By Edward
In yet another demonstration of the environmental stewardship he championed on Earth Day, Bush today moved to open up to developers nearly 60 million acres of US forest that had been protected–34.3 million acres of pristine woodland in Alaska and Western states is due to be open to road building, logging and other commercial ventures, and they’re looking at ways to do the same to another 24.2 million acres.
Perhaps most disgusting about the change in rules is how the Administration that insists a 51% majority gives it a mandate and political capital to spend once again dismisses the concerns of multitudes of people who actually took action to voice opposition to their plans. From the Forest Service’s Summary of Public Comments and the Department’s Responses:
Volume of Public Comments and Support for the 2001 Roadless Rule: Many respondents discussed the volume of public comment received over the past 5 years in support of the 2001 roadless rule and that the proposed rule goes against the wishes of the American public.
Response: Every comment received is considered for its substance and contribution to informed decisionmaking, whether it is one comment repeated by tens of thousands of people or a comment submitted by only one person. The public comment process is not intended to serve as a scientifically valid survey process to determine public opinion. The emphasis in reviewing public comment is on the content of the comment rather than on the number of times a comment was received. The comment analysis process is intended to identify unique substantive comments relative to the proposal to facilitate their consideration in the decisionmaking process. All comments are considered, including comments that support and that oppose the proposal. That people do not agree on how public lands should be managed is a historical, as well as modern dilemma faced by resource managers. However, public comment processes, while imperfect, do provide a vital avenue for engaging a wide array of the public in resource management processes and outcomes.
In other words one person who agreed with the heavily lumber-industry-sponsored administration is given as much consideration as untold numbers of Americans who disagreed with the administration.
Moreover, consider these stats the Forest (dis)Service is apparently unashamed to publicize:
| Number of Acres Affected | 58.5 million |
| Percent of US Landbase | 2% |
| Percent of Forest Service Landbase | 31% |
That’s right, nearly one-third of all existing roadless national forest lands could be opened up for road building. That’s some stewardship. And if there’s not enough injury in these actions, the Forest Service adds a whopping dose of insult:
The administration and the Forest Service remain committed to working closely with the nation’s governors to meet the needs of local communities and to maintaining the undeveloped character of these unique areas of our national forests and grasslands.
The nerve! Nothing maintains the undeveloped character of forests like miles of asphalt and a couple million fewer trees.
Idiots.
It would be nice is the road building cost was not also subsidized. Very few such roads would be built if the federal governemnt did not foot the bill to build the roads for resource extraction. The revenues generated from timber sales, etc., on government land do not cover the road building/maintenance costs.
Development in most of these areas loses money for the forest service. Building these roads and maintaining them costs more than they get from the timber companies for the right to cut them down. In many cases it costs a lot more. This is a subsidy to the timber industry at the public’s expense in defiance of the public’s wishes. (And hey libertarians, if the word “public” makes you as nauseous as the word “subsidy”, it’s also a market distortion that functions like a tariff against timber imports.)
As far as a mandate–how many people do you think voted for Bush because his Interior Department loooovveesss the timber companies? There was one question about the environment at the three debates, and while he did start out honestly:
“What happens in those forests, because of lousy federal policy, is they grow to be — they are not — they’re not harvested.”
but he recovered soon enough:
“I guess you’d say I’m a good steward of the land.”
” Nothing maintains the undeveloped character of forests like miles of asphalt”
Dirt and gravel, actually.
“and a couple million fewer trees.”
That is true, however. The Northwest is absolutely gorgeous, mostly because of the national parks. There’s nothing quite like noticing that the trees on either side of a highway are a thin curtain obscuring the vast expanse of stumps and shrubs left behind.
how many people do you think voted for Bush because his Interior Department loooovveesss the timber companies?
I’ve spoken to a number of Bush voters who’re unhappy with his environmental policy in general; however, it obviously wasn’t a deal-breaker for them. No doubt the administration feels that they’re not going to lose many votes from doing this kind of stuff, especially in early 2005.
Relax, Mr. Underscore. Everything will be made clear to you soon.
The Democratic national leadership is very much at fault for not making more of an issue of this. In Montana a Democrat won the governorship by going to gun sport and hunting groups with an environmentalist pitch, emphasizing how bad the Bush record is.
We will suffer the consequences of the Bush Presidency for generations.
The Democratic national leadership is very much at fault for not making more of an issue of this.
Correct. I would love to see Democratic ads featuring the execs of the timber companies driving around in expensive cars, labelled “the real welfare Cadillacs.”
I know this is something that’s been addressed lots by people talking about gun control, but I spent a couple of years reading Field and Stream and Outdoor Life (despite my complete urban-ness, my boyfriend’s niece had sold him the subscriptions for a fundraiser, and I’ll read anything if it’s lying around) and came out of it thinking that hunters are a really viable pickup opportunity for the Dems. They completely get environmental issues.
(I’m not saying the process would be easy, mind you, just that there’s something there, and it would be worth a shot.)
hunters would be worth a shot?
I thought that’s why they wear orange.
Actually, LB, the Montana governor’s race is one to reference. This coupled with this heartwarming story, makes me very happy that my prefecture is twinned with Montana and that my university has a long standing exchange programs to Montana public universities.
“Perhaps most disgusting about the change in rules is how the Administration that insists a 51% majority…”
What really disgusts me is all the hipocrites still using paper products everyday, but are upset about harvesting trees.
Sort of reminds me of those who complain about oil, but don’t hesitate to turn the light switch on.
C’mon shouldn’t we atleast give up paper products and use candles whenever possible?
Recycle much, Tinker?
LizardBreadth is correct. I was born and raised in the mountains of NC. I hiked, camped, hunted, and fished throughout the Smokies. Most people have a profound respect for the environment…and guns. The left is too anti-gun and they are often against dual-use forestry areas, which I hunted and fished on when I was young. We want to be Democrats really bad, but the Democrats make it very hard.
Jim, you have a good point, but the problem isn’t that the Bush Admin wants an expansion of hunting and camping rights type of wilderness use. They want an expansion of mining, logging, and construction.
The non-left needs to realize that there aren’t a whole lot of hunting and camping opportunities left once the trees are gone, the rivers silted up, and the animals replaced by residential subdivisions named after them.
Yeah, a mutual sales process has to go on — lefty tree-huggers need to convince hunter/conservationist types that they’ve got a lot of goals in common, and vice-versa. Two interest groups with almost exactly the same goals, but a huge cultural divide — if you could get them working together, wilderness preservation issues would get much, much easier.
I think there’s probably a profitable (albeit counterintuitive) animal rights conversation to be had — there are plenty of meat-eating leftists who have concerns about factory farming, and viewed in that light, hunting looks pretty good if you eat the results. (That is, which would you rather be? A battery chicken or a wild duck that eventually gets shot?)
LizardBreath:
They have trouble getting the votes because of gun control and other issues, but many environmentalists on local level have long made common cause with hunters/fisherman for habitat protection.
I agree CaseyL. I hope I didn’t give the wrong impression. We hate seeing too much land developed and spoiled. We are against the raping of the land just as much as you. I was just agreeing with LizardBreath that hunters “could” be a valuable pick up for the Democratic Party. In general, poor white southern folk feel somewhat abandoned by the Democratic Party. Throw us a few bones and we could be all yours.
Sort of reminds me of those who complain about oil, but don’t hesitate to turn the light switch on.
The odds that whatever is on the other end of the wires from your light switch is operated by oil or petroleum derivatives is so low as to be indistinguishable from zero.
Jim, I agree with you, too 🙂
The Democratic Party lost a good bit of its soul when it decided to suck up to corporate interests for the sake of campaign contibutions. I’m hoping Governor Dean can start to fix that. His remark about wanting to reach out to people who have Confederate flag bumper stickers was spot-on.
The Democratic Party has to re-establish itself as the Party of the middle class, working class, and the poor. In deeds, not just pretty words.
But the South has to stop supporting the GOP’s racial, religious and gender wedge politics. As Dean also said, the South ate up GOP race baiting for nearly 50 years, and what do Southerners have to show for it?
Well, the Democrats have to find some way to talk those Southerners who are buying the social wedge issues out of it.
It’s always a little weird talking about what other people have to do, here mostly because the Southerners who are engaging in political debate are probably not so much the ones who are falling for the “racial, religious and gender wedge politics”, and confusing the two groups is an excellent way to irritate potential allies.
Phil, that depends where you live. Here (Oahu), it’s more like 75%. Which has nothing to do with anything in this discussion, but what the hell.
Well, I didn’t mean to imply that Jim bought the wedge issues; I said “South,” not “you.” Jim, if I’ve insulted you, I truly didn’t mean to, and please accept my apologies.
But there’s no denying that the South generally has bought off on them. I can’t imagine the tactics the Bush campaign used against McCain in 2000 would have worked nearly so well in, for example, Washington state (where, in fact, McCain’s adopting a “black baby!” was considered a positive). And there’s no denying that appealing to Southern bigotries has won the GOP lots of votes despite the fact that GOP economic, employment, and healthcare policies haven’t done the South very much good at all.
The idea that the government can’t or shouldn’t do anything about economic and other inequities, but should manage private life and “cultural” issues, stands the entire concept of American politics on its head. I don’t understand it at all, and I don’t understand why an entire region devoted to that topsy-turvey concept has come to dominate our political landscape.
” Nothing maintains the undeveloped character of forests like miles of asphalt”
Dirt and gravel, actually.
Nope, all 3. You start on a pretty decent 2 lane paved forest service road, which eventually turns into a pretty decent 1 lane paved forest service road, which turns into a 1 lane paved road with sinkholes circled in spray paint so you can avoid them if you are going under 20 miles an hour. Then that turns into a well graded gravel road, which leads to not so well graded gravel (gravel being any rock smaller than a “boulder”) road with potholes big enough that anything over 10 miles an hour is insane (elk pass you, laughing), and then that road turns into a dirt “road” with weeds and small trees growing in the middle of the ruts, and then that turns into a jeep track, which you may or may not want to attempt, and then you get out and walk up the trail to the…
clearcut.
“But there’s no denying that the South generally has bought off on them.”
Oh, yes we Southerner’s are just dumb and ignorant. We couldn’t possibly think for ourselves and reach our own conclusions.
Atleast, this serves as a good example of why the Democrat’s can’t gain support in the South.
CaseyL,
I’ve got a suggestion for you… look in the mirror. Maybe, that’s the dope that is buying into the radical crap the Dem’s have been pushing for the last 20 years.
Atleast, this serves as a good example of why the Democrat’s can’t gain support in the South.
lemme check my address. yup, that’s what i thought: i still live in NC.
Oh, yes we Southerner’s are just dumb and ignorant. We couldn’t possibly think for ourselves and reach our own conclusions.
Sarcasm aside, it’s simply /indisputable/ that there is still a strong undercurrent of racism and Bible-based intolerance in the South, one that goes all the way back to the Civil War. You can deny that it applies to /you/ or to people you know personally, but to deny that this is a general truth about the South is just self-delusion. And while there is much to be admired about Southern culture–the emphases on family, hospitality, and marvelous food–there is also a deep sickness that revolves around race and sex issues.
The GOP’s ability to pander to these issues is contemptible not only for its dishonesty, but also for the disservice it does to the South by perpetuating this sickness instead of healing it.
You know, I really don’t disgree with you about the facts (the GOP gets significant numbers of votes in the South through playing nasty racial, and other, wedge politics) but the way you’re putting it (and Casey as well) seems desperately counterproductive. Saying things like this: “to deny that this is a general truth about the South is just self-delusion,” seems to me calculated to leave decent, non-racist, potentially Democratic voters, of whom there are plenty down south, thinking that as long as the Dems are going to think of them as tainted by this overarching sickness, fuck the Dems.
We want to be using the same wedge issues to split potential Democrats away from the racist nitwits, not demanding that they atone for the general sins of their geographical region, and thus driving them into the arms of the Republicans.
So we tiptoe around, carefully and politely not mentioning the elephant in the room. Right.
FTR, I didn’t say anything about anyone being delusional. I pointed out something that is, or should be, well known to anyone over age 15.
FTR, also, calls for civility damned well better not be limited to one side of the discussion. If you’re going to call me a “dope” for being a liberal Democrat, you’d better not turn around and say I mustn’t mention the South’s history of violent, murderous bigotry lest I hurt the tender and delicate feelings of the person calling me a dope.
I didn’t mean to say that you should be more civil, just more directed in your (absolutely appropriate and deserved) incivility.
Let me draw you a picture from the other side. I’m a New Yorker, and a chauvinistic New Yorker. If you ask me to tell you about myself, New Yorker is going to make it into the first sentence. Doesn’t mean I think I’m better than anyone else for being a New Yorker, but I love living here, and I love the city, and it’s an important part of my identity. For me, this is easy — I’m a liberal Democrat and everything lines up nicely.
On the other hand, I have good Republican friends who also live here and love the city, and it gives them a real internal conflict. There’s a lot of nasty Republican anti-urbanism, and a lot of it that specifically focuses on NY, because we’re the biggest (are we still? Psychologically. I think we’re still believed to be) and most urban American city. They really get wrecked about voting for a party that hates them personally, hates the programs they need to live (e.g., public transportation), and hates the city they love. These guys are always on the brink of flipping Dem, and I’m sure others in their shoes do.
I don’t want Southerners to think Dems hate the South. There’s fucked-up stuff about the South, just like everyplace else, and there’s no need to be civil about the fucked-up stuff. I just don’t want to define the fucked-up stuff as the essence of the South, because if you tell people “The home you love is irretrievably sick — abandon your loyalty to it and come over to our side,” a lot of people will stick with their home. I want to say “Everything you love about the South is something we can work with and make better — the only things you need to move away from are things that aren’t central to your identity.”
“The nerve! Nothing maintains the undeveloped character of forests like miles of asphalt and a couple million fewer trees.”
And maybe fire!
Pristine, now there’s a fine word. Pristine! Just rolls off your tongue. Almost like building a logging road would defile your sister. Wouldn’t want any ‘sprawl’!
I think ‘idiots’ is a pretty strong word too. I lived in Oregon for a few years. Very emotional subject. People have died protecting trees, so I won’t just fart it off to tree hugging.
Its a great debate, the logging industry (people working!) and the environmentalists. Of course, I tend to thing the environmentalist zealousy is far more over the top than the corresponding threat of corporate greed. (surprise)
I driven far into the woods on logging roads and have enjoyed the great tranquility that I had access to. I’ve seen many a clear strip meadow, from ugly fresh ones scarred with tree stumps to the wonderful genesis of new growth and new life. I’ve seen newly planted forests – 5 years, 10 years, 15 years – they each have a different look and a various shades of green. You can scan an expanse of forested hills and track its history.
Some are overgrown and spent, not pristine. Some are burnt, trees dead from roots slain with great heat.
“to deny that this is a general truth about the South is just self-delusion”
To deny it about the entire world is self-delusion.
Let’s see… Harlem… don’t have one in the South.
China town… don’t have one either.
Little Italy… nope.
Riots… L.A.
Chicago and NYC are the most segregated places I have every lived.
If you ask me to tell you about myself, New Yorker is going to make it into the first sentence. Doesn’t mean I think I’m better than anyone else for being a New Yorker, but I love living here
LB…didn’t you get the memo? We’re dropping that pretense…like Letterman says “Our city can kick your city’s ass” so why bother? 😉
Pristine, now there’s a fine word. Pristine! Just rolls off your tongue. Almost like building a logging road would defile your sister. Wouldn’t want any ‘sprawl’!
Not my sister, blogbudsman. My soul. Pristine land is sacred to me. I can’t explain why, I know it’s illogical to many people, but that’s how I feel about it.
Clearly we need timber, and like cattle or poultry or other resources, it makes sense to maximize the technology to ensure there’s enough. But there needs to be a limit. The nation needs to decide what portion of the pristine land to protect, if any. Those who think protecting none of it is important seem significantly outnumbered, so a decision about how much needs to be made. Once that decision is made, it’s important to live up to the ideal that sacrifice represents. Or it is if you value honor.
Taking the existing protected forests (only what? 6% of the total US landbase?) and opening up nearly one-third of it to development strikes me as grotesque, greedy, spiritually bankrupt, etc. And when that’s been exploited? What? We open up another 2% of what’s left? And then later half of the remaining 2%? And so on?
Eventually, if we’re lucky, we’ll one a small patch of pristine land left surrounded by barbed wire that our posterity can flock to and take photos of.
The hard thing to do is work within the constraints of the land currently available for development. Inventing technology that permits that land to supply what we need.
The easy thing to do is to subsidize the lumber industry (you know, corporate welfare) with taxpayers money to build the roads that take them to the ancient trees they can harvest without having to worry about the hard thing to do.
One of these has honor.
The odds that whatever is on the other end of the wires from your light switch is operated by oil or petroleum derivatives is so low as to be indistinguishable from zero.
True, except when it heats up in the CA Central Valley and they turn on the jet engines used to provide peak power. You oughta see the size of the mufflers 😉
Let’s see… Harlem… don’t have one in the South.
China town… don’t have one either.
Little Italy… nope.
Riots… L.A.
Chicago and NYC are the most segregated places I have every lived.
Wow. You actually think the existence of “China Towns” or other high concentrations of ethnic businesses (hint: many cities have them; here in Seattle it’s called the International District) makes a city “segregated”?
I have no words for this stupefying misconception.
To deny it about the entire world is self-delusion.
So because racism and bigotry exist everywhere, we’re not allowed to point out regions where it’s particularly endemic?
If the shoe doesn’t fit, you’re not obligated to wear it. If it does, you might want to ask yourself why that is.
Look, it isn’t about aestheitics. I mean, sure, that’s part of it, but the reason for protecting natural areas isn’t because they are beautiful. Partly it is just the hard particality of not allowing short term interests to violate long term interests. Just because some greed head logging business kicks money into Republican campaigns is no reason why a resource which belongs to all of us and future gnerations should be mismanged.
To me, this is not the most compelling issue, but, it seems to me , to genuine conservatives the wastefulness should matter. What matters to me is the violation of the culture of life, the disrespect, the arrogance, of thinking that an intact ecosystem, the product of centuries of evolution should be thrown away needlessly.
Straight from Seattle Catsy says:
“I have no words for this stupefying misconception.”
Have you ever tried to rent an apartment in China Town in NYC?
When you have get back with me so we can have an intelligent discussion about it?
Btw, I have also lived in San Jose, CA. On a mostly Asian street. Guess what white boy didn’t get invited to the block parties in over two years? (FWI, my girlfriend at the time was Korean.)
Have you even lived in the South?
Catsy says:
“So because racism and bigotry exist everywhere, we’re not allowed to point out regions where it’s particularly endemic?”
Particularly endemic? Is this from your experience in the South or your reading of the newspapers. If you really want to focus where it is particularly endemic, I think it is safe to say that would be California. Riots, beatings and so forth. Then you could move to Ohio. And then maybe you could deal with some of those police beatings in NYC.
I don’t know Tinker.
I lived in Ohio and I live in New York, and none of the people who live in those places would feel free to tell me a racist joke until they knew me, but I just experienced an otherwise perfectly charming businessman from Mississippi tell me one within an hour or so of having met me. I attributed it to him being from the South. Are you suggesting that’s not fair?
I lived in Ohio and I live in New York, and none of the people who live in those places would feel free to tell me a racist joke until they knew me
I should clarify that. No one who gets to know me would ever feel comfortable telling me a racist joke. What I meant was none of the people who live in those places would feel comfortable telling a stranger a racist joke until they knew that stranger.
Edward,
I’m not suggesting that at all. I’m only suggesting that I have experienced something similar almost every where I have ever been.
In Scotland they joked with me about rather living beside the Paki’s than the English.
In Ireland they talked about how all the Bosnias were taxis drivers for some reason I couldn’t understand. Everyone else laughed.
I don’t even feel comfortable repeating what I have heard in NYC or California.
I think it is partly this generalization of the South as worse at this than every where else that I think has lost the Democrats so much credibility in the South.
You know, I think lots of this kind of argument comes down to the fact that racism is very differently expressed in different regions. The comment I’ve heard, and I’m sure this has a source but I don’t know what it is, is that: “Down south they don’t care how close you get as long as you don’t get too high. Up north they don’t care how high you get as long as you don’t get too close.”
I’ve heard southerners before express shock at how comparatively segregated the north is, and I’ve been surprised, and then horrified at myself for being surprised, at the social integration when I’ve visited friends in the south. On the other hand, I’ve had the same experience you’ve had. Expressly racist jokes or comments are sort of shameful and dirty in the north — people may say stuff, but it’s sniggering under-the-breath with people you’re sure are also racist, and it’s very easy to shame people who say crap like that. In the south, it seems to be much more likely to run into people who will just say racist stuff as though they had no idea it was controversial.
Who’s worse? I don’t know or care — I want everyone working together to shut down all kinds of racism, and I don’t want sanctimonious Democrats defining the south as essentially racist. It’s a lot easier to make people walk away from racism if you don’t keep on tying it to everything else they love.
Guess what white boy didn’t get invited to the block parties in over two years?
And you’re still smarting over it? Geez.
I don’t really know what remarks like “China town… don’t have one either” mean, especially when applied to large geographical regions like “the South,” but I grew up in the South, I’ve lived in several southern cities, I live in the south now, and I can testify that ethnic neighborhoods aren’t any less common in large Southern cities as anywhere else. And yes, I have frequently eaten in Korean (Mexican, Guatamalan) neighborhood restaurants, shopped in Korean stores, and been invited to holiday dinners by Korean friends.
I want to say “Everything you love about the South is something we can work with and make better — the only things you need to move away from are things that aren’t central to your identity.
LizardBreath in on the money non-shocker!
For reference, Orlando has a developing region called “Little Saigon”. Arguably, though, Florida isn’t “the South”.
Florida appears to be an emulsification of the South and Jersey — tiny little unmixed droplets coexisting in the same geographical region. Like a vinagrette.
I get your meaning E, but one might also say that perhaps the Mississippian has a different time horizon between stranger and acquaintance than a New Yorker.
By the way, Freakonomics was great. Very enlightening.
Have you even lived in the South?
Grew up there, thanks.
Particularly endemic? Is this from your experience in the South or your reading of the newspapers.
Direct experience, thanks.
If you really want to focus where it is particularly endemic, I think it is safe to say that would be California. Riots, beatings and so forth. Then you could move to Ohio. And then maybe you could deal with some of those police beatings in NYC.
When you’re finished throwing up the “everybody does it” defense, I invite you to give me an example of anywhere else in the country where a white supremacist can be elected governor and there is a sizable population that still romanticizes the Confederacy and what it stood for.