KANSAS does more tha KYOTO: CUT DOWN MORE TREES!

[SINthysist]

"Scientists have overestimated the potential of trees and shrubs to soak up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, according to a new study. The reassessment casts doubt on whether planting trees is always a positive step in the fight against global warming, as President Bush and others have suggested. In the study, published in the August 8, 2002 issue of the journal Nature, Duke University scientists say trees and shrubs growing in areas of abundant rainfall are less effective storehouses for carbon than native grasslands they have steadily replaced across much of the western United States."

(source at Refdesk.com)

 

[Guest]

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Don't cut the trees! Cut the heads of gang bangers off!!!

 

[weed]

Aaah, but do the grasslands provide the same environment needed by animals and many medicinals plants to exist?

 

[mig]

Keep the trees.

They don't need mowing.

 

[JazzManJim]

Aaah, but do the grasslands provide the same environment needed by animals and many medicinals plants to exist?

For animals and plants for which grassland is their native environment, yes.

See, that's the thing with the environmental movement. When it's translated into the political arena, where it's lived for the last 15 years or so, the answers become very simple: plant gobs of trees, get rid of all human traces especially businesses, put back lots and lots of happy little animals. Those simple answers are often very wrong.

Unfortunately, we barely understand enough about how any ecosystem works well enough to try to create one and we're finding that our efforts to "save" the planet haven't been the best thing we could do . We're also finding that our planet seems to be doing a lot of wrecking itself which isn't wrecking so much as it is the natural cycle of how the planet operates. We're learning more every day and we're likely to learn a whole lot more as long as we don't screw things up in an effort to "fix" what's wrong.

I've always favored a measured, deliberate, long-term process toward the environment which assumes that human beings will be long-term residents of the planets as well as its primary consumer of natural resources.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

LOL. More swamps is the answer. We need more swamps!

Did you see Lilo and Stitch? The mosquito is an endangered species in the galaxy and we must go to extraordinary steps to make sure that it's food chain (people) are not disturbed.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

Good comments Jim.

 

[sufisaint]

Anything natural is better...what we need to stop are the culdasack (spelling ?) SUV driving, braonwashed fools from taking over the world...

 

[Guest]

Swack! Swack! Swack!
You, little fuckers!!!
Die! Die! Die!
Swack!

 

[weed]

For animals and plants for which grassland is their native environment, yes.

See, that's the thing with the environmental movement. When it's translated into the political arena, where it's lived for the last 15 years or so, the answers become very simple: plant gobs of trees, get rid of all human traces especially businesses, put back lots and lots of happy little animals. Those simple answers are often very wrong.

Unfortunately, we barely understand enough about how any ecosystem works well enough to try to create one and we're finding that our efforts to "save" the planet haven't been the best thing we could do . We're also finding that our planet seems to be doing a lot of wrecking itself which isn't wrecking so much as it is the natural cycle of how the planet operates. We're learning more every day and we're likely to learn a whole lot more as long as we don't screw things up in an effort to "fix" what's wrong.

I've always favored a measured, deliberate, long-term process toward the environment which assumes that human beings will be long-term residents of the planets as well as its primary consumer of natural resources.

I'm surprized at this answer.

My point was pretty simple but maybe not simply enough said. There are more reasons to plant trees than global warming.

I don't have a problem with planting trees because we're the ones taking them down in the first place.

I never said anything about completely replacing grasslands or people. I even like cities, especially when there's some green to pretty up the concrete.

Course if we didn't have any happy little animals the hunters may not be very happy.



Jeez, sorry, if you got your knickers in a wad!

 

[SINthysist]

Yesterday, 100 mile-an-hour straight-line winds raced through Wichita and Hutchinson (more common than tornadoes). This winter, it was the terrible ice storm. We are also in a severe drought.

Trees just wasn't meant to grow in some places...

 

[sexy-girl]

grass is a relatively new plant ... for most of earths history grass didnt exist ... trees are the natural plant of earth

hmm americans get bad weather and they blame it on trees now ... maybe you should look at the increase in bigger and bigger SUV's on the roads ... the ever increasing carbon immissions from coal power plants


i dont believe this report at all you often find these "new studys" appear and someone will like what they are saying (often oil companies) so they fund and promote them

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

But, then again, any major shifts in policy or approach should be based on "real science" rather than psychobabble or politically motivated results, especially if you're talking about adversely changing the lives of millions of people.

Water is an interesting ecological subject.

 

[sexy-girl]

But, then again, any major shifts in policy or approach should be based on "real science" rather than psychobabble or politically motivated results, especially if you're talking about adversely changing the lives of millions of people.

Water is an interesting ecological subject.

i agree also but at the moment its a propaganda war especially in american with rich oil companies vs poor enivormental groups ... the oil companies even have a president who is in favour of them and many of the key figures in the presidents office are pro oil companies to ... why do you think oil companies contributed so much towards bush campaign im not saying its a conspiracy or anything like that but its clearly in their favour to have someone who believes the same thing they do

my advice is when you hear about these "real science" reports think about who benefits from them and if there seems a lot of money involved then dont accept it as complete truth

the reason why americans often see enviromentals as "psychobabble" is because the oil companies are winning the propaganda war

 

[SINthysist]

Sexy-girl, you should sit down and read Diane Alden's columns...

Someone who started out to prove the Greens correct, but then did a little research.

Today's column is about re-inventing Paul Bunyan.

 

[SINthysist]

Now, please don't take this personally. But people who farm and live in the country really take exception to how city dwellers argue about the ecology when their own nests are the filthiest, dirtiest things imaginable...

We get a "solve your own problems first," mentality.

 

[SINthysist]

Plus, it just struck me that if grass is a relative newcomer, then it is a more "evolved" species and possibly more efficient...

Just a thought.

 

[SINthysist]

20, 000 BC...

Man settles down. Begins row cropping. Develops a solution for that perfect front lawn that cave-woman needs to feel civilized...

UGH

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

i agree also but at the moment its a propaganda war especially in american with rich oil companies vs poor enivormental groups ... the oil companies even have a president who is in favour of them and many of the key figures in the presidents office are pro oil companies to ... why do you think oil companies contributed so much towards bush campaign im not saying its a conspiracy or anything like that but its clearly in their favour to have someone who believes the same thing they do

my advice is when you hear about these "real science" reports think about who benefits from them and if there seems a lot of money involved then dont accept it as complete truth

the reason why americans often see enviromentals as "psychobabble" is because the oil companies are winning the propaganda war

We have lots of problems with discovering who's telling the truth. We recently had an case where park development work had been halted in several areas when fur from a rare cat was found in several locations. Everything was halted in order to "save" this rare animal. The samples were found far and wide.

Later, someone decided to run a DNA test on the fur and found that it was all from the same animal and that the animal, in fact, was already (and always had been) in captivity. It was discovered that some people had purposely spread the samples to stop the development work.

The oil companies, for the most part, run regular articles in the papers about positions on issues. They use clear language and feature well documented research in well-thought-out positions based on "real science". They always associate their names with the articles (no hiding) and they usually present both sides of an issue before coming to a conclusion. These are usually more forthright than anything else that comes out. They spend billions of dollars trying to keep the environment clean and are generally good "citizens".

I'd rather see this "up front" approach than the amatuer cloak and dagger approach.

I'd rather see us put more focus on developing sources of energy other than fossil fuels (not contiued dependence on oil). But, I also want to see issues and policy based on an "up front" approach so that we, the public can make educated decisions on which policies to support. I dislike this circumvention approach that is often used by some groups.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

Yesterday's National Geographic said that the aquifer under Kansas is dropping quickly, that we're not allowing it to replentish. Where will we get new water to provide healthy food?

 

[sexy-girl]

grass is very efficient its the most successful plant on the planet that doesn't mean its best for the environment plants look out for themselves not us ... dont get me wrong without grass we never would of come down from the trees and onto the plains and evolved into the wonderful creatures we are today

but rainforests/woodland is the most rich ecosystem on the planet ... grass is good but mostly for just itself and the animals that graze on it ... so its to good ... not saying should get rid of grass at all but is stupid to suggest it can replace trees and forests ... and i really dont believe its better at reducing carbon in the atmosphere

lovetogiveroses ... im sorry i disagree with you oil companies are notorious for putting out fake reports for having independent spokesmen that aren't independent ... of course there is always going to be a few crack ball environmentalists but the way media portrays it at the moment it makes it as if they are all like that ... and they aren't

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

grass is very efficient its the most successful plant on the planet that doesn't mean its best for the environment plants look out for themselves not us ... dont get me wrong without grass we never would of come down from the trees and onto the plains and evolved into the wonderful creatures we are today

but rainforests/woodland is the most rich ecosystem on the planet ... grass is good but mostly for just itself and the animals that graze on it ... so its to good ... not saying should get rid of grass at all but is stupid to suggest it can replace trees and forests ... and i really dont believe its better at reducing carbon in the atmosphere

lovetogiveroses ... im sorry i disagree with you oil companies are notorious for putting out fake reports for having independent spokesmen that aren't independent ... of course there is always going to be a few crack ball environmentalists but the way media portrays it at the moment it makes it as if they are all like that ... and they aren't

Here, are oil companies try to be straight up which is more than I can say for many other organizations. I don't know about the ones in the UK, but ours try hard. (I don't work for one).

Our "environmental" groups have been taken over by the extreme "Nature first...humans are a blot on the earth" group. They want to return to the good ole days before humans discovered fire. Most of the information that comes out of them is pure rot.

I'd like to see a balanced approach. After all, we still need to build homes (our population is still increasing - welcomed immigration) and furniture and we need to heat our homes, etc. Our environmentalists don't want any new logging, no new oil exploration, no food research (we need more efficient farms to feed the growing population here and through lots of the rest of the world ...like Zimabawe). We need balance or people will starve.

 

[sexy-girl]

Here, are oil companies try to be straight up which is more than I can say for many other organizations. I don't know about the ones in the UK, but ours try hard. (I don't work for one).

Our "environmental" groups have been taken over by the extreme "Nature first...humans are a blot on the earth" group. They want to return to the good ole days before humans discovered fire. Most of the information that comes out of them is pure rot.

those two statements aren't balanced though

im an environmentalist and a member of some environmental groups ... im not a crack ball i dont think humans are a blot on the earth

i was talking about US oil companies when i said they weren't open ... british ones aren't any better though but i can see we disagree on this so i think we're just have to accept that its nice debating with you though

i would say though that carbon emissions in the US are increasing do you think that is a balance ? ... they aren't going down they aren't staying the same ... they are increasing

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

those two statements aren't balanced though

im an environmentalist and a member of some environmental groups ... im not a crack ball i dont think humans are a blot on the earth

i was talking about US oil companies when i said they weren't open ... british ones aren't any better though but i can see we disagree on this so i think we're just have to accept that its nice debating with you though

i would say though that carbon emissions in the US are increasing do you think that is a balance ? ... they aren't going down they aren't staying the same ... they are increasing

You're in the UK though, not over here.

The level of emissions is based on several factors, none of which are in the control of the oil companies. 1) People here seem to purchase a lot of gas guzzling SUV's (I don't have one), 2) People are driving more miles than they have before (and air travel is way down). 3) The government policies support our free choices.

On the other hand, we put more than $1,000 dollars of equipment into our cars to "clean" the exhaust to minimize pollution. We're also doing lots of research on alternative methods of transportation.

The pollution generated by cars is small in comparison to the pollution generated by energy companies that give us electricity. We don't have much of a nuclear industry left and still rely heavily on oil and coal. We have programs in place to "scrub" the emmisions from these sites to, so, relatively speaking, we're being cleaner than we were.

All in all, our environment is far less polluted now than it was only 20 years ago. Our waterways are much cleaner as is our air. We're moving in the right direction. There is just a long way to go still.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

Sin, it's about time for you to drop in one of those good pieces of news that is very illustrative.