next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
on<br&g
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------47288D4D223DEB0B9632CF65
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Hi Richard & All,
Such questions merge with theology as in "Am I my brother's keeper
?" and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, which contrary to
conventional interpretations, made the point that other people have a
right to life.
But there is no need to look beyond Canada to find genuine want;
some are homeless year round.
Respect for nature is essential for spiritual and mundane reasons
but one should be wary of demonizing some practice such as logging. And
this surfaces on NatureNS from time to time.
I do not have time to dig out the reference now but an official
Canada wide survey a few years ago showed that the area of woodland
temporarily deprived of tree cover due to fire, insects or tree death
was 21 times as great as the area due to cutting. Tree loss due to wind
was not included perhaps because it would be more difficult to measure.
And to that picture you should add the recent extensive fires in
Alberta this year.
For those who do not remember their grade school math this also
shows that standing timber is not a reliable way to store carbon. "Heed
not the rattle of a distant drum".
The most effective way to reduce atmospheric CO2 is to use timber
to displace use of fossil fuels.
Dave Webster, Kentville
On 6/18/2019 11:01 AM, Richard Stern wrote:
> Preaching to the choir ......... I'm sure everyone in this and similar
> groups already feel as I do, that habitat is vital to migratory birds
> all along their migration route, and that I enjoy birds because
> they're interesting, beautiful, challenging to ID and photograph, are
> harbingers of environmental change, etc. etc., and that enjoying the
> great outdoors is pleasurable to middle class people like myself. So
> how do you justify/ explain their value in these terms to somebody
> whose livelihood and that of their family depends on working in a pulp
> mill, or an open pit mine, in NS, when there are no other jobs around,
> or engineering a condo block on the Gulf Coast, or growing his meagre
> crop of wild rice in Venezuela, etc. etc. - all of which are threats
> to the migratory birds that nest here in NS? I ask this because I
> recently had a conversation with someone who works in Brazil, and is a
> supporter of the new president (who is a worse environmentalist than
> Trump), but who told me that all his co-workers support him because he
> promises to improve their standard of living, and the long term
> environment somewhere else on the planet is not really relevant to
> their humdrum and poor quality daily lives, --- and I couldn't think
> of any convincing answers. How do others address this issue?
>
> Richard
>
>
> --
> #################
> Richard Stern,
> Port Williams, NS, Canada
> sternrichard@gmail.com <mailto:sternrichard@gmail.com>
> ###################
--------------47288D4D223DEB0B9632CF65
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Hi Richard & All,</p>
<p> Such questions merge with theology as in "Am I my brother's
keeper ?" and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, which
contrary to conventional interpretations, made the point that
other people have a right to life. <br>
</p>
<p> But there is no need to look beyond Canada to find genuine
want; some are homeless year round. <br>
</p>
<p> Respect for nature is essential for spiritual and mundane
reasons but one should be wary of demonizing some practice such as
logging. And this surfaces on NatureNS from time to time. <br>
</p>
<p> I do not have time to dig out the reference now but an
official Canada wide survey a few years ago showed that the area
of woodland temporarily deprived of tree cover due to fire,
insects or tree death was 21 times as great as the area due to
cutting. Tree loss due to wind was not included perhaps because it
would be more difficult to measure. <br>
</p>
<p> And to that picture you should add the recent extensive fires
in Alberta this year. <br>
</p>
<p> For those who do not remember their grade school math this
also shows that standing timber is not a reliable way to store
carbon. "Heed not the rattle of a distant drum".</p>
<p> The most effective way to reduce atmospheric CO2 is to use
timber to displace use of fossil fuels. <br>
</p>
<p>Dave Webster, Kentville<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/18/2019 11:01 AM, Richard Stern
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAAwXBYfjUyf9KYeT14zaOYnaxLCH5UxYTj_-SsgPe2ME9xzuzw@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">Preaching
to the choir ......... I'm sure everyone in this and similar
groups already feel as I do, that habitat is vital to
migratory birds all along their migration route, and that I
enjoy birds because they're interesting, beautiful,
challenging to ID and photograph, are harbingers of
environmental change, etc. etc., and that enjoying the great
outdoors is pleasurable to middle class people like myself.
So how do you justify/ explain their value in these terms to
somebody whose livelihood and that of their family depends
on working in a pulp mill, or an open pit mine, in NS, when
there are no other jobs around, or engineering a condo block
on the Gulf Coast, or growing his meagre crop of wild rice
in Venezuela, etc. etc. - all of which are threats to the
migratory birds that nest here in NS? I ask this because I
recently had a conversation with someone who works in
Brazil, and is a supporter of the new president (who is a
worse environmentalist than Trump), but who told m