Conflicting Demands
Re the previous post: isn’t the gummit sending a mixed message here?
How does the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 jive with USFS Chief Gail Kimbell’s executive decision to declare 400 million acres of private property “wildland”?
My property out here in Flyover Country is now slated to be burned to smithereens in a federal “Wildland Use Fire Used For Resource Benefit,” a bureaucratic euphemism for Let-It-Burn megafires that rage for miles from off the Federal Estate, destroying public and private rural and urban property alike. (It’s true; they have a GIS computer program that makes maps of private land they intend to incinerate in whoofoos.)
How am I supposed to produce biomass slash to solve the Nation’s Energy Crisis while you, the US Government, is burning my place down?
I mean, the two demands are mutually exclusive. You can’t burn me out and expect me to crack oil from wood chips simultaneously, can you? If the carbon burns in a whoofoo and goes up into the sky, you can’t pump it into your tank, right?
You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Not to mention that it’s my cake, not yours, anyway.
If it’s all the same to you, I’d rather not be burned out by a federal whoofoo megafire. Please tell Gail (because she is not paying close attention to SOS Forests like she should be).
By the way, who put into the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 the wording:
but not forests or forestlands that are ecological communities with a global or State ranking of critically imperiled, imperiled, or rare pursuant to a State Natural Heritage Program, old growth forest, or late successional forest.
???? Names, please. Who among you takes responsibility?
Did anybody inside the Beltway read this thing before they voted on it?
Here’s a tip: you can’t save old-growth forests by burning them down. Everybody knows that. Everybody agrees that old-growth forests require stewardship, including biomass removal, to be protected, maintained, and perpetuated. It’s a consensus among forest scientists. The debate is over.
Here’s an Inconvenient Truth: in order to save our public forests and critically imperiled, imperiled, or rare ecological communities, human beings must tend them.
Something is rotten inside the Beltway. BINGOs have taken over our government. There will be more and deadlier megafires, more forests, homes, and communities destroyed, if the behind-the-curve enviro-wackos have anything to say about it, and evidently they do.
by Forrest Grump
Congress full of weenies? Illiterate ones that can’t read fast enough to see what’s in the bills they pass? Mister H. really dug up a doozer.
Not in an LSR? Now, what were Jerry and Norm yappering about a couple of weeks ago?
Something interesting is happening, inasmuch as there are a skyrocketing number of “independent” voters this cycle. I don’t think that’s such a good deal in the short run as the reality seems to be that a fragged electorate tends to leave the hard core on both ends of the spectrum safe in their seats, giving them untoward power especially if they are in the majority.
How is that power abused? Well, look at parliamentary democracies, and note how as the pendulum swings, the winners hose away the stuff their enemies like. England is a shining example, their lack of a bill of rights has allowed dueling majorities to wreck civil liberties for all.
My point is that the two parties are getting an “unsat” rating, and there’s a real need for something different. Something sensical. Something like maybe, um, an American Party? Freedom? Leave Me The Heck Alone? Go Away?
Leviathan is broken, broke, and as the Big M says, he’s in line to pay for it all. Grrrrrrrr.