Forestry Commission’s green swindlers squander forest for quick cash in biomass
Case study tree felling for nature restoration in the Schoorl and Bergen dunes, Staatsbosbeheer.As language users, we often label a group, as is the case here, ‘green swindlers’. The term ‘swindlers’ is clear: cheaters, con artists, extortionists. It is often very difficult to get rid of labels because they are rhetorically powerful.
What is happening here?
In this tweet, the Forestry Commission is accused of ‘squandering forest’, i.e. forest does not get the care and attention it should. In contrast, it uses forest ‘for quick cash in biomass’. In other words, there is quicker money to be made in biomass than in the actual task of forest management. ‘Quick cash’ also conjures up the image of wrong trade and shady practices. All suggestions that are additionally labelled ‘green’ which not only symbolises sustainability, environment and ecology, but is also a label for the political left. Thus, the Forestry Commission is put away as untrustworthy (and right-wing).
Refute the label and/or accusation. In this case, explain why Forestry Commission employees are not swindlers and why forests are not being squandered for quick cash in biomass. In doing so, show that the employees actually put nature conservation and restoration first. Be transparent about the reason for cutting down forest and, if so, whether and how much money is made from it.
Betrekkende taal Groepsvorming 2