Jan. 22, 2006. 01:00 AM | Toronto Star
Far from the bright lights of Toronto and the big urban centres of the Golden Horseshoe, a quiet devastation is taking place throughout Northern Ontario's forest industry, killing thousands of jobs and threatening to turn many single-industry communities into ghost towns.
As distant as the crisis might seem to city residents, the demise of the industry — the province's second largest after the automotive sector — threatens the prosperity of all Ontarians.
Last year, a government-commissioned task force determined that 12 forestry operations, such as paper mills, were at risk of shutting down. Five of them were deemed to be at high risk. If all 12 operations closed, there would be a loss of 7,500 direct and 17,500 indirect jobs in Northern Ontario.
But for suppliers and manufacturers in southern Ontario, it would see the demise of 13,000 indirect spin-off jobs. Not to mention government tax losses approaching $1 billion.
The task force report has proven prophetic.
Since its release last June, operations in Kenora, Thunder Bay, Cornwall and Ottawa have shut or are on the way. More closures are likely this year.
The Ontario government has responded with an aid package widely seen as insufficient.
A combination of circumstances at home and internationally have come together to create a near-perfect storm that threatens to turn a once profitable industry into one that could sink into irreversible decline.
Among the external factors are the rising value of the Canadian dollar against the U.S. dollar, making exports more expensive; the protracted and ongoing softwood lumber dispute with the U.S. that has forced Canadian manufacturers to pay out billions of dollars in tariffs; and international competition from new players such as China, Brazil and Russia.
Also, policies of provincial governments past and present have contributed to reducing the industry's competitiveness. A decade ago, the former Conservative government downloaded the cost of building and maintaining logging roads onto the forest industry. These are public access roads used by everyone.
And energy prices set by the province have risen for the industry by 30 per cent or more in recent years. They are set to go even higher this year.
In mill towns like Kenora, much closer to Winnipeg than Toronto, there is even some talk of separating from Ontario and joining Manitoba, where energy is plentiful and half the price.
The Ontario government's 2005 bailout package failed to quell criticism within the forestry industry that Queen's Park was not doing enough to help.
It provided a maximum of $28 million annually for logging roads — a fraction of the actual cost of maintaining the roads — and a three-year $150 million investment fund. That pales alongside the $500 million fund dedicated to the auto sector.
Clearly, the provincial government cannot single-handedly save the forest industry. But the task force report offered sensible ways to mitigate the damage, such as reducing government red tape and speeding up decision-making.
But energy is the key part of the solution. Energy makes up to 30 to 40 per cent of the total cost of getting wood from forest to mill. That's why it is essential for Queen's Park to consider ways to provide relief on hydro costs. Without such assistance, more companies risk closure.
The forestry crisis is real. Towns like Dryden risk losing half their tax base if the local mill closes. Places like Red Rock might become ghost towns.
Forestry is Northern Ontario's economic cornerstone.
It is time Queen's Park redoubled its efforts to bring this vital industry back from the brink.(*)
Sunday, January 22, 2006
Thursday, January 19, 2006
Do trees share blame for global warming?
from the January 19, 2006 edition - Christian Science Monitor
By Peter N. Spotts | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
Cows burp it, pipelines and landfills leak it, and vast amounts lie frozen beneath the ocean floor. Methane is ubiquitous - as fuel for heating and cooking and as a source of concern for atmospheric scientists. Molecule for molecule, methane packs thousands of times more punch as a "greenhouse gas" than carbon dioxide does.
Until now, scientists tracking debits and credits in the globe's methane "budget" figured they had a pretty good handle on where the gas comes from - mostly from microbes breaking down organic material in places where oxygen is relatively scarce.
Enter Frank Keppler. Working with colleagues from Northern Ireland and the Netherlands, Dr. Keppler has discovered that plants may give off significant amounts of methane just by growing. And the amount they give off appears to rise with temperature. The results have stunned many researchers because no one expected methane to form biologically out in the open air, where oxygen abounds.
It's not that there's more methane in the atmosphere, but that some of it is coming from a wholly unexpected source. The results imply that, at best, this new source of methane may need to be taken into account as nations try to curb carbon-dioxide emissions by planting trees. Would increased methane emissions erase the gains against CO2? At worst, the results imply that thawing tundra in the Arctic is not the only worrisome source of methane in a warming world.
The experiments Keppler and his colleagues performed grew out of the team's effort to measure the gases that plants give off only in tiny amounts. When they looked at emissions from dead leaves, "we saw a pattern of methane" along with other gases, says Keppler, a scientist at the Max Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics in Heidelberg, Germany. Others had detected methane from rice plants, but thought the rice merely acted as a minipipeline for methane formed in the muck in which rice grows.
Keppler put fresh and dried plant materials, as well as young plants, in special chambers. He removed possible sources of contamination - including microbes - and found that from bananas and sugar cane to European ash and Spanish moss, the material yielded methane.
From individual plants, the amounts are small: from 12 to 370 billionths of a gram. (One gram is about .04 ounces - the weight of two small paper clips.) But the collective effect could be large. The team roughly calculates that, globally, living plants may contribute from 10 to 30 percent of global methane emissions.
The phenomenon appears to be connected somehow to the presence of pectin in plants. For humans, pectin is used to set jellies and jams. For plants, it serves as a kind of glue for cementing cells together.
The results, published in the Jan. 12 issue of the journal Nature, have drawn astonished reactions and skepticism from researchers, particularly regarding the extrapolations of global emissions.
"This needs to be confirmed," says Michael Keller, a scientist with the US Forest Service's International Institute of Tropical Forestry in Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico, and a visiting scientist at the University of New Hampshire. "Until we have the basic mechanisms" for creating methane in plants - "or at least we understand the controls," such as nutrients, heat, or moisture - "it's hard to do reliable extrapolations."
Still, he says, the results may help explain the high methane emissions he and others have found over tropical forests using ground and satellite measurements. Other scientists recently have reported increased emissions over Arctic-river flood plains in eastern Siberia, invoking a variation of the "rice pipeline" hypothesis to explain them.
Given all the scrutiny plants have undergone, one of the open questions is how researchers could have missed these emissions. Keppler speculates that because the methane emissions are so small, they wouldn't have been detected in field studies. Any signal would have been swamped by much larger natural background levels. And microbial sources have been so well established that no one has looked for another mechanism.
For some researchers, the evidence Keppler and his team presents is sufficiently convincing to begin working them into computer models of the globe's greenhouse-gas budget - especially the potential implications for land-use changes. To do that, scientists will need to see how emissions might vary with plant species, says Alex Guenther, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. (*)
By Peter N. Spotts | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
Cows burp it, pipelines and landfills leak it, and vast amounts lie frozen beneath the ocean floor. Methane is ubiquitous - as fuel for heating and cooking and as a source of concern for atmospheric scientists. Molecule for molecule, methane packs thousands of times more punch as a "greenhouse gas" than carbon dioxide does.
Until now, scientists tracking debits and credits in the globe's methane "budget" figured they had a pretty good handle on where the gas comes from - mostly from microbes breaking down organic material in places where oxygen is relatively scarce.
Enter Frank Keppler. Working with colleagues from Northern Ireland and the Netherlands, Dr. Keppler has discovered that plants may give off significant amounts of methane just by growing. And the amount they give off appears to rise with temperature. The results have stunned many researchers because no one expected methane to form biologically out in the open air, where oxygen abounds.
It's not that there's more methane in the atmosphere, but that some of it is coming from a wholly unexpected source. The results imply that, at best, this new source of methane may need to be taken into account as nations try to curb carbon-dioxide emissions by planting trees. Would increased methane emissions erase the gains against CO2? At worst, the results imply that thawing tundra in the Arctic is not the only worrisome source of methane in a warming world.
The experiments Keppler and his colleagues performed grew out of the team's effort to measure the gases that plants give off only in tiny amounts. When they looked at emissions from dead leaves, "we saw a pattern of methane" along with other gases, says Keppler, a scientist at the Max Planck Institute for Nuclear Physics in Heidelberg, Germany. Others had detected methane from rice plants, but thought the rice merely acted as a minipipeline for methane formed in the muck in which rice grows.
Keppler put fresh and dried plant materials, as well as young plants, in special chambers. He removed possible sources of contamination - including microbes - and found that from bananas and sugar cane to European ash and Spanish moss, the material yielded methane.
From individual plants, the amounts are small: from 12 to 370 billionths of a gram. (One gram is about .04 ounces - the weight of two small paper clips.) But the collective effect could be large. The team roughly calculates that, globally, living plants may contribute from 10 to 30 percent of global methane emissions.
The phenomenon appears to be connected somehow to the presence of pectin in plants. For humans, pectin is used to set jellies and jams. For plants, it serves as a kind of glue for cementing cells together.
The results, published in the Jan. 12 issue of the journal Nature, have drawn astonished reactions and skepticism from researchers, particularly regarding the extrapolations of global emissions.
"This needs to be confirmed," says Michael Keller, a scientist with the US Forest Service's International Institute of Tropical Forestry in Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico, and a visiting scientist at the University of New Hampshire. "Until we have the basic mechanisms" for creating methane in plants - "or at least we understand the controls," such as nutrients, heat, or moisture - "it's hard to do reliable extrapolations."
Still, he says, the results may help explain the high methane emissions he and others have found over tropical forests using ground and satellite measurements. Other scientists recently have reported increased emissions over Arctic-river flood plains in eastern Siberia, invoking a variation of the "rice pipeline" hypothesis to explain them.
Given all the scrutiny plants have undergone, one of the open questions is how researchers could have missed these emissions. Keppler speculates that because the methane emissions are so small, they wouldn't have been detected in field studies. Any signal would have been swamped by much larger natural background levels. And microbial sources have been so well established that no one has looked for another mechanism.
For some researchers, the evidence Keppler and his team presents is sufficiently convincing to begin working them into computer models of the globe's greenhouse-gas budget - especially the potential implications for land-use changes. To do that, scientists will need to see how emissions might vary with plant species, says Alex Guenther, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. (*)
Friday, January 06, 2006
Forests get green label
Posted on Fri, Jan. 06, 2006
State forests across Minnesota are approved as sustainable, responding to market demand for more environmentally friendly products
BY JOHN MYERS | DULUTH NEWS TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
Nearly 4.8 million acres of forest managed by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has been certified as environmentally sustainable, Gov. Tim Pawlenty announced Thursday.
The effort, expected for more than two years, is intended to make sure the state-managed forests are in sound environmental shape for years to come.
And it could help make the products manufactured from Minnesota trees more marketable for the state's wood products industry. State officials say that, without acting, Minnesota could have lost a share of the wood products market to regions that have certified their forests.
"Today's achievement is a testament to our long-term commitment to responsible stewardship of our heritage and future," Pawlenty said in a prepared statement.
The state land has received simultaneous certification from both the Forest Stewardship Council, an independent agency, and the Sustainable Forestry Initiative, a now-independent group that has its roots in the timber industry.
Both groups have audited the DNR forestry division's books and toured forests and logging sites over the past year before awarding certification. Annual rechecks will be held, and the state must reapply after five years.
Minnesota's state forests are the largest chunk of government-managed land in the U.S. to become fully certified.
A representative of Minnesota's largest timber industry trade group on Thursday praised the industry-preferred Sustainable Forestry Initiative certification.
"The SFI program reflects the market and social realities of the 21st century," said Tim O'Hara, vice president of forest policy for the Duluth-based Minnesota Forest Industries.
"As demand for forest products from sustainably managed forests continues to grow, Minnesota is now at the front of the line to satisfy those demands," O'Hara said. "This is good for the state's forests, and it is vital to maintaining Minnesota's long-running, vibrant forest products industry."
Most of the DNR's forest land is in northern Minnesota, but the land ranges from boreal forests on the Ontario border to oak woods near Iowa.
The sustainable forest initiative has been gaining ground worldwide for a decade, pushed by environmental groups trying to stop the destruction of tropical rain forests.
In the U.S., the effort has been spurred as industry giants like Time Warner, LL Bean, McDonalds and Home Depot have demanded more products for their customers that are certified as sustainable. As big industry demands more sustainable products, more land managers have pushed for certification.
Time Inc., for example, buys paper from the Stora Enso mill in Duluth and the UPM mill in Grand Rapids, both of which get a good share of their trees from state forests.
The certification movement first gained traction in Minnesota in 1997 when county and state lands in Aitkin County became certified sustainable. Last summer, all 319,000 acres of Potlatch company land was certified. Some Minnesota mills, loggers and even truckers who handle the wood have been certified to link the chain of handling the trees.
Exactly what "sustainable" means is often a moving and sometimes unclear target. But most experts agree that sustainable means the people who manage and cut trees, as well as the mills that make trees into paper and wood products, are taking measures to lessen harm to the environment -- especially on birds, wildlife and waterways.
Another common thread is that forestry is conducted with an eye to the future -- that current demand for trees doesn't outweigh future environmental, recreational and social demands on forests.
Sustainable certification requires that land owners and managers use the best available forestry guidelines -- things like avoiding stands of old-growth trees, leaving slash material to help regenerate the soil, keeping away from rivers and wetlands and leaving a lighter footprint from logging equipment.
Some certifications also require that forestry practices be sustainable for nearby communities, meaning that wood products jobs pay living wages and factories don't pollute local waters.
Dave Bubser, regional director for Smartwood, which conducts Forest Stewardship Council certification, said somewhere between 5 percent and 15 percent of forest products in the U.S. now are certified sustainable. Demand is being driven more by industry-to-industry dealings and less by consumers, he said. Demand is increasing as buyers for big companies that use paper are making unsolicited requests for sustainable products for their companies.
"I don't think most consumers even know about forest certification," Bubser said. "But that will change in time."
Of Minnesota's more than 16 million acres of forest, about 54 percent is publicly owned and 46 percent private. The forest products industry in Minnesota is worth some $1.4 billion annually, state officials say, and employs more than 30,000 people -- from loggers and truckers to mill workers and cabinet and window makers. (*)
State forests across Minnesota are approved as sustainable, responding to market demand for more environmentally friendly products
BY JOHN MYERS | DULUTH NEWS TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
Nearly 4.8 million acres of forest managed by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has been certified as environmentally sustainable, Gov. Tim Pawlenty announced Thursday.
The effort, expected for more than two years, is intended to make sure the state-managed forests are in sound environmental shape for years to come.
And it could help make the products manufactured from Minnesota trees more marketable for the state's wood products industry. State officials say that, without acting, Minnesota could have lost a share of the wood products market to regions that have certified their forests.
"Today's achievement is a testament to our long-term commitment to responsible stewardship of our heritage and future," Pawlenty said in a prepared statement.
The state land has received simultaneous certification from both the Forest Stewardship Council, an independent agency, and the Sustainable Forestry Initiative, a now-independent group that has its roots in the timber industry.
Both groups have audited the DNR forestry division's books and toured forests and logging sites over the past year before awarding certification. Annual rechecks will be held, and the state must reapply after five years.
Minnesota's state forests are the largest chunk of government-managed land in the U.S. to become fully certified.
A representative of Minnesota's largest timber industry trade group on Thursday praised the industry-preferred Sustainable Forestry Initiative certification.
"The SFI program reflects the market and social realities of the 21st century," said Tim O'Hara, vice president of forest policy for the Duluth-based Minnesota Forest Industries.
"As demand for forest products from sustainably managed forests continues to grow, Minnesota is now at the front of the line to satisfy those demands," O'Hara said. "This is good for the state's forests, and it is vital to maintaining Minnesota's long-running, vibrant forest products industry."
Most of the DNR's forest land is in northern Minnesota, but the land ranges from boreal forests on the Ontario border to oak woods near Iowa.
The sustainable forest initiative has been gaining ground worldwide for a decade, pushed by environmental groups trying to stop the destruction of tropical rain forests.
In the U.S., the effort has been spurred as industry giants like Time Warner, LL Bean, McDonalds and Home Depot have demanded more products for their customers that are certified as sustainable. As big industry demands more sustainable products, more land managers have pushed for certification.
Time Inc., for example, buys paper from the Stora Enso mill in Duluth and the UPM mill in Grand Rapids, both of which get a good share of their trees from state forests.
The certification movement first gained traction in Minnesota in 1997 when county and state lands in Aitkin County became certified sustainable. Last summer, all 319,000 acres of Potlatch company land was certified. Some Minnesota mills, loggers and even truckers who handle the wood have been certified to link the chain of handling the trees.
Exactly what "sustainable" means is often a moving and sometimes unclear target. But most experts agree that sustainable means the people who manage and cut trees, as well as the mills that make trees into paper and wood products, are taking measures to lessen harm to the environment -- especially on birds, wildlife and waterways.
Another common thread is that forestry is conducted with an eye to the future -- that current demand for trees doesn't outweigh future environmental, recreational and social demands on forests.
Sustainable certification requires that land owners and managers use the best available forestry guidelines -- things like avoiding stands of old-growth trees, leaving slash material to help regenerate the soil, keeping away from rivers and wetlands and leaving a lighter footprint from logging equipment.
Some certifications also require that forestry practices be sustainable for nearby communities, meaning that wood products jobs pay living wages and factories don't pollute local waters.
Dave Bubser, regional director for Smartwood, which conducts Forest Stewardship Council certification, said somewhere between 5 percent and 15 percent of forest products in the U.S. now are certified sustainable. Demand is being driven more by industry-to-industry dealings and less by consumers, he said. Demand is increasing as buyers for big companies that use paper are making unsolicited requests for sustainable products for their companies.
"I don't think most consumers even know about forest certification," Bubser said. "But that will change in time."
Of Minnesota's more than 16 million acres of forest, about 54 percent is publicly owned and 46 percent private. The forest products industry in Minnesota is worth some $1.4 billion annually, state officials say, and employs more than 30,000 people -- from loggers and truckers to mill workers and cabinet and window makers. (*)
Tuesday, January 03, 2006
Death of a Sawmill
Environmentalists wreck small businesses--and do ecological damage while they're at it.
BY JIM PETERSEN | Thursday, December 29, 2005 12:01 a.m. | WSJ Opinion Journal
EUREKA, Mont.--My friend Jim Hurst auctioned his sawmill in August.
Jim's decision to pack it in after 25 years of beating his head on the wall made big news here in northwest Montana but, alas, not a peep from this newspaper or the New York Times. That's too bad, because the loss of our family-owned mills also signals the loss of technologies and skills vital to our efforts to protect the West's great national forests from the ravages of increasingly fearsome wildfires.
I was in Jim's office a few days before the auction. He told me he was at peace with his decision, but Jim has a good game face, so I suspect the decision to terminate his remaining 70 employees tore his guts out. They were like family to him.
Jim's outfit was the economic backbone of tiny Eureka, Mont., a sawmill town since the early 1900s. I have a photo of my schoolteacher great-aunt standing on the front steps of the town's one-room schoolhouse in 1909. Although the town has grown some since then, its rural charm is still very much intact.
Thanks to the nation's housing boom, business has been good for the West's sawmills for the past three years. But Jim faced an insurmountable problem: He couldn't buy enough logs to keep his mill running. This despite the fact that 10 times as many trees as Jim's mill needed die annually on the nearby Kootenai National Forest. From his office window, Jim could see the dead and dying standing on hillsides just west of the mill. They might as well have been standing on the moon, given the senseless environmental litigation that has engulfed the West's federal forests.
Thanks to Jim's resourcefulness, his mill survived its last five years on a steady diet of fire- and bug-killed trees salvaged from Alberta provincial forests. Such salvage work is unthinkable in our national forests, forests that, news reports to the contrary, remain under the thumb of radical environmental groups whose hatred for capitalism seems boundless. Americans are thus invited to believe that salvaging fire-killed timber is "like mugging a burn victim." Never mind that there is no peer-reviewed science that supports this ridiculous claim--or that many of the West's great forests, including Oregon's famed Tillamook Forest, are products of past salvage and reforestation projects.
Jim shared his good fortune with his employees. Each received an average $30,000 in severance and profit sharing: a tip of the hat from him to a crew that set a production record the day after he told them he was throwing in the towel. Such is the professionalism--and talent--found among the West's mill workers. A few Oregon mills tried to recruit them, but most don't want to leave Eureka. I haven't the faintest idea how they'll make a living, but in the 40-odd years I've spent observing forests and people who live in them, I've learned never to underestimate the power of roots.
Although he's still a young man filled with creative energy and enthusiasm, I suspect the government has seen the last of Jim Hurst. Three years ago, I called nearly 100 sawmill owners scattered across the West and asked them if they would invest $40 million in a new small-log sawmill on the government's promise of a timber supply sufficient to amortize the investment. The verdict was a unanimous "No."
The never-reported truth is that the family-owned sawmills that survived the decade-long collapse of the federal timber sale program no longer have much interest in doing business with a government they no longer trust. Most now get their timber from lands they've purchased in recent years, other private lands, tribal forests or state lands. Some even import logs from other countries, including Canada, New Zealand and Chile.
You would think environmentalists who campaigned against harvesting in the West's national forests for 30-some years would be dancing in the streets. And, in fact, some of them are. But many aren't. Railing against giant faceless corporations is easy, but facing the news cameras after small family-owned mills fold has turned out to be very difficult. Everyone loves the underdog, and across much of the West there is a gnawing sense that environmentalists have hurt a lot of underdogs in their lust for power.
Environmentalists also face a problem they never anticipated. Recent polling reveals some 80% percent of Americans approve of the kind of methodical thinning that would have produced small diameter logs in perpetuity for Jim's sawmill. We Americans seem to like thinning in overly dense forests because the end result is visually pleasing, and because it helps reduce the risk of horrific wildfire--a bonus for wildlife and millions of year-round recreation enthusiasts who worship clean air and water.
Many Westerners wonder why the government isn't doing more thinning in at-risk forests that are at the epicenter of our Internet-linked New West lifestyle. I don't. Until the public takes back the enormous power it has given radical environmentalists and their lawyers, the Jim Hursts of the world will continue to exit the stage, taking their hard-earned capital, their well-developed global markets and their technological genius with them.
Fifteen years ago, not long after the release of "Playing God in Yellowstone," his seminal work on environmentalism's philosophical underpinnings, I asked philosopher and environmentalist Alston Chase what he thought about this situation. I leave you to ponder his answer: "Environmentalism increasingly reflects urban perspectives. As people move to cities, they become infatuated with fantasies about land untouched by humans. This demographic shift is revealed through ongoing debates about endangered species, grazing, water rights, private property, mining and logging. And it is partly a healthy trend. But this urbanization of environmental values also signals the loss of a rural way of life and the disappearance of hands-on experience with nature. So the irony: As popular concern for preservation increases, public understanding about how to achieve it declines."
Mr. Petersen is the founder of the non-profit Evergreen Foundation and the publisher of Evergreen Magazine in Montana.
BY JIM PETERSEN | Thursday, December 29, 2005 12:01 a.m. | WSJ Opinion Journal
EUREKA, Mont.--My friend Jim Hurst auctioned his sawmill in August.
Jim's decision to pack it in after 25 years of beating his head on the wall made big news here in northwest Montana but, alas, not a peep from this newspaper or the New York Times. That's too bad, because the loss of our family-owned mills also signals the loss of technologies and skills vital to our efforts to protect the West's great national forests from the ravages of increasingly fearsome wildfires.
I was in Jim's office a few days before the auction. He told me he was at peace with his decision, but Jim has a good game face, so I suspect the decision to terminate his remaining 70 employees tore his guts out. They were like family to him.
Jim's outfit was the economic backbone of tiny Eureka, Mont., a sawmill town since the early 1900s. I have a photo of my schoolteacher great-aunt standing on the front steps of the town's one-room schoolhouse in 1909. Although the town has grown some since then, its rural charm is still very much intact.
Thanks to the nation's housing boom, business has been good for the West's sawmills for the past three years. But Jim faced an insurmountable problem: He couldn't buy enough logs to keep his mill running. This despite the fact that 10 times as many trees as Jim's mill needed die annually on the nearby Kootenai National Forest. From his office window, Jim could see the dead and dying standing on hillsides just west of the mill. They might as well have been standing on the moon, given the senseless environmental litigation that has engulfed the West's federal forests.
Thanks to Jim's resourcefulness, his mill survived its last five years on a steady diet of fire- and bug-killed trees salvaged from Alberta provincial forests. Such salvage work is unthinkable in our national forests, forests that, news reports to the contrary, remain under the thumb of radical environmental groups whose hatred for capitalism seems boundless. Americans are thus invited to believe that salvaging fire-killed timber is "like mugging a burn victim." Never mind that there is no peer-reviewed science that supports this ridiculous claim--or that many of the West's great forests, including Oregon's famed Tillamook Forest, are products of past salvage and reforestation projects.
Jim shared his good fortune with his employees. Each received an average $30,000 in severance and profit sharing: a tip of the hat from him to a crew that set a production record the day after he told them he was throwing in the towel. Such is the professionalism--and talent--found among the West's mill workers. A few Oregon mills tried to recruit them, but most don't want to leave Eureka. I haven't the faintest idea how they'll make a living, but in the 40-odd years I've spent observing forests and people who live in them, I've learned never to underestimate the power of roots.
Although he's still a young man filled with creative energy and enthusiasm, I suspect the government has seen the last of Jim Hurst. Three years ago, I called nearly 100 sawmill owners scattered across the West and asked them if they would invest $40 million in a new small-log sawmill on the government's promise of a timber supply sufficient to amortize the investment. The verdict was a unanimous "No."
The never-reported truth is that the family-owned sawmills that survived the decade-long collapse of the federal timber sale program no longer have much interest in doing business with a government they no longer trust. Most now get their timber from lands they've purchased in recent years, other private lands, tribal forests or state lands. Some even import logs from other countries, including Canada, New Zealand and Chile.
You would think environmentalists who campaigned against harvesting in the West's national forests for 30-some years would be dancing in the streets. And, in fact, some of them are. But many aren't. Railing against giant faceless corporations is easy, but facing the news cameras after small family-owned mills fold has turned out to be very difficult. Everyone loves the underdog, and across much of the West there is a gnawing sense that environmentalists have hurt a lot of underdogs in their lust for power.
Environmentalists also face a problem they never anticipated. Recent polling reveals some 80% percent of Americans approve of the kind of methodical thinning that would have produced small diameter logs in perpetuity for Jim's sawmill. We Americans seem to like thinning in overly dense forests because the end result is visually pleasing, and because it helps reduce the risk of horrific wildfire--a bonus for wildlife and millions of year-round recreation enthusiasts who worship clean air and water.
Many Westerners wonder why the government isn't doing more thinning in at-risk forests that are at the epicenter of our Internet-linked New West lifestyle. I don't. Until the public takes back the enormous power it has given radical environmentalists and their lawyers, the Jim Hursts of the world will continue to exit the stage, taking their hard-earned capital, their well-developed global markets and their technological genius with them.
Fifteen years ago, not long after the release of "Playing God in Yellowstone," his seminal work on environmentalism's philosophical underpinnings, I asked philosopher and environmentalist Alston Chase what he thought about this situation. I leave you to ponder his answer: "Environmentalism increasingly reflects urban perspectives. As people move to cities, they become infatuated with fantasies about land untouched by humans. This demographic shift is revealed through ongoing debates about endangered species, grazing, water rights, private property, mining and logging. And it is partly a healthy trend. But this urbanization of environmental values also signals the loss of a rural way of life and the disappearance of hands-on experience with nature. So the irony: As popular concern for preservation increases, public understanding about how to achieve it declines."
Mr. Petersen is the founder of the non-profit Evergreen Foundation and the publisher of Evergreen Magazine in Montana.
Tuesday, December 27, 2005
Indiana aims to halt tree-munching bug
Left unchecked, the emerald ash borer could destroy state's 147 million ash trees
By Tammy Webber (tammy.webber@indystar.com)
DECATUR, Ind. -- Tromping through the woods north of town, Karen Cox stopped to examine the saplings, scrutinizing their bark, branch patterns and buds.
Satisfied they were young ash trees, Cox sprayed a band of orange paint around the trunks, then yelled to a fellow state forester keeping tally: "Dawn, three cheeseburgers!" -- using the code for trees less than 4 inches in diameter.
Although healthy, these will be among thousands of Indiana ash trees cut down early next year in an all-out effort to halt the spread of the emerald ash borer. They are too close to an ash infected with the tree-eating beetle that is so deadly it could destroy every ash in the state if left unchecked.
Already, more than 100,000 Indiana ash trees have been cut down. Millions of ashes in other states have met the same fate.
There are an estimated 147 million ash trees in Indiana's forests and perhaps an equal number in its cities. With its rounded crown and vibrant gold fall color, the ash is a popular street and yard tree. Ash comprises about 6 percent of the state's forests, 70 percent of which are south of Indianapolis.
Three years ago, U.S. bug experts didn't know of the ash borer. Today, experts at the Indiana Department of Natural Resources fear that if the beetle reaches the large cities and southern forests, it might be impossible to control. "For all practical purposes, ash could be wiped out," DNR entomologist Robert Waltz said.
Strong and easily worked, ash is used for making tool handles, baseball bats and furniture. The wood also is important in American Indian religious ceremonies and basket-making. Experts agree a widening infestation would have a significant effect on Indiana's $8 billion-a-year forestry industry.
Discovered in Detroit in 2002, the half-inch-long, dark metallic green insect -- an Asia and Eastern European native believed to have hitched a ride on wooden packing material -- wiped out that city's ash trees and since has spread into most of Michigan's lower peninsula.
The insect has led to the destruction of about 15 million ash trees in Michigan, the hardest-hit state. The beetle also has been discovered in parts of Ontario, Canada, Ohio and in four Indiana counties near the Michigan and Ohio borders: Adams, LaGrange, Randolph and Steuben.
On its own, the beetle, which can fly, moves about a half-mile a year. But it has spread much faster due to infested firewood, nursery trees and logs being moved.
"If we educate citizens so they realize the consequences of moving (ash), that can go a long way to stopping it," Waltz said.
Areas in the four Indiana counties have been placed under quarantine, meaning no ash trees or logs may be moved into or out of the area without state approval.
Also, more than 118,000 ash trees have been cut down in Indiana's infested areas. About 15,000 will be cut early next year in Decatur, which is in Adams County, where the beetle was discovered this fall. Forestry officials estimate another 15,000 will be cut in Winchester, in Randolph County.
Some are massive trees more than 75 years old, including one in Decatur that is 51 inches across.
"I just wanted to cry. It's heart-rending because we will never see (an ash) this size again in our lifetime" in Decatur, said Dawn Bale, a member of the forestry crew. "But it is for the greater good."
Once an infested tree is identified, all ash trees within a half-mile radius must be cut down. The hope is to eliminate the ash borer's only food source, said Jodie Ellis, an exotic insects expert at Purdue University.
Adult ash borers lay eggs on the bark of ash trees. When larvae hatch, they burrow beneath the bark and feed on the tree's vascular tissue, the systems that carry water and nutrients. Infested trees starve to death within one to three years. Once a tree is bug-ridden, there is no way to save it.
"This is a fascinating story but a terrible story. I wish this had never happened," Ellis said. "But if people would comply and not move this thing, we might be able to get a grip on it."
What state is doing
Indiana officials are taking several steps to stop the spread of the emerald ash borer:
• Nine townships in four counties -- Adams, LaGrange, Randolph and Steuben -- are under a quarantine that prohibits the movement of ash firewood, logs and nursery trees without permission from the state. Violation of the quarantine carries a minimum $250 fine; moving ash across state lines could result in a $2,500 federal fine.
• Thousands of ash trees are being cut down in infested areas to slow or stop the beetles' spread. More than 118,000 trees have been cut to date; an additional 30,000 are expected to be cut in early 2006. Indiana has about $2.2 million to spend on eradication, of which about $1.8 million is federal money.
• State officials are asking the public to avoid moving ash and to report any suspected sightings of the emerald ash borer or infested trees.
Emerald ash borer
• How does it kill trees? The beetle lays eggs on the trunk of ash trees. When the larvae hatch, they burrow beneath the bark and feed on the trees' vascular tissues, which transport nutrients and water. Trees usually starve to death within one to three years, with one-third to one-half of the branches dying in a year.
• Where did it come from? Its natural range is eastern Russia, northern China, Japan and Korea.
• How did it get to the United States? Researchers believe it came here in the 1990s on wooden packing or crating material or in wood used to stabilize cargo on ships.
Source: Michigan Department of Agriculture
By Tammy Webber (tammy.webber@indystar.com)
DECATUR, Ind. -- Tromping through the woods north of town, Karen Cox stopped to examine the saplings, scrutinizing their bark, branch patterns and buds.
Satisfied they were young ash trees, Cox sprayed a band of orange paint around the trunks, then yelled to a fellow state forester keeping tally: "Dawn, three cheeseburgers!" -- using the code for trees less than 4 inches in diameter.
Although healthy, these will be among thousands of Indiana ash trees cut down early next year in an all-out effort to halt the spread of the emerald ash borer. They are too close to an ash infected with the tree-eating beetle that is so deadly it could destroy every ash in the state if left unchecked.
Already, more than 100,000 Indiana ash trees have been cut down. Millions of ashes in other states have met the same fate.
There are an estimated 147 million ash trees in Indiana's forests and perhaps an equal number in its cities. With its rounded crown and vibrant gold fall color, the ash is a popular street and yard tree. Ash comprises about 6 percent of the state's forests, 70 percent of which are south of Indianapolis.
Three years ago, U.S. bug experts didn't know of the ash borer. Today, experts at the Indiana Department of Natural Resources fear that if the beetle reaches the large cities and southern forests, it might be impossible to control. "For all practical purposes, ash could be wiped out," DNR entomologist Robert Waltz said.
Strong and easily worked, ash is used for making tool handles, baseball bats and furniture. The wood also is important in American Indian religious ceremonies and basket-making. Experts agree a widening infestation would have a significant effect on Indiana's $8 billion-a-year forestry industry.
Discovered in Detroit in 2002, the half-inch-long, dark metallic green insect -- an Asia and Eastern European native believed to have hitched a ride on wooden packing material -- wiped out that city's ash trees and since has spread into most of Michigan's lower peninsula.
The insect has led to the destruction of about 15 million ash trees in Michigan, the hardest-hit state. The beetle also has been discovered in parts of Ontario, Canada, Ohio and in four Indiana counties near the Michigan and Ohio borders: Adams, LaGrange, Randolph and Steuben.
On its own, the beetle, which can fly, moves about a half-mile a year. But it has spread much faster due to infested firewood, nursery trees and logs being moved.
"If we educate citizens so they realize the consequences of moving (ash), that can go a long way to stopping it," Waltz said.
Areas in the four Indiana counties have been placed under quarantine, meaning no ash trees or logs may be moved into or out of the area without state approval.
Also, more than 118,000 ash trees have been cut down in Indiana's infested areas. About 15,000 will be cut early next year in Decatur, which is in Adams County, where the beetle was discovered this fall. Forestry officials estimate another 15,000 will be cut in Winchester, in Randolph County.
Some are massive trees more than 75 years old, including one in Decatur that is 51 inches across.
"I just wanted to cry. It's heart-rending because we will never see (an ash) this size again in our lifetime" in Decatur, said Dawn Bale, a member of the forestry crew. "But it is for the greater good."
Once an infested tree is identified, all ash trees within a half-mile radius must be cut down. The hope is to eliminate the ash borer's only food source, said Jodie Ellis, an exotic insects expert at Purdue University.
Adult ash borers lay eggs on the bark of ash trees. When larvae hatch, they burrow beneath the bark and feed on the tree's vascular tissue, the systems that carry water and nutrients. Infested trees starve to death within one to three years. Once a tree is bug-ridden, there is no way to save it.
"This is a fascinating story but a terrible story. I wish this had never happened," Ellis said. "But if people would comply and not move this thing, we might be able to get a grip on it."
What state is doing
Indiana officials are taking several steps to stop the spread of the emerald ash borer:
• Nine townships in four counties -- Adams, LaGrange, Randolph and Steuben -- are under a quarantine that prohibits the movement of ash firewood, logs and nursery trees without permission from the state. Violation of the quarantine carries a minimum $250 fine; moving ash across state lines could result in a $2,500 federal fine.
• Thousands of ash trees are being cut down in infested areas to slow or stop the beetles' spread. More than 118,000 trees have been cut to date; an additional 30,000 are expected to be cut in early 2006. Indiana has about $2.2 million to spend on eradication, of which about $1.8 million is federal money.
• State officials are asking the public to avoid moving ash and to report any suspected sightings of the emerald ash borer or infested trees.
Emerald ash borer
• How does it kill trees? The beetle lays eggs on the trunk of ash trees. When the larvae hatch, they burrow beneath the bark and feed on the trees' vascular tissues, which transport nutrients and water. Trees usually starve to death within one to three years, with one-third to one-half of the branches dying in a year.
• Where did it come from? Its natural range is eastern Russia, northern China, Japan and Korea.
• How did it get to the United States? Researchers believe it came here in the 1990s on wooden packing or crating material or in wood used to stabilize cargo on ships.
Source: Michigan Department of Agriculture
Saturday, December 17, 2005
Lumber crisis: Despite closings, layoffs, not one federal party is addressing recent problems of Canada's iconic industry
Dec. 17, 2005. 12:50 AM
DAVID OLIVE | Toronto Star
The holiday spirit isn't much in evidence in a dozen or so mill towns across the country.
The past week alone has brought distressing news to more than 1,700 forest products workers at five mills, spanning Stephenville, Nfld., to Squamish, B.C., who have been notified their jobs will soon be terminated.
On Wednesday, newsprint giant Abitibi-Consolidated Inc. dropped the axe on more than 600 jobs at mills it will close in Stephenville and Kenora, Ont. A day later, it was the turn of Western Forest Products Inc., which said it will begin shutting down its Squamish pulp mill the week of Jan. 23 — election day, as it happens — with a resulting loss of 323 jobs.
Later the same day, Weyerhaeuser Co. said production at its Prince Albert, Sask., pulp and paper facility will end this month, affecting 690 employees. And one of the firm's paper machines at Dryden, Ont., will be shut down in April, with the loss of another 80 jobs in that one-industry town.
The cruelly timed announcements follow hard on decisions by Domtar Inc., Cascades Inc. and Tembec Inc. last month to close or streamline mills, with a loss of more than 2,000 jobs.
That brings the total number of jobs eliminated in the industry to more than 42,000 over the past five years — or about 15 per cent of the total workforce. The damage is more widespread than those numbers suggest, given that an estimated two indirect jobs are supported by each mill worker.
As employees at General Motors of Canada Ltd. learned with the recent announcement of major job cuts in Oshawa at one of the company's most efficient plants worldwide, worker ingenuity in boosting a facility's competitive prowess means little if markets are weak, a strong loonie conspires in favour of offshore producers, or management miscalculates the product mix best matching customer demand.
"We have broken production records as well as improved the quality of the papers over the past few months," Ron Bucks, president of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers union local at Weyerhaeuser's Prince Albert mill, told Canadian Press last week. "These machines are world class and profitable and this announcement makes no sense at all."
There is worse to come.
Tembec, a sizeable lumber producer based in Montreal, warns of bigger cuts down the road as it copes with weak demand and rising energy costs.
And Weyerhaeuser, a $23 billion (U.S.) behemoth headquartered in Washington state, says the market for paper products is so poor that the "urgent changes" necessary "to improve the competitiveness and lagging performance of this business" are not over. "We anticipate future changes," CEO Stephen Rogel said Thursday — a euphemism for more cutbacks in the absence of a miracle turnaround in the industry's fortunes.
Somehow, the crisis in one of Canada's iconic industries is not an issue in the current federal election campaign. Indeed, the entire economy is a non-issue, as parties dwell on the long-ago sponsorship scandal, the exposure and resolution of which are draining the federal treasury but creating jobs only among a passel of big-city lawyers.
The Liberal platform makes commitments to R&D spending and specialized job training. But the Martin government has not developed either a national industrial strategy or comprehensive plans for reviving selected troubled sectors.
The NDP decries a 12-year Grit legacy of "no national strategy to help jobs-rich industries adapt to changing markets and rising costs — like steel, aerospace, shipbuilding, forestry and agriculture." Alas, the NDP's own turnaround strategies for those sectors is a well-kept secret in a poll-driven campaign that identifies Liberal corruption, healthcare and tax breaks as the vote-getting issues.
The Tories correctly note that "this election is a chance for working families to send Ottawa a wake-up call on job losses in sectors such as manufacturing, natural resources and agriculture."
But the Tories also offer no specific plans for rescuing towns and regions dependent on those ailing sectors.
It's not like the solutions require more than the usual brainstorming. The response of Queen's Park to a similar forestry crisis a decade ago was to bail out troubled mills, modernize them and usher them into the hands of new private-sector owners.
Once again, it's Ontario and Quebec that have responded to a forestry crisis, with a combined $780 million in proposed industry funding. But that money isn't enough to finance an overdue renaissance for an industry that needs to replace obsolete plants — some dating from the 1920s — with state-of-the-art technology by which European producers have continued to thrive in the current downturn by developing innovative products and manufacturing processes.
To the residents of Dryden, Thunder Bay, Stephenville and Squamish, the electoral contest must seem surreal indeed.
Elsewhere in the country, many voters are sanguine about an economy with a 6.4 per cent jobless rate, the lowest in three decades; and debate on how best to treat ourselves to the $80 billion in projected federal surpluses over the next decade or so — a reward, many would understandably see it, for the sacrifices in high taxes and social-services cuts of the 1990s.
But the dynamic economic recovery of recent years bypassed many parts of the country, which appear to be alone in thinking that an obvious use of a modest portion of that surplus would be a nation-building exercise in restoring prosperity to troubled communities.
The spirit of the season is lost on Dave Coles, a CEP union vice-president, whose negotiations with Weyerhaeuser and the Saskatchewan government were abruptly short-circuited by the company's "horrific" announcement last week.
"To string our members along for more than two months and then slam them with this news 10 days before Christmas is simply unconscionable," Coles said. It's not easy to find gentler words for the political leaders whose campaign-trail priorities so far betray a similar insensitivity. (*)
Weyerhaeuser shuts Ontario and Prairie Mills
U.S. forestry giant shuts Ontario and Prairie mills
Dec. 16, 2005. 01:00 AM
U.S. forestry giant Weyerhaeuser Co. is closing two paper operations in Canada, affecting more than 800 jobs in northern Ontario and Saskatchewan.
The moves, announced late yesterday, reflect a continued slump in the North American paper industry, which has been hit hard by rising energy costs and weak demand.
Weyerhaeuser said one of the paper machines at its Dryden pulp and paper mill in northern Ontario will close April 1, affecting 80 of the mill's 795 employees. Another 40 jobs were cut earlier.
Meanwhile, the Prince Albert pulp and paper mill in Saskatchewan, which the company said in October it would shut down, will end paper production at the end of this month.
The pulp mill, which is being put up for sale, will continue operating until spring to minimize risk of cold-weather damage.
The Prince Albert mill employs 690 employees.
The Federal Way, Wash., company said the latest cuts will result in a pre-tax charge of $380 million (U.S.) to $385 million in the fourth quarter.
Weyerhaeuser is one of the world's largest integrated forest products companies, with 2004 sales of $22.7 billion.
Weyerhaeuser's announcement comes a day after Abitibi-Consolidated Inc. said it had permanently closed two newsprint mills — one in Stephenville, Nfld., that employed 300 people, and another in Kenora, Ont., where 320 people had worked.
The Tory government in Newfoundland and Labrador said yesterday it will consider expropriating Abitibi's Stephenville mill if a buyer appears. Both Premier Danny Williams and Natural Resources Minister Ed Byrne said the tough measure is being kept as an option.
Abitibi has made it clear it hasn't obtained a buyer for the plant or equipment, nor does it plan on selling at this point.
Abitibi-Consolidated said the closings were brought on by high costs and an inability to renegotiate a union contract.
The decision has embarrassed the government in Newfoundland, which just a month ago offered the company $150 million in assistance over 10 years to keep the plant going.
Canadian Press
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
Have a hot, dry, stormy life, kids
SOURCE: International Herald Tribune
OTTAWA My wife and I recently became empty-nesters. Our children moved out, and we began to think of downsizing. But climate change is forcing us to reconsider. My children may need shelter yet.
The thousands of delegates who attended the United Nations conference on climate change in Montreal, which concluded on Dec. 9, reinforced the fact that after some 20 years of debate, the threat of climate change is indisputable and pervasive.
To be sure, climate is not static. It has always changed over time. But this is the first time that humans have been the principal drivers of such change. In heating our homes or propelling ourselves across our planet, we are contributing to the rate of change.
And because there are so many of us, we are now using energy in unprecedented amounts. We are converting carbon stored in coal and oil into atmospheric gases, and the increased carbon dioxide along with other gases in the atmosphere traps heat. The conveniences we use today have serious consequences for our children and grandchildren.
What if one ignores all this and says, If my children are affected, I will provide for them. If they are living in areas likely to be flooded or afflicted by severe droughts, or if they must escape conflicts over resources, or lose their jobs or run out of food, I will take them in, and their children, and maybe even some of their friends.
Those with children living in low-lying areas of the world, and particularly in hurricane-prone regions, must definitely start making plans now. Ocean waters are rising, and storms of increased intensity and frequency are already upon us. The displaced people of New Orleans are still looking for a semblance of normalcy and stability. Island states in the Pacific are building up walls that are probably as vulnerable to breeching as the Louisiana levees.
Oceans are changing. The algae in the seas are absorbing some of the excessive carbon in the air, but as they do so, the acidity of the oceans is rising. You may recall from your chemistry class how calcium carbonate fizzes when acid is poured on it. Shellfish do poorly in acidic waters, so there goes the shrimp, crab and lobster fishing industries. What will your children eat when they move in with you?
In the past, mountain glaciers melted in the warm summer months and were replenished with winter snowfalls, providing a regular source of water downstream. Urban centers expanded, farmlands were irrigated and oil production was enhanced by the water pumped into the ground.
However, as glaciers recede and disappear, water will become scarce, droughts will increase and farm crops will fail. The ice on Africa's Mount Kilimanjaro is already gone. Conflicts are inevitable, as we cannot live without water; I hope you will have some for your children to drink.
Diseases and pests that have been kept in check by limiting temperatures are on the move. Forest-killing beetles are eating their way across areas never touched before in British Columbia and now Alberta. The forests of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario await them. Forestry jobs are at risk, and the dead trees heighten the risk of fires; if your children will be affected, better make some room.
If all that is not enough, polar ice caps are melting and are expected to release a plug of cold, fresh water that could drastically affect ocean currents. Moderating currents like the Gulf Stream will be abruptly deflected, leaving northern countries in the cold and contributing to drought. Wherever they live, our children will have to burn more fossil fuels, perpetuating the problems we are creating for them.
If you are still smug about global warming, I would like to know where you live. I need to move to this safe haven and wait for my children to arrive, along with other displaced people.
Just think of the level of investment we will need to secure this zone. I can't help believing that any measures we can take now would be justified if it will help avoid such chaos in the future. That would enable us to downsize, and to stop using up fuel to heat my empty nest.
(Nikita Lopoukhine, formerly director general of national parks in Canada is chairman of the World Commission on Protected Areas of the World Conservation Union.)
OTTAWA My wife and I recently became empty-nesters. Our children moved out, and we began to think of downsizing. But climate change is forcing us to reconsider. My children may need shelter yet.
The thousands of delegates who attended the United Nations conference on climate change in Montreal, which concluded on Dec. 9, reinforced the fact that after some 20 years of debate, the threat of climate change is indisputable and pervasive.
To be sure, climate is not static. It has always changed over time. But this is the first time that humans have been the principal drivers of such change. In heating our homes or propelling ourselves across our planet, we are contributing to the rate of change.
And because there are so many of us, we are now using energy in unprecedented amounts. We are converting carbon stored in coal and oil into atmospheric gases, and the increased carbon dioxide along with other gases in the atmosphere traps heat. The conveniences we use today have serious consequences for our children and grandchildren.
What if one ignores all this and says, If my children are affected, I will provide for them. If they are living in areas likely to be flooded or afflicted by severe droughts, or if they must escape conflicts over resources, or lose their jobs or run out of food, I will take them in, and their children, and maybe even some of their friends.
Those with children living in low-lying areas of the world, and particularly in hurricane-prone regions, must definitely start making plans now. Ocean waters are rising, and storms of increased intensity and frequency are already upon us. The displaced people of New Orleans are still looking for a semblance of normalcy and stability. Island states in the Pacific are building up walls that are probably as vulnerable to breeching as the Louisiana levees.
Oceans are changing. The algae in the seas are absorbing some of the excessive carbon in the air, but as they do so, the acidity of the oceans is rising. You may recall from your chemistry class how calcium carbonate fizzes when acid is poured on it. Shellfish do poorly in acidic waters, so there goes the shrimp, crab and lobster fishing industries. What will your children eat when they move in with you?
In the past, mountain glaciers melted in the warm summer months and were replenished with winter snowfalls, providing a regular source of water downstream. Urban centers expanded, farmlands were irrigated and oil production was enhanced by the water pumped into the ground.
However, as glaciers recede and disappear, water will become scarce, droughts will increase and farm crops will fail. The ice on Africa's Mount Kilimanjaro is already gone. Conflicts are inevitable, as we cannot live without water; I hope you will have some for your children to drink.
Diseases and pests that have been kept in check by limiting temperatures are on the move. Forest-killing beetles are eating their way across areas never touched before in British Columbia and now Alberta. The forests of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario await them. Forestry jobs are at risk, and the dead trees heighten the risk of fires; if your children will be affected, better make some room.
If all that is not enough, polar ice caps are melting and are expected to release a plug of cold, fresh water that could drastically affect ocean currents. Moderating currents like the Gulf Stream will be abruptly deflected, leaving northern countries in the cold and contributing to drought. Wherever they live, our children will have to burn more fossil fuels, perpetuating the problems we are creating for them.
If you are still smug about global warming, I would like to know where you live. I need to move to this safe haven and wait for my children to arrive, along with other displaced people.
Just think of the level of investment we will need to secure this zone. I can't help believing that any measures we can take now would be justified if it will help avoid such chaos in the future. That would enable us to downsize, and to stop using up fuel to heat my empty nest.
(Nikita Lopoukhine, formerly director general of national parks in Canada is chairman of the World Commission on Protected Areas of the World Conservation Union.)
Monday, December 12, 2005
Forests Urged as New Front in Global Warming Fight
December 02, 2005 — By Alister Doyle, Reuters
MONTREAL — Forest preservation should be the new front in the fight against global warming with Third World nations earning cash for protecting trees, tropical countries told a U.N. climate conference Wednesday.
"The present state of affairs is untenable," Papua New Guinea and Costa Rica wrote in a proposal backed by seven other developing nations, complaining that they lacked incentives to slow logging or forest clearance for farming.
"Globally ... tropical deforestation is the second leading cause of climate change behind fossil fuel combustion," they said in the report to a 190-country climate meeting in Montreal from Nov. 28-Dec. 9.
Most efforts to curb global warming center on reining in emissions from burning fossil fuels in power plants, factories and cars in industrial nations. But trees soak up carbon dioxide, the main gas blamed for global warming, as they grow. They release it when they die and rot.
The report suggested that tropical nations that slow the rate of deforestation -- perhaps tracked from space by satellites -- might win cash incentives from rich nations to encourage better management and more tree plantings.
It estimated that deforestation, from the Amazon to Africa, represented losses of billions of dollars. Forests are home to half the species living on land and a key source of food, building materials and medicines for people.
LOST FORESTS
A net 7.3 million hectares (18.04 million acres) of forests -- the size of Panama or Sierra Leone -- was lost each year from 2000-2005, according to United Nations data.
The conference agreed to study the proposal and report back in a year's time. The proposal also had backing from Bolivia, the Central African Republic, Chile, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominican Republic and Nicaragua.
Richard Kinley, acting head of the secretariat of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, said the reaction among delegations was "very positive."
"We'd be very interested in exploring it further," said Sarah Hendry, head of the British delegation. Britain holds the European Union's rotating presidency. Some delegates warned, however, that it was extremely hard to measure forest area.
The Montreal talks are also looking at ways to widen a U.N.-led fight against global warming to involve poor nations and the United States and Australia, the two main industrial nations outside the U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol.
Under Kyoto, about 40 industrial states are trying to cut emissions by 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by 2008-12 to curb warming that may cause catastrophic effects including more powerful storms, rising sea levels and more desertification.
Source: Reuters
MONTREAL — Forest preservation should be the new front in the fight against global warming with Third World nations earning cash for protecting trees, tropical countries told a U.N. climate conference Wednesday.
"The present state of affairs is untenable," Papua New Guinea and Costa Rica wrote in a proposal backed by seven other developing nations, complaining that they lacked incentives to slow logging or forest clearance for farming.
"Globally ... tropical deforestation is the second leading cause of climate change behind fossil fuel combustion," they said in the report to a 190-country climate meeting in Montreal from Nov. 28-Dec. 9.
Most efforts to curb global warming center on reining in emissions from burning fossil fuels in power plants, factories and cars in industrial nations. But trees soak up carbon dioxide, the main gas blamed for global warming, as they grow. They release it when they die and rot.
The report suggested that tropical nations that slow the rate of deforestation -- perhaps tracked from space by satellites -- might win cash incentives from rich nations to encourage better management and more tree plantings.
It estimated that deforestation, from the Amazon to Africa, represented losses of billions of dollars. Forests are home to half the species living on land and a key source of food, building materials and medicines for people.
LOST FORESTS
A net 7.3 million hectares (18.04 million acres) of forests -- the size of Panama or Sierra Leone -- was lost each year from 2000-2005, according to United Nations data.
The conference agreed to study the proposal and report back in a year's time. The proposal also had backing from Bolivia, the Central African Republic, Chile, Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Dominican Republic and Nicaragua.
Richard Kinley, acting head of the secretariat of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, said the reaction among delegations was "very positive."
"We'd be very interested in exploring it further," said Sarah Hendry, head of the British delegation. Britain holds the European Union's rotating presidency. Some delegates warned, however, that it was extremely hard to measure forest area.
The Montreal talks are also looking at ways to widen a U.N.-led fight against global warming to involve poor nations and the United States and Australia, the two main industrial nations outside the U.N.'s Kyoto Protocol.
Under Kyoto, about 40 industrial states are trying to cut emissions by 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by 2008-12 to curb warming that may cause catastrophic effects including more powerful storms, rising sea levels and more desertification.
Source: Reuters
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
What's a boreal forest really worth?
By Mark Hume (Globe and Mail)
Friday, November 25, 2005 Page A9Key
VANCOUVER -- How much is a forest worth if it's simply left standing instead of being logged and sent to a mill?
That question, in simple terms, is what researchers from the Pembina Institute set out to answer in a two-year study that calculated for the first time the "natural capital" contained in Canada's boreal forest ecosystem.
Considering everything from the pest-control services provided by birds to the worth of having peat lands filter drinking water, the researchers calculated the boreal forest ecosystem's non-market value at more than $93- billion annually.
In addition, the study found that the boreal forest, which reaches from Yukon to the Eastern Seaboard, works as a massive carbon sink. It stores an estimated 67 billion tonnes of carbon, the equivalent of 303 years of Canada's total 2002 carbon emissions. Considering the global effort to control carbon emissions, researchers said the boreal forest could be looked at like a "carbon bank account" worth $3.1-trillion (U.S.).
David Schindler, a professor of ecology in the faculty of science at the University of Alberta, said the Pembina Institute report should help convince Canadians that nature has far more to offer than just aesthetic value.
"Dollars and cents are part of a language everyone understands," Prof. Schindler said. "I hope this will make people sit up and take notice of the value of the resources around them and the value of the services they provide."
He said society generally looks only at the market value of natural resources, without taking into account the services that forests and wetlands are providing for free.
Prof. Schindler said the value of the "natural capital" must be considered whenever resource projects are contemplated in the boreal forest region.
"What it's saying is, 'Look at these values before you turn the forest into another pile of logs and sell it.' "
The Pembina Institute, an independent, not-for-profit policy research organization, undertook the study for the Canadian Boreal Initiative, a conservation group concentrating on issues affecting the boreal forest. The report is to be released today.
The report defines natural capital as the "resources, living systems, and ecosystem services," that provide benefits to humans.
When that value is added to the balance sheet, the study states, the picture is more complete, and remarkably different.
The report says the non-market values to be considered include: $5.4- billion for pest-control services by birds; $4.5-billion for nature-related activities; $575-million in subsistence value for aboriginal peoples; $79- million in non-timber forest products and $18-million for watershed services, such as holding municipal water resources.(*)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)