Following is a short note one of our editors sent to Rush Limbaugh when he was talking about how environmentalism is taught in the schools:

Dear Rush,

A few weeks ago my daughter came home from school and asked me what we were going to do if all the trees got cut down. Because trees make oxygen, she was afraid that there would be no air to breath.

I told her that there are a lot of products that we use that come from trees, books, houses, furniture, etc. Then I told her that trees are like corn or peas or any other crop. We plant it, we harvest it, then we plant it again. It is a renewable resource. It is a crop! There will always be plenty of trees because we are always planting more and more of them to use for something or other. I took her around our own yard to see the fruit trees we had planted so we could harvest their crop. She seemed to understand that as long as trees were useful we would always keep them around.

While dropping her off at school a few days later, I made a point of mentioning my view of trees to the teacher. She flushed red, but didn't say a word.

My daughter, Kate, doesn't worry about the trees anymore, but I wonder what other wacko-environmental nonsense I will have to disabuse her of in future.

Cordially,

Bill Rayment

The following was written by a friend (who was also sent this letter) in response:

Hi Bill,

I don't know if the slash and burn lesson Kate's teacher gave her was part of the curriculum or not but now she has been shown an alternative view she will have no doubt benefitted. A person can only form an informed opinion of their own of the world if they have heard at least two other opinions on a subject. That way they know what rings true for them and 'their' opinion is then formed.

Another concern other than a lack of oxygen production about cutting down ancient forests faster than they can be re-grown that others might have, is the loss of all the other bio-diversity that the forests support that hasn't yet been scientifically catalogued yet let alone used as a resource. Their concern is that once the original forest is gone the habitat of the indigenous flora and fauna will also be lost forever and with it vital resources of the future.

By travelling to distances far enough away to be able to look back at the complete orb of the Earth mankind's consciousness has apparently been given the big wake up call regarding how finite our resources really are.

It all takes my breath away.

A--.

Here is the final note in the exchange:

Dear A--,

I am not worried about mankind destroying all the biodiversity, because I have found the biosphere to be quite resilient often resisting my best efforts to change it.

For example, I have had a running battle with a Yucca plant for going on nine years now. I have sawed it, chopped it, dug it, and stepped on it, yet it always returns to flaunt its evident superiority. In fact this year it looks better than when I first laid eyes upon it.

This year I decided to admit defeat. Now the Yucca may do what it will with me.

The same can be said for other plants. This year I pulled up over 20 fir trees, all between one and five inches tall (two from the gutter of the house). If I let them go, in five years I would be living in a primeval forest.

Beyond this, if you look at a map of the US fully ONE HALF of the land west of Nebraska is controlled by the government, in the form of National Forests or Parks, or Monuments or who knows what else. Some of it is logged, some of it is mined, but all of this activity is closely monitored.

Even more, there are more trees in the United States today that there were when the pilgrims landed. This is not only because the lumber companies aggressively replant, but because the entire mid-west at one time was a huge monolithic prairie. Why was it a prairie? Because the "American Indians" burned every last tree they could find (and still couldn't destroy them all by the way) to make a huge free range for the Buffalo. Since the 1860's huge areas have become forested. Even our cities have been denominated - Urban Forests.

Contrary to the propaganda spewed by environmentalist groups, there is more forest, more diversity, etc. than we ever would have believed possible 100 years ago.

I am not against bio-diversity; I am not against forests. I am against those scare-mongers who would have us believe that the eco-balance of the entire planet is in jeopardy because of advances in technology or because we choose to read a newspaper or a book or to treasure a beautiful piece of furniture. I say to them all...trees are a crop.

As usual,
Your Friend, Bill