Electric cars are a pipe dream

[Skeptical]

I must back up Electric Fetus here. Deforestation is a bad, bad idea. It is not even the best way to achieve wealth for a nation. It can briefly generate extra wealth, but will, in the long run, be a burden on that nation.

Side effects of deforestation, ironically, include both worsened floods, and worsened aridity. Rainfall is reduced, but on those rarer occasions where a lot of rain falls, there is no forest to hold back the flow of water over land, and floods, landslides, mudflows and so on lead to disaster. Erosion and loss of top soil are accelerated. Crap entering rivers and the sea can smother aquatic and marine life, and lead to a reduction in fisheries resources.

Much better to improve agricultural efficiency on existing farm lands, or develop other economic activities such as industry.

 

[Billy T]

I must back up Electric Fetus here. Deforestation is a bad, bad idea. ...

Does that include when the US did it? I.e. It was a bad idea and we would be better off if from New York state down thru Florida were still forest and that coastal forest extended west to the great plains, where the forest naturally ended?

Or are there special rules for Americans so others can not do what Americans did to create for them selves a better life style as we did. IMHO, only Norway has a right to that POV as they are buying up forests to preserve them. Put your money were your mouth is and do the same.

Your and electric fetus POV is a great example of: "Do as I say, not as I did."

 

[Skeptical]

Billy

What is past is past. No point berating ourselves over what our ancestors did. All we can do is repair the damage as best we can. In this context, the west is actually reafforesting at quite a rapid rate. Only in third world countries is there net deforestation.

 

[Billy T]

Billy

What is past is past. No point berating ourselves over what our ancestors did. ...

I'm not beating myself up about clearing the native forest in the USA -I think that was great and essential. I just don't go along with your and Electricfetus POV that others must not do what we did.

Except for farms developed by united fruit (mainly bananas), there are very few "existing farms" to be improved, made more efficient, in Central American countries. Most of the land is owned by a few. Why there are left-wing revolutions, usually put down with American supplied arms -the most recent being in Honduras where the US backed coup drove the elected president from the country, in his PJs in the middle of the night. Only the US, not one free South American country recognized the military coup leaders as the legitimate government. (Columbia may have as it was then basically a puppet government controlled by the US - they have had an election and torn up the prior government’s agreement to let the US build or expand 11 bases for fighter bombers and started to have normal trade with their neighbor, Venezuela again. etc. Now Columbia to has a "free of US control government.")

If these poor people of Central America could raise an exportable crop, like alcohol for sugar cane on their own small farms, their lives would greatly improve. They would not support the communist and left wingers - farmers never do. You've got yours (forest free productive land) - they have the same right.

 

[ElectricFetus]

I said: They {the poor of central America} "have the same right to cut their forest down for a better life as early Americans did." And you repliedo you realize you are saying that it was ignorance of men like Jefferson etc. to clear the forests in Virginia?

Yes, yes, I am, these were also the men that own dozens of slaves each, ignorance.

If these poor people of Central America could raise an exportable crop, like alcohol for sugar cane on their own small farms, their lives would greatly improve. They would not support the communist and left wingers - farmers never do. You've got yours (forest free productive land) - they have the same right.

Our forest were not the most bio-diverse, carbon sequestering systems on the planet.
Our forest yielded to futile farmland, rainforest soil is very poor and becomes useless within a few growing seasons.
Our founding fathers had no other options, let alone better options, unlike the Brazilians.

 

[Billy T]

Yes, yes, I am, these were also the men that own dozens of slaves each, ignorance.

Actually if memory serves me, Jefferson freed his slaves. But that was a different era and I am not claiming he made no mistakes (dam few I think though). I was just pointing out how silly it is to believer it was a mistake / ignorance to clear the forest of the USA, which stretched, unbroken from the Atlantic coast to the mid-west's great plains.

We are not discussing the general level of wisdom (or ignorance) -only the clearing of forests. You are trying a "duck and weave" by bringing up other areas of possible ignorance. One of Jefferson's was that he "thought New England scientists would lie* more likely than stones would fall from the sky."

* Some had reported seeing and later recovering a meteorite.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Actually if memory serves me, Jefferson freed his slaves.

Oh goody so If I owned you and impregnated you, and then let you go its all forgiven?

But that was a different era and I am not claiming he made no mistakes (dam few I think though).

Different era, hum wonder if that has anything to do with the morality of chopping down ones own nations natural treasures?

I was just pointing out how silly it is to believer it was a mistake / ignorance to clear the forest of the USA, which stretched, unbroken from the Atlantic coast to the mid-west's great plains.

The forest of the USA were of great value then as wood and land, the Rainforests of Brazil are of greater value today as Rainforests.

 

[Billy T]

Oh goody so If I owned you and impregnated you, and then let you go its all forgiven?

Read his will. As I recall it sets them all free.

... Different era, hum wonder if that has anything to do with the morality of chopping down ones own nations natural treasures?

It is an economic issue not a moral one IMHO, but lets grant that it is a moral one. Then you are claiming the right to impose your morality on the poor of Central America.

I think it immoral to burn oil for heat as that can never be replaced and future generations will miss it - it has much better uses. Forest can be replaced.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Read his will. As I recall it sets them all free.

And? So? Does that make it OK that he own and fucked slaves?

 

[Billy T]

And? So? Does that make it OK that he own and fucked slaves?

More "duck and weave." If you can't stick the the forest discussion I won't be replying, even tomorrow. I am going to bed now (three hours later here than EDT)

 

[ElectricFetus]

Read his will. As I recall it sets them all free.It is an economic issue not a moral one IMHO, but lets grant that it is a moral one. Then you are claiming the right to impose your morality on the poor of Central America.

If its an economic issue then the rainforest must stay, the rainforest are worth more as rainforest then the dry savannah they will become if cut down. If its a moral issue yes we can impose our morality to some extent, just like we chastise countries for human rights violations. Cutting down the rainforest will likely produce an ecological and environmental disaster that will affect the whole of the world, so I think we all deserve so say in it.

I think it immoral to burn oil for heat as that can never be replaced and future generations will miss it - it has much better uses. Forest can be replaced.

Not the Rainforest, once its gone, its gone. The Rainforest generates its own weather to keep it wet, once it goes the feedback system will be broken and northern Brazil will become dry savannah, maybe even worse.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/329/5998/1513.abstract
http://books.google.com/books?id=QwPjF2Az1LkC&lpg=PP2&ots=MAXbbrZjLX&dq

 

[ElectricFetus]

More "duck and weave." If you can't stick the the forest discussion I won't be replying, even tomorrow. I am going to bed now (three hours later here than EDT)

Your one that made a whole post that talked sole about Jefferson!

 

[adoucette]

wonder if that has anything to do with the morality of chopping down ones own nations natural treasures?

They are trees, they are not natural treasures.

Not only that, you cut them down and they friggin grow back.

And YES, it did make sense to cut the trees down, they were used to build our houses, ships and wagons, provided the fuel for our hearths and our industry and when cleared away and not allowed to grow back, they allowed us to grow huge quantities of food for our people and make places for our people to live.

Arthur

 

[ElectricFetus]

They are trees, they are not natural treasures.

Not only that, you cut them down and they friggin grow back.

Not the rainforest, it won't grow back.

And YES, it did make sense to cut the trees down, they were used to build our houses, ships and wagons, provided the fuel for our hearths and our industry and when cleared away and not allowed to grow back, they allowed us to grow huge quantities of food for our people and make places for our people to live.

As I stated already in post #827, but the rainforest is not the American great woods, and has more value as untouched rainforest then cut down and reduce to dry savannah.

 

[adoucette]

Not the rainforest, it won't grow back.

Sure it would.

As I stated already in post #827, but the rainforest is not the American great woods, and has more value as untouched rainforest then cut down and reduce to dry savannah.

More value to whom?

Besides Brazil has an enormous amount of rain forest, roughly 5,500,000 km² and their annual deforestation is only running about 11,000 km2 year.

Arthur

 

[quadraphonics]

I am not suggesting Ohio be re-forested.

That wouldn't even make sense anyway: Ohio has been undergoing reforestation for over 60 years now. Supposedly 1/3 of the entire land area is now forest (up from about 10% at the end of WWII when reforestation began), and this proportion is still growing. Other states in that part of the country exhibit similar stories.

Granted, Ohio will never return to the 95% forest that it's estimated to have been before mass settlement. But they are pretty aggressive about reforesting where they can - and that's a pretty significant area given the ongoing emmigration out of Ohio has pretty much stalled their population growth.

 

[quadraphonics]

They are trees, they are not natural treasures.

The ecosystems they harbor are global treasures.

Not only that, you cut them down and they friggin grow back.

But the various species you make extinct in the process do not.

 

[adoucette]

The ecosystems they harbor are global treasures.



But the various species you make extinct in the process do not.

There's no particular reason to believe that cutting down 11,000 km2 out of over 5,500,000 km sq would cause any particular specie to go extinct unless that particular area of the rainforest was uniquely different than some other area, but the areas they are cutting down tend to be in flat areas that are not unique nor provide barriers to specie movement, so while a possible issue, not likely a big one.

If you don't agree, then simply list 10 species in the Rain Forest that have been made extinct by cutting down of the forest (as opposed to trapping/hunting etc).

You will find that you can't.

Indeed, you will find that estimates of extinctions are widely exaggerated and are based on a deeply flawed hypothesis presented by E O Wilson, but never proven in any field studies.

Arthur

 

[Skeptical]

Arthur

That argument is quite correct, of course. But there are much better reasons not to cut down tropical rainforest.

EF gave some of them.
1. End result is worthless savannah.
2. Loss of rainforest changes climate - reducing rainfall.
3. Loss of rainforest permits the odd heavy rain to turn to floods, landslides, mudslides etc.
4. Loss of rainforest permits loss of top soil - big time.
5. Loss of rainforest is the loss of forest resources, such as the vital brazil nut tree. Also, even though it does not, by itself, cause extinctions, it will reduce animal populations, making them more vulnerable to extinction from other causes.
6. Loss of rainforest is a blow to forest tribes of people, who depend on the rainforest for their lifestyle. Illegal loggers, in fact, have a long history of making war on such people, and committing widespread murders.
7. Loss of rainforest opens up access to rainforest, permitting poaching.
etc.

 

[adoucette]

I'd tend to think that rainforest turned to cropland is just as effective as the forest for almost all those things you mentioned, and for instance, one can create a grove of Brazil nut trees and that takes care of all of them, since farming would actually put a physical barrier between the populated areas and the forest, it could be good for the inhabitatants.

In any case, the rainforest is mainly a Brazil issue and I actually trust the people of Brazil to know more about it and manage it than a bunch of Yankees who for the most part have never set foot in it.

Arthur