Talk about a no-win situation. In deeply conservative Alberta most ENGO groups don't get a lot of attention or respect. Albertans will vote for different parties, so long as they are right of centre. When new governments come in they might have a different name but the philosophy always remains the same.
Small wonder that environmental activists get frustrated. Nobody listens to them, other than their relatively small core of committed and active members. Sure, Albertans express a lot of interest in environmental issues and they do a lot to follow through, just not with their votes. Political parties that push green issues don't get much support.
So is it any wonder that Alberta ENGOs would turn to external sources for help? That's how the Alberta Endangered Forests Campaign got started. Local groups approached ForestEthics for help with their problem - how to get the Alberta government to designate more of Alberta as parks and other protected areas. In my next post, I'll describe what happened.
Monday, December 1, 2008
Sunday, May 6, 2007
The Alberta Endangered Forest Campaign Begins
Alberta environmental activists were at a low point. ENGOs were profoundly unhappy with the government-led Special Places 2000 protected areas initiative that ended in July 2001. The activist campaigns for more protected areas were being ignored – “been there, done that”. Alberta was in the midst of an energy boom and nobody wanted to talk about anything that might slow down the insatiable rush for more development.
But the Alberta ENGOs weren’t about to give up. They had bigger plans to join with other activists to start a Boreal Campaign to do the same things that had been so successful in the British Columbia rainforests.
In January 2003 the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS) and ForestEthics signed on as charter members of the Boreal Leadership Council and the Canadian Boreal Initiative. The CBI is a grand scheme to protect half of the Canadian boreal forest, promote “leading-edge sustainable development practices on the remaining landscape” [more about that coming in a future post], and engage locals and First Nations in land management decisions. The reasoning was pretty simple – if governments in Canada wouldn’t show leadership in these areas, activist groups and like-minded partners would do it for them. Now the goals of the Boreal Campaign were on the table.
At this point it’s worthwhile to point out a cornerstone of the ENGO campaign tactics – divide and conquer, or as they put it “spank and thank”. Companies that voluntarily join the campaign, or capitulate to pressure, get on the “thank” list. ENGOs spend money promoting these companies. Companies that are being targeted are on the “spank” list and most of the ENGO campaign resources go toward pressuring their customers. There is a third list that I’ll call limbo – companies that so far haven’t come under the microscope. Using some major forest companies with operations in Canada as an example, Al-Pac, Domtar, and Tembec are currently on the thank list, Kimberly-Clark, West Fraser, and Weyerhaeuser are on the spank list, and Abitibi-Consolidated, Canfor, and Tolko are in limbo.
So CPAWS and ForestEthics met through the CBI. ForestEthics was starting their catalog campaign to force mail-order catalog companies to comply with their vision of the world. CPAWS Edmonton Chapter wanted more protected areas in Alberta. How to do both? They decided to pick a company in Alberta that supplied pulp to make the paper that catalogs were printed on. But which company should they pick: the company with the most critical areas on their protection want list; the company with the poorest forest management reputation; or the company with the most vulnerable customers? That’s a no-brainer.
Al-Pac was already on the thank list, and Weyerhaeuser was already on the spank list of a gang of four member, the Rainforest Action Network. That left Daishowa-Marubeni, Millar Western, Weldwood (purchased by West Fraser in 2005), and West Fraser (Slave Lake Pulp) to choose from. These companies all produce pulp that winds up as catalogs.
ForestEthics had its own targeting criteria – a leading catalog company that was vulnerable in the marketplace. The Boreal Campaign began in May 2004 with a threatening letter from the gang of four (ForestEthics, Greenpeace, NRDC, and RAN) to 500 companies announcing the start of an “international campaign targeting paper and lumber products from Canada’s boreal forest”. ForestEthics followed up with a “gunsight” letter to seven catalog campaign “finalists”: Eddie Bauer, J. Crew, J. C. Penney, Limited Brands (Victoria’s Secret), Lands' End, and Sears. The essence of the letter was this: change your ways or we will target you. You have 60 days to respond after which we will pick our target.
ForestEthics drove the target selection process both at the Alberta pulp producer and catalog company level. They picked the Weldwood Forest Management Area in west central Alberta for one reason. Weldwood was owned at the time by International Paper, the largest supplier of paper to catalog companies. So a campaign targeting Weldwood and a catalog company that used paper sourced from Weldwood in Alberta would have two benefits: force the catalog company to capitulate, and force International Paper to make changes in the Alberta forest. CPAWS pointed out that Weldwood had an excellent forest management reputation and had cooperated with the Alberta government Special Places 2000 program, but that didn’t matter to ForestEthics. Their only concern was the marketplace vulnerability and how they could exploit it.
To finish their targeting plans, they needed a poster-child issue. Threatened woodland caribou were the obvious choice to serve the same role as the Spirit Bear did in the B.C. Great Bear Rainforest campaign, or the spotted owl controversy did in the U.S. Pacific Northwest old-growth wars. These species symbols are not the reason for ENGO campaigns. They are focal points for rallying support and playing on the emotions of the audience. Conveniently, symbols are always charismatic megafauna that garner the sympathy and guilt factor the activists want. ENGO campaign 101: a symbol must be warm and fuzzy, not cold and slimy. The campaign symbol is always a convenient surrogate for what the activists really want – protected areas and all other industry under their thumb. Cue the music, and roll out the Alberta Endangered Forest Campaign, complete with a map and exaggerated strident claims.
But the Alberta ENGOs weren’t about to give up. They had bigger plans to join with other activists to start a Boreal Campaign to do the same things that had been so successful in the British Columbia rainforests.
In January 2003 the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society (CPAWS) and ForestEthics signed on as charter members of the Boreal Leadership Council and the Canadian Boreal Initiative. The CBI is a grand scheme to protect half of the Canadian boreal forest, promote “leading-edge sustainable development practices on the remaining landscape” [more about that coming in a future post], and engage locals and First Nations in land management decisions. The reasoning was pretty simple – if governments in Canada wouldn’t show leadership in these areas, activist groups and like-minded partners would do it for them. Now the goals of the Boreal Campaign were on the table.
At this point it’s worthwhile to point out a cornerstone of the ENGO campaign tactics – divide and conquer, or as they put it “spank and thank”. Companies that voluntarily join the campaign, or capitulate to pressure, get on the “thank” list. ENGOs spend money promoting these companies. Companies that are being targeted are on the “spank” list and most of the ENGO campaign resources go toward pressuring their customers. There is a third list that I’ll call limbo – companies that so far haven’t come under the microscope. Using some major forest companies with operations in Canada as an example, Al-Pac, Domtar, and Tembec are currently on the thank list, Kimberly-Clark, West Fraser, and Weyerhaeuser are on the spank list, and Abitibi-Consolidated, Canfor, and Tolko are in limbo.
So CPAWS and ForestEthics met through the CBI. ForestEthics was starting their catalog campaign to force mail-order catalog companies to comply with their vision of the world. CPAWS Edmonton Chapter wanted more protected areas in Alberta. How to do both? They decided to pick a company in Alberta that supplied pulp to make the paper that catalogs were printed on. But which company should they pick: the company with the most critical areas on their protection want list; the company with the poorest forest management reputation; or the company with the most vulnerable customers? That’s a no-brainer.
Al-Pac was already on the thank list, and Weyerhaeuser was already on the spank list of a gang of four member, the Rainforest Action Network. That left Daishowa-Marubeni, Millar Western, Weldwood (purchased by West Fraser in 2005), and West Fraser (Slave Lake Pulp) to choose from. These companies all produce pulp that winds up as catalogs.
ForestEthics had its own targeting criteria – a leading catalog company that was vulnerable in the marketplace. The Boreal Campaign began in May 2004 with a threatening letter from the gang of four (ForestEthics, Greenpeace, NRDC, and RAN) to 500 companies announcing the start of an “international campaign targeting paper and lumber products from Canada’s boreal forest”. ForestEthics followed up with a “gunsight” letter to seven catalog campaign “finalists”: Eddie Bauer, J. Crew, J. C. Penney, Limited Brands (Victoria’s Secret), Lands' End, and Sears. The essence of the letter was this: change your ways or we will target you. You have 60 days to respond after which we will pick our target.
ForestEthics drove the target selection process both at the Alberta pulp producer and catalog company level. They picked the Weldwood Forest Management Area in west central Alberta for one reason. Weldwood was owned at the time by International Paper, the largest supplier of paper to catalog companies. So a campaign targeting Weldwood and a catalog company that used paper sourced from Weldwood in Alberta would have two benefits: force the catalog company to capitulate, and force International Paper to make changes in the Alberta forest. CPAWS pointed out that Weldwood had an excellent forest management reputation and had cooperated with the Alberta government Special Places 2000 program, but that didn’t matter to ForestEthics. Their only concern was the marketplace vulnerability and how they could exploit it.
To finish their targeting plans, they needed a poster-child issue. Threatened woodland caribou were the obvious choice to serve the same role as the Spirit Bear did in the B.C. Great Bear Rainforest campaign, or the spotted owl controversy did in the U.S. Pacific Northwest old-growth wars. These species symbols are not the reason for ENGO campaigns. They are focal points for rallying support and playing on the emotions of the audience. Conveniently, symbols are always charismatic megafauna that garner the sympathy and guilt factor the activists want. ENGO campaign 101: a symbol must be warm and fuzzy, not cold and slimy. The campaign symbol is always a convenient surrogate for what the activists really want – protected areas and all other industry under their thumb. Cue the music, and roll out the Alberta Endangered Forest Campaign, complete with a map and exaggerated strident claims.
Saturday, May 5, 2007
ForestEthics = NoEthics
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)