myata

The photo was from the web. I can vouch to have seen and taken similar ones from planes to Vancouver on a number of occasions. One has to be blind, physically or mentally to not admit the obvious in your eyes reality.

Why would one need to "create" anything when reality already has it all? 1. An "environmental" company burns real good quality trees (instead of "refuse") as green, renewable, bs fuel. 2. Provincial license office will let anyone for any reason with any bs claim raze last remaining pieces of old forest despite claims to green, renewable, sustainable, and etc. These are facts. What else needs to be created here? We have seen it all with the cod and it'll play out again and again simply because we aren't doing anything new. We aren't doing, very obviously: if it's "renewable" and not another fairy tale, then you can take only what's been renewed and not an inch more. How hard is that?

You can see this kind of picture from any plane approaching Vancouver. One of us has to be blind or living in another reality. If the industry was sustainable in the enormous area of earlier clearcuts why would they still have to cut out old primary forests in small pieces? And the rest is the old cod story, jobs towns all will pass, nothing learned can't learn change is not possible.

This fantastic? I can sign on or very close because this very much the picture anyone with clear eyes and clear mind can observe daily approaching Vancouver on air. If you don't it's not a problem with the objective reality, no. It's how you see, what you don't see and how you don't think about anything that wouldn't fit the story.

Because it is not (the simplest logical solution)? Look, UK has loads of (taxpayer) dough to hand out for amazing new green technologies. And, there's just one such candidate that is supposed to make wonders from (careful, very large font) waste only. Wonderful, green? But of course! One problem though: what if the technology wouldn't deliver as promised? Hiccups, if only from waste. So needed a little boost right before the critical round of funding. And guess where such boosts can always be gotten, at a fraction of cost and no questions asked. How many times has it happened already? Or is it just the way we do business here and nothing to be ashamed of?

That is because the area around Vancouver looks what it looks and not even secondary (forget 1,000 or even 300-year old) primary forest. Because "replanting" is another fairy tale, a great Canadian feel-goodie story. Because in the reality you can't cut fast enough whatever comes up, new 30 to 40 year growth isn't enough and you'll cut it along with all you can get to till nothing's left. Like cod and salmon (soon). Because sustainable means you take only as much as grows back max, and renewable means you can show the place in exactly the same condition and reasonable time. And you aren't interested in either, obviously. Your idea is a quick buck under the tune of some cute green story. As is Drux's great green pellets from waste. A perfect union of purpose. Right. You don't have eyes, only ears. What eyes show you doesn't matter because there's some cute heartwarming story to soften your mind. Good luck.

This is just bullshit of course. You can't say that anything has been "renewed" until you can show it in the reality not on stupid paper. So again (st-d?): how many primary forests have been renewed around Vancouver, coast etc? Whole country is living is some imaginary dreamspace when one honest look is enough to take in the reality. No lessons are enough, none working. Sure, there will be a wake up. A hard one, very likely in such cases.

And one more time: how many 1,000 year old forests have been "renewed"? Can you show just one, new? With 99.9% destroyed for how long now? please do the math you know so much.

Any tax cut will be minuscule if noticeable at all. Federal dental care will have lineups, risings costs on the day one and eventually, a capacity crisis. Governments in this country don't know how to run effectively and efficiently. This is simply the other side of a near total lack of accountability.

How about: laziness, dumbness plus enormous, all-encompassing greed? For two hundred years, can you show one forest that you planted from scratch and managed sustainably and renewably to be the wonder of the world? Instead of worthless pledges and wordplay too thin to cover ubiquitous clearcuts? Show one 1,000-year old forest that you "renewed" successfully the word so cute just jumps on the tongue. Ship it all to China, fast! Before the price drops another cent.

Most of B.C.’s coastal forests are considered to be old growth if they contain trees that are more than 250 years old. Have you been to BC coast? Have you thrown a look around? How much of the clearcuts count as "old growth" in this great picture? Ask you sustainable forestry expert! Note the creative ingenuity of the definition for the good, public cause. So you can raze 1000 hectares of primary forest, leave couple of trees standing and it would still qualify for "more than 40% intact". High five, "sustainable-renewable" solved, easy. In fact of the significant areas of 300 and over years old that were never logged (note the difference) barely more than a handful left ad mare, some tiny decorative hardly sustainable patches. It's living, dripping dough how could you pass it by? The national business.

Gotta squeeze till its dry and to fraking hell with the cod. Seems to be the national business model. Pays for prosperity though.. for a while (as a substitute of consciousness and integrity).

Seriously need very large fonts here! (urgent!!) only 11% of the logs delivered to the two Drax plants in the past year were classified as the lowest quality That was the whole point. Will the beautiful operation run without taxpayer money and razing real, high quality forests? A big question, but CEO bonuses already paid and IPO ahead you know what that means, right? Officer of the government sustainability proudly scratching her a$$ - another job well done. All hail "renewable" (no, never learn, just never sigh).

That logic is no different from think of the bombers of the pond when you eat fish. Its not only about what but how too. Time changes, circumstances change you can't pretend that you're in some time bubble blow up everything in sight because here, the license and that's what they did three centuries back. This how we got here no cod remember could take as much as needed with a basket. And we'll be out of forests too (old growth, primary - almost done) and salmon too this way, and why not? Flying over Vancouver could see very clearly (if looking, important) all that pretty tales of sustainable-renewable forestry are worth. Can guess that Drux tales just another spin on the same old: squeeze out of it as much dough as possible NOW and to f@$king hell with the posterity.

Wait, in this 21st century, why do you need to raze (sure "harvest") entire forests even if the trees cannot be used? Can you be more efficient (less lazy and dumb) in this century? Or because they did it like that some centuries back and you're too lazy (etc) to think again, expensive? Drop a bomb in the pond to catch a few fish, as a blueprint for "renewable" future.

only 11% of the logs delivered to the two Drax plants in the past year were classified as the lowest quality Sudden mass blindness strikes! Total blackout of consciousness. We urgently need larger fonts here. Please help!

An epitome of (near) future Canada? According to the database only a couple of dozen of old growth forest areas left in the entire "ad mare", as much as half unsustainable tiny patches. A fine job for less than two centuries of prosperity.

1. "Drax sawmills cut and sell lumber to builders and use the sawdust , chips and bark for pellets" 2. Drax later admitted that it did use logs from the forest to make wood pellets. 3. "But documents on a Canadian forestry database show that only 11% of the logs delivered to the two Drax plants in the past year were classified as the lowest quality" Blind and deaf or a willing idiot? No offense but are there any other logical options?

You're obviously blind and deaf (both, effectively) so what connection do you expect this response to have to the reality? The facts are only a second ('s thought) away. "Drax later admitted that it did use logs from the forest to make wood pellets". Just too bad there isn't a larger font here. Would it help though? See above.

That's a thoughtful (and I mean it) comment on a system that never cared about anything but superficial, meaningless political distinction. We are not voting on issues, priorities, visions for the country. We are choosing tokens and faces, red one or blue one, want it it the opposite order, that would be all thank you. With no real checks or accountability, wouldn't that be the natural state that the system would produce and reproduce? And why wouldn't it?

I suspect the answer is easy: Drax invented another miracle technology buzz green words, taxpayer incentives, tax incentives, cosy CEO bonuses, publicity, billion $$$ IPO ahead and a great renewable future. Only one problem: not commercially viable. Too expensive only from sawdust and reject material that would go anyways as was in the great rosy story. So needed a little boost at a critical moment in the new green miracle story. And yes there's one place on this precious planet where any kind of boosts can be gotten no questions asked or almost. Taxpayers couldn't care less and governments even better (care less) no we first, the bicentennial fun race. Cod is gone by the way, salmon going fast, only a background. Trees grew for a thousand years, long before great European environmental drive (and even climate change itself) now goes in a flash in a Drux pellet. That's called "renewable", right? Somebody knows.

It took some minutes to extract direct quotes from the piece. Now the only way anyone can claim "misleading" is to prove that they are factually incorrect (produced by investigative reporters with recorded evidence) "The company says it only uses sawdust and waste wood." "Drax later admitted that it did use logs from the forest to make wood pellets". "One of the Drax forests is a square mile, including large areas that have been identified as rare, old-growth forest." "Drax told the BBC it had not cut down the forests itself and said it transferred the logging licences to other companies. But Panorama checked and the authorities in British Columbia confirmed that Drax still holds the licences." "But documents on a Canadian forestry database show that only 11% of the logs delivered to the two Drax plants in the past year were classified as the lowest quality" "Panorama wanted to see if logs from primary forests cut down by logging companies were being transferred to Drax's Meadowbank pellet plant. The programme filmed a truck on a 120-mile round trip: leaving the plant, collecting piles of whole logs from a forest that had been cut down by a logging company and then returning to the plant for their delivery." "The company also said the sites identified by Panorama were not primary forest because they were near roads. But the UN definitions of primary forest do not mention proximity to roads and one of the sites is six miles from the nearest paved road." WTF the "proximity to roads" excuse? Is there a square centimeter of old forest left on this planet by this standard? Just blind or worse?

duplicate

Seriously? North Korea sets up an office next door.. the report dropped.. no, give them a chance (i.e. couple of decades) to react? Well, yeah. And how else? And why, anything else?

Given that there's been a string of harassment episodes including with Canadian citizens on Canadian soil and he was explicitly asked to comment on it yes something should be quite obvious here. And what about our famous safety security mandarins and czars what are they good for if not checking which foreign power is doing with permits? What if Al Quaeda sets up an office next door? Will they even know / care or wait that restaurant was really good yesterday? All good questions. How do we know.