| |
| | [No title] (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-10) |
 | | Wednesday Nov 24th, 2004 10:27 AM Above blurb "cost of treesitting" wasn't written by me. Someone else chose to use "moth" as their name, (who am i to copyright such a diverse group of insects), but probably did so with the intent to cause divisiveness in the movement.. |
 | | Yes, treesitting actually does cost some $$ and energy (transporting food, etc.), though we probably wouldn't be doing it if Maxxam/Pacific Lumber weren't destroying the last few old growth forests, causing stream sedimentation, etc.. |
 | | Not to mention all the trees removed from the redwood forest carbon cycle, a dead tree supplies soil food nutrients for the trees of the future, and Maxxam took them all far far away for personal financial gain!! |
| www.indybay.org /newsitems/2004/11/09/17070351_content.html (129 words) |
|