brettbh

Will The Real Eco-Terrorists Please Stand Up? "I question who are the REAL eco-terrorists. Is it the activist who breaks into a lab after the government refuses to take action against blatant illegalities and frees hundreds of dogs, cats, monkeys, rabbits and other unfortunate animals from horrendous pain and torture? Is it those who choose to sabotage the machines that cut down the forests, dig the land into open pit mines that pollute the water and air after the government refuses to enforce even the meager environmental regulations that exist? Is it even those who choose to burn an empty building that is slaughtering up to 500 horses a week with the blood of those horses running out of the sewers after even local government and communities wanted them shut down for breaking the law? Or is it the timber companies that clear-cut hundreds of square miles of old-growth forest until less than 3% is left in the US alone while the federal agencies charged with protecting our public resources turn a blind eye? Is it the energy companies that spew out tens of thousands of pounds of greenhouse gasses into the air? Is it the oil and gas industry that moves into the pristine wilderness, drilling millions of acres of untouched offshore habitat, endangering the lives of countless species and the lives of the indigenous people who rely on that environment to survive? Is it the industry that dumps toxic waste in our water and land and pollutes the air we breathe? Could it be our government, run by, and complicit with the earth-raping corporations who believe we the people are too stupid to stop them? Who are the real eco-terrorists? I suggest that the industries of the world stand up and be counted. They, in fact, are the real eco-terrorists. How many thousands of people have died because of their callous disregard for the health and safety of people and the planet? How many species of plants and animals have gone extinct because of their destructive, illegal practices and outright greed? Those in the present administration and law enforcement who protect the bottom line of industry may also stand up and be counted. They too are responsible for not only encouraging the industries to continue their exploitation, but also enable them to expand their ways under the protection of the police state."

... a safety valve which enabled Shrub Snr to pardon the Reagan administration officials convincted in connection with the Iran-Contra affair and for Shrub Jnr to commute Scooter Libby's sentence. What's wrong with a process that relies entirely upon juducial review (appeal)? Why should El Presidente be permitted to tamper? Especially as El Presidente's pardons often lack public support and are considered to have been made for reasons of political expediency rather than to correct a miscarriage of justice?

>>I have the experience of the fundamental love of life as the form of nature that has impelled me and enabled me (in part) to find the solution to the problem of human nature of which politics is one form.<< And what, exactly, is the solution? >>If you want to know how I live my life follow the link in my sig. Though I wouldn't really call it my religion, because of the commonly held associations with that word.<< I did. Like you, we too have opted out of the rat race and now reside in an extremely remote village that borders one the most beautiful Provincial Parks in Canada. There is no fast food, there is no cell phone service, and the nearest town is more than an hour away. Days that were once spent in the office or commuting to Seattle are now spent in the countryside. We work when it rains, and do not work when the sun is shining. During the summer months, we'll often load up our backpacks on the spur of the moment, head into the forest and see nobody else for days. Like you, we too enjoy the simple things. There really is nothing better than packing a picnic and some books in a waterproof pack, swimming to an island in the middle of a pristine lake and spending the day doing absolutely nothing except basking in the sun, reading and sharing your food with the critters. But I do not consider the way that we have chosen to spend our days to be a form of religion or a solution to "the problem of human nature." In fact, I do not consider it to have any deep meaning whatsoever. That would be reading way too much into it. We made a lifestyle choice, plain and simple. Nothing more. Nothing less. >>Religion is for morons.<< Religions were formed because people needed a way to explain what otherwise could not be explained and to control what otherwise could not be controlled. How scary must it have been to not understand why the sun would rise in the morning and whether or not it would rise the next morning? So, in deciding the sun was dragged behind some higher being's chariot and that sacrificing a pig or a goat would keep that being happy and ensure that he carried the sun into the sky the next morning, people were equipped with a method of both explaining and controlling the event. But then religion evolved into something much more sinister as people realised that the superstition of the masses could be used as a method of controlling them. Hence, we ended up with bibles: books created by wealthy capitalists to protect their own interests ... books which encouraged the masses to believe that poverty was a noble and godly thing ... that greed was bad and that they shouldn't want what the capitalists had ("Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God") ... and that slaves should be happy with their station and work hard for their masters ("Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything, not only while being watched and in order to please them, but wholeheartedly, fearing the Lord. Whatever your task, put yourselves into it, as done for the Lord and not for your masters, since you know that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward"). In other words, what the capitalists said was: "Be poor, do as you're told and you'll get your reward after death; but rock the boat and try to get some of what we have and you'll experience eternal damnation. Oh, and be warned that boat rocking will not will not only get you eternally damned, it'll also get you accused of heresy. That right, boy, I said heresy. We'll drag your sorry ass before the Inquisition and when they find you guilty - and make no mistake about it, boy, they WILL find you guilty - you gonna be roasted like a pig on a spit, just like what we already did to 50,000 other troublemakers. You remember when that Billy Bub was dumb enough to be askin' me for a pay rise? Do you, boy? Well, you didn't see him again after that, did you? That's because we made him into a Billy Bub Burger, boy. Yup, we fried his sorry ass well and good, that's what we did. And now his soul be burning in the eternal flames of Hell. You understand what I'm sayin' here, boy? Do ya? Do ya? Good. Now you go git yerself back to work, boy, and don't you be givin' me no more bother. Go on, git! Praise the Lord! Praise the Lord"

I think "eco-terrorist" would be a more apt description :-)

You said in an earlier post: "In the US, the logging companies DO plant more trees and in some place have planted entire forests, staggered for long term logging." Proof of the pudding?

Hey, it ain't me who's advocating that displaying Christmas lights be made into a criminal offence that's punishable by death! Actually, I'll be heading into the forest this weekend to chop down a tree which shall then be slathered in lights!

No, Iran does too ;-) And some other places.

I'm perfectly aware that all presidents grant pardons. My question is why is an elected official permitted to override the judicial process?

Why the heck are these allowed to happen in the US? Why on earth should an idiot like Dubya Shrub have the power to overrule the courts? Could somebody enlighten me? Breaking a logjam of hundreds of pent-up clemency requests, President Bush yesterday granted pardons to 14 people and shortened the prison terms of two others. Read more.

The White House is working to enact an array of federal regulations, many of which would weaken rules aimed at protecting consumers and the environment, before President Bush leaves office in January. The new rules would be among the most controversial deregulatory steps of the Bush era and could be difficult for his successor to undo. Some would ease or lift existing constraints on private industry, including power plants, mines and farms. Those and other regulations would help clear obstacles to some commercial ocean-fishing activities, ease controls on pollutants that contribute to global warming, relax drinking-water standards and lift a key restriction on mountaintop coal mining. Read more.

Bah humbug!

>>That’s not religion, that’s politics.<< They are really one and the same. Religion, in the majority of its modern forms, is simply a political mechanism which enables a minority to control the majority via the exploitation of their superstitious beliefs.“Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything, not only while being watched and in order to please them, but wholeheartedly, fearing the Lord. Whatever your task, put yourselves into it, as done for the Lord and not for your masters, since you know that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward; you serve the Lord Christ. For the wrongdoer will be paid back for whatever wrong has been done, and there is no partiality." Here's some other modern-day biblical dilemmas (not particularly germaine to this discussion, but I enjoy them so much, I'll post them anyway!): 1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians? 2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her? (I'm pretty sure she's a virgin). 3. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them? 4. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it? How can I help you here? 5. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Aren't there 'degrees' of abomination? 6. Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here? 7. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die? 8. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves? 9. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14) Beats me how anybody in their right mind can buy into such baloney! >>The way I see it religion is what I do, what I put first in my daily life.<< That's as much a ideological or humanitarian concept as it is a religious concept. People do not have to believe in supernatural beings or discarnate entities on the astral plane in order to be able to do good. Of course, religion does not necessarily entail a belief in such beings, but it's a common and often accurate connotation. >>The way I see it it’s the love of nature that gives birth to the green, peace and environmental movements.<< Greens and environmentalists do not necessarily love nature either more or less than the next man; the simply recognise that the continued success of our species is dependant upon us respecting the environment. >>The danger, in my experience, for the eco/social/political-activist is in the love of politics overtaking the original motivating love of the simplicity of the beautiful Earth.<< Care to share an example?

I do :-) As I said in another thread: "In a capitalist society, government's primary remit is to enable people to make a buck. Other matters, such as the environment, come in second. And not a particularly close second at that!"

So, what did you mean? ;-)

We already do cut down trees to make those items!

For some reason, society seems to have accepted that capitalism is the only viable economic model and that anything else represents a dangerous and evil form of communism. Governments have elected to heed the advice of financial experts pulled from the ranks of companies such as Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch and Bear Stearns who say that capitalism is good and that less regulation and free-play market is what's needed. And where's that got us? Where we are today, that's where! Millions of people are now facing the possibility of unemployment and millions have seen the value of their small investment portfolios drop like a brick. And now the so-called experts from the financial institutions which so badly botched the economy are saying that capitalism is still good but that more regualtion is what's now needed in order to stabilize the econonmy and to separate the operations of investment banks from high street banks so that they cannot play high stakes games with our money - games which, when they worked, made enormous profits for the investment banks (and, of course, enormous bonuses for the wankers bankers) but which returned only modest gains to the people with whose money they were gambing. Capitalism in its current form is not working. The American Dream is dead. The poor are not riding to riches on the coat-tails of the wealthy; they are simply getting poorer and remaining poor. Economic divides are increasing. The environment is being torn apart for bucks. Like medieval map makers, we think that beyond the boundaries of our known capitalistic world lies only monsters and dragons (and reds and commies!). That's not the case and the sooner we realise it, the sooner we may begin to enjoy a better, more equitable and cleaner world. How the Rich Are Destroying the Earth

We may not care less about the forests, but others would care less. Should the land cease to have economic value, the sad fact is that it may well end up being put to some form of alternative use.

Sorry, but this has everything to do with capitalism! Were our society not to be motivated by profit, do you really think that government would be handing over $25 billion of the public's money to the jet-set CEOs of private corporations to enable them to keep on making products that cause serious harm to our environment? In Canada, the government is considering permitting coal to be mined in the Flathead River Valley, a pristine ecosystem to the north of Glacier National Park which has been described as "Canada's Serengeti." Meanwhile, south of the border, Glacier and other national parks are at risk from new rules which, according to the Washington Post, "Would make it easier to build coal-fired power plants, oil refineries and other major polluters near national parks and wilderness areas, even though half of the EPA's 10 regional administrators formally dissented from the decision and four others criticized the move in writing." Were it not for the fact that our society is motivated by bucks, neither of these things would be being considered. I mean, who would stand to benefit from a region such as Flathead, which supports the largest inland poplation of grizzlies in North America, being turned into a bloody big coal mine? The mining company and it's investors, that's who! Government is controlled by big business: it's controlled by the companies that make millions in political donations, which employ countless lobbyists and which, like GM et al, have become so essential to our for-profit economies that they can wield enormous influence over government. In a capitalist society, government's primary remit is to enable people to make a buck. Other matters, such as the environment, come in second. And not a particularly close second at that! When commenting on greening IT operations, Jon Koomey recently said, "We think of the problem of reducing electricity used by information technology equipment as a technical problem, but it's as much a problem of people and institutions as it is of technology. To attack this problem at its root we need to modify institutional structures and individual incentives so that the most environmentally sound methods are also the most profitable ones." And he's absolutely right. That's the way of capitalism. But it's not the right way. The most environmentally sound method should be the method that we use - whether or not it is also the most profitable. If we are to protect our planet effectively, we need to find an alternative to the current form of capitalism. We need to find a model that will encourage people (and companies) to do what's right, not what's most profitable. We need to find a way to ensure that everybody has an equal voice when it comes to matters that affect us all - for example, you and I should have as much say over the EPA plans mentioned above as George Bush and his oil baron cronies. We need to find a way to ensure that economic decisions are reached democratically and equitably and are in the interests of the majority, not by competition between groups which are pitted against one another for profit and survival. We need to find a way to ensure that our economies reward people fairly for their contribution to society, and do not simply give big bucks to under-performing CEOs of an under-performing companies. We need to find a way to ensure that products are manufactured in the cleanest way, and not in the dirtiest way because that happens to be the cheapest and will enable the competition to be undercut. People think that they live in democracies, and they do - but only to a point. Americans get to select their President by choosing between a couple of big business-backed candidates, but that's about as much say as they get in decision making processes. Joe Public certainly does not exert as much influence over government policy as the CEOs of GM, ExxonMobil and other major corporations which spend millions on political contributions and lobbyists. In short, we need to find a way that to ensure that wealth and power are distributed evenly (and globally) among the majority and not, as it is at present, held by the minority. Globally, 50% of the wealth is possessed by 2% of the population - and the poorest 50% of the population possess only 1% of the wealth. In the US, 5% of the population possess about 50% of the wealth while 12.6% (37 million) are below the official poverty line. Yup, actors, sports stars and the CEOs of companies such as GM and Ford have more money than can ever spend while a twice as many people are struggling to put food on the table. The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer and if you're unfortunate enough to be born poor, you'll almost certainly stay poor (50% of kids born into poor families in the US end up poor as adults - and only 5% of kids born into families in the bottom income quintile make it into the top quintile as adutls). In short, 5% of the population have more money than they can possibly spend while 12% are poverty stricken. Sorry, but our current form of capitalism simply is not working: it's bad for the majority of people and it's bad for the environment. The poor are not riding to prosperity on the coat-tails of the rich; they're simply getting poorer and staying poor. So much for the American Dream! And, all the while, we're stripping away our natural resources and damaging the planet. Companies have no real incentive to be green. Why? Because it's not the cheapest option and would result in more expensive products - products which they would not be able to sell because the competition have not gone green. Governments are unwilling to force the issue because it would make it difficult for domestic companies to compete overseas: in other words, it wouldn't be good for the capitalist economy. So, what am I suggesting? A switch from capitalism to communism? Nope, not at all. Simply that we need to ask what we really want from our economies and whether our current capitalist economies are really delivering those things. If they're not, we need to ask how can we make them deliver and how can we make them deliver in a way that's more alturistic and will benefit the entire population.

Eat more spuds and more land will be devoted to growing them; eat less spuds and less land will be devoted to growing them. The same principle applies in relation to trees! Not necessarily. I have been to commercial woodlands in Europe which were indeed sterile: row after row of neatly planted and equally spaced trees and floors that comprised nothing but dead pine needles. But it's very different here. In fact, the size of the trees is about the only way you can tell the difference the new growth forests and the old growth forests in the nearby Provincial Park. The forest bounces back pretty quickly after logging - in much the same way that it bounces back after a fire.

Gotta say, the situation really makes you wonder about the merits of capitalism. I mean, here we are with a collection of under-performing CEOs of under-performing companies riding into town on their multi-million corporate jets to beg for $25 billion of taxpayer's money. There's something wrong with that. Were these stoogies to be the CEOs of smaller companies, they'd be laughed outta town and their companies would cease to be. Yet, because the demise of these corporate monsters would have such a profound economic impact, they'll almost certainly end up being bailed out and the under-performing CEOs will keep their fat salaries and corporate jets ... all thanks to $25 billion of Joe Public's money. Hmmm ....

Yup, that sums things up reasonably well. To compete, these companies have to start producing vehicles that people will want to buy. That means producing greener vehicles; but it also means producing vehicles that are aesthetically pleasing and which match the reliability of the competition - and dropping the product lines which do not meet those criteria. They also need to substantially cut their operating costs by reducing salaries and eliminating extraneous dealership franchises. Simply pumping $25 billion into these companies is not the answer as it would provide only a temporary solution to their problems. They need to completely restructure. But it's not going to be easy for them to do that. The unions would be extremely unlikely to agree to substantial salary cuts and various state laws prevent them from dropping fanchises. To my mind, the only way forward is for these companies to file for Chapter 11 as this would enable them to carry out the necessary restructuring. Any subsequent injenction of public funds should be made subject to some strict conditions in order to ensure that the companies start to head in a more viable direction. There is, however, a big risk involved with this - namely that their sales would plummit (I mean, would you buy a vehicle from a company that had filed for Chapter 11?). On a separate note, I found it rather amusing that the company bigwigs flew into Washington on their corporate jets to beg for the $25 billion. That's probably not the best way to gain public sympathy!

So, should we be using less paper or should we keep on using the same amount but try to ensure that it comes from sustainable sources? Is using less paper the greenest option?

Indeed. Gloom mongers always predict that change will have a lasting and damaging effect, but it never does. The Luddites resisted the mechanization of the wool industry in order to save their jobs, but their jobs were nonetheless lost. The loss didn't result in lasting unemployment; people simply transitioned to other occuptions. And do you remember when computerization was claimed to be the harbinger of mass and permanent job losses? That hasn't happened either. Yup, computers led to some job losses, but it created just as many. That said, I do wonder what the effects of bankruptcy would be. Bobby said that it, "would leave thousands of people destitute." That's somewhat of an understatement. Those companies directly employ 240,000 people and indirectly support more than 4.5 million other workers. Were they to go bust, there would be a substantial loss of tax revenue, a substantial increase on the welfare bill and a substantial shift in consumer spending. Whether or not these companies deserve to be saved is not the issue; the issue is whether they need to be saved in order to avoid the economic consequences of bankruptcy. And I somehow doubt that the millions who would lose their jobs and the millions of small investors who would lose a chunk of their savings would agree that it's in everybody's best interests to allow them to go under.

True!

Yup, all the time. I live in a small village in the back of beyond where pretty much everybody (except me!) is employed in the logging industry. When an area is logged, it's immediately replanted. Is logging good for the environment? Probably not. Is it really, really bad for the environment? Probably not. In fact, logging in this area has probably proved to be less harmful to the environment than misguided conservation attempts in other areas (Yellowstone NP, for example). There's certainly no shortage of wildlife in these here parts. Swim in a lake, and you'll find yourself eye-to-eye with a curious beaver. Pull over at the side of the road, and a bear will amble over to say hello (attached). Take a walk in the forest, and you'll meet with a herd of elk. BBQ in the yard, and the neighbours will climb up a tree so that they look over the fence to see what you're eating (attached). The forest is also home to cougars, wolves, deer, coons, bald eages and a menagerie of other critters ... all of which live here in abundance despite the logging. The sad truth is that we live in a world that's motivated by money and woodland that has an economic value is more likely to be preserved than woodland that has no economic value. Natural resources will continue to be used. People have cut down trees for thousands of years and will continue to do so. That's an absolute given. People can either focus on ensuring that resources are used in the manner that has the least impact on the environment (logging from sustainable/replenishable forests, for example) or they can focus on attempting to get other people to stop consuming using resources - and that's a losing battle.