Between the Forest and Greed

Within the past decade there has been a rising "environmentally conscious" movement. The spectrum of issues in contention by environmentalism has expanded virulently and is reaching its zenith. Public dissatisfaction with the environmental movement is forming, as the movement has taken the fight for the environment too far. Donella Meadows is an environmentalist who has yet to fully think about the issue she is arguing. In her piece "Not Seeing the Forest for the Dollar Bills," she takes an almost infantile approach to the logging industry and the concept of clear cutting. The monetary motivations behind the logging industry is her explanation for clear cutting, trying to portray the logging industry as a cold money making machine. This of course neglects the fact that the reason logging generates capital is because the world needs wood. There are several economic and environmental issues that are considered when loggers enter and area. Haphazard clear cutting of forests, while it maybe what Meadows would like us to think, does not happen. With every industry, every aspect is carefully debated and analyzed for the short and long term outcomes. Any industry that capitalizes on earth's resources figuratively signs a pact with the earth. This pact bonds this industry to the earth and requires that any harvesting of resources is not done so with haste and waste. There is a symbiotic relationship between the two. For the industry to exist there must be a constant supply of the resource. Without a constant supply the industry dies. Now, many people believe that the logging industry's objective is to cut down all the trees that are currently standing. As horrific as this scenario may sound, it is far from the truth. Without trees to cut down there is no industry. The logging industry is not so foolish as to rampage the forests and cut down all the trees. As they cut, they plant. Replacing forests with samplings may look inadequate, but over a long period of time these samplings will become a new forest. The earth as we know it today has been in existence for millions of years. Even if newly planted tress take a century to grow back that is only a pinpoint on the time line. The millions of acres of forested land left untouched currently will not be engulfed by blades and tractors instantly. It will take time to cut down the trees, as it will take time to grow them back. Meadows seems to have a misconception of industries and the service they provide. All industries, whether it be recycling to logging, are trying to maximize their profits. If this means moving their plants off shore, so be it. These industries provide the world with services that we need to operate as an advanced civilization. She claims that the remaining old growth forests are on protected federal land. If this is the case she has little to complain about. The remaining portion of what she is trying to protect is protected. At the same time she is also claiming that old growth forest can not be recreated. This seems far fetched from the eyes of an historian. Referring back to the history of the earth, one can assume that before humans inhabited the land that forests burnt to the ground leaving nothing but charred remains. Yet forests still exist today. Now, when they are threatened by fire, we save them instead of allowing nature to take its course. Meadows gives the reader a choice between "the forest and greed". If her choices were accurate one would probably choose the forest. The problem lies in her choices. They are given to the reader from only one perspective... hers. When an argument is based upon a one sided view it loses strength. It only leads to flaws and the eventual dismissal of the argument. In any debate one should look at the topic from the opposing side before approaching it from one's own. In every country, forests are considered a valuable resource. They provide us with wood to build homes and paper to communicate. With a constantly growing population, the need for homes becomes greater and thus the supply of wood must also increase. The real choice that should be analyzed is "the forest or your home". Many alternate forms of building materials are phased into the system as need be, but the need for wood will always exist. Knowing that the world will continue to cut down trees, the only solution to the forest depletion, is reforestation. A forest ecologically engineered with the proper plants and bacteria may not be perfect initially but it will someday become an old growth forest. The animals that live in these forests, will learn to adapt. The few animals that don't adapt will probably die off or move. One may say that is a cold way to look at the problem, but thousands of species have become extinct and this process is called evolution. Whether evolution is accelerated by man or comes in due time by nature, the outcome is the same. I would propose that a human life is more important than any other life on this planet, and that taking care of humans is a higher priority than that of animals. Meadows has yet to understand the logging industry and what it is trying to accomplish. Her piece is based on fear and poor preparation and that is why the choices she gives the reader is inaccurate.