Log in

View Full Version : No Tree Left Behind!



XTC
05-17-2005, 11:38 AM
By Michael Kilian
Chicago Tribune

May 6, 2005

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration took sweeping action yesterday to
open nearly 60 million acres -- about one-third of the national forests
-- to road construction, which in turn could lead to logging, mining
and other commercial use of the previously protected areas.

Though lawsuits are pending over the issue, the plan undoes the
"roadless rule" that President Bill Clinton ordered in 2001 during his last
days in office. The rule had banned further road construction in 58.5
million acres of national forests, nearly all in Western states.

In announcing the new policy, Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns, whose
department includes the U.S. Forest Service, praised it as a
cooperative and collaborative form of conservation.

"Our actions today advance President Bush's commitment to cooperatively
conserve inventoried roadless areas within our national forests,"
Johanns said. He said that his department "is committed to working closely
with the nation's governors to meet the needs of our local communities
while protecting and restoring the health and natural beauty of our
national forests."

However, conservation groups termed it a giant step backward.

"Millions of acres of our last wild forests are now immediately at
risk," said Robert Vandermark, director of the Heritage Forest Campaign,
who pointed out that 386,000 miles of roads already exist in the national
forests. "This leave-no-tree-behind policy paves the way for increased
logging and mining in much of the nation's last wild areas."

Niel Lawrence, senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense
Council, said, "The president has replaced the roadless rule with the
'treeless rule.' He has deprived future generations of their birthright and
national heritage."

Road-building and subsequent commercial uses could be started
immediately in 34.3 million acres because the Forest Service has prepared
management plans. An additional 24.2 million acres could be opened to road
construction and commercial development, but governors have 18 months to
file petitions to restore the "roadless rule" on sections of national
forest in their states, or to offer new plans to allow and manage
commercial uses.

The states would have to work with the Forest Service and localities in
drawing up such plans, and the Forest Service would have final say.

The Agriculture Department said yesterday's action would require the
federal government to "work with states, tribes, local communities and
the public through a process that is fair, open and responsive to local
input and information."

In the past, federal conservation policies and initiatives have led to
clashes with local politicians and interest groups that support
commercial use of the forests to protect jobs and tax bases.

Deb Callahan, president of the League of Conservation Voters,
complained that the Bush administration is "selling out to the logging and
timber industry" and that the president is opposing the will of the public
on the roadless issue.

"To date, the Forest Service has received a record-breaking 4 million
public comments in support of the rule," she said. "The rule also enjoys
broad support among members of Congress, governors, local officials,
businesses, hunters and anglers, scientists, economists and religious
organizations. ... It's time to stop the outrageous assaults on our
national forests."

Lawrence argued that the petition process called for in the Bush
administration's initiative is pointless because ultimate authority over
whether to allow roads and commercial exploitation remains with the
administration.

"The 'treeless rule' is about replacing real protections with a
meaningless process," said the attorney for the Natural Resources Defense
Council.

But logging and union worker interests applauded the change.

W. Henson Moore, president and chief executive of the American Forest
and Paper Association, said the Bush administration has crafted "a
thoughtful, legal and effective plan."

"The courts struck down the Clinton-era rule," Moore said. "This new
rule gives governors the opportunity to work with the Forest Service to
identify special and unique places in their states and then create
broadly supported plans for conservation and preservation."

Michael Draper, vice president of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters'
Western Region and chairman of an umbrella group that represents
500,000 union workers, said: "The new rule returns the decisions that will
guide management of the forests to the local level -- to the people who
live near the land and know it, and its needs, the best."

In announcing the action, the Agriculture Department said the new rule
would remove legal uncertainties that have clouded the issue. In July
2003, a federal district court in Wyoming struck down the Clinton
administration's widespread ban on further road construction in the forests.
That decision was subsequently appealed to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals in Denver, which heard arguments in the case this week.

In 2001, in a separate lawsuit over the rules, logging interests won a
federal court injunction against the Clinton-era rule in an Idaho
court, but that was overturned on appeal by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals in San Francisco.

Thirty-eight 38 states and Puerto Rico have national forest land at
least marginally affected by the roadless rule, but 97 percent of the
acreage lies in Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana,
Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming.

There are no national forests in Maryland. But an advocacy organization
called the Maryland Public Interest Research Group issued a news
release yesterday saying that 1.7 million Americans sent letters last fall
urging the Bush administration not to abandon the Clinton-era
protections.

"Public support of this rule is unmistakable," said Brad Heavner,
director of MaryPIRG. "But the Bush administration has chosen to ignore
millions of comments that citizens have submitted."

The Chicago Tribune is a Tribune Publishing newspaper. Sun staff writer
Tom Pelton contributed to this article.

amsterdam
05-17-2005, 01:30 PM
i love how liberals try to put the enviroment in there corner.we love trees as much as the next guy.

bhallg2k
05-17-2005, 11:17 PM
I think it's hilarious how W's logging plan is called "Healthy Forests" and his deregulation of some air pollution laws is called "Clear Skies."

pisshead
05-18-2005, 02:53 AM
yeah...the name of the program is always the exact opposite of its true intention...it's very orweillian.

homeland security...doesn't keep us safe
patriot act...nothing a patriot would do

amsterdam
05-18-2005, 01:16 PM
what are your ideas about helping the enviroment?

amsterdam
05-18-2005, 01:19 PM
because most people know that the enviromentalist have no real or productive ideas.

XTC
05-18-2005, 01:20 PM
Raise the National Gas Milage by two gallons within a few years.

amsterdam
05-18-2005, 01:24 PM
thats a good start,i am just sick of alot of this organic food growing idea and all the other bs that hurts more than it helps.

Edgar
05-20-2005, 11:19 PM
Grow pot...
Good for da soil
Can be made into fuel
seeds are a healthy foodstuff
fiber for paper (instead of cutting down trees which take much longer to replenish)
Many economic benefits
and a couple of other added benefits. ;)

pisshead
05-21-2005, 04:31 AM
growing organic food is bad?

genetically modified food and pesticides must be good then?

amsterdam
05-23-2005, 01:17 PM
growing organic food is bad?

genetically modified food and pesticides must be good then?


hell yes it is bad.takes up alot of room for hardly any product.waste of time. :D

amsterdam
05-23-2005, 01:50 PM
enviromentalists have NO answers and should be ignored.

amsterdam
05-23-2005, 03:36 PM
funny pissy didnt know hao worthless organic food is.

oh well,thewres a sucker born every minute willing to pay more for "organic food" and bottled water.

pisshead
05-23-2005, 07:57 PM
i'll take natural and organic food over gm pesticide food anyday.

how did the world survive for thousands of years without those gracious gm food corporations. i guess we'll never know.

amsterdam
05-23-2005, 08:04 PM
organic farming consumes large tracts of land to produce very small potatoes and strawberries.high yield farming is vastly more efficient.pesticides and bioengineering produce the most crops out of the least amount of land.when we get higher yields from our farms,we leave more room for wilderness.

pisshead
05-23-2005, 08:11 PM
i don't see a shortage of room for farming. i love going to farmers' markets, and will not eat pesticides...how crazy!

amsterdam
05-23-2005, 08:13 PM
makes sense though.

bhallg2k
05-23-2005, 08:27 PM
Dude, you're just totally off.

Organic farming doesn't waste land. Certain crops grown organically could outproduce tradtional row-planting by four to 12 times over a 10,000 year period. Large row-planting, corporate farms waste thousands of acres of land every year because of having to allow the land to go fallow due to too many chemicals being absorbed into the soil. When you combine that with the fact that those chemicals (as well as now genetically modified manure) seep into the water table, polluting drinking water for people, organic farming is the only kind that makes sense. It's more expensive, yes, because it's more labor intensive.

Hell, I'll pay more for corn if it won't give me cancer and gives someone else a job.

And about bioengineering; three words. Mad Cow Disease.

amsterdam
05-23-2005, 08:32 PM
like i said,ineffective.10,000 years?

bhallg2k
05-23-2005, 08:36 PM
Shocking isn't it? When you remove artificial chemicals from the equation, the Earth has amazing recovering ability.

And organic prices would come down if more people bought organic products. It's still a niche category in most supermarkets.

I don't have figures to support this, but I think that if you were to remove the farm subsidies that keep produce prices down, on equal footing, organic foods would be competitive with - I don't know what to call it - "technology farming."

pisshead
05-23-2005, 08:38 PM
austin just got a giant wholefoods market...the world headquarters of whole foods, which just made it onto the fortune 500 list.

it opened up a couple months ago.

check out the website, it's an incredible place.

amsterdam
05-23-2005, 08:38 PM
i believe technology is the best way to save the enviroment.

pisshead
05-23-2005, 08:41 PM
to save it like this? how on earth did the world survive before all of this wonderful technology was available?

this is one story i've read of dozens in the last couple years. eat up!

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/story.jsp?story=640430

Revealed: health fears over secret study into GM food
Rats fed GM corn due for sale in Britain developed abnormalities in blood and kidneys
By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
22 May 2005


Rats fed on a diet rich in genetically modified corn developed abnormalities to internal organs and changes to their blood, raising fears that human health could be affected by eating GM food.

The Independent on Sunday can today reveal details of secret research carried out by Monsanto, the GM food giant, which shows that rats fed the modified corn had smaller kidneys and variations in the composition of their blood.

According to the confidential 1,139-page report, these health problems were absent from another batch of rodents fed non-GM food as part of the research project.

bhallg2k
05-23-2005, 08:43 PM
i believe technology is the best way to save the enviroment.

Holy shit, we agree.

Clean, green technology is the key. It just makes so much sense. Outside of saving the world, companies invest in people, parts, infrastructure and ideas to create that technology, thus creating jobs across the board, tax revenue and an otherwise big-ass trail of money along the way.

It's perfect. Which is why it'll never happen. :)

amsterdam
05-23-2005, 08:44 PM
i am all for it.

amsterdam
05-23-2005, 08:45 PM
i am also for global warming.its too cold where i am.

pisshead
05-23-2005, 08:46 PM
now that's real capitalism, not this outsourcing fascism we have today masked as capitalism...then people can't tell the difference.

i would love to see that happen. rest assure, until that happens and people realize it needs to happen...there will be lots of suffering.

the food people eat and the air we breathe, as far as i can tell from what i've read, seem to be responsible for the dramatic increase in cancer cases in the last 100 years.

there's cases of peoples' cancer just dissolving away based on radical diet changes, and they didn't start eating GM crap.

amsterdam
05-23-2005, 08:48 PM
im a capitalist.thats what my tat says.

bhallg2k
05-23-2005, 08:49 PM
Oddly enough, global warming (specifically the changing of natural ocean currents and jetstreams) is what's causing it to be so cold. I live near Philly and we haven't seen a day above 80 yet, with average temps around 65. Normally it's in the high 70s this time of year.

amsterdam
05-23-2005, 08:50 PM
well it needs to work the other way around.here in chi-town it is way to cold for may!!

sensiskunk
05-23-2005, 08:56 PM
Oddly enough, global warming (specifically the changing of natural ocean currents and jetstreams) is what's causing it to be so cold. I live near Philly and we haven't seen a day above 80 yet, with average temps around 65. Normally it's in the high 70s this time of year.

That is very true, a lot of scientists are sayin something like "the day after tomorrow" is a possibility, due to the heating and cooling of ocean currents. I dont understand how ppl can deny the fact of Global warming, its extreme denial. My state, AZ ,has been setting record temps since the beginning of May, its fuckin insane hot here, and its only getting hotter. Global Warming is real no matter what GW says, or Bill Oreilly, face reality ppl.

amsterdam
05-23-2005, 09:01 PM
im not to worried about it either.

bhallg2k
05-23-2005, 09:02 PM
That movie, on top of being really bad theatrically, was just stupid from an activism standpoint. The ideas, the science put forth in it are soooo far-fetched, that anyone who sees it and associates it with real Green activism just ingores the cause or writes it off altogether.

I really wish they had made the movie real. People need an illustration of what could be if we don't change the way we live and fast.

But you're right. Global warming does not "need more research." That's more ignorant than anything.

amsterdam
05-23-2005, 09:09 PM
i dont buy into all that.

stoner spirit
05-24-2005, 03:27 AM
I guess those chemicals are really good for you huh? I've allways wondered how weard it would be to have several tumors growing under the skin in various parts of the body, such as the stomach or near your kidnies. No wonder I don't like most fruits and vegitables, because of all the crap that's on them and in them. Oh, those good memories of Austin, getting high as hell, and eating actual vegitables.

amsterdam
05-24-2005, 01:15 PM
I guess those chemicals are really good for you huh? I've allways wondered how weard it would be to have several tumors growing under the skin in various parts of the body, such as the stomach or near your kidnies. No wonder I don't like most fruits and vegitables, because of all the crap that's on them and in them. Oh, those good memories of Austin, getting high as hell, and eating actual vegitables.

you should have gone to college in austin.

people exagerate the risk of pestisides,sure,they arent like vitamins,but you sure as fuck dont develop tumors?