The Furious, Malignant, Insane Destruction of Public Wealth

I am one of the few asserting that not only are the resources of the earth which belong to everyone, being taken away, but that land, forests, waters, ranches and farms, fibre, fish, wild animal and fowl are being destroyed. This paper uses numbers and science to prove that this is so. And, the destruction has been financed by the wealthiest families who ever lived.

Canada is my case study, but this is everywhere, courtesy of the FAO, the entirely malignant Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, it initially funded by the Rockefellers. Every assertion on the FAO’s website is a lie, a dodge, and carries the agenda of complete authoritarian control. Every asset they manage is deteriorating, including the people. And their management is full on bonkers. Shooter’s Bible ... Sadowski, Robert A. Check Amazon for Pricing.

I am publishing this because I want readers to know how deep I have dug into the evil of the environmental movement. So that you can have confidence in my assertions going forward.

How did representatives of eight environmental organizations, some of them headquartered outside the country, become managers of 76 million hectares of Canada, along with 20 forestry companies many of which are multinationals?

First, Canada. Then, the rest of the world.

Today’s all-out assault by the combined forces of Canada’s powerful environmental movement on the so-called dirty oil of the oil sands has its precursor in recent history.  The present environmental movement cut its teeth with its incursion into Canadian forestry, once the dominant resource extraction industry in Canada.  Environmental activists, NGOs and foundations presented forest certification as the solution to the international campaign launched against the forestry industry in the1990s.  Certify forests, Canada’s foresters were told, and the campaigns will stop.

The campaigns did not stop, and forest certification is proving to be destructive of the resource, the greater economy, the communities where working forests are located and forestry’s once-critical contribution to the public purse.  Further, evidence is beginning to show that the environmental model used by forest certification is destructive of the forest biosphere itself.  As well, despite forest certification being in effect for almost 20 years, there have been few independent audits of the success of forest certification, meaning existing problems have only increased.

This paper will show that the effect on forestry was a drawdown of the value of the resource and its wealth-creating effect of between 40 per cent and 60 per cent.  For smaller private forestry operations, it is as much as 400 per cent.   Certification, which was forced on a fully modern industry, has set forestry back a generation.  Forest certification needs reform in order to restore Canada’s forests to a state of economic and environmental health.

Currently, environmental NGOs are pressing certification onto the aggregate industry in Ontario.  Given the campaign against pipelines, the oil sands and fracking, the certification model developed for forestry will be presented as a solution to “public” unrest, as well as to any future exploration and extraction in Canada’s North.

This will occur at a most inconvenient time:  when Canada needs to grow its economy in order to meet its debt and unfunded liabilities, particularly those of universal health care and the aging population.  Based on a C.D. Howe Institute report by the former president of the Bank of Canada, David Dodge,

The president of the Institute, Bill Robson, calculated the ‘net unfunded liability’ implied by population aging – promises to pay, mostly for health care, for which no funds have been set aside – at $2.8-trillion.  If nothing were done, he estimates this would entail an increase in annual expenditures of about seven percentage points of GDP:  as much as the federal government collects every year in personal income taxes.[2]

Introduction

Canada has the third-largest forest in the world.  It is also the largest exporter of forest products.  The Canadian forestry sector’s combined domestic and foreign sales are second only to those of the United States and are a $53-billion industry.  Since the 1820s, starting with Napoleon’s Baltic blockade, the forestry sector has been a substantial contributor to the nation’s public purse.

Canada has 402 million ha of forested land.  Approximately 211 million ha of this huge forest is under active management.  In 2010, the harvest was 142 million m3.  This harvest supported a $53 billion industry and 238,560 direct jobs.

Eighty-nine per cent or 187 million ha of the 211 million ha of managed forest is in public ownership – owned and managed by the provinces in the long-term interests of the people.  Eleven per cent (25 million ha) is privately owned.

There are two categories of privately owned forest – 20 million ha of private woodlots owned by approximately 450,000 rural families and five million ha of ‘industrial’ forest land.  …  [T]his forest land is owned by a variety of types of organizations, including forest products companies, pension funds, foundations, endowment funds and private investors.[3]

By the1990s, the forest sector in Canada, through the actions of activists in the Clayoquot protest, had been actively targeted by international ENGOs and foundations that subsequently intervened in the marketplace in order to impose new social and environmental controls on forestry.  Chief among these controls is Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification, which is an international system of certifying forests throughout the chain of production, ensuring that the wood is harvested in a so-called sustainable manner.  Sustainable Forest Management (SFM), a certification system created to compete with FSC certification, also recognizes the value and function of ecosystems.  Increasingly from 1995, Canada’s vast forests have been re-planned with these ecosystem values in mind.  At the same time, and in concert with ecosystem management and various thought-to-be-urgent species protections, ENGOs, land trusts, foundations and governments large and small have placed a substantial acreage of Canadian forests under some form of conservation, and it is far more than the bruited 10 per cent.

By the end of 2013, Canada had 54 million hectares of producing forest under FSC certification and control.  There are two other certification programs:  Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI), which has 58 million hectares under supervision, and the Programme for the Endorsement of Forest Certification (PEFC Canada), which represents the interests of organizations in Canada that are certified to the PEFC-endorsed CSA and SFM standards, which govern 60 million hectares.

A Discussion of Standards No Grid Survival Proje... Cross, Austin Best Price: $14.26 (as of 06:31 UTC - Details)

Standards are the soft law of industry.  They are generally reviewed and revised at five-year intervals, whereas provincial legislation and regulations are revised on a 20-to-25-year cycle.  Standards address the steady improvement of understanding as science progresses and public values change.  It is essential for industries to maintain a good reputation when managing public lands and selling the products abroad.  Because of a general, free-floating mistrust of government and industry, the introduction of a standard and an independent audit ensures essential transparency and the continuation of public trust.

Equally, the fact that standards are revised on a short cycle helps keep them in line with public values.

The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) was established after the Second World War to facilitate international trade.  The first products to be standardized were nuts and bolts for use in aircraft production and maintenance, meaning thread, diameter, length and hardness.  The Standards Council of Canada (SCC) is Canada’s representative on ISO.  CSA Group is the largest of five standards development organizations in Canada; it holds the secretariat for the ISO 14000 environmental management system standards (ISO Technical Committee 207).

There are several types of standards.  ISO standards are management system standards designed to add discipline and rigour to management.  Technical standards, such as those applied to toasters and heat pumps, usually deal with product safety.  Prescriptive standards lay out exactly how to do something, such as protocols for scientific tests.

Read the Whole Article