Environmental News, Articles & Information | Global Warming News | EcoWorld

ecoworld.com

Issue #3

Summer 1995

What better place to grow the great trees of the world than in a single fully integrated facility. If all of the great trees of the world could be propagated and nurtured well beyond the seedling stage in a single multi-chambered greenhouse, the knowledge of just how we can double the timber mass of the world by May 2045 would be greatly furthered in a most cost-effective manner.

The “climatron”, currently considered quaint, is going to make a roaring comeback. There is one working model in the world right now, in St. Louis, Missouri, in the Missouri Botanical Gardens. A climatron is a multi-chambered greenhouse that uses convection energy to manipulate the thermal mass of each chamber. A hot zone and a cold zone is created, as well as several intermediate zones.

By concentrating energy in an air mass that is being vented from one section of the climatron to another, certain areas of the climatron can be made hotter and other sections can be made cooler. Even when limited to solar energy as its sole source of power, a climatron is capable of containing within its confines various chambers whose permanent states mimic the climate of the boreal regions of the world, or the deepest hothouse climates of the tropics, and everything in between.

The center chamber of the climatron should contain the natural forest of the region. In the San Francisco Bay area, for example, the climatron could well be located somewhere within 20 miles of US 101, such as in the Alexander Valley, and in its center chamber there would be the great Coastal Redwoods, the Sequoia Sempervirons.

This is easier said than done, since the Sequoia Sempervirons are known to approach 400 feet in height. The topmost point of the main chamber of a Northern Californian climatron would have to be at least 400 feet above the floor. This is the equivalent of a 40 story building.

Just imagine, however, before dismissing the idea of such a gigantic undertaking, what it would be like inside such a device. Entire micro-climates would exist in this center chamber of what is essentially a giant greenhouse. Within 40-50 years Redwood trees approaching 200 feet in height would already have taken hold, with a host of young trees following them. They would release downpours of accumulated moisture every morning like the wildest monsoons of Kauai and just from the fog collected in their boughs and run off in the heat of each new day. Reservoirs of water and humus would create a habitat of surpassing clarity and vigor. New trees would be propagated from seed and clonal tissue in greenhouses inside the main chamber in clearings amidst the great trees.

The main chamber of the greenhouse would have at its center a single high point, off of which would come ridges spaced at eight equal angles. These eight ridges form the center ridges of the eight side chambers, each having a high point of 300 feet, the equivalent of a 30 story building. Each of the eight side chambers would have a climate that would emulate a major climate region of the world.

Three chambers would house the other three major rainforests of the world. The American Pacific Northwest rainforest would be in the main chamber, with its complement of Sequoia Sempervirons, Douglas Fir, and other Pacific Northwest species. There would then be a side chamber for the Asia/Pacific rainforest, one for the African Rainforest, and one for the American Tropical rainforest.

The other five chambers would be for the following forest climates of the world: Subtropical, Temperate, Cold Temperate, Mediterranean, Monsoon, and Boreal. In each chamber, the mixture of water and air would be precisely controlled, as would the temperature and humidity. The Mediterranean chamber would have the southern exposure, while the Boreal forest would have a northern exposure, and be placed behind thermal and light barriers strategically placed to passively contribute to creating the environment at an actual boreal latitude. The chambers would all be connected to a recirculating system of ducted airflows designed to be directed and redirected so as to constantly control and maintain the nine different climate zones. Occasionally thermal mass would be expelled into the outer atmosphere

In each climate zone there would be a greenhouse dedicated to propagating from seed or clonal tissue the great trees of that region. These seedlings would be planted inside the climatron, as well as exported as tissue stock for the reforestation efforts in the corresponding nations. The tropical rainforest chambers would have outreach programs to EcoWorld greenhouses and agro-forestry plantations in Costa Rica, Brazil, Peru, Ivory Coast, Madagascar, Celebes, Vanuatu, India, the Philippine Islands, and Myanmar – anywhere and everywhere such a tree can grow.

The Subtropical forest chamber would have constituent greenhouses in Florida, Argentina, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, and so on. The Temperate forest chamber would have tree partners in Oregon, Argentina, Germany, Utah… The Cold Temperate forest chamber would have counterpart enterprises in Japan, New Zealand, the Czech Republic, Utah, Germany… Now stay with me here, there are three chambers left. Here we go.

The Mediterranean forest chamber will have correspondent EcoWorld lodges and greenhouses in California, Chile, South Africa, Australia (Adelaide), Australia (Perth), and Spain, and likely locations within those regions. The Monsoon forest chamber will have partner greenhouses located in Mexico, Thailand, Australia, India and elsewhere. The Boreal forest chamber will export its trees to Alaska, Canada, Finland, Russia – is there a bit of Patagonia as well?.

The power source of the climatron will be exclusively solar, and the climatron will become a source of abundant fresh water. The solar energy produced by the climatron will allow far more fresh water to be extracted from the atmosphere than will be consumed for the needs of the forest mass growing inside.

The climatron will be much more, however, than just a new mega tourist destination in California, right after the Cable Cars and the Golden Gate Bridge. The climatron will be a source of knowledge and expertise as to how biospheres are maintained, since the technologies are in many ways identical. This will have practical applications in areas as diverse as space travel and settlement, urban water and energy management, commercial horticulture, and ecosystems management. The idea is this: Put climatrons everywhere – use them as nurseries to regreen deserts and bring green to new mega-cities

It doesn’t even begin to end there. As if such a technological boon to the technology capital of the world, Northern California, isn’t enough, the climatron will also be a hugely successful tree exporter. Perhaps some of the ships of the mothball fleet docked for 40 years or more in the Carquinez Straits north-east of the Golden Gate can be acquired for their scrap value and converted to sail-power, and be used to carry loads of trees and greenhouse paraphernalia from the climatron off to the various re-forestation destinations around the world. Remember, we only have 49 years, eight months left to double the timber mass of the world from its May 1995 level.

What great trees will comprise the membership of each of these chambers? One step at a time.

Cheers,

Ed “Redwood” Ring

ecoworld.com

Issue #3

Summer 1995

“People are angry about the government

and they’re tired of programs that don’t work.

They’re concerned about the intrusiveness of government.”

Environmental Defense Fund

The political upheaval that occurred in November 1994 provides an
opportunity to establish a new environmental agenda. This must be a
positive agenda There is no doubt that the congressional shift occurred in
part because people were fed up with the rising tide of federal power.
Early in 1994, environmental activists in Washington realized that they
were running into trouble. Membership and contributions were beginning to
wane. Grassroots members were disenchanted with the time activists spent
lobbying in Washington rather than actively working to increase habitat
for wildlife, improve public land management, or see that hazardous waste
was cleaned up.

Legislatively, environmental activists had hit a wall. In a
widely circulated memo, leaders of major environmental groups expressed
alarm about what they disparagingly called an “unholy trinity” of popular
demands. These demands included state and local opposition to unfunded
mandates (federal requirements that states and local communities must
meet), public insistence that regulations be assessed for costs and risks,
and demands that private property rights be respected. These pressures
forced the environmental leaders to shelve some of their legislative plans.

The Turning Point

While the immediate cause of resistance was the aggressive plans
of the Clinton administration, no recent administration has been immune
from the extension of federal power in the name of environmental
protection. Even Ronald Reagan was, indirectly, part of this trend. When
he entered office, he appeared to have an anti-environmental agenda.
Environmentalists feared the worst and masterfully publicized those fears
to mobilize citizens. Contributions mounted, and activists stormed
Washington and tightened their control of environmental regulation.

George Bush’s concerted effort to be viewed as the “environmental
president” led to another surge of federal power as the EPA tried to stop
the draining of wetlands, the Interior Department stepped up control of
land in the name of endangered species protection, and the White House
promoted a costly Clean Air Act. In 1993, the Clinton administration
arrived with heavy backing by environmental groups and ambitious plans for
“ecosystem management,” creation of the National Biological Survey, and
tighter regulation.

But these initiatives were the high-water mark of federal
environmental regulation. Virtually all ran into opposition. The 1994
election results are a signal that the public will not accept such
encroachment indefinitely.

Now, what is needed is a serious effort to “reinvent
environmentalism” by bringing more reality and common sense to
environmental policy. In some cases, this can be done by abandoning the
excessive requirements of current laws. In others, it means introducing
common-sense adaptations that recognize the importance of incentives. In
no case does it mean allowing people to behave in ways that cause serious
harm to others.

Three Principles for a New Agenda

Our agenda reflects the insights that have guided PERC research
for well over a decade. It builds on three basic principles (see Anderson
and Leal 1991, and Gwartney and Stroup 1995).

1) Incentives matter.

When prices are determined by the government rather than the
market, they change incentives, distorting people’s decisions about how to
use resources. These distortions often have severe environmental
consequences.

When prices of a good or service are low, people demand more than
they otherwise would. Low prices for federally provided water, for
example, encourage excessive water use for agriculture and reduce water
available for fish. Conversely, when prices are artificially set high by
the government, more is supplied than otherwise would be. For example,
price supports for agriculture cause farmers to expand production to land
that is only marginally suitable for crops. In spite of these harmful
effects, government-determined prices are widespread because they serve
the interests of narrow groups and the politicians those groups support.

The fact that Congress can force people to do what it wants at no
direct cost to itself also distorts the way resources are used. Congress
passed the Endangered Species Act, authorizing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service to control private and public lands without compensating private
landowners or other users of public lands. With such power at their
command, Fish and Wildlife officials have little reason to think carefully
about how many acres they regulate or how severe their regulations are
Similarly, Congress can mandate costly actions by municipalities without
having to provide any funding to carry them out. Because it does not have
to pay the cost, Congress tends to make extreme demands, such as requiring
costly sewage treatment, even though they may accomplish little good.

Because incentives matter, price distortions should be removed.
Prices of commodities supplied by the federal government should be brought
more into line with market levels. And the costs that Congress and
government officials ignore because someone else is paying them should be
made explicit by putting these costs “on-budget.” The government should
pay for what it demands.

2) Secure and tradeable property rights encourage
cooperation and resource stewardship.

Many environmental problems occur because the rights to use
resources are not secure and cannot be traded. They are “up for grabs,”
determined by political clout rather than market competition.

Grazing on public lands is a classic example of insecure property
rights. Because grazing rights are controlled by government officials,
current holders of the rights know that their allotments can be reduced at
any time through political fiat. Thus, they must constantly devote
attention and resources to maintaining their political clout, waging
political war against other potential uses. Knowing that they might soon
lose control also makes them less willing to forgo benefits or make
sacrifices to preserve the value of the land. Secure ownership would
increase their interest in protecting the long-term value of the land.

Another problem on the public lands is that many rights are not
fully tradeable. Owners of grazing rights, for example, cannot lease or
sell them to environmentalists who would retire the land from grazing; the
permits can only be transferred to other livestock grazers. If permits
were fully tradeable, environmentalists could retire them or perhaps
figure out how small changes in grazing practices could accomplish their
goals of preservation. Similarly, environmental groups should be able to
bid on federal timber sales and, if they win the bids, modify or retire
the logging rights. In this way they could preserve trees or acquire
endangered species habitat, achieving their goals without the rancor and
gridlock of politics.

3) Polluters should be liable for harms they cause others

(and only for such harms).

Individuals have the right not to be seriously harmed or
threatened by pollution from others, just as they have the right not to be
assaulted. In the past, people protected their rights by going to court
when necessary to stop pollution or to obtain compensation for pollution
that had occurred.

This property rights approach to controlling pollution was not
perfect, but it had a number of advantages over regulatory programs. For
example, it focused on actual harm rather than emissions, which may not in
themselves be a problem. Also, it allowed rights to be traded when both
polluter and recipient could find a mutually beneficial solution, and it
did not require the creation of vast bureaucracies that adopt costly
approaches to address minuscule risks.

While we may not be able to go back completely to the previous
system of common law, our policies need to focus on prevention of harm
rather than prevention of waste per se. People should be accountable for
their actions when those actions are shown to be wrongful. And
environmental authorities, like all government authorities, should be
subject to budget constraints and to serious judicial review.

From these three principles, a new “common sense” agenda for
environmentalism can be built. The new agenda should be acceptable to
environmentalists because it will protect the environment where serious
environmental threats occur, and it should be welcomed by the broader
public because it will be cost-effective. Astute politicians should be
able to build new coalitions supportive of these policy changes.

Terry L. Anderson is a Senior Associate of the Political Economy Research
Center (PERC) in Bozeman, Montana.

References:

Anderson, Terry L., and Donald R. Leal. 1991. Free Market Environmentalism. San Francisco: Pacific Research Institute.

Gwartney, James D., and Richard L. Stroup. 1995. Economics: Private and Public Choice, 7th ed. Fort Worth, TX: Dryden Press.

ecoworld.com

Issue #2

June 1995

Space is a form of long-term investment spending that would yield benefits to mankind far more than any other market opportunity. The dividends that will accrue to a massive crash program develop the resources of the solar system are virtually incalculable.

It is a shame that the developed nations of the world are not engaged in an all out, friendly but no-holds-barred competition to extract the mineral resources of the Moon, Mars and the asteroid belt. Manganese, Chromium, Cobalt, Uranium, and many other precious metals can be found on these nearby worlds. Trillions of dollars worth of solar energy can be efficiently exploited, and beamed to receivers on earth using microwaves. Power installations and mining facilities can be built without the environmental safeguards so costly on earth.

The technology necessary to colonize the solar system, and the economic investment necessary to undertake such an effort is not really that great. Over 25 years ago the moon was landed on using highly obsolete technology. America’s space shuttle is an obsolete and politically contrived contraption that is way too expensive. Our current technology is such that we can now build true spaceplanes that can carry intercontinental passengers as well as deliver cargo and colonists to low earth orbit.

The idea that from there it is expensive to assemble pressure vessels with biosphere subsystems and liquid fuel propulsion units (the basic infrastructural requirements of colonies in space) is absurd. This technology is old! The computational power available in 1995 to moniter and operate these systems is vastly superior to anything deployed thus far. In a nutshell, it is much, much less costly for the United States, for example, to establish a colony on the Moon or on Mars today, then it was for the nations of Europe to explore and colonize the far flung continents of this Earth a few centuries ago.

A colony on the Moon would take the form of a giant greenhouse. A biosphere that would collect solar light and energy in order to create a pleasant habitat for the colonists, as well as energy necessary to operate a mine, a smelter, and a power station. The lunar minerals would also allow the extraction of water, one of the basic elements necessary for expansion of the colony.

Orbiting colonies would be built from materials extracted from the moon. Orbiting power satellites, using photovoltaic arrays, could microwave electric power to earth based receiver arrays approximately 1.0 kilometer in diameter. Sixty of these receiving stations would be enough to meet the total energy requirements of the entire planet. Utility corporations should invest in this effort. The ones that are first will be the ones that become wealthy beyond their wildest imaginings.

Not only will self perpetuating, self-sufficient space colonies become a source of cheap and inexaustible energy to our energy hungry world, but they will be a source of highly refined, extremely valuable alloys and pharmaceuticals. In zero-gravity the manufacturing and refining process can be fine-tuned to a level far beyond that possible in earth’s gravity. Electrophoresis, a method to separate biochemicals using magnetic fields, allows manufacturing of pharmaceuticals such as interferon at a very high level of purity and at a very low cost. The manufacture of gallinium arsenide crystals, a superior form of semi-conductor, is also much more efficient in zero-gravity. Metallic alloys are also smelted to a degree of purity in zero-gravity that is not possible on earth. Cold superconductivity and fusion power are only two dramatic examples of new technologies that could emerge.

The spin-offs that will accrue as a result of space-based manufacturing and space-based research will ignite an era of prosperity unparalleled in human history.

Imagine how much we will learn along the way about how to manage ecosystems. The closed-loop systems to recycle atmosphere and water will require new technologies that will be useful in the urban areas of earth. And every mineral and every mega-joule of energy that has its origin in outer space is another ecosystem on earth that is spared the disruption of a mine or a plantation or a power plant.

Finally, exploration of space allows humans to turn their expansionist urges outward, instead of inward into destructive frenzies. Space exploration can take the place of war as an outlet for human heroism, zeal and innovation.

Space exploration and colonization is a great work for our age that will harness the vision and drive of millions of adventurers, risk takers and dreamers.

Through a great effort to conquer space and exploit the wealth therein, a channel for the vast creative and curious energy of all human civilization will be captured and given back in the form of all the good; new technology, new wealth, and ultimately new understandings of how to live together on this finite biosphere, but with none of the bad; none of the bloodshed, hatreds, and destructive sacrifice.

EcoWorld welcomes the submission of space biosphere and space vehicle blueprints which may be published in ecoworld.com to add to the knowledge base necessary for humans to organize to undertake this great endeavor for the good of all mankind.

ecoworld.com

Issue #2

June 1995

image – Tim Cantor

LETTER FROM RINGSIDE

THE ECOWORLD PHILOSOPHY

TABLE OF CONTENTS
DON’T SHUT DOWN AMERICA

THE SACRED TRUST OF PRIVATE STEWARDSHIP

By Nancy Marzulla

Defenders of property rights are organizing, and one of the leading spokespersons for this movement is Nancy Marzulla, an attorney who chairs this non-profit foundation located near our nation’s capital. In this column she cuts loose on the environmental extremists, and provides a useful perspective for environmentalists of whatever proclivities to ponder.

AT HOME ON THE RANGE WITH WOLVES

MAKING A LIABILITY INTO AN ASSET

By Terry Anderson

Noted free market environmentalist Terry Anderson describes how, if bringing the timber wolf back to the mountains of Wyoming and Montana is really what we want, the job can be done better and cheaper using private incentives to landowners.

FLAGSHIPS OF THE FOREST

REPORT FROM THE GREENHOUSE

By Ed “Redwood” Ring

The first EcoWorld Greenhouse & Nursery is well established, and in this report the systems and procedures necessary for anyone, anywhere to build their own EcoWorld Greenhouse is laid out like a recipe. Careful study of this concise plan will qualify you to begin your tree growing venture. Remember, we intend to double the timber mass of planet Earth by May 2045.

RAINFOREST UPDATE

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

When timber is harvested on a rotation, can the soil continue to maintain the quality necessary to allow the large trees to continue to generate new forest mass at historic rates? This is a question with huge implications in Papua New Guinea, where exactly such a practice is considered enlightened by the national government in Port Moresby.

SPACE COLONIES HELP EARTH’S ECOSYSTEMS

A NEW AGE OF EXPLORATION AND COLONIZATION

by Ed Ring

Why colonizing space RIGHT NOW will cause a technological revolution, an era of global prosperity, save the ecosystems of earth, and contribute to world peace.

June 1995

Attempts have been made by completely unrelated interest groups to own the meaning of environmentalism, or ecological thinking. It is unusual for an environmentalist to pronounce himself a libertarian, for example, but it is common for environmentalists to get lumped in with socialists. The precious bird called environmentalism has been flying for too long with only one wing, the left one.

Environmentalism properly perceived must also see the tremendous potential of deregulation, more private ownership, smaller government and less taxes to promote environmental causes. In many important cases it was individual stewardship and the profit motive that was the only way the environment could be helped.

In South Africa, for example, cattle ranching has been replaced by big game hunting as the most lucrative land use in the arid interior. Rhinos cost $28,000 to kill. The hunter becomes a part of nature, and the landowner becomes a very concerned naturalist, maintaining the herds of game species in order to continue receiving payments from hunters. I invite anyone anywhere to tell me a better way the rhino could have been saved. Governments could not have done a better job, or they would have.

An economy unfettered by excessive regulations becomes more dynamic, more innovations are tried, and wealth is created faster. This means that such a society will have the financial means to protect the environment, investing in long-lead technical solutions; orbiting power stations, desalinization plants, massive reforestations, all endeavors which bequeath on the following generation an even more prosperous society, able to undertake even more ambitious projects, such as colonization of the solar system.

Of course some limited government is necessary, but the priorities of that government should never be to pass more laws, increase entitlements, create new protected status groups, build prisons, and regulate speech. Shouldn’t a government instead prioritize spending taxpayers money on something that will pay financial dividends to everyone, instead of spending our money on projects that will all do nothing more than create their own compounding needs?

Do we want to live in a world of individual freedom and prosperity, with the financial resources to fix anything we want in the environment? The opposite extreme is a dark age akin to George Orwell’s “big brother” nightmare, where an authoritarian central government enforces with an iron hand control over all property and all thoughts.

send an email to ed@ecoworld.com

THE ECOWORLD PHILOSOPHY

Issue #2, June 1995

Nature and Technology in Harmony…

In this issue we stay on track with our determination to give free-enterprise environmentalism the hearing that it merits. “Don’t Shut Down America” by Nancy Marzulla takes on the leftist environmental extremists, and presents an alternative, the “sacred trust of private stewardship.” “At Home on the Range With Wolves” by noted free market environmentalist Terry Anderson shows another way to preserve endangered species, one that creates an incentive to the landowner. “Report From the Greenhouse” will fill you in on our EcoWorld tree growing activities, and provides instructions for those of you out there who want to get started with their own tree nurseries. “Rainforest Update” from the World Rainforest Movement goes to another part of the indonesion archipelago this month, the independent nation of Papua New Guinea, where one of the last tropical wildernesses left on earth is being clear cut. Worth taking a look at, wouldn’t you think? “Space Colonies Help Earth’s Ecosystems” takes a look at the ultimate way to solve problems (including environmental ones) through economic growth, by speculating on the immense wealth that would be generated through industrialization of the solar system. Good reading.

ecoworld.com

Issue #2

June 1995

RAINFOREST UPDATE

a message from the

WORLD RAINFOREST MOVEMENT

226,000 HECTARES (1,000 SQUARE MILES) MORE OF GULF PROVINCE RAINFOREST TO BE HARVESTED

Papua New Guinea’s forests, one of four tropical wildernesses remaining on the planet, are being liquidated in about a generation, for the primary benefit of Malaysian multi-nationals and to rescue the PNG government from fiscal mismanagement. Meanwhile, future generations, such as the Turama peoples, are doomed to a life of biological and economic impoverishment.

The Saturday Independent (new name for Times of PNG) reports that 266,000 hectares in the Turama, Kikori and Baimuru forest areas of Gulf Province have been approved as timber permit extensions for Turama Forest Industries. This company is of unspecified ownership in the article, but reported elsewhere as being owned by “Long Term Trading P/L” which is registered in Singapore. Long Term Trading is generally considered part of the Malaysian Monarch group of PNG timber companies which control approximately ten other timber concessions in PNG, second only to Rimbunan Hijau at about twenty three logging areas. Monarch’s timber abuses were well documented in the Barnett Inquiry into Timber Industry misconduct.

The company already has a 259,600 hectares of timber operations in the immediate area of Turama and is expected to harvest 180,000 cubic metres of timber annually. The article reports in return for such a large timber permit, the company will build a plywood mill, “hopefully within the next two years.” If past behavior is an indication, perhaps never.

The article is aglow with talk of long term sustainable development of the area based on a continuous 35 year cutting cycle. The notion that large scale industrial forestry (effectively clearcutting the area with resultant soil compaction from heavy machinery, soil erosion and loss of soil fertility) can be sustained past a couple harvests is scientifically indefensible in that tropical forest soils are well known by conservation biologists to be ill-suited to such use. No mention is made of the likely effects upon the areas biodiversity; nor the Gulf of Papua’s extensive marine resources, as such an incredibly large industrial forestry operation greatly increases soil erosion.

Sustaining forest timber production is a greatly different matter than sustaining forest ecological processes. It is doubtful that a 500,000 hectare chunk taken by one company out of the Gulf Province will sustain either.

One can only wonder whether the PNG government even considered aiding the landholders of the area to pursue small scale, community forestry operations. It is unlikely, in that few government royalties are generated by such appropriate development. And the government is K5 billion in debt through mismanagement; despite the recent arrival of Kutubu, Porgera Mine, Hides Gas and other projects on line.

This is the first project approved under the new Forest Act and the National Forestry Guidelines. While this legislation has been hailed as important steps toward progressive forest management; their implementation through the Turama Forest project indicates that even with new laws, we can expect continued emphasis upon very large foreign owned industrial clearcuts.

Shockingly, the projects approval was granted early, by the acting Forest Minister Mr Philemon. The actual Forest Minister, Mr. Andrew Posai, only recently had his ministry removed from him as he is being investigated for corruption; some stemming from his role and dealings with the timber industry as Forest Minister. In such an environment of overt and continuing corruption, it is questionable when an acting official rushes project implementation.

The World Rainforest Movement is calling for an immediate investigation into the rushed approval of such a large project, to insure that the procedures were followed for project implementation.

ecoworld.com

Issue #2

June 1995

Our society is in the midst of a crisis — a crisis of over-regulation.

This crisis threatens to destroy the pulse and power of our national enterprise,
stopping America dead in its tracks.

Government has intruded into every aspect of American life, but none more so
than the use of private property. Our Founding Fathers recognized this
danger, and the Constitution was written to protect our right to own and make
reasonable use of property. They understood that private property is the
bedrock of our freedom and that the more the government regulates it, the
more it diminishes our freedom. That is why they wrote such strong
protections for it in the Constitution.

Groups that want to save the environment at any cost have blind faith in government to protect the environment and solve all problems.

With their abstractions and often flawed science, they promote an agenda devoid of growth, implying that all problems stem from man’s interference in nature. These people say private property is incompatible with saving the planet, and
should be abolished. They have become regulatory zealots and with their
elitist approach are losing the public’s trust. But in the process, they
have turned their doomsdayism into big business and fat endowments.

Quite simply, they want to shut down America.

On the other hand, the property rights movement is an American cause. It is
overwhelmingly comprised of small property owners, family business owners,
farmers, and other individuals who understand the importance of — indeed,
who contribute to — protecting our planet’s fragile ecosystems and the need for clean air and water. These Americans believe environmental protection can be achieved through man’s resourcefulness, sensible solutions, and the exercise of the sacred trust of private stewardship of our God-given earth.

Of course, the government can take private property in order to carry out its
objectives through its power of eminent domain. But when government takes
private property through regulation, it somehow seems to think the rules have
changed. The government somehow thinks that the Fifth Amendment’s mandate
that government pay for what it takes disappears. The government must still
obey the Constitution. If your home, business or any property is taken in
the public interest, it is your constitutional right to receive just
compensation regardless of how or why it was taken. It is only fair
everyone should share in bearing the cost for achieving the public good.

Since property is much more than land and buildings, it all comes down to
rights. Your rights — our rights. As Man is a part of nature, and lives in
a world of many social orders; he must co-exist in harmony with all creatures
great and small. But in the interest of our collective well-being we must
reach a balance.

The Fifth Amendment’s mandate that the government pay for
what it takes is such a balance.

So let’s not shut down America. By agreeing to balance our interests — we can keep America both green and free.

Nancie G. Marzulla is the president and chief legal counsel of Defenders of Property Rights, the nation’s only legal defense foundation dedicated exclusively to the protection of private property rights. For a free copy of Defenders’ “Pocket Guide to Your Private Property Rights,” send a self-addressed, stamped envelope to: 1350 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 410, Washington, DC 20036.

ecoworld.com

Issue #2

June 1995

This converted backyard shed is now a shadehouse that can grow thousands of tree seedlings per year

The mission of www.EcoWorld.com (established online May 1995), most simply put, is to double the timber volume of the world in 50 years.

In the urban forests of the world, this same goal applies. That is, we’ve got until May 2045 in which to double the timber mass of the urban forests throughout the world. This task however, should be the easy one compared to growing the forests of the vast natural forest regions on planet earth. Moreover, what we learn about growing trees when we double the number of trees in each major world city will be valuable knowledge to take with us into the back country, where the great natural forests grow.

Do you want to grow the great trees of the world? Would you like to plant these trees in your urban forest? All you need is a small greenhouse, and you can propagate thousands of these trees each year. A goal of EcoWorld’s web site is to create a database where you can learn what great trees, “flagship” trees, will do well in your local climate and soil. Our goal as well, pursued in this article, is to show you exactly how to grow these trees. It’s not really that hard to grow these trees, it´s lots of fun, and it’s relatively inexpensive.

This article will show you how to build an inexpensive shade house using a converted backyard storage shed. Of course this means you’ll have to empty the storage shed, since now it will be for trees instead of old stuff. But if you really try, this won’t be so hard. Go to the goodwill. Have a garage sale. Put some flooring in your attic or garage rafters and create a new storage area. You have options.

Most readers probably are familiar with the the common homeowners sheet metal storage shed. They vary in size, but the type that I have modified into a shade house (soon to be a greenhouse) is fairly typical. It stands around 6´ 9″ at the peak, with a shallow roof pitch leading to 6´ sides. The floor dimensions are 8´ deep and 10´ wide.

Hidden underneat the sheet metal skin of most backyard sheds is a wood frame that can form the nucleus of a very inexpensive greenhouse.

The first step is to remove the sheet metal, starting with the roof. The sheets can usually be unscrewed in a short time using a portable electric screwdriver. As you take each wall off, nail 30/60 or 45 degree cross supports into the horizontal wood framing. Be careful as you perform these modifications, of course.

The next step is to remove the wood floor. Pry the nails out with a claw hammer and screwdriver, then saw through the wood along the with a skill saw that only goes as deep as the thickness of the plywood. This way you will be able to save the floor joists that are underneath the plywood and use the to reinforce the frame. If you’re lucky, underneath the floor joists will be a nice concrete slab.

Now you are ready for the hard part, but also the most fun. Using 1×2 8´ stakes, build three “gambrel” roof arches. Cut the stakes into 3´ sections, and use four sections per arch. The outline of this new roof is like a classic barn roof, with angles the same as those on half of an octagon.

To connect the roof arches use 9´ long 1×4 rafters, which need not be precision milled and can be obtained for around USD$3.00 apiece at a good lumber yard. The reclaimed floor joists can be used to reinforce the roof and to buttress the corner posts, as well as a post on the mid-point of each side beneath the points where the middle arch sits.

Right now we are just making a shade house, so at this point you are pretty much done. Put the door back on, then it’s a good idea to either seal or stain the wood. You will need one gallon of sealer or stain, and be sure to use a 3″ roller. Using a brush will take many, many hours more than a roller. When you add pieces later to either provide additional reinforcement to the frame or to create shelving inside, it’s best to seal or stain the pieces before affixing them to the structure.

Last of all drape shade cloth over the entire frame. The best way to do this is to use just one piece to go over one side, up and over the roof, and down the other side. Such a piece would measure 8´ by 18´ to go halfway down each side, or 8´ by 24´ if you want the shade cloth to reach the ground on each side. Shade cloth like this can be ordered pre-cut from any reputable nursery supply company with hems and grommets every few feet. The grommets allow you to tie the entire piece to the greenhouse frame with a few lengths of stout twine. A shade cloth this size yielding 50% filtration costs only around $35.00. Your best bet for the front and back is shade cloth cut to the dimensions of the front and back and stapled onto the frame securely with a staple gun (greenhouse makers: follow all above directions but use sheets of clear plastic instead of shadecloth – be sure your structure can withstand the wind in your area).

Imagine how many trees can be spawned in such a shadehouse. The average starter tube tray holds 50 tubes per square foot. A greenhouse with floor dimensions of 8´ by 10´ can support 60 square feet of starter tables, or 3,000 tubes. Allowing for some spoilage, you can figure it is possible to start 2,500 trees per year in this converted backyard storage shed. The entire cost of this system, including a sprinkler system, is under $200.00.

To put this in perspective, Northern California’s Santa Clara Valley is estimated to have around one million large, canopy trees. One million “flagship” trees that clean the air, retain moisture, increase rainfall, and moderate the temperature. These trees have an average lifespan of 100 years. Only four of these little backyard greenhouses could actually maintain an urban canopy of one million trees. Putting it another way, if you had a big yard and built a greenhouse a mere 48´ x 20´, producing 30,000 trees per year, you would not only maintain the urban forest of a million trees serving a metropolitan area of 1.5 million persons, but you would increase the size of that urban forest from one million “flagship” trees to an urban forest of two million such trees within the 50 year deadline.

Clearly reforesting the urban regions of the world is not as tough as it may seem when first contemplated. Our first EcoWorld nursery should be able to turn out 2,500 trees per year, and many of them will be grown to be much larger than seedlings. Thousands of Sycamores, Cottonwoods, Oaks, Redwoods and other types of trees are already beginning to march forth from this first greenhouse and nursery and into the earth.

EMAIL TO THE EDITOR

—–Original Message—–

From: Cheryl Lynch

Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 1:36 PM

To: ed@ecoworld.com

Subject: Gambrel roof

Could you please help me? My husband and I are building a workshop and we want a gambrel roof to house various woodworking and craft projects. I have looked on the web to find the angels needed to construct the roof and came closest to understanding what is needed by your article. Could you please give us the dimensions so we can draw up the plans?

Thank you for any help you may be able to give.

Cheryl Lynch

EDITOR’S REPLY:
Cheryl,
When designing a gambrel roof first develop the view of the structure from the end. To design this view, the main thing you should to know is the angle of the roof rafters that form the cross-sections of a gambrel roof. Think of a gambrel roof (viewed from the end) as half of an octogon, that is, half of a stop sign, where two of the points intersect the ceiling line. This will help you visualize the gambrel shape. Make an octogon and draw a line through two of the points to cut the octogon in half. When designing the cross sections, the angle of the top beam and the two beams to the right and left all need to be exactly 135 degrees. All four pieces of each roof cross section need to be equal in length. I hope this helps.

Ed Ring

Editor

EcoWorld

ecoworld.com

Issue #2

June 1995

During the past winter, with much fanfare, federal officials transported 14 wolves from Canada to Yellowstone National Park in the hope that the wolves will make their home in the park. (Wolves used to inhabit Yellowstone but the Park Service killed them off early in this century.) This wolf reintroduction program will cost taxpayers over $7 million and has created endless controversy between environmentalists and ranchers. At a time when the U.S. Congress is looking for ways to control the deficit and reduce government intrusion, perhaps other ways of protecting endangered species should be considered.

Hank Fischer, the Northern Rockies representative for the Defenders of Wildlife, has an alternative that is worthy of praise. For many years, Hank has wanted to see wolves back in the Northern Rockies, including Yellowstone National Park, but he also understands why livestock owners oppose wolf reintroduction. Wolves kill livestock, and ranchers consider them a liability. Hank has been trying to change the incentives.

Imagine a Montana rancher telling his cowboys not to disturb a pair of wolves raising a litter of pups. Such a scenario is almost unimaginable in a state where ranchers commonly assert that “shoot, shovel, and shut-up” is the best way to handle endangered species. But in 1994 a rancher near Augusta, Montana, chose not to disturb a wolf that successfully raised three pups.

Part of the rancher’s motivation was a reward offered by the Defenders of Wildlife. Defenders was willing to pay the rancher $5,000, the first cash award under its private program designed to encourage the natural regeneration of wolves in Montana.

The cash award program is Hank Fishcer’s brainchild. In 1987 he recognized that ranchers were opposed to wolf recovery because they feared wolves would kill their livestock. To overcome the opposition, he took, in his words, “a foray into free market environmentalism” by establishing a Wolf Compensation Fund to pay for livestock depredation. So far, the compensation fund has paid $12,000 to about a dozen ranchers.

But Fischer recognized that this was only half of the free-market equation. In 1992, he established another private fund to reward any private landowner for giving wolves a home. “We’re experimenting to learn whether the carrot of economic incentives can be more powerful than the stick of the Endangered Species Act,” says Fischer. Following the argument of free-market environmentalists, Fischer is attempting “to turn endangered species recovery into an asset rather than a liability.”

The Defenders’ programs contrast sharply with the governmental approach using the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and millions of taxpayer dollars. Under the ESA, the Fish and Wildlife Service can severely restrict the use of any land, private or public, that has endangered species habitat. Needless to say, ranchers surrounding Yellowstone fear that their land will be controlled by the government if and when the transplanted wolves wander out of the park (as they already have done on a small scale). It’s little wonder that private landowners hesitate or refuse to divulge the existence of an endangered species on their land, let alone encourage their propagation.

Why not turn the incentives around, as Hank Fischer’s program has done? Make habitat for endangered species on private land an asset, not a liability. The Defenders program has won the support of free market environmentalists such as myself and it has been applauded by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Ed Bangs, leader of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wolf recovery team, says: “This program should be a model for others who want positive solutions to complex environmental problems.”

The Endangered Species Act needs some success stories, and adopting the carrot rather than a stick approach could help provide them. Under the stick (the present policy), only 27 species have been removed from the endangered or threatened list during the past two decades; many of these were removed due to errors in the original listing.

Imagine what could happen if private owners of timberlands were paid $5,000 for every pair of spotted owls nesting on their property! The U.S. Department of Agriculture currently rents land under its “Conservation Reserve Program.” Why not rent land from private owners who control key endangered species habitat?

The success story with wolves should provide the impetus for innovative changes in our approach to endangered species. Hank Fischer is right when he says: “Economic incentives offer a greater likelihood of public acceptance than increased regulation.”

About the Authors: Terry L. Anderson is a Senior Associate of PERC (the Property and Environment Research Center), 2048 Analysis Drive, Suite A, Bozeman, Montana 59718 (406-587-9591; fax: 406-586-7555). Terry Anderson is co-author with Donald R. Leal of Free Market Environmentalism (Pacific Research Institute, 1991). E-mail: perc@perc.org

ecoworld.com

Issue #1

May 1995

image – Tim Cantor

LETTER FROM RINGSIDE

THE ECOWORLD PHILOSOPHY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ENVIRONMENTALISTS IN BUSINESS SUITS:

WANT TO SAVE RHINOS? HUNT THEM.

By Terry Anderson and Donald Leal

Enviro-Capitalism vs. Political Environmentalism. Win-Win vs. Win-Lose. Supply side theories at work to finance habitat restoration and endangered species comebacks. Want to hunt the African Elephant? Bagging one costs $12,000. An African Rhino will set you back $28,000. These immense sums of money collected from hunters have provided native peoples with the incentive to save these species, and they have done so. A little known success story, and examples abound. True market value recognizes scarcity, which when private ownership is involved, will encourage conservation and stewardship. Free-market environmentalism is alive and well, and what strange bedfellows the hunters and the animal rights activists make!

FLAGSHIPS OF THE FOREST

PACIFIC NORTHWEST & CALIFORNIA BIG TREES

By Ed “Redwood” Ring

The mission of EcoWorld, put another way, is to determine how many giant canopy trees there are currently growing on the planet, and to then plant enough more of them to double that number. In this section, we summarize the latest EcoWorld reforestation efforts, identify climate zones and the flagship trees that do well in each of them, provide tips, and ask for advice on topics relating to tree farming and forestry. The specialty and the focus, however, is on the “flagship” trees of each forest, the large, canopy providing trees.

PROPERTY RIGHTS -

THE CIVIL RIGHTS ISSUE OF THE 90S

By Nancie Marzulla

Until last November, the United States was slated to become mapped according to ecosystems. These ecosystems would then be cross-referenced with lists of endangered species. Virtually anyplace, anywhere, would be a potentially key element of a protected ecosystem, or perhaps a potential endangered species habitat. When this happens, property owners lose most of the rights one would normally associate with ownership. Already the regulations are onerous. Landowners are terrified of endangered species appearing on their property. What reforms are in progress, and will the new congress make a difference?

CATCHING THE HEAT IN BERLIN

GLOBAL WARMING

By Kent Jeffries

What happened in Berlin at the Earth Summit 1995? Is the earth really heating up, or just the rhetoric? What does weather satellite data really tell us about the earth´s average temperature? If there isn´t compelling evidence of catastrophic global warming, should we really consider huge new taxes on burning of fossil fuels? Are we about to “leap before we look?”

RAINFOREST UPDATE

BORNEO, INDONESIA

A Message from the World Rainforest Movement

What sorts of reforestation efforts are underway in Indonesia, a nation with a resettlement policy that is dislocating native peoples every day? This is a nation which has eliminated chemical fertilizers from its entire territory. A vast and complex, populous nation, perhaps the most underestimated nation on earth. What are the biggest, most long-lived trees in Indonesia? We should plant some.

LETTER FROM RINGSIDE

May 1995

If you really care about the environment you have to think about
macroscopic things, and really watch them. Things like average ocean
temperatures, or atmospheric oxygen levels, or square miles of rain
forest canopy. Nobody is going to convince me, in any case, that if I
save my glass and paper for the recycler the world will be saved, and if I do not it will not. But there is one of those giant “indicator” variables that I can have an impact on, and hopefully so can you.

The great trees of the world, the giants, the canopy makers, the
providers of shade across vast stretches of continent, these trees allow green and moist things beneath them to live. They allow us respite from the hot sun. These trees matter. Everybody knows that. If these trees don’t live, neither does anything else.

While there are regional exceptions, worldwide these trees are falling
faster than they are being replanted. And even if trees were not
falling faster than they were being replanted, we would still want more
to be planted. Every year hundreds of millions of people are being
added to the global population. More people need more trees, not less,
or as many. Planting lots more trees in the world is unambiguously
good, even if there isn’t global warming, even if there isn’t
ozone depletion, even if there isn’t a single endangered habitat.
As it is, every year there is less vegetation in the world than there
was the year before. The only way this can be changed is by planting
lots of giant trees everywhere, and letting them grow to maturity before beginning to cut them at a sustainable rate.

send an email to ed@ecoworld.com

THE ECOWORLD PHILOSOPHY

Issue #1, May 1995

Nature and Technology in Harmony…

Protecting the environment and protecting individual rights at the same time. Decentralizing of authority. A private ownership model of environmentalism. In this issue we provide an example of free market environmentalism at work with our story “Enviro-Capitalists” that tells how the Rhino really was saved. The methods are controversial, but the result is undeniable. The Rhino is not going join the ranks of extinct species. Also in this issue we have an article that challenges environmentalists to examine when policies designed to protect the environment go too far and become counter-productive. “Property Rights – The Civil Rights Issue of the 1990′s” discusses how the endangered species act can induce landowners to do anything but nurture threatened species that may appear on their land. Also, as part of our attempt to shake things up a little bit, “Catching the Heat in Berlin” reports on the global warming conference just ended in Berlin and takes a look at just what facts are behind the global warming crisis. These articles are not intended to bash the environmental movement, they are intended to make it smarter and more effective. The men and women who wrote these articles are all passionate environmentalists. Their message may not be welcomed by all, but it is a new and necessary addition to the chorus.

RAINFOREST UPDATE

a message from the

WORLD RAINFOREST MOVEMENT

BENTIAN CASE, EAST KALIMANTAN

BORNEO, INDONESIA, 1995

INDONESIAN GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED “DEVELOPMENT” AND LOGGING DESTROYS INDIGENOUS PEOPLES’ SUSTAINABLE AGROFORESTRY SYSTEM

The Bentian Besar District is located in the Middle Mahakam region of East Kalimantan, Indonesia. It is home to Bentian Dayak (indigenous) rattan producers. Several of the Dayak groups of Kalimantan, including the Bentian, Benoaq, and the Pasir have developed a unique system of market-oriented rattan cultivation linked to their swidden agriculture system.

Dayak rattan gardens act as “savings accounts” for their owners, as well as biodiversity conservation areas. These systems of rattan cultivation represent a rare example of market production, sustainable forest management, biodiversity conservation, and local income generation — all designed and implemented by indigenous Dayak peoples of East Kalimantan in Indonesian Borneo.

In 1981, Georgia Pacific, one of the largest American timber companies, built a logging camp on traditional Bentian lands in the Anan River area. They came close to sparking an armed conflict with the Bentian when they resettled villagers and destroyed ancient grave sites and rattan fruit gardens during base camp construction. Georgia Pacific built a corridor logging road approximately 100 km long, parallel to the Lawa River, the main transportation/communication artery for the area. Instead of building bridges over the feeder streams to the Lawa, the company dammed all of the feeder streams for the entire length of the road. This severely reduced water flow to the Lawa and created malarial swamps on the other side of the road.

Transportation and communication with the outside world become increasingly difficult for the local people who were not given easy access to logging company transportation. Due to an unsatisfactory business climate, Georgia Pacific pulled out of Indonesia in the mid-1980′s and concession areas were taken over by Bob Hasan, an Indonesian timber tycoon with close links to President Suharto. Georgia Pacific, while it no longer conducts logging operations in East Kalimantan, remains one of the largest purchasers and distributors of plywood from its former concessions (now the Kiani Lestari/Kalimanis group) to the American market.

Attempting to secure the rest of their ancestral lands, the Bentian have been petitioning the Indonesian government since 1986, completely without results. In July, 1993, the new concession holder PT Kalhold/Kalimanis sent armed bulldozer and chainsaw crews onto Bentian lands to prepare for a new transmigration settlement and an “industrial forest plantation”. The bulldozers plowed 150 hectares of Bentian forest and rattan gardens, destroying over 10,000 rattan clumps and 2000 fruit trees. In addition, Bentian grave markers were bulldozed and burned and the bones of Bentian dead were scattered over the charred ground.

Beginning in 1993, the Bentian publicly protested the destruction of their traditional lands by logging companies and industrial forest plantations. They have repeatedly requested a stop to the violations of human rights and environmental destruction which have accompanied the land clearing of the first 150 hectares of thousands of hectares of Bentian lands scheduled for destruction.

As a result of their protests they have been met with increased repression, threats, and intimidation from Indonesian governmental officials and security forces. On March 29, 1994, a Bentian leader was interrogated for 12 hours by security forces and government officials in an attempt to force him to sign letters voiding Bentian ancestral rights. The Bentian report numerous other acts of intimidation to try to force them to relinquish claims to their lands and rattan gardens.

The Bentian’s demands are as follows:

1. RECOGNITION OF THE BENTIAN’S LAND RIGHTS.

2. RETURN OF THE (partially bulldozed) LANDS OF JELMU SIBAK
VILLAGE (JATO REMPANGAN) TO THE BENTIAN PEOPLE.

3. LEVY FINES AGAINST LOGGING COMPANIES AND INDUSTRIAL FOREST PLANTATIONS WHICH HAVE DAMAGED BENTIAN LANDS AND RATTAN AND FRUIT GARDENS.

4. STOP THE TRANSMIGRATION/INDUSTRIAL FOREST PLANTATION
PROJECTS ON BENTIAN LANDS IMMEDIATELY.

INTERESTED PARTIES:

President Suharto (President of Indonesia)

Fax: 62-21-345 7789

Bob Hasan (the Indonesian Timber Tycoon)

Fax: 62-21-390 9222

FASUMAD (environmental & indigenous rights group)

Jl. Pertahanan 1

Kompleks Yeschar

Samarinda, KalTim

Indonesia

Tel/Fax: 62-541-35753

email: stankup@peg.apc.org

WALHI (environmental & indigenous rights group)

Jl. Mampang Prapatan XV No41

Jakarta, Indonesia

Fax: 62-21-794-1673

email: walhi@nusa.or.id

tel: 011-62-21-799-4394/794-1672