home / subscribe / donate / books / archives / search / links / feedback / events / faq
Inside the Edition of Our Subscriber-Only Newsletter!
Obama’s Team: Pro Biz, Pro War
Did Obama’s progressive base get anything? Is it going to be four years of let-down? CounterPunch editors Cockburn and St Clair take a hard, sharp look at the new line-up. A MUST for all Paul Craig Roberts fans: part one of the shortest, simplest, sharpest outline of economics ever written. Alexander Cockburn’s Trans-America Diary: this time it’s the story of a true conspiracy: the Secrets of Jekyll Island. Get your Legacy Edition today by subscribing online or calling 1-800-840-3683 Contributions to CounterPunch are tax-deductible. Click here to make a donation. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe Now! CounterPunch books and gear make great presents.
|
Today's Stories January 28, 2009 Norman Finkelstein January 27, 2009 Winslow T. Wheeler Yigal Bronner / Joshua Frank Jordan Flaherty Ralph Nader Rev. José M. Tirado Benjamin Dangl Russell Mokhiber Martha Rosenberg C. G. Estabrook Website of the Day January 26, 2009 Paul Craig Roberts Deepak Tripathi Vijay Prashad Peter Lee Allan Nairn Uri Avnery John Sayen Dave Lindorff Lawrence R. Velvel David Macaray Roger Burbach Norman Solomon Website of the Day January 23 / 25, 2009 Alexander Cockburn P. Sainath Patrick Cockburn Saul Landau Sasan Fayazmanesh Alan Farago Christopher Brauchli Andy Worthington Ron Jacobs Lawrence Velvel Henry A. Giroux David Yearsley Raymond F. Gustavson Dave Lindorff Roberto Rodriguez Dina Jadallah-Taschler Fidel Castro J. Michael Cole Bob Fitrakis / Ramzy Baroud Mohammad Ali Shabani Richard Rhames Stephen Martin Lorenzo Wolff Kim Nicolini Poets' Basement Website of the Weekend January 22, 2009 Paul Craig Roberts Kathy Kelly Allan Nairn Lawrence Velvel Andy Worthington Peter Morici Joseph G. Davis Adriana Kojeve Benjamin Dangl Website of the Day January 21, 2009 Gabriel Kolko Harry Browne Michael Colby Lawrence R. Velvel Audrey Stewart Wajahat Ali Binoy Kampmark David Kεr Thomson John Ross Allan Nairn Sheldon Richman Website of the Day January 20, 2009 Chuck Spinney Kathy Kelly Raymond Deane Ralph Nader Audrey Stewart Jonathan Cook Harvey Wasserman Christopher Ketcham Robert Jensen Dave Lindorff David Macaray January 19, 2009 Kevin Alexander Gray Uri Avnery Kathy Kelly Mike Whitney Lawrence R. Velvel Mats Svensson Harry Browne Norman Solomon Jeffrey Sommers Kenneth Libby Peter Ewart Bob Sommer Website of the Day
January 16-18, 2009 Alexander Cockburn Caoimhe Butterly Audrey Stewart / Jeffrey St. Clair Ellen Cantarow Neve Gordon Vijay Prashad Jonathan Cook Rannie Amiri Andy Worthington Joshua Frank Dave Lindorff Brian Cloughley Belén Fernández Missy Beattie Fred Gardner George Ciccariello-Maher John V. Whitbeck Stephen Fleischman Mischa Gaus Saul Landau Norm Kent Alejandro López David Yearsley James McEnteer Lorenzo Wolff Kim Nicolini Poets' Basement Website of the Day
January 15, 2009 Pam Martens Karl Grossman M. Shahid Alam Jules Rabin Alan Farago Ron Jacobs Timothy Seidel George Ochenski Todd Chretien Bob Fitrakis / Website of the Day January 14, 2009 Henry A. Giroux Kathy Kelly Franklin Lamb Mike Whitney Paul Craig Roberts Glen Ford Aditya Chakrabortty Dave Lindorff Jonathan Cook David Swanson Martha Rosenberg Website of the Day
January 13, 2009 Norman Finkelstein Jonathan Cook Michael Neumann Coleen Rowley / Robert Sandels Saul Landau David Swanson Wajahat Ali Sam Bahour Stanley Heller Robert Jensen Robin Mittenthal Website of the Day
January 12, 2009 Uri Avnery Paul Craig Roberts Mike Whitney Ewa Jasiewicz Bill Quigley Dave Lindorff Bill and Kathleen Christison Jonathan Cook Andy Worthington Kara N. Tina Brenda Norrell Nour Kharma Website of the Day
January 9/11, 2009 Alexander Cockburn Kathy Kelly Bill Quigley George Ciccariello-Maher Elaine C. Hagopian Mike Roselle Steve Hendricks Gary Leupp Jonathan Cook Karim Makdisi Rannie Amiri Peter Morici Peter Montague Ralph Nader Andy Worthington Nadia Hijab Dan Bacher Catherine Fenton David Macaray Valia Kaimaki Richard Morse David Yearsley Charles R. Larson Richard Rhames Stephen Martin Lorenzo Wolff Poets' Basement Website of the Weekend January 8, 2009 Jean Bricmont / Franklin Lamb Paul Craig Roberts Kevin Alexander Gray Chris Floyd Ewa Jasiewicz Steve Conn Harvey Wasserman Wayne S. Smith Linda Mamoun Adam Turl Chris Papaleonardos Website of the Day January 7, 2009 Saree Makdisi Franklin Lamb William Blum Belén Fernández Lawrence Davidson Allan Nairn Jonathan Cook Muhammad Idrees Ahmad Deepak Tripathi Cal Winslow Manuel Garcia, Jr. Dr. Hannah Safran Website of the Day January 6, 2009 Pam Martens Victoria Buch Neve Gordon Tami Sarfatti / Mike Whitney Alan Farago Gary Leupp Larry Everest Ron Jacobs David Macaray Stephanie Basile Stacey Warde Website of the Day January 5, 2009 Paul Craig Roberts Sousan Hammad Wajahat Ali Mats Svensson Jen Marlowe Muhammad Ali Khalidi Brian Cloughley Faheem Hussain William Cook Dr. Trudy Bond Christopher Ketcham Steve Early Dave Lindorff Website of the Day January 2 - 4, 2009 Alexander Cockburn Uri Avnery Jonathan Cook Paul Craig Roberts Brian Eno Ralph Nader Omar Barghouti Graham Usher P. Sainath Belén Fernández Deb Reich Gary Leupp Michael Yates Joanne Mariner Seth Sandronsky Cynthia McKinney Sonja Karkar Deepak Tripathi Robert Fantina John Ross Norm Kent Larry Portis Richard Rhames Dee C. Lubell David Yearsley Lorenzo Wolff Marc Catone Poets' Basement Website of the Weekend
January 1, 2008 Jennifer Loewenstein Oren Ben-Dor Wajahat Ali Saul Landau David Michael Green Website of the Day December 31, 2008 Pam Martens Neve Gordon / Ted Honderich Brian Cloughley Ron Jacobs Vijay Prashad Franklin Lamb Mike Whitney David Macaray Richard Thieme Mary Lynn Cramer Stephen Lendman Worthy Group of the Day December 30, 2008 Paul Craig Roberts Tariq Ali Robert Bryce Jonathan Cook Gary Leupp Dave Lindorff Brian McKenna John Walsh Ramzy Baroud Bob Sommer Worthy Activist of the Day
December 29, 2008 Jennifer Loewenstein Neve Gordon Joshua Frank George Salzman / Norman Solomon Ewa Jasiewicz Rob Larson Kenneth Libby Robert Weissman Elsa Johnson Nicola Nasser Belén Fernández Worthy Group of the Day December 26-28, 2008 Alexander Cockburn Dr Eyad Al Serraj Jeffrey St. Clair Bradley Simpson Ralph Nader Gary Leupp Ellen Cantarow Matt Landon David Macaray Patrick Bond Norm Kent Brian T. Ketcham Rannie Amiri Larry Portis Richard Rhames Stephen Lendman James L. Secor Ramzy Baroud Harold Pinter Cpt. Paul Watson Howard Lisnoff Michael Dee Steve Conn Poets' Basement Worthy Group of the Weekend December 25, 2008 Judy Gumbo Albert Rev. William E. Alberts Hannah Mermelstein Worthy Group of the Day December 24, 2008 Bill Quigley Saul Landau Sam Smith Brian Cloughley John Ross Eric Walberg Norm Kent Stephen Martin Worthy Group of the Day December 23, 2008 Michael Hudson Michael Yates Chuck Spinney Vijay Prashad Brian Horejsi David Macaray Neil Watkins / David Michael Green Worthy Group of the Day
|
January 28, 2009 The Ecological Costs of LoggingWho Will Speak for the Forests?By GEORGE WUERTHNER An associate who works for a major environmental group doesn’t want to talk to me anymore. He has concluded that I’m against logging because I won’t uncritically support the Blackfoot Clearwater Stewardship Proposal (BCSP), a plan that, among other things, calls for logging a portion of the Lolo National Forest in Montana. He’s right. I don’t support the BCSP because no one has convinced me the proposed logging aspects of the plan won’t be degrading forest ecosystems. How many acres will be logged? What is the rationalization for logging and is it accurate? Can some of the goals like fire hazard reduction be accomplished at less cost without logging? What are the real ecological costs of logging? So far most of my questions about the specifics of the proposal have gone unanswered. Without more information, no one, including the public can really determine whether this proposal is in the best interest of the public. I suspect if I had the answers to my questions, I might conclude that no logging makes sense. I’ve grown more and more convinced that any biomass removal (i.e. logging) negatively impacts forest ecosystems. We tend to apply what may be inappropriate economic models to ecosystems. Logging is predicated upon the idea that we can remove the “interest” without degrading the principle of the forest ecosystem. But what if there is no “surplus”, no interest to remove. It seems to me that forest ecosystems reinvest its biological capital back into the forest and removing any significant amount of this biological capital can’t but help to impoverish the landscape. So where does that leave us? We have to exploit lands to survive. That’s what all species do, but whether the exploitation is justified, how much, and for what purposes can be debated. If logging the forest to provide wrapping paper for McDonald’s hamburgers that are tossed aside a few minutes after they are wrapped a good use of these trees? Do we need to build 4000 square foot homes? Is this a good use of forest biomass? Of course these are value questions, but unless we articulate the real costs, we cannot even begin to engage in a conversation about values. Given that most of the nation’s wood comes from private lands, and very little from public lands, and that these public lands are about the only places where we can protect biological values, it behooves us to make sure that any exploitation is justified, and minimizes impacts. The only responsible uses of our public lands are those activities which do not leave them impaired. Is asking that anyone using public lands—especially using public lands for a potential profit—to leave them unimpaired so unreasonable? The problem for me as an ecologist is that I have yet to see a logging operation that doesn’t impoverish the land. I’ve visited the most lauded logging operations in the country—those certified as sustainable forestry—and even these degrade forest ecosystems. They are examples of more sensitive logging to be sure. But they are not benign. They still degrade the forest ecosystem, just not as fast or intensively as traditional timber cutting. But in the end better logging practices doesn’t matter if you ultimately impair the forest ecosystem. Just as spending more than you earn will leave you broke in the end whether you do so slowly or quickly. Let me make an analogy. Let’s pretend a company wants to borrow and use some public property—say a school bus to transport people to a company conference. They are willing to pay a small fee for the use of the school bus. But when they return the key, one discovers that there were two flat tires, the gas tank was empty, the seats were ripped, the bus had a huge dent in the side where it had been hit, and the window shield was cracked. Would it be unreasonable to suggest that it was not in the public interest to let that company—especially a company that was using that public property for a profit-making venture—continue to use that public property? And when it comes to logging we are spending our natural endowment for short-term profits, jobs, and wood products that are priced far below their real ecological costs. Logging is like skin exposure to the sun. Any dermatologist will tell you that the less exposure your skin has to the sun the better. If you must go out in the sun you should take precautions, like using sun screen and wearing a hat, but that doesn’t mean that sun exposure is “good” or benign.” It’s just a better way to cope with the sun when you can’t avoid it. And you might try to argue that getting a tan might make you more sexually attractive so perhaps that is a “benefit,” but any good doctor will tell you that is a steep price to pay given the long-term damage to your skin. If you spend a lot of time in the sun without any sun protection, you may not get skin cancer, but your skin and eyes will still suffer. Similarly, some logging practices may not result in complete collapse of the forest ecosystem. But don’t let anyone fool you; there will still be impacts to the land. Logging equipment compacts soils. Logging removes biomass critical to future soil productivity of the forest. Logging disturbs sensitive wildlife. Logging typically requires roads and skid trails which create chronic sources of sedimentation that degrades water quality and aquatic organism habitat. Logging roads and skid trails are also a major vector for the spread of weeds. Logging disrupts nutrient cycling and flows. Logging can alter species composition and age structure (i.e. loss of old growth). Logging can alter fire regimes. Logging can change water cycling and water balance in a drainage. The litany of negative impacts is much longer, but suffice it to say that anyone who suggests that logging is a benefit or benign is not doing a full accounting of costs. Those who suggest that logging “benefits” the forest ecosystem are using very narrow definitions of “benefit.” Much as some might claim that smoking helps people to lose weight and is a “benefit” of smoking. Most people are so inundated with propaganda from the timber industry, forestry schools, politicians, and just about everyone else, that it’s hard to sift through all the chaff to get at the kernel of truth. That’s why it’s so important for environmentalists to always fully articulate all the costs at every opportunity. Is there any way to log a forest without damage? I honestly don’t know—because we don’t have enough information to determine the answer. What we do know is that if you are logging a large enough area and taking out enough trees to be commercially viable, you are very likely exceeding the real capacity of the forest ecosystem to absorb these losses and impacts without degrading the forest. We certainly can’t expect the timber industry to account for these costs. And we can’t expect the Forest Service, which is no more than a handmaiden to the timber industry, to express these costs. In my view, the role of environmental organizations is to continuously challenge the assumption that we “need” to log the forest. We must articulate all the costs to the degree that we are aware that they may exist. In addition, we should challenge the assumption that we “need” wood by advocating responsible behavior that will reduce demand for wood products such as recycling, use of alternative building materials, construction of smaller homes, and ultimately a reduction in population. We should always keep the precautionary principle in mind and approach every logging proposal with the knowledge that we may be damaging the forest ecosystem. It’s possible that society will decide that some level of biological impoverishment and degradation of the forest ecosystem is an acceptable tradeoff for the wood we garner from the forest. But society cannot make such a determination if no one is explaining the full costs. George Wuerthner is editor of Wildfire.
|
Now Available from CounterPunch Books! Waiting for
Lightning
|