I originally posted this on my old website November 26, 2004.
I wrote this paper in the spring of 2004 for an Ethics class during my Senior year of college.
Ethical Forest Management
By Robert West
One of the major environmental issues facing society today is forest management. On one side, environmental activists argue for protection and preservation of forests and the natural habitats they provide. On the other side are the timber companies and their employees, who fight for their livelihoods, which are dependent on products the world needs. Both sides believe they are ethically correct. Being from Oregon, I am very familiar with this issue. This paper will explore the ethics of both sides, and whether there is a balance point between them.
First, the environmentalist view. There is no doubt that forests have been diminishing over time. Over the last several centuries, humanity has consumed and destroyed forests around the world. Environmentalists see this destruction as something that must end to preserve not only the forests themselves, but also the animal species they support. This is based on a number of ethical concepts.
First, there is the concept of ecological ethics. Ecological ethics is the view that the non-human parts of the environment have intrinsic value; that they are ends in themselves, and must be maintained despite the potential cost to humanity. (Velasquez, 288-289) This view holds that the species of animals that are dependent on forests as their habitat should not be threatened with extinction due to the destruction of the forests that make up that habitat.
Another concept is that of environmental rights. This view holds that all human beings have rights to the environment, and that when some harm the environment, they are infringing on the rights of others to have a natural, livable environment. (Velasquez, 291-292) This view is more often applied to pollution, but it can be applied to forestry as well. When someone destroys a forest, they have taken away the rights of others to enjoy that forest and all it provides.
A third concept is that of rights and justice of future generations. This generally applies to non-renewable resources, but I believe it can also apply to forests, due to the fact that a clear-cut forest would take decades of not centuries to renew itself. This view, as stated by John Rawls, holds that it is ethically unjust to leave the world in worse condition for future generations than it was for our own. This does not mean that it must necessarily be exactly as it was, but that resources that are consumed allow the preservation of culture and civilization with appropriate advancement. (Velasquez, 309-311) In essence, whatever was consumed should be used for things future generations will be able to appreciate as well. The current generation can use what it must to continue on, but must also ensure that resources are not depleted more than necessary.
Ecological ethics and environmental rights both state that the preservation of the environment must override human needs. Allowing for the rights of future generations allow for necessary consumption of resources, so long as future generations are not left worse off than the current generation (although this could also be carried to the extreme of saying that future generations should have equal resources available to them as the current generation).
Now, the views of the timber industry. One of the main views is that of property rights. Basically the concept is that the owners of property have the right to do as they wish with it. John Locke considered property right to be “natural” rights that could not be taken away. This view has been reflected by American law. (Velasquez, 175-177) In the view of the timber industry, this means that if someone wants to protect the forests, they can buy the forest and they will then have that right, but they do not have the right to force the timber industry to use their property a certain way.
The timber industry’s other main argument is that the livelihoods of the employees of the timber industry would be harmed if logging slows, the employees of the industry will be harmed. (Durning, 43) This is a reflection of the United Nations “Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” one of which is “the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favorable conditions of work, and to protection against unemployment.” (Velasquez, 90) The argument goes that the workers have skills specific to the timber industry, an industry they have chosen to work in. Restricting the timber industry would have the result of keeping the workers from being employed in a job they want to do. (Durning, 43)
The arguments of the timber industry are just as valid as those of the environmentalists (though in the case of the employees’ right to work, the timber companies probably have other motives).
This issue, like so many others, is too often seen in black and white; there are two sides and no middle ground between them. I don’t believe this is true. All of the ethical concepts of both sides tend to be focused entirely on one side or the other, except for the idea of justice to future generations. I think this concept is the key to finding a balance point, as it recognizes both the value of the preserving the environment and the needs of consumption. This argument is usually only used to promote the environmentalist view, but that would be because the concept seems to advocate less consumption. It is really more of a moderate view though, at least as I see it.
The problem with finding a balance point is that it requires both sides to accept concessions. The timber industry and its employees see environmentalism as a threat to their livelihood, which depends on harvesting and producing products that are needed by the rest of the world.
The environmentalists on the other hand seem to hold the view that the cutting of a single tree causes irreparable damage to the environment. This is often fueled by the emotional power of clear cutting. Modern clear cutting leaves an entire area of a forest cleared of trees. Fresh clear cuts look devastating, however while clear cuts do cause some damage to the environment, they are not devastating as they appear. (Belt, Clearcutting)
First, clear cutting was most widely practiced on natural forests in the 1800s. (Belt, Clearcutting) Thus, today there are many forests that are not “natural” forests, in that they were cut 100 or more years ago and then grew back, with trees of a common age throughout. Since the land had already been logged, the damage has already been done, and the additional damage done by harvesting the same area again would be less than moving into a previously untouched forest.
Also, clear cut areas allow faster regrowth than if trees were selectively cut. (Belt, Clearcutting) Trees need light and water to grow, and young trees in the open have greater access to light and water than they would under the canopy of an existing forest. In addition, while clear cuts do displace some wildlife, they also provide open areas for other wildlife, such as bear and deer. (Belt, Clearcutting)
I am personally opposed to clear cutting previously untouched natural forests. I have no problem with the logging of regrowth of previously harvested forests, though, so long as they are always allowed to renew themselves. The way I see it, the damage has been done. There are environmentalists that believe strongly in the concept of ecological ethics, however I feel that they usually don’t realize that humanity is part of the environment as well, and I believe that nature’s balance allows for some human consumption. Society will continue to need forest products, and it is better to have forests grown specifically for that purpose than to allow damage to spread to other natural forests. That said, I think some logging in natural forests is necessary, such as for fire prevention (a major concern in the West), but this should be limited to clearing around populated areas and thinning of highly-flammable underbrush. There are also other logging techniques, such as selective cutting in which some trees are harvested from with in the forest, leaving the area having a forested appearance immediately after harvest and able to continue as a working forest with a variety of trees of different ages and qualities. Also, there are seed tree cuts, in which a forest is heavily thinned but some trees remain to reseed the forest for regrowth. (Belt, Silvics) I believe in the right circumstances, these other techniques can be used as alternatives to clear cutting to allow logging and still protect the environment.
As far as the arguments of the timber companies go, I respect the property rights of the companies to do with their land as they see fit. I think it is important though that they try to maintain as much of the forests as they can on their own lands. There are presumably timber companies that would just as soon clear cut everything they have access to as quickly as possible. While reasonable harvesting rates allow wildlife to move to other areas, harvesting too quickly would displace so many animals that the remaining areas would not be able to support the animal population. This would result in reducing the wildlife population and threatening the survival of remaining forests. Not only is overharvesting bad for the environment, but it also harms the long-term well-being of the company and all its employees and their families. Even if a company replants to replace everything they harvest, if they harvest too quickly, the company will have no trees left while it waits 20 to 50 years for regrowth to be developed enough to harvest again. In that situation, the company would be forced to lay off employees, as there would be no work for them, and likely the company itself would fail. Harvesting too fast, while good for short-term profit, is not good for the long-term well-being of either the planet or the company.
I do not fully believe the arguments made by the timber industry that preserving forests will result in lost jobs. It is true that if overall production is simply reduced jobs would probably be lost. But, if logging is changed to be more environmentally friendly, with more careful logging practices, I think the industry could actually create more jobs. Combined with recycling and alternative materials, I think production and jobs can be maintained, and the environment preserved.
One other thing that I think is important to remember is that trees are a renewable resource. Unlike with other natural resources that must be mined for, such as coal, iron and stone, when trees are harvested the land can be fairly quickly reused, either for future forests or other uses. Also, many forest products are recyclable or reusable for different uses. I am often more concerned about the extensive use of non-renewable resources, which seem to have much more of an impact on the environment, not only in getting the raw materials but also in making them into a usable form.
In the end, I think that there can be a balance made between environmental ethics and the interests of the timber industry. I think society is still a little to much on the side of the industry to find that balance, but I believe that the balance will someday be reached.
Works Cited
Belt, Kevin & Campbell, Robert. Silvics & Silviculture – The Agriculture of Trees. West Virginia University. 28 Apr. 2004. < http://www.wvu.edu/~agexten/forestry/silvics.htm>
Belt, Kevin & Campbell, Robert. The Clearcutting Controversy – Myths and Facts. West Virginia University. 28 Apr. 2004. <http://www.wvu.edu/~agexten/forestry/clrcut.htm>
Durning, Alan Thein. Saving the Forests: What Will It Take?, Worldwatch Paper 117
Velasquez, Manuel, G. Business Ethics: Concepts and Cases
© Robert D. West, 2004.
No comments:
Post a Comment