Rise up and fight back

“Tehipite, I am no economist but I think you have left out a piece of the puzzle with your comment "consumption tends to rise to meet supply". Supply only goes up when there is a demand. No company is going to produce a product on your thesis.If that were the case everyone would buy any product that were produced. I could bake brownies made of poop and car tires and have a huge supply, they would go to waste if there were no demand.
We will use any fuel that is produced cause we are selfish and greedy and love cheap gas. Wether you want to believe it or not SOMEONE is gonna drill if money is to be made. Money is only made if products are sold. Products are only sold if they meet a consumers desires and financial limitations.

Its very simple, if we didnt demand gas,electricity,natural gas and petrol products no one would provide them. VERY VERY VERY few companies can get by on the premise of creating a need for their product. A successful business model virtually DEMANDS that you seek what is needed then provide a solution for that need.

To close if " consumption tends to rise to meet supply"... tell that to the DaimlerChrysler company that cant sell its cars. The cars are supplied, consumption hasnt risen to use the supply.”

“Hyperpacker, mogas demand has a demonstrated tendency to increase when the price falls. A hefty percentage of driving is discretionary, and people will tend to cut back if it costs too much (if mogas prices are high) and drive more if it costs less. Raping the ANWR in order to provide an incentive to drive more is doing exactly the wrong thing.”

“Deathmarch, cite your sources on that. Every source I've seen that isn't industry-sponsored says it's been pretty well established that we're contributing to global warming (although there is a good deal of uncertainty about the extent).”

“Hey Clinton could have made the Arctic National Wildlife Preserve a national monument anytime. He didn't. I guess he was too busy giving rich con artists and drug dealer pardons. This has been coming for a long time and it would have been done whether Bush or Gore was elected.

I like backpacking and I don't like what is going to happen but I drive a car and type on this computer every night. I own plenty of plastic junk. I bet all the complainers do too.

Give Bush a break. This was a done deal before he was elected.”

“I disagree. Look at who he appointed for his cabinet. And where is the healer act that he proclaimed he would play. His appointments have done nothing to heal anything.”

“DM's major is atmospheric physics and dynamics so I will believe any thing he says (with in rezone) that has to do with the atmosphere.”

“I've looked at the model equations myself. The magnitude of global warming is directly dependent on water vapor levels in the troposphere. You see how inacurate current five day forecasts are? Forecasts are made by assuming that certain variables are constant, because for short run forcasts, they are withing error tolerances, but past a week and they go to hell. Extend that over even a year and you can get extreme errors due to these assumptions. I'm not saying that we aren'y contributing to global warming, but that it is currently impossible to tell. In reality, there is more evidence to support global warming as a natural phenomenon then as a man made effect.

Another thing that I know somebody is going to bring up, but I will squash it now is the pretty spectral absorbance picture people flash around. It shows the absorptivity of greenhouse gasses over the spectrum and when just looked at gives the appearence that almost all solar radiation is being trapped in the atmosphere. Yes the graph is correct, but fails to relate the concentration of the gasses in the atmosphere, which is directly proportional to the absobance level. Basically, the filled in gaps disappear to much lower values.

I'm going to stop for now and give you all a chance to refute my claims. Have fun. I'll be back.”

“ This is the one.”

“mtn gal, are you a bonified treehugger or not?? Since when is backpacking compatible with logging? Where do YOU hike? National Forests, I'm sure. You'd be very, very lucky if you could hike in national parks only. Another thing: the NF's that are unavailable to logging are probably that way because they are in a designated wilderness - one of the very best places to hike, because there aren't any motorized vehicles. As of yet, I don't know of too many alternatives to wood that would totally replace it. I have to admit, I do like things made of wood. I also drive a car. These are facts of modern life. In that sense, we're all in the same boat, wrestling with the same questions. But. . . there are things that we can do to minimize their impact. What the Forest Service does is not very responsible if you ask me. One last thing: have you ever thought that a forest might be valuable in its own right, regardless of monetary value? If you haven't, I'd seriously challenge your motives for being in the backcountry.”

“ThinAir, you said " His appointments have done nothing to heal anything". Just as a reminder Bush has only been President for 1 month 8 days. At least give him time.

Tehipite, yes most driving is discretionary. Like long trips to trail heads. Most of the things we own are discretionary ( in addition to being petrol based).

No one is calling for the rape of anything. Wether we like it or not someone will drill, I know you dont like the argument but its the truth.A drill site in a third world nation is GAURANTEED to be an environmental nightmare.The overriding issue is not what corporations do or politicians. If our own lives dont reflect the values we speak we are hypocrites. So we ought to look at our own lives and make "greener" choices individually, stop sending the message " if you make we will consume it". BTW nearly ALL your BP gear is petrol based.”

“Hyperpacker said: "Supply only goes up when there is a demand."

You ever heard of "marketing"? Many people make a living trying to get us to comsume more of whatever it is they sell, especially the people who supply energy.
Example: the flyer for discounted mercury vapor lights that falls out of my consumers bill every month.”

“Yous guys have been busy & addressing me.

A couple of points:
I said ?But if you want to sound sincere also tell us what you have given up to protect the environment.? I didn?t say that you had to be an environmental saint to try and effect public policy. My point is that a hypocrite has no credibility.

Yes you as an individual can effect national policy just not much unless you have a couple million dollars to spend. You can effect local issues much more.

I am a tree hugger but some of the trees I hug are sawn lumber. I never defended clear cutting, I just question the truth of some statements (and still do because I was not answered). I like some of the luxuries of my modern life. I am in Idaho and pack in federally protected wilderness most of the time.

I admit that the fact that I live near so much wilderness gives me a different point of view than those that live in the more ?used? areas. It was a local thing pushed by Senator Frank Church that got the federal protection. It was not Presidential politics. If Idaho had not been behind it would not have happened. It took local action. There were some Idahoans against the wilderness but not enough to stop it.

Protecting land, water and air from pollution and destruction is a good thing but has a cost. To many talk about environmental issues as if this cost did not exist. An example of those costs is less fuel at higher prices. That cost is real and will be born by you, not just some big multinational corporation or ?the government?. If you call for environmental protection without addressing the issue of the costs you are without creditability. Any idiot can point at the problem and cry. It takes brains and backbone to propose and fight for solutions. So stop the crying and propose a solution. Where should our energy come from? How do we get lumber for construction? Is there a way to have both oil and caribou? Can I personally do without half the gas I burn now in my car? Can I do without a car altogether?

I ride a bicycle when I can. I buy recycled products when I can (like my car). I am adding insulation to my home, got a more efficient heating system and replacing the windows and doors to conserve energy. I avoid a commute by working at home. I can?t be involved in politics because it would cause conflicts with some of our businesses (politicians and lobbyist are some of our clients). It is because of that business that I know how the Politicos work.”

“Advertising and price cutting are two common techniques used to increase demand in a number of cases, including when supply or production capacity exceeds demand.
However, demand does not always rise to meet supply.
If it did, the demand for rocks would have been growing at incredible rates. People do buy some rocks, but the supply of rocks”

“Is global warming a product of humanity or a natural process like the last ice age. I have watched as scientist state that our salmon are almost gone and then we will have a year of record returns, its all in the cycle of nature, in that cycle one day humans will be an endangered species. I am for saving the enviroment but there is also room for a working enviroment.”

“Nothing natural about dams that stop access to prime salmon spawning habitat.”

“I agree, good point.”

“LeSubtil those marketers are attempting to create a demand with junk mail etc...I should have said " sustainable supply only goes up when it is demanded".

A great example is with "dot.com" businesses. A short time ago they were the rage, now they are sinking faster than the Titanic. Too much supply not enough demand.

I dont want more pollution or cars, hell I'd take a bus if it were on time and were safe. My point is that blaming others is weak. BP Amoco will not spend all kinds of money unless it knows that it can turn a profit. This is done by consumer research.

Interesting facts from the Dept of Energy.

1994-cost of 1 barrel of crude oil $15.41, average cost of 1 gal reg/unleaded gasoline $1.11.

1997-cost of 1 barrel of crude $18.88,average cost of 1 gal reg/unleaded gasoline $1.23.

I doubt that less total vehicle miles were driven in 1997 due to higher fuel costs. More folks have a longer commute and more disposable income to vacation etc...”

“A few points:

1. The question of drilling the ANWR or drilling in Azerbaijan (or elsewhere). This is a false choice. There are vast oil and gas reserves under the central asian republics (though it still doesn't add up to the incredible reserves still under Kuwait) and they WILL be drilled -- the only question is whether the pipeline will run west through Iran and Turkey or south through Afghanistan and Pakistan. (The U.S. government supports the southern pipeline, which is moronic, but that's a whole other ball of wax.)

There is simply not enough oil under the ANWR to justify the environmental damage that will result.

2. " The majority of Alaskans (according to a NPR poll) are in favor of new drlling including thier DEMOCRATIC governor."

Of course they are. Alaskan citizens actually receive a cut of oil profits. Most of us pay state income taxes, right? In Alaska, the state pays you. Last year a friend of mine, who lives here in LA but keeps his legal residence in Alaska (I wonder why) got a check for $900.

3. It is true that some environmentalists forget that there are six billion people in the world and that the resources to support them have to come from somewhere. Instead of calling for sustainable practices they adopt a knee-jerk tree-hugger mentality, which though regrettable is understandable. But the other side can be just as knee-jerk in their rejection of there being any reason to save or protect anything.

James Watt, Gale Norton's mentor, once said that he didn't know how long it would be until the Second Coming, but we only needed to protect our natural resources to make sure they lasted long enough to get us there.

Yep, no problem if we cut down every tree and strip mine every mountain, as long as we don't run out of stuff too soon.

4. Electric cars and the California energy crisis. Another fallacy. First of all, the Insight isn't an electric/plug-in car. It's batteries are charged by the energy from the braking system. But that aside, despite the energy crunch, California could support a whole lot more electric/plug-in cars. Why? Because electric cars get plugged in OVERNIGHT when the demand is lowest.

And before someone brings up the old "but the power plant generating that electricity is burning fossil fuels too" argument -- this is a fallacy too. It is more efficient, energy-wise and environment-wise, to generate energy in a large-scale system. Otherwise, we'd all have a generator in our houses instead of an electric grid. And, of course, some percentage of that energy is coming from solar, wind or nuclear sources (though I wish that percentage were higher).

5. Yes, I drive a gas-guzzling SUV (not a huge one, though, a small 2-door Ford Explorer), but at least mine is in the 1% of SUVs that actually leave the pavement once in a while.

To make up for it, I bike or walk when I can, and I carpool to work. I also recycle, turn out the lights, keep the heat low, read the newspapers on line instead of on paper, and send money to responsible (i.e. non-wacky) environmental groups.”

“it's just one of those days!

it's all about the he says she says bullsh!t!”

“Very well said, explorer.”

“Hey Rad! That's LIMP dude!”

“Here! Here! Explorer”

“I am not convinced about global warming. I am convinced we need to keep our air as clean as we can.

We need lumber. We don't need to cut old growth forests--there are not that many left.

We can prove that erosion makes a mess of things.

The oil in Alaska is not going anywhere. If we positively have to have it in the future it will still be there. We can do without it for now so why muck up a pristine place--we don't have a huge supply of those.”

“I remember sitting in line at the gas station back in the early 80's when crisis struck...then was the time to start conservation but, no, all was too soon forgotten and now suvs rule. We bought an 81 honda civic stick shift to conserve - and I didn't even know how to drive a stick! We recycle whenever we can and hope our little bit helps. Main problem in St. Louis is people commuting one person to a car...we want metrolink and public transit but where will the funds come from? I thought usa today was running an interesting series on urban sprawl...nashville has bigger problem than la...the more space you have sprawl out, it seems, the more sprawl that occurs. My city's problems won;t be solve in my lifetime and I don't know if my kids will stay here to find out either....I appreciate having this forum and enjoy reading all of the many other viewpoints on the complex environmental issues facing our planet...”

“Did you hear what the enviro-evil Bush administration is going to do? They are going to enforce the new diesel fuel standards and not increase the time table for compliance. How dare they do something to help stop pollution. Haven?t they read the liberal predictions of Bush/Norton/Whitman destroying our environment? Boy they play dirty not following the script the liberals wrote for them. : )”

“Good for them, now lets see what else if anything they will do to better the environment.

Question Mtn Gal, why are you so supportive of the Bush administration?

I have some friends that support Bush on his abortion and faith friendly policies, and because they agree with those policies they try to support everything else he wants. I guess it would be unchritianly to question such a "Godly" leader. I'm not saying this is you Mtn gal, but I just was curious.

Shalom
ThinAir”

“Good for them, now lets see what else if anything they will do to better the environment.

Question Mtn Gal, why are you so supportive of the Bush administration?

I have some friends that support Bush on his abortion and faith friendly policies, and because they agree with those policies they try to support everything else he wants. I guess it would be unchritianly to question such a "Godly" leader. I'm not saying this is you Mtn gal, but I just was curious.

Shalom
ThinAir”

“Oops”

“Here's something else the dirtbag posing as president put in his budget: money for development of solar power is contingent on development of ANWR. In other words, he isn't serious at all about alternative energy sources; he's more interested in sticking it to the environmentalists.”

“How come I'm not suprized:(”

“Thin, I don?t support Bush blindly, I don?t reject him blindly either. I stated earlier someplace that I thought it was unfair to assume that everything Bush touched that has to do with the environment will turn out bad. I post this as one example of that assumption being wrong. The diesel fuel regulations were a Clinton administration rule that Bush put on hold for review. The review resulted in doing just what was originally planned. He didn?t kowtow to oil and truck industry pressures on this one.

Those that make the unfair assumption about Bush are like this kid I know that decides that a new food will taste bad before tasting it. I am not suggesting that you quietly let the Bush administration do what ever they want to see how it ?tastes?. I am suggesting that you wait to hear the details of any proposal before attacking. Don?t act on the headlines, read the whole story from several divers sources (research). And name calling make you look childish.

The solar power linked to ANWR drilling I think is a bad Idea. But then again I am not convinced that there is no way to drill and provide for the wildlife. If there is a way it may require the development of new methods and technology. I don?t know enough about oil drilling to make a worthwhile comment about the compatibility of drilling and caribou. I don?t know much about caribou either. I would want some rigorous testing of the drilling methods to be used to provide some evidences the it could be done safely. I am also skeptical that solar energy in the conventional forms we now know can have much impact.”

“MaryPhyl makes a very good point. Why not leave the oil alone for now, invest our intrests in alternate renewables. And as a last resort we could tap the Alaskan "reserve". Only as a last resort though.”

“I want to see more hydrogen energy research. BTW, wherever you get it, doesn?t it takes some time to get an oil resource developed to the point you are actually using it? Correct me if I am wrong (I was once before) but isn?t the present proposal for exploratory drilling not production?”

“mtn gal, Bush isn't exactly an unknown quantity. The expectation that he's going to be a disaster for the environment is well supported by his appalling record as governor of Texas. (It's also supported by his campaign rhetoric, which explicitly talked about relaxing environmental regulations generally and drilling in ANWR.) There may be the occasional pleasant surprise coming out of this illegitimate administration, but on the whole I'd say we already know pretty much what we're going to get from him.”

“Im not to thrilled about drilling in ANWR. However with the way the world is going right now it is obvious that we need to reduce our dependency on foreign sources of oil (and oil in general). If this will help (and it is very unclear as to weather it will) accomplish that than there may be a bright side to it. The next war we fight for oil in the middle east wont be against one rouge nation but most likely the combined Arab nations. We should really try to avoid that.

So if we are going to drill in ANWR which it appears we are lets try to make the best of a bad situation. I believe that all profits made from drilling in ANWR should go directly to funding research and development of alternative forms of energy. I am suprised that no one has proposed this already. Lets not just boo hoo about the inevitable, lets try and make something good out of it. You know when life gives you lemons....”

“Actually, given the slim pro-environmental majority in the Senate (that includes moderate Republicans, and excludes conservative Democrats), drilling ANWR isn't inevitable.”

“Tehipite, I could learn a lot from you.”

“I consider myself an environmentalist. I would place the right to breathe clean air, drink clean water (not cleaned water at $1.49 a bottle), and grow food in clean soil on the list of fundamental rights. I recycle. I support wilderness designations even if they keep my mountain bike out. I try to dress and equip for low visual impact when I camp and hike. Blah, blah, blah. We know the drill.

But I really got perturbed recently by a blathering eco-rant about the ANWR and the high Arctic in Paddler Magazine, which I get as a member of the ACA. It was bad enough that the prose was borderline-hysterical anthropomorphic mumbo jumbo fear mongering. What blew my gasket was the photo of the author, dressed in what appeared to be NYLON and GORE-TEX, dragging a ROYALEX canoe across a tundra portage. How did he get there? I bet by bush plane running on high test aviation gas. And he likely got to the air strip in a 4WD gasoline-powered vehicle. He probably cooked over a sweet high-tech stove burning gas of some pedigree. And someone should believe he actually cares about the caribou or worries about the wolves?

He wouldn't have to worry about someone drilling in the ANWR if he would JUST STAY HOME and lower his consumption. And the caribou and wolves wouldn't be bothered by him dragging his canoe over the fragile tundra ecosystem.

To paraphrase Sam Kinnison's famous routine about starvation in Ethiopia: Hey Mr. Eco Guru, you live in a F&*%!@# fossil fuel society. If you want to change your situation, you've got to leave it. And you have to start with your own hypocritical a$$. Don't tell me to hate the oil companies when you are swathed in their products. Don't ask me to bring you food and water in the desert, get out of the desert.

I confess to a trade-off between lifestyle and environment everytime I use my outdoor gear. It's the self-righteous on both ends of the spectrum who are in the way of solving any part of this issue.”

“mtn gal, praising Bush for *not* rolling back the previous administration's regulation is a bit like praising a man when he stops beating his wife.

MaryPhyl, thank you for dose of simple wisdom. I would add that when or if we really, really *need* that little bit of oil under the ANWR in 40 or 50 years, we might have improved the technology for getting to it with minimal impact.

yi, if there's anything the last 100 years of history have proven, it's that there's no such thing as "the combined Arab nations." There is no great monolithic Arab enemy. They hate each other almost as much as they hate us.

pekka - it's kind of a catch-22. If he goes up there, he gets accused of consuming fossil fuels to do it. If he stays home, he gets accused of being a city slicker who doesn't know what's talking about.

tehipite - Is that right? Excuse while I go outside and scream...”

“Pekka, you make a pretty good point. Without disagreeing with your basic point, I will offer some defense of the situation (if not the article itself, which I haven't read and which sounds pretty bad).

Going back to the late 19th century, the founders of the Sierra Club (Muir among them) decided that the best strategy for saving wilderness (specifically, the Sierra) was to introduce people to it--that people who knew the wilderness, who knew what was at stake, would fight to save it. That basic calculation is at the heart of much of what the Sierra Club does (including the trips I lead), and it continues in the ANWR campaign.

Now, there are inherent tradeoffs in this strategy. In the Sierra, for example, I'm always conscious that I'm bringing people into an area parts of which already have way too many visitors; I see the potential benefits (getting people passionate about wilderness) as offsetting that damage, but I don't discount it altogether.

In the case of ANWR, just getting there, as you point out, involves enormous consumption of the very resources whose conservation is necessary to the survival of ANWR. On the other hand, I also think firsthand accounts of a place like ANWR are essential to building support for its preservation. On balance, I'm glad people use the fuel to get there, because I think any publicity is a net positive.

As for the tone of the piece, I'm sure I'd be put off by that too.”

“?Going back to the late 19th century, the founders of the Sierra Club (Muir among them) decided that the best strategy for saving wilderness (specifically, the Sierra) was to introduce people to it--that people who knew the wilderness, who knew what was at stake, would fight to save it. That basic calculation is at the heart of much of what the Sierra Club does (including the trips I lead), and it continues in the ANWR campaign.?

Tehipite, that may have been the heart of what the Sierra Club did, but unfortunately, their actions and policies lead me to believe they are more of an arm of the DNC than anything else and their true goal is social re-engineering through environmentalism (hey how can anyone be against clean air, water etc). They are to environmentalism what Jesse Jackson is to religion.

But tell us, my Sierra Clubbing friend, why is that in the 2000 elections, the Sierra Club endorsed 193 Democrats, 10 Republicans and 1 Independent, but not one single Green Party Candidate?

Also, isn?t one of the biggest drivers in resource depletion and pollution in the US due to our unchecked population growth? (More people means more houses, cars etc.) So why is the official Sierra Club policy on immigration:
? The Sierra Club takes no position on United States immigration levels and policies. The Club's membership voted on April 25, 1998 to remain committed to environmental rights and protection for all within our borders, without discrimination based on immigration status. With this vote, our members have shown they understand that restricting immigration into the U.S. will not solve environmental problems caused by global population growth.?
However, after taking that stance on immigration, they state the following policy on population reduction:
?On September 26, 1999, the Sierra Club Board of Directors clarified the Club?s position with regard to existing policy on population. The Board stated that the world and the U.S. should go beyond population stabilization to reduction. They also reaffirmed the Club?s commitment to vigorously implement the population policy approved by the Sierra Club membership in the April 1998 vote.
The Board clarified that Sierra Club favors an eventual decline in U.S. population, since the population has already reached levels that are not environmentally sustainable. The Club is working towards the goal of an environmentally sustainable population by dealing with population as a global issue. This goal will be achieved by working on the root causes of population growth, and not by advocating changes in immigration policies.?
So, explain to me how they are going to achieve population reduction in the U.S. by not limiting immigration into the U.S. Who is really funding these guys? In the 2000?s, does Green really mean Red?
(Donning asbestos suit)”

“Interesting points, BaSO4, and they deserve a better response than I have time for right now--I'll post something tomorrow, though.”

“Well, I see the moronathon is in full swing. Good grief tehipite, still living in the past I see. Better start working on a candidate for the next election rather than inventing excuses for Gore's loss.

It looks like Bill Clinton's Energy think tank is all here. Cozy with their energy wasting lifestyles and finger pointing. Blaming the evil Bush Administration for single handedly destoying the Earth in an illigitimate regime.

How bout pulling the plug on your energy guzzling computers and turning out the lights.”

“Did you think of that all by yourself.”

“Tehipite, I spoke to the writer Rick Bass at a conference a few years back. He was using the opportunity to lobby for support of preserving the Yak Valley in Montana, where he lives, from exploitation by extraction-based industries. He was encouraging folks to come up and recreate in this beautiful place so they could learn to value it and therefore protect it (a clear benefit to himself and his neighbors, of course) for future generations.

I asked him if a horde of mountain bikers, campers, hikers, etc. marching into the valley would degrade the place, since there would be a demand for increased services, etc. He said in effect, "I'd rather have it ruined by hikers and mountain bikers than by loggers. At least it will take longer." Of course, ruined is ruined.

What I mainly want to hear in the environmental discussion is some humility. We need to recognize the inherent contradictions in our human lifestyle, which is consumptive, and set a goal of facing up to them. My preference would be to minimize the effects of the contradictions. If we are going to use oil, we work to minimize the effects of drilling. If we are going to use computers that require metals and minerals and energy to build and operate, then we work to make the extractions as painless to the environment as possible. If we lead or take trips into the wild, we do it as lightly as possible. But we don't go around wrapped in holy cloth spouting bumper sticker aphorisms.

The latter leads to the Taliban. And this morning part of me is pretty sick over their destruction of ancient Buddhas and other statuary/relics now underway. The works of humans can be just as precious as the works of nature. Why? Because humans are part of nature. What we are and what we do is "natural." But so is our intellect and our ability to moderate our behavior. So I have a "natural" reaction that wants to go over and kick some Taliban a$$. But I guess that would be culturally insensitive of me.”

“There's a guy here who's "rising up a fighting back" in his own little way - too bad he's probably gonna lose his job because of it. He forwarded a petition against the drilling via his work e-mail and selected ALL the hubs. So our e-mail has been clogged for three days - each of us has gotten the same e-mail at least 500 times, and yesterday 3 of our e-mail systems crashed and are still down. Plus, we're getting all the nasty messages that other employees send him which generates another 500 e-mails - what a nightmare!

Sorry this isn't a contribution to the argument, but I thought I'd share it with ya anyway!”

“Eplorer - I didn?t mean to ?praise Bush? I know the origin of the diesel rule. I stated that myself. The point was He didn?t do what the chicken little types here said he would do. In at least one instance they were wrong. No president is going to match my desires perfectly and I am on the side of being worried by the stance of the Bush administration on the environment but like most of what I see other wise.

Many so called environmentalists need to get out more, see the real world. It is more complicated that they appear to admit. Some posting here are fast to criticize Bush but never seams to have any possible solution to offer. It is a nice idea to stop cutting trees and stop exploring for oil and stop mining and stop grazing cattle on public land. But if you are going to advocate those actions you need to advocate a replacement source for those resources. Any fool can point and cry about what they don?t like, it take some brains to work for a real workable solution.

There are ways to use the resources and have a clean (not necessarily pristine) environment. I know cattlemen that should be in jail for what they have done to the land. There are others I know that are responsible and good stewards of the land. One cattle man stated that he needs the land, the soil, the water to make his living. Not just for this year but for all his life and the lives of his children, grandchildren and great grandchildren. A health environment is what makes his operation possible. He grows grass for a living. Other than the fences and cow pies this land looks like a natural meadow when the cattle are gone for a couple of weeks. Hey, large grazing wild animals were part of the environment at one time. The Nature Conservancy even runs a cattle ranch here in Idaho.

If your idea is to preserve the environment by getting rid of the people, why don?t you go first.”

“thinair,

Yes, it called thinking for oneself. I know that is a difficult concept for someone brainwashed by all the liberal spin.

I would suggest you try it, but don't be surprised if it doesn't work for you.”

“Pekka, I think we're basically in agreement. Humility is what environmentalism should really be all about.

btw, I felt sick when I read about the Taliban's order to destroy all statues. That kind of stupid destructiveness is just inconceivable to me.”