Still the point is not just about natural processes, its also about resources for humans. We need to do all that we can to reduce our consumption of limited natural resources *AND* we need to increase our use of renewable natual resources in place of finite ones. So its about time that EVERYONE recognise that wood (for building, furniture, pole products, paper products, various forms of energy, etc) walks all over most of the alternatives. When you couple that with the ecosystem services provided by forests (habitat, clean water, carbon sequestration, oxygen, etc) then you're really limiting the options.

Some may say of the forest industry that it "can't see the forest for the trees". But when it comes to many environmental NGOs in Australia is seems that they "can't see the planet for the forests".

If and when Mark Poynter stopping writing comments based on flawed logic and information for The Forum.

He can always become a Spin Doctor for The logging industry.

Of course, if he not already a Spin Doctor for The Logging Industry?

Opps sorry he is, as a forestry consultant, for the Institute of Foresters of Australia.

Also The Australian Environment Foundation, should be asking themselves why do they allow a spin Doctor for the logging Industry to be a Member of The Australian Environment Foundation?

I wonder why that would be Kwv?

Double standards are one thing - I note that Kwv criticises Mark for being a logging industry spin doctor - but he doesn't tell us anything about himself. He could be a paid anti-development environmentalist for all I know, doing exactly the same thing - spinning!

More seriously, the worst decisions that many people make in their lives is when they have such closed minds that they won't even bother reading or listening to contrary points of view. Kwv, I'm really keen to read your views on why Mark's article on Logging to Save the Planet is wrong or why you otherwise disagree with it. It's easy and cheap to snipe away saying he's an apologist for the logging industry, but that only shows your closed mind and, in the absence of any coherent argument from you, it suggests that you're the ignorant person here, devoid of logical, arguable reasons against logging.

Come on, tell us what you think is wrong with Mark's article.

Come on Bernie tell the truth, because in reading your own comments, your would see your comments is more then enough proof you are the one with double standards and are the ignorant person here, devoid of logical, coherent argument and reasons for logging.

As you ask me what I do, but you don't me what you do and that in your comments, you don't even tell us why you are for logging, if in fact you are for logging, because once again you don't tell us.

So may I suggest next time you start by reading your own comments, do some research on logging and what ignorant, devoid of logical, coherent argument means and you might open your mind up regarding the truth especially about logging.