If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBC)   Being a "scientific tree-hugger" is a thing now, because the two lofty aspirations never, ever conflict with one another   (cbc.ca) divider line 36
    More: Dumbass, trees, cultivation, integral, extinctions  
•       •       •

656 clicks; posted to Geek » on 14 Jan 2014 at 1:26 PM (35 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



36 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-01-14 01:31:06 PM
Subby should probably stop reading "scientific journals" sponsored by the petroleum, lumber, etc. industries.
 
2014-01-14 01:52:38 PM
Hmmm, it seems all the people I know who are in life sciences are "treehuggers". My brother, who has a degree in environmental science, and who worked for fish and wildlife in Washington, will be glad to tell you all the problems the salmon are having there. And many of the other scientists I met, I came to know them at the Sierra Club.

Now, sure, my physicist roommate is a global warming denier and generally anti-environmental protection, but he isn't in life sciences. He likes lasers and technology and basically perfectly fits the profile of the geek that isn't into nature.

And I'm sure all those climate scientists are who keep finding that we're causing a dangerous warming trend are just in the pockets of the filthy rich environmental lobby, and they are burying the true results of their research which is obviously in confict with their views. Same with all the biologists, botanists, and ecologists that keep finding we're in the middle of a human-caused extinction event, and are all worried about the plants and animals - I'm sure their just faking it.
 
2014-01-14 01:57:44 PM
I'm not just a tree hugger, I'm an Air Breather.
 
2014-01-14 02:04:47 PM
So Subby disagrees that trees are important? If so here's a suggestion. Hold your breath until you can somehow release your own supply of oxygen tree-free.
 
2014-01-14 02:14:28 PM

bbfreak: So Subby disagrees that trees are important? If so here's a suggestion. Hold your breath until you can somehow release your own supply of oxygen tree-free.


Actually, if one really wants to get pedantic about things, algae in the oceans is responsible for much more of the oxygen in our atmosphere than trees are.
 
2014-01-14 02:21:37 PM

Millennium: bbfreak: So Subby disagrees that trees are important? If so here's a suggestion. Hold your breath until you can somehow release your own supply of oxygen tree-free.

Actually, if one really wants to get pedantic about things, algae in the oceans is responsible for much more of the oxygen in our atmosphere than trees are.


Subby probably doesn't like algae either
 
2014-01-14 02:25:36 PM
I hug a tree just before I cut it down so I can heat my house in the winter.  Doing my part to go carbon neutral.... well that and I am cheap and a fire make the house so cozy.
 
2014-01-14 02:36:15 PM
Well some of the principals that environmentalists espouse are not technically scientifically based.  That said, it's a pretty safe assumption that environmentalists as a whole are much more scientifically literate than non-environmentalists.
 
2014-01-14 02:38:12 PM
Responsible environmentalism is practical, better for the economy, and less tied up in ideology that laizes faire capitalism.  Some environmentalists do not get this, but that has no bearing on how boneheaded "do nothing" is an approach.
 
2014-01-14 02:41:04 PM
Tom Clancy had a book where he used "tree-hugger" as a pejorative.  Over and over.  I'd read all of Clancy's books to that point, but that was the last one.  Enjoying nature isn't something to be ashamed of.  Sure, there are some extremely stupid or misguided ideas under the umbrella of environmentalism, but there are with most movements.

Crotchrocket Slim: Subby should probably stop reading "scientific journals" sponsored by the petroleum, lumber, etc. industries.


And you should stop being so binary about issues.  Do you think solar and wind farms are always built on treeless land?  Should resources be devoted to preserving the Torreya Tree in its Florida habitat or should the relocation to the Carolinas be encouraged?  Or both?  Should California's eucalyptus trees be cut down?  What about Florida's melaleuca trees?
 
2014-01-14 02:50:03 PM

Marquis de Sod: Millennium: bbfreak: So Subby disagrees that trees are important? If so here's a suggestion. Hold your breath until you can somehow release your own supply of oxygen tree-free.

Actually, if one really wants to get pedantic about things, algae in the oceans is responsible for much more of the oxygen in our atmosphere than trees are.

Subby probably doesn't like algae either


Given that algae is pond scum that's pretty much assured.
 
2014-01-14 02:54:42 PM

FLMountainMan: And you should stop being so binary about issues.  Do you think solar and wind farms are always built on treeless land?  Should resources be devoted to preserving the Torreya Tree in its Florida habitat or should the relocation to the Carolinas be encouraged?  Or both?  Should California's eucalyptus trees be cut down?  What about Florida's melaleuca trees?


I'm not sure what post this is in response to, but it wasn't mine. Caring about the environment and being educated, informed, and generally aware of environmental science has always gone hand in hand (I read  subby's implication to be the opposite of that). The only thing left to debate is how best to care for our environment.

And preserving things in their natural habitats is almost always the default better option, emphasis on "almost".
 
2014-01-14 02:56:04 PM

adamatari: it seems all the people I know who are in life sciences are "treehuggers".


As a life science researcher I think you must not know many people who work in labs. The amount of waste we generate is enormous. Just incredible. Often toxic, too. That's not even getting into the energy requirements to keep our instruments and data center running, which are ungodly. I have a hard time calling myself a treehugger when my work gives me a larger carbon footprint and waste output than some small towns.
 
2014-01-14 03:06:43 PM

thurstonxhowell: adamatari: it seems all the people I know who are in life sciences are "treehuggers".

As a life science researcher I think you must not know many people who work in labs. The amount of waste we generate is enormous. Just incredible. Often toxic, too. That's not even getting into the energy requirements to keep our instruments and data center running, which are ungodly. I have a hard time calling myself a treehugger when my work gives me a larger carbon footprint and waste output than some small towns.


Yeah this. My inner tree hugger cries a lot at work.
 
2014-01-14 03:20:52 PM

FLMountainMan: Tom Clancy had a book where he used "tree-hugger" as a pejorative.  Over and over.  I'd read all of Clancy's books to that point, but that was the last one.  Enjoying nature isn't something to be ashamed of.  Sure, there are some extremely stupid or misguided ideas under the umbrella of environmentalism, but there are with most movements.


Yeah, that happened to me, too. I don't remember if it was whatever book "tree-hugger" was in, but I remember getting into a book and thinking "holy crap, age has decayed whatever organ kept him from saying all the bigoted, mean, jerkish, egocentric things he used to know are wrong but couldn't help feeling. Guess I'm done reading this asshole."
 
2014-01-14 03:22:48 PM
Naturalists are scientists, subby. The first scientists were naturalists even. What are you, some kind of hooplehead?
 
2014-01-14 03:30:56 PM
Many people who claim to love the environment are not very scientific about it. Like people who hate deer hunting when they are over populated due to us killing off thier natural predators.
 
2014-01-14 03:32:47 PM
If someone spends all their free time outdoors in natural settings but is an Engineer that doubts the typical AGW claims, does that make him a "denier" subject to the unflinching scorn of the typical news consumer?

Is it possible to love nature and doubt man?
 
2014-01-14 03:47:08 PM

Wook: If someone spends all their free time outdoors in natural settings but is an Engineer that doubts the typical AGW claims, does that make him a "denier" subject to the unflinching scorn of the typical news consumer?

Is it possible to love nature and doubt man?


Yes, it's possible to be factually wrong, while having opinions at the same time.  This isn't complicated.
 
2014-01-14 04:12:50 PM

Crotchrocket Slim: FLMountainMan: And you should stop being so binary about issues.  Do you think solar and wind farms are always built on treeless land?  Should resources be devoted to preserving the Torreya Tree in its Florida habitat or should the relocation to the Carolinas be encouraged?  Or both?  Should California's eucalyptus trees be cut down?  What about Florida's melaleuca trees?

I'm not sure what post this is in response to, but it wasn't mine. Caring about the environment and being educated, informed, and generally aware of environmental science has always gone hand in hand (I read  subby's implication to be the opposite of that). The only thing left to debate is how best to care for our environment.

And preserving things in their natural habitats is almost always the default better option, emphasis on "almost".


My examples highlight where loving trees and being scientific or being an environmentalist might come into conflict.

And in your example, "natural habitat" typically means "an idealized version of what we think America was like in 1491 at some exact moment in time".  I think the conservation movement needs to accept that nature is constantly in flux and we can't achieve that idealized version.

quo vadimus: FLMountainMan: Tom Clancy had a book where he used "tree-hugger" as a pejorative.  Over and over.  I'd read all of Clancy's books to that point, but that was the last one.  Enjoying nature isn't something to be ashamed of.  Sure, there are some extremely stupid or misguided ideas under the umbrella of environmentalism, but there are with most movements.

Yeah, that happened to me, too. I don't remember if it was whatever book "tree-hugger" was in, but I remember getting into a book and thinking "holy crap, age has decayed whatever organ kept him from saying all the bigoted, mean, jerkish, egocentric things he used to know are wrong but couldn't help feeling. Guess I'm done reading this asshole."


I think Stephen King is another guy that is beginning to show signs of this.   11/22/63 felt like a white billionaire from rural Maine hectoring me on the evils of racism every five pages.  And then justifying it in an incredibly out-of-touch afterword.  I realize an author's politics certainly influence their writing, but there are subtler ways to do it.  John Grisham, in the mass market, does a pretty good job of it.
 
2014-01-14 05:45:22 PM

ikanreed: Responsible environmentalism is practical, better for the economy, and less tied up in ideology that laizes faire capitalism.  Some environmentalists do not get this, but that has no bearing on how boneheaded "do nothing" is an approach.


yep, I agree.

Here a decade or so ago, it was hip in environmental circles to be against anything ranching where I grew up.  After several ranchers went bankrupt after facing lawsuits and ever constricting regulations they simply subdivided or sold their land to developers which promptly started building cookie-cutter mansions  on 2 acre parcels.  It didn't take long that these enviros decided that maybe they didn't think their cunning plan all the way through.
 
2014-01-14 06:08:53 PM
Organic chemists and environmental engineers, your day has finally come!

/better hide the ditch full of petrochemicals before the cameras arrive.
 
2014-01-14 06:14:22 PM

thurstonxhowell: adamatari: it seems all the people I know who are in life sciences are "treehuggers".

As a life science researcher I think you must not know many people who work in labs. The amount of waste we generate is enormous. Just incredible. Often toxic, too. That's not even getting into the energy requirements to keep our instruments and data center running, which are ungodly. I have a hard time calling myself a treehugger when my work gives me a larger carbon footprint and waste output than some small towns.


But at least we feel bad about it!

/The amount of paper we go through...
 
2014-01-14 08:19:41 PM

Saiga410: I hug a tree just before I cut it down so I can heat my house in the winter.  Doing my part to go carbon neutral.... well that and I am cheap and a fire make the house so cozy.


Burning wood is a terribly inefficient way to heat and creates tons of air pollution to the tune of killing about 4,000,000 people every year. Also definitely produces carbon dioxide.
 
2014-01-14 10:24:15 PM

Arthen: Burning wood is a terribly inefficient way to heat and creates tons of air pollution to the tune of killing about 4,000,000 people every year.


No it is not.  about 40 bucks for the permits and maybe 100 bucks for gas will heat a house for the winter where I grew up (one of the coldest places in the lower 48).  Good ol double barrel stove and you are set.  Hell, even sit a prewarming water tank next to it prior to your hot water heater.

Also definitely produces carbon dioxide.

The CO2 will be produced during the rotting of the wood or during the forest fires anyway.  Might as well get some BTUs out of it in the process, right?
 
2014-01-14 11:30:40 PM

HeadLever: Arthen: Burning wood is a terribly inefficient way to heat and creates tons of air pollution to the tune of killing about 4,000,000 people every year.

No it is not.  about 40 bucks for the permits and maybe 100 bucks for gas will heat a house for the winter where I grew up (one of the coldest places in the lower 48).  Good ol double barrel stove and you are set.  Hell, even sit a prewarming water tank next to it prior to your hot water heater.

Also definitely produces carbon dioxide.

The CO2 will be produced during the rotting of the wood or during the forest fires anyway.  Might as well get some BTUs out of it in the process, right?


Pemits?  Must be a regional thing.  Covering about half of my heating this winter with 7 to 10 gal of gas.


As for efficiency my one splurge on building my house 3 years ago was to install this http://www.icc-rsf.com/en/opel-2-fireplace  and have it piped into the main trunk of the HVAC system.

 
2014-01-15 12:36:37 AM
I'm a scientific tree-hugger. You can't go wrong with the facts. Fact is: We're farked.
 
2014-01-15 07:51:48 AM

HeadLever: Arthen: Burning wood is a terribly inefficient way to heat and creates tons of air pollution to the tune of killing about 4,000,000 people every year.

No it is not.  about 40 bucks for the permits and maybe 100 bucks for gas will heat a house for the winter where I grew up (one of the coldest places in the lower 48).  Good ol double barrel stove and you are set.  Hell, even sit a prewarming water tank next to it prior to your hot water heater.

Also definitely produces carbon dioxide.

The CO2 will be produced during the rotting of the wood or during the forest fires anyway.  Might as well get some BTUs out of it in the process, right?


You want one of these.

www.earthineer.com
www.iwilltry.org

Does your hot water, central heating, room heating, really efficient. Heat you home and your water with twigs pretty much, Rotting produces methane as well as CO2 so IMHO burning is better.

I can see the two trees that produce the CO2 I breathe from my window. I keep them healthy and they give me oxygen. I may name them at some point. I`m thinking one should be called `sexy`. If the rest of the world fails to step up that`s not my problem. I`ll be dead by the time it is. Crack on.

The people dying from open fires are doing just that, having an open fire in their home with all the problems that brings. They cook on it inside their home and that causes extra issues as well.
 
2014-01-15 08:17:59 AM
The original tree-huggers:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chipko_movement

Incidentally why I'd prefer to be identified as eco-feminist rather than a deep ecology; the value of nature is purely instrumental.
 
2014-01-15 08:35:25 AM

Nurglitch: Incidentally why I'd prefer to be identified as eco-feminist rather than a deep ecology


You are currently called `a deep ecology`?

You are not making much sense. Are all eco-feminists like you?
 
2014-01-15 09:18:49 AM

Saiga410: Pemits?  Must be a regional thing.


cutting firewood on National forest.  5 bucks a cord.


dready zim: You want one of these.

The redneck way:
img.photobucket.com

 
2014-01-15 01:35:39 PM
She's not just a treehugger and "renegade scientist". She's a medical bio-chemist.

Like, she might save your life or the health or sanity of a loved one some day.


And she speaks for the trees!

I think I may have one of her books. I might be wrong. It's about forests. And it is beautifully written, very lyrical and wise.

She's a witch! Burn her! Burn her!
 
2014-01-15 01:44:48 PM

HeadLever: Saiga410: Pemits?  Must be a regional thing.

cutting firewood on National forest.  5 bucks a cord.


dready zim: You want one of these.

The redneck way:
[img.photobucket.com image 800x600]


The garage that I grew up in had a burner just like that except dad used a fan to push air through the tubes in the top barrel and built an outside air kit for it.  It works great for getting the garage nice and warm.
 
2014-01-15 01:53:00 PM
I spent about a week scanning family photos at Christmas. My grandmother had a collection of photos showing the local mill and logging in the 1920s and 1930s. They may have archival value seeing as they document the history of one of the largest employers in the area. They were entrusted to her by somebody (I don't yet know who) for safe-keeping. Somebody who foresaw that they might have interest or value to future generations.

There are many redundant pictures of loaded logging trucks and piles of logs, many of them two to four feet thick, maybe more, some of them.

Gone, all gone. The mill closed, partly because there's nothing much left to log profitably. They simply don't make trees like they used to. Although the province is still covered with trees to the tune of 80% or more, the trees are all spindly youngsters 30-40 years old or less. And the mills have a hard time competing with competitors in Finland (where everybody seems to have their own small woodlot on which they work during the summer) or Russia or Brazil.

This is one thing that has in the last year made me realize that much of the landscape we regard as wild and natural is the result of 300 years or more of human activity.

The woods look healthy and wild, but they have been cut or burned over several times in the last 100 years. There isn't a stick of forest primeval anywhere, even in a province that is 80% forested to some degree or other.

The types of trees that grow now have nothing to do with the trees of the 1920s, and those have nothing to do with the forests of the 1820s which were rich in pine and provided masts for the British navy when Sweden and Russia proved unreliable (for example when Napoleon cut off most of Europe from the UK).

To sell lumber nowadays, you have to meet European standards which are much higher than our North American free-for-all on top of government auctions of timber cutting rights.

My family has been involved in lumbering for generations but clearly Canadians and Americans have made a complete botch of it or else we wouldn't be getting our lumber from Finland or Russia or Brazil.

Still, there are some bright moments. My uncle was doing some of the things that the eco-friendliest Europeans demand you do thirty years ago. He made sure that trees were left along streams and that nesting birds were not disturbed and that a few good trees were left to re-seed.

The slash and plow techniques still used too often destroy not just the trees but the forest--the naked sub-soil is laid bare (how are you supposed to plant seedlings in that?) and too few companies replant nearly enough.

Greed, short-sightedness, haste and waste. Those are the banes of modern industry and they are what make it unsustainable. Every time you carry off the trees, half of the organic material in the forest goes with them. Much of the other half is allowed to clog the rivers or wash away.

It takes 150 years to build an inch of topsoil, but you can remove half of it in a matter of years. And then again in 30 years, remove half of what is left.

How long before there are no forests and grass replaces them? If we don't wise up, less than two centuries would be my guess.

Perhaps this is the direction nature is going, but I expect that it would take her millions, hundreds of millions of years to render the Earth treeless. We might manage by 2200. Not counting global warming, acid rain, acidification of the world's water, and so forth.

And the seas will no longer be full of fish. They have been emptied of 95% of the big ones already. That's another thing that is far from virgin--the seas have been raped until they can scarcely be raped any more.
 
2014-01-15 03:28:56 PM

brantgoose: This is one thing that has in the last year made me realize that much of the landscape we regard as wild and natural is the result of 300 years or more of human activity.


Yes and no.

I am not sure where you are, but here in the intermountain west, there is still plenty of wild landscapes that have not been touched by logging.  It is intermingled with the areas that have.  Also don't forget that the practice of logging has drastically changed over the last 100 years.  It went from selective logging just because we did not have the ability to take it all to clearcutting everything in our path, back to somewhat of a selective practice based upon environmental regulations and partly based upon the fact that the quality of trees is not what it used to be.

And let's not ignore the elephant in the room and that is forest fire.  Fuel loads in the forest around here are producing huge, destructive wildfires that eat up some pretty good lumber stands and absolutely destroy riparian habitat, increase erosion and can even sterilize the landscape for decades.  Logging can be an effective remedy for this issue along with modifying our practice of stamping out every forest fire possible.

do you have information on the softwood imports by Brazil and Russia.  I can't find much to confirm you discussion on these imports.  I am pretty sure that Canada and the US does not import much softwood other than from each other (mostly from Canada to the US), but I could be wrong here.
 
2014-01-15 03:52:37 PM

Saiga410: The garage that I grew up in had a burner just like that except dad used a fan to push air through the tubes in the top barrel and built an outside air kit for it.  It works great for getting the garage nice and warm.


Double barrel stoves are pretty efficient and very easy and cheap to make.  Here is a pretty cool document on several types of wood stoves (including one exactly like the one you describe).

http://www.aprovecho.org/lab/rad/rl/stove-design/doc/18/raw
 
Displayed 36 of 36 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report