Peter Goldman's Sad Record of Devastating Timber Communities

The Seattle Times' Pacific Northwest ran a Portrait interview of Peter Goldman. I was very active in lobbying for the Ronald Reagan-signed Wilderness Act in the early 1980's - and then later went to law school with Goldman and his wife. They are very rich, and represent all the concern of a PETA protestor for the human consequences of their brand of 'big stick' environmentalism (for details on projects they support click here and here). Together, they represent what went so very wrong with the environmental movement - and provide insight into why the movement has so little success these days. Here is my opination to the Times Editors in response:

I always enjoy reading Portraits in order to learn new things about the people of our region. In the feature on environmental lawyer/philanthropist Peter Goldman, there was striking insight in the questions – and stark contrast in his responses. Particularly with regard to the way Goldman dealt with loss of logging jobs, in which he cited a visit by the mayor of Pittsburgh. I find that especially ironic – in light of the devastating effects of across the board shut down of the timber industry suffered by many communities in southwestern and central Washington and on the Olympic Peninsula to this day. It would be comparable to a ban on coal mining in and around Pittsburgh. If Goldman had proceeded with philanthropy from his vast fortune based on shared values between environmental protection and human suffering – he would not have worried about resentment. As it stands, Peter Goldman is the ‘poster boy’ for environmentalism without a heart.
(Update twelve hours later: Seattle Times responded by e-mail requesting my permission to run this letter.)
---

So here's their piece. All I can say is, the urban western Washington attitude is just so arrogant :

WRITTEN BY WILLIAM DIETRICH
PHOTOGRAPHED BY BARRY WONG
Peter Goldman Practicing philanthropy



Praised and resented as an environmental attorney, Seattle's Peter Goldman donates his time to watchdog private timber companies.
Q: You don't have to work, do you?
A: Inheritances and investments have given me the opportunity to be financially independent, so I can focus exclusively on philanthropy, community service and raising our three kids. But we've worked every day of our lives.
Q: You direct and substantially fund the Washington Forest Law Center in downtown Seattle?
A: Yes. I went to law school because I believe the law promotes social change. I spent the first 10 years of my career working as a deputy (and later a senior deputy) for King County prosecuting attorney Norm Maleng. Now, I practice public-interest environmental law. We also have a foundation that gives away about $1 million a year, 70 percent of it to environmental causes.
Q: Do we really need another environmental lawyer?
A: The fight for environmental protection needs as many lawyers as possible, particularly free ones!
Q: Didn't the spotted-owl wars settle the logging issue?
A: No way. What we learned from the owl wars in the 1980s was that heavy industrial logging was taking a toll on old growth-dependent species, like the owl. Twenty years later, the owl and salmon remain in steep decline. The battle has broadened from public to private lands as well.
Q: Are more regulations and lawsuits really the way to get there?
A: Unfortunately, the rules for logging on private land do not scientifically protect wildlife and fish. To compel timber companies to protect the environment, they need to believe they'll be sued. Then other groups, like land trusts and certified forestry, work with them to both harvest trees and protect the environment. It's a carrot-and-stick approach.
Q: What's wrong with the state's logging rules?
A: Washington reviews each logging permit separately. No one looks at location or the cumulative impacts of multiple logging permits. The industry says one clear-cut plus one clear-cut plus one clear-cut equals one clear-cut. We say no, it equals three.
Q: Give me an example of where a lawsuit helped.
A: Lawsuits don't permanently protect land, but they do provide protection until things get on the right track. Plum Creek Timber Co. proposed extensive logging in the central Cascades around 1996. Our lawsuits helped make Plum Creek decide to sell and exchange its lands to the federal government. Several thousand acres next to the Alpine Lakes Wilderness area were saved.
Q: Do you have some market-driven ideas?
A: To log land responsibly yields a return of 8 or 9 percent. To do it irresponsibly delivers 12 or 13 percent. Investors are demanding that 12 or 13 percent. Our challenge is to find a way to get the market to help us make up that difference. We can't thrust all the cost on landowners, particularly small ones.
Q: Aren't you just a wealthy guy taking logging jobs from the working poor?
A: The issue of jobs versus the environment is a red herring. If timber companies followed our advice, there would be more jobs in the woods. The fight is all about timber-industry profits, not jobs. Besides, the quality of life is the economic future of this state. When the mayor of Pittsburgh visited out here, he looked at the massive clear-cuts on the Olympic Peninsula and said, 'How the hell can they get away with that?'
Good question.
---
A better question would have been: Peter, what was so wrong with Slade Gorton's active advocacy on behalf of the economically-ravaged communities of timber country - why not help the people of the forest find ways to co-exist with the forest like Slade did? This is the way environmentalism and development are linked in Africa and Asia - why not try it here?

Update: the SeaTimes 'Letter to the Editor' was run February 6, 2005 HERE)