World's First Tree-sitting Weblog 486
An anonymous reader writes "Amit Asaravala over at Wired News has an interesting article up about the tree-sitters in Humboldt County. Apparently a bunch of tech activists from the Indymedia Center are setting the tree-sitters up with an 802.11b network so that they can blog about all the logging going on up there. Seems like a pretty interesting way to use technology to help the environment, which isn't something you see everyday."
I'd watch out (Score:5, Funny)
I find it strange (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I find it strange (Score:2)
that the loggers use Dells and all the tree sitters use Macs. What could that mean? I'll check back in 24.
For those who don't catch this, there was an American TV show last season called "24". It had a few gimmicks to it, but one interesting thing was that all the bad guys used Dells and all the good guys used Macs. There was one apparent exception to this rule, a "good guy" who used a Dell, but she turned out to be a double agent working on "Dell side".
Yes, "24" is on the air again this season, but I don't think they have stuck with this apparent giveaway, so it's "last season" for the purposes of this joke.
Re:I find it strange (Score:2)
Okay... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Okay... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Okay... (Score:2)
I wonder (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I wonder (Score:5, Funny)
"Where?"
"www.aaagggggh.com."
"He must have died while typing it."
"He wouldn't have bothered to *type* 'aaagggggh'. He'd have just said it."
"Perhaps he was dictating."
"Oh, shut up."
Re:I wonder (Score:2, Funny)
Re:I wonder (Score:2)
"blog"... ugh. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:"blog"... ugh. (Score:3, Funny)
Is that what happens when you cut down a BTree?
What about the BIRDS?!?!? (Score:2, Funny)
Do you think that'll stop the tree-climbing environauts from using it?
Of course not!
Re:What about the BIRDS?!?!? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:What about the BIRDS?!?!? (Score:2)
Never underestimate the bandwith of a herd of elephants with 8" floppies stapled to their hides.
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a herd of north american antelope shot and stuffed with punch cards.
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a anaconda threaded with optical fiber.
Obligatory Simpson's Quote (Score:4, Funny)
At least now they can communicate a bit more with the world while sitting in the trees. Though one has to wonder how they recharge their laptops? Those would need to be some pretty long extension cords.
Jack Handey Style! (Score:4, Funny)
How much energy (Score:2)
The blog site (Score:4, Informative)
I'm not a Karma Whore!!!!
A rhyme.. (Score:2, Funny)
While sitting in a tree,
Then the chances are,
You're a geek hippie.
Swaying in the branches,
Laptop in your hands,
No safety net to speak of,
Just a couple of rubber bands.
Be safe up in the treetops,
And please try not to fall,
Despite all that long hair,
You will not bounce at all.
Where are the police? (Score:2)
Re:Where are the police? (Score:4, Informative)
The loggers really dont mind people sitting in the trees or just hanging out. It just means that they cant cut that tree right now. There are plenty more. There is no real benifit in taking these people away if they are not hurting anyone.
I say that in a very serious way. The people who we call "tree huggers" can get really scarry and do things that cause peoples lives. There have been a number pf people in Maine arrested for causing harm. Picture a logger cutting a tree with a chainsaw and all the sudden his saw bucks out of the tree and takes him in the head because a protester drove a 10 inch spike into the tree, not to mention that spiking trees isnt good for them either. Logging is a very dangerous buisness and sometimes the activists get mean.
As long as you do not harm other people or other peoples property I believe you have the right to be heard and if in the process you change some peoples thinking than good. And I know that the loggers will thank you for not messing with them and they might just like the company.
Sorry for the bad spelling.
Earth First!! We'll Timber the rest of the planets later!
Re:Where are the police? (Score:2)
Re:Where are the police? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Where are the police? (Score:5, Funny)
Give me a Stihl with a 3 foot blade and 5 minutes. I can get *anyone* down from a tree, guaranteed.
Useful my arse.. (Score:5, Funny)
I can just see the IM traffic..
Tr33Hugg3r: Hey man, can you toss me over another bag of granola? The last one fell on that park ranger's truck.
fukDaMan: sure, if you toss me another bag of soy nuts.
veggieChix0r: I'm cold, I want to go home.
1l0v3Tr335 : damn, my batteries in my MP3 player died, no more Bruce Cockburn for me..
FYI (Score:3, Funny)
Re:FYI (Score:2)
Re:FYI (Score:2)
Re:FYI (Score:2)
Yea, I've seen it (Score:4, Funny)
Maybe, I'm one of few, but I see the environment pretty much everyday.
Power (Score:2)
I'm not quite getting how this works. A car battery charger plugs into wall and thus charges the battery. But, since the activists are up a tree, how are they plugging in?
I'm assuming it means they're using a car-battery to charge it, but eventually that would run out of juice too.
Swab their eyes with mace! (Score:2, Flamebait)
Maybe they could study architecture or engineering and come up with good, economical ways to build housing without lumber? Or do fundraising to purchase land to make reserves? Or research to find better, more environmentally friendly ways of logging? Perhaps if some lumber company choose to do old style logging (where you pick individual, strategic trees to remove instead of clear cutting leaving a good variety of trees and undergrowth), they could lobby to support such companies, despite higher lumber costs?
I dunno, just seems like there's more productive ways to spend your life, and still make a difference.
Slashdot: New for Hippies, Stuff that is irrelevant.
Not hypocritial, not contradictory (Score:2, Informative)
It is not contradictory to use technology to protect the environment. By and large, what these people are against is the thoughtless, greedy, UNSUSTAINABLE raping of earth's resources. Corporations have demonstrated themselves to be incapable of thought beyond the bottom line.
People like this are you and I. There's a saying: "If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention." Instead of labeling these public servants, read a bit about the issues and I'll bet you find yourself in the same mindset.
~gb
Re:Not hypocritial, not contradictory (Score:2)
huh? (Score:2)
Blogging about logging.
Well.
I know I'm excited.
And shouldn't that be "tree-huggers", not "tree-sitters"?
t_t_b
Don't visit the blog site!!!! (Score:2)
Hey, wait a minute...
I was just at the site and they have pictures of the activist chicks doing the traditional wood nymph blessing dance...in the nude. Check it out...streaming video too!
Going to the bathroom in a 100ft high tree (Score:2)
Discussion Board (Score:2, Redundant)
But of course they won't do that because these kinds of groups are very unreceptive to criticism and debate. Trolls aside (and what message board doesn't have trolls), I think they would find that their cause and methods are not as accepted or supported as many of them believe.
In other news... (Score:2)
A group of australia lifeguards have expressed immense interest in the endeavour; the only technical hurdle they have to face is that their thongs are too small to accommodate any extra piece of equipment, namely the wireless devices needed to access the service.
"Is that your cellphone in your Speedo, or are you happy to see me?", asked Cindy, when meeting her fellow lifeguard Jon.
How to save the trees. (Score:2, Insightful)
1 - Climb down out of the tree.
2 - Get a job.
3 - Save up money.
4 - Buy land with trees on it.
5 - Don't cut them down.
Out of all of them, #2 is the only one that takes a lot of effort.
Re:How to save the trees. (Score:2)
You know, along those lines, I'm a bit short on cash. You think I could camp out in a bank lobby until they give me some?
- Owner of 2 acres of thick, unused forest
Power source? (Score:2)
From the article: A car battery recharger powers the equipment
So what powers the car battery recharger? A Honda generator?
Bravo to San Fran Indymedia for doing this (Score:4, Interesting)
anyway, serious bravo to folks at San Fran IMC for doing this. Technology is not necessarily paradoxical to environmental activism -- and if anything, the high tech world needs a serious dose of environmental awareness, power consumption and chip production being the two main things that I'm sure we could come up with very creative solutions to.
Briefly more on IMC: I can only speak for my local Indymedia, but we've been doing a lot of reporting on things that the Big Media(tm) have ignored. There've been a number of controversial things happening in Madison over the past few years. While we are fortunate to have more than one daily newspaper, we're as affected by radio, TV, and cable conglomeration as the rest of the United States. That means that in the major press outlets, many of these controversial issues have gone on without more than the Official Word(tm) being spoken about it. While we're still small, we're growing, and with it a sense that fair and accurate reporting needs to happen by everyone -- corporate media and volunteer/activist media alike. I'm proud to be working with what must now be the thousands of other media activists in the 100+ IMCs that exist around the world. let's keep it up!
Re:Bravo to San Fran Indymedia for doing this (Score:2, Interesting)
Ah, the chant of the faithful.
Or was that the cry of the loon?
if anything, the high tech world needs a serious dose of environmental awareness, power consumption and chip production being the two main things that I'm sure we could come up with very creative solutions to.
Um, we already are, and quite nicely without the help of yahoos like you. The wireless market is the main driver there. Battery technology still sucks white hot chunks, so we need to work with less and less current. The FPGAs I use are down to 1.5V. The I/O voltages are commonly down to 2.5V or less. They'll be powered by quantum foam in a decade or so the way things are going. ;-)
If a server is slashdotted in a forest... (Score:5, Funny)
...does anyone hear it fail?
Falling out (Score:2, Interesting)
Truth is I support some of their argument, but this is not how to do it....plus the laptop up there is throwing doubt on my joy of eliminating the dead weight!
Most of the pot in CA comes from Humboldt (Score:2)
There was a pretty good movie, Homegrown [imdb.com] , about pot growers in Humboldt County.
Highlights (Score:2)
Day twelve: Will no one let it rest that I dreamed I heard chainsaws?
Day twenty-nine: Another fricken squirrel!
Day sixty: I'm just going outside, and I may be some time.
did I miss a memo? (Score:2)
Could someone seriously explain what these people are protesting for? Is it wrong for people to cut down trees?
Trees are burnt to the ground in forest fires, how come people aren't protesting forest fires? I understand that it would be bad if someone were to cut down all the trees, but that wouldn't make much financial sense for a logging company to do that. Is it an age thing? Like an older tree shouldn't be cut down but it is ok to cut down younger trees? What is the criteria for being an older tree?
BTW, what are their platforms made of? Plastic? Metal? Wood?! What about the food they eat? Even if they are vegan, what makes a tree's "life" more sacred than some bean sprout?
Re:did I miss a memo? (Score:5, Interesting)
2. Yes, there are natural forest fires. Nature moves on. But when nature has to absorb the stress of natural deforestation AND man-made deforestation, it can't handle it.
3. The logging companies themselves have no problem clearcutting forests, and then moving on. Suppose you live in a small town of 1,000 people, and Boise Cascade decides to set up shop. They spend 5 years clearcutting all the trees around you, then move on, leaving their abandoned mills, and nothing but dry arid stumpy land. This happens quite a bit. I supposed you don't mind the sight thousands of acres of stumps and dried up land, but many millions of americans enjoy nature.
4. Before you rant about 'everything is made of wood', that's not the point. Some logging companies use sustainable tree farms. This is costly, but eco-groovy. However, we all know it is easier to clear cut old growth than manage your own. Bush lifting national protections is just a field day for loggers to tear through wildlife and destroy at will. Tree sitters are trying to protect the most endangered flora on earth, eg. 1000+ year old forests. If that means nothing to you, then I guess I'm wasting my breath.
5. Next time you're in Arcadia, california, drop by the Sequoia National Park. It looks beautiful on rte 1 while driving, until you hike in a half a mile and witness the stumps as far as the eye can see.
6. When does the greed end? They may not log an entire forest, but ridge-logging effectively destroys everything. Should we just let logging companies blow off sustainability to make an extra buck? Or should we actually do something to protect the shrinking environment?
The issue here is sustainability, and not giving loggers a free pass to clear cut ancient forests.
Again, if you see no value in nature, I'm wasting my breath.
Bloggers vs. Loggers? (Score:2)
Re:One problem, though... (Score:2)
If these people dislike logging so much why don't they simply wait until the fire season and start playing with matches.
Re:One problem, though... (Score:5, Funny)
You don't know how hard I had to resist moderating that as flamebait.
Re:One problem, though... (Score:2)
LOL, Bravo!
Re:One problem, though... (Score:2)
It's perfectly reasonable to question how many people will ever read these blogs (aside from those who are already fully on board the movement). It may be preaching to the choir, but it could also be used as an effective alert system to get "the choir" quickly to the site of illegal action.
I'm sure their will also be a couple members of the more mainstream alternative media (folks like Willamette Week [wweek.com], or even Harper's [harpers.org]) who will spread some of the better stuff to the general public.
Re:Wrong. (Score:2, Insightful)
The kind of changes their trying to make arent gonna be affected by them buying a laptop with manuals and using electricity from non-green sources - they are trying to change everyones opinion
One person changing does fk all - you have to get hundreds or thousands to change
If them making small sacrifices in how they follow their beliefs so that they can get the msg out in a better way, who are you to judge them as hypocrites?
Re:Right. (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, we need wood and paper, but do we really need to cut down ancient redwood forests containing the tallest trees in the world? If managed correctly, tree farms can produce all the pulp that we need.
Re:Right. (Score:2)
New trees will grow to take their place.
Re:Wrong. (Score:4, Insightful)
Most of these people have a hypocritical, short sighted, rose colored view of the world. Instead of sitting in the damn tree maybe they should be negotiating (note not suing) with the logging company to develop their replanting and harvesting strategy. If the protesters were more open minded then maybe they could help loggers take trees out of the forest selectively and leave a variety of ages of trees in an area, plus plant new ones. A consession would probably have to be more low maintenance roads to get into the areas and selectively cut. It baffles me that the choice is either rape the land, or don't touch it. Stewardship of resources is not really discussed or handled, basically because the activists have iron clad belief in not doing anything. It's pretty well proven that when you do that the forest will burn. Of course when you clear cut and then replant trees that are all the same age fire danger can go up as well.
Maybe the solution is actually somewhere in the middle.
Re:Wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not all one sided, of course. But the upper management of LP, the ones with the power to change things, are pretty much all hard set against negotiation - they take a very hard line, and use considerable influence with local government (which is largely corrupt) to get thier way.
Re:Wrong. (Score:2)
Re:Sure, thats fine. But what about.... (Score:3, Insightful)
No, they'd be outcompeted by the guys who don't have the overhead of studying or practicing renewable techniques.
The change has to come from the marketplace or from the government... it's pretty hard to get the marketplace to do anything ethical, and the government is corrupt.
The marketplace won't change for the same reason as industry... only the wealthy can afford to spend ethically, everyone else has to go as cheap as they can.
The government is corrupt IMHO because capitalism broke democracy... through campaign contributions, employing citizens and feeding the taxbase, corporations have too much sway over government.
So how do you fix democracy so that it can take control back from capitalism and focus on what is right for the people? and not for the corporation?
You can't... for the same reason the marketplace and corporations can't change; Changing the government means changing a country and countries must compete on an international scale. Any country to toughen up on its corporations looses domestic jobs and international power.
The only way to recover that power is to build new jobs by slashing down forests, building factory farms etc.
We're all stuck in a rut. Renewable forestry will become popular only when it is either 1. absolutely necessary, or 2. every other country in the world is forced to adopt it due to (1) and the last country to hold out is wealthy enough to choose the ethics they want to practice.
Re:Wrong. (Score:2, Insightful)
Replant? Don't be ridiculous.
Of course there's a kook in every group but by and large these "hypocritical short-sighted" activists you speak of aren't out to ban all logging, renounce all technology, or any other such luddite activity. They just think a happy medium is logging oak or maple trees, not chopping down irreplaceable 2000 year old redwoods to make coffee tables.
Most people think it's fine to eat meat, but would be appalled to see bald eagle and rhinoceros meat at the deli. At minimum the same logic should be applied to threatened irreplaceable two to three thousand year old trees.
You really think they should compromise and let just a few people panel their basements in Sequoia? The idea is disgusting.
Not one redwood. There are plenty of other trees.
Re:Wrong. (Score:3, Informative)
Really. How well do you know them ? Have you actually spoken with a decent number of them or listened to what they are saying ? The environmental activists I have met have been informed, intelligent and realistic, perhaps a bit on the pessimistic side, but often with good reason.
> they should be negotiating (note not suing) with the logging company
What on earth do they have to negotiate with. The logging company is only interested in making as much money as possible. They will invest some of that money for campaign contributions to make sure regulation is kept to a minimum. Costing the logging company money by occupying trees is a mechanism to gain some negotiation power.
> It baffles me that the choice is either rape the land, or don't touch it.
Where the hell did you get that idea ?
Do you think these people spend time, discomfort get beaten half to death by paid goons etc while remaining completely uninformed about everything.
They are not doing it for fun. They have been successfully painted as a bunch of stupid unrealistic hippies by a sophisticated PR industry that manipulates the vast majority of the media. Check out this [prwatch.org] sometime if you want to understand better where you get your views from.
Re:Wrong. (Score:4, Insightful)
She also says:
In short, it sounds like negotiation and criminal and civil litigation have already been attempted and have failed. Their demands do not indicate that they want the lumber industry to stop cutting altogether - she lists four things she'd like to see:
I'm not sure I agree with the first "demand" - I'd have to be given better reasoning than just "it's bad" - so I'll leave that one as being perhaps a little overboard. But I dunno.
I'd hope we can all agree that simple clear-cutting is bad and irresponsible. The lumber industry would actually be better off replanting or leaving enough trees so that the forest can grow back. However, MAXXAM/PL is apparently taking an incredibly short-sited view of things and is going for as much profit short-term as possible, instead of attempting to ensure that they will be able to continue with a source of lumber into the future.
As for herbicides, I'd love to know why a logging company would be spraying herbicides. It would seem to increase the damage from any wildfires (as it would cause there to be more deadwood). I would guess they do it to help clear the underbrush to be able to pull trees out easily? Seems unnecessary and quite possible to be worked around. Not being a logger, I don't know.
The last one again should be just common sense. You know what prevents a large sloped mass of dirt from being a large flowing mass of mud? Roots, be they tree roots or other undergrowth. Remove the trees, the roots die, and then you get mudslides in rainy conditions. But anyone engaging in clear-cutting probably doesn't really care about the land after they've finished exploiting it, so they probably feel fine about letting the area turn into a deathtrap once they've got their wood out. At the very least, one would hope that on slopes with the danger of landslides, lumber companies would either be forced to leave most of the trees and immediately replant around the trees they have removed a new tree and probably grass as a stop-gap measure until the tree matures enough to hold the ground in place.
The solution probably is in the middle, but if you actually read the 'blog, it seems that the logging company is intent on maximizing immediate profits with no concern for what will happen as a consequence.
Re:Wrong. (Score:2)
Read this article [seattleweekly.com] about a really tough fight.
Passion (Score:2)
Re:Wrong. (Score:2)
for example, most tree-huggers are pro-whale and pro-forest. but forests only provide about 10% of the oxygen in the air; most of it is produced by algae in the sea, which, incidentally, is eaten by whales. so if the tree-huggers were really environmentally sound they would be campaigning to have the forests cut down to make harpoons and whaling ships.
Re:Wrong. (Score:2)
And not just any metal; copper smelting is about the nastiest of all industrial processes.
Re:Wrong. (Score:2)
I don't understand why these people aren't just lead away in handcuffs. They're tresspassing. If anybody did that on my property, they'd be looking down the barrel of a gun, and they'd come down out of that damn tree, one way or another.
Re:Wrong. (Score:3, Insightful)
And, of course, the fact that the logging that Pacific Lumber Company is ok, since it doesn't hurt anyone else.
It hasn't filled Humboldt Bay with mud, seriously degrading the habitat for fish, and it hasn't seriously damaged the ability of the watershed to filter and buffer rainfall from storms, which made Freshwater Creek less likely to flood.
The fact that residents of Eureka now see a lot more flooding, and the flooding being directly traceable to the logging [wildcalifornia.org] doesn't matter, does it? The fact that their logging doesn't just affect their private property, but is damaging large amounts of both private and public property isn't important?
I'm sure if you found your PRIVATE PROPERTY was regularly getting flooded and your PRIVATE PROPERTY was being destroyed by the actions of the logging companies, that you'd be a little less likely to say "they're only doing it on their private property, they have that right!"
Massive amounts of logging affect much more than just the land that's logged. So would it be fair to say "Logging is fine until it starts infringing on other people's rights"?? Because that is EXACTLY what this company is doing.
Re:Wrong. (Score:2)
Re:Wrong. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
So you can't be an environmentalist unless you live in a shack, grow your own food, forgo Western medicine, and don't use any technology that you didn't build yourself? That's absurd. I consider myself an environmentalist. I try to minimize my consumption. I think about purchases. I don't own a car. I try to educate others. But I live in a city, I use technology, and I use fossil fuels. Am I hypocrite?
Listen, it's easy to be a critic, but if you've ever seen with your own eyes what these tree sitters are fighting for, you might change your mind. I've been to some of the clearcuts on Vancouver Island, BC. You wouldn't believe the logging practices that went on before the environmental movement helped put a stop to them. There are entire mountains there that have been clearcut bald, from the summit straight into the valleys. Whole landscapes, brown and full of nothing but broken stumps. Soil washed away so nothing will grow back for a long time. It's gastly. But now, clearcuts like these are banned, and sustainable logging is being practiced more and more widely in BC.
These environmentals aren't against the wholesale use of wood, or oil, or technology - don't be silly. That's a false choice. It's in how we do things. Do we drive around town in Hummers, getting 8 miles per gallon, or do we acknowledge that yeah, there's more to living on this planet than unfettered self-gratification, and learn to make due with a smaller car? Or public transit? It's about rationale choices, man.
Re:Wrong. (Score:2)
Okay that's enough of that, I don't believe that shit for a second, but it's fun to yank chains. You're absolutely right that clearcutting is wrong, and I think it should be stopped by any means necessary, up to and including sabotage. Though I fail to see how wooden shoes will help, they're probably made in sweatshops and we come back to the argument that started this thread.
We *do* have a serious problem with disposable electronics in this world, however. Handheld computers, household appliances, and also computers contribute. On the other hand, I expect this trend to taper off, if industry will let it. There are two reasons why it continues. The first is that companies want to SELL SELL SELL you everything they can. That means that they want to make things that break and/or they want to supersede the old equipment so that, in either event, you will buy more. The other issue is that we are just rounding a bend of technology in which computers are becoming able to do all the shit we've seen them do in the movies. Once computers can do all that crap (which is partly a software issue, and partly a bandwidth issue, and yes, we do need a bit more CPU still) then I believe the tendency to throw them away will lessen.
Don't scoff at this person's assertion that by using a computer which DRAMATICALLY increases the world's entropy, usually in ways which pollute or destroy the environment - Do you really believe that the metal in the laptop was acquired any way other than strip-mining? You think that plastic's made out of corn, or hemp? Think again, sparky. The production of everything in that laptop save the silicon (and its production tends to be a fairly noxious process) directly contributes to havoc wreaked on the earth which will render the landscape even more wrecked than clearcutting. I do agree, however, that there's more contrast between the before and after in most cases.
In the end the solution to both is technology; Moving away from using wood to build at all, and going to steel for frames and plastics for everything else; Finding more efficient ways to mine, refine, and recycle steel. Eventually I expect housing to be made out of materials like carbon fiber (getting cheaper all the time) monocoques built in pieces and bolted together for light weight (shipping) and rigidity. More houses will have active floors so they can be lightweight and low-material while still feeling completely rigid.
And even more finally, there ARE people who believe we should go back to living on the farm, practicing sustainable agriculture (IE crop rotation) and do more things by hand. They can screw right off in my opinion, but they do make some good points.
Re:Wrong. (Score:3, Informative)
The fallacy of course, is that these particular trees are very unique. They represent some of the last old-growth coastal redwoods left in the world [wildcalifornia.org]. They are thousands of years old [nps.gov]. There used to be a lot more of them, but they've almost all been cut down [ferngrove.com] over the last century, to make crap like this [centurytel.net].
These trees should not be cut down. There's plenty of non-unique timber out there.
Re:Wrong. (Score:2)
Re:Sounds really interesting (pot/kettle) (Score:4, Insightful)
As opposed to what? All of the really exciting stuff going on in your parent's basement? Since when have weblogs been interesting? Quite hypocritical for someone who probably plays games all day to rip on someone who is trying to help save the environment.
Re:Sounds really interesting (Score:4, Funny)
Had a grand ol time at Pooh Bear and Tiggers pajama party last evening. Things really rocked when the Country Bears stopped by and busted out some tunes. Ol Smokey really put a damper on things at the end though with the whole "only you can prevent forest fires" blog.
Heard about Bambi's mom. Real bummer, Grizzly Adams was really bent out of shape about it, going on and on about the damn recreational hunters.
And a tree fell yesterday. It didn't know I was watching, it made no noise.
Re:Pray for High Winds... (Score:5, Insightful)
They are not as clueless as you are, that's for sure. Chopping down a large part of a forest will destroy the habitat for animals and other species living there, some of which may be very rare.
If you would have read their weblog [contrast.org] you would have known more about why they are protesting.
Re:Pray for High Winds... (Score:2)
Can't we add loggers, lumberjacks, and similar extractivist workers to this extinct species list? If they are unable to adapt to the new environment-conscious society that has evolved in the last few decades they should die.
Re:Wake up! (Score:2, Informative)
Logging companies completely clearcut vast swaths of forest. When they bother to replant, they typically do so with monocultures - a single tree species, which must then be massively fertilized and insecticided to survive. When not clearcutting they select the tallest, straightest, healthiest trees which leads to a degradation of the tree gene pool in the area and shittier trees.
Clearcutting also results in the decimation of streams and habitat for other creatures. Trees also create rain and are the sources of forest streams through transpiration, so clearcutting is also an assault on our water resources.
Modern agriculture is a disaster. We've created a system where we put in more calories of energy into a crop than we can harvest. Simply saying that logging companies are doing 'tree farming' is really a complete condemnation of what they're doing.
It is possible to profitably harvest trees at a sustainable rate that has a negligible effect on the forest. It can even improve the forest by thinning out diseased or damaged trees. Yes, this would result in a somewhat lower supply of trees, but there are many, many methods to reduce tree usage in home construction.
1 house == 1-2 clearcut acres. Is this really the way to go???
Re:Or rather... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Ummmm.. Contradiction (Score:2, Insightful)
I know many such people and almost all of them see technology as the solution for our environmental problems.
If adequate funding was given to clean energy sources then perhaps this dream could become reality. Of course, with GWII in power, oil buddies come first!
Re:Ummmm.. Contradiction (Score:5, Insightful)
However, for all of you who will slam others for their inconsistencies, keep in mind that it is almost impossible to be 100% consistent. Just because someone has decided to choose one area to focus their energies on for some good, and isn't trying to be super(wo)man and fix everything, that should not nullify any truth that is in their message. That should not be pointed out to discredit them, or make you seem smarter. Every bit of good helps.
Re:Not everyone (Score:2)
Re:Not everyone (Score:3, Interesting)
I spent six months up and down a tree sit in australia. Oh, I also work as a sys admin. We ran wires & wireless stuff all around that forrest. We kept up to date websites. And we locked on when they tried to log a bilby breeding ground.
It's a case of science. It's worth pointing down that over half the people at the blockades where uni trained biologists who felt that since the politicians chose to ignore science, something drastic needs to be done. We where joined by a 80yo+ founding member of the liberal party (the conservative party in government) , a catholic nun. We where supported by the farming community and the members of the federal opposition (and a few from government on the quiet) regularly visited.
And not a hair was hurt on anyones head.
Chose your stereotypes wisely my friend
Re:Ummmm.. Contradiction (Score:2)
Put simply: why on earth would someone who is against the logging of a forest be automatically anti-technology?
Re:Ummmm.. Contradiction (Score:2)
Re:Hippies (Score:2)
No it doesn't, at least for the moment (but not for long if Pacific Lumber has their way) it includes giant Redwoods, some of the oldest trees in the world. RTFA before you spew some bullshit about conifers.
Re:Hippies (Score:2, Troll)
Mature Redwoods (like the 200+ year old ones being clear cut by Pacific Lumber) will survive even severe forest fires, read this [fs.fed.us]. However no tree can survive Pacific Lumber's chainsaw. Period. And let's not bullshit about whether they are clear-cutting or just 'clearing out dead wood'. Don't insult everyone's intelligence.
Today we have 100 or 200 year fires every year from the crap in the forests that the forest service and loggers can't remove because of environmentalists.
There are regular prescribed fires [fs.fed.us] in the California forests.
But let's see if I understand what you're saying:
- Environmentalists are preventing forest workers (and loggers) from clearing out 'dead wood'.
- Since 'dead wood' is allowed to pile up, it results in unspeakably horrible forest fires worse than any of those seen before.
- If loggers were allowed to clear cut, then we wouldn't have to worry about bad forest fires! Horray loggers!
If you can spare any, I'd like some of the crack that you're smoking, because it's clearly pretty good. Luckily, common sense tells us that since loggers have only been around for the last couple hundred years, and forests have been around a LOT longer than that, those "terrible, terrible fires" have been happening for millions of years. Luckily, we now have what's called "prescribed burns" that help reduce the naturally intense forest fires into several smaller, less dangerous fires. The smaller fires are not prevented by environmentalists, and allow more trees to survive. But even the larger more sever fires don't (usually) kill the ancient Redwood trees. Nope, only Pacific Lumber has managed to do that.It's people like you that are quicking destroying our planet and making this a barren rock with nothing other than Humans, pets, and house-plants. The environmental damage caused by our race in just the last 100 years is absolutely staggering, and the rate of destruction is only increasing. Sad, really.
Re:Hippies (Score:2, Insightful)
It all started in the sixties, and we're paying the price now. 40 years of dead twigs piling up makes for a hell of a bonfire.
Every summer we sit and watch 3/4 of another state burn down to the ashes, because the forests have become giant tinder boxes.
These forest fires are a direct result of the tree-huggers preventing selective removal of deadwood. 3 cheers for people who self-reightous assholes who dont know what the fuck they're talking about.
Natural selection at work! (Score:2)
On a related note, the sitter in this article named her tree "Jerry". And takers on when she's gonna be the next example of natural selection in action?
Re:Help the Enviornment? (Score:2)
Some redwoods have been alive for a thousand years.
They most certainly don't grow back in "..a few years.."
You must be from the east coast, where they don't have any real trees...
t_t_b
Re:Help the Enviornment? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Help the Enviornment? (Score:2)
Corn and wheat farmers don't cut existing old-growth corn and wheat forests in federal land. They plant their own farms. Instead of cutting existing forests, why doesn't the logging industry buy farmland and plant trees there?
MOD UP (Score:2)
Re:I finally read the article... (Score:2)
Ah, good idea. If you can't dispute what people are saying, then focus on the worst of their crowd, and then you can either, at least, make them all seem like nuts so their position is discredited, or at best, actually convince the general population that you are doing the right thing!
Yep, absolutely true - some environmentalists are getting violent (because previous nonviolent efforts have had little or no effect) so, that must mean they're all crazy and it's perfectly ok to go ahead and clear-cut California! Man, the logic there is unquestionable.