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.
I notice commander Collins mentioned Madagascar as a prime example of environmental degradation in her press onference today.
There are those who have seen environmental mismanagement like Commander Collins and myself and those like you who haven't got a clue but are willing to spout nonsense anyway.
My friend who has served 20 years in the US Army and was stationed in Germany at the Cold war and at the collapse of the Berlin Wall described to me the soot covered streets and buildings and visibly filthy air of East Germany, resulting from zero pollution controls. Free people don't want to live like that. I didn't mention dead bodies piled up but the Chernobyl environmental disaster comes to mind. Abandoned cities and towns, high radiation doses even outside of Russia. I've read descriptions of horribly polluted lakes and rivers in the communist countries. Whether or not dead bodies were piled up (and again I didn't say they were) free people do not choose to live that way. My point was that zero pollution regulation is in the despotic communist model, not the path Western capitalism has gone. Thank God. Every show of concern for the environment is not misguided and is not an attack on capitalism. Most environmental groups today are misguided, I readily acknowledge that and I regularly criticize them.
Environmentalists should be protesting daily in front of the Chinese Embassies if they're really serious.
I still read your stuff, just don't respond as much as I used to. Great article, R.J. is a very nice person, and I'm glad to see he called this self-important bitch on her baseless comments. What does she think she is, a member of the Film Actors Guild? (Team America humor)
well said
Of course he didn't have to laboriously type everything he had to say and neither did she. Maybe you can find the exchange on the free part of his site. Even though I doubt you care to explore either Rush's, or my points of view, the experience would do you good, even though I'm sure it wouldn't change your mind.
OH!!! THAT's PRICELESS!!!
I did hear Rush on this and the segment I caught emphasized that she was talking about Africa. So Rush was ridiculing the notion that the industrialized world is the only polluter. I would part company with Rush when he started saying that he has seen the Mississipi turn brown after a rainstorm, implying the astronaut's comment on deforestation in Madagascar could be an observation of something totally benign. I don't know anything about madagascar river flows, but it's certainly possible the astronaut knows something about what she was observing. Why do we have a need to ridicule the idea that madagascar might be pursuing some bad policies that are observable from speace? I don't see why a conservative has to assume Madagascar is well run and can't screw up its environment.
Since Rush is only right 98.7% of the time, this is one of those times he's clueless.
hmmm
Well... I guess I'm gonna hafta wrest my case! I have argument fatigue!!! (grin)
I betcha the erosion was only discovered after man was there, too!
As Rush pointed out... The arguments for all this overly exeuberant belief system beyond all reason is extremely seductive! Let's face it!! Religion is seductive!!! Mysticism in all it's forms is seductive. Even the prince of darkness is seductive!!!
If the conservative American has no sensible opinion on this matter be sure the "loony left" will prevail in the absence of comment. None of us want that.....:-)
Which is exactly why I believe strongly that they should be challenged at every opportunity. But when I hear/read conservatives on a conservative website adopting their trite supposed truisms and parroting their whacko assumptions about "what we are doing collectively to the planet," I become alarmed to the n'th degree!!!
You cannot challenge their deliberate misguidance by adopting their mannerisms and phraseology and chastising fellow conservatives for challenging them in any way... can ya?
By the way... Check out NaturalProcess.net and secure the book by the same name, written by Freeper Carry_Okie, if you want to see what a truly enlightened conservative recommends for what we SHOULD be doing collectively for the planet!!!
Sierra that's fine but I thought you said yesterday you were giving up on this particular debate with us. I say hug trees not girls! Only kidding.
You are so pleasant that you gave me a GOOD NATURED chuckle and toothy grin!!! God bless you for caring... We all do... really (to be continued... maybe)(it all depends on the mood I'm in)(at least I still have teeth)
Still have the old head firmly planted up the rectum I see. There's no hope for some. They believe what they believe despite all evidence to the contrary. Sorry you can't see past your nose.
I agree but intelligently and not with (albeit righteous)anger but facts and arguments that are lucid and logical, sorry to say so far you deny the obvious but promote a generic "ideological" perspective that is crude to say the least. You also keep annoyingly implying that anyone that improves on your comments is "lefty" please stop that. You are putting words in all our mouths.
"You cannot challenge their deliberate misguidance by adopting their mannerisms and phraseology"
Thats idiotic you have already been told several times now that no one here agrees with any left wing environmental policy stop being emotive.
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.