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.
"With the shuttle seemingly falling apart around her,"
This is a ignorant fools comment. Its a test flight and the shuttle is in great shape.
Collins comment about not having much air is incorrect. She was simply noting how thin the atmosphere is when seen edge on from orbit.
Expressing concern for the only home of 6 billions humans does not make you AL Gore or an enviro-wacko.
I hope you aren't suggesting that it is not within the ideological scope to support caring for the environment? Why does environmental concern have to be taken to the outrageous extreme of "hippie" tree hugging? capitalism does not mean destroying our environment. Talk to China about their environmental track record, I don't think they put the environment very high on their agenda.
Bump!
If you'll read my post a little more carefully you'll see references to the US of the 1930's and comments about third world countries. I don't believe I mentioned Capitalism. You must be reading between the lines with a microscope. Those countries I mentioned (and several more) have been stripped bare. There's nothing left. They're barren. No vegetation to speak of. Why do you find that hard to believe and why would you not believe it's visible from space?
Your extreme defensiveness toward comments which only state the obvious to anyone with two eyes leads me to believe you can't acknowledge that there are real environmental issues out there and I'm not talking about spotted owls.
Well, see there? Your trying to "flip the argument" and make me out to be doing what 99 and 44/100% of those "concerned about the environment" have done as extremists for the past 40 years!!!
If you're even brave enough to challenge the pejorative style condemnation, you get the "Oh Pulleeze" treatment right off the bat. Like, "how dare you even question my high minded motivations of calling into question every singel enviro-crime ever committed by mankind?"
This phony sense of "moral superiority" has gotten way over-done and is offensive to those who would truly like to encourage non-GovernMental environmental methods that did not attack property rights, free enterprise and individualism in this nation!!!
It's aggregious to me to find the tired tirade being spewed on a conservative website, complete with trite expressions one would hear from a hard leftist Berkely professor, trying to convince his class that mankind, especially American mankind... are all evil, hopless polluters and desacrators of the entire planet's environment with man-made erosion... a natural process!!!
Did you carefully read the article? She wasn't making an "innocent" observation. The forces on the left that will latch onto her comments will twist them to further attack capitalism. There isn't anything innocent when one in her position can cause serious repercussions. The Earth's environment isn't fragile. The leftist environmentalists don't truly care about the environment, but only attacking capitalism. The negativity about the environment is relentless. I suggest you carefully reread the article, because it speaks of the utter hypocrisy of the left and so called environmentalists. The best way to save the environment worldwide is through aggressive capitalism, not feel good foolish talk.
"She keeps on going: “We would like to see. . . people take good care of the Earth and replace the resources that have been used."
We do replace the resources that have been used. We replace them with air, water, or dirt.
Apparently you didn't read the article "carefully." The greatest threat to the environment is from socialist economies and the left. The article clearly highlights the real damaging effect on the environment. Bush's HFI is indeed trying to save the forests that were directly put at risk by the environmental crowd. Because of Clinton's environmental policies, many of the forests on public land have a very high amount of combustibles per acre. This makes any forest fires that occur on public lands to be highly destructive. The thrust of the article is to show that the consequences of the actions of people who profess "great care" for the environment actually result it more damage to the environment. The article was well written.
> Also, at the time of the Columbia disaster, I believe it was disclosed that NASA had altered TPS (thermal protection system)features to comply with "greenie" desires...changes which resulted in Columbia flying with less than the best TPS.
ERRRR. Changes to the ET foam were incorporated *after* Columbia's tank ahd already been built.
I think what he and others have often stated is that even though there are serious problems, the solutions of the so called environmental crowd make the problem less. The problem with Haiti is the simple fact it is a Socialist hell. No one owns the trees in Haiti so there is on incentive to maintain them for profit. What is frustrating is that there are solutions to the problems you state, but leftists around the world prevent their implementation because of their utter hatred of Capitalism
Thank you for your very cogent thoughts. I agree exactly with you. It is a bit disgusting to have so many Freepers sound like leftist professors.
I agree totally.
That's what I was trying to recall. EPA was sticking its nose into the TPS formulation business. Can't think of a better way to f%$k things up than to get EPA on board.
Every now and then NRO puts out some conservative commentary, so it makes sense that they would use the PaleoBlog as a source. :)
Now, now, that was #10 on her list of mission objectives.
The authors are right. The greenies and the bloated NASA bureaucracy teamed up a while back. Remember the ozone hole that needed studying about the time of the budget discussions? 1990, or thereabouts?
And from the article:
Astronauts might actually gather some useful data if they took extensive infrared photos...
Don't need or want expensive astronauts and missions to do that. There are these things called satellites
...and that waste of money referred to as Goresat, taking up my tax dollars, sitting in storage. (a pet peeve)
Sorry if that is not the case but your entire argument is nonsensical
Second, of course the environmental movement is largely bogus and a left wing attack on capitalism. BUT there is a need for legitimate protection of the environment. In making fun of the environmentalists many commentators imply there can be no manmade damage to the environment, and that all environmental regulations are unecessary. That is ridiculous. As good conservatives, we all loved recounting how the communist countries devastated their environments because they didn't give a damn about their people.
There are very real poisons like heavy metals and soot belched into the soil and air by industry and I for one don't want to breathe or ingest them. Astronauts for decades have been commenting on the fragility of the earth as seen from space and I think they've got a pretty good vantage point from which to make that observation.
Oh well. At least the "silt plume" will lessen in the mouth of the Amazon.
Includes the line that goes something like "of the known intelligent species in the galaxy the Terran human is the only one that expresses pleasure by baring it's fangs". Also "It's been so long since we had a good war". Got to like it.
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.