Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (150265)	8/23/2002 4:58:59 PM
From: tejek	Respond to of 1585450

Ted, the U.S. is being blamed for every environmental problem out there, including the clear-cutting in South America and Africa. No one is holding those two continents responsible because they're supposedly "too poor" to do anything about it. Ten, you're getting paranoid and you are not even 30 yet. What have they done to you? <g> No one is blaming the US for S. America and Africa. Unfortunately, we don't have much control over what happens in the Amazon or the Congo. Progress is being made.....nations like Costa Rico have sold the rights to their rain forests. The money has been used to develop hi tech industry in San Jose. And Costa Rico's tourist industry has boomed since they began to provide tours of the rain forests. That initiative is spreading; however, the Amazon is the jewel and the centerpiece for the rain forests and its there where the most damage has been done.......they are stripping the forests for farms and in the process eliminating species of plants and insects not found in other parts of the world. Some scientists now believe that much of the world's weather emanates from the equatorial region. Thus, no one can be certain what the impact on the weather will be from the loss of all these trees. In the U.S., the problem is too little logging. Too little logging.......what did the forests do before there was man to ?manage? the forests. Its a wonder this planet didn't implode. In South America and Africa, the problem is too much logging. Let's not pretend that the problems relate to each other, except in the grand scheme of preserving our forests. Letting forests burn down should never be considered "preservation." I guess.........again, it was good for the world before man arrived on the scene but obviously, Mother Nature didn't know squat. Thank God, we're here to set things straight. That's probably why God made us.......to clean up the mess down here, huh? <Two more years and counting...> Don't count on it. Americans only give token acknowledgement of the environment. Al Gore faced a dilemma when he was asked about breaching the Snake River Dams to preserve Oregon salmon. It was either compromise his stance on the environment (which is already as thin as a Saltine) or tell the unionized employees that they're out of a job. There was just this past week an AOL poll......they asked what was needed to improve the world. Out of six possibilities, the environment was 3rd or 4th. As for Gore, of course, he was between a rock and hard place. The whole issue of the dams on the Snake River and other NW rivers is a major dilemma. On the one hand, the salmon population is declining because its too hard to climb the dams even with the salmon ladders in place and thus they are too weak to mate when they get to their spawning grounds. Fishing and cannery jobs are being lost as a consequence. On the other hand, the NW farmers will be hurt if the dams are breached because they need the water to irrigate their crops in the summer. Its a very complex problem that will have to be addressed in steps with compromising required by both sides. Why do you criticize Gore for the problem? He didn't create the problem nor is his position on the environment as "thin as a Saltine". ted