Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Fascist Oligarchs Attack Cute Cuddly Canadians -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Snowshoe who wrote (136)	9/5/2001 3:51:33 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Respond to of 1293

Hi Snowshoe, I still don't understand why environmental groups support the tariff. Don't just tell me they want to "stop the rape and pillage". No, I think the reasoning is that it will slow the rate of cutting, not that it will stop all activity. Unless we speak of the ELF (Environmental Liberation Front), deep ecologists who in fact have been sabotaging businesses in the hope that the business ends. Why, on a tactical basis, are they getting involved in what seems to be mainly an economic protectionism issue? C Quite simply because it benefits the environmentalist's position that the cutting should be slowed. I'm not reading any more than that into it. What political leverage can these groups exert by this? As always, it is quite minimal except in the case of outrageous proposals like turning the Grand Canyon into a lake. Then overwelming public interest will force the hand of Congress (to use a US example). It seems to me this stance would work a lot better if Gore was president. Surprisingly to me, the US Trade Representative was engaged in a number of dubious trade wars on a bilateral basis during the Clinton years. So, I wouldn't be in complete agreement that a Gore Administration would be that much different. The Trade Representative's office seems quite independent of the particular party in control of the White House at the moment. If the subsidies really are greater in Canada, what is to prevent Bush from simply increasing the subsidies in the U.S. as a way to compensate? Most likely, this would impose Congressional action. Dealing with the dispute via the Trade Representative's Office is a much easier way to impose the government's will. The tariff shifts forest cutting from Canada to the U.S. What is the environmental benefit of this? A good question. Generally, we've already clear-cut the vast bulk of the US virgin forests. Estimates run as high as 98% for the Pacific Northwest. So, not that I'm making the argument here, because I see the irony you suggest, but for the most part the US timber harvested from here on out will be from second growth timber and beyond. A vague case could be made preserving virgin stands in pristine condition while lands already in the industrial inventory are treated as a cropland. JM2C, Ray :)