The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Blurring the lines between science and political activism > Comments

Blurring the lines between science and political activism : Comments

By Mark Poynter, published 30/10/2008

Green links and personal agendas are hurting the credibility of ANU research.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. All
This is an important article on a most important subject. Mr Poynter has neatly exposed two fundamental problems with Australian academia: (i) the apparent dependence of some of their research institutions on 'tied' funding; and (ii) the blurring of the lines between some of their scientits and political activism. The extention of this flawed process into policy, via an excercise like the Garnaut Report, indicates that we are looking here at a deeply damaging aspect of modern society.

The ANU will no doubt strongly counter-attack on this issue, crying "academic freedom" and "censorship" and lauding the efforts of their scientists to save the planet. This will not save them from the growing perception in many quarters that they have gone too far, and that the scientific credibility of institutions such as the Fenner School has been seriously damaged.
Posted by yorkie, Thursday, 30 October 2008 10:24:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is a timely and significant article that raises the question, has the Garnaut report been compromised by academic activism?

As Mark points out, in its 4th assessment report, the IPCC concluded that the most effective mitigation strategy for greenhouse gas was sustainable forestry managed for the harvest of timber for solid wood, fibre and energy needs as well as increasing carbon stored.

Yet the Garnaut report appears to go against the world action of valuing native forests for both their production value as well as there ability to capture carbon and store it in its biomass, its soil and in the timber products the world desperately needs.

The Wilderness Society has loudly trumpeted that the Garnaut report “says that Australia’s greenhouse emissions can be reduced significantly if logging of native forests and land-clearing are stopped immediately”

What the Wilderness Society does not tell the average member of the public that this is their interpretation of a table that quotes figures from the analysis in the Mackey et al Green Carbon report, or that they paid the ANU to provide this analysis. Or that the ANU report was released with great media fanfare that they orchestrated.

Was it to get the figures into the Garnaut report that the ANU published the analysis without releasing its data, its calculations or its methodology? This is an action that undermines the credibility of the report, the peer review process and perhaps even the University itself. A technical paper has yet to be published in a scientific journal.

If after the release of the data and the calculations it is found that errors have been made and the findings are not justified the actions of the ANU WildCountry authors and their funders the Wilderness Society may undermine both the Garnaut report and the Rudd Labor government attempt to mitigate Australia’s greenhouse gasses.
Posted by cinders, Thursday, 30 October 2008 12:18:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Science and politics go hand in hand, because we are "human".

Often, whether or not a person considers a scientific report or study "feasible" depends on the religious, philosophical or political outlook of that person.

For example, if a study shows industrialized mankind has an effect on warming the planet, there's NO WAY AT ALL it will be believed by someone who's convinced climate change is a socialist plot.

Because we are "human", with all our human frailties, science and politics/religion/philosophy will always be mixed together.
Posted by rw523252, Thursday, 30 October 2008 12:49:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you for a clear and concise expose, Mark. It describes an example of a very disturbing trend, which, alongside Ian Castles's recent article on the Drought Exceptional Report, should be being picked up by our journalists, who alas seem to be too busy recrafting NGO press releases themselves.
Posted by fungochumley, Thursday, 30 October 2008 2:25:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Same happened back in the late eighties when the various green groups stopped hazard reduction burns by massively increasing the requirements to have impact statements and alike.
Now they claim credit for promoting environmental burns to reduce the risk of high intensity fires on high risk day's.
Only trouble is that now we have public lands (Nation Parks,reserves and unoccupied crown land) that have not had a fire for twenty plus years and are at maximum fuel load.
Try and get them to accept that their actions have caused demonstrable
problems and all you get is a blank look!
I suppose that Dolly did it!
Posted by Little Brother, Thursday, 30 October 2008 2:26:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I suppose I should hold an opinion having hung around ANU campus while a Canberra resident and now living near forested areas as a resident of Tasmania. My first conclusion is that carbon accounting is far from settled and I can see omissions in different schools of thought. Here's one from left field and personal observation ..old growth has different local climate effects to regrowth. Or another ..we should graze cattle in forests to reduce fuel accumulation.

Quite apart from carbon accounting I think the author's point is valid. Without being specific I believe ANU has given pseudo-scientific credence to half baked ideas that their own undergraduates should be able to dismiss. It invokes the Canberra Times sarcastic reference to the mythical School of Inconsequential Studies.
Posted by Taswegian, Thursday, 30 October 2008 9:05:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Their is no conflict of interest between publicly funded university educated opportunistic left wing labor reforming green media scientists working for NGO's "or" the traditional Government public service apart from the social responsible perspective of "truth in application" other wise politics is their underlying main driver and ambition.
Posted by Dallas, Thursday, 30 October 2008 11:13:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Beware the timber industry spin on forests and climate. They have an agenda and that's to make money and maintain the status quo. If you want to know what's really going on, here is a report on "Forests, Carbon & Global Warming" explaining how climate change is likely to affect forests as well as how forest conservation may help mitigate climate change. The report also helps debunk some of the flawed arguments used by logging advocates.
http://tinyurl.com/2n96m5

And here is a slide show clarifying many misconceptions about forests, logging, and carbon:
http://www.slideshare.net/dougoh/forest-carbon-climate-myths-presentation/
Posted by Dougo, Friday, 31 October 2008 6:27:36 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
According to research released by the World Resource Institute, deforestation not sustainable forestry accounts for emissions of greenhouse gas. In ‘Navigating the numbers’ http://pdf.wri.org/navigating_numbers_chapter17.pdf the institute comments that whilst 18 %of world emissions is attributable to land use, land use change and forestry, less than one percent is attributable to forestry. This is due to the regrowth and new forests balancing product and slash.

There appears to be a deliberate attempt to confuse deforestation with forest silviculture and management.

In an amazing twist, the Wild Country Hub at the ANU also put in a submission to Garnaut Inquiry in January, seven months prior to publication of the Green Carbon report. A draft version of the report was quoted extensively, but this version only had three authors and not four. (Available at http://www.garnautreview.org.au/CA25734E0016A131/pages/submissions#1 )

It also showed that the Carbon Carrying Capacity of production forests were greater on a per hectare basis than those in reserves. This finding has been left out of the final version.

Could it be that such a finding exposes the Wilderness Society propaganda?

The draft report covered 16 million ha of forests, yet the final version only 14.5 million, what happened to the 1.5 million ha of forest, why was it excluded?
Posted by cinders, Friday, 31 October 2008 8:05:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mark Poynter says his article represents the Institute of Foresters of Australia. If he or the IFA wishes to engage in a forestry debate, put your data on the table. The article is just a personal attack. I welcome debate over data and analysis.

Judith Ajani
ANU
Posted by Judith Ajani, Monday, 3 November 2008 7:25:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
to Judith Ajani
To my mind, questioning the integrity of academic process does not constitute a personal attack. Neither does comparing the findings of your report against official government findings re carbon emissions from forestry and land use, but I accept that you may see it differently.

Your demand to 'put data on the table' is ironical given that a major thrust of my article has been about the unwillingness of Macket et al to do just that. As the conclusions in your paper are drawn from the Mackey paper, surely your demand to see data should be directed at them. We at the IFA would certainly love to see their data because then their could actually be a technical debate
Posted by MWPOYNTER, Monday, 3 November 2008 8:47:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is not the first time that academics from the ANU have put science to one side and sold their soul to the green movement. Judy Clark was regularly trotted out here in WA by the anti-logging brigade, saying that we have all the timber we need coming out of plantations, so let's close the native forest logging industry. What she deceitfully didn't say was that the timber coming from plantations was either exotic softwood used as a structural timber or eastern state's bluegums for wood chip production. The native hardwoods which had supported WA's timber industry for 200 years could not be sourced from plantations.
Just in the last 2 months, we've seen the state's largest export manufacturer of jarrah outdoor furniture sack 180 workers, with another 100 or so to be sacked by Gunns when their Yarloop mill closes soon. Are there jobs in the plantation timber industry to replace these lost jobs? No!
Thanks for a very insightful article, Mark.
Posted by Bernie Masters, Monday, 3 November 2008 10:03:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mark’s article is clearly attacking the ideas put forward by these two papers and the process of peer review; to me it is not a personal attack. His article exposes the fact that data has not been put ‘on the table’ by the Mackey Wild Country team, yet this paper without the data has then been used by another academic at the same University.

My reading is that Mark's article also questions the statement in relation to the 20% emission figure by showing it is in error when compared to data published by the Federal Government as part of the National Carbon Accounting system.

Data for the NCAS has already been published along with its methodology by first the AGO and now the Department of Climate Change. Ajani herself seeks the credibility of the AGO data, as she claims erroneously that figures are based on AGO figures, when in fact they are from the Wilderness Society.

Instead of defending her claims from Mark’s valid criticisms, she chooses to attack both Mark and the IFA and in the ultimate paradox, challenges him to put data ‘on the table’. If she had read Mark’s article, she instead should have challenged Mackey and the ANU peer reviewers to put their data ‘on the table’ before she included their conclusions within her own paper.
Posted by Timberjack, Monday, 3 November 2008 6:50:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The tobacco industry didn't like the bad news about cancer either. The oil, coal and aluminium industries still don't like bad climate news.
I'm afraid the native forestry sector is in the same boat.

You can deny, point to holes in this emerging scientific field, attack the messenger and rant about conspiracies as much as you like, but the weight of evidence will build and policy will (eventually) have to reflect the reality of the sector's carbon emissions.

The costs are adding up and the era of industrial scale logging of native forests in Australia is coming to an end.

Start negotiating that exit plan guys and girls.

steve_ious
Posted by steve_ious, Tuesday, 4 November 2008 3:11:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
See the whole of the following article at http://www.cis.org.au/executive_highlights/EH2008/eh70408.html

Out with the Outstations?
Sara Hudson

The NT government admits policy failure on outstations writes Sara Hudson in the Sunday Territorian, 19 October 08

After thirty years, it finally seems the Northern Territory government is acknowledging the failures of the outstation movement. Last Monday, the Northern Territory government released a discussion paper seeking input on proposed reforms to outstation policy.

Despite spending millions or even billions of dollars, successive governments have failed to provide appropriate standards of housing, education, and essential services in these Indigenous communities. The catalyst for the government’s change in policy is the crisis in Indigenous education, which has occurred because of separatist educational policies.

In these outstations, Aboriginal schools known as ‘learning centres’ do not have the same standards of classrooms, teaching aids, and materials as regular primary schools. They have a separate ’Indigenous‘ curriculum, and largely rely on fly-in-fly-out teachers who do not meet the normal requirements of the Northern Territory’s Teacher Registration Board. Finally, Marion Scrymgour, the NT’s Indigenous Policy Minister, has admitted that the cultural benefits of these outstations have come at the expense of children’s education.

The discussion paper argues that the NT government’s priority is to give children access to adequate services, especially education. People who are uneducated do not have true freedom, because they lack the capabilities to make real choices about their lives. At last, the NT government has recognised that ‘children must have access to education so that when they are adults they have the capacity and options in life to make a considered decision on the path they wish to take.’
Posted by Bernie Masters, Tuesday, 4 November 2008 4:58:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mark Poynter is well known for whacking environmentalists or those he perceives as having a green link.

While he prefaces this article with a caption: “Green links and personal agendas are hurting the credibility of ANU research” I would suggest that he should also disclose his “links” with the pro-industry IPA and the AEF.

His articles are published on Jennifer Marohasy’s website. He has written a paper with Max Rheese, executive director of AEF and spoken at AEF’s functions alongside such notables as Bob Carter, Max Rheese and Don Burke, whom I believe was Chairman of the IPA between July 2005 and September 2008.

In October 2008, the Tasmanian company Gunns announced that Don Burke had been appointed as "Environmental Adviser" to the company board.

This article has been published on Jennifer Marohasy’s web, titled: "National University fosters Forest Activism based on Ignorance: A Note from Mark Poynter."

I would prefer that he ceases his public vendetta against Dr Judith Ajani and the Mackey Wild Country team (unknown to me.) Surely private dialogue and scientific debate would bring about a satisfactory conclusion? On the other hand perhaps they have good reason for not putting Mark Poynter out of his misery?

If Mark is so interested in “conserving” our forests, why has his institute remained so impotent in this area? Why doesn’t he inform OLO posters of the catastrophic impacts on the jarrah forests in WA by Alcoa, in its pursuit of bauxite mining where the jarrah forests are pillaged with impunity?

Or would that hurt the credibility of the right-wing, pro-industry think tanks to whom he is affiliated?

http://savingiceland.puscii.nl/?p=3185&language=en

“Thousands of hectares of jarrah forest are cut down to access soil, which is blasted at extreme temperatures with a caustic solution to extract alumina-producing bauxite.”

http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,24586309-5017007,00.html
Posted by dickie, Tuesday, 4 November 2008 6:28:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Normally, I prefer not to attack the person but instead focus on the issues. Sadly, in dickie's case, I make an exception. He believes the world is almost totally devastated already and he sees nothing good in anything human beings do. There's really no point in trying to argue rationally with him: he has his bleak view of the world and no amount of truth is going to make him think differently.
Posted by Bernie Masters, Tuesday, 4 November 2008 7:43:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ah hello there Bernie Masters.

Since you were S/Environment Minister for the Liberal Government in WA and the member for Vasse, before you were disendorsed, could you direct me to the Hansard archives where you have expressed concern for the jarrah forests in the southwest please?

After all, the southwest is your place of residence and Alcoa's doing a good job of digging it up!

Or will you continue with your Argumentum ad Hominem as a means of converting fact into fallacy, thus corrupting this thread?

Poor old Bernie - such a bad loser when publicly declaring of his parliamentary successor - the Liberal member for Vasse:

"Frankly, Vasse deserves better than an MP who occasionally visits the people who put him into office.”

Tut tut - bad boy Bernie and a traitor to his cause - he should stick to cracking rocks!
Posted by dickie, Tuesday, 4 November 2008 8:38:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bernie, I'm guessing by the tone, language and level of thinking that dickie is in about Year 8 or 9, so we shouldn't discourage his passion for ridding the world of all poisons, germs, dirt, bacteria, viruses, diseases, evil, impurities, injury, nasty bad things, ugliness, death and sinful productivity, as well as those harmful beasties with jobs and, gasp, affiliations, who cause it all. I hope he uses this passion in some productive way when he enters the real world.
Posted by fungochumley, Tuesday, 4 November 2008 9:29:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bernie

Regarding your comment; Tuesday, 4 November 2008 4:58:03 PM.

What has Northern Territory Outstations got to do with the article written by Mark Poynter?

Could you please clarify because you follow it up with a reply to Dickie stating you prefer to "focus on the issues"?
Posted by Q&A, Tuesday, 4 November 2008 11:04:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Like the Wizard's curtain in OZ, the line between reality and intention, between science and politics is deliberately blurred to protect the riches of the few from the needs of the many.

IT IS NOT ENOUGH FOR SCIENTISTS TO JUST ADVISE THE NEW US PRESIDENT OR ANY OTHER WORLD LEADER ON SCIENCE, AS A STANDALONE EFFORT!

The human race, never mind the Murdoch media inventioned 'American Feminist Consumer Dream', is doomed unless Government takes over the major oil companies, allowing TWO science revolutions to occur:

1. Real reasearch with real $billions must be spent on developing Kilowatt/Kilogram battery technology. Batteries that last 20 years or more, not the current 6 month battery company profit margin lifetime.
What we have now is pretend research with $billions of pretend dollars-on-a-string aimed at protecting oil company profits

2. Real GEOTHERMAL research. Again oil company and coal company monopolisation of government R&D $pork are killing any chance of GEOTHERMAL ever becoming the saviour of the human race. Why? Because these corporate idiots in the ENERGY sector believe there is more profit in WAR: In democratisation, economic dependacy, overpopulating & ultimately culling the peoples of the world in an insane programmed profit making fiscal-lift-pump instrument that goes under the name of Wall Street.

Science will never be free to achieve the things (outlined in KAEP (Kyoto Alternative Energy policy)) that are necessary to give EVERY human being a shot at the American Dream, while corporate monopolies in the ENERGY sector are allowed to exist. Culling Oil and Coal company monopolies is a more sustainable way to grow a peaceful and decent future for the human race than a Wall street programatised culling of human rights and humans. In fact Culling Oil and Coal company monopolies may be the only way to grow any kind of human future on this planet, as we now lurch from one economic or cultural crisis to the next as the inevitable 2025-2030 PEAKING of OIL beds down.
Posted by KAEP, Tuesday, 4 November 2008 11:50:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, I congratulate Dickie. He is the first environmentalist in about 30 years to say anything critical about bauxite mininng in the jarrah forest. This compares with an excellent booklet on the subject put out by the Institute of Foresters and a number of public statements by WA foresters, including a very telling post on the Jennifer Marohassy blog by IFA member Roger Underwood a couple of years ago. In that article the point was made that the failure of "conservationists" to oppose bauxite mining in the jarrah forest in the same way that they oppose timber cutting and responsible fire management was one of the great mysteries of Australian environmentalism. Timbr cutting and prescribed burning represent temporary disturbances, from which the forest ecosystem fully and rapidly recovers. Bauxite mining not only removes the entire forest above ground, but also the soil to a depth of several metres, and is being carried out on Perth's water supply catchments at a rate of up to 1000 ha per year. Yet the greens, with the notable exception of young Dickie, are silent, or are too busy trying to shut down the timber industry to be bothered. Mark Poynter's thoughtful and important article is supported by professional foresters whose principal interest is good forest management, irrespective of the purpose of management. This in turn needs to be supported by good science based on good data, not the sort of quasi-religious "take my word for it" stuff emminating from the ANU.
Posted by yorkie, Wednesday, 5 November 2008 10:53:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
to 'dickie' - some comments and clarifications
Let me get this straight - you are accusing me of conducting a personal vendetta (against Judith Ajani) in a post in which you totally ignore the subject (of my article) and spend almost its entirity in condemning me because I may be linked with a range of evil people and organisations. Hypocrite is a word which comes to mind.

If you had fully read my article you would see it is primarily about other ANU scientists, with Ajani's name only mentioned several times. If you haven't tried, it is very difficult to critically analyse a research paper without mentioning the author's name.

Your comment: "Surely private dialogue and scientific debate would bring about a satisfactory conclusion." What a lovely thought, but you must have been living under a rock not to notice that the environmental movement eschewed this approach 25 years ago in favour of public relations campaigns based on sensational images, misrepresentation of facts, and heartstring tugging. Publicly pointing out the shortcomings of their message is one way of responding to their approach.

Your comment: " ... in conserving forests, why has has your institute been so impotent in this area" This is a reasonable question with a simple answer - the IFA is a professional association, not an activist body fully focussed on stopping something or closing it down a la the environmental movement.

The IFA has been around since 1935. It has 1300 members engaged in all aspects of forestry including native forests, fire, plantations, conservation management, and research (including some ANU scientists). Most are like me, they have to earn a living and can only do things like write articles, in their spare time. Yet we are up against well-paid career activists - so its little wonder we don't have their profile.
Posted by MWPOYNTER, Wednesday, 5 November 2008 1:28:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In Forests for Life the IUCN and the WWF set a target of 10% of each country's forest to be within protected areas. The latest Government figures show that since the 2003, the area of Australia’s native forest in formal nature conservation reserves has increased by about 1.5 million hectares to 23 million hectares, from 13% to 16%. In Tasmania where forest confrontation is a daily event, the reserves exceed 47% of the forest. More than enough to protect biological diversity, the environment, store carbon and accommodate a tourist industry.

As Yorkie and Bernie Masters correctly point out there is a need for an environmental organization that will focus on the evidence, and not speculate and misinform. No wonder Mark Poynter was invited to the Australian Environment Foundation Conference to outline the facts on forest management, and no wonder this article is republished on the blog of the Environmental advocate Dr Jennifer Marohasy who is a Senior Fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs.

The Australian Environment Foundation http://www.aefweb.info/ is providing a real opportunity for detailed discussion on issues, rather than just accepting the sensational claims so often found in the media. I just hope that both Yorkie and Bernie will attend the AEF conference when it is hosted in Perth WA. Their knowledge and expertise would be worth hearing!
Posted by cinders, Wednesday, 5 November 2008 1:40:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Apologies to all for my misplaced post of Nov 4th on Indigenous issues. I posted it to the wrong discussion site.
Cinders is quite correct. By global standards, we're doing very well in relation the area of land protected from clearing. Loss of biodiversity through vegetation clearance is now a major issue in countries like Brasil and Indonesia, although I have a 1980 statement from the NT Conservation Commission saying that all of Brasil's rain forests would be gone by the year 2000 if current clearing rates were maintained!
From what I can guesstimate from dickie's posts, I'm pretty sure he's an anti-everything activist who's never worked in the private sector and so has no idea where the wealth comes from to sustain his lifestyle. It's pretty much a waste of time trying to debate him on the science of issues. Sure, he throws lots of facts and figures around but, in a country of 8 million square kilometres, non-agricultural industry hasn't really done much damage , considering the many mistakes that have been made in other developed countries.
On the Alcoa issue, I donated funds to the WA Conservation Council legal fight against Alcoa in the 1970s because I was concerned about the loss of jarrah forest from mining and dieback fungus spread. Today, Alcoa is an economic powerhouse in WA and almost untouchable. Normally, this would concern me a lot but they do good (but not perfect) post-mining rehabilitation and our jarrah forests are very well protected (but poorly managed for the most part) so that bauxite mining is one of the least important threats to WA's environment.
Posted by Bernie Masters, Wednesday, 5 November 2008 10:37:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Now that I’ve recovered from Mark Poynter’s king-hit (a frozen packet of peas is very therapeutic!,) I would question his motives for criticizing the “environmental” movement in every one of his articles without exception.

Perhaps he is unaware that most Australians, concerned over native forests, are not “environmentalists” but ordinary citizens.

Mark states that “It is particularly significant that although both the Ajani and Mackey et al papers are about forests, there is no evidence of input from forest scientists who are surely experts in this field.”

Since he has written many papers on native forests, including a book last year, I would be curious to know what scientific credentials he has and if his writings have been peer reviewed.

I reqest that in the future, on OLO, he rises to the challenge in the following links. This would assist in allowing the uninformed public (including me) to more accurately assess the operations of the timber industry:

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=16111385

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/opinion/editorial/general/careful-research-in-call-to-halt-oldgrowth-logging/1340178.aspx

Mark Poynter claims in another article that logging and regeneration of native forests sequesters more carbon than locking up forests, therefore what methods has he adopted to prevent the release of carbon from the disturbance of soils since three to four times more carbon is stored in soils than in the vegetation above?

And the impact on native habitats?

The timber industry should be a little more courteous to the Australian public who are fully entitled to question operations propped up by tax payers' dollars. These operations privatize and exploit public lands - lands and a biodiversity which belong to all Australians not just the timber industry which continue to profit from the forests' eco-systems in this era of climate change.

Bernie

You persist in believing your own hubris and forget that there are better qualified people than you who would wish to disagree with your assertions.

I assure you that in many parts of the planet, Alcoa wears the leper’s bell. Last year Alcoa’s revenue was in excess of $30.7 billion but one way or another, all “good” things will come to an end, Bernie:

http://www.nsi-ins.ca/english/pdf/Robert_Goodland_Suriname_ESA_Report.pdf

(See Page 28)
Posted by dickie, Thursday, 6 November 2008 2:04:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As he often does, dickie now runs off on other tangents when he starts coming under pressure to explain his emotional anti-development positions. Now he's being critical of BHP for a proposed bauxite mine in Suriname because of the impacts on native people living within the mining area. An important issue, I agree, but it's a distraction to what we were discussing.
He criticises me because I "forget that there are better qualified people than you who would wish to disagree with your assertions". Well, I'd like to know what dickie's qualifications are but, more importantly, it really doesn't matter in a democracy like Australia's what qualifications a person has: we should all be free to express our point of view. It's only when we have to decide who to believe and what position to adopt that a person's qualifications and the quality of the science contained within his or her argument become important.
Or is dickie suggesting I shouldn't be allowed to have a contrary point of view because I don't have the qualifications that dickie expects? No, I'm sure that's not what he's suggesting!
Posted by Bernie Masters, Thursday, 6 November 2008 3:54:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bernie Masters

You suggested in your previous post that Alcoa was a good corporate citizen.

I provided you with a link to substantiate my claim that they are not. In addition, I advised you to go to "Page 28."

However, since you feigned an inability to comprehend the written word, you went to Page 1 instead, to select your red herring.

You were once a S/Minister for the Environment. Your role was to protect the environment but you protect the pollutocrats.

Of course, I could raise the issue of the jarrah forests with the Department of Environment and Conservation, could I not?

Unfortunately, most of the senior bureaucrats in that department have jumped camp and are now on Alcoa's payroll, advising them on how to pollute - sorry on how not to pollute.

There is no lag time between tenures.

Then again, perhaps I should have consulted the head of the EPA - Wally Cox. Unfortunately he is currently the subject of a Corruption and Crime Commission enquiry. And rumour has it, had he not been exposed for improper conduct, he had planned to work part-time for industry lobbyists, Burke and Grill whilst retaining his position as head of the EPA.

Your previous role as S/Environment Minister is typical of the Liberal Party who like to gift this portfolio to the vested interests of geologists, land developers, lawyers, bankers and candlestick makers.

No wonder WA is in a state of disrepair.

Thank you Bernie!
Posted by dickie, Thursday, 6 November 2008 4:51:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mark Poynter and Bernie Masters are right to express concern on the ANU figures from the Wilderness Society funded Green carbon analysis. A key claim is that the Australian forests hold up to ten times the default values used by the IPCC.

These are stated in the report as “The IPCC default values for temperate forests are a carbon stock of 217 t C ha-1 and an NPP of 7 t C ha-1 yr-1.”

The reference given for this is Watson, R. T., Noble, I. R., Bolin, B., Ravindranath, N. H., Verardo, D. J. and Dokken, D. J. (eds) 2001, Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Cambridge University Press, Third Assessment Report, Table 3.2.

This report is available at http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc%5Fsr/?src=/Climate/ipcc/land_use/index.htm

In fact table 3.2 in the Executive Summary of Chapter 3 of the Watson paper is about Issues, options, and implications related to definition of afforestation, reforestation, and deforestation (ARD) activities.

The Values quoted by Mackey and co authors is a calculation of figures from two scientific reports made in the 1990s and included in the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC. They are not default values but the latest information available to the IPCC when it issued its third report in 2001.

Such an error undermines the Mackey paper and the peer review process. It also is a shame that this claim that the IPCC had these as default values is also repeated in the final Garnaut Report on page 165 section 22.3.7 and page 556.

Garnaut provides the same reference (different year) but no table.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) 2000, Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry: A special report, R. Watson, I.R. Noble, B. Bolin, N.H. Ravindranath, D.J. Verardo & D.J. Dokken (eds), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

If the correct reference is not quoted then how can the base figures be compared by independent peer reviewers and other experts?
Posted by cinders, Thursday, 6 November 2008 8:54:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The IPCC Special Report on Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry was published in 2000 (not 2001), and was not part of the Third Assessment Report.

The ‘Table 3.2’ reference in the Green Carbon analysis may have been intended to be a citation to Table 3.2 on p. 192 in Chapter 3 (‘The Carbon Cycle and Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide’) of the contribution of Working Group I (Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis) to the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report, which WAS published in 2001.

This Table is headed ‘Table 3.2. Estimates of terrestrial carbon stocks and NPP ...’. However the values therein are not described as ‘default values’, and those for ‘temperate forests’ do not match the Green Carbon report figures.

The Australian lead author of Chapter 3 of the IPCC WGI report was Professor Graham Farquhar of the ANU, who was also a Coordinating Lead Author of Chapter 6 (‘Implications of the Kyoto Protocol for the Reporting Guidelines’) of the LULUCF Special Report.

I hope this helps
Posted by IanC, Friday, 7 November 2008 7:22:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
G'day again 'dickie' - I was working down in the Otways yesterday so have only just read your latest comments.

If you know about my book, you should know (its on the inside cover) that I have a university degree and a diploma in forest science - that's five years of teriary education - plus about 30 years of work in forests and plantations. So, I am quite well qualified to write about my field.

Now that I have done you the courtesy of answering your question, perhaps you could let us know what your qualifications are?? I won't hold my breath.

I don't disagree with you that the wider public are concerned about native forests - not just 'environmentalists' - but you have to consider why they are concerned. As most of us live in cities and have zero, little or limited personal experience of forests, public concern is overwhelmingly shaped by media-based campaigns driven by 'environmentalists'

Consequently, the public have a very skewed view of the reality particularly in relation to proportionality, because obviously no environmental group is going to acknowledge that 87% of Tasmanian 'old growth' forest is reserved, or that timber production is limited to within just a 9% portion of Victoria's forests to name just two examples. Instead, the campaigns create a deliberate impression that we are going to lose all our forests - trying to correct this misconception is a critical motivation.
Posted by MWPOYNTER, Friday, 7 November 2008 9:15:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you cinders and IanC for your informative posts. It's good to know we have people scrutinizing these documents. The meticulousness of your reviewing is, ahem, peerless.
Posted by fungochumley, Friday, 7 November 2008 10:18:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ditto Fungo

The special report and the TAR are a little jaded now, any updates - anyone?

Bernie, thanks for the clarification - one would have thought you were losing the plot :-)

Dickie, hang in there - for all we know, you could be a sock puppet of the neo-cons :-(
Posted by Q&A, Saturday, 8 November 2008 11:35:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hello Mark

Your book title: “Saving Australia’s Forest….” grabbed my attention. On which page I could read up on WA’s jarrah forests?

Mark, my qualifications are irrelevant. I and 21 million others are stakeholders in Australia’s biodiversity. The majority of those millions are not held directly responsible for the state of our forests – you are.

I note your members of the “Rivers and Red Gum Environment Alliance” are: Australian Deer Association, Australian Environment Foundation, Field and Game Australia, NSW Forest Products Association, Sporting Shooters’ Association of Aust. (Vic), Vic. Assoc. of Forest Inds., Timber Communities Aust., VRFish, Wakool Shire, Murray River Action Group.

Of course the interests of the above stakeholders are completely self-serving are they not – and their motives are hardly altruistic when I see a myriad of shootin’ tootin’ cowboys on the list.

While the myth is peddled that opponents to the timber industry are all urban dwellers, sipping café lattes, I advise I’m from the country Brother – pastoral lands. Pioneering ancestors were on the First Fleet.

My concern is your public statement : “Using firewood from a sustainable source is one of the most environmentally friendly forms of home heating if it reduces electricity use.”

Did your degree incorporate a segment on environmental toxicity Mark? Did you know that in very recent years, (2006/7 from memory,) the WADEC have written papers on the health and environmental ramifications of using wood fires?

While I understand the logic in prescribed burning of forests (better a small fire than a large one,) one can never claim that incineration in any form is environmentally friendly.

If a burned ecosystem regrows, the carbon dioxide is eventually removed from the atmosphere and is incorporated into the new vegetative growth. However, other gaseous emissions remain in the atmosphere – impacting on the troposphere, stratosphere and human health.

How do you prevent the release of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, NOx, VOCs or particulates from a hazard reduction burn, Mark? How do you control the combustion to prevent the release of the ghastly PCDDs(dioxins)? Scrubbers!!?

Naughty boy Q&A!
Posted by dickie, Saturday, 8 November 2008 4:15:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mark, it looks like, all your science, all your experience, as well as some very good information in posts supporting your article is being totally ignored by a ‘dickie’ critic that has an interest in toxins but refuses to give a qualification.

This reminds me of the National Toxics Network and the Tasmanian pulp mill where they got a bloke from WA to write a paper and do media interviews all about the impact of the pulp mill. Turned out this bloke had a Master of Arts and no expertise in pulp mills or modern elemental chlorine free mills.

But then again the national “expert” for the NTN is Dr Marion Lloyd Smith who told Tasmania that “The elemental chlorine-free pulp mill proposed by Gunns should be rejected on public health grounds”

But, she is not a Doctor of Medicine she is a lawyer with a PHD based on community advocacy.

Yet the media quote her as an “expert”, she even claimed "In Victoria, in Lake Coleman, they found levels (of dioxins) in carp because they were exposed to effluent of an ECF pulp mill,"

Yet the Lake Colman incident was over a decade ago and the Victorian Pulp mill only received approval for an upgrade to ECF on 24 August 2005.

The Upgrade also proposed treated effluent to be only released into Bass Strait. The Commonwealth government’s experts with appropriate science qualifications decided that there would be no significant impact from the ECF mill on Commonwealth environmental values. (Decision 2005/2234 EPBC Act)

In a twist, based on the nonsense claims of lobby groups like the NTN, the Tasmanian Pulp mill was finally approved but with all sorts of conditions related to the Commonwealth marine waters and the treated effluent.

Despite the pulp mill to have no impact on Wilderness and not use old growth forests it is still being opposed by the Wilderness Society quoting the same figures from the Greens Institute that Ajani muddled as well as figures from an earlier Mackey model on carbon in old forests.
Posted by cinders, Saturday, 8 November 2008 5:25:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cinders

That “bloke from WA” you referred to, happens to be an acquaintance. Lee Bell has a BA, MA (ESD) and is an expert on toxic waste. Apart from the National Toxics’ team he is head of the Contaminated Sites Alliance, was appointed Co-chair of the Core Consultative Committee on Waste in WA and is a university lecturer.

Lee is a humble man - in demand as a speaker at many conventions and has written papers on the subject to which he is qualified including papers published in the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health.

Add another National Toxics committee member - Dr Bro Sheffield-Brotherton who has over 30 years experience in environmental NGOs, including senior positions in the Australian Conservation Foundation, Friends of the Earth, Project Jonah, and the Conservation Council and Environment Centre of WA.

He has been an expert and/or representative member of over 50 State and Commonwealth Government taskforces, panels and advisory committees on environmental issues.

He has worked in Government in social policy, energy policy and environmental education, and since founding Sustainable Solutions in 1990, has built a reputation for groundbreaking, outside-the-square consulting on sustainability issues.

In addition to the above, I have also met Dr Mariann Lloyd-Smith (a lawyer by profession) who has 25 years experience in chemical and waste policy, public participation and information systems.

She has worked for more than 20 years in the Australian and international environment movement focusing on research, contaminated sites management, chemical information systems and stakeholder capacity building for the resolution of national and international toxic disputes.

She is the Director of the research group, BioRegion Computer Mapping & Research Pty Ltd.

You state: “she even claimed In Victoria, in Lake Coleman, they found levels (of dioxins) in carp because they were exposed to effluent of an ECF pulp mill,"

It appears Cinders that you are most adept at manipulating the contents of published reports when you falsely claim Lloyd-Smith was referring specifically to the ECF technology in pulp mills:

http://www.oztoxics.org/ntn/pulp%20mill%20brief.pdf

http://www.environment.gov.au/settlements/publications/chemicals/dioxins/report-6/pubs/report-6a.pdf (page 43)

http://tapvision.info/node/117

Integrity is a pre-requisite for honest debate Cinders!

Cheers.
Posted by dickie, Saturday, 8 November 2008 8:07:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Apology required, Dickie. But you appear incapable of appreciating anyone’s argument other than your own.

You attempt to slur my integrity is not supported by the published account of the NTN remarks. I have not falsely claimed or manipulated anything.

The Lloyd Smith quote is from the Examiner article of her visit to Tasmania were she spoke at a wilderness society rally.

The Examiner article Warning over `deadly' toxins from pulp mill was dated Thursday, 2 March 2006

The article quoted her exactly and has never been challenged.

"In Victoria, in Lake Coleman, they found levels (of dioxins) in carp because they were exposed to effluent of an ECF pulp mill," she said.

The NTN lack of expertise in pulp mills is shown last year on the ABC AM program on 5th October 2007 when the transcript records:

“MARIANN LLOYD-SMITH: No, I certainly don't. I think it's very easy of people, just look at the Swedish pulp mills, which we know are world's best practice and it looks like the 47 Swedish pulp mills will now generate only 20 per cent more dioxin than Malcolm Turnbull is permitting Gunns to emit. So, certainly we would not consider it world's best practice in any form.

MARIANN LLOYD-SMITH: Sweden is where the world's best practice has been developed for pulp mills, and it comes in a form of a thing called a total chlorine-free pulp mill, which are functioning very, very successfully. They don't use chlorine and they don't use chlorine dioxide.”

The 47 Swedish mills is from a private submission to the Federal Minister opposing the mill’s approval that states: “Of the 47 Swedish pulp mills, 22 produce bleached kraft pulp and 19 of these use ECF bleaching processes and 2 use TCF bleaching processes with 1 employing both ECF and TCF processes”

As your link to the NTN publication shows ECF is a process that uses chlorine dioxide in its bleaching process. Like the majority of bleached kraft mills in Sweden, the Tasmanian mill will also be world's best practice ECF.
Posted by cinders, Saturday, 8 November 2008 9:13:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cinders

It's clearly evident that the Examiner has misquoted Lloyd-Smith by their inclusion of “ECF” in their article. I have provided you with Lloyd-Smith’s own article where that term is not mentioned. Nor is it mentioned in the National Dioxin Programme from which she was quoting or the subsequent submission by Lee Bell.

Furthermore you will realise that the entire statement was not her assertion but that of the NDP.

You are quoting from the joint submission by Drs Godfrey, Raverty and Wadsley when you state : “Of the 47 Swedish pulp mills, 22 produce bleached kraft pulp and 19 of these use ECF bleaching processes and 2 use TCF bleaching processes with 1 employing both ECF and TCF processes.”

Unfortunately, you omitted the sentence subsequent to that: “The Swedish dioxin load, as well as similar results for British Columbia and Quebec, show that the 3.4 pg TEQ/L limit proposed (Gunns) is about 4 times higher than the Swedish average and therefore clearly not world's best practice.”

I can understand your confusion over Lloyd-Smith’s seemingly ambiguous statement on her praise of Sweden’s TCF technology.

I am of the opinion that there are six plants employing TCF and 2 plants which employ both ECF and TCF with the balance being ECF so perhaps we are all confused.

However, I understand Lloyd-Smith was referring to production rates and the stringent regulatory standards for MPLs in Sweden and according to the following link, in Sweden, 42% of production was TCF by 2002.

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:2b7RWhD7NXgJ:findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa5371/is_200210/ai_n21323638+total+chlorine+free+sweden+42%25+production&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=au&lr=lang_en

The regulatory system in Sweden is far more stringent than Australia’s pro-industry third world standards.

One would have hoped that in the 21st century, Gunns would have employed the MACT (Maximum Available Control Technology) where the obligation for analytical testing and reporting would have been significantly reduced and the bun fight would have ceased.

I regret that I have cast aspersions on your integrity Cinders, however, providing links to one’s claims (which you did not) often mitigates the need for challege though I can be a nasty old tart at times eh?

Apologies for highjacking (corrupting?) Mark's thread!
Posted by dickie, Sunday, 9 November 2008 8:38:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No one seems to have pointed out the obvious flaws in the article by Mark Poynter. The proposition that forests in Australia are sustainably managed is, unfortunately, simply not true. The article states this fallacy a number of times and relies on it as key supporting evidence. I'm no greeny and I have no doubt that there are many holes in the arguments made by the Wilderness Society and others on this subject. However, the forestry profession needs to get off its high horse of sustainable management and take a more serious, in depth and historical look at forestry in Australia. I feel I am reasonably qualified to make these comments as I have a BSc(Forestry) from ANU and have closely followed forestry and the environmental debate for over 30 years.
Posted by Olympus, Monday, 10 November 2008 3:34:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I too share Dickie’s regret in him making false claims about my integrity and honesty. He blames a newspaper story for a misquote and me for not providing a link for his mistake.

A simple Google search on “Lloyd Smith pulp mill” reveals a copy of that story at http://www.ecoearth.info/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=53299 where ECF is ‘misquoted’ at least 4 times.

Dickie confirms, as he attempts to defend, all points about the NTN, he identifies Lee Bell as BA MA, that Dr Lloyd Smith is a lawyer not a doctor of medicine, and exposes her claim that all Swedish mills are TCF.

Before returning to the topic, let’s record the following facts: 95% of the world’s bleached kraft pulp capacity is ECF, as approved in Tasmania. So too is 73.3% of Sweden’s bleached kraft pulp.

For accurate information on the issue of ECF or TCF check table 2.9 and section 4.2 of http://www.aet.org/science_of_ecf/eco_risk/beca.pdf

The NTN has argued for TCF and dismissed ECF despite reports that “The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) considers the ECF and TCF bleaching methods to be equivalent with respect to their potential formation of PCDD and PCDF.” (ENSIS- CSIRO)

When ECF or TCF bleaching technologies are used, “the concentrations of dioxins and furans in the effluents are below the detection limits” (World Bank)

“PCDD and PCDF emissions in ECF and TCF effluents are about the same” (Beca Amec)

Even the Chief Scientist was “impressed by the technical and engineering advances that have been made in the design and operation of Elemental Chlorine Free pulp mills.”

He accepted that the proposed mill was likely to conform to world’s best practice.

He was able to do because in 2004 the RPDC issued world class guidelines that included Maximum Achievable Control Technology standards. [Dickie’s own prerequisite for a mill]

To get back to topic, the pulp mill will save over a million tonnes of CO2 emissions each year by reducing shipping, using renewable power and regenerating harvested regrowth forest and plantations. No old growth forest, the ‘carbon banks’ of these ANU papers will be used.
Posted by cinders, Monday, 10 November 2008 3:44:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mark,

Do you realise the hornets next you have stepped on by challenging the latest myths pushed by people who are fundamentally opposed to any tree in a native forest being cut for any purpose? Over the years I have read that the cessation of native forest logging is the cure of most of Australia's environmental and other ills including, but not limited to:
- ensuring Melbourne has sufficient drinking water (no desalination plant or pipeline needed).
- saving all threatened species as logging, not frequent catastrophic wildfires, is the only real threat.
- eliminate the risk of wildfire as undisturbed forests don't burn.
- stop global warming
- stop the spread of the Bairnsdale ulcer.
- reduce the incidence of depression.
- stop the unnecessary release of toxins such as dioxins.

The word limit stops me from giving a complete list.

Tonight I have read that stopping logging will restore the level of fine particles emitted by eucalypt forests, that are a key ingredient to the formation of raindrops. By implication, stopping native forest logging will end the drought.

On that basis, it is time for all practicing foresters to find another job and leave the management of our precious native forests to the know all celebrities, lawyers, pseudo scientists et al. I know the forests deserve better, but so do Australia’s foresters.
Posted by ralph j, Monday, 10 November 2008 9:44:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cinders

I've retracted my apology to you. Not only do you remain off topic, you continue to mischievously peddle misinformation.

I'm far from qualified to lecture anyone on ambiguity in language, however, since your skills appear even more inadequate than mine, I offer you an example of your failure to understand Lloyd-Smith’s statement:

1 When he knocked on the door, the landlady came downstairs in a night-dress and opened it for him.

“Sweden is where the world's best practice has been developed for pulp mills, and it comes in a form of a thing called a total chlorine-free pulp mill, which are functioning very, very successfully. They don't use chlorine and they don't use chlorine dioxide.”

Hellooooooooo Cinders!

2. “ECF” is “MISQUOTED” four times, Cinders? Where is the relevance to Lloyd-Smiths statement: “One 1994 Australian study cited in the National Dioxin Program reported results for the analysis of carp samples from Lake Coleman which received effluents from a treated pulp and paper mill with concentration in the 4 carp samples….”

3. “ Dickie confirms, as he attempts to defend, all points about the NTN, he identifies Lee Bell as BA MA,”

Manipulation of my statement again Cinders? Obviously you have no idea what the letters “ESD” mean. Letters which you have selectively omitted!

4. “Dr Lloyd Smith is a lawyer not a doctor of medicine, and exposes her claim that all Swedish mills are TCF.”

Oh yeah? "All," Cinders? Link please and how's that Pinocchio nose of yours doin'?

5. “He was able to do because in 2004 the RPDC issued world class guidelines that included Maximum Achievable Control Technology standards. [Dickie’s own prerequisite for a mill].”

"MACT" for Gunns, Cinders? Links please and oops - I see your nose has grown another inch already!

6. “PCDD and PCDF emissions in ECF and TCF effluents are about the same” (Beca Amec.)

Well franky my dear I don’t give a damn. Go tell someone else!

You're a well known activist for Gunns Cinders, which could explain why they're on the nose - errrrrr....ahem!
Posted by dickie, Monday, 10 November 2008 9:58:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This thread is about how academics or experts are prepared to compromise standards to suit an activist agenda. Dickie has given as a perfect example of this by first attacking my integrity and claiming that I manipulated the published comments of an ‘expert’.

In expressing his regret he blamed the newspaper for misquoting the ‘expert’, the newspaper article also available at http://www.justice.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/69132/70_R_J_and_P_M_Roberts.pdf . The article has, to my knowledge, never been challenged perhaps Dickie has some evidence, such as a letter to the editor, pointing out these misquotes. [He expects to be spoon fed links to evidence that has been widely available for those seeking to make an informed opinion]

It is for others to judge whether Dickie’s response is immature or even petulant, however his comment that he “don’t give a damn” about the Beca Amec finding in relation to ECF and TCF mills is typical of activists reaction to solid evidence when it is contrary to their own opinion.

Dickie accuses me of being an activist for the pulp mill, in fact, I consider my self an activist for evidence and for sustainable development. A process for ensuring sustainability in terms of social, environmental and economic outcomes, not just ecological.

As the independent evidence about the pulp mill that I have read is that it will have minimal environmental impact (no old growth, no wilderness, strict emission controls and technology), will create jobs and value add a resource currently being exported and provide a tremendous boost to the economy, I believe this is sustainable development. (Dickie appears to hold a different opinion)

Olympus, part of process for the sustainability of our forests the Federal Government has issued the State of the Forest Report http://adl.brs.gov.au/forestsaustralia/publications/sofr2008.html which compares forest management with Criteria and Indicators. Most State Forest managers also have a statement such as the Charter at http://www.forestrytas.com.au/news/2008/10/bright-future-for-forestry Perhaps you could discuss how these could be improved.

Like the United Nations Forum on forests, I would hope that articles like Mark’s would promote informed and civil discussion on the management, conservation and sustainable development of forests.
Posted by cinders, Tuesday, 11 November 2008 10:01:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm no expert on pulp mills but I understand that chlorine is used to bleach wood pulp so that it becomes white and hence usable as paper. Sweden's pulp mills rely almost totally on soft woods which are low in tannins and other dark-coloured chemicals, hence why they can operate chlorine-free pulp mills. The Gunn's proposal is to turn hardwood into paper, thereby necessitating the use of chlorine on what is a heavier and darker wood than anything processed in Sweden.
I also thought that dioxins were chemicals found in nature, although not at the concentrations occurring in pulp mill effluent. So the issue is what happens when the dioxins emitted from the Gunn's pulp mill mix into the receiving marine waters? Will they overwhelm the ability of the marine environment to assimilate them or will the dioxins be at such high concentrations and/or loads that the marine systems will be unable to cope. My understanding is that the regulatory authorities believe there won't be unacceptable adverse environmental impacts.
Posted by Bernie Masters, Tuesday, 11 November 2008 10:14:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well said fungo (Fri 7 Oct)
Posted by addiaction, Tuesday, 11 November 2008 10:56:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A lot of sniping going on between all sides of the debate, which is not achieving anything other than decreasing the credibility of all and indeed 'blurring the lines between science and political activism'.

What I have yet to hear is more about using our resources more wisely and seeking better alternatives to wood pulp for paper in particular. Why we are still pulping old growth forest is simply appalling when the technology exists to use plantation softwoods more effectively and alternatives such as hemp, cotton and bamboo are already available.

>>"Some interesting facts:

* Producing one ton of paper requires 2-3 times its weight in trees. Newly cut trees account for 55 percent of the global paper supply, while 38 percent is from recycled wood-based paper, and the remaining 7 percent comes from non-tree sources.

* The pulp and paper industry is the world's fifth largest industrial consumer of energy and uses more water to produce a ton of product than any other industry>>"

http://www.geca.org.au/gec/Printed_Matters.html

An interesting report on efficient processing and treatment of timber is to be found at:
http://www.forest-network.org/GoodWoodGuide/GWG4.htm

>>"When we think of using wood, we often first think of solid wood. The traditional post and beam method of construction comes to mind. These days, however, if we opt for solid wood, we may find we are selecting a very expensive building product. Indeed, if our solid wood comes from an old growth forest or a rainforest. our choice may be unfavourable on environmental grounds as well.

Recent developments in wood technology are bringing alternative wood products onto the market that manipulate the basic properties of wood to our advantage. 'Engineered Wood" is a generic term used to describe this range of new products. The common characteristic is that they all maximise the utility of wood's basic elements to minimise wood waste. in other words, engineered wood products enable us to do more with less.<<"

Please read the full article for the variety of options now available. It is a terrific source of information
Posted by Fractelle, Tuesday, 11 November 2008 11:29:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry Fractelle

You may find the "sniping" tedious, however the main object of my participation was not to debate the sustainability of our forests but to bring posters' attention to the misinformation which is being peddled here.

Therefore, I am obliged to defend those who are being maligned and are not here to defend themselves.

Cinders

Issues from my previous post - where you are unable to provide evidence to support your fallacious claims:

2. How convenient that you fail to acknowledge that the Examinator has plagerised and misquoted Lloyd-Smith's statement in her published brief on Gunns.

3. How convenient that you cannot give us the definition of Lee Bell's "ESD" qualifications

4. How curious that you are unable to support your fallacious claim that Lloyd-Smith stated "all" plants in Sweden are TCF.

5. How curious that you are unable to provide evidence to support your fallacious claim that the RPDC have accredited Gunns with "MACT."

How worrying for you Cinders that all the woodchips in Australia are inadequate to support that Pinocchio nose of yours.

http://www.fotosearch.com/bigcomp.asp?path=IMG/IMG013/125119H.jpg
Posted by dickie, Tuesday, 11 November 2008 12:01:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Have been following with interest this developing debate generated by Mark Poynter’s probing review, but do find it a bit disappointing that ‘dickie’ has reverted to name calling and falling for the old trap of not being fully aware of what he is arguing, for I spent a bit of time last night researching just a few points he was attempting to stand by.

For example links to the Beca Amec report, and the Ensis and World Bank shows that elemental chlorine is no longer used in the bleaching process of modern pulp mills and will not be used in Tasmania, it very clear that both ECF and TCF are considered to be world’s best practice and that the “concentrations of dioxins and furans in the effluents are below the detection limits”. http://www.aet.org/epp/index.html

But perhaps the clanger of all clangers made by “dickie” is his claim that “that the Examinator has plagiarised and misquoted Lloyd-Smith's statement in her published brief on Gunns.”

First up the newspaper in question is the Examiner and the article was published, Thursday, 2 March 2006 and it reported on statements made at a meeting held 1 March 2006 in Hobart. The PDF document that dickie linked to at http://www.oztoxics.org/ntn/pulp%20mill%20brief.pdf has in its property section “Created: 14/3/2006 3:49:58 pm” (the old mouse right click button reveals many secrets)

Therefore I would say it is a very desperate act to try and claim plagiarism when in fact the document was not even created at the time of the said offence occurring.

Now back to Mark Poynter’s opening post, looks like his efforts have gained a fair degree of interest as I heard this morning that there has been a call for a Federal Parliamentary Inquiry into the ANU’s Green Carbon report, and all matters relating to it
Posted by Timberjack, Wednesday, 12 November 2008 9:31:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you for your response Timberjack

You state: "Therefore I would say it is a very desperate act to try and claim plagiarism when in fact the document was not even created at the time of the said offence occurring."

That is a wild guess on your part Timberjack. That the document was placed on the National Toxic website, for public viewing on the 14 March, is no indication that the brief had not been released to interested parties, prior to that date.

Or what could be regarded as astonishing, is your suggestion that the Examiner’s psychic powers were such that they were able to quote Lloyd-Smith’s subsequent published brief, verbatim (with the exception of the “ECF” term thrown in for good measure.) Truly amazing!

Therefore what are you suggesting?:

1. That Lloyd-Smith read from her prepared but yet unpublished brief at the Hobart meeting?

2. The Examiner had requested a prepared brief (yet unpublished) from Lloyd-Smith, prior to or after the Hobart meeting?

3. That this very impressive woman has been sufficiently imprudent to deliberately distort the National Dioxin’s findings (already released to the public) which advised: “Lake Coleman, which received effluents from a treated pulp and paper mill concentration in the 4 carp samples between 0.48 – 4 pg I-TE g-1 wwt.v”?

I would say Timberjack that your claim is indeed a “desperate act” rather than mine.

Why don’t you contact the Examiner and ask whether they were quoting Lloyd-Smith’s verbal statements at the meeting, or if they misquoted her printed version of a quotation, obtained from a document already released for public viewing, by the authors of the government's National Dioxins website?

What is more intriguing is, that despite the many and varied media reports quoting Lloyd-Smith, only the Examiner has claimed that she alluded to the ECF technology with the Lake Coleman issue. How would you explain that Timberjack?

In addition, I advise that Mariann Lloyd-Smith stands by the information she has published on the National Toxics’ website. She is sufficiently good-natured to consider the misinformation, peddled by the pro-Gunns' would-be lobbyists, as most amusing.
Posted by dickie, Wednesday, 12 November 2008 12:20:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ESD - Perhaps Extremely Stubborn Dickie?

You refuse to accept that you have been caught out, when your document that you rely upon did not exist at the time of the Examiner article. You choose to deny and excuse. Yet you offer no evidence to support your claims.

Dr Lloyd Smith addressed a Wilderness Society anti Elemental Chlorine Free (ECF) Pulp Mill rally.

If she was fully aware of the fact that the Lake Coleman incident was not related to ECF why mention it? Was she trying to scare the Tasmanian people?

Why did she not oppose the Victorian mill when it sought EPBC approval to upgrade to ECF in 2005? Why has the NTN ignored the fact the Commonwealth consider that the Victorian ECF mill will have no impact on Bass Strait? Could it be that the Commonwealth experts are 100% correct and that ECF mills do not produce dioxin and furans at detectable levels in the treated effluent?

If the Examiner was deliberately plagiarising the yet to be created briefing note why did it invite a real expert the next day to explain the dioxin, furans and ECF.

“A CSIRO scientist has rejected suggestions that two types of deadly toxins would be detected in by products from Gunns' proposed Long Reach pulp mill. Ensis Forest Research and Development joint venture director Rick Ede rejected comments made by a senior adviser for a non-government organisation at a Wilderness Society rally...”

Dr Rick Ede, graduated with an MSc(Hons) and a PhD in Chemistry (1987) from Waikato University. After a period in Finland working on a joint industry-university pulping research project, he returned to New Zealand as a senior lecturer. In 1995 he joined Forest Research (now SCION), running a wood products research team …working with forest sector companies both locally and internationally. Rick joined CSIRO Forestry and Forest Products in 2000, to start up a new research team….

What was your qualification again, Dickie?

Perhaps ESD – Extremely Stupid Dickie!
Posted by cinders, Wednesday, 12 November 2008 8:45:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dickie me boy sorry but I just can’t see any reason why the Examiner would want to misquote the NTN, it was clearly reporting the claims made at the Hobart anti Bell Bay ECF pulp mill meeting.

From the link I found the other night http://www.aet.org/epp/index.html history shows that before 1990 kraft pulp mills used elemental chlorine to bleach the pulp. This was virtually discontinued due to concerns on dioxins and furans. Bleaching became free of elemental chlorine and the world standard became ECF or TCF and dioxins and furans are no longer detected in the treated effluent. My research shows that ECF uses Chlorine Dioxide (as different to Chlorine as water is to Hydrogen) and TCF uses oxygen.

We all know that the Tasmanian Guidelines are based upon the best international standards and demanded TCF or ECF as both are equal in meeting environment standards.

However as highlighted in previous posts by Cinders, the confusion in the acronyms was evident a year later (5 October 2007) with your acquaintance Lee Bell stating that the 47 mills in Scandinavia would produce only 20 per cent more dioxins than the one mill proposed by Gunns. "What we have here is a massive dioxin polluter," Dickie me boy as you would know this is a rubbish claim.

But the rubbish claims didn’t just rest there, last night come across the outfall of a ABC 7.30 report aired in June 2007 titled “Pulp mill could taint catch” it stated “
The Public Report on Audience Comments and Complaints said of this program

“The ABC found that the report failed to meet editorial requirements for impartiality on the grounds that the report unduly favoured the view that the pulp mill would damage both the environment and the Bass Strait scallop fishing industry. …The video of the story was removed from the program’s website …because it contained visual elements that were potentially misleading". (full finding at http://www.abc.net.au/corp/pubs/documents/public_report_oct-dec_2007.pdf

Once again well done to Mark Poynter for getting this debate going, sure has exposed more than a few short comings of the anti brigades claims.
Posted by Timberjack, Thursday, 13 November 2008 9:25:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My dear Timberjack

You claim: “Dickie me boy sorry but I just can’t see any reason why the Examiner would want to misquote the NTN, it was clearly reporting the claims made at the Hobart anti Bell Bay ECF pulp mill meeting.”

I note your endeavours to obfuscate the fact that the pro-Gunns Examiner has failed the impartiality test with its reporting on the mill.

I note that you failed to allude to the Media Watch programme which exposed the Examiner’s curious 40 page “advertisement” on the inglorious benefits of the mill.

And of course, brown paper bags can be despatched in all sorts of fashion these days:

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2227/3393/1600/EXAMINERmediawatch.gif

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/broadband/20050328_2115/STORY3hi.ram

And more obfuscations by the Examiner:

http://tamarpulpmilltalk.blogspot.com/2006/07/is-examiner-publisher-that-publishes.html

Your criticisms of Lee Bell do little for your credibility. It appears that you are unaware of the basic logic in his assessment of this proposed mill – deemed as one of the largest on the planet with a massive 1.1 million tonne production.

The common logic attributed to this plant by Bell is the larger the operations, the greater the pollution. That's elementary my dear Timberjack!

You have also failed to allude to all the other air and ocean pollutants which will be emitted if this massive operation ever becomes a reality.

Ah yes, the reality. It appears that Gunns are so hazardous that even the banks have installed scrubbers eh…… I mean shutters, to lock this mob out.

So while the hormonal fishwife on this thread is unable to answer my questions and you refuse to admit that your argument in the Lloyd-Smith brief was simply ludicrous, the revelations emerging show that you are on the losers’ side – the “empire builders,” who believe they can plunder Tasmania’s eco-systems with impunity. An arrogant cabal who ignores the democratic process and who sees only wood – not trees - only profits – not people and that contaminating our fragile oceans is a mere peccadillo.

That's tough for you losers, Timberjack – enter the 21st century mate. Ciao!
Posted by dickie, Friday, 14 November 2008 7:15:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When your opponent in a debate has to resort to name calling in order to attack you, it is right then and there that you realize you have won.

Dickie’s bigoted attack "hormonal fishwife" (ESD perhaps Extremely Sexist Dickie), and his failure to admit that not one of his outrageous claims about fellow bloggers, media or Tasmania’s approved pulp mill has stood the test of reasoned scrutiny shows just how extreme he is.

If he is an ambassador for the National Toxic Network and his obnoxious claims on this thread is an example of how they operate, then the Network deserves to be exposed as alarmists with no respect for evidence.

This evidence includes the Commonwealth limit for the Tasmanian pulp mill for dioxin and furans is 3.4 pg TEQ/L

Dioxin & Furans are types of organochlorine compound which occurs naturally and are produced in a number of industrial processes
Organochlorines is the group name for organic compounds containing chlorine, – ones of concern are 2,3,7,8 TCDD and 2,3,7,8 TCDF
TEQ toxicity equivalent
pg/L pica gram per litre, Parts per quadrillion (10 to the -15th)

The volume of wastewater effluent approved from the pulp mill to the marine environment must not be more than 64 megalitres per day on an average monthly basis. One Megalitre is 1 million litres.

Thus a simple calculator can work out that even over a year the maximum level of these dioxins is less than a grain of rice. Based on experience in Sweden and North America it is unlikely that this level will even be reached.

The Beca Amec’s finding was that “The legal detection limit (minimum level) for 2,3,7,8 TCDD and 2,3,7,8 TCDF in the USA is 10 pg/L …Virtually all the analyses report values less than this level, however, there is insufficient data available to calculate the margin by which bleach plant discharges are below the legal detection limit. It is estimated that treated effluents discharged from American mills may contain less than about 2-3 pg/L of 2,3,7,8 TCDD”
Posted by cinders, Friday, 14 November 2008 9:27:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I’d like to take this opinion board away from the Dickie bashing, for the moment, and move to a matter that I feel needs to be mentioned.

Let me introduce myself. I am one of the few remaining forestry students at the ANU and it is a growing concern of my class peers that the reputation of the ANU and the Fenner School is in disrepute.

Due to the pseudo-scientific environmental advocacy published by groups such as The Wilderness Society, interest in and opinions of forestry by the greater public have declined exponentially over recent years. It seems that the students that were once destined for a career in forestry have been brainwashed to move into the more 'saving the world' career path offered by environmental science degrees.

Although the Forestry department has been amalgamated into the Fenner School, not all of its students hold opinions that comply with the politically motivated papers published by some of the schools 'academics'. Academic associations and personal connections to environmental societies can cloud the truth, however the forestry department is still strong to the core and although our curriculum is somewhat infected by courses that promote airy fairy science and human impact, it is the human impact provided by foresters, in forests, that will in turn save this ailing world of ours.
Posted by mungoven, Sunday, 16 November 2008 10:04:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mungoven,
an excellent account of the problems of 'noble cause corruption' (in it's various connotations) of science can be found in A. Kellow's Science and Public Policy. I hope you can find a copy in the Chifley Library, and do your part to maintain academic integrity and reputation.
fungoven
Posted by fungochumley, Monday, 17 November 2008 4:55:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cinders. Re your post of 11 November and your request that I comment on various forest sustainability documents, my apologies for not responding sooner - been too busy. I'm familiar with the documents you refer to and more, but they are of little relevance to my original point. Unfortunately, in Australia we cut down 37% of the forests between 1788 and 1980. Victoria topped the list by cutting 59%. See the report "State of the Forests 1998" available on DAFF's web site. Since 1980 we've continued to deforest Australia. If you look at the FAO's latest "State of the Worlds Forests 2007", you will see that between 1990 and 2000, we continued to cut down forests at the (net) rate of 326,000 hectares per year. While this has slowed down to 193,000 hectares a year between 2000 and 2005, Australia is still a noticeable entry on the list of countries worldwide that are reducing their forest cover. These FAO figures leave aside the reductions in open woodland areas. My point is, how can one possibly claim that our current management of forests is sustainable? The forestry profession should be far more concerned about this, particularly that we now understand the role of forests in global environment management.
Posted by Olympus, Sunday, 30 November 2008 4:03:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy