patrick.net

I believe that America is still has the greatest oppertunity in the world if you are poor and uneducated.

If you are willing to work hard, and make the right decisions - you can still make it in this country. Definitely much more so then other places in the world.

I believe Amerika is still has the greatest spell checkers ever. But no more rail-roads to build. Long march baby

Actually, there are still a lot of forests in America, so much so that the price of lumbar is still pretty reasonable. Air is the cleanest it's been in the last 30 years in major metropolitan areas after the institution of things like catalytic converters. Definitely much cleaner then say Mumbai, Shanghai or Mexico City

Lots of Americans feel bad when they see images of trees being cut down, because they've been told that America's running out of forestland.

Carl Ross, of the group, Save America's Forests, says we've cut way too much.

"The loss of natural forests in America is a crisis," he said. "And we will lose species forever, and they'll go extinct, if we don't take action now."

Other environmental groups run ads warning of the dire consequences.

But The U.S. Agriculture Department says America has 749 million acres of forestland. In 1920, we had 735 million acres of forest.

We have more forest now. How can that be? One reason is technology that allows us to grow five times more food per acre — so we need less farmland. Lots of what once was farmland has reverted to forest.

But Ross says we don't really have more forests. "We have more areas, in America, with trees on them, that's true. But we have less that are natural," he said.

He's right that many of the oldest trees have been cut down, and about 7 percent of America's forests have been planted by man, but that still means that 93 percent are natural.

Ross is also concerned that loss of old-growth forest is leading to a loss of biodiversity. But while some species have decreased, the populations of many others animals have actually increased in the past 75 years.

Michael Shermer says many people believe America is destroying the forests because environment groups need to scare people to raise money.

"The fear is there," he said, "because, if your goal is to raise funds you have to scare people. You can't tell people things are getting better, and here's the data. You have to tell people things are worse."

The truth, however, is that today in the United States there are two acres of forestland for every single person, and America is growing more trees than it cuts.

Source: ABC News
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=123606

Hi,

I don't doubt you when you say your local area no longer has old trees. No more then I would doubt that the metropolitan Los Angeles or San Francisco area has far lesser "old" trees then when their were no civilization.

Of course you'll have a scarcity of trees in major urban/industrialized centers - however, as my previous posts shows - the vast majority of forests are only untouched, but thriving. I base this not only on heresy, but from my personal experiences. I am an avid traveler across this great nation. From the forests of California to the great wilderness of Alaska, from the sea of green in Colorado to the blanket of foliage of Utah - I have firsthand seen the countless acres and acres of healthy and endless forests.

I find your prediction that soon everyone forgetting trees that are larger then 3 feet wide to be dubious at best. Even a person living in Manhattan need only visit Central Park to find large trees. Don't forget what my response was too as well, surfer-x made the racist assertion that we do not have any more trees to build with.

My question is, if we are going to run out of "quality" trees, why do we have more areas of old trees now then in 1920s as the US Dept has reported? Is this a false report or skewed report?

newsfreak

Thank you for your comments, again - I do not doubt that previous areas of forestation have been cleared from your immediate area. However, I believe this is a natural byproduct of modern civilazation. Factories, stores, homes, and government facilities cannot be built in the sky or in the ocean. These developments in turn bring immediate jobs (due to contruction) and then future jobs for those that will soon inhabit these newly developed regions.

While, I understand your sadness of wilderness being cleared away due to human activity. It is this very human activity that allows us to have creature comforts that most Americans not only expect but demand.

A natural by-product of modernization and the industrial revolution is of course cities of concrete. However, if you seek a more rural or natural existance - there is a plethora of regions where you can only see trees in all directions.

Of course there will be more running water, no stores, no car repairs shops, no sattelite/cable, no public schools, no electricity, no phones (cell or land) let alone the very internet you are using right now. If you truly demand a minimalist lifestyle there is an abudant amount of very cheap land in America which you can move to.

Now what I described is of course the extreme, there are areas that are sparesly populated as well - you'll have the basic amenities, but the number of jobs, as well as variety of modern luxuries will be much more limited then a modern developed region. Again, however - thanks to the great freedoms we have as Americans - you are completely free to move to these regions. I do know of many areas in middle America that have regions that are very plentiful in trees.

You have the freedom to move to an area that is plentiful in trees, you however must be willing to sacrifice other things to attain it.

*If you feel your local area has sacrificed too much in the name of industry, you also have the freedom to lobby your local city to rezone areas from futher development as well

bap33, You are correct in your statement that a catalytic converter is not the only thing that contributes to cleaner air. However, if you re-read my post, I never said a catalytic converter is the only reason we have cleaner air - I simply cited it as one of the reasons.

Your notion that it does nothing or that it emits poison is wrong. Catalytic converters do quite a bit to help reduce emissions, in fact just go to any track where racers illegally remove the cats to boost air flow and you'll first hand experience the difference (this is with modern vehicles that have all the aforementioned technology)

While it is true, there are poisonous elements within the converter, these elements are not released into the air unless the cat itself is ruptured. Just like oil within a car is poisonous only if you pour it down a public drain. Proper disposal of cats is under the responsibilty of wrecking yards.

As for illegal immigrants contributing to the pollution - it is true - as with any population increase - but that is all together different topic then the loss trees.

I do no know the volume of ash/debris from the Saint Hellens explosion was quite a bit - again however - it does not apply to the number of trees we currently have (except the local area of course)

Newsfreak, thanks for your comments.
As a forum of ideas and as a fellow American I would think you would appreciate honest and heartfelt debate. I’m sorry you feel that I’m playing a “know-it-all” but I sincerely feel much of your assertions are false and am merely stating why/how they are. These forums are here for people to bounce ideas around, and you are more then free to rebut any of my points.
I never said St Helens did not effect the weather in Utah (or any other place.) What I did say is that Mt. St Helens did not cause destruction of trees outside the immediate area. Catalytic converters have cut down trees. If you have some evidence of that St. Helens or Cats causing the direct logging of trees, I would be very much interested in seeing it.
You are free to seek a smaller footprint in society, this is definitely you’re right. However, as you know when you have a development or a higher density of population, you will definitely cut down trees to support that growing population. So you are correct that an influx of population (illegal or legal) would stimulate this, and I’ve already said the exact same thing. I’ve already made it very clear that a natural by-product of large population centers is the clearing of trees.
However, if you look at the context of what Bap and I were discussing – he did not mentioned housing – we were talking about more automobiles on the road contributing the pollution – not the clearing of trees.
Again, you main assertion (as well as surfer-x) was that we are on the verge of losing trees, (especially old mature forests) on a macro level. I agree this is an indisputable fact in large urban areas, however – not in the macro – but in localized micro areas such as cities. As my facts and the US statistics show, nationwide – we have no less trees or a shortage of wilderness (and old trees).
I understand your concern of the lost of trees from rural development, and depending on your concern, it is your responsibility as a citizen of whatever county you live in to lobby for the halt of rezoning in your immediate area. Your local representatives that are voted by their fellow constituents (your fellow citizens) however seem to disagree with your assessment and have allowed the business development of those areas you have deemed in high value.

newsfreak:

Thanks for your kind comments.

I wouldn't disagree with you that I'm sure your local area has much less older, quality trees as a result of development. I can understand your aversion to the continued development at the cost of local forestry.

Unfortunately however, this is a real result of modernization. Any old or abandoned sites that are now a blithe may need reclamation or redevelopment - again this however falls under the jurisdiction of your local community/government.

The fact still remains that over 90% of our forests have not been disturbed by humans. In fact 93% of our forests are natural and never in your own words "abused" this is not from me or heresy - but from the U.S. Agriculture Department.

Source: ABC News
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=123606

So I do understand we are talking about that 7% that we did replant or cut down. I'm sure your area falls under this 7%. So I agree with you wholeheartedly that your local region may suffer from a lack of "quality" trees - In fact I've often asserted that any area that has human activity will lose trees - so we agree there.

What I am talking about is our forests and nature at large. I just came back from the Sierras and I saw nothing but trees for miles (I was on a plane) - so I must reiterate my stance that I don't think we have a shortage of trees or that people will soon forget what Older, Quality Trees look like - a simple trip to any of our national forests can calm those fears.

Cheers

P.S. I noticed that you and surfer-x use the "K" in America (AmeriKa), what are intentions in doing this?

America does need a lot of work - and I think it will continue too (as well as the human race) I do understand and acknowledge that "quality" trees are not what they used to be, especially in urban areas - however, I personally enjoy the luxuries that those "urban" areas have brought. The conveniences of 100's of different shops, restaurants, entertainment.

I have been to many places where all I saw were ancient trees as far as the eye can see, throughout this great land - I gather what you are looking for is a happy medium - I thought states such as Oregon and Utah shared this middle ground.

The "West" is designed so people can reach their potential- this is the nature of a capitalist free market economy. The cream rises (no more than 5% of the population) and pulls up the rest of the population. It is amazing how prosperous the bottom 50% are in the western world when most have minimal education and minimal IQ and ambition. The western world (Europe and US) has historically allowed a person to achieve their goals but this is gradually eroded to mimic China, Communist Russia, and primitive Middle East societies. When the west dies (Europe, US) , civilization dies with it. Schools need to educate children about the merits of capitalism and free society. Sadly they ape Marxist and Maoist tenets.

Housing bubble failure was a clusterfuck failure of the society. investment banks were gambling with money, the stupid average people were getting into debt over their head because out of greed they thought they were going to be millionaires by simply owning houses for a few short years. Government become utterly corrupt and allowed more and more gambling without putting a damper on it allowing free market to speed up the business cycle crash.

End result is what we have here today. Bunch of greedy wanna be landlords crying that they lost their housing gambles, bunch of wealthy investment bankers getting bailed out because unlike the loser buyers these guys actually have friends in high places.

If you ask me, I truly believe we as a nation deserved that crash. A lot of people were very greedy and stupid, just too bad it affected the rest of us as well. I blame banks for gambling, government for not doing a damn thing about it, and people and realtors who got into debt over their heads for being too damn greedy flipping houses left and right.

Pardon me for jumping in late here and sort off topic, but one thing stuck out in particular at the very first line.

yodaking says

I believe that America is still has the greatest oppertunity in the world if you are poor and uneducated.

Its nice you feel that way and with conviction, but wanting something doesn't necessarily make it so. Here are two graphs from a series of studies presented on this site: http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/338

http://www.voxeu.org/index.php?q=node/338

kent I'm not sure how accurate those graphs are. I can't argue either way of course. But US doesn't have much of that silly European credential-ism and titles of nobility fad that usually makes social movement impossible.

Wow. for a second, I thought that surfer-x was back... then I looked at the date (comment)...

ChrisLA says

kent I’m not sure how accurate those graphs are. I can’t argue either way of course. But US doesn’t have much of that silly European credential-ism and titles of nobility fad that usually makes social movement impossible.

If there's one thing certain about Americans, it's the unshakeable conviction that they are #1 at everything. Nobility? Europe is still run by monarchists in your world?

Kentm,

Great graph.

How about a graph or a matrix that shows the migration between the quintiles? Sort of a Markov model of economic mobility, if you will.

And I'd like to see the model for women, too, not just men.

Vicente says

If there’s one thing certain about Americans, it’s the unshakeable conviction that they are #1 at everything. Nobility? Europe is still run by monarchists in your world?

Europe is very much a monarchistic society. They have social circles that only do business within those circles. I've traveled a lot, I have relatives all over the world. Social mobility is still much higher in US than any other place.

In US social mobility is much much easier without any of this European condescending mentality toward the poor.

ChrisLA says

Social mobility is still much higher in US than any other place.

Ok, so you have completely dismissed the data/graphs that contradict you, and you have further claimed that Europe is monarchistic and do business only in closed circles.

I really don't really recognize the Europe you describe here, having lived there myself. Can you name a major European economic power that corresponds to your description. Heck, name the top three for good measure. I think it might make for some interesting discussion.