2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

As and Oregon small woodland owner I would stand to benefit financially from the Oregon Small woodland sequestration proposal. However, in the interest of truly doing something to reduce our impact on the planet, I cannot get on board this smoke and mirrors proposal.
This feel good carbon credit thing is similar to encouraging recycling just so humans can consume more stuff. Oregon already has strict reforestation requirements as far a planting forests goes. Incentives already exist in terms of property tax deferrals. An existing forest is an existing carbon sink. To assign higher carbon credits to younger forests would only encourage a quick turn-around harvest cycle. There seems to be no discussion about the amount of atmospheric damage caused by the logging process. Chain saws, forest commutes, heavy equipment, log trucks, power/energy to process wood to lumber, slash and debris rotting and releasing their carbon...the list goes on. Most of the volume of a tree is left at the sight to rot and release carbon when harvest occurs.
Money would be far better spent instituting reforestation requirements similar to Oregon?s around the globe. Spend this carbon sink money investing in geothermal, solar, wind power, alternative power research and un-brainwashing the all consuming public. We?ve got to get off of this ?more stuff? mode. Anyone interested in a post prophetic read should dredge up Vance Packard?s book, The Waste Makers published in 1960. Ykes!
Red flags should be going up all over the place as this carbon credit forestry proposition is no different than most greed driven boondoggles-FOLLOW THE MONEY!

posted 4 years, 9 months ago
view in context