.jpg.bee6da21545b36ee147b8b8fe68bc87e.jpg)
Anthony Britneff
-
Posts
29 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Anthony Britneff's Achievements
-
Disgraceful. Unbelievable. And to think of the carbon subsidy in addition to this double-dipping is mind-boggling! The government dealt with the scandal of a wood-splitter at the legislature; let's see if it deals with this scandal at the forests ministry. I will be watching to see things change for the better.
-
Mike: I find your comments to be both useful and revealing: useful because they provide insight on a forest industry perspective on forestry and revealing because they hit on a few of the key differences that divide the industry from its many critics, who, I might clarify, are not just NGOs but also informed professionals and many of the general public. Perception is reality. So if I substitute “timber" where you write “forestry” and “forest” in your comments, you might realize how even your thoughtful comments are perceived by many readers to be timber-centric. By way of illustration: "I may be the only pro-timber advocate in this chat" among many pro-forestry advocates. As an example, plantations are not forests. Primary forests are not replaceable or renewable. The industry might be replacing the trees through planting but it is not replacing forests: by that I mean the ecology of primary forests, the full extent of ecosystem services a forest provides, and the full amount of the carbon emitted to the atmosphere though the act of logging. As another example, implicit in your comments (and optimism) are two false assumptions: One, you apparently believe that the plantations are performing as assumed by the forest ministry in its timber supply modelling when forest health surveys and science tell us otherwise. Mortality and under-performance of young plantations for whatever reason after declaration of "free-growing" at 8 to 12 years of age are a big concern because the unverified performance of "managed stands" (ministry jargon for unmanaged plantations) as assumed in timber growth models determines the present supply of timber as reflected in allowable annual cuts -- ergo unsustainable timber supply. Two, you are of the opinion that forestry is adequately operating under sustainable practices. To most informed forest ecologists and the general public nothing is sustainable about clearcut logging of primary forests with the resulting loss of biodiversity, damage to water, erosion of soil, and emissions of carbon. The whole notion of “sustainable forest management” as a standard for forest certification has been a point of major contention ever since it was initiated and is viewed by many to be false and misrepresentative of the true state of forest practices in B.C. -- the epitome of greenwashing. Every time an industry spokesperson alludes to forest certification and sustainable forestry, it infuriates so many people both inside and outside the forest sector -- seeing is believing. Misrepresentation is the reason why Ecojustice recently filed a complaint on behalf of a diverse group of Canadians to the federal Competition Bureau asserting that the forest industry and government claims of sustainable forestry are false and misleading. I suspect you are aware of this complaint; but, if not, here are links to relevant documents: Press release: https://ecojustice.ca/pressrelease/sustainable_forestry_claims_false/ Text for the complaint: https://ecojustice.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/2021-07-21-CSA-CB-Complaint.pdf We agree in principle on the importance of communication and dialogue. However, the forest industry (and the forests ministry) have a lot to learn about what to communicate, how to do it, and who does it. By relying on amateurs among its lobbyists as spokespersons for the industry, who, when challenged, become defensive of their own organizations, the forest industry will continue to lose credibility and social licence. Communication has to be two-way, believable and truthful. Meaningful dialogue needs to begin with mutual recognition by the forest industry, by the forests ministry and by their critics that the defining crises of our times are climate change and biodiversity loss, and that clearcut logging of primary forests in B.C. is a major contributor to both crises. Within the context of forestry in B.C., what has to be conceded and what has to change to mitigate against these crises? How can industry expertise contribute meaningfully to dialogue and solutions? And how does the forest sector see itself surviving needed changes and concessions? Over to you, Mike. -
Mike: You have found in Focus (and in the soon-to-be-launched Evergreen Alliance web site) one of the few Internet forums in which open, uncensored discussion of BC forestry problems and the presentation of ideas are possible. By contrast you will notice that the forest industry, its lobbyists and forest professionals do not offer any Internet venue for the discussion of problems and ideas. Here I am referring to forest company web sites and to those of the Association of BC Forest Professionals, lumber associations, Council of Forest Industries, Truck Loggers Association, BC Forestry Alliance, and of Resource Works, most of which are full of defensive, self-serving facts and greenwashing. In short, the forest industry is not engaged in the dialogue you advocate. It would be "good for everyone" if the forest industry decided to participate.
-
On the matter of naming and attributing carbon emissions to individual companies, I think we also need to recognize that forestry governance has been operating under a decades-long abnegation of corporate and government responsibility to professional reliance. Each and every one of those clearcuts in over-logged watersheds has had a cutting permit approved and signed-off by a forest professional. In keeping with professional reliance under the Forest and Range Practices Act (FRPA), and in fairness to the corporations that have relied on those professional foresters, a publicly available list of, say, 20 to 30 forest professionals, who have contributed most to those massive carbon emissions, would be helpful to have. Inclusion on this list could be decided by the number of cutting permits approved and signed or by the total area logged. Such a list would make it clear that the floodwaters that have devastated Merritt and other Interior communities didn't come out of thin air; rather they are the cumulative outcome of day-to-day decisions by professional foresters, who in effect betrayed the public trust. David: Is the naming of professionals something that you might consider for inclusion on the yet-to-be-launched Evergreen Alliance web site? And do you agree that in doing so the outcome might produce positive change in the public interest?
-
In 2007, in a special investigative report, the Forest Practices Board warned the BC government about the effect of excessive rates of clearcut logging on flooding in large watersheds. The investigator was UBC research scientist and hydrologist Dr. Younes Alila. https://www.bcfpb.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/SIR16.pdf The Board made headline news with the outcomes of this report. Local, regional and national media reported on this modelling study for several days. It even made a splash in the Alberta legislature. FPB-Final-Report-online.pdf
-
Fred: Just one person can start a class action lawsuit. That said, as I understand the law (and I am not a lawyer and this is not advice), the courts draw a line between policy and operations. Those on the side of "policy" (e.g., the chief forester and her staff) can't be touched but those on the side of "operations" (e.g. companies and the operational arms of the forest ministry like district offices and BCTS) can be named as defendants.
-
I suspect some readers might be asking themselves, "Where does BC Timber Sales fit into this carbon accounting because BCTS is responsible for 20 per cent of the provincial allowable annual cut?".
-
Trevor Goward touches upon the subject of attribution of cause to effect. Attribution science over the past decade has made great advances in the fields of climate change and hydrology. David Broadland alludes to the seminal research of UBC research scientist, Dr. Younes Alila, a provincial leader in the field of hydrology, and XuJian Joe Yu. Dr. Alila's pioneering research is able to answer the questions to which Trevor alludes: how much of the damage to infrastructure and communities is attributable to climate change; how much to clearcut logging, and how much to wildfire? We need answers. The relationship between logging, wildfire and increased risk of more frequent peak flows of greater magnitude and of longer duration is well established in current science. This leads me to the concluding comments in David's story about who foots the bill for apparent negligence in the over-exploitation of our forests and how we might immediately begin to mitigate against "a very bleak" and frightening future. Residents of Merritt and Princeton, who have incurred damage, might choose to seek restitution in the courts by holding the forest industry and provincial government accountable -- BC Timber Sales, the government's logging arm, being the biggest logger in the province with 20 per cent of the allowable annual cut (AAC). As for immediate mitigative action, the obvious change in forest policy is for the provincial government to make clearcut logging illegal, to end all logging in primary forests, and to contract the forest industry to 20 percent of its present capacity to cover domestic needs for forest products by stopping the multi-million-dollar subsidies each day to the industry and by radically reducing the AAC to sustainable levels that place priority on public safety. An emergency of the magnitude of massive climate disruption requires strong leadership to take immediate mitigative measures. Where is the political will and leadership in British Columbia? And for how long will you, the taxpayer. tolerate subsidizing the forest industry to contribute significantly to the social and economic disruption of the Province?
-
In aliis verbis by failing to protect old-growth forests, to reduce the rate of logging and to price the massive amount of carbon emitted into the atmosphere by logging, the BC provincial government is subsidizing the forest industry to heat the planet above 1.5 degrees Centigrade. This is ecocide. Thank you forest defenders for all you do in the public interest. Like the BC government, the BC judiciary is failing us by putting its interests ahead of the public interest . . . so stay strong.
-
How BC can break the forest fire cycle
Anthony Britneff commented on Taryn Skalbania's story in Forests
I suspect forest entomologists might find this statement to be problematic. I refer readers to the attached report on forest health, which they might find to be of interest. The report is titled The Implications of Climate Change to Forest Health in British Columbia. Provincial entomologists and pathologists wrote the report in 2009 for the chief forester. I quote from page 10 of the report: The dynamics of bark beetle outbreaks are complex; numerous conditions and circumstances must coincide and a hierarchy of thresholds must be surpassed for an outbreak to occur. Once a threshold is surpassed, however, prior controlling factors (such as natural enemies) exert little influence on population dynamics. Climate change appears to facilitate the breaching of outbreak thresholds. Bark beetles appear to be highly responsive to conditions created by climate change and are likely to exceed previously observed limits. Much of the dead wood to which Don Heppner refers is found in naturally occurring pine monocultures in the central Interior. Fire suppression has allowed many of these pine forests to exceed their natural life span. Within these forests, mountain pine beetle infestations have resulted in the accumulation of dead wood thereby increasing the fire hazard. When planting these pine landscapes (after insect infestation, fire or logging), Increased diversity in tree species (e.g., pine mixed with aspen) "would significantly influence future resilience to insect outbreaks ..." (page 11) as well as resistance to fire. That said, it is not certain that the accumulated dead wood is causing the mega-fires of recent years: they appear to be igniting in clearcuts and burning through clearcuts and young plantations. Special Note: As it has done with a number of reports on the status of old growth, the forests ministry, which prides itself on being transparent, suppressed circulation of this report. FH-climagechangeimplications_final_March2009.pdf -
How BC can break the forest fire cycle
Anthony Britneff commented on Mark Mallet's comment in Commentary
I suspect forest entomologists might find this statement to be problematic. I refer readers to the attached report on forest health, which they might find to be of interest. The report is titled The Implications of Climate Change to Forest Health in British Columbia. Provincial entomologists and pathologists wrote the report in 2009 for the chief forester. I quote from page 10 of the report: The dynamics of bark beetle outbreaks are complex; numerous conditions and circumstances must coincide and a hierarchy of thresholds must be surpassed for an outbreak to occur. Once a threshold is surpassed, however, prior controlling factors (such as natural enemies) exert little influence on population dynamics. Climate change appears to facilitate the breaching of outbreak thresholds. Bark beetles appear to be highly responsive to conditions created by climate change and are likely to exceed previously observed limits. Much of the dead wood to which Don Heppner refers is found in naturally occurring pine monocultures in the central Interior. Fire suppression has allowed many of these pine forests to exceed their natural life span. Within these forests, mountain pine beetle infestations have resulted in the accumulation of dead wood thereby increasing the fire hazard. When planting these pine landscapes (after insect infestation, fire or logging), Increased diversity in tree species (e.g., pine mixed with aspen) "would significantly influence future resilience to insect outbreaks ..." (page 11) as well as resistance to fire. That said, it is not certain that the accumulated dead wood is causing the mega-fires of recent years: they appear to be igniting in clearcuts and burning through clearcuts and young plantations. Special Note: As it has done with a number of reports on the status of old growth, the forests ministry, which prides itself on being transparent, suppressed circulation of this report. FH-climagechangeimplications_final_March2009.pdf -
Logging in BC releases immense quantities of carbon emissions, degrades needed ecosystem services, destroys habitat for at-risk wildlife and creates conditions that allow larger and more intense forest fires. It’s time to downsize the industry to a level that meets BC’s own needs and no more. All large forest fires in BC involve many thousands of acres of clearcuts and plantations, both of which have a higher fire hazard rating than primary and mature forest (Photo: BC Wildfire Service) JOBS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA’S FOREST SECTOR have become a talisman exploited by the forest industry and its associations in persuading politicians of the importance of the sector to the provincial economy. As forestry jobs have steadily declined, industry lobbyists like the Council of Forest Industries, Resource Works and the Truck Loggers’ Association have become increasingly creative in overstating the contribution of the forest sector to the provincial economy by, for example, inflating job numbers with indirect jobs. If Statistics Canada were to count jobs this way, we would have many more jobs than there are residents in the province. Between the years 2000 and 2019, the forest sector of British Columbia shed 50,000 direct jobs largely due to mechanization and depletion of old growth forests. About the same number—50,000—remain, mostly in manufacturing. So let’s question the talisman. Is it that ridiculous to shed the remaining number of direct forestry jobs in the woods and manufacturing by, say, 40,000? Perhaps not. Let’s examine some of the compelling reasons for a reduced workforce in forestry: Tree cover loss expressed as area per capita is greater in BC than in most forested countries of the world; greater than in Brazil, Indonesia and Russia. This rate and extent of clearcut logging has a large carbon footprint. The prevalence of highly flammable clearcuts and young plantations (less than 25 years) has become a significant driver of the size of wildfires…the mega fires of recent years that destroy homes and impact air quality so badly that our health is endangered, including the spread of COVID. In fact, wildfires in BC have increased in size and intensity so dramatically that they, together with logging, now exceed fossil fuels as the province’s major source of climate-destabilizing carbon. You won’t find this in the provincial government’s carbon accounting because it has deftly chosen to ignore carbon emissions from logging and wildfire. Consequences of clearcut logging more familiar to the reader include: the loss of the little remaining old-growth forests growing in ecosystems rich in biodiversity; the destruction of fish and wildlife habitat (salmon, caribou and grizzlies); and the relentless extermination and extirpation of animals, plants and fungi. In many ways, climate change in BC is all about water. Here, clearcutting is instrumental in contaminating the drinking water for many rural communities; in depleting groundwater causing more frequent and prolonged drought events; and, of huge concern to the residents of Grand Forks and the Okanagan Valley, in increasing the frequency, magnitude and duration of major flood events. The excessive rate of clearcutting is permitted by a grossly inflated allowable annual cut (AAC). But the question is: to what end? Only 20 percent of the forest products derived from clearcutting are destined for our domestic market. The remaining 80 percent satisfies export markets mostly in the United States, China and Japan—all of which have higher standards for the conservation and protection of old-growth forests than does BC. This means that those three countries are conserving their ecosystems at the expense of the degradation and loss of our ecosystems. In spite of the high level of exports of forest products, the forest sector contributes a meagre two per cent to the provincial gross domestic product (GDP) and only two per cent to the provincial labour force. In other words, our provincial economy is sufficiently robust and resilient to absorb further job losses in forestry and reduced exports of raw logs and forest products. Accordingly, would it not be in the public interest to ban clearcutting and substantially lower the allowable annual cut thereby reducing the export of raw logs and forest products and cutting back the labour force in the forest sector? If we as a society in BC can shed 400,000 jobs in two months of 2020 to deal with a global pandemic, is it that ridiculous to transition, say, 40,000 forestry jobs into non-destructive forest and value-added enterprises and into other economic sectors in order to mitigate a global climate emergency already having such profound consequences for BC's environment and residents? Anthony Britneff worked for the BC Forest Service for 40 years holding senior professional positions in inventory, silviculture and forest health. -
I don't think anyone said that. But since you imply it, let's explore the idea. Given that: Wildfires in B.C. have surged so dramatically that they, together with logging, have overtaken fossil fuels as the province’s major source of climate-destabilizing CO2. You won’t find this in the provincial government’s carbon accounting because it has deftly chosen to ignore carbon emissions from logging and wildfire; The rate and extent of clearcut logging in B.C. has a large carbon footprint and serious consequences such as: more severe and frequent flood and drought events, destruction of shallow soils, depletion of groundwater, destruction of fish and wildlife habitats, contamination of drinking water, continued extermination and extirpation of animals and plants, and bigger more intense wildfires that are dangerous to the health, safety and survival of British Columbians; The high level of forest product exports (80% of all logging in B.C.) mainly to three countries (USA, China and Japan), all of which have higher standards for the protection and conservation of primary forests than B.C. has, means that they are conserving their ecosystems at the expense of the degradation (and loss) of our ecosystems; and, The forest sector contributes only 2 per cent to the provincial GDP and 2 percent to the labour force. Accordingly, is it not in the public interest to ban clearcutting, substantially lower the allowable annual cut, reduce exports of raw logs and forest products, and cut back the labour force in the forest sector? If we as a society in B.C. can cut 400,000 jobs in two months of 2020 to deal with a global pandemic, is it that ridiculous to transition, say, 40,000 forestry jobs into non-destructive forest enterprises and other economic sectors in order to mitigate a global climate emergency having such costly consequences for B.C.'s environment and residents?
-
I don't think anyone said that. But since you imply it, let's explore the idea. Given that: Wildfires in B.C. have surged so dramatically that they, together with logging, have overtaken fossil fuels as the province’s major source of climate-destabilizing CO2. You won’t find this in the provincial government’s carbon accounting because it has deftly chosen to ignore carbon emissions from logging and wildfire; The rate and extent of clearcut logging in B.C. has a large carbon footprint and serious consequences such as: more severe and frequent flood and drought events, destruction of shallow soils, depletion of groundwater, destruction of fish and wildlife habitats, contamination of drinking water, continued extermination and extirpation of animals and plants, and bigger more intense wildfires that are dangerous to the health, safety and survival of British Columbians; The high level of forest product exports (80% of all logging in B.C.) mainly to three countries (USA, China and Japan), all of which have higher standards for the protection and conservation of primary forests than B.C. has, means that they are conserving their ecosystems at the expense of the degradation (and loss) of our ecosystems; and, The forest sector contributes only 2 per cent to the provincial GDP and 2 percent to the labour force. Accordingly, is it not in the public interest to ban clearcutting, substantially lower the allowable annual cut, reduce exports of raw logs and forest products, and cut back the labour force in the forest sector? If we as a society in B.C. can cut 400,000 jobs in two months of 2020 to deal with a global pandemic, is it that ridiculous to transition, say, 40,000 forestry jobs into non-destructive forest enterprises and other economic sectors in order to mitigate a global climate emergency having such costly consequences for B.C.'s environment and residents?
-
I don't think anyone said that. But since you imply it, let's explore the idea. Given that: Wildfires in B.C. have surged so dramatically that they, together with logging, have overtaken fossil fuels as the province’s major source of climate-destabilizing CO2. You won’t find this in the provincial government’s carbon accounting because it has deftly chosen to ignore carbon emissions from logging and wildfire; The rate and extent of clearcut logging in B.C. has a large carbon footprint and serious consequences such as: more severe and frequent flood and drought events, destruction of shallow soils, depletion of groundwater, destruction of fish and wildlife habitats, contamination of drinking water, continued extermination and extirpation of animals and plants, and bigger more intense wildfires that are dangerous to the health, safety and survival of British Columbians; The high level of forest product exports (80% of all logging in B.C.) mainly to three countries (USA, China and Japan), all of which have higher standards for the protection and conservation of primary forests than B.C. has, means that they are conserving their ecosystems at the expense of the degradation (and loss) of our ecosystems; and, The forest sector contributes only 2 per cent to the provincial GDP and 2 percent to the labour force. Accordingly, is it not in the public interest to ban clearcutting, substantially lower the allowable annual cut, reduce exports of raw logs and forest products, and cut back the labour force in the forest sector? If we as a society in B.C. can cut 400,000 jobs in two months of 2020 to deal with a global pandemic, is it that ridiculous to transition, say, 40,000 forestry jobs into non-destructive forest enterprises and other economic sectors in order to mitigate a global climate emergency having such costly consequences for B.C.'s environment and residents?
