Quote of the day - from a REAL conservative

"And allowing our financiers to run unchecked is about as conservative as leaving the faucet running."

- Maurice Manning, "My Old Kentucky Conservatism", New York Times, 2012-11-05.

Manning has a lot more gems about how the so-called conservative Republicans are wasting resources, who have no other values than purely monetary gain and have "no interest in local preservation or local well-being" and who are "shortsighted, opportunistic and wasteful".

The political spectrum – from wrong to wronger

The conventional idea of the political spectrum from left to right is as if one adapts different ideas as one moves smoothly from one side to the other.  But people aren't so easily graded as eggs.  Some people are for ideas 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, and other are against all six.  Some people are for ideas 1, 2, and 3, and against ideas 4, 5, and 6.  Others are for ideas 1, 3, and 6 and against 2, 4, and 5.  And so on.

But a group of activists or diehard or hard-nosed have determined that if you are for ideas 1, 2, and 3 and against ideas 4, 5, and 6, then you are a conservative.  If you are against ideas 1, 2, and 3 and for ideas 4, 5, and 6, then it is obvious that you are a liberal.

Even the labels conservative and liberal are misnomers.  If you are for liberal extraction of resources then you are a conservative.  If you are for conservative extraction of resources you are a liberal.  If you are liberal in what powers should be given to corporations you are a conservative.  If you are conservative in what powers should be given to corporations you are a liberal.

About the only thing conservative about conservatives is keeping privileges and powers to themselves.  About the only thing liberal about liberals is spreading privileges and powers to larger and larger numbers of people.

So, Mel, what about your title "from wrong to wronger"?

That was a bit of whimsy based on my dissatisfaction with political discussions, mostly spectrum categorizations.

Many of the "liberal" causes don't excite me.  Sure, two people who share some property should have rights of inheritance.  I have many gay and lesbian friends, but I don't get excited about celebrating their status.  I buy as much as I can locally, but on the other hand I'm not going to give up bananas and coffee because they are transported so far.

Most of the way "conservative" causes are presented excites me even less.  Many regulations may be hard to fathom, but let's not get rid of all regulations.  Do we want unsafe trucks on the highways and tainted food?  Freedom is a nice idea, but "freedom" doesn't mean free to do whatever one damn well pleases.  Abortions may be something to avoid if possible, but bombs cause lots of abortions without the mother even having a choice.

It is tough to be a thoughtful voter nowadays.  Even if you like idea A of the conservatives and idea B of the liberal, they all muddy the waters so much that I'm afraid too many people are going to stay home on election day.  As for me, I'll vote for wrong over wronger.

The letter writing Magrees

Our son in Tokyo had a letter published in the Japan Times.  He argued for more conservation rather than rolling blackouts.  Blackouts disrupt business, but many of the signs are still lighting up the sky.

Also watch the Duluth News Tribune for a letter by my wife Jan on multiple trash haulers covering the same routes.  The editorial staff called yesterday to confirm that she sent it.

Save a tree? Why?

Starbucks has been running a commercial to encourage people to bring reusable travel mugs instead of asking for a paper cup.  The commercial shows people putting Starbucks paper coffee cups on the pavement, eventually creating a picture of a tree.  One of the slogans is "One person can save trees, together we can save forests." Ironically, they are not saving coffee beans.  As each person places a cup on the pavement, it is quite obvious that it still contains coffee!  That was lots of coffee to use for a single ad.  I will admit that the cups had to be weighted in case of a breeze.

Minnesota Public Radio has a campaign to get people to become sustaining members.  On the air they are saying "Save a tree" because it will reduce their mailings because sustaining members will be automatically charged each month.  Additionally, for each new sustaining member they will have a tree planted in the member's name.

I don't like to see waste and I like to conserve resources by recycling, but I think these "Save a tree" campaigns are somewhat misguided.

First, the much of the wood pulp for paper comes from private lands.  When held by a forest products company, they are managed for sustainability.  When a tree is taken from such land, it is replaced by planting or by natural regrowth.

Second, the primary source of wood pulp is aspen and balsam fir, both which regrow naturally.  In fact, I call them both weeds.  Aspen regrows quickly from root suckers.  Balsam fir grows from seed cones without much effort.  In fact, both kinds of trees continually spring up in any area of our Brimson property that we don't keep clear.

I am very allergic to balsam fir, getting a severe skin reaction any time I have to trim a balsam or cut one down.  I've talked to a logger friend about removing many of them, but he says there is no market for balsam.  I may have to hire him to remove some near the cabin; they are too close, especially with drought conditions.

"No market for balsam" may be an indication that many recycling efforts are "paying off".  Consider also that many paper companies have been downsizing.  One could change the slogan to "Save a tree; fire a logger."

Worse yet, the value of private forest lands is increasing so much that forest product companies are selling their land to real estate companies.  These companies are selling them off in smaller parcels to individuals.  When this happens the individuals take out trees for driveways and buildings.  See "Breaking Up the Forests".

The breakup of the forests could have consequences for wildlife.  One could change the slogan to "Save a tree; starve a moose."  Somebody long ago told me that if I wanted moose, clear cut.  When we bought our property, there was a recently cut area of aspen (aka poplar or popple).  The stand was about eight-foot high and we occasionally saw moose tracks.  Now the stand is twenty to thirty-feet high and we haven't seen a moose track for years.  Moose aren't completely gone from our area.  One of our Brimson neighbors found two dead bull moose with locked horns: "Shed Hunter Finds Two Minnesota Record-Book Moose Locked After Battle to the Death".

Moose aren't the only tree predators.  One could change the slogan to "Save a tree; shoot a deer."  We have made many efforts to plant trees.  Our most successful was white spruce.  We had some success with sugar maple with probably half the seedlings turning into twelve to fourteen foot trees.  We tried red oak and they are all gone.  We had hoped to plant hundreds and hundred of white pines, but deer took a big toll on them.  We initially stapled paper to the tips in the fall (the recommended practice), but the deer would bite the top off below the paper.  We tried putting circles of fencing around individual trees, but the deer would reach in with their tongues and pull the tips out.  We put screen around the fencing and that seemed to work.  Unfortunately, for all this protection, we couldn't protect against drought.  Several of the trees that survived the deer turned brown and died.  I think of the 200 or more pines that we planted over a two-to-three year period, only about forty have survived and only about twenty are taller than me.

We have been harvesting aspen for firewood, both for our cabin and for our Duluth house.  I think we used about eleven trees last year, almost all aspen.  We are starting to use some birch; it is finally getting to fireplace size after a big die-off several years ago.  But our job may have become easier.  One could change the slogan to "Save a tree; stop the wind."  Except for some trees that were in the way of other trees, we have been harvesting broken tops.  The best yet are the four-inch diameter trees that were snapped off in a big wind storm or two.  The woods looked like it was full of a jumble of toothpicks.  When we can get to those without bark, all we have to do is cut them into fireplace lengths, no splitting.  These are just great for having a fast, very hot fire to warm the cabin quickly.

Ah yes, fire.  One could change the slogan to "Save a tree; start a forest fire."  A mature forest is much more likely to burn and over a wider area.  If we reduce our harvest of trees too much, we will have more forest fires.  It is nature's way of providing for large-scale renewal.

I think where we really have to be concerned about trees is in urban areas.  I regret that we no longer have any of the back yard trees we once had.  A silver maple and a birch became too old.  An ash provided easy access to our attic for squirrels, and three smaller birch just got in the way of the power and telephone lines.  Other than our arbor vitae, trees in the front yard are out of the question because of sewer lines.  Boulevard trees are impossible because the boulevard is only two feet wide.

Overall it is going to be more difficult to have neighborhood trees.  Wider streets leave less room for trees.  The ongoing sewer work in Duluth is going to lead to more front-yard trees being taken down or fatally stressed.  Disease and age are going to do in many mature trees.

About the only places left for lots of trees are parks.  Do we want to spend the tax money to keep our parks green?  It's either spend the money on a healthier environment or spend the money on health care.

Be careful what you wish for, you may get the opposite.

Vertical farming: down to earth or pie in the sky?

The Reader Weekly had an article in its 2009-12-03 issue on vertical farming; that is, farming in an agricultural skyscraper. Vertical farming will supposedly solve a lot of agricultural problems, including scarcity of land and cost of delivery to market.

The Reader Weekly article was taken from http://www.emagazine.com/earthtalk/archives.php. I thought I had accessed the original article but can't access it again. It may be in response to a question in the 2009-11-06(?) issue.

One constant reference is to The Vertical Farm Project. This seems to be nothing but design projects, no demonstration projects. I did find "Vertical Farm Built in Iqaluit". but the article is about a nearly completed project and was written in 2008-04-01. Unfortunately, note the date! The story goes on to tout the wonders if the story were true.

I have a hunch that many people took this story for gospel. Hm, something more akin to the "The Age of Unreason". We believe uncritically what we want to believe.

I've lost my way in all the twists and turns of my search for more info on vertical farming. Supposedly there was a vertical farm demonstration project at Cornell University, but a search of the Cornell web site gives nothing on vertical farming.

If the benefits were so great, one would think there would be hundreds of demonstration products by now.

Saving trees or saving other green?

I received an email today from an organization asking me if I would rather not receive paper copies of its publications. The message title included "Save a Tree". I don't think that this organization or any other is so much interested in saving trees as they are in saving money. Putting out a glossy magazine ain't cheap.

Additionally, growing trees for pulp can be a sustainable enterprise. Cut the trees down and some more grow up. Let the trees stand too long and they rot and die. Of course, trees as a group were doing fine before the saw was invented.

What reducing the demand for paper might do is to reduce the opportunity and incentive for non-sustainable practices.

Still, I think most save-a-tree campaigns are either a feel-good endeavor or a cost-cutting move.