Steven,
You've said repeatedly in other posts that our wetlands (in the
United States) are currently unused, a view you apparently hold
because we haven't drained them and converted them to farmland.
You've explicitly suggested that the Florida everglades would be
a great place to grow e-grass.
Well, you may run into a bit of resistance there. Wetlands in
this country are considered a valuable resource all by
themselves, which you would destroy if you drained them and
converted them to E-grass fields.
It is not either-or. And human mobility is a valuable resource
too, in case you haven't used an automobile lately..
Most of the Everglades is National Park and is not going to be
touched, so eliminate that immediately. There are still 2000
square miles of privately owned swamp land in Florida and the Gulf
coast populated by mostly mosquitos and sand gnats - do they
deserve protection?
You seriously think we should replace the Everglades with
grasslands?
As mentioned, No. Please do not put words in my my mouth.
Apparently you are unfamiliar with Florida.
I'd like to think I misunderstood your earlier posts. Is that
not what you had in mind?
Unused swamp land is not National Park land. How else does one
state this? Apparently you are unfamiliar with Florida and the
Gulf coast.
This Amazon land can be made incredibly productive on a
sustainable basis as long as there is a big river there
It already IS incredibly productive: It provides homes and
sustenance for a huge fraction of the species on Earth.
It just doesn't happen to be producing anything you can burn in
your car.
I see. You prefer to pay $75 barrel to Arabs for oil now, and more
to come, with a large part of it flowing back into Iraq to Sunnis
to purchase road-side bombs, smuggled-in from Syria to kill
American troops. There is a fully developed market economy for
this and it takes lots of cash. There is a bounty on the head of
every American in Iraq, and your gasoline dollars are paying for
it
Of course you did not say that - and I never mentioned Everglades
of Rainforest. So let's not put words into each other's mouths.
What is your ultimate purpose in distorting this very important
issue?
There is eco-triage in this world.
You can eliminate personal mobility or you can find the better of
many unsatisfactory solutions, or you can sit-back and make absurd
criticisms of valid proposals.
There are about 50,000 square miles of unused wetland and shallow
river bottom in the lower Amazon which is not forested now. It is
sad and regrettable that it has previously been deforested - and
sadder yet that the land is unproductive for most kinds of
agriculture because there is no cheap fertilizer available there.
Sure we can ignore this huge resource, which would replace all
Arab oil - properly handled, and we can continue on with the
status quo. Another thousand young men falling in Iraq this year.
This Amazon land is an option to co-develop, with the cooperation
of the Brazilians, to replace Arab oil, which will be $100 barrel
this time next year. All it requires is political will-power and
funding - but less than the $50, 000, 000, 000 we could save this
year with an very expedited pull-out of Iraq. Most of this oil is
going to Europe anyway, let them deal with the situation. We have
no business there.
Jones
