Standing forests are a major carbon sink which will be essential to achieving net zero emissions if that is possible. Forests also have aesthetic, recreational, soil conservation, water filtering and wildlife conservation values. If the building industry needs more timber it can come from fast growing plantation species such as bluegum perhaps laminated with plastic in high strength applications.

Relentless logging and clearing for cattle is why the Amazon rainforest is no longer a net carbon sink. Perhaps the author wants that for Australia as well.

Taswegian. Forest growth i.e. carbon sequestration peaks at a young age - by 20 for timber producing forests in Tas. By the time trees are big enough for timber, growth has declined by a third. The best carbon sinks are timber producing forests which maximise sequestration in forest and storage in timber products. The biggest sources of atmospheric carbon are megafires caused by stupid policies of lock it up and let it burn in conservation's name.

How many people will actually enjoy or go anywhere near these "tree heavens"? Australians are urban creatures, whose contact with the bush is a myth.

Nature is there to be tamed and to serve us. A timber shortage in a country that keeps increasing its population (when it's not crapping itself over Covid) by a quarter of a million each year is unbelievable.

The nutty mania of saving animals and insects that 99.9% of the population will never see - even if they were the slightest bit interested - is also unbelievable.

The natural environment is dangerous to mankind. We should not be letting it rule our lives.

"Nature is there to be tamed and to serve us"
What an arrogant, ignorant and selfish comment.

"The natural environment is dangerous to mankind."
Only if you are stupid enough to let it be.

What peasant you are, ateday. Ignorant, with nothing to be arrogant about: not even an opinion on the subject.

Nasty, nasty.....