The problem with man's activities when compared with nature is the Degree imo.
Completely agree... Nature has historically wreaked far greater damage to habitat and wildlife than has mankind.
The Mt. St. Helen's eruptions have reportedly released an estimated 2 million TONS of Sulphur Dioxide into the atmosphere between 1980 and 1988. And it spewed it up to 20 miles high into the atmosphere where that precious ozone layer resides, directly and negatively impacting ozone levels for years to come.
geochange.er.usgs.gov
And to claim that anything that Mankind can do to habitat exceeds the speed and destructive forces of nature herself is stated only with a complete disregard for the facts. Mt. St. Helens alone within the space of seconds, killed over 5,000 deer, 200 bears, uncounted fish, destroyed and filled a once beautiful Spririt Lake with mud, and knocked down trees 27km away with its explosive pressure wave (some 285 square miles of forest that contained enough wood to build 150,000 homes).
newmedia.avs.uakron.edu
vulcan.wr.usgs.gov
Furthermore, it is a misnomer to claim that deforestation in the United States is responsible for rising levels of CO2. Since there is more planted forest NOW, than there was back in the 1800's, due to efficiencies in agriculture, and relocation of farming to the mid-west prairie states, to claim that we are destroying habitat may be correct in the particular, but false overall. Wash DC is a prime example of this, where what used to be endless acres of farmland in N.VA, MD, and W.VA, has been returned to its forested, deer tick-infested splendor.
Now we know that nature has visited upon its subjects, uncounted natural disasters, from volcanic eruptions and comet strikes, to all out glaciations that covered entire continents with sheets of ice FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS, and resulted in HUGE EXTINCTIONS of numerous animal species (we dig up their fossilized remains to this day). This forced species southward to compete with each other for increasingly scarce resources as the ice sheets advanced and impacted the overall climate. Everything from the sabertooth tiger to the woolly mammoth became extinct under this environmental pressure.
All before mankind EVER even dreamed of the horseless carriage.
We also know that that ability of the world's oceans to absorb excesss atmospheric CO2 is one of the primary safety valves that nature has implemented to cushion against the occasional global disaster it inflicts upon its residencts. The oceans, or more appropriately, the algae and plankton that reside in those deep waters, have an incredible capacity for scrubbing excess CO2 from the atmosphere over time.
www-das.uwyo.edu
As for the triple canopy rain forest, I've lived in one for over 6 months, and saw first hand the diversity of life (and death) that exists there. And I can tell you for amost overy ounce of oxygen produced in a rain forest, an equal amount of methane and carbon dioxide is produced. Because there is decay EVERYWHERE. You can smell the death and decay Pezz, it's overwhelming at times and pretty damn offensive to even this country boys nostrils.
But hey... I'm not cutting that forest down, now am I? So its something you have to take up with the Brazilians and other S. American people. And I can suggest that taking on the persona of the :American Gringo" coming down to say them from themselves ain't going to be favorably received there. They have to be taught why they should use their resources properly. That will not be achieved by applying pressure when these people are looking for a basic means of making a living and getting ahead. You will have to provide them an alternative, which means providing them industrial jobs that takes them off the farms and ranches and put them in the office and factories.
Where you and I DO find common ground is with regard to overfishing of the oceans. We've seen the impact of overfishing for crab and oysters here in the Chesapeake Bay area to the extent that limits have been on what can be caught. I'm absolutely against whaling in principle, and certainly at the current depleted numbers. I'm for dolphin free tuna (can't stand the taste of dolphin), and sea turtle escape hatches in fish nets. I'm for farm raised oysters (when the environmental wackos permit someone to actually obtain a aqua-cultural farming permit), trout, and creating "hatcheries" for crab and lobsters (which would guarantee my ability to feast on them in the future).
Overall, I'm for managing our resources and balancing the needs of humans with the needs of nature. And I appreciate the fact that just 25 years ago, then the catastrophe du jour was the fear of a new ice age hanging just around the corner. So in that case, I'm as greatful as I can be that we're delaying that with a bit of global warming... :0)
Call me overly cynical, but I think too many scientists are looking to cut out a grub stake with the numerous research grants being made available as a result of their global warming hype. Too many claims are being made on the basis of sporatic or less than complete datum, without looking at historical precedent.
So does this mean we have the right to unabashedly cut down forests, cause the extinction of once prolific species, or uncontrollably spew poisons into our air?? Clearly no.
But let's also not radicalize the issue to such an extent that we push the concept of no pollution, no alterations, no environmental impact, or some other such nonsense that promotes the view that mankind should "do no harm" to nature. Because it is obvious that Mother Nature exhibits sado-masochistic tendencies, combined with a penchant for self-mutilation. But she also has an amazing capability for self healing which has be exhibited numerous times throughout history. |
