In the late 1980s and early 1990s, one of the highest profile environmental issues was the need to protect the Spotted Owl in Pacific Northwest forests - "owls vs. jobs" as the simpleton news media characterized the debate. Environmentalists rallied to defend the species in the face of destruction of old growth forests, while the logging industry and brainwashed Republicans claimed that jobs for people were more important than a few owls. If I had had a platform at the time, I would have screamed at the top of my lungs, "It's not about the owls!"
Environmental protection is a supremely important issue to me. At the same time, I prefer my environmental movement to be based on sound reason and judgment. In the case of the the Spotted Owl controversy, clearly for me the issue was about protecting old growth forests. In the grand scheme of things, I didn't really care that much about one particular owl subspecies. The overall value of protecting the old growth forest was far more important, and the Spotted Owl was merely an indicator of the forest health, and protection under the Endangered Species Act should have been little more than a legal tactic to reduce or prevent logging in these forests. If the issue were just the Spotted Owls, the logging industry shills and ignorant Republican supporters would have been right.
Why do I insist so much on focusing on the real issue rather than a tangential issue?Well, tonight on The NewsHour on PBS I saw a report on the continued decline of the Spotted Owl population in Oregon forests, despite the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan, an agreement intended, in part, to protect the spotted owl. Apparently another owl species, the Barred Owl, is outpacing the Spotted Owl in population growth in some old growth forests. The radical logging industry cronies in the Bush Department of the Interior now claim that since the Spotted Owl population is declining anyway, despite the restrictions on logging in old growth forests, there is no longer any reason to restrict clear-cutting in every old growth forest their industry buddies can get their chainsaws on. And if the main argument against this policy is protection of the Spotted Owl, well, that argument has lost its force.
For that reason I have always preferred to stick to the core essence of environmental issues, which in this case is protection of old growth forests, for many specific environmental reasons and in accordance with the general principle of protecting endangered ecosystems and habitats. Today, I fear a similar distraction when advocates of anti-global warming measures insist that we have to prevent global temperatures from rising. To me, it is much more important to reduce emissions to reduce air pollution and increase efficiency in the production and consumption of energy. At some point, due to some natural occurrence that temporarily overpowers the emission of human-made greenhouse gases, the Earth's temperature may cool. All of a sudden, global warming oracles will lose support in mass as their arguments will appear to have been exaggerated and their predictions false. If this happens, all the other critical benefits of the measures recommended to fight global warming will be lost. If we stick to the essence of an issue when advocating an environmental policy, I believe the arguments become much more compelling, and people will rally to the cause, exclaiming, by quoting the owls and Ana Kasparian of The Young Turks, "Woot Woot!"
Featured Bloggers
 | Ada Calhoun |
 | Ben Greenman |
 | Dinesh D'Souza |
 | Jeff Hoard |
 | Mo Rocca |
 | Young Turks |
RSS Feeds
Resources
It's Not About the Owls or the Temperature
Mo's Video
America's Strongest Man?No, this isn't a swipe at Sarah Palin. It's my interview with Strongman Competitor Gerard...
Top Tags
RepublicanNationalConvention BarackObama KanyeWest BlackRepublican YoungTurks NaturalSex MetroHotel VMAs BrtineySpears speech sodomy BristolPalin LogCabinRepublicans HurricaneKatrina SarahPalin SomeLikeItHot teleprompter Levi rnc HipHopRepublican GayMarriage eros PeggyNoonan fight GrandTheftAuto RncInterview InterviewsAtRnc RolandMartin GeorgeW.Bush BritneySpears conspiracy Bristol cnn homophobe
Most Popular Stories
Most Commented On News Bloggers
Recent Comments
- Bart on Obama or Palin: Who is the Real Hypocrite?
- Louis KingofFrance on Britney on VMAs: Is That All There Is?
- Bart on Obama or Palin: Who is the Real Hypocrite?
- martybrorules on 'Thank God I Have Cancer/AIDS/Anorexia'
- Bobby on Enraged Black Republican Defends Bush
- Bart on The Real Source of Palin's Appeal
- Bart on The Real Source of Palin's Appeal
Top News Headlines
Political Machine Blog
Ada Calhoun |
Ben Greenman |
Dinesh D'Souza |
Jeff Hoard |
Mo Rocca |
The Young Turks |
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 1)
1. The problem is republicans will never see the forest for the timber. It's a perspective thing.
Dennis at 11:32PM on Dec 18th 2007
2. You are right. There are a multitude of reasons NOT to log old-growth forests (cleanwater, biodiversity, carbon storage, and quality of life being important ones) and we should not get too focussed on any single reason.
Now that climate change is finally getting the attention it deserves we realize that savbing old-growth forests is a great way to safely store large amounts of carbon, while logging such forests would cause a massive release of that carbon.
One thing the PBS News Hour story failed to mention is that logging on non-federal lands in the Northwest continued at a rapid pace, so the continued decline of the owl is not that surprising.
DougO at 12:36AM on Dec 19th 2007
3. So whats wrong with cutting down the trees and planting new ones?
StonedPigeon at 5:06AM on Dec 19th 2007
4. StonedPigeon, there is nothing wrong with cutting down trees and planting new ones. It happens all over this country and Canada. The problem is cutting down ALL the old growth forest. When it's all cut down there will be no more and it will take a few hundred years to grow anything like original old growth forest. Old growth is just not the same as the ranks and ranks of trees all the same size that represent timber management. In Michigan, there is a large remaining tract of old growth forest called Hartwick Pines. It is a major tourist attraction and brings in a lot of money every year to the state. That second or third growth forest grown for pulp wood brings money when it is harvested and then you have to wait twenty five or thirty years until you can harvest it again to make money. Managed old growth forest is an economic asset to everyone in the country except the short term lumber interests who see a way to make a lot of money for themselves. What's wrong with cutting trees and planting new ones? Nothing, you just need some of both kinds of forest.
Hank at 5:32AM on Dec 19th 2007
5. the only way to save the planet is about 100 years to late to impact anything, that one way is 0 or -0 population growth.
Mackie at 8:25AM on Dec 19th 2007
6. Great post! As a conservationist, I have been telling people for years that it doesn't matter if they "believe" in global warming or not, because the actions proponents suggest to fight global warming are the actions we need to take regardless, if we want to ensure life on this planet for future generations. While some use these issues for their political agenda, at the core, they are not political at all. They are matters of environmental and social responsibility.
Still, what you have to understand as well (as I had to learn over the years), we are in the same boat with those who try to protect a single species. Maybe they are not looking at the big picture, some never do or lack capacity to do so, but they feel connected to that one animal or that one plant and they stand up to protect it and it HELPS. At heart, they are conservatonists, too, they respect life outside their own species. So I'd much rather have those who only want to save the owls, who only speak up against factory farming, who only care about one kind of tree, and see their efforts add up to the bigger picture than to have those who care only about themselves, walk around with a sense of entitlement and as though they are above all life on earth, never realizing that humans are the only species that no other needs for survival. Yes, I wish everyone could see the big picture, too, but we have to give credit for the small efforts that can add up to big changes.
Constance at 9:21AM on Dec 19th 2007
7. "Follow the money", all the main players – from politicians and scientists to big corporations and the United Nations – benefit from instilling fear into billions of human beings over the unproven theory of man-made global warming. Indeed, just three weeks after the U.N. ratcheted up international fears over global warming, a panel of 18 scientists from 11 countries has now reported to the U.N. that the only thing that can stop catastrophic climate change is a GLOBAL TAX on greenhouse gas emissions.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54784
Paul Sparcello at 10:44AM on Dec 19th 2007
8. Cenk,
First, the logging issue. You have to remember that logging companies replant trees after cutting down a forest. Just with any other crop, you have to replant the land. It's just that unlike wheat, corn, and soybeans, trees take a lot longer to mature.
I've even read that there are more trees today in the continental U.S. than there were in 1776, because logging companies have created forests were none existed 230 years ago.
As for the global warming issue, you do raise a legitimate point. There is a climatology professor at the Univerisity of Wisconsin at Madison named Reid Bryson who contends that the earth has been warming for over 300 years, since the end of the last mini-ice age around 1700. He believes that global warming is a part of the earth's natural cycle, and that carbon dioxide, as .01% (or .0001) of the earth's atmosphere simply isn't a big enough component to change the temperature to the extent that the scientific community believes. In fact, there will be another ice age in about 8,000 years.
I've read that before the ice age that Prof. Bryson described, Scandinavia was a major producer of wine. Trying growing chardonney grapes in Sweden or Norway now.
But, Prof. Bryson has said that even if global warming isn't caused by man, there are still plenty of reasons to control pollution. Simply put, there are plenty of things that shouldn't be in the atmosphere, water, and the ground, because they will harm us.
By the same token, Prof. Bryson has also said that there are also plenty of geo-political, economic, and national security concerns that make getting away from oil a priority.
If you say that burning oil is bad for the environment, a lot of people will either ignore you or explain how you are wrong. If you say that reducing oil consumption will cut off money to Islamic terrorists, possible topple undemocratic regimes in the Middle East in favor of democratic governments, and make Hugo Chavez's position in Venezuala very shakey, then conservatives will listen to you.
Kent at 10:55AM on Dec 19th 2007
9. Wow, Paul, I looked at the site you posted. This must be one of the least objective, least factually supported articles I've seen in a while. Oh, and on one of the most bashing sites I've seen in a while! I really wish reporting would go back to objectivism, because it is obvious that people blindly absorb what they read without critical thought of their own. One would have to be blind or ignorant NOT to notice that the Earth is being exploited by people and to think that our actions since the industrial revolution have had no impact on the environment is absurd. Like another poster said above, it's not about whether or not you agree with global warming, it's about cleaning up after yourself and respecting life around you, so that our kids don't have to pay for your lack of social conscience. Hiding behind politics when it comes to environmental preservation is a cop-out. It's being lazy when you could take action. Believe it or not, all the trash you generate, all the bags you use at the grocery store, all the pesticides on your produce, all the waste produced by animals bred for consumption, all the chemicals in your cleaning products and personal care products, the emmissions from your car, the toxins produced by companies you support by buying from them etc don't just 'poof' into thin air. This stuff is here to stay for generations to come. So what kind of legacy are weleaving behind if we don't take this seriously?
emma at 11:04AM on Dec 19th 2007
10. I am severely disturbed by the amount of forest we are losing because of logging and "industry" (and I am a Rebuplican). Even in the serene part of the country that I live in, over the past 10 years I have seen so much forest clear cut to make way for businesses. Jobs are very important, but there are plenty of places in Southern Illinois to build your business without having to clear cut 50 acres of forest.
*Sigh* I am with you on this one, Young Turks and most of the time I vehemently disagree with you. Environmental protection is so important, but all people see is the money...
Susan at 11:16AM on Dec 19th 2007
11. Turks,
As a conservative I began reading your post with much skepticism. You make some great points. Lets take on these issues wisely. I'm all about clean air and having lots of trees to enjoy and we can have that without destroying our economy. I'm sure of it.
The "all or nothing" arguments are too polarizing
and theres too much "gotcha" going on to have a real debate.
Lets all work together to make America as great as she can be.
Merry Christmas Everyone!
Memphis Rampage at 11:49AM on Dec 19th 2007
12. I wouldn't expect anythimg less from a member of the "Young Jerks". Our government does what is proper to protect the envirnment. Environmental issues are not solved overnight with a piece of catch all legislation. Things do evolve so get off your high horse.
Ed at 12:00PM on Dec 19th 2007
13. #3 - StonedPigeon - the problems are the time it takes for the trees to regrow, what happens to the land in those first few years, and the potential lack of diversity making uniform regrowth vulnerable to insect attacks.
alan at 1:10PM on Dec 19th 2007
14. Our government does what is proper to protect the envirnment
--------------
Right...that is why the environment is doing so wonderfully. Please start thinking for yourself instead of blindly following the propaganda of those who have nothing but personal gain on their minds.
emma at 2:24PM on Dec 19th 2007
15. Those, "timber jobs" which were lost were not the "loggers," and "lumberjacks." The jobs were lost at the mills. And the reason the jobs were lost had nothing to do with spotted owls or environmental issues. Those jobs were lost because the logs were no longer being milled in the United States. The logs were being shipped raw to places like Japan where they were sold back to us in the form of foreign made products.
Captain Negative at 4:27AM on Dec 20th 2007