Why did I create this blog? I want to speak up when I see something that gets me steamed, or I'm posting to comment on something interesting. I call myself "BunkBuster" because most of my posts are going to be busting bunk - spin, doublespeak, half-truths, rhetoric, hyperbole, and other mush. You'll get my honest take on issues. One of my goals is to present and analyze the issues, and challenge you the reader to take another look. I'm not doing this to counter spin with spin, but I will take sides. Post frequency will probably reflect my personal steam pressure. I hope you find it interesting.
Here goes with my first topic about ForestEthics, an environmental pressure group based in San Francisco. Their motto is "Because protecting forests is everyone's business". In reality, their business depends on keeping the donations coming in, which they do by fabricating issues and a matching campaign to "save the issue du jour". The marketing rhetoric follows and the first casualty is always the truth. It's remarkable that an organization that uses the word "ethics" in their name seems to have no ethics at all. These people will say anything and use any dirty trick they can think of to get what they want. More about their motivation is coming in future posts.
Campaigns are centered around "Endangered Forest", a slippery term coined in 2001 by an environmental zealot Gang of Four: ForestEthics, Greenpeace, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Rainforest Action Network , with help from the World Resources Institute. The spin linkage (which they deny) is between the term "Endangered Species" and "Endangered Forest". People know what an Endangered Species Wikipedia link is and they know there are laws to protect them to prevent extinction. Why aren't there laws to protect Endangered Forests? Because the whole concept is fabricated to seem like a pressing conservation issue. In reality it's a convenient shill to pick targets for marketing campaigns.
What is an Endangered Forest? The gang of four relies on public confusion between the terms and a long-winded, quasi-scientific set of criteria to fog the fact that the definition has changed several times, it's full of subjective loopholes one could drive a truck through, and nobody else seems to think it's an important conservation concept. That's too bad, because the idea of basing conservation on entire ecosystems such as forests is well-founded.
Cutting through the greenwash, the answer to the question is obvious. The definition allows any forest to be designated as an Endangered Forest. How convenient. Pick a corporate target, draw a line on a map based on a make believe and/or exaggerated issue, call it an Endangered Forest, and let the campaign begin. In my next post I'll examine the anatomy of an Endangered Forest campaign in Alberta.
1 comment:
Forest Wisdoms.
I am enjoying your description, its good to have this dialogue. However, I take issue with your opinion that the crafty environmentalists make up/exaggerate their claims.
I couple of salient facts about the West Fraser case are:
1) Only 2% of Alberta's foothills are protected
2) Caribou are going down the toilet in Alberta - as a result of cumulative industrial development (forestry and oil and gas)
I don't disagree that West Fraser are very effective at cutting and growing trees under an industrial model, but fact is, Albertans (and downstream markets) would prefer to see landscapes where the priority is given to wildlife and recreation. The multiple use mantra doesn't work and we need to make some tough decisions about what uses we want our forests to support. Simply put, low value, industrial forestry doesn't fit any more, and I wish more foresters would see the forest for the trees so to speak and consider that their social license is at risk if they continue to bluster about "made up" issues when the facts are clear.
My only hope is that the environmentalists move on the spank the oil companies in the markets, because those bandits have had a free ride for too long.
All the best,
PRD
Post a Comment