I suspect there is going to be some major sleight of hand. For starters Tasmania's cloud cover doesn't suit solar technology that well. However the main form of jiggery pokery I suspect is declaring that trees are a hitherto unrecognised carbon offset. In other words announcing the problem then declaring it is already mostly solved in the same breath.

Unlike say the topical north there is little new tree clearing, rather former dairy farms are giving way to bluegum plantations in order to generate tax deductions for the rich. Not only that, those little trees will supposedly put on prodigious amounts of carbonaceous weight. Trouble is Tasmania had the driest January ever and unirrigated fruit trees are withering in this week's 37C temperatures. I suspect that the drying trend will see tree ferns gradually disappear and rainforest turn to woodland. If so it means that Tassie forests will be net CO2 and methane emitters.

To summarise
1) they will say trees have conveniently solved the problem, but
2) due to the dry, trees are now part of the problem.

Yes, Kate, that article should keep you in your job.

Gunn's paper mill? Tasmanian Forest Services clear-felling and burn-offs? The new $200 million highway between Dysart and Bridgewater that is totally unnecessary and will allow more cars and heavy trucks on the roads, when the money should be spent on the crumbling health system? The sale of TasRail to private enterprise and the failure of the State Government to have it properly maintained and enhanced and extended what such that it could have been kept as a growing public rail network for the future? The continual pandering to the automotive lobby rather than socially engineering commuters in Hobart back to public transport? Allowing the construction of hypermarkets fifteen kilometres outside Hobart? The destruction of wetlands, which absorb CO2 in Ralph's Bay? And there is no such thing as a carbon-neutral jet turbine engine in an aeroplane. So how can aircraft be carbon neutral? Pull the other one. The Lennon Governmnt is merely pandering to the electorate in the hope that this useless State government will get re-elected.

And I forgot. The continual advertisng of Tasmania as a green tourist destination, which brings hundreds of thousands of people to Tasmania by air, sea and car. What, Kate, is the CO2 footprint of Tassie's tourist industry? Apart from the thousands of tonnes of oil wasted by such travel?

As Henry has had another swing of the boot I might as well too. Since the Basslink underwater high voltage cable Tasmania has been emitting on the sly, like smoking behind the school shed. I know that during winter the hydro dams export peak power via the cable on the spot market and in the subsequent long dry (like now) the State buys back cheap coal fired electricity. Those mainland power stations are out of sight, out of mind, but the CO2 just as surely goes into the atmosphere. Alternatively Tasmania could have managed on its existing generation, perhaps with more wind farms. Big power users like zinc and aluminium smelters could be charged more when the dams are low. Some have even suggested there is a wonderful hydro resource going unused, namely the Gordon below Franklin, but I won't buy into that.

Lennon should stick to photo ops with the chauffeur driven Prius (on order) and forget about big time greenwashing.

Dr Kate
Read this:

http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002848.html

Claiming man contributes to global warming is a scam.
To continue with the proposed trading in CO2 emissions will profit some and provide more income to the govts world wide.
please post a comment after reading, I would value your opinion.
fluff