🚀 go-pugleaf

jamie@cs.sfu.ca (Jamie Andrews) writes:

>Corrected version of Schuck's comments follow.

"Corrected"???? Ha.

>>Whats your idea of compromise?
>>Complete and utter surrender to the ecofacists?

>     One indicator that a true "compromise" has been achieved is
>when there are a fair number of people on each side of the issue
>that are opposed to the solution.  No such luck in this
>situation, where environmentalists from across BC, across
>Canada, and around the world are opposed to the "compromise"
>while the forest companies/unions seem pleased as punch.

>     Obviously the provincial government miscalculated on this
>one.  They should have set aside more old-growth rainforest than
>they did, made the enforced methods more environmentally
>friendly than they did, made the annual allowable cut lower than
>they did, or a combination of these things -- if only to save
>their political asses.  You can bet that they are saying these
>things to themselves right now.

Really?

I was reading that the allowable cut in the Clayoquot would be sold by
Mac-Blo for 120 million per year bringing 42 million in revenue to all
levels of government.

If the NDP had been tougher on the logging companies, the NDP would
have been sued for billions to offset revenue lost from logging rights
already granted.

As I understand it , 30% of the Clayoquot is now protected, but I'm
sure that the environmentalists had a target of 100%.

In addition, the chances of significant future investment by Mac-Blo
would have been seriously harmed and therefore the amount of revenue
lost would have been much *larger* than the 42 million lost, which is
not an insignificant amount.

The cut in the Clayoquot, is to be around 600,000 cf of lumber, out of
7 million cf that Mac-Blo is allowed to cut in BC for the year.

Forest companies would have had to look very hard at a govt decision
that would wipe out ~9% of a companies possible revenue in BC.

The BC economy would have been damaged severely by any decision that
had more impact on logging.


>     As for fascists in BC, I don't know that there are any but
>I'll take your word for it, Bruce.