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.