Posted on 08/08/2005 6:50:27 AM PDT by The_Victor
Astronaut Eileen Collins is concerned about the environmental degradation she sees from space. On board the fragile spaceship Discovery, she lamented from her unique vantage point above the Earth: “Sometimes you can see how there is erosion, and you can see how there is deforestation. It's very widespread in some parts of the world. . . .We would like to see, from the astronauts' point of view, people take good care of the Earth and replace the resources that have been used.”
The first thought that must have sprung into many people’s minds was, “Who made her an expert on this?” Well, astronauts are actually given training in detecting major areas of environmental degradation that can easily be viewed from space. After all, we are approaching a half century of amassing detailed photos of the Earth's surface viewed from the heavens. They are trained to watch for areas of Amazonia and the Congo tropical forests and compare amounts of deforestation with photos from 10, 20, 30 years ago. Likewise, they watch for how far out into the oceans the silt plumes from the major rivers extend. Or for expansion of the great Sahelian Desert further south into sub-Saharan Africa.
After all, it was the early astronauts and Adlai Stevenson, inspired by the photographs they took, that first remarked how fragile was this tiny ball of blue and green, floating through the enormity of time and space, how this was our only home, and how important it was that we should take care of it. Thus was born “Spaceship Earth.” There isn’t anything wrong with that, but what is troublesome is more the attitude and what they are looking for. NASA, the EPA, and the Greens have been trying desperately to turn the space program into an Earth observation program — the Mission to Planet Earth — for almost 20 years, to justify perpetual funding as part of the nation's and world's environmental-protection mission. Conveniently, this means not having to constantly justify the massive expense of spacewalks, manned missions, moon landings, whatever.
The nonsense is that everything evaluated is done so simply in area extent. The desert is larger! And so man or development is evil. They never look at causes or incentives: Why do the tropical forests continue to decline? Does NASA or the White House science adviser ever suggest any institutional factors? No one owns the forests and people in many of those forested countries live in dire poverty in nations with no free-market economies, no jobs, no food. Thus their only choice is felling the forests, raising crops and livestock, and hoping they can sell some of the rare forest woods in the illegal markets that the G-8 and Tony Blair are so concerned about. Has anyone noticed that Amazonian states continue to urge the teeming populations of Brazil's coastal cities to move into border areas and clear forests to create boomtowns? Perhaps entire regions of Africa would not have to subsist on "bush meat" if their dictators would allow Frank Purdue to start up some chicken farms.
Astronauts might actually gather some useful data if they took extensive infrared photos of the U.S. forests to document the extent of unhealthy forests — the millions upon millions of acres of dead and dying trees — suffering from over-crowding, disease, bark-beetle infestations, whatever. All of those are results of failed environmental policies forced on our national forests by the Greens — all the things that the Bush Healthy Forest Initiative was supposed to start repairing. Of course, much of the nation still doesn't believe that the forests are ill, preferring to believe that the HFI was passed to pay off the Bush administration's Big Timber donors.
As for Eileen Collins’s comments themselves, a moment’s thought reveals them for the platitudinous claptrap we have come to expect from people who don’t know all that much about Spaceship Earth. She has seen “widespread environmental damage,” whatever that may be. “Sometimes you can see how there is erosion.” Huh? That is one of the most fundamental and basic processes on the planet. There is uplift and there is erosion — the two big players in the geological game. What are wind and rain and freezing and thawing supposed to do besides erode? “And you can see how there is deforestation.” Again so what? And why? Why do you suppose the trees get replanted in the vast clear-cuts of the giant timber companies, but not in mankind's common tropical forests?
She keeps on going: “We would like to see. . . people take good care of the Earth and replace the resources that have been used.” What is that supposed to mean? Refill copper mines with more copper or start pumping crude oil into depleted reservoirs?
As for the comment, “We don't have much air,” well. . . what is her concern? That people are using it all up by breathing? This is grade-school environmentalism at best, not the sort of thinking we should expect from the highly qualified scientists that astronauts are supposed to be.
With the shuttle seemingly falling apart around her, Collins might spend a little time worrying about how she's going to get her crew safely back to terra firma, even if it is badly polluted. Home, sweet home — be it ever so humble.
— R. J. Smith is scholar in environmental policy and Iain Murray is a senior fellow in international policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free-market advocacy group.
“Sometimes you can see how there is erosion.” Huh? That is one of the most fundamental and basic processes on the planet. There is uplift and there is erosion — the two big players in the geological game
This comment is a cheap shot. Collins is obviously talking about man made erosion, not geologic processes. Anyone familiar with the effects of the dust bowl in the 30's or witnessed the erosion and silting in countries like Haiti, Madagascar and Indonesia know what she's referring to.
I thought her message was lame yesterday, too. Debate raging on earth, and she is talking about how they are enjoying themselves.
Didn't hear that message yesterday but I suspect if she had commented on whatever debate was raging she would have been chastised for that too. Sometimes you just can't win.
As for the crew enjoying themselves, I would be too. Not many get to do what they're doing.
If you knew how much Ms. Collins' shoddy environmental analysis from space cost the taxpayers, you wouldn't call it a "cheap shot."
Meanwhile, no one will stop this religious exercise with taxdollars in view of the fact that all the buildable land in the Tahoe Basin got there by way of erosion, both natural and man-made in the first place!!!
Anybody with an ounce of sense would realize that mountains of pine pollen washing down drains from the over-grown forest that surrounds the lake like a powder-keg are effecting lake clarity far more than man-made pollution!!!
Why is the proposition that mankind's every activity on this planet is such an evil that must be terminated being bought into by some Conservatives, Republicans and Freepers?
A friend of mine who works for NASA, and in particular on the refueling crew for the Shuttles, tells me that the formula for the foam insulation on the main tank was "revised" several years ago to meet EPA standards and ended up being weaker than what was originally used. Big chunks now break off on every launch, sometimes with disasterous results
“Sometimes you can see how there is erosion.”
Oh Wait! That's just another piece of the shuttle falling off.
I am now convinced that NASA has been taken over by the moonbat crowd. Funding Junk Science is not on my radar.
DUMP NASA!
What a bunch of crap her statements are. Good post here.
All the more reason to not enter the PC fray. I will not demean Col. Collins for what she said, and the lack of knowledge she may or may not have. I'm just annoyed that with all that the space program has to deal with, she chooses a pet project for activism that the manned space program has no business in.
Please, spare me. Man made erosion is a huge problem and was in the US before more scientific methods of plowing and crop rotation were implemented. Take a drive through some of the older farm areas in the farm belt and it's painfully obvious what man made erosion can accomplish. As for deforestation, fly over Haiti or Madagascar and you'll see an environment stripped of vegetation and huge silt plumes coming from the rivers.
I guess you don't see too much of that part of the world from Lake Tahoe.
I cannot improve on that response, so I'll just say "ditto."
Support this woman's irrational ravings or be labeled as "pro-pollution"?
Let's get real.
Don't sell out!
Bingo.
I agree why does showing concern for the environment have to be labeled left wing? That's rubbish as far as I am concerned
"But is it really necessary to attack an astronaut or anyone for observing the Earth is relatively small with a potentially fragile environment? I'm not sure all conservatives favor pollution as a matter of principle. I don't."
Right on the money, well said that man :-)
Please spare me the constant attack on the productive activities of mankind! Sure, some things were done badly in another time when ignorance ran rife, but not now!! Can you not see ANY improvement? Or do you wish to join the leftist in continually condemning profitable Capitalism???
She can see the environmental damage from space.......yea and I can see she has not changed underwear from here! Give me a break!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.