Can any Canadians comment on the political situation that allows this to happen? From our point of view in the us you guys seem relatively left leaning and yet you still have deforestation, Athabasca tar sands, etc going on.
There is a massive gap between the successful economies of urban Canada (especially. Toronto & Vancouver) and rural Canada.
It is politically difficult to turn away from resource development because there are few if any jobs in rural Canada otherwise. This is a problem I've been watching politicians wrestle with my whole life and we are no closer to a solution.
BC's economy took an incredible nosedive in the 90s when there was a secular decrease in demand for its wood and pulp products which were a huge part of the economy (think how phone books no longer exist and you'll understand why). Some regions of rural BC have pivoted toward eco-tourism, but it hasn't been a real replacement.
Taking away jobs makes people mad. 17% of Canada’s economy is natural resource extraction: mining, logging, hydrocarbons. Greater than 200,000 Canadians are employed by the logging sector [1].
BC's economy outside of major cities remains heavily dependent on logging and mining and other forms of resource extraction. Look at the trainloads of cargo going to the coast and what they contain, and what's getting loaded onto ships in Burrard Inlet and at Deltaport.
On Vancouver island, there is a generally worry about losing jobs related to natural resources. The conservationists want to replace those jobs with tourism, and it’s actually working, but then you have to say no to all the money ‘just sitting there’ after the tourism jobs are created.
Many, many, many smaller cities and communities only exist as a byproduct of resource extraction. Taking that away means folks lose their jobs, families are broken up, and a way of life is lost. I had to leave mine to get a job in tech, and I miss the lifestyle and my community every day.
In the article they state that it's potentially less economically productive to clear-cut due to all the other benefits the forest provides. Maybe they're talking about an idealistic economy where true costs are incorporated but is there any viability in paying people to NOT do their job?
