Right now I’m seeing the mountains I grew up in — where I went to school, where I hung out, camped, backpacked, boated, cheated death and generally formed the foundation of my character — burning down. It makes me sad and angry.
This didn’t have to happen. Once upon a time, forests in California were logged, grazed, and competently managed. It wasn’t always perfect, but generally it worked.
Fires, which are a natural part of that ecosystem, were generally small — not just benign but beneficial. Land management focused on keeping the forest healthy for all involved, whether they were loggers, ranchers, fishermen, hunters, homeowners, or backpackers.
But then things started to change. Groups such as the Sierra Club and National Resources Defense Council began to drive a myopic agenda of protecting environmental interests at all costs. Logging was shut down. Grazing was banned. Controlled burning and undergrowth clearance were challenged and subjected to draconian regulations. Fires were put out as quickly as possible.
So the trees grew closer and closer together. Undergrowth, unchecked by grazing, cutting, or burning, grew thick and tall enough to reach the branches of mature trees.
The forests became thick and overgrown, but man, they sure looked nice and green from a scenic overlook.
Sawmills shut down and the cattle business went elsewhere. Thriving towns dried up and nearly went under. We started importing lumber and beef from Brazil and other places with objectively horrible environmental track records. And the vegetation kept growing.
Are coming for us.
The authors, who are all University of Exeter professors, advocate fines and imprisonment for people publishing “climate misinformation” online. They justify their call for imprisonment by claiming tremendous harm from “misleading information that is created and spread with intent to deceive.”
March 31, 2020: On Tuesday, March 31, President Trump is expected to issue final rules rolling back the fuel-efficiency standards set during the Obama administration
April 1, 2020: CARBON TAX STILL GOING UP: Set to increase 50% despite global pandemic
Related: MPs, who fled Ottawa over concerns about COVID-19 on March 13, will pocket a pay raise on April 1…
Since the ban on neonics, the UK area of oilseed rape has progressively fallen year on year.
What’s more, following an epidemic of cabbage stem flea beetle last year, many growers are choosing to move away from the crop [in 2020]— leaving some saying that the future of the crop is now at crisis point.
This was reflected in the recent AHDB Early Bird survey which revealed that the UK forecast area is down 32% on 2019, and could pose a real threat to production, explains Chloe Lockhart, combinable crops advisor at the NFU.
Looks like we picked a bad day to quit plastic bags.
Put the women in the bleeding hut for 5 days It’s Hereditary Chief approved.
— Zelda (@zeldacanuck) March 1, 2020
By modern standards, my grandfather would probably be considered an environmental criminal. To clear land for his farmhouse in northeast Victoria — and for his milking sheds, pig pens, chicken sheds, blacksmith shop and other outbuildings — he cleared hundreds of trees. And he cleared thousands more for his wheat fields, cattle paddocks and shearing sheds.
Old man Hobbs would probably be found guilty of cultural appropriation too, because he adopted the Aboriginal method of land-clearing. He burnt all of those trees. He also established fire-delaying dirt paths through surrounding bushland.
This was once standard practice throughout rural Australia, where the pre-settlement indigenous population had long conducted controlled burns of overgrown flora — known as ‘fuel’.
As those fires roared through Australia’s eastern coast, killing residents and volunteer firefighters and destroying hundreds of houses, a not-unrelated court report appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald. It told the story of 71-year-old John David Chia, who in 2014 paid contractors to cut down and remove 74 trees on and around his property.
The judge in this case noted that Chia’s primary motivation for the tree removal was ‘his concern about the risk of fire at his property’, but found also the Sydney pensioner’s actions had caused ‘substantial harm’ to the environment. Chia ended up copping a $40,000 fine — more than $500 for each tree.
Similar legal rulings have become frequent in Australia, as a kind of ecological religious fundamentalism has taken the place of common sense. In 2004, Liam Sheahan was charged $100,000 in fines and legal expenses after clearing land around his hilltop property in Reedy Creek, Victoria. Five years later, that property was the only structure left standing in the area following the state’s deadly Black Saturday fires.
In 2001, electricity transmitter TransGrid sensibly bulldozed a 60-metre clearing beneath high-voltage power lines in the Snowy Mountains. The company took the view that high voltages and close-proximity combustible material is not the best combination, but duly lost $500,000 in fines and settlements paid to the New South Wales state government, which described the actions as ‘environmental vandalism’. Two years later, the journalist Miranda Devine reported that the TransGrid clearing became sanctuary for kangaroos, wallabies and three TransGrid staffers who were desperately attempting to create a wider firebreak against that year’s bushfires.
The problem is that we live in a time where malicious interests from inside and outside of the scientific community have targeted scientists, myself included. Universities run from controversy. They are forced into the sad decision of standing up for truth, versus backing down for pragmatic satisfaction of donors, politicians, and activists. Expedience demands that perception trump the mission, even at the cost of those we are charged to serve.
These realities have forced the university to retract me from public view. While silent, I am not out, and am planning the next move, the next chapter. The enemy is not the university or its leadership. The enemy is hunger and the threats to our farmers and environment, and the individuals that take an expert stand in fighting against science and scientists.
If you’d like to do him a small favour, go vote for his proposal. It’s currently at 177 votes.
The voting closes tomorrow.
Update: After checking the vote tallies on the other proposals, he appears to have a significant lead already. Maybe we shouldn’t slam it too hard or the count may look suspicious.
Green Police: Missouri Farmer Is 5th to Get Prison Term for Organic Fraud
What did socialists use before candles? Electricity!
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION SET TO ANNOUNCE WEDNESDAY IT IS STRIPPING CALIFORNIA OF ABILITY TO SET ITS OWN VEHICLE EMISSIONS RULES
“Psst! Wanna buy a box of straws? Getcher sixty piece picnic cutlery here!”
Ottawa to ban single-use plastics as early as 2021: government source. Plastic straws, drink stirrers, plates, cutlery, plastic bags all on the list. PM, environment minister to announce plan in separate locations on Monday. https://t.co/Y3fLJNKEnm
— CBC News Alerts (@CBCAlerts) June 9, 2019
Rachel Carson was an American hero. In the early 1960s, she was the first to warn that a pesticide called DDT could accumulate in the environment, the first to show that it could harm fish, birds, and other wildlife, the first to warn that its overuse would render it ineffective, and the first to predict that more natural means of pest control – like bacteria that killed mosquito larvae – should be used instead.
Unfortunately, the PBS documentary neglected to mention that in her groundbreaking book, Silent Spring, Carson had made one critical mistake – and it cost millions of people their lives.
Most cities and towns in the west were founded and thrived on the essential industries of logging, mining, ranching, and energy production. Somewhere along the way, the environmental industry decided those must be stopped. In a clever semantic twist, they were dubbed “extractive industries.” It sounds noble to produce food, energy, and resources needed for a prosperous society. But “extraction” sounds like pure evil – like pulling a tooth from Mother Nature. A majority of Americans who live in urban cities, not involved in those businesses, have become convinced, supporting a range of policies constricting grazing, mining, oil and gas production, and logging.
Western communities that object have been called myopic, lectured that their lifestyles are “unsustainable,” and assured that tourism would fill the gap. In fact, the “green” jobs created by preserving and protecting the “last great places” would be better. Tourists come in droves to see pristine woods, not logged forests, we were told. And the price of stopping active forest management has been over 100 million acres of national forests burned in the last 20 years.
Yet when the crowds of tourists come, bringing all that money with them, creating clogged hotels, restaurants, and roads, the same environmental industry reacts by demanding that we close these great places to tourists. If nothing else, the contradiction reveals the true agenda of people who just don’t like people. There are just too many, they think.