Forestry (Sustainable Development) Bill (Withdrawn)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

For decades this nations forests have been the scene of a long lasting conflict between environmentalists and the timber industry; the timber industry wants to be able to cut down as many trees as it can, the environmentalists seem to want to halt all logging. Compromise is an almost alien word to this dispute; either the timber industry wins a total victory or the environmentalists do. And either way the results are terrible; if the timber industry wins in one area the horror that is "clear cut" logging destroys acre after acre of forests for ever. If the environmentalists win, thousands of jobs are lost and whole communities, already isolated from the outside world, are plunged into deep and lasting poverty.
A compromise has to be found to end this dispute, and by forcing the timber industry to replace what it plants, and then some, this will result in more jobs and much more forest for us and our children and grandchildren to enjoy on a long term and sustainable basis.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I would hope that the Court refrains from any further attempts to legislate from the bench.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I'd say planting two trees by each one that is cut down would lead to shortages of space.

Nope. The forests used for commercial purposes in Atlasia are absolutely immense and (especially in the West) often contain large tracts of cleared forest where nothing has been replanted.
Trees also take a long time to grow and when planted are typically very small, if you have big hands you can probably wrap a hand around the trunk of a newly planted tree in a commercial forest; the idea of this bill is to keep a sort of conveyer belt of trees and jobs going.
I've looked into this subject in some detail, and two trees seems to be the only workable compromise.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I still say that, except when applied to federal property, this is grossly unconstitutional and immoral.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

This bill also doesn't take into account the costs that this bill will impose of the industry. At least include a provision that says that the trees must be provided be an outside source if the company is going to being forced to replant.

I don't know about must... but having that as an option would probably be a good idea.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Taking them on the whole yes, but there are probably lots of firms and especially individuals that don't have space, and in case of individuals, money for that.

I'm going to ammend the bill to include the option of letting the planting being done by a seperate company or etc.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, it's an attempt to strike a compromise in a long-lasting and bitter dispute that has plunged thousands of people into poverty.

The idea is that it will preserve and (hopefully) create jobs in what are often increasingly poor communities, while maintaining large and healthy forests.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I don't see how requiring a business to spend money planting trees or paying someone else to plant them is going to create jobs.

Someone has to plant the trees

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Perhaps (in certain cases) in the shorterm, but this bill is aimed for the longterm. The mass lumber-mill closures in SW Oregon in the '90's would not have happend or would not have been so severe had this bill been law then.
If you've got any ideas that might help in the shorterm without seriously pissing off the environmentalists I'd be glad to hear them.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

In my discussions with other Senators regarding upcoming legislation, this one's basic purpose was to be something that would put something most companies already do on the books.  If it is indeed true that a majority of companies already re-plant trees for the ones they cut down, there is no need to make it an official requirement for them to do so.

While some companies do replant because they're well aware that doing so is essential to the longterm survival of the industry, unfortunately other companies, especially in the West, don't or don't in sufficient numbers. Like I said earlier, had this bill been on the books in the '90's the massive lumbermill closures in SW Oregon wouldn't have happend or wouldn't have been so severe.
Legislation isn't and can't be a magic bullet that can solve all problems, but to ensure the longterm survival of the timber industry in many states this bill is probably needed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Like I said earlier that really shouldn't be an issue; young trees don't take up much room at all and there is no requirment to replant the new trees in exactly the same space as the old ones.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Other than aiding the longterm survivial of the timber industry without sparking off yet another vicious dispute between the industry and the environmentalist lobby?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is not the job of the Senate to consider whether a bill is or is not unconstitutional. That is the job of the Supreme Court. So far the Supreme Court has not commented on this bill.
Vauge threats of litigation should not impede the Senate in carrying out it's role in government and if they do then the balance of power has clearly shifted too far.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I disagree that this method of regulation is appropriate.  Perhaps we could instead support a tax break for companies that replant, or a special tax on ones that don't?

I suppose that limited tax breaks for companies that co-operate with the legislation for it's first 10 years or so wouldn't be a bad idea. A carrot to go with the stick.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This bill is not clearly unconstitutional as regulation of the forestry industry is not prohibited by the constitution.
Maybe the Court will rule that it's unconstitutional, but that's a matter for the Court, not the Senate.
This has given me an idea though.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Seeing as this is just going to turn into yet another case of Bono sueing over a bill he doesn't like and all that, I sadly withdraw this bill.

I do think it a little odd that the Senate apparently can't legislate for public interest reasons though; or at least can't without the treat of pointless lawsuits from someone who thinks that all government is evil anyway.

A shame.