Kevin,
Ms. Fazio and myself share the views
of the majority of the American citizens.
The
majority of American Citizens also drive unsustainable gas
guzzlers.
There are already over
100 co-sponsors in the House of Representives to end commercial logging on
public lands. It is inevitable that ECL will prevail and the bioenergy
industry needs to keep that in mind when planning new projects or they will
quickly find themselves in the same situation as the Honey Creek project.
If 100 co-sponsors is more than half, then ECL will
prevail.
A huge portion of the population finds it extremist (ex-steam-ist) to insist
that all old growth should be liquidated,
I am
in full agreement with you that it is a shame to "liquidate" old growth
forests.
that all lands should be
pillaged for profit.
"Pillaging for profit" is a strong and colorful term.
I would have no problem with the concept of managing a portion of the Federal
Forest System for the production of sustainable biomass.
Thus far there has
been no compromise on the part of industrial interests.
Perhaps their position is somewhat understandable, in
view of the stated position of the ECL people to end commercial
logging.
They only want it all,
as cheap as possible, and as soon as possible.
It
strikes me that there are two issues here:
1:
Old Growth Forests
2:
New Growth Forests.
and
that the treatment could be very different for each. Would you and your people
consider a two pronged approach to the problem?
We seek
compromise.
When
your position is a flat "End Commercial Loging", it is hard to see where you
leave yourselves much room for compromise.
With only 3% of the
original forest of this country intact
OK.... if the Old Growth forests are separated out,
then there would be a strong case for ending of commercial logging in
them.
and only 10% of the lands in
the US in public holdings for all societal benefits,
Would you agree that it is possible to manage forests
for many uses? Do you require that all Public Lands be left as unutilized
forest? Are there not forest management techniques which would allow
sustainable forestry along with other uses?
it would be a sensible,
cautious idea to keep those lands as a genetic library to help with recovery
once our hundred year experiment of industrial forestry shows it's failures in
sustainability.
Well.... why not conduct other experiments to find
ways of overcoming the problems you allude to?
Simplified forests and
plantations are highly susceptable to disease and pestilence.
We
are all aware of the dangers of monoculture. But who says that enlightened
Forest Management has to be monoculture??? DDT looked pretty good at the time,
but we learned of its problems, and do things differently
now.
Having part of the
genetic library intact on the small percentage of public lands is a moral
imperative, is a compromise, is common sense and is inevitable.
Agreed. Preservation of Old Growth Stands can
accomplish this.
Again, technical discussions in the vaccuum without facing the realities of
negative environmental impacts and social attitudes, will lead to numeroius
problems for this industry.
True. Can we evolve improved management practises
which will overcome these possible problems?
Greenscamming will be
exposed and the industry will suffer if too many attempt to lie to the
public.
Could you please elaborate? I don't understand this
statement.
I assumed that this was a
"sustainable" energy movement as it is presented on the CREST website.
Please advise me if sustainability is no longer the primary
consideration.
Sustainability is "the way to go." Sustainability
implies a sustained benefit to Man, and not simply putting resources beyond
his reach, as ECL seems intent on doing.
Are profit and
perception the primary goals, rather than actual sustainabilty?
You
ask the wrong question!! What we should be striving for is "sustainable
profit."
If you all will
admit it, then I will quit wasting so much of your time or mine.
I
would suggest that all sides win if forest management practises are such that
they lead to "sustainable profit."
"Profit" should be viewed in the broader context of
"net benefits to mankind." There must be a profit for the people doing the
actual work, AND ALSO, society as a whole must benefit from the work being
done.
Does
that make sense too you?
Kevin Chisholm
Kevin Chisholm wrote:
Dear
DennyMs Fazio's views are extremist and closed minded....she has one
agenda. I happen to hold differing views. Why is she right, and why am I
wrong??? Why do you not consider that perhaps there are other valid views?
How can there be discussion on Bioenergy when ppl have fixed and closed
positions? Ms. Fazio is certainly not interested in an open minded
discussion. It does not appear that you are either. If this is the case,
then the thread is futile. Hence, my suggestion that we get back to more
technical issues where there is at least some potential for discussion and
progress.Kevin
Chisholm
I am so sorry for thinking that consuming public forests
for energy against the wishes of the majority of American citizens
was an issue. I am more sorry that you and your ilk do not
think it is either. I thought this bioenergy discussion on CREST was
for sustainable energy. Denny
Kevin Chisholm wrote:
Dear DennyI don't
know who Ms. Fazio is, and she probably doesn't know who I am
either. I would like to go on record as saying that I
am not against the use of biomass energy, and I am not in favor of
Ending Commercial Logging, no matter what rhetoric or excuses she
manufactures.Now... can we get back to the technical matters
and issues?Kevin Chisholm, MD, DD, LLD,
DMN
