Environmentalists fan the flames of hell

[Jenny AU-92 0]

I wonder how these fanatical greenies would feel if it were THEIR houses going up in smoke? I consider myself somewhat green - I recycle, I think forests and uninhabited areas should be preserved and protected for future generations to enjoy - but once again, there is a RIGHT way and a WRONG way to co-exist peacefully with Mother Nature. These loons need to wake up and smell the smoke. Heck, even Diane Finestein supports clearing!!!

Environmentalists fan the flames of hell

Ben Shapiro

October 29, 2003

A wall of smoke. When I opened the window on Saturday afternoon, the horizon was completely obscured by a thick, black, ominous tidal wave of smoke and ash. The air was heavy with the pungent odor of burning trees in the distance. Ash fell lightly on the street. At that point, I was a full 15 miles from the fires raging through Simi Valley in California.

For one of my friends, the situation posed a far greater threat. She lives in Simi Valley, and her home was threatened by the flames. Out of her window, she could actually see the raging fires. On Sunday and Monday, she packed her pictures, her books and any other items of value into her car, waiting to see whether her house would be burned. Thanks to the skill of firefighters and a bit of good luck with the weather, her house escaped damage.

Others were not so lucky. As of Tuesday morning, over 1,100 homes had been burned, 500,000 acres had gone up in smoke, thousands of buildings were without power, and 15 people had been killed, several of them residents who refused to leave their homes until it was too late.

The California wildfires are a tragedy of monumental proportions. As with most other tragedies, however, the situation is not without its share of blame. A large portion of the blame must be laid at the feet of the radical environmental movement.

Environmental lobbyists wield tremendous power in the state of California. Environmental restrictions are stricter here than virtually anywhere else the world. As William Clay Ford Jr., chairman and chief executive of the Ford Motor Co., explained: "In California, people used to write songs about T-Birds and Corvettes. Today, they write regulations."

In the great state of California, environmentalists oppose national legislation designed to save forests: clear-cutting. Clear-cutting is a practice of thinning forests and other wooded areas. Clear-cutting prevents small forest fires from turning into massive ones; wildfires must have a constant source of fuel, and discarding dry tinder diminishes that supply.

Even Sen. Dianne Feinstein, hardly a right-wing anti-environmentalist, supports clear-cutting. On Oct. 2, Feinstein proposed a compromise in the Senate that would allow a national clear-cutting program, HR 1904 Healthy Forests Restoration Act, to be implemented. "With 57 million acres of federal land at the highest risk of catastrophic fire, including 8.5 million acres in California, it is critical that we protect our forests and nearby communities," Feinstein stated.

Environmentalists naturally opposed any sort of clear-cutting. In their view, when man comes into conflict with nature, man must give way, even if massive forest fires and environmental damages ensue. The Sierra Club Web site still tells readers that it is a myth that "Salvage logging after forest fires is needed to remove dead trees to prevent future fires." Rather, it says, "Trees downed by forest fires provide habitat for wildlife and nutrients needed to help keep forests healthy." Greenpeace avers: "Natural and controlled forest fires are integral to the health of all forests. They restore nutrients to the soil, create habitat for fish and wildlife and help eliminate the smaller brush and saplings that compete with the forests' large and fire-resistant trees."

As of Tuesday, the Sierra Club and Greenpeace Web sites contained no mention of the forest fires raging out of control in California.

Ironically, environmentalists oppose clear-cutting and promote forest fires even though forest fires are the sources of materials most dangerous to air quality -- far more dangerous, in fact, than the smog environmentalists fret over ad infinitum. The California government has issued a health alert for the Southern California area.

According to government officials, anyone who can see, taste or smell smoke should stay indoors. Schools in the region have been told to keep children inside rather than allowing outdoor sports. The smoke caused by the California wildfires contains hundreds of natural chemicals and gases, including formaldehyde and carbon monoxide. The smoke also contains microscopic particles that are easily inhaled into the lungs, where they often become permanently lodged. Those who prolong their exposure to particulate pollution may experience retarded lung growth.

Meanwhile, some Senate Democratic pawns of the environmentalist movement continue to stall President Bush's Healthy Forests Restoration Act. At the start of October, Senate Democrats threatened to filibuster HR 1904, forcing advocates to find 60 votes in order to pass the bill. The prospects for passing HR 1904 look good. Unfortunately, it's too little too late for those in California who tensely wait and watch as the wall of smoke draws ever nearer.

[BamaGrad03 0]

wow....you really can't argue that but one way.

[Jenny AU-92 0]

wow....you really can't argue that but one way.

Hence the silence from the pinko commie liberal side of our little gathering.

[CShine 0]

Still waiting for the link to your source.

Nonetheless, even without seeing the original source, I can tell you that this guy's rant is a bald-faced lie.

In the great state of California, environmentalists oppose national legislation designed to save forests: clear-cutting. Clear-cutting is a practice of thinning forests and other wooded areas.

Clear-cutting is most definitely NOT the practice of thinning forested areas. It is the practice of levelling them completely and removing ALL trees. For this writer to suggest that clear-cutting is designed to SAVE forests has got to be one of the most hilariously ignorant things I've ever seen. Clear-cutting doesn't save them. It ELIMINATES them. Why do you think they call it CLEAR-cutting? It literally CLEARS the land.

Whoever this writer is, either he's deliberately lying or he just doesn't have any idea what he's talking about. I would be curious to see what sort of site came out with this laugher.

[Weagle98 119]

You are correct, the writer of the article erred in his terminology. However he is correct in his overall analysis. He should have stated thining instead of clear cutting. The state parks around where i live control burn every couple of years. CShine do you have any other argument to the article's intent other than the authors obvious mistake in terminology.

[CShine 0]

I can't help but notice that there is no quote anywhere in the article where any of the people mentioned say that they oppose the thinning of forests. The author makes the ridiculus suggestion that they do oppose thinning, but none of the quotes he provides say anything of the sort.

It looks to me like this author dreamed up this whole thing in his head. Does anybody see EVEN ONE direct quote in the article that backs up his analysis? I sure don't see it.

[CShine 0]

Jenny,

Never mind about giving us that link. I just googled it.

Whadda surprise to see that it comes from that haven for right-wing hacks, townhall.com. From the picture of this guy, he looks so young that I wonder if he's even in high school yet. Maybe he needs to go back to school and learn a thing or two about writing articles that are actually backed up by the facts. I'm always amazed to see rants like this that are not even backed up by a single one of the quotations that the author himself provides. You'd think that he could figure out this problem for himself, but after seeing the stuff that gets published by townhall on a regular basis, I'm really not surprised. For them, shoddily researched, hack commentary that has no earthly basis in fact is really par for the course.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/benshapiro/welcome.shtml

[Jenny AU-92 0]

There you go - bash the source, not the science. Isn't that the Democratic way?? Ben SHapiro may be a conservative, but he is first hand witness to something going on around him and affecting his life and the lives of his friends. Politics has nothing to do with that.

See, I can Google too. Here are a TON of articles about how the greenies have BLOCKED THINNING EFFORTS. This site has a chronology of just how this problem has come into being and has gotten so out of control. I think you will find that the SCIENCE is sound. And part of thinning is actually removing TREES - creating CLEARINGS to allow for trees to SPREAD OUT when they grow instead of growing on top of one another, not only creating a fire hazard but creating unhealthy trees as they fight for soil and nutrients.

Forest Fires

The Arizona Tribune did a four part article on thinning programs.

Lawsuits stall thinning

I especially love the comment in one article that "Big trees aren't necessarily "old growth" trees" - which is a phrase greenies like to throw around a lot.

Forest thinning proves its worth

Seems to me, IN MY OPINION, that some of these environmental whackos are probably HAPPY that homes are being destroyed so Mother Nature can have her planet back - and don't tell me there aren't people out there who think that way.

[CCTAU 3,342]

Bush proposed this as soon as he hit office and the tree huggers had a fit. They would rather trade human lives for trees.

The practice of clear-cutting being discussed is cutting swaths through the forest wide enough that the fire can't jump. ITS NOT CUTTING EVERY TREE IN SIGHT. Get a clue Cshine!

This process has been proven to work in other areas. If the fire cannot jump sectors, then it dies out. Thanks to you and your greeny tree huggers, we now have at least 20 dead humans. And the trees are still dying. Why don't you and your bunch go chain yourself to the trees now to protest God's burning of the forest?

[CShine 0]

I will go on record saying that I support forest thinning. I have even been present at some controlled burns on private land and agree that thinning practices have a useful purpose.

That said, my criticsim of Shapiro's piece is spot-on. He is obviously misinformed about what clear cutting is, and produces no evidence at all of any groups or individuals that oppose thinning.

The links you provided later, Jenny, are more informative. I invite you to read them more deeply. They do not say that these groups oppose thinning. Quite the contrary, it says they tend to support it. What these stories tell us is that environmental groups frequently sue the Forest Service when it fails to follow the law. This quote says it well.

Taylor McKinnon of the Grand Canyon Trust, a Flagstaff group with a long record of working with the Forest Service on thinning projects, said the agency is frequently challenged because it is inept at following the law.

Rather than rewrite the law, the Forest Service needs to bring in specialists on the legal requirements and changing court edicts when thinning projects are planned, McKinnon said. That would prevent the mistakes in documentation or procedures that typically derail agency plans, he said.

"What’s slowing these projects down is an understaffed Forest Service that is committing errors in the planning process, errors that are creating a legitimate basis for appeals and litigation," McKinnon said. "Once the Forest Service is following the law, then maybe let’s have a discussion.

http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/index.php?sty=3895

These groups oppose bureaucratic abuses of the law, not thinning. This is basically a problem of a bloated bureaucracy that's not working right. The lawsuits come from the Forest Service's failure to go by the laws that are on the books. These people do NOT oppose thinning. They oppose bureaucratic bungling. I think we can all agree that bureaucracies that fail to follow the law are failing to serve the public as Congress and the people intended.

[CShine 0]

The practice of clear-cutting being discussed is cutting swaths through the forest wide enough that the fire can't jump. ITS NOT CUTTING EVERY TREE IN SIGHT. Get a clue Cshine!

You're just wrong. That's not what clear cutting is. At no point on this thread has anyone or any story discussed the cutting of swaths through the forest. And by the way, that tactic is called a fire break. I know of no one who opposes their use in firefighting. It is universally recognized as a legitimate procedure in fighting ongoing fires. I certainly don't see anything anywhere in this thread that says anyone opposes them.

If you want to learn about the true nature of clear cutting then you should google those two words and you'll get more than plenty of articles that tell you what a clear cut REALLY is: a complete clearing of the land.

[CCTAU 3,342]

The practice of clear-cutting being discussed is cutting swaths through the forest wide enough that the fire can't jump. ITS NOT CUTTING EVERY TREE IN SIGHT. Get a clue Cshine!

You're just wrong. That's not what clear cutting is. At no point on this thread has anyone or any story discussed the cutting of swaths through the forest. And by the way, that tactic is called a fire break. I know of no one who opposes their use in firefighting. It is universally recognized as a legitimate procedure in fighting ongoing fires. I certainly don't see anything anywhere in this thread that says anyone opposes them.

If you want to learn about the true nature of clear cutting then you should google those two words and you'll get more than plenty of articles that tell you what a clear cut REALLY is: a complete clearing of the land.

Excuse me, Mr. Dumbass (I use that as better than you deserve), I have worked in the pulp and paper industry so I know a few things. I also looked into the process by which Bush proposed these tactics. And no, in this case, they are not called fire-breaks. This is a preventative, ever heard of that, method BEFORE the freaking fires start. Just like all idiot whackos, you want to wait until its too late to do anything. And then its still the current admins fault.

I will explaing one again what the proposal was:

It was to create natural breaks in the forests so that fires could not spread over the whole forest. Yes, these would be logged, it would be stupid to cut the trees and let them rot, and then in many areas, the dense parts would be thinned. There was never any mention of clear-cutting whole forest.

Go hug your tree or what ever you do, and let the non-whackos try to "manage" the forests so that "PEOPLE" don't die.

[MDM4AU 336]

It is so amusing to see CShine attack a source and call it "right-winged" as though all his sources are the epitome of objective! WHat a joke!!!!