Trees can be recycled!


by NW Spotlight

Stop me if you already knew this – trees can be recycled! Apparently, if you cut them down they can be recycled and used to build things for a children’s playground. I wonder, with enough government and university studies, if trees could be recycled into other things? Maybe things that could be used to build homes, fences, furniture and even pianos? This is Oregon – let’s dream!

As with all good things in Oregon, this story begins in Portland. In order to build another bike path, Portland Parks and Recreation determined that they were going to have to cut down a majestic 75-year-old sequoia tree. That made some Portlanders very sad – one woman kissed the tree and said goodbye to it before they cut it down.

The majestic sequoia did not die in vain, however. Portland city officials said “they have plans to mitigate the loss of the tree.” Part of their mitigation plans include “recycling” the tree and turning it into “different features at a nature play area” in a Portland park.

Wow – what ingenuity! Imagine if Portland could spread this idea of recycling trees out to other parts of the state that aren’t as smart as Portland? There could become a whole tree recycling industry – where trees were cut down and then recycled into other useful things – like materials that could be used to build houses or micro-breweries! Small wonder Portland has a team called the Timbers!

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 05:00 | Posted in Environment, Timber Joey | 21 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Another urban buzzword that could be used to described Oregon’s lost economic engine is “renewable”, since timber can be replanted.

    • valley person

      Trees can be planted, but habitat from older forests can only be replaced by allowing trees to grow for a very long time.

      And I have to say, like most Oregon Catalyst articles this snarky one illustrates why conservatives and republicans continue to lose ground.

      • 3H

        And I felt kinda embarrassed for the author.

      • Tony Leggitgo Unchallended

        If a valley person falls in the forest, and there’s nobody to hear, does it make a sound – or jest wave out a human sense organ call c/o 3H-111 for some snort of emotional rescue?

      • Dean, restrictions on logging in Oregon go far beyond what is needed to protect vital habitat. Those who ideologically support this state of affairs are a part of a majority coalition, but as a group their numbers are fairly low.

        • Damascusdean

          Eric, with all due respect, this isn’t the case. Oregon has very minimal restrictions on logging along streams, much weaker than in Washington or California. And old forest habitat is concentrated on federal lands, which by law have to manage them to protect endangered or threatened species. There are at least 400 species of wildlife known to favor, if not depend on old forest habitat. This is science and law, not ideology.

          You are right that public support for conservation exists within a majority coalition that may have other concerns. Nevertheless, you of all people ought to recognize that a huge part of this coalition is people under 35, and they don’t find these snarky posts about tree huggers amusing.

          It is rural conservatives who need to start adapting.

          • Your reply betrays a certain misunderstanding about what the word “ideology” means. Perhaps that is common these days since that term is used pejoratively and “science” is uttered with a more favorable connotation. Ideology is how we place a normative value on facts. Science generates facts but it does not place values upon them.

            The “law” is of course neither scientific nor necessarily ideological; it is nothing more than the codified application of the coercive power of the state. I pretty much hate all logical fallacies, but one that I am really peeved with right now (due to all the rhetorically challenged anti-immigration memes my conservative friends are sending into my facebook newsfeed these days) is the vulgar assertion that because something is the law, it has a normative superiority over other policy alternatives.

            The ideology to which I was referring above is of course Romanticism which not only places value in nature independent of humanity’s use of it, it does so to the point of privileging nature above humanity. Science tells us that salmon are a very plentiful kind of fish on this planet. Science also tells us that every stream where salmon spawn has a slightly different genetic variation whose differences are extremely small. Science does not tell us whether or not this small variation quite rises to the kind of speciation that would have us protect every stream like it contained the last salmon run on earth. Science also tells us that salmon of each variation can be preserved by fisheries. We need ideology to tell us that we must only protect wild salmon in every stream. We need ideology to tell us that the domestication of salmon through fisheries in most streams is a bad thing relative to restricting logging in a way that would protect all wild salmon in every stream.

            Regarding the notion that there are 400 species in Oregon that would live more comfortable lives if we continued to stall the powerful economic engine of logging, science does not tell us that it is wrong to make these species’ lives uncomfortable. I know of only one species that has really been identified as threatened by logging, but it turns out the Barn Owl is the real culprit to the Spotted Owl’s demise. Perhaps there may be another species or two, maybe even 4, but there are not 400 endangered species in either federal or state forests in Oregon threatened by increased logging.

            There is a Lockean liberal form of environmentalism that most people in both urban and rural communities will support to mitigate true negative externalities. Romanticism’s radical environmentalism is an ideology coming from Rousseau’s intellectual tradition that is very politically vulnerable when its game of equivocation with Lockean values gets laid out in a clear way in the public sphere.

            If you think people under 35 don’t find this amusing perhaps you don’t watch enough of the Daily Show or read enough of the Onion. Radical Environmentalism is very vulnerable for ridicule to audiences of all ages.

          • Damascusdean

            Salmon…of which there are many species, may be plentiful on the planet. But the particular salmon species and subspecies that inhabit Oregon streams and rivers are far from plentiful. Many runs are already extinct and many others are hanging on by a thread.

            I’ve never heard of Romanticism described as an ideology before. Interesting take. But doesn’t that set you up for describing any lens through which one views the world as an ideology? And doesn’t that in turn make the term ideology of no particular use?

            Salmon are very good indicators of stream health. Water too warm… salmon die. Not enough wood to trap leaves to feed bugs that salmon eat…salmon die. Too few side pools and channels to get out of storm torrents…salmon die. Damns blocking up or downstream migration…salmon die. They are also charismatic species that people can identify with an embrace, so the image of the salmon is used to gain support for conservation. But if you are at all engaged in conservation, you would know that the numbers of people, from all walks of life, including loggers by the way, who support conserving salmon here, not just in Russia, are far larger than some radical fringe. They (we) are in the large majority, even in the red parts of the state. I know because I work with people from all over on this issue.

            Many species you don’t know about are dependent on old forests. The spotted owl is the one that was picked 4 decades ago as an indicator of the health of old forest ecosystems because it was large and easy to study, unlike say the red tree vole or northern flying squirrel, which the owl dines on.

            And its the b-a-r-r-e-d owl, an introduced species, not the b-a-r-n owl, a native species that uses entirely different habitat, that is out competing the spotted owl.

            People under 35 do not find conservative snarking over environmental issues amusing. They do find the Daily show or Onion parodies of conservatives snarking over environmental and other issues amusing. Don’t get confused about what and who they are laughing at.

            What is really “radical” and myopic in this day and age is to write off any species or ecosystem you don’t have an immediate economic use for.

          • A basic understanding of ideology offers much insight into analyzing modern political cultures, acquiring this understanding does not make the term of no particular meaning. It will however render its vulgar usage meaningless, where one side claims they just follow the facts and ideology describes the other guys’ thinking.

            Even the term “radical” has a somewhat technical meaning in the Political Theory 101 context to which I use it. This word is not synonymous with “extreme”; it refers to political thought whose normative assumptions can be traced back to Jean Jaques Rousseau who is as foundational to modern political thought as John Locke. Indeed, Locke is very much the intellectual father of the American Revolution while Rousseau was Locke’s counterpart in the French Revolution. Very few people, political junkies included, actually read the Second Treatise on Government or Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men. Political values tag along other social vectors such as art and literature. Romanticism was the vessel by which Rousseau was introduced into American intellectual life. It’s perfectly understandable for you not to have taken the time to master political philosophy, but surely you’ve read Henry David Thoreau’s Walden.

            The goals and aspirations of radical environmentalism are extremely vulnerable, perhaps that is why Obama was forced to run for reelection as an oil and gas man. I think you understand this all too well Mr. Apostol and it likely troubles you. What is really “radical” is to intentionally destroy the livelihood of entire communities like Estacada Oregon. How myopic it was to reduce proud middle class families into clients of the welfare state forced to migrate to the squalor of urban places like East Multnomah County all in the name of protecting the Spotted Owl without any conclusive scientific proof that the loss of the substantial positive externalities from logging would yield a true recovery.

            Evidence of how politically vulnerable radical environmentalism is even within the ruling coalition of today’s Oregon blue state establishment can be seen in how dependent it is on equivocating unscientific myths. The public’s support for salmon recovery depends on their belief in something that is not scientifically true, that salmon as a species are near extinction. The Coho Salmon for example thrives as the official animal of the Chiba Prefecture of Japan for goodness sake. In Russian this plentiful fish is called “kizhuchIn.” The current application of the Endangered Speicies Act has undergone a remarkable mission creep from the original bill of goods that was sold to the American public in 1973. Courts have now litigated the protection of Coho Salmon in Oregon into what has come to be known in the legal literature as ESUs (Evolutionary significant units) which as a matter of science amount to something more akin to the superficial racial differences of humans from different continents. If this were common knowledge then the public would be clamoring for a more rational balancing of economic interests to help lower Oregon’s very high unemployment rate.

            Political cultures change; I wrote a book about that. While you’re busy exaggerating the popularity of the policy prescriptions that matter the most to you, you might be surprised how quickly radical environmentalism in Oregon could find itself missing a place to sit in the musical chairs game of political coalitions. The irony of it all is that a greater understanding of the true science supporting our anti-logging policies threatens to attract reform more than anything else, except perhaps snarky satire which young people seem to prefer regardless of its source. I think that you are so worried about this reality, that is why you nervously kid yourself into believing that folks under the age of 35 will somehow be immune to the snarky satire posted above simply because of its source. Clearly you don’t understand how they would come into contact with this article if they did.

            In our social media world, people under the age of 35 don’t get information by the source, they get it by link through their facebook or twitter feeds. I certainly don’t spend time watching the Daily Show or reading the Onion on a regular basis, but from social media I see their links ridiculing environmentalists all the time. It’s having an effect, and so would this article if it were to go viral. I have seen several of my articles go viral via twitter where people I have never heard of with a large following of young readers are using hash-tags placing my articles into the view of a general audience. That is why I spend time writing despite my busy day job. I know I have an impact in this post-gatekeeper world. This dynamic does not bode well for radical environmentalism’s continued free riding on the political status quo.

          • Damascusdean

            Yes political cultures change. And guess what? We just changed. The demographic and social forces that had been building up over the past 30 years finally overtook what had been the dominant paradigm. You are occupying an eroding piece of political real estate with a diminishing number of old, rural white guys.

            But I admire your pluck.

          • The 2012 election was a status quo reinforcing election, hardly change. Again, regarding coalitions, Obama had to campaign as an oil and gas man; I’m sure that fact frustrated you. As you watched the debates I’m sure you reassured yourself that he did not mean what he was saying. The chamber of congress that most skews rural remained in Democratic hands because that crop of Bob Casey’s who are pro-life on abortion held firm in Red states. The chamber that most accurately represents an urban America remains firmly in Republican hands. Anyone interested in real political insight would not extrapolate the power of incumbency too far to divine other trends.

            A concept you might also be overlooking is that majorities bring out contradictions. I consider it a healthy and indeed good thing that the Republican Party is so divided right now. At the national level, its three branch of government majority from 2003-2006 accomplished nothing good. I don’t ever want to see a GOP of big government conservatives in power ever again; I would rather have New Democrats. There is no doubt in my mind that the greatest cost of the Twenty Second Amendment is how it robbed us of enjoying the competence of a sixth term of the Clinton administration that we could very well be in right now. Which again is a dynamic you are overlooking. If Democrats managed to find themselves holding the Senate and taking the House in two years, contradictions within their coalition will emerge as well. It’s not clear to me that radical environmental policy has a natural home with either the DLC side or the union side, neither of which has a love for unneeded economic trade-offs.

            There is another system of political coalitions out there, that many of the best political analysts have been pondering about recently. I’m not sure if you read the Cook Report much or peer reviewed poli sci work of the same nature, but much research of late has discovered that the widest coalition would be supported by the broad majority of voters who now are conservative on economics and liberal on cultural issues. Sounds a lot like Bill Clinton’s post 1994 vision of American politics to me. The New Democrats are hunkered down in a progressive dominated party right now, but all it takes is Democratic Party success to bring out the contradiction.

            A simultaneous intra-party ideological struggle within both the major parties looks to me what 2016 is all about. That will be what a change election looks like. Now imagine that natural majority coalition emerges out of that crucible, a coalition of both free market people and ACLU people. Using the old terminology, it’s center right on fiscal matters and center left on social matters. It would then be opposed by a socially conservative economically populist coalition. Think about that Dean. Where do radical environmentalists pitch their tent in that political dynamic?

            That’s all wide speculation of course, but what is less speculative is how unpopular radical environmental policies are to the average voter right now, when the details of the science are presented. So much of what you are trying to accomplish relies on code words and concepts like a “charismatic” species.

            Environmentalists remind me of Neocons in their utter consciousness of how unpopular their ideas are to an uncultivated public and their focus as a movement on how to package and sell their ideas to voters. Even then they tag along with more legitimate things like immigration reform and gay rights. But just like Neocons the same threat exaggeration is there; the same 1% doctrine is there all pushed by a very small group of committed intellectuals. I believe Chomsky coined this “manufacturing consent.”

            For example, I have watched your disciplined avoidance of the term “environmentalist” in favor of “conservationist.” Conservation implies a Boy Scout like thing that is done for resources that are actually scarce and highly valued by a local community. Environmental policy connotates protecting nature for nature’s sake even when there is an overabundance of it. I understand why you carefully choose the former rather than the latter.

            I also don’t think there is anything wrong with being ideological; everyone is, even when they do not know the intellectual history of their own values. What I have pointed out to you is that the policy choice of forgoing so much economic growth for our state to restrict logging is based on an ideology that few ultimately share.

            There is much broader support for environmental policy of the Lockean variety so radical environmentalists engage in a game of equivocation to harness that support. If the salmon runs in Oregon were the last on earth, that would no doubt change the nature of this issue. If the only way to go fishing for salmon in our streams depended on wild salmon runs, because there was no such thing as a hatchery, that would change our policy choices as well. Don’t let your reliance on these common public misperceptions make you drink your own kool-aid and forget how thin your ideology’s political support really is.

            There is much fertile ground in the realm of environmentalist mythbusting. Perhaps you will enjoy part 2 of my last article which will be about some interesting things I observed in OMSI’s Earth Hall.

            Indeed, my pluck seems to know no bounds. I am seriously considering retiring young right now and going to graduate school. The primary thing that has held me back from an academic career until now has been that I have resisted the need to pick a specialization, but rigorous research on environmental policy seems to be a fruitful line of work to specialize in right now and the foreseeable future, given that remarkably so little of it occurs.

          • Damascusdean

            Republicans have been out voted for president in 5 of the last 6 elections, and the one they did win was just barely. The share of the vote by youth and minorities has increased steadily. Short of Democrats really screwing up, its hard to see Republicans winning the presidency for some time to come. They appear to be on the wrong side of every major issue of the day, and have gone overtime pissing everybody who is not rural and white off. Which is why they are working overtime to prevent urban minorities from voting.

            Everyone is not ideological. Everyone has opinions, and those opinions are colored by experience, but ideology implies a more rigid and widely shared frame through which things are viewed. Many if not most people don’t spend that much mental energy on politics, which is why elections spend so much on 30 second ads.

            Conservation is the proper umbrella term to cover today’s environmental stewardship. There is a continuum from sportsmen, who may only want to save what they can shoot or hook, and preservationists, who want as much as possible put as off limits as possible. When it comes to salmon conservation in oregon, the entire spectrum works more or less together, at times uncomfortably, through watershed councils. And look at wolf re-population as another example. Outside of ranchers, its hugely popular. How do you explain that away?

            I’m not very concerned with where radical environmentalists go Eric, for the simple reason that they are pretty few these days and have little influence. It seems to me you have not been keeping up with the field of conservation. If you had you would know that the torch is now carried by practical people doing practical projects that have long term payoff. Modern conservation is run like a business, sometimes it even is a business. You appear to be fighting the last war.

            Overabundance of nature? Fascinating. Outside of arctic regions, there is no such thing. The Pacific Northwest is about the most ecologically intact temperate region on the planet, and every ecosystem we have, from desert grasslands to rain forest, is down to fractions of its historic extent. You have strayed into my field now, so be careful or I’ll start laying numbers on you.

            Your pluck can easily become nothing more than run of the mill chutzpah. And I can tell you from experience, academics does not pay all that well. You would likely be making an economically negative decision. Even the pensions aren’t what they used to be. But if that is your muse, by all means. If nothing else you would piss people off and provoke a good debate.

          • So I point out to you that the 2012 election was a status quo election and in reply all you can do is mention the past six presidential election cycles? I understand why you would ignore the results of the control of the US House of Representatives during that same time period; it fundamentally contradicts your assertion. If the Republican Party was only supported by old rural white people it would not have held the House for 18 of those 22 years which is similar to the ratio of 5/6. Indeed it is the same ratio if Republicans hold onto the house in 2014.

            The difference between using presidential results and congressional results is that the presidential elections are more skewed by apolitical factors such as the quality of the candidate running, incumbency and of course the infrequency of the elections themselves. From a statistical standpoint the House is a more accurate gauge of a party coalition’s national success. So naturally you choose to cite the less representative presidential elections because you are not seeking understanding; instead you are grasping for confirmation bias.

            Presidential elections over the past two decades don’t even provide you with that. The Clinton years were more focused on limiting government than the Bush years. Let’s not get too far off the original point we were discussing: environmental policy goals have been a liability for Democrats. Given America’s growing distaste for religious conservatism, nativist anti-immigration demagogues and Neocons, it has been a liability they have at times been able to afford in presidential races, but tough environmental votes are a definite loser in close congressional districts. Even in Oregon don’t expect Kurt Schrader to stick his neck out too far for them, and even Pete Defazio in his very safe district 4 frequently bends to local pressure on logging. I recognize that Republicans are on the wrong side of several issues, but you and I were talking about environmental policy which is not one of them in the voting public’s eyes. You said that an article like this hurts Republicans when in fact it is one policy area where they get the most traction outside their traditional demographics, a fact on display in the presidential debates.

            Another way of saying that everyone has ideology is to say that everyone has normative values. As you struggle to come to grips with this, now you do so by throwing out the word “opinion” from experience like it is some kind of a value free, inductive, a posteriori process. Experience provides people with their perception of both facts and values, but normative and positive reasoning still remain analytically separate. An illiterate peasant engages in normative reasoning and his normative thought is as deductive and as a priori as any guy with formal training in political theory. As a matter of evolutionary psychology, we do this naturally. Humans being as Aristotle termed πολιτικό ζώο, this happens naturally without any formal training. Humans naturally form and transmit through culture an ideal vision of the Good, the Just, and the Beautiful.

            Political theory can be boiled down to three ideologies. To say that everyone is ideological does not mean everyone subscribes to only one such ideology on all policy matters. And of course the average person is riddled with philosophical contradictions.

            There is an embedded Lockean Liberalism in American political culture. Democrats are more purely Lockean on civil matters while Republicans are more so on economic matters. The dream coalition would be to incorporate a broad governing coalition with the most voters. When we poll issue by issue Charlie Cook has pointed out quite persuasively that this would be to create a new coalition that is fully Lockean. On environmental policy this Lockean coalition would use government power to mitigate negative externalites protecting the environment in a way that is consistent with its utility to humans. So your sportsmen would be in; your preservationist would likely be out. It’s hard to see however a secure home for preservationists in a union dominated coalition of economic populists either.

            I doubt the reintroduction of wolves is going to play out very well. Any environmental policy that is deceptively sold as having no cost will poll well initially. That is my point about the failure to rigorously research so many of these policies. When the costs become known, things change. Long before game in Oregon becomes as scarce as elk in Yellowstone National Park, it will be open season on wolves in Oregon.

            As you defend your terminology, you confirm my point. Your reply essentially admits that any term but environmentalist will do. Conservationist invokes sportsmen so you go with that. Sportsmen are valued broadly in our society. Environmentalist invokes the preservationist. The folks whose purchases brought Alan Weisman’s The World Without Us onto the New York Times best seller list are broadly ridiculed in our society. It’s not entirely clear to me that Republicans have much trouble winning the sportsmen’s vote, but to return to the main topic we were discussing, when publications like the Oregon Catalyst ridicule preservationists, there is no political cost, indeed there is much to be gained.

            Preservationists is your code word for radical environmentalists. You mention their agenda only in the context of its cooperation with sportsmen so that you can shelter it under the umbrella term of conservationist, but you do this knowing full well their goals, their lawyers, and their lobbyists go far beyond the cuddly terminology. These are people who want to incur costs on society to preserve things that are not scarce, protect the habitat of species that are not endangered, and push for any marginal increase in unloggable wilderness. They want to increase the amount of land that exist in a little world without us far beyond any recreational needs, and far beyond any habitat needs to preserve any particular species. Mathematically, our virgin wilderness is a fraction of what it was when Captain Vancouver first navigated the Columbia. For those that dream of that world without us, this is a tragedy. For most everyone else, if we can log and replant, and the only environmental cost is the knowledge that man has been there and done that, but we still have our squirrels, the earth remains full of wild coho salmon, local fishermen can have plenty of hatchery fish to catch, then the failure to harvest this very valuable renewable resource ends up looking rather silly to folks of all ages rural and urban.

            But for those preservationist however, otherwise known as radical environmentalists, you are right Dean, they are pretty few, but they have had an influence far beyond their numbers in Oregon, largely because the details of these policies’ costs and benefits don’t get much scrutiny in a rigorous way. I’ll be retiring young here soon. I don’t need much money, just something interesting to do for living. I don’t want to deal with Dodd Frank’s red tape for the next decade or two. Life’s too short. It won’t so much be chutzpah I will pruduce, more like clear analytical distinction between competing environmental policy alternatives and rigorously quantifying costs and benefits. As I survey the literature, I’m surprised how little of this is being done. Environmental policy is being debated by both sides in qualitative terms with symbols and code words, but very little cost/benefit analysis.

          • valley person

            Eric, you are smart enough to know that more people voted for Democrats for the House than for Republicans. The latter control the House only because they were able to gerrymander enough seats in 2010 and Democrats are highly concentrated in urban areas. Republicans are now a long term minority party. They are geographically limited to the south and plains states. Their continued control in the House is a lagging indicator. They actually have better prospects in the Senate, which favors parties concentrated in sparsely populated states, but they keep blowing that opportunity by nominating yahoos.

            2012 was a status quo election precisely because the status quo shifted demographically. If 2016 is another status quo election, and then what will you say? Wait until 2020?

            You are way off on how you read environmental issues, especially forest management. Yes, there is some sentiment for raising logging levels on public forests somewhat, but there is no proposal on the table that would get anywhere near back to the levels of cutting of the 1970s and 1980s. That era is over, and there is no public support for going back to it outside of the few remaining timber dependent, and dying towns.

            Logging levels will go up a bit, but mainly because the clearcuts of the 50s and 60s are just now reaching commercial size, and given that nearly 1/3 of the national forests have been harvested already, this will create an abundance of 2nd growth timber that will last for 3 decades. Many if not most “environmentalists” support selective harvest of these plantations as a way to provide some timber and create more ecological diversity and stability and reduce fuel loads.

            “Preservationist” is a term for those who seek to protect an ecosystem by drawing aline around it and excluding most human manipulation. What we in the conservation (full spectrum) field have learned over the years is that most ecosystems are not “preservable.” As a colleague of mine once put it, “If you want to preserve a cucumber you turn it into a pickle.” Nearly every wilderness in the west is a fire adapted or fire dependent ecosystem, and as it turns out many of the fires that used to burn through them were set by people, who were ecosystem agents. Add in climate change, introduced invasive species, and the small size of any preserved area within its context and you soon figure out that “preservation” means action, not inaction. We thin, burn, spray, weed, and plant the wilderness now. Its not a terrarium.

            Preservationists, from John Muir to David Brower to even our own Andy Kerr, played an essential role in our society by calling attention to valuing that which we did not exploit. They were able to draw lines and prevent a 100% conversion of natural areas to farms, plantations, ski resorts, and mines. We owe them our gratitude. But preservation has pretty much run its course, especially in the continental US. Active conservation, which goes way beyond sportsmen but is inclusive of them, has taken the helm.

            I encourage you to go to the web site of the Freshwater Trust and look at an entrepenurial approach to conservation called ecosystem credit trading. Also, Ecotrust and Shore Pacific Bank are buying forest land and managing on ecological principles for private investors. They are logging and restoring watersheds at the same time. Its very cool stuff. Like I said, you seem stuck in the last war. Move on.

            Cost/benefit has limited utility in conservation. The benefits are very widespread and diffused, while the costs are specific and concentrated. Lots of work has been done on this. You can start with Herman Daily from my side, and Gregg Easterbrook from your side. But good luck on your quest.

            When wolves were returned to Yellowstone, the elk stopped hanging around like cows eating all the riparian plants and started moving again. This led to riparian recovery, which led to the beaver returning and building wetlands, which led to songbirds and many other species returning. The wolf was in effect a restoration agent of the land. Fascinating story and you ought to read up on it sometime.

            Last point from me. If there is to be a convergence of civil libertarianism with economic libertarianism, its more likely to take place withing the Democratic party than in the Republican party. The reason is that the former has already evolved into a more pragmatic, less ideological entity. Most of the people I work with are Democrats, and they are also managing businesses, logging trees, restoring watersheds, teaching, and researching. Meanwhile Republicans are captive of their knuckle draggers, and you can see that playing out more and more with each election cycle. I mean, no one in a leadership position in that party can even admit that global warming is a scientific likelihood.

            The Dems have the intellectual capital right now, the Republicans do not, and the disparity is is only going to grow because we have the educated youth and you have the cranky old guys arguing with empty chairs.

          • As always I give you the last word my friend, busy week ahead of me. I look forward to reading whatever you have to say about my article next Thursday.

          • Oregonnative

            It is interesting the Eric S. talks about ESU’s ( Enviromental Significant Units). It seems that NOAA has set that Bonniville Power Admistration (BPA)- (Judge Redden decision) and the Port of Portlands ( toxic damage) has to come up with so many EPU’s to replace their damage by dams. NOAA or Portland City is unwilling to extend thier boundaries for fisheries boundaries for fishery improvement and expect the parties to pay Milllions of dollars per EPU in which will tie up the improvements nessarry in the courts for years. Thank you again one of our tax funded agencies to spend and require industries to spend fighting each other ” for years” in the courts and nothing gets done.

  • zanzara2041

    Liberals and Democrats kill a tree!!! OMG!!! What is the world coming to!!! We’re all gonna die, along with all the trees!!! Oh, my!!!

  • Bob Clark

    Another idea, if we must persist in this non-scientific based obsession called man-made global warming, is to plant more trees; enumerate the planting and growing of additional trees; and turn the additional tree stock into lumber which would sequester the dreaded extra CO 2 gases emitted by humans. It could be arranged so private property owners could do this voluntarily without government requirements, and in fact if it were successful it could reduce the obsession for government imposed climate change intervention. It would become the case of killing a government bureaucrat job by planting a tree and turning it into lumber used to build houses or other long lasting structures (playground structures might not qualify as they deteriorate relatively quickly compared to houses (which last for over a hundred years in many cases)). This idea has actually been used when building new fossil fuel fired power plants by the developers of the plant.
    p.s Consensus is something Bill Clinton was very adept at, and is sorely missed in the Presidency of Obama. (Clinton had a GOP congress just as Obama, but Clinton was not so stubborn and driven by legacy ambitions that he put the government in front of an otherwise vibrant economy as the current president does.) Consensus is not science but in the case of “Climate Change” is art form wrapped in a façade of science. It’s the Noam Chonsky like definition of politics: “Politics is about the manufacture of consent, and the illusion of participation.” When the computer models for climate change, after intensive hard wiring of results, are still off by a factor of almost 2 (standard deviations) against actual temperature results (as in National Academy of Science appendix information data table buried in the back of reports) you know science is taking a back seat to political agenda.

  • Oregonnative

    We have bee desceved byy the enviros for many years and our elective individuals have been seeking their votes for many years. I have watch our forest burn and been decismated by disease and fire for over 20 years and communities lost. Now supported by someones tax dollars.
    Now Portland ( Multnomal County wishes to take out some old growth trees for what and where are the enviros complaining or tying up the courts with the goverment funded law suits. How Ironic.

  • andrew

    Amazing idea in this tress are also reused.Thanks for share this great news with us.

    Industrial Recycling

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)