Tag Archives: environmentalism

The Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement: obfuscation, fallacy, and more of the prefabricated henhouse

3 Replies

If you had a chance to read yesterday’s , you may remember the quote I used from George Orwell’s 1946 Essay — Politics and the English language:

prefab – elevated henhouse

[The] mixture of vagueness and sheer incompetence is the most marked characteristic of modern English prose, and especially of any kind of political writing. As soon as certain topics are raised, the concrete melts into the abstract and no one seems able to think of turns of speech that are not hackneyed: prose consists less and less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning, and more and more of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated henhouse.

Now to be somewhat fair, I have been plowing through a leaked copy of the 70+ page agreement between logging companies and enviros – . Obviously, at great expense, signatories to the agreement had legal teams sift through these pages and added verbosity, adjectives, blather, bumpf, etc.

So I decided to take a look at the for this agreement. One component that struck me first was noticing all of the corporate logos attached to bottom of the webpage; all neatly linked to the companies web pages – except for the odd dead link.

I began to think…. “Howe Sound Pulp and Paper Limited“? That doesn’t sound like a company that operates in Canada’s Boreal Forest.

That sounds like a company that operates… well… in Howe Sound, which is by Vancouver and Squamish, British Columbia.

A visit to their website… a look at the “where we are” and sure enough:

There they are operating in Howe Sound. So I wonder how much tenure do they have in Canada’s Boreal Forest?

I flip to the back of the 70+ page agreement to “Schedule I” and well… they don’t have any tenures in the Boreal Forest; or at least not in the “caribou deferrals” section.

Oh yea… and they’re owned 50% by Canfor and 50% by Oji Paper of Japan.

_ _ _ _ _

Very curious… so how about “Mercer International” ? I’d not heard of them before.

A visit to their , and: “We conduct our pulp operations through three subsidiaries consisting of large-scale, modern pulp mills: one in British Columbia’s interior, and two in eastern Germany.”

Their only BC operation is in southeastern BC in Castlegar… that’s a little ways from the Canadian Boreal Forest; as is eastern Germany.

_ _ _ _ _

How about “Mill and Timber Products Ltd.”?

A visit to their quickly demonstrates this is a small company not too concerned about their webpage. They

“specialize in Western Red Cedar Products”

Ummm… yeah… for those of you who may not be too familiar with trees. Western Red Cedar most definitely does not grow in Canada’s Boreal Forest.

Great little company… but definitely not operating in Canada’s Boreal Forest… so why are they signatories to the “historic” Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement?

_ _ _ _

How about F.F. Soucy Inc.?

Well this is a curious one. Visit the “” and one finds that this was: ” the first newsprint mill in North America to obtain the ISO standard recognition.” And here’s the curious bit:

Formed in 1963, F.F. Soucy, Inc. and its majority owned subsidiary F.F. Soucy Inc. & Partners, Limited Partnership (formed in 1974 with Dow Jones & Company, Inc. and Rexfor)

Yeah, that’s the Dow Jones & Company that also owns the Wall Street Journal and other significant publications. Rexfor is now the and financial holding corporation of the Quebec government.

However, as I looked at another company signatory to the agreement: White Birch Paper or Papier Masson Ltee as listed on the leaked Agreement — I found that they are headquartered in Greenwich, Connecticut (good Canadian company) and they in fact own the FF Soucy operation.

So why is FF Soucy listed separately from Whitebirch — as a signatory? They appear to be the same company. On the Whitebirch/Papier Masson website it also states: “the first newsprint mill in North America to obtain the ISO standard recognition.”

_ _ _ _ _

How about New Page? I’ve never heard of the organization.

Well, a visit to their website — and apparently one of North America’s “leading” producers of coated papers. They are headquartered in Miamisburg, Ohio… yeah, Ohio.

That’s a long ways from the Canadian Boreal Forest. But… they’re deeply committed to “community”…

_ _ _ _

Fibrek? This logo is on the CBFA webpage, but not listed in the Agreement.

Well, they don’t even have a website. It’s under construction.

However, Fibrek is formerly known as SFK Pulp Fund or SFK Pate as listed in the Agreement, which recently decided to move from an income trust to a corporation (thanks Jim Flaherty, federal Conservatives and your broken election promise on that one…).

_ _ _ _ _

AV Group — the nice logo with three maple leafs on it (on the CBFA website) — well that’s AV Nackawic “fibres from nature” . This is part of the which is based out of India. $29.2 Billion; 130,000 employees, operating in over 25 countries worldwide.

Yeah, that’s another one of those struggling Canadian logging companies in the struggling Canadian forest sector.

Article "L" of the "Whereas" section of Agreement

(I’m not so sure the Aditya Burla Group is facing too many “unprecedented financial challenges”, or is limited in its ability to “accommodate further constraints” …)

_ _ _ _ _

Daishowa-Marububeni?

I was familiar with this company as my wife and I got married last summer in Peace River, AB and I heard that they operated the pulp mill there.

This is a Japanese company, and they only have about 2.7 million hectares of forest tenure area — small potatoes in the scheme of the Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement.

_ _ _ _ _

And thus, as I asked yesterday, what the [enter active expletive here]?

Why are there companies listed on this agreement that do not appear to have any operations in Canada’s Boreal Forest?

Sure, maybe they get a little bit of wood from there through second, third, fourth-hand distributors — but come on folks… this is not an agreement between 21 forest companies actively logging in the Canadian Boreal Forest.

In fact, if you read through the leaked copy of the Agreement — when it comes to “caribou habitat protection” this is an agreement with 8 logging companies: Canfor (Canfor and Canfor Pulp Fund are basically the same company), Lousiana Pacific although they’ve deferred a whole 539.43 hectares for “caribou action planning” from their small operations, Alberta-Pacific, Tolko, West Fraser (although they didn’t defer any areas for “caribou action planning”), Weyerhaeuser (headquarters in Seattle, WA), Tembec, and Abitibi-Bowater (currently under bankruptcy protection).

And this is actually stated in the agreement:

Pg 12 of leaked agreement

I won’t reproduce Schedule “D” here… however, I only count nine companies.

So I ask WHY?

Why is this agreement celebrated as an “historic” agreement with 21 logging companies?

Orwell in 1946:

All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia.

Thank-you, sir.

Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement: Orwell’s sections of a “prefabricated henhouse”

2 Replies

blissful in the henhouse?

, or more accurately Eric Arthur Blair, through his many writings wrote about the importance of honest and clear language and said that vague writing can be used as a powerful tool of political manipulation.

I couldn’t agree more… evident every day in the empty bumpf language of today’s scientists, policy analysts, politicians, and various advocates for whatever cause. And thus why I have a specific category on this weblog dedicated to Bumpf including the ever-popular .

In 1946 George Orwell wrote: Politics and the English Language, in the essay he suggests:

This mixture of vagueness and sheer incompetence is the most marked characteristic of modern English prose, and especially of any kind of political writing. As soon as certain topics are raised, the concrete melts into the abstract and no one seems able to think of turns of speech that are not hackneyed: prose consists less and less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning, and more and more of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated henhouse.

The Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement, which is being touted as the “world’s biggest conservation agreement”

I can’t bloody-well keep up with all of the European countries that the ‘size’ of this agreement is being compared to.

In one article it’s Italy, in another France, in some criticisms the U.K. has come up.If one has not traveled in Europe, these analogies mean nothing. (For one who has ridden a bike from southern California to Seattle – and points north – comparisons to those areas make more sense…)

Confusing, really.

Ok, maybe not… through these comparisons it’s clear who this “historic agreement signifying a new era of joint leadership in the Boreal Forest” is being marketed to.

Orwell Politics and the English Language:

Adjectives like epoch-making, epic, historic, unforgettable, triumphant, age-old, inevitable, inexorable, veritable, are used to dignify the sordid [morally degrading] process of international politics

hmmm… “international politics”… comparisons to European countries… trying to secure a package of “competitiveness measures and marketplace solutions” for logging companies (in the Agreement “whereas” section — article “M”)

_ _ _ _ _ _

Ok, so let’s put some of the pieces of the henhouse together:

First panel of the “prefabricated henhouse.”

Agreement: Whereas article "L"

Hmmm… Welcome to the world of business — I seem to remember learning in microeconomics about: supply and demand — externalities (e.g. pollution, environmental degradation, etc.) — and changing consumer preferences…

(So I guess we can conclude that the first few boards for the prefab henhouse aren’t coming from “Canada’s forest sector”…)

Moving along…

Second panel of the “prefabricated henhouse”.

“Active Adaptive Management” the first phrase defined in the Agreement.

what the [enter active expletive here] is this? I’ll take a couple of stabs:

In this case — active adaptive management — I’m not sure any of the signatories could suggest which is the adjective, which is the verb and which is the noun. Is this meant to highlight that the signatories will be “active” or that they will be “adaptive” or that they will conduct “management”.

Is not management, as a noun, have a sense of activity already? And a sense of adaptation to changing circumstances every second of every minute of every hour? Is not “adaptive” already suggesting “active”?

Would we say to our kids: “hey kids lets go outside and do some active activity?… Oh, hey kids, make sure that it is adaptive active activity?”

Yeah, because when kids play catch if they are not “actively adaptive” in moving that glove to where the ball is coming — they take one off the noggin… You know, the kid practices adaptive active management by moving glove—to—ball.

Or, when they’re out riding there bikes on the road. “Oh kids make sure you actively adapt your management activities at each stop sign and road crossing; for example when you approach one of these areas be sure you actively look both ways and then adapt your management activities accordingly…”

No! (for crying out loud) (VERY LOUD!)

That is not how we speak to kids or even to each other. We speak in plain language.

But wait, to better understand what is being said here lets look at the “Definitions” section of the Agreement to get a better understanding of active adaptive management:

page 3 "Definitions"

Does not “definition” mean: “The act of making clear and distinct; The act or process of stating a precise meaning or significance; formulation of a meaning”?

Well… yeah… it does. (I looked it up… just to be sure).

So what the [enter actively loud expletive here] does that definition say?

Orwell:

…The keynote is the elimination of simple verbs. Instead of being a single word, such as break, stop, spoil, mend, kill, a verb becomes a phrase, made up of a noun or adjective tacked on to some general-purpose verb such as prove, serve, form, play, render.

Let me see if I caught some ‘keywords’ in the definition:

“uncertainty of outcomes”
“learn by doing”
“careful observation”

Part (d) of that definition…? sorry folks I’m not even going to go there. That is one of the finer collections of horseshit, bullshit, and cowshit phrases I have seen in some time.

I’ve got a simpler definition of “adapt” for the signatories: “To make suitable to or fit for a specific use or situation”

uh, huh. let’s think about that definition for awhile….

Orwell, to conclude this post:

Now, it is clear that the decline of a language must ultimately have political and economic causes: it is not due simply to the bad influence of this or that individual writer. But an effect can become a cause, reinforcing the original cause and producing the same effect in an intensified form, and so on indefinitely. A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks.

It is rather the same thing that is happening to the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts.

I’m just curious when the chicken shit hits the fan, and things get a little more heated near the end of the timeline (2012) on this agreement — how much are the foolish thoughts and slovenliness of language going to create a whole lot of trouble in the henhouse…?

“Joint” agreements: The Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement.. just plain bizarre

1 Reply

Greenpeace Boreal image

I’ve been reading through the leaked version of the recently announced Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement – the touted .

This Agreement apparently covering Canada’s Boreal Forest (which stretches from the Yukon and B.C. all the way across the country to Newfoundland) was signed last week by twenty-one forest companies that operate in Canada’s Boreal forest and nine “leading” environmental companies.

Reading through the leaked agreement (a final copy of which still isn’t posted on the website) I am left wondering what sort of “Joint” is being referred to (or reefered to).

As another writer has suggested, Dawn Paley, in an online article on The Dominion: Paley suggests: “the numbers game is far from the only Orwellian aspect of the Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement” referring to some of the ‘communication’ activities and organized campaigns of the nine “leading” environmental groups involved — and how this Agreement controls and dictates how those activites can now be conducted by those organizations.

In the agreement these types of ‘activities’ are “legally” defined in the “Definitions” section of the agreement (I say legally because only lawyers could develop these sorts of legalese definitions and my experience negotiating agreements that points to the lawyerly joy of ensuring these sorts of things are “legal”), :

page 4 of CBFA

Some important words to highlight here: “any”; as in the fifth word of this definition.

Therefore “any advocacy or communication activities” by the nine ‘leading’ environmental groups — signatories to this agreement — with any relation to:

paper recycling campaigns — i.e. reduce, reuse, recycle;
the importance of forests (e.g. home to critters like salmon, caribou, grizzly bears, bees, owls, and so on — oh yeah, and humans…; carbon sequestration; oxygen producers; and all those other silly things that forests do…); and
maybe truly “conserving” and “protecting” forests in the real meaning of those words (i.e. like leaving alone, or maybe just for walking through, or hunting in, or simply being in — as opposed to the completely co-opted use of these words.

Now that we have a legal “definition” to work with… I used the ‘search’ function to look through the 70+ page agreement to see where “ENGO Advocacy Work” is used and why it had to be defined.

It first comes up on page 37 of the Agreement, under the section “Goal 6: Marketplace Recognition“.

CBFA is the Agreement -- FPAC is Forest Products Association of Canada, the logging companies

Section 6 follows Section 5, which is “Forest Sector Prosperity“…. And here’s where things begin to get odd (ENGOs are the nine enviro groups):

page 38 CBFA

So, if you remember back to the definition of ENGO advocacy work, enviros are going to have to have their lawyers review any advocacy or public communications and ensure it fits with this Agreement and anything to do with the Canadian Boreal Forest. (Last time I checked, climate change was having a significant effect on the Canadian Boreal Forest)

_ _ _ _ _

Greenpeace banner at Abitibi, Montreal headquarters 2007

Apparently they’re not doing very well as I checked today and if I wanted I can still send a letter to “Abitibi-Consolidated” headquarters called “stop looting the Boreal Forest“.

(click the image to see related page on Greenpeace website – but do it soon because apparently it’s supposed be gone according to the “Agreement“).

Side note: Abitibi-Bowater, the world’s eighth largest pulp and paper producer is still under bankruptcy protection…)

Side note II: if you watch the YouTube video on Greenpeace’s website you can see images of their campaign against companies operating in the Boreal Forest…

Besides the clever banners and vandalizing ocean freighters, there are images of logging trucks, clearcuts, the rumble of forestry equipment and so on. My question is: how does this agreement change any of that?…

There’s still going to be frigging logging trucks, road building, and logging equipment rumbling through the Boreal forest by at least 21 companies (i.e. FPAC members) and whatever other logging companies operating in the Boreal Forest that didn’t sign this agreement…

Greenpeace defends their position in a on their site.

_ _ _ _ _

OK – now here’s the Orwellian section… and apologies I recognize the legalese is onerous to read through — but this part blows my mind!

(First, one of the legal definitions of “third party” is: any individual who does not have a direct connection with a legal transaction but who might be affected by it.)

12 (a) — am I now going be getting emails, phone call, or visits to my door suggesting that I, or any other “third party” making statements contrary to the principles and intents of the “Agreement” (it’s a sad piece of crap), should be worked with “proactively” to minimize my actions against the “principles and intent” of the Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement?

Or are the signatories going to move straight to 12 (c) (v) and suggest I “modify” my position, and/or public statements (i.e. weblog entries)?

Under 12 (b) — if any of the FPAC, FPAC members, and ENGOs figure I, or other third parties, may continue to hack away at this shoddy agreement, they have to immediately notify the other signatories.

This is just down right school yard tattle-taling…

OK, so how about this?

As I searched around online over the past couple of days, I came across a Facebook page called “” (as in caribou). Save the ‘Bou is apparently:

“a campaign to protect Canada’s last remaining Woodland Caribou by environmental groups, Canopy, David Suzuki Foundation, ForestEthics, and Greenpeace Canada.”

If you visit this facebook page – and say scroll down near the bottom there’s a particular entry:

Greenpeace released a report last week which details how the Ontario government has allowed AbitibiBowater to destroy intact forests and Caribou Habitat in the English River Forest.

Well, Kim Fry, I hope you’re ready to be worked with “proactively” by the FPAC, FPAC members, and ENGOs to modify your position. You are “affiliated” with the four environmental groups that created this Facebook page, by just being on the page. Hope you’re not a “fan” or a “friend”….

_ _ _ _ _

So, are the four enviro groups going to erase this Facebook page that they created because the ‘Bou are now “saved”, “protected”, “conserved” and/or “well-managed by “ecosystem-based planning”… Or, erase all entries from the last while, or entries to come (under article 11 of the Agreement) “where applicable all of their publicly available materials (both current and future) are consistent with the principles and intent of the CBFA”?

Peek-a-‘bou…

What about donors or members of any of the enviro organizations involved — if they blog, or comment negatively about the “Agreement”, will action be sought? What level of action are environmental groups willing to take? or the forestry companies?

Will we start getting “joint” Greenpeace-AbitibiBowater banners put on our houses: “STOP MAKING STATEMENTS THAT ARE CONTRARY TO THE PRINCIPLES AND INTENT OF THE CANADIAN BOREAL FOREST AGREEMENT!”?

Donors, members, Facebook fans, attendees of conferences or events, and so on — would fit the definition of affiliated third parties “through membership or otherwise” (Article 12 of Goal 6 above). About 10 or 12 years ago I gave the Suzuki Foundation (in its early days before it had over 60 corporate employees) some membership fees, donations, and bought some reports — I guess I better watch what I say on this weblog….

_ _ _ _ _

All of this, and I haven’t even got into the lost meaningless language, half-truths, bullshit bumpf, and other sad pieces of this agreement… and why do I care?

to be continued…

Pew Charitable Trust: Environmentalism and contradictions

4 Replies

ahhh…PEW (gesundheit)

Contradictions… a great force in the social world. In some languages the word “contradiction” does not have such negative connotations as it does in English. Some consider contradiction to be a change agent… a balancing force between opposing ideas.

Maybe a sneeze could serve as an example… I know that when I sneeze it generally feels great; a tickle in the nose is satisfied, phlegm is cleared, a burst of energy is released. However, in this day of H1NoFun and other panic hysteria and “germs gone wild” epidemics where few people just trust their immune system (one of our oldest most ancient body systems) — my sneeze may represent a threat to someone’s personal existence and comfort. And ghad forbid I sneeze into my hand and then touch a book or say hi and shake their hand. (I also recognize that sneezes mean different things in different cultures)

As a result of germaphobia — little antibacterial/germ killing stations (motion activated dispensers) are located at various points around the library and other public facilities. (I’ll quietly mention the fact that more and more research is suggesting that this sort of assualt on germs may be doing us all much more harm than good…)

And thus, a simple sneeze becomes a loud, saliva-spraying, snot clearing contradiction….

… parallel to the Pew Charitable Trust.

First, the Pew Charitable Trust was formed through “the sole beneficiary of seven individual charitable funds established between 1948 and 1979 by two sons and two daughters of Sun Oil Company founder Joseph N. Pew and his wife, Mary Anderson Pew.”

I’ve alluded to this reality in a post from the other day — regarding environmental organizations — many are funded by U.S.-based philanthropic organizations that were formed as a result of an individual or individuals or family making their fortune in some business that exploited natural resources.

This is a curious contradiction.

The Pew Charitable Trust funds some fascinating and potentially meaningful work: civic engagement, media research, environmental issues, health, justice, minority empowerment, and so on, and so on. They suggest that they are “driven by the power of knowledge to solve today’s most challenging problems.”

Good on ya, Pew.

However, does this negate the fact that the funds were generated from exploiting oil?

I don’t have the answer.

If BP (British Petroleum, the folks responsible for the ongoing Gulf of Mexico oil spill; now suggested to be the worst oil spill in history) forms a large philanthropic organization, or long-time executives of BP form a foundation from over-inflated salaries, bonuses, and stock options — and these funds go to environmental work — does that negate the irreversible damage they’ve done to the Gulf and through their other operations?

Tough one to ponder…

Second, the Pew Charitable Trust is the organization that apparently funded much of the – “the historic agreement signifying a new era of Joint leadership in the Boreal Forest” — signed between several environmental groups and logging companies operating in the Canadian Boreal Forest.

(If you’re interested you can watch some very stilted, scripted, stiff ‘discussion’ between logging company, or at least Association executives and environmental organization executives at the facilitated by Pew.)

The Trust suggests that their International campaign regarding is focussed on:

The world’s wildest places, the last refuges for nature, are under constant pressure from population growth and associated resource development, including logging, mining and oil and gas drilling. Protecting these global treasures is a difficult challenge, but it is one we must meet. The fate of so many of the world’s endangered species is at risk.

Now, Pew also has an environmental campaign focussed on “” :

Our marine work is aimed at preserving the biological integrity of marine ecosystems and primarily focuses on efforts to curb overfishing, reduce bycatch and prevent the destruction of marine habitat.

As part of their “marine work”, Pew recently published a criticizing the Marine Stewardship Council in its decision to certify the Antarctic Krill fishery. (If you haven’t read my criticisms of the Marine Stewardship Council simply plug their name into the search function of this website). I applaud the criticism; however, here’s the curious contradiction:

The Pew Environment Group today criticized the decision by the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) to certify Antarctic krill. The certification gives the false impression that the entire fishery for Antarctic krill is sustainable when in reality it is not…

…“Unfortunately, perception is reality,” said Gerald Leape, director of Pew’s Antarctic Krill Conservation Project (AKCP). “The MSC’s label falsely advertises the message that all krill are sustainably caught and that consuming krill-based omega 3 supplements or purchasing farmed salmon raised on krill meal is okay. Nothing could be further from the truth.”

Yes, Pew folks (and Greenpeace, and Suzuki, and Forest Ethics, and Nature Conservancy, and so on), isn’t “perception reality”…?

Is not facilitating, co-signing and mass marketing an agreement such as the Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement as a “historic agreement” of “conservation”; “protection”; and “sustainability” simply nothing more than giving a false perception of reality?

Especially when we’re only talking about a small portion of the entire Canadian Boreal forest in this “Agreement” .

And truly, please, if this agreement is about:

the true purpose.

Then why didn’t the companies flip the bill themselves if they’re so concerned about securing market share – based on their apparent intention to:

what is this... really?

Businesses green-washing themselves is the flavor of the month these days — I’m not too sure why environmental groups and an organization like the Pew Charitable Trust decided to assist in the greenwashing.

P.S. for those wondering: there are wild salmon inhabiting some large sections of the Canadian Boreal Forest, and certainly into Alaska.

when environmental organizations become meaningless and pathetic

Salmon Guy

what's your salmon story?

Tag Archives: environmentalism

The Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement: obfuscation, fallacy, and more of the prefabricated henhouse

Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement: Orwell’s sections of a “prefabricated henhouse”

Pew Charitable Trust: Environmentalism and contradictions

when environmental organizations become meaningless and pathetic