Along Mckenzie Highway, activists have hoisted themselves to the canopies of old-growth trees in protest of the Flat Country Project: a Forest Service proposal that aims to clearcut 74,000 acres of Willamette National Forest to provide a continuous supply of timber products.
While originally proposed in 2018, harvest has increased in response to the wildfires prompting protesters from Cascadia Forest Defenders: a grassroots organization based in the Pacific Northwest committed to activism against the Timber Industry in favor of environmental justice.
The release of the Intergovernmental Panel on 2021’s Climate Change report showed that Eugene’s heat and smoky sky are not isolated seasonal occurrences; they are the accelerating manifestations of climate change in Oregon.
Our forests act as immense carbon sinks — they pull carbon from the air and use it to grow. Without them, that carbon floats to the atmosphere, contributing to global climate change. Removing Oregon forests is to remove “our last and best defense against climate change," an unnamed defender said. And, while a complete halt to timber is unfeasible in an industrial world, a new balance must be struck between environmental and industry demands. As such, I do not call for the end of Oregon Timber, rather the nationalization of the industry to bring the sector’s power and wealth back to the communities they exploit.
The Oregon Timber industry is ubiquitous and controversial; it is the sector that helped found our state, finance our governments and name our soccer team. However, the narrative pushed by the industry since 1990 is one of environmental hostility.
According to timber agents, the ecologically conscious are to blame for declining revenue and lost Oregonian jobs. Yet, today’s logging industry enjoys record profits and its investment companies own 40% of private forests.
Meanwhile, the state and its citizens foot the bill as lumber barons maximize profits by increasing exploitation of local communities. The severance taxes corporations used to pay logged communities are gone; instead, your tax dollars are left to subsidize their robbery.
Of the $67 billion extracted in 30 years, communities should have received $3 billion in compensation, yet counties have received barely a third of that. Towns, like Fall City, fall victim as clear-cut kings bankrupt them and move on. Though Oregon developed in cooperation with Timber, the industry is now hostile to state residents. Fall City locals pay $412 an acre in taxes; logging corporations pay $4.60.
These corporations cannot be their own arbiters, for a CEO will never understand the financial and environmental plight of local communities when their salary depends on their ignorance. Even Oregon’s liberal lawmakers regulate around the logging giants, focusing on reactive legislation to fight climate change rather than preventative measures. The most radical of the mainstream policies, the Coast Range Association’s Green New Deal, calls merely for a tax-funded buyout of the sector.
While transitioning the land to public ownership is necessary, why should our tax dollars buy back the wealth and land these corporations extract? Why should we support those who exploit our communities? If it is truly Oregon Timber, why do we have to pay for it?
Ineffectual changes made in moderation are not enough. If climate change and wildfires could be solved with a reinstatement of the severance tax, California and Washington would be unburnt. It is only reasonable environmentally and economically –– and for the benefit of all Oregonians –– this industry ought to be nationalized and brought under public ownership. Where local populations can democratically distribute resources and profits, as without the need to satisfy industry profits, the well-being of Oregon towns and environmental protection can be harmonious.
Thus, timber and its wealth are harvested solely for the sustainment of the state, rather than extracted under the pursuit of infinite profit in a finite forest.
Such actions are not un-American or contrary to our system of laissez-faire capitalism; Roosevelt called for publicly owned utilities in 1932, steel mills were brought under state control throughout the 20th century and the bank bailout of 2008 was nationalization in everything but name.
In a time of emergency, the federal government holds the power to bring industries under public ownership with the ability to allocate profits more evenly. This restructuring will once again allow Oregon cities, schools and roads to be funded by timber –– rather than your tax dollars –– to create a mutually beneficial state where our environment is protected and communities are paid the full value of their labor.
"industry" - Google News
September 29, 2021 at 07:00PM
https://ift.tt/2YeLahb
Opinion: The timber industry needs to be restructured - Oregon Daily Emerald
"industry" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2RrQtUH
https://ift.tt/2zJ3SAW
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "Opinion: The timber industry needs to be restructured - Oregon Daily Emerald"
Post a Comment