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


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Tassie's forests: deal or no deal? > Comments

Tassie's forests: deal or no deal? : Comments

By Mark Poynter, published 6/12/2012

If the Tasmanian 'forest peace deal' is legislated next week, the process that has led to it should gravely concern those with an interest in public policy determination.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All
A deal with the greens?
I thought that was done and dusted years ago?
Until activists showed up in places like London, effectively and for all practical purposes. Massively misrepresenting Australian forestry practise, and successfully calling for a trade boycott, on the basis of that apparent, massive misrepresentation.
Proving that one can't do a deal with the greens, given their apparent inability to honour those they have already extracted?
As trees age, they become less and less efficient at collecting and storing carbon.
Moreover, they store their already collected carbon whether vertical or horizontal!
A fact conveniently, or almost always overlooked, by environmentally illiterate green activists?
And selective logging does more good than harm, allowing younger more vigorous growth to replace that, which no longer is collecting enough carbon, to justify its place and space, in a carbon constrained environment; and where carbon collection and draw down is not only the name of the game, but our now extremely critical and singular survival strategy!
Indigenous peoples have been selectively logging their forests for millennia, without harm to either flora or fauna.
And yes, from time to time, resident fauna do need to find new homes!
A fact of life for all new life! Even in untouched forests, old trees fall undermined by erosion or just old age.
Yes sure, two inch high trees don't collect as much carbon as their aging grandparents, but hey, give a couple of dozen new trees seven or eight years!
Moreover, selective logging invariably results in many more competent fire fighters watching; and insitu, and bush tracks that also double as fire breaks! [Compared to clear felling, which should have been banned before it was started, selective logging halves the number of trees logged and doubles the number of available jobs!
A fact which ensures that timber products remain expensive enough to limit logging!]
Fire breaks, will become increasingly valuable, as the planet warms further and southern forests dry out!
Its almost like, the greens can't see the forest for the trees; and or, have a built in planetary death wish?
Posted by Rhrosty, Thursday, 6 December 2012 11:06:27 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
Throughout the process, I couldn't see how it would be possible to deal with organisations that are neither quantifiable or accountable. How do you bargain with someone with nothing to lose?
The apparent capitulation by FIAT in coming to this agreement got me wondering what sort of safeguards have been guaranteed for the industry. What consequences will there be when the ENGOs continue their international campaigns against Australia's timber products?
Until the loophole in the Consumer and Competition Act that protects ENGOs and activists from slandering legitimate industry is removed, I can't see how the industry will ever be safe.
Posted by Chips66, Thursday, 6 December 2012 3:01:47 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
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All

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