Recent reports suggest that support for the referendum to ban clear-cutting has been eroding. I am sympathetic to the Greens’ concern that the paper companies are buying the election, but declining support is not attributable solely to an industry-sponsored media blitz. Maine citizens are not a tractable mass shaped by each new image on the silver screen.

Much of the industry campaign is image advertising. The corporations portray themselves as stewards of the land, modern family farmers with an interest in the preservation of the rural landscape as both a scenic amenity and recreational asset for future generations.

Today’s forestry firms are, however, more like modern agribusiness than the family farm. Their stocks are publicly traded on the stock exchange. They are many-headed conglomerates competing in international markets. Forestry is only one of their “profit centers.”

The corporate forestry managers are not evil. As individuals, many are dedicated to the long term care of the forests. The problem here is deeper than some modern day morality play. The pressures of meeting international competition and pleasing mutual fund managers with rapid returns on investment dominate today’s forest economy.

Those at the bottom of the economic chain — whether workers or forests — bear the heaviest costs. The large corporations and the loggers, independent contractors, and even small woodlot owners who work for them do not meet on an even playing field. Paper companies use their market power to keep raw timber prices low. Bowdoin economist David Vail has shown that low stumpage prices along with poor wages and limited training of forestry workers have historically encouraged dangerous and ecologically ruinous forestry practices and technologies.

That this is an industry in need of both labor and environmental reform at state, federal, and international levels seems obvious. However extreme the proposed ban, it is an understandable reaction to the industry’s own excesses. Massive clear-cuts and a history of abuse of the land — especially in a context of growing interest in the forests as recreational amenities — laid the ground work for this movement.

Only a healthy woods will secure the economic future of the state. Nonetheless, I am skeptical that the one-size-fits-all approach of this ban will sustain forestry health much better than conventional industrial forestry. Just as basically, there is an important transition problem. Even nuanced forestry regulations will inevitably destroy jobs unless they are accompanied by a proactive agenda to create work in other areas and to assure more ecologically sound and cost effective forestry practices.

Yes, jobs in so-called ecotourism could eventually emerge. Northern camps could be improved, guides trained, and the whole quality of the north woods experience enhanced in ways that would bring new jobs to Maine. And surely forestry technologies and work practices could be reformed to achieve more ecological balance and economic efficiency.

Many environmentalists seem to assume that if the environment is preserved, in the long run jobs will take care of themselves. But as John Maynard Keynes once aptly remarked, in the long run we are all dead. Maine citizens won’t accept regulations that threaten current forest jobs — unless they see ongoing movement toward realistic economic alternatives. Good jobs aren’t likely any time soon unless we are willing to educate for and subsidize the transition. Nor will better forestry practices be sustained until we address the relative weakness of labor both in the woods and in the factories.

The long-term quality and sustainability of the forests are inseparable from the provision of economic opportunities for Maine citizens. Whatever forestry standards are enacted, refinement and enforcement of those standards will be inadequate if those who work in the forests are not committed to them and don’t have some means to act on their commitment.

There will be no enduring redefinition of Maine politics until labor leaders and environmentalists can establish a mutually supportive dialogue. Labor bears some responsibilities here, but so too do the Greens. Greens often maintain they are not a single issue party, but they have much less presence on labor or social justice issues. The commendable activism of some Greens on such issues as the North American Free Trade Agreement is dwarfed by the efforts of this referendum campaign. Just as basically, active participation of labor in crafting such an initiative would have given it far more credibility.

If the Greens’ organizational effort on this referendum were matched by comparable efforts on behalf of, let us say, a higher state- wide minimum wage, labor organization in the woods and paper mills, or bonds to foster ecologically sustainable local development projects, they could start to build bridges to progressive businesses and the working citizens of Maine. The very debates over and articulation of such a strategy would help establish channels of communication and informal networks that would better combat major media assaults.

I share the Greens’ concern about the kind of media we face daily. Nonetheless, it is too easy for any political minority to portray itself as the victim and to neglect its own organizational and conceptual errors. If totalitarian leviathans — from the Shah of Iran to the politburos of eastern Europe — could be overcome, surely a more synthetic and broadbased ecological politics can reform the paper plantation here in Maine.

John Buell is a political economist who lives in Southwest Harbor.