dagblog - Comments for "The Lorax, Earth Day schlock"

Excellent point about the

Verified Atheist — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 23:16:36 +0000

In reply to Lumber companies that depend

Excellent point about the biological diversity. Even the "good" lumber companies most likely fail in that regard, since it's entirely possible (but not guaranteed) that they won't need the diversity. If they do end up at a point where they get burnt for not having it (e.g., because of a particularly virulent disease that targets a single species), their catastrophic insurance would probably kick in.

I remember a tour guide,

Resistance — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 22:25:28 +0000

In reply to Lumber companies that depend

I remember a tour guide, pointing out to the group; Weyerhaeuser had been allowed to plant trees in specific areas, after the Mt. St. Helens, eruption.

Years later, the diversity in the unclaimed areas; as opposed to the managed Weyerhaeuser areas; is significantly better.

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/mtsthelens/research/index.shtml

http://sciencebitz.com/?page_id=42

The crying Indian commercial

Elusive Trope — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 22:00:48 +0000

In reply to The Lorax, Earth Day schlock

The crying Indian commercial probably did more than the Lorax to awakened my environmental consciousness

Lumber companies that depend

Elusive Trope — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 21:56:57 +0000

In reply to An interesting piece, and

Lumber companies that depend on a set amount of land to harvest, and thus are rewarded for utilizing sustainable practices which produce multiple yields over a long period of time, will be motivated to be good stewards of the land.

Multinational corporations that purchase a plot of land and seek to maximize profits from a single harvest that will exceed the initial investment will not be good stewards of the land.

I totally agree with the assertion:

It's the worst kind of propaganda parading as anti-propaganda, because it has just enough truth to resonate with a certain group of people.

One the key facets about this issue that is ignored is that it strictly focuses on the trees, as if a forest is just the sum of the trees existing.

What matters is biological diversity. Trees play a critical role, but are just one player among many. Certain methods, namely clearcutting, can wipe out this diversity, so that even when newly planted trees grown back, they whole watershed has been damaged (soil erosion to lost of nesting sites).

I love the Lorax! And

Richard Day — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 02:31:00 +0000

In reply to The Lorax, Earth Day schlock

I love the Lorax!

And speaking of the Wasteland...

We have coal companies cutting off mountain tops and screwing up the ground water and fracking causing earthquakes (and screwing up the ground water) and drilling causing problems with the on-top water and...

Honestly, I think too many Americans really think that drinking water comes from plastic factories who seek ice bergs for the filler!

Oh well....

Let me take a quick look and see what Pudge Luntz has found in his complete investigations upon the subject!

An interesting piece, and

Verified Atheist — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 00:06:46 +0000

In reply to The Lorax, Earth Day schlock

An interesting piece, and it's the worst kind of propaganda parading as anti-propaganda, because it has just enough truth to resonate with a certain group of people.

It's true that many lumber companies are excellent stewards of the forests their livelihood depends on. In my experience (i.e., this is not backed up by statistics), lumber companies that are privately owned and have been controlled by the same people for generations tend to be good stewards, because they care about what kind of company (and possibly world) they're going to leave to their children. However, lumber companies that belong to big conglomerates tend to care more about next quarter's bottom line. These are the lumber companies who don't display any interests in a forest's long term viability.