Pro-Deforestation book
July 25, 2001 9:45 PM Subscribe
Pro-Deforestation book on the way to your local elementary school. (via cruel.com)
This post was deleted for the following reason: Poster's Request -- frimble
I read this earlier in the day. Didn't seem all that egregious to me.
posted by revbrian at 11:07 PM on July 25, 2001
posted by revbrian at 11:07 PM on July 25, 2001
I read this earlier in the day. Didn't seem all that egregious to me.
Uh... that's just weird, then...
posted by hincandenza at 11:11 PM on July 25, 2001
"...funded by the Hardwood Forest Foundation and the National Oak Flooring Manufacturers Association."
Hmm...... If they're just distributed, I assume they are not part of the curriculum yet.... so its up to the teachers discretion.... I know quite a few teachers who would love to show this to their students though.... (my stepmother)
posted by Espoo2 at 11:23 PM on July 25, 2001
Hmm...... If they're just distributed, I assume they are not part of the curriculum yet.... so its up to the teachers discretion.... I know quite a few teachers who would love to show this to their students though.... (my stepmother)
posted by Espoo2 at 11:23 PM on July 25, 2001
The question is:
What kind of paper is the book printed on? I for one, will only buy it if it's 100% post consumer. But if they are giving it away to schools, I say in a nationwide concerted effort, every school send the books to one place and very publically recycle them turning them to toilet paper. Then very privately, we all wipe our asses with the truax toilet paper, plop it in a jewelry box and mail it back to the bastards.
posted by crasspastor at 11:31 PM on July 25, 2001
What kind of paper is the book printed on? I for one, will only buy it if it's 100% post consumer. But if they are giving it away to schools, I say in a nationwide concerted effort, every school send the books to one place and very publically recycle them turning them to toilet paper. Then very privately, we all wipe our asses with the truax toilet paper, plop it in a jewelry box and mail it back to the bastards.
posted by crasspastor at 11:31 PM on July 25, 2001
Apparently, we should also drain the oceans. It is okay to displace the aquatic life, because it will be replaced by a diverse assemblage of terrestrial organisms - thereby preserving biodiversity. Sheesh.
posted by daveleck at 11:33 PM on July 25, 2001
posted by daveleck at 11:33 PM on July 25, 2001
The oceans would have to be carted off the Earth in solid rocket boosters or a geo synchronous elevator, which wouldn't be so bad actually. Just think of the industrial output of glorious pollution it would take to generate such a feat!
posted by crasspastor at 11:40 PM on July 25, 2001
posted by crasspastor at 11:40 PM on July 25, 2001
Timber management, or ecosystem management, or whatever you call it is not a discipline which you can make superlative judgements about.
Recycling is great, but eventually those books, and cardboard boxes, and reams or paper become toilet paper, which cannot be recycled.
Everything in moderation folks. The only people who can talk intelligently about these issues are those on the fence.
posted by canoeguide at 2:41 AM on July 26, 2001
Recycling is great, but eventually those books, and cardboard boxes, and reams or paper become toilet paper, which cannot be recycled.
Everything in moderation folks. The only people who can talk intelligently about these issues are those on the fence.
posted by canoeguide at 2:41 AM on July 26, 2001
Actually all paper, toilet paper, is completely biodegradable. Forests are different. Forests in their natural state are important. Regardless of whether you believe it or not.
posted by crasspastor at 3:12 AM on July 26, 2001
posted by crasspastor at 3:12 AM on July 26, 2001
The problem of course is when the regulatory agencies are in the back pocket of the industries being regulated. Timber, mining, etc. It's all a big joke. Corporations extract public resources from public lands for huge profits at the expense of the taxpayer. Politicians (yes, even the ones you voted for) have turned a blind eye for 100+ years because corps fund re-election campaigns. It's a systemically diseased system in which democracy and justice does not prevail.
posted by fleener at 3:20 AM on July 26, 2001
posted by fleener at 3:20 AM on July 26, 2001
I didn't notice anything about deforestation in that link. Did I miss the stanza about the clankering clearcutter? No matter what the enviro-wackos want, there's no changing the fact that lumbering is a necessary industry. I don't blame the lumber industry for fighting back against the enviros who are claiming all lumbering is bad.
posted by CRS at 6:28 AM on July 26, 2001
posted by CRS at 6:28 AM on July 26, 2001
Politicians (yes, even the ones you voted for) have turned a blind eye for 100+ years because corps fund re-election campaigns. It's a systemically diseased system in which democracy and justice does not prevail.
And that's why I voted for Nader.
(I also would have voted for McCain had he been nominated, and I would again. That man has more integrity in his bald spot than the rest of D.C....)
posted by tweebiscuit at 7:06 AM on July 26, 2001
And that's why I voted for Nader.
(I also would have voted for McCain had he been nominated, and I would again. That man has more integrity in his bald spot than the rest of D.C....)
posted by tweebiscuit at 7:06 AM on July 26, 2001
... lumbering is a necessary industry.
No one's debating that, bucko. The point is, how can we make it more efficient? How can we educate more people about the benefits of recycling? Most importantly, how does a nation built on the dollar make the right moral decision when it comes to preservation?
posted by jragon at 7:24 AM on July 26, 2001
No one's debating that, bucko. The point is, how can we make it more efficient? How can we educate more people about the benefits of recycling? Most importantly, how does a nation built on the dollar make the right moral decision when it comes to preservation?
posted by jragon at 7:24 AM on July 26, 2001
Actually, jragon, I was talking about the reactionary title of the link (note that there is nothing about deforestation contained therein) and the obvious connection to the extent to which environmental groups go to demonize those who don't share their radical views.
Got it, 'bucko'?
posted by CRS at 7:42 AM on July 26, 2001
Got it, 'bucko'?
posted by CRS at 7:42 AM on July 26, 2001
the extent to which environmental groups go to demonize those who don't share their radical views
I assume then, CRS, that you just as loudly decry the ridiculous ham-handed demonization of environmentalists contained within the link in question. Right?
posted by Skot at 8:36 AM on July 26, 2001
I assume then, CRS, that you just as loudly decry the ridiculous ham-handed demonization of environmentalists contained within the link in question. Right?
posted by Skot at 8:36 AM on July 26, 2001
from Webster's
Main Entry: de·for·es·ta·tion
Pronunciation: (")dE-"for-&-'stA-sh&n, -"fär-
Function: noun
Date: 1874
: the action or process of clearing of forests; also : the state of having been cleared of forests
Ok, those passages talk about cutting down trees. Where does it say clearing forests? There is a difference.
posted by CRS at 8:37 AM on July 26, 2001
Main Entry: de·for·es·ta·tion
Pronunciation: (")dE-"for-&-'stA-sh&n, -"fär-
Function: noun
Date: 1874
: the action or process of clearing of forests; also : the state of having been cleared of forests
Ok, those passages talk about cutting down trees. Where does it say clearing forests? There is a difference.
posted by CRS at 8:37 AM on July 26, 2001
[I love the plastic and steel line, like we haven't found a way to recycle those.]
I work for a plastics company (mainly pvc derivatives) and recycling isn't what it's cracked up to be. Perhaps it's just us, but we have over 150 different products and customers are constantly asking that they be modified. You can't generally mix these different products when recycling and when you can recycle them you end up with inferior material.
You can't recycle it forever. As far as pvc goes, it is an environmental disaster. At least wood is biodegradable.
posted by revbrian at 10:14 AM on July 26, 2001
I work for a plastics company (mainly pvc derivatives) and recycling isn't what it's cracked up to be. Perhaps it's just us, but we have over 150 different products and customers are constantly asking that they be modified. You can't generally mix these different products when recycling and when you can recycle them you end up with inferior material.
You can't recycle it forever. As far as pvc goes, it is an environmental disaster. At least wood is biodegradable.
posted by revbrian at 10:14 AM on July 26, 2001
No matter what the enviro-wackos want...
Anyone who would use negatively charged (and inane) terminology like this in his argument is a divisive idiot, who should stick to nodding and drooling to the self-promoting pronouncements of Rush Limbaugh and not attempt to engage in serious and productive dialogue.
posted by rushmc at 10:37 AM on July 26, 2001
Anyone who would use negatively charged (and inane) terminology like this in his argument is a divisive idiot, who should stick to nodding and drooling to the self-promoting pronouncements of Rush Limbaugh and not attempt to engage in serious and productive dialogue.
posted by rushmc at 10:37 AM on July 26, 2001
Just some random facts I'd like to throw out:
Forests in the U.S. are growing 33% faster than we are cutting them down. Areas across the U.S. that used to be fields are now covered in trees. Native Americans used to have yearly burnings of land so as to kill trees and create grasslands for the Buffalo, their main source of food, to survive.
The major cause of Rain Forest loss is NOT logging. It is population growth. Believe it or not, the soil quality in the rain forests is quite poor. People cut down the forests, and burn the trees and vegetation to fertilize the land for crops. After a couple of years the land has lost it's fertility and the process must be started again. Not a bad process as long as only a few people are doing it. But if you have too many, pretty soon you have a ton of people clear cutting the forest for crops. In other words, if these people would just stop having sex, we could help stop deforestation. (never thought you could save a tree by buying a condom, did you).
Hemp, though it grows faster, requires way more pesticides, insecticides, cultivation, and care than regular trees for paper. The stats indicate an 8 to 1 difference in work and degradation of the earth for the same product.
Where did I get my info? From Jim Bowyer while I was a student at the University of Minnesota. He frequently visits the rain forests in his research.
posted by Logboy at 12:09 PM on July 26, 2001
Forests in the U.S. are growing 33% faster than we are cutting them down. Areas across the U.S. that used to be fields are now covered in trees. Native Americans used to have yearly burnings of land so as to kill trees and create grasslands for the Buffalo, their main source of food, to survive.
The major cause of Rain Forest loss is NOT logging. It is population growth. Believe it or not, the soil quality in the rain forests is quite poor. People cut down the forests, and burn the trees and vegetation to fertilize the land for crops. After a couple of years the land has lost it's fertility and the process must be started again. Not a bad process as long as only a few people are doing it. But if you have too many, pretty soon you have a ton of people clear cutting the forest for crops. In other words, if these people would just stop having sex, we could help stop deforestation. (never thought you could save a tree by buying a condom, did you).
Hemp, though it grows faster, requires way more pesticides, insecticides, cultivation, and care than regular trees for paper. The stats indicate an 8 to 1 difference in work and degradation of the earth for the same product.
Where did I get my info? From Jim Bowyer while I was a student at the University of Minnesota. He frequently visits the rain forests in his research.
posted by Logboy at 12:09 PM on July 26, 2001
Actually, jragon, I was talking about the reactionary title of the link...
Ok, I hear you. And I agree with you. I was talking about your comment that "No matter what the enviro-wackos want, there's no changing the fact that lumbering is a necessary industry."
No one said "stop cutting down trees completely. We'll just live on love and berries". Therefore, your comment strikes me as more inflammatory than productive.
So I decided to sink to that level and call you bucko. Unfortunately, it felt good. Maybe I belong in AM talk radio.
posted by jragon at 12:22 PM on July 26, 2001
Ok, I hear you. And I agree with you. I was talking about your comment that "No matter what the enviro-wackos want, there's no changing the fact that lumbering is a necessary industry."
No one said "stop cutting down trees completely. We'll just live on love and berries". Therefore, your comment strikes me as more inflammatory than productive.
So I decided to sink to that level and call you bucko. Unfortunately, it felt good. Maybe I belong in AM talk radio.
posted by jragon at 12:22 PM on July 26, 2001
Would we live in houses made of plastic and steel?
Hmn, they seem to have left out bricks and straw as building materials. And we can live in houses made of dirt as well. (of course, these methods still use wood or metal in some way). Do people still build all wood houses? The standard new home method here seems to be to throw up a metal frame, roll out some chicken wire, and "spray on" some stucco. Before that it was some form of brick or another.
All this bucko talk makes me want to go play with a cap-gun for some reason....
posted by eckeric at 1:18 PM on July 26, 2001
Hmn, they seem to have left out bricks and straw as building materials. And we can live in houses made of dirt as well. (of course, these methods still use wood or metal in some way). Do people still build all wood houses? The standard new home method here seems to be to throw up a metal frame, roll out some chicken wire, and "spray on" some stucco. Before that it was some form of brick or another.
All this bucko talk makes me want to go play with a cap-gun for some reason....
posted by eckeric at 1:18 PM on July 26, 2001
A friend of mine just emailed me a bit of his personal insight after I'd bounced this Truax thing off him.
He writes:
Saw the National Oak Flooring Manufacturers Association counter to the
Lorax (which I am proud to say I have read to Owen many times, The Lorax
that is). I know Guardbark is suppose to be a tree, and maybe it is
just my own prejudices, but I couldn't help from noticing that the
irrational character was brown and inhuman, while the reasonable
pragmatic character was white.
Thought it to be worth note. . .
posted by crasspastor at 1:22 PM on July 26, 2001
He writes:
Saw the National Oak Flooring Manufacturers Association counter to the
Lorax (which I am proud to say I have read to Owen many times, The Lorax
that is). I know Guardbark is suppose to be a tree, and maybe it is
just my own prejudices, but I couldn't help from noticing that the
irrational character was brown and inhuman, while the reasonable
pragmatic character was white.
Thought it to be worth note. . .
posted by crasspastor at 1:22 PM on July 26, 2001
« Older | These two teachers Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by tweebiscuit at 10:34 PM on July 25, 2001