The province claimed new regs would save 1,500 trees from logging, but internal memos obtained by The Tyee said otherwise.
By Andrew MacLeod for The Tyee
OFFICIALS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA’S Forests Ministry understood that a regulation introduced in 2020 to protect big trees on public lands would have little impact. They designed it that way.
Internal records released to The Tyee in response to a Freedom of Information request confirm critics’ suspicions that the Special Tree Protection Regulation was meant to sound good to the public while continuing to protect the interests of the logging industry.
“Timber supply and economic impacts associated with the use of the proposed specifications are predicted to be insignificant when viewed on a provincial scale,” said a Forests Ministry memo dated Jan. 14, 2020 — some eight months before the government enacted the regulation.
The regulations apply to a dozen tree species on Crown and private lands managed under the Forest Act. Trees above set diameters, measured at chest height, are protected from logging. A hectare of forest surrounding each of those trees is also protected as a buffer.
Read more on The Tyee...
“We’re undervaluing it so much that it’s not creating that incentive to protect it,” says local grad student
From PIQUE News Magazine, by Megan Lalonde
TREES ARE POWERFUL PLAYERS in the fight against climate change, serving as “carbon sinks” that pull greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions out of the atmosphere and improve air quality—but with lumber prices on the rise in recent years, that doesn’t mean they’re priceless.
In terms of dollars, just how valuable is Whistler’s temperate rainforest standing?
That’s one question Whistler-based graduate student Jared Areshenkoff sought to answer through his recent master’s research for Royal Roads University. As part of his research, Areshenkoff evaluated how much carbon the Resort Municipality of Whistler's (RMOW) trees can effectively store, based on the pollutant’s current and future market price. His research focused on above-ground biomass—so branches, stems, foliage and bark—located within the resort’s boundaries.
“Nearly everything that is considered in today’s world is typically viewed from an economic lens, including the steps needed for climate change mitigation. I wanted to use that same argument in order to put a value on trees within the RMOW that doesn’t include lumber value,” he explained in an email.
“Essentially, what this research is about is providing another argument for protection,” he added in a follow-up conversation.
As Areshenkoff discovered, Whistler’s trees are significantly undervalued.
by Cloe Logan at Canada’s National Observer
Rod Cumberland, a former college professor who has long crusaded against the use of a herbicide called glyphosate, alleges his environmental views cost him his job at the Maritime College of Forest Technology (MCFT) in Fredericton, N.B.
As the August date for his wrongful dismissal trial approaches, he says a suite of emails his lawyer obtained through a freedom-of-information request will prove it.
The emails show his colleagues at the college, as well as Natural Resources Canada (NRCan) staff and forestry players such as J.D. Irving, calling Cumberland’s views on glyphosate biased and stressing he “should not be undermining federal scientists.”
Read the full story
By Robert Hunziker at countercurrents.org
Woody biomass, or burning trees to produce renewable energy, is spreading beyond the shores of Europe, where it’s wildly popular and outpacing solar and wind. It’s headed for Japan and South Korea, where subsidies for woody biomass displace funding for solar and wind. Umm, what’s wrong with this picture?
In order to know specifically what’s wrong it’s pertinent to take notice of the factual details about the integrity of woody biomass to discover whether it’s truly one of the biggest blunders of the 21st century.
Woody biomass is not a viable solution for global warming mitigation purposes. It has been the subject of considerable scientific debate with several voices expressing alarm over the absurd concept of burning trees to reduce global emissions. It’s shocking!
Nevertheless, it is happening right under our collective noses and fully endorsed by the European Union (EU) yet the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) does not endorse it. This is proof-positive that absurdity knows no limits.