This is a curious article. It invokes the sanctity of environmental empiricism to bolster the anti-environment-movement lobby.

What should we pay attention to? Is it ad hoc point piling/lobbying by people pushing their/their employer’s financial/political interests? Or is it verifiable, replicable and abstract peer reviewed work published for community enlightenment?

Zealots come in all flavours; environmental, economic, left wing, right wing, self serving, cause serving. Naive and romantic concepts drive much of humanity, who would argue that enterprise is not popularly underpinned by such concepts. - Who hath ears to hear, let him hear (Matthew 13:43)

Indisputably, the evidence shows us that Australia has lost (and continues to loose) much of its biodiversity. A third of all the world’s recent mammal extinctions have been Australian mammals. This is mass extinction.

Where do I find evidence that the timber industry has been a force preserving Australia’s biodiversity? Where is the evidence that Australia's remaining biodiversity is not threatened by the timber industry? And what force (proved by what evidence) has, in fact, caused the enormous biodiversity loss we have already recorded?

And God blessed them, saying, be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas (with life), and let fowl multiply in the earth (Genesis 1:22). The problem is they have not multiplied, we’ve killed them, and in many cases we killed them all.

I’m not sure anyone is frightened of the answers; it’s the objectives of the people who are pushing the questions we should be wary of. In the genuine scientific journals the evidence is speaking for its self, it is in the opinion pages that you’ll hear the squealing choir of evidence-less lobbying.

Martin Callinan
I’m not sure if all blame for environmental degradation can be laid at the feet of the timber industry, as a number of other industries have also caused considerable environmental degradation.

For example, the QLD sugar industry has been responsible for the clearing of the majority of QLD’s rainforests. This is somewhat interesting in that the QLD sugar industry is now barely economic, and beginning to rely on Gov subsidies to survive. If capital = current economic capital + human capital + natural capital, then it probably would be better to clear the sugar cane from many farms and reforestate these farms with rain forest (as these farms are presently soaking up economic capital and perhaps human capital also)

So this comes back to my original argument, that if environmental scientists want the environment to be value based, eventually they will need to develop a Gross Nature Product figure that is then used in collaboration with the Gross National Product figure (presently produced by economists) to help gauge the true extent of our overall capital. Eventually both have to go up.

(NB. I’d qualify this somewhat by saying that the natural environment can help improve human capital also, as the natural environment can also be an admirable and uplifting thing for many people)

The biggest problem with your argument Jennifer is that you are promoting an equally romantic notion of environmental protection as the 'greenies' you so obviously despise. Your 'hypothesis' "that there are more iconic species such as koalas and barking owls in state forests that are logged" is a completely un-scientific view of what is valuable to nature. You only seem to value what matters to people. Yes these are 'iconic' species but they don't reflect biodiversity. They are your stock-standard fluffy animals that people love to see more of. This kind of human-rationalist and (implied by your article) economic-rationalist view of nature is an equally destructive view of nature.

Personally I don't believe we know enough about what keeps the environment going and throwing more money at scientists to do more research is a good start. But to argue for the stamping out of discussions that promote an emotional connection with nature would be foolish. I feel good when I'm amongst nature and not so good when in a boardroom. Does that make me un-scientific and irrational? And we know now that Darwin was in fact wrong - most ecosystems survive because its constituents collaborate rather than compete. And they can exist that way for 1000s of years. I'm guessing Jennifer doesn't spend much time out in 'nature' and spends most of it in fact in the board-room.

Jennifer, Latham did this for the forests and look what happened to him?

I'm glad to see you evidence-based environmentalism I'm all for it.

So when will you start to practice what you preach, on global warming and problems in the Murray River and change your current stance of relying on extreme minority views and going against the evidence of qualified individuals in their area of expertise?

Also many environmentalists aren't driven my romanticism but appreciation of the fact that the environment does much un-costed/factored work in the worlds economy and if lost we are basically screwed. Try estimating the cost of replacing insect pollinators or natural watersheds.

Also many greenies may not have a problem with the use of our forests in a sustainable way if the pro-forestry lobby and the industry were a bit more honest and self-critical of our current forestry practices. Mainly thinking of Tas.

That worlds best environmental practices were used (and they are not), that the industry at least in Tas wasn't self-regulating and abided by those regulations –which they haven’t- that we looked at value adding not just selling our forest resources for wood chipping so one large company makes a killing and its employees are the main ones that get any benefit from what could be employing many others in the area.

I practice what I preach, as I’m all for an investigation of the Nuclear option if all the costs and subsides including waste, decommissioning and security are factored in when compared to the same money going towards renewable, and a energy efficiency. If that comes out for nuclear then i'll back it.

Since when do politicians and ideologues let pesky things like science and fact get in the way of them pushinbg their agenda?

Since when did environment become an exlusive euphemism for nature?
Environment is simply a reference to one's surroundings, physical and/or perceptual.

How can l believe anything they say when they twist things in such a cynical fashion?

What is always missing from these free-flowing debates on our environment is some form of baseline. Before examining in detail the politics and economics we should try to determine priorities. For example what do we consider to be more highly regarded: the survival of the human race, the survival of "stock-standard fluffy animals" (nice phrase Audrey), the maximization of the actual number of existing species (biodiversity?), the warm-and-fuzzies af a few do-gooders, the warm-and-fuzzies of a parliamentary salary and perks etc. etc.

It won't happen, of course. Arguing on a purely emotional level is too much fun.

"A third of all the world’s recent mammal extinctions have been Australian mammals. This is mass extinction."

Clearly martin wants us to read this as a bad thing. No supporting logic required. We can give it the "that's a shame, isn't it" response, but it doesn't help us work out a survival plan for people.

"I feel good when I'm amongst nature and not so good when in a boardroom. Does that make me un-scientific and irrational?"

No Audrey, just human. But does it really help determine whether there is anything left of our planet for our descendents?