My most unhelpful comment yet.
Surely this article simply retells the reality of the expected lies from interested parties the over simplification that can justify power.

When the land use credit got Australia closer to its already relaxed Kyoto target it seemed that Australia was indeed the 'lucky country'. Either that or the agency concerned knew how to please its political masters. This hasn't stopped Beattie, Campbell, Howard and others from repeating the 'on track' fib, along with 'clean coal will save us'.

Now Landcare has jumped on the carbon credit bandwagon. However I live near some old growth forests and I strongly suspect that carbon uptake is slowing even without logging. If the current drying trend continues I think that ferns and giant trees will give way to more open woodland. The current forest floor will rot giving up greenhouse gases. If that's true things could actually be getting worse while the official line is that everything is getting better.

Spot on Andrew McIntosh

Hydrocarbon emissions, resulting in CO2, in WA are increasing. All governments, with the aid of their senior bureaucrats, for the sake of "economic growth", are using spin to exploit public gullibility.

Last week, the soon to be retired head of the EPA advised that the Swan River is in poor condition and warned of the dire consequences if nutrients continued to be dumped in the river. So what's the EPA been doing for the last 30 years while this has been occurring? Mmmmm? Having lunch with industry lobbyists?

Both federal and state governments conveniently fail to allude to the massive emissions from the metal ore industry where just one company in a regional town emitted 570,000 tonnes of GHG. And that's just from their power station.

Other sources from their operations reveals some 189,000,000 kgs of
carbon and non-carbon pollutant emissions. All these figures reveal an increase from the previous year.

Governments boast that pollutant industries are encouraged to "effectively monitor and manage their own emissions".

That's what happens when greedy governments insist on "self-regulation" to appease the big end of town.

Economic expansion (resulting from pollutant industries) and climate health make poor bedfellows - you can no longer have both!

And the masses rush out to buy their long lasting fluro light bulbs -good little sheep aren't we?

As a past member of the NGGI Consultative Panel on Landuse Change and Forestry, and a current member of the SLATS Committee, I can only describe this as a standard piece of ACF funded spin, masquerading as scientific inquiry. The Australia Institute is funded indirectly by the ACF.

As for the discrepancy in recorded cleared areas between the national accounts and SLATS one need only mention two words, WOODY WEEDS.

SLATS detects the removal of them while greenhouse accounting has no brief to be measuring the loss of Lantana, Rubber Vine or young wattles etc.

But this is not to say that the NGGI accounts are faultless. They are, in fact, a crock of the proverbial. But most of this is a direct consequence of the gonzo logic of the European dominated IPCC who would seek to thrust their self interest upon the rest of the world.

Perseus

You continue to suggest that the IPCC and the ACF and other community members, concerned about anthropogenic, environmental degradation, are acting out of "self-interest."

Pray tell Perseus, what are these "self-interests" you keep alluding to?

Certainly, Dickie. Most Europeasn nations have comparatively small areas of forest so they must import all their paper and packaging material. And when the IPCC came to decide how to account for the carbon released when wood products break down deemed that all the carbon in a tree was emitted on the day the tree was cut. And this meant that all the emissions from european waste paper and packaging were shifted to the third world countries that they sourced their wood and paper from.

Their main competitors, USA, Canada and Australia all have their own extensive forest estates so we got lumbered with the emissions from this sector, even when in our case a lot of it is exported.

In one sleazy back room deal, the europeans gave them selves a competitive advantage with lower emissions targets that still allow unfettered growth in housing, packaging and printing sectors.

And the greens? They are just a bunch of luddite scum who want to stop anything that works even vaguely well. And they have demonstrated a capacity to delude themselves and excuse any level of deceptive conduct or misrepresentation.

See Dickie? It's all about bloody CARDBOARD! Who'd have guessed?

Perseus, your advice on IPCC's error of judgement, fails to alter my perceptions that our very own anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are out of control.

Nor does your advice display any evidence of "self-interest" in the other groups you describe as "luddite scum."

Cooking the greenhouse books is flourishing in Australia - I have volumes of documented official reports which gives substance to that perception.

My claims over several years, have been vindicated by the recent WA CCC investigations into corruption allegations within the environmental bureaucracies and governments, a result of the powerful influence of industry lobbyists.

How can one lobby on pending, environmental assessments? It's a science isn't it? Blind Fred can see that many of these assessments, handed down by the EPA, will impact adversely on the environment or community health and scientificlly based community appeals are not upheld in the interest of industry profits.

The following officials, who are/were responsible for the health of our environment are currently under investigation, are about to resign, have resigned or have been demoted to the back bench for their associations (often covert) with industry lobbyists - one a former gaol bird:

Head of EPA (WA)
Heads of WA Department of Environment and Conservation (2)
Environment Minister (WA)
Former Environment Minister (Federal)

Those who are at risk of dismissal will take some comfort that many heads of department (environment) are poached by pollutant industries (such as Alcoa) where I am sure these past bureaucrats can make an "invaluable" contribution to the ongoing economic success of these operations.

When you have commercial and industrial development consultants, lawyers and candlestick makers controlling the environment portfolios taking advice from senior bureaucrats who are in bed with pollutant industries, then the state of the environment will remain hazardous and the books will continue cooking.

Well Dickie, what about the scientists who ran the scare story about the collapse of the atlantic conveyor/gulf stream and subsequent mini-ice age in europe and North America. It was never on because Grenland would have needed to melt, entirely in about 10 years for the claimed drop in ocean salinity to take place.

But at current melt rates (129km3/year) it will take 19,000 years for the 2.5 million km3 Greenhouse ice sheet to melt. It was a scenario that was never on, with a probability in the order of ten million to one. But the scientific team managed to score funding for the next two decades to study deep ocean circulation. They are set for life on the basis of a complete BS scenario.

Perseus

Those dreadful "luddite scum", in the 70's were warning against the prolific use of DDTs, PCBs, dioxins, heptachlor, chlordane etc etc. These "luddites" were then described as nutters and nuisances by industry who continued to deny that these chemicals were carcinogenic. They are now banned for that reason - many years after America's ban. Unfortunately, their environmental and human health impacts continue.

Currently departments of environment in Australia have the audacity to assure the masses that dioxins are very low in industrial stack emissions. They fail to advise that very very few industries are required to test for them, so how can they make an accurate assessment?

The only company that did test for them in my heavily industrialised region (and only on an annual basis) revealed readings of 0.9ng/m3. The international maximum level (recommended by the Stockholm Convention and the UN) is 0.1ng/m3. Strangely, after I raised the issue the company failed to test for dioxins again.

Emissions reports, obtained by Freedom of Information (2000) and the Workers Enquiry Report revealed that the sinter plants at Port Kembla and Newcastle are "by far the greatest industrial sources of atmospheric dioxin pollution in NSW." The company report was performed under US EPA limits as no Australian standards existed.

I am advised by state departmental heads that they don't set down any limits and "it's catch up time" and yet the federal Dept. of Environment advise of the requirement to follow the S/H and UN recommendations though enforcement is non-existent and the deception is unbelievable.

When you have emissions of dioxins (a result of poor combustion) you will incur large releases of carbon based chemicals (such as massive amounts of CO) - all converting to CO2.

Media reports are very useful and informative, however, I suggest Perseus, you start at the coal face (sorry) if you truly want to learn how the environment in Australia is being mis-managed and you along with the masses are being duped. But the cover-ups will probably keep you and your denialist buddies happy with the promise of continuing economic and industry growth.