A simple solution is to use 100% plantation timber from land that has already been compromised. I didn't catch whether the ANU study has factored in the effect of locked in climate change. Longer dry spells and more lightning may reduce the survival of iconic species like E. regnans so perhaps we should conserve what we have.

I don't go too much on the carbon capture argument one way or the other. For all I know bamboo may do a better job. To me old growth logging is like coal burning for energy... alternatives exist even if they are more expensive in the short run.

Couldn't agree more Mark!
Indigenous peoples the world over have been sustainably logging their forests for millenia, and only to the benefit of both flora and fauna.
And here I exclude the practise of burning it, given that invariably converts forest into grazed savannah, and destroys non fire tolerant rain forest species.
Kills all who cannot run faster than the flames. (Races up the mountainsides, with the roar and speed of a thundering express train)
And can whip up into a crowning wildfire, with an unexpected change in wind direction and or force!
Trees store carbon whether vertical or horizontal!
Young forests or regrowth, sequester more of it, ton for ton, than old growth forests.
These places may well be palaces or cathedrals to seriously misinformed ideologues, who compound the problem by spreading their misinformation!?
But to me they are just plants with an ideal harvest by date!
I will agree, we should simply end the woodchip industry and the clear felling that always accompanies i; as we sell our wood products at a significant loss; then pay again through the nose as we import it as particle board!
A lose/lose outcome, for both the taxpayer who subsidizes clear felling in the first place; and we Australians, who not only lose jobs and tax receipts to this madness, but then pay an arm and a leg, when we buy back our own forest products.
Simply put, we'd double the jobs and halve the number of trees felled in our forests, if we just replaced this madness, with sustainable logging; as sawn wood; and or, made right here in Oz, fine timber products; or failing that, value added flat packs!
Our (stored carbon)timber is far finer and more durable than anything produced by the Swedes!?
Rhrosty.

The current ANU media release starts with a claim “New research has found Mountain Ash forests provide more value to the community and the global climate when protected and not logged”.

It quotes researcher Dr Heather Keith from the Fenner School of Environment and Society.

However in August 2008, the ANU announced: “South-east Australia’s natural forests are among the most carbon dense in the world …a world-first study released today at The Australian National University revealed.”

The ANU back then claimed “The authors – Professor Brendan Mackey, Dr Heather Keith, Dr Sandra Berry and Professor David Lindenmayer – found that a new approach is needed to account for carbon stored in natural forests.”

So is this just a rerun of the original Green Carbon report?
In the original report it states: “We are grateful to The Wilderness Society Australia for a research grant that supported the analyses presented in this report.

These analyses also drew on data and models developed as part of an Australian Research Council Linkage grant, LP0455163.” (A taxpayer funded grant given to the ANU and its partner the Wilderness Society).

It was this previous new report that Professor Peter McQuillan extolled in this advertisement to lock up Tasmania’s forests; see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sx3WqdafdOU

It was the same report on ‘Green Carbon’ that formed the basis of claims by Environment Tasmania, the ACF and Wilderness Society, that was used to demand and reserve more 500,000 ha of forest reserves in that State.

Amazingly, Professor McQuillan was selected by Professor Brendan Mackey to independent verify if those claims were adequate.

Perhaps we need a study on academic activism!

Mark, if you raise your concerns with the latest report(s) from the ANU activists who masquerade as scientists direct with the Japanese who worked with them, my experience of dealing with Japanese people in general is that they will take your concerns very seriously. They have a respect for the truth that is far greater than that displayed by the ANU people.

Bernie

My understanding is that the Japanese company involved will be directly contacted in regard to this.

Mark, having worked in academia for some time I must admit that I have to agree with your comments on the peer-review process. That process should ensure tight and rigorous scrutiny but sadly your comments are closer to the reality. The vast majority of people outside the walls of academia would not be aware of this and hence being able to say that something has been peer-reviewed will be accepted as all that is needed to guarantee it's quality.
I don't have any solution to this of course.
Kramer Watts.