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.