>
>>Jim Thomps>>
>>> >>>
>>>>MooseFET wrote:
>>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>>>
>>>>> To give but one example: On the west coast, if you cut the trees on a
>>>>> hillside for lumber, you will cause silt to go into the streams and
>>>>> thus impact the fishing industry off the coast. A lumber company
>>>>> would never consider this external cost but it has been discussed in
>>>>> government.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>You still trust the posers way too much. Perhaps when the clearcutting
>>>>in th USA stops, that argument will hold water.
>>>
>>> Ummmmm? Could you please point out where clear-cutting IS allowed?
>>> NOT allowing clear-cutting is why we have so many wildfires. I guess
>>> you can call that "natural". And I guess I don't really care, since
>>> my house will never burn down in a forest fire ;-)
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> ...Jim Thompson
>>While i respect you technically, i will not do your trivial googling for
>>you. Just remember to use "-Brazil -Amazon" to trim out the most of he
>>worst "green" nonsense.
>
> It was not meant as a request for "trivial googling". I know of NO
> clear-cutting allowed in the _US_... the greenies have control...
> they'd rather have a wild forest fire than clear-cutting... may their
> homes go up in flames.
>
> ...Jim Thompson
California actually use something rather market like; You can have a house near the forest, just maintain 150 feet of defensible space between your home and the forest, otherwise you cannot get insurance, which means they foreclose on the loan (if you even get one), et bloody cetera. If the building is not well defendable in event of fire, you get no insurance, and no protection and no one will cry for when it all burns down. An actually partially sensible solution for such a left coast state.