BC's Forestry Losing Streak
There's an interesting article in today's Vancouver Sun on the woes of BC's coastal forestry industry -- which, apparently, has had only one profitable year over the last decade. That seems like a pretty astonishing losing streak -- and pretty clear evidence that the industry needs to do some serious thinking about itself. From the article:
Hammered by changing markets, global competition, softwood-lumber tariffs and now a Canadian dollar that is stripping export industries of revenues, the coastal industry is fighting for its life, said Rick Jeffery, president of the Coast Forest Products Association.
We've written before about the risks of shackling your economy to commodity exports; you subject yourself to all sorts of hazards, ranging from exchange rate fluctuations to tarriff policies to competition from a globe full of low-cost producers.
But here's the kicker of the article:
The light at the end of the tunnel, ironically, is the mountain pine beetle. It is ravaging Interior forests and in five to 10 years, when the beetle has killed most of the province's pine trees, B.C. will face a timber shortage. That is when the coastal companies -- if the needed cost reduction, consolidation and re-investment takes place -- will be in a prime position to fill the lumber void by harvesting second-growth timber for export markets.
Oh, great. When the pine beetle is done decimating the interior forests, timber companies can start making a profit cutting down the coast. I can't wait.
Biomonitoring Bill Terminated
In California, Gov. Schwarzenegger just vetoed a bill that would have required the state to begin monitoring synthetic chemical pollutants in the bodies of California residents, and to explore the connection (if any) between such chemical "body burdens" and human health.
To me, what seems notable here is the reason the governor gave for the veto:
"While the intent of the measure is worthy...the bill will only provide a partial snapshot of chemicals present in tested participants without proper context of what the presence of (a) specific chemical means or how it interacts with other health factors.
Translation: it's better to keep flying blind than to start opening our eyes. According to the Oakland Tribune, the governor has pretty much lifted this argument from the chemical industry's talking points -- so I'm sure it won't be the last time we hear it.
Of course, it's not quite true that we're flying blind here. Plenty of people are doing biomonitoring, including the US Centers for Disease Control. But those programs have pretty definite limitations -- biomonitoring studies by academics, state labs, and public interest groups tend to be one-off affairs, rather than long-term, coordinated efforts; and the CDC data provides a useful baseline for some contaminants, but doesn't look at chemical combinations or health effects. Those are gaps the California program could have filled. Too bad it was Terminated.
