|
deftly asked the panel opening questions,
then allowed the subject to drift where it seemed most
interesting and topical. The opening question asked all
panel members to discuss their view of the biggest challenge
facing the forest industry in the United States. Owen
quickly reassured everyone that there would be forest
products industry, but cautioned that we need to view the
competition as not U.S. versus Canada, but North America
versus the World. Other respondents focused on the changing
paradigms that we need to make including:
• Paper viewing itself as a biochemical
industry more than a forest products industry, thereby
facilitating the incorporation of bioenergy
into its product mix.
• Reversing the Balkanization of the forestry
community into too many competing interest groups and
associations
• Fully embracing and exploring the many
facets of Ecosystem Services, and exploiting them for the
benefit of the greater forestry community.
Further discussion reinforced the fact that
these national trends are and will continue to be just as
important in Virginia as they are elsewhere. We will need to
continue to reinvent the products we provide. The best and
most startling example of this was the statement by Owen
that the current generation does not read newspapers,
probably the most visible and well-known forest product over
the last 100 years. Discussions of bio-energy centered on
their short and long-term viability, and how much of a
savior they can be for the industry. Panel members cautioned
that we need to decentralize this production, as is done in
Europe, and that we will need at least a 30-year vision and
plan for bioenergy to reach its full potential, not our
typical 30-minute outlook. Important issues which need to be
addressed include:
• The ongoing debate on the definition of
biofuels.
• The gulf in profitability between corn
ethanol and cellulosic Ethanol
• The need to fully articulate the benefits
of cellulosic ethanol, as compared to corn, such as a
four-fold greater greenhouse gas reduction and no impact on
food production.
Besides concrete predictions for the future
and cautionary discussions, the audience was also given some
philosophical guidance from Burke. He also offered a
challenging three part test we should take 30 years from
now.
1. Did we learn from our mistakes?
2. Were there checks and balances to prevent
agendas run amok?
3. Were we the good shepherd? Did we put the
best interests of the land at the forefront?
Although John applied this to our goal of
sustaining our forests for future generations, it also may
be applied to a wide-range of current and evolving problems,
particularly in the forestry arena where the short-term is
still measured in years rather than days, weeks, or even
months. Finally, more than one speaker either alluded to or
pointedly directed our attention to the fact that, like the
forestry community as a whole, the varied forestry related
associations in the state and country are all working hard
to represent mere fragments of the overall community. We are
perpetually under-funded and, except in rare instances,
never reach a critical mass that can profoundly influence
the debate for long. Too many specific agendas have led us
to frequent infighting and taken our focus away from the
best interests of the land and the community as a whole. It
is hardly surprising, given the intellectual caliber of our
panel, that this was one of the best, most informative,
General Session agendas I can recall. Everyone in attendance
learned a lot, and left with much to consider.
|
