Response to 'keithcolin':Saying that forests are carbon rich is akin to saying that Antarctica is ice-rich. This is not worthy of being considered as a 'recent change in knowledge' as you have implied.

You refer to the recently released 'Green carbon' report as new knowledge. While it has attained some credibility through being authored by ANU scientists, its objectivity is seriously questionable as it was funded by The Wilderness Society (TWS) and its lead author, Professor Mackey, is an anti-logging activist who assists TWS on its Wild Country project. He has also authored several opinion pieces published in The Age calling for the closure of Australia's hardwood timber industry. So, no prizes for guessing what his report finds!

The major shortcomings of the 'Green Carbon' report are that:- it appears to grossly overstate the carbon content of the above-ground forest components, particularly compared to previous carbon accounting estimates by the Australian Greenhouse Office;- it implies that the carbon content of the highly productive SE Australian ash forests is indicative of all Australian forests which are mostly comparatively unproductive;- it virtually ignores the fact that periodic forest fire is inevitable - indeed the forests have evolved to be dependent on it - which invalidates any claim that stopping logging (in the minor portion of forests where it is permitted) will allow forests to become permanent carbon stores.

In any case, it is acknowledged by scientists involved in carbon accounting that sustainably harvesting forests is the best way to increase carbon storage because it transfers carbon from the forest into secure storage in the community, whilst creating space for new trees to sequester and store more carbon.

I wouldn't expect you or Chris James to understand any of this. Indeed, the real tragedy of the on-going campaigns to 'save' forests is that the 'environmentalists' don't even know what they don't know about forests. While their political connections may see their campaigns succeed, the result would be as environmentally and socially dangerous as say allowing the timber industry to determine how our schools or hospitals are run.

Part 1: Dr. James raises some very good and valid points on the unprofessional behaviour of the pro logging lobby, actions that continue to affect the public in an equally insidious fashion today, most recently with the development of the Australian Environment Foundation (AEF). The birth of this organisation stemmed from a supposedly disenchanted group of ‘environmentalists’ that disagreed with the way conservation was being enacted in Australia. This group condones; logging in old growth forests, nuclear power, GM crops, the Gunns pulp mill, land clearing and they continually throw skepticism at the theory of anthropogenic climate change.

The AEF was founded by the head campaigner of Timber Communities Australia; Kersten Gentle and at one point had their principal place of contact in the TCA offices. The organisation purports to represent on environmental issues in an objective fashion unfettered by emotional conservation but the truth is they employ similar tactics to any other environment group and shroud it in a cloak of supposed ‘science’. Max Rheese, its director, publicly admitted on Tripple J’s Hack program that the organisation was a political lobbying group, an action that is in conflict with their government awarded tax deductibility status. This status, by law, prohibits political lobbying and stipulates that financial donors must not use the environmental organisation as a conduit for their own outcomes, interesting when you consider the AEF publicly admits to receiving funds from Tasmanias forest industries, with direct links to Gunns, and the AEF actively promotes logging and lobby’s for the Gunns pulp mill. It could be argued that this group is using the government tax benefits, at cost to the community, to lobby for their donors needs not for the natural environments needs. In their chairmans own words, celebrity Gardner Don Burke says ‘“The proposed pulp mill at Bell Bay in Tasmania should go ahead ...”

Part 2:Worth noting is how the AEF received their tax deductibility status in a matter of months when most environment groups wait years before their approval or disproval. As the old adage goes ‘its not what you know its who you know and perhaps whose money is funding you’.

Now for Mr Poynter and his role in this equation. Firstly, Mr Poynter is the mouth piece for the logging lobby, the Institute of Foresters Australia, he has also written a book ‘Saving Australia’s Wilderness’, that attempts to provide a ‘balanced’ appraisal of the environmental movement. Mr Poynters book effectively reveals a highly under confident pro logging lobby and inadvertently delivers environment groups with the archillies heel of the logging industry. For some environmentalists, it helped boost their confidence realising they mattered more to the opposition and were a lot more effective in their campaigning than previously thought. Mr Poynter’s book is an endorsement for a business as usual approach to logging in areas of high conservation value forests and is readily endorsed by the AEF, in fact you can buy it directly from their website, front page no less. Fancy an environment organisation promoting a book that condemns environment groups?

Response to 'environment for everyone':
You dismiss the Institute of Foresters of Australia (IFA) as a 'logging lobby'. In fact it is the peak body representing Australia's professional foresters. It has been in existence since 1935 and has around 1300 members who have academic qualifications and/or training and experience in forest science. In my case that is a diploma and a university degree. The discipline of forest science embraces all aspects of native forest and plantation management including fire, ecology, wood production.

The IFA and its members actually know and understand the complexity of what is happening in our forests - perhaps you could enlighten us on what you actually know beyond just a simplistic desire to 'save' forests through political activism regardless of any wider social and environmental consequences.

I am interested in your reaction to my book - 'Saving Australia's Forests and its Implications'. It was written specifically to put into perspective the ongoing anti-logging campaigns. In particular, the fact that they continue despite logging being now such a minor activity in terms of harvested area, and that the environmental impact is so minimal that government publications such as 'Australia's State of the Forests Report' confirm that it poses no threat.

The book was an attempt to show that the environmental movement's attitude to wood production is grossly out of proportion with reality and pose questions about why this may be so. Personally, I think it is because logging is an easy target for people that feel a need do something for the environment but think that the really important issues are too hard. Unfortunately, stopping wood production will do almost nothing except make these people feel better. Indeed, it would be counterproductive because it will transfer our hardwood demand to places where there are few environmental controls and weaken our capability to manage the really important threats to our own forests, such as fire.

Those like My Poynter who support logging in water catchments and deforestation are blind to the bigger picture of the global crisis that we are passing through. I have no time for their blinkered perspectives. WE ARE DYING.
WE ARE IN THE MIDST OF AN ECOLOGICAL, ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND EVOLUTIONAL CRISIS. We need to regain a respect and love for GAIA...and simply shift from the egotistic domination of all and sundry.
Wake up Mr Poynter!

For the benefit of readers I would like to comment on the slur Mr Poynter made regarding my degree, a Doctorate in Communication. My thesis actually dealt with the different levels of consciousness including studies of Autism and false consciousness. I do not feel I should have to justify my position but such a slur is not only another example of unprofessional behaviour it is also insulting to my university, Deakin and the people who supported me through the higher degree process. The National Forestry Association has resorted to similar slurs on its website, one which refers to a recent report on the capacity of forests to store carbon. In this case the Australian National University and the relative researchers were accused of 'pseudo-science'. This is not only a great insult to the ANU it is an insult to the Australian people. Does anyone seriously think our leading university could afford to engage in such unethical behaviour as 'pseudo-science'. I don't think so. It is unfortunate but there are human costs in this debate including the families of loggers, many of whom are simply trying to survive. However, they are not well served by industry representatives that have to resort to under-hand, misleading and abusive tactics.