Federal and state policy influence on woody biomass utilization

A considerable portion of public lands in the United States is at risk of uncharacteristically severe wildfires due to a history of fire suppression. Wildfires already have detrimental impacts on the landscape and on communities in the wildland-urban interface (WUI) due to unnatural and overstocked forests. Strategies to mitigate wildfire risk include mechanical thinning and prescribed burning in areas with high wildfire risk. The material removed is often of little or no economic value. Woody biomass utilization (WBU) could offset the costs of hazardous fuel treatments if removed material could be used for wood products, heat, or electricity production. However, barriers due to transportation costs, removal costs, and physical constraints (such as steep slopes) hinder woody biomass utilization. Various federal and state policies attempt to overcome these barriers. WBU has the potential to aid in wildfire mitigation and meet growing state mandates for renewable energy. This research utilizes interview data from individuals involved with on-the-ground woody biomass removal and utilization to determine how federal and state policies influence woody biomass utilization. Results suggest that there is not one over-arching policy that hinders or promotes woody biomass utilization, but rather woody biomass utilization is hindered by organizational constraints related to time, cost, and quality of land management agencies’ actions. However, the use of stewardship contracting (a hybrid timber sale and service contract) shows promise for increased WBU, especially in states with favorable tax policies and renewable energy mandates. Policy recommendations to promote WBU include renewal of stewardship contracting legislations and a re-evaluation of land cover types suited for WBU. Potential future policies to consider include the indirect role of carbon dioxide emission reduction activities to promote wood energy and future impacts of air quality regulations.

Are Feminism and Monotheistic Religions Compatible? & Religion and Liberal Democracy: Are They Philosophically Compatible?

Are Feminism and Monotheistic Religions Compatible? Dr. Roberta K. Ray How compatible are the three major monotheistic religions (Christianity, Islam, and Judaism) with feminism and the goal of equal rights for women in Western democracies? A special focus is on how Christian religions have functioned as a barrier to equal rights for women in the United States from Colonial period through the 21st century. Religion and Liberal Democracy: Are They Philosophically Compatible? Dr. John W. Ray American government is based on liberal democratic political theory. Based on an examination of the political philosophies of Locke, Mill, Rousseau, Hegel, Emerson and Rawls, Ray concludes that adherence to a liberal democratic political ideology is fundamentally incompatible with a religious grounding of political reality.

Religion and suicide in patients with mental illness or cancer

In Switzerland, the highest rates of suicide are observed in persons without religious affiliation and the lowest in Catholics, with Protestants in an intermediate position. We examined whether this association was modified by concomitant psychiatric diagnoses or malignancies, based on 6,909 suicides (ICD-10 codes X60-X84) recorded in 3.69 million adult residents 2001-2008. Suicides were related to mental illness or cancer if codes F or C, respectively, were mentioned on the death certificate. The protective effect of religion was substantially stronger if a diagnosis of cancer was mentioned on the death certificate and weaker if a mental illness was mentioned.