The recent “green” certification of Irving needs to be examined for what it really represents — the continued “Irvingization” of Maine. This Canadian corporation, with its scores of new Irving gas stations and ownership of 1.5 million acres of North Woods, is no small-sized gorilla. We all know what has happened to our local service stations and general stores — “Irvingization” has resulted in many businesses going extinct. For most of these businesses, extinction is forever.

While a few environmental groups may applaud the recent FSC certification of 570,000 acres of Irving’s land in northern Maine, the Forest Ecology Network believes greenwash is greenwash no matter how you wring it out. FSC is certainly better than the rival industry sponsored SFI certification, but on close examination it becomes apparent that abusive industrial forestry can hide even under the Forest Stewardship Council.

Did you know that FSC certified Irving in Canada on land that has been clearcut and sprayed with toxic herbicides? Have you ever traveled through or flown over Irving’s newly FSC certified lands in Maine? I have and I am telling you the lands have been badly treated. For 30 consecutive miles on Irving’s roads I saw few trees greater than three inches in diameter.

At the press conference the other day, the governor sang the praise of Irving. I’m not sure what King sees, but I see lost jobs, poor pay, and clearcut and herbicided forests. If the governor, Irving or any other paper corporation are truly committed to sustainable forestry, then they should all be on board the Vote Yes on 2 Campaign. The first point of the citizen initiated bill asks the corporate landowners not to cut more than is growing — certainly the most basic barometer of sustainability. Sustainability in the initiative is defined just the way the governor’s own 1996 Sustainability Council defined it (I might mention that some of the same university scientists who certified Irving and oppose the initiative also helped to write the definition of sustainability used in the initiative language).

The problem is that Irving and the other paper corporations have been cutting, according to the Maine Forest Service, 37 percent more annually than is growing back. Nobody is stupid. This cannot go on forever. We have already lost 54 percent of our logging jobs and over 30 percent of our mill jobs in recent years. If you spend more money than you put into your bank account, you go broke. Common sense, right?

The Vote Yes on 2 bill is tied to Tree Growth (I support) which is a tax break for committing to “sustained yield forestry.” While data points out that small woodlot owners are practicing “sustained yield forestry,” the big boys, the paper coprporation obviously have a problem. If they are getting tax breaks, they ought to live up to their end of the bargain. After all, it’s your tax dollar and mine which pays the difference.

If the industry cannot endorse point one — reasonable cut levels — what about point two: clearcutting by permit only? The second point simply says that if you want to clearcut more than five acres you need to get a permit (currently permits are required if clearcuts are greater than 75 acres — wonder why most all of the clearcuts are less than 75 acres?) This is not a ban. A permit will be issued by the Maine Forest Service when clearcuts can be silviculturally justified. This seems pretty reasonable to me. I wonder why this is so problematic for King and the paper corporations?

If they are against reasonable cut levels and the requiring of a permit for clearcuts over five acres, then at the very least they should not have a problem with the third point which creates an impartial (no environmentalists and no industry, just experts) Sustainability Council appointed by the governor himself! This council would develop, with public input, the rules and regulations around the first two points. Any differences of interpretation in the referendum can be worked out by the council. What could be more open and process oriented?

In the months ahead, we will hear from the paper corporations the same old false and tired litany about how if you vote yes on 2 there will be economic collapse, expanding sprawl, and a restriction on small woodlot owners who want to bank annually their growth to help pay for retirement, college expenses, or medical bills. A fear tactic strategy is the only way they can discredit this most sensible and reasonable approach to stopping the ecological disaster unfolding in the north woods. For more information and the full text of the Yes on two citizen initiative, please feel free to browse our website at www.powerlink.net/fen.

The dog days of summer are a hard time for many to get motivated around issues. If you need more motivation, I suggest you take a trip to the North Woods — visit “Irving World.” There is still enough beauty left in “them there woods” to inspire the soul and more than enough destruction to answer this call to Vote Yes on 2. Jonathan Carter is the director of the Forest Ecology Network in Augusta.