March Against Monsanto

[David Weaver]

Ole, when there is a problem with a medical procedure, who is expected to offer an alternative procedure - doctors or the average person walking down the street?

[Scott Shepherd]

I think we have over stressed the resources of the planet. We certainly don't have a very good track record of being good stewards of the planet.

Care to define the "we" in your statement? Is that the "we" that have planted more trees than any other time in history? Is that the "we" that are responsible for there being more tress today than 100 years ago? Is that the "we" that have cleaned up some of the filthiest waterways? Is that the "we" that are responsible for fish coming back and people being able to get in the water for the first time in decades? Is that the "we" that have the lowest emission vehicles since they were invented? Is that the "we" that have more energy efficient appliances than any other time in our history?

Are we perfect? No. Are "we" a lot better off and taking a lot better care of this planet than we were 40 years ago? Without a doubt. Do we have work to do? Sure. Always will, but I won't be part of thinking that it's "us" that aren't doing anything. We're doing a lot and have done a lot. A LOT more than China or India, the 2 biggest polluters on the planet.

[Greg Peterson]

Care to define the "we" in your statement? Is that the "we" that have planted more trees than any other time in history?

The US is has addressed issues as they come up. However, we do consume far more resources as a nation than any other nation, per capita. If the rest of the world were to consume resources like the US, well, there simply are not enough resources to go around in that scenario.

Is that the "we" that are responsible for there being more tress today than 100 years ago?

When did 'we' start planting trees? What is the average age of these trees versus the average age of trees 100 years ago? Once the timber industry realized they were going to run out of crop in a several generations, yeah, they started planting trees. Those clear cuts were not just a scar on the landscape, they polluted streams and rivers with eroded soil and raised the temperatures of streams and rivers. This affected fishermen as salmon spawning habitat was being destroyed.

Is that the "we" that have cleaned up some of the filthiest waterways?

Yeah, thanks to the super fund. The tax payers are left to clean up the mess for entities that refuse to step up and claim personal responsibility. When sensible regulations are created to protect the commons (air, water, radio spectrum....) you can count on the anti-regulation chorus to start singing.

Is that the "we" that are responsible for fish coming back and people being able to get in the water for the first time in decades?

And yet we have people decrying the EPA. The polluters did not clean up these resources. They complained and still complain mightily about being required to not damage the commons.

[QUOTE=Scott Shepherd;2271339]Is that the "we" that have the lowest emission vehicles since they were invented?[/qoute]

Now, sure. although I don't know for sure, I'll take your word for it. I suspect Europe is generally cleaner on this front, but I'm just assuming. It wasn't all that long ago that we had lead in our fuel, and the vested interests were quiet opposed to moving to unleaded fuel.

Is that the "we" that have more energy efficient appliances than any other time in our history?

Of course. But we aren't the only nation that recognizes the need to reduce energy consumption. In the big picture, we've only recently required energy efficiency. Again, this was not industry leading the way. It was mandated.

Are we perfect? No. Are "we" a lot better off and taking a lot better care of this planet than we were 40 years ago? Without a doubt. Do we have work to do? Sure. Always will, but I won't be part of thinking that it's "us" that aren't doing anything. We're doing a lot and have done a lot. A LOT more than China or India, the 2 biggest polluters on the planet.

I have in no way suggested that current practices are inferior to past practices, hence my reference to the 20th century when we went through most of that century with little or not concern for future generations. We have improved many practices. China and India have a long way to go, but they have a valid argument against adapting higher cost efficiencies. We can not control their actions, all we can do is make sure that we (individuals and as a nation) hold to a standard that treats the environment better than we did yesterday, last year, last decade, last century.

Monsanto may have a sustainable product in GE crops and roundup. Then again, they may not. Several peer reviewed studies suggest the science isn't complete on the matter. And before we get so far down the path that we can not return, I think it would be prudent to have a closer look at these findings. I would no more trust Monsanto to affirm the safety of their product than I would Lee Iacoca telling me the Pinto is perfectly safe to drive. Or that red dye No. 5 does not cause cancer, or that cigarette smoke is actually healthy. Or that seat belts won't save lives. Or the safe dosage of Tylenol (listen to the personal tragedies of parents who followed the label instructions and industries response. Nothing less than criminal negligence, IMO.)

Monsanto has demonstrated a heavy handed legal approach to 'protecting' their patents. Going so far as to sue farmers whose crop was pollinated by their bastardized plants. Where is the farmers right to not have his crop contaminated by Monsanto's GE crop? That right does not exist.

What happens a generation from now if it is discovered that Monsanto's products have polluted the soil beyond repair and diminishing yields are the standard? What recourse would be fair at that point? We're playing with the future of the human race and many seem to have forgotten how time again we could have averted serious situations with a little fore thought. Unintended consequences. I have no children, yet I do not want to doom their future because we need to trust Monsanto today.

All I ask for is a little due diligence. Is that to onerous?

[Scott Shepherd]

I never said we shouldn't have regulations or controls on things. I am however, very aware that MOST of the nonsense that goes in is pure nonsense. Like saying how great battery powered cars are for the world, when they are made using conventional manufacturing techniques to make the cars. Then there's no mention of how we have to go to some other country and clear cut their forest to dig deep into the earth to mine out the materials used to make that battery, copper for the electric motors, etc. You can't have it both ways. If you want to save the planet, you can't pillage other countries and their resources where there are no regulations and controls, in order to "feel good" about driving around in the USA. That makes no sense. It seems to only be a good idea if it's not hurting our environment in the USA. If you want to solve the issue, then put something in place that works and works all over the world, not just something that makes people in one country feel good while they zip into Starbucks and then people on the other side of the world are having their water polluted by the strip mining to get the materials to build that electric car.

On the tress, here's the info from a quick google search :

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), "Forest growth nationally has exceeded harvest since the 1940s. By 1997, forest growth exceeded harvest by 42 percent and the volume of forest growth was 380 percent greater than it had been in 1920."

[george wilson]

I am not going to blame America for having the greatest standard of living.

[David Weaver]

Well, almost. If you define it by GDP (adjusted for purchasing power), we're close to the top.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...PP)_per_capita

Of course, after that, people can complain about income disparity, etc. and make up any measure they want for "standard of living". We have it awfully good here. The local Englishman (who was type cast in england in his youth because he wanted to be an engineer but his dad was a carpenter) tells me that often. "You have no idea how good you have it here". Our other (younger) English and Scottish friends take every opportunity to tell us everything is better in the UK aside from clothing prices, though. Never got the two differing opinions together. The Englishman left the UK for places with better economic opportunities, and eventually landed here and dropped anchor.

[Steve Rozmiarek]

On the tress, here's the info from a quick google search :

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), "Forest growth nationally has exceeded harvest since the 1940s. By 1997, forest growth exceeded harvest by 42 percent and the volume of forest growth was 380 percent greater than it had been in 1920."

Now if they would allow logging instead of an irresponsible fire and forest management plan on federal ground, we may actually have access to affordable high quality domestic lumber products!

[Pat Barry]

I am however, very aware that MOST of the nonsense that goes in is pure nonsense.

How do you distinguish "MOST of the nonsense" from "pure nonsense".


With regard to Monsanto - I don't think anyone here has enough actual facts in front of them to base a decision on. Who is to say what they do is good or bad in the long term?

[Pat Barry]

Now if they would allow logging instead of an irresponsible fire and forest management plan on federal ground, we may actually have access to affordable high quality domestic lumber products!

Even if the forest growth is increasing, its got an awful long ways to go to get to where it was before modern humans ruined it all. Logging is not going to help. The best thing would be for all of us to let nature take its course.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Unless you have traveled internationally, you can't begin to truly appreciate how well off we are in this country from a standard of living point of view.

Having returned on March 21 of this year from 34 days in Australia, New Zealand and Fiji, we experienced the price of food in foreign countries. Regularly in Australia and New Zealand, a breakfast buffet that included, several juices, toast, scrambled eggs, roasted tomatoes, a variety of fresh fruits, juices, milk, hash brown potato patties, bacon, link sausage, 2 or3 types of pastries and (Yuck!) instant coffee from a machine cost us $42 per person. In Australia I finally learned to ask for "filter coffee" but wasn't that lucky in NZ.

Caught in Cyclone Lusi in Paihia, Northland, NZ one evening, the weather was so bad we couldn't walk to another hotel or restaurant to eat dinner, we paid $80 per person for a buffet that was good, wasn't great, not an exceptionally wide variety or quality and would have cost a small fraction of that price here at home.

I am not bad mouthing the counties, merely reporting what we experienced. This was our 2nd trip to NZ and first to Australia & Fiji and we would return in a flash if you'll pay for it.

Food in general in the grocery stores cost 2.5-4 times what we pay.

Gasoline in Australia and New Zealand costs as much per liter as we pay per gallon in the US.

And Fiji? Beautiful beaches! Bula! The food was equally expensive but.....

All the resorts on Fiji are gated and have their own security forces.

Imagine staying in a resort and finding a note in the "mail box" outside your room informing you that hotel security will be having a security drill during a 2 hour period on Friday morning.

You are picked up by a driver at the airport who for her safety, escorts your wife into a local grocery store while she shops for some bottled water. Oh did I mention at the airport and at the resort they recommend drinking only bottled water for your own safety? The resort provides escorted shopping trips into town twice daily.

In the 1 hour 20 minute pitch black night drive from the airport to the resort you can see the worn paths along the highway and periodically see people walking in the dark on those paths without the aid of any lights. Did you notice that very nearly every house either has a tall fence around it, often topped with barbed or razor wire or 4" wire mesh nailed over the windows?

2 days later, in the early morning light, the return drive to the airport confirms the absolute poverty and squalor you observed previously in the dark ride.

I didn't see any evidence of RoundUp being used in Fiji......but you still were advised to not drink the tap water......sanitation with the lack of treatment plants and high ground water tables presents a problem due to human wastes....but...it's kind of "back to nature".

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Even if the forest growth is increasing, its got an awful long ways to go to get to where it was before modern humans ruined it all. Logging is not going to help. The best thing would be for all of us to let nature take its course.

Pat, as an advocate of eliminating logging....letting nature take it's course....when are you planning to sell your woodworking tools?

[Ken Fitzgerald]

I believe man is part of nature.

25 years ago or so, I was quite active as true a "conservationist"...meaning "wise use" I am not a preservationist. There is a difference. I was quite active in the forest service planning process locally for several years. In fact, while serving as vice president of the Idaho Wildlife Federation, dressed in a suit and tie, at the famous Sun Valley Resort, I got on my hands and knees to beg a doctor and convince the membership we as a sportsman group did not want to back a Sierra Club proposal for a large increase in wilderness in the State of Idaho. 61% of the State of Idaho is federally owned and 18% is wilderness. Certain areas do deserve wilderness designation but there has to be a reasonable limit. After spending thousands of dollars annually out of my own pocket, I finally realized the extremist at both ends of the spectrum when it comes to use of the land don't want to negotiate a reasonable settlement. Both prefer to fight, to hold out and IMHO mistakenly believe, self-righteously they will win if they can just hold out.

The reason big clear cuts are no longer allowed is because of pocket gophers. It's not necessarily that attempts weren't made to reforest old clear cuts but rather what science found was that once a clear cut got beyond a certain size, nature got involved. There is a couple year span after young trees are planted during which the roots are prime feed for pocket gophers. Once a clear cut got over a certain acreage size, it was replanted and the pocket gopher population would increase so quickly and to such a population, that they would consume all of the young replanted trees roots before the roots grew to a less desirable size. The same pocket gopher population explosion doesn't occur with smaller clear cuts. Also, larger clear cuts resulted in more run off damage to streams.

While smaller clear cuts aren't as efficient or as economical, it is the right and reasonable thing to do IMO.

After being involved on the ground from the very early planning process, actually spending several weekends touring forests with the FS foresters, and FS biologists we then helped develop civilian input to the plans. I was the lone moderate conservative among 6 of us who elk hunted together for 18 years. One Sunday on our way back from setting our tents before the upcoming opening elk season, the guy who had hunted the area for over 50 years, a long time liberal, owned the mules we used for packing and ran our camp, pulled his pickup off the road. We looked at the selective logging going on just a couple miles from our camp. He, too, was active in the planning and input on this forest's plan. He said "You know Fitz.....it is the right thing to do....but seeing it this close to home kind of makes you want to flinch!" We laughed. He was a union man and I am not. We disagreed on a lot of subjects. We spent hours arguing and yet had a tremendous amount of respect for each other. He died 2 years after we quit hunting. I miss him!

[Greg Peterson]

I am however, very aware that MOST of the nonsense that goes in is pure nonsense.

Reminds me of the time Tim Cook was testifying before a congressional panel on overseas declared income not be repatriated. His argument was essentially that the tax code is too complicated. Two thoughts I had on this were, who do you think gets the tax code written and speaking of complicated, have you ever read a Apple EULA? Corporate tax codes are designed by and for corporations.

One mans nonsense is another mans sense. In a country with over 300 billion people, there are going to be rules that don't make sense.

Like saying how great battery powered cars are for the world, when they are made using conventional manufacturing techniques to make the cars. Then there's no mention of how we have to go to some other country and clear cut their forest to dig deep into the earth to mine out the materials used to make that battery, copper for the electric motors, etc. You can't have it both ways.

I don't own a hybrid, I car pool to work, all of 7 miles. Not asking to have it both ways.

If you want to save the planet, you can't pillage other countries and their resources where there are no regulations and controls, in order to "feel good" about driving around in the USA. That makes no sense.

Haven't been off the continent. You must have me confused with someone else.

It seems to only be a good idea if it's not hurting our environment in the USA. If you want to solve the issue, then put something in place that works and works all over the world, not just something that makes people in one country feel good while they zip into Starbucks and then people on the other side of the world are having their water polluted by the strip mining to get the materials to build that electric car.

I agree. But we can certainly start at home. Europe certainly isn't waiting for us to lead on the GMO issue. However, one doesn't need to go beyond the US to experience polluted water from mining. Or from tar sands. Or from chemicals. Or, for that matter to have a fertilizer plant to blow up itself and half the town.

On the tress, here's the info from a quick google search :

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), "Forest growth nationally has exceeded harvest since the 1940s. By 1997, forest growth exceeded harvest by 42 percent and the volume of forest growth was 380 percent greater than it had been in 1920."

Here is a stat from your link:

After two centuries of decline, the area of US forestland stabilized in about 1920 and has since increased slightly. The forest area of the US is about two-thirds what it was in 1600.

Then I got to your part about volume. I was momentarily confused and kept bouncing between the 1920 figure and the 380% figure. Then I saw it. The forest area of the US is about two-thirds what it was in 1600.

Don't get me wrong, more trees are good. And most of the new trees are broad leaf and deciduous. Great news for us wood workers.

But forest land has not increased, just the density of the forested areas.

Again I am not looking a gift horse in the mouth, but I was really stumped on how volume could be so much greater than it was 94 years ago. As for construction grade timber, douglas fir I believe, I did not see a mention of that species relative health.

We agree on most things. Matter of fact, our points of disagreement are quiet few, as if usually the case.

[Greg Peterson]

The most expensive meals I ever had were in hotels or at sporting events. Oh, and don't get me started on movie theater concessions pricing.

I understand that we enjoy relatively low costs here in the US. And I'm sure that GE crops have contributed significantly to lower cost produce and food. But are we robbing Peter to pay Paul? What if it turns out that GMO's and roundup are harming the fields? What if superweeds over power conventional herbicides?

When it comes to our food supply, I think it reasonable and logical to question the inventors technology. "Trust us" doesn't work for me. Trust but verify.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Greg,

In the grocery stores foods were 2.5-4 times as expensive but you will be happy to know I noticed in New Zealand...they label for GMOs.

Without Round Up and RR crops, we might already know the answers to your "what ifs".

Farmers are in the business to plant crops, harvest crops, feed people, raise animals and make a profit.

Prior to passing the draft physical in 1968, I was living in central Illinois. I don't remember seeing a single field that used the "No Til" method. Now, it's the accepted practice. Why? It was finally shown to increase profits and dramatically reduced soil erosion. Farmers are the biggest gamblers among small businesses. They shoot craps with mother nature, her weather, all her pests (insects, weeds, micro-organisms) and market prices for their crops. Even the small farmers of today have expenses that most of us would not even begin to consider engaging.

When it is proven that organic farming is equally or more profitable than commercial farming, then they will make the switch.