Thanks for your comment Catherine. I appreciate your cynicism, if I may call it that, because I think it's a very legitimate reaction to this emerging market. The Sierra Nevada is no stranger to the exploitation of its natural resources, for the purposes of building great cities and lining the pockets of Wall Street executives, often to the detriment of people who live here and the health of our ecosystems.
I wonder, how does a region get ripped off in the same way, time and time again?
I think there are a few reasons for this.
1) We lack density and political strength to organize effectively as a regional community in order to change the rules of the game. Geographical barriers and cultural barriers (i.e. many people come here to get away from all that) and technological barriers (i.e. many areas of the Sierra Nevada do not have access to high speed internet) inhibit our ability to be really effectively proactive when new opportunities emerge. We do not have a strong presence in California's urban centers, and the majority of Californians do not understand the complex issues of the Sierra.
The Saving the Sierra project is one of the best efforts yet to overcome some of those obstacles.
The Sierra Business Council and other organizations have been consistently committed to hosting forums and conferences around the region in order to bring people together around important ideas and interests. Keep your ears peeled for the Sierra Business Council's new 2007 event series and attend an event or two near you. To join our mailing list, email atoso@sbcouncil.org.
2) Yes, it's the American Dream, but it has been virtually impossible for individuals to participate in meaningful ways in these global markets. Sure, maybe the timber economy provided a lot Sierra residents with logging and mill jobs, but how many of those workers were able to buy land and start their own businesses?
I think technology has the potential to democratize the economy. With new and constantly evolving technology, it is possible to directly market our own products and services and make the new economy work for us.
3) The resource economy has traditionally been an economy based on the extraction and exploitation of nature (and people). The value of "nature" has been based on the ease of commodifying, extracting, and consuming certain isolated elements of it (minerals, trees, water).
In my opinion, this economy is shifting. Carbon can and will be commodified like other Sierra resources have been, but demand for it is directly tied to mitigating the biggest global environmental problem we may ever know (climate change). The carbon commodity market is slightly different than timber because it values living, growing trees, not board feet. The most important shift in the new natural resource economy however, is that it creates a way for people to pay for and invest in conservation, biodiversity, native forests, intact, healthy functioning ecossytems.
Perhaps the world should respect the inherent value of nature; perhaps putting $$ figures on nature should be completely repulsive. I don't know, but I don't really see the world heading in that direction without a little bit of help.
There are many many uncertainties related to how the carbon market will actually evolve. There is the possibility that monoculture carbon plantations of non-native trees become more valuable than old growth redwood forests. It is not incredibly unlikely that Dupont, Monsanto, Chevron, and the like will somehow manage to snatch up all the profits of Sierra Nevada carbon. If we sit back and wait for it to happen, it probably will.
My optimism lies in the fact that California is right at the center of this debate, and Sierrans can influence this process. The Sierra Nevada is full of small private landowners (in addition to large tracts of public lands). If we, as a community, can start to imagine what it would mean for millions or billions of dollars coming to the Sierra Nevada for our communities to act as stewards of our forests and farms, rivers and lakes, then maybe we will realize there is enough at stake to engage in this process now.
Quantifying the Value of Sierra Forests
Thanks for your comment Catherine. I appreciate your cynicism, if I may call it that, because I think it's a very legitimate reaction to this emerging market. The Sierra Nevada is no stranger to the exploitation of its natural resources, for the purposes of building great cities and lining the pockets of Wall Street executives, often to the detriment of people who live here and the health of our ecosystems.
I wonder, how does a region get ripped off in the same way, time and time again?
I think there are a few reasons for this.
1) We lack density and political strength to organize effectively as a regional community in order to change the rules of the game. Geographical barriers and cultural barriers (i.e. many people come here to get away from all that) and technological barriers (i.e. many areas of the Sierra Nevada do not have access to high speed internet) inhibit our ability to be really effectively proactive when new opportunities emerge. We do not have a strong presence in California's urban centers, and the majority of Californians do not understand the complex issues of the Sierra.
The Saving the Sierra project is one of the best efforts yet to overcome some of those obstacles.
The Sierra Business Council and other organizations have been consistently committed to hosting forums and conferences around the region in order to bring people together around important ideas and interests. Keep your ears peeled for the Sierra Business Council's new 2007 event series and attend an event or two near you. To join our mailing list, email atoso@sbcouncil.org.
2) Yes, it's the American Dream, but it has been virtually impossible for individuals to participate in meaningful ways in these global markets. Sure, maybe the timber economy provided a lot Sierra residents with logging and mill jobs, but how many of those workers were able to buy land and start their own businesses?
I think technology has the potential to democratize the economy. With new and constantly evolving technology, it is possible to directly market our own products and services and make the new economy work for us.
3) The resource economy has traditionally been an economy based on the extraction and exploitation of nature (and people). The value of "nature" has been based on the ease of commodifying, extracting, and consuming certain isolated elements of it (minerals, trees, water).
In my opinion, this economy is shifting. Carbon can and will be commodified like other Sierra resources have been, but demand for it is directly tied to mitigating the biggest global environmental problem we may ever know (climate change). The carbon commodity market is slightly different than timber because it values living, growing trees, not board feet. The most important shift in the new natural resource economy however, is that it creates a way for people to pay for and invest in conservation, biodiversity, native forests, intact, healthy functioning ecossytems.
Perhaps the world should respect the inherent value of nature; perhaps putting $$ figures on nature should be completely repulsive. I don't know, but I don't really see the world heading in that direction without a little bit of help.
There are many many uncertainties related to how the carbon market will actually evolve. There is the possibility that monoculture carbon plantations of non-native trees become more valuable than old growth redwood forests. It is not incredibly unlikely that Dupont, Monsanto, Chevron, and the like will somehow manage to snatch up all the profits of Sierra Nevada carbon. If we sit back and wait for it to happen, it probably will.
My optimism lies in the fact that California is right at the center of this debate, and Sierrans can influence this process. The Sierra Nevada is full of small private landowners (in addition to large tracts of public lands). If we, as a community, can start to imagine what it would mean for millions or billions of dollars coming to the Sierra Nevada for our communities to act as stewards of our forests and farms, rivers and lakes, then maybe we will realize there is enough at stake to engage in this process now.