Report On Earth's Dwindling Resources

[Guest fledgling666]

https://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/03/30...reut/index.html

The study, by 1,360 experts in 95 nations, said a rising human population had polluted or over-exploited two thirds of the ecological systems on which life depends, ranging from clean air to fresh water, in the past 50 years.

of course, not a lot of facts in the article, itself, so, anybody got any more info?

the thing is, i know for a matter of fact that in the US, there are reforestation measures being taken, as well as forest management to prevent fires and whatnot, but from what i can gather, that this is not the case in many Central and South American countries, in Africa, in Asia, Australia, Russia, or Europe, except maybe in small pockets in these areas. granted the US movements are slow, but relatively steady.

now, some of you may remember that i'm a 4 wheeler. i just want to make it clear that i disagree with environmental fanaticism, for the most part, but that i am all for conservation, as long as it conserves everything to every creature for every purpose as best as it can, meaning that humans still deserve their rights as well as animals, and that plants need to be protected from unnecessary harm as well, when speaking of land access and use. i agree completely that much more needs to be done around the globe to curb the loss of forest lands, fresh water lakes and rivers, desert areas, wetlands, deltas and mountains so that these areas can continue to provide their various resources. i, do not, however, believe that this means putting a fence around it and keeping humans out. just my .02

[hippyroo]

more factless shrill from the the envirowacos... do they do it on purpose or are they really just stupid?

[gravity well]

https://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/03/30...reut/index.html

of course, not a lot of facts in the article, itself, so, anybody got any more info?

the thing is, i know for a matter of fact that in the US, there are reforestation measures being taken, as well as forest management to prevent fires and whatnot, but from what i can gather, that this is not the case in many Central and South American countries, in Africa, in Asia, Australia, Russia, or Europe, except maybe in small pockets in these areas. granted the US movements are slow, but relatively steady.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs...rdstatement.pdf

It was stated in the main article that the report itself runs to about 2500 pages.

And if you're referring to the "Healthy Forests" bill, I wouldn't exactly call that a wonderful piece of environmental legislation. Then again, this administration doesn't care one bit unless it's bill that lines pockets. I'm probably more of an environmentalist than you are, but our common theme is probably the same. You cannot fence off the entire world from humanity, but you can go after pollutants and ridiculous strains on natural resources. If there was SERIOUS conservation and actual consequences for polluters, there would be a sizable improvement.

[Guest fledgling666]

more factless shrill from the the envirowacos... do they do it on purpose or are they really just stupid?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

believe me, i completely understand where you're coming from with this remark. i have had to deal with it since i became an off-highway vehicle enthusiast, so, for at least 8 years. funny though, prior to that i had been more of an environmentalist wacko, like so many i condemn today. i struggled with myself about what i felt was more important and what won out was sensibility. i believe there is damage being done, i believe we can do something to help stop and reverse some of the damage, i believe it is nowhere near as bad as some of the enviro-wackos say it is. however, i believe that the fix is not to cordan off millions of acres of public land from the public, just to stop people from driving on it. polluters and deforesters are, in my book, among the major factors in the damage being done. as far as forestry bills that allow some cutting and management of undergrowth? well, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. it just needs to be moderated and there needs to be attachments to provide for replanting, reforestation, and management. for polluters, there needs to be regulations that don't cripple them, but create incentives for them to clean up the pullutants they discharge. in doing so, there also needs to be incentives for them to stay in the US while they are cleaning up their pollutants, otherwise, they get the hint they have to spend some money to clean up and they jump on over to china so they don't have to.

the article states that over a thousand scientists agree SOME measures need to be taken. i tend to agree when that many people more educated than i am say something. that doesn't necessarily mean that i agree to the fullest extent of it, but agree that the problem exists, not necessarily in the capacity they say it does, but simply that it does. luckily, i can have a little comfort in knowing that i am but a tiny contributer to the matter what with my 4-cylinder engine and the way i 'wheel (i am a firm believer and follower of "Tread Lightly" principals). but this isn't about me, its about all of us. including you environmentalists- how do you help?

[gravity well]

i believe that the fix is not to cordan off millions of acres of public land from the public, just to stop people from driving on it. as far as forestry bills that allow some cutting and management of undergrowth? well, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. it just needs to be moderated and there needs to be attachments to provide for replanting, reforestation, and management.  but this isn't about me, its about all of us. including you environmentalists- how do you help?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In all honestly, you might be the first off-road fan I've ever heard that believes people shouldn't be driving on public lands. I agree 100%. I love to experience nature. You don't need gas-guzzling polluters, and I'm thinking specifically of snowmobiles in Yellowstone, for example, to do that.

And again, I agree about forest management, but the Healthy Forests bills, and others, are merely designed to help the timber industry. We all use wood, this is understood, but there are more environmentally-friendly ways to do it.

How do environmental wackos like me help? Countering the arguments of the capitalist wackos for starters. Heh. Public transportation to work, my wife and I separate cans and papers, etc for the garbage. Unfortunately, not enough towns have ANY kind of recycling program, so in that way, we're lucky. Conservation is a must. Don't turn the heat up if you're cold, put on a sweater. The little things can add up if enough people did it. The average household is going to generate a lot of waste. I just think more can be done with the individual, and with the industries of the world. Your point about those industries is spot on. I don't want them obliterated, but more than a slap on the wrist is required, and the punishments should be severe. They're making money. People go on about the doom-and-gloom environmentalists, yet nary a word is heard about similar sentiments with corporations. Not an earth issue, per se, but the bankruptcy bill. Oh, frivolous lawsuits, debt, poor MBNA. These companies have record profits. As do the oil companies. Ah well, I could rant all day about this.

[Guest fledgling666]

In all honestly, you might be the first off-road fan I've ever heard that believes people shouldn't be driving on public lands. I agree 100%. I love to experience nature. You don't need gas-guzzling polluters, and I'm thinking specifically of snowmobiles in Yellowstone, for example, to do that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

um, you misunderstood me, what i was saying is that i DONOT believe that fencing off public lands IN ORDER TO KEEP people from driving on it is going to fix anything.

public lands are for public use or publicly voted use, as far as my opinion on the matter. if the public votes to close a section to all vehicle traffic, fine, but it must still be accessible, and fine, but there needs to be protections from closing EVERYTHING so that people who enjoy doing one thing are not over-powered by people who enjoy doing another thing with that publicly-owned land.

for instance, if some trails around Moab, Utah are closed due to possible harm to Cryptobiotic soil (a bacteria that eats sandstone and turns it into dirt) then others areas should be opened that don't create a harmful situation.

off-roading, by far, causes the least amount of harm to the land of any of the possibly destructive land uses. cows do more damage to rivers and streams than Jeeps do. mining trucks do more damage to mountains than Jeeps do. forest fires caused by environmental legislation keeping undergrowth from being managed do more damage than Jeeps do, and by far, factories and major urban centers create much, much more polution than Jeeps do. snowmobiles use so little gas and expell so little polution, i can't believe you mentioned them. the only thing i can assume that people might have a problem with is that they don't seem to require a trail and so many people don't use trails while riding them, AND, they are loud. we have the same issues with motocross bikes down south, but they more or less stick to the trails, and they more or less stick to the dirt areas rather than the multiple terrains a 4-wheeled vehicle can traverse. again, this isn't really about that, it's about the world, the whole planet.

ps- i recycle plastics, metal, paper, glass, oils, vehicle parts, scrap steel, copper, aluminum, water, wood, etc. i recycle some of the questionable items above by using them for various other things, like the wood, i try to remove wood in such a way that it can be re-used, in my home, and i re-use it. i recycle auto parts by taking them back to the store for my core charge so that instead of having to build a new part, the auto parts industry can just rebuild an old part and resell it. i recycle scrap steel by buying from the scrap heep at the steel yard for fabrication of suspension lifts and other 4x4 parts and i use my scraps for strengthening other parts, until they are so small i can't deal with them anymore and i take them back to the scrap yard for recycling. water? rain buckets for watering the shrubs and trees.

now, i do some of these things because, even tho i have a house, i am poor, but if everyone did it, we'd be that much better off.

[gravity well]

um, you misunderstood me, what i was saying is that i DONOT believe that fencing off public lands IN ORDER TO KEEP people from driving on it is going to fix anything.

public lands are for public use or publicly voted use, as far as my opinion on the matter. if the public votes to close a section to all vehicle traffic, fine, but it must still be accessible, and fine, but there needs to be protections from closing EVERYTHING so that people who enjoy doing one thing are not over-powered by people who enjoy doing another thing with that publicly-owned land.

off-roading, by far, causes the least amount of harm to the land of any of the possibly destructive land uses. cows do more damage to rivers and streams than Jeeps do. mining trucks do more damage to mountains than Jeeps do. forest fires caused by environmental legislation keeping undergrowth from being managed do more damage than Jeeps do, and by far, factories and major urban centers create much, much more polution than Jeeps do. snowmobiles use so little gas and expell so little polution, i can't believe you mentioned them. the only thing i can assume that people might have a problem with is that they don't seem to require a trail and so many people don't use trails while riding them, AND, they are loud. we have the same issues with motocross bikes down south, but they more or less stick to the trails, and they more or less stick to the dirt areas rather than the multiple terrains a 4-wheeled vehicle can traverse. again, this isn't really about that, it's about the world, the whole planet.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So you don't think limiting driving on public lands will help at all? I'm not trying to be a smartass, just trying to see what you're saying. I don't feel that when they instituted the national park system they had trucks and jeeps and snowmobiles in mind. And I AM for access, just of a much more pedestrian, non-polluting variety.

Snowmobiles:

https://www2.nature.nps.gov/air/pubs/pdf/Sn...bile_Report.pdf

And to show that they can be cleaned up more:

https://www.kettering.edu/newsArchives/Wc43a4eb30e86.htm

The standard traffic will cause more non-noise pollution than snowmobiles,

but those things are f***ing loud.

And you're comparing offroading to high-polluting industries that are known to cause great environmental damage. Of course, industrial runoff from factories and large-scale farms are worse than offroading. It's obvious that you're passionate about offroading, but I'm not attacking that, I'm attacking the major polluters of the planet, and those are those of the large industrial base. And what environmental legislation are you talking about that supposedly causes these massive amounts of damage? You think the constant western fires are because environmentalists are protecting undergrowth?

Lastly, there is barely any incentive to improve gas mileage for cars in the US.

That's another major problem. It was easier to push through changes concerning safety because you could see the death. Blood is more obvious than a few extra coughs. That's why environmental issues will never be sexy. It's a gradual change for the worse, not an obvious 9/11.

[hippyroo]

Yes, we should be good stewards of the land. This implies that we USE the land wisely.

[gravity well]

Yes, we should be good stewards of the land. This implies that we USE the land wisely.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't recall anyone advocating not using the land.

[Walkabout]

I don't recall anyone advocating not using the land.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There are environmental groups that want certain areas totally closed to all humans