next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
Index of Subjects
Colin, Colin, Colin,
My comments are not meant to be a criticizm of you, but of a particular
aspect of the WWF and other similar groups.
We both agree that the results of the environmental assessment was
unsatisfactory. You maintain you limited your WWF objections to areas
that were within your area of interest as per WWF. I maintain that the
reason that results of assessment (and most other business and government
decision-making) proves unsatisfactory is *FOR THAT VERY REASON*, meaning
that the scope of area considered is typically far too narrow, that not
enough of the true complexity of the actual, natural, complete world and
situation are fully considered. Thus, too narrowly confined interests
results in decisions that are unsatisfactory and are thus un-sustainable
and are not uplifting to society, either.
A great deal has been written about this problem in discussion of the
failure of the large environmental groups in the US, Canada, Europe and
elsewhere to actually succeed in protecting our natural environment.
Our current strategy is failing big time! The Worldwide Fund of Nature
recently released its Living Planet Index documenting that the Earth has
lost nearly a third of its natural wealth since 1970.
Colin, you have been a valiant defender of nature for many years with many
glorious good works to your name. But the Sable gas assessment was an
utter disaster. Perhaps nothing could have changed the result. But I
often observed how government, industry and media abused the WWF stance to
"prove" that even a major environmental group could support the project,
provide it was "done right." WWF was abused, certainly. But a clear,
strong and consistent opposition to the entire project from the start
would have been better in the long run, I firmly believe.
Our coalition opposing natural gas use indoors was abused similarly. Any
conciliatory gestures we made to try for good faith discussions to resolve
the issues were consistently betrayed. The native peoples are being
betrayed today.
We have learned better.
I urge others to learn from the experience too.
David Wimberly
ag487@chebucto.ns.ca
http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/6847/
* 15 Schooner Cove Road *
* Head of St. Margaret's Bay *
* Nova Scotia B0J 3J0 Canada *
**************************************************
"We abuse land because we regard it as a commodity belonging to us.
When we see land as a community to which we belong, we may begin to
use it with love and respect." (Aldo Leopold)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
On Mon, 2 Nov 1998, Colin Stewart wrote:
> David, David, David
>
> (Disclosure: my funding comes from WWF, and I was involved in the WWF
> SOEP presentations, but only minimally on the marine side.)
>
> On Thu, 29 Oct 1998, David M. Wimberly wrote:
>
> > An example of how taking the "strategic" position (like trading land for
> > birds' lives) can work disastrously was in the way that the World Wildlife
> > Fund tried to negotiate with the Sable gas corporations for protection of
> > the Gully. The WWF refrained from harsh international criticizm of the
> > project overall believing this gave them a better negotiating position.
>
> You're making the assumption that WWF's real position was the same as
> yours, and that a strategic error was made. The implications of your
> first statement are wrong. Your second statement is false.
>
> > The result is that the project went through and there is a feeding frenzy
> > going on among the multi-national corporations to put in more and more gas
> > and oil projects in the area.
> >
> You are implying that if WWF had expressed harsh international criticism
> of the project that it would not have gone through. Sorry, WWF just
> doesn't carry that weight.
>
> > And the protection for the Gully is very weak at best and more likely
> > tenuous or even illusionary.
> >
> > The Gully is some of the most important habitat on the edge of the
> > continental shelf, but it is not protected really even as a space and
> > pollution will increasingly threaten it.
> >
> > For instance, global warming brought on by burning fossil fuels - like
> > natural gas - is projected to dump increasing levels of pollutants into the
> > water and change water temperature through melting glaciers. The habitat
> > could be ruined, even if the actual space itself is not drilled in. But
> > even that is not guaranteed.
> >
> I agree with the above three paras
>
> > So trading land for not opposing pollution is a sad, misguided policy that
> > has resulted in great and avoidable harm. It also discredits the
> > environmental movement.
> >
> Sorry, there is a conclusion here that does not follow from either the
> facts of the SOEP proceedure or the information claimed here.
>
> No deals were made. WWF opposed what it thought was in it's mandate to
> oppose, and what it had the time and expertise to prepare. (This was
> perhaps less than we would have liked, but that is a different issue.)
>
> > Government and industry love having "environmental" groups who will
> > necotiate in this way. It allows the grassroots groups to be marginalized
> > and deals cut that benefit those who profit by non-sustainable consumption
> > and pollution.
> >
> I don't for an instance claim WWF as 'grasroots'. However there is a
> disturbing trend in this thread to imply that those of the same priorities
> and opinions as I are environmentalists, while those who somehow differ in
> priorities, emphasis or approach are just masquerading as such.
>
>
>
> > David Wimberly
> > ag487@chebucto.ns.ca
> > Halifax, Nova Scotia
>
> Colin Stewart
>
next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects