View topic - Canada's Boreal Forest accord is dead

It is currently September 22nd, 2019, 7:56 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 33 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: April 18th, 2013, 8:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: June 20th, 2001, 7:00 pm
Posts: 7513
Location: Scarbados, Ontario Canada
It was meant to be patterned after Ontario's OLL success: nature groups reach an agreement with the resource industry, get the government's blessing and bingo: thousands of hectares can be protected. In 2010 there was such a thing agreed on at the national level, and now participants are walking away from it since the forest industry gave didn't act.
Quote:
The agreement was aggressive but realistic, says Richard Brooks, Greenpeace forest campaign co-ordinator. “We outlined 75 milestones for three years.”
But the participating groups have been unable to agree on one joint recommendation for protection while almost all conservation milestones in the agreement have been missed and target dates for completion of agreed objectives have been repeatedly moved, Rycroft and Brooks say.

I guess, no more Mr Nice Guy. What are we telling the next generation: the tree spikers were right...?!

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2013/ ... apart.html

_________________
“What is the good of having a nice house without a decent planet to put it on?” - Thoreau


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: April 18th, 2013, 9:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: February 20th, 2008, 6:05 pm
Posts: 492
Tree spikers were right??? Really???

Hopefully we can teach the next generation that trees are the most important renewable and sustainable resource in Canada. That these are complex issues and resorting to violent acts, potentially fatal acts is not the answer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XJYEBzC ... Vg&index=2


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: April 18th, 2013, 9:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: June 20th, 2001, 7:00 pm
Posts: 7513
Location: Scarbados, Ontario Canada
I agree with you, JF - violence is wrong. But why is the damn industry not giving a fig when something is peacefully negotiated?! Explain that to the young and restless!!!

_________________
“What is the good of having a nice house without a decent planet to put it on?” - Thoreau


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: April 18th, 2013, 9:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: February 20th, 2008, 6:05 pm
Posts: 492
Not sure of the details, but I'm sure there is more than one side to the story.
And I am sure the industry players do give a fig.
They definitely give significantly more than figs to the Crown coffers.

I understand that the CBFA was questionable to start with, with a lot of ill-defined commitments and at a time when all proponents involved (industry and NGOs) needed a public victory.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: April 19th, 2013, 10:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: December 29th, 2002, 7:00 pm
Posts: 6127
Location: Bancroft, Ontario Canada
Erhard,

Quote:
...why is the damn industry not giving a fig...


Maybe related, and taken with Harper's easing of environmental regs... the forest industry is finally bouncing back after years of lost sales and profits. Stocks like Norboard's IIRC have shot sky high during the last year and maybe the renewed demand for lumber and profitable times returning have taken the attention away from anything else.

http://blogs.wsj.com/canadarealtime/201 ... tab/print/




Eg... Norboard's stock price is up several hundred percent since the lows.


Image

_________________
><((((º>


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: April 19th, 2013, 12:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: February 20th, 2008, 6:05 pm
Posts: 492
I'm sorry but I don't see that the recovery of the forest industry (as slow as it is) is related to Harper relaxing environmental regulations. And I certainly don't see this linking to an environmental group withdrawing from the Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement. You attached the link that explains the very reason why the stock values are improving (US housing market rebounding).

Perpetuating the assertion that the industry players don't give a fig is irresponsible IMHO. I have seen too many good, hard working people lose their jobs, families leave town and communities devastated to accept naïve and insulting paint-brushing of this nature.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: April 19th, 2013, 12:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: December 30th, 2003, 11:36 pm
Posts: 1808
Location: Kitchener Ontario
Quote:
Perpetuating the assertion that the industry players don't give a fig is irresponsible IMHO. I have seen too many good, hard working people lose their jobs, families leave town and communities devastated to accept naïve and insulting paint-brushing of this nature.


Not sure how these two points relate....

My father was in a dying industry (home heating oil delivery) for most of his adult life. Eventually, his job/business ( self emplyed) disappeared...

How does this relate to the environmental concerns/lack of concerns of the industry as a whole? If I said that the oil industry puts profits over the environment, how would I be denegrating my father, or his work ethic?

Please explain!

_________________
Dave

"The way of a canoe is the way of the wilderness, and of a freedom almost forgotten." Sigurd Olson, 1956


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: April 19th, 2013, 3:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: February 20th, 2008, 6:05 pm
Posts: 492
They don't relate in the context you provided. Not the same thing. if someboduy said all fuel truck delivery drivers were a bunch of freeking bozos that didn't care a fig about the saftey of their load or other drivers on the road, I hope you would take offence. Because we both know that isn't true. There were likely a few inconsiderate bozos, but for the most part they were a diligent set of drivers that cared whether or not you had enough fuel to make it through the month.

I take offense to negative broad-brush statements about the forest industry. In my view it is a reflection all of us that have proudly worked in the industry. I am close to it, I know it intimately and I will always defend it. Who do you think the industry is? It is the people that work in it.

Erhard stated "...the damn industry not giving a fig when something is peacefully negotiated". Even ignoring the negative slur that it is a "damn" industry, I suggested that there were most likely two sides to this specific story. Where are all the other ENGOs that were signatories to the accord? Just because one or two leaves, all of a sudden it is the damn industry that don't give a fig??? And as I said earlier, in my opinion FT just perpetuated the slur.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: April 19th, 2013, 4:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: October 28th, 2011, 8:51 pm
Posts: 106
I've yet to hear any statement from forest industry reps . I'd like to hear their side of the story.
Maybe they are in damage control meetings with their pr firms...

_________________
 


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: April 19th, 2013, 4:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: October 28th, 2011, 8:51 pm
Posts: 106
Well there is this new article which appears to be single quote and rehash of the older article
http://read.thestar.com/#!/article/5171 ... -of-canada

_________________
 


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: April 19th, 2013, 5:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: June 20th, 2001, 7:00 pm
Posts: 7513
Location: Scarbados, Ontario Canada
Quote:
Perpetuating the assertion that the industry players don't give a fig is irresponsible IMHO.

That accord was of tremendous significance for the northern forest and all things living there. In my opinion, their inaction and breach of faith - not just to the negotiating partners but to all of Canada - justifies calling them out. I could have used worse terms.

As you don't agree, prove to me that they care.

_________________
“What is the good of having a nice house without a decent planet to put it on?” - Thoreau


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: April 19th, 2013, 7:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: February 20th, 2008, 6:05 pm
Posts: 492
Who exactly is "they"?

Anything that I offered would likely be scoffed at as being not enough. I fear you might be overstating the significance of the agreement as it was so politically motivated to start with. This agreement had as much to do with fending off the strong-arm antics of some particular environmental groups as it did with protecting the environment. There are a lot of companies out there that were not part of this, but do as much or more on a company by company basis to protect the environment. That is why I take issue with the broad brushing of a whole industry.

Regardless, perhaps this article (july 2012) documents some good faith.

http://forestindustry.com/feature-artic ... d-communit

I'd be curious to know what you thought of the Patrick Moore utube video regarding the value of a responsible forest industry. That is the important message for our youth in my opinion.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: April 19th, 2013, 8:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: October 16th, 2008, 9:20 am
Posts: 1369
Location: Oshawa
Hi JF,

That is an interesting link you provided. It sounds pretty good. I also liked Patrick Moore's youtube video.

I just hope these responsible forest harvesting practices are better then what has occurred in the past. The evidence of irresponsible clear cutting is extremely prevalent in Ontario and Quebec. And I agree that not only is the damage huge to the environment but it does absolutely no good for jobs or communities.

In the link you provided here is a quote "An estimated 20% increase in spruce wood supply for the next 30 years from the current direction for the area." I hope that this plan includes enough spruce regeneration for logging well after that...that's my concern...the looking beyond 30yrs. It is my understanding that the science is there to log in such a manner that the forest can recover and yield more wood down the road. The forest industries need to be held accountable for logging in such a fashion...that would encourage a healthy forest management plan that hopefully could provide jobs for many many years to come as well as a healthy environment.

_________________
"It's healthy to be dirty" - Lars Monsen


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: April 19th, 2013, 9:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: August 27th, 2002, 7:00 pm
Posts: 2493
Location: Geraldton, Ontario Can
The forest industry is up and running in my part of the woods again. One mill was bought by an overseas company, and uses the pulp process to make rayon to sell back to Asian markets. Two other mills are slated to re-open as well. I have mixed feelings. The mill in Terrace Bay looks like it might be long term, as the market for the product is huge.

The other two mills are being re-opened by the major forestry baron of our area, who has a cycle of obtaining large quantities of government money and then going bankrupt, leaving jobbers and employees holding the bag.

I'm all for long term employment such as the Terrace Bay mill might provide, but most of us up here are sick of the other guy, and lots of folks will not work for him again.

In any case, there is a process in place already for having input into the FMP's. It's not perfect, but with a reasonable approach and a lack of rhetoric and grandstanding, concessions can be obtained. I would suggest that instead of bee-atching about some newspaper article, become involved in the process. These new plans are long term, with a great deal of thought. The Ogoki plan is a 100 year plan, so have your say now.

In my humble opinion, the NGO's often alienate the locals who depend on the forest industry with Quixotic quests to save the wilderness....all of it.....and with very little value given to the humans who derive a living from it.

My interests in these things are as a canoeist. When I see these plans, I want to make sure all canoe routes are identified, and try to work for as much protection of the routes as possible. This is best achieved by individuals or small groups adopting certain routes and concentrating on protecting that particular route or sets of routes. I can almost guarantee that the protection of canoe routes will be best achieved in this way, by reasonable people working within the system, as opposed to outside agencies who walk away from things when they don't get what they want.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: April 19th, 2013, 9:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: December 29th, 2002, 7:00 pm
Posts: 6127
Location: Bancroft, Ontario Canada
JF

Quote:
I'm sorry but I don't see that the recovery of the forest industry (as slow as it is) is related to Harper relaxing environmental regulations. And I certainly don't see this linking to an environmental group withdrawing from the Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement. You attached the link that explains the very reason why the stock values are improving (US housing market rebounding).


So the forest industry isn't concerned about tough environmental regulations affecting profits? Whew, what a relief. So there's really no relation between the two! All that industrial-grade bellyaching in the past didn't mean a thing. That's good to know.

:roll:

_________________
><((((º>


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 33 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group