I guess the PR people didn't like describing a net CO2 absorber as 'carbon negative' so as Orwell predicted we've now changed the meaning of words to suit our needs. I agree that ANU is conflating science with ideological correctness and they will undermine their credibility. Temperate healthy forests in the northern hemisphere are generally regarded as carbon neutral and most likely so are Australian forests.

I think we must pay more for timber from large trees. Imported timber must be certified as sustainably harvested. The higher price may enable selective logging in Australia that avoids the need for clearfelling and burnoffs. I believe that old growth logging not only changes the local microclimate but fails to take into account future climate change. Saplings of E. regnans will never again grow 100 metres tall because they won't get 400 years of cool damp conditions. Therefore they should be left alone for aesthetic and conservation reasons. Put the plantation trees on steroids or whatever to make them the sole source of domestic timber.

On the issue of forestry, I guess I sit somewhere between the log-at-all-costs machinations of the Gunnerment here in Tasmania, and the tree-hugging shenanigans of the dreadlocked, unwashed Still Wild, Still Threatened mob.

I am not against forestry, per se: I do believe that a sustainable forestry industry can be achieved, but I'm not sure that we're going about it the right way, here in Australia, and especially Tasmania.

As far as I *know*, Australian forests are rather different to say, European or South American forests. Essentially, they're much slower-growing, even similar or the same species as those found on other continents.

With that in mind, for Australia to try and run a forestry industry on the same scale as, say, Scandinavian countries, is clearly unsustainable.

Which is not to say that Australia or Tasmania can't support a forestry industry at all. Rather, I suspect that forestry is one industry we should be more than happy to rely more heavily on imports for. Forestry in Australia should *probably* be moved away from large-scale pulp and woodchip production, and more towards high-quality, probably smaller-scale, timber production.

I realise that that would probably mean job losses - and believe me, having been on the receiving end of a "rationalised" industry, that's not something I take lightly - but, sadly, that's a bitter pill we may have to offer up for the common good. That doesn't mean forestry workers should just be shown the door, either. I'm sure a satisfactory outcome could be found, with enough goodwill and funding.

The greens are the reincarnation of pre-7th. century pagans who worshiped trees; each 'god' had a tree, and it was forbidden to cut one down.

These same greens,who took over conrol of rural councils in Victoria, were responsible for the recent bushfires because they refused to allowed native vegetation to be cleared.

It has been found recently that trees encourage rainfall...and that where trees are taken away, the number of rainfall days reduces. This applies to forests that become fragmented or patchy as well as where land is cleared. This being the case, the consequences of clearing trees is not just to do with carbon-related matters. It can impact on rainfall. This factor needs to be included when considering the impacts of deforestation.

I understand this research has been carried out in Western Australia, Brazil, and parts of Europe.

we..need to make..more/sacrifices..[apparently]..the remedy..by the powers that be..is to double the price of our/energy,..via installing a carbon tax componant..,on top of the increased price...

we well know how enronesque/accounting..and pricing..has pervaded the energy market...thus..if a cost must be paid..lets avoid the tax-way[that never has worked]

we thus..get into what sacrifices..can easily help meet.need..[and carbon-capture..in forrests..[or by..green-algae..seems right up there..lest we forget..trees convert carbon di-oxide into oxigen...and we all..need that to breath

another point..that reveals the absurdity of this new tax..is the way its being gifted to the biggest poluters..to wit..BIG BUSINESS..if we really need this new tax..it would be best if we each.!!..got a carbon allowance/credit...that if we exceed..the limit..THEN..becomes..[and only then]..a tax

working much like gst...and be available off..a C-tax credit card...that failure to present[swipe the card's/credit..monetises the debt..[according to the current carbon/..market/price]

the pitfall with the proposed CAP..[and reduce]...and trade ,...means that essentially big-business trades this..ever reducing cap..[into as much as we..the actual tax payers../can pay...noting the only ones getting this gift..will be the very poluters...

TOO BIG TO FAIL..because they..[arnt allowed/cant fail...is the very reason they..[and not us]..are getting the gift of carbon credits....and them..that will be selling their carbon CREDITs...not us

we..the mugs without voice..[get yet further taxation..but this taxation cost..will be set..by the markets..trading an ever reducing capped/carbon allowance...that they buy..from their other big business mates

lock up the forrests..[capture the carbon/and convert it into energy via algae]...give us the tax cedits...but the case for carbon caused global warming ISNT PROVEN..thus we see the debate changing...lol...

such clever buggers the treasonous media..[serving their mates adgenda

[and the people..let them get their new tax]...if things were fair we would get credit..[not tax..]

where is the peoples share of the common weal?..forestors get their forrest's/..fishermen get their fish/..miners get their minerals/..even farmers get theirs..what the people get..is[ever more taxation..WITHOUT representation

[the people just get extra burdons..ever more tax..[any tax they[sic] decide THEY..[govt and their mates..need to do their business..

capitalists system my butt...thats socialism..[for big business]..or comunism..[where the elite/rich suck dry the poor]..wake up aussie

Phil: you seem to have forgotten that there are two types of logging: (1) sustainable, where each coupe is logged only very 10 years or so, and then only fully mature trees are harvested, thereby reducing the canopy which encourages growth of the younger trees, and (2) plantation, where logging involves clear fell followed by replanting. Both of these maximise takeup of CO2, whereas old growth evergreen forests hardly absorb any new CO2.

Mark Poynter's admirable piece was understated: when timber is not allowed to be used in the walls etc of new homes, the alternatives are not only aluminium and steel, but above all concrete and its derivatives, by far the most CO2-intensive building material (in manufacture), but with zilch storage, whereas timber in house walls doors and decks lasts as long as they do, storing carbon all the while. It speaks volumes for the general level of knowledge and/or integrity in the Wilderness Society that it chooses to ignore this fact of life.