Exercise #4

February 3, 2022 By: Wanyue Li

One of the most debated environmental issues concerns conserving forests or maintaining industries in Canada. In his news article at Mongabay, Butler opines that the government should make a stand between conserving the environment and proceeding with industrialization. The logging industry has benefited for a long time in Canada, and laws are needed to protect against further forest resource exploitation. However, despite laws in BC, they are all dormant as they have not been implemented to limit environmental pollution through logging. Furthermore, the existing laws are not sufficient for the environment as they have allowed leakages where people can go around them and go scot-free.[1] As a result, it can be said that BC holds its forestry and timber industry dearly while paying little focus on conservation measures. The unwillingness of the government to implement laws on environmental conservation limits the country’s approach to growth by relying on its traditional model.

The issue has also been used to advance people’s political views and for personal and political gain. For instance, politicians have used it to advance their course by satisfying pro-industrialization while assuming conservationists. Although some politicians have policies to conserve forests, some argue that Canada’s methods of ecosystem conservation should change if the country is to succeed in its quest to conserve the environment.[2] However, they opine that some species such as old-growth will become extinct as time goes by. This shows the unwillingness of politicians to join activists in the fight for the conservation of nature. If politicians could join hands and fight the battle with environmental activists, the battle could be warned, and Canada’s environmental policies could be implemented easily.

Civil disobedience is at the heart of Canada’s environmental plight. The people that need to make policies and implement them have failed to protect people and nature. For instance, reports from politicians refusing to support nature conservation and favoring industrial growth and conservation in their decisions are a sickening trend. According to the article, policymakers in the country are quiet and refuse to pass laws that would regulate the use of natural resources such as forests.[3] Unless politicians and policymakers agree to prioritize nature, Canada’s environment will continue deteriorating for the unforeseeable future.

I believe that we should not debate an issue like nature and industry. Today, Canada is one of the most affected countries by pollution because of the government’s laxity in handling the situation. Given the many reports on nature and industry at our disposal, either online or in libraries, it is evident that nature precedes industry at all costs. Therefore, people should focus more on conserving nature and having industries conducive environments. Despite the significance of industry, there might be no trees left for cutting to sustain the industries in the years to come. Thus, Canada has to make a robust decision on conserving forests whether people agree with it or not for the best interest of the future. Although Canada has historically had its unique economic model that has spurred its development, there is a need for a change for sustainability to be achieved. According to Sörlin and Warde, “it is sometimes suggested that the relative strength of historical geography may account for patterns in the reception and development of environmental history in the ‘global north.”[4] This is the case with Canada since they formed their economic model long ago, and changing it right now had not proved easy amidst the highly contested debate. However, the current environmental problem can be solved by having a sustainable growth and development model to ensure industrial growth and nature conservation. Without that, the country will continue doing what it has traditionally done to the disadvantage of nature, eventually getting some species extinct and losing biodiversity.

[1] Butler., 6.

[2] Ibid., 7.

[3] Ibid., 5.

[4] Sörlin, Sverker, and Paul Warde. “The problem of the problem of environmental history: a re-reading of the field.” Environmental History 12, no. 1 (2007): 107-130.