Position 1: Management by foresters has a consistently negative impact on the global environment and is therefore an unacceptable alternative to letting nature take its course.
– Management of endangered/threatened species by biologists is necessary to save them in spite of the evolutionary process of survival of the fittest.
– Management of non endangered/threatened wildlife through hunting and fishing is perfectly acceptable as is the use of formerly forested areas for managing the production of most food sources.
– Destruction of seed source, destruction of endangered species, sterilization and increased erosion potential from baked soil; all resulting from catastrophic wildfires is preferable to scientifically sound forest management activities that can significantly reduce the risk and extent of such catastrophic wildfires.
Position 2: Corporate greed and lust is destroying our nations forests.
Logical Inconsistency: ‘The total forest area in the US is within one percent of what it was 100 years ago. During the last 60 years, per acre production of forest resources have increased by more than 50% in the US and 94% in the Southeast’
– Page 5 – http://www.watreefarm.org/Dovetail2012.pdf as cited in – http://www.envivabiomass.com/faq-wood-pellet-demand-in-europe/
Position 3: Alternative Energy sources like solar and windfarms are far superior to fossil fuels including nuclear energy. Even non-renewable fossil fuels that introduce new carbon into the atmosphere are superior to renewable biofuels which simply recycle the existing above ground carbon.
– Forest clearcuts are unacceptable even though they mimic the natural process of death and regeneration but it’s ok to permanently clear the large acreages required to produce significant quantities of wind and solar energy.
– Don’t place wind and solar energy farms anywhere that they would interfere with aesthetics like they would if they were placed on ridges along the west coast where sufficient wind power is fairly common and especially not in any forests in my favorite recreation area like a state park or national forest.
– Don’t sweat the loss of endangered/threatened raptors, migratory and other birds and bats due to windfarms but one dead skink in a clearcut is a national tragedy. Windfarms supply only 3% of US grid electricity yet they already kill a significant but arguable quantity of birds and bats. What will the mortality be and what will the aesthetics look like when 20 to 30% of our energy comes from windfarms? What will the aesthetics look like when Solar Power production rises to a significant level from its current 0.1% of production? What environmental impact will occur in providing all of the rare earth elements necessary for a significant portion of our energy production to come from solar power?
Beware of logical inconsistencies (AKA think before you leap).