Red Flag Over Green Push In Forests

Sunday, December 05, 2010 05:00 AM

Dr. Bryony Penn near podium in the Canfor Theatre at UNBC

Prince George, B.C. - The charge to 'Go Green' in B.C.'s forest industry -- investing in bio-fuels as a way to rescue the economy -- should yield to some serious public debate...

So says environmental reporter, geographer, and U-Vic adjunct professor, Dr. Briony Penn.

Penn was giving the 2010 Doug Little Memorial Lecture to approximately 140 people, many of whom were local industry stakeholders, at UNBC's Canfor Theatre this past Thursday evening. Penn wrote, "The Big Burn", an article for Focus online magazine in August after receiving a brown envelope last June from numerous ex-government foresters.

Penn said, "(They were) blowing the whistle on the government." She said, between them, the group had 1500-years of accumulated knowledge and a grave concern for the direction the provincial government is taking Crown forests.

The envelope included an internal document from the Ministry of Forests describing its new mission statement. "How many of you knew there was a new mission statement?" Penn queried the crowd. "Some of you, those of you working internally might have realized, does the public know that the Ministry of Forests now is there simply to 'enhance industry competitiveness, to provide superior service to resource stakeholders by supporting competitive business conditions."

Penn said this headlong rush towards bio-energy is being done with little-to-no debate on where/how to locate the commercial forest tenures, what the implications are on bio-diversity and other competing values, and she added that recent cuts to regional forest district offices and the Ministry's research branch means the 'science' behind this change in direction isn't being done.

Penn also noted that it's her belief that a lot of the rationale behind bio-fuels is based on a loophole in the Kyoto Protocol which allows the burning of forests to be perceived as carbon neutral -- Penn said that has been proven not to be the case and the loophole could disappear with a change in protocol.

"So, trying to put all our efforts into rescuing B.C.'s economy by investing in bio-fuels that are based on a premise that is likely to change has huge risks and industry recognizes that, as well."

Penn said the "whistle-blowers" whom she called, "The Green Rangers" had a visionary message: "We need to engage in public debate about the role and value of the forests, we need to really understand the implications if we're going down the bio-energy route, we need to do the science better, (and) we need to really get into a discussion about whether we want to privatize our forests." She said, ultimately, they want ecological sustainability to be the fundamental objective of forest management again.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Sunday, December 05, 2010 05:00 AM in News by Michelle Cyr-Whiting

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: disturbing_the_peace on December 5 2010 8:49 AM

Sorry, wrong link, this is the correct one:
http://www.bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/2010/sp/pdf/ministry/for.pdf

Posted by: gus on December 5 2010 12:03 PM

The first link is the most interezting. It is an actual mission statement for what appears to be the Data Administration arm of the Ministry of Forests, Mines and Lands.

Our Mission

"To lead the ministry into excellence in managing its information as a vital corporate resource."

No comment .... :-)
--------------------------------------

The second link is to the Ministry of Forests and Range Service Plan for the next 2 years.

On has to hunt to find anything dealing with mission or mandate.

Oddly enough, an old page from the Ministry of Forests and Range provides a relatively good overview of what the mandate was and maybe still is, but who knows.

http://www.bcbudget.gov.bc.ca/2006/sp/for/Vision,MissionandValues5.htm

Vision:
Diverse and sustainable forest and range values for B.C.

Forest and range values include the social, economic and environmental values associated with our forest and range resources. Economic values include timber, forage and fisheries resources that contribute to our economy. Environmental values include soil, water, fish, biodiversity, and wildlife. Social values include recreation resources, visual quality, resource features, and cultural heritage resources.
---------------------------------
Mission:
To protect, manage and conserve forest and range values through a high performing organization.

The Ministry of Forests and Range is commissioned in the Ministry of Forests Act to protect, manage and conserve the forest and range values identified above. The mission includes people working together demonstrating the values, or principles below, and creating a high performing organization.
----------------------------------------
Values
Our Values:

Integrity — We are open, honest and fair.

Accountable — We are responsible for our own decisions and actions.

Innovative — We encourage and support each other to create new and better ways to do our business.

Respectful — We show respect by listening to and recognizing a diversity of values and interests. We work with each other in a spirit of trust, mutual respect and support.

--------------------------
Kinda from another generation, isn't it? Back to business now. Back to the grindstone because we need our toys.

We have had a momentary lapse in our history of starting to understand a bit more what we are all about.

Posted by: gus on December 5 2010 12:13 PM

So, disturbing_the_peace, can you maybe tell me again where you think that mssion statement or mandate was published nice and clearly as it was done in the 2006 budget web site.

So, Penn asked the audience how many knew there was a mission statement? Did you know that, disturbing_the_peace?

Did you know there was one in 2006? Did you know that the new one purportedly included words that the Ministry of Forests now is there SIMPLY (I presume that means only or prediminately) to 'enhance industry competitiveness, to provide superior service to resource stakeholders by supporting competitive business conditions?

Please, if you know what the mission statement is now, write it down nice and clearly or point to it very directly rather than somewhere in a multipage document.

Thanks for being as clear as the current ministry is trying to do with its communications. :-)

Posted by: disturbing_the_peace on December 5 2010 1:29 PM

Geez Gus, you make it sound like a mission statement actually matters...

So I pasted the wrong link while I was eating breakfast, big deal... I fixed it.

The mission statement is: "To provide superior service to resource stakeholders by supporting competitive business conditions and managing forest and range values." as of Feb. 2010.

Just because I couldn't regurgitate it doesn't mean I didn't know about it.

Below are some links that I wasted 15 minutes finding in my browser history.

The 'change' in direction was clearly published on the Ministry website and in Ministry documents --sorry it wasn't Twitted in 50 words or less for all you young folks. If people read the news or checked Ministry websites regularly they would know about this.

As dastardly as the BC Liberals are it's not like these things are state secrets. Nobody is hiding ministry mission statements for some evil plot. It's all on the books.

Also, anybody that didn't know the BC Liberal government was pro- big business, and anti-environmental has been living under a rock.

Links:

(1)

http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/ftp/DSC/external/!publish/March%2031%20All%20Licensee%20Business%20meeting/Power%20Point%20Prez/1.%20(Brian.%20H)%20MFR%20BusinessResponse%20(March%202).pptx

(2)

http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/BC-Politics/2010/03/23/ForestBusiness/

(3)

http://vancouverislandbigtrees.blogspot.com/2010/10/bc-forest-service-no-longer-geared.html

As for the actual document, it has been taken down in the Ministry re-sort. But that's another story.

Posted by: gus on December 5 2010 2:19 PM

"Geez Gus, you make it sound like a mission statement actually matters.."

:-) .. I could swear that it was you that said you did not agree with the mission statement ... which indicated to me that you likely knew what it was... All I wanted was the same priviledge of seeing what you were writing about ... neither of the two links you provided led me to the mission statement.

If you do not believe in mission statements, why bother to even take the time to think about it and disagree with it? Strange.

So, you know, while the document is from the Ministry of Forests and Range, I have a completely different view of where it sits with the work of that Ministry.

The Ministry's work has quite a broad spectrum and the business (industrial) side of the responsibility is a legitimate one that has been around for many decades - I believe since the mid 1940's.

The paper is entitled: "THE OBJECTIVES & TASKS OF FUNCTIONAL CHANGE TO REALIZE OUR BUSINESS RESPONSE"

Not the Stewardship response, for instance, but the business response.

The most important part of that doicument reads:

"To respond effectively to the changing business environment, the Ministry of Forests and Range needs to change the way it delivers KEY BUSINESS FUNCTIONS.

"This document provides Executive’s clear direction IN THAT STRATEGIC CONTEXT. More detailed business plans and operational plans will be developed over time with engagement from all staff."

The paper then starts off with the vision:

"A prosperous forest and range sector based on sustainably managed resources that provide benefits now and for generations to come."

That is the Vision for the entire operation of the Ministry.

That has changed from the 2006 shorter version of "Diverse and sustainable forest and range values for B.C."

The key change I see there is that "values" has been dropped and "benefits" has been added.

The Mission is then specific to the business rather than "stewardship" side of the Ministry's work.

In that context, I have little problem with the mission statement: "To provide superior service to resource stakeholders by supporting competitive business conditions and managing forest and range VALUES."

If I am right in my interpretation, then all I would have to say is that their communications on this sucks and that side of their operations should take another look at their mission statement: "To lead the ministry into excellence in managing its information as a vital corporate resource".

Thanks for your time. Hope it does not set the rest of you day back too much. The dangers of making your opinion known on here. ..... :-)

Posted by: seamutt on December 5 2010 2:19 PM

Gus I wish you would educate yourself on this C02, or carbon or whatever it is scam. The science is falling apart.

http://icecap.us/
http://www.co2science.org/
http://www.friendsofscience.org/
http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/index.htm

Posted by: gus on December 5 2010 2:20 PM

The document referenced above.http://thetyee.ca/Documents/2010/03/23/MFRBusinessResponse.pdf

Posted by: gus on December 5 2010 2:31 PM

Seamutt ... I have been .... to me the jury is still out.

As I keep worting on here, however, it really does not matter because I thnk that much of waht we are doing, other than the free ride for biomass, is helping us prepare for the day when we can no longer rely on fossil fuels.

To me, that is why we have to move more quickly to electricity as an energy form with fuels such as hydro, solar, wind, geothermal, safer atomic, etc. There are already countries that are basing a considerable part of their industry on that and selling it to the rest of the world.

Moving to biomass in this part of the world is fine for the poations of the fibre which we have no higher end use for. BUT, it is mine and other people's contention that we cannot survive on using the land to grow biomass whether it is trees or corn or bamboo or whatever. We need much of that land base for more traditional uses. We will end up like Italy after the Romans with denuded countrysides and England with no Oak trees due to their shipbuilding needs.

http://www.aecb.net/UserFiles/File/Biomass%20-%20A%20Burning%20Issue%20-%20published%20September%2020101.pdf

Posted by: seamutt on December 5 2010 6:58 PM

Gus stated,To me, that is why we have to move more quickly to electricity as an energy form with fuels such as hydro, solar, wind, geothermal, safer atomic, etc. There are already countries that are basing a considerable part of their industry on that and selling it to the rest of the world.

That statement shows you need more study.
Here are the basics, solar very expensive and always will be by nature and what do you do when the sun don't shine. Wind also very expensive and along with solar would have to cover hundreds of thousands of square miles to make any difference. The out put of a windfarm is only 30% of its name plate rating, the wind don't always blow. Wind, solar and run of river plants still need backup. Geothermo has a lot of issues as there is a big difference between heating and generating electricity. Hydro limited developement and needed to backup wind power. Now new updated nuclear that is the only clear answer especially liquid thorium.

Peak oil is a long way off and gas good for at least another 200 years. The future will develop as needed. Right now there is huge taxpayer money wasted in contracts to the IPP's.

Posted by: apoliticalgeek on December 5 2010 8:50 PM

Seamutt.

I'd wager the us army, german army and T. Boone Picket know a bit more about peak oil than you do.

US Army:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/apr/11/peak-oil-production-supply

German Army

http://www.businessinsider.com/leaked-german-military-report-warns-of-apocalyptic-peak-oil-scenarios-2010-9

T Boone Pickens
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2008-07-08-t-boone-pickens-plan-wind-energy_N.htm

So peak oil, as evidenced by the conclusions of these esteemed sources, is at hand. That pine beetle thingy? Global Warming.

Now about that climate change thingy -

over 250 of the most respected, renowned and well, to put it bluntly, smartest scientists in the USA wrote an open letter to the journal Science. There were 11 Noble prize laureates among them.

I quote, "
Much of the controversy stems from a lack of scientific understanding on the part of the general public, they say.

"There is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions; science never absolutely proves anything," says the letter.

"When someone says that society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before taking any action, it is the same as saying society should never take action."

Well-established theories which have not been successfully challenged can be spoken of as facts, they say - and climate change falls into this category. Heat-trapping gases are indeed warming the planet, and most of this increase is due to human activity.

To read more, go here http://www.tgdaily.com/sustainability-features/49672-scientists-defend-climate-change-research-in-open-letter

Now as you know, many people can be bought, and most climate skeptics are just that, funded with oil money.

The cynic in me would rather believe in a consensus view, and take my antibiotics when I have an infection, than go the those that say all I really need is some witch hazel or some anti-biotics. What I really hate is poorly informed individuals sewing a perception of doubt where really there is none.

Scientific consensus is that little green men are not abducting men and woman for some zoo on planet x. Scientific consensus is that crystals and prisms will not heal your cancer. Scientific consensus is that vitamin C doesn't help cure the common cold. Scientific consensus is that telepathic powers don't exist. But I can find crackpots all over the world, with Phd's to their name, that believe in all of the above. Hell, there are people reading this who 'know' the world is 6000 years old. You are allowed to believe whatever you want. Free country. But realize you're in a minority. And that most calm, rational people think you're a quack.

Posted by: gus on December 5 2010 9:23 PM

Seamutt ...."Peak oil is a long way off and gas good for at least another 200 years"

To that I laugh. If it were, then no one would be excavating the oil sands at the horrendous price both energy input wise and $ we are paying for that.

One of the well known conditions is that when you do not know you are at the end of something, you never know where you are in relation to the end.

Picture the first Europeans to cross the Atlantic. They were not even sure if they would find anything on the "other side". They took a chance with almost blind faith. There were those who thought they were stupid, and those who thought they were brave and those who thought they were on the right path. BUT, there was no consensus of opinion.

And the biggest BUT? Was that only a few people could possibly not come back, not a major part of the human race at the time.

If erring on the side of well being comes at a much lower risk especially if it is without a major cost, then I am no risk taker and prefer erring on the side of safety.

On a smaller scale, and dealing with planning issues I am much more familiar with, there were major errors made with the forms of low cost housing, especially with HUD in the USA which also spilled over into Toronto. Much of that housing was torn down some 20 years later.

The same is happening with the method of incarcerating prisoners in the USA. After riots such as at Attica, the "experts" told the government that new prisons would have to be built that keep people isolated rather than risking the consequences of gathering places such as shops, recreation yards and cafeterias. It took just a decade or two to discover that these prisons were breeding grounds for even worse anti-social people. Now they are tearing down those same 25 year old prisons and building brand new prisons with gathering places and better supervision. Cost, billions of dollars in tearing down and rebuilding.

People make mistakes. The question is, who is it that is on the right side and who is it that is on the wrong side. Sometimes major investments are made only to find out that the wrong path has been taken.

Solution? Frequently it is the same as we promote for the natural environment. You know, that natural system out there that really does not give a chit what humans do. It will heal itself eventually. It is called biodiversity.

Well, some of what I feel are the smarter people in the world deal with applying that to the social systems and the economic systems - diversity. The risk of a major or even total collapse is considerably less.

Posted by: seamutt on December 6 2010 9:44 AM

Gus the goal posts for peak oil keep changing. Google debunking peak oil, interesting read. Here is a site worth looking at.

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Debunking-the-Myth-of-Peak-Oil-Why-the-Age-of-Cheap-Oil-is-Far-

Posted by: seamutt on December 6 2010 9:55 AM

german army T Boone Picket boy are you ever reeled. Picket is shown to be a big scam artist.As for sceptics being paid by big oil, show me. Go to their web sites and they all have tip jars just to pay for their web sites.

Remember the gulf oil spill which turned out to be a none event thanks to bacteria in southern waters that survive by consuming oil from natural seeps. Anyhow is it not interesting that not much was heard from Greenpiece and the World Wildlife Federation, oh they made a little noise but not much, know why these big billion dollor multinational corporations were quiet, big oil funding. Yep they get a lot of funding from big oil. Sceptics can only hope to get a fraction of that amount.

Posted by: seamutt on December 6 2010 9:56 AM

Posted by: seamutt on December 6 2010 9:57 AM

That was reeled in.

Posted by: seamutt on December 6 2010 3:29 PM

Found this

None of the lobbying has been more telling than a statement issued by 259 investment organisations, controlling “collective assets totalling over $15 trillion” - including major banks, insurance companies and pension funds. These are the bodies calling most stridently for “government action on climate change”, because they are the ones who hope to make vast sums of money out of it. They are desperate for a treaty of the type they failed to get at Copenhagen - even more so since the collapse of the US cap and trade bill - because they see their chance of turning global warming into the most lucrative fruit machine in history dwindling by the month.

Top of their wish list is “a rapid time-frame” for implementing the UN’s REDD scheme, which would enable them to make hundreds of billions of dollars by selling the CO2 locked up in the world’s tropical rainforests as “carbon offsets”, thus allowing firms from the developed world to continue emitting CO2. Under this scheme, for instance, environmental bodies including the WWF hope to share in the $60 billion which they estimate as the “carbon value” of the Brazilian rainforest.