Saturday, December 1, 2007

We now understand without question that our forests are vital components of an unbelievably complex, global life support system. Therefore, arguments for their destruction should be offensive to any thinking person. When those arguments are based on nothing but corporate concerns they are nothing short of obscene.
The only position that has been put forth by the proponents of old growth logging that deserves any attention is that protecting forests will impact timber communities.
The commercial power behind the logging process fuels a popular image of the proponents of forest protection as be-dreadlocked, dole-bludging 'greenies' out to bankrupt honest battlers.
With that in mind, surely it would be better to tackle what must be the actual major cause of job loss in timber communities and certainly the greatest threat to the future of those communities themselves; the industrialization of forestry?
When a couple of hi-tech machines can strip in hours, a hill which would have taken large teams of men weeks or months to clear, you need to massively upscale your operations just to keep people employed. And there will be a last tree.
If industrial scale logging was banned and we returned to traditional methods, then no-one would loose their jobs and the new industry may even be sustainable!
Surely, under this scheme, only a shareholder in Big Timber would complain. Can Kevin Rudd put the battler and the environment ahead of the shareholder?

No comments: