As one of those many who disagree with Perseus and are then routinely abused, I had assumed thats where he'd place me. Yawn, its not just science that advances by funerals, wake me when the last fossil fool chokes on his spleen.

Whether coal mining will continue way in to the future or not and whether new mines will be allowed to be established is one issue.

I have a big problem with coal mines existing within a water catchment area.

All round the state I'm in (NSW) there are examples of rivers and creeks drying up, water becoming toxic and permanent or long term - and irreparable - damage being done, due to coal mining.

This has got to stop. We have got to get the wool out of our eyes and see what is really happening, and prevent such disasters happening again.

This is yet another instance where the promise of some coal royalties clouds the vision of those who make the decisions or sign off on the papers and allow such things to occur.

It’s great that Perseus’ family has a regrowth forest and maybe like me, he is an environmentalist after all (not tied to any political party).

But implicit in EasyTimes comments is the fact that Perseus offers only a simplistic solution to the problem of global warming.

Not everyone can have a forest in their own backyard or apartment block.

Perseus can argue he is doing something about GHG emissions, but can he offer some constructive solutions for Australia in general or for the ‘burbs’ in particular.

Global concentrations of GHG are rising faster than the terrestrial biosphere (even with Perseus “humble little regrowth forest") and oceans can absorb.

As individuals we can all do some things to reduce our carbon footprint, as are some businesses.

A major stumbling block has been our current political regime's pandering to the fossil fuel lobby - our Government's 'business as usual' approach to a global problem.

This attitude is not being realistic about climate change and is certainly not economically, let alone environmentally, responsible.

It’s government policy that can really influence the way Australia responds to the GW problem, and it’s government strategy that will influence the electorate. Let's hope it's not another 'wheat board' scandal or 'children overboard' type strategy.

Can Perseus offer some constructive advice to our political leaders and suggest some solutions to their (our) problems?

I would be interested to hear them.

Thanks, Davsab. Current IPCC accounting standards actively discourage the management of the biosphere to maximise carbon absorption. That is not planting more trees but better management of the ones we have.

At present, every pre-1990 forest is assumed to be in carbon balance, with as much carbon being released through decay as is being absorbed through tree growth. Often both processes are present in one tree, where the inside rots while the outside adds new growth.

IPCC accounting doesn't recognise that reducing emissions from decay is just as helpful as increasing carbon absorbtion through growth. So harvesting a tree just before it begins to decay, and converting it into a house frame that will keep that carbon stable for more than 100 years (no problem for our native hardwoods) is measured as a premature emission at the time the tree is cut.

Meanwhile, the gap in the forest is taken up by the remaining trees which take advantage of the extra sunlight, water and nutrients to re-absorb the same volume of carbon within a decade or two. This has always been the essence of sound forest stewardship but it is now also best practice carbon management.

By maximising the growth rates, minimising the decay rates, and maximising the storage life of the harvested carbon, we get three bites at the greenhouse cherry. But as mentioned earlier, IPCC and Kyoto rules currently discourage this option.

The potential contribution from these sources is far greater than the current level of anthropogenic carbon emissions. The annual seasonal variation in CO2 levels at Mauna Loa is from 7 to 9ppm or 36-47Gt, up and down each year. But this only reflects growth and decay in temperate forests. In the tropical forests this growth and decay takes place all year round and is likely to be as much again.

In contrast, current fossil fuel emissions are only 7Gt/year. So we only need to intercept a small portion of existing forest decay, or half of that if growth is also boosted, to completely absorb global fossil fuel emissions.

Good post, much better than ‘put-downs’, slanging matches and vitriol.

Must disagree with your IPCC comments though, it is left up to governments, policy makers and businesses on how to adapt to climate change and mitigate carbon emissions. The IPCC do recognise that the terrestrial biosphere and oceans are very important carbon sinks, both of which are in decline as you know.

You are right though; responsible and sustainable management of regrowth forests must play a part in any government strategy in solving the planet’s GW problems.

Is the following responsible? The US in its quest for more fuel oil is turning to biodiesel sourced from corn crops (very inefficient and dirty as an energy source). George is subsidising South American countries to slash and burn their rainforests for the US’s insatiable ‘need’ in fuelling their transport fleet - not to feed people.

Kyoto (only a 1st attempt) will change after 2012. It is crucial that our government play a part in this process – ratifying it now will show the world we are a responsible team player. APEC is fine, but we already have a system in place under the UNFCCC, we don’t need to reinvent the wheel as George W Bush wants to – much like taking the ball home if he doesn’t like how the others play the game. It happened with the war in Iraq, he is doing the same with the war on climate change. Our ‘dubya’ is wallowing in the mud now that the US are back-flipping better than Luganis (an American Olympic diver).

I am not a ‘tree man’ (excuse the pun) but what you say makes sense. Tell us why the government is not doing more for the ‘regrowth forest’ industry. What is the industry doing to get the message across?

On anther note, GW can be viewed as how the planet manages its energy resources in an environmentally (and ecologically and economically) sustainable way. Do you (anyone) think we should be putting more emphasis on Agenda 21, under the auspices of the UN’s Commission on Sustainable Development? China thinks so.

Thanks, Davsab. The government is not doing more for forest management because it is still locked into the notion that all native forest is untouched old growth in pristine condition. Try finding some of that after the 2003/2006 fires. And the entire policy community is still locked into the original IPCC/Kyoto concepts where every forest in existence prior to 1990 is assumed to be mature, or is likely to become old growth if left alone.

But this assumption ignores the very impact of the climate change they have been talking about. Here in Australia we will see major impacts of dryer climate even on the few bits of "pristine old growth". As one moves inland to lower and lower rainfal regimes we notice that the forests adjust to the dryer climate by having wider space between stems so each tree has a larger area to capture moisture, sunlight and nutrients.

And as our climate gets dryer then every one of our forests will need to make the same sort of adjustment to reduce the number of trees/ha. This is easily be done in partially harvested forests because the remaining trees simply stop growing when they have grown to the new equilibrium. But this is not the case in National Parks etc.

In neglected forests the trees can only make this adjustment through ruthless competition for resources that leaves all the trees in a weakened state, under water and heat stress and more vulnerable to disease and insect attack. And that lowers their wildlife stocking capacity and makes them much more combustible. It is lose, lose, lose.

See "Destocking Trees to Save Forests in Drought" and The Landholders Institute submission on carbon trading, at http://ianmott.blogspot.com/.