Perhaps We are but Insects on this Planet

[Ed Garrett]

I intended to launch a giant rant last week about global warming. Instead I actually found it easier and more entertaining to just ask a few questions and then sit back and watch everybody else go at it. But I’d still like to bring up one point:

“How can anybody say with any proof or certainty that we humans are responsible for the current climate change if nobody can explain why far more dramatic climate shifts have occurred prior to our burning of fossil fuels?”

The entire hubbub right now is over a rate of temperature change of a degree or two over the next century, a millimeter per year of sea level rise, and mountain glaciers retreating in the northern hemisphere. Eight thousand years ago temperatures rose 20 to 30 degrees, sea level rose 300 to 400 feet, and the northern ice cap retreated thousands of miles! By any measure this climate shift was orders of magnitude greater than we are currently experiencing, and yet there were no cars, coal fired power plants, or gas stoves.

You can’t deny that half our continent was recently covered in a mile thick blanket of ice. We were in the grips of the current ice age. There were icebergs off Spain, glaciers in Arizona and New Mexico, the British Isles weren’t isles, Florida was twice as big, Long Island and the Midwest were the dumping ground for pulverized rock from Canada, and the fjords of Norway, Alaska, (not to mention Yosemite Valley) were giant rivers of ice. What brought us out of the ice age? Not fossil fuels. We and Neanderthals only burned a little wood.

Some of us are certain that adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is the only possible culprit for the current climate change. I’ve heard said, “Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, we are exacerbating the greenhouse effect, we are destroying the planet, so we’ve got to drive hybrids, plant trees, and turn down the thermostat before it’s too late…yadda yadda yadda…” But consider this: Carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas, maybe 5% of the greenhouse effect. Water vapor is the major greenhouse gas, comprising 80%, 90%, maybe 95% (depending on whom you believe). I ask you this, “Is it not easier to imagine a natural cycle such as a subtle fluctuation in atmospheric water vapor, a small change in the distribution of tropical heat by ocean currents, or a slight change of weather patterns being the source of our current climate change?” Why just focus on one parameter, carbon dioxide emissions, and declare it proof and case closed that we are responsible? Isn’t it reasonable to assume something natural could be changing our climate just as it has before without our help?

I submit that we should consider being happy the climate is as warm at it is now. The normal climate for the last three million years has been much colder. We are currently enjoying an interglacial period within a major ice age. The pattern the last few million years has been repeating cycles of perhaps 100,000 years of glacial advance followed by 10 or 20 thousand years of decent weather like we’re having now. Again I ask, “what warmed us up so much 8000 years ago?”

We like to think of ourselves as rulers of the earth, but if you consider the impacts of routine geologic processes such as volcanic eruptions, meteorite impacts, continental collisions, and (yes) climate change, we become little more than insects on the earth. My fellow woodworkers, I plead with you to reconsider the hysteria over global warming. We’ve got plenty to eat, good friends, outdoor comfort (at least during the winter here in Florida), and plenty of wood for entertaining ourselves.

[Glen Gunderson]

The entire hubbub right now is over a rate of temperature change of a degree or two over the next century, a millimeter per year of sea level rise, and mountain glaciers retreating in the northern hemisphere. Eight thousand years ago temperatures rose 20 to 30 degrees, sea level rose 300 to 400 feet, and the northern ice cap retreated thousands of miles! By any measure this climate shift was orders of magnitude greater than we are currently experiencing, and yet there were no cars, coal fired power plants, or gas stoves.




You're entitled to your opinion, but I seriously question your conclusions when your examples have absolutely no basis in fact.

Where exactly did you read that it was 20 to 30 degrees hotter 8,000 years ago? I've never read anything suggesting that temperatures rose anything more than a 1 or 2 degrees on average.

If you suggest that natural causes are at work, then I would ask, what are they? Why can't anyone come up with a reliable model that illustrates a cause for the current warming trend? Why hasn't anyone identified these "mysterious" causes?

[Randal Stevenson]

I don't believe we know all the factors, but we know we can and do contribute. If we don't know all the factors, it is awfull hard to get a true idea of how much % we contribute/change the environment.


I saw a news story a while back that said that Mars had increased in tempeture between the Viking missions, and the rover missions, so even the sun itself, could/does play a role.


Doesn't mean we shouldn't try to limit our wastes. I still believe we do waste too much as is.


Edit: So in trying to eliminate waste, send me your old tools!

[Ed Garrett]

Glen,

I’m glad you enjoyed my post. I couldn’t agree more about people being entitled to an opinion.

Where exactly did you read that I said that it was 20 to 30 degrees hotter 8000 years ago? I didn’t.

I said that temperatures rose by that amount as we emerged from a glacial period within the current ice age. I was referring to a time when giant ice sheets melted from the northern half of our continent and the sea inundated vast areas on the continental margins. The effects of the ice age and our current respite from it are not my opinion. The evidence is overwhelming that thick ice sheets inundated much of Canada, the northern U.S., and the high mountain regions and then suddenly retreated 8000 years ago. You don’t even have to read about it. Just look around anywhere northward of Illinois and you’ll see the landscape is littered with glacial features: till, drumlins, moraines, chaotic drainage patterns, and most interestingly, depressed crust, which is currently rebounding faster than sea level is rising, which is why the sea is retreating in Scandinavia and Northern Canada in spite of the current sea level rise. And yes the temperatures were in excess of 20 degrees colder. I can cite papers all day that discuss temperatures being colder by >20 degrees F. (Example: Climate Dynamics, Volume 24, Issue 2-3, pp. 197-211). You can too. But even if we don’t talk about specific numbers, I bet that you would agree that the climate change we are experiencing now is trivial compared to that seen at the end of the last glacial period (8000 years ago).

You are right about our failure to model the climate. You asked what natural causes are at work. They aren’t all mysterious. Plenty are known,* surely many more are unknown (by definition), but understanding how they interact to make a climate model is currently beyond our scope. That’s why we can’t prove humans are the culprit for climate change any more than we can say why the glaciers and ice caps melted back 8000 years ago. We don’t know why, which begs many questions: How can we blame climate change on our carbon emissions? How can we know whether our influence is irrelevant? Why should we attempt to correct the climate if we can’t prove why it is changing? Why should we not expect the climate to change if it has always changed? Who doesn’t believe the climate changes naturally? Isn’t that obvious?




*Mechanisms for natural climate change? Here are just a few: Solar output, earth/sun geometry, volcanic emissions, fluctuations in ocean and atmospheric distribution of heat accumulated from the tropics, ocean and atmospheric chemical changes, changes in reflectivity of the atmosphere and surface, and slowly but surely: a multitude of geologic actions that is too long to list here…

[Gary Keedwell]

Thank-you Ed for the voice of reason among the sea of hysteria. This gigantic ball spinning around space has been doing it's thing for millions of years. Mankinds existence here is but a speck of sand on a beach.
Mother Earth and our solar system will be doing the cooling and heating cycles long after mankind is gone, just like the dinosaurs.
But if it relieves the self-inflicted guilt some may have, continue your conserving ways.
In the mean time, I hope everybody drives 12 miles a gallon SUV's so we can run out of oil so future generations can use science and common sense and use energy that pseudo- intellectuals will have a hard time picking apart.:)
Gary K.

[Cliff Rohrabacher]

I think the warmer's arguments are all hooie.
I think Kyoto and warming are massive boondoggles intended to effectuate a wealth transfer from the USA to nearly every one else.

[Andy Hoyt]

Ed - since you're a geologist, I defer to your education and wealth of knowledge. But since you're employed within the very industry that you are trying to deflect culpability away from I worry that your comments may perhaps/possibly/potentially be therefore self serving and prejudicial.

Who cares what or who is at fault? Arguing that point to death will do nothing towards ensuring our planet will continue to sustain life. Fixing it or learning to adapt seems a far better course of action.

[Gary Keedwell]

I think the warmer's arguments are all hooie.
I think Kyoto and warming are massive boondoggles intended to effectuate a wealth transfer from the USA to nearly every one else.
Again Cliff, you articulate what alot of thinking people, are thinking out side of the proverbial box.
Another way of conserving money would be to eliminate the so-called United Nations. I would take the wasted money we as americans contribute to this boondoogle, and direct it towards real scientists who could find real energy.
Gary K.:)

[Jim Becker]

I'm a "thinking people" and I don't think what you're thinking, apparently...nor do so many people and organizations that have studied this problem. Calling those who don't believe what we believe names doesn't make for a very effective dialog or debate. It just gets really close to language that isn't in character with the SMC community... ;)

[Tim Morton]

I'm of the belief that it is better to err on the side of caution when it comes to protecting the planet. We are an incrdibly wasteful society and if nothing else comes of this global warming threat, we may just learn to conserve and think about future and stop living in the present with disregard to the future. It will do no harm to change some lightbulbs and cut down on fossill fuels....and who knows it make make things that much better for the next campers that come to use this planet:)

[Gary Keedwell]

I'm a "thinking people" and I don't think what you're thinking, apparently...nor do so many people and organizations that have studied this problem. Calling those who don't believe what we believe names doesn't make for a very effective dialog or debate. It just gets really close to language that isn't in character with the SMC community... ;)
No offense was intended, Jim. Maybe worded it wrong. Just meant that thinking a little different was good for an all-around discussion. Everybody on this thread is doing alot of thinking.;)
Gary K.

[Ed Garrett]

Ed - since you're a geologist, I defer to your education and wealth of knowledge. But since you're employed within the very industry that you are trying to deflect culpability away from I worry that your comments may perhaps/possibly/potentially be therefore self serving and prejudicial.


Hi Andy,

I appreciate your confidence in me and your concern about my perspective, but I'm not a researcher nor do I work for industry. I'm just a government regulator. At work I'm an unbiased enforcer our my state's oil and gas laws. I make a huge effort to interpret and apply our statutes fairly. I consider myself a true public servant. But when I get home (and online) I enjoy kicking around some ideas with friends. This is fun isn't it???

P.S.: I wouldn't agree that the energy industry is culpable. They are responding to our voracioius demand for energy. Even if we could prove that carbon emissions are the real culprit, then we should only blame ourselves as consumers. Without our demand for energy, there would be no energy companies.

[Mitchell Andrus]

Ed speaks my language, that of a geologist. (Hydrogeologist myself).

Whether warming is our fault or not isn't the issue anymore. We are in the middle of a 20,000 to 30,000 year long warming trend. The peak effects will make life as we know it impossible for our grandchildren and the other 11 to 15 Billion people on the earth in 50-60 years.

Water? Not from mountain snowfalls anymore (winter storage, summer release) - that battery is draining away.... Ask anyone living in the Alps if the streams and rivers run as hard as they did when they were kids. They don't.

Food? Stock up now. A 2 or 3 degree rise worldwide over the next 50 years will cause a decline in precipitation of 10% to 15% in most localities producing crops. It's already happening and it's measurable. It rains on rain forests because it's cooler over a rain forest. Clear-cutting measurably reduces rainfall in that area. A near perfect micro global-warming model.

Oil? Nooooo. That'll be reserved for trucks, air transportation, service vehicles and those who can afford it for home heating. Prepare to plug your car in when visiting grandma at Thanksgiving.

Nuclear plants... lots of them. NIMBY lasts until the neighborhood gets cold, and heating with oil costs more than the mortgage. Electrically heated homes are in our kids' future - and solar won't charge your car's batteries at night. Good news... The mall just installed 50 new charging stations. They'll take credit cards.

THESE are the "good old days" people will talk about in 75 years.

So live it up.

[Jason Roehl]

I guess the part I have trouble with is the temperature measurement. I'm pretty sure that right now, we can send up satellites with infra-red and computers to measure the surface temp of pretty much the whole earth. But we've had that capability how long? Maybe 20 years? 30, tops? We have temperature records going back about 100, but how accurate were those readings? A degree or so? We're talking about rises in temp of a few tenths or even a whole degree. Then there's the whole ocean thing--covering 70% of the earth's surface...and I'm pretty certain 100 years ago nobody was taking widespread temp readings across the ocean blue, probably not even 50 years ago.

As for water being a greenhouse gas, what happens after the average temps start to go up a few degrees? More water evaporates from the surface, adding more greenhouse gas, but...humid air, while good at retaining heat, also does not heat (or cool) as quickly as dry air, so I would think that it would start to have somewhat of a buffering effect.

As for talking about temps hundreds or thousands of years ago, I'm not sure I could wrap my brain around that. Maybe in generalities (evidence of glaciers here and there, so it at least had to be freezing...), but to say that 3000 years ago it was 22 degrees cooler on average in what is now Indiana, I don't think I could buy that type of statement. (I'm not saying anyone here is making that claim, just an example of the type of thing "out there".)

I ran a pretty good-sized painting contract last year. I tried to beat into my crew the slogan, "adapt and overcome", because the builder's company could be accurately called "Cart-Horse Building". If it gets warmer, maybe I'll just sweat a little more, and I'll bet food production will shift to elsewhere in the world. More water vapor in the air tends to cause more volatility and storms in the atmosphere--it will come down somewhere.

[Jack Dickey]

I think its all bogus , there was a scientist on the news a while back who got into real depth on this and got into very detailed specifics and stated that the waste we pump into the atmosphere is very easily handled by mother earth ..
But I will not deny that we are very wasteful , and not good conservators of the planet ..
In some ways I hail all the new technology , and in other ways , send me back 200 years , i would be happy either way ..
Utopia is non existent , it will never come about .. As long as man is here there will be socio political differences and no one will ever agree on everything ..
We are very fortunate that we were born into the approximate 5% of the world population , that literally can have nearly anything we want ..

[Kyle Kraft]

Like others in this thread, I wonder how much we as humans can actually affect the operation of this planet. Seems like the earth is going to do what it wants, and we are simply going along for the ride. I believe we are far too wasteful in this country. Many do not want to carpool because it inconvienences our individual lives. I carpool with another person, and for fun we count the number of cars with two or more persons over the approximate age of 21 on our way home. There are usually less then one handful (5) spotted on a given day. We have a give and take situation, we still run limited errands after work, a stop at the used bread store or a run into the bank, etc. as long as the other doesn't mind, and it works well.

Getting back to the global warming thing, I agree with another, (Cliff I think) who stated a theory of shifting the wealth of our country elswhere. I also believe that my kids will not enjoy the same standard of living as we do now. I think we must develop sustainable, renewable, affordable energy sources. The nuke NIMBY is a good example. The next, and current NIMBY is giant wind turbines. People argue that they are too noisy, a blight on the landscape, and vicious shredders of all avian creatures from butterflys to bats. We are all behind wind power as long as I can't see it from my house:) .

Above all, I truly enjoy the crowd at SMC. It is enjoyable to read such diverse ideas about off topic stuff, even the ones that I don't necessarily agree with. We can at least fall back on the one common thing that brings each one of us here....the joy and fulfillment we get from turning a renewable resource into a thing of beauty and functionality.

Sorry about the choppy essay, I never said I was a great writer.

[John Schreiber]

I’ve enjoyed this and I thank Ed for bringing it up. Discussion has mostly stayed at a high level which is a credit to the Creek. Like Gary said above, “Everybody on this thread is doing a lot of thinking.” That’s good by itself.



My problem is that I DO BELIEVE EXPERTS KNOW THINGS I DON'T. If I want to build something of wood, I know there are experts here on Sawmill Creek. I can be pretty sure that if most people here say the same thing, it’s probably right. It won’t bother me if my neighbor who doesn’t know a dovetail from a dado tells me otherwise; I will trust the experts on the Creek.

I watch out for people with ulterior motives; people with an ax to grind or money to make by saying something. This board has not put up with spammers. Sawmill Creek doesn’t owe its life to some tool or paint company. (Thank you all!) I pay attention to who is paying people who are recommending new drugs, new theories or new tools. (Surprise, the Craftsman Club recommends another Craftsman tool.)

Lots of people don’t believe in global warming because of the ulterior motives of those who present the theory.

-Politicians trying to get attention.
-Scientists who want more and power.
-Poor people and poor countries trying to take away the wealth of the rich.
-Crazy liberals who like to be unhappy and want to make other people unhappy.
Just because there are bad scientists and crazy liberals, and of course politicians trying to get attention doesn’t mean that when I hear news I don’t like, I assume it's a lie. Any more than when ExxonMobil keeps showing up as paying the deniers of global warming.



I keep hearing that people don’t understand this, that or the other fact about global warming, so it can’t be true. I don’t understand it all either, but what difference does that make? Haven’t you ever talked to people who didn’t understand your job or whatever it is that you do? They usually don’t get how complex your job is or how much skill is required. That is the way people are. It’s easy to think that other jobs don’t have the complexities and subtleties of your own.

I don’t know how to design a bridge, to do brain surgery, to run a grocery store, to count how many fish there are in a lake, to pick winners at a horse race, or to understand world-wide climate. If I have to do one of those things, I go to an expert.

I’ve been tempted to answer back on each fact. But instead I depend on the knowledge of experts. I am no more confident in my knowledge of climate than I am of the human body and cancer, but I know if I have cancer, I can go to top-notch cancer doctor for advice.



I agree that in the life of the planet, global warming doesn’t matter much at all, but I do believe I have a responsibility to do what I can for the human beings who will live on this planet in the future. For my children, climate change may be very significant. For the children of people in many parts of the world, it will mean the difference between life and death.

[Joe Chritz]

I am inclined to believe that "our" involvement in the warming trend, if you choose to call it that, is minimal. I find it hard to believe that 15 billion + people wouldn't impact an global environment. Maybe not to the level some wish to believe we do.

I don't believe anything I hear or read until I can confirm it myself. Either through multiple reliable sources or plain common sense.

Even though, a reduction in oil consumption, waster production and destruction of environment isn't a bad outcome. Those things should be done for themselves, regardless of the "hoopla".

I don't drive a hybrid, partly because I am not sure the overall cost is beneficial. Mostly because I have to haul a fairly large trailer with a couple thousand pounds of horse often.

If everyone themselves did a little a lot of the problems would go away on their own.

Anyone know the starfish story?

Joe

[Gary Keedwell]

It has been a good thread with alot of insights. No longer can a few sources of information be our only resource. Information is everywhere today. As been said, there are alot of motives to get certain information to the masses.
What is of concern to me, as a temporary visiter to this planet, is how and who disperses this information. The internet is available but who really uses it to educate themselves? Seems to me that most people use the Net for entertainment purposes.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that alot of people are caught up in their lives and don't have or don't make the time to investigate things. Everybody is looking at celebrities for......what exactly are we looking at them for?
A famous person will say something silly like "use one square of toilet paper to wipe your..." and it makes the news and everybody is talking about it, right? Jane Fonda says war is bad......must be, I guess?
What I find admirable about this thread, is the effort to stick with facts and not politics. Unfortunately, we are a Nation divided. I remember shortly after we were attacked in 2001, and both parties gathered on the steps of Congress to express unity. I really, really felt good about that. I can only imagine how this great country stood together after Pearl Harbor.
Boy, we were not very wasteful back then. We rationed everything from steel, rubber,gas,nylon stockings etc. Bombs fell, cities destroyed and polution was every where. Thankfully, most of the carnage was overseas. (thankfully for us...not them)
Sorry for the rant but I think there is going to be something big again to unite us as a nation. There are alot of renegade nations out there that don't share our ideals. There is troule brewing every where on this planet and nuclear capabilities are not just for a handful of stable countries.
There is a war going on and it is not just overseas. We are a country divided blue and red.
Sure, we can bury our collective heads in the sand and pretend every thing is hunky dorry and our only problem is "global warming".
Gee, who would of thought that the " good old days" were when the good old USA. had only one enemy? Soviet Union.:)

Gary K.

[John Schreiber]

It has been a good thread with alot of insights. . . . big snip . . . .
Gary K.

Gary, I disagree with you on a lot, but I agree with every line of that post. Good to know you.

[Gary Keedwell]

Gary, I disagree with you on a lot, but I agree with every line of that post. Good to know you.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/evsac/Video/ThumbsUp.gifGood to know you too, John.;)

[Tim Wagner]

I think the warmer's arguments are all hooie.
I think Kyoto and warming are massive boondoggles intended to effectuate a wealth transfer from the USA to nearly every one else.
http://www.sawmillcreek.org/images/buttons/quote.gif (http://www.sawmillcreek.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=604349)

Could be why the US never entered into this accord.

some things to consider.

26,000 year wobble in the tilt of our planet.

not sure of the time scale, but our planet moves back and forth between a nearly circular to a elliptical orbit. this should have a nice affect on temps.

also deforestation, forest fires, and doesn't it seem to be more volcanically active then in years past?

I am all for planting more trees, because I love trees, I love the birds that nest in them and sing to me in the morning. I love the shade and the shear beauty they add to ANY landscape.

If you don't believe we are at the root of global warming then fine. buy a Hybrid because it save you money in feul costs.

plant more trees because it provides shade for your sanctuary, and homes for birds.

install energy saving bulbs to save you money. Just do it. when and where you can.

It's your planet, just like it is mine.


Edit: P.S one more thing If the multi trillion doller Oil industry ever thought they would either A: run out of oil, Or B: run out of customers, would they not start increasing prices to get as much out of the world as they could before eventualy going out of business? not saying thats the case. but maybe someone could answer that question.

[Gary Keedwell]

Oil companies only supply a consumer need. Take away need..no more oil company. Since the combustible engine is what we have right now, I am thank-ful that it (gas) is available. ( I was in the gas lines of the 70's).
Probably 100-200 years from now they will look back to this form of transportation as fondly as we look back to the horse and buggy.:)
Gary K.

[Bill Lantry]

" What I find admirable about this thread, is the effort to stick with facts and not politics"

Thanks for a good read on a slow day. This is easily the most amusing line in the thread, and shows the whole problem in just a few words. Of course, most of the posters were really waving a political flag, under the guise of this issue, and most of them were of the same political persuasion. The UN comment was especially enlightening on this point.

As for "facts", I'm not sure I saw very many. How many tons of CO2 were you personally responsible for this year? What is the present level of CO2 in the atmosphere? What is the annual rate of increase? Where is Hubbert's peak? Have you even read a brief digest version like this one? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming ? Or is this just an article of faith for you? To be honest, you could persuade a whole lot more people if you took 20 minutes to bone up on the issue.

Peace,

Bill

[Gary Keedwell]

" What I find admirable about this thread, is the effort to stick with facts and not politics"

Thanks for a good read on a slow day. This is easily the most amusing line in the thread, and shows the whole problem in just a few words. Of course, most of the posters were really waving a political flag, under the guise of this issue, and most of them were of the same political persuasion. The UN comment was especially enlightening on this point.

As for "facts", I'm not sure I saw very many. How many tons of CO2 were you personally responsible for this year? What is the present level of CO2 in the atmosphere? What is the annual rate of increase? Where is Hubbert's peak? Have you even read a brief digest version like this one? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming ? Or is this just an article of faith for you? To be honest, you could persuade a whole lot more people if you took 20 minutes to bone up on the issue.

Peace,

Bill

Gee Bill, why don't you tell us how you really feel?:confused:
I also don't think anybody is trying to "persuade" anybody here because the audience here is rather small. Maybe a letter to the editor in a major newspaper....Naaaaaw I just like throwing out ideas and reading other people's ideas. I think it is fun that we can instantly express ideas on such a great format that the the Creek provides for us.

I know I will try harder to be more considerate, but I am human.
Respectfully,
Gary K.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Folks......let's keep this non-politcal and don't make any personal attacks please.

Everyone has a right to an opinion. Everyone's opinion should be respected whether you agree with it or not.

Some of the moderators have already been discussing how long this thread could or should go on before it needs to be closed and moved.

We are approaching that point.

Please don't force us to do it.

[Bill Lantry]

Gary,

Thanks for your note. It's interesting that the first reponse is to threaten me with exclusion. I don't recall making any personal attacks, nor did I call anyone hateful, arrogant, spiteful, preachy, or ugly.

Alas, it's sad that such things distract from consideration of things. But what troubles me most is the appeal to authority, as if someone were to say "If you don't agree with me, I'll get the mods to boot you off." Not exactly an open-minded way of doing things... ;)

Thanks,

Bill

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Bill............My post wasn't directed towards anyone in particular. There are a number of posts here already that are IMHO political in nature. This is an emotional issue and it's easy for some to drift from the original intent of the initial thread. My post wasn't directed towards you.

[Gary Keedwell]

Gary,

Thanks for your note. It's interesting that the first reponse is to threaten me with exclusion. I don't recall making any personal attacks, nor did I call anyone hateful, arrogant, spiteful, preachy, or ugly.

Alas, it's sad that such things distract from consideration of things. But what troubles me most is the appeal to authority, as if someone were to say "If you don't agree with me, I'll get the mods to boot you off." Not exactly an open-minded way of doing things... ;)

Thanks,

Bill
Your right Bill...maybe I was being a little defensive and it wasn't warranted.:)
I wasn't directing thoese

emotions directly to you but I can see where you might think that, so I went back and edited it out. Sorry. My attempts to be insightful, need a little tuning-up, I guess. Also, not trying to get anybody booted off:(
Gary

[Bill Lantry]

Ken,

Thanks for your note. You're right, there is much to say, but it seems to lead down a troubled path. Therefore, I will be like Cheif Joseph on this one, and 'post to this thread no more forever'... ;)

Thanks,

Bill

[Randy Denby]

Someone asked how much a carbonfoot print you as an individual leaves everday....I have to admit....I carry a mean carbon footprint. Dont want too...its cost is mostly passed on to my customer. I run up and down the highway repairing/ installing large commercial HVAC and large walk-in coolers /freezers. So not only am I burning 33 gallons of gas every 300 miles, at alot of stops I am repairing refrigerant leaks, which means I bring out my oxy/acetylen rig to braze the holes away, burning refrigerant as I do this...which changes refrigerant tophosgene gas,of which just few parts per million will kill you.Anyone remember "purple haze" from vietnam? Phosgene was a big partof it.I make it just about everyday...and it doesnt feel good as it takes your breath away at just the slightest inhaltion. So...my "footprint" is huge ...and I am doing my best to lighten it, which boils down to planning. I can no longer go from call to call inorder of receipt. itisnow injected with plan, to catch as many customers as I can on a shorter route... But mostly it is to save my business money and be more efficient. I'm meeting with a Dodge Sprinter van salesman next wed to discuss numbers. From what I've heard, I should get at least 24 mpg, which will double my mileage and halve by carbon footprint..

I think everyone will get on wht the conservation when it touchs their lives to the point of hurting the purse strings.

[Gary Keedwell]

Oil consumption is world wide. Developing countries are using more and more every day. I feel what we conserve is miniscule compared to what percentage other countries are increasing. It is one of those " we save a gallon...they use two gallons more" kind of scenarios.
I really , really wish the problem could be solved with conservation of fossil fuels. Eventually we will run out of oil. Forty,eighty, maybe 150 years. Hate to sound pessimistic, but conservation is only going to delay the inevitable.
I think homo sapiens are very clever, and when we have our backs against the wall, we will come up with a new revolutionary source of energy. Too bad most of us will not be alive to see it.:(

Gary K.

[Bruce Boone]

I feel that CO2 could more easily trigger the Earth's more delicate tipping points like if the tundra melts, the ground is darker and will absorb more heat and release more stored CO2 in the process.

I think the biggest answer to CO2 is changing the power plants to burn with clean coal technologies rather than how they work now. The cars will need more of a long term solution. We need to get to a point where dependence on the Middle East is a distant memory. If solar could be improved, cars covered with cells sitting in a parking lot all day could get a portion of their power for startup or acceleration that way. Producing and wiring them needs to be as simple as a new paint job for that to take hold though. For electrics to really work, they also need a backup power source too. If you could make it to work and back without using the backup source and paying for fuel, you would probably tend to change your driving habits to fit those types of trips.

[Chris Padilla]

Non-linear effects make prediction and understanding of this issue quite difficult. I still don't think weather prediction is above 80-90%...predicting climate change over time and what causes it, gack...makes my head hurt. I dunno...I think this scare (whether real or not and whether human induced or not) might be beneficial in general to the human race.

That said, I've decided to move towards a more energy conservative nature for my and my family's lifestyle. I bike 28 miles per day to work and back 5 days/week. I do it for several reason: health, enjoyment, and the challenge. It sure is fun scooting down the road at about 15-20 mph passing cars backed up at lights.

I hope gas keeps going up and more people use public transportation or hop on their bike. It might hopefully help the healthcare crisis I see in the US and free up the parking lots seen on the "freeways" in the mornings/evenings in all large cities across our nation. It may also help us move off of foreign energy dependence and fund alternatives.

It surely is an interesting time for us. Do what you feel is best for your children. :)

[Paul Downes]

First, a thankyou to Ed for starting this thread. A few comments.
I think the only constant we humans can be sure of is the arrogance of man... It seems the universe should revolve around us ultimatly superior humans and our omnipotant minds....:D I agree with Ed out of principle because I'm willing to admit that I have no real clue about how much we affect the environment around us in the macro sense. I can say that there are many wonders in the world that should be protected or used judiciously. Wood that is not readily renewable should be carefully managed. (Old growth and tropical rainforests). I hate to see wanton clearing of these rescorces for fast profits. I have worked as a sawyer/logger and am not at all apposed to a reasonable harvest.
I wonder about things like why we call Greenland, Greenland. And why there are 1940's airplanes 100 ft. below the ice there.
I think about beliefs held a centry or 2 ago and wonder how they could be so stupid back then. I think we are just a little less ignorant today. Maybe we are just a little more sophisticated in our ignorance today.
What would the world look like if we took greedy profit out of business and held the human person as infinitly valuable.
I think we have a long way to go to get out of barbarism and depravity. And no, I am not a globalist economicly, but maybe I should be.

Regards to all. Paul. Trying to live in the Christian tradition.

[glenn bradley]

Yeah, for those interested there is a lot of material that pretty much tanks the whole global warming, oceans are rising / sinking stuff. If the thoughts / fears regarding same will help us be nicer to mother nature, I'll play ignorant.

[Mitchell Andrus]

Well.... photos taken 75 to 95 years ago show the disapearance of some mighty hefty glaciers and a huge hunk of Antarctica. Man-made problem? I Dunno.

We ARE draining our lakes though - with more toilets, showers, lawns, cornfeilds being installed all the time - that IS our problem. An example in Fla., :

"""It looks like someone pulled the plug out of the bottom of Lake Okeechobee (https://my.sfwmd.gov/portal/page?_pageid=2814,19613293,2814_19613370&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL).

How dry is it? So dry that there is now a 12,000 acre fire in the dry grasses of the exposed lake bottom. Okeechobee is the largest lake in Florida, a key source of water for five million residents of south and central Florida. It also supplies water to the enormous citrus groves and sugar cane fields that sit north of the Everglades."""

Too late to stop the sprawl there, huh?

[Gary Keedwell]

Yeah, for those interested there is a lot of material that pretty much tanks the whole global warming, oceans are rising / sinking stuff. If the thoughts / fears regarding same will help us be nicer to mother nature, I'll play ignorant.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/evsac/Video/ThumbsUp.gif LOL...... Glenn you crack me up . I always enjoy reading your posts. You have a good way of summing things up. ;)
Gary K.

[TYLER WOOD]

I do agree that the planet is warming (currently because of typical environmental impacts, not permently because of man's impact). Are we to blame, PROBABLY not. The planet goes through warming and cooling cycles constanly. Look at temperatures in the 40's they dipped below what they were experiencing in the twenties and thirties. It was a mini ice age (loosley named). Did we all of a sudden stop producing c.d. in the 40's to make the temperature drop like that. Doubtful. We used more in that era than before because of war, millions of tanks, war vehicles, and airplanes burning a gallon of gas for every mile they traveled. Then we had global warming starting in the 60's. Then it went to ice age is immenent in the 70's and now we are back to warming. The temperature after Krakatoa dropped 2 degrees over the next year! Laki and Asama in the late 1700's caused one of the coldest summers and the next three years to be some of the coldest on record. These eruptions put out more c.d. in one eruption than man has ever produced, or could produce at our current rate of production in a decade.

If we take out trees, that helps speed global warming right? Forests, after all, cool the atmosphere by drinking in carbon dioxide from the air. A new study, however, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reports that forests' other climatic effects can cancel out their carbon cleaning advantage in some parts of the world. Using a three-dimensional climate model, the research team mimicked full global deforestation and also studied the effects of clear-cutting in different regions of latitude, such as the tropics and boreal zones. Apparently, these natural carbon sinks only do their job effectively in tropical regions; in other areas, they have either no impact or actually contribute to warming the planet. In fact, according to this model, by the year 2100, if all the forests were cut and left to rot, the annual global mean temperature would decrease by more than 0.5 degree Fahrenheit.

We look at glacial retreat as proof. Proof of what? A natural cycle or one cause by man? Political and scientific numbers can be bogus, skewed for purposes of agenda or belief. Global warming started at around 1700 and subdued around 1938. Since then the temperature has gone up and down since then. We are just in a peak right now. I would not be suprised at all, if in the next decade we see temperature return to pre-global warming pandemic numbers. Look at the past hundred years, we are a half degree warmer than one hundred years ago, compared to from 1700 to 1800 the temperature rose a full degree or more.

We are comparing temperature over a hundred years, What's the normal temperature, ice age or tropical climate. The united States area has been both in the past 20,000 years. Man was not even here in thet time to screw it up. I think we need to stand down from pressing the panic button and realize that we are on a planet that has weather and climate changes. Has had for mellinia and will continue after man has been wiped off the face of the planet by an asteriods, or lizzards evolving back into dinosaurs. Now there are real threats!!!

I submit to you---- (toungue in cheek) LET'S BAN ASTERIODS AND COMETS FOR THE SAFETY OF THE PLANET.

I may get barred for that coment:D

[Gary Keedwell]

Kudos...Tyler... enjoyed your post. I like your insights.:)
Gary K.

[Brian Weick]

Time to enjoy life ~ it's to short
Happy turning
Brian~ 86 degrees today- at least It's not snowing :)

[Bruce Boone]

I did see something that was interesting on the Science Channel the other day; someone had a liter soda bottle of air and another filled with CO2. They both had digital thermometers sealed onto the cap to measure the temp inside the bottles. Left in the sun, the CO2 bottle did start to read something like 6 degrees higher in a short time. That was a bit scary to see so bluntly and undeniably. It definitely absorbs more heat than air alone. I can see how cities or power plants will definitely warm things up more than without the CO2.

[nic obie]

This whole discussion is moot if over population is not factored in.

Is there some reason we can't slow down the population increase of humans and pets?

I can see a real need to add a large tax on pet and baby food. Neither pets nor babys are good for this planet.

[Chris Rolke]

here is a little something to think about

they say that the temperatures are going up

well here is my question

where are they being measured at?

cause you know if the temp was measured in say new york city in 1907 and measured today i can guarantee it would be higher just because of the concrete and blacktop reflecting the suns heat

simple science says you have to have all conditions equal before you can have a result

cause a pot of water sitting on a warm stove will be warmer than one on a counter

i personally have tried to conserve-combine trips, turn off lights i dont need, just little things. but to me it has to do with trying to keep more money in my wallet

[Dennis Peacock]

i personally have tried to conserve-combine trips, turn off lights i dont need, just little things. but to me it has to do with trying to keep more money in my wallet

I hear ya Chris. We've been doing the same exact thing. Trying to conserve as well as keep as much in our family budget as we can.

[Tim Wagner]

I think I remember hearing that most measurements for Co2 were taken on mount kilawaya, if thats how it's spelled, because it was so high and for the most part, free of pollution.

[Gary Keedwell]

China overtakes US as world's biggest CO2 emitter

Headline this morning
GK.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Bzzzzzzzzzz.......Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..........Bzzzzzz zzzzzzzzz..................Bzzzzzzzzzzzz


:rolleyes: :D

[Lee DeRaud]

I think I remember hearing that most measurements for Co2 were taken on mount kilawaya, if thats how it's spelled, because it was so high and for the most part, free of pollution.Well, yeah...if you don't count an active volcano as "pollution".

[Tim Wagner]

Well, yeah...if you don't count an active volcano as "pollution".

Maybe I am not thinking of the right mountain. It is the one with all the telescopes on top. the one with the Keck telescope?? I don't think it was the active one of the Hawaiian islands.

[Lee DeRaud]

Maybe I am not thinking of the right mountain. It is the one with all the telescopes on top. the one with the Keck telescope?? I don't think it was the active one of the Hawaiian islands.That's Mauna Kea...Kilauea is on the flank of Mauna Loa: same island, maybe 30 miles apart.

[Gary Keedwell]

Global warming? Nahhh...... We need to worry about global COOLING!!! :eek:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/comment/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4&p=4

[Greg Crawford]

Glad you brought up our environment Ed. What I can't understand is why our national and world leaders are totally ignoring a problem of much greater proportions. Here are some facts about DMHO;

Dihydrogen monoxide is colorless, odorless, tasteless, and kills uncounted thousands of people every year. Most of these deaths are caused by accidental inhalation of DHMO, but the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide do not end there. Prolonged exposure to its solid form causes severe tissue damage. Symptoms of DHMO ingestion can include excessive sweating and urination, and possibly a bloated feeling, nausea, vomiting and body electrolyte imbalance. For those who have become dependent, DHMO withdrawal means certain death.

Dihydrogen monoxide:



is also known as hydroxl acid, and is the major component of acid rain.
contributes to the "greenhouse effect."
may cause severe burns.
contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape.
accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals.
may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of automobile brakes.
has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients.Contamination is reaching epidemic proportions!

Quantities of dihydrogen monoxide have been found in almost every stream, lake, and reservoir in America today. But the pollution is global, and the contaminant has even been found in Antarctic ice. DHMO has caused millions of dollars of property damage in the midwest, and recently California.

Despite the danger, dihydrogen monoxide is often used:

as an industrial solvent and coolant.
in nuclear power plants.
in the production of styrofoam.
as a fire retardant.
in many forms of cruel animal research.
in the distribution of pesticides. Even after washing, produce remains contaminated by this chemical.
as an additive in certain "junk-foods" and other food products.Companies dump waste DHMO into rivers and the ocean, and nothing can be done to stop them because this practice is still legal. The impact on wildlife is extreme, and we cannot afford to ignore it any longer!

The American government has refused to ban the production, distribution, or use of this damaging chemical due to its "importance to the economic health of this nation." In fact, the navy and other military organizations are conducting experiments with DHMO, and designing multi-billion dollar devices to control and utilize it during warfare situations. Hundreds of military research facilities receive tons of it through a highly sophisticated underground distribution network. Many store large quantities for later use.

More info is available here;

http://www.dhmo.org/

[John Schreiber]

Here are some facts about DMHO;
Perhaps there's a reason why scientists and world leaders are ignoring the worries about DMHO, but are still concerned about global warming.

[Greg Crawford]

Boy, not many bites on this one. The DHMO thing was a paper done by a 14 year old. It's simply water (2 hydrogen - dihydrogen and 1 oxygen - monoxide). The way it was written, however, can get people stirred up. It was to point out that if a story is phrased properly and told often enough, some people will believe it. As for the global warming, I've heard and read some brilliant people presenting evidence both ways. I guess time will tell.

In the meantime, regardless of which side of the debate a person may be on, doesn't Hydrogen make sense as a fuel? Where's all the funding for research into this abundant and clean energy source?

Just Another Pawn

[Gary Keedwell]

Any new source will have the same problems. Manufacturing, marketing, distribution, product performance, financing etc, If it was as easy as throwing money at it , I think it would have been solved years ago.
Gary K.

[John Schreiber]

. . . doesn't Hydrogen make sense as a fuel?. . .
Hydrogen makes plenty of sense as a fuel, but where are you going to find it?

Power needs to be generated to create it first and if we are using hydrocarbons to generate that power, we don't come out ahead at all.

Also, hydrogen is devilishly difficult to contain and transport. Because each molecule is so small, it can actually move through many materials which we think of as solid.

There are a lot of problems which need to be solved before hydrogen would work. There are other solutions which are available right now.

[Joe Tonich]

The SKY IS ..................http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b156/jt6089/falling.gif
http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b156/jt6089/ing112805a.gif

[Tom Veatch]

...Who cares what or who is at fault? ...Fixing it or learning to adapt seems a far better course of action.

I fail to understand how "Fixing it..." can possibly happen unless we "care(s) what or who is at fault". In other words, how can you fix it if you don't know what to fix?

(That's assuming, of course, that there's anything that needs fixing.)

[Gary Keedwell]

There are alot of people that think 9-11-2001 was a government (USA) conspiracy.
There are alot of people that believe Hurricane Katrina was a government plot.
There are alot of people that think humans can change the earth's weather.
There are alot of people that still see Elvis........Everywhere....:cool:

Gary K.

[Ronald Seto]

Personally, I welcome global warming and rising of the oceans. That means my property will become more valuable as it becomes waterfront property.

[Lee DeRaud]

There are alot of people that believe Hurricane Katrina was a government plot.Anything is possible, but I think they're looking at the Katrina event from the wrong angle.

If I lived in an area where the mean elevation can be measured in inches and is prone to being hit by hurricanes, and a hurricane destroyed my home and all my possessions and very nearly killed me, I'd try to learn something from the experience. "Hmm...maybe living here isn't that great an idea."

But if somebody wanted to give me money to move back to that place afterward, I might tend to question whether they really had my best interests at heart. "Well, you really lucked out this time...but there's always next year. Here's your check."

[Ronald Seto]

We[/U] are an incrdibly wasteful society
Who is "we"? the entire world, or just us, the Americans. We as Americans consume more energy than anyone else in the world and we generate the most waste of anyone.:)

[Ronald Seto]

Don't confuse me with facts. The truth is, we still don't know squat about anything. What happens with the weather 100 years from now or one day from now is only a prediction that has no basis in fact. It's only a fact after it happens. No sense in getting worked up over it. There is a greater power that we can't comprehend and never will. What will happen will happen.

[Ed Falis]

If I'd had that kind of attitude 35 years ago, I'd be working at McDonald's today. So we disagree about what we as humans can do and what our effects on the world might be. Yah ho. Most of us seem to share similar values about personal responsibility and so on.

I really have to question the other Ed's motivation in bringing this one up. Trying to rile things up for entertainment, given that you know this is a polarizing issue? Get your own views validated? Just curious. This is one of 2 or 3 you've started that are clearly controversial along predictable lines. And since the lines are so predictable, there isn't much likelihood of anyone changing their points of view. So what's the point?

- Ed

[Gary Keedwell]

If I'd had that kind of attitude 35 years ago, I'd be working at McDonald's today. So we disagree about what we as humans can do and what our effects on the world might be. Yah ho. Most of us seem to share similar values about personal responsibility and so on.

I really have to question the other Ed's motivation in bringing this one up. Trying to rile things up for entertainment, given that you know this is a polarizing issue? Get your own views validated? Just curious. This is one of 2 or 3 you've started that are clearly controversial along predictable lines. And since the lines are so predictable, there isn't much likelihood of anyone changing their points of view. So what's the point?

- Ed

Wow....You really know how to cheer a fellow up, sir.:D I still think it is interesting to hear from different people all over the planet on this or any subject. Since we have close to 70 posts...I guess I'm not alone? Did you hear of the British airline pilot that seen a mile long UFO? He saw it from 40 miles away. Amazing, huh?:p
Gary K.

[Ed Falis]

Yeah, that UFO is pretty amazing sounding, eh?

Look, I was just complaining that the thread seemed devised to polarize. I have my political differences with people, but I just don't want those to be the subject here when we have interests in common that go past those differences. No intention to censor. Just calling a spade a spade as I see it.

Spoken respectfully of your point of view,

- Ed

[Gary Keedwell]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,22029942-28737,00.html

Interesting reading.;)

Gary K.

[Jim King]

I do think what we do prove by these conversations is that we are simply a STUPID evolving species on a planet that we have no idea where it or we have came from. With sciences advancing at the rate they are what do you think people in 500 years will think of us. CAVEMEN.

How can we take ourselves so serious when we know so little. Just imagine what they will think of us in 500 years when they talk about us going around the world in a big bean can with fire shooting out the back and hoping to get it stopped where it is supposed to.

I go thru this same BS daily with people worrying about the lumber industry destroying the Amazon and no one mentions that we virtually have no lumber industry in the Amazon but people fall for it and send money to the con groups such as the WWF to spread fear , raise mony and live well while destroying the lives of innocent people.. Fear is big business , no fear, no problem , no needed to help a cause and finance the fear creators.

Here is a letter I have sent to the Government here in Peru to try and open some eyes, it may interest you.



Raising forest revenues and

Employment in Peru


For this paper Loreto is used as a focal point for both the existing problems and solutions of the forestry industry of Peru as it is the only data I have available..

PROBLEMS: Unemployment and poverty in unprecedented numbers.

Illegal timber harvest. ?¿

Government mismanagement of forest resources.

INRENA is a drain on the government financially


Unemployment and poverty in unprecedented numbers.

It is almost impossible to believe that in one of the richest areas of the world the people live in miserable poverty due to government mismanagement of its natural resources.

Loreto has 368,851 square hectares of land and lets assume that less the rivers, cities , small scale farming and cocaine plantations there exists 90% forest or 331,965 hectares of forest land. Based on several forestry studies it can be assumed that each hectare has a minimum of 70,000 bf of timber of various species the most usable but some not.

This gives us a total timber board footage available resource figure for Loreto of
1, 400 ,000,000,000 board feet of timber only in the concessions and titled land . Government timber production figures for Loreto suggest that the total production of Loreto is 24,000,000 bf or basically nothing annually.

Example: Loreto has 368.851 km² (http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kil%C3%B3metro_cuadrado) in total
The state of Oregon in the US has 251.418 kmin total
To make it worse half of Oregon is a natural desert

Oregon produces 4´450´000.000 bf of wood annually
Loreto produces 24.000.000 bf anually

What does this mean ¿ Oregon is 32% smaller than Loreto
Loreto produces .005% of what Oregon produces

Why is the biggest employment base in Loreto driving mototaxies or cultivating cocaine when Loreto is surrounded by unmatched and wasted rotting natural riches ¿ Answer, the government is not managing its biggest natural resources properly , either the people or the forest..

Attachment Number 1 is a census showing income , education etc. of a typical Loreto village.



Illegal Timber Harvest Problem

The illegal timber harvest is an over used and misunderstood term used by people who are honestly mistaken and ignorant of the problem and those who wish to cash in on the ecologist scare tactics for their own benefit.

A few types of illegal timber harvest:

A family with an income of $20 a month cutting wood on their own land for sale without paying S/.800 Nuevo Soles for a photocopy study and waiting months for a forestry permission. ILLEGAL

The biggest actual illegal timber harvest is because of the forestry concessions being located several kilometers from any river for access or removal of harvested wood. The lumbermen doe not have the resources to build roads and buy hundreds of thousands of dollars in equipment to work as the law demands. RESULT , the lumbermen buy timber from the villages on the rivers and charge it against their concession. ILLEGAL

With over 20,000,000 hectares under concession it is wonderful that the legal logging as per the law is basically impossible, as if it was possible to implement it would be the biggest deforestation project in the history of the world. Whatever forester can tell you that to selectively harvest a forest using modern mechanized methods you loose 5% of the forest for roads and skid trails only. Using this proven and well documented fact the law would destroy 1,000,000 hectares if implemented. This does not include the thousands of miles of roads from the rivers thru village lands to get to the concessions.

Fortunately the illegal harvest by the river communities is sustaining the forest and limiting the damage that would be done if a “legal” harvest was made.

SOLUTION:

Modify the forestry law to make it possible to manage a natural resource and permit the people of Loreto to live.

The law has to be modified to allow people to work legally , openly and productively to better their lives . Why is it necessary for a small land owner with title to 20 or 40 hectares to pay some forester who knows nothing about the trees on his land S/.800 soles minimum for permission to selectively cut a few trees for legal sale when no on objects to the slash and burn of his land to try and raise yucca and corm for his family.
LET THE MAN WORK LEGALLY so he does not have to slash and burn to try and exist.

EXAMPLE:

My company has been fortunate in obtaining the only permit to cut cants with a chainsaw and carry them out by hand on their backs because of the terrain.. RESULT: The families that were earning S/.40 -50 per week cutting down the forest to make charcoal are now earning up to $/.1000 per week selectively cutting on our property. They now have a life , the children have clothes and are in school and the world is open to them. This should be available to all Loretanos that wish to better their life. These people earn more than the laborers working in cocaine.

The average chain saw for this work costs about $400 US and the small lumberman is out of debt and profitable in one month. Lets say that 30,000 families went to work in this form. Each family would produce an average of 700 board feet of wood per week and earn $/.1050 before expenses.

This would mean an annual harvest of 1,000,000,000 bf of currently unusable lumber and direct income of $/.1,500,000,000 annually to the loggers. This would create hundreds of manufacturing jobs and export income which is currently nonexistent
And bring a minimum $1,000,000,000 US vs now $24,000,000 into Loreto from export sales.. I don’t know the gross product figures of Loreto but I think a billion dollars is a lot of money to Iquitos. With 20,000,000 hectares under concession or in the hands of villages there exists 1,400,000,000,000 board feet of timber and a 1 billion bf annual harvest will be unknown and not nearly reach the recommended sustainable harvest.

The forestry taxes paid on this volume could make INRENA self sufficient and not a drag on the government and they could afford to hire some up to date experts.


Modify the law to permit the man to use the community chainsaw to cut some cants for sale in Iquitos and a chain reaction will start every couple of weeks one more.. There is this false front in Peru always put forward by the experts that cutting wood with a chainsaw is wasteful but letting millions of mature trees fall over and rot and the people going hungry and uneducated is good. The fact is that cutting cants with a chainsaw and bringing them to town for resawing yields more form a tree than traditional logging plus it does not damage the jungle as mechanized logging . Attachment Number 3. My friends you are not governing and managing your people and resources you are failing your responsibilities horribly.

Just something for thought, how was it possible to make a new forestry law without knowing what species are in the forest. This is like selling a business without taking an inventory. I may be wrong but I don’t think that of the unknown hundreds or thousands of species in Peru less that exist 100 complete vouchers including the wood samples in the combined libraries of INRENA , the Molina and other Universities.

Just another thought. Why have the “experts” classified the most valuable woods in the world that exist in Peru as firewood ? $30 and up per board foot for firewood and Mahogany is on CITES for $2.00 per board foot. Please explain.

Make Peru a leader in the forestry industry and the Government should self certify its forestry activities as sustainable. It is difficult to say that there is a forestry industry at this time as Peru is a net importer of wood but it can be done..

Whatever technical help you may require I probably have available or at least have access to the proper people.

MARKET:

This does not seem very complicated , China is the biggest buyer in the world of hardwood flooring of the types that Peru has in abundance and does not put importance to. And China has a huge trade deficit with Peru. They are obligated to buy what they want and need to balance the deficit. It sounds easy to me.

The big word in Peru is “democracy” and that means that the government is obligated to free the people from obsolete bureaucracies and let them work.

Regards, Jim King
Iquitos, Peru

[Bart Leetch]

Thank-you Ed for the voice of reason among the sea of hysteria. In the mean time, I hope everybody drives 12 miles a gallon SUV's so we can run out of oil so future generations can use science and common sense and use energy that pseudo- intellectuals will have a hard time picking apart.:)
Gary K.

If common sense were so common wouldn't everyone have it? As it is I think it should be called uncommon sense. Remember on the average man kind lives around 73 years, if we live with in reason a moderate life style & contribute the best we can to society have we really done all we are supposed to?

[John Shuk]

Gee I was hiking this weekend at the Helderberg escarpment in NY and found seashell fossils. One of the signs talked about the glacial lake 10k years ago where Albany is now. I kind of think the planet is going to do what it plans to do. We just happen to make the biggest hives on the planet at this point.

[James A. Wolfe]

It seems to me that, since our history here is measured in tens of thousands of years and the planet's history is measured in millenia, the presumption that we, as a species can do anything to ensure our long term survival is rather arrogant.

I believe we are simply parasites taking advantage of the host but having little effect on the long term existance of the host. If we poison the planet in 50 years and all die out, the planet will continue to exist. If a mutant strain of Ebola or influenza wipes us out, the planet will continue to exist. While I would like to see the air and water remain as clean as possible, I have no illusion that by not watering my lawn, I will ensure the continued survival of our species.

my $.02

Jim