Mikko (Okkim Babii), Markus (Markus Darkward NOW Walder Qarnac), Annette 13.04.2010
- Saamin Metsä
- Suomin Metsä
- http://web.archive.org/web/20080129005256/http://www.metla.fi:80/pp/MHyt/ppoverview.htm
- Karhun Metsä
- Puhun Metsä
- Forest
- in its own right
- http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boreaalinen_vyöhyke
- http://web.archive.org/web/20170615152210/http://www.metla.fi:80/hanke/3165/index.htm
- as cultural heimat
- as livelihood
- Forest practises differ betwixt Nordic countries
- Ways of managing the forest as a nature reserve
e.g. pine trees in all reserves - 50s way; glades with a few bushes for insects, as seen today so in UK English Nature cut down protected trees even though legislation said they have a statutory duty to protect the trees
- Land management
- nature
- private "farm"
- state preserve
- who owns the forest?
- commoner rights
- Allmansright
- Forest versus Non-forest
c/f Gilgamesh - now "non-forest land" (see What a Way to Go - The End of an Empire) sustainable forest dwelling and reforestation - destroys / changes our civilization (civilization predicated on forest cleared for progress).
CONFLICT - Nuclear justified by forestry industry according to Greens:
Finnish Government gave out proposal on building two more nuclear reactors
Dear Greens,
As some of you already know, the Finnish Government gave out a proposal on building two more nuclear reactors last Wednesday. Please, find below a short update on the situation.
Last Wednesday, Minister of Economic Affairs Mauri Pekkarinen of the Centre Party gave out his proposal on the construction of two more commercial nuclear reactors in Finland. The result was expected based on the fact that the Government was divided on how many, of any, new reactors should be built. The Finnish Greens proposed zero new reactors, the National Coalition Party wanted three, and the Centre Party and the Swedish People's Party were somewhere in between. The Government will officially vote on the proposal in a few weeks but it's clear that only the two Green Ministers Anni Sinnemäki and Tuija Brax will vote against it.
The Parliament will start handling the Government's proposal in a couple of weeks but it will probably take months before the final decision will be made. We will now do everything we can to get the proposal dismissed in the parliamentary handling. We have some hope of succeeding in this because the majority of Finns is against nuclear energy and as the parliamentary elections are getting closer (taking place in April 2011), the current MPs must start taking the public opinion into account. All the parties, except the Coalition Party, are divided on the issue and there are many MPs who haven't made their mind yet.
We think that the Mr Pekkarinen's proposal is based on an overestimation of the future need of electricity and ignores all the energy saving and energy efficiency measures that have already been agreed. These unrealistic figures are supplied by, for instance, the Finnish forest industry even if its restructuring has led to significant cuts in the energy consumption.
Before the nuclear reactor proposal, the government parties agreed on a package of measures to promote renewable energy. The Finnish Greens were actively contributing in the packed and we are happy about the result. However, there is a big risk that building new nuclear reactors will prevent the renewable sector from growing as fast as it could. Constructing more nuclear reactors would be a major mistake in this situation. Mr Pekkarinen's proposal fails to seize the opportunity of putting all the efforts to the new technology and the fast-growing renewable energy business. If the proposal becomes reality, it means that Finland will become nuclear energy exporter.
Currently, there are five nuclear reactors in operation in Finland and one, the sadly famous Olkiluoto 3, under construction. The Olkiluoto 3 construction site has suffered from many delays and security problems. It will not be producing any energy for years which goes against what was initially promised. The Finnish Greens are amazed about how other parties can support building more reactors while Olkiluoto 3, which was supposed to cover a big part of Finland's emission reduction targets, increase energy self-sufficiency and maintain high employment, hasn't produced any energy so far.
In 2002, the Finnish Greens walked out of the Government after the decision on building Olkiluoto 3 was taken by the Parliament. This time the big question after Mr Pekkarinen gave out his proposal has been: Are the Greens going to walk out of the Government this time? Now, we have decided not to do that because we would risk our possibility to influence in the government policy during its last year in power. As we saw last time, walking out didn' t prevent the Government from giving the permission to Olkiluoto 3. It was clear already in 2007, when the current Government Programme was written, that the Greens wouldn't support any plans to build new reactors and other parties in the Government accepted this.
The Greens/EFA press release: http://www.greens-efa.org/cms/pressreleases/dok/337/337167.nuclear_energy@en .htm The Finnish Government press release: http://www.tem.fi/?89521_m=98874 <http://www.tem.fi/?89521_m=98874&l=en&s=2471> &l=en&s=2471
Best regards, Henna Hakkarainen
