We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Gaia has bigger concerns. Like the goal from the Durban conference to cut CO2 levels in half which would put them below what plants need to survive much less thrive. No doubt with her new "rights" she will sue seeking massive CO2 reparations.
If you phrase the following correctly you can make a pseudo-environmentalist's head explode...
"New-growth forests, such as in pine plantations, clear-cuts, and Christmas-tree plantations, absorb something on the order of 10-times as much CO2 as do mature, old-growth forests. By encouraging the use of trees grown quickly and for temporary usage, and then by landfilling them when done, it can be considered as a form of "carbon sequestration", and will help keep the planet from over-heating.
Similarly, a TRUE environmentalist will be forced to oppose the recycling of paper, since it reduces the amount of forested area used for the pulp production necessary for paper. In fact, if they are actually serious about anthropogenically-induced global warming caused by carbon-dioxide emissions, they would be advocating not only a ban on paper recycling, but also the cutting of all old-growth forests in favor of planting quick-growing tree species, which would be used for paper production; the paper would then be land-filled, putting the carbon into the ground in a harmless-to-the-atmosphere form."
Actual conservationists recognize this for the nonsense that it is, but it's always fun to play with the cognitive dissonance present in the un-thinking AGW religionists.
I worked on a redwood-forest bankruptcy a few years ago. It was a difficult adjustment of mind to see those tall, beautiful forests as a crop, but that's what they were: an 80- or 100-year crop. They were planted with the intention of cutting them down when they got to a certain height. There were a very few fairly undisturbed old-growth areas dating from before the evil European invasion, but mostly a tree farm. The problem was that the tree farm becomes incomparably lovely several decades before it's time to harvest it.