Forestry Math

This week, we return to our conversation with Richard Robertson and Tegan Hansen from STAND.Earth on forestry issues in British Columbia. Wood pellets, or biomass fuels, from B.C.’s forests are being touted as a large-scale, carbon neutral energy source. Does the carbon accounting behind those claims add up? What are some alternative solutions for the future of the forestry industry?

Richard and Tegan also share their experiences at last year’s climate COP in Dubai with us. Find out what it was like to be an observer at the biggest stage for international climate negotiations and how Canada’s forests can be affected.


Learn more about STAND.Earth on their website.

Make sure to check out the show notes on the podcast webpage for more links and helpful resources.

You can help this community grow by sharing the podcast with your friends.

Support the show

https://wildlandsleague.org/theclearcut/

Episode Transcript

Janet Sumner (00:00):
Welcome to the ClearCut.
Hi, I'm Janet Sumner, ExecutiveDirector at Wildlands League.

Kaya Adleman (00:08):
And I'm Kaya Adelman, Carbon Manager at
Wildlands League.

Janet Sumner (00:14):
Wildlands League is a Canadian conservation
organization working onprotecting the natural world.

Kaya Adleman (00:21):
The ClearCut is bringing to you the much needed
conversation on Canadian forestmanagement and how we can better
protect one of Canada's mostimportant ecosystems, as our
forests are reaching a tippingpoint.

Janet Sumner (00:41):
Okay, it's part two, with Teagan and Richard
from.
Stand and hold on to your seats, because you're going to hear a
lot more about biomass.
You're going to hear a lot moreabout attending the Conference
of the Parties, the ClimateChange Cup in Dubai and some of
the unintended consequences fromthe climate agreements, and

(01:03):
that has been to drive up themarketplace for biomass.
Because you don't have to countthe emissions coming out of the
smokestack.
That is one of the things thatI just think is so incredible.
The emissions that are comingout of a smokestack from burning
pellets that came from a forestin British Columbia or

(01:24):
elsewhere in Canada don't countin your emissions, because it's
assumed that that is part of anand Teagan gets into this as
part of a natural climate cycle,and it's just not true.
The emissions that are comingout of that smokestack are
actually I think she saysthey're worse than coal.
So this is yeah, it's going tobe a fabulous conversation, so

(01:47):
so hang on.
This is something to to savorand get into.

Kaya Adleman (01:52):
Yeah, but, janet, you know those trees, they grow
back in, you know 100 to 200years.
So if Canada wants to meet itsclimate targets by 2050, I think
those timelines definitely addup, you know.

Janet Sumner (02:04):
Yeah, yeah, we've got a target of 2250.

Kaya Adleman (02:09):
Yeah or maybe 2350 .
Yeah, it reminds me of thistrend on social media that's
been.
It's kind of stale.
It has kind of cycled throughits course, but it was going
around a few months ago.
May know it as girl math, ifyou've seen it.
So girl math was this idea that, for example, anything that you
buy with cash is free becauseyou can't see the actual number

(02:32):
decreasing in your checkingaccount.
If you return an item that youpurchased for $50, you've just
made a profit of $50.
Or if you buy concert ticketsfor a show, six months from now
they're free by the time you'reactually going to the concert.
And so girl math quicklydevolved into boy math, because

(02:53):
some people were saying oh, likeyou know, maybe this is a
little bit problematic becausegirls are great at math.
We've had many great women inSTEM on our show before.
So some examples of boy mathended up being you know, boy
math is making fun of astrologybut majoring in finance.
Or paying $44 billion for a $25billion company and, you know,

(03:16):
through all of yourentrepreneurial skills and
business smarts, turning it intoan $8.8 billion company.
Thanks, elon Musk.

Janet Sumner (03:24):
Oh, my goodness, really he did that.
It was $44 billion became 25.

Kaya Adleman (03:29):
Yes, and then now it's worth it, and it's worth
$44 billion.
It was a $25 billion company.
He purchased it for $44 billionand now it's worth $8.8 billion
.

Janet Sumner (03:39):
Now I knew he was basically driving the value of
the company down.
I didn't know that it had goneall the way.
Yeah, he paid $44 billion andit's now worth eight Like that's
just.
That is really bad math.

Kaya Adleman (03:53):
Yeah, that's boy math.
You know there are furtheriterations of this trend.
There was server math at onepoint I saw, but it kind of
seemed like it was a all atongue in cheek way to make fun
of spending decisions.
And writer for the cut, danielCohen, actually says it's

(04:14):
justifying buying silly thingswhile the world burns, which I
think is a great segue into ourconversation on biomass, because
kind of seems like there's aplace for forestry math in the
conversation, especially when weget into what we're going to
discuss on this episode as welearn about the role that

(04:34):
biomass is playing ininternational climate
negotiations.

Janet Sumner (04:38):
Yeah, I think we can all be accused of having,
shall we say, favorable math init when we are making buying
decisions where we're like, oh,I could buy those, those really
great sneakers or kicks becausethey're on sale, so I'm saving
20%, but in reality you're stillspending $150 or whatever the

(04:59):
price is yeah.
So I think that that is.
We're all guilty of that.
We all probably have some mathblind spots.
But you're right, we need toget to the truth of this,
because we can't do that whilethe planet is on fire and we've
got climate change.
So this is going to be a goodconversation and a good reminder
that we do need to get the mathright.

(05:21):
We can't just be pretendingthat it's all going to be okay.

Kaya Adleman (05:28):
Can't be making any decisions in our favor for
sure?

Janet Sumner (05:32):
No, absolutely not .
Yeah, so let's switch to thethe cop.
Yeah, teagan, do you want tojump in or where do you want to
take this?

Tegan Hansen (05:45):
Sure, do you want to ask about the cop?
Shall I just get in there, yeah.

Janet Sumner (05:50):
So we recently had the conference of the parties
that was held.
It was on climate change and myunderstanding is both you and
Richard attended and it was inDubai.
Sorry, just Teagan.
Okay, so Teagan attended it andit was in Dubai and you went
there and what was theinteraction on the cop and very

(06:12):
specifically, I guess, withrelation to forest?

Tegan Hansen (06:16):
Yeah, the cop is such a fascinating place.
So this is, you know you canimagine, a massive conference,
say with over you know, almost100,000 people were registered
to attend in this massive venuein Dubai and with countries are

(06:36):
presented from all over theworld and a record breaking
number of fossil fuel lobbyistsand lobbyists for other sectors
like forestry and biomass.
And so you imagine you're inthis space where there's also,
you know, a civil societypresence and countries like

(06:57):
countries in the Pacific, whichare really fighting for their
survival, and civil society fromall over the world fighting to
be heard, fighting to raise theprofile of their very real
struggles that they're facingwith climate impacts, with
sourcing for not just fossilfuels but also for the supposed

(07:17):
renewable energy transition.
And so you're in this reallyfraught space.
It's a fascinating placebecause you know there's
obviously some real restrictionsin Dubai.
Nor you know around what peopleare allowed to say without
facing repercussions, reallydangerous state repercussions,

(07:42):
and this space is administeredby the United Nations.
So for a lot of people comingfrom different countries, it's
an opportunity for them to speakout and to make connections
with people from around theworld and to build, you know,
build a solidarityinternationally around the
struggles that they're facing.
And in this space, what we sawwas, you know, some, some

(08:09):
positive steps that I feelobligated to start off with,
which was this will soundshocking, but it has been a new
thing.
This was caught 28.
Conference of the parties onclimate and it was only the
second year that fossil fuel,fossil fuel, was named in the

(08:32):
final agreements and the fossilfuel got named three times and
that was considered a very bigstep.
And you know, that's wherethese international agreements
are at.
I don't think we should look tospaces like cop to save us, to
save the planet, but there'scertainly opportunities for both

(08:53):
people from around the world tobuild solidarity and there are
also opportunities for companiesand corporations and states
from around the world to buildtheir power and build support
for their you know, theirsolutions, which in some cases
can be dangerous distractionslike biomass, and so I visited a

(09:14):
Drax co funded biomass kind ofpavilion in one of the areas and
there was a talk happeningincluding people from Australia,
and Australia is a country thatvery recently, just over a year
ago, kind of quietly passedsome new regulation around, sort

(09:37):
of you know, not sourcing fromnative countries because their
term for biomass, which is apositive step, and these you
know this person from Australia,alongside a Drax, you know,
senior executive.
We're lamenting that and thisspace that's supposed to be
about climate solutions and wesaw the final outcome of this

(10:01):
COP into by.
You know, the agreementsreferenced a commitment that was
kind of made early on by anumber of countries, which is to
triple their renewable energy.
That you know countries arebuilding out and expanding
renewable energy over the nextnumber of years, but they didn't

(10:21):
distinguish biomass out orhighly polluting you know
industries out, and it was soaffirming, but also so in raging
to go into spaces with peoplefrom places like the mean and to
go and Chile and Indonesia andcountries that are seeing this

(10:42):
massive growth in biomass andfor some of them they're really
framing it as land grabs andbiomass companies from the
global north, from you knowcountries in Europe, of the UK,
have these renewable energydreams that are predicated on
burning and so they're lookingto increasingly other countries

(11:05):
to source, you know, to buildbiomass plantations, to log, and
they're looking at theimportant forests that are, as
we know, like here and aroundthe world.
They're places of enormouscultural importance, they're
important for food, they'reimportant for wildlife, they're
important just for ourcommunities.
And so to go in and kind ofhave this framing of logging and

(11:28):
then building plantations tofuel the green energy transition
is really being dubbed by thegroups that we work with in the
biomass action network, as youknow, a new form of climate
colonialism.
And in countries like Indonesiathe biomass industry is not
necessarily built around exportbut instead built around co

(11:51):
firing.
So what this refers to andyou'll see this if you you know
we're following the COPagreements that all you might
have seen a terminology aroundphasing out on a baited coal.
So what does abating coal mean?
I can be in a number ofdifferent things, but one of the
ways you can abate coal is byreplacing a certain percentage

(12:13):
of the coal with a material likewood pellets or forest biomass.
So you can get 2%, 5% or 10%abatement or replacing your,
your coal with biomass.
Then you can consider you'vekind of ticked your climate
objective.
You're still burning coal.
Your emissions on on, you know,in practice do not go down, but

(12:34):
on paper they do because, likewe've talked about, you don't
count biomass emissions becausein theory they're supposed to be
counted on the land, whichagain, we know is not true, and
then you end up having an impactin a country like Indonesia
that's looking at co firing,where you know thousands, I
think they said I don't knowwhere to do.

(12:55):
I know it was 1.2 millionhectares of forest for one of
the lowest percentage ofabatement options would have to
be logged and burns to meet thegoals that they have agreed to,
and so that's a terrifyingreality.
That's an on you know, for anumber of energy campaigners
around the world who've beenworking to phase out coal as a

(13:16):
huge, a huge source of theclimate catastrophes we're
seeing.
And that's just an unintendedconsequence of the kind of
international agreements thatare being levied.
But of course we can see inspaces like cop a real effort
from certain countries andcorporations at levy this, and
certainly we're looking toCanada as an actor.

(13:36):
Canada is known internationallyin many cop spaces for having
an impact on agreements and howthey reference for us in a way
that's ultimately quite harmfulto for us.
And then Canada also co chairsthe powering past coal alliance
with the UK and that body whichagain powering past coal.

(14:00):
So great effort on paper toreduce global reliance on coal
very needed, but in practicethey're also now ramping up
their support for biomass as thealternative to coal and what
that's ultimately doing is isincreasing the longevity of coal
with co firing, with biomass,and then it's putting this
enormous pressure on communitiesand for us.

(14:23):
So that was part of theexperience of cop.
But I do want to say I mean, II think it's a very healthy
debate whether or not copsshould exist.
I think as long as it's a spacewhere countries and
corporations are going, civilsociety has, you know, sort of
an obligation to go and mitigateharm.

(14:44):
I also think the internationalsolidarity around biomass that I
saw there and that I've seengrowing around forest issues and
biomass generally in thesespaces is really incredible and
there's something reallyimportant about our
responsibilities to growing thatkind of solidarity with people
from around the world that's notbased on our states or our

(15:07):
countries but that's based onour common reality and our
ability to support each otherthrough these struggles.
And so that's, I think,something I really walked away
from cop with this enormousrespect for these people who are
doing that work, and I thinkit's valuable.
But I do think we have to bereally careful at not taking it

(15:28):
face value what we're seeingcoming out of those spaces,
because it's always morecomplicated than it seems.

Janet Sumner (15:36):
If you like listening to the clear cut and
want to keep the content coming,support the show.
It would mean a lot to Kai andI.
The link to do so will be inthe episode description below.

Kaya Adleman (15:47):
You can also become a supporter by going to
our website atwwwwildlandsleagueorg.
Slash the clear cut and alsomake sure to leave us a review
on your favorite podcaststreaming platform.
It would really help thepodcast.
I'm also wondering, and youguys might not have the answer
to this, but if we'reincreasingly looking to forestry

(16:13):
as a climate strategy, like isthe math that we're basing our
greenhouse gas emissions becausewe're actively like taking out
a carbon sink, is when the IPCCoriginally did the math on, you
know, meeting our targetstowards 1.5 or two degrees?
This the sliding scale.

(16:33):
There's a built in assumptionthat that carbon sink is being
eroded over time?
Or, if it's, if there's, ifit's the same, or if we're still
operating on the assumptionthat from the time these targets
were born, that we have thesame Expansive carbon sink.

(16:54):
I don't know if that makessense.

Tegan Hansen (16:58):
I'll take a stab at it and then, richard, please
jump in.
It's absolutely makes sense.
So part of the predicamentwe're in around biomass stems
from the reporting from the IPCCand the counting from the UNF.
Triple C, Five hundred thousandfurther제로at layer of biomass

(17:27):
were there that were added incarbon Earlier.
It showed that you couldnaturally and during high
nuclear Gadot volume 1991degrees oglots there the carbon
storm grew as a source todiagnose.
But they're not counted becausethe rationale for this is that
it's an existing carbon cycle.

(17:47):
So forests naturally over theirlifetimes.
You know, especially if youlook at places like forests in
BC, most forests in BC burnnaturally and that's part of
their cycle of regeneration andindeed first nations have used
fire as a management tool, as acultural practice for thousands

(18:07):
of years and it's part of whythere's such an abundance in BC.
Is fire and forests naturallyburn or they decompose, they go
through periods of infestation,they might be emitting carbon.
So there is certainly a scienceto this idea of forest absorb
carbon, they release carbon andthat's an existing carbon cycle.

(18:29):
And the premise is you cut themdown, they grow back.
As you said, the time scalesthat the industry is using to
justify that don't line up.
We're not.
We don't have the time that itwould take for forests to
regenerate even a majority ofthat carbon which it's up in the
air, if they can ever recoverthe carbon that they store now

(18:50):
with climate change.
But we certainly just don'thave the time to make those kind
of dangerous assumptions.
So that idea of a carbon cycleis part of the premise and why
we're in this predicament withbiomass, and I think you'll see
the sector well, I know you'llsee it.
Unfortunately, we're seeing thisreally dystopian premise being

(19:15):
sold by, you know, a number ofactors in the forestry sector
that you can store carbon andwood products, but the best
climate solution is to log aforest and put the wood in the
building and that that isactually instead of letting them
burn.
That's how we're going to solveclimate change.
That's.
It's such a dystopian andwholly false view.

(19:38):
I mean, we know in BritishColumbia the a lot of forests.
The carbon that they store it'sactually mostly in the soil and
that's disturbed with all theequipment at logging.
And then you know you don't usemost of the wood you cut.
It's totally false.
And then you look at a placelike the.

(20:00):
You know even the lifetime of abuilding is actually not as
long as you would think.
It's less than a human life.
So the idea of storing carbon inthat way is ridiculous, but it
is what the sector is promotingand I would say, with colonial
governments, at least, it seemslike that is the approach that
they would like to take and thepolicies that they're taking,
and so I think we have to bereally careful about letting

(20:24):
them get away with that, becauseultimately, what it's doing is
giving away to practices andsectors that are ultimately, you
know, destroying our climate interms of highly emitting fuels
like wood biomass or woodpellets.
And with logging, you know thereal consequence of making

(20:45):
communities more vulnerable tothese really severe mega fires
that we're now seeing in placeslike British Columbia.
I know, Richard, if you hadmore to add to that.

Richard Robertson (20:55):
Yeah, I think the wildfires is really good
segue into what I wanted to sayon this one, and that's that
Forests are currently, or havebeen, a carbon sink and so
they're storing more and morecarbon over time.
So they have this huge store ofcarbon.
Forestry has come in andindustrial forestry has come in

(21:21):
and shortened the lifetime, ifyou like, the life cycle, of
these forests.
So we're now into 60, 70 yearcycles on a.
When you go back and disturbthe forest again, the industry
would say, oh, there's naturaldisturbance, pest fire, the like
.
We are imitating that throughour this is how they sell it.

(21:43):
They were imitating thatthrough the clear cuts.
However, the clear cuts are onsuch a cycle now and across such
the whole of the landscape thatthat's no longer that's way
ahead of this of the cycle thatyou would get from natural
disturbance such as fire.
So like something on off couldbe a 250 or 500 year cycle, but

(22:07):
for a fire comes throughnaturally again.
We're now into cutting and thisdisturbance over the 60, 70
years, let's see.
So the fear is that we are goingfrom a carbon sink to a carbon
bomb when we're actually aforest.
Could forests could come toemitting more carbon into the

(22:28):
atmosphere than they've beenabsorbing and that they've been
able to store over time.
This is the fear here intemperate rainforest and this is
the fear also in the Amazon,the Amazon rainforest.
A lot of people might haveheard that that forest is at a
tipping point or potentiallygetting to a tipping point where

(22:49):
we'll go from a carbon sink toa carbon bomb, and those two
things are the opposite ends ofwhat we really want here and
need here in terms of ourfutures and our future climate.
And if we cannot bring or keepthese forests as the carbon

(23:12):
sinks that we desperately need,it's going to alter the climate,
not only for those forestswhich we're seeing and we're
seeing so much more in terms offires, and we're dreading the
fire season coming here thisyear but also I'm looking out
the window here and everyonearound the country is saying
where's the snow been this year?

(23:32):
Where's the cold?
Where's the?
Could it be an unusual year?
It seems more that we've had acycle of a number of years like
this now, and yeah, so that'sthe kind of cycle we could be
going into and that is not whatwe want to be doing with our

(23:52):
forests, and the forests havebeen there the rainforest, the
temperate rainforest.
We have have been helping tocontrol our climate here and on
as part of a global system, soto cut further into those now
and to further degrade them, itseems really a very egregious
thing to do.
That's all sounds very negative.

(24:20):
I wonder if there are somepositives that we can switch to
and talk about, maybe howrestoration of these forests and
protection of forests couldreally Could see us through to
something that's much morepositive than where we're at
right now.

Janet Sumner (24:38):
Yeah, I mean we could talk about that.
I mean I don't want to deteryou from having a bold way of
stating what is, because I thinkwe all need to admit to what is
, and then we can actually startto solve things.
And so I think that that's.
Many people don't have theadvantage that you have, which

(25:03):
is to get out there and seewhat's happening on the ground
and understand it, and that'sit's vital to it's.
One of the reasons we're doingthis podcast is basically, I had
a deep frustration with so manyof these conversations
happening across the country.
People in the middle of thecountry would see the fires in
BC and feel frustrated.
Or they see the protests aroundold growth.

(25:23):
They'd feel frustrated, butthey wouldn't really know the
state of it.
We'd only hear it in the mediaas a Sound bites.
Yeah, sound bites in the mediaand we'd get a sort of a taste
of reality every once in a while.
So the point of the podcast wasto actually bring some of these
conversations out into the openso you could actually go
through the podcast.

(25:44):
You could listen about thehonorable harvest, you could
listen to Harvey Locke talkabout the carbon cycle, but also
how we're counting carboninternationally.
You could have a conversationor listen in on what's actually
happening in BC in terms of oldgrowth and listen to Justina Ray
talk about caribou and what'shappening there.

(26:05):
So I very much want theseconversations to be bold and be
able to face the reality infront of us and then say, well,
what are we going to do about it?
And actually where I'd like togo next is because I know Stan
has thought about this a littlebit and one of the things that

(26:28):
we know that we're in an energytransition, that we have to be
thinking about an energytransition.
But I'll just full disclosureI've been thinking for a while
now that we need to start havinga conversation about a fiber
transition, or how we makethings, what we make them out of
, what's our product that we'regoing to be producing and what's

(26:50):
the source material?
And I'm also thinking of thatfrom the perspective of
communities, communities wherelogging might have been
occurring for a long time, andthose old growth forests that
are actually very rich inbiodiversity are also very rich
in terms of the dollar amountthat they gather on the

(27:12):
marketplace, and so what isgoing to replace that?
And then, if you talk aboutbiomass coming in as this savior
, even though it is heavilysubsidized for our local
community, it might be thesavior in terms of what can be
logged or not logged in, and Iknow that you've done some
thinking about that, because, asa nonprofit organization, you

(27:33):
really do think about localimpacts, and so I'm just
wondering if you could maybetalk about that a little bit.

Tegan Hansen (27:41):
Sure, and this is the real meat of the discussion.
Right Is well, what, if notthis, then what?
And I think it's also been anintensely frustrating time
because there's been sort of abarrier to having that

(28:02):
conversation in a meaningful way, certainly in British Columbia.
So we've had a commitment onold growth from the province of
British Columbia to implement anumber of recommendations, and
they made this commitment in thelast election, so in 2020.
And what we've seen reallydominate the rhetoric from the

(28:25):
province, instead of followingthrough on that commitment, has
been a real thinking intomisinformation about what's
actually happening in forestsand about what they're doing,
and I think that's been a realstruggle and one of the things
that's made.
Having the discussion about,okay, what you know, what can
community, what can communitieslook to instead, because we

(28:48):
can't even be honest aboutwhat's happening now and about
the impacts and the causes.
And so that's one thing I'llalso I'll preface this with is
the conversation itself is sodeeply rooted in misinformation
from and it's intentional fromthe province, and also there's
also just a very understandableamount of caution and fear.

(29:09):
I think it's again I mentionedthis earlier about.
You know, our approach as aprovince in British Columbia to
resources is still very muchrooted in a gold rush economy
and frame of mind, and the fear,the very real fear, of your
town becoming a ghost town isalso true.

(29:30):
I think it's really important,though, to take a step back
further.
I've been really encouraged.
It's been hard fought andextremely imperfect and has a
long way to go, but I have beenencouraged to see, with recent
agreements coming out, that theprovince, the provincial

(29:51):
government and the federalgovernment have done things in
partnership with, like FirstNations Leadership Council, for
instance, which is a body thatrepresents many First Nations
governments in British Columbia,and to really recognize, you
know, what we have to approachforest management in BC with is
one every forest is on FirstNations sovereign territory, and

(30:17):
we that means we actually haveto change how we do things.
It's not just, you know, a landacknowledgement and some nice
words.
It's a full change in practicesto reflect that the sovereignty
of that nation, to reflect ourcommitments under the
Declaration of the Rights ofIndigenous Peoples Act in BC,

(30:37):
which was adopted a few yearsago and said that laws would be
amended to like to reflect thetitle and rights of First
Nations.
So that's one thing, and thenalso the reality that you know
there are certain fundamentalvalues that take precedence in
our lives water, air, you know,having a home, having access,

(30:59):
you know, being safe.
And we are reckoning with thisin the province where undergoing
we just actually finished closeup a period where the province
was getting feedback on a draft,a biodiversity and ecosystem
health framework.
What does ecosystem healthmeans is a very much an open
question and something thatcould be dangerously misapplied.

(31:21):
The forestry sector has usedthe argument of ecosystem health
to do enormous clear cuts withthe way they responded to the
Pine Beetle crisis in BC, whichwas not ultimately helpful for
ecosystems or communities.
But you know these are veryfundamental things and so the

(31:42):
idea being that there should belegislation in the province that
that requires a fundamental,fundamentally ecosystem health
is a priority, and that anycorporation, whether it's
forestry or mining oil and gas,you know, or utilities takes
ecosystem health as thefundamental basis of life, and
that that, you know, has to beat the forefront of your

(32:06):
discussion.
So I think you know, respectingthat those are the priorities,
then you get into.
Well, people need jobs and theyneed livelihoods, and a lot of
communities around BC were built.
The settler communities werebuilt on the industry of cutting
down trees and milling them.

(32:26):
And now you know, you look atcompanies, the biggest logging
companies in the province, likeCanfore and West Treasure, are
increasingly closing mills andopening new ones in the southern
US where the trees, you know,are in a different kind of cycle
of regrowth.
And that's such a concernbecause those companies really

(32:50):
control the land in a profoundway.
They have these massive 10years, they have the ability to,
you know, build these roads andhave like kind of wreak havoc
with these massive clear cuts,and I do mean wreak havoc
because that has been the impact.
And so fundamentally, when wetalk about jobs, we're going

(33:11):
from a place where the priorityof these biggest, most powerful
companies has ultimately notbeen to give the best or most
jobs.
It's been to make to reallyhave good profit margins.
And I gave a presentation at aforestry on a forestry panel in
the fall.
It was very interesting, I wasa very out of place panel but at

(33:34):
one point I pulled up a graphwhere I showed you could see
basically two lines and it wasthe amount of wood cut by volume
in the province and then theamount of kind of jobs per
volume and in the 90s those twolines diverged sharply.
So you had kind of volume goingmore steady and then the amount
of jobs for per tree basicallycut, just going in steep decline

(33:59):
.
And so the reality is that youknow, with mechanization, you
know more automated jobs, thatyou haven't needed to employ as
many people to make money.
And we've been exporting, youknow, products that aren't what
we would say, I would challenge,our true value added products.
I don't think exporting pulp,even a two by four, you could

(34:22):
say it's not the same asbuilding a house or making
furniture and selling a reallyhigh value product.
And so that's the challenge, Ithink, ultimately the reality of
what, what is the alternative?
You know job sector, what's thealternative?
Fiber source it's going to bedifferent in different
communities and I think there isa very founded reality that for

(34:46):
some communities looking at,well, what can we do with the
fiber that's left in this area,it's not going to be the same
answer in.
You know where I'm from, in theWest Cuny's, where there's been
such severe degradation offorests.
It's not going to be the samethere as it might be in you know

(35:08):
parts of the North where theindustry really centralized now
if you think aboutultra-thulking and where it's
most severe it isn't on theSouth Coast, it's in the North,
and I think where we have toaccept is that some communities
will not have the same number ofmills that they might have had

(35:30):
in the 80s.
It should be the priority ofthis government to, when they
look at, you know, opportunitiesto subsidize projects, to
subsidize true value-addedprojects where employment that
comes with the basis of FirstNations Title and Rights and

(35:51):
ecological integrity as thepriorities that that is the goal
of the project is the communitylongevity.
My concern is that our provincecurrently considers wood
pellets to be a value-addedproduct.
I don't think turning a treeinto a pellet is value and it's

(36:12):
certainly not a good jobsproposition.
It's one of the worst jobsproposition sectors that
Forestry has to offer.
But that is, in a lot of cases,the only solution that's being
offered to communities by thisprovince, because it's one
that's still rooted in the sameway of looking at a forest as a
timber basket.

(36:34):
A forest is not a timber basket.
You know forests are our bestdefense and offense to climate
change.
For First Nations it's theirland and, you know, sources of
food and culture and for all ofour communities it's safe
drinking water, it's protectionfrom fire, it's protection from
flood, and so I just I think,fundamentally, we need to have

(36:57):
those open and honestconversations about what matters
most, and we need government tobe honest about their
priorities.
And the reality is, theprovince of BC has been sending
trade missions to Japan tomarket BC as the timber source
for wood pellets, and that's not, that's not a solution that I

(37:19):
think works for anyone, and Idon't, at least in the fall.
The fallers and the people inthe sector I've talked to are
pretty, you know, just ashorrified by that option is.
I think we are, and so I thinkwe have a lot more in common
than than others would like usto believe.
But ultimately, we need to bewilling to have very difficult
conversations that are going tobe different in every community

(37:41):
of BC.

Kaya Adleman (37:43):
Hey, are you liking the clear cut as much as
we like making it?
Your donation helps us bringmore of these important stories
to life.
You can actually support ourwork by going to our website,
wwwwildlandsleagueorg.
Slash the clear cut, or you canclick the link in the episode

(38:04):
description below.
Your support means the world tous.

Janet Sumner (38:11):
Richard, do you want to jump in on that?
It's a pretty passionate pleaby Tia.

Richard Robertson (38:16):
Yeah, amazing to you.
Yeah, I agree with everythingyou said.
It's an amazing call out of theindustry and its impact on
communities in so many ways.
And yeah, I've worked in theforest and I it's a lot of the

(38:36):
work out there is not very, veryhighly paid as, and trying to
get an industry that's moreskilled and that's able to
provide those kind of moreskilled and jobs with longevity,
along with with future and thepotential for promotion for
people's lives to be moreenhanced, I think is is a great

(38:59):
call out.
I also want to reflect back onthe subsidy situation and the
idea that that that thegovernment is further
subsidizing this industry, thebiomass industry, as opposed to
putting a lot of the money.
Let's be frank, 90% of what wehave here is crown land and the

(39:24):
ties between government earningrevenue from that and industry
going about what it's done forthe last century and more are
very, very solid, and so to tryand break that paradigm and look
at rest of forest restorationand pulling back the time scale

(39:45):
on which you go in and re,harvest and recut these, recut
these forests is essential.
So instead, I my view would bethat you, instead of using some
of some of the income thatyou've, you have been benefited
from from cutting forests in tofurther cut and further exploit.

(40:09):
Take a step back and start torestore what you have and
restore it in a way that we canhave an ecological integrity and
a community integrity moreintact and more in place so we
have a greater future forforests and forest communities.

Janet Sumner (40:32):
Maybe trying to where Richard was taking us with
a conversation.
Are there?
There are lines of hope here.
Are there things that you see,that you go?
We should be really, reallyhopeful for this.
I know there's a lot that wehave to face, but what would you
draw out as what gives you hope?

Tegan Hansen (40:53):
I think, ultimately, people will always
give you the most hope.
I think you're feeling hopeless.
The best thing you can do is goand take action with people and
really there has been so muchincredible work done by
community leaders over I meanforever, but in the last few
years, you know, we've seenpeople do everything from

(41:17):
blockades to actions to raiseawareness and, you know, verging
on I wouldn't say harassment,but like a real steadfast
commitment to elected officialsresponsible.
I mean that's really helpful.
And I do think there has been aresponse from and certainly we
talk a lot about the province ofBritish Columbia when we're

(41:39):
talking about these because theprovince has so much power.
But there has been movementfrom the province and it's been
because people have done such agood job of forcing them to take
action and to forcing them toface political consequences if
they don't, and that's amazing.
We've had great commitments.

(42:00):
You know I will always hold theprovince responsible for not
meeting their commitments toimplement their old growth
strategic review that theyagreed to in 2020.
But the fact that they saidthey would and they're still
ostensibly working on it and wehave something to hold them to
their is hopeful.
There's really promising piecesin that review.

(42:21):
That could do an enormousamount of good for forests and
communities.
There was recently a tripartitenature agreement signed between
the First Nations LeadershipCouncil here in BC and the
governments of British Columbiaand of Canada to dedicate, you

(42:42):
know, about a little over abillion dollars I say a little,
but over a billion dollars fornature.
And again, like, was it allgood?
I mean to be just Herman's howit actually rolls out, but in
theory what that's going to dois make it more feasible for
First Nations to lead onconservation work in their

(43:04):
territories that is actuallymeaningful and long term and
rooted in, you know, connectionbetween people and land.
And so if that's rolled outproperly, that could be a great
thing.
And I think those are hopefulmeasures and they require us to
be constantly vigilant andconstantly active and engaged in
holding our representatives andour governments accountable.

(43:27):
And so I think that that'sreally where the hope comes in.
It's not, you know you, if youlook at the state of forest,
it's grim.
There's very little old growthleft.
Forests in this province areintensely fragmented.
There's more.
You know BC as a jurisdictionwithin Canada leads on

(43:50):
biodiversity and also onextinction.
There's a lot to be, veryrightly so worried about, and
there's so much we could do.
I think one thing that I alwayscome back to is we're at such a
profound moment where we canactually make change for the
future.
We can.
We can keep species fromgrowing extinct, we can work

(44:11):
together with communities tomake a truly green and empowered
future for communities, and sothis is all possible and we
actually can do it, and it's areally our responsibility to,
and so I think that's where Ifind hope is in the opportunity,
and that's also where I findfrustration the lack of follow

(44:34):
through from colonialgovernments.
But that's our job.
That's why we have so much funprofessionally yelling at them.

Janet Sumner (44:44):
I'm wondering where's your hope?
Have you got hope in the EU DR?
Have you got hope in Like?
Where's your hope come from?

Richard Robertson (44:53):
Yeah, I think that's that's a good one to
call out.
I am, one of the most hopefulthings that I've seen in the
past year has been the work thatwe as a national, regional,
environmental, non governmentorganizations have done and
actually come together.
I was I was amazed how we wecame together and came to a very

(45:15):
strong agreement on what isforest degradation, and so it's.
I think it's a very strict andnecessarily very strict
definition, but for for somefairly in the past divergent
organizations to be able to comeout strong together and speak

(45:36):
for their constituents and to beable to represent those people,
hopefully, who are listening tothis podcast, who are concerned
and who really want to seeimprovements in our forest, I
think that's that's amazing andI hope we can do some more work
like that together.
I think that's that's how we'regoing to really get our voices
heard, if we can speak as oneand come out very strong.

(45:59):
So, yeah, that that gives mehope and I think this there
really is opportunity for thechange at the international
level in terms of recognizingwhat, what are real climate
solutions, and that our forestsand their ability to absorb
carbon, that this is the onlything that we found so far that

(46:20):
can actually absorb carbon.
There's this industry.
The pilot industry is goingdown the route of trying to do
that artificially Again, tryingto beg for more, more subsidies.
We have essentially a freeresource out there that is
storing millions of tons ofcarbon and doing it daily
without us interacting at all.

(46:40):
Sadly, we're denuding that abit.
If we could step back a little,I think that's that would give
me some further hope.

Janet Sumner (46:49):
Yeah, it's the original carbon capture
technology.

Tegan Hansen (46:58):
Yeah and it's the only proven carbon capture and
storage technology at this pointas well, yes, exactly.

Kaya Adleman (47:10):
Is there anything that someone listening to the
podcast can do to maybe getinvolved?
Things that stand is doing thatyou want to plug, yeah.

Tegan Hansen (47:24):
Yes, there's always a way to be involved.
I think you know there's a verysimple thing of you can go to
stand on earth and sign apetition, but what also that
will do is you can sign up toget updates and alerts About

(47:45):
actions you can take.
You can further take to do tosupport worker on forest defense
, and that can be everythingfrom signing more petitions to
you know, we have an upcomingelection here in British
Columbia, so if you reside inBritish Columbia, there's a real
opportunity to engage withpeople in your constituency and
work to hold politicalrepresentatives accountable and

(48:07):
make them aware of the fact thatthese issues matter to you, I
think very rightly so.
Issues of affordability andhousing and health care are
going to be really top of theagenda for this election and BC
and I'm sure you know, as we hadalso towards a federal election
, and so it's really on us andon you to make sure that your

(48:30):
you know whoever is running foroffice in your writing also
knows that issues around forestsand climate matter deeply to
you and are going to impact theway that you vote, and so those
are important steps you can take.
So I would suggest signing upvia one of our petitions on
stand out earth is a way you canget engaged in that community
or or simply do that workyourself.

(48:52):
I find out, you know, if youlive in a community, in a forest
community and I would challengealso that I mean at least in
British Columbia every communityis a forest community and you
have opportunities locally totake action.
And whether that's from tryingto, you know, work with people
locally to protect a forest orchanging practices like trying

(49:16):
to get glyphosate, which is aharmful talk to me haven't even
talked about that but trying toget that to not be sprayed
somewhere where people in yourcommunity might go berry picking
or all kinds of differentactivities like that's an
important measure you can takeand those opportunities to
engage.
You'd be surprised how much aphone call or a visit to a local
office, how much power thatactually has, because so few

(49:40):
people do it.
And then I also think one thingthat also advertises.
We talked a little bit aboutmisinformation and we developed
a tool at stand called forest I,which is a monitoring tool for
old growth logging Specifically.

(50:02):
At the moment it just focuses onold growth in British Columbia,
but what it does, becausethere's such a lack of publicly
available information about oldgrowth flagging.
It's so hard to know whenthere's a road that's gone into
a new place or when there's anew block that's recently been
put in.
How do you know that's actuallyhappened if it's 200 kilometers

(50:24):
away from you and up a reallyyou know frightening login route
?
So we have a tool now thatsends alerts or we post alerts
online to an interactive map,into a repository of information
, so you can actually seesatellite imagery of new roads
going in and new clear cutlogging happening, and so you

(50:45):
can also sign up to get alertsthrough that.
And so it stands at slashforest I and that's a really
designed also as a tool for you,for people, to take action,
where you can then send thatinformation to your, to your MLA
, to your MP, federally, even ifyou'd like and really drive
home the fact that old growth isstill happening and that you

(51:07):
want these practices to change.
So those are a couple, couplelittle pieces of information at
your disposal, but then alsofeel free to just reach out to
us via our website as well.

Janet Sumner (51:20):
I was also going to say I think every Canadian
can do that, because the forceof BC sometimes feel like they
belong to every Canadian.
You know that that when thefires are going, when the old
growth is being threatened, yousee general concern across the
country, and so it's well MLAsand MPs in British Columbia

(51:44):
might be counting the votes andhow that might work.
I think it's good for allCanadians be tracking what's
going on and understandingwhat's happening to our force on
behalf of us and thinking aboutways that we can have that
conversation and be prepared forit.

Kaya Adleman (52:01):
So that we can make our decisions better.
So being politically engaged islike super important, because
just for everyone, becausebusiness as usual is dependent
on the notion of like freeriding for people to not be
engaged.

Tegan Hansen (52:18):
Absolutely, and these policies impact people all
over the world, I mean verydirectly.
We've seen, you know, with thefires last year, not just in BC
but around Quebec and Ontarioand elsewhere, and the smoke
making news and just wreakinghavoc on people's lives, and,
you know, as far away as NewYork City.
Well, those are the directimpacts of Canadian forest

(52:42):
policies and making thelandscape so susceptible to fire
.
So, absolutely, you're totallyright, this is, you know, our
collective responsibility totake action and do what we can
to make these politicaldecisions essential for
political leaders, you know,make it so that they have no
choice but to take this actionthat we desperately, for our

(53:03):
lives and for livelihoods, needthem to take.

Richard Robertson (53:08):
Yeah, I think , don't you write?
The forest in British Columbiashould be regarded by everyone
lives in Canada as such anamazing part of the culture and
the environment here.
And then I also reflect on thefact that 90% of them are termed
brown land, so it ties into thecolonial past, and me myself

(53:32):
being from Britain and seeingwood pellets go from here to to
the UK is furthering that wholekind of colonial impact.
And so, yeah, people in peoplein Britain also have a
responsibility now for theseforests in the way that they are

(53:54):
exploited and and always havedone.
And so, yeah, I really takethat away.
I'm always if I'm talking topeople in Britain.
I had the privilege of going tothe Drax, a GM in London last
year and there I was tellingpeople, look at the names of the
places here, look at the factthat it's you know, alberta and

(54:14):
Prince George and the QueenCharlotte Islands, as as
colonial these places have beentermed.
It's, it's writ large and thisis a place that's been exporting
internationally for a long time.
So it's, yeah, it's essentialthat the world looks to these
forests and says, no, this isnot the way to be, to be going

(54:36):
forwards, and that these forestsdeserve a lot more respect and
the people who rightly whorightly own these forests and
culturally manage these forestsare the first nations and
indigenous peoples here in thisnation.
Yeah, I don't think they'rereally aware of that and I don't
think they're really aware ofsome of the shocking history

(54:58):
around that either.
So I take every opportunity tolet people, certainly in the UK,
know more about that and Ihopefully through podcasts like
this, and I'll certainly besharing with my family friends
there so that they'll get toknow a little bit more about
what's happening and theirimpacts.

Janet Sumner (55:15):
Yeah, I think that when we designed and I mean we
as in the collective, wedesigned the climate
architecture to try and reduceemissions and get to net zero
and I thought wasn't really tobe burning more trees to get out
of the climate emergency, Imean that seems, just on face

(55:36):
value, seems counterintuitive.
And so this is I think Teganyou mentioned it and I think
it's absolutely right this is anunintended consequence of those
climate agreements and tryingto get to net zero.
And if countries and I'm, youknow, pointing my finger at
places like the UK and I'm adual citizenship there, so so

(55:58):
feel I have an ability to dothat as well but your climate
policies are killing our forests.
And so starting to think aboutif you really want to get to net
zero, really embrace getting tonet zero, and burning trees is
not the the answer to theclimate equation.
Yeah, sorry it's maybe too mucheditorial, but that's where I'm

(56:21):
at.

Tegan Hansen (56:22):
I think it's not editorial, it's just a fact,
right.

Richard Robertson (56:26):
Yeah, I think , the more simply we can put
these things as well.
That speaks so readily topeople out there.
I can't top that, I don't think.

Janet Sumner (56:40):
Thank you both very much for your time.
It's been really appreciated andfor me it's a chance to.
I mean, I've been working withRichard a little bit more
closely over these last fewyears, but it's a great chance
to catch up with you, tegan, andto hear a lot more about what
you're doing.
And the conversation that wehad, that you gave us an inside
view into the COP was reallygood.

(57:01):
Really appreciated that andjust understanding how countries
are out there selling theopportunity to come and get
biomass here, it really was abit eye-opening for me and also
just how some of the communitiesthat are out there that's the

(57:21):
only options they're given.
So, it's really sobering, but Ithank you for bringing that all
to the conversation of Richard.
I look forward to doing morewith you in the future as we
explore the degradationdefinition and trying to get
Canada to agree to somethingthat's recent Great.
Thank you, so much this hasbeen a great opportunity.

Tegan Hansen (57:44):
Yeah, thank you so much, Really appreciate it.

Janet Sumner (57:51):
So, as promised, we heard about the unintended
consequences of climateagreements driving up the
marketplace not the need,necessarily, but the marketplace
for biomass, and also the timescales.
That's a really big thing thatKaya and I were both just
shocked by that.
You could have a zero emissionwhen you were burning wood

(58:11):
pellets, even if you include allof the transportation costs,
the drying of the fuel or thefuel drying of the wood to
create wood pellets, and thenyou ship that 12,000 kilometers,
move it from British Columbiato the UK to fuel up a very
large station there called Drax,and this is a dangerous game of

(58:36):
roulette or very bad math.
It's actually one of thereasons that I moved from
working.
I specifically worked onclimate change up until 2003,
and I did that because it was,you know, a breaking issue is a
really big concern for me, andwhen I started to look at the
math on how much carbon Canadathat stored in its forests and

(58:56):
its peatlands, I got very, veryconcerned and moved to working
on nature, because I thought oneof the things that Canada was
at risk of it was its greatestproblem was how it was going to
deal in terms of climate change,was going to be how it dealt
with the natural world and Ihate to say that, 20 years on,

(59:17):
it still is a great concern forme that Canada may seem to want
to deal with you know gettingout of coal or reducing our
emissions or you know being apart of all of that but we have
grave concerns of how we'redealing with biomass, how we're
treating the underlyingstructure of the climate

(59:37):
agreement.
As Kaya points out in thisepisode, there was an assumption
there.
All the climate models assumethat you had essentially a
natural world that would keepabsorbing carbon at the same
rate, and yet we are taking awaysome of these natural places
you know our forests, but alsoour peatlands and that's
diminishing the ability of theplanet to capture carbon.

(01:00:00):
And yet we're out there saying,oh, we're going to invent
carbon capture systems and thegreatest carbon capture system
is the natural world, and yetwe're liquidating it.
At the same time we're sayingit's a zero emission coming out
of a smokestack.
So all of this is deeplyconcerning for me and the time
scales are just way off.
If you cut down a two or 300year old tree and I think Tegan

(01:00:23):
talks about this in the episodementions that cutting that tree
down yes, it's all that storedcarbon, but also it changes that
entire forest and its abilityto absorb carbon.
So you've got both of thosethings going on and there's no
way you're going to replace.
Even if you could believe thesustainability model and believe

(01:00:45):
that we're going to have 100%regeneration, that's not going
to happen by 2050.
It's just absolutely not thattwo or 300 year old tree that
became wood pellets, or 50% ofit became wood pellets, will not
be restored in that timeline.
This is sort of the shockingtruth of these conversations and

(01:01:07):
I really hope that people willstart to take this into account.
We definitely need sustainableeconomies for our forest
dependent communities and weneed to look more broadly than
just this gold rush mentalitythat Tegan keeps talking about.

Kaya Adleman (01:01:23):
Forestry math if you will.
I think one of the standoutpoints.

Janet Sumner (01:01:30):
You started a new meme.
Instead of girl math orforestry math, yes, Maybe
that'll be the title for thisepisode.

Kaya Adleman (01:01:38):
Moving on, one of the things that stands out for
me and one of the things thatI'm actually kind of concerned
about is there's a lot ofnegative media attention of this
past year's cop in Dubai, thatthere was an overrepresentation
of people from the fossil fuelindustry who were lobbying to

(01:01:59):
make sure that fossil fuelsaren't completely phased out of
the conversation, and one of myhopes is that world leaders are
not going to look to biomass asthe solution to that.
And, as Tegan was saying, giventhe biomass industries presence
at COP as well, I think that'salso something that's a red flag

(01:02:24):
for me and I hope that thisepisode will kind of bring these
issues to light more and thatthis is not something that we
should be turning to as asolution for clean renewable
fuels.
Yeah, so there's that.
And then one of the other partsof this conversation that I
really enjoyed was when westarted talking about the

(01:02:46):
transition for the future.
What does that look like?
We've had similar conversationson the podcast before about
finding alternative materials toproduce single use wood
products, from steering awayfrom biomass as a broadband
energy source.
One of the things that Richardsaid actually is that a lot of

(01:03:08):
the jobs that are in theseindustries are highly recognized
, they're being phased out andthat they're also not very
highly paid.
Especially as the industry isgoing to get more skilled, it's
not a good outlook for joblongevity and growth, so we need
to start looking towards bettersolutions that'll provide

(01:03:28):
better economic security for thepeople that are working in the
forest industry as well.
Those are my ads.

Janet Sumner (01:03:36):
Yeah, definitely, forest dependent communities
need jobs.
All right, kaya, thanks so much.
Another great conversation.

Richard Robertson (01:03:45):
Yeah, thanks.

Janet Sumner (01:03:45):
Take care.
If you like listening to theClearcut and want to keep the
content coming, support the show.
It would mean a lot to Kaya andI.
The link to do so will be inthe episode description below.

Kaya Adleman (01:04:00):
You can also become a supporter by going to
our website atwwwwildlandsleagueorg, and also
make sure to leave us a reviewon your favorite podcast
streaming platform.
It would really help thepodcast and stay tuned for new
episodes by following us onsocial media.

Janet Sumner (01:04:21):
That's at Wildlands League on Instagram,
Twitter and Facebook or LinkedIn, of course.

Kaya Adleman (01:04:27):
See you next time.