"What really concerns environmental activists and global warmists?"

Note: Emails are organized in the order received, with first received at the top.



Jim,

You have been listening to too much Rush Limbaugh. Your readers are not interested in your conservative rantings. Suggest you stick to our industry.

Jim Atkins

---

No, I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh--he is way too liberal for me! But read on, I am accused of writing for Fox News below.

Jim

***

A couple of comments about your last two articles:

First about your analysis that you witnessed people dropping off paper recycling, apparently making a "special trip" b/c you did not see them also go into the Post Office. Do you really think people make special trips just to drop off paper for recycling? Do you run all your errands individually, or do you group them together, and knock them off in one trip? What says those people weren't on there way to the grocery, or to pick up kids from school or soccer practice? If that's the case, and it likely is, your argument falls apart. It is also a typical argument from those who like to bash the environmental movement. Which leads to my comments on your story about global warming.

Clearly you don't think much of global warming, even though all the data points towards it being a serious problem. Do you really think every beach house is owned by a liberal? I highly doubt it. And what about the economic impacts on those with a vested interest in seeing global warming proven false or ignored, such as the oil and energy companies? You don't think they use their influence to refute scientific evidence, so that they can sell their products, the products that have the biggest impact on global warming? If you want to argue the liberals want to protect their beach houses, you have to acknowledge the financial impact of opponents as well.

You certainly don't do a very good job of hiding your political leanings, in any case.

Matt Stall
AkzoNobel

---

Thanks, Matt. Grouped errands or not, the small amount of paper I saw being recycled by these people would probably not negate just driving off the street into the parking lot. The problem as I see it, is we (that is you, me, everyone) do not know what the trade offs are, we just run around doing things because someone tells us to do so. A calculation could probably be made about how far one can drive a car before they have completely offset the gain of recycling one kilo of paper. If it has been done, it is not widely known and I would like to see it.

I will admit I don't know much about errands, grouped or otherwise--I do not do them. I assume they are related to or caused by discretionary, disposable income, and being a poor consultant, I have never had much of that to burden me.

As far as global warming goes, I am looking for someone to give me a cogent, scientific argument either way (there is or there isn't global warming). When I ask global warmists about this, they merely harrumph as if any idiot knows there is global warming, a reaction that strongly raises my suspicions that they, for one, do not know. From a scientific point of view, I have yet to get beyond the point of attempting to measure global warming. The problem as I see it, is the measurement resolution is too high, an unusual problem indeed, and the observable time span too short (it has just been a few hundred years since the thermometer was invented). Stay with me for a minute. If there were a satellite, say a light year away from the Earth, that had been there for a couple of millennia, measuring temperature by some proven thermography method of that spot one light year in the distance from it, Earth, and someone had a graph of those measurements that showed an upward slope, we would have irrefutable evidence of global warming. One must remember, during the period 800-1200 AD, the Vikings lived on Greenland and supported themselves by farming, raising cattle and sheep. That seems pretty warm to me and a condition that can not be duplicated today for Greenland is too cold. At the same time, there is not, to my knowledge, any records of high sea levels at that time (and sea level records have been kept for thousands of years).

So, here's the challenge, and I promise to be open minded. Someone show me a learned study from a purely scientific source (not some movie, not some United Nations' study, not some study done to procure a Nobel Prize) that lays out in classical scientific methods a systematic measurement and conclusion set, and I will believe that study no matter the outcome. I have yet to see such a study--everything I have seen to date, pro- or anti-global warming, carries a political agenda.

Rasmussen had survey results out this past Saturday that said around 34% of Americans believe in global warming--the lowest number in years. That certainly isn't scientific (from the point of view of measuring global warming; I am sure it is from the point of view of conducting an accurate public opinion survey) but it is a clue as to where the opinions are, and seems to indicate the global warmists are losing the public relations campaign.

As far as hiding my political leanings, I don't try to hide anything unless I think it will cause an innocent individual undue embarrassment. It is a policy I have followed for nearly nine years in this column and it has served the readers very well. Regarding politics, the first time a pulp and paper company hired a lobbyist (which I suspect was long before I was born), politics entered the pulp and paper industry.

But read on for others' comments.

Jim

***

Jim,

I have been reading your columns for a while now - since a friend told me about "Nip Impressions." I would say that for the most part I agree with your observations. However, this weeks article is, in my view, a total crock.

In the first place, the length of time between dry land appearing and man's first foray onto it was a matter of several days - not eons as most of the blue state elitists would have us believe.

Your main point that most of these blue staters live in geographical areas that may be theoretically inundated by the melting polar ice caps does not hold water - pardon the pun. In my experience, liberals hold that all industry is bad for the environment. This simply goes along with their concept of thinking that big business needs to be contained, controlled or curtailed altogether to "protect Mother Earth." The military industrial complex (pulp and paper being especially egregious) are good for nothing but killing trees and polluting air and water. For these reasons they think we should be eliminated altogether. It has nothing to do with protecting the beach front homes of the rich. This false environmental movement is driven by ideaology - not self interest.

Randy Hefley
AbitibiBowater

---

Thanks, Randy.

For my take on corporations, you might want to read "Point-Counterpoint." Go to the bottom of this newsletter, click on the "Point-Counterpoint" graphic to be taken to this month's exercise.

Jim

***

Hi Jim,

As usual your observation regarding the basic motivation of most humans is spot on - money! Incidentally, a "flink" of cows is 12 or more.

Best Regards,

Don Boyd
Press Technologies

***

Jim,

Are you familiar with the cartoon strip PEARLS BEFORE SWINE (Stephen Pastis)? Perhaps 3 months ago there was a strip that went something like this:

People gave speeches at a "Save the planet" rally, denouncing lies, greed & war; all agreed we have to "save the planet".
Danny Donkey asked "WHY, if the world is full of lies, greed & war?"
Then someone yelled "we shouldn't!", after which the rally became a "Destroy the planet" rally.
The pig said "I'm gonna go cut down a tree right now!".
I can send you a copy of the strip.

Chuck Green
Webster, New York
USA

***

Dear Jim,

Have you by any chance begun writing for Fox News? It is ludicrous to suggest, as you do in your April 20 column on environmental activists, that any significant part of the concern over global warming is due to "blue state" owners of "expensive beach houses". Why don't you check with owners and workers at businesses located in such cities as New York, Philadelphia, Jacksonville, Miami, Mobile, yes New Orleans too, Houston, and Los Angeles to see how they might be affected by rising sea levels? Note that these cities are not all located in "blue" states. I wonder how much of our import-export business would be affected.

I'm unclear on the whole point of this article, unless you're just pulling my leg. In that case, you got me. If you're serious, are you saying that we should pay no attention to global warming, and spend no money on combating it? Even a global warming skeptic might agree that weaning the country off some of our imported oil is a worthwhile goal. At any rate, I hope that a significant amount of our stimulus dollars will go toward repair and upgrades of our deteriorated port facilities, with at least some thought that sea levels are likely to be higher in the future.

Bill LaVallee
San Jose, California (not a coastal city)

---

Well, Bill, if the global warmists are correct, San Jose may just become a coastal city. As far as "blue state" cities, the only ones on your list that voted "red" in the last election are Houston and Mobile.

Yet, if I understand your logic, you are saying all (forget politics) who have made the mistake (my words) of choosing to own property of any kind that is dependent on a nearly static sea level will and should put pressure on anyone at a higher elevation to change their ways in order to protect the investment of those who chose to be by the sea. My question, then, is why someone, say living in West Virginia, is expected to be willingly burdened by the problems of those at lower elevations? What is their motivation? This can only be done by force (law)--there are not enough magnanimous people to do this of their own free will. So, if that is the case, then let's bring it out in the open and quit the charades about saving polar bears and other creatures (which I really do believe deserve to live their lives unburdened by human foolishness).

I agree with weaning every country off of foreign oil, not just the United States. It is a matter of strategic security for each and every one. Yet there are major economic problems. For instance, just since I wrote last week's column, I was visiting with a senior manager of a company considering building a new plant in the sunny Southwestern United States. They have a proposal from a "green" energy company to supply process heat for their plant (which they currently plan to supply with a standard package natural gas boiler, capital cost, I am guessing, less than a million dollars). The "green" plan is solar collectors. It will cost $75 million and cover 100 acres. It will have endless maintenance to keep the collectors clean. I don't think anyone can afford to be that green.

Jim

***

Jim,

Good morning. Hey I read last week's Nip Impressions about recycling and it reminded me that a friend of mine had asked a question about how useful it is to recycle office paper and I could not answer it or refute his reasoning. I figured if you read it you might have an opinion. See below…

Regards,

Matt Worley
Harris Group

Hi Matt:

Nice to meet you. Pam was kind enough to forward this, which I found interesting. It doesn't, though, address the issue I've been wondering about for years. Assume you are a diehard environmentalist that wants the world to be green. Trees fall into two groups: (a) those we never want to cut; and (b) those we want to be growing in place as much as possible. The former we turn into national or state parks. The question is what to do with the latter. Recycling, by definition, reduces the demand for trees, and reduces the demand for land in (b). If the land in (b) is cheaper than it otherwise would be, then it's relative attractiveness as a strip mall or a subdivision has got to increase.

So, if you prefer trees to subdivisions and strip malls (appreciating that one result of this is to raise the home entry cost for all home buyers) why wouldn't you increase demand for trees and refuse to recycle? I know it sounds like heresy, but I can't find anything wrong with this argument.

Thanks,

Jeff

---

Hi Matt:

I believe the only way to measure it's value is at the slice lip of the headbox. Currently, this price recognizes the consumer does a lot of things for free, like separate at source, carry it to the curb (or drive it somewhere). If all of these costs were assigned a fair market value, I don't think recycled fiber could compete with virgin on a straight cost basis. Fortunately for those that want to use recycled fiber, the public has been trained to provide these free services without complaint.

Jim

***

Amen to the sea level discussion. We should not have spent money to rebuild New Orleans. Any funding provided should have gone to ensure people would not rebuild there. If you build your house close enough to water, expect it to get wet. Just don't expect me to pay for it.

On a side note, I chaperoned a trip to Raleigh, NC for my daughters 4th grade class last Friday. We were there for the kids to see the old Capital building, museums of history and life sciences, and the legislative building. While in the Senate chamber of the legislative building, the tour guide asked the children what laws they would like to propose. Of course, all the kids wanted there to be a law against homework. The parents and teachers vetoed that one. But one of the girls in my group proposed no more bailouts and to limit the salaries of Hollywood celebrities. The crowd erupted in applause.

Roger Nussman
AbitibiBowater

***

Other Subjects

Jim,

The truck I grew up driving around the hayfields was a 2 1/2 ton Studebaker. Yes, Studebaker! I wonder if anyone remembers Studebaker trucks, let alone the "secret" of how you got them started.

(This particular farm also had an outhouse (didn't they all?), but again, that's another story.)

Laurence Colson

---

OK, what's the secret?

Jim

---

The starter-switch was mounted off the steering column beyond the firewall and you pressed it by depressing the clutch while simultaneously forcing it over toward the steering column. My dad won more than a few bets from neighbors who were certain they could find out how to do it.

LLC

***

[Note: the following is about the black liquor tax credit in the United States]

Jim:

I am starting to sound like you. Read this article and then read my response. I am part of the sleeping conservative giant that has awakened. And the giant is not happy. Not sure how the others will feel about my response and please don't quote me. You are welcome to use my response anonymously however.

If you haven’t already you need to write about this. If you need any help let me know:

"It has been this same creativity and entrepreneurial spirit that has allowed our industry to remain viable and competitive as long as it has with a small margin product that has not changed price much within the same cyclical boundaries as it has for decades and yet has invested billions in governmental compliance, creative energy savings programs, and more efficient manufacturing processes and equipment. I say it is about time we get something back. As for sorting out who gets credit, how much, by what measure, etc….that can be easily sorted out with more government laws, executive orders etc. It happens when government interferes with the free market.

"Three cheers for Pulp and Paper being one step ahead!! Again."

---

I have already written about it, but I am on the opposite side. For once, I am not in favor of this because it is so blatantly against the spirit of the law. It will bite us in the rear end before it is over--we are going to look very, very bad.

Jim

---

Please

My point is that we should not have any government involvement at all. The government has hurt our industry for years with regulations. I agree we should not be taking anything from the government but since they have put us in an unfair global position (e.g. Cluster Rules) I'm not sure we shouldn't be taking advantage of the government's ineptness. If you are saying it will lead to more trouble by being essentially "dependent" on the government and therefore slave to the rest of their heavy-handedness then I agree. Let me try and spar with a professional here...I need the practice since this is a new thing to me. Here goes. (I was always horrible at debate but feel a need to express what I think makes sense to me.)

The spirit is to truly save energy. Adding a bit of diesel into black liquor is really cheating the system by not really having any net energy savings at all. Then when someone wises up in Washington what we are doing then it will cast a bright light on our devious ways. Is this what you are saying? I can see that. BUT I am not convinced that this Administration nor the Congress truly are interested in much other than passing stuff that sounds good and gets votes. If they are then (i.e. interested in saving energy) they are either not very smart or have not bothered to do their homework or both. Otherwise why would they allow this kind of mockery of our legislative process? To wit: not a single legislator (based on a radio bite of a challenge to the Senate floor) had read the "Stimulus Bill" prior to voting on it.

Apparently the present law as it is will allow for this diesel enriched black liquor. Doesn't that somehow help make the point that the laws are incomplete, can only be sorted out through more laws, which will perpetuate the whole process until this energy saving initiative starts (or already has started) looking like our tax code. It never ends unless the Feds stay out of the private sector like they should anyway.

There. Take your shots and tell me where my logic falls apart. Not a challenge but a request to a sage professional! Thanks.

Timid Debater

---

All of your points are valid. And if I were on the board of directors of a major paper company and this came up, I would insist the officers do their fiduciary duty and take advantage of it as long as it is legal. We agree on that. We can even agree that the current government is struggling a bit.

However, this particular little twist has already gotten the attention of our competitors and enemies. The Canadian pulp mills have already gone to their provincial and federal governments screaming unfair and are trying to turn this into an international trade war. Our nemesis, the environmental groups, will beat us over the head with it for the next ten years, even if it is repealed next week.

If you stick your ATM card in the machine and it empties itself at your feet, it probably is not a good idea to pick all the loot up and run away (they have cameras on these things, after all). Kind of the same situation here.

There is another problem, too. This little law runs out at the end of this year. For International Paper alone, the windfall is projected at around $1.1 billion. If they let this into their books (and it looks like they will, as long as it is legal), it has a high chance of wrecking their internal frugal (and profitable) management discipline. They could be a complete basket case by next February.

Looks good on the surface, but the rocks beneath the waves are very pointy. It is a complex issue.

Jim

###

Have a comment? Send your email to jthompson@taii.com. Unless you tell us otherwise, we will assume we can use your name if we publish your letter.

A convenient shortcut: