The press release from the Nature Conservancy posted on their site January 28th, 2008 states that they, along with their financial partners, wish to place the disputed 197,000 acres under a "conservation easement". They also plan to sustain local jobs, economy and the forests through an "environmentally sustainable way".
However, the definition of sustainable is constantly changing and evolving. Even Mendocino Redwood Company touts that they promote sustainable forestry by certification through the Forest Stewardship Council. But there's a catch. The MRC can say they simply PLAN to be sustainable within the next five years, and bam, they get the green seal of approval. With the recent news regarding carbon trading and tax breaks, good intentions get these greedy corporations undeserved bonuses.
No where in The Nature Conservancy's posted internet plan do they state details about what sustainable forestry is. Nor do they state what they plan to do with current Old Growth THP's, you know, THE FORESTS WE ARE PROTECTING.
I hope that the Nature Conservancy is honest about their intentions, and that this is not just "greenwash". I hope that they put an end to herbicide use, clearcuts and steep slope logging. Otherwise, I feel that the activists needed to protect the Old Growth now will still have their hands full, along with opposing Green Diamond and the notorious Sierra Pacific Industries. Both of their websites claim that they are "green". Both companys use herbicide, as well as destroy the land through clearcutting. How is this "green" or "sustainable"?
No, our work will not be finished, but at least the Old Growth may be saved by The Nature Conservancy's plan. And bless them, along with the Save-the Redwoods League, if they hold true to the definition of being green and sustainable. IF they do set aside 12,000 acres into protected public wildlife areas, hopefully this will free up more activists to be able to concentrate on other companies and issues besides PL.
Please join us, we need your help to protect these sensitive areas as we wait for the final verdict. We will always need your help with future forest issues. And thank you for all who have helped us, wether you sat in a tree, or donated even a dollar to our cause. We couldn't have done it without you!
2 comments:
Since the Nature Conservancy plan got the cold shoulder from the Noteholders it looks like they will have to wait to see if the Noteholders plan to auction the company prevails over the others and if it does then make a bid.
oops, erased most of my last comment before publishing...
I was saying that we shouldn't let lumber companies re-define the core meaning of "Sustainable Forestry" which includes Ecological and Economic sustainability.
Companies like SPI can try to cloak themselves in a green mantle but that doesn't mean that the definition of Sustainable Forestry has changed, it means that they see the writing on the wall, that the greater population values our forests and wants to see them treated with respect.
Post a Comment