Quote:
Originally Posted by Diesel_Dave
Isn't that another example of the hypocrisy? Why is it that a logging community is considered the antipathy of all things green? I grew up in a community with lots of logging and most everybody understood "sustainability" long before it became a buzword--forest management, not overlogging, etc. was considered plain old common sense, not because it was "green" but because it would make you more money in the long run.
My grandfather did a lot of fur trapping. Again, my most standards extremely anti-green. However, he always took the long-term view, watching the animal populations, etc. He trapped most areas for nearly 50 years and when he died there were just as many animals as when he started. How is that not "green"?
Same thing goes for your paper mills--aren't they much better than people using tins of plastic? I never did understand why stores switched from paper to plastic in the name of being green and saving trees. Hello? Trees grow back--plastic bags don't.
...getting off soapbox.
|
Logging and pulp mills could be green, here in B.C they are not.
The pulp mills has been dumping their affluent in the inlet for 50 years, brown tainted water, no life on the shores, not a insect or sand crab no seaweed/kelp or muscles,not any life at all for at least 3 miles distance.
Our forest are clear cut every 30 to 40 years, completely and utterly destroyed, even the stumps ,branches , snags and small trees are plowed into a pile and burned.
Imagine a mountain skinned of all life and cover for animals and you are imagining how they log here in Canada.
*But* both the pulp mill and the logging practices could be green and should be green.
Until then they come with a massive cost to the health of the environment.
The stewardship is lacking.