[NatureNS] re Red Herring & Forestry

From: Stephen Shaw <srshaw@Dal.Ca>
To: "naturens@chebucto.ns.ca" <naturens@chebucto.ns.ca>
Thread-Topic: [NatureNS] re Red Herring & Forestry
Thread-Index: AQHRTAXpEeTmd4oC6EamByMdreuYMp71m4gAgADU2RSAAGE+m4AAYKxx
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 03:09:40 +0000
References: <D23EAE43B87A4DBFABFF6F7B858798EC@D58WQPH1>
Accept-Language: en-US
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=srshaw@Dal.Ca;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: Dal.Ca does not designate
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:23
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Precedence: bulk
Return-Path: <naturens-mml-owner@chebucto.ns.ca>
Original-Recipient: rfc822;"| (cd /csuite/info/Environment/FNSN/MList; /csuite/lib/arch2html)"

next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects

Index of Subjects
I saved the paper copy of the CH article by Aaron Beswick from Dec 23 2015 that started this discussion, on the 42-page biomass burning report by Jamie Simpson.   
Just re-read the Beswick, and note that he gives no indication of where (or if) one can obtain a copy of the original report.  
Does anyone know if an electronic copy of it is accessible, as a PDF or whatever?
Steve
________________________________________
From: naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca [naturens-owner@chebucto.ns.ca] on behalf of David & Alison Webster [dwebster@glinx.com]
Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 5:08 PM
To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca
Subject: Re: [NatureNS] re Red Herring & Forestry

Dear All,                                        Jan 11, 2016
     Those who imagine that nature knows best will do well to not advance that argument as a reason to back off from abusive harvesting of biomass. That sort of attitude infuriates practical people and would unfortunately generate resistance to change from current deplorable practices.

    I had hoped to sometime expand on my e-mail of Mar 1(dated Feb 28), 2015, because I have many ideas with regard to possible practical ways to back away from over-mechanized large-scale forestry and some of these might work but it would be pointless to discuss these when "look but don't touch" trumps all other considerations.

    If no way is found to effect a transition, so that more people can earn a modest living from woodland, then most private woodland over time will be bought up by big business and this is perhaps already under way.

Yt, Dave Webster, Kentville





next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects