Conservation is a system problem that you need to approach from top to
bottom to be truly effective.

In the case of garbage the first thing is not to generate so much of it.
Effective theft control strips would save mountains of packaging that are
designed to make packages too big to get in you pocket and hog shelf space
to crowd out your competitor. Wrapping the fish in news paper instead of
plastic works great as well. Use the waste twice on the way out. If people
would accept it there are any number of edible coating we could cover meat
with.

The biggest bungle of all time was passing up atomic power plants and
sticking with coal an gas. Don't get me wrong I like the gas lease checks
and hope that they hit a well that my wife can tell her boss in two week I
going some were I don't know where yet but it isn't goanna be here. But we
could have safe, clean plentiful, cheap energy has we listened to reason
instead of emotion.

I am most failure with soil conservation that is an expensive ongoing effort
to prevent soil erosion. We are making a truly giant leap with no till and
reduced tillage at reversion the carbon loss in the soil and actually
building topsoil in day to day farming operations for the first time.

No Till will increase the arable land a substantial amount by allowing great
slopes to be farmed safely. Other genetic modification for salt tolerance
promise to make crops grow when watered with sea water. That one single
thing could go a long way toward solving food crisis we face in the next 50
years.

Conservation doesn't have to cost anything it can save money if it is done
right. Unfortunately our society is not designed to take a long look at
things. A politician looks only to the next election, the corporate officer
only to the next quarters numbers but if you look around agri business there
a lot of privately owned business. Four out of six of the big six grain
merchants are private multinational companies.

If I am not mistaken a small hotel room will hold a conference of well over
50% of the cotton sold and not a one need to make a phone call to make a
decision. So long range planning does pay you can only get away with the
inefficiencies of corporations where there is a lot of money to burn

The FDA, USDA, USGS. Corps of Engineers and even the EPA is coming around do
a good job of staying divorced from it's political funding and sticking to
their missions. Some to the point that they keep coming to work long after
the quit paying them.
--
Gordon

Gordon Couger
Stillwater, OK
www.couger.com/gcouger

"Unicorn" wrote in message
.. .

Please explain. Do you want bigger holes?

Nope. Less consumption!
The issue is not about garbage and recycling of paper or metals. It is
about lowering the consumption in the first place. Why should a smallish
proportion of the worlds population account for the majority of the
consumption. Don't dig bigger holes. Just don't polute the environment
with
unnecesary consumption.


They are a panacea for a guilty conscience which
achieves nothing in the form of real conservation but meet the
politically
driven statistical notions of international agreements.

A great man once said "There are lies, Bloody Lies and Statistics"
before
you ever espouse anything in this life, make sure that our argument is
based
upon more that statistics. Winston Churchill was a very astute man.

Yep, there are fisherman who still sweat that it's seals, other
fishermen
or
something else - but NOT them - that's catching all the fish.

Yep, and a close look will probably show a combination of over fishing and
the ecological disruption of some goose that thought the seals needed
protection that changed the balance. A combination of to many seals and
too
many fishermen. Does that make the fishermen completely responsible
toredress the situation. I think NOT.




All conservation arguments are based upon population and sampling
statistics. Neither of which can be relied upon as either accurate or
unbiased.

So they are therefore un accurate and biased?

Conservation groups tend to only include the results which aid
their cause. Their opposition does the same. The truth is somewhere
in
the
mire in between.

Ah, some sense. Why doesn't your post follow this sense?

Because it is my opinion and as such does not have to agree with yours.
Your responses do however show a blinkered view or ecology and
environmental
issues, commonly encountered in the wealth city person who has no real
concept of what living near the land is about. They rely on such paragons
of honesty as green peace for their scant knowledge.


Matt

PS I include myself in the "They" . I would not be on the Internet
using
resources if I was not.