I am sorry, I think you do care about the environment, but unfortunately I think you are rather misinformed.
- Selective logging many times can be a good thing. It is the type of logging that conservationists all champion. Where it can be a problem is in roadless areas where human intervention is minimal to nonexistent. If you open those areas up to thinning you have to build roads and once you build roads you make it a lot easier for invasive species to introduce themselves and for people to carelessly set fires. The best solution for roadless areas is to allow nature to do what nature has done for millions of years. If they catch fire, let them burn.
Now, that said, like I say, selective thinning can mean much healthier forests in areas that have been previously logged or that have been developed such as the presence of roads or communities. I those areas where fire has been suppressed for as much as 100 year years, tree densities are at times much higher than they would have been without fire suppression and are at levels where disease and catastrophic fire risks are exceptionally high. Most mainstream environmental groups support this type of thinning and this is evidenced by the fact that only about 3% or so of thinning projects are blocked in the courts. You have a few wackos that try to block everything but they are hardly ever successful.
That all said, the reason that timber companies choose to thin certain tracks of land instead of clear cutting them has nothing to do with ecological considerations. What influences that choice is what type of pine they plan on planting. Some types of pine do better when started in full sun as in the case of a clear cut and other types do better when started as an under story tree as in the case of selective thinning. Also, paper companies are more apt to clear cut, timber companies are more apt to thin. Both practices routinely occur in national forests as a result of timber sales.
- There is no environmentally friendly way to conduct mountain top removal mining. Mountain top removal coal mining is a relatively new type of coal mining that involves clear cutting native hardwood forests, using dynamite to blast away 800-1000 feet of mountaintop, and then dumping the debris into nearby valleys forever burying streams. Meanwhile, communities near these mining sites are forced to contend with; continual blasting from mining operations that can take place up to 300 feet from their homes and operate 24 hours/day, air pollution from dust and debris, and the threat of floods that have left hundreds dead and thousands homeless. In these communities, where homes are usually the only asset folks have, mining operations have damaged homes beyond repair and decreased property values up to 90%. Moreover, the worst environmental disaster in United States history was a result of mountain top removal mining practices. From a conservation standpoint, mountain top removal mining practices are absolutely indefensible. Even by your own anecdotal description of it, as a reasoned individual, I can’t imagine how you could think it was a good thing for the environment. If you don’t believe me, check out the photos of it here:
http://www.ohvec.org/galleries/mountaintop_removal/007/
Even mining operations that don’t involve mountain top removal at times can be very damaging to the environment. In the area I grew up in there were nearby magnetite mines. Streams that ran through the area they were mining were completely devoid of life and have been for 20 years since they finished all mining operations there and have done all the reclamation required by law.
