Image for Forestry economics is a form of brain damage!

*Pic – Ted Mead – A 400 hectare section of broadscale forestry devastation in Tasmania’s Southern Forests.

Commercial forestry and land clearance is raping the earth all across the globe, denuding landscapes, destroying biodiversity and pushing more living creatures and plants towards extinction every day.

Yet who is to benefit? Certainly not the people that live around or near the forests, not even the extended communities. So why is it allowed in this 21st century? Visually there is no better display of this global madness than within the insular shores of Tasmania.

Here is something to ponder on!

One would assume if you clearfell a virgin public forest that requires little capital investment, then a competent government should make a profit, but in Tasmania that is far from the case.

The myopic ethos in Tasmania is - Nobody cares, just cut it down and let someone else invest the money reaped from the process because this is called progress, and it provides someone with a job.

The general ethos of capitalism is to secure and extract a natural resource for a minimal cost, then ultimately find a way to sell it back to people at a profit.  The entire world is subjected to this unconscionable greed, and forests appear to be one of the most highly sought after commodities.

Money doesn’t stand for anything if there is no benefit to people from where that wealth was derived. So as money flows outwards from a region it ultimately encourages those who have it to continue practicing the pillaging of nature in another place.

Forestry industry economics is fundamentally disconnected from the preservation of the natural world.

Economics in general, is not based on anything that resembles the web of life.

Logging of native forests is not the baseline for human survival and internal happiness.

Resource extractive economics has become a system that was established by the influential to benefit the influential.

Such a system is destined to collapse at some point. This is exactly what has happened with forestry in Tasmania, and corporations like Gunns proved that such stealthy ethics based on ephemeral economics existed until sheer arrogance and poor judgement created its own demise.

The rapacious Gunns/FT alliance sucked Tasmania’s finances constantly over that era, so where is the community prosperity now?

Plundering our natural heritage has made Tasmanians poorer, both financially and spiritually.

Unfortunately this myopic culture in Tasmania has become so thoroughly entrenched, and promoted by gullible and disillusioned politicians who can’t see through the trees or beyond the next election.

Very few Tasmanian politicians can think outside their own autocratic programing, which results in a form of self-inflicted brain damage.

Every deceptive means of assisting STT to look somewhat economically solvent will be attempted in foreseeable future, and that is already occurring. –

http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/pr-article/liberals-orwellian-forestry-tasmania-restructure-continues-subsidies/

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-28/forestry-tasmania-restructure/8753926

A quick look around forestry communities proves that Tasmania has not become a more prosperous society since the inception of the woodchip industry. Any economic benefits, if there ever was some, seemingly went away from local regions and into the coffers of a relatively few individuals or finance corporations?  This all came to the cost of greater debts, and a poorer health and education system to Tasmanians.

So why are we continuing down the same misguided path?

This island’s natural heritage is its greatest asset, but whilst the forestry tumour continues to be malignant, then brain damage will prevail.

Because of relentless subsidies, it seems that native forestry exploitation in Tasmania is destined to fail when the global economic system does.

The crazy thing is we know that the earth’s natural resources are not infinite, but fact hasn’t changed our thinking.

Degrading our natural world doesn’t make sense, and as David Suzuki said – “We’re in a giant car heading towards a brick wall and everyone’s arguing over where they’re going to sit”.

*Ted Mead claims he is no economist, ‘never wanted to be one’, and is reluctant to use that terminology in any form knowing it has no relation to the preservation of the natural world.  Ted clearly remembers having a conversation with a Forestry Commission economist in the 1980s, and when he asked the question “ how does Forestry economics work”? The FC employee promptly stated “Nobody really knows” … What a compelling brain-damaged statement from within the system that turned out to be!

• Comment 14 by MJF ... Download images:

Rutherford_Road_coupe.pdf

Rutherford_2.pdf