Nelson Wong wrote:
> In a similar vein, Greenpeace's attack on Shell in the disposal of an
> oil platform at sea. In the end Shell had to abandon its plans. But
> Greenpeace issued an apology (for misinformation?). However the impact
> of the damage done by Greenpeace to Shell cannot be compensated with
> just an apology.
I am not familiar with the oil platform incident, could you provide more
info? Shell Oil certainly has a littany of environmental
degradation--their human rights violations and corporate
irresponsibility in the Niger Delta are well doccumented....
> Foresters & timber merchants have the task of coming up with the facts
> from the ground. Environmentalists do not really have to. I have
> encountered those who have not even been to Brazil, PNG or Sarawak but
> are drumming up a lot of noise. I have met some who never knew Malaysia
> existed and that Sarawak is part of Malaysia - until now!
Environmentalists are equally responsible to the facts, we just tend to
operate in not such a rigid scientific manner as do foresters and other
scientists--and this in no way lessons the value of our
thoughts/feelings. Many of us want to protect old-growth forests not
because of the timber they produce, but because of aesthetic, moral, and
yes, spiritual reasons; all of which foresters seem largely unable to
comprehend.
Back to the issue of the facts, all too often when myself or others on
this list speak out against examples of bad forestry, we are often asked
for "our credentials" (as happened recently with Mr. Orr) and then when
it is is discovered that we are not foresters, we are dismissed as
"misinformed" and the usual suggestions about taking some forestry
classes at an accredited forestry school are put forth. But the reality
of the situation is that there is widespread scientific support of many
of the key complaints by environmentalists against forestry; but these
are the "facts" that most of you don't want to hear/ chose to ignore.
For example, here in the PNW, the Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystmen
Management Project (ICBEMP) Report was recently released. It was a
ten-year comprehensive study of the effects of logging, mining, and
grazing in the basin. The research team consisted of highly respected
scientists from federal, state, and private institutions who worked
together to study the basin in a non-biased manner. Not too
suprisingly, the report clearly outlined the severe degradation of the
basin in the wake of 100+ years of over logging, mining, and grazing.
Also not too suprising was the fact that
"timber/mining/grazing-friendly" legislators in D.C. sought to delay,
even prevent the release of this comprehensive scientific report for
fear that it would result in much-needed reductions in those natural
resource extractive industries responsible for the damage.
The bottom line is that only the science that supports your position is
valued, as evidenced by the parading about of ex-Greenpeace (now
industry mouth-piece) Patrick Moore who is getting great support for his
ideas (and others like him) because their proposed solution to poor
forest health caused by over-logging and indsutry-backed fire
suppression efforts is....TA-DA more logging!!! In other words focus on
those scientific reports that favor continued abuse (because they are
profitable) and ignore or even censor those reports that suggest
cut-backs (because they are less profitable). Another example is
Republican's efforts to cut Clinton's proposed national biological
survey, because people feared that we would in fact find more damage
and/or more threatened species that would necessitate reduced extraction
levels.
So please, don't fool yourselves or others into believing that
environmentalism is not based upon or connected to science--we just
don't always believe that the fox who guards the henhouse is necessarily
the best source for accurate information.
One last thing, relative to Nelson's reprimand to those who speak out
against the massive deforestation of the Amazonian and Malaysian
rainforests without never having been there; what's your point? I have
never been to Germany, yet that does not negate the facts of the
Holocaust. I have never been to Tibet, yet I speak out against China's
invasion of that country and their intended destruction of Tibet's
culture. I have never been to sub-saharan Africa, and yet the hunger
and povery there is no less real. Have you ever been to the Pacific
Northwest and seen the devastation of over 95% of our native forests
here? I'd be happy to arrange for you to fly over the industry's legacy
here and see the damage for yourself.
"We must never forget that
exploiting the environment
will always be more profitable
than cleaning it up. And on the
day that the converse becomes
true, it will be too late."
BD
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0