Sorry; I'm not trying to put words into your mouth. You've mentioned
the use of swampland in a few posts on this topic and I found that
somewhat disturbing. So, I was asking (a bit rudely, perhaps) for some
clarification.
First, let's get one thing clear: swampland is the same as
"wetlands". In many states "wetlands" are "protected", whether or not
they're privately owned; they're "protected" in the sense that you must
jump through regulatory hoops before you can drain them or turn them
into arable land because they're known to be vital parts of the ecosystem.
With that said, let us proceed.
Jones Beene wrote:
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.
OK, this was incorrect; you didn't say "everglades". What you said was:
A couple of under-populated Florida swamp counties could supply a few
Quads alone - not to mention the rest of the USA.
This suggests draining all the wetlands in two Florida counties and
converting it to farmland. I am not familiar with Florida laws on this,
but in a lot of states you'd hit some major regulatory resistance if you
tried that -- leave alone the question of whether this particular bit of
swampland is part of the Everglades system of wetlands (which is larger
than Everglades National Park).
I am somewhat familiar with the map of Florida and the counties down
there are mostly rather large. "A couple of counties" in Florida could
cover a lot of land area.
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..
<g> I went out to start my car the other day and it wouldn't start. I
happened to look at the inspection sticker while I was fiddling with it,
and it said January, 2005. I went back into the house.
Most of the Everglades is National Park and is not going to be
touched, so eliminate that immediately.
Key word in this statement seems to be "most".
A lot of the Everglades in particular and Florida wetlands in general
are not part of the National Park system.
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?
Quite possibly they do. Just because they're not part of Everglades
National Park doesn't mean they're not an important part of the
ecosystem. If nothing else they deserve some study and an EIS before
you start draining them wholesale.
You seriously think we should replace the Everglades with grasslands?
This is clearly a bit overstated...
As mentioned, No. Please do not put words in my my mouth.
Actually I was asking a question, rather than making an assertion that
you had said something.
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.
Clearly the land you want to use is not National Park land: National
Parks are too well protected to touch (unless you happen to be an oil
company).
Again, "unused" swamp land is in the eye of the beholder. In some areas
it is, in fact, not legal to drain "unused swamp land" unless you flood
an equivalent amount of "unused dry land" to replace the wetlands you're
destroying.
How else does one state this? Apparently you are unfamiliar with
Florida and the Gulf coast.
I am somewhat familiar with them but not intimately so.
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.
Sorry, I was inflammatory and not very clear. The question I _should_
have asked is,
"Are you proposing clearing large amounts of rainforest to do this, or
are you proposing taking previously cleared land being used for marginal
farming or cattle grazing and converting that to E-grass use?"
If it's the latter, that sounds fine. If it's the former, it's another
story. In digging through your former messages it appears to be the
latter, not the former, that you were talking about; my apologies, I had
not read your posts carefully enough the first time around.
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.
No, you didn't. But you did mention Florida swampland, which I've
already talked about, and you mentioned farms in the Amazon basin.
However, when I searched back over your messages, I noticed that your
first mention of the Amazon was in the context of previously cleared land:
there is more than enough prime land - previously deforested and now
fallow - in the Amazon
So, my apologies again, I misunderstood you on that. I was thinking in
terms of your later mention, in which you said,
For instance the land in the Amazon is poor. But they have plenty of
sun and water and only need lots more nitrogen in the soil.
That's a perfect description of what you get if you clear _fresh_
rainforest land and I jumped to the apparently erroneous conclusion that
that's what you were talking about.
So let's not put words into each other's mouths. What is your ultimate
purpose in distorting this very important issue?
After seeing your messages proposing what appeared to be large-scale
draining of wetlands I wanted to get a clearer picture of what you're
proposing. Draining wetlands introduces its own flock of problems and
isn't necessarily a good solution to anything; that was the point I was
trying to make.
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.
That's a good point.
Again, I was concerned that you might be proposing clearing virgin
rainforest to replace it with E-grass farms. Apparently you were not.
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.
And our presence in Iraq isn't getting us any more oil than we'd get if
we pulled out, anyway.
Jones
