America, the Environment, and the Global Economy
Spring 1997-- Global Human
Ecology:
America, the Environment, and the Global Economy
Question for Discussion: How
does massive logging in the United States help us understand the
larger causes of the environmental crisis?
Readings: "Federal Logging costs $398 million, group
claims" handout
Video: "60 Minutes": Timber Wars
Internet Sites and Documents:
A DOZEN GOOD REASONS TO SUPPORT
AN END TO LOGGING ON PUBLIC LANDS
Deforestation: An Overview of Global Programs and Agreements
The Greenhouse Effect and Deforestation
Deforestation: Causes, Implications, and Solutions
Global Environmental Policy Research Tools
For the last 100 years, Federal and State governments have worked closely with logging companies to support logging on both the national forests and on private land. Logging companies and timber interests have generously supported the political campaigns of Western politicians, who in turn help pass laws that given logging interests generous subsidies and tax breaks. We can see how this system works by looking at a recent Wilderness Society report on federal subsidies to logging companies.
In 1995, logging companies harvested 1 billion dollars worth of timber from the national forests. They paid the government $59 million dollars for the right to harvest this timber. But the federal government subsidized the logging of these forests by paying 200 million dollars to build roads into the forests in order for the logging companies to log and transport the timber out to process and market. In addition to building the roads, the federal government paid the counties where this logging took place 257 million dollars to cover the burden and expense of allowing the logging companies to use county services to log. Thus, the government spent 457 million dollars to support logging companies harvest over 1 billion dollars of publicly-owned timber in the national forests and received only $59 million dollars from the logging companies for the right to log.
Of course, these numbers don't add up. The federal government's support for logging is one of the main reasons large, global logging companies are still harvesting timber from our national forests. Without these subsidies, the cost of logging could easily be prohibitive. So why is the government supporting this logging. The West's politicians argue that logging creates jobs, supports the local economy, and supports regional corporations. But what is the unpaid cost of this logging?
Clear-cut logging, going in and clearing away entire forests, threatens the environment and the quality of life in the West. Clear-cut logging leads to massive soil erosion, which leads to the siltation of streams and the destruction of fish habitat and spawning areas. In addition, because the trees no longer hold down the soil, the soil runs off and destroys the fertility of the land. When the soil runs off and collects in the rivers and streams, downstream communities have to pay a lot more money to filter the mud and debris that has accumulated in their local water supply. By destroying fish habitat, clearcutting has caused the massive decline in the salmon and other fish stocks in both salt and freshwater fisheries. The fishing industry in the Pacific Northwest is been so damaged by government support for logging, that they are demanding that the government protect their industry to, and not just protect logging at the expense of the fishing industry. Clear-cut logging damages the diversity and health of the forest, leading to more disease, loss of soil fertility, and the inability of the forests to survive additional shocks such as fires and floods. Finally, the decline in fisheries, water quality, the loss of forest habitat and biodiversity threaten the state's tourism industry. All this because the state and federal governments and politicians want to support logging interests.
In the 1980s and early 1990s, environmental groups successfully challenged this government-supported logging in our national forests. Taking the government and logging companies to court, they charged that such logging threatened endangered species such as the spotted owl and the marbled murelette, which lived in the old growth forests of the Pacific Northwest. The courts ruled that logging must be greatly reduced to protect these endangered species, which the government by law was mandated to protect by the Endangered Species Act. This was a victory for environmentalists and clear-cut logging in the national forests. However, timber workers and logging communities that depended on continued cutting in the national forests became angry and bitter toward the environmentalists. Logging was their way of life, and without logging their economic survival was a stake.
As a result of greatly reduced logging in the late 1980s and early 1990s, many small logging companies shut down, larger timber companies laid off thousands of workers, and logging communities suffered an economic depression because of the loss of timber revenues. Timer workers, logging communities, and global logging companies such as Weyerhaeuser and International Paper put tremendous pressure on the state and federal governments to overrule the courts limits on logging in the remaining old-growth forests of the Pacific Northwest. As a result of this pressure in 1995, Western Senators and Representatives led by Senator Slade Gordon snuck a law into a larger bill on benefits for the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing. This law, which came to be know as the salvage rider, said that logging companies could once again log in the national forests in order to cut down dead and damaged trees. And this logging could not be limited or regulated by current environmental and endangered species laws. Since 1995, the salvage rider has allowed thousands and thousands of acres of old-growth forests to be cut. With this renewed logging, timber workers and logging communities are beginning to recover from their economic depression caused by the courts halting earlier logging.
Environmentalists are angry at Western politicians and President Clinton for allowing the logging companies to continue logging and to do so despite thirty years of environmental laws that should protect the national forests and the environment from such logging. When asked about what the salvage rider has done for them, a small logging company owner said that it allows them another year of operation. Logging workers feel that it gives them more time to work as loggers, harvesting trees in the national forests. Both environmentalists and timber interests recognize that this renewed logging can only last a few more years; there are just not that much remaining stands of old growth forests to harvest. After this logging is over, they will have to wait fifty to one hundred years to harvest the second-growth trees. So the salvage rider actually salvages a dying industry for a few more years.
Why do the logging companies want to continue to log knowing that they will have destroyed the few remaining untouched stands of old-growth forest in the Pacific Northwest? They believe that a forest is just trees. That there is no real difference between a natural forest and a man-made tree farm, planted with rows and rows of fir trees. Logging interest believe that environmentalists do not understand the forest. They see environmentalists as having a flaky religious attachment to forests, which can't be justified by the need for jobs, to control and harvest forests, and to create profits for local timber industries. Timber interests defend their logging by arguing that they "re-plant" the forests they cut, and these second-growth forests will grow to be just like the old-growth forests the environmentalists wanted to save.
But can logging companies re-create the diversity, health, and complexity of the natural old-growth forests? No, a forest is not just a row of trees. First, of all, natural forests with their deep root systems hold the soil and water in the forest, preventing both soil erosion and flooding. Re-planted rows of trees in clear-cut areas simply can't hold the soil down and keep the water in because their root systems aren't developed enough. By the time these trees mature, precious topsoil and water will have run-off the forest. In addition, in a natural forest, dead and dying trees fall onto the forest floor and provide nutrients to enrich the soil. Finally, in a natural old-growth forest there are a diversity of insects, plants, and animals that together create a healthy forest. Re-planting trees on clear-cut land cannot replace the diverse organisms that once lived in the old-growth forests. We do not understand the complex nature of old-growth forests, and therefore can't re-create them by planting trees.
But the larger question remains: Why would state and federal governments, politicians, and logging interests want to quickly log the remaining untouched old-growth forests, knowing that in doing so their industry will be threatened because there will be no more trees to harvest? Logging companies and interests, just like governments and politicians, are focused on short-term profits, not on long-term interests. And this focus on the short-term allows logging companies, timber workers, and logging communities to put-off facing the long-term problems. What will they do once they have destroyed the resource that their livelihoods depend on? What will the fishing industry do after the logging companies have destroyed the fish habitats vital to sustaining their fisheries? What will local and state governments do after the logging has created such massive flooding that whole communities have been threatened? What will local communities do when the soil erosion caused by massive logging has threatened their drinking water supplies? What will the states do when their tourist industry is threatened by the destruction of fisheries and natural forests for camping and recreation? All of these questions currently go unanswered.
The timber industry's focus on short-term profit and destroying natural systems that we don't fully understand is a classic example of the larger causes of the global environmental crisis. We continue to believe that nature will absorb our insults to it, that we can control and re-create environments, that short-term profit is more important than long-term health, and that science and technology will soon give us the power to correct for the mistakes we made in the present. All this comes down to our arrogant attitude that the future will take care of itself, what matters is our short-term interests. Of course, the environmental crisis is proving that the future won't take care of itself. If we don't soon take action to reduce our impact on the Earth, the future will take care of itself. The loss of soils, the pollution of air and water, the collapse of fisheries, and the loss of biodiversity will weaken the ability of the Earth to support our industrial civilization. Can we afford to cut down the forests now hoping that the future will take care of itself?