What? Forests were there for thousands of years before we got here, but they'd be better off with our "well-researched" (i.e. a couple of generations of data, not much else) techniques?
I'm not buying it. It's obvious to me that the whole point of this "patented process" is to get the resources into the hands of those who can profit from it. The American people will say no thank you. So do I.
The forest have been manage by aboriginals for thousands of years.
It's obvious to me that the whole point of this "patented process" is to get the resources into the hands of those who can profit from it.
Wrong, I know, I've read the book. The whole point is to better improve the environment. The process has been patented to protect the investment he has made researching and writing the book. Read the stuff in that last link, then get back to me. I'm starting to believe that you won't read the link. I doubt you went and looked at the pictures of destroyed conservation land and you seem more conserned with profit than the environment.