• Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic

Resolute Forest Products Hires Trump Lawyers to Silence Critics  RSS feed

 
Roberto pokachinni
pollinator
Posts: 1215
Location: Fraser Headwaters, B.C., Zone3, Latitude 53N, Altitude 2750', Boreal/Temperate Rainforest-transition
77
bike books food preservation forest garden fungi hugelkultur solar trees woodworking
  • Likes 3
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Hi all.  This is the first time that I've decided to start a thread in the Cider Press.  If there is another forum that this can be posted in, then please move it to where more people will be able to see it, since I feel it is a very big deal.  There is a letter to sign, if you are so inclined.

Resolute Forest Products is a massive company who are absolutely raping the boreal forest that spans Northern Canada (which has sparse populations and so very little notice of their practices).  Resolute is attempting to bully Stand.Earth (formerly Forest Ethics), and Greenpeace, and drain their finances and time by suing them and individuals by using a law that is supposed to be for combating Organized Crime. 

Perhaps more important than the complete lack of basis for this particular case, it sets a dangerous precedent by challenging the First Amendment of the United States and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Our Free Speech Is Super Important, as is Our Ability to Hold Corporations Responsible for Destructive Practices.

Anyway, if this interests you, check this out for a bit more info and a place to add your voice.  Thanks.

!!!Stand with Stand!!!!


 
Roberto pokachinni
pollinator
Posts: 1215
Location: Fraser Headwaters, B.C., Zone3, Latitude 53N, Altitude 2750', Boreal/Temperate Rainforest-transition
77
bike books food preservation forest garden fungi hugelkultur solar trees woodworking
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Here's a quote from the Stand media release:



The primary purpose of Resolute’s legal action is to silence us. Complex litigation can be overwhelming, diverting staff time and resources that should be devoted to our mission and our work. Which is exactly what Resolute wants. But far more ominous and concerning is that if Resolute continues with this lawsuit, it will open the door for other companies to try to muzzle and intimidate their critics through spurious lawsuits designed specifically to intimidate and shut down their critics. But if this lawsuit is dismissed, it sends a strong signal that these types of aggressive tactics won’t work.
 
Roberto pokachinni
pollinator
Posts: 1215
Location: Fraser Headwaters, B.C., Zone3, Latitude 53N, Altitude 2750', Boreal/Temperate Rainforest-transition
77
bike books food preservation forest garden fungi hugelkultur solar trees woodworking
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Here is another quote on the intimidation actions taken by Resolute in advance of creating this 'criminal case' :
In late May, shadowy private investigators started showing up at the homes of former Stand.earth employees, frightening them and their families by parking in front of their houses for days at a time and asking questions while refusing to explain themselves.

The stories of these intimidating experiences started to multiply – we heard from staff as far flung as the Southeast US to Canada’s West Coast. And then we learned why: the largest logging company in Canada, Resolute Forest Products, was filing a lawsuit against Stand.earth and Greenpeace. And not just our organizations, but individual staff members, including myself. Why would you sue non-profit employees? They’re not known for being flush with money. Nor is Stand.earth. You do it as an attempt to intimidate and bully.  And that should come as no surprise, as we now understand the Resolute’s law firm is the same one President-elect Donald Trump is using to threaten to sue The New York Times for releasing his tax information.
 
 
Miles Flansburg
steward
Posts: 3917
Location: Zones 2-4 Wyoming and 4-5 Colorado
157
bee books forest garden fungi greening the desert hugelkultur
  • Likes 2
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Interesting how folks jump on the anti Trump bandwagon , twisting words to further their cause.

Trump does not own the law firm. Trump needed a lawyer and hired a firm.

Just so happens to be the same firm used in this case.

Trump has nothing to do with it!

Now if we look at the case without all of that trickery, I would be against the intimidation and harassment,( which also had nothing to do with the law firm involved.) but it is this sort of stuff that makes me less likely to support those who I should be supporting.

By the way I did not vote for trump.
 
Roberto pokachinni
pollinator
Posts: 1215
Location: Fraser Headwaters, B.C., Zone3, Latitude 53N, Altitude 2750', Boreal/Temperate Rainforest-transition
77
bike books food preservation forest garden fungi hugelkultur solar trees woodworking
  • Likes 1
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I guess the subject could have said "Trump's Lawyers" instead of "Trump Lawyers", but I doubt whether it would make a difference to your valid point.  I used the headline as the subject because it sounded better than what I had originally written, and I did want to get people's attention to this important cause.  Trump is one of the biggest trending things on the web, but that's not a great excuse.  Thanks for your input, Miles.  I appreciate you checking the thread out.
 
Roberto pokachinni
pollinator
Posts: 1215
Location: Fraser Headwaters, B.C., Zone3, Latitude 53N, Altitude 2750', Boreal/Temperate Rainforest-transition
77
bike books food preservation forest garden fungi hugelkultur solar trees woodworking
  • Likes 1
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Perhaps the people at Stand chose this headline in the first place because of the obvious parallel between Trump's bullying and intimidation practices, and those used against these groups and individuals by Resolute, both of which are being defended and pushed via this same Law firm.  Yes, it's convoluted emotional thinking, but it is actually accurate. 

Trump has nothing directly to do with it, you are right, but it is the attitude of his ilk that are responsible for this situation, and I really have no problem using Trump's notorious anti personality to get at Richard Garneau.  Who, on Permies has ever heard of Richard Garneau?

It's a headline.  Nothing more.  And like a headline, it get's people to read a story.  The meat of the story tells the truth that you are looking for, Miles; how you choose to act and react to anything is... your choice.  I hope that you choose to support the things that you should be supporting, no matter how it's presented.  Thanks again for checking it out.   
 
Karen Donnachaidh
pollinator
Posts: 655
Location: Virginia (zone 7)
61
books dog fish food preservation forest garden hugelkultur hunting solar trees
  • Likes 1
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I'd have to agree with Miles here. Trump had nothing to do with it. I'd hate to think that I could be judged by the actions of a lawyer(s) I hired in the past.

In order to see the whole picture, I would have to hear from both camps. I don't have enough information yet.

You say that Resolute Forest Products: "are absolutely raping the boreal forest", "are attempting to bully Stand.Earth and Greenpeace...by suing them...using a law..."

I'd have to ask, since I've never been there, are they doing something different in their forest management that now is seen as "raping"? Or have you always seen it as such? They have operated their business in that region since 1816. Their website outlines their practice of reforestation and sustainability. View it here. I know websites can paint a whole different picture. Are they trying to fool me?

Is it the lawsuit or the law mentioned that is an issue? Both?

You claim that there's a "complete lack of basis for this particular case".

Lawsuits can be costly to both sides, considering time and money. The only ones who really win are lawyers. Why would a company spend time or money if they can't possibly prove basis exists? What are they suing for? Libel, slander, trespassing, hindering business operations?

Stand says: "The primary purpose of Resolute's legal action is to silence us",
                      "...parking in front of their houses... and asking questions"

If a company puts the time and money into a lawsuit for the purpose of "silencing", I'd have to ask what has been said, to whom and where is the proof to your claims? We all have critics. I know, when I was a business owner, the critics and competitors were ruthless. This was mainly because they were making claims without complete facts.
Parking and asking questions is not illegal and I think there'd have to be more to it in order to call that illegal.

In this instance, I feel I would need all the facts. If this goes before a judge, he will (hopefully) hear the facts and be able to make decisions on those facts, regardless of the lawyers, the lawyers' past clients,etc.

I'm not taking sides here. I've only been presented one side. Stand.earth, I had never heard of until today. Greenpeace has been around a long time. I'd have to say their hearts are in the right place most of the time, but they go about their business, IMO, in questionable ways sometimes. Resolute is just another in a long list of companies that enable me to write letters, send cards, read tangible books, wipe my butt, choose paper bags over plastic ones, display art.......so as a consumer, I can't be hypercritical.
 
Roberto pokachinni
pollinator
Posts: 1215
Location: Fraser Headwaters, B.C., Zone3, Latitude 53N, Altitude 2750', Boreal/Temperate Rainforest-transition
77
bike books food preservation forest garden fungi hugelkultur solar trees woodworking
  • Likes 3
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Thanks for your response Karen.  I do not have answers to all of your questions, but I do have some, and my perspective for you to contemplate in the hopes that you might understand. 
I know websites can paint a whole different picture. Are they trying to fool me?
   I too have been to resolute's web page and it is good.  To answer your question... yes.  It is in their interest to paint the most lovely picture of what they are doing (fool you) in order to continue with the status quo, which is to make massive profits at the expense of the environment, and the future of the myriad communities who would be supported by that environment. 

Resolute is just another in a long list of companies that enable me to write letters, send cards, read tangible books, wipe my butt, choose paper bags over plastic ones, display art.......so as a consumer, I can't be hypercritical.
  Our paper products do not have to come from clear cutting boreal or other temperate old growth forests. There are alternatives that a company could explore if they were inclined to get out of destructive mega logging, and focused on sustainable paper production: hemp being the primary candidate.  Besides that, much more sustainable forest practices exist, and can be certified as such. Tagari press which puts out the Permaculture books of Bill Mollison is an example of a publisher who chooses only to get paper from certified sources. 
Their website outlines their practice of reforestation and sustainability.
A tree seedling planted, is not a forest giant, and a industrialized tree farm landscape is not the forest destroyed in the process of extracting the timber.  If you grew up where I did (the North Coastal Rainforest in a logging town), your perspective might be different.  For my entire life, I've seen expansive valleys laid completely to waste by companies much smaller than this; I've planted trees in the blistering dry heat while the cool moist forest sits just to the side, or miles away.  The devastation is incalculable.  If you have not been there, you may not be even able to imagine it. While I support efforts to reforest, the actual forest company and government plan is not to create forests (diverse ecosystems) but tree farms on (relatively speaking) short term rotations.   

I'd have to agree with Miles here. Trump had nothing to do with it. I'd hate to think that I could be judged by the actions of a lawyer(s) I hired in the past. 
  Yes, when you put it that way, I can understand your point of view, but being guilty by association is part of this global world, and nobody is immune to that, especially if you act on a large scale.  Trumps tactics and his use of a law firm and that law firms ethics to take on such predatory cases makes them more liable to be focused on and used as such, then someone like yourself, or myself.  It doesn't make it right, and it doesn't make me feel amazing about doing it, so I feel that your are quite right to point it out, and I appreciate being called on it, but I'm not going to take it back, partly because I don't know how to retract it and partly because it made you look, and partly that's the point of using such a catch headline, right or wrong.  I hope that that doesn't offend you enough to get past that small indiscretion in relation to the greater issues at hand--please see the closing paragraph of this post.

Is it the lawsuit or the law mentioned that is an issue? Both?
The law was meant to prosecute those involved in organized crime, and in that sense, in this case, it is preposterous, ridiculous, and the company and it's lawyers should be held accountable for defamation of character.  The lawsuit itself, if judge poorly by the system, would prove a devastating blow to those voices who are trying to criticize or otherwise point out the wrongs done by powerful interests on this continent; the precedent this could set would be catastrophic for civil society.  The fact that the parameters of the law allow for such extractive and exploitive practices in the first place should be viewed as organized crime, not the pointing out of such crimes.

Lawsuits can be costly to both sides, considering time and money. The only ones who really win are lawyers. Why would a company spend time or money if they can't possibly prove basis exists? What are they suing for? Libel, slander, trespassing, hindering business operations?
You might be able to believe that  the largest logging corporation in Canada has very deep pockets, and an assigned budget for such things; they stand to win greatly by being able to continue as they are.  In the case of Forest Ethics, who run on donations... the comparison is laughable.  I haven't found the lawsuit, but I imagine hindering business operations, or... what they view as slander but is actually someone/some group exposing the truth about what they are doing.
If this goes before a judge, he will (hopefully) hear the facts and be able to make decisions on those facts, regardless of the lawyers, the lawyers' past clients,etc.
  I agree that in this case Trump should have nothing to do with it, and I would hope that the Judge would have enough sense to view the case as bullshit in the first case, and in the second case view it in the light of laws greater than corporate law which legalizes criminal capitalism for the sake of a so called (tragically misnamed) economy.


You say that Resolute Forest Products: "are absolutely raping the boreal forest", "are attempting to bully Stand.Earth and Greenpeace...by suing them...using a law..."

I'd have to ask, since I've never been there, are they doing something different in their forest management that now is seen as "raping"? Or have you always seen it as such? They have operated their business in that region since 1816
  Have you ever seen modern industrial logging?  In 1816 it was axes and handsaws, and horses, and Resolute was a small company.  Now it's Feller Bunchers, Processors, and/or other giant machines working alongside fallers with large powerful chainsaws, and fleets of logging trucks and processing plants.  The cutting of forests in Canada has increased at an exponential rate since the dawn of industrial scale logging, and is currently threatening 1/2 of the bird species on this continent.  While I understand your criticism of Greenpeace, and I have had similar views in the past and still hold some and have been watching them since I was a kid in the 70's, I have been involved in and supporting Forest Ethics which became Stand.earth, for more than 5 years, and not once did I feel that way about their methods and ideals. 

In order to see the whole picture, I would have to hear from both camps. I don't have enough information yet.
  I can appreciate that.

I can understand the use of Trump in this case as being a bit thin, but when you consider the list of over 75 organizations who are backing Stand with that advertisement in the New York Times, you might gain the perspective that many very passionate and amazing people who are dedicating their lives to their various causes of environmentalism and civil libertarianism, have been willing to overlook this to throw their support behind this petition to get this case rightfully dropped.

I really do appreciate you taking the time to look into this, Karen. 
 
Karen Donnachaidh
pollinator
Posts: 655
Location: Virginia (zone 7)
61
books dog fish food preservation forest garden hugelkultur hunting solar trees
  • Likes 2
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Thank you, Roberto. As always, it's great to have deep, meaningful and friendly debate with a person of your intelligence. Well done. I say, stand firm in your beliefs and be true to your values and morals. I hope this turns out well for the whole of humanity. I'll keep following along.
 
John Weiland
Posts: 844
Location: RRV of da Nort
34
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Although there are quantitative aspects to all environmental conundrums that make discussion of the pros and cons quite complex, I tend to side with Derrick Jensen's view regarding advocates for different sides of a conflict.  Very often it comes down to an organization or collective of environmentalists against one or more corporations or government entities.  When it's time to start sharpening the legal weaponry for such a challenge, as in the Canadian timber example described here, the laws simply fall short in protecting (a) those creatures with no voice and no recognition in the courtroom, (b) those humans who possess limited financial resources to partake fairly in the litigation, (c) those humans who would have a say and protection under the law, but have not yet been born, and (d) those human and non-human creatures who live outside of the jurisdiction where the laws are valid, but whom will be impacted by secondary effects of environmental destruction.  A fundamentally similar conflict clearly is playing out with the Dakota Access Pipeline in North Dakota, a structure that quite probably could have been routed so as not to cross the Missouri River (except at the transfer station origination points, and then perhaps not even then).  In both cases, rather than take a compromising approach to solve the problem, a 'gamble' is taken which disrespects the people and the environment who will be impacted the greatest, with the hope of gaining the greatest profit from the endeavor.
 
Roberto pokachinni
pollinator
Posts: 1215
Location: Fraser Headwaters, B.C., Zone3, Latitude 53N, Altitude 2750', Boreal/Temperate Rainforest-transition
77
bike books food preservation forest garden fungi hugelkultur solar trees woodworking
  • Likes 2
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Karen,

It is an honor to be intelligently challenged to defend my position (or the position I support); it only strengthens my resolve and keeps my thinking on course.  I also really appreciate you and Miles jumping on the Trump half truth.  It makes me smile that I am being challenged to do better with how I present myself and my views.  That is one of the great things about this site: the quality people involved.  Blessings.
 
Roberto pokachinni
pollinator
Posts: 1215
Location: Fraser Headwaters, B.C., Zone3, Latitude 53N, Altitude 2750', Boreal/Temperate Rainforest-transition
77
bike books food preservation forest garden fungi hugelkultur solar trees woodworking
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
John W, thank you for posting your perspective.  I think it stands alone without further comment about it, except this:  In Canada, we have our own pipeline issues, including one which is set to pass near my land, called Kinder Morgan (Morgan being of the J.P. Morgan family of business).  The pipeline already exists but the company plan is to twin it with a larger volume pipe which will put 5 times as much tanker traffic on B.C.'s Southern Coast, threatening the already maxed out biome around Vancouver/Seattle/Victoria, including resident orcas.  Up here where I can drink the Fraser River, the pipeline is already going beside this river, after having been beside the Athabasca River, through Jasper National Park, and Mount Robson Provincial Park, before heading into the Robson Valley, where I live, and proceeding over the watershed boundary of the North Columbia River basin and into the North Thompson river watershed, following it to where it joins as part of the Fraser again, and on down to the coast crossing thousands of smaller rivers, creeks, streams, swamps, and other waterways.  But that, sadly, is another issue that I don't have nearly enough time for. 
 
alex Keenan
Posts: 487
12
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I have seen logging operations stop in a number of areas over the years and communities that depend on this renewable resource take a economic hit.
Having lived in the frozen north I know that the northern forests do not have anywhere near the biodiversity of the tropical forests.
So there are a number of factors in this discussion that are not raised.

There are always two sides to a argument.

This does not mean that in this case I believe one side or the other. I have too few hard facts to make a rational opinion.


It is clear that the subject line was created to attract a liberal audience who is more likely to be anit-logging.
This tactic is used often and can be very effective because it appeals to ones emotions.
Unfortunately, in USA at this time society is becoming balkenized.
We are seeing similar things happening in the EU areas.

Expect to see more of this we versus them in the next few years.
Rational thought will be replaced with raw emotions!

 
Roberto pokachinni
pollinator
Posts: 1215
Location: Fraser Headwaters, B.C., Zone3, Latitude 53N, Altitude 2750', Boreal/Temperate Rainforest-transition
77
bike books food preservation forest garden fungi hugelkultur solar trees woodworking
  • Likes 2
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I have seen logging operations stop in a number of areas over the years and communities that depend on this renewable resource take a economic hit. 
In my experience living in logging towns for most of my life (I'm nearing 50), the thing that closes down logging is improperly managed forest practices, policies, and cut and run corporations.  Point in case, Mcbride, and Valemount, in my current valley had multiple thriving mid sized mills, and the provincial government deemed it somehow appropriate to create laws that favored larger corporations doing all of the logging and milling, and as a result, the local mills were forced to either close, or sell their operations to the large mill companies.  The further result of those that sold their operations, were closed door meetings that shut out the locals and closed the mills anyway.  All the logs in this valley, but a very scant few to mom-and-pop operations, or smaller mills, are trucked to Prince George or Kamloops-hundreds of miles to either.  That is what is what shut down these mills. 

I have too few hard facts to make a rational opinion. 
  All I have is hard facts. I've seen it all first hand, too often, and it's in my face everyday on the highway with trucks going to the big mills.

In my home town of Terrace, there were three huge mills operating when I was a kid.  Again due to both government and corporate mismanagement of public lands/commodities, all of those mills have been shut down, the largest dramatically with closed door meetings.  In the case of that one mill it was dismantled by it's new Chinese owners and shipped off either to Siberia where greener horizons existed.   There are mills in Terrace now, but nothing like there was then. I saw it coming.  Most of the logging families and mill families didn't.  It had nothing to do with environmental activism though.  Nothing.   This is also partly due to the fact that we were also exporting raw logs, without even milling them.  When I was a kid, MacMillan Bloedel (which was later bought out by Weyerhaeuser of Washington state) completely gutted the Old Growth Cedar and Sitka Spruce of the Kitimat Valley, dumping a double-size-off-highway-only logging truck load of logs every minute, 24 hours a day into the salt water in Douglas Channel for a decade. 

The people are wising up to the greed of cut and run forestry.  As a result the media and the public are watching industry more closely and holding them and the government more accountable for everything they see.  The free for all is over, and the companies are going off to the hinterland where less eyes are watching, that is the other reason the mills are closing in the small and large towns.    

The good thing that has come of this is that the Valley communities have each formed Community Forests (thankfully due to proper legislation, finally!) which gives locals a lot more say into what is going on, and takes a sizeable chunk of the local forests/wood in trust to the local people, which means it all slows down.  I was part of the Community Forest group in Terrace, but it dismantled in frustration because this law did not yet exist. The amount of red tape when trying to do things outside of the corporate large scale industrial mindset is almost impossible to get through.  That is how it is set up, and for the most part it is still that way all over B.C..  I've seen it first hand all my life.

I know that the northern forests do not have anywhere near the biodiversity of the tropical forests. 
  To me, to be quite honest and not meant to offend you, this is a non-argument.  Who cares to compare the diversity levels... when 50% of North America's birds are threatened by such practices.  Why do we need to compare it to the Amazon or Indonesia.  Sure it's fracking crazy what is being done in the tropics, but that does not mean that we should ignore our own backyard.  It's a non-argument.  These sorts of statements are perpetrated by those with a bias towards industrial development of the North and are distractions from the atrocities that are being senselessly committed in the name of profit, and nothing else.  I've seen it all, and heard it shouted at meetings by people who knew deep down that they had been duped.   They admitted as much after the mills closed.

If these companies think they can go on like this, then they are about to hit a wall that they don't expect.  Look at what is happening at Standing Rock.  Or what happened at Occupy.  People have had enough. I'm really surprised there isn't more of it happening all over the U.S..   
 
Tyler Ludens
pollinator
Posts: 9709
Location: Central Texas USA Latitude 30 Zone 8
178
 
Karen Donnachaidh
pollinator
Posts: 655
Location: Virginia (zone 7)
61
books dog fish food preservation forest garden hugelkultur hunting solar trees
  • Likes 1
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Very informative website. Thanks for the link Ludi.
 
Roberto pokachinni
pollinator
Posts: 1215
Location: Fraser Headwaters, B.C., Zone3, Latitude 53N, Altitude 2750', Boreal/Temperate Rainforest-transition
77
bike books food preservation forest garden fungi hugelkultur solar trees woodworking
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Yes, thank you Tyler.   !!  
 
Roberto pokachinni
pollinator
Posts: 1215
Location: Fraser Headwaters, B.C., Zone3, Latitude 53N, Altitude 2750', Boreal/Temperate Rainforest-transition
77
bike books food preservation forest garden fungi hugelkultur solar trees woodworking
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
I wanted to further address Alex Keenan's post
Expect to see more of this we versus them in the next few years.
Rational thought will be replaced with raw emotions! 
  In the case of Stand.earth, I find that Alex's statement does not reflect the situation with Stand.earth, who as a group tend to be quite level headed and rational, engaging their 'adversaries' as if they are potential collaborators throughout the process.

Here's is a quote from Todd Paglia Executive Director of Stand.earth
we go toe to toe challenging some of the world’s largest companies to do better, to stop destroying forests, to address climate change, to not put people and our planet at risk. This is never comfortable – not for us taking on companies that have more revenue in a few hours than we fundraise in a full year. And it’s not comfortable for the companies we take on – who often want to do the right thing but have simply not prioritized it. Over the years that approach -- moving major companies from conflict to collaboration -- has yielded extraordinary, long-lasting successes. We have been able to protect millions of acres of old growth forests, partner with indigenous people working to gain control over their traditional territories, and challenge and defeat outdated and dangerous fossil fuel projects.

Nearly every company we have ever challenged in a campaign has come to not only change its ways, but to appreciate that we helped them make better decisions for the environment, for people, and for their companies. Moving through conflict – a real adult disagreement – to eventual collaboration demands the best of us and of our temporary adversaries. But this summer, we learned that not everyone can handle agreeing to disagree while working toward our common values


This quote directly addresses the fact that Stand.earth does everything that it can to not divide people.  Part of the whole idea is a collaboration, so that mutual long term goals can be established which benefit all parties, especially so that those who have no voice can be impacted the least, as John Weiland so eloquently put.   
 
Roberto pokachinni
pollinator
Posts: 1215
Location: Fraser Headwaters, B.C., Zone3, Latitude 53N, Altitude 2750', Boreal/Temperate Rainforest-transition
77
bike books food preservation forest garden fungi hugelkultur solar trees woodworking
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
In addition to the above post, I wanted to thank Alex for joining in on this thread.  I always appreciate more discussion, as it allows me a further voice on these issues.

In regards to that, I would like to further comment on that post.

It is clear that the subject line was created to attract a liberal audience who is more likely to be anit-logging. 
  Perhaps that was the intent of Stand.earth in creating the headline, but my personal intention was to use their subject line which I figured would catch the eye and get people to look, nothing more. 

Further, I would say that I personally am not anti-logging.  I support community forests.  I support holistic forestry.  I support adding value to our timber supplies through manufacturing products instead of selling raw lumber or raw logs, and I presently own 4 chainsaws, and numerous other logging tools, and log on my own acreage in the best way that I know.  

To further comment on this small quote, in regards to this being a liberal audience only thread, I should say that this issue spans much greater divides than partisan politics and general statements regarding social divisiveness.  I am completely willing to engage in debate with Socialists, Fascists, Capitalists, Democrats, Republicans, Liberals, Conservatives, Libertarians, Anarchists, or whomever I feel is jeopardizing justice, community, and real economy, as opposed to the status quo of law and order and division which seems to be supporting the present organized thievery and debt that is called an economy and this so called social system, which seems to amount to a mostly unconscious form of Nihilism.  Nihilism, or every man for himself regardless of social or environmental consequences, is the root cause of what is wrong with most of the social systems running and ruining the planet.  This I will oppose in all of its iterations by supporting those who are most effected, no matter if it comes off as liberal or not.  
 
Dave de Basque
Posts: 129
Location: Basque Country, Spain-42N lat-Köppen Cfb-Zone8b-1035mm/41" rain: 118mm/5" Dec., 48mm/2" July
23
  • Likes 1
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
My own feeling on the matter is that there should be no more harvesting of virgin old-growth forest anywhere on Earth, period. It should be a criminal act. Our "economy" can be infinitely destructive if we let it -- it is only us who remedy situations like this: normal people who take the responsibility to see to it that some reasonable limits are put in place on how much natural capital we allow to be destroyed.

So I signed, and thanks very much Roberto for bringing the issue to our attention. And for your patience and willingness to grow and continuing commitment in the face of disagreement. And thanks also to the disagreeers for speaking their mind and also being willing to learn and grow.

This boreal forest mega-clear-cutting reminds me very much of the new "technology" in fishing that is destroying marine ecosystems and fish stocks right and left: the huge trawlers that scrape and decimate the ocean floor and net everything in their path, using unbelievably large nets. The habitat for all kinds of marine creatures on the ocean floor is gone once these "modern" trawlers pass, and no longer can provide a home for many basic species in the food chain, so a long-term marine desert is left behind. And fish stocks, logically, plummet and species become endangered and disappear. But we (and I'm saying you and me) do not "see" it as it takes place in a faraway place we never travel to, and we continue to hire politicians that go along with such practices.

Just like the H-bomb, in every sector of the economy, people can and do invent toys that can harvest once and leave total destruction in their wake. The destruction is not their problem, those who have destroyed move on quickly, but with much fatter bank acccounts.

Permaculture is about regeneration, and I would hope that we could all agree on favoring regenerative ecological practices and putting a stop to destructive ones, especially where intact virgin ecosystems are concerned, whatever the part of the world or climate zone.

And I'd also hope that people would value freedom of speech quite a lot, and think a bit about protecting whistleblowers (people and organizations) in general, just in case they're right sometimes!
 
Roberto pokachinni
pollinator
Posts: 1215
Location: Fraser Headwaters, B.C., Zone3, Latitude 53N, Altitude 2750', Boreal/Temperate Rainforest-transition
77
bike books food preservation forest garden fungi hugelkultur solar trees woodworking
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Just like the H-bomb, in every sector of the economy, people can and do invent toys that can harvest once and leave total destruction in their wake.
  This made me think of Masters of War by Bob Dylan.  Here's a quote from the lyrics: 

You that never done nothin'
But build to destroy
You play with my world
Like it's your little toy


Thanks for your support, and compliments, David. 
 
expectation is the root of all heartache - shakespeare. tiny ad:
Learn, Design, Teach, & Inspire with Permaculture games.
FoodForestCardGame.com
  • Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
Boost this thread!