A break in the clouds?

by Mike Crouse Publisher

The winter weather historically sets the stage for annual meetings and equipment shows as the logging business readies itself for the following season, which has taken us to the Washington State Logging Safety Conference (SCLC) just south of Olympia, and down to the Sierra-Cascade Logging Conference in Redding, California. The Safety Conference typically brings 300 contractors together, who fit with reasonable comfort at the Great Wolf Lodge Ballroom.

The SCLC shifted venues from the Anderson, California fairground down the road some eight miles from Redding (where it had been held the past several years), to the Redding Convention Center, which housed the event in total for the first time in its modern, and warm complex with plenty of parking... with the added benefit of its costing far less to have the event at that center. It was what some would call a very bold move to change venues, but the results were clear: a better crowd, far warmer environment overall, and an ease of access rarely seen at conferences.

Another benefit came with former Alaska Governor and vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin's filling the sold-out convention center twice to hear her speak the Monday night preceding the conference. Good for Gov. Palin, good for the crowd, and good for the prestige and funding for the conference.

Overall the attitude at all the events we've seen this year thus far has been cautious. There is more work and more crews working presently, and more who know they'll be working in the coming months by far than was evident at this point last year. Good news, certainly, but the tone of caution is firmly rooted in concern over the prevailing attitude both in state and federal legislatures, whose outlook remains hostile towards business in general, and blithely oblivious to the size and scope of government growth and spending, coupled with a demonstrable disinterest in truly restructuring and reducing the size and cost of that bureaucracy in any serious sense.

Uncertainty does not make a fertile ground for business, and thus stifles business growth. President Obama clearly demonstrated his separation with reality a few months ago with his comments following his "jobs" summit, where he stated that business was essentially being greedy in not adding jobs fast enough. Mr. President, the problem is the uncertainty in the banking community, that has carried over to business in general, all created by concern over the lunacy of the very hostile environment for business in general constantly touted by his administration, this congress, and many state legislatures.
Should government again return to its proper role of encouraging a level playing field that recognizes the role of business in driving the economy rather than being a revenue stream for government, the sooner our economy will see a recovery everyone can participate in.

Participation remains high

Although the economic environment each of us is mired in continues to slog along, there are some cheerful signs amongst those clouds, not the least of which is the value of logs which have been edging up from the cellar levels of a year ago. While this is not cause for elation, it does give some evidence we are on a gradual upward slope of improvement in the economy that affects the logging industry.
Another encouraging note is the involvement and participation we're seeing at the conferences and association meetings that go on this time of the years: attendance is on the increase. The good news here is in those increased participation bodes well for the long term health of the industry, which hopefully will also be demonstrated in participation not only in the various associations business, but in the political activism, from local to state and national issues that are an increasingly important element of any business, especially working on public and private land.

Awareness of those potential and present issues affecting industry is key to proper surveillance of our increasingly partisan political process. Much of the lunacy that makes it into public awareness does so through lack of perceived vigilance by the fringe purist interest groups of the body politic. We're not talking about the environmental industry as a whole, but the politically active, ideologically driven fringe for which tolerance extends only to those ideas, which mirror their own. There is no compromise, nor is there any interest in finding any solution but their pet flavor of reality. It is a vision that typically distrusts business, anyone differing from their ideological principles, and believes centralized control of government will force the proper solution on the rest of us.

Operating in a politically apathetic vacuum has yielded much of the mess we've seen the past few decades, having given control of the process to the whims of the politically active, whose point of view and long term interests are in direct conflict with you. Involvement through participation, by attending, being informed, funding, and direct interaction is the elixir that stands remedy to this lunacy.

The value of Pixie Dust

Experience is a very good teacher. To truly understand people's motivation and/or enthusiasm for a given proposition either by one or several individuals, businesses or agencies, one learns it is very revealing if you "Follow the Money," as that helps connect the dots of who has an interest, who profits, who benefits, and who pays... which is particularly interesting if in some way, shape or form it is the public who pays.

While "following the money" has frequently been applied to business (whose purpose it is to make a profit), and the larger audience of politics, over the past few decades one ideological sect of human interaction has essentially been immune from the light of close scrutiny, particularly by the often self proclaimed "unbiased" journalist ilk from any such, and that is the world of environmentalism.
The entire "cap and trade" (aka cap and tax) system owes its formation to the environmental industry based on the premise that because greenhouse gases warm the climate (particularly carbon dioxide), and carbon is the principle element in greenhouse gases, combined with their being directly linked to man's significant part in global warming. Thus the reasoning continues that controlling carbon in the atmosphere will reduce the effects of global warming.

As an "environmental leader" the state of California has charged forward establishing standards and parameters of quality and reliability under law that will be the basis on which forests carbon credits could be traded in the cap and trade markets.

Thus on the surface there may be money for forest landowners who grow trees sustainably over a prescribed length of time, which would "store" or sequester carbon from the atmosphere and the value of that "stored" carbon could then be sold to manufacturers and other entities who emit carbon above governmental prescribed limits, and those purchased credits would serve to "mitigate" their excess carbon.

The theory goes that everyone wins... the public benefits... the world is a better place?

Some firmly believe this, and with good reason: they benefit... in political power, ideological will, and of course financially.

The certainty thus far is in the mechanism to implement this vast body of public policy change. Also certain is the vast and growing new bureaucracy established for this purpose, with the accompanying volume of data, rules, regulations and restrictions on landowners, who would benefit in having carbon "credits" that would fit the market parameters.

One of the panels ("Forest Carbon Protocol: What are the Financial Opportunities for Landowners?") at the recently completed Sierra-Cascade Logging Conference covered this topic with players from each of those areas, including a representative from one of the companies involved in marketing carbon credits.

It was fascinating to listen to the minute details of this plan as its being structured in California, which admittedly seems to have established all the parameters to meet the goals of the legislative body that elected to leap headstrong into the "cap and trade" and carbon credit marketplace.

Were you aware, for instance, that there is a "vintage" attached to various blocks of certified carbon credit forest lands? The vintage denotes the year, and accompanying parameters and standards applied, and auditing undertaken to assure the "quality" of these carbon credit forests.

And the man representing the firm marketing carbon credits marketplace is confident of the value of this commodity in the marketplace, and its long-term viability, as they plunge forward on the heels of the European carbon trading market which has been in operation for a number of years.

Only briefly mentioned was the recent setback to the U.S. Cap and Trade legislation's progress from revelations of a series of emails from climate change scientists in the UK, which essentially cast considerable doubt to the validity of climate change data on which "man-caused" climate change was founded.

What it seems to reveal is a considerable break in scientific method, which seeks out data that hides beneath the veil of science, as justification for man-caused climate change. With that in mind, rather than relying on the scientific method to collect data, which reveals reality, we have picked specific data that shapes the reality of our pre-conceived notion.

There was a word for this lunacy in history; that period we refer to as the Dark Ages. And in fact there are some ideologues in Western Civilization who would gleefully rush is back to those good old days, regardless of the cost. We are not amongst them.

Certainly the air quality in parts of California and other regions of the country would benefit from cleaner emissions, and since 1970 we've come a long way to improve that.

However the current rush towards those goals we all can agree on in the larger sense: clean air, clean water, clean energy, should not be taken "at any cost," particularly at a time when STYLE is given far more weight than the SUBSTANCE of changes being proposed.

At the end of the day establishing the value of carbon credits is similar to placing a value on pixie dust. It does not add value; it does not create wealth, but instead creates a flow of cash through bureaucracies, agencies, governmental entities and commodity traders, affecting the cost of living and the cost of business with essentially little or no positive effect on the lives of the citizenry.
The past 20 years the once great state of California has been squandered on several similar "pixie dust" schemes, paid for with that giant mystical credit card in the sky, which their state, and seemingly a number of those in our federal government believe is a model for the future. By the latest count, their state has the dubious distinction of being $60 some Billion (with a B) in debt and counting.
If this is progress it is demonstrably unsustainable.

Stimulus plan

When the original conversation of a federal "stimulus plan" appeared just over a year ago, the pitch had a certain appeal in style, rebuild the infrastructure, modernize aging systems, and putting people to work on those enterprises, something few would find fault in. Unfortunately the original conversation was more about style than substance, a pattern we've come to know well the past few decades.
What we've seen funded is a good deal more bureaucracy, a lot more paper, lots of deck chairs being reshuffled, business being punished and a sense of uncertainty for our own future and that of our children.

Our future remains under our own control but we need revisit our own attitude towards government, and government's attitude towards the citizenry.

First: the government at all levels most stop seeing business and citizens as a revenue stream. We are not here to serve government... Government is there to maintain infrastructure, secure the borders, and maintain safety and an even playing field for business.

Second: the government is not our salvation. We are the government, and it will work as well as we demand that it work through our own participation and oversight through our representatives.

Third: it is our money that is being spent by government, which we fund. It is not free, it does not simply exist, and it is from the work and willful taxation of the citizens that government exists.

A growing segment of our youth are unemployed, and with entirely too much free time on their hands. Where the strength and bedrock of our economic engine is small businesses, the government needs end this insane anti-business sentiment which is serving to strangle opportunity and growth of those and future businesses.

Fortunately more of the public is feeling the pain of the current economic slowdown, and we hope tiring of the anti-business sentiment of the currently elected class. Hopefully that will serve to spur a real change that encourages growth and a healthy business climate for a real future beyond promises and platitudes.