World's First Tree-sitting Weblog

An anonymous reader writes "Amit Asaravala over at Wired News has an interesting article up about the tree-sitters in Humboldt County. Apparently a bunch of tech activists from the Indymedia Center are setting the tree-sitters up with an 802.11b network so that they can blog about all the logging going on up there. Seems like a pretty interesting way to use technology to help the environment, which isn't something you see everyday."

Comments

Wrong.

[BigChigger]

Where does the power for this technology come from? Does it use any plastic (oil)? Any metal (mining)? Any manuals included (wood)?

Hypocrites.

BC

Re:Wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

So you expect people who believe in working for a better world to renounce ALL technology? and if they dont their hypocrites?

The kind of changes their trying to make arent gonna be affected by them buying a laptop with manuals and using electricity from non-green sources - they are trying to change everyones opinion
One person changing does fk all - you have to get hundreds or thousands to change

If them making small sacrifices in how they follow their beliefs so that they can get the msg out in a better way, who are you to judge them as hypocrites?

Re:Wrong.

[JWW]

Yes I do expect them to renounce all technology, and furniture for that matter ;-)

Most of these people have a hypocritical, short sighted, rose colored view of the world. Instead of sitting in the damn tree maybe they should be negotiating (note not suing) with the logging company to develop their replanting and harvesting strategy. If the protesters were more open minded then maybe they could help loggers take trees out of the forest selectively and leave a variety of ages of trees in an area, plus plant new ones. A consession would probably have to be more low maintenance roads to get into the areas and selectively cut. It baffles me that the choice is either rape the land, or don't touch it. Stewardship of resources is not really discussed or handled, basically because the activists have iron clad belief in not doing anything. It's pretty well proven that when you do that the forest will burn. Of course when you clear cut and then replant trees that are all the same age fire danger can go up as well.

Maybe the solution is actually somewhere in the middle.

Re:Wrong.

[Toy G]

The amount of paper wasted by magazines and newspapers in the 20th century was enormous. Still, without Gutenberg's revolution you would probably still think the earth is a plate. To be pure is impossible: we're just humans.

Re:Wrong.

[caffeine_monkey]

So you can't be an environmentalist unless you live in a shack, grow your own food, forgo Western medicine, and don't use any technology that you didn't build yourself? That's absurd. I consider myself an environmentalist. I try to minimize my consumption. I think about purchases. I don't own a car. I try to educate others. But I live in a city, I use technology, and I use fossil fuels. Am I hypocrite?

Listen, it's easy to be a critic, but if you've ever seen with your own eyes what these tree sitters are fighting for, you might change your mind. I've been to some of the clearcuts on Vancouver Island, BC. You wouldn't believe the logging practices that went on before the environmental movement helped put a stop to them. There are entire mountains there that have been clearcut bald, from the summit straight into the valleys. Whole landscapes, brown and full of nothing but broken stumps. Soil washed away so nothing will grow back for a long time. It's gastly. But now, clearcuts like these are banned, and sustainable logging is being practiced more and more widely in BC.

These environmentals aren't against the wholesale use of wood, or oil, or technology - don't be silly. That's a false choice. It's in how we do things. Do we drive around town in Hummers, getting 8 miles per gallon, or do we acknowledge that yeah, there's more to living on this planet than unfettered self-gratification, and learn to make due with a smaller car? Or public transit? It's about rationale choices, man.

Re:Wrong.

[arkanes]

I'm originally from the north coast and know alot of the activists up there. It's not as black and white as you make it out to be. The logging companies aren't especially interested in negotiation, for example. That's why there's protests. It's true that some of the activists are way over the top, but as a group, they're generally pretty rational. They understand that theres a need for logging and for harvesting of natural resources. LP, though, is pretty much just interested in getting all the money they can out of the area, just barely complying with law (and, in some cases, not complying at all).

It's not all one sided, of course. But the upper management of LP, the ones with the power to change things, are pretty much all hard set against negotiation - they take a very hard line, and use considerable influence with local government (which is largely corrupt) to get thier way.

Re:Wrong.

[Strange Ranger]

You either have no clue or no morals. I'm guessing no clue. The Headwater Forest is full of ancient redwood trees. You ever see them? The Coast Redwoods are up to 2000 years old. The Giant Sequoias can be over 3,500 years old. Some of these trees were around when the Phoenicians invented the alphabet, and when Jerusalem was founded. Young trees of 700 or so were around when the first Samurai drew his first sword.
Replant? Don't be ridiculous.

Of course there's a kook in every group but by and large these "hypocritical short-sighted" activists you speak of aren't out to ban all logging, renounce all technology, or any other such luddite activity. They just think a happy medium is logging oak or maple trees, not chopping down irreplaceable 2000 year old redwoods to make coffee tables.

Most people think it's fine to eat meat, but would be appalled to see bald eagle and rhinoceros meat at the deli. At minimum the same logic should be applied to threatened irreplaceable two to three thousand year old trees.

You really think they should compromise and let just a few people panel their basements in Sequoia? The idea is disgusting.

Not one redwood. There are plenty of other trees.

Re:Wrong.

[_xeno_]

You are aware that they've already tried this? If you read the 'blog, you'd see that Remedy indicates that the lumber company currently has an injunction against their continued cutting in the area she's treesitting in. That apparently hasn't stopped them. (Granted, she says that the injunction was imposed two months ago November, so a little math gives us five months being little more than annoying, but...)

She also says:

That MAXXAM/Pacific Lumber is allowed to proceed with their destruction-as-usual, after over 300 violations connected to the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the Forest Practices Act, is nothing short of criminal.

In short, it sounds like negotiation and criminal and civil litigation have already been attempted and have failed. Their demands do not indicate that they want the lumber industry to stop cutting altogether - she lists four things she'd like to see:

1. STOP CUTTING THE OLD GROWTH!
2. Put an immediate end to clear-cutting
3. Stop spraying herbicides! We can not live with poisoned water.
4. Stop cutting on steep and unstable slopes.

I'm not sure I agree with the first "demand" - I'd have to be given better reasoning than just "it's bad" - so I'll leave that one as being perhaps a little overboard. But I dunno.

I'd hope we can all agree that simple clear-cutting is bad and irresponsible. The lumber industry would actually be better off replanting or leaving enough trees so that the forest can grow back. However, MAXXAM/PL is apparently taking an incredibly short-sited view of things and is going for as much profit short-term as possible, instead of attempting to ensure that they will be able to continue with a source of lumber into the future.

As for herbicides, I'd love to know why a logging company would be spraying herbicides. It would seem to increase the damage from any wildfires (as it would cause there to be more deadwood). I would guess they do it to help clear the underbrush to be able to pull trees out easily? Seems unnecessary and quite possible to be worked around. Not being a logger, I don't know.

The last one again should be just common sense. You know what prevents a large sloped mass of dirt from being a large flowing mass of mud? Roots, be they tree roots or other undergrowth. Remove the trees, the roots die, and then you get mudslides in rainy conditions. But anyone engaging in clear-cutting probably doesn't really care about the land after they've finished exploiting it, so they probably feel fine about letting the area turn into a deathtrap once they've got their wood out. At the very least, one would hope that on slopes with the danger of landslides, lumber companies would either be forced to leave most of the trees and immediately replant around the trees they have removed a new tree and probably grass as a stop-gap measure until the tree matures enough to hold the ground in place.

The solution probably is in the middle, but if you actually read the 'blog, it seems that the logging company is intent on maximizing immediate profits with no concern for what will happen as a consequence.

Re:Wrong.

[apweiler]

Shame I haven't got any mod points to burn...

I managed to keep out of the discussion so far, but here I can't resist.

Not going to get into the name-calling - I'm tempted to do that myself, though it's better to exercise restraint. And I'm not going to ask you to explain why socialism is so evil.

So the 'environazies' should buy the trees that legally belong to the logging corporation? And how did those companies come to own the trees? By buying them for their *real* value from the *real* owners, i.e. in many cases indigenous tribes, or the government, consisting of colonists who drove the indigenous population out? But let's not get into that, it's too messy... Either way, I doubt the companies paid much money for them. And you're saying that when I own something, I can do with it what I want? So I can take my gun and shoot you, because I legally bought it? Of course not, I can use my property any way I want as long as I don't harm anyone, wouldn't you agree? I, and these protesters, would argue that cutting down these trees *does* cause harm - to the environment (as other people mentioned - oxygen production, but also biodiversity - the drug to cure the brain tumor you get in 10 years might be discovered in some old-growth forest, and all that stuff), and thus *all of us*.

So your basic premise is that we should have an absolutely free market, with no regulation at all, isn't it? I disagree with that, but FWIW, we haven't. The problem is that a) neither governments nor these companies really play by the rules of a free market, and b) money isn't the only 'value' in the world. Of course society as a whole (i.e. the gov't) should pay for such things - because it benefits all society.

If I were one of these activists and bought a tree or two, I'd want patent rights to all potentially useful drugs and whatever discovered in the area, money from everyone who enjoys the sight of these trees (tourists, people living nearby...) - you'd probably agree with some of these, basically using my property in a different way. But I'd also want to be paid for the oxygen produced, and the CO2 removed from the atmosphere, and the reduction in global warming damage, etc. etc. Not to mention the intrinsic value of nature that simply can't be measured in money. But you might not accept the existence of this, so let's leave it out.
Basically, eco-tourism and other ways of non-invasively using nature, and the idea of buying nature to protect it are wonderful - they're just not enough. If you let these companies do what they want, they'll destroy our planet. Oh, but that's OK because they paid for it and had the right to do so? Don't make me laugh.

Hmm. I need to practice writing something that makes sense without spending too much time planning. I realise that there's probably not enough logical structure in this post, but I stand by the basic points I make.

Re:Wrong.

[Saige]

I love how enviromentalists are willing ignore the rights of the logging companies to have and use their PRIVATE property just so that they protest. Seems to me the right to private property is one of the biggest tenants of liberty, which gives them the opportunity to protest. Protesting is fine until it starts infringing on other people's rights.

And, of course, the fact that the logging that Pacific Lumber Company is ok, since it doesn't hurt anyone else.

It hasn't filled Humboldt Bay with mud, seriously degrading the habitat for fish, and it hasn't seriously damaged the ability of the watershed to filter and buffer rainfall from storms, which made Freshwater Creek less likely to flood.

The fact that residents of Eureka now see a lot more flooding, and the flooding being directly traceable to the logging doesn't matter, does it? The fact that their logging doesn't just affect their private property, but is damaging large amounts of both private and public property isn't important?

I'm sure if you found your PRIVATE PROPERTY was regularly getting flooded and your PRIVATE PROPERTY was being destroyed by the actions of the logging companies, that you'd be a little less likely to say "they're only doing it on their private property, they have that right!"

Massive amounts of logging affect much more than just the land that's logged. So would it be fair to say "Logging is fine until it starts infringing on other people's rights"?? Because that is EXACTLY what this company is doing.

Re:Sounds really interesting (pot/kettle)

[gosand]

I imagine there are lots of exciting things going on IN THE MIDDLE OF A FREAKING FOREST that would make these guys 'blogs really intresting.

As opposed to what? All of the really exciting stuff going on in your parent's basement? Since when have weblogs been interesting? Quite hypocritical for someone who probably plays games all day to rip on someone who is trying to help save the environment.

Re:Pray for High Winds...

[Cpt_Corelli]

How stupid is tree sitting? These clueless idiots don't realize that trees are a plant and you can grow more?

They are not as clueless as you are, that's for sure. Chopping down a large part of a forest will destroy the habitat for animals and other species living there, some of which may be very rare.

If you would have read their weblog you would have known more about why they are protesting.

Re:Ummmm.. Contradiction

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you REALLY think that all the people who consider the earth's natural environment to be of intrinsic value are anti-technology and want to return us to the stone age?
I know many such people and almost all of them see technology as the solution for our environmental problems.
If adequate funding was given to clean energy sources then perhaps this dream could become reality. Of course, with GWII in power, oil buddies come first!

Re:Ummmm.. Contradiction

[jaredcoleman]

I don't think you can characterize anyone who is pro-environment as anti-technology. Not everyone on /. thinks corporations are the spawn of evil. I do wonder if many people who are pro-environment know all of the pollution that chip manufacturers produce... etc.

However, for all of you who will slam others for their inconsistencies, keep in mind that it is almost impossible to be 100% consistent. Just because someone has decided to choose one area to focus their energies on for some good, and isn't trying to be super(wo)man and fix everything, that should not nullify any truth that is in their message. That should not be pointed out to discredit them, or make you seem smarter. Every bit of good helps.

Re:Hippies

[stratjakt]

The environmentalists dont want DEAD timber removed. They protest the forestry service constantly - stopping those who *know* what needs to be done and how to maintain the trees from doing their job.

It all started in the sixties, and we're paying the price now. 40 years of dead twigs piling up makes for a hell of a bonfire.

Every summer we sit and watch 3/4 of another state burn down to the ashes, because the forests have become giant tinder boxes.

These forest fires are a direct result of the tree-huggers preventing selective removal of deadwood. 3 cheers for people who self-reightous assholes who dont know what the fuck they're talking about.

Re:Right.

[Lord Puppet]

Right. Nobody's suggesting that *all* economic activity should stop on environmental grounds. What they're protesting is how and where logging happens.

Sure, we need wood and paper, but do we really need to cut down ancient redwood forests containing the tallest trees in the world? If managed correctly, tree farms can produce all the pulp that we need.

How to save the trees.

[JBMcB]

In five easy steps.

1 - Climb down out of the tree.
2 - Get a job.
3 - Save up money.
4 - Buy land with trees on it.
5 - Don't cut them down.

Out of all of them, #2 is the only one that takes a lot of effort.

Helping the Environment

[kb5tbb]

Since they are going to pollute the air with RF and use more electricity to power their wireless gear, I am going to print out each "blog" or weblog entry created by these people.

Re:Sure, thats fine. But what about....

[Dr. Evil]

...if more of these wack-jobs would get themselves into some science classes and study up on ways to create renewable fuels or, better efficiency from solar products, this whole problem would go away.

No, they'd be outcompeted by the guys who don't have the overhead of studying or practicing renewable techniques.

The change has to come from the marketplace or from the government... it's pretty hard to get the marketplace to do anything ethical, and the government is corrupt.

The marketplace won't change for the same reason as industry... only the wealthy can afford to spend ethically, everyone else has to go as cheap as they can.

The government is corrupt IMHO because capitalism broke democracy... through campaign contributions, employing citizens and feeding the taxbase, corporations have too much sway over government.

So how do you fix democracy so that it can take control back from capitalism and focus on what is right for the people? and not for the corporation?

You can't... for the same reason the marketplace and corporations can't change; Changing the government means changing a country and countries must compete on an international scale. Any country to toughen up on its corporations looses domestic jobs and international power.

The only way to recover that power is to build new jobs by slashing down forests, building factory farms etc.

We're all stuck in a rut. Renewable forestry will become popular only when it is either 1. absolutely necessary, or 2. every other country in the world is forced to adopt it due to (1) and the last country to hold out is wealthy enough to choose the ethics they want to practice.