I spent the last week in Washington DC on the subject of forests and sustainable forestry. Here is my chronology of meetings and events with some thoughts about the present state of affairs. I hope this is an appropriate posting. Cheers Visit to Washington DC, April 28-May 2/97 On Invitation of US House of Representatives, Committee on Resources, Don Young ® Alaska, Chairman Arrive 6pm April 27 to Washington Sheraton DAY ONE April 28: 9am. Arrive Longworth Bldg. across the street from the Capitol Bldg. to meet Duane Gibson, Counsel to the House Resources Committee and Bill Simmons, Staff Director for the sub-Committee on Forests and Forest Health. Briefing on the week ahead, review of recent Report of the Forest Health Science Panel chaired by Chad Oliver of U of W. Review of the Quincy Library Group proposal for sustainable communities. This is legislation going through the House Committees that would approve the forest management plan worked out at the local level by the round-table process in Sierra and Plumas counties in northern California. The local Sierra Club and other eco-groups are onside with the 42 member stakeholder committee. The national environmental groups based in DC are furious as they have lost control of the agenda and are fighting the initiative. It is the strategy of the House sub-Committee on Forests and Forest Health to get away from environmental rhetoric and focus on forest science and as Newt likes to say "fact-based scientific debate". I am part of that strategy. 12noon. Lunch at the Republican Party Club with Congressman Helen Chenoweth, (R) Chair of the Forest and Health sub-Committee, Representative from Idaho, very involved in Endangered Species and Private Property Rights. A hero to many rural Americans for outspoken defense of their rights. Delightful person, well studied. 1pm. Attend offices of Wall Street Journal for 1.5 hour interview with Paul A. Gigot, member of the Editorial Board. He was very receptive and seemed to take it in and took 4-5 pages notes. 4pm. Return to Duane's office to meet Scott Sonner, Northwest Regional Reporter for Associated Press. In 1.5 hour interview and slide presentation focused on WWF's AP wirestory from Geneva on commercial logging as main cause of species extinction. "not one Latin name". Good interview. Secondary theme on evolution of eco-movement towards extremism, abandon science, leftism, anti-corporatism, etc. 5.30pm. Worked with Duane to get my slide presentation for the sub-Committee down to 15 minutes - brutal. It will be just me and the legislative director of the Sierra Club. 7pm. Dinner with Duane, Bill, and delegation in from Alaska including Alaska Forestry Association head Jack Phelps. Good old time. DAY TWO April 29/97 *note: the clerk for the Resources Committee is: Kathy Crook Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health 1337 Longworth Washington, DC 20515 10am. Meeting with Congressman Bob Goodlatte (R) from Virginia. All across the US the National Forests are under siege. Every timber sale is challenged in the courts. The environmentalists charge that the government is subsidizing timber harvesting and that the US could save money if they stopped all timber harvesting on public land. 2pm. Hearing before the Forests and Health Subcommittee of the House of Representatives. The two witnesses are myself and Debbie Sease, Legislative Director for the Sierra Club. We each get 15 minutes (usually it is five minutes but staff has arranged it this way to get a bit more in-depth on the subject for the congresspersons). I give a truncated version of my slide presentation on forest ecology, focusing on aesthetics, silviculture, biodiversity, renewability, sustainability, etc. In particular I refute the allegation that forestry is the main cause of species extinction as stated by the WWF. I say, "To the best of our scientific knowledge not a single species has gone extinct due to forestry, and WWF has been unable to provide the Latin name of any species that has gone extinct due to forestry". Debbie focuses on the Sierra Club's policy that there should be no commercial logging on any public lands. This is based on the contention that logging has caused "massive ecological damage" and that it is wrong to have the profit motive involved in the use of public resources. Apparently communist logging would be OK. She makes the most fuss about the "massive subsidization" of the US timber industry operating on public land. I said I thought it was the Canadian timber industry that was supposedly subsidized and that maybe someone should get the story straight. I believe, and the staff concurs, that my presentation was convincing and Debbie's was not, particularly on the point that the public needs wood and the public land is one of the logical places to get it. I have been effective in pointing out the contradiction in environmental policy re anti-forestry that has now been adopted by the majority of the big groups. They are basically against forestry (even though they deny this) and they never say anything good about it. They want "tree-free paper" made from hemp even though this would result in vast monoculture exotic annual crop plantations where forests could be growing. This is hardly the way to preserve biodiversity, supposedly the top priority for environmentalists. Second, they want to substitute wood with "environmentally appropriate alternatives", forgetting to mention that the only viable alternatives are steel, cement. brick, and plastic, all of which require vast more energy to produce thus resulting in increases fossil fuel consumption and increased greenhouse gas emissions. This is not good for climate change, the other top priority in the international environmental agenda. They respond to these observations with stony silence. The hearing went for 3 hours with lots of questioning of the Sierra Club re justification of their policy. On the one hand, their testimony said that there had been "massive ecological damage" throughout the National Forests. On the other hand they went on at length about the "unparalleled opportunities for anglers and hunters" and the tremendous value of the fish and wildlife resources in the National Forests. I asked how come if the ecosystem was destroyed there was still so many fish and animals in it? The Sierra Club goes on and on about over-cutting when over the last five years the cut in Pacific Northwest National Forests has gone from 9 billion board feet/yr. to about 1 billion, all due to owls, lawsuits, etc. that have resulted in 80% of the forest in National Forest declared off-limits to forestry. Now they want the final 20% to be a park alone with the tens of millions of acres of Bureau of Land Management forest lands. BLM lands are all federal lands that are not specifically in National Parks, National Forest, Wilderness Preserves or other designated categories. Most of these lands are in the West. One of the Democrats on the subcommittee, Congressman Kilde, had obviously been briefed to question me on the nature of the Forest Alliance, suggested our riparian reserve zones were not good enough (he says they are half a mile in Maine). I told him we had five creeks every half mile. He then entered the Greenpeace report, Broken Promises, into the record. It purports to prove that nothing has changed in B.C. even though we are doubling the parks and have a new Forest Practices Code. "The Destruction Continues" which translated means "trees are still being cut down". 7pm. Gathering for barbecue at the home of Doug Crandall, Director, Timber Access and Supply, American Forest and Paper Association. Doug has a cute little townhouse about ten minutes walk from the Capitol Building. We were joined by Helen Cheneworth (R) Idaho, the Chairman of the Forest and Forest Health subcommittee, R.J. Smith, Senior Scholar with the Center for Private Conservation which is a project of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian think-tank, Alston Chase, former philosophy prof, author of "In a Dark Wood" (a must read) whose card says Writer and Independent Scholar, Duane Gibson, and a few others. Alston and I got on famously. He is quite a character as he both admires Paul Watson and sees the intellectual bankruptcy of much of the environmental agenda. I think he is as attracted to individual people as he is to ideas. DAY THREE April 30 9am Meeting with Robert Hood, Senior Legislative Assistant to the Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich. Gave him my slide presentation which he was very positive about. Signed a copy of my book for Newt. Robert said he would read it as it is a subject of great interest. Newt was an environmental studies prof before he became famous and infamous. 11am. Attended offices of the Competitive Enterprise Institute where I met with about a dozen of their staff involved in environment issues ranging from air and water to energy, to transportation to "bugs and bunnies". My friend Jonathan Adler was there as well as R.J. Smith whom I had met the previous evening. I gave my presentation which was followed by lively discussion. 1pm. Meeting with Congressman Merrill Cook (R) Utah. The Mexican spotted owl has been used successfully to stop logging through lawsuits even though it has not been observed there but because the habitat is "suitable". 2pm. Meeting with Congressman John Peterson (R) Pennsylvania. The Sierra Club wants to end all forestry in the millions of acres of National Forest in his state even though it is all hardwood forest managed by selection cutting. It is very valuable veneer wood such as oak and cherry. 4pm. Just read the Associated Press story filed by Scott Sonner. I'm told it is pretty good considering the savaging he has done on the forest industry before. The Sierra Club says I am part of a "multimillion-dollar public relations hoax". They truck out the Berson-Marsteller/Bhopal/Union Carbide/Exxon Valdez "connection" for which I am apparently personally responsible. Actually, reading the copy again I think we did very well. Got off early today at 6 and walked past the Capital Building through the springtime trees all of which have little brass plaques telling the Latin names so you can imagine how I swooned. Huge oaks, planetrees, and lindens. It's about 80F. today and perfect spring weather. Too bad the ecosystem is collapsing. Bought a bottle of good Ozzy Shiraz, got on the Metro and home to the Washington Sheraton where my favorite travel agent and good friend Sue somehow got me on the Executive Floor at no charge where I have a view of the Washington monument. I think I'll walk to Dupont Circle and have a bite. DAY FOUR May 1/97 9am. Meeting with Congressman Bob Smith (R), Oregon, Chairman, House Committee on Agriculture. He is a rancher with lots of forest around and is frustrated by the gridlock over land use issues. A very calm and considered person who speaks with quiet conviction. 11am. Meeting with Senator Frank Murkowski (R), Alaska, Chairman, Senate Committee on Energy. He has to put up with the fact that most of the land in Alaska in federal and therefore controlled from Washington. He asked if I would be available to testify before the Senate in the near future. I said I could probably make the time available. 12noon. The big event. About 125 Congressional staff and 9 Congressmen attended a lunch in the Agriculture Committee's hearing room to hear my 45 minute slide presentation. This was, according to Duane, a fantastic turnout, especially that actual Congresspersons attended. The applause was loud and long and the question period was lively and went on until 2. This could be the beginning of a new awareness of forestry and forest ecology issues on the Hill. In case you are wondering why I have not seen any Democrats it is not because they weren't given the opportunity. All the House Democrats were notified by letter that I would be testifying and were invited to meet me. None responded. There were a lot of Democratic staff at the lunch slide show, however. Things are pretty partisan around here! With the Republicans holding a majority in both House and Senate the Democrats perceive anything organized by staff of a Republican committee chairman to be a partisan effort. 2pm. Meeting with Charles Taylor, (R) South Carolina, the only professional forester among the 453 members of the House of Representatives. Charles is largely responsible for the strategy of developing a science-based approach to forest and land use issues in the Republican Congress. Charles owns 25,000 acres of hardwood forest that has been in his family for a number of generations. This is very valuable forest as it is hardwood veneer. He is not confident in the future of forestry, even on private land, due to Endangered Species Act issues etc. He is diversifying by turning part of his land into potato and corn farming. Another example of legislation causing destruction of habitat that could house endangered species. This is happening all across the US. 3pm. Meeting with Wayne Gilchrest (R), Maryland. He is very supportive of environment issues, particularly marine mammal issues, so we got on very well. He is educating himself on forestry issues and is beginning to realize that many environmental groups are wrong in their hands-off forests position. He is going on a field-trip in the Sierra with a number of other Congressmen next week. This is tied in with the Quincey Library Group. He really appreciated getting a copy of my book. 7pm. Duane and Bill and I go to Duane's house in Washington's northern suburbs and sit under the oaks, order Chinese, and a little vino. The feedback from the lunch presentation is very positive, turns out the attendance was more like 150 and at least 25 more looked in to see there were no seats left. It was the biggest turnout for a lunch speaker they can remember. This is an issue whose time has come. DAY FIVE May 2, 1997 11am. Only one meeting today but perhaps the most important. Meeting with Senator John Chafee, (R) (didn't get the state). He was once a State Governor, then Secretary of the Navy under Nixon, now the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. He enjoyed tales of Greenpeace at sea against the Russian whalers. He was receptive to the message that wood is renewable and that forestry can be sustainable. He doesn't think much of roads in the forest and like many other members of Congress has been led to believe that forest roads are subsidized to the benefit of the forest industry. This is one of the more convoluted areas of debate regarding use of federal lands. The US environmental groups try to convince US politicians that the US forest industry is heavily subsidized and should therefore be shut down. Meanwhile Canadian environmentalists work with the US forest industry to convince US politicians that the Canadian forest industry is subsidized and should therefore be subject to heavy tariffs when exporting to the US. When I explained this to Senator Chafee he seemed to get the point and certainly had nothing to say in response. The thing that amazes me is that the environmental groups are getting away with this in both countries even though they're preaching opposite messages. Besides which, if they were really worried about subsidizing something unsustainable they might try big oil, the military, etc. rather than the world's most sustainable primary industry which produces the most renewable substance used in human civilization. The week's activities have given me even more enthusiasm for continuing to promote sustainable forestry. Trees are a big part of the answer to the protection of biodiversity and the reduction in CO2 emissions. And I still believe that even though I would like to see native forests, any forest is better than no forest because a forest provides so much more habitat than any annual food crop. Question. Is a banana plantation a forest? Answer. Not quite. A forest must have trees but a forest is more than just trees. How much more? Not easy to state categorically. It must have "many" species and it must have some variability across the landscape. All these criteria are relative so it is better to see various treed landscapes as a continuum from the banana/cherry/orange/apple/palm plantation/orchard (for food) to the eucalyptus/pine/acacia plantation (pulp fibre and some lumber) to the intensively managed native forest (wood and recreation and biodiversity) to the naturally regenerated native forest (wood and biodiversity and recreation etc.) to the protected forest (biodiversity and recreation etc.). There is a big debate about whether forestry and trees can play a real role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, particularly CO2. I believe they can, if we focus on using wood as a renewable source of fuel energy. Research is well along to convert wood wastes into liquid fuel for transportation. It is more difficult to convert wood (cellulose and lignin) to liquid fuel than it is to convert sugar cane (sugar) or corn and grains (starch) because there are few natural enzymes that can break down cellulose. Such enzymes are now being developed and this may make fuel from wood at 50% of the cost of making it from sugar or starch because the raw material is so much cheaper. Even now, in Brazil, about 50% of transportation fuels are made from sugar cane. Unfortunately, this means converting vast tracts of native forest to a monoculture crop. If we could use wood we could have forests instead. That's all for this week folks. May the forest be with you. Patrick Moore, Greenspirit 4068 West 32nd Avenue Vancouver, BC, CANADA V6S 1Z6 e-mail pmoore@mail.bc.rogers.wave.ca 604-221-1990 ph. 604-221-1990 fax May the Forest be With You http://www.forest.org
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0