|
To Conserve
North Miami Beach, FL January 8, 2001 Aaron H.
Schectman
THINKING ALLOWED
Essays on issues, ideas and reflections on the times. Published now and
then, Opinions pro or con are welcome.
TO CONSERVE
To "conserve" should not to be confused with being a "Conservative". A
number of Conservatives have decided that conserving dwindling natural
resources is no longer the motif of their home in the Republican Party.
A case in point is the striking lesson I learned as a new reader back in
the 1930s but which was written in the last years of the 18th Century. I
came across a story about the way harvesting timber among the tall trees in
the western United States COULD be done. The eastern forests were already
gone. The process was to preserve a forest by selecting only the tallest
trees and taking them down without damaging the smaller growth. This would
be slower and more expensive of course. But it would save younger trees
allowing them to grow to be older trees.
I believe the heroes of this tale were the Republican President Theodore
Roosevelt and Muir the famous naturalist. They reasoned, why ruin the whole
forest when they were after only the most useful trees? Select from among
the best and leave the rest. After another century where the logging
industry had its way with clear cutting the Conservationist arguments are
still ignored.
The history of logging in this country is one of "clear cutting". If you
have seen, as I have, the scars on mountainsides in the western states you
will get a clear picture of what the loggers have done. Carol and I have
seen Oregon's rivers choked with the logs sent down to the Mills. Their
practices have clogged the rivers where important species of fish must
breed. We have seen the magnificent Redwood remnants in small pockets here
and there when once there were huge stands stretching from horizon to
horizon. This is not an appeal for tears. These were ancient forests
because it takes the lifetimes of whole nations of people to grow these
giants. They are no more and will no longer be around if the new
conservatives have their way.
I cannot document it but I recently read that the Arabian Peninsula now
dry, sere and empty of life once was forested. The account read that the
Romans cut down these trees, perhaps to make the crosses on which they
nailed their critics. If you travel along the southern mountain roads
leading to Reggio Calabria in Italy you will see what the Romans did there.
The mountains and hills are bare. The Roman need for trees was insatiable.
In Israel there are forests planted to restore the land as part of the
Zionist plan for making a homeland for the Jewish Diaspora. Armies passing
through such as the Persians, the Assyrians and the Romans also cut down the
trees in ancient Palestine. This same plan could provide cool comfort for
the Diaspora of Arab populations still restricted by host nations in
"Refugee" camps. But, instead of planting, the opponents of rational
thought and the future of posterity, terrorists regularly set fire to and
cut down new forests which are planted regularly.
It is not the Brazilians who champion leaving Brazil's Rain Forest alone.
It the Conservationists of all countries who decry the removal of vital
natural means to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere while
replenishing the oxygen we breath. Those Rain Forests took millennia to
grow and host life forms that are irreplaceable. The New Conservatives seem
unaware of these facts.
To conserve should not be confused with being conservative. To drill for
oil where dwindling species of wildlife thrive is no honorable plan for
people who wish to be known as "conservative". To champion business and
commercial needs over those of the Earth is not "conservative". It is
insanity. We can find ways to save our planet and find work for our people.
What do you think?
Carol's Evaluation: out of 10. Carol also says:
|
 |
|