The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Tasmania: When 'Green' philanthropy becomes a wrecking ball > Comments

Tasmania: When 'Green' philanthropy becomes a wrecking ball : Comments

By Mark Poynter, published 21/7/2011

Potentially crippling a state economy and ruining thousands of lives redefines what it means to be a philanthropist

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All
It is interesting that the state where the greens have the greatest influence, has a steadily declining productivity, and is now dependent on GST hand outs from the other more economically progressive states.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Thursday, 21 July 2011 8:28:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I understand sympathesise; BUT what both sides are doing is betraying the long-term interests of Tassie. Ripping-out old growth forests is not sustainable; but there are sustainable patterns of forestry (we all know that). Eco-tourism would be a nice supplement to good old fashioned love of the place by many Australians like me who live up north but need less than half an excuse to come down. It's not all Franklin, Cradle and the Docks, it's also the people and the inland places, even Georgetown.

What this means is, everyone get behind a strong "I'm Tasmanian and I'm great" strategy, everyone contribute to the multiplicity of things will will make up a great strategy; and live the strategy until it's our way of life.

The Greens aren't great at that but nor is Labor.
Posted by Frederic Marshall, Thursday, 21 July 2011 9:10:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is interesting that capitalism is only "good" when it serves the interests of the political right.
Posted by LRAM, Thursday, 21 July 2011 9:14:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@ LRAM:

Yes indeed. However, I'm sure that one of our resident libertarian free marketeers will be along shortly to defend the paramount right of Messrs Cameron and Wood to do whatever they please with their capital :)
Posted by morganzola, Thursday, 21 July 2011 9:21:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Frederic

With respect, I think you are missing the point that Tasmania already has a healthy balance between conservation and use in its forests, with most old growth forests already reserved. Your comment about ripping out old growth forests reflects just how successful the ENGOs have been at misportraying the reality as something catastrophic that must be ended.

Yes there is some old growth logging, but you have to remember that old growth forests are not sustainable in their own right either - they eventually die or are burnt and replaced with regrowth - using and then regenerating a small proportion of them before this happens is hardly an environmental catastrophe worthy of the angst that this issue has sustained for so many years, and the resultant damage that is now being wrought on the state by misplaced 'green' sensibilities.
Posted by MWPOYNTER, Thursday, 21 July 2011 9:22:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LRAM

"It is interesting that capitalism is only "good" when it serves the interests of the political right"

Of course the flip side of that is that to Green-Left activists and politicians, capitalism and the corporate world is always "bad" until it benefits them.
Posted by MWPOYNTER, Thursday, 21 July 2011 9:54:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ahem, sorry, just see I have a small question.
Nothing to do with big capital, I have none of that.
See, embarrassed about this.
I am watching the Murdock unraveling with hope.
Have, every day of my life thought he bought and sold politicians, because he had the cash.
His biggest sin in my country may be that, he purchased opinions, without concerns for those he rolled over.
Ahem, why is this different?
Greens are not hopefully, immune to criticisms for leaving wreckage of ordinary lives and incomes in their wake.
Posted by Belly, Thursday, 21 July 2011 10:27:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mark, how can you denigrate Graeme Wood “one of whom does not even live in the state”, when you do not live in the State yourself.
I suggest that you move here before you start to criticize any Tasmanians who are only exercising their rights of free speech about the State they live in.
At least he is putting his money where his mouth is.
As for derailing a democratically-elected government's control and management of a public resource. They lost control of the forest a long time ago and have only been doing as told by Gunns.

It is clear that the present management of the forest is mismanaged and not financially sustainable with FT being near insolvency, despite having the forest as a gift, as it’s assets and still unable to run it at a profit.

The plaintive cries of how it will affect the small millers because they cannot dispose of their waste, is just nonsense.
If you were living in Tasmania, you would see parked trucks with only small amounts of firewood in them priced at up to $180 a load.
I would think that that is far above the price that a load of “waste” would fetch at the chip mill. Therefore there is a steady outlet for “wastewood”.

Are you now saying that a simple buy and sell contract, in full view of the public, is not allowed? I seem to remember when Gunns were buying just about all the other timber businesses and then after a short time closing them down and laying off the workers. I did not hear you complain at the time.

Strangely you later start castigating Gunns for nefarious practices when up till quite recently, they could do no wrong.

You say, “Largely due to appallingly unbalanced mainland media coverage”. We know that 70% of the mainland media is owned by News Corp, yes they are renowned for unbalanced reporting but it is usually in favour of the clear felling policies of companies such as Gunns.
Posted by sarnian, Thursday, 21 July 2011 10:54:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sarnian

You said: "Mark, how can you denigrate Graeme Wood “one of whom does not even live in the state”, when you do not live in the State yourself"

I lived in Tasmania for six years and worked in the forest industry and have maintained a long standing interest and association with it through occassional work and friendships with former colleagues. I have followed the forests debate and been exposed to all aspects of it for years.

On the other hand, Mr Wood's exposure to the debate seems to have been only a recent thing spawned through his financial association with Greens politicians with an agenda to end timber production and put all forests in national parks.

You said: "It is clear that the present management of the forest is mismanaged and not financially sustainable ....."

Again... straight out of the Greens and ENGO activists handbook.

You siad: "The plaintive cries of how it will affect the small millers because they cannot dispose of their waste, is just nonsense"

Oh yes ... and how much firewood could they sell in Tasmania each year .... I'd wager just a fraction of the total waste.

You said: "Strangely you later start castigating Gunns for nefarious practices ...."

Not sure that I castigated Gunns, just pointed out what they are doing and that their primary motivation is to build a pulp mill.

You said: "We know that 70% of the mainland media is owned by News Corp, yes they are renowned for unbalanced reporting but it is usually in favour of the clear felling policies of companies such as Gunns"

Papers like the Herald Sun and commercial radio which are seen as right-leaning, do not bother reporting forestry issues at all. So, the media coverage that this has had on the mainland is restricted to the left-leaning ABC, The Age, the Sydney Morning Herald, etc.

The exception is The Australian which has reported the Tasmanian forestry developments quite extensively. Although it is seen a right-leaning News Corp paper, it has a left-leaning Tasmanian correspondent, Matthew Denholm, who reports from a Greens-Left perspective.
Posted by MWPOYNTER, Thursday, 21 July 2011 11:51:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“And how much firewood could they sell in Tasmania each year .... I'd wager just a fraction of the total waste.”

It would not matter how much they sold as long as they made their “profit” from it.
According to one complaint, it was the money earned from wood chipping the waste that gave them their sole profit and the milling was done for no profit. Well that’s a funny way to run a business. I would have thought that if the milling did not pay, you would either give it up or put up the prices of the product.
Having to depend on a by-product to survive is not what I would call a sustainable business.

You did not answer the point about the right to buy and sell for everyone and not just Gunns et al.
Why would Woods & Cameron not be allowed to buy anything that was on the open market?
Also surely if you buy something, it is up to you how you dispose of it?
Is the Government or it’s present incarnation in Lala Giddy to dictate that can buy and what is done with it?

“On the other hand, Mr. Wood's exposure to the debate seems to have been only a recent thing spawned through his financial association with Greens politicians with an agenda to end timber production and put all forests in national parks.”

What is wrong with that? If you discover an interest in something, is there a required time before you can act on it?

As regards financial associations, well Gunns has been known to pay for it’s lobbying.
Posted by sarnian, Thursday, 21 July 2011 1:00:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I wonder if there is any way to sever the painter that ties Tasmania on behind Oz, like a dingy behind a yacht.

It really is too much bother to keep, & the pointy heads it shoves into our national parliament are so often nothing but trouble.

I reckon we would be much better off with out it.

Would the Kiwis be dumb enough to accept it, if we were to give it to them? Probably not.
Posted by Hasbeen, Thursday, 21 July 2011 1:14:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sarnian

For some more recent details about the Triabunna mill sale, see attached:

http://www.vexnews.com/2011/07/how-greens-govern-sleazy-deals-for-mega-donors-and-cushy-jobs-for-mates-mar-greens-rep-over-mill-sale/

.... and read the letter attached to it.

I'm not questioning the right of companies to buy and sell assets and properties. This is more about motivations, not the mechanics of such transactions.

What I am questioning is why entities who know next to nothing about an industry would buy a key industry facility and the role of the Greens in this (given that they are determined to close said industry). The article also points out that the seller (Gunns) was well down the path to selling to an industry-player but then suddenly sold for substantially less to a non-industry party, and what they stand to get out of this change of heart.

The article also points out the potential impact of this for Tasmania, for no real gain other than to tick-off something on the Greens wish-list no-doubt making their affluent, well-heeled urban supporters happy at the expense of thousands of rural and regional livelihoods.
Posted by MWPOYNTER, Thursday, 21 July 2011 1:36:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's interesting that Jan Cameron made her fortune from up-market retailer Kathmandu, and more recently from on-selling cheap imported goods in her Chickenfeed outlets. At first sight one couldn't see anything objectionable to these ventures, but goods produced cheaply in China necessitates exploitation of Chinese labour and also comes with huge environmental costs. The textile industry for instance accounts for 10% of pollution vented directly into Chinese river systems, killing aquatic life and endangering human health.

Wood and Cameron, by focussing their philanthropy toward 'saving' Tasmania's forests betray a lack of perspective or of any sense of proportionality. They are attempting to address a non-existent problem since by any stretch of the imagination Tasmania's forests are not under threat. Perversely, their only achievement will be to create adverse environmental outcomes – this time in illegally logged third world countries and by worsening the environmental outcomes in Tasmanian forests as Mark has pointed out
Posted by Ben Cruachan, Thursday, 21 July 2011 1:38:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mark.
I have read the article in the link and to be honest having read the info about this site, I would not use anything from it for cleaning rags.

I.e. “We’re VEX because that’s as close to Rupert Murdock’s FOX as we could get without having legal trouble. We love FOX NEWS, even when we don’t agree with it. This news service is our homage to its inspiration. We’re VEX because vex means to annoy people and that’s precisely what we’ll be doing when we’re doing our job. Speaking truth to power. Afflicting the comfortable. Comforting the afflicted. VEX also means debating, provoking, confronting, arguing and irking and we’ll be doing plenty of that too.”

Sorry but I am not impressed with their integrity let alone their truthfulness.
Is this the quality of the information that you get from the net?
Posted by sarnian, Thursday, 21 July 2011 2:47:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I like sheep. They usually taste nice when you roast them. And their wool is very warm in my doona. They also have good skin that goes well in my babies cot.

I dont like Greens. They dont taste nice when you roast them. They dont have warm skins that you can use for babies cots...and their hair is all greasy and doesnt keep you very warm at all.

I dont really like the city either...there are too many Greens there.

I do like farms. They have lovely farmers living on them that plant trees and fence off creeks. They also spend a lot of time worrying about willow trees and rabbits and foxes and erosion. Sometimes on weekends they go out and work together to fix these things with a club they call landcare.

Usually you do not see many Greens fixing those things because they are too busy in the city drinking coffee and worrying about how bad the farmers are with their nasty sheep.

I dont like rabbits.
Posted by Nervous Nellie, Thursday, 21 July 2011 4:48:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A friend once had afternoon tea with the President of Vietnam many years ago. He posed the question 'what about the environment' as he had seen problems where he had travelled. The President's response was, "first economy, then environment - we have to pay for it". Given Vietnam's situation the statement is understandable irrespective of the link between the environment and the economy.

Underlying that statement, though, is an economic reality; we must have the economic ability to meet our environmental responsibilities. Neither can take precedence.

This is not a case of arguing for capitalism, it is a case of arguing for an economy that meets requirements. Assuming resouces from 'somewhere else' will be made available to fill a void is folly.

Tasmania is increasingly being portrayed as a failing state. Its capacity to provide for its citizens or protect its environment is thereby declining.
Posted by Cronus, Thursday, 21 July 2011 5:17:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cronus. I have a solution for the economy in Tasmania. Instead of managing the forests sustainably, clear them all to grow sheep. That will please everyone, as Nervous Nelly will get her sheep to keep her warm and fed, and then there will be no forests left to log so Sarnian will be happy. Only problem then is that Sarnian and the Wilderness society will be out of jobs because there will be no more sustainably managed forests to campaign against.... Unless of course they want to move to SE Asia and campaign to stop forest harvesting there. But i doubt no one will want to contribute to their political campaign there.
Posted by Rumpelstiltskin, Thursday, 21 July 2011 6:53:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SM “It is interesting that the state where the greens have the greatest influence, has a steadily declining productivity, and is now dependent on GST hand outs from the other more economically progressive states.”

It is simple.

“Government” does not have the intellectual scope or monetary interest to follow through with what real capitalists can do. That is why government enterprises invariably fail.

As for a couple of greens buying a Tassie business…

That is life.

I may disagree with the new owners on many things but I will always support their right to deploy their resources in the manner they see fit and if that means payng a lot for assets which they intend to waste, then so be it.

Better they waste their money and resources than some green wagged government wastes my taxes doing the same thing… exactly like introducing a pointless carbon tax to pay people compensation for carbon tax… all too circular (as in fairy circles)

Belly “I am watching the Murdock unraveling with hope.”
What a low and vindictive sloth you are…. The absence of charity in your posts echoes the absence of character in your life

Hasbeen – Tassie and Kiwis.. the Kiwis taxed cattle farts… I don’t hold out much hope for them
Posted by Col Rouge, Friday, 22 July 2011 12:03:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
By the time Jan Cameron has her way, the only viable business left in Tassie will be Chickenfeed. Won't that be great, we can all live of environmentally damaging imported crap! Asia wont have any forests, but that is ok, tassie will have every last stick in National park and reserves (not just the 75% that already is). All Asia's rivers will be polluted, but that is ok, we can sit back on our porch drinking late and the ex anti forestry campaigners will be thinking about the good old days when they had something to campaign on to springboard them in to Politics.
Posted by Rumpelstiltskin, Friday, 22 July 2011 8:56:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rumpelstiltskin

Ah, so you have woken up again.
I can assure you that I am long past “having a job” and am now of the persuasion that it will not matter now what happens because if we are not past the point of no return, we are so close it does not matter.
So we (humans that is) are going to complete the job that we have excelled at, trashing the planet to have possession of lots of little bits of paper called dollars or even worse have an electronic machine say that we own them even though they are not actually in our grasp.
Then we can build ourselves a monstrous great house (Mac castle) that is going to be too big to heat or cool and has only 2.2 humans living in it. We will buy an enormous so called Sports Utility Vehicle, capable of crossing deserts and up mountains and use it to take the kids to school or do a bit of shopping even though it is probably close enough to walk and it will use ten times the amount of a diminishing resource called oil, that a smaller more sensible car would do.
You just keep on the way you are going and it will all turn out for the best.
Probably the extinction of most of life on the planet and that will include trees.
Posted by sarnian, Friday, 22 July 2011 9:50:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sarnian:

Co2 plus water plus sunlight = wood. Wood can be stored in buildings and paper for decades while new trees grow and use more CO2 plus water plus sunlight to make more wood. If you log 1% of the place the trees grow every year and regenerate it, it will never run out assuming they grow for 100 years. In addition if you keep some in permanent National Park like happens in Australia then genetic pool of plants and animals is always protected.

Everything else used in building and manufacturing (coal, oil, iron ore, gas etc) causes atmospheric carbon to increase and will eventually run out.

The places trees grow store koalas, quolls, and wombats.

The place everything else comes from is a biological desert.

In Australia we can regulate how forests are managed. if we import wood from Asia we cannot.

Which do you want?

Make sure your latte is nice and warm while you think about the answer to this...I am busy planting trees.
Posted by Nervous Nellie, Friday, 22 July 2011 10:33:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nervous Nellie
You say
“Co2 plus water plus sunlight = wood. Wood can be stored in buildings and paper for decades while new trees grow and use more CO2 plus water plus sunlight to make more wood.

Unfortunately if you have just clear felled over 5 million tons of trees in a year to export as chips, it takes many years to replace that amount of carbon as trees. In the first years of growth there would only be a few hundred tons replaced. Now I agree that some of the timber felled will still be holding CO2 but a large amount is burned as packing cardboard, newsprint Etc and is released into the atmosphere. There will be a net loss.
There are also the emissions of the machinery to harvest, process, and transport the timber to be taken into account. As well there are emissions from the “burn offs”.
Left as standing timber the CO2 is stored virtually endlessly.

There are other considerations such as a standing forest provides rain through transpiratation.
Clear felled forest allows soil to dry out until there is sufficient growth.

I think you will find that the best way to manage a forest is to selectively log to provide timber for building, furniture Etc and allow the forest to regenerate naturally.

"Make sure your latte is nice and warm while you think about the answer to this...I am busy planting trees."

Well I do know that you will never plant enough to replace all the clear felled timber.
FYI I live in the bush, I do not drink latte I am too busy working at growing toxin free food, providing heat and shelter and living an organic life.
Don’t take the antigreen stereotype of bearded city dweller too seriously, it is only propaganda put out by big business in their attempt to muddy the waters with mis information.
Posted by sarnian, Friday, 22 July 2011 11:13:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sarnian
By the number of posts, you dont seem all that busy growing "Toxin free food". By the way, what is your shelter made out of? What do you use as fuel for heating?

Also good to see you accepting a small element of someone elses opinion that differs from yours. I thought you said in previous posts that anyone with a different opinion to yours was automatically wrong? What has changed?
Posted by Rumpelstiltskin, Friday, 22 July 2011 12:13:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sarnian,

I'm going to do the math, but I need to know what land base was your 5 million tonnes of chipwood harvested from?

Hectares, forest type, and State (of the Commonwealth) will do.

Thanks in advance
Posted by hugoagogo, Friday, 22 July 2011 12:37:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col Rouge

"As for a couple of greens buying a Tassie business… That is life.
I may disagree with the new owners ..... but I will always support their right to deploy their resources in the manner they see fit and if that means payng a lot for assets which they intend to waste, then so be it"

I agree with you, but the point is that this particular episode has a bit more to it than Greens just buying a business and wasting it.

Their purchase was facilitated specifically to foster the signing of a wavering and mis-named 'peace deal' between ENGOs and timber industry reps. The industry is only considering it under a pragnmatic premise that they can either go broke and get nothing if they don't sign, or go broke and recieve some financial compensation if they do sign. Taking away another key industry facility only further cements this perception.

But the key point is that in return for compensation for the industry, the 'deal' gives the ENGO reps the right to select forests for reservation in new National Parks. They have identified over 0.5 million hectares which they want immediately protected. This then takes a decision about the tenure, use and management of a public resource out of the state government's hands without any consideration of the scientific and practical merits, and without any regard for what the majority of Tasmanians want.

Given that National Parks are generally restrictive of recreational pursuits such as horse-riding, hunting, dog-walking, and uses such as firewood collection, bee-keeping etc compared to State Forests, I would contend that little more than the 20% who vote Green would want this, but effectively have no say. This seems undemocratic
Posted by MWPOYNTER, Friday, 22 July 2011 1:38:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rumpelstiltskin :
I did say in a previous post that selective logging was OK.
Yes I do use wood for heating & water heating & cooking. My "shelter" is made of timber. So what is your point?
As long as the old growth is not clear felled for chips I have no axe to grind.
As usual with trolls, you are cherry picking comments and taking them out of context.
The axe I have to grind is the total trashing of old growth to be sold at a pittance by the so called managers FT and then on sold for a big profit by a private company, with no thought of the future environment for flora and fauna but only profit as the motive, that is what I am against.

hugoagogo:

I have no idea of the hectares involved, just that Gunns exported 5 million tons of chips in one year from the state of Tasmania. This was from typical old growth forest but they do tend to put some of the more exotic species such as myrtle on one side to burn because it is harder to chip.
Posted by sarnian, Friday, 22 July 2011 2:14:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No idea eh?
Posted by hugoagogo, Friday, 22 July 2011 8:51:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
this is a well written article and makes some really valid points. It is good and healthy to hear the other side of the argument, especially when put forward in such an intelligent and eloquent manner.

As for Jan Cameron, she cares nothing for people. Let's not forget when she bought Chickenfeed she immediately made 60 Tasmanians redundant by moving the warehouse to Sydney. She owns countless properties in Tas the majority of which lay idle, including the Silver Sands resort in Bicheno which she has owned for the past 7 years. If this place is any indication of what she'll do for Tasmania then we're in big trouble. The place is in a state of total disrepair and represents more of an eye-sore than tourist attraction. She imports and employs kiwis during the summer because she can get away with paying them less - no jobs for the locals even if you wanted to work there. She closed down the once-thriving pub and restaurant where many locals used to enjoy live music, darts and other community activities. In its place is Dogs Breakfast trading company, and a dogs breakfast it is. A cheap chinese import shop in the dining room with inadequate (and jaded) staff to man it along with the white-dog cafe which doubles as a thoroughfare and reception for Silversands, Seaview and Gaol house accomodation (all owned by Jan Cameron). The checking-in experience (sometimes many kms from where people are actually staying) leaves guests confused, lost and not-coming-back. Read the reviews on the net if you want it from the horse's mouth. Aside from this, there is the failed Granite wine bar and Sip coffee-lounge. Looks good on the website, but go there and you'll find an abandoned dump. But the Bicheno experience isn't new, she did this to a place in NZ, too. Towns to her are like toys which she enjoys pulling apart and wrecking.

Sure, Jan Cameron has the right to buy and hoard property with compulsive veracity, she can afford to do it. Trouble is, Tasmania can't afford for her to do it.
Posted by tassie wombat, Friday, 22 July 2011 10:27:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Sarnian:

That 5 million tonnes from Tasmania...you might find if you look on the website for ABARE that the volume of chips refered to is for all states - and that it includes the volume of

1) softwood and hardwood woodchips grown in plantations;
2) regrowth native forest chips; as well as
3) old growth native forest chips;

ABARE track all exports of chips for every state by product by year and those stats are publically available. Look it up yourself rather than parroting Wilderness Society brochures and diatribe. Expect to hear that sort of rubbish from a British backpacker wearing a koala suit in Flinders St station.

The timber in your house...and the stuff you burn in your fire...do you think the % of the tree and forest harvested that was usable for paper manufacturing but not economically suitable for structural timber should be left on the forest floor after they log the rest of the tree(s)?

Even selective logging (which Tasmania leads the nation on in Alpine Ash) produces round logs (sawn timber is square) and bent logs unsuitable for sawing. When the site is harvested, do you reckon they should just leave these behind?

Perhaps next time a farmer kills a cow, they just leave all the mince grade beef in the paddock for the crows to eat?

And for grain, they should only get the bits that are suitable for manufacturing bread and leave the low grade products for the parrots and mice?

And when catching snapper, they should leave all the bycatch in the water for sharks to eat?

If you indeed are involved in food production you should understand something about the economics of marketing the secondary products.

I believe Gunns has done a shocking job since the late 1990's (virtual timber industry monopoly created from what was Boral, North and the old Gunns) however, Australia will do globally more harm than good letting native forest industry be killed off by well meaning but poorly formed opinions based on dogma.

My roast lamb was great last night.
Posted by Nervous Nellie, Sunday, 24 July 2011 7:17:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To MPOYNTER (author of this piece)

I have seen firsthand the effects of clearfelling. I have felt for a long time that this is the major environmental catastrophe at issue in this state.

Clear felling and following up with napalm burning and environmentally destructive poisoning is not sustainable forestry, and deprives the wedge tailed eagle and other threatenen species of the habitat they need to survive.

Were the forestry industry to practice sustainable forestry I would support them. They do not. You do not even seem to understand what the word sustainable means.

To say current forestry practices are sustainable is a lie. Graeme Wood and Jan Cameron know this. They are smart people. That's how they came to be so successful.

Many others who oppose current practices by the forestry industry know this too. Such people are not victims of "green" propaganda. Like me, they made up their minds based on having seen this shameful destruction with their own eyes.
Posted by JanF, Monday, 25 July 2011 10:56:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nervous Nellie

That 5 million tonnes from Tasmania...you might find if you look on the website for ABARE that the volume of chips referred to is for all states

Not so:
In 2000, the Australian Bureau of Statistics says Tasmania woodchipped 5,498,654 tonnes, the highest volume ever recorded.

Also : I have been on the road to Triabunna when the mill was in operation and before the GFC, when there was a constant flow of trucks, all carrying timber to the mill. Long straight, thick trees, nothing wrong with them and certainly not the residue after the mills have taken their high value wood.

Do not give me the usual meaningless spin about the trash left over from fishing, wheat and so on.

Clear fell wood chipping is an exercise in dollar greed, with no thought of environmentalism only profit,profit,profit.
Posted by sarnian, Monday, 25 July 2011 3:47:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JanF
I too have seen first hand the effect of clearfalling native forest 1 year on. I agree that it doesn't look all that great, but it is not too dissimilar to native forest that has had a high intensity fire through it. Have you ever seen a napalm burn? I am not sure where you would have seen a napalm burn? Yes napalm can be used in small amounts - eg ping pong ball sizes to start fires, but hardly compares to broad scale napalm that you are referring to, actually i wouldn't know cause i havent seen a broadscale napalm burn.

I too have seen first hand the effect of clearfalling 1 year on, 5 years on, 20 years on etc. It is very interesting that "Decimated forest that was napalm burnt" is so bad that there are so many hectares of it now in national park, areas that the Greens are calling old growth! If clearfalling was soooo bad, how come there are so many clearfelled ares that are sooo good they are now National Parks. You only have to look at the Vic Central Highlands, Southern Tassie, NSW SE Coast, Otways etc.
Posted by Rumpelstiltskin, Monday, 25 July 2011 4:40:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Check out this article. Reminiscent of the green movement. I am sure Sarnian will be able to "Cherry pick" this one.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/blogs/blunt-instrument/cherry-picking-from-the-tree-of-knowledge-20110720-1homu.html
Posted by Rumpelstiltskin, Monday, 25 July 2011 4:45:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Back to the topic of MPoynters article

It is interesting that the Greens have always criticised that "Big Business" uses there muscle to get what they want, regardless of what the people want. Now we are seeing big business (Jan Cameron) using there muscle and money to do something regardless of what the people want. The greens have always said that business is more powerful than the governments. I think they are right, who is running Tasmania, Premier Jan Cameron?
Posted by Rumpelstiltskin, Monday, 25 July 2011 5:08:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just what is the impact of clear falling in wet eucalypt forests is it forest destruction or renewal?
A video at http://www.forestrytas.com.au/topics/2011/05/a-job-well-done shows a forest coupe in the Styx valley that was clearfelled and then regenerated to supply the pulp and paper mill at Boyer and is now identified as High Conservation Value.

In an attempt to gain even more forest to lock up, the green groups commissioned still wild still threatened to map high conservation value forest. This map was released in 2010 and identified 570,000 ha of HCV. They even included a coupe in the Picton Valley, that had been photographed and used in a postcard campaign to demand forest lockups in the 1990s. Compare The image at http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/ae542e/ae542e18.jpg , a coupe harvested in 1989 and subject to regeneration burning, to the image in 2003
and http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/ae542e/ae542e1a.jpg

No wonder the protest group thought it was high conservation value as you can see all the understory species growing back under the canopy of the young eucalypts. Its a pity that they failed to check on the job done by our professional foresters and timber workers.

Perhaps the tourism millionaires could plan a tourism venture going around the regenerated forest. Or better still why not promote 3 million ha of conservation reserves Tasmania already has that cover 44% of its 6.8 million ha land mass.

These reseves already include 1.4 million hectares of native forest, a million ha of which is 'ancient pristine awe inspiring' old growth. The reserve system also contains 2 million ha of the High quality wilderness rated 12 out of 20 on the National wilderness Scale. If Tasmania can't attract a viable tourist industry on these reserves how will the millionaires attract tourists to come to a woodchip mill.
Posted by cinders, Monday, 25 July 2011 7:39:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Now Sarnian,

Given your tendency to be selective when in cherry orchards, I fear the stat you mention for the year 2000 might have been a high point. Surely after your slinging the accusation of 'spinner' about, you would take pains to avoid the opportunity for others to accuse you of being disingenuous?

Also, the figure is bald when considered in isolation. It lacks the context required to assess the sustainability of the forest system, or to rescue your plummeting credibility.

So, please provide the long term trend of annual chip exports from Tasmania, and from what area of forest estate. Then we can START to assess your claim, by using some likely productivity estimates.

Until you do, we'll know you just go for the big juicy ones.

BTW thrilled to hear you can grade sawlogs on trucks. Doubtless you know that professional log graders (metaphorically, ‘angels’) would be very reluctant to sign a log docket for a load graded thus.
Posted by hugoagogo, Tuesday, 26 July 2011 6:29:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sarnian,

In a discussion regarding native forest sourced fibre it should be noted that Australia’s plantation hardwood chip exports exceeded native forest chip exports for the first time in 2008–09. Hardwood chip exports derived from native forests declined by 17.3 per cent in that year and this trend will continue with a substantial increase in supply. Soon you will have no axe to grind.
Posted by 30ml, Tuesday, 26 July 2011 4:45:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OK I will call a halt to this now. This will be my last word on this subject, till mark Poynter writes the next propaganda letter.

The native forest wood chipping has declined for two reasons.

1 GFC has removed a lot of the market.

2 the Companies in Asia that were buying it have now turned to accredited plantation based timber.

The rest of you trolls can have a rest
Posted by sarnian, Wednesday, 27 July 2011 9:29:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You may have missed my point but I can spell it out if you like.

There is little economic driver to 'clearfell' native forests for woodchips. Australia's plantation expansion over the past 15 years means the volume of hardwood logs available for harvest could increase from 5 million cubic metres in 2009 to a potential 13 million cubic metres annually from 2010 (ABARE).

Continually shouting that Tasmania is clearfelling native forests for woodchips is deceptive and simply wrong, the point of the opinion piece.

It is true the Japanese market has collapsed but there are plenty of other buyers, it is naive of you to think recently commissioned mills in Latin America and Asia will only source certified fibre.
Posted by 30ml, Wednesday, 27 July 2011 2:17:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry to interrupt your little "Cry-In" but I'd like to welcome you 2011 where no-one gives a stuff about your old world model any more.

You had your chance to negotiate in good faith when you had the upper hand but you instead chose tactics like sending your thugs in to target kids (familiar scenario?).

Now the tables have turned and you're being beaten at your own game so you're having a little Kumbayah moment and sobbing gently into your spread sheets.

You had your chances to compromise and evolve to a model that was palatable to the general public but you chose the unprincipled low road and now your fate lies with those who don't want you in native forests at all.

You've made bad choices at every turn for 30 years and you want sympathy? You made your bed, now lie in it.
Posted by maaate, Wednesday, 27 July 2011 6:07:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
troll

Noun: A mythical, cave-dwelling being depicted in folklore as either a giant or a dwarf, typically having a very ugly appearance.

Sounds more like your typical greenie.
Posted by Rumpelstiltskin, Wednesday, 27 July 2011 8:38:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Eco-tage; sabotage by environments was the initial cause of the decline in woodchips from Tasmanian native forests into the Japanese market.
The Rainforest action network boasted of how it hosted Tasmanian Greens party leader Peg Putt and academic activist Peter McQuillan on a lecture tour in 2007 to spread the sort of misinformation about Tasmania that Mark Poynter writes about here.

It was part of a series of actions to target the customers of the companies making high grade paper from forest residues, saw mill waste from sustainably managed forests.
The Federal Government produced a video and brochure in an attempt to counter the devastating impact of the RAN and the Greens stating:

"It is regrettable that the Australian Government has to run this campaign to correct the misinformation being distributed in international markets by the Greens and their accomplices, the extreme Rainforest Action Network.”

“It is notable that Tasmanian woodchip exports to Japan have declined by some 20 percent over the past four years.

“A significant proportion of this decline is directly due to the sabotage tactics of the Greens and the Rainforest Action Network.”

See http://ffic.com.au/_blog/Industry_News/post/Japanese_Forests_Communication_Campaign_Launch/

Let there be no mistake on just who was responsible for destroying the markets.
Posted by cinders, Wednesday, 27 July 2011 9:17:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting that Getup are complaining about false information being transmitted......

http://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/alan-jones-to-getup-get-stuffed-20110728-1i1oy.html

Just for the record, i am not a listener of Allan Jones, but the point is, you will find many misleading articles and half truths on Getup's website!
Posted by Rumpelstiltskin, Thursday, 28 July 2011 4:50:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy