So…. what’s the connection between increased logging, woodchipping and burning of biomass from native forests and the protection of koalas??

Are the NSW Environment Minister or the logging industry trying to say that under this proposed sustainable forestry program, forests would be logged which don’t have koalas, thus taking the pressure off areas that do have them?

Or is it a case of sustainable forestry meaning that within any forestry area, only a small bit would be logged at any one time, a lot of it would be recovering from logging and most of it would be more or less mature forest suitable for koalas?

And… would each tree that is earmarked for felling be thoroughly checked for the presence of koalas and if one or more are found, would they then carefully and expediently be removed and relocated?

continued

OK, so there might be some merit in this so-called sustainable harvesting of timber. But we need to consider a few things that have gone unmentioned in this article:

1. If we are going to do this, it needs to be within a paradigm of genuine sustainability for the whole of our society across the whole country. And one of the most important factors in this regard is to bring a halt to the ever-increasing demand for timber and woodchips domestically and for export income from these.

2. We need to be very mindful of rare or threatened plants, animals and ecosystems, and only undertake highly ecologically-altering activities like logging where it won’t impinge on these values.

3. Massive disturbance of this sort aids the spread of weeds and can severely disadvantage certain native species. So we would need a comprehensive ecological analysis of each area and assessment of the impacts before any such activities could proceed.

4. We need to respect the sanctity of national parks and only consider state forests and non-conservation-reserve areas.

Let’s not be duped by the use of the word ‘sustainable’. There could be scope for this sort of forestry, but we need to be very careful about it.

And as for sustainable green energy from burning biomass from native forests, yes it would be sustainable and carbon neutral, if you ignored all the fossil fuel energy needed to extract the biomass. So it would actually be nowhere near a sustainable energy source.

I applaud the forestry industry’s attempts to be more sustainable and to be seen as an environmentalist’s best friend… if it is genuine. But let’s be careful. Let’s make sure it is a genuine strategy and that it is genuinely sustainable.

Soooo, let me see if I have this close, We can't burn biomass for energy from old growth forest, we can't burn biomass from plantation forest waste, we can't burn biomass from ancient forests in the form of coal, we can't burn unconventional gas from cracking, we can't burn undersea gas because we can't process it ashore in the Kimberlies, we can't access hydro power because we can't build dams, we can't use uranium energy..... Um... Any suggestions for future base load power generation?

Well, we could stick a few conservatives in front of a fan...

When the industry tries to do something to relieve the reliance on brown coal (how long does that take to grow back?) by burning sawdust for electricity rather than waste, somehow that is an undesirable outcome.

And where is the evidence that Australia's wood chip industry has been responsible for even one koala death? Mr Shoebridge appears to have missed the recent Four Corners program on the plight of the koalas where logging failed to rate a mention.

To create more national parks and reserves that nobody can afford to manage, the Greens want to destroy a sustainable industry that supports thousands of Australian families and provides natural wood products.

What of the native plants and animals struggling to survive in those choking, locked-up, unmanaged national parks riddled with introduced vermin and invasive plant species? The millions of hectares of national parks (and all the threatened species in them) destroyed in wildfire in the past decade alone adds to the incredulous premise that forests can be saved by locking them up.

Now Shoebridge describes the industry as unsustainable because it's area of operation has been so drastically restricted by Green-spun politics.

At the recent inquiry into NSW public land management Dr Peter Phelps rightly described the 'environmental' mentality of complaining about sustainability of the yield after successfully demanding forest lock-ups as, "A bit like killing your parents and throwing yourself on the mercy of the court because you're an orphan."

An unsurprisingly skewed article from a Greens MP which typically ignores the reality that using wood waste from normal sawlog harvesting and processing for biomass energy does not equate to burning forests for electricity.

Only the Greens and their acolytes are jumping at shadows by proclaiming this as a threat to all forests when in reality the vast majority of forests will continue to be managed for conservation as part of a desirable and necessary balance between forest conseravtion and use.

Forestry and foresters have always been great conservationists and it is sad but unsurprising that this notion is regarded with such obvious scepticism by many in the community after decades of environmental activism pushing the errant notion that simply putting a metaphorical fence around vast areas and keeping out human activity is the best conservation outcome. It isn't, and time is proving this to the detriment of our society.

Indisputably, producing wood products is a better carbon option than using steel, concrete or aluminium; or importing rainforest hardwoods from developing countries. Last time I looked, the Greens and their support groups were proclaiming that reducing carbon emissions was the greatest environmental challenge mankind has ever faced. Presumably, they no longer believe this to be the case given their active rejection of a proposal which could do much to combat it.

There is a common-sense solution to limiting the chopping down of forests for biomass, which the Greens are too scientifically illiterate to appreciate. It is time to get rid of the renewable energy target (RET).

The RETs came about as a result of Greens-driven propaganda calling for the replacement of fossil fuels, as the associated CO2 emissions supposedly cause dangerous global warming. So successful was this emotive lobbying, that politicians were conned into legislating RETs.

The problem with RETs is that there is no scientific or economic justification for them. There is no scientific evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emissions have caused dangerous global warming. The supposedly promising renewables, wind turbine energy and solar energy, are intermittent, unreliable, and relatively very costly. Wind turbine energy is about three times, and solar energy at least six times, the cost of coal-fired energy by the time back-up fossil-fuelled energy capacity is provided.

Those who are familiar with the recent massive increases in their electricity bills, should be aware that moving towards the RETs will cause further significant price rises. But achieving the RETs will have no significant effect on climate change.

David, I do understand that coming from that most sustainable of environments, metropolitan Sydney, you would not know the first thing about real sustainability. Robyn Parker might be inept, but you seem to be totally ignorant of the fact that your consumption sucks resources from all parts of the globe, shifting the impact of your consumption to some other poor buggers back yard. After reading your tired old green spin, I agree that we need fresh green spin. It might be better for a bit of native forest to be burnt to generate electricity, than to have a repeat of the 2.4 million hectares decimated in the 2002-03 bushfires. The loss of 100s of millions of birds, animals, snakes and lizards in these disasters is lost on green spinners like you. You just blame them redneck loggers, even if it is your precious national parks, never touched by a saw, that are incinerated. Thank god no trees died to have your drivel printed, just heaps of black coal is being burnt, so we can read it on our computers.

There is a lot of anger, but not a lot of light in the comments to date.

The plans by the forest industry for biomass electricity are not to burn "sawdust" or "by-product" but to actively chop down, woodchip and then "pelletise" forests for burning in a furnace for electricity.

For the record Chips66, National Parks are havens of biodiversity in a State which has lost more than 90% of its native forest cover. They are not places where "native plants and animals [are] struggling to survive".

If, Prompete, you really do want to see a viable and costed plan for constructing renewable electricity generation that is not native forest biomass, coal, CSG or uranium then I suggest you look at some of the work that BZE and Newcastle University have done on transition plans. http://beyondzeroemissions.org/zero-carbon-australia-2020

Finally Raycom's statement that "[t]here is no scientific evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emissions have caused dangerous global warming" is unbelievably ignorant. To see some analysis of the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change then I suggest you start here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

Surprisingly, the author seems concerned that the forest industry is working to help NSW (and Australia) transform to a low carbon economy.
The NSW forest industry has progressively reformed its practices over time yet Green party politicians and their trained activists still seem to think it operates the way it did in the 1930s. Back then, much less was known about the complex interactions in the biosphere between flora, fauna and indeed CO2.
Active forest management improves land management outcomes, including improved fire control and lessening of fire intensity, and weed and feral animal control. More information is available here. (link to occasional paper No 1)
Actively managed forests also support a low carbon economy by storing carbon in harvested wood products (around 50 per cent by weight); substituting wood for higher emissions materials such as steel and concrete; and using wood wastes for renewable energy (further displacing the use of fossil fuels).
The use of biomass from by-products of timber harvesting and from the manufacturing of timber flooring, furniture, housing etc. is not only tolerated overseas, it is actively encouraged

Surprisingly, the author seems concerned that the forest industry is working to help NSW (and Australia) transform to a low carbon economy.

The NSW forest industry has progressively reformed its practices over time yet Green party politicians and their trained activists still seem to think it operates the way it did in the 1930s. Back then, much less was known about the complex interactions in the biosphere between flora, fauna and indeed CO2.

Active forest management improves land management outcomes, including improved fire control and lessening of fire intensity, and weed and feral animal control. More information is available here. http://tinyurl.com/cng8cca

Actively managed forests also support a low carbon economy by storing carbon in harvested wood products (around 50 per cent by weight); substituting wood for higher emissions materials such as steel and concrete; and using wood wastes for renewable energy (further displacing the use of fossil fuels.

The use of biomass from by-products of timber harvesting and from the manufacturing of timber flooring, furniture, housing etc. is not only tolerated overseas, it is actively encouraged

Proposals for biomass are not restricted to sawdust etc. but would come from logging native forests. Logging native forests doesnt help koalas and using logos such as koalas is just part of the forestry (and mining ) spin. The comments by Mr Shoebridge ring true to me. Forests on private lands next to me (I do not live in the city) are being logged for commercial scale firewood. One forestry network says they will use this legislation to log a "million ha" for firewood sale into Sydney and Canberra. It csould be biomass , firewood , woodchips etc -there is no regulation on the end product.and NO environmental surveys are required,so no protective prescriptions are ever triggered. Despite adjoining lands being surveyed and shown to contain EECs and 11 threatened species , these are ignored next door as its left uo to self regulation. The forestry line is also -their trees , they grow back. This forest is not waste, and has biodiversity values that forestry ignores. On ground examples support the view of the author.

Where do you get your facts, Mr Shoebridge?

The biomass plant proposal in Eden was based on not one extra tree being cut down. The saw dust and other residue from saw milling and wood chipping were ample to feed that proposed plant. So rather than just burn it off as waste, it would be put to a use that might bring some relief to brown coal reliance, so it was a green energy solution. The pellet plant proposal was also completely dependent on saw mill and chip mill waste.

You appear to have been duped by your Green associates in the Bega Valley if you're prepared to put your name to those outright falsehoods.

And where were you and your local Green representatives when the NIMBYs were fighting the Epuron windfarm project in Eden? You didn't try very hard to champion that 'green energy solution' and so it has been lost.

According to actual research, the most endangered snake in Australia has disappeared from Kuringai NP because its basking habitat has been obliterated by scrub; the Hastings River mouse has disappeared from National Parks and only survives in grazed and burnt country because it's open and grassy; the eastern brown treecreeper disappeared from two state forests after they were put into national park where grazing/burning were excluded. The only substantial population of the smoky mouse in NSW was extinguished after NPWS took over its state forest habitat and stopped it breeding by surrounding its nests with traps and isolating lactating females from their critical forage as part of a supposedly scientific study.

Even the common grass tree has been made locally extinct in parts of Royal National Park under its 'protection'. No plant or animal has ever been extinguished by logging in NSW.

And 90% of native forest cover lost? NSW has lost hardly any of its forest cover but it has lost nearly all of its grassy woodland to scrub because of parks non-management.

And while I'm at it, ‘scientific consensus’ is an oxymoron and there is no scientific evidence that human CO2 emissions have caused any climate warming. Any scientist would know that there were dramatic changes in climate in the medieval warm period and the little ice age before the industrial revolution. Since then there has been a sustained increase in CO2 and no corresponding trend in temperature.

I found this interesting too:

DPI NSW has announced by media release that a landmark NSW report published in an international forest journal has for the first time highlighted the potential role of production forests in reducing Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions.

Research Leader for Climate in Primary Industries, Dr Georgina Kelly, said Australian scientists are leading the world in this area and are contributing to the global debate on the role of forests in addressing climate change.

“In an Australian first, the report compared the full greenhouse gas (GHG) potential of NSW production forests against conservation forests,” Dr Kelly said. “The report authors found that production forests have a significantly higher greenhouse benefit than conservation forests when considering the full lifecycle of timber products as well as standing carbon in trees.

“Unlike conservation forests, production forests provide additional greenhouse gas reduction benefits through wood products, generation of bioenergy, providing substitutes for more greenhouse-intensive building products such as concrete and steel and minimising the need for greenhouse-intensive imports.”

The report, along with a YouTube video, can be downloaded at: www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/research/topics/climate-change

Mr ShoebridgeMLC. Appreciate your reply. Your link to a zero carbon Australia was interesting and a lovely dream. Spain seems to be running into considerable trouble with their solar thermal experiments, in much the same way as Mr Flannerys' geothermal plant is going. When wind, wave, solar and all the others prove themselves in an open competitive market environment, devoid of government (taxpayer) subsidisation and protection, then they will undoubtedly overtake carbon energy generation in the natural course of things, similar to how word processors overtook typewriters.

I am sceptical of your 90% loss of forest cover claim. Too too many times I have read statistics resultant from 'junk science'. The loss of trust in the environment movement, encapsulated in the 'climategate' affair and the BBC 'eminent scientist' consultation resulting in the non coverage of those questioning the 'consensus' is a rather large hurdle for me to cross at the moment, Not to mention my dismay and revulsion at Robin Williams likening my questioning to being a supporter of pedophelia.

Your attack on Raycom as "unbelievably ignorant" typifies your approach to those who disagree. Your link provided proof of your own ignorance by once again thinking that 'science' is driven by consensus and all you can do is argue from authority. Truly a pathetic point of argument.

If you really wish to win an argument with those questioning the current approach, try responding to the comments made, not ad-hom attackers, straw man arguments and the like. You will next be swearing the Mann 'hockey stick' is valid science and the 90% of climate scientists survey is anything other than laughable.

I really do not understand how someone in your position can be so very 'anti-science'.

Mr shoebridge. Raycom proposed " There is no scientific evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emissions have caused dangerous global warming".

If you dispute this statement, instead of calling him/her names, just provide real world data that the statement is wrong. No references to the consensus, no reference to 'the models', no reference to hypothesis, just the data ok?

Gee Dave, them rednecks are givin you some stick. They should show more respect for a educated man of justice. Seems you do OK when you are preaching to a fellow bunch of pseudo sustainability freaks, but the going gets tough when you drop your pearls of ignorance among folk that know what they are talking about. You tell us how much forests NSW lost in the south last year. Can you tell us much did the NP&WS spend to maintain high fuel and predator numbers in the southern parks last year? With your comments about koalas and logging, you obviously haven’t talked to anyone who treated the burnt koalas at Tidbinbilla after the 2003 fires, after the 2006 Pilliga fires, after the 2007 Warrnambool fires and after the 2009 black Saturday fires in Victoria. Typical old green spin doctor, ignore the real threats to koala survival, while you whine about them redneck loggers.

ShoebridgeMLC: "Finally Raycom's statement that "[t]here is no scientific evidence that anthropogenic CO2 emissions have caused dangerous global warming" is unbelievably ignorant. To see some analysis of the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change then I suggest you start here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm"

Your response is typical of an arrogant, dogmatic warmist.

In claiming that there is a scientific consensus on human-induced global warming, your website reference blatantly ignores the thousands of scientists who do not accept that view. The scientists and science groups who make up the socalled consensus, unquestionably believe the IPCC's assertion in its 2007 Report, "Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperature since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations”. In reaching this assertion, the IPCC disregarded dissenting comments of numerous reviewers of its drafts.

The IPCC claim is unfounded as it relies heavily on the alarmist projections from unvalidated computer climate models. These models are relatively simplistic and fail to represent the complexity and uncertainty inherent in the climate system. Furthermore, the IPCC has failed to find any empirical scientific evidence that substantiates its assertion, and its reports have been tainted with essentially false statements, viz. the 'discernible human influence' claim that struck out the approved draft report key statement "none of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed (climate) changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases" , the 'hockey stick' scandal, and the Climategate scandal that exposed the falsifying of data by key IPCC climate scientists.

Therefore, you should note that scientific consensus does not constitute scientific evidence.

If you are aware of any scientific paper that has been able to measure the human influence on global warming, please table it for all to see.