BC's Forest Minister Doesn't Shy From Criticism

Sunday, December 05, 2010 06:12 AM

Prince George, B.C. - B.C.'s Forests Minister says he will have to agree to disagree with some of the criticisms being levelled at his ministry as it looks to bio-energy opportunities to fill the gap being left by the Mountain Pine Beetle epidemic...

Responding directly to Dr. Briony Penn's assertion that the emerging industry is based on a loophole in the Kyoto Protocol that could one day close (see previous story), Pat Bell says, "Certainly, that's not the information that I have and I think the vast majority of people in the world that pay attention to carbon and carbon management would continue to advocate for renewable fuels.

"It's very interesting -- I have never heard anyone try to make that argument before and she's going to have to find a better line of reasoning if she's going to have any success."

Bell says making better use of wood waste that was previously left on the forest floor is a net benefit to the environment. "Otherwise that material would either decay on the forest floor, turn to methane gas and be released to the environment -- and methane gas is 21-times worse for the environment than carbon dioxide -- or you would burn it, produce carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, with no net benefit, no energy gain as a result of that." The Minister points out further, "When you bring that material into an energy-generating facility and either make liquid fuel, a gaseous fuel, electricity or heat out of it -- clearly, you're getting value back from that."

One issue Bell does admit warrants monitoring is the impact of bio-fuel ventures on bio-diversity. During her speech at UNBC, Penn outlined concerns bio-diversity and other less economically feasible uses for the forest will lose out to these bio-fuel tenures. Although not responding to the issue of competing values, the Forests Minister says, maintaining bio-diversity could become an issue if the bio-energy strategy is really successful. "There will be a point in time that we will need to reviw that strategy and make sure enough of the coarse, woody debris is being left behind for bio-diversity purposes."

"So I do think there is a risk there, but we are 'live' to that and we're going to pay attention to that and I would far rather be in a place where people are being critical of us for capturing too much value from the forest."

As for the leaked document reporting his ministry's new mission statement advocating directly for industry stakeholders, Bell makes no apologies, "First of all, we have a Ministry of Environment that is mandated to protect and conserve, that is their role."

"My role is to make sure we have a vibrant, healthy forest industry and when I am out talking to workers in the sawmill, in the bush, loggers -- they are all telling me that they want me to do whatever I can to make sure that they're competitive and that they keep their jobs." Bell says he's working to do just that.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Sunday, December 05, 2010 06:12 AM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: gus on December 5 2010 11:02 AM

Yes, canislupus. I was totally shocked at the quotaion from Pat Bell and am wondering whether it needs some more context to bring it back to the reality of 2010 rather than 1960.

While his role is to make sure we have a vibrant forest industry, I have worked in the last 25 years with the understanding it is in the first place to make sure we have a vibrant forest.

In day to day operations, it is much more the Ministry in charge of forests that must ensure its conservation than it is the ministry in charge of the environment.

As we were reminded some 20 years ago with Canada's Green Plan, it is not only the fibre we have to look after, but the entire forest ecosystem. In fact, the forest fibre industry, as it would be better called, is only part of the "industrial" human use of the forested lands.

http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/evaluation/reprap/2006/e05002-eng.php

"Corresponding to the introduction of the Green Plan were public demands on the forestry community to incorporate increased ecological principles into forest management practices. To address these demands, the forestry sector required a better understanding of the balance between forest productivity and biodiversity, and of the impacts of human intervention upon forest ecosystems. In addition, the prevailing public opinion called for a fundamental shift in forestry approaches and attitudes from managing trees to managing forest ecosystems for multiple values."

I am glad I am not the only one who noticed that.

I know there is a concern by those who work in managing the forests "on the ground" as to exactly where this newfound interest in previously discarded fibre is heading.

Posted by: northman on December 5 2010 11:14 AM

canislupus wrote:

"It's hard to see how burning wood waste to generate electricity could be considered "green".."

The pellets that are produced here are shipped to Europe where they are used in coal fired blast furnaces to reduce the amout of coal they use in electricity generation..I dont really see the link here how its any "greener" or les "greener.." because of the mass amouts of deisl used to ship these pellets over seas. In the long run it boils down to capturing usefull energy from wood that would otherwise be wasted in a beehive burner or slash pile..This is one of the finest examples of creative accounting ive witnessed in my 15 years of forestry experince.

Posted by: seamutt on December 5 2010 2:10 PM

Hey Bell hello that whole carbon thing is dying. I suggest you get out more and see the scam for what it is. I see you are confused anyhow, is that C02 you are talking about or carbon, there is a difference you know. Oh I know it is that carbon tax or C02 taxwhatever it is, anyhow you have dug a hole you can't get out of right. http://wattsupwiththat.com/ http://icecap.us/
http://www.co2science.org/
http://www.friendsofscience.org/
http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/index.htm

Oh Pat you do know you geve off a little methane now and again, maybe more than most.

Posted by: gus on December 5 2010 2:45 PM

"a well-known nudist environmental activist"

I assume you are refering to this image of her riding as Lady Godiva in a two piece with shorts and halter top and the latest environmentalists' gadget, the cell phone.

Or do you see her on your visits to Wreck Beach? :-)

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_gCayFzinbX8/Rgcqb6Ix43I/AAAAAAAAAWQ/pNpXREqJ6_M/s400/Briony+Penn.jpg

Posted by: gus on December 5 2010 2:50 PM

Seamutt ... the article says this: "Dr. Briony Penn's assertion that the emerging industry is based on a loophole in the Kyoto Protocol that could one day close."

She probably has another reason for saying that the loophole may one day close, but the outcome would be the same as you suggest it should go.

And I agree with both of you.

The sooner that happens, the better it will be from my point of view since a whole indutry will otherwise be dealt an economical blow with pellet plants shutting down in all those places who followed the almighty dollar based on wrong science.

Posted by: Harbinger on December 5 2010 4:05 PM

I thought Kyoto is history. Toast, so to speak. (Easy on the carbon on that toast or you may have to buy a carbon credit for burnt toast one day) Global warming biz is slowing down to a crawl. Carbon tax? How's that working out? Making a difference is it? Sea levels not rising around Salt Spring Island? No sea level rise ergo carbon tax working. Perfect AGW logic. It is still an "ivory tower" to me with overindulged lefties with their dreams and aspirations not quite being quashed with student loan debt and the real world down the hill waiting for them. Glad I'm old.

Posted by: univ on December 5 2010 7:13 PM

It is very cheap to resort to personal attacks to a speaker because we don't not like her ideas or presentation. But the global warming and the rapid disappearance of Amazon jungles are more alarming than the research and development of bioenergy which is a much more effiecent way of buring wood, or burning other materials.

Posted by: univ on December 5 2010 7:13 PM

Posted by: socredible on December 5 2010 9:15 PM

Methinks that perhaps Dr. Penn would not disagree with the founder of Earth First!, who feels that all environmental problems would be solved if we were to just phase out the human race.

He may be right, but just like Briony, I doubt very much if he'll ever volunteer to be phased out first.

Posted by: apoliticalgeek on December 5 2010 9:24 PM

Well, my wife's a forester. 11 years experience. Masters degree even. Smart lady. And she thought the Doug Little lecture was right on. It's really why she left forestry.

Loggers know logging. Mill owners know mills. Neither know much about forests. Foresters think of themselves as farmers, mostly. I wouldn't put Pat Bell in that category, or even myself. As well, most of the posters on opinion 250.

The reason for foresters historically, is that their crops take too damn long to grow. It is why the government of the day gave them an independent profession - they are supposed to have a role to maintain for future generations the land base. That is not happening now.

The Ministry of Forest also used to have a mandate to maintain the forests for our children, and given a 40-100 year rotation, the status quo, otherwise you'd have industry just trying to make a good quarterly statement. Which they do.

The problem is politicians try to make short term, easy solutions. They really have to try, right? Or they're thrown out on their keyster. Reality is not something politicians really pay much attention to. Not in public anyhew.

Fiber grows faster, far faster, in the equatorial regions. Simple equation. Heat, water, photosynthesis. Always will.

But good quality, tight grain, structural wood doesn't. That is really our only competitive advantage on a global scale. Always has been, anyways.

The problem with bio-energy.

So now we have an industry, that if we nurture it and give it our money, called bio-energy, that can replace our primary industry. By scooping up the wood left behind (or fertilizer as most foresters call it) that we need for the next crop? When up to now they have only made money by living off the coat-tails of that primary industry's scraps? I won't even mention transportation costs, let alone wages, that used to be largely paid by the primary industry. They bought essentially garbage that couldn't be used any other way.

To produce pellets? That can be produced much cheaper in any third world country that has a rain forest left? We burn it, right? It seems as though our Pat Bell, and others who are gang-busters for bio-energy are grasping at straws. Just doesn't make sense to me.

The root problem, as Wings over Canada once put it, "Everyone knows that 6 percent in the bank is better than 2 percent on the ground."

Everyone but my kids I guess.

Foresters are supposed to see the problems that are inherent in the statement above - short term gain=long term pain.

I don't have all of the answers, but somehow I agree with Penn, burning the house down to stay warm doesn't make much long term sense to me.

In spite of what an army of CEO's might say.

Remember, Pat Bell and the liberals allowed a 3000 percent increase in exported raw logs. Wonder how many mills shut down because of it?

Posted by: supertech on December 5 2010 11:30 PM

I have to laugh at this whole scenario. It costs more in energy to make these little pellets than they are worth. Without government involvement, it would not be financially viable.
My idea? Burn a tree use the heat--to bad about the smoke--tell it to the volcanos. Our created CO2 is the equivalent of a fart in a hurricane.
When you people reach 70 years old, you will then realise that nothing you have done in your lifetime has made even one iota of difference to the earths atmosphere as a whole. Try to envision a sphere 12 miles above the earth all the way around---figure out the volume of that atmosphere and then remind yourself how insignificant you are to that amount of space! Then put all the volcanos in the world in one spot (even the ones under the oceans) and visualise the amount of CO2 that puts into the air (every day!) and maybe your feeble brain will tell you even one volcano is insignificant.

Posted by: sardonic on December 6 2010 8:46 AM

"Who cares if Bell owns Wendy's"...
I care, when he is so busy with pushing junk food (not to mention apologising for the Ministry of Forests) that he cannot answer mail from a constituent.
Who does he represent; the citizens of Prince George and area or forestry corporations and Gordon Campbell's ambitions?

Posted by: gus on December 6 2010 9:51 AM

Supertech wrote: "It costs more in energy to make these little pellets than they are worth"

The wood waste has to be pulverized for the end users who use the wood dust by injecting it into the boiler.

By forming the material into pellets, it allows them to be shipped more safely. I am told that it is also a quality control method. A high percentage of the pellets must remain intact during the handling process.

At the receiving end they are stored and, prior to being injected into the boiler are pulverized again to be injected as a powder which ignites and burns quickly and at a high temperature.

The demand for pellets is primarily from Europe at this time. They set the quality standard required to be met by the supplier.

Co-firing with coal
http://www.nacleanenergy.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3897:co-firing-wood-pellets-for-power-generation&catid=54:biomass-feature-articles&Itemid=121

Posted by: gus on December 6 2010 9:53 AM

"Who does he represent; the citizens of Prince George and area or forestry corporations and Gordon Campbell's ambitions?"

All of them. It is a fine balance. Always has been, always will be.

Posted by: Foxtrot on December 6 2010 7:01 PM

Who carries more credibility: James Lovelock, a world-renowned, independent scientist or Pat Bell a small-time provincial politician? This is what Lovelock has to say about biofuel:
"Don't feel guilty about opting out of this nonsense [renewable energy schemes]: closer examination reveals it as an elaborate scam in the interests of a few nations whose economies are enriched in the short term by the sale of wind turbines, biofuel plants, and other green-sounding energy equipment. Don't for a moment believe the sales talk that these will save the planet [as we know it]. . . The real Earth does not need saving. It can, will, and always has saved itself, and it is now starting to do so by changing to a state much less favourable for us and other animals. " (Source: 2009. "The Vanishing Face of Gaia: A Final Warning". Basic Books, p. 19).
A plantation is not an ecosystem. Ecosystems regulate climate. "For this reason it would seem better to pay the inhabitants of forested regions to preserve their trees than plant new trees on cleared ground." (page 147).

Posted by: gus on December 6 2010 9:28 PM

"The real Earth does not need saving. It can, will, and always has saved itself"

The "real" earth needs defining.

It has not always been.

It will not always be.

However, in relation to the human experience in the past, it has always been here because without it humans would not have been here.

Will it always be here for humans in the future? Who knows which will die out first. I suspect humans are more at risk than earth. The earth changing, whether due to human factors or other factors, may be a factor in the demise of humans. More likely may be the destruction of humans by humans themselves through more direct means.

I do not worry too many possibilities I think to even contemplate, although some of the more obvious scenarios could be explored to make sure we have the more likely ones covered in case we can do something about them.

One, for instance, that continues to be explored a bit more than in the past, as our technical ability improves, is the potential of larger asteroids hitting the earth and landing in a populated area.

Posted by: Foxtrot on December 7 2010 8:35 AM

Gus: James Lovelock uses the term real Earth to differentiate between the physical Earth that has existed and changed over 4.54 billion years and the Earth as known by modern urban populations isolated from the natural world.

Lovelock notes, "Our gravest dangers are not from climate change itself, but indirectly from starvation, competition for space and resources, and war." (page 31)

These dangers already exist and are already being exacerbated by sea levels rising faster than predicted.