April 4, 2024 • 51 mins
In part 2 of our conversation with Conservation North, Michelle Connolly gives us a lesson in forest ecology and forestry semantics. How does British Columbia and the forestry industry use seemingly ‘green’ language to justify more logging of the province’s natural forests? Who is forestry sustainable for? The planet? The species? Or the companies?
We also get a sneak peek into Conservation North’s new report on U.K. biofuel producer Drax, and how they’re continuing to source materials from rare old growth forests.
Learn more about Conservation North on their website and read the report they co-authored, Logging What's Left.
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.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Janet Sumner (00:00):
Welcome to The Clear Cut.
Hi, I'm Janet Sumner, ExecutiveDirector at Wildlands League.
Kaya Adleman (00:08):
And I'm Kaya Adleman, 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 Clear Cut 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 (00:40):
Okay, good afternoon Kaya.
Kaya Adleman (00:43):
Good afternoon.
Janet Sumner (00:44):
I don't know what time it is where you're
listening, but good afternoon.
We have just finished the firstepisode, or first podcast
episode, with Michelle Connollyfrom Conservation North.
That was a pretty greatconversation and we're going to
get into even more.
I found with this one that Imean with all of our guests I'm
(01:06):
always learning something, butit was.
I really liked the clarity ofhow she explains things and the
words she chooses, and it mightbe hard hitting or a little bit
radical for some people, but itreally puts the ideas in stark
perspective, and so I reallyenjoyed listening to Michelle
talk and certainly learned a lotabout the dynamics of BC, old
(01:29):
growth etc.
To some extent maybe exposingthe rest of the forest to being
explored and not keeping peopleout of the intact and the
natural areas, but ratherpartitioning the forest in a way
(01:52):
that it actually almostincreased more access into the
natural areas.
Kaya Adleman (01:56):
Yeah, no, I agree, I like this section of the
discussion as well, I think.
Personally, for me, what Ifound really interesting was the
discussion that you'll hearabout language and how that's
used to convey certain attitudesor notions about forests and
(02:17):
the forest industry, and assomeone who studied greenwashing
quite a bit, I think it'ssomething that is interesting to
kind of dive deeper into and tobring to this discussion in a
greater context as well.
Janet Sumner (02:38):
Yeah, we start.
We start the conversation withMichelle where she's mentioning
about nuking the forest andgives her a definition of what
that is, and then the types ofcontrols that are used in light
of insect outbreaks and fires.
And again that mention oflanguage and how language shapes
things and how it resultssometimes in unintended
(03:00):
consequences that you didn'tknow you were choosing when you
use certain words.
So that, for me, is a greatplace to start with nuking the
forest and what it means forMichelle.
Kaya Adleman (03:11):
Yeah, I can't wait to get into it.
And, by the way, if you arejust tuning in to our discussion
with Michelle now, this is parttwo, so I encourage you to go
back and listen to part one two.
So I encourage you to go backand listen to part one, which is
the episode titled Is ForestryPathological?
Janet Sumner (03:31):
And then come back to this one.
So, michelle, I just want tounpack that a little bit.
When you say about the sprucebeetle and you also said about
nuking the forest, so I'massuming that you're talking
about the spraying of pesticidesto get rid of the or you're
talking about nuking them interms of harvesting?
(03:52):
I know that in yes, they'veused surge cuts kind of thing.
So is that also true in bc,where you've had surge cuts,
where you basically have anallowable cut level, and then
you say, oh, throw on an extra10 or 15 because oh my goodness,
this search we've seen sprucebeetle.
Michelle Connolly (04:08):
We need to get rid of it uh, yes, so I I've
never heard that term surge cutbefore, but but yes, it
basically.
Uh, they enable throughlowering the stumpage.
So that's the mechanism throughwhich bc collects a rent
essentially off of licenseesoperating on public lands.
It's a payment they make, sothe stumpage drops to almost
(04:31):
nothing in order to encouragethe annihilation of
post-disturbance stands.
And no, I wasn't talking aboutspraying for beetles.
Yeah, I guess it's the rightplace to talk about that.
You know, in professionalforestry there's the belief that
you can somehow control insectsthrough logging.
So, yes, if you eliminate theforests that's what I meant by
(04:55):
nuking.
I should have been more clearabout that I meant industrially
logging them and, of course,standard practices is clear-cut
logging.
So that's what those placeslook like.
That had the spruce beetle.
There's an area called theAnzac, or it's in the, it's in
the parsnip drainage, north ofPrince George.
That's kind of what we considerthe poster child of that
(05:17):
terrible type of management thatchases natural disturbances
like that, natural disturbanceslike that.
So, yes, the licensees pay avery small charge when the trees
are dead and then they'reconsidered quote salvage.
Janet Sumner (05:35):
Yes, surgecut is from my time working on forestry
in Alberta and with the pinebeetle infestation, what they
chose to do was these surge cutswhich allowed companies to go
in and have a surge in theirallowable cut for I'm going to
say it was over 10 years, but Ithink it might have even been
longer than that and it wasessentially to go in and clean
(05:58):
up the forest.
After all of this pine beetledevastation Isn't it.
Michelle Connolly (06:02):
Isn't it funny the language that gets
used clean up as if it was likesomehow dirty before.
I find that hilarious.
All the language in forestry isreally amusing because it's so
full of euphemism.
Yeah, I mean, one of thepernicious myths of modern
forestry is that you can logyour way out of an insect
(06:25):
outbreak.
There's no scientific consensusthat that's possible.
Episodic outbreaks of insectsare climatically related and we
can't control the antecedentconditions that promote
outbreaks.
There's a leading researcher inthe US named Diana Six who talks
about this.
And of course, wildlife habitatand ecological functions
(06:49):
persist in beetle-attackedstands.
Forests recover far sooner frombeetle outbreaks if they're
left alone and they're severelycompromised by logging.
So lots has been written bythat.
Dead trees play an ecologicalrole equal to or greater than
their role as living trees.
They're not wasted fiber, asthe industry likes to put it,
(07:13):
and in fact all of our oldgrowth forests actually owe
their structure and complexityto the natural workings of
insects disease fire.
So those elements createcomplexity, they're
complexifying agents.
But of course, those things arebasically being rebranded by
those in power as bad,catastrophic things that are
(07:36):
only the result of climatechange, which is not true, and
they're used essentially as aTrojan horse for logging.
So that's the concept of foresthealth, which is not an
ecological term, it's aneconomic one, and teaching the
public about this is really acentral push for our group and
it's going to be in the comingyears because of this direction.
Kaya Adleman (08:00):
Yeah.
I was gonna, sorry, go ahead.
Well, I was gonna say say itseems like the policy fears
disturbance related to, I guess,natural processes like
wildfires and insect outbreaks,versus human caused disturbances
and in fact sees human causeddisturbances as a solution to
(08:21):
the natural disturbances in theforest.
Michelle Connolly (08:25):
Yeah, it's actually hilarious the way that
works and once you see it, youcan't stop seeing it everywhere
you go.
Yeah, industrial forestryinterests use natural
disturbances as an excuse to log.
Native insect outbreaks havebeen used to manufacture consent
(08:46):
for logging for years.
But we're seeing, we're seeingit all ramp up now because the
mills are desperate for wood andthe industry needs a claim to
virtue.
So they, they're, they're kindof they're using you know,
(09:06):
humans don't deal with deathvery well.
Right, like we don't understand.
We don't really understanddeath.
Our culture is really terribleat really contending with it,
and it's almost like they're,they're, they're using, um, like
the human understanding ofdeath, uh, in forests.
But it's not the same, becauseall forests are built on dead
trees.
Disease, death and decay aresuch important processes and
elements in natural ecosystemsin forests.
But it's not the same, becauseall forests are built on dead
trees.
Disease, death and decay aresuch important processes and
(09:28):
elements in natural ecosystems.
That's how soil is made, that'show you create, you know,
coarse, witty debris and snagsand standing dead trees, like
all the niches that wildlifeneed, are based on death and
decay and natural forests.
So they're really kind ofthey're using the fact that a
lot of people now who don't getto spend time in nature and
(09:49):
haven't observed, you know, thestructure of a natural forest
and haven't gotten the feelingsthat come from being in a
self-willed ecosystem and feltthat they're really kind of
exploiting the fact that a lotof people equate death and decay
with just bad things, andthat's what's leading to this.
So our work over the next fewyears will be a lot about
(10:13):
emphasizing the importance ofkeeping these kind of processes
in natural forests and making itso that people aren't scared of
them.
Janet Sumner (10:21):
Yeah, I think this is one of the reasons that
we're doing this podcast, theClear Cut, because what I was
finding is I was seeingterminology or approaches that
were being used in some parts ofCanada that were kind of
migrating maybe not word forword, but migrating whether it's
you know that insectinfestations were, or insect
(10:44):
surges were creating a rationale, or creating the opportunity
for a rationale, to access areasand create more opportunity for
logging.
And I've seen the same kind ofthing with fire.
I've seen Canada's response tothe megafires become you know,
or some of the industryassociations become, oh well,
(11:04):
then that means we need to logmore so we can prevent these
fires.
Um, and I, I've seen, I've seenall different kinds of
movements on this, and it seemsto me that this is why I wanted
to do this podcast, because Iwanted to actually bring these
conversations to the public.
I think it is so.
All of this forestry work andmanaging of the forest and how
(11:27):
forests work has become shroudedin so much detail that it's
very hard for the average personto cut through and understand.
Like protecting old growth.
You would think that that wouldbe a really great idea and, as
you said, you were, you knowpart of the problem.
You agreed with it and what Icould see from the outside, when
we were talking about oldgrowth and when I was listening
(11:48):
to some of my colleagues, theywere imagining that if you
protected old growth that itwould actually almost work as a
cascade.
Like you've got old growthtrees in this forest, so that
means we're going to protect theforest.
Instead, what it became was, oh, let's draw a line around this
little copse of old growth treesand get the rest of the forest.
And so it didn't actually workthe way we thought.
(12:10):
It's kind of like charismaticmegafauna I've seen, like
caribou Policy changes haveoccurred and we've said, oh, we
need to protect habitat.
But instead what we do whenfaced with a big problem, we go
let's airlift those caribou out,pen them and then bring them
back, even though we haven'tprotected the habitat.
So it's like every time we tryto say, okay, let's have a sane
(12:35):
approach to this, where if wemanage for this umbrella species
, it should have a knock-oneffect for the entire ecosystem.
Or, in the case of old growth,if we protect old growth it'll
get entire forests protected,and we just we keep coming back
to the same problem.
We actually have to find outwhere we can say no, where it
(12:56):
just doesn't happen.
Michelle Connolly (12:58):
Yes, and what you're saying points to the
importance of clarity, accuracyand precision in how we talk
about what we want in BC aboutthis topic, because there's a
(13:30):
way in which the you know, thescene really excludes people
that think they don't haveenough knowledge to engage with
it, and that's because of, youknow, this veneer of
professionalism.
People on the inside goingwe've got it under control they
always have a very rational wayof describing what they want to
do.
That makes you know, that makesit sound like they're in
(13:51):
control.
This is how we solve thisproblem.
But when you go just underneaththe surface, you realize that
it all means the same thing theywant the old, they want the
places that have been disturbedand they want, you know, they
want everything.
So we really feel that beingprecise in our messaging has
(14:12):
kind of helped us be reallyclear about what we want, and we
really think that other groupsshould also, you know, do the
same thing.
It's a lot of.
It's a language game, as youknow.
Like I said, forestry is fullof euphemisms and I could
probably talk about that all day, but it's very important to
(14:34):
kind of understand that thisactually doesn't require some
kind of technical understandingabout forestry or forestry terms
.
We can actually speak our ownlanguage about what matters to
us, which is simply protectingnature, and you can describe
that as the places that arestill self-hold and self-managed
.
Janet Sumner (14:53):
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 (15:04):
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.
Janet Sumner (15:23):
Wow, this has been exactly the conversation I want
to have with Michelle.
It's really quite fun, so Iactually want to go, maybe to.
So you've already explained tous that the BC is actually still
cutting old growth.
I know that Canada is startingto look at its definition of
(15:44):
degradation and apparently wehave no deforestation, or almost
no deforestation in Canadabecause we don't have a land use
change.
And if folks want to listen tome talk about that, you can
listen to our conversation onlogging scars, because I go into
depth about what I think aboutthat conversation on logging
(16:05):
scars, because I go into depthabout what I think about that,
and I think Canada is alsolooking or beginning to look at
it's called the LULUCF land useland.
I forget what all the acronymsare, but basically it's how land
use change and forests operateunder the climate agreements.
But maybe you can just talk tous because you have talked about
how managing forests simplifiesthose ecosystems.
(16:28):
Can you talk about what you seeas forest degradation, because
I know Canada's looking toactually make a definition on
that.
Michelle Connolly (16:36):
Right.
Well, our definition of forestdegradation is very inconvenient
for the big forestry interests.
But, from our perspective,roads and logging degrade
natural forests because theytend to destroy the complexity
and the structure in naturalforests that developed over
millennia.
So there's a continuum, ofcourse, of forest degradation.
(16:58):
But for you know, forsimplicity and for our ability
to communicate with the publicand properly focus on what we
actually want, we divide it intotwo categories.
There's primary forests, sonatural forests that have never
been industrially logged, andthen we have degraded forests
that have had some kind ofprevious history of industrial
(17:19):
logging.
Primary forests are at the topbecause those are the most
complex and stable and supportthe greatest number of species.
And at the opposite extreme youhave commercial plantations
that are at the bottom extremeof unhealthiness because they
lack the habitats our wildlifeneed to survive of some human
(17:47):
use are in between, like, forexample, naturally regenerated
secondary forest that emergedafter, you know, logging in the,
say, 40s or 50s.
So yeah, natural ecosystems areorganized and connected in
strange and interesting ways.
They're full of relationshipswe don't see, you know,
underground fungal networks andtheir connections with trees,
for example.
And some people say naturalecosystems have hidden wiring.
(18:10):
Well, when you degrade a forest, you're pulling out the threads
in that textile.
You know, if you think of acomplex ecosystem like a blanket
, you're degrading a forest whenyou start interfering with
those complexities.
People talk about the emergentproperties in complex systems.
(18:33):
So those are features in naturethat are unexpected and arise
from the collaborativefunctioning of a system, but
don't belong to any one part ofthat system.
It's something that a systemhas but individual members of
that system don't have.
So a core idea that comes upwhen you read about natural
ecosystems is that the whole isgreater than the sum of its
(18:54):
parts.
Well, when you degrade a forest, you're slowly taking out and
eliminating the elements thatare critical for those emergent
properties to happen and forthat complexity.
So that's why we think thatindustrial logging degrades
forests.
Yeah, in terms of deforestation, the logging scars research
(19:16):
that you did, janet, was reallyearth shattering, because so
many people had said like, yeah,deforestation doesn't happen in
Canada and you kind ofsubverted that message by saying
, actually, even by your owndefinition, it does happen.
So yeah, most, a lot of peoplewe talk to still think that
deforestation means logging.
(19:37):
But of course, if we adhere tothe silly international
definition, it's not.
It's not deforestation, it'sforest degradation.
Janet Sumner (19:45):
Yeah, that's a deforestation, um, it's forest
degradation.
Yeah, that's a challenge, isn'tit?
We want to move to your recentreport, or the, the focus on it,
uh, from the internationalwhich is around the drax and
(20:06):
maybe you could tell us a littlebit about that.
Michelle Connolly (20:08):
Sure so, uh.
So a group in the UK, biofuelWatch.
We've been working with themfor a few years now to share
what's happening on the groundhere with audiences in England
which are, of course, consumingthe electricity that is coming
from the Drax plant in the UK,and they are importing large
(20:32):
quantities of pellets that comefrom primary forests in BC.
So, because you know, at least95% of the logging in BC comes
is from is in primary forests,we knew for sure that primary
forest material was ending up inthe Drax plant.
What we didn't realize, though,is is that, uh, the rarest old
(20:54):
growth in BC is getting loggedand some of that material is
going to the Drax plant.
So we did an analysis, um withbiofuel watch, of the timber
marks.
So we use the provincialgovernment publicly available
data to look at where the rawmaterial was coming from, and
(21:15):
the biggest, you know thebiggest loggers of rare oil
growth in BC are Camphor andWest Fraser.
So of course they were the onesdoing the logging, and the
material that they were bringingout of these rare oil growth
areas, which are called prioritydeferral areas, are ending up
in the Drax pellet mills hereand of course we have eight
(21:39):
Sorry in this part of BC thereare four Drax mills, so some of
the material from rare oilgrowth is actually ending up in
them.
So the report is it's a veryshort report and BBC reported on
it a few days ago and I thinkit's really surprising audiences
in the UK because, of course,drax is claiming that they don't
(22:01):
use old growth.
But you know, in my in myopinion, the ultimate
destination of the materialcoming from old growth is not
what's important.
The important thing is thatit's getting logged in the first
place.
So even if it was, you know,getting made into a fancy table
(22:21):
that a celebrity was going touse, we still don't think that
the old growth should be logged,so so so I think it was a real
shock for British people tolearn that the material from old
growth was going into that.
But really, from ourperspective, the original
problem is that it's gettinglogged in the first place,
regardless of what the materialis going towards.
Janet Sumner (22:45):
Yeah, I agree with you.
I mean it's whether or not theold growth is being logged.
I would imagine, though, formost people, they would like to
know the source of the fiber.
So whether it's your kitchentable, or whether it is
furniture in your house or woodfor your home or burning pellets
, you want to know what yoursource is, and that's got to be
shocking to find out that it'scoming from old growth forests.
(23:08):
When you're being told that it'sgreen energy and it's
sustainable, that it's greenenergy and it's sustainable, I
mean, that's the other thing Iguess that I've always found
really challenging aroundpellets, just in general, is
because Canada has a reputationglobally that we have promoted,
that we are one of the mostsustainable sources for fiber,
(23:30):
and if you're having toconstantly expand into new
intact areas or new primaryforests, I don't know how that
can be true, because if it'ssustainable, shouldn't you be
able to operate on the samefootprint instead of having to
expand into all these new areas?
So that's one of the thingsthat's always been a conundrum
for me to try and figure thatout, because I don't understand
(23:51):
how that assertion can be made.
Michelle Connolly (23:56):
Yes, yes, when people say sustainable, I
always ask them to define it.
To us, it means something youcan do for a really long time
forever, basically withoutcausing lasting or major harm to
the earth.
So, as you said, if all thelogging in interior BC is a
primary forest, how on earth isthat sustainable?
(24:18):
So it's possible, one day, youknow, if we get our act together
and are focusing on secondgrowth and leaving the primary
forest alone, you might beapproaching a situation where
you could argue that, you know,industrial logging is
sustainable in some places.
But you're absolutely right,it's nowhere near that right now
(24:40):
.
And, of course, drax is being Iget asked a lot about.
You know how much we dislikeDrax and, to be totally honest,
drax is enabled by someacademics, by the BC government,
by professional foresterssigning off on it.
And they're getting away withthis because local interests are
(25:01):
essentially assigning thefollowing descriptors to primary
forests they're calling themwaste, residuals, unhealthy, low
value, low quality, damaged,diseased, fire prone, those.
Those are all descriptors fornatural forests.
Right, that's?
That's the euphemistic thing Iwas talking about.
(25:22):
So, as as much as Drax isannoying in that they, you know,
they're sourcing from here, Iactually place more of the blame
on on our own government andand our local enablers.
You see the language I justmentioned.
In government and industrypress releases and promotional
videos and company reports,their industry and BBC
(25:46):
government is trying tomanufacture consent for logging
more primary forests byreferring to them as being low
quality somehow.
So you know, I always point toan interview that a university
did with a biomass magazine afew years ago where he describes
how we've got an abundance ofquote low grade or low quality
(26:07):
fiber and he suggests that weshould relieve the landscape of
this forest and replace it witha healthier forest, which would
mean to forestry a plantation.
So it's all about the use oflanguage, convincing people that
(26:28):
natural forests are worthlessand that the best thing and the
most virtuous thing that we cando is to replace them with, you
know, a human created system cando is to replace them with, you
know, a human created system.
So that's that's like theunderlying belief of everybody
in this system.
It's really not just Drax and,you know, unpopular opinion here
, but I actually sort of feltsorry for the company and the
people being interviewed becausethey have no idea what's going
on here.
(26:48):
They have no idea I have a.
Kaya Adleman (26:52):
I have a question.
When you said that from thearticle the fiber that's being
taken out of those prioritydeferral areas, those are areas
that are outlined by the BCgovernment to not be logged in.
Is that correct?
Michelle Connolly (27:08):
Yeah Well, thank you for the question.
I should have clarified that.
So two years ago the BCgovernment pulled together five
experts on oil growth technicalexperts, two ecologists, two
foresters and an additionalperson and they were tasked with
(27:31):
identifying and mapping therarest old growth in BC.
So they did that and the finalproduct is actually publicly
available online.
They mapped the very rarest,most vulnerable.
They mapped all the old growth,but then they also looked at
the subset the most kind of rareaccording to forest type.
So, for example, where most ofthe forest type has already been
(27:54):
eliminated, they map the rarestforms of old growth on the
ground.
And then the BC governmentidentified those areas as what
they called priority deferralareas.
The concept of a prioritydeferral area does not invoke
protection, so all it means isthat it's been identified as the
(28:16):
rarest old growth.
At least half of those prioritydeferrals are not under any
kind of protection right now, sothey're all open for business
and that is where Canfor isstill logging West Fraser and
then allowing Drax to obtainsome of the material from those
places, at least in this part ofBC.
So the concept of a prioritydeferral is really just a place
(28:40):
that's been identified as reallyrare.
The government has not outlawedany logging in them.
Janet Sumner (28:47):
Yeah, so can I just ask a further question,
Because you said that you werein the report.
You were able to use thegovernment's own data to figure
out the flow of fiber to themills.
How were you able to do that?
How does that work?
The harvest billing?
Michelle Connolly (29:04):
system and then we also used spatial
information that was attached tothat.
So we were able to have themaps of the priority deferral
areas and overlay that withareas of cut blocks recent cut
(29:25):
blocks from 2023.
So we restricted the analysisto 2023 because we wanted the
most recent snapshot of what washappening.
So we were able to basicallysee the overlap between the
priority deferrals and wherethese companies were logging and
then which logs from that wereending up in the Drax mill.
So it was Biofuel Watch.
(29:46):
Actually, they had a person domost of the analysis on this,
and so he teased out of thatdata that much of this material
was the you know material endingup at the Drax plant was coming
from the deferral areas.
Janet Sumner (30:05):
And while I agree with you, the fact that they're
being logged is the problem.
I've often had the conversationand maybe this is taking us
towards what does the futurelook like?
But I've often had theconversation and maybe this is
taking us towards what does thefuture look like?
But I've often had the thoughtthat if we were to be able to
diversify economically how weuse fiber and the fiber that we
use, then it might create itwould create a more resilient
(30:30):
economic future for localcommunities.
It would decrease demand and Iguess that's what I'm hoping.
So if you're creating these, Iguess, what I'd call fast
products, if you're producingpellets, it's going to literally
go up in smoke within the year,so that's a very fast used
product and it can then justgenerate more demand.
(30:51):
And that's what I'm seeinghappening across Canada, where
provinces are saying let'sexpedite access or increase
annual allowable cuts in somecases, like Ontario has, so that
we can have more pellets andmore creation of pellets.
So if we were to take a look atthe fiber system and actually
(31:11):
make it so that it could stillcreate economic value for people
, because you live in an areathat depends on the economy of
forestry or that it's beencentered around that.
Is there a way to start adiversification that would, at
the same time, decrease demandand and and uh and pressure to
(31:32):
move into new natural areas,while at the same time allowing
us to use second growth andmaybe other products that we
create out of the forest?
Or what does that forest futurelook like for you?
Michelle Connolly (31:44):
Yeah.
So to start, I would say thatBC's forest industry actually
makes a comparatively lowcontribution to the GDP of about
3%.
So the contribution ofindustrial forestry, of the
forest industry and the economywill likely continue to be
forestry-derived.
However, we think that shouldactually just come from second
(32:18):
growth, not natural forests.
Commenting on what the futureeconomy will look like, we
really do think that moreresponsible management of
secondary forests can yieldmaterial that can be used for
other products definitely sowhen someone mentions the
(32:38):
bioeconomy, that's how I imagineit.
We need an economy based onresponsible management and some
extraction from the previouslylogged areas, and that can
probably look like many things,to be honest, like we're
somewhat agnostic about whatthose things are.
(32:58):
When it comes to secondaryforests, I think that's the
realm of you know people thathave a background in economics.
I really think that that'sactually where forestry
expertise shines is like how tomanage places for other things.
I think that it really ought tobe focused just on secondary
forests.
I do think that there is afuture for, you know, doing more
(33:21):
forestry in second growth, youknow, perhaps an economy based
around restoration.
Somehow that's going to be thedirection we have to go in, um,
and I don't know much aboutrestoration at all, but I know
that, um, we're going to have todo it in a lot of the you know
horrific looking industrialplantations that cover this part
(33:44):
of BC.
Like we have no choice, we'regoing to have to go in there.
Um, they're going to have to goin there.
They're disaster zones.
So if we can somehow have thatsort of win-win, which might
sound a bit naive UnfortunatelyI've been hearing a lot of that
kind of like win-win talk comingfrom the other end.
That's actually about loggingprimary forests.
(34:06):
There's an academic from UBCwho's a proponent of extracting
from bioenergy sorry, extractingfrom primary forests in order
to somehow deal with wildfirerisk and using that material for
, you know, pellets or otherelements of the bioeconomy.
And of course, we see thoseproblems and point them out
(34:26):
because we can't really youcan't help, you can't help these
issues by pulling out the mostcommercially valuable trees from
those forests.
So I do believe that we do havehope for a positive future in
our region, but the basis forthat actually is to have
coherent policy on protectingbiodiversity and what the areas
(34:46):
that it needs.
And we've never had that Likedespite the fact that BC is the
most biodiverse province inCanada.
We have no coherentconservation policy.
We've never systematicallylooked at like what do grizzly
bears need, you know?
What does northern goshawk need?
What do rare plants need?
We've never done that.
It's Wild West here, right.
(35:07):
Rare plants need.
We've never done that.
It's Wild West here, right.
So before we start looking atthe economics, we actually need
to follow through on what thegovernment's committed to, which
is a whole paradigm shift andprioritizing nature.
That needs to happen first, butwe can concurrently actually
talk about what kinds ofeconomic futures we want coming
from secondary forests too.
Janet Sumner (35:29):
Yeah, we had a good comment by Francois
Dufresne, who's the CEO of FSCCanada, who said we need to
change the paradigm around tosay what can the forest provide,
and then have that conversationright.
And then I would add the framethat you and I have both been
talking about is staying out ofthose primary forests.
What can the forest provide?
Michelle Connolly (35:51):
Unfortunately , fsc actually certifies primary
forest logging here and one ofthe things we discovered was
that pellets were coming fromFSC certified forests that were
logged.
We were invited to Japan a fewmonths ago to talk about to
Japanese financiers, media andindustry, to talk about what's
happened here, and one of thethings they wanted us to discuss
(36:15):
was certification and, to betotally honest, like I'd never
taken certification seriously atall because I just I didn't
think it mattered, and reallywhat I realize now is that it's
actually enabling moredestruction, because in Japan
they apparently take the FSCcertification quite seriously
and they were shocked to learnthat FSC certified primary
(36:37):
forest logging was ending up inpellet plants.
So that was a shock for me aswell.
Looking into that, and ofcourse the other certification
schemes are also guilty of that,which are the ones that are
considered even less rigorousfrom an ecological perspective.
So CSA and SFI, so all thecertification schemes out there
support primary forest loggingand certify products coming out
(37:01):
of primary forests.
Janet Sumner (37:04):
Yeah, no, it's definitely a concern.
There are improvements to bemade in certification, that's
for darn sure.
Yeah, absolutely so.
Kaia, do you have anyconcluding remarks?
Or, Michelle, do you want tomake any concluding statements
or even posit any intriguingquestions?
Michelle Connolly (37:50):
Also, michelle, feel free to speak to
an audience If someone just likean average person listening to
other community groups, and oneof the messages that we try to
convey really strongly is thatyou don't need special expertise
to get involved in resistingthe logging of primary forests
in your area.
Make up your own mind aboutwhat your priority is as a
community group.
Your goals should come from you.
(38:11):
Don't listen to the so-calledexperts about you.
Know what's happening, makedecisions for yourself, map out
what the primary forests are inyour area and then, you know,
design your own campaign aroundtrying to protect them.
Like I said earlier, there's akind of like elevated
(38:32):
professionalism that gets in theway of regular people being
involved in advocating fornatural forest protection, and I
think that deters a lot ofpeople from getting involved.
That's definitely the case inBC.
This kind of like only expertshave the right to comment on the
destruction of biodiversity.
That is not the case.
(38:52):
So, yeah, one of the thingsthat we're trying to do is to
inspire other community groupsforming and doing the same and
doing something similar if theirlocal priorities are
biodiversity protection.
Janet Sumner (39:05):
That's fantastic.
Yeah, I think it's going todepend on all of us to care and
love for our forests to keepthem standing.
Kaya Adleman (39:12):
Yeah, I mean they're mostly on public land,
right?
So it's not like it's all of us.
Michelle Connolly (39:20):
Yes, absolutely, and you know we
didn't talk about this a wholelot, but having that emotional
connection to nature is actuallywhat will drive you and what
will give you the motivation tocontinue fighting for them.
I think, you know, a culturaldisconnection from nature is
part of the reason that we'reseeing these issues with not you
know, the dropping of,basically annihilation of nature
(39:43):
.
Janet Sumner (39:44):
So, yeah, spending time in our local forest is a
really big, important thing forus to do, and we encourage other
people to do it as well, whoare saying, well, I'm seeing
(40:05):
what we're doing and I'm notseeing it come back.
And often they go into thoseareas of study because, like you
, they love the natural worldand they love being out in the
forest and maybe for a time theybelieve that it's all going to
be good and that we can manageit.
But at some point they mayretire and come to a conclusion
(40:27):
that, oh my goodness, it's notdoing what I thought it was
going to do.
So I think that it includes allof us, everybody, whether
you're working in the industryor you live in an area, or maybe
you live outside of an area,but you visit the forest and
have a love for it.
It's good to get involved.
Michelle Connolly (40:45):
Yes, in fact, our best allies are people that
worked on the ground in theforest industry.
We hear from loggers, truckloggers, quite regularly,
because they're the people thathave seen what's happening.
They've lived it and seen it,so they're natural allies with
us because they understand.
Janet Sumner (41:03):
Yeah Well, michelle, you did not disappoint
.
This is a fantasticconversation.
Thank you so much.
And yeah, so, thank you so much.
And a few times I had to kindof just pull my head because I
couldn't laugh or sort of I wassmiling too hard.
But yeah, I really, reallyappreciate the conversation.
It's been an absolute treat.
Kaya Adleman (41:25):
Yeah, thanks Thanks for taking the time to
talk to the Clearcut and to us.
I feel like I learned actuallya lot.
Yeah, thanks, thanks for takingthe time to talk to to the
clear cut and to us.
I feel like I learned actuallya lot, so thank you.
Michelle Connolly (41:34):
Thanks very much for having me on the
program.
It's a real privilege to speakwith you both.
Kaya Adleman (41:39):
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.
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
(42:00):
description below your supportmeans the world to us.
Janet Sumner (42:06):
Okay, one of the things that I liked about this
episode, or what Michelle talksabout, is that fire and insect
outbreaks are complexifyingagents in a healthy forest and
yet what we're using them now asalmost like a Trojan horse or a
reason that we need to go inand do more logging reason that
(42:31):
we need to go in and do morelogging.
I found that language reallyhelped me understand what I kind
of sort of knew intuitively wasgoing on, and she says
manufacturing consent for a lotyeah.
Yeah, that was very interestingand and just how that um, that
this idea that they'veidentified where old growth is,
(42:52):
is being used and turned intowood pellets and being shipped
for incineration in a Drax millas a zero emission climate
(43:17):
solution.
Michelle Connolly (43:18):
Mm-hmm.
Janet Sumner (43:22):
It's just like you can't make this stuff up.
This just is some dystopian I Idon't know world where up is
down and down is up.
It doesn't make any sense to betreating old growth that took
three or five hundred years togrow as a zero emission coming
(43:43):
out of a, a drax plant.
It's frightening, frightening,absolutely frightening.
Kaya Adleman (43:49):
Yeah, definitely.
I think it's definitelyreflective of the, just as
Michelle was talking aboutlanguage and how that's used to
obscure the realities of certainpolicy outcomes or just to
obscure the reality of burningbiomass in coal power plants
(44:12):
overseas.
Janet Sumner (44:14):
Yeah, and we should not think about this as
being limited to BritishColumbia.
I mean, michelle is focusing inon British Columbia because
these are the forests that sheworks on, but in terms of
wanting to see more biomassbeing used or turned into
biofuels or wood pellets, thatis something that many other
provinces have looked at.
They're trying to increase the.
(44:35):
They've even in some provinceslike Ontario, they've even
increased the annual allowablecut to make room for the larger
harvest level so that we cancreate more wood pellets and
ship them wherever.
And just so everybody is clear,wildland sling is not against
the burning of biofuels forenergy.
(44:57):
We just think that the carbonall has to be counted and it
also is presumptive on asustainable harvest, which is
questionable if you're going tobe taking down three or
500-year-old trees, they'recertainly not going to be.
You're not going to haveregrown that complex forest
ecosystem for at least another500 years.
So there is no world in whichyou can argue that that's coming
(45:21):
from a sustainably harvestedforest or that it is carbon
neutral.
And that's certainly the caseacross Canada as well, because
if you're taking down trees thatare even 80 or 100 years old,
it's going to take to regeneratethat forest it would take at
least 80 to 100 years and ifyou've been listening to the
podcast, you probably know thatwe would only argue that you're
(45:44):
able to regrow some trees, notnecessarily a complex system
like a forest.
Kaya Adleman (45:48):
Argue that you're able to regrow some trees, not
necessarily a complex systemlike a forest Mm-hmm, right, I
think, maybe just to pivot awayfrom biomass specifically.
But I think for me one of thestandouts from our conversation
with Michelle is this idea ofwhat is radical.
I mean, michelle says herselfthat in the first episode that
(46:10):
when she was describing hercareer trajectory that some
environmental groups for herwere too moderate, and that's
kind of the genesis of theformation of Conservation North.
And she herself even alludes tothis idea that her values are
often perceived as radical.
And I would kind of want tochallenge that.
(46:30):
I don't think her values areradical at all.
I don't think it's a radicalidea that, given, as Michelle
says, 80% of the world's foresthas been industrialized, we
should not continue to expandthat industrial footprint into
the remaining 20% that's left.
I don't necessarily think it'sradical that we should be
(46:53):
protecting these places, giventhe current state of the climate
and the rapid decline of globalwildlife and species
populations.
And I don't think it's aradical idea that communities
who live in these forests shouldhave agency or a say in what
goes on in them.
And we did talk a lot in thisepisode about language and how
(47:16):
it's used in a way that issuesand policies are framed to
manufacture a public perception,to gain control of a dialogue,
and I think that's kind of wherethis term radical falls in.
It's often thrown at a lot ofpeople working in these spaces
by those who have kind of vestedpolitical and economic
interests to maintain the statusquo.
But I guess I would encouragepeople to maybe even like in
(47:40):
their lexicon of looking atlanguage in forestry issues when
that term radical is used,maybe just apply some critical
thinking skills to it, like whyis it?
Why is that word being used?
Why?
Why does someone who's beinglabeled as radical?
Why do they care aboutprotecting natural and primary
(48:01):
forests?
Is it because you know, we'reall tree hugging hippies, as one
of my old teachers used to say,who have this malicious agenda
to destroy industry and stopeconomic growth?
I don't think.
Do the solutions that are beingproposed by advocacy people
like Michelle?
Are they unreasonable?
(48:22):
Are they outlandish?
I mean, I don't think that theysound outlandish from what she
was describing on the episode.
I think that's definitely oneof the key takeaways for me is
this idea of language andapplying some thinking and
analysis of the words that arebeing used, why they're being
used, by whom are they beingused, et cetera.
Janet Sumner (48:44):
That's radical I'm just kidding.
I was going to say I reallyappreciate you highlighting that
, because it can't possibly beradical to say we need to stay
out of some of the intactnatural forests, which is
essentially her message, right,and so I agree with you.
(49:07):
I'm glad that you pushed backon Michelle's and she was almost
apologetic about it.
So I'm really glad that wefeatured her on the podcast and
we gave her a platform fromwhich to speak because, if
anything, I think that Michelleis very rational and in her
arguments and puts forward areally good set of arguments to
(49:29):
be considering.
You know what happens withinsect outbreaks and fires and
how we treat them and theconcept of, you know, maybe not
logging the last of the naturalforests that we have left in
Canada and seeking a way toreconfigure, logging or
reconfigure forestry in terms ofsecond growth, etc.
(49:51):
So when you look at those asjust plain statements, they
don't seem that radical, or notto many.
I don't think, and I wouldhazard a guess, that that's not
the case for many people who arelistening to the podcast.
So thanks for bringing that up.
Not the case for many peoplewho are listening to the podcast
.
Kaya Adleman (50:08):
So thanks for bringing that up.
Yeah, I think it's important toanalyze ideas and concepts as
they are instead of puttinglanguage on them that or putting
adjectives to those ideas andconcepts that can obscure their
true purpose and intention.
Janet Sumner (50:25):
Or try to silence.
Kaya Adleman (50:26):
Yes.
Janet Sumner (50:27):
Yeah, all right.
Well, thanks for another greatconversation to Michelle.
Thank you very much forappearing on the podcast and, as
always, kaya, thanks for makingthe magic happen behind the
scenes so that we can get thepodcast published every week or
so.
Kaya Adleman (50:43):
Yeah, thank you, this was a good episode.
Yeah, thank you, this is a goodepisode.
Janet Sumner (50:49):
If you like listening to the Clear Cut 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 (51:00):
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 and stay tuned for new
episodes by following us onsocial media.
Janet Sumner (51:21):
That's at Wildlands League on Instagram,
twitter and Facebook or LinkedIn, of course.
Kaya Adleman (51:27):
See you next time.
Welcome to The Clear Cut.
Hi, I'm Janet Sumner, ExecutiveDirector at Wildlands League.
Kaya Adleman (00:08):
And I'm Kaya Adleman, 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 Clear Cut 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 (00:40):
Okay, good afternoon Kaya.
Kaya Adleman (00:43):
Good afternoon.
Janet Sumner (00:44):
I don't know what time it is where you're
listening, but good afternoon.
We have just finished the firstepisode, or first podcast
episode, with Michelle Connollyfrom Conservation North.
That was a pretty greatconversation and we're going to
get into even more.
I found with this one that Imean with all of our guests I'm
(01:06):
always learning something, butit was.
I really liked the clarity ofhow she explains things and the
words she chooses, and it mightbe hard hitting or a little bit
radical for some people, but itreally puts the ideas in stark
perspective, and so I reallyenjoyed listening to Michelle
talk and certainly learned a lotabout the dynamics of BC, old
(01:29):
growth etc.
To some extent maybe exposingthe rest of the forest to being
explored and not keeping peopleout of the intact and the
natural areas, but ratherpartitioning the forest in a way
(01:52):
that it actually almostincreased more access into the
natural areas.
Kaya Adleman (01:56):
Yeah, no, I agree, I like this section of the
discussion as well, I think.
Personally, for me, what Ifound really interesting was the
discussion that you'll hearabout language and how that's
used to convey certain attitudesor notions about forests and
(02:17):
the forest industry, and assomeone who studied greenwashing
quite a bit, I think it'ssomething that is interesting to
kind of dive deeper into and tobring to this discussion in a
greater context as well.
Janet Sumner (02:38):
Yeah, we start.
We start the conversation withMichelle where she's mentioning
about nuking the forest andgives her a definition of what
that is, and then the types ofcontrols that are used in light
of insect outbreaks and fires.
And again that mention oflanguage and how language shapes
things and how it resultssometimes in unintended
(03:00):
consequences that you didn'tknow you were choosing when you
use certain words.
So that, for me, is a greatplace to start with nuking the
forest and what it means forMichelle.
Kaya Adleman (03:11):
Yeah, I can't wait to get into it.
And, by the way, if you arejust tuning in to our discussion
with Michelle now, this is parttwo, so I encourage you to go
back and listen to part one two.
So I encourage you to go backand listen to part one, which is
the episode titled Is ForestryPathological?
Janet Sumner (03:31):
And then come back to this one.
So, michelle, I just want tounpack that a little bit.
When you say about the sprucebeetle and you also said about
nuking the forest, so I'massuming that you're talking
about the spraying of pesticidesto get rid of the or you're
talking about nuking them interms of harvesting?
(03:52):
I know that in yes, they'veused surge cuts kind of thing.
So is that also true in bc,where you've had surge cuts,
where you basically have anallowable cut level, and then
you say, oh, throw on an extra10 or 15 because oh my goodness,
this search we've seen sprucebeetle.
Michelle Connolly (04:08):
We need to get rid of it uh, yes, so I I've
never heard that term surge cutbefore, but but yes, it
basically.
Uh, they enable throughlowering the stumpage.
So that's the mechanism throughwhich bc collects a rent
essentially off of licenseesoperating on public lands.
It's a payment they make, sothe stumpage drops to almost
(04:31):
nothing in order to encouragethe annihilation of
post-disturbance stands.
And no, I wasn't talking aboutspraying for beetles.
Yeah, I guess it's the rightplace to talk about that.
You know, in professionalforestry there's the belief that
you can somehow control insectsthrough logging.
So, yes, if you eliminate theforests that's what I meant by
(04:55):
nuking.
I should have been more clearabout that I meant industrially
logging them and, of course,standard practices is clear-cut
logging.
So that's what those placeslook like.
That had the spruce beetle.
There's an area called theAnzac, or it's in the, it's in
the parsnip drainage, north ofPrince George.
That's kind of what we considerthe poster child of that
(05:17):
terrible type of management thatchases natural disturbances
like that, natural disturbanceslike that.
So, yes, the licensees pay avery small charge when the trees
are dead and then they'reconsidered quote salvage.
Janet Sumner (05:35):
Yes, surgecut is from my time working on forestry
in Alberta and with the pinebeetle infestation, what they
chose to do was these surge cutswhich allowed companies to go
in and have a surge in theirallowable cut for I'm going to
say it was over 10 years, but Ithink it might have even been
longer than that and it wasessentially to go in and clean
(05:58):
up the forest.
After all of this pine beetledevastation Isn't it.
Michelle Connolly (06:02):
Isn't it funny the language that gets
used clean up as if it was likesomehow dirty before.
I find that hilarious.
All the language in forestry isreally amusing because it's so
full of euphemism.
Yeah, I mean, one of thepernicious myths of modern
forestry is that you can logyour way out of an insect
(06:25):
outbreak.
There's no scientific consensusthat that's possible.
Episodic outbreaks of insectsare climatically related and we
can't control the antecedentconditions that promote
outbreaks.
There's a leading researcher inthe US named Diana Six who talks
about this.
And of course, wildlife habitatand ecological functions
(06:49):
persist in beetle-attackedstands.
Forests recover far sooner frombeetle outbreaks if they're
left alone and they're severelycompromised by logging.
So lots has been written bythat.
Dead trees play an ecologicalrole equal to or greater than
their role as living trees.
They're not wasted fiber, asthe industry likes to put it,
(07:13):
and in fact all of our oldgrowth forests actually owe
their structure and complexityto the natural workings of
insects disease fire.
So those elements createcomplexity, they're
complexifying agents.
But of course, those things arebasically being rebranded by
those in power as bad,catastrophic things that are
(07:36):
only the result of climatechange, which is not true, and
they're used essentially as aTrojan horse for logging.
So that's the concept of foresthealth, which is not an
ecological term, it's aneconomic one, and teaching the
public about this is really acentral push for our group and
it's going to be in the comingyears because of this direction.
Kaya Adleman (08:00):
Yeah.
I was gonna, sorry, go ahead.
Well, I was gonna say say itseems like the policy fears
disturbance related to, I guess,natural processes like
wildfires and insect outbreaks,versus human caused disturbances
and in fact sees human causeddisturbances as a solution to
(08:21):
the natural disturbances in theforest.
Michelle Connolly (08:25):
Yeah, it's actually hilarious the way that
works and once you see it, youcan't stop seeing it everywhere
you go.
Yeah, industrial forestryinterests use natural
disturbances as an excuse to log.
Native insect outbreaks havebeen used to manufacture consent
(08:46):
for logging for years.
But we're seeing, we're seeingit all ramp up now because the
mills are desperate for wood andthe industry needs a claim to
virtue.
So they, they're, they're kindof they're using you know,
(09:06):
humans don't deal with deathvery well.
Right, like we don't understand.
We don't really understanddeath.
Our culture is really terribleat really contending with it,
and it's almost like they're,they're, they're using, um, like
the human understanding ofdeath, uh, in forests.
But it's not the same, becauseall forests are built on dead
trees.
Disease, death and decay aresuch important processes and
elements in natural ecosystemsin forests.
But it's not the same, becauseall forests are built on dead
trees.
Disease, death and decay aresuch important processes and
(09:28):
elements in natural ecosystems.
That's how soil is made, that'show you create, you know,
coarse, witty debris and snagsand standing dead trees, like
all the niches that wildlifeneed, are based on death and
decay and natural forests.
So they're really kind ofthey're using the fact that a
lot of people now who don't getto spend time in nature and
(09:49):
haven't observed, you know, thestructure of a natural forest
and haven't gotten the feelingsthat come from being in a
self-willed ecosystem and feltthat they're really kind of
exploiting the fact that a lotof people equate death and decay
with just bad things, andthat's what's leading to this.
So our work over the next fewyears will be a lot about
(10:13):
emphasizing the importance ofkeeping these kind of processes
in natural forests and making itso that people aren't scared of
them.
Janet Sumner (10:21):
Yeah, I think this is one of the reasons that
we're doing this podcast, theClear Cut, because what I was
finding is I was seeingterminology or approaches that
were being used in some parts ofCanada that were kind of
migrating maybe not word forword, but migrating whether it's
you know that insectinfestations were, or insect
(10:44):
surges were creating a rationale, or creating the opportunity
for a rationale, to access areasand create more opportunity for
logging.
And I've seen the same kind ofthing with fire.
I've seen Canada's response tothe megafires become you know,
or some of the industryassociations become, oh well,
(11:04):
then that means we need to logmore so we can prevent these
fires.
Um, and I, I've seen, I've seenall different kinds of
movements on this, and it seemsto me that this is why I wanted
to do this podcast, because Iwanted to actually bring these
conversations to the public.
I think it is so.
All of this forestry work andmanaging of the forest and how
(11:27):
forests work has become shroudedin so much detail that it's
very hard for the average personto cut through and understand.
Like protecting old growth.
You would think that that wouldbe a really great idea and, as
you said, you were, you knowpart of the problem.
You agreed with it and what Icould see from the outside, when
we were talking about oldgrowth and when I was listening
(11:48):
to some of my colleagues, theywere imagining that if you
protected old growth that itwould actually almost work as a
cascade.
Like you've got old growthtrees in this forest, so that
means we're going to protect theforest.
Instead, what it became was, oh, let's draw a line around this
little copse of old growth treesand get the rest of the forest.
And so it didn't actually workthe way we thought.
(12:10):
It's kind of like charismaticmegafauna I've seen, like
caribou Policy changes haveoccurred and we've said, oh, we
need to protect habitat.
But instead what we do whenfaced with a big problem, we go
let's airlift those caribou out,pen them and then bring them
back, even though we haven'tprotected the habitat.
So it's like every time we tryto say, okay, let's have a sane
(12:35):
approach to this, where if wemanage for this umbrella species
, it should have a knock-oneffect for the entire ecosystem.
Or, in the case of old growth,if we protect old growth it'll
get entire forests protected,and we just we keep coming back
to the same problem.
We actually have to find outwhere we can say no, where it
(12:56):
just doesn't happen.
Michelle Connolly (12:58):
Yes, and what you're saying points to the
importance of clarity, accuracyand precision in how we talk
about what we want in BC aboutthis topic, because there's a
(13:30):
way in which the you know, thescene really excludes people
that think they don't haveenough knowledge to engage with
it, and that's because of, youknow, this veneer of
professionalism.
People on the inside goingwe've got it under control they
always have a very rational wayof describing what they want to
do.
That makes you know, that makesit sound like they're in
(13:51):
control.
This is how we solve thisproblem.
But when you go just underneaththe surface, you realize that
it all means the same thing theywant the old, they want the
places that have been disturbedand they want, you know, they
want everything.
So we really feel that beingprecise in our messaging has
(14:12):
kind of helped us be reallyclear about what we want, and we
really think that other groupsshould also, you know, do the
same thing.
It's a lot of.
It's a language game, as youknow.
Like I said, forestry is fullof euphemisms and I could
probably talk about that all day, but it's very important to
(14:34):
kind of understand that thisactually doesn't require some
kind of technical understandingabout forestry or forestry terms
.
We can actually speak our ownlanguage about what matters to
us, which is simply protectingnature, and you can describe
that as the places that arestill self-hold and self-managed
.
Janet Sumner (14:53):
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 (15:04):
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.
Janet Sumner (15:23):
Wow, this has been exactly the conversation I want
to have with Michelle.
It's really quite fun, so Iactually want to go, maybe to.
So you've already explained tous that the BC is actually still
cutting old growth.
I know that Canada is startingto look at its definition of
(15:44):
degradation and apparently wehave no deforestation, or almost
no deforestation in Canadabecause we don't have a land use
change.
And if folks want to listen tome talk about that, you can
listen to our conversation onlogging scars, because I go into
depth about what I think aboutthat conversation on logging
(16:05):
scars, because I go into depthabout what I think about that,
and I think Canada is alsolooking or beginning to look at
it's called the LULUCF land useland.
I forget what all the acronymsare, but basically it's how land
use change and forests operateunder the climate agreements.
But maybe you can just talk tous because you have talked about
how managing forests simplifiesthose ecosystems.
(16:28):
Can you talk about what you seeas forest degradation, because
I know Canada's looking toactually make a definition on
that.
Michelle Connolly (16:36):
Right.
Well, our definition of forestdegradation is very inconvenient
for the big forestry interests.
But, from our perspective,roads and logging degrade
natural forests because theytend to destroy the complexity
and the structure in naturalforests that developed over
millennia.
So there's a continuum, ofcourse, of forest degradation.
(16:58):
But for you know, forsimplicity and for our ability
to communicate with the publicand properly focus on what we
actually want, we divide it intotwo categories.
There's primary forests, sonatural forests that have never
been industrially logged, andthen we have degraded forests
that have had some kind ofprevious history of industrial
(17:19):
logging.
Primary forests are at the topbecause those are the most
complex and stable and supportthe greatest number of species.
And at the opposite extreme youhave commercial plantations
that are at the bottom extremeof unhealthiness because they
lack the habitats our wildlifeneed to survive of some human
(17:47):
use are in between, like, forexample, naturally regenerated
secondary forest that emergedafter, you know, logging in the,
say, 40s or 50s.
So yeah, natural ecosystems areorganized and connected in
strange and interesting ways.
They're full of relationshipswe don't see, you know,
underground fungal networks andtheir connections with trees,
for example.
And some people say naturalecosystems have hidden wiring.
(18:10):
Well, when you degrade a forest, you're pulling out the threads
in that textile.
You know, if you think of acomplex ecosystem like a blanket
, you're degrading a forest whenyou start interfering with
those complexities.
People talk about the emergentproperties in complex systems.
(18:33):
So those are features in naturethat are unexpected and arise
from the collaborativefunctioning of a system, but
don't belong to any one part ofthat system.
It's something that a systemhas but individual members of
that system don't have.
So a core idea that comes upwhen you read about natural
ecosystems is that the whole isgreater than the sum of its
(18:54):
parts.
Well, when you degrade a forest, you're slowly taking out and
eliminating the elements thatare critical for those emergent
properties to happen and forthat complexity.
So that's why we think thatindustrial logging degrades
forests.
Yeah, in terms of deforestation, the logging scars research
(19:16):
that you did, janet, was reallyearth shattering, because so
many people had said like, yeah,deforestation doesn't happen in
Canada and you kind ofsubverted that message by saying
, actually, even by your owndefinition, it does happen.
So yeah, most, a lot of peoplewe talk to still think that
deforestation means logging.
(19:37):
But of course, if we adhere tothe silly international
definition, it's not.
It's not deforestation, it'sforest degradation.
Janet Sumner (19:45):
Yeah, that's a deforestation, um, it's forest
degradation.
Yeah, that's a challenge, isn'tit?
We want to move to your recentreport, or the, the focus on it,
uh, from the internationalwhich is around the drax and
(20:06):
maybe you could tell us a littlebit about that.
Michelle Connolly (20:08):
Sure so, uh.
So a group in the UK, biofuelWatch.
We've been working with themfor a few years now to share
what's happening on the groundhere with audiences in England
which are, of course, consumingthe electricity that is coming
from the Drax plant in the UK,and they are importing large
(20:32):
quantities of pellets that comefrom primary forests in BC.
So, because you know, at least95% of the logging in BC comes
is from is in primary forests,we knew for sure that primary
forest material was ending up inthe Drax plant.
What we didn't realize, though,is is that, uh, the rarest old
(20:54):
growth in BC is getting loggedand some of that material is
going to the Drax plant.
So we did an analysis, um withbiofuel watch, of the timber
marks.
So we use the provincialgovernment publicly available
data to look at where the rawmaterial was coming from, and
(21:15):
the biggest, you know thebiggest loggers of rare oil
growth in BC are Camphor andWest Fraser.
So of course they were the onesdoing the logging, and the
material that they were bringingout of these rare oil growth
areas, which are called prioritydeferral areas, are ending up
in the Drax pellet mills hereand of course we have eight
(21:39):
Sorry in this part of BC thereare four Drax mills, so some of
the material from rare oilgrowth is actually ending up in
them.
So the report is it's a veryshort report and BBC reported on
it a few days ago and I thinkit's really surprising audiences
in the UK because, of course,drax is claiming that they don't
(22:01):
use old growth.
But you know, in my in myopinion, the ultimate
destination of the materialcoming from old growth is not
what's important.
The important thing is thatit's getting logged in the first
place.
So even if it was, you know,getting made into a fancy table
(22:21):
that a celebrity was going touse, we still don't think that
the old growth should be logged,so so so I think it was a real
shock for British people tolearn that the material from old
growth was going into that.
But really, from ourperspective, the original
problem is that it's gettinglogged in the first place,
regardless of what the materialis going towards.
Janet Sumner (22:45):
Yeah, I agree with you.
I mean it's whether or not theold growth is being logged.
I would imagine, though, formost people, they would like to
know the source of the fiber.
So whether it's your kitchentable, or whether it is
furniture in your house or woodfor your home or burning pellets
, you want to know what yoursource is, and that's got to be
shocking to find out that it'scoming from old growth forests.
(23:08):
When you're being told that it'sgreen energy and it's
sustainable, that it's greenenergy and it's sustainable, I
mean, that's the other thing Iguess that I've always found
really challenging aroundpellets, just in general, is
because Canada has a reputationglobally that we have promoted,
that we are one of the mostsustainable sources for fiber,
(23:30):
and if you're having toconstantly expand into new
intact areas or new primaryforests, I don't know how that
can be true, because if it'ssustainable, shouldn't you be
able to operate on the samefootprint instead of having to
expand into all these new areas?
So that's one of the thingsthat's always been a conundrum
for me to try and figure thatout, because I don't understand
(23:51):
how that assertion can be made.
Michelle Connolly (23:56):
Yes, yes, when people say sustainable, I
always ask them to define it.
To us, it means something youcan do for a really long time
forever, basically withoutcausing lasting or major harm to
the earth.
So, as you said, if all thelogging in interior BC is a
primary forest, how on earth isthat sustainable?
(24:18):
So it's possible, one day, youknow, if we get our act together
and are focusing on secondgrowth and leaving the primary
forest alone, you might beapproaching a situation where
you could argue that, you know,industrial logging is
sustainable in some places.
But you're absolutely right,it's nowhere near that right now
(24:40):
.
And, of course, drax is being Iget asked a lot about.
You know how much we dislikeDrax and, to be totally honest,
drax is enabled by someacademics, by the BC government,
by professional foresterssigning off on it.
And they're getting away withthis because local interests are
(25:01):
essentially assigning thefollowing descriptors to primary
forests they're calling themwaste, residuals, unhealthy, low
value, low quality, damaged,diseased, fire prone, those.
Those are all descriptors fornatural forests.
Right, that's?
That's the euphemistic thing Iwas talking about.
(25:22):
So, as as much as Drax isannoying in that they, you know,
they're sourcing from here, Iactually place more of the blame
on on our own government andand our local enablers.
You see the language I justmentioned.
In government and industrypress releases and promotional
videos and company reports,their industry and BBC
(25:46):
government is trying tomanufacture consent for logging
more primary forests byreferring to them as being low
quality somehow.
So you know, I always point toan interview that a university
did with a biomass magazine afew years ago where he describes
how we've got an abundance ofquote low grade or low quality
(26:07):
fiber and he suggests that weshould relieve the landscape of
this forest and replace it witha healthier forest, which would
mean to forestry a plantation.
So it's all about the use oflanguage, convincing people that
(26:28):
natural forests are worthlessand that the best thing and the
most virtuous thing that we cando is to replace them with, you
know, a human created system cando is to replace them with, you
know, a human created system.
So that's that's like theunderlying belief of everybody
in this system.
It's really not just Drax and,you know, unpopular opinion here
, but I actually sort of feltsorry for the company and the
people being interviewed becausethey have no idea what's going
on here.
(26:48):
They have no idea I have a.
Kaya Adleman (26:52):
I have a question.
When you said that from thearticle the fiber that's being
taken out of those prioritydeferral areas, those are areas
that are outlined by the BCgovernment to not be logged in.
Is that correct?
Michelle Connolly (27:08):
Yeah Well, thank you for the question.
I should have clarified that.
So two years ago the BCgovernment pulled together five
experts on oil growth technicalexperts, two ecologists, two
foresters and an additionalperson and they were tasked with
(27:31):
identifying and mapping therarest old growth in BC.
So they did that and the finalproduct is actually publicly
available online.
They mapped the very rarest,most vulnerable.
They mapped all the old growth,but then they also looked at
the subset the most kind of rareaccording to forest type.
So, for example, where most ofthe forest type has already been
(27:54):
eliminated, they map the rarestforms of old growth on the
ground.
And then the BC governmentidentified those areas as what
they called priority deferralareas.
The concept of a prioritydeferral area does not invoke
protection, so all it means isthat it's been identified as the
(28:16):
rarest old growth.
At least half of those prioritydeferrals are not under any
kind of protection right now, sothey're all open for business
and that is where Canfor isstill logging West Fraser and
then allowing Drax to obtainsome of the material from those
places, at least in this part ofBC.
So the concept of a prioritydeferral is really just a place
(28:40):
that's been identified as reallyrare.
The government has not outlawedany logging in them.
Janet Sumner (28:47):
Yeah, so can I just ask a further question,
Because you said that you werein the report.
You were able to use thegovernment's own data to figure
out the flow of fiber to themills.
How were you able to do that?
How does that work?
The harvest billing?
Michelle Connolly (29:04):
system and then we also used spatial
information that was attached tothat.
So we were able to have themaps of the priority deferral
areas and overlay that withareas of cut blocks recent cut
(29:25):
blocks from 2023.
So we restricted the analysisto 2023 because we wanted the
most recent snapshot of what washappening.
So we were able to basicallysee the overlap between the
priority deferrals and wherethese companies were logging and
then which logs from that wereending up in the Drax mill.
So it was Biofuel Watch.
(29:46):
Actually, they had a person domost of the analysis on this,
and so he teased out of thatdata that much of this material
was the you know material endingup at the Drax plant was coming
from the deferral areas.
Janet Sumner (30:05):
And while I agree with you, the fact that they're
being logged is the problem.
I've often had the conversationand maybe this is taking us
towards what does the futurelook like?
But I've often had theconversation and maybe this is
taking us towards what does thefuture look like?
But I've often had the thoughtthat if we were to be able to
diversify economically how weuse fiber and the fiber that we
use, then it might create itwould create a more resilient
(30:30):
economic future for localcommunities.
It would decrease demand and Iguess that's what I'm hoping.
So if you're creating these, Iguess, what I'd call fast
products, if you're producingpellets, it's going to literally
go up in smoke within the year,so that's a very fast used
product and it can then justgenerate more demand.
(30:51):
And that's what I'm seeinghappening across Canada, where
provinces are saying let'sexpedite access or increase
annual allowable cuts in somecases, like Ontario has, so that
we can have more pellets andmore creation of pellets.
So if we were to take a look atthe fiber system and actually
(31:11):
make it so that it could stillcreate economic value for people
, because you live in an areathat depends on the economy of
forestry or that it's beencentered around that.
Is there a way to start adiversification that would, at
the same time, decrease demandand and and uh and pressure to
(31:32):
move into new natural areas,while at the same time allowing
us to use second growth andmaybe other products that we
create out of the forest?
Or what does that forest futurelook like for you?
Michelle Connolly (31:44):
Yeah.
So to start, I would say thatBC's forest industry actually
makes a comparatively lowcontribution to the GDP of about
3%.
So the contribution ofindustrial forestry, of the
forest industry and the economywill likely continue to be
forestry-derived.
However, we think that shouldactually just come from second
(32:18):
growth, not natural forests.
Commenting on what the futureeconomy will look like, we
really do think that moreresponsible management of
secondary forests can yieldmaterial that can be used for
other products definitely sowhen someone mentions the
(32:38):
bioeconomy, that's how I imagineit.
We need an economy based onresponsible management and some
extraction from the previouslylogged areas, and that can
probably look like many things,to be honest, like we're
somewhat agnostic about whatthose things are.
(32:58):
When it comes to secondaryforests, I think that's the
realm of you know people thathave a background in economics.
I really think that that'sactually where forestry
expertise shines is like how tomanage places for other things.
I think that it really ought tobe focused just on secondary
forests.
I do think that there is afuture for, you know, doing more
(33:21):
forestry in second growth, youknow, perhaps an economy based
around restoration.
Somehow that's going to be thedirection we have to go in, um,
and I don't know much aboutrestoration at all, but I know
that, um, we're going to have todo it in a lot of the you know
horrific looking industrialplantations that cover this part
(33:44):
of BC.
Like we have no choice, we'regoing to have to go in there.
Um, they're going to have to goin there.
They're disaster zones.
So if we can somehow have thatsort of win-win, which might
sound a bit naive UnfortunatelyI've been hearing a lot of that
kind of like win-win talk comingfrom the other end.
That's actually about loggingprimary forests.
(34:06):
There's an academic from UBCwho's a proponent of extracting
from bioenergy sorry, extractingfrom primary forests in order
to somehow deal with wildfirerisk and using that material for
, you know, pellets or otherelements of the bioeconomy.
And of course, we see thoseproblems and point them out
(34:26):
because we can't really youcan't help, you can't help these
issues by pulling out the mostcommercially valuable trees from
those forests.
So I do believe that we do havehope for a positive future in
our region, but the basis forthat actually is to have
coherent policy on protectingbiodiversity and what the areas
(34:46):
that it needs.
And we've never had that Likedespite the fact that BC is the
most biodiverse province inCanada.
We have no coherentconservation policy.
We've never systematicallylooked at like what do grizzly
bears need, you know?
What does northern goshawk need?
What do rare plants need?
We've never done that.
It's Wild West here, right.
(35:07):
Rare plants need.
We've never done that.
It's Wild West here, right.
So before we start looking atthe economics, we actually need
to follow through on what thegovernment's committed to, which
is a whole paradigm shift andprioritizing nature.
That needs to happen first, butwe can concurrently actually
talk about what kinds ofeconomic futures we want coming
from secondary forests too.
Janet Sumner (35:29):
Yeah, we had a good comment by Francois
Dufresne, who's the CEO of FSCCanada, who said we need to
change the paradigm around tosay what can the forest provide,
and then have that conversationright.
And then I would add the framethat you and I have both been
talking about is staying out ofthose primary forests.
What can the forest provide?
Michelle Connolly (35:51):
Unfortunately , fsc actually certifies primary
forest logging here and one ofthe things we discovered was
that pellets were coming fromFSC certified forests that were
logged.
We were invited to Japan a fewmonths ago to talk about to
Japanese financiers, media andindustry, to talk about what's
happened here, and one of thethings they wanted us to discuss
(36:15):
was certification and, to betotally honest, like I'd never
taken certification seriously atall because I just I didn't
think it mattered, and reallywhat I realize now is that it's
actually enabling moredestruction, because in Japan
they apparently take the FSCcertification quite seriously
and they were shocked to learnthat FSC certified primary
(36:37):
forest logging was ending up inpellet plants.
So that was a shock for me aswell.
Looking into that, and ofcourse the other certification
schemes are also guilty of that,which are the ones that are
considered even less rigorousfrom an ecological perspective.
So CSA and SFI, so all thecertification schemes out there
support primary forest loggingand certify products coming out
(37:01):
of primary forests.
Janet Sumner (37:04):
Yeah, no, it's definitely a concern.
There are improvements to bemade in certification, that's
for darn sure.
Yeah, absolutely so.
Kaia, do you have anyconcluding remarks?
Or, Michelle, do you want tomake any concluding statements
or even posit any intriguingquestions?
Michelle Connolly (37:50):
Also, michelle, feel free to speak to
an audience If someone just likean average person listening to
other community groups, and oneof the messages that we try to
convey really strongly is thatyou don't need special expertise
to get involved in resistingthe logging of primary forests
in your area.
Make up your own mind aboutwhat your priority is as a
community group.
Your goals should come from you.
(38:11):
Don't listen to the so-calledexperts about you.
Know what's happening, makedecisions for yourself, map out
what the primary forests are inyour area and then, you know,
design your own campaign aroundtrying to protect them.
Like I said earlier, there's akind of like elevated
(38:32):
professionalism that gets in theway of regular people being
involved in advocating fornatural forest protection, and I
think that deters a lot ofpeople from getting involved.
That's definitely the case inBC.
This kind of like only expertshave the right to comment on the
destruction of biodiversity.
That is not the case.
(38:52):
So, yeah, one of the thingsthat we're trying to do is to
inspire other community groupsforming and doing the same and
doing something similar if theirlocal priorities are
biodiversity protection.
Janet Sumner (39:05):
That's fantastic.
Yeah, I think it's going todepend on all of us to care and
love for our forests to keepthem standing.
Kaya Adleman (39:12):
Yeah, I mean they're mostly on public land,
right?
So it's not like it's all of us.
Michelle Connolly (39:20):
Yes, absolutely, and you know we
didn't talk about this a wholelot, but having that emotional
connection to nature is actuallywhat will drive you and what
will give you the motivation tocontinue fighting for them.
I think, you know, a culturaldisconnection from nature is
part of the reason that we'reseeing these issues with not you
know, the dropping of,basically annihilation of nature
(39:43):
.
Janet Sumner (39:44):
So, yeah, spending time in our local forest is a
really big, important thing forus to do, and we encourage other
people to do it as well, whoare saying, well, I'm seeing
(40:05):
what we're doing and I'm notseeing it come back.
And often they go into thoseareas of study because, like you
, they love the natural worldand they love being out in the
forest and maybe for a time theybelieve that it's all going to
be good and that we can manageit.
But at some point they mayretire and come to a conclusion
(40:27):
that, oh my goodness, it's notdoing what I thought it was
going to do.
So I think that it includes allof us, everybody, whether
you're working in the industryor you live in an area, or maybe
you live outside of an area,but you visit the forest and
have a love for it.
It's good to get involved.
Michelle Connolly (40:45):
Yes, in fact, our best allies are people that
worked on the ground in theforest industry.
We hear from loggers, truckloggers, quite regularly,
because they're the people thathave seen what's happening.
They've lived it and seen it,so they're natural allies with
us because they understand.
Janet Sumner (41:03):
Yeah Well, michelle, you did not disappoint
.
This is a fantasticconversation.
Thank you so much.
And yeah, so, thank you so much.
And a few times I had to kindof just pull my head because I
couldn't laugh or sort of I wassmiling too hard.
But yeah, I really, reallyappreciate the conversation.
It's been an absolute treat.
Kaya Adleman (41:25):
Yeah, thanks Thanks for taking the time to
talk to the Clearcut and to us.
I feel like I learned actuallya lot.
Yeah, thanks, thanks for takingthe time to talk to to the
clear cut and to us.
I feel like I learned actuallya lot, so thank you.
Michelle Connolly (41:34):
Thanks very much for having me on the
program.
It's a real privilege to speakwith you both.
Kaya Adleman (41:39):
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.
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
(42:00):
description below your supportmeans the world to us.
Janet Sumner (42:06):
Okay, one of the things that I liked about this
episode, or what Michelle talksabout, is that fire and insect
outbreaks are complexifyingagents in a healthy forest and
yet what we're using them now asalmost like a Trojan horse or a
reason that we need to go inand do more logging reason that
(42:31):
we need to go in and do morelogging.
I found that language reallyhelped me understand what I kind
of sort of knew intuitively wasgoing on, and she says
manufacturing consent for a lotyeah.
Yeah, that was very interestingand and just how that um, that
this idea that they'veidentified where old growth is,
(42:52):
is being used and turned intowood pellets and being shipped
for incineration in a Drax millas a zero emission climate
(43:17):
solution.
Michelle Connolly (43:18):
Mm-hmm.
Janet Sumner (43:22):
It's just like you can't make this stuff up.
This just is some dystopian I Idon't know world where up is
down and down is up.
It doesn't make any sense to betreating old growth that took
three or five hundred years togrow as a zero emission coming
(43:43):
out of a, a drax plant.
It's frightening, frightening,absolutely frightening.
Kaya Adleman (43:49):
Yeah, definitely.
I think it's definitelyreflective of the, just as
Michelle was talking aboutlanguage and how that's used to
obscure the realities of certainpolicy outcomes or just to
obscure the reality of burningbiomass in coal power plants
(44:12):
overseas.
Janet Sumner (44:14):
Yeah, and we should not think about this as
being limited to BritishColumbia.
I mean, michelle is focusing inon British Columbia because
these are the forests that sheworks on, but in terms of
wanting to see more biomassbeing used or turned into
biofuels or wood pellets, thatis something that many other
provinces have looked at.
They're trying to increase the.
(44:35):
They've even in some provinceslike Ontario, they've even
increased the annual allowablecut to make room for the larger
harvest level so that we cancreate more wood pellets and
ship them wherever.
And just so everybody is clear,wildland sling is not against
the burning of biofuels forenergy.
(44:57):
We just think that the carbonall has to be counted and it
also is presumptive on asustainable harvest, which is
questionable if you're going tobe taking down three or
500-year-old trees, they'recertainly not going to be.
You're not going to haveregrown that complex forest
ecosystem for at least another500 years.
So there is no world in whichyou can argue that that's coming
(45:21):
from a sustainably harvestedforest or that it is carbon
neutral.
And that's certainly the caseacross Canada as well, because
if you're taking down trees thatare even 80 or 100 years old,
it's going to take to regeneratethat forest it would take at
least 80 to 100 years and ifyou've been listening to the
podcast, you probably know thatwe would only argue that you're
(45:44):
able to regrow some trees, notnecessarily a complex system
like a forest.
Kaya Adleman (45:48):
Argue that you're able to regrow some trees, not
necessarily a complex systemlike a forest Mm-hmm, right, I
think, maybe just to pivot awayfrom biomass specifically.
But I think for me one of thestandouts from our conversation
with Michelle is this idea ofwhat is radical.
I mean, michelle says herselfthat in the first episode that
(46:10):
when she was describing hercareer trajectory that some
environmental groups for herwere too moderate, and that's
kind of the genesis of theformation of Conservation North.
And she herself even alludes tothis idea that her values are
often perceived as radical.
And I would kind of want tochallenge that.
(46:30):
I don't think her values areradical at all.
I don't think it's a radicalidea that, given, as Michelle
says, 80% of the world's foresthas been industrialized, we
should not continue to expandthat industrial footprint into
the remaining 20% that's left.
I don't necessarily think it'sradical that we should be
(46:53):
protecting these places, giventhe current state of the climate
and the rapid decline of globalwildlife and species
populations.
And I don't think it's aradical idea that communities
who live in these forests shouldhave agency or a say in what
goes on in them.
And we did talk a lot in thisepisode about language and how
(47:16):
it's used in a way that issuesand policies are framed to
manufacture a public perception,to gain control of a dialogue,
and I think that's kind of wherethis term radical falls in.
It's often thrown at a lot ofpeople working in these spaces
by those who have kind of vestedpolitical and economic
interests to maintain the statusquo.
But I guess I would encouragepeople to maybe even like in
(47:40):
their lexicon of looking atlanguage in forestry issues when
that term radical is used,maybe just apply some critical
thinking skills to it, like whyis it?
Why is that word being used?
Why?
Why does someone who's beinglabeled as radical?
Why do they care aboutprotecting natural and primary
(48:01):
forests?
Is it because you know, we'reall tree hugging hippies, as one
of my old teachers used to say,who have this malicious agenda
to destroy industry and stopeconomic growth?
I don't think.
Do the solutions that are beingproposed by advocacy people
like Michelle?
Are they unreasonable?
(48:22):
Are they outlandish?
I mean, I don't think that theysound outlandish from what she
was describing on the episode.
I think that's definitely oneof the key takeaways for me is
this idea of language andapplying some thinking and
analysis of the words that arebeing used, why they're being
used, by whom are they beingused, et cetera.
Janet Sumner (48:44):
That's radical I'm just kidding.
I was going to say I reallyappreciate you highlighting that
, because it can't possibly beradical to say we need to stay
out of some of the intactnatural forests, which is
essentially her message, right,and so I agree with you.
(49:07):
I'm glad that you pushed backon Michelle's and she was almost
apologetic about it.
So I'm really glad that wefeatured her on the podcast and
we gave her a platform fromwhich to speak because, if
anything, I think that Michelleis very rational and in her
arguments and puts forward areally good set of arguments to
(49:29):
be considering.
You know what happens withinsect outbreaks and fires and
how we treat them and theconcept of, you know, maybe not
logging the last of the naturalforests that we have left in
Canada and seeking a way toreconfigure, logging or
reconfigure forestry in terms ofsecond growth, etc.
(49:51):
So when you look at those asjust plain statements, they
don't seem that radical, or notto many.
I don't think, and I wouldhazard a guess, that that's not
the case for many people who arelistening to the podcast.
So thanks for bringing that up.
Not the case for many peoplewho are listening to the podcast
.
Kaya Adleman (50:08):
So thanks for bringing that up.
Yeah, I think it's important toanalyze ideas and concepts as
they are instead of puttinglanguage on them that or putting
adjectives to those ideas andconcepts that can obscure their
true purpose and intention.
Janet Sumner (50:25):
Or try to silence.
Kaya Adleman (50:26):
Yes.
Janet Sumner (50:27):
Yeah, all right.
Well, thanks for another greatconversation to Michelle.
Thank you very much forappearing on the podcast and, as
always, kaya, thanks for makingthe magic happen behind the
scenes so that we can get thepodcast published every week or
so.
Kaya Adleman (50:43):
Yeah, thank you, this was a good episode.
Yeah, thank you, this is a goodepisode.
Janet Sumner (50:49):
If you like listening to the Clear Cut 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 (51:00):
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 and stay tuned for new
episodes by following us onsocial media.
Janet Sumner (51:21):
That's at Wildlands League on Instagram,
twitter and Facebook or LinkedIn, of course.
Kaya Adleman (51:27):
See you next time.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Ridiculous History
History is beautiful, brutal and, often, ridiculous. Join Ben Bowlin and Noel Brown as they dive into some of the weirdest stories from across the span of human civilization in Ridiculous History, a podcast by iHeartRadio.