do you trust them with your childrens futre enviroment>>>> Spiral


The number one cause of deforestation in the Amazon is the individual farmer wanting land. He burns it and plants. Period.

But lets pretend you are informed, and it's the evil big companies. Do you want these evil giants to have carte blanche in a third world, or do it under regulation here in the States while providing jobs?

Furthermore, where are you, Spiral? Irvine Ca, or England? What is your citizenship? You weighed in on the American Election recently when we were leaving it alone out of respect for one another, and I'd like to know if you even have the right to vote here.

It's very attractive to blame the evil of the world on corporations. And now they are global it is even more complicated. Brazil has told International groups to take a hike about its forests. "You used yours when you were getting started, and now have the gall to tell us how to manage ours?"

Much of the mining disasters Hollow knows about are hundreds of years old, though much damage was continued even as late as the 1970s. Believe it or not, we can do better today. It wasn't too long ago there wasn't enough regulation about logging. Now we've swung too far and are only hurting ourselves.

Here locally they cut the top off a mountain for gold. They are replanting it and taking care of the acid left over from the crushed rock. The bond is working.

But education is not. The mining initiative failed in Montana which would have allowed cyanide gold mining again under very tight controls. Voted down 2 to 1. While Medical Pot was approved 2 to 1. I've joked we should have linked the two issues- we'll support the yuppies if they'll let us have work again.

Yuppies living in Bozeman and Kalispell, fresh with wealth from urban areas, their homes tastefully furnished with Brazilian Oak, voted their agenda.

Meanwhile, Wyoming and Colorado are booming with gas exploration. Damn, can't do that in Montana.

munk
 
Well not as informed as you of course Munk ;)

Those companys clear fell bulldoze & burn & then sell it to their wealthy cattle ranchers at cheap prices, to feed Americans more beefburgers!

Its the large companys who proliferate the lie that its the little man doing it all. {do you raly belive its the few chickens & a plot of corn man?}

The last majour chance to restrict worlwide logging , was prevented by your president not Brazil on the grounds it would adversly effect the us economy.

Spiral
 
We are talking about the exploitation and mismanagement of the American forests. What does that have to do with third world nations?

And as far as "doing it right, under proper controls" the last people I would trust to do it right or provide proper controls are those who are profiting from it, or the politicians they have in their pockets. >>> BEN

That the same as turning a blind eye to more traumatic exploitation in a third world which hurts all of us more. It sounds grand, but in practise this attitude destroys more of Earth's environment than the alternative; that of taking responsibility for our own resources and doing it right.

Anwar is a good example of this thinking. We could drill and protect the area, or leave it alone and allow drilling in Russia, AFrica, and the Middle East, where they don't give a darn about spillage or waste or poisening the land as long as the oil flows. So we buy the stuff from overseas, and think ourselves moral in our own stewardship here at home. If the Earth belongs to all of us, and what happens in one country effects us all, then this thinking is myopic.

And it is not rational.

munk
 
The last majour chance to restrict worlwide logging , was prevented by your president not Brazil on the grounds it would adversly effect the us economy.>>>> Spiral

If you are talking about the Kyoto accord, both houses of Congress and our President voted against the Kyoto Accord for good reason; the environmental standards were not the same for all nations. There are manufacturing systems in China, for example, like galvanization, which are done cheaply and harmfully, which we cannot compete with in the States because of our protections. You pronounce these slogans that are without merit.

<< Its the large companys who proliferate the lie that its the little man doing it all. {do you raly belive its the few chickens & a plot of corn man?}>>

In Brazil it is, and I don't think you know what you are talking about there or in Malaysia, I think you have a classic Green Socialist philosophy which is full of unsubstantiated sloganeering.

The Kyoto Accord had not been ratified by any of the big nations in Europe when the US did what everyonelse already knew to be obvious- dropped it as an invitation for China and third world nations to compete unfairly with the industrialized nations while not being held to the same environmental standards. But it is simple and easy to blame Bush.

A long time ago, I might have said very similar things about industry and the environment as many here. My goals remain the same, but this world of ours is not simple. Once I realized there was no way to tax a corporation without passing the cost to the consumer I put away my classic liberal radicalism.

But I'm still an idealist, for you see, I believe we can have mining and logging, oil and manufacturing, and jobs, while still protecting the environment. The stumbling blocks to this happening are the two black and white positions taken by the radical left and the 'capitalistic right"; The Left thinks any industry is a sell out and uses the most tainted data to makes it's point, while the Right undersells the possible problems. As long as the Public must make choices between these straw men, we get nowhere.

munk
 
munk said:
Once I realized there was no way to tax a corporation without passing the cost to the consumer I put away my classic liberal radicalism.

munk
Click to expand...

Either I'm not as smart, too apathetic, or whatever. I don't know **** about what you two are arguing, but I do know that above. No matter how it happens the taxes always fall to burden the lowest common denominator. the poor slob doing the work. I hope this topic grows like the Phantom of the Kuhkuri.
 
munk said:
Much of the mining disasters Hollow knows about are hundreds of years old, though much damage was continued even as late as the 1970s. Believe it or not, we can do better today.

munk
Click to expand...

Really?

" By September 1998 valley fills in central Appalachia had filled about 900 miles of streams, almost equal to the length of the Ohio River (981 miles). A report by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service studied the issue and examined hundreds of permit files. West Virginia (470 miles filled or permitted to be filled) and Kentucky (355 miles permitted to be filled) are the leaders in filling streams. The report highlighted losses from valley fills: aquatic habitat, terrestrial wildlife habitat, deciduous hardwood forest, herbaceous plants, ecosystem wide effects, watershed wide effects.

Since 1986 in West Virginia the miles of streams buried or permitted to be buried are at least as follows: Little Coal - 175.3; Guyandotte - 109.0; Tug Fork - 67.7; Big Coal - 46.8; Twelve Pole - 40.3; and Mud - 28.2. The Mud River watershed is 250 square miles and illustrates the impacts of valley fills in a single watershed. The numbers: valley fills have filled 29 % of the upper 23 square miles of drainage area, and 39 % of the streams within the 16.5 square-miles area of the Mud upstream."

Also read about AT Masseys huge slurry dam busting that was nearly as bad as the Valdez here:


http://www.courier-journal.com/localnews/2000/0010/19/001019imp.html

http://www.kentucky.com/mld/heraldleader/3852490.htm

Also you wouldn't believe the level of increase in flooding here since Mountaintop Removal has replaced deep mining. This stuff isn't historical it's happening NOW! an much faster since Bush has been in.
 
Uh huh; and when did this process start?

It's kind of like looking at Butte, Montana, which due to copper mining has entire areas where you cannot build now because of the hollow cavities underneath, and then saying we will have no more copper ever again because of what happened.

How permanent are these fills? When did this begin? What new regs are in place to make the situation better? And what does this prove, if anything, about responsible resource allocation?

There are many streams gone in the Arid West, including Ca, Az, and NV, because of water allocation for people.

I got a good idea- lets just stop all mining and logging and maunfacture and everything else neccesary for our modern lives, just in case something bad ever happened or could happen.

But the thing is, I'd want you, Hollowdweller, to live with those results, not the majorty of us subject to your interpretation.

If stream filling is a problem in your area, then do something about it.

munk
 
Well like any of us Munk ,I am just a mere spec of electricaly charged dust & water, within an infinate universe & as such can have opinions but as that mere speck of dust the chances of me having the true answears to the problem of the human locosts devouring are planet are probably the same as an ant thinking it is a master of human brain surgery.

As for your "I think you have a classic Green Socialist philosophy" statement its true to say I am a "fairly right wing socialist, with some anarchistic liberal green consience & certan old fashined right wing to extreme fascist leanings" depending on which subject is under discusian.

I am a bit more postmodern, than that type of pick one, partly, leader ,faith & follow them like a blind dog on all thier policies for that. ;)

Spiral
 
To divert this conversation a little, Spiral, what is post modern? I read a long and useless treaty on this once in the New Republic, and they had an event in mind when they talked of post modernism.

I've never understood why every age, every generation doesn't get to proclaim a point in time their own version of, 'post modern'. I'm kinda guessing the ancient Egyptians had a version of post modern.


munk
 
For me post Modern is the attitude of individuality, whitout following a set of particuler set belifs or veiws laid down by a choosen authority figure, whether pope ,ayatolla,archbishop, Hitler,Bush, Marx,democrat,liberal or the monster raving looney party for that matter.

It is choosing to find ones own individual belifs on any given subject.

The term post modern I think originated after WW1 when a lot of men coming back from war were disalusiened with the lies & lines they had been fed.

{Although obviously it was the intlectuals,philosophers & artists who in the following decades named & developed the idea & indeed art style.}

To have a term such as postmodern is an oxymoron, but it suffices to give it a label, but truly it should have a new term for each individual. :rolleyes:

I guess its a state of no set allegiance. A viewing of each subject on its individual merits.

Thats my simplistic view {OthersMilageMayVary}

Spiral
 
Munk's controversy:

1. Most environmental damage was done in the past
2. We can do better
3. If we do nothing, but buy the product from third World Nations, the damage to the World's environment is worse, as the industries are largely unregulated compared to our own.
4. Corporations are a neccesary evil, if they are evil, and we must figure out how best to manage them, as we cannot simply 'tax' them without passing the cost to the consumer. As 45/70 says, the LCD gets it in the shorts.
5. Both sides of the political spectrum have extreme views, and that if that remains our only choice, nothing responsibly can take place.
6. Environmental concerns have been hijacked by the radical Left, as an overreaction to the lack of concern by industry in the past.

That's it folks, munk's awful stand.


munk the pillager
 
Spiral, Not a bad explanation at all. As you say, an oxymoron. It is kind of funny to think of a culture with enough arrogance and self possession to claim 'post modern' status.

Will they think we were 'post modern' two hundred years from now?


munk
 
Munk,

Mountaintop removal is a relatively recent thing, last 10 to 20 years. By doing it they can get all the coal out with half the people. The only problem is when you lop off the top of a mountain and then push all the rocks and soil down into the streams and hollows that surround that mountain you screw up the drainage. Also the way the law is set up in this state the it is almost impossible for a person of modest means to sue a coal company that shakes their house off their foundation with the blasting, or ruins their well, or blasts big boulders in their yards. And how to prove they are responsible for flooding? Hard for the little guy.

Years ago most mines were deep mines. These had problems but weren't bad and provided a lot of jobs. Then they did strip mines. These were worse, especially water quality wise but still they could reclaim the land to a degree. The mountaintop removal mines due to the size are the worst yet.

A judge here actually limited the size of valley fills, but Bush admin is working to overturn that ruling.

Munk I got a good idea- lets just stop all mining and logging and maunfacture and everything else neccesary for our modern lives, just in case something bad ever happened or could happen.
Click to expand...

That's all or nothing thinking.

We can cut timber and mine coal and do all kinds of other stuff and not mess up the environment too much. The problem is that it DOES cost more.
It will cost us more. However if we consider it may cost us more but leave a better world that will last longer. I think if we are so greedy and self centered that we want everything at the cheapest price even if it ruins the land and exploits others then we are 666. ;)
 
Thankyou you old Pillager ;) , I am pleased my simple veiwpoint or explanation of post modernism had greater clarity for you than the long winded journalistic New Republic treatise. {which I must admit I have never seen a copy of.} Ill take that as a compliment.

Do you think many humans will be still about in 200 years?

Spiral
 
Abandon learning, and your mind
Will not be vexed by doubt.
Though tight the net of words may bind,
How surely Truth slips out!

To seek all good, all evil spurn,
Love peace, and flee from strife:
Is that not all the wisest learn,
And not from books - from life?
 
Hollow, you remember the coal mining song by Jean Ritche? I think Cash did it. Anyway, she describes what you just did only 40 years ago. You have 200 years of rock debris there from mining.

You're telling me the big machines are making it worse. I can believe that. We lose some habitat with these debris filled streams- but what else? Water has been finding a way to the Atlantic forever. Won't new routes be cut? What do you think is irrevocable?

You know, out here the cattle are supposed to do all this damage to drainage, but it is grotesquely exagerated.

When I hear 'Bush did this and that" (quotes mine) I am left with wanting to know the truth- not the environmental extreme truth, but your working reality. Until we find that ground, it is just one stereotype after another- from Republicans too.

WE can't pass laws on hysteria from the Left, nor dismissal from industry.

munk
 
munk said:
1. Most environmental damage was done in the past
2. We can do better
Click to expand...
Munk,
The rivers that come down from the Sierras into the Sacramento Valley are beautiful. The water is clear and cold. The American, Feather, Yuba, and Sacramento Rivers have some of the best fishing in the world.

But you can't eat the fish. If you ingest more than one a month, you approach the toxic danger level. Their flesh is full of mercury that was used during the gold rush of the 1850's. It has permeated the food chain and has become part of the environment.

It will always be there and there is nothing we can do about it.
 
mercury was used in a lot of places for a lot of things. they didn't know any better. I don't believe the mercury in the waters you describe will be there always. Nothing else is.

There are terrible things that have happened- in other industries as well. What exactly, does this mean, then? We had lead poisening. We had silicosis, asbestos (sic) we even dropped a bomb on Hiroshima and people are living there today. I know the price- but they are living there today and the genetic material is recovering. People and this planet are more resilent than you think.

Our life expectancies have never been higher world wide. We've beaten diseases that used to destroy civilizations. Mercury in Cal rivers is a bad thing. And so? DDT was a bad thing too- but it saved a lot of people's lives before we got rid of it; they had food to eat. How do you weigh these things?

Truly, where are you going with this? Stop the Bus, I want to get off?

I don't expect ignorance and greed to stop. There will be bad things. But we can't refrain from making best possible choices because of them.

munk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top