Sunday's column on the effort to restore a significant portion of the longleaf pine forest that once dominated 60 million acres of the Southeast brought some good news from Lindsay Pettus, president of the Katawba Valley Land Trust in Lancaster, S.C. He wrote:
Neat article in Sunday’s Observer as to Longleaf in which a number of conservation organizations and agencies are replanting their own lands with Longleaf. Our Katawba Valley Land Trust plans to do the same with several tracts we own in these next years. Historically at 40 Acre Rock Flat Creek Natural Area there were pockets of Longleaf there and we plan to replant Longleaf on an 86 acre tract.
I think one of the largest USA Longleaf tract stands is on Lackland Air Base property in Florida. We have a 420-acre Conservation Easement at the Battle Of Camden site on Flat Rock Road in Kershaw County and some Longleaf has been planted at this site as a great portion of the Battle of Camden was fought under these trees as both armies fought to win the day.
One writer appreciated the information about the longleaf but was skeptical of any thought that it might be a way to sequester carbon emissions to fight global warming.
Good piece, except for the foolishness about global warming.
Haven't you heard about Climategate? It has been revealed that scientists were admitting that the earth has been cooling over the last decade, manipulating climate data to "hide the decline," conspiring to prevent their data from being made public, and trying to prevent opposing views from being published.
This, at least, casts serious doubts on global warming.
Another writer had a good question:
I have often wondered why Democrats want to legislate this carbon tax on companies (Cap and Trade) but have never hesitated to support massive urban development which necessitated cutting our forests. These trees remove CO2 from the atmosphere while replacing it with oxygen. What effect do you think this decimation of forests has had on "man-made global warming?" Why then is massive urbanization generally supported by Democrats and politicians? Thanks for the article. DP
Richard Mode of Morganton, an NC Wildlife Federation representative to the National Wildlife Federation, sent this note:
Just wanted to thank you for the wonderful article you wrote on the NWF Longleaf Pine Report. Thanks for thanking the folks at NC State for participating in the development of the report. They had to weigh in on the report and critique it thoroughly during a very busy part of their semester and all three contributors did a great job. Their input improved the quality of the report dramatically. Dr. John King even took time to present at the national telepress conference NWF held. Dean Brown has a wonderful staff at the College of Natural Resources. The color and background you added in your article also made the report come alive.
I also want to thank you for bringing us the [OLF] article from Jeff Hampton at the Virginia Pilot. It was quite interesting.
I just finished reading James Hoggan’s book Climate Cover-Up. The book makes me appreciate that writers like you and Bruce [Henderson] are still out there bringing good information to citizens. No matter how much good work is accomplished, not much happens till people find out about it then weigh in to make good public policy.
Thanks for filling that need so well.
Wednesday, January 06, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
A reader wrote in and Mr. Betts posted: I have often wondered why Democrats want to legislate this carbon tax on companies (Cap and Trade) but have never hesitated to support massive urban development which necessitated cutting our forests. These trees remove CO2 from the atmosphere while replacing it with oxygen. What effect do you think this decimation of forests has had on "man-made global warming?" Why then is massive urbanization generally supported by Democrats and politicians? Thanks for the article. DP
The reason urban development is BETTER for the environment is because is limits urban sprawl which gobbles up the land where longleaf and other native plants grow. Urban cities are much more sustainable, and much better for the environment. More urban, walkable cities can take advantage of mass transit, produce much less emission from cars, use less land, require a less extensive network of infrastructure to support (water lines reaching out for miles and miles in urban sprawl), etc. Being urban is good for the environment, not the opposite which the reader suggests.
Post a Comment