I suspected as much. That's a bunch of horsecrap, a pathetic attempt at an opposing view. I know his points may seem plausible to those who are not specialised in any natural science field, BUT, come on, he's only an associate professor of statistics. NOT a genuine environmental expert. He performed a lot of statistical conjuring, statistical expertise does not guarantee accuracy. I don't respect any scientist who crunches the numbers to induce a certain outcome. In his bit about forests not being under threat, he misread one of the figures he cited as a percentage rather than kilometers. In another claim, he cited figures derived using different methodologies as well as different definitions of forest. Loads of credible scientists have effectively debunked his "research". In science, there is a slow process of peer review that permits success to scientists who have earned the approval of other scientists through quality (credible) research. You know, the collection of data he presented could be used as a tribute to the effectiveness of the very environmental regulations he wishes to dismantle. If we stop protecting the environment then our worst fears will be realised. We are doing what we can to prevent problems. Why wait until the problems exist? That's not to say they don't, think of all the endangered species on earth. Sure, in some places air and water have improved, how do you think that happened? Magic? Environmental regulations! What do green people want? Just environmental improvements, there's no hidden agenda. I don't want you to live in a cave. You can have your toys like snowmobiles, but I just want companies to make them cleaner. Are these types of pleas too much to ask? I'm baffled. As far as landfill space, well I suppose we'll always have enough....but less is better, agreed? I'd rather see a park or a forest or just about anything. An exact figure I don't have, but can do an internet search, but I don't trust just any figure I come across. I am finished with school, so I no longer have access to any Scientific journals, which I do trust. I may find something in my book collection, I don't have time to check now unfortunately. Not as much as it costs to obtain the virgin materials from the earth. Really, no numbers are needed. If old growth is being cut down, then you know it is disappearing as it takes hundreds of years to attain "old growth' status again. Perhaps later I'll attempt some research into the numbers, I know that specific #'s help in forming an opinion, but if you don't know what the numbers mean, what good are they? *see below* A tree farm is a plantation of trees meant for harvest. The goal is not biodiversity. They plant certain trees, usually fast-growing species and use herbicide to discourage competition. Your statement is wrong. Old growth forests provide homes for unique species, endemic species. It's not really logic, just plain facts. Take for instance the spotted owl. This species is only found in old growth forests. Different species have different habitat requirements. Many species do well in certain niches. Different species are present in diff. types of forest- Taiga vegetation differs from a coniferous forest which differ from a redwood forest, etc. Tree farms are indeed on the verge of ecological collapse. They simply cannot withstand the stresses of fire and other sorts of disturbance. That's the beauty of an old-growth forest, it can. Old growth contains multiple canopies. These develop over time. Certain types of forest are ecologically unique. The animals they support are also unique. Tree plantations contain 90% fewer species than natural forests. (A. Hershkowitz, 2003). Old growth is disappearing though. Only 5% of old growth remain is the US southwest. Virtually no old-growth remains on private land. The patches that do remain on publicly owned land represent less than 10 percent of the original amount (Krohne, 2001). Tropical rainforests are being depleted by deforestation at rate of 17 million hectares per year. At that rate they will disappear in less than 50 years. (David Krohne, 2001). Habitat loss is causing the extinction of as many as 17,000 species each year! Ecologists require these habitats too in order to further our understanding of functioning natural systems. I appreciate your open mind as well as your skepticism. Coupled with your desire to know the facts, it is very commendable. I don't know if I'm doing a good job of providing you with facts to consider, but if I'm not I beg you to not judge all environmentalists based on my performance in these forums.