Prairies

A place to discuss major environment issues, from the Gulf oil spill to extreme floods.

Moderators: Indaswamp, Dep6, Smackaduck

Prairies

Postby dudejcb » Sun Apr 30, 2017 12:01 pm

Good article about North American prairies and their values...
https://undark.org/article/saving-americas-broken-prairie/
..."What happens here in land use has implications — not just if you’re a duck hunter and you want to shoot a gadwall in Louisiana that’s produced in Sheridan County, North Dakota. It has implications [for] what’s happening in the Gulf of Mexico. It has consequences [for] what’s happening in Sioux Falls — with water quality, carbon sequestration values, [and] incredible biodiversity richness.”
"Chill Dude, these guys think the public pool and playground are communist plots"s - BBD2
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
Republicans take care of big money, for big money takes care of them ~ Will Rogers
E PLURIBUS UNUM
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 6384
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Re: Prairies

Postby dudejcb » Sat May 06, 2017 8:20 am

no comments, no views. ***?
"Chill Dude, these guys think the public pool and playground are communist plots"s - BBD2
What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?
Republicans take care of big money, for big money takes care of them ~ Will Rogers
E PLURIBUS UNUM
User avatar
dudejcb
hunter
 
Posts: 6384
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 8:29 am
Location: SW Idaho

Re: Prairies

Postby Phytoplankton » Tue Jul 03, 2018 3:44 pm

I agree with the article, but given the political climate right now, I would not expect to see any relief. Trump and most conservatives don't give a tinkers damm about the environment, other than what they can exploit, pollute, or develop, No regard for what they are leaving to their children or grandchildren as long as they can make a quick buck now! It always amazes me that on a site of supposed sportsmen that words like ecology and environment are bad words.
Phytoplankton
hunter
 
Posts: 416
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 3:50 pm

Re: Prairies

Postby SpinnerMan » Wed Jul 04, 2018 11:36 pm

Look at the education and violence in places luke Chicago and it is clear that the Democrat party doesn't give a damn about human beings as long as they are in power. To think they care is to believe this is the best they can do and that means they are incomprehendible incompetent. They will be just as destructive with the environment. But they have their voters conned that the other side is evil, so it doesn't matter how much suffering and how horrible the education is because we care. They are the doctor that has never saved a patient, but tells you how much he cares, just not enough to become competent.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 25019
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Prairies

Postby Phytoplankton » Sat Jul 07, 2018 9:20 am

Wow, glad I was firmly on the ground, because that was a spin of epic proportions. Please give me the long list of things that Trump has done to help save the environment.
Phytoplankton
hunter
 
Posts: 416
Joined: Tue Aug 16, 2011 3:50 pm

Re: Prairies

Postby SpinnerMan » Sat Jul 07, 2018 10:45 am

Phytoplankton wrote:Wow, glad I was firmly on the ground, because that was a spin of epic proportions. Please give me the long list of things that Trump has done to help save the environment.

How does that prove the Democrats have a clue? More than one can be wrong.

You want to know what saves the environment? Wealth. The wealthier a nation. The more they will care about the environment. The more they can afford to care about the environment.

Trump and most conservatives and most people in general care about the environment :fingerhead: They don't want to live in unhealthy conditions any more than you do. They just use common sense and practical measures to produce measurable benefits to society. They are not driven by fantasy, but reality.

Reality is what matters. Actual benefits to actual people and not just more riches and more power to those in power. Results are reality. Look at what the Democrats say and then look at the results where they have absolute control. But don't worry, unlike the minority communities in Chicago, they will really do something about the environment because they told you that they care and you believe them. Don't worry about their past failures on vital issues.

Global warming, achieving a low carbon future, they are failing abysmally. Like their social policy. Their environmentally policy are fatally flawed and doomed to the same disastrous failure. They will cause more harm than nothing at all.

But like their social policy. It's not about solutions. It is about getting crazy rich. Hillary rich. Obama rich. Crazy rich. For doing what? Telling people like you what you want to hear while all problems remain as bad or worse than ever.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 25019
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Prairies

Postby HNTFSH » Sat Jul 07, 2018 5:16 pm

Phytoplankton wrote:It always amazes me that on a site of supposed sportsmen that words like ecology and environment are bad words.


Too funny! :lol3:
Deplorable Since 1776
User avatar
HNTFSH
Mr. Plond
 
Posts: 41765
Joined: Sat May 20, 2006 5:33 pm
Location: Ohio

Re: Prairies

Postby shoveler_shooter » Sat Jul 07, 2018 6:28 pm

Neither party actually does anything productive when it comes to the environment. Actually Nixon was responsible for the Clean Water Act and designated a number of national parks and monuments. Obama designated more monuments than recent presidents but other than that he did nothing productive. The Republicans seem to not view the environment as a pressing issue, and the Dems blow a lot of hot air about it but their ideas don't work. So I'd say both parties suck overall. I'm more of a fan of Arnold Schwarzenegger's platform on the environment, although he can be a little too heavy on the regulating aspect at times.
User avatar
shoveler_shooter
hunter
 
Posts: 6651
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 8:27 pm
Location: NE OK

Re: Prairies

Postby SpinnerMan » Sun Jul 08, 2018 12:49 pm

HNTFSH wrote:
Phytoplankton wrote:It always amazes me that on a site of supposed sportsmen that words like ecology and environment are bad words.


Too funny! :lol3:

He doesn't understand that as used they are not about ecology or the environment, but about government, big, giant :censored: government and not about improving the quality of life of human beings on this planet which obviously includes but is not limited to ecology and the environment. My minor for my PhD is Environmental Engineering. I know more about the environment than 99% of the population. I also know more about economics and energy than 99% of the population. A big part of our research right now is trying to figure out how to keep the subsidized wind and solar being forced on to the grid from not wrecking the system. More than a few percent maybe 10%, you hit an absolute wall. Solar collapses prices in the middle of the day and wind collapses the prices in the middle of the night. Storing massive amounts of electricity is very expensive. Expensive is another word for consumes a shit-ton of resources which is never environmentally nor ecologically sound. Now, you can operate a system that is about 90% natural gas and 10% renewables. But if you want low carbon energy that is not crazy expensive, the only hope, and it is still a very long shot is a nuclear. If it wasn't for natural gas fracking, all this subsidized wind and solar would have trashed the system already. It is in the process of bankrupting nuclear and having it replaced with natural gas, which if CO2 is the holy grail, you are going backwards. One average sized nuclear plant produces a huge amount of electricity and if shutdown, wipes out all the CO2 reduction from a massive amount of wind and solar. It's a dead end path UNLESS they force society to live a much lower quality of life. Not a big deal for rich Americans, but quite harmful to poor Americans, and devastating to the developing world. The developing world will never develop with sky high energy costs any more than they will develop without a government and society that protects the private property rights of the individual. Something the green religion rejects and why hunters in general reject this so-called environmentalism which demands a centralized top-down command-and-control government to force society to do its bidding.


Oh, and the solution to the subsidized wind and solar, one we are forbidden from considering as government researchers, is to stop the :censored: subsidies.

If you want to get to low carbon future, you have to figure out how to force China, India, Russia, etc. to adopt it without starting WWIII. You think the Trump tariff looks bad. Just imagine the tariff war to beat countries into submission that refuse to go along. At probably 2,000 a ton that it would take to get to the level of CO2 emissions they desire, there would be a huge economic benefit for cheating.

The only solution is one where a $0 per ton carbon tax is necessary to get there meaning people would choose it anyways. We have regulated nuclear to crazy high costs with little to no improvement in safety. We have made it nearly impossible to move to next generation plants. And wind and solar don't work beyond their niche.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 25019
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Prairies

Postby Yuchi1 » Sun Jul 08, 2018 7:40 pm

Make saving the environment profitable and boom! It's done.
Sent from my Sumerian tablets

Jeep went to war, to make it safe for Land Rover to go to soccer practice.
Yuchi1
State Moderator
 
Posts: 2764
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 9:15 pm
Location: Creek Nation of Oklahoma

Re: Prairies

Postby Rat Creek » Wed Aug 22, 2018 2:20 pm

The only people I know who are doing things for the environment are conservatives. Partly because they use their own money, which is a totally foreign concept to democrats, and because we know that giving more money to DC is without question the least efficient means to the end. :fingerhead:

The little club I am in is made up of God loving, right wing, Christians who spent personal money for the land. The land is not in production and while we hunt on a part of it, it is like a sanctuary city for legal critters. :yes:

To all sides of us, there are much larger properties owned by evil successful people who have at least 50% set aside while farming the other 50%. This is a hobby for them as they made their money in their small businesses. Evil jerks.

I can name you one democrat I know who has a club, and his club is a commercial operation with dozens of members and daily renters putting as much steel into the air as possible. :rolleyes:

So tell me who the conservationists are again? :fingerhead:
Rat Creek
Rat Creek
Swamp Azz
 
Posts: 13452
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 4:11 pm
Location: Overland Park, KS

Re: Prairies

Postby shoveler_shooter » Sat Dec 15, 2018 7:44 pm

Rat Creek wrote:
So tell me who the conservationists are again? :fingerhead:

Big difference between conservationist and environmentalist.
User avatar
shoveler_shooter
hunter
 
Posts: 6651
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 8:27 pm
Location: NE OK

Re: Prairies

Postby RustyGunz1960 » Tue Mar 26, 2019 11:26 am

shoveler_shooter wrote:
Rat Creek wrote:
So tell me who the conservationists are again? :fingerhead:

Big difference between conservationist and environmentalist.


Yes, and no. I think there is a bigger difference between conservationist and preservationist. But it all depends on how you define any of those. My experience is that most people tend to tweak and use their own definitions. Add to that the habit so many have of making sweeping generalizations on individuals based on the narrow labels they've pigeonholed them into. Few people fit into neat labels. A conservative hearing my views on the environment will assume I'm a liberal. A liberal listening to me on gun control will label me a conservative gun nut. Both have happened to me, and both were the result of ignorance of my overall beliefs. But labels do come in handy. They let you do away with all that bothersome thinking.
RustyGunz1960
hunter
 
Posts: 496
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 7:16 pm
Location: Little Egg Harbor

Re: Prairies

Postby Boatman » Sun Jan 17, 2021 11:47 am

SpinnerMan wrote:
HNTFSH wrote:
Phytoplankton wrote:It always amazes me that on a site of supposed sportsmen that words like ecology and environment are bad words.


Too funny! [emoji38]3:

He doesn't understand that as used they are not about ecology or the environment, but about government, big, giant :censored: government and not about improving the quality of life of human beings on this planet which obviously includes but is not limited to ecology and the environment. My minor for my PhD is Environmental Engineering. I know more about the environment than 99% of the population. I also know more about economics and energy than 99% of the population. A big part of our research right now is trying to figure out how to keep the subsidized wind and solar being forced on to the grid from not wrecking the system. More than a few percent maybe 10%, you hit an absolute wall. Solar collapses prices in the middle of the day and wind collapses the prices in the middle of the night. Storing massive amounts of electricity is very expensive. Expensive is another word for consumes a shit-ton of resources which is never environmentally nor ecologically sound. Now, you can operate a system that is about 90% natural gas and 10% renewables. But if you want low carbon energy that is not crazy expensive, the only hope, and it is still a very long shot is a nuclear. If it wasn't for natural gas fracking, all this subsidized wind and solar would have trashed the system already. It is in the process of bankrupting nuclear and having it replaced with natural gas, which if CO2 is the holy grail, you are going backwards. One average sized nuclear plant produces a huge amount of electricity and if shutdown, wipes out all the CO2 reduction from a massive amount of wind and solar. It's a dead end path UNLESS they force society to live a much lower quality of life. Not a big deal for rich Americans, but quite harmful to poor Americans, and devastating to the developing world. The developing world will never develop with sky high energy costs any more than they will develop without a government and society that protects the private property rights of the individual. Something the green religion rejects and why hunters in general reject this so-called environmentalism which demands a centralized top-down command-and-control government to force society to do its bidding.


Oh, and the solution to the subsidized wind and solar, one we are forbidden from considering as government researchers, is to stop the :censored: subsidies.

If you want to get to low carbon future, you have to figure out how to force China, India, Russia, etc. to adopt it without starting WWIII. You think the Trump tariff looks bad. Just imagine the tariff war to beat countries into submission that refuse to go along. At probably 2,000 a ton that it would take to get to the level of CO2 emissions they desire, there would be a huge economic benefit for cheating.

The only solution is one where a $0 per ton carbon tax is necessary to get there meaning people would choose it anyways. We have regulated nuclear to crazy high costs with little to no improvement in safety. We have made it nearly impossible to move to next generation plants. And wind and solar don't work beyond their niche.
Damn spinner maybe you should call Joe and the ho and get on their administration. Sense with a measly phD you know more than 99% of the people On the planet about the environment and economics. Thanks for the laugh

Sent from my SM-G970U1 using Tapatalk
There are still things worth dying for and 1 of those things is freedom.

I love Geese
User avatar
Boatman
hunter
 
Posts: 5619
Joined: Mon May 07, 2012 4:10 pm
Location: Atlantic

Re: Prairies

Postby SpinnerMan » Sun Jan 17, 2021 3:09 pm

What's funny?

And what has changed in 2.5 years since I posted that?

What took you back to that old post?
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 25019
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Prairies

Postby Red Huck » Thu Jan 21, 2021 6:05 pm

Less people =better environment ,here in upstate SC there pushing down everything and building housing developments. We need more birth control.
Red Huck
hunter
 
Posts: 406
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 7:18 pm


Return to Major Environmental Issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest