Al respecto de la parte final del mensaje:
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, May 14, 2000 8:47 PM
Subject: [Lea] RV:
---------------------------
ATENCION:
Patrick Moore, el que tanto critica a Green Peace,
es un vendido greenwasher de primera... Y lo que dice no deberia ser considerado
seriamente, mejor seguir el camino de acciones radicales como las que
tomaria GREEN PEACE, como por ejemplo seria destruir a pisotones las lechosas
transgenicas de Merida ademas de repartir los papelitos informativos a los
que las siembran... o tumbar todas las torres del tendido electrico en Gran
Sabana de una buena vez, ademas de mejorar la educacion
pemon...
Patrick Moore es el vocero de la Alianza Forestal
del Canada, la cual tiene un presupuesto de 2 millones de dolares anuales, la
mayor parte del cual proviene de industrias madereras... Despues de fundar Green
Peace hace años, ahora es del bando contrario, verifiquen siempre las
informaciones, no tengan pereza en investigar, al leer el mensaje del amigo
Riestra me puse a investigar del tipo ese que critica a los que destruyen
cosechas transgenicas...
Radicalizar las luchas ambientales esta muy
bien, no oigan al Patrick Moore ese por favor.
Trastor
--------------
The Disinformation Experts
http://www.greenpeace.org/gopher/campaigns/forest/1997/brokepro.txt
The
B.C. Forest Alliance was created in 199l by the biggest PR
firm in the world,
New York-based Burson-Marsteller (B-M) -
which is also the worldþs biggest
anti-environmental corporate
"greenwasher."86 B-M is best known for its
"crisis management
"expertise for corporate clients such as Union Carbide
during
the Bhopal disaster of the mid-1980s,87 and the Exxon
Valdez
oil-spill off the Alaska coast in 1989.88
In 1990, B-M was
hired by 12 forest companies and the IWA-Canada
union to advise on handling
the image crisis confronting B.C.'s
forest sector.89 One result was the
industry front-group called
the B.C. Forest Alliance, which has played a
major role in
promoting the Forest Practices Code, both in Canada and
abroad.
The Alliance has a $2 million annual budget - most of which
is
provided by the B.C. forest industry. In April 1995, Alliance
spokesman
Patrick Moore admitted that $1,930,000 of the $2
million budget - or 97% -
came from the forest industry.90
B-M subsequently changed its name in
Canada, but continues to
advise the Alliance, as well as other major industry
players.91
The B.C. Forest Alliance and its PR advisor may well have
had
major input on the writing of the Forest Practices Code. Minutes
of an
Alliance/Burson-Marsteller June 1991 meeting state that
their Forest
Practices Committee "have been moving quickly in
order to have something in
place soon, as the possibility of a
legislated code becomes more and more
imminent."92
Later in 1991, a member of the Allianceþs Advisory Board,
Mike
MacCallum of Price Waterhouse, told the Pulp & Paper
Journal
(Sept.1991) that within the Alliance, "the key committee right
now
is the forest practices committee - because it is developing
a code of forest
practices. Hopefully we will be able to
influence the government. They're
looking at a code of practices
too."93
As recently as March 1996,
Alliance chair Jack Munro told the
press with regard to U.S. protests about
B.C. clearcutting that
"Americans aren't yet up to speed on the progress
British
Columbia has made" in its forest practices.94 And in October
1996,
a B.C. Forest Alliance advertising supplement in Air
Canada's EnRoute
magazine claimed that the B.C. Forest Practices
Code is "perhaps the most
comprehensive forestry law in the
world," and it"regulates all aspects of
forestry, including
stream habitat and biodiversity protection; cutblock size
and
harvesting practices; and road building and deactivation."95 But
for
another audience, the B.C. Forest Alliance has been trashing
the
Code.
In 1994, the Alliance hired accounting firm Price Waterhouse
and
William Stanbury, a professor at the University of B.C.'s
Faculty of
Commerce and Business Administration, to tally the
projected effects of
forestry reforms in B.C.96 The resulting
study, released in September 1995,
estimated that between 23,000
and 72,000 jobs in the woods will disappear
over the next five
years due to forestry reform - especially the Forest
Practices
Code, which Prof. Stanbury called "a grotesque overreaction
to
real problems...costs are bound to go beyond what
we
calculated".97
Based on an economic model provided by B.C. Forest
Alliance
founding director Clark Binkley (dean of U.B.C.'s
forestry
department), the study claimed that between $4.3 billion and
$5.1
billion a year would be lost from the provincial economy
within 5 to l0
years.98
Alliance chair Munro told the press, "Unless we recognize
that
jobloss and a general slowdown in our economy are coming, we're
not
going to be in a position to deal with the consequences."99
Ironically,
Munro himself co-chaired a 1992 federal forest
industry study, conducted by
the corporate-driven Forest Sector
Advisory Council, which advocated "labour
adjustment" for the
industry's "long-term competitive reasons".100
In
order for the industry "to be world-class-competitive in the
future," this
Advisory Council in 1992 found it necessary that:
"Direct loss of employment
in the forest sector will occur both
from closures in the short term and
investment in modern
technology over the longer term and will reach 25,000 to
40,000
employees "across Canada.101
Now, however, Munro is blaming the
(so far ineffectual) Forest
Practices Code for his own industry-mandated
job-losses quietly
determined back in 1992.
Munro has claimed that in
B.C. "tree cops [are] running around
doing all sorts of nonsensical things.
We're psyched up to go
down."102 That's the Alliance message for the local
(B.C. and
Canadian) audience: that a "tough" and "costly" Code is
causing
economic chaos in B.C.
For another audience abroad, however,
the Alliance continues to
support the Code as "perhaps the most comprehensive
forestry law
in the world".
Conclusion
This report is both a
warning and a wake-up call. If current
trends continue, the state of B.C.'s
forests will mirror that of
the United States, where only 5% of old-growth
forests remain.
Many studies have now proven that the cutting down of
ancient
forests and replacing them with tree farms is one of the
greatest
threats to biodiversity. Science clearly shows that
ecosystems function
better when they have a wide variety of
species in them. The loss of ancient
woodlands and their
biodiversity not only contributes to the Earth's climate
change
by adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, but this loss
also
destroys the natural mechanisms that could repair
the
damage.103
Canada has both an opportunity and an obligation to
protect its
ancient forests, but both government and industry are
committed
to "tree farms" and the rapid liquidation of old-growth
forests.
In B.C., where the last stands of ancient temperate
rainforest
remain, both government and industry are violating the
promises
made to protect the forests for future generations.
As the
forest industry stands poised to log the last of the
old-growth forests, the
choices we make as a society become even
more poignant. We must act to turn
the tide of destruction in
the next few years - while we still have
choices.
|
ATENCION, Patrick 
Responder a este mensaje