So,the dreaded Greenies are all ganging up on the Tasmanian forest industry.

I daresay that,without those Greenies we would have seen much more destruction of forests and rivers in Tasmania and elsewhere in Australia.The fundamental problem with the forest industry who Mr Poynter speaks for is the Greed Is Good and Growth At Any Cost syndromes which so afflict Australia.

I suggest to Mr Poynter that he takes some sabbatical leave from his day job,whatever that is,and does some reading and research on the environmental problems of Australia and see how the facts disclosed in those readings concur with his views on forestry in Tasmania.

Anyone who refers to Bjorn Lomborg as a "respected international commentator on the environment" can't be taken too seriously!

No doubt if a group of Academics endorsed the activities of the Tasmanian forest industry, Mr Poynter would be singing their praises.

Perhaps, Manorina, you should take your own advice, take a sabatical, do some research on Tasmanian forestry, then report back to us with facts, and not just emotional rhetoric.

The author seems more concerned with the 'eminence' of the contributors rather than their concerns.

Without getting into the usual them bad, us good type roundabouts, let's just ask do those in the forestry camp think Gunns has at anytime behaved badly? Has their influence and management in relation to government relationships (or governance) been open, honest and transparent. Have any of their 'findings' been questionable in relation to environmental impact?

Fact is you just have to accept that many Tasmanians voted Green because of forestry concerns, we are a democratic nation and dengirating anything 'Green' is not going to change the fact that there are real concerns about sustainable forestry in Tasmania.

Do you really believe that the forestry industry would respect matters of sustainability or old growth forests without regulation?

Basically it doesn't matter what the forestry industry wants - the people have spoken.

Manorina
The topic of this piece is really about the appropriateness of academics (many from unrelated disciplines) effectively engaging in political activism, but I'm not surprised that the mere mention of 'Tasmania' and 'forests' in the one article would steer the discussion off-topic.

Since you ask, I have written a book on the topic of forest activism so am pretty well versed on all the arguements for and against timber production in native forests. I agree with you that Australia has many serious environmental problems, but harvesting and regenerating a minor portion of our forests is not one of them, except in the minds of those who can't countenance human resource use.

You should take your own advice and find out a bit more. Perhaps you could start with The State of Australia's Forests Report 2008 by the Bureau of Rural Sciences.

Re your comment: "The fundamental problem with the forest industry who Mr Poynter speaks for is the Greed Is Good and Growth At Any Cost syndromes ..."

This article is about native forests - most n.f. timber production occurs on public lands managed by government agencies - how is there any opportunity for the industry which draws timber from these forests to expand their operations? National parks and reserves may be being illegally logged in south east Asia, but not in Australia.

PS: why is it that those who wish to protect forests or seek restraint from the forestry industry are labelled as activists (as though that in itself is a bad thing)?

The people listed would not qualify as activists if you take the definition to mean confrontational and militant. Nevertheless sometimes in the face of corruption you need militants and confrontationalists.

Using your interpretation, there are activists on both sides of the forestry debate in Tasmania, in which case the activist is in the eye of the beholder.

Blind Freddy can see there is an improper relationship between the Tasmanian government and the forestry industry. The evidence is in giving pulp mill advocates multiple free kicks instead of due process, in supporting prosecutions which could bankrupt opponents (a form of judicial intimidation) and opening up untouched old growth areas in the guise of tourism promotion. A perceptive person might think this view was reflected in the high Green vote in the recent State election.

As for some technical claims it is hard to be definitive. I suggest if some think temperate forests are better carbon sinks than tropical while other disagree then the jury is out. I do know that if you found a cluster of 400 year old trees in Europe they would be instantly protected. In Tasmania they are doomed and will never grow back the same if climate forecasts are right. It seems to me that logging interests had all of the 20th century to get plantation timber up to speed and to find chlorine free ways of pulp bleaching. How much longer do they want? They don't seem to get that a modern state that still has extensive pristine forest is a jewel in the world crown.

Pelican@ "The author seems more concerned with the 'eminence' of the contributors ... "

The term 'eminent' was used by The Mercury to describe the group.

Pelican@ "dengirating anything 'Green' is not going to change the fact that there are real concerns about sustainable forestry in Tasmania"

I don't believe the article denigrates 'greens'. Yes, there are many Tasmanians with concerns about the regulation of forestry - this article is (amongst other things) questioning the veracity of these concerns given that an independent review last year showed them to be largely unfounded.

Pelican@ "Do you really believe that the forestry industry would respect matters of sustainability or old growth forests without regulation?"

The timber industry has never been unregulated in native forests. The regulation on public land where most timber harvesting occurs is done by government agencies. They are staffed by forest scientists - do you really believe they would want our forests to be totally destroyed?

Pelican@ "why is it that those who wish to protect forests or seek restraint from the forestry industry are labelled as activists"

The semantics of what constitutes a forest activist is not really the point. The question that the article poses is - is it a good thing when academics and scientists who are valued by society for being thoughtful, objective, and apolitical, trade on their credibility to try to influence an election? This cuts across all political issues not just forestry, and raises real concerns about the integrity of our educational institutions.

I suspect MWPOYNTER already knows what my response will be.

The political activitism is no different to the what the fronts industry, the AEF, IPA, Forestry Associations engage in. This is the pot calling the kettle black.

It is just politics, people saying what they believe in on a soap box. Unlike the industry organisations, they are being pretty honest about what they stand for. There is no astroturfing or anything of that kind. In fact, I can't see a single thing wrong with it - except perhaps I don't always agree with them.

I suspect that is Mark Poynter's problem with them too.

Mark
How are these academics or scientists trading their credibility?

If these professions had come out in favour of the forest industry they would suddenly revert to being credible.

There is nothing wrong with either of these professions having an opinion and voicing it - we need more of it. Academia is not a national security agency - opinions and objections can be aired debated and discussed even with a political agenda.

Whoever said scientists and academics cannot be politial particularly if your own studies and research point to very real problems that affect the quality of life for us all.

Academic economists whether they be Keynsian, Monetarists (or indeed Third Way) are constantly sharing their opinions in the media and on forums like this.

As long as academics and scientists are transparent I cannot see a problem. It is when agendas are hidden that we should be concerned.

Acedemics like everyone else have the right to free speech.

However a tactic that the greens often do is create these open letters and get a few famous "acedemics" to sign on to it.

Another typical example is the nobel prize winner and other acedemics that signed onto an open letter condemning the olympic dam expansion. None of these "acedemics" had any mining or geological expertise or had been anywhere near the area, and had the technical relevance of Tiger Woods or maybe even Paris Hilton.

This is for three reasons:
1 They are running an emotional campaign not one on facts,
2 Anyone with the relevant expertise would tell them to PO.
3 Acedemics come cheap.

The acedemics get free advertising, and because the "letter" is a feel good political fluff piece that has nothing to do with their field of expertise, the drivel can't reflect badly on their actual field of study.

pelican "How are these academics or scientists trading their credibility?"

They may well be Professors or Doctors in their chosen fields but in relation to forestry issues these academics have NO STANDING!

To my mind, if they are to sign such a party political statement, they must do so without trading on their academic credentials. It isn't enough to just have an intellectual or emotional connection to trees, they need to be across the many and complex issues associated with Tasmanian foresty. They risk showing themselves to be ill-informed green activists, not measured thoughtful educators of the next generation. Of all people in society, they should be counted amongst those that form an opinion based upon the careful examination of ALL the facts. Sadly, I seriously doubt if any of them have slightest understanding of the controls and regulations that already exist in field of native forest harvesting.

@Shadow Minister: However a tactic that the greens often do is create these open letters and get a few famous "acedemics" to sign on to it.

That is _exactly_ the same tactic a mob who Mark is/was associated with, the AEF, uses. You have seen it yourself in the stream the articles here signed Peter Ridd / Bob Carter / Jennifer Marohasy, all duely noted as "a member of the AEF".

Where this all gets a bit hypocritical is Mark Poynter vigorously defends the AEF employing these tactics, but attacks the greenies for doing the same thing. Push him on it, and he will say the AEF's academic's are real experts, but the greenies academics don't have a clue or something. I confess I have trouble seeing the difference between the two groups myself.

You can see an example of it here:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10214#166466

In fact, this article appears to be an expansion of the posts on that thread. Personally I don't see how getting knowledgeable academics from either side engaged in the debate could possibly be a bad thing.

I do have an issue with the AEF (Australian Environmental Foundation) AEF, which is an organisation representing and funded by industry choosing a name conspicuously like the ACF (Australian Conservation Foundation), and then going on to claim, as Mark did in that other thread, that the AEF are the real champions for the environment and imply the ACF / Wilderness Society or whatever are just a bunch of crackpots who are not truly concerned for the environment, or something. Again, the argument made no sense to me so I probably have it wrong.

That is just out and out deceptive behaviour, unlike the actions of the greenies that Mark is complaining about here.

Pelican@ "How are these academics or scientists trading their credibility?"

The community expects academics to be even-handed and objective and attributes a high level of credibility to what they say. If what they are saying is wrong or skewed, then their credibility is misleading the community.

In this case, they were wrong to lobby for changing forestry regulations on the basis that they don't meet the requirements of the EPBC Act when an Independent Review last year said otherwise.

It is difficult to believe that most of this group of academics weren't aware of the findings of that Independent Review, yet they went ahead with their 'open letter' anyway - isn't that being a little deceptive?

Granted, some of the group from other unrelated disciplines may not have known of last year's Independent Review - if so, they have simply been naive to support something that they didn't know enough about.

Pelican@ "Whoever said scientists and academics cannot be political ..."

There's no law against it, but they then create a problem regarding their own credibility. If they come to be known for supporting a particular political cause, their impartiality becomes questionable, and as Lomborg said, when we can't even trust our academics and scientists to be a voice of reason, society has a problem.

Pelican@ "Academic economists .... are constantly sharing their opinions in the media and on forums like this".

Are they sticking to their area of expertise? Are they doing it four-days prior to an election in a daily newspaper in a format addressed to political leaders?

Would you respect the views of a group of earth science academics lobbying to reform the health industry? If not, how can you respect the views of academics from unrelated disciplines lobbying against forestry?

rstuart,
Yes, these academics have been pretty open, but (as above) this create problems for how the community regards both them and their educational institutions.

Front groups - perhaps you should do a bit of research. Check out the Wilderness Society and its Wild Country Science Council. How does this differ from the AEF, etc.?

If these dons are so smart, why do they need to cite a public opinion poll? Public opinions changes daily, and your average pleb has more to worry about (including jobs provided by forestry) than ‘green’ issues.

If we are going to rely on polls, university activists and their opinions are superfluous; especially as these supposedly ‘eminent’ academics use the things themselves. And, these same doyens, seem to be more put out by the industry closeness to politicians; jealousy, perhaps?

The ‘Mercury’ does what media does and prints rubbish about ‘fear’ preventing people from speaking out about forest issues. Fear! Bob Brown and his stooges are always screaming about the evils of Gunns. No fear there.

Mark’s “Given the inherent credibility afforded to Australian academia” could be replaced with blind faith in Australian academia; faith that people who are called Professor must know something about everything. If the public would use its common sense – something the highly ‘educated’ are not known for – they would realise that these people are not all-knowing and all-seeing. Even a look of the list of windbags shows that most of them are not even formally qualified in the area they are assuming knowledge of.

Further along in is article, Mark demolishes the poll. So, what’s left. A list of stirrers who, like most employed people, probably know they day jobs back to front, but are no more qualified to give any more than their personal opinions – just like the rest of us.

Rstuart,

You may be right, but as I have never heard of the AEF before, I cannot really comment. From what I see of the AEF they are a small (lobby) group, but I cannot find any similar example (possibly through insufficient looking)

If in your words "That is _exactly_ the same tactic" then the greens which are a large organisation with a political front are alse guilty of deceptive behaviour.

Crossing the line---interesting choice of words.

Who gets to define the line?

The commissars of the communist party in the former Soviet "Union"?
The thought police in any and every totalitarian state, including the one described in Orwells 1984.

We have ways of dealing with people like you (who cross the line)

Meanwhile how many academics within the university system in the USA for instance, do research work for the Pentagon, and the military-industrial complex altogether.

Doing research on how to kill both people and the natural world altogether, in supposedly ever more efficient ways. Industrial-scale mega-death.

Which line have such people crossed?

Some such people are/were treated as cultural heroes. They are of course all well-respected and wear their suits with collar and tie to work. They might even be "scholars" at the American Enterprise Institute---the USA equivalent of our OZ IPA.

Robert Oppenheimer (the "father" of the A-bomb) was made "father" of the year by the American family association. Edward Teller was awarded the "freedom" medal! (for services to the death/terror machine)

The weapons scientist comes home---Im home honey, how are you and the kids.

By the way we have just completed our research on the new weapons system (for which I get a huge bonus for coming in on time and budget). A system which can kill all biological life in a several square mile circle.

Has this dreadfully sane person crossed any line?

Mark and Ben
I understand what you are getting at but the open letter, in your own words, calls for "for reform of the governance of Tasmania’s forest industry."

Governance is not a science. Opinions are based on critical analysis and research and you don't necessarily have to be a forestry scientist to come to a conclusion about issues of governance, corruption, influence, commercial and environmental accountability.

Skullduggery is not a science and free speech is not limited to non-academics. We expect robust debate and discourse from academics surely.

@Shadow Minister: I have never heard of the AEF before

You can get an idea of what way the lean from their web page http://aefweb.info

As I pointed out in here http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10214#166413 their viewpoint is pretty obvious from that page, and it ain't "protect the environment at all costs". Quite the reverse.

You can also get background of the AEF from here: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Australian_Environment_Foundation although Mark says that sites characterisation of the AEF is unfair. Unfair or not, I haven't actually seen anyone demonstrate the supporting facts they quote are wrong.

@Shadow Minister: the greens which are a large organisation with a political front are alse guilty of deceptive behaviour.

No Shadow, not at all. The only issue I have with the Australian Environmental Foundation is name and often their writings imply they have a deep, heartfelt connection with the environment. Well perhaps they do, but it is the same deep heartfelt connection cattle ranchers have with their cows.

It is clear from the Liberals name what sort of politics they push, it is clear from Labour's name who they represent, it is clear from the Green's name what they do, it is clear from the Wilderness Societies name what their chief concern is, and it is even clear what Mark's own society, the Foresters of Australia does. Despite what Mark says, it is unlikely the anybody will mistake Wild Countries Science Council as a mob pushing for jobs and industry. Good luck to them all - their all entitled to their say.

The Australian Environmental Foundation present themselves as an environmental group, championing the environment, just as the Australian Conservation Group champions conservation. And to be fair they do exist primarily to give a soap box to academics and others that discuss environmental issues. The only problem is, they are very careful to choose people whose views happen to dovetail neatly with those wanting to exploit the environment for commercial gain.

rstuart
I am reticent to respond to you as I am acutely aware that drawing attention to the author of an article and his/her associations seems to be a tactic to avoid addressing their arguments.

I have never been a member of the AEF but have attended and been a guest speaker at several of their annual conferences. However, I am very supportive of their aim to have environmental policy and management formulated on the basis of evidence rather than skewed popular opinion based around emotional rhetoric.

You said: "That is _exactly_ the same tactic a mob who Mark is/was associated with, the AEF"

I have it on good authority that the AEF has never assembled a group of academics to sign an 'open letter' to politicians published in the media, let alone a few days before an election.

You said: " ... Poynter vigorously defends the AEF employing these tactics, but attacks the greenies for doing the same thing"

As above, the AEF have never used this tactic. In this case, it wasn't 'greenies' who published the 'open' letter. It was a group of academics - although perhaps at the behest of an environmental lobby group.

You said: "I don't see how getting knowledgeable academics from either side engaged in the debate could possibly be a bad thing."

Are these particular academics appropriately knowledgable about forestry?

You said: "and .... as Mark did in that other thread, .... imply that the ACF / Wilderness Society .... are not truly concerned for the environment"

Where have I ever said that the 'greens' are not concerned for the environment? I believe they have great passion for the environment, but lack perspective by being unable to envisage an appropriate balance between the conservation and wise use of resources.

However, the major 'green' groups are deceptive in deliberately framing campaigns that avoid mentioning key facts that could detract from their message, such as for example, how much forest is already reserved. Consequently, the vast majority who simply support 'green' causes do so on the basis of an inaccurate view of the reality.

Pelican @The author seems more concerned with the 'eminence' of the contributors rather than their concerns.

Anyone may lodge their concerns, as citizens, or amateurs - even you; but some try to pass themselves off as experts.

The professional case mounted by these governance jokers has been easily dismantled by Mr Poynter, leaving them in the position of amateurs making an inappropriate appeal to their own authority.

They therefore deserve no more influence on this set of public affairs than the:

1. performance art of the southern forest tree angel;
2. near martyr-inducing escapades of the un-jobbed at camp Flozza;
3. Still Wining's hijinks over dangerous machinery at Triabunna;
4. the relatively mild socio-politico impact wreaked by the Huon Valley Enviro Cong's act of group weaving an eco-macrame forest protest tapestry.

But by buying into the native forest utilisation argument the academics have just used the same old trick to hijack the public sphere.

Note that 1 to 3 above at least show physical commitment, although the activities pose interesting questions of how land managers might deliver their duty of care obligations in the face of the HS risks trespassers pose to themselves. This is something that ideologically unbiased governance academics might have been validly able to go public with.

Strangely, not.

Rstuart,

Reading a little into the AEF it is true, it ain't "protect the environment at all costs".

However, that is exactly what the greens are about. No expense (not theirs) is too much to pay for even the tiniest impact on the environment.

The AEF would appear to be a reaction to this. Whilst I don't endorse everything they propose, (climate change) There certainly have been wild excesses on the part of the greens, and the AEF is calling for the environmental decision making to be done on a scientific basis and not an emotional one.

The only way to completely protect the environment is to stop all human activity, what is needed is reasonable guidelines that are applied to everyone and not just the greens' target of the day.

The advertisement that republished the open letter the very next day was part of a campaign by the internet activist group Get Up. They also hosted a public forum a day later featuring the “organiser of the Open Letter”.

Get Up raised over $140,000 for its campaign, this is in addition to money spent by the Greens, wilderness society, Environment Tasmania or our common ground. In fact they claim they spent more than one of the major parties on advertising.

According to their web site, https://www.getup.org.au/campaign/NoPulpMill&id=937 when asking for donations to fund this massive political campaign, Get up claimed that it was influencing the election results as a poll was already showing that “Tasmanians have rejected the parties who approved the pulp mill process and approved the legislation written by Gunns' lawyers.”

For any one that actually followed the pulp mill assessment process will know that the Government bill, drafted by its legal experts and not Gunns, was actually amended in the State’s Upper house to ensure that common law rights were protected. The amendments came after publication of an opinion written by one of the Open letter’s signatories, and was designed to protect the rights of ordinary Tasmanians.

Surely the raising of money for a political campaign based upon false claims should be of greater concern to the academics that signed the open letter. It would also appear judging from a copy of another TV advertisement on the same Get Up web site, that the organisation has little regard for accuracy in its campaign. The Planning Commission was asked to verify the accuracy of the advert and the Commissioners reply at http://www.tca.org.au/statenews/tas/2010/MediaReleases/TAS_Letter_PlanningComm_to_TCA_170210_BC.pdf shows that the advertisement fails governance and ethical standards.

Mark’s questions on academic activism need answering. So too does the role of activist group that appear to be bankrolling a campaign to influence the outcome of an election that the academics have key participants.

As I speak there is a pall of smoke from forestry burnoffs. I suspect it covers tens of square kilometres but I can't see that far. Whether it exceeds EPA air quality guidelines or is dangerous to asthmatics I can't say. I'm sure of one thing though; if a factory put out that much smoke it would be quickly shut down.

You'd think to reinforce the industry's claims of carbon neutrality or better they would find some alternative to burning. That is on existing plantations while pristine areas remain untouched. Forestry not only trashes our natural heritage but gets away with what should be illegal levels of pollution.

It's all well & good to try protecting the environment. I can't think of anything more pressing. I have yet to see a policy which encompasses the needs of mankind & the environment. problem is , which one deserves priority. On the other hand if we ruin the environment it's mankind that loses. The environment will recover as it always has. It's just that next time mankind won't be there to see it. I would like to see one of those experts put up a proposal for all to see which is in fact a balancing act between man's desires & nature. For every job lost due to green policy a green's job should compensate the other. I mean 100% of what is being exploited from the environment every green has no qualms about utilising the product. I say to the greens stop raving on about the environment when you haven't got any alternative. Gay Bob's been in Parliament for 25 years but what has he achieved by way of protecting the environment AND protecting peoples' livelihood. I personally abhor the fact that almost everything I have is made from polluting enterprise. My work is contributing to pollution. When I remark about the emission caused by my employment I get told that the community is entitled to the service we provide, yet it is the people who benefit from that pollution who whinge & moan when the service is interrupted yet I get accused of polluting the environment when I do provide the service. I say to all those expert & selfish mutts out there, put your money where your mouth is. Come up with a solution or be quiet.

Taswegian
Re your concerns about forest fire, the following quotes are pertinent:

"a thick smoke had been observed ... west of where the ships lay at anchor" and "during the whole day smokes were visible along the coast" Able Janz Tasman, Storm Bay area, Tasmania, December 1642.

"Fires and smoke seen day and night ...." and "The greater part of the trees were burnt at the foot ... There were marks of fire almost everywhere; and in many places the earth was covered with ashes"
Nicholas Marion du Fresne, captain of the French boat, Le Mascarin, Storm Bay, Tasmania, March 1772.

To live in Australia has always been to live with fire and smoke. We do not do nearly enough burning of the forest compared to pre-European times, and the consequences are evident in the three Victorian mega bushfires since 2003 which have caused severe environmental damage.

I am unsure whether your concerns relate to post-harvest reneration burns or fuel reduction burns, or both. But the reality is that even "pristine areas left untouched" will inevitably be burnt at some stage. There is far less environmental damage if the bush is burnt in a planned and controlled manner in autumn then in uncontrolled summer conflagrations in heavy fuels allowed to accumulate through a lack of periodic fire.

By becoming activists, academics like the ones that signed the open letter compromise their independence. The local Southern Cross television news last night featured Tom Baxter as a Governance Lecturer, to interpret the current constitutional actions of the Tasmanian Governor. Did they know that his field was Corporate Governance, e.g. about companies not about Parliaments, nor did they acknowledge that the TV audience would remember that he was the organiser and spokesperson for this partisan open letter. By using such a tainted expert undermines the value of the news service and the University’s reputation.

To attempt to use smoke from the very necessary regeneration and fuel reduction burns as an excuse for the academics activism undermines the science of forest management and the detailed procedures of the independent Forest Practices Authority and the Environment Protection Agency to minimise the impact of such burns. A detailed look at why the management of vegetation fuels is critical for public safety, economic and ecological reasons can be found at http://www.fpa.tas.gov.au/fileadmin/user_upload/PDFs/Smoke_Managment/smoke_leaflet.pdf .

Fire has been part of Tasmania’s environment, even before settlement by man. A detailed look at the bush fire heritage can be found at http://ffic.com.au/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=90&Itemid=174
Tony Mount, a forest ecologist, now retired, after a career involving fire and silviculture research from 1957 to 1991, has authored two publications Tasmania's Ancient Bushfire Heritage and Managing Tasmania's Fire Environment based on a series of presentations he has given on the subject. The papers give an insight into the development of modern harvesting, silviculture, and bushfire management of Tasmania's diverse and unique forests.

These well researched documents are a far cry to the alarm created by two media releases from the greens issued in the last days of the election to blame a blanket of smoke over North East Tasmania on the State’s forest industry. Even when the scientists at Bureau of Meteorology pointed out that the smoke was from fuel reduction burns in Victoria, lit to prevent a repeat of the Black Saturday disaster, the greens and their supporters continued to vilify forest workers without comment from these academics demanding ethical standards of politicians.

MW Poynter I suspect Abel Tasman moved his ship when the smoke got too much. People who live in houses may not have that option. Days of smoke haze seem to induce a form of bronchitis in some people. I regard the whole issue of fire management as far from settled. Foresters are convinced in their own minds that burnoffs are a good thing. Here are some reasons why they may not be. First it turns all that carbon in forest floor and understorey into CO2. Our PM back in 2007 promised to reduce CO2 and perhaps one day he may get around to it. While some iconic species such as E. regnans may need fire for germination they also need damp shady conditions. Burnoffs more frequent than say once a century may remove shade plants, dry the soil and change the microclimate via reduced albedo and transpiration.

The effect of overly frequent burning will be to transform a biologically diverse landscape in to a kind of urban sprawl. Fewer plant and animal species with more of a uniform size. For example I doubt an E. regnans sprouted in a burnoff regime will ever make it to 100 metres tall. The average amount of carbon-in-store will be higher than in an unlogged forest because it has been added to the atmosphere along with all the burnt fossils fuels. Boys playing with matches not only degrade the natural beauty but also prevent forests from being the vitally necessary carbon sinks and biodiversity refuges we need them to be.

Taswegian
Indeed, Abel Tasman may have been able to move his ships, but the reason for pointing out his and other pre-Eoropean settlement observations about fire is to show that it is a natural feature of the Australian landscape. Indeed, our flora and fauna has evolved to be fire dependent and so trying to exclude fire is not only an impossibility, but would severely damage the Australian environment.

So, fuel reduction burn-offs are not just to protect people and property, but are necessary to mimic (as far as is possible) the requirements for maintaining environmental integrity.

Agreed E.regnans has a naturally very low frequency of fire, but it is only one forest type which occupies only a very minor part of the landscape. These wet forest types are generally too damp for broadacre fuel reduction burn-offs anyway, although logged coupes are burnt specifically to create suitable conditions for regeneration.

Most forest types are drier and research over a long period suggests that these have a natural fire frequency varying from between 10 to 30 years depending on where they are and what species they are comprised of. These are the areas where fuel reduction burn-offs are done.

Yes, carbon gets released in burn-offs but beacuse these are done in autumn and burn with low intensity, far less is released than if the area was to burn on a hot windy day in mid-summer. The point is that carbon is being released and recaptured by forests on a daily basis as trees (and parts of trees) decay and then regrow. It is delusion to think that we can stop these natural processes.

So basically if the academics agree with you its all fine and well.

But if they write an open letter or campaign for something they've crossed a line? Interesting take on democracy.

David
Realistically, who is going to write an article like this if not someone who disagrees with what these academics and scientists are doing.

But the point is not whether I disagree, but whether they have the knowledge to accurately raise issues which are in most cases not in their field of expertise, and the timing of it four days before an election which makes it overtly political.

Yes they crossed a line. Academics occupy a priveledged position whereby the community affords them great credibility for being thoughtful, objective and apolitical. If they publicly support something which is outside their field of expertise, which is actually wrong because it simply ignores the conduct of a recent Independent Review, and do it in an overtly political way, they don't deserve this credibility.

Mark, that in a nutshell is the argument against the likes of Jennifer Marohasy, Bob Carter, Ian Plimer etc.

Can you make a comment about what they are doing to the credibility of academia and science?

Where does it say in any university charter that an academic has to be apolitical outside of the classroom?

Where does it say in any university charter that an academic can only comment on matters in their field of expertise - however that is defined.

Disagreeing is one thing but saying that 'they've crossed a line' is nonsense.

@Shadow Minister: that is exactly what the greens are about. No expense is too much to pay for even the tiniest impact on the environment. The AEF would appear to be a reaction to this.

Shadow, it is a pleasure to be in complete agreement with you for a change.

@MWPOYNTER: I am reticent to respond to you as I am acutely aware that drawing attention to the author of an article and his/her associations seems to be a tactic to avoid addressing their arguments.

Mark, I'm flummoxed. You have just posted an article on OLO which spent most of its words attacking the associations of the people who delivered the greens message.

The Independent review of the Commonwealth EPBC act found that it was possible to both protect our native forests and maintain jobs in the timber industry. Their findings that the Regional Forest Agreement balances conservation and timber production should be essential reading for all academics at the University of Tasmania.

Even more academics from the University, this time from the English department, have joined with leading environmental movement anti forestry activists to issue another open letter to the newly elected House of Assembly over the weekend. This open letter again quotes the finding of EMC’s Essential Research opinion poll. To do so it quotes a “forest Governance report commissioned by Environment Tasmania that is based upon the same poll, and a read of that report reveals that the poll was commissioned by Environment Tasmania.

Yet the highest result to any of its questions was an overwhelming 90% agreed with the statement that “I think it’s possible that we can both protect our native forests and maintain jobs in the timber industry and that is the policy I want the next Tasmanian government to implement.”

This is exactly what the Independent Review and the full Federal court found the RFA to be doing.

Support for extending the RFA was a key policy platform by both the Liberals and ALP with candidates acknowledging and committing to its social, economic and environmental benefits. Only the greens had a policy of tearing the RFA up despite the extensive reservation of high conservation value forest listed in Mark’s article.

The has been bipartisan support for the Regional forest Agreement by the two major parties since the 2004 Federal elections so it is a wonder only 45% of respondents to an Essential Research study cited thought that there was “little difference” between the policies of the two major parties on logging.

Bugsy@ "What are the likes of Jennifer Marohasy, Bob Carter, Ian Plimer doing for the credibility of academia and science?"

Well, particularly Carter and Plimer do cop a lot of criticism for not being climate scientists, although having studied the climate change issues for so long they must hardly be completely ignorant of the arguments.

Marohasy was not being paid as an academic in her particular field of expertise, but as an environmental spokesperson for the IPA so you could expect that she had done a lot of study to be across a broad range of issues.

Similarly, you could expect that career activists for the mainstream environmental groups are paid to develop a grasp of issues outside their area of academic expertise, and so over time must also develop an awareness that deserves some acknowledgement, although they rarely let it get in the way of ideological beliefs.

This is a bit different to those who are being paid to have expertise in one field, suddenly coming out in support of something in another field as most of these academics seem to have done.

rstuart@ "Mark, I'm flummoxed. You have just posted an article on OLO which spent most of its words attacking the associations of the people who delivered the greens message"

I think you should read the article again. It does actually address the arguments that were in their 'open letter'.

Also, the article mainly attacks their judgement in supporting something they are not fully aware of and doing it in such an overtly political way. If I knew whether they were members of the Wilderness Society or the ACF, then I could have attacked their associations.

Ah, I see.

I guess if you're one of those working in unrelated disciplines such as philosophy, sociology, accounting and economics, you don't really have a broad understanding of the issues.

Except if you're Bjørn Lomborg of course, then you're a "respected international commentator on the environment".

Mark's assertion that the topic is just about academics stepping over the line is clearly absurd. If it wasn't the forestry industry do you think he'd bother to step up to the plate. It's all about trying to preserve this tarnished industry image - poynter's merely one of the foot soldiers. As an earlier post mentioned - if they are on the industries side all well and good. - so poynter's slant is blatant hyprocrisy - Free speech for the holders of power - shut up the dissenters. Universities should be a bastion of dissent, not holding up the status quo and the old guard that poynter faithfully alligns himself to. Sadly universities are feeling the pressure, and indeed have lost plenty of power to express the alternative to the prevailing views.
As to the notion of bias - Poynter uses it as a putdown. It's an opinion, one that is coming from our learned institutions. How much bias exists elsewhere in the world? The fact that they come from public institution is irrelevent. We need more dissent to stand up to the bullyboys, and there baseball diplomacies. As to your assertion that they crossed a line, it's a well crypto-fascist, finger pointing, fear excavating tactic.

Meanwhile where the real battles are, in the forest, life is being eviserated, burnt, slashed, poisened and all those other very accurate words that the industry likes to call "emotional". no, this is the cold eye of perception, which the industry prefers to pretend isn't happening, and anyway who gives a ##@#?

So dont say the forests are off-topic, it's the topic of the minute and the industry is worried. they should be. it's a basket case, and anyone with any sense ralizes this.

"Cinders” (Alan Ashbarry, Timber Communities Australia, I presume) wrongly claims (10 April), “The local Southern Cross television news last night featured Tom Baxter as a Governance Lecturer, to interpret the current constitutional actions of the Tasmanian Governor. Did they know that his field was Corporate Governance ....”

That Southern Cross TV news report clearly described me as a 'Corporate Governance' lecturer, both by a printed caption and the journalist's voiceover introducing my comment. I gave the journalist my business card and stressed 'Corporate Governance' lecturer, which Southern Cross accurately used. I recorded the news report and have checked it.

My comment did not (as cinders says) “interpret the current constitutional actions of the Tasmanian Governor”. Rather, in response to the journalist’s question about multi-party governing arrangements in other Australian jurisdictions, I summarised a presentation by Professor Jenny Stewart which I attended at UTAS: see reports at http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2010/03/26/2857653.htm and http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2010/03/26/136211_tasmania-news.html
Corporate governance is not limited to companies, as cinders claims. Anyway, I’m able to comment on wider governance issues.

Cinders' suggestion that Southern Cross should have somehow linked their news report back to the unrelated open letter is bizarre. They were entitled to contact me requesting an interview and I was entitled to answer their questions as I did.

Cinders claims that Southern Cross using a few seconds of my comment at the end of its news report “undermines the value of the news service and the University’s reputation”. Rubbish. Compare this to Southern Cross broadcasting Forestry Tasmania’s PR program ‘Going Bush’ weekly 5-5:30pm, shortly before its 6pm news. The Tasmanian Ombudsman ruled that FT (a government business enterprise) must disclose under the Freedom of Information Act costings of this PR TV program (costs ultimately carried by the public purse). Instead, FT is spending more public money appealing to the Supreme Court against the Ombudsman’s decision, see:
http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/article/forestry-tasmania-goes-bush-...-and-hides-the-cost/ and http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/article/forestry-tasmania-challenges-ombudsmans-order-to-disclose-going-bush-costs/

Time does not permit me to check the veracity of cinders’ other claims, but these were factually wrong and missed the wood for the trees.

Tom Baxter, Lecturer, School of Accounting & Corporate Governance, University of Tasmania

P.S. I don’t normally respond to reader comments. But Mark Poynter appears to rely on two such comments as authoritative sources when he writes:

‘The publication of the “open letter” also sparked various descriptions of the University of Tasmania’s School of Geography and Environmental Studies. This included a reference to it as being “characterised by a certain ideological cast” and as “a hot-bed of radicalism”. ...’

Poynter appears to be citing reader comments #15 and 16 at http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/weblog/article/unhealthy-relationship-open-letter-to-politicians/ Apparently he sees such comments as authoritative sources to republish. He selectively does not refer to the surrounding reader comments, #14 (by a biologist specialising in forest ecology), 17, 18, 19. They are worth reading.

Roland Browne has a general reply to this piece by Poynter at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10316 published 23/4/2010. That includes links to the open letter (including its 18 footnotes), and The Mercury chief reporter’s report of the letter.

Tom Baxter, Lecturer, School of Accounting & Corporate Governance, University of Tasmania