Sorry but I disagree. what we need is to transition from timer house frames to steel ones and that would mean we'd husband the available timber and crank up the steel production and rust belt jobs, here in this country!

Apart from that, there is bamboo as a very fast-growing timber replacement, with the strength of high tensile steel. And also equally fast-growing cannite as a substitute for softwood timber for the paper industry. Moreover, we need to recycle the chemicals used to make paper, so they stay out of the environment.

Mud bricks as a cladding material and termite mounds as the binding material worked for our forebears. Why not us!? Given their thermal qualities.

Forests should continue to be selectively logged to ensure they're well managed and continue to supply cabinet timers etc. And routinely grazed by goat herds to ensure the available fuel load is seriously reduced/kept in check!

New plantations need to be a mixture of fine cabinet timbers and need maximum management to ensure they reach production maturity and maximised returns on investment and land use

Steel house frames are termite proof and if surrounded by steel colourbond fences? Much more resistant to fire! As are steel power poles/fence posts!
Alan B.

Come on mate. The bulk of native forest harvesting was going to woodchip. We went from 1:2 coupes to 1:7. I've spoken to native forest harvesters on site who admitted how much the industry had changed and it was pretty obvious they weren't happy about it. Structural hardwood was very much a by-product of the woodchip industry rather than the other way around.

That is what caused so many people to kick up about this and you studiously avoid discussing it. Why is that?

Once again the shortage of resources in this case timber is because of too many people in the world.

Business needs to find ways to sustain businesses differently. Ayn Rand talks about the production of value being represented in terms of human life. A sandwich represents about 4 hours of life.

Obviously this discounts the value of other life- so what percentage of the Earth should human's occupy? But this is a slight diversion.

A bag of wheat represents so many days of a person's food. A house represents so many years of a person's shelter. A nation that has less resources can build houses that last longer by thinking carefully about the supply chain and BPM- hence creating more life. Of course this creates a new problem- competition in the building industry- as less houses are built- less people to buy houses due to less jobs- but less people need to work. It's a complex problem. It also means excess capacity that can potentially take on work in other fields.

There was an experiment in the 90's Biodome II that sought to create a self sustainable environment for six people. Jane Poynter said that although there were issues with Carbon Dioxide they knew how to fix the issues in principle but the bigger issues were human psychology.

Of course the Biodome project was only sustainable in terms of consumables perhaps not in sustaining or building the Biodome itself- to do so the scale of the problem would be magnified exponentially.

This all starts to sound like a planned society in a sense similar to a Communist utopia- but village communities in the US between the wars were somewhat self sustainable as were many places of the time in British Australia- something that we as descendants should be proud of.

Due to our excess productivity we grew quickly in the early 1800's. Growth gives meaning to many cultures- on a finite planet this isn't sustainable- it could be a symptom of having the need to be entertained and having an external locus of identity- a pathological need for change and novelty.

The bulk of native forest harvesting was going to woodchip.
SteeleRedux,
Sadly, you're right. It's to satisfy the insatiable demand by Bureaucracy, conveyor belt educational Degree production & utterly unnecessary pamphlets by the consumer advocates.

It is bloody ridiculous that a country the size of Australia has to buy in timber, because a few politicians want to try to buy green preferences.