Here is the info for the Dortmund Opening

TimeLines[edit | edit source]

Objects & Stories[edit | edit source]

PLEASE NOTE

https://www.appropedia.org/Forest_Artifacts

  • 1. Thai Berry Picking (mustikka marja) - human trafficking, who can pick
  • 2. Mushroom gathering & safety (sieni - korvasieni? or red and white spotted mushroom - fly agaric - in culture - like peyote OR some other muchroom?) - safe to eat - eu banning korva sieni (spain), discouraging use by folk medicine of mushrooms, licensed medicine / heilkunde / wisewoman traditions

THERE IS a lot here on rights - everyman's right / right to pick for yourself? for your family? for your livelihood / who says you can or cannot pick - so Commoner's Rights (viz Hugh F W films) and Everyman's Rights in Finland etc., Rights to pick in other countries) Also place of mushrooms in religious culture etc.

  • 3. Wood gathering - motti or a chainsaw (everyman's right in the forest: not for wood)

http://web.archive.org/web/20101008164129/http://www.foe.co.uk:80/resource/reports/incineration_guide.pdf

(STORY OF PAPER http://video.sref.info:8080/sref/International%20Paper%20Company-The%20Story%20of%20Paper/640x480.mov ) and

http://web.archive.org/web/20080529212241/http://www.cank.org.uk:80/RogerLilleyIncinerationbytheBackDoor.htm

"cement production is a byproduct of waste burning" a fear mentioned in the report - incineration = ash.

paper mill

http://web.archive.org/web/20171113061237/https://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/april_fools.pdf

biggest buyer is Chinese plant owned by UPM

paper then produces books etc. for western market

http://web.archive.org/web/20130513134705/http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/briefings/consequence_pulp_paper.html

  1. 3 Life Cycle Analyses

Much of the research concerning recycled paper takes the form of life cycle studies comparing the environmental impacts of various wastepaper disposal / use scenarios (Recycling vs. Landfill, Recycling vs. Incineration and Landfill vs. Incineration). These studies show inconsistencies and their use presents the following problems:

	 * Most of the studies ignore forest management issues as their emphasis is centred around exploring the waste paper disposal /use issue. Those which do consider forest management contradict each other.
	 * Large assumptions and simplifications must be made in order to compare such widely differing processes. Most comparisons with incineration, for example, assume that incinerators are modern and operated at best practice. This is often not the case in reality.
	 * None of the studies considered the micro-pollutants dioxins, furans and heavy metals in any detail. This is undoubtedly because not enough is known about the path of these chemicals through the paper life cycle. There is however much concern about emissions from incinerators, fly ash contamination etc.

Despite encountering these problems, in their 'Towards a Sustainable Paper Cycle' study, IIED undertook to try to find general trends in their findings. They concluded as follows:

"Most of the studies support the view that recycling and incineration are environmentally preferable to landfill. There is less agreement on whether recycling is preferable to incineration. Critical factors are the nature of the pulp and paper making process, the level of technology at all stages of the life cycle and the energy structure of the countries under study. Interpretation also plays a role in weighing up of increases in some emmissions against reductions in others."45

Friends of the Earth opposes incineration on the grounds that it is wasteful of resources and polluting.

HERE....................

http://web.archive.org/web/20131106154442/http://www.foe.co.uk:80/resource/briefings/paper_recycling.html

The results of LCAs are influenced by the assumptions made and the boundaries adopted. Most of the LCA studies in the IIED report, for example, failed to incorporate data on forest management [36] illustrating that the entire life-cycle had not been accounted for.

Few LCAs consider resource use as well as effluents and emissions. For example, production of recycled paper uses less raw materials for pulp and paper production, uses less wood and should result in less intensive forest management[37]. This has important implications for conserving biodiversity.

If there is less need for intensive forest management this should take the pressure off old growth forest as existing commercial plantations should be able to meet demand. Yet currently old growth forest is still being cleared in Scandinavia, Canada and Russia. In the process complex forest ecosystems are destroyed. Forest land cleared for timber is re-planted for commercial forestry and one of the forest industry's well-worn arguments is that they save trees, rather than destroy them, because for every tree cut down, two or three are planted. However, an intensively managed plantation, little more than an agricultural crop, is not the same thing as an old growth forest rich in biodiversity. A true forest is more than just trees. It is a intricate system comprising a wide variety of species and complex relations between them. Logging "tends to homogenize forest habitats"[38] and with overplanting of one or two species of tree there will be fewer habitats than an old growth forest of mixed tree species of uneven age and height. Fewer habitats means less opportunities for species to establish themselves. Consequently, a commercial plantation forest will support fewer species than old growth forest. MARKET BARRIERS

One of the key barriers to increased recycling in Western Europe is that pulp and paper tends not to be produced near centres of paper consumption [39]. Paper mills are located near timber sources such as Scandinavian forests while most paper is consumed in cities. The vast supply of recyclable paper produced in our cities, particularly office paper, represents a considerable untapped resource and has been coined the "urban forest". The UK could produce much more of its own paper, and thus rely less on imports, if more paper were recovered and recycled. However, a number of barriers to increasing recycling exist:

	 * lack of markets for collected materials
	 * lack of funding for recycling
	 * poor participation by residents in materials collection
	 * level of support required from the local authority
	 * possibility of increases in the level of transport in a District
	 * lack of appropriate sites, land or buildings.

THEN WE HAVE CEMENT INDUSTRY:

http://www.eubionet.org/GetItem.asp?item=digistorefile;138083;1087&params=open;gallery

In 2007 Parainen cement plant, located in the south-western coast of Finland - started to use locally produced recycled fuel. The fuel consists of recycled paper, cardboard, and plastics. This is expected to reduce the costs of emissions trading allowances. Finnsementti has not yet purchased any allowances, since the amount allocated is enough for the current production. However, it is expected that the production will increase because of the active market situation, and more allowances will be needed.

AND COMPANY PAGE:

http://web.archive.org/web/20110810095231/http://www.finnsementti.fi:80/english/inenglish.htm

FINLAND VERY WASTEFUL:

http://web.archive.org/web/20130417080808/http://www.ymparisto.fi/default.asp?node=6044&lan=en

AND

http://www.yle.fi/uutiset/news/2010/08/making_use_of_waste_--_or_not_1919072.html

SO HOW CAN FINS REDUCE WASTE?

  1. Law change so that jars are taken back with deposits
  2. Comsumers not having printed bank statements, but using net banking only
  3. Kela allowing notifications via email instead of a letter (already the whole claim can be filed online so a letter is not needed)
  4. packaging waste reduction E.G. olvi bottles carry case that is one use only - have a crate deposit like in Berlin, Germany
  5. redesign of jars so they can be re-used

so REDUCE, RECYCLE AND REUSE

  • 4. saami costume / noito rumpu - who can use these pagan symbols? saami parliament says one thing and youth another

http://arcticrainbow.blogspot.com/2008/12/saami-controversy-in-lapland.html (links from that article here:

http://yle.fi/uutiset/24h/id106083.html http://web.archive.org/web/20090214023039/http://lotta.yle.fi:80/srwebanar.nsf/sivut/uutiset2004? opendocument&pageid=ContentC067A

http://www.lapinkansa.fi/cs/Satellite?c=AMArticle_C&childpagename=LKA_newssite% 2FAMLayout&cid=1194606025681&p=1194596026331&pagename=LKAWrapper http://www.pohjolansanomat.fi/cs/Satellite? c=AMArticle_C&childpagename=PSA_newssite% 2FAMLayout&cid=1194606016108&p=1192554074212&pagename=PSAWrapper

)

CLOTHING IS WOMEN'S RIGHTS TOO

HERE are pics of pitchblende cores from Finland. Also mines and Hessu the Uranium hound.

  1. There are other mining issues (Manitoba - Nopiming Provincial Park - "today there are still mining operations within park boundaries" https://www.appropedia.org/Forest_Locations#Manitoba - SO SEVERAL POSSIBILITIES AS OBJECT - red rock (kallio) the bleeding rock seen after roads etc. made in the geology - roads are made for access to mines and also disrupting mine areas.

SO RELATED TO THIS IS OIL EXTRACTION

http://climateandcapitalism.com/?p=3111#more-3111

Indigenous protests condemn B.C. pipeline project September 2, 2010

"We have drawn a line in the sand. There will be no Enbridge Pipeline and there will be no crude oil tankers in our waters. This is not a battle we intend to lose."

by Tyler McCreary rabble.ca, September 2, 2010

On August 31, 2010, hundreds of northern residents gathered outside the Riverlodge Recreation Centre in Kitimat, British Columbia, voicing their opposition to the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline. Inside, the federal Joint Review Panel held its first public meeting on the project and listened to a litany of complaints and concerns about the proposal.

Enbridge has proposed the construction of two pipelines and a marine terminal in Kitimat to send tar sands oil to export. The 1,170 kilometers of pipeline will carry an average of 525,000 barrels of oil per day west from Bruderheim, Alberta, and 193,000 barrels per day of condensate east to thin oil for pipeline transport. From the marine terminal, tar sands oil would be loaded onto approximately 225 oil tankers per year, which would then navigate the Douglas Channel and around the coastal archipelago to the sea.

Representatives of First Nations, fishermen, environmental groups, and northern communities, as well as various community members, continue to express concerns about the inherent risks involved in the Gateway Pipeline and its associated tanker traffic. The proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline crosses rough, mountainous terrain through the sensitive watersheds of the upper Fraser, Skeena, and Kitimat. There are serious concerns about the risks of oil spills. On July 26, 2010, an Enbridge pipeline spill in Michigan released four million litres of oil into the Kalamazoo River.

Similar concerns have been voiced about the prospect of increased tanker traffic along the north coast. In the north, the memory of the Exxon Valdez spill still lingers. On March 24, 1989, the Exxon Valdez, an oil tanker bound for California, hit the Bligh Reef in Prince William Sound and spilled 260,000 to 750,000 barrels of crude oil. The oil eventually covered 2,100 km of coastline and 28,000 km2 of ocean. Fishermen and First Nations, as well as environmentalists, have expressed dire concerns about the potential impacts of another such spill on their way of life.

Members of the Heiltsuk First Nation from Bella Bella dancing in regelia at rally

Further, much of the pipeline route crosses through unceded First Nations territories and would impinge on their inherent Aboriginal rights and title. The Supreme Court of Canada has recognized a Crown duty to consult and accommodate Aboriginal peoples regarding any project that would impact their relationships to their lands and traditions. The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples has further stipulated the necessity of attaining First Nations free, prior and informed consent for developments that would alter their territories.

Many of the First Nations along the pipeline route remain unsatisfied with Enbridge's limited attempts to consider the importance of their relationships to their territories. Far from consenting, many First Nations, including those represented by Coastal First Nations, the Carrier-Sekani Tribal Council, and the Wet'suwet'en Hereditary Chiefs, have been vocal in their opposition to the project.

While the Joint Review Panel sought to restrict its meeting in Kitimat to procedural questions to be addressed prior to its issuance of a hearing order, presenters both inside and outside the meeting were vociferous in their complaint that the project simply should not happen. In relation to the specific procedural questions, presenters before the panel regularly registered their desire to extend the list of locations for hearings in the review process, the necessity of more detailed information about the project and its impacts from Enbridge, and the desperate need for the panel to consider a broader scope of issues in evaluating the cumulative impacts of development on local environments and communities as well as the global climate. They urged the panel to recognize the project was not simply about a pipeline, but fundamentally about the expansion of tar sands oil extraction, the export of raw bitumen, and the introduction of oil tanker traffic to the northern coast.

At the rally outside the meeting, there was little ambiguity about the stance of the majority of those present. "The opposition to this project is massive and growing every day," Gerald Amos, the rally MC from Kitamaat Village, told the crowd. "We have drawn a line in the sand. There will be no Enbridge Pipeline and there will be no crude oil tankers in our waters. This is not a battle we intend to lose."

In a parallel solidarity event in Vancouver, over 200 people gathered outside Enbridge's Vancouver headquarters before marching to the Vancouver Art Gallery. Speaking at the event, federal Members of Parliament Ujjal Dosanjh (Liberal) and Finn Donnelly (NDP) pledged to work towards a legislated ban on crude oil tankers in northern coastal waters. Coastal First Nations, an alliance of the First Nations of the North and Central Coast of British Columbia and Haida Gwaii, have already declared a moratorium on oil tankers within their traditional territorial waters. Through this ban, First Nations are working to uphold their responsibilities within their own systems of law to maintain and respect their territories. Federal legislation against oil tanker traffic would demonstrate a shared commitment to protect this environment.

At the Kitimat rally, local officials demonstrated a similar recognition of a shared responsibility to protect the land and water. "Due to the uncertainty associated with the transport of crude oil along our unpredictable northwest coast, Queen Charlotte City has resolved that this project should not proceed," stated Kris Olsen, a municipal councillor with Queen Charlotte City. "All Haida Gwaii municipalities stand together in opposition to Enbridge because the tradeoffs and risks involved are unacceptable."

Joy Thorkelson of the United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union echoed this concern. "For hundreds of years, the fisheries have been vital to our communities' economies and our way of life as coastal people, and we're not willing to put that at risk. The commercial fishing industry is the largest private sector employer on the central and north coast and a handful of oil jobs won't replace the importance of the fishery."

David de Wit, Natural Resources Manager of the Office of Wet'suwet'en, articulated the responsibilities in Wet'suwet'en law that shape our obligations to maintain respectful relations with the environment."We have a philosophy that summarized in a word called yinta, which refers to our land, our territories, the animals, the water, the air. It involves us as human beings. Our interactions with our surroundings impact the whole system. The health and well-being of societies is a reflection of the health and well-being of our territories," de Wit explained. "We need to all work together so we will be healthy in the future."

Tyler McCreary is an Indigenous solidarity activist based in northern British Columbia. He is also currently working towards his PhD in geography at York University. COULD BE GOOD TO INCLUDE

Images of old paper mills[edit | edit source]

DCAO0192.jpg

http://www.google.com/images?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=old%20paper%20mills&oe=utf-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi&biw=1013&bih=495

Page data
Published 2010
License CC-BY-SA-4.0
Issues Automatically detected page issues. Click on them to find out more. They may take some minutes to disappear after you fix them. No main image
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.