Is it About Money or Not?
Examples That Illustrate We Are Not Logging for the Money contains
twelve illustrative examples purported to show that (in the words of the
leaflet) “we are not maximizing revenues” by doing things
“the responsible Sea Ranch way.”
There is an attempt at sleight of hand in that rhetoric. “Not
maximizing revenues” is not at all the same thing as not being
motivated by money. In this community, being less responsible
would not maximize revenue so much as maximizing opposition. A
more insensitive plan would mean no revenue at all. In other words,
it's still about the money: the “maximization” cited here
is a red herring.
Meanwhile, two of the other leaflets emphasize revenue and
cost avoidance (both of which are measured in money) as a motivation.
Optional Paths for Forest Restoration emphasizes the costs in
the “No NTMP” column, thus demonstrating that the
motivation for choosing the “NTMP” column is cost
avoidance. Choosing an otherwise
undesirable alternative for cost avoidance is
doing it for the money. (Moreover, the costs are exaggerated
in that leaflet; see Plan B.)
Fact Checker, in its list of goals (Question 1), reiterates
that one of the goals is to “Create a revenue source to help
fund TSRA vegetation management programs.”
a revenue source isn't doing it for the money, what is?
The same document, in its Question 10, cites the same exaggerated
cost figures as the “Optional Paths,” again making it
clear that money is a primary motivation for choosing to log.
The same document, in its Question 15, claims kinship with
conservation organizations that also log. The quote from the
Conservation Fund specifies as one of their goals “economic
benefits” and mentions that they intend to “help repay
loans taken to acquire in [sic] the property.” These
are all money motivations. (In case some readers are unaware: TSR's forest has no loans
to pay off.)
It still looks like the logging plan is about money.