Join the conversation

1. Permalink

   

   Shirley Birney

   retiree (logged in via email @tpg.com.au)

   Burning anything produces hazardous unintended by-products leading to a deterioration in air quality and is simply 21st century lunacy promulgated by yesterday's gentlemen.

   1. Permalink

      

      Matthew Thredgold

      Software Engineer/Secondary Teacher (logged in via email @xtra.co.nz)

      I completely concur with you Shirley. Burning wood for energy or warmth is simply outdated dirty technology. We need to eliminate woodburning altogether (as domestic heating, as rubbish burnoffs) for health, safety and environment reasons. Wood smoke is incredibly toxic and it is not something we should be dumping into the atmosphere at all (and definitely not in our towns, suburbs and denser settled rural areas). The Independent MP's call shows he does not understand the air quality issues and he needs to go back to the drawing board.

      1. Permalink

         

         James Szabadics

         Technical Development and R&D Manager, Plantation Timber Industry (logged in via email @technologist.com)

         It has similar emissions to burning coal - perhaps unsurprisingly. The difference is that if the wood is from a plantation it will take up the CO2 from the atmosphere again when the next cycle grows. I think that to have a viable sawmill producing natural and renewable wood products from plantations that sequester carbon in our houses and in our furnishings you must have a market for the sawmill byproducts of sawdust and chip.

         Whenever you convert an irregular approximately cylindrical object…

         show full comment

         It has similar emissions to burning coal - perhaps unsurprisingly. The difference is that if the wood is from a plantation it will take up the CO2 from the atmosphere again when the next cycle grows. I think that to have a viable sawmill producing natural and renewable wood products from plantations that sequester carbon in our houses and in our furnishings you must have a market for the sawmill byproducts of sawdust and chip.

         Whenever you convert an irregular approximately cylindrical object into regular rectangular boards you generate these byproducts. Many mills burn the waste to produce heat energy and sometimes cogeneration of electricity. The question is should these people pay carbon tax on these emissions, I say if the original wood source is not regrown then one could argue that the tax should be paid. If it is from a plantation that is regrown then I think it would be wrong to hit it with a carbon tax because it is a carbon neutral process to burn it and in an overall sense the operation is sequestering carbon into houses and furnishings.

         1. Permalink

            

            Alex Cannara

            (logged in via Facebook)

            When you drive trucks & tools in, cut, truck out, process, burn, and repeat. It's unsustainable -- nutrient loss, erosion, species loss, direct atmospheric warming, and fuel expenditures all around.

            It's as wasteful an idea as anyone could imagine.

         2. Permalink

            

            James Szabadics

            Technical Development and R&D Manager, Plantation Timber Industry (logged in via email @technologist.com)

            The article also seems to talk about pure conversion of forest into burning biomass as the primary product. This is not really viable without massive public subsidy. Given the costs of harvesting, haulage and chipping and the amount of embodied energy in the stuff, the capital cost of the land etc you would go broke quickly if you converted a log that costs approx $100 per cubic meter at an efficiency of say 30% into electricity then use half of that energy to run the chipping for a final efficiency of 15% and even less when you consider the energy from harvesting and haulage. This is why you need sawmills to value add and only use the unavoidable byproduct can be used for biomass. Its a question of the best thing you can do with an unavoidable byproduct.

   2. Permalink

      

      Dale Bloom

      Laboratory analyst (logged in via email @mail.com)

      Objection.

      Discrimination on the grounds of gender.

      See http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/qld/consol_act/aa1991204/

2. Permalink

   

   Peter Davies

   Bio-refinery technology developer (logged in via email @gmail.com)

   By all means do away with large scale clear cutting which is a abomination, but don't have the arrogance or ignorance to assume no management is somehow a panacea.

   My wife and I have been involved in sustainable management of native forest for several decades. Oakeshott has made the right decision, the choice to exclude native forest is an ideological one made for political expediency, not good science.

   All the competent and objective forest scientists we have known have been progressively…

   show full comment

   By all means do away with large scale clear cutting which is a abomination, but don't have the arrogance or ignorance to assume no management is somehow a panacea.

   My wife and I have been involved in sustainable management of native forest for several decades. Oakeshott has made the right decision, the choice to exclude native forest is an ideological one made for political expediency, not good science.

   All the competent and objective forest scientists we have known have been progressively pushed out of their careers by successive governments when their experience and knowledge did not accord with this "green" ideology. How many strong and vibrant forest science schools in universities are turning out eager students today?

   CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems conducted a study of our forest management that concluded that it resulted in no net landscape loss (soil, water, biodiversity). Further more the managed areas had a greater quality and quantity of biodiversity than the un-managed areas.

   At the same time a report on Alpine National Parks in the same region showed a steady and continuing decline in biodiversity under "lock it up, protective" management.

   The core problems is the false assumption that the remaining forest estate is pristine and that removing humans somehow allows it to heal itself and return to pre-European settlement ecological structure (itself the result of different human management). The truth is active and well informed management is required to properly rehabilitate degraded native forest. For this an economic underpinning is also required to fund the management. Economic and environmental returns do not need to be mutually exclusive.

   We despair that this one tool that can truly save the forest, is the same one being used to keep its ecology sick and suffering.

   Anyone who doubts the stupidity of this policy only needs to drive through the ten's of thousands of hectares destroyed in these parks by the 2003 bushfires, and the decaying ghost forests that is the true legacy of "doing nothing" to see the fallacy of the argument that locking up Australian forests somehow stores more carbon than sensible active management can.

3. Permalink

   

   Mark Graham

   Ecologist (logged in via email @yahoo.com.au)

   Bernie Masters writes:
   "The economic reality is that, if the timber industry can make higher profits from the logs currently harvested from native forests, then the increased profitability will allow them to pay higher royalties to state governments who in turn will be better able to manage the entire native forest estate (of which only a small proportion is available for logging)."

   The economic reality is not how you report it. Around Australia native forestry operations on public lands are…

   show full comment

   Bernie Masters writes:
   "The economic reality is that, if the timber industry can make higher profits from the logs currently harvested from native forests, then the increased profitability will allow them to pay higher royalties to state governments who in turn will be better able to manage the entire native forest estate (of which only a small proportion is available for logging)."

   The economic reality is not how you report it. Around Australia native forestry operations on public lands are subsidised by taxpayers to the tune of tens of millions of dollars annually.

   In 2009 the NSW Auditor-General found that "native forest operations ran at loss of $14.4 million in 2007-08, this raises concerns about how much worse this financial burden may get." He also found that "the native forest managed by Forests NSW on the north coast is being cut faster than it is growing back."
   http://auditofficestaging.elcom.com.au/ArticleDocuments/141/185_Sustaining_Native_Forest.pdf.aspx?Embed=Y

   In that same year the Institute of Foresters wrote:
   “In NSW the adopted forest strategy is to unsustainably cut the available public native forest through to 2023".

   Things have worsened considerably on the North Coast of NSW since 2009. This is leading to catastrophic outcomes for the internationally significant biodiversity of the region. To highlight this significance, the North Coast supports the highest marsupial and eucalypt diversity in the world.

   Mr Oakeshott is trying to throw an economic lifeline to a chronically unsustainable industry. His letter to MPs appears to be heavily influenced by misinformation provided to him by the timber industry.

   The "waste" that is proposed to be burnt is an important component of these forest ecosystems; burning it will add lots of carbon to our atmosphere, something that must be avoided at all costs.

   1. Permalink

      

      Bernie Masters

      environmental consultant (logged in via email @iinet.net.au)

      The old furphy that taxpayers subsidise the native forests timber industry being sufficient justification to close it down needs to be put to bed once and for all. There are precious few government activities that aren't subsidised by the taxpayer: defense, education, health, housing, Aboriginal affairs, etc. If timber was the only output from our native forests, then maybe we shouldn't subsidise it, but in fact we get honey, water, nature conservation, recreation, fire protection and a host of other benefits from our forests that deserve some level of taxpayer support.

      So the issue is not whether taxpayer subsidy is good or bad - it's good - or necessary or unnecessary - it's undoubtedly necessary - but the debate should be about how much subsidy we should pay to maintain the many benefits coming from our forests.

      1. Permalink

         

         Mark Graham

         Ecologist (logged in via email @yahoo.com.au)

         Bernie

         Are you suggesting that our education, health, housing and Aboriginal affairs agencies are profit making enterprises where private companies make a quid? Because that is what happens with our public forests. Government Forestry agencies shovel tens of millions of dollars into their operations so that large private companies such as Boral can profit from the extraction of a publicly owned resource.

         All the benefits that public forests provide that you raise above are provided without the input of tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer funds . In fact most of them cost the taxpayer nothing (eg. honey, water).

         The only furphy getting about is the one where burning native forests to generate electricity is in any way sustainable or renewable. This gross misrepresentation needs to be put to bed once and for all.

         1. Permalink

            

            Mark Graham

            Ecologist (logged in via email @yahoo.com.au)

            Bernie

            To my post above I add the following facts. If public native forests are not logged then they provide our society with considerably more water, honey and biodiversity than if they are. The reduction in water flowing from logged catchments compared to unlogged is well-quantified, as is the loss of biodiversity, particularly for our numerous hollow-dependent species.

            1. Permalink

               

               Bernie Masters

               environmental consultant (logged in via email @iinet.net.au)

               I can only speak for the south west WA forests that I know well. Climate change is resulting in a massive reduction in water yield to our catchment dams, with forest thinning being trialed to see if it has merit. Phythopthora dieback disease was introduced into WA by fruit growers in the Perth hills in the 1920s and continues to spread through our native forests. Feral pigs, foxes and cats (and more recently deer) are causing serious environmental damage. People in 4WD vehicles and off-road motorbikes…

               show full comment

               I can only speak for the south west WA forests that I know well. Climate change is resulting in a massive reduction in water yield to our catchment dams, with forest thinning being trialed to see if it has merit. Phythopthora dieback disease was introduced into WA by fruit growers in the Perth hills in the 1920s and continues to spread through our native forests. Feral pigs, foxes and cats (and more recently deer) are causing serious environmental damage. People in 4WD vehicles and off-road motorbikes are spread dieback disease, causing soil erosion and spreading weed seeds.

               The bottom line is that, regardless of what the timber industry has done to our forests over the last 180 years, their environmental health is poor and getting worse as a result of all the above listed pressures. So, just as we spend money on health, education, housing, etc, with no intention to make a profit, we reached the stage 30 or 40 years ago where we have to spend money to properly manage our forests whether we have a timber industry or not. When you then add in the timber products that come from our native forests, it really is a furphy to say that taxpayer subsidies to forest management is a justifiable reason to close the timber industry down.

               To create additional income from the burning of a sustainable natural product such as timber mill waste makes the timber industry more profitable and better able to employ people, sustain timber towns, pay royalties, provide people and equipment to fight bushfires, be the eyes and ears of the govt environmental agencies, etc, etc.

               In WA, we have the government biodiversity people go through all forests that are to be logged and indicate what habitat trees are to be retained for use by hollow-dependent species. The system isn't perfect by any measure but WA's forests have not lost a single bird or mammals species in spite of logging since European settlement started here in 1826. Your situation in the east is quite different, I'm sure, and I was appalled when I found out 10 years ago that most native forest logging in Victoria and NSW is to provide low value woodchips rather than high value sawn timber (the reverse of what happens here in WA), so I don't dispute that significant improvements to how we log and manage our forests are needed. However, if a waste product at a sawmill has a choice of being burnt to produce electricity or just to be burnt, it's really a no brainer to choose the former option.

               1. Permalink

                  

                  Mark Graham

                  Ecologist (logged in via email @yahoo.com.au)

                  Hello Bernie

                  You write:
                  "regardless of what the timber industry has done to our forests over the last 180 years"
                  If we are to look objectively at our public forests and their health we cannot disregard what logging has done to them.
                  Because of logging phytophthora has become much worse. You rightly suggest that 4wds and trail bikes spread the fungus, but fail to mention that logging machinery moves lots of infected soil.
                  Because of logging biodiversity has declined.
                  Because of logging water…

                  show full comment

                  Hello Bernie

                  You write:
                  "regardless of what the timber industry has done to our forests over the last 180 years"
                  If we are to look objectively at our public forests and their health we cannot disregard what logging has done to them.
                  Because of logging phytophthora has become much worse. You rightly suggest that 4wds and trail bikes spread the fungus, but fail to mention that logging machinery moves lots of infected soil.
                  Because of logging biodiversity has declined.
                  Because of logging water volumes leaving catchment areas has declined.
                  Because of logging, weeds and feral animals have increased.

                  You write:
                  "To create additional income from the burning of a sustainable natural product such as timber mill waste"
                  It is NOT a sustainable product Logging generates:
                  1. declines in biodiversity
                  2. loss of stored carbon
                  3. declines in water supply
                  4. declines in forest health through the introduction of, or the creation of opportunities for the invasion of:
                  a) environmental weeds
                  b) feral animals
                  c) Phytophthora dieback
                  d) Bell Miner Associated Dieback.

                  Burning timber to generate electricity will be used as a justification to extract more of a resource that is already being cut faster than it can regrow. In short burning timber to generate power will put more pressure on already stressed forests that are already alarmingly declining in health (your examples from WA show that this is the case in your part of the world).

                  As thoroughly documented by Caroline Copley below there are no safeguards within the RFAs - logging undertaken in accordance with these sham agreements is leading to major losses of biodiversity and stored carbon. On the North Coast of NSW (one of the key biodiversity hotspots of the world with the highest marsupial and eucalypt diversity) industrial logging of public lands is severely impacting upon intact forested landscapes, killing iconic species such as the Koala and severely compromising the integrity and long-term conservation value of the Great Eastern Ranges.(http://www.greateasternranges.org.au/)

                  When it comes to bushfires the work recently published by Lindenmayer et. al (http://www.pnas.org/content/108/38/15887.full.pdf+html) has shown that logging in Mountain Ash Forests creates "landscape traps" which exacerbate fire risk, cause increased fire intensity and lead to permanent shifts in forest structure, composition and function.

                  You might well feel that everything is rosy in our public forests and that burning a bit of "waste" to generate electricity as proposed by Oakeshott and the timber industry is a good thing. But all available evidence indicates that the these practices are unrenewable and unsustainable.

                  1. Permalink

                     

                     Bernie Masters

                     environmental consultant (logged in via email @iinet.net.au)

                     Mark, you say "You might well feel that everything is rosy in our public forests" but I encourage you to read my previous post again as it states the complete opposite: that most things are pretty bad in our forests. But I also go on to imply that burning sawmill residue is essentially of little environmental importance when compared to everything else that's happening in our forests.

                     Let's try to see the wood for the trees on this issue. Oakeshott should not be the target; instead it should be the federal government which is proposing this measure. And it is the state governments who should be severely criticised for under-funding their forest management agencies.

                     1. Permalink

                        

                        Mark Graham

                        Ecologist (logged in via email @yahoo.com.au)

                        Dear Bernie,

                        I encourage you to actually READ Dr Ajani's article above and to get your facts straight. In case you still can't find it, Dr Ajani wrote above:
                        "Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor, together with all other members of the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee, agreed in July 2011 to exclude native forest wood from being subsidised as a renewable energy resource. This decision put in place a crucial backstop to see the end of Australia’s forest wars. But now Oakeshott has changed his position…

                        show full comment

                        Dear Bernie,

                        I encourage you to actually READ Dr Ajani's article above and to get your facts straight. In case you still can't find it, Dr Ajani wrote above:
                        "Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor, together with all other members of the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee, agreed in July 2011 to exclude native forest wood from being subsidised as a renewable energy resource. This decision put in place a crucial backstop to see the end of Australia’s forest wars. But now Oakeshott has changed his position.

                        The Multi-Party Climate Change Committee, chaired by PM Gillard and including the Greens and Independents Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott, agreed to amend the Renewable Energy Target regulations. Native forest biomass would no longer be regarded as “renewable” when burnt to generate electricity."

                        To be extra clear on the matter, the Commonwealth Government has NOT proposed this measure. Under pressure and lobbying from the economically and ecologically unviable timber industry Oakeshott has reneged on his agreement of July 2011, thereby creating a high likelihood of massive additional pressure being brought to bear on the health and viability of our public forests. Which I am glad we both agree, are already in serious decline.

                        I can clearly see the forest, the trees, the wood that is being unsustainably extracted, the massive amount of taxpayer dollars needed to do this and the dire ecological consequences of these activities. I can also read. How about you?

                        1. Permalink

                           

                           Bernie Masters

                           environmental consultant (logged in via email @iinet.net.au)

                           If the federal government wasn't supporting this measure, it would be dead in the water as it wouldn't pass through Parliament. Oakeshott is a player in this game as the government needs his vote in the lower house, but it is still the government's legislation and their MPs outnumber Oakeshott by 60 or 70 to one, so green anger should be directed against Gillard and company.

                           Is the timber industry sustainable? That's not the issue being discussed in Ajani's article which is about using timber residue to produce electricity. I don't support taking logging waste out of the forest to burn in power plants but I do support burning sawmill waste for this purpose which is far more sustainable than just burning it.

      2. Permalink

         

         Alex Cannara

         (logged in via Facebook)

         What's a "furphy"?

         1. Permalink

            

            Bernie Masters

            environmental consultant (logged in via email @iinet.net.au)

            see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furphy

4. Permalink

   

   Tim Hollo

   Political adviser (logged in via email @aph.gov.au)

   Except, Troy, there is nothing renewable about logging native forests and burning them, is there? "Renewable" has a clear meaning and this doesn't meet it. It was always a logging industry rort to have it in the scheme in the first place.

   1. Permalink

      

      Troy Barry

      Mechanical Engineer (logged in via email @gmail.com)

      Of course native forests are renewable. That doesn't mean they should be cut down, but the reason for preserving them isn't the lack of renewability. It's poor policy and poor legislation to confuse woodland (the discussion applies as much to mulga scrub as to forest) conservation and renewable energy.

      Oakeshott's point is correct - using logging waste for generation is renewable and should be classed as such. Burning humpback whales, bilbies and the Endeavour replica is also renewable and shouldn't be specifically excluded in renewable energy legislation, because like native forests these things are already protected by other legislation.

      1. Permalink

         

         Tim Scanlon

         (Climate and Agronomic Extension at Department of Agriculture and Food - Western Australia)

         It isn't renewable at all. Logging doesn't take out trees, it takes out a forest. Forests are ecosystems. You can't replicate them nor transplant them. If you are lucky they might recover if left alone.

         Burning woods for energy is not a renewable energy and it is definitely not a carbon neutral activity. I outlined why this is the case in a previous article's comments:
         https://theconversation.edu.au/see-you-in-court-solving-aviation-emissions-is-an-international-mess-5183#comment_21827
         https://theconversation.edu.au/see-you-in-court-solving-aviation-emissions-is-an-international-mess-5183#comment_21944

         1. Permalink

            

            Troy Barry

            Mechanical Engineer (logged in via email @gmail.com)

            You are apparently assuming clear felling. Again, REC regulation isn't the appropriate legislation to restrict or control unsustainable forestry, forestry leglislation and control is.

            The arguments in your linked comments are not convincing and again confuse the issues. So what if fossil fuels are used in the timber industry? Nobody is suggesting the mineral diesel will be eligible for RECs. Any clear head can appreciate that wood is without a doubt a renewable energy source.

            1. Permalink

               

               Tim Scanlon

               (Climate and Agronomic Extension at Department of Agriculture and Food - Western Australia)

               *sigh* My point is that biomass energy is not carbon neutral and in any sense of the environment it is not renewable. Biomass being burnt is an emission, which causes rises in GHGs. The sequestering argument is void because our normal carbon cycle is no longer functioning as per normal, so any emission creates an issue.

               In terms of renewablility, if we were talking tree plantations, then I could see a (small) case, but any forest is a non-renewable entity due to the biodiversity factor. The ecosystem involved in a forest cannot be easily replaced, even mining companies recognise this when they store top soil, seeds and remnant stands.

               My arguments are not confused. You are blinkered by an idealogue of logging as harvesting. All logging disturbs the forest, clear fell being the worst example.

               You are also taking minor points I made (i.e. creating a straw man) to dismiss my larger points of the spurious nature of burning wood as an energy source.

               1. Permalink

                  

                  Troy Barry

                  Mechanical Engineer (logged in via email @gmail.com)

                  Again, you still seem to assume clear felling when you talk about the removal of forests. And the loss of topsoil and biodiversity. There are already restrictions and controls on that, so there is no need to add additional restrictions via excluding timber waste from REC eligibility.

                  You also confuse zero-emission generation with renewable energy. Of course timber waste combustion is carbon emitting, and there is a rather well-known government policy to deal with emissions. How that is considered is another matter and ought to consider what would happen to the carbon if the timber waste was not combusted for generation. But that also has no bearing on whether or not forests and woodlands and scrub are renewable.

                  It is exactly this sort of confusion which is found in the article and in the committee outcome - conflation of all our concerns about forests being brought to bear here, when they are adequately and better addressed elsewhere.

               2. Permalink

                  

                  James Szabadics

                  Technical Development and R&D Manager, Plantation Timber Industry (logged in via email @technologist.com)

                  Hi Again Tim,

                  The discussion in the other articles was about biofuels which comes in many forms - not just wood.

                  Let's consider a plantation forest - before you can harvest it, it must grow. To grow it must take carbon from the atmosphere. So to get to the point of harvest you had to reduce atmospheric CO2. Next you have to harvest it and will probably use diesel powered machinery - that adds CO2 to the atmosphere. If you sawmill the logs and make houses and things from the wood then the…

                  show full comment

                  Hi Again Tim,

                  The discussion in the other articles was about biofuels which comes in many forms - not just wood.

                  Let's consider a plantation forest - before you can harvest it, it must grow. To grow it must take carbon from the atmosphere. So to get to the point of harvest you had to reduce atmospheric CO2. Next you have to harvest it and will probably use diesel powered machinery - that adds CO2 to the atmosphere. If you sawmill the logs and make houses and things from the wood then the carbon in that sawn wood is locked up until the wood is destroyed through combusion or rotting. If it is well cared for it may lock up some carbon for a long time (a few hundred years perhaps). Is the carbon contained in the sawn timber products greater than the carbon used by harvest and haulage is an interesting question? If you replant the forest then the next forest crop will take up carbon from the atmosphere (even while we use the things we have made from wood that have locked up some carbon). Inevitably sawing wood has some sawdust and chip as byproduct. It will rot if it is unused and that portion of carbon will return to the atmosphere slowly as it rots. If we burn it then it returns to the atmosphere from whence it came much more quickly. In general terms the use of biomass as fuel is carbon neutral - if we use fossil fuel powered harvesting and haulage and use all wood from the trees to burn then the overall process is obviously not carbon neutral due to the fossil fuels (or profitable without massive subsidy). If we value add to the wood and use it in buildings and in useful objects that remain in use then we are locking up that carbon while the woods remains in use and just burn the byproduct to make electricity. It means that subsidy is not required due to high value wood products and cash for energy from burning the byproduct, the energy did not have to be produced from a non-renewable fuel and the sawmiller did not have a mountain of rotting sawdust and chip slowly releasing CO2 to the atmosphere for no benefit.

                  If we look at say algae as a source of liquid biofuel then harvesting and haulage can also use the biofuel produced. The biofuel question is complex so each case has to be considered on its individual merits. Biofuels can be completely carbon neutral.

                  1. Permalink

                     

                     Alex Cannara

                     (logged in via Facebook)

                     Yes, wood structures that last "lock up" carbon. However, cutting forests not only disturbs soil & species, it increases erosion & nutrient loss, and it engages the fallacy that planting new trees somehow makes up for removal of old.

                     A mature broadleaf tree is a 50kW cooling machine. A seedling isn't. The bare or grassy ground around the seedling converts sunlight to heat, directly adding to global warming. That's why glider pilots look for open fields rather that dense forest groves when…

                     show full comment

                     Yes, wood structures that last "lock up" carbon. However, cutting forests not only disturbs soil & species, it increases erosion & nutrient loss, and it engages the fallacy that planting new trees somehow makes up for removal of old.

                     A mature broadleaf tree is a 50kW cooling machine. A seedling isn't. The bare or grassy ground around the seedling converts sunlight to heat, directly adding to global warming. That's why glider pilots look for open fields rather that dense forest groves when wanting to go up.

                     The entire chain of harvesting biofuel, either from grains, trees or even algae is fraught with the reality that photosynthesis is very inefficient -- ~7%, in storing energy in carbohydrate plant structures.

                     Nature didn't invent photosynthesis for humans to use for energy -- a hard truth for some. But, subsidies for the few, paid by the many, can mask realities.

                     So, algae, being more productive per acre, still has the efficiency problem and a very large problem in separating the combustible product (oils) from the 80-90% of what algae is -- water. That's an energy-intensive task. We've now bred >4000 mutations of algae, to improve their oil yields above natural. Yet, it's still far short of efficient. And, the very real danger is, what happens if they get loose into the real world?

                     With biofuels, the net energy delivery to human combustion machinery is under 1%. After all, combustion engines waste >60% of the heat energy available from the combusted fuel.

                     So, why bother? there's more than enough sunlit structural space on earth to use for 20%-efficient solar panels, that also eliminate all land/species damage, and fuel transport. And, much higher efficiencies are on the way. And, process heat from advanced nuclear plants can make fuels directly from the CO2 & H2O in air -- that;s carbon-neutral.

                     Biofuels are simply other ways to get subsidies, when what's needed is wise land use and non-polluting, non-water consuming power. It takes >100x more water to get a gallon of biofuel than it does to get a gallon of gas/diesel, including exploration, drilling, etc.

                     If we have to build a house, cut some trees. If we have to heat the house or drive a truck, use anything else.

                     1. Permalink

                        

                        James Szabadics

                        Technical Development and R&D Manager, Plantation Timber Industry (logged in via email @technologist.com)

                        Alex - don't tell the vegetarians that green photosynthesis plants aren't there for humans to get energy! I mean its not as if the foodchain of life on earth depends on photosynthesis based plant life forms.

                        Seedlings are net carbon absorbers, mature trees are carbon neutral. Shade is cooling - cant argue with that. There would be some energy conversion to infra-red by trees and more by bare ground for the first year with increasing shade till say year 5 of the trees life when the trees mature enough to give good shade. Nutrients is interesting - some plants are nitrogen fixing in the soil. Plantations are less biodiverse than mature old growth forests, but they can be established on ex- farmland which will have significant fertiliser due the history - usually at depths too deep for traditional food crops so can be good in a rotation.

                        1. Permalink

                           

                           Alex Cannara

                           (logged in via Facebook)

                           James, I don't tell vegetarians anything! And vegans? Forget any communication.

                           So let me get your drift -- you don't recognize the very complex net of organisms and inorganic chemistry going on in natural lands, specifically forests?

                           So you're perfectly comfortable, in not knowing that, to drive in, cut, haul out, mechanically prep & burn trees for power?

                           Do I have that right?

                           And yes, Ma Nature didn't design photosynthesis to be predated upon by us or cows. So, what we've spent thousands of years doing is breeding, to get what we want, that Ma Nature never thought to give us.

                           1. Permalink

                              

                              Bernie Masters

                              environmental consultant (logged in via email @iinet.net.au)

                              Alex, your aggressive comments beg aggressive responses, none of which are appropriate in what should be a rational and patient discussion on complex issues.

                              Without trying to be aggressive, can I respectfully point out that Ma Nature didn't design anything for anyone; nature (of which we are part) is the end result of evolution and our forests evolved over millions (not thousands) of years to create a diverse, stable but complex array of ecosystems that could best exploit whatever resources…

                              show full comment

                              Alex, your aggressive comments beg aggressive responses, none of which are appropriate in what should be a rational and patient discussion on complex issues.

                              Without trying to be aggressive, can I respectfully point out that Ma Nature didn't design anything for anyone; nature (of which we are part) is the end result of evolution and our forests evolved over millions (not thousands) of years to create a diverse, stable but complex array of ecosystems that could best exploit whatever resources are available for exploitation.

                              The photosynthesis that you believe wasn't designed to be predated by us or cows is in fact predated (not a scientifically accurate word but the meaning is clear enough) by 1000s of different species of insects, birds, mammals, including Australian possums and koalas and, in other parts of the world, by moneys and lemurs, etc. So disturbance in virtually every forest ecosystem around the world can often be very significant (often catastrophic) as a result of natural processes. Provided our human disturbance is relatively minor and capable of being fully rehabilitated back so that our logged forests are returned to near pre-disturbance ecosystem diversity and values, then it should be a desirable and acceptable way to use part of our forest estate.

                              In turn, if the waste produced at a sawmill can be burnt to produce electricity rather than just being burnt, then that's a benefit we should be willing to accept because it makes economic, social and environmental sense: in other words, because it's sustainable.

                              1. Permalink

                                 

                                 Alex Cannara

                                 (logged in via Facebook)

                                 Indeed, Bernie. What's your point re my replies to James?

                                 1. Permalink

                                    

                                    Bernie Masters

                                    environmental consultant (logged in via email @iinet.net.au)

                                    My point is that your 'Ma Nature' reply is scientifically incorrect and hence at least one of your arguments against burning sawmill residue from native forest logging is lacking credibility.

                           2. Permalink

                              

                              James Szabadics

                              Technical Development and R&D Manager, Plantation Timber Industry (logged in via email @technologist.com)

                              Alex, your understanding of what I have said is pretty much wrong on all counts. Please take me to task on a specific statement that I actually have made. Say your piece which expresses your own opinion and let my words express my opinions please. If you disagree with something I said then say what it is that i said that you disagree with.

                              Re your statement that plants don't exist to be eaten by humans or cows, I think you should consider that the planet's biosphere has many ways to recycle…

                              show full comment

                              Alex, your understanding of what I have said is pretty much wrong on all counts. Please take me to task on a specific statement that I actually have made. Say your piece which expresses your own opinion and let my words express my opinions please. If you disagree with something I said then say what it is that i said that you disagree with.

                              Re your statement that plants don't exist to be eaten by humans or cows, I think you should consider that the planet's biosphere has many ways to recycle itself with various organisms eating each other and transforming each other all the time. I will eat parts of the biosphere - i will emit gasses and nutrients while i live which will be picked up and used by bacteria, plants and so on and I will die and my body will return to the soil and atmosphere. Its natural and normal in the biosphere. Obviously there is a balance and the population of successful species can be such that the balance is disturbed but the disturbance in the balance of our ecosystems has self correction mechanisms for these situations - if we destroy the environment we die and life evolves in new directions. Humans need to be mindful of environemntal sustainability if we wish to remain as a successful species long term.

                              1. Permalink

                                 

                                 Alex Cannara

                                 (logged in via Facebook)

                                 James, wasn't I clear that your saying: "don't tell the vegetarians that green photosynthesis plants aren't there for humans to get energy! I mean its not as if the foodchain of life on earth depends on photosynthesis based plant life forms." -- was incorrect, if facetious?

                                 Ans I kinda let this go by: "Nutrients is interesting - some plants are nitrogen fixing in the soil. Plantations are less biodiverse than mature old growth forests, but they can be established on ex- farmland which will have…

                                 show full comment

                                 James, wasn't I clear that your saying: "don't tell the vegetarians that green photosynthesis plants aren't there for humans to get energy! I mean its not as if the foodchain of life on earth depends on photosynthesis based plant life forms." -- was incorrect, if facetious?

                                 Ans I kinda let this go by: "Nutrients is interesting - some plants are nitrogen fixing in the soil. Plantations are less biodiverse than mature old growth forests, but they can be established on ex- farmland which will have significant fertiliser due the history" -- which shows ignorance of the many trace elements, not N fertilizers, and fungal & microbial assistants to forest maintenance. By continual tree removal these are depleted faster that replaced, especially without care to avoid erosion. And, of course, many end up in ash, in unavailable oxidized forms, even if returned to the forest. Then too is the transmission of plant diseases by equipment moving among sites. We have that occurring here in Calif.,

                                 Are those specific enough for you?

                                 1. Permalink

                                    

                                    James Szabadics

                                    Technical Development and R&D Manager, Plantation Timber Industry (logged in via email @technologist.com)

                                    Alex, I dont see how you are making the leaps between my statements and yours. You appear to believe that no argument from me implies ignorance. If somebody says chocolate milk is sweet it does not imply that they are ignorant of the existence of strawberry milk. I agree that trace elements are critical to healthy plant growth and i have never said anything differently to that.

                                    I stand by the statement that land based lifeforms foodchain is critically dependant on plants and photosynthesis. My delivery was tongue in cheek mainly because of the ridiculous notion put forward that plants are not here to be eaten by animals, in many cases seed spreading and germination is dependant on plants being eaten by birds and animals who in turn produce fertiliser.

5. Permalink

   

   Troy Barry

   Mechanical Engineer (logged in via email @gmail.com)

   It seems to me that disallowing RECs for native forest waste is a kludge. If it is a renewable energy source, it should be eligible for RECs. For clarity and simplicity, let the renewable energy regulation take care of renewable energy and not involve itself with forestry, and let forestry regulation take care of native forest logging and not concern itself itself with renewable energy. As long as the separate regulations don't contradict there is no reason to overlap.

   1. Permalink

      

      Lorna Jarrett

      PhD candidate, science education; Physics teacher (logged in via email @diment.org)

      Troy - see Tim Scanlon's comment above on why native forests are not a renewable energy resource.

      However, Tim might have painted too optimistic a picture. He didn't mention the damage to soils from logging forests - oxidation of soil carbon and associated loss of structure (as well as significant CO2 release) to say nothing of erosion. Take a trip down the Sekonyer River in Kalimantan and ask yourself why the water isn't the famous colour of black tea anymore. Or walk over the bare rock plains of Iceland - didn't the Viking settlers get a surprise when they cut down the trees and all the volcanic soil just blew away?

      Soil erosion is essentially an irreversible process, as is loss of soil carbon because of how long the stable carbon-containing molecules take to form.

      1. Permalink

         

         Tim Scanlon

         (Climate and Agronomic Extension at Department of Agriculture and Food - Western Australia)

         Yes, I did skip a few of the points to focus on the emissiona and ecology. You're spot on about the other impacts. Forests are a complex system and any encroachment takes years, if not decades to overcome.

         From my own experience, understorey and lower storey vegetation take between 5-8 years to compensate for a cleared path in a medium rainfall environment (south-west Western Australia). You don't start to see the larger trees fully establishing until after a decade has passed. This is for a path…

         show full comment

         Yes, I did skip a few of the points to focus on the emissiona and ecology. You're spot on about the other impacts. Forests are a complex system and any encroachment takes years, if not decades to overcome.

         From my own experience, understorey and lower storey vegetation take between 5-8 years to compensate for a cleared path in a medium rainfall environment (south-west Western Australia). You don't start to see the larger trees fully establishing until after a decade has passed. This is for a path meant for a fenceline, so low traffic, single pass clearing, remnant vegetation encroaching, i.e. ideal circumstances for re-establishment. Thus in the areas that are being proposed for logging the idea of renewable is a complete misnomer.

         The really important point you make is about soil erosion and nutrient loss. Under a 'closed' system plant life is easily sustainable. Remove the cycle of nutrients, by removing the trees, etc, and you destroy that cycle. The classic example of this is in the rainfall forest logging for farming. The land is initially nutrient rich, but within a few years it is eroded and unfarmable.

         I should also make it clear, I'm not against wood and wood products. Nor am I against waste materials from wood processing finding alternate uses. I'm not a fan of using wood for fuel, because composite materials are much better uses. There is enough farmed timber around to my thinking, lets leave the rest alone.

         1. Permalink

            

            Lorna Jarrett

            PhD candidate, science education; Physics teacher (logged in via email @diment.org)

            Soil scientists deserve all the credit for my knowledge of this topic - next time you see one, give her my regards :)

6. Permalink

   

   Peter Davies

   Bio-refinery technology developer (logged in via email @gmail.com)

   Apologies for the truncated earlier post (repeat after me: thou shalt not type directly into a web page field on a live connection with clumsy fingers…)

   The cost of harvesting and collecting native forest biomass is in the order $45-60 per green tonne which would have a conversion factor to electricity of at best 0.75MW/tonne or $60-80/MW. Operation & maintenance will add another $20/MW and then there is the cost of capital itself for the power plant calculated from $2-4 million per MW installed…

   show full comment

   Apologies for the truncated earlier post (repeat after me: thou shalt not type directly into a web page field on a live connection with clumsy fingers…)

   The cost of harvesting and collecting native forest biomass is in the order $45-60 per green tonne which would have a conversion factor to electricity of at best 0.75MW/tonne or $60-80/MW. Operation & maintenance will add another $20/MW and then there is the cost of capital itself for the power plant calculated from $2-4 million per MW installed depending on technology chosen. A reasonable figure for budgeting then would start at $110/MW as being the breakeven figure required for a minimum return.

   When competing on the National Electricity Grid a small generator might expect an average return of $40-50MW. A REC may add up to $40/MW but in practice they trade for less. So $80/MW might be an optimistic potential value for the power generated.

   The idea therefore that forests will be cleared wholesale for their electricity value is only for those who also think Greek bonds a sound investment.

7. Permalink

   

   Peter Davies

   Bio-refinery technology developer (logged in via email @gmail.com)

   Caroline & others,
   We have seen first hand good, bad and “lock it up” forest management, the latter has an important role in the good forest management toolbox, but applied wholesale is only marginally better than the bad practices it seeks to supplant.

   One thing is certain, to just “lock forests up” means the only management applied will be to burn them periodically to reduce the fire hazard (an increasingly legislated requirement). Keeping many of these forests in a perpetual stunted and…

   show full comment

   Caroline & others,
   We have seen first hand good, bad and “lock it up” forest management, the latter has an important role in the good forest management toolbox, but applied wholesale is only marginally better than the bad practices it seeks to supplant.

   One thing is certain, to just “lock forests up” means the only management applied will be to burn them periodically to reduce the fire hazard (an increasingly legislated requirement). Keeping many of these forests in a perpetual stunted and forced regeneration cycle and parody of their true potential whilst killing thousands of native animals every year directly and through starvation.

   Condemning the forests to fend for themselves in damaged ecological structures imposed by past policy mistakes is literally putting a match to them, another irony in the emotive don’t burn forests for energy cry (which by the way is NOT the purpose of the Oakshott position).

   Perhaps if a television ad was run featuring the death scream of a koala in a crown fire people might form a different opinion, I know the experience forever scarred me.

   Caroline, your reason for FSC failure in Australia is an accurate assessment on the reasoning of local Greens, which is why they are so dishonest. It is simply an ideological position, not accepting any other outcome is possible and showing contempt for everyone not sharing your vision, a kind of environmental racism if you will.

   By rights my wife and I should not retain our optimism, but we have been privileged to experience the joy of participating in good forest management that firstly maintained but more importantly enhanced the remnant forest. We know what is possible; we have seen animals return and healthy diverse plants thriving where previously they had been few and far between.

   We have watched a CSIRO Ornithologist sitting on a log in a haze of joy surrounded by the birds (within arms length!) he knew he should find in this type of forest but in the previous 20 years of study seldom had even heard their calls... (Quick turn our property into a National Park...that will get rid of them!)

   Ours is equally a fight on the forests behalf, even if you disagree that individual trees might need to be harvested to get the best outcomes.

   A few years ago we got into a “robust” discussion with a Wilderness Society ecologist at a forum on firewood harvesting. He was a professional whom we had a lot of respect for and considered his forest presentations some of the most valuable we had come across in identifying the problems. We did not however agree with his proposed remedies of “lock it all up” hence the robust nature of our discussion.

   In the end we said to him “We have a magic wand and with a wave we can grant you your desire to fence out all remnant forest from human activity, what does your remnant areas look like a few hundred years from now?” He considered the question in silence for over a minute, and then his shoulders slumped “We will lose perhaps 50% or more of the smaller isolated remnants which simply are not large enough to be self sustaining; many other patches will keep their trees but not most of their normally associated biota, the forest in general will continue to retreat to the main mountain and coastal areas”.

   Under such a policy the forest will never expand or recover much if any of its lost values; this will be the legacy the “lock it up preservationists”, no matter how well intention-ed. This marginal outcome doesn’t even take into account the inevitable legislated fire management.

   At the moment we have the worst of both worlds. A political pundit once put to me that a particular mainstream party had a peculiar and flawed candidate selection system, where there were two strong well reasoned candidates and a “donkey” in the contest the two good candidates cancelled each other out and the “donkey” would win. Sadly in the forest debate adopted policy seems to most reflect the braying of donkeys.

   Yet it could be done differently, so we choose to continue to live in hope.

8. Permalink

   

   Peter Davies

   Bio-refinery technology developer (logged in via email @gmail.com)

   Dear Caroline Copley,
   You are quite right about some in the timber industry, we have watched repeatedly as individual players “re-invent” themselves after commercial failure and go on to win new State Government timber rights on a regular basis, which they then squander, leave a large debt to all and sundry then on sell these rights at the 11th hour to others who don’t have any public scrutiny.

   Competing often community based groups with local knowledge and expertise, do not get a look in…

   show full comment

   Dear Caroline Copley,
   You are quite right about some in the timber industry, we have watched repeatedly as individual players “re-invent” themselves after commercial failure and go on to win new State Government timber rights on a regular basis, which they then squander, leave a large debt to all and sundry then on sell these rights at the 11th hour to others who don’t have any public scrutiny.

   Competing often community based groups with local knowledge and expertise, do not get a look in. The basis of this being cited as “lack of commercial history, therefore a higher degree of risk and potential failure”, the irony of then issuing the winning tenders to the “usual suspects” noted above with proven track records of failure is not lost on us.

   My wife and I have no love for most of the industry and lost 25 years of hard work when we were nobbled of some of these when they found we were about to be the first privately managed native forest in Australia to achieve FSC certification. Although the UK based FSC agency did subsequently seek and obtain our permission to use the forest management principles we developed for some village run forest projects elsewhere overseas.

   You might be interested to know Australian Green Groups were also totally opposed to us achieving FSC status (reneging on an international agreement reached to honor this process), their overseas counterparts explained to us that this was because the Oz groups were “Out of step with the global green community, failed to recognise that the forests needed much more than fences in order to grow and prosper and were more interested in their own agendas”.

   We were nonetheless recognized as experts in our field, sat on Ministerial Advisory Committees, regularly hosted forestry student groups on our property, gave talks at universities and other forums, often supported in this by Government Environmental Departments (never forest "industry", who considered us "greenies", another sad irony).

   Your comment then of “You are the onslaught” is merely a reflection of your misunderstanding and lack of knowledge of our history, intent or recognition that we might have equally valid passions.

   Also please do not make the mistake of labelling the “industry” as if it is a single entity when the forest agreements you speak of are negotiated and dominated by a handful of large vested interests who see the communities dependent on timber in the same light as the timber itself, a commodity to be traded for their own financial gain.

   Yet there is light still, so long as legislators address the real issues sensibly, maintain flexibility to allow management that allows ecological harvesting principles to be adopted and continue to be developed, and not “throw the baby out with the bathwater”. If they don’t then through their rubber stamping of this ideological indifference to reality will condemn what remains of our forest estates to at best a degraded stasis, never growing larger or well, but more likely suffering the continued inexorable decline and loss.

   Of course the ignorant will still see "trees" in these areas and congratulate themselves on their policy "success", whilst in truth the forest continues to weep.

9. Permalink

   

   Anthony Amis

   Land Use Researcher (logged in via email @hotmail.com)

   Interesting discussion. I don't support burning of native forests for electricity but neither am I too enthusiastic about people promoting plantation monocultures as if they are a complete panacea to logging native forests. Barely any of the monoculture advocates are prepared to even discuss the downsides of plantations and barely do these concerns ever get discussed in no native forest logging forums.

   An interesting case study would be plantations located in close proximity to water supply reservoirs…

   show full comment

   Interesting discussion. I don't support burning of native forests for electricity but neither am I too enthusiastic about people promoting plantation monocultures as if they are a complete panacea to logging native forests. Barely any of the monoculture advocates are prepared to even discuss the downsides of plantations and barely do these concerns ever get discussed in no native forest logging forums.

   An interesting case study would be plantations located in close proximity to water supply reservoirs or located in water supply catchments. Once logged the plantations are usually sprayed with herbicides, where polluted runoff can eventuate. An interesting example of this occurred in South Australia between 1997-2000, where three reservoirs were contaminated with atrazine and hexazinone. I wonder where else has phenomenon has occurred?

   http://baddevelopers.nfshost.com/Docs/BadPlantations.htm#South

   The atrazine recorded in the water in South Australia was way above the levels reported to chemically castrate amphibians, 0.1 part per billion, and was above those levels for over two years. The hormones of amphibians are identical to humans. How can anyone justify a landuse that poses risks to the water supply of thousands of people and why would any organisations interested in conservation even entertain the notion of aerial spraying endocrine disrupting herbicides over hundreds/thousands of hectares of land?

   Barossa Reservoir supplies drinking water to about 50,000 people in the northern Adelaide region.

   More information on the gender bending capability of atrazine can be found here:
   http://www.atrazinelovers.com/

10. Permalink

    

    Matthew John Bailey

    Ecologist (logged in via email @bolwarra.com)

    From reading these posts these is a substantial gap between what many imagine is happening on the ground and the effect of the forestry codes and what is actually happening on the ground in our (public forests). Many of the posters need to come to Oakeschotts electorate and take a look for themselves at how harvesting is occurring in the state forests between Comboyne and Kew on the mid north coast. You will see coups that for all intents and purposes are in fact clear felled. These extremely productive…

    show full comment

    From reading these posts these is a substantial gap between what many imagine is happening on the ground and the effect of the forestry codes and what is actually happening on the ground in our (public forests). Many of the posters need to come to Oakeschotts electorate and take a look for themselves at how harvesting is occurring in the state forests between Comboyne and Kew on the mid north coast. You will see coups that for all intents and purposes are in fact clear felled. These extremely productive forests, which provide a vital link from the rangelands to the coast are simply being over harvested, largely due apparently to a contractual over committment to Boral. Theese forests could actually be managed 'sustainably' in the true sense of the word but sadly they are not.
    Also some of the misinformed posters here need to come up and speak to some of the local logging contractors as I have - predominantly you will here the view from them how there is one rule for them (the Private Native Forestry Code) and one for Forest NSW- incidently many of the prescriptions and regulations are mostly self assessed!! Who ever heard of that truly working without an independant auditor? Many local logging contractors are dismayed by what they see as over harvesting and the associated shorter rotation cycles, smaller saw logs and how this will contribute to further declines in the local forestry industry.
    Seeing is beleiving! I challenge those interested eneogh to post to take a look first hand and see how the regulations which are supposed to protect a raft of environmental values are simply not working on the ground on the mid north coast.

    1. Permalink

       

       Mark Graham

       Ecologist (logged in via email @yahoo.com.au)

       Thank you for posting Matthew

       I have seen the forests near Kew that you refer to, and many similar across the NSW North Coast. What were recently productive and highly biodiverse forests have become ecological wastelands. I look forward to seeing you in your part of the world sometime soon (I am sorry for not managing to get there a few years ago!!!)

       best wishes

11. Permalink

    

    Alex Cannara

    (logged in via Facebook)

    Shirley, Tim, and any others wisely saying burning wood is dumb, are exactly right, Visit Grants Pass Oregon on a cold winter;s night about 20 years ago -- no breathing within a 20-mile radius.

    Driving cutting/transport gear into a forest to cut , remove, transport & chip firewood is about as silly and energetically inefficient a thing as one could think of. Corn ethanol here in the US is one of the few dumber ideas -- netting <1% efficiency in converting sunlight to toque at combustion vehicle…

    show full comment

    Shirley, Tim, and any others wisely saying burning wood is dumb, are exactly right, Visit Grants Pass Oregon on a cold winter;s night about 20 years ago -- no breathing within a 20-mile radius.

    Driving cutting/transport gear into a forest to cut , remove, transport & chip firewood is about as silly and energetically inefficient a thing as one could think of. Corn ethanol here in the US is one of the few dumber ideas -- netting 100x mmore water is needed for the same BTU output from plant burning, and no one accounts for nutrient & erosion losses.

    Cave people may not have known how wastefully inefficient wood/crop burning was, but we do now. It's in no way 'renewable'.

    Believe it or not, Ma Nature didn't invent photosynthesis to give human energy!

    1. Permalink

       

       Dale Bloom

       Laboratory analyst (logged in via email @mail.com)

       Alex
       The issue is what can be done with waste products from a sawmill. I looked at this some years ago when a local sawmill offered us sawdust and off-cuts, and the best we could do with it was use some as a bulking agent in a composting operation, and burn the rest in a boiler as a part of co-generation (it was a sugar mill)

       Apart from that, the sawdust and off-cuts had such a high lignin content and were available in such small quantities, there was not much else that could be economically done with it.

       1. Permalink

          

          Alex Cannara

          (logged in via Facebook)

          Sure, Dale, if the lumber is being cut anyway, then consider the best ways to use the waste.

          1. Permalink

             

             James Szabadics

             Technical Development and R&D Manager, Plantation Timber Industry (logged in via email @technologist.com)

             Precisely guys! I believe this may have been what Oakshott has in mind with the idea of exemption from carbon tax. It would have been good if the author talked directly with Oakshott to gauge his meaning and intent but perhaps thats asking too much. I dont hink he advocates chopping down entire forests just to burn them. It would not be a viable enterprise.

12. Permalink

    

    Bernie Masters

    environmental consultant (logged in via email @iinet.net.au)

    The dishonesty of this article is quite amazing. First, it is the federal government proposing to allow residues from native forest logging to be burnt to produce electricity and gain carbon credits, not Rob Oakeshott. If Ms Ajani wishes to direct her barbs against anyone, it should be against the federal government ministers responsible for the timber industry and climate change.

    Second, there are virtually no hardwood plantations in Australia that are being grown for sawlog production. Overwhelmingly…

    show full comment

    The dishonesty of this article is quite amazing. First, it is the federal government proposing to allow residues from native forest logging to be burnt to produce electricity and gain carbon credits, not Rob Oakeshott. If Ms Ajani wishes to direct her barbs against anyone, it should be against the federal government ministers responsible for the timber industry and climate change.

    Second, there are virtually no hardwood plantations in Australia that are being grown for sawlog production. Overwhelmingly, they are being produced for woodchips. It is completely disingenuous to suggest that "Australia’s plantation industry is about to completely displace native forest wood from the major commodity markets of sawn timber, paper and woodchip exports." when, in the absence of an Australian native forest hardwood industry, we would have to import most of our replacement sawn hardwoods from South East Asia.

    This article is just another distorted attempt to close down native forest logging. The economic reality is that, if the timber industry can make higher profits from the logs currently harvested from native forests, then the increased profitability will allow them to pay higher royalties to state governments who in turn will be better able to manage the entire native forest estate (of which only a small proportion is available for logging).

13. Permalink

    

    Caroline Copley

    student (logged in via email @yahoo.com.au)

    I agree that this is probably not a sound investment, and will probably not pay. However from my experience the industry does not seem to run on profits and is heavily subsidised. The industry in Tasmania wanted to keep running regardless when the federal leader to be offered them $600 million in buyouts. Now the industry is not making enough money even to keep the lie going, and in Tasmania they are being offered much less to get out. They want to keep logging old growth forests at all costs…

    show full comment

    I agree that this is probably not a sound investment, and will probably not pay. However from my experience the industry does not seem to run on profits and is heavily subsidised. The industry in Tasmania wanted to keep running regardless when the federal leader to be offered them $600 million in buyouts. Now the industry is not making enough money even to keep the lie going, and in Tasmania they are being offered much less to get out. They want to keep logging old growth forests at all costs and expect the governments to pay for that, which in Victoria they are prepared to do, since it is all so clearly going downhill economically for forestry.
    Biomass burning is the great hope they have to keep a redundant and destructive industry going no matter what- and you and apparently now Mr Oakshott MP all want to give it to them. The woodchip mill at Eden is doing so badly that it asked for this kind of thing from the local council, just to keep itself afloat (remember the one that sends our old growth off to Japan to come back as toilet paper?). So what are you really all asking for- to keep the Japanese economy going whilst our industries become more and more redundant?
    There is clearly no concern here for biodiversity, which in Victoria a national audit has shown repeatedly that this state has the worst rate of decline, nor is there any concern for the carbon and nutrient and water retention characteristics of mature forests. Furthermore the forests Australia-wide that are logged are exempt from threatened species legislation because forestry agreements are supposed to protect them and don't, so consequently everyone is in court and the only ones profiting are the lawyers.
    Currently old growth is largely woodchipped for paper, because there is not enough money in non-residual wood sales (hardwood), and this is in spite of studies that have repeatedly showed the forests cannot sustain the level of logging, and in spite of the fact that they are among the most beneficial ecosystem types on land. But government after government have increased the quotas over the last 30 years, so that less and less of the old growth is available. Damned right this is partly an argument about the old growth, because they are already under a soulless dollar-driven onslaught, and declining in most of their functionality, hence constant large and dangerous wildifires.
    Not only is there no concern for biodiversity and the fact that renewable in terms of these ecosystem types may mean once every 200 years or more (so very slow in renewablility so not suitable for mass production such as logging or biomass), but there is also no concern for the benefits these forests serve along with the ocean as the Earth's major natural carbon sinks.
    In addition the emissions from burning worry me. I am surrounded by fruit farms which constantly prune and burn their cuttings, with everything going into the air, and there is widespread use of wood for home heat generation, the regulations of which have just been weakened in Victoria. A proposed biomass plant to utilise that orchard resource received no support so the American proposers gave up, but of course there is endless support to keep our mates logging the old growth forests, with whatever schemes and subsidies we can come up with, regardless of the costs or the implications for the public. In addition the new regulations in Victoria seem to inspire burning and cutting of roadside vegetation, and widescale control burning of forests, woodlands and mallee (semi-arid vegetation types). There is an onslaught, you are the onslaught.
    There is no validity for such a proposal except greed, and given the leader in Victoria is a property developer, that is now entrenched in at least one State. If this proposal becomes entrenched at the national level it is a recipe for NO reform of a dilapidated industry, rather propping them up; increased biodiversity, soil nutrient and water loss, and Australia's contribution to the decimation of one the Earth's natural sinks will continue without restriction.
    It is disgusting to contemplate. It is even more disgusting to contemplate that anyone other than a 3rd world society would contemplate it. It is digusting to think anyone with any sense of economic or environmental responsibility would support it.
    But as I have learnt over my lifetime here in Australia, it is not always what makes the most long-term sense of any description that goes ahead here. It is what makes our mates happy. I sit and watch as the Murray-Darling scientific plan gets thrown out the window and one is hastily put together to keep the farmers happy, requiring less of their irrigation water and returning less to the river that fundamentally supports them.
    That's it, keep the guys happy, that'll make the country work.

14. Permalink

    

    Ev Cricket

    Energy Nerd (logged in via email @gmail.com)

    Hmmm. I feel this article, and much of the discussion of this policy has been unhelpfully coarse.

    "Native forest" is a pretty ambiguous term. Sure, it's designed to capture Old Growth/secondary forests. But does this term include tree crowns from approved plantation operations? What about mallee coppricing operations? They are native, and trees.

    While a staunch conservationist, I see no value to the environment in excluding all native forestry products. Mallee coppricing offers farmers a new revenue stream, reduces atmospheric CO2, can rehabilitate land and in some cases will defer significant coal use in existing power stations. I would be happy to see the REC laws clarified and softened around this.

    1. Permalink

       

       Mark Graham

       Ecologist (logged in via email @yahoo.com.au)

       Ev Cricket,
       Native Forest is not an ambiguous term. It does not include tree crowns from plantations, nor does it include mallee woodlands. It is worth noting that mallee ecosystems have relatively low productivity due to climatic limitations.

15. Permalink

    

    Andrew Lang

    director SMARTimbers cooperative (logged in via email @bigpond.com)

    I am intrigued by the diverse comments to this article. I suggest that the actual article is so full of errors, unqualified value judgements, use of emotive verbs and adjectives, presumptions that it should not be carried in this newsletter as it is not a fair and balanced discussion on the issue. Ms Adjani vilifies Rob Oakeshott as a lobbyist while she clearly is one herself.
    Within every paragraph there are examples of this incontinent use of language thatis more redolent of the press releases…

    show full comment

    I am intrigued by the diverse comments to this article. I suggest that the actual article is so full of errors, unqualified value judgements, use of emotive verbs and adjectives, presumptions that it should not be carried in this newsletter as it is not a fair and balanced discussion on the issue. Ms Adjani vilifies Rob Oakeshott as a lobbyist while she clearly is one herself.
    Within every paragraph there are examples of this incontinent use of language thatis more redolent of the press releases of the Greens or the Wilderness Society. 'a 'damaging' native forest industry, Rob Oakeshott's move to 'promote burning native forestry wood for electricity production' and so on. Inaccurate and emotive at best.
    To continue to dissect the article would be boring for any reader and those of intelligence can do it themselves. But it is a concern that such a biassed article is accepted and it shows the pervasive ignorance at all levels including academic ones of the issues of native forestry management.
    In contrast in Northern Europe native forests provide round wood for milling and veneer products, bioenergy, household fuel wood, pulp and paper feedstock, and also carefully implemented habitat and water quality maintenance, recreation opportunity and wild food. All within a situation of increasing carbon sequestration and long term planing for harvesting into the future. It is done without setting aside vast areas to to be neglected eventually burn, but other measures ensure biodiversity and retention of habitat trees, seed trees, stags and fragile or important ecosystems. We need to get smarter I agree but not along the blinkered lines portrayed in this article.

    1. Permalink

       

       Mark Graham

       Ecologist (logged in via email @yahoo.com.au)

       Andrew

       Your criticism of the article seems to emanate from an industry (vested) position if your job title is anything to go by. How about clearly identifying the "errors and unqualified value judgements" in Dr Ajani's article?

       Your use of Northern European examples is troubling. There are practically no old growth forests left in Europe. Australian forests are substantially more diverse, sensitive, ancient and carbon rich than anything that has ever existed in Europe.

16. Permalink

    

    Peter Davies

    Bio-refinery technology developer (logged in via email @gmail.com)

    As this article was written by an economist making the claim that increased logging will occur, I thought a little real world economics might be in order.

    The cost of harvesting and collecting native forest biomass is in the order $45-60 per green tonne which would have a conversion factor to electricity of at best 0.75MW/tonne or

17. Permalink

    

    john mills

    artist (logged in via email @msn.com)

    Anything this government says is very suspect for a starter, a desalination plant that we just never needed and should have been spent on dams to save the water that was always coming, not the water that wasn't, pink bats that killed,an NBN thats almost outdated and was before it started, a set top box costing three times a new digital TV,etc . I wonder if the sun and the wind can make electricity urrrm, der, no!! lets have red neck logging.

    1. Permalink

       

       Lorna Jarrett

       PhD candidate, science education; Physics teacher (logged in via email @diment.org)

       Sorry John but can you clarify *which* government? As I recall the desal plant was the decision of the NSW State government - the insulation scheme was Federal.

       Also - "pink batts" don't kill. The deaths were associated with foil insulation and electrical wiring. One of the most damaging things the Opposition did was to beat up the story in an oversimplified and inaccurate way. Houses desperately NEED insulation - and now millions of Australians have got the message that they're better off without it.

       As for "set top box" and "TV" - can't comment. Don't have either.

18. Permalink

    

    john mills

    artist (logged in via email @msn.com)

    Hi Lorna, Do you really think it matters?, federal or state, i should have said politicians,point taken on the pink bats though, and a fair statement,but most people know government contractors are ripping us off, give them the pink bats and a grand to get a proper contractor, job done.no come back. 650 dollars plus for a set top box that costs 20 that you plug in and it sets itself, or a new tv with digital costs 200, myki when they just needed ticket machines on the trains, a federal and state government that allows psychiatrists to poison our temporary troubled and drug effected kids,Ive got a list if you like, just look at what they give private schools(30%) 36bil, to public(70%) 26bil something like that, if thats not corrupt what is.

19. Permalink

    

    Caroline Copley

    student (logged in via email @yahoo.com.au)

    Two parts: response to Peter's post and Alex's misbehaving, and then discussion of separation of RET and old growth.
    Peter, please don't think I was being personal, unlike Alex (sweet as he is) who has had fun with Shirley and previously with me on another issue (!), I don't believe in personal attacks to win an argument (especially about my capabilities as a biologist Alex!). However I AM being indirectly accusational to many as explained below.
    Also FSC still has a long way to go after so…

    show full comment

    Two parts: response to Peter's post and Alex's misbehaving, and then discussion of separation of RET and old growth.
    Peter, please don't think I was being personal, unlike Alex (sweet as he is) who has had fun with Shirley and previously with me on another issue (!), I don't believe in personal attacks to win an argument (especially about my capabilities as a biologist Alex!). However I AM being indirectly accusational to many as explained below.
    Also FSC still has a long way to go after so many years, which is why I think the green groups didn't want it to get a foothold in the beginning- in order to be yet another rubber stamp.
    You are right on many of your points, however you still sound optimistic. Clearly from my outburst above, the time for my optimism has long since passed! Here comes another more reasoned outburst, not that reason seems to hold much sway in this country.

    To All,
    1. The federal RFA process is a sham, and the federal biodiversity EPBC Act relies on it, so both old growth forest management and threatened species in turn rely on state governments, which seem to mainly have the industry at heart. There is such a consensus amongst scientists and conservationists about this (like climate change) that to deny it is virtually to stick your head in the sand. It has been so from the start.
    2. The industry has happily taken advantage of this sham.
    3. Therefore there is no point in relying on the outcomes of current management processes to give any protection whatsoever to old growth forests or threatened species.
    4. Therefore the arguments that the RET and the old growth argument should be separated are false, since management of old growth is shoddy Australia-wide and no amount of optimism on anyone's part is going to change that. The whole thing needs to be completely revisited. Failure to review the RFAs on time (years!) became so problematic for the industry that when the EPBC 10-year revision occurred there was an instantaneous need to produce a review, to avoid any possible EPBC restrictions (such as species protection). A shoddy thin RFA review document was produced for all RFA areas with absolutely no real consideration of biodiversity values. The whole thing is beyond a disgrace, it is a mere sham.
    5. The EPBC Act (Australia's biodiversity) review has been concluded with very little improvement in its approach to forests, and stands for a decade to come.
    6. The points I made above stand too- about the woodchip mill at Eden and the native forest logging industry which, though supported by subsidies and more initiatives like this one is still managing to fail, can rely on the infinite stupidity of so many superficial observers that old growth is being protected, are bold enough to press the politicians for more of the same.
    7. Therefore there is a level of responsibility taken by all those who support this initiative, whether or not they are aware of the fact that it is the proponents from this greedy, failing industry which has reckless disregard for biodiversity and old growth who have pushed for this through Oakeshott.
    8. There is a lobby for bioenergy which I am wholly supportive of, however if this is the way it is going to go you will lose half your supporters. I believe the way that the alternative energy industries have been treated in this country is disgusting, and it is clear that the Americans and the Chinese have taken full advantage of our stupidity in that regard. Ditto for the info tech industry, so that vive the big farm instead of the big clever country. That is not an excuse to clutch desperately at the straw propelled by the logging industry to keep themselves afloat. I think there is a fair amount of ignorance amongst proponents of alternative energy about how bad the situation really is in Australian forests. Therefore please don't advocate for this measure in some sort of cushioned stupor that she'll be right with the forests, in order to rescue your plight. Discussion of real alternatives (nuclear or otherwise) is needed, but this page is not the forum for that, this is about whether native forests should be included in the provisions of the RET. Defining the inclusion as "forests" or similar blanket terminology will mean native forests too. And no there won't be another discussion in another forum to protect the native and old growth forests, the discussion have been had, and the forests have lost for the forseeable future (decades?).
    9. It would take another and proper review of the RFA Act and a similar review of the forest provisions NOT in the EPBC (biodiversity) Act to fix this situation. There is no threatened species protection whatsoever in the cushy belief that the RFA and state governments will protect them which they do not and will not. These provisions are not due for review for 5-10 years and no doubt will gloss over species protection provisions yet again in that distant future. The forests are dying and the legislation is putting them there. Major surgery is required to the legislation and this is NOT going to be a quick process if it is ever called for. However since the public and a large number of otherwise well-informed people seem to have been lulled into a sense that all is fine with the forests, or will be when discussed further, when it is abysmally not and won't be anytime soon, there is currently very little call for any such surgery. Thus this frightful situation continues indefinitely into the future.
    10. Hence into the forest frey comes a lot of people who seem to completely fail to comprehend the mess involved in old growth and native forest protection, such as various technical people from energy industries etc.. Thus a failing native forest logging industry, a failing Japanese woodchip operation, and various failing Japanese-owned paper companies, are grabbing at anything they can to keep themselves going as they always have. Thus logging and business as usual can take full advantage of this ignorance. And we all know that they grabbed at woodchips years ago when the Howard government decided to oblige and weaken all the legislation around foreign ownership and species protection. Thus an industry founded on hardwood logging was saved by the bell of woodchips in the guise of "managing the wastes" whereas it was really to drive the revival of a flagging industry. Hugely increased quotas arranged by Howard and various insidious state governments thus propped up the already dying industries up, now 20 years ago, and there has been little to NO PROGRESS on forest issues since. It is immediately obvious to most of us more involved in the forests debate that they want the same again now since even deflecting the focus of even larger quotas onto residual roundwood in the guise of using the wastes hasn't saved them! So why not use the residue as biomass- what a new approach to utilise the wastes, who ever would have thought of it!!! Mr. Oakshott seems to have been swayed! Apparently in some sort of blinded optimism in which the blindingly obvious is not obvious to some of you, that forest protection is NOT being handled well and will not be handled well into the forseeable future, and that the industry is clutching at residual straws yet again to save the Japanese GDP, many of you have leaped up in support of what superficially seems to be a good idea.
    11. Regardless of whether or not you have your heads in the sand on this one, and thus may be innocently believing in your clouded minds that the forests and constituent species are being protected, or will be, when so very, very clearly to everyone concerned it is necessary to try and protect them by constantly going to court, there is a matter of taking responsibility. Hence my comments that you are thus becoming part of the onslaught against the native forests which regularly seems to suffer from "plans" to keep an outdated industry afloat, whether you intended to or not.
    12. Please have a serious think about whether that responsibility sits well with you and your descendants, because you won't ultimately be able to avoid that if this ridiculous feather-the-Japanese-nests-yet-again plan goes ahead. Add the responsibility of the forests as large parts of the world's natural carbon sinks.
    13. Save the Japanese and forget your souls. Save the Indians and forget IT. Save the Californians and forget solar. After all we really are born into is saving the Poms isn't it? Save the coal and fishing and logging industries and ....forget the planet??? Save your optimism, I'm way past wanting to know.

    1. Permalink

       

       Bernie Masters

       environmental consultant (logged in via email @iinet.net.au)

       I don't know your affiliations, Caroline, but I have a real problem with your overt racism as is often displayed by many anti-logging activists. The fact that woodchips are going to Japan and that Japanese companies are involved is not relevant to this debate. Too often I have seen Japan being mentioned in a deliberate attempt to incite racially-based opposition to things that Australian (not Japanese) governments are allowing to happen in our forests.

       You raise 13 points and I don't have the…

       show full comment

       I don't know your affiliations, Caroline, but I have a real problem with your overt racism as is often displayed by many anti-logging activists. The fact that woodchips are going to Japan and that Japanese companies are involved is not relevant to this debate. Too often I have seen Japan being mentioned in a deliberate attempt to incite racially-based opposition to things that Australian (not Japanese) governments are allowing to happen in our forests.

       You raise 13 points and I don't have the time to address them all. Suffice to say that the RFA was the best attempt ever made by any Australian federal govt to try and resolve the logging issue. It was and still is an outstanding success, with most old growth fully protected in most states (and certainly here in WA). The issue now is about how well state governments do or don't manage the forest estates under their control. In WA, due to successive govts failing to provide adequate funding, our forests are being poorly managed, with the timber industry being almost irrelevant thanks to their access to WA's forests being so minor. In a similar vein, the burning to native forest biomass produced at sawmills is also largely irrelevant in terms of its environmental implications for our forests.

       1. Permalink

          

          Mark Graham

          Ecologist (logged in via email @yahoo.com.au)

          Bernie

          The comments you make above are totally wrong. Most of the RFAs are a total failure. They have failed to ensure sustainable supply of timber or maintenance of biodiversity. There is abundant evidence that both are critically declining.

          Are you such a big supporter of RFAs because you were a Liberal MP?

          Publicly owned old growth forest is being logged in NSW, Victoria and Tasmania - in the case of the latter two these are the most carbon rich forests on our planet.

          1. Permalink

             

             Bernie Masters

             environmental consultant (logged in via email @iinet.net.au)

             Mark: In WA, the RFA was a huge success as old growth logging was stopped and almost certainly won't restart until the forests senesce to such an extent that their natural values begin to degrade. In WA, there is no loss of biodiversity from logging but the situation may be very different in the east.

             Yes, I was a state (then independent) LIberal MP who was happy to support the federal ALP initiative we refer to as the RFA.

20. Permalink

    

    Peter Volker

    Professional forester (logged in via email @gmail.com)

    The graph of hardwood plantation area is quite misleading and I'm sure the author would know this. A number of now failed MIS companies were responsible for a large increase in hardwood plantation area, much of it on marginal, leased farm land. It is now apparent that nearly 50% of the area will not be replanted after harvesting but will return to agricultural activities (cropping and grazing).

    It is not economic to grow plantations for energy, again the author should know this. Energy from…

    show full comment

    The graph of hardwood plantation area is quite misleading and I'm sure the author would know this. A number of now failed MIS companies were responsible for a large increase in hardwood plantation area, much of it on marginal, leased farm land. It is now apparent that nearly 50% of the area will not be replanted after harvesting but will return to agricultural activities (cropping and grazing).

    It is not economic to grow plantations for energy, again the author should know this. Energy from wood is only viable if the wood used is a by-product of a more valuable processing industry.

    In Europe, North and South America wood from plantations has been used directly for bioenergy. In these cases the trees are grown on very short rotations, close spacing and harvesting technologies employed that are more akin to agricultural harvesting. In short, costs must be closely controlled and large government subsidies for renewable energy are required to make the venture profitable.

    There are serious concerns about depletion of soil nutrients and organic matter under such regimes, just as for intensive agriculture. Plantation forestry is another form of intensive agriculture, the saving grace is that when plantations are grown for high value products such as veneer or saw logs then rotation lengths of 20 to 50 years are the norm, allowing soil organic matter to build up and nutrients to be recycled. At harvest it is also important to leave behind leaves and small branches to keep a large proportion of nutrients on-site. Some european harvesting for biomass is removing this material and there are serious concerns about long-term site productivity.

    In Australia, CSIRO and Forestry SA did a lot of research on 2nd rotation decline in radiata pine plantations. The research led to a focus on maintaining biomass on-site after harvest. Recently Dr Sadanandan Nambiar, who led much of this research, has cautioned about excessive biomass harvesting when plantations are clear-felled.

    All the worlds leading conservation organisations have recognised that sustainable harvesting of native forests is the best way to provide for human needs for timber, fibre and energy. The IPCC has also recognised this.

    It has also been clearly demonstrated that cessation of supply of native forest hardwoods from Australia's native forest has led to direct substitution of imported hardwoods, usually from our tropical neighbours in South East Asia and Oceania. Is this a good outcome for global forest conservation? Why doesn't the author, who claims to be a leading economist, do an analysis of the economic effect of this substitution phenomenon? Perhaps it doesn't suit the argument she has been promoting now, for over 20 years?

    I have spent my career working on plantation eucalypt forests. The production of high quality sawn timber from such forests in Australia is problematic, as it is elsewhere in the world. In my career I have only seen one plantation eucalypt sawlog venture which I would call successful. This is in Uruguay and has led to the commissioning of a 400,000 cubic metre log input sawmill. The plantations which feed this mill benefited from substantial government based incentives through tax deferrals and land prices are much cheaper. Australia is a much higher cost economy with high labour input costs, extremely high land costs and historically low log prices which combine to make the type of silviculture required unaffordable. An economist would surely be able to do the analysis to ascertain this fact?

    Foresters are aware that many Australians object to clearfell, burn and sow silviculture in our eucalypt forests. However, for the wet eucalypt forests of southern Australia it is scientifically proven to be the best form of silviculture to obtain adequate regeneration and healthy regrowth forests. The first studies to demonstrate this were done in the 1950s and many studies since have reinforced the message. Put simply our eucalypt forests are fire-adapted and fire plays an integral part in their life cycle. If these forests are left undisturbed for centuries they will contain all the biodiversity of old-growth forests. Forest harvesting followed by regeneration is not deforestation. Clearing forests and replacing with another land use is.

    Most forest loss in Australia is now due to clearing for urban development. There is also fragmentation and degradation on urban fringes for "lifestyle" blocks. Now inundation of forest areas to provide urban water storages is also another major threat. I haven't seen any figures lately, but clearing for agriculture has substantially reduced in the past 10 years, although the advent of centre pivots is having a detrimental effect for trees in agricultural landscapes.

    I would be horrified and surprised if native forests were harvested for energy production as the only or the main driver. It is quite misleading to suggest that such activity is behind calls for native forest residues to be recognised as a valid contributor to Australia's sources of renewable energy. The industry merely wants the ability to turn waste products from harvest and processing of high value timber products into something that benefits society and contributes to economic well-being rather than being left behind on the forest floor to contribute to fire hazard or being taken from the processing plant to land-fill.

    1. Permalink

       

       Mark Graham

       Ecologist (logged in via email @yahoo.com.au)

       Peter,
       You make a series of sweeping assertions for which you provide no evidence and some which are completely incorrect:
       1. "All the worlds leading conservation organisations have recognised that sustainable harvesting of native forests is the best way to provide for human needs for timber, fibre and energy."
       Please provide evidence of this assertion.
       2. "Most forest loss in Australia is now due to clearing for urban development."
       This statement is wrong.
       According to the Commonwealth Government…

       show full comment

       Peter,
       You make a series of sweeping assertions for which you provide no evidence and some which are completely incorrect:
       1. "All the worlds leading conservation organisations have recognised that sustainable harvesting of native forests is the best way to provide for human needs for timber, fibre and energy."
       Please provide evidence of this assertion.
       2. "Most forest loss in Australia is now due to clearing for urban development."
       This statement is wrong.
       According to the Commonwealth Government:
       "Today, most land cleared in Australia is used for cattle grazing." (http://www.climatechange.gov.au/climate-change/emissions/~/media/climate-change/emissions/factsheets/NGA-FactSheet-3-DriversOfLandClearing-20120213-PDF.pdf)

       Agriculture is the greatest cause of native vegetation clearance in our nation. See:
       http://www.publish.csiro.au/onborrowedtime/docs/PCB_Ch09.pdf
       page 240. Although older than the above data, it is apparent that clearance for Forestry (2%) exceeds urbanisation and transport (1.3%).

       You go on to make worryingly inconsistent observations in relation to biomass in plantations and native forests.
       You refer to the need to retain biomass from plantation harvesting. In fact you write "There are serious concerns about depletion of soil nutrients and organic matter under such regimes". You then conclude in relation to "waste" from harvesting of native forests that it should be used to generate electricity "rather than being left behind on the forest floor to contribute to fire hazard".

       I am drawn to ask, do you seriously consider that soil nutrients and organic matter are not important to native forests?

       1. Permalink

          

          Peter Volker

          Professional forester (logged in via email @gmail.com)

          1. See the forests program of IUCN, WWF forestry policy, IPCC statement on forests. In 2004 WWF put together a Blueprint for Tasmanian forestry. the main objectives of that document have been achieved.
          2. You assert that there is clearance for forestry. I assume this is a typo and you meant agriculture. In peri-urban areas the distinction between clearing for human habitation or agriculture is moot point. The issue is that forest clearance is not due to forestry but land use change.
          3. I argue…

          show full comment

          1. See the forests program of IUCN, WWF forestry policy, IPCC statement on forests. In 2004 WWF put together a Blueprint for Tasmanian forestry. the main objectives of that document have been achieved.
          2. You assert that there is clearance for forestry. I assume this is a typo and you meant agriculture. In peri-urban areas the distinction between clearing for human habitation or agriculture is moot point. The issue is that forest clearance is not due to forestry but land use change.
          3. I argue that some forest residues could be used as fuel, not all. Unlike some of my colleagues in forestry, I am yet to be convinced that forests dominated by E regnans can be adequately regenerated without the use of fire. I refer you to papers by Ashton as evidence to support my case. I also recognise the need to maintain a certain amount of coarse woody debris for biodiversity reasons.

          As I said my professional experience relates mostly to plantation forests, but my undergraduate education was under the significant influence of Florence and Banks, two of Australia's foremost eucalypt forest ecologists.