Natural Resources

We have a lot of debate in our country about the uses of various natural resources, and it is only ‘right’, that when we use the resources that God has put before us, we do so responsibly and with common sense.

It does appear that the debate always diverts away from any “helpful discourse”, and ends up in a “shouting match” between those who are ‘preservationist’, and everyone else. As far as believing we humans have no right to use ’natural resources’ is concerned; all I can think of is for such a person to go dig a hole, if they dare harm the ground, and crawl in it. It can only be the height of stupidity to believe that in the great cycle of life, “humans” were meant to be left outside of it. Every living organism lives from others and ultimately gives its life in sustaining the next generation.

I think of the great Salmon runs in the Northwest and Alaska. The Salmon live for one purpose, return to the place they were born to spawn. Lay their spawn and then die, to be fed upon by bears and a whole environment of life that depends upon them.

It is doubtful, in the final analysis, whether we humans are much different, from a purely biological standpoint. I am not addressing our spiritual natures and how we different from other creatures, only our biological ‘life’. We are born into families, where our parents raise us. At some point we leave the nest and have children that we raise and in the by and by, we return to the dust of the ground.

The passing upon this earth by me, does not make me especially relevant among all the life forms on earth at a given time. There are a great many creatures that would rather turn me into pure ‘protein’, given the chance, than they would run from my presence. Thank God for firearms!

If, perchance, we imagine a world of living organisms, who are all trying to get the maximum use of the natural resources that surround us, and imagine secondly, that I need to chose a ’winning side’ in this battle for resources; I am choosing mankind, humans, homo sapiens, that would be, you and me, verses Trigger my dog or any other creature. So far, from all historic observations I have made, recent and ancient, we humans are the only ones who have materially lifted ourselves up by the invention of tools, machinery etc.

The only advancement I see taking place in the animal world, is that which they enjoy on our “coat-tails”. Because my life is better, so is Trigger’s, but I observe without prejudice, if it were not for me, old Trigger would not be one bit better off than his ancestors of a thousand years ago. He would still be killing any and everything he could get his teeth into, including me, to merely survive. By the natural fact that God has created man as his “special creature”, we have every right to use the resources of nature to survive and thrive.

That being said, we would be quite foolish to destroy all natural resources in a ’quick grab’ for one or two generations, and then be left with nothing to live on. To some extent I will agree with those who point to the great harvest of our virgin forests in the 19^th century, as being an over-kill. Yet, it was all that timber that built the great cities of American in less than 100 years (between 1800 - 1900).

We have the ongoing debate about ’fossil fuels’ and the importance they play in our lives. Some claim we have reached the point that there will not be enough energy for future generations at our current level of consumption. To be honest, I have no way of knowing the true facts or uncovering them.

A couple thoughts I have is this. One, are the doomsayers taking into account ongoing advances in more efficient use of such energy sources? Even if it is true, that our current use of fossil fuels cannot be sustained, does that mean there will be no inventions that are made which will greatly extend the supply of fossil fuels? Two, much of the gloomy predictions seem to be made in the name of ’political grandstanding’, so that one party “benefits” from scare tactics. This throws their whole “box of evidence” into question. So me, a common person, has no real grounds to make a judgment as to what is the best course of action.

Move from fossil fuels to wood. Now you are in an area I know some little about. It would seem that the over harvest of timber in the 1800’s would have taught Americans a lesson to make reasonable use of our forests. But I, who have made my living from the harvest of timber, observe that we are still making some “bad choices” when it comes to timber use.

I respect the MN DNR a great deal and have followed their publications and statistics for nearly 25 years. But what becomes obvious to me is that we are leaning too heavily upon certain species of low value trees, simply for a “quick fix” to a temporary problem. Our native hardwoods, oak, ash, birch etc. have been neglected and almost left to live or die in the midst of a rush to replant nearly every harvested track of timber with Aspen (popple) or Pines. The specie that stands out as being grown for a quick harvest is Aspen of one sort or another. The big uses for this has changed over the last 8-10 years. Before the housing bubble exploded, it was pressed wood or chipboard that much of the Aspen was going into as a building material for homes. It was quick, cheap and fast to build with. It is also a less than “quality” material to build with.
On June 17, 2010 an F-4 tornado hit Wadena, MN, a town about 18 miles from us. Upon touring the destruction caused by that horrible event, I was struck with one major impression. You could drive down a street lined with houses on both sides, some were gone completely, others were standing with seemingly little damage. But I noticed a pattern. All the houses left standing seemed to be houses that were built from around 1950-1970. There were very few houses left that had been built since 1990. It struck me that the only difference, had to be in the construction methods and/or materials. I am not an expert in building standards, this is just an observation, but I can’t help but think we should ‘rethink’ some of our practices.

Since the housing has gone into “depression”, other sectors of the economy might be in “recession”, but the whole housing industry is in depression and let no politician tell you otherwise. The main use for all this Aspen has now gone to make ethanol or fuel for power plants. Now ethanol is a “touchy subject” in my neck of the woods, simply because a lot of people are profiting by its production. These folks I do not fault in the least on a personal basis, the problem is that ethanol cannot stand on its own feet as a reliable fuel source. Some reports have determined that it actually takes more than a gallon of “fossil fuel” to produce a gallon of ethanol! If that be true, we really are insane! Because it is not only wood that is being consumed by the ethanol industry, but corn on a much greater scale. “Corn” is food! We are taking our “food” supply and burning it in the name of ‘political correctness’, that is what this amounts to. In the attempt to create some “homegrown” energy we are in affect, “shooting ourselves in the foot”.

Everyone is aware of the soaring food prices over the last few years and most are aware that much of this is because of the drive up in the price of corn because of the ethanol industry. Again, I don’t fault the farmers, Lord knows they needed ‘something’ to boast their industry, but I am almost certain that the nation as a whole is suffering more due to the cost of food, not to mention the tax money we have sunk into ethanol (right out of Americans pockets), than the benefit’s the farmers have received in higher corn prices. In fact, the farmers costs to raise their crops have almost, if not entirely, ate up the extra increase they get for their corn. Fertilizer, fuel and equipment costs have nearly crushed them, despite high crop prices.

So the bottom line comes right back to basic economics. Whether these “highly educated” planners and promoters of ethanol were blinded to the consequences of using corn for their dream fuel, or whether they knew what it would do to the rest of the economy is another question, I have no way of finding an honest answer to. If it was ‘unintended consequences’, then I am thinking they were not so “smart” if they could not see what was coming for food prices. If they “knew” food prices would soar, they were ruthless and dishonest.

The answer to our nations energy needs must be in an approach that makes some kind of sense. First, for the short term at least, we ought to be maximizing every domestic form of oil drilling we can in order to avoid the necessity of always being in a war in the middle east. But this is being held hostage to “politics” by the extreme environmental movement. We ought to be working with our neighbor Canada to buy oil from them, at least they are not using the money we pay for oil to buy weapons to attack us. Second, for long term we ought to let “free enterprise” invent and come up with more efficient ways to use our energy until the technology advances to new forms of practical power sources.

The worst thing we can do is to let “big government” find the solutions. That will bankrupt us all! Besides, I don’t see where governments are very reliable partners in business, they somehow always find a way to “run off with the money”, leaving behind a bankrupt company.