Spoken Meditation

O Spirit of Life
Which we search for
Not realizing it is as familiar as our own heart beat
dwell in and amongst us this day.

We know you when we pick up the bud of a rose,
Greet the new day with the hibiscus blossom,
Or see the purple profusion on tree branches in April.

We also know you in the wood from which these chairs were made;
In the cotton in which we wrap our bodies;
In the coffee beans and cookies we will soon consume;

The Spirit of Life continues uninterrupted whether
as food for our eyes or
as food for our stomachs.

As we remember our interdependence with the Earth today
Let us remember the Spirit of Life which weaves it all together
in one splendorous whole.

READING

This reading is attributed to Chief Seattle but in reality it is a fictionalization of what he is reported to have said in 1854. Actually we have no good evidence that he said anything close to this, since he spoke in a native tongue the reporter had studied at most one year. But it's a good reading because it speaks to us as a good poem would speak. If Chief Seattle didn't say this, perhaps he'd say it if he were alive today…

How can you buy or sell the sky, the warmth of the land? The idea is strange to us. If we do not own the freshness of the air and the sparkle of the water, how can you buy them?

Every part of the Earth is sacred to my people. Every shining pine needle, every sandy shore, every mist in the dark woods, every clear and humming insect is holy in the memory and experience of my people. The sap which courses through the trees carries the memory and experience of my people. The sap which courses through the trees carries the memories of the red man.

The white man's dead forget the country of their birth when they go to walk among the stars. Our dead never forget this beautiful Earth, for it is the mother of the red man. We are part of the Earth and it is part of us. The perfumed flowers are our sisters, the deer, the horse, the great eagle, these are our brothers. The rocky crests, the juices in the meadows, the body heat of the pony, and the man, all belong to the same family.

So, when the Great Chief in Washington sends word that he wishes to buy our land, he asks much of us. The Great White Chief sends word he will reserve us a place so that we can live comfortably to ourselves. He will be our father and we will be his children. So we will consider your offer to buy land. But it will not be easy. For this land is sacred to us.

This shining water that moves in streams and rivers is not just water but the blood of our ancestors. If we sell you land, you must remember that it is sacred blood of our ancestors. If we sell you land, you must remember that it is sacred, and you must teach your children that it is sacred and that each ghostly reflection in the clear water of the lakes tells of events in the life of my people. The water's murmur is the voice of my father's father….

You must teach your children that the ground beneath their feet is the ashes of our grandfathers. So that they will respect the land, tell your children that the Earth is rich with the lives of our kin. Teach your children what we have taught our children, that the Earth is our mother. Whatever befalls the Earth befalls the sons of the Earth. If men spit upon the ground, they spit upon themselves.

This we know - the Earth does not belong to man - man belongs to the Earth. This we know. All things are connected like the blood which unites one family. All things are connected.

Whatever befalls the Earth - befalls the sons of the Earth. Man did not weave the web of life - he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself.

SERMON

Gaylord Nelson, former U.S. Senator from Wisconsin and the founder of the first Earth Day on April 22, 1970, describes the beginning of the event in his 25th anniversary address titled "We must strive to achieve a sustainable society":

The idea of Earth Day 1970 was to have a national demonstration of environmental concern big enough to shake up the political establishment--get its attention, get some action, force environmental issues onto the political agenda of national priorities. The idea worked, thanks to the spontaneous response of millions of concerned Americans, and the event served as a wake-up call to the political establishment. Suddenly, the environment became a national political priority. Since Earth Day 1970, Congress has enacted nearly 40 major federal environmental laws addressing a wide range of issues, including clean air, clean water, energy conservation, hazardous wastes, and herbicides and other pesticides. Dozens of individual public land bills have been enacted since 1970 to designate or expand wilderness areas, wild and scenic rivers, national parks, and wildlife refuges. Perhaps most important, more than 80 percent of Americans now regard themselves as environmentalists.

Those present this morning whose memory easily goes back before 1970 will affirm the incredible transformation of public and private life that environmentalist thinking has wrought. An overwhelming majority of people want to preserve and protect our environment but alas, we have differences on limits and scope. My remarks this morning will address those differences, examining two environmental principles in the context of an over-ten-year conflict between corporate and environmentalist ideology.

The two environmental principles I'd like to focus on are sustainability and biodiversity. The principle of sustainability directs us to consume from the ecosphere only what can be produced each year so future generations will be able to benefit from the same or greater resources than we have today. It is much like living on just the interest on our ecological capital. Biodiversity looks at sustainability in a slightly different way. Instead of looking at the environment as a resource, biodiversity sees value in the totality of life, valuing the continuing of all existing species and the development of more abundant life. Sustainability and biodiversity have much in common, but the differences will come into better focus as we examine the case of the takeover of the Pacific Lumber Company in Northern California.

Pacific Lumber is an interesting environmental case study[1] because the company was founded on some unusual ideas for the timber industry. The novel ideas originated with Albert Stanwood Murphy who became president of the company in 1931 at the age of 39. He had begun working for his grandfather's company at the bottom as all Murphys did, learning the lowliest jobs from the bottom up before moving to the ledger side of the business. At the time, entire forests were being leveled which was creating ecological and economic havoc filling rivers with silt and throwing loggers out of work when the cut was complete. Murphy had seen this process as his grandfather Simon Jones Murphy had exhausted forests along the Penobscot River in Maine and the St. Claire River in Michigan. Murphy decided to end the exhaustive cutting policy and instead started a policy of selective cut, harvesting a maximum of 70 percent of the mature trees in a stand, leaving the younger, most vigorous redwoods to hold the hillside and seed a new generation of forest, the remaining 30 percent to be logged 50 years later, once the new trees were established. In this way, the forest naturally renewed itself while protecting the biodiversity and creating a sustainable harvest, providing job security for the workers.

By 1985, in large measure because of its conservative practices, Pacific Lumber held practically the only large stands of virgin redwoods in the world in private hands. And also in large measure because of its controlled cutting, the company's stock was stayed at a low price because of the meager return on their total assets--or in business jargon, they had tremendous under- utilized capital. In the 80's during the height of the feeding frenzy encouraged by the junk bond market stimulated by the influx of capital from unleashed savings and loans seeking high returns to support the high interest rates they were paying on deposits, a company like Pacific Lumber attracted the attention of corporate raiders such as Texan Charles Hurwitz.

How Hurwitz managed to take over the company is a fascinating story I don't have time to tell this morning, but in a nutshell, the top management and board of directors were not doing a great job managing the company and lacked the savvy to see the takeover coming and to defend themselves. In the end, the board surrendered the company rather than face irate stockholders wanting to cash in on the growth of the stock value when they could not find a "white knight" to come in and rescue them.

Why takeovers are so feared is because a corporate raider usually strikes when the value of the company is greater than the cost of buying all its outstanding stock at a fixed price above the current market value. Thus the raider borrows the cost of the stock, breaks up the company and sells the pieces, recovering a tidy profit. This was not Hurwitz's plan as the company's treasure of redwood trees was most valuable when harvested for market. But the current income before he bought the company was significantly under the amount he would need to service the debt he incurred to buy the company. The solution: change harvesting philosophy from a selective cut to a clear cut and at least double the production of lumber.

The loyal employees of Pacific Lumber were not too happy about being taken over by a Texan who by his own admission knew nothing about the logging business, but put up weak resistance which was squelched by management. As many employees owned stock from employee purchase plans, they profited too during the buyout and got lots of overtime as the production increased. Their increased personal wealth, converted into new pickup trucks, stoves and refrigerators, helped smooth over hard feelings. And many employee-friendly policies, such as generous Christmas bonuses and sending employee children to college on scholarships, continued.

The environmentalists of Humbolt County, however, were not pleased by the changes in harvesting practices. Some of these folks were former hippies who had left urban life in the '60s and '70s to return to the land looking for a simpler life connected with nature. Others worried about the economic devastation to come after all the trees were cashed in and transferred to Hurwitz's pocket, depleting the economic base of the area. And finally the biodiversity folks fretted about the havoc wreaked on endangered species, streams and second growth by clear cutting.

These concerns took focus in the efforts of the radical environmentalist organization known as Earth First! This organization, founded in the late '70s to take direct action to stop environmental destruction, had already been fighting to save virgin redwood stands in other areas of the Pacific Northwest. The changes in Pacific Lumber ownership, the beauty of the virgin groves of redwoods at risk and their harvest to pay for Hurwitz junk bonds was enough to capture Earth First!'s attention.

Through demonstrations, guerrilla theater, tree sitting, media events to stop tree cutting, and courtroom actions to stop harvesting permits, Earth First! significantly slowed down the company's plans and also made it difficult for Hurwitz to fully exploit his forests. That battle continues to this day. Their efforts have cost the holding company millions of dollars and devalued significantly the company's worth.

The management of Pacific Lumber is furious with these meddlers and has indoctrinated and mobilized their workers against these environmental wacko hippie welfare cheats. Who are they to decide what happens on private property? More accurate surveys of forest reserves had shown an ample reserve to support a larger cut, argued the company. Environmentalists may enjoy looking at old growth trees, but they are really just gradually dying from the inside once they reach maturity. Clear cutting these groves actually stimulates the second growth which springs from the stumps of the logged tree. Many species benefit from the increased foliage with greater sunlight penetration.

Yes, counter the environmentalists, but many species such as the notorious spotted owl, the red tree vole, the fisher, the northern goshawk, the Olympic salamander, and the tailed frog did not! The value of these species to the balance of the ecosystem was high and not enough virgin groves remained to support these species survival. Driving them to extinction potentially threatens the planet's welfare and the welfare of humanity. Clear cutting with modern machinery

on the steep hillsides on which redwoods often grow damages the top soil, endangering future generations of trees and other species that depend on the fertility of the soil.

In both arguments we hear the struggle between the two fine environmental principles of sustainability and biodiversity. Clear-cutting a forest may make sustainable sense but it doesn't make biodiverse sense. The principle of sustainability is a human-centered expression of value. The forest must be preserved for future generations of people to use. The lumberjack's livelihood is to be preserved.

On the other hand, the principle of biodiversity is an eco-centered expression of value. The diversity of species has greater value than our need for lumber. The spotted owl has at least an equal right to exist as a human child. This is rationalized by the claim that without this biodiversity, the human species would be threatened. We are not masters of this world, only a part of it. Thus the conflict between logger and ecologist goes deep even while they can both claim to be operating from ecological principles.

The solution to this conflict will not be in succumbing to the property rights argument. Our natural resources are too precious to be exploited in a way that leaves our nation poorer at the end of the day. Regulation is needed to protect the whole.

And biodiversity isn't supreme either. The tailed frog is not of equal value to a human child. We humans have great value to the ecosystem as a gardener assisting it.

The real solution is to be found in mutuality.

The recognition and discussion of mutual interests between Pacific Lumber and Earth First! is the missing component of this tragic dispute. Stockholders were not getting a fair return based on the value of the company and in our capitalistic system that gave Charles Hurwitz the right to take over the company and improve its production. The changes in logging practices which were harmful to biodiversity gave Earth First! the right to protest. What is needed now is mutual recognition and dialogue toward solutions.

Our enthusiasm for environmental regulation in the 26 years since the first Earth Day has done much to bring power to the biodiversity side of the equation encouraging sustainability. But we must recognize that our well-being is conditional on the use of these resources. In this era we must begin striking a balance between biodiversity and human needs, and to do this we must bring all parties to the table. We can't save every bird egg and trees do not last forever. We seem to have survived the extinction of the mammoths and mastodons. It will be through sharing our needs and understanding with the goal of finding the social good in mutually affirming solutions that we can guarantee the well-being of future generations of all species.

CLOSING WORDS

I close with the last verse of hymn #173

In the thunder new commandments
sound a warning through the wilderness,
let the forest be untainted,
let the streams run undefiled,
let the waters of the river as they flow down to the ocean
be as sweet as in the old days when the mountain stood alone.

May the thunder of our ecological crises transform us and our world so our forests, streams and mountains become both sustainable resources and biodiverse ecosystems.

Copyright (c) 1996 by Rev. Samuel A. Trumbore. All rights reserved.