ourENVIRONMENT

WE ALL KILL TREES

So much talk about “Superstorms” and the ozone layer and the destruction of the planet through the burning of fossil fuels. Undeservingly pushed to the rear of the environmental media headline is the ongoing destruction of the world’s rainforests. The immediate causes of rainforest destruction are clear.

The main cause of forest degradation is logging, though total clearance of a forest is most often blamed on agriculture, and in drier areas, fuel-wood collection. And though mining, industrial development and large dams also have a serious impact, ironically tourism is becoming a larger threat to forests throughout North America every year.

But according to the World Widelife Foundation, commercial logging is responsible for the most forest devastation. Because companies cut down mature trees that have been selected for their timber, the whole forest suffers for the sake of a few choice trees. The timber trade defends itself by saying that this method of 'selective' logging ensures that the forest regrows naturally and in time, is once again ready for their 'safe' logging practices. In most cases, this is totally untrue due to the fragile nature of rainforests and the disrespect of logging practices. Ultimately, large areas of rainforest are destroyed in order to remove only a few logs. Choice logs are removed for their straightness, size and “character”.

Heavy machinery used to penetrate the forests and build roads also causes extensive damage. Trees are felled, and soil is compacted by heavy machinery, decreasing the forest's chance for regeneration. The felling of one 'selected' tree, tears down with it, climbers, vines, epiphytes and lianas. Compounded by a large hole left in the canopy, complete regeneration can take hundreds of years, if ever at all. It is believed that in many South East Asian countries 'between 45-74% of trees remaining after logging have been substantially damaged or destroyed’. Compounded , the tracks made by heavy machinery and the clearings left behind by loggers, the forest becomes sites of extreme soil disturbance. Areas begin to erode in heavy rain which causes siltation of the forests, rivers and streams.

Around the world the lives and life support systems of indigenous people are disrupted as is the habitat of hundreds of species of birds and animals. It has been determined that little if any industrial logging of tropical forests is sustainable. The International Tropical Timber Organization (ITTO), the body established to regulate the international trade in tropical timber, found a decade ago that “sustainable” logging was "on a world scale, negligible". A decade later promises are being made, by the G-8 heads of state, to protect the world’s remaining ancient forests. But in the end, governments still continue to allow commercial cutting and in some cases, as with the U.S., Japan and France, they actually promote it.

Shamefully, Canada leads that list of countries willing to under-right such a destructive and selfish practice. Under the Liberals, we have beaten all other G-8 nations in implementing what are commonly referred to as “destructive Subsidies”. These are known subsidies paid out by the government on projects that have no long term positive financial or environmental implications. Canadians, pay out $3 billion of the $4.5 billion G-8 total budget in subsidies. Subsidies in Canada exist in many forms. For instance a logging company may pay the Canadian government, in some cases, less than $1 per cubic meter for the rights to log publically owned land. A piece of forest is carved out and the cheque is exchanged with little thought to how much timber the company is getting or how they are getting it. Ultimately, the government is giving away our forests and large companies are reaping the profits. Cedar, which is the most sought after wood on the world market has one of the cheapest “stumpage fees”. We lose, business wins.

So is this about multinational companies making even more money? That’s only the tip of the issue. Look a little farther to see that subsidies have a darker result. By making the cost of logging cheaper, wood prices are kept relatively low and stable. Imagine the housing industry if the cost of wood doubled overnight. “Cheap” prices keep houses within reach and the economy moving ahead.. But what they also do is, make wood substitutes expensive. Because the “alternative materials” business is in its early stages, costs are up and demand is down. Companies that are struggling to become green, by producing hemp or straw fiber board or recycled paper, are risky business ventures and not ones that most investors get involved in. If the price of recycled paper was cheaper than non-recycled paper, the industry would boom. Remove the subsidies and allow wood to go for its “true worth” and builders would all begin to buy these new products.

What makes this even more insidious is, wealthy countries have been consuming so much of their own resources that they are no longer sustaining their growing populations and increasingly, they are turning to the resources of the financially poorer countries. "Twenty per cent of the world's population is using 80 % of the world's resources." Currently, although many indigenous people are claiming their culture and rights, they face stubborn opposition, as the governments in their own countries have often 'adopted the same growth-syndrome as their Western neighbours, with the emphasis on maximizing exports, revenues and exploiting resources for short-term gain. Corruption in government, military and economic powers is well known and more than one timber baron has lined the pockets of more than one politician. The problem is made worse by the low price for most Third World exports on the international market.

The United States has been accused of manipulating prices for agricultural commodities for its own benefit at the expense of tropical countries. We can add Canada to that list too. So in the end, what can we do? AS CONSUMERS WE can look at alternatives to wood and justify the extra expense as our part towards saving the planet or we can ignore the issue altogether and allow our forests to be taken from us leaving us one day gasping for air. The choice is ours.

JOIN THE DISCUSSION