David: So, Mark, we were talking today about the timber industry, and you had some thoughts about that. I just want to know what are your opinions about that. It seems like everyone has a very strong opinion about the timber industry, and lumber, and environmentalism. What do you think of the whole industry that's been built up around environmentalism? Mark: Well, the reason this came up is we had talked to a company that was to provide us with a service for The Linguist. However, our parent company is involved - and has been involved for quite a long time - in the forest industry. We received an email from these people, who - we were expecting a proposal from them, and instead we got an email saying they felt they wouldn't be able to work with us because, in their opinion, it would be a conflict of interest, because they had other clients who were environmental organizations, and the link that we had to the logging industry may perhaps cause problems for them. My read on that was, you know, probably it's - I mean, maybe it's because they have environmental clients, or maybe it's their own personal prejudice against the forest industry. But either way, I'm amazed at the response, because - and unfortunately, it's not an uncommon response. Unfortunately, environmental organizations have managed to brainwash, for want of a better term, a large segment of the population into thinking that cutting down trees is a bad activity, which is mind-boggling. Yeah, okay, having grown up around the industry, I'm familiar with it, but the concept that seems to get lost is, trees get cut down and trees grow back. It's a completely renewable resource. There are very few other completely renewable resources. You cut down a forest, it grows back, you have the forest again. Meanwhile, everybody has nice houses to live in, paper to write on, and the many other benefits that cutting trees down provides.
David: I've read that one of the earliest political subjects that children are introduced to is the environment and also environmentalism. So you have - especially in a lot of schools - you have children in grade one and two learning about environmentalism, and only being taught perhaps one side of the story. Is there any way to present a balanced opinion about preserving the environment to some extent, and also using this natural resource that does grow back?
Mark: I mean, there's definitely a more balanced way to presenting the case. I mean, my personal opinion is the brainwashing that goes on in our schools, by the teachers, is a scandal. Our younger generation grows up believing that we have to save all the trees, and the only thing that matters is the environment, and all companies, big corporations are bad, and business is bad. Who do the teachers think pays their salary? It's not other teachers that pay their salary. It's money generated by corporations that pays for everything in our society. Government employees don't generate money that pays for healthcare, that pays for the education system, that pays for our social welfare system. All the money that gives us our standard of living is generated by business. And in B.C., it happens to be - in British Columbia - over sixty percent of the money that is generated, that creates our standard of living, is generated by the natural resource center. All of which would be considered somehow "untouchable" or "beneath contempt" by the - for sure the environmentalists, and a lot of the so-called pseudo-intellectual media, teachers, those types of people. "Oh, that's business. Business is bad, anti-globalization, we should all hold hands and hug trees, and everybody would be better off." But the fact of the matter is, if everybody, all they did was hug trees and hold hands, there wouldn't be a Vancouver, there'd be no healthcare, there'd be no social network, and all those teachers would be out of a job. So there has to be some kind of balance. I mean, yeah, the environment is important. Everyone benefits by having a cleaner environment. There's no argument there, and I think in the past the forest industry have done things that haven't been great. And because of the influence of the environmental movement, forest methods and the treatment of the forest has improved, and it has forced people to improve. To that extent, the environmental movement has provided - has been a useful stimulus, but in today's day and age, most people are aware of trying to preserve the environment, and trying not to do things to negatively impact the environment. But unfortunately, the environmental groups, they still have to justify all the money that they collect from all the people that donate to them, so they have to keep finding new, supposed causes to fight. Unfortunately, the forest industry is always an easy target.
