I have been saying for years now that we should be using more timber in our buildings, rather than steel, as timber is an affordable and efficient way to store carbon.
Here is a link,

http://www.forestlearning.edu.au/sites/default/files/resources/documents/3_Carbon%20and%20its%20storage%20in%20forest%20and%20wood%20products.pdf

Then, if we legislate for the use of Australian timber only, jobs will be created and carbon will be captured and stored and, depending on the selection of timber, carbon can be stored for up to 100 years.

Surely this is a viable option for carbon capture/storage.

You will create another problem for future years : storing : The only way to fix it is not create it. There is no quick fix, just pushing it aside to make more room for more carbon.

rehctub,

<< use of Australian timber only>>

Actually the hottest environmental protection,carbon reducing,sustainability idea overseas at present is the proposition that we need to access supplies from local sources. And it makes a lot of sense especially with bulky items like timber.

Our own OZ based environmentalists haven't caught up with this thinking yet--and I'd suggest are not likely to run with it, since it means supporting Oz industry and workers and they are *ded set agen anythin* that seems to support OZ prosperity.

Come on rehctub, to do that we would have to unlock much of Tasmania, just as the Greens have managed to [cock] sorry lock, it up nice & solid.

Hell, there would be so much work down there, even the greenies might have to do something useful for gods sake.

Tasmania might even become self supporting, can you imagine that, & destroy the efforts of thousands of greenies over these many years. Imagine, they might even be able to run a paper mill on the off cuts.

I like your idea, but while the sight of greenies committing suicide by setting fire to themselves in protest, might warms the cockles of my heart, & give the media something other than global warming to scream about, I'm not sure the general population is ready for it.

Dear rehctub,

The Australian housing industry uses timber extensively.
Timber in housing or any other construction creates
fire-risks which releases carbon.

Multi-storey buildings using timber wouldn't stand up.

How do you see the use of timber instead of steel?

rehctub,

An interesting concept which I found educational, thank you. The Greens Watermelon Party is out of date and misdirected as usual. Any wonder the electorate is exasperated by the Greens. All social agenda and environmentalism is just a convenient cloak for dabbling in social policy.

Laminated strand and laminated veneer timber constructions is the way ahead. See here.

<Green Cities: Michael Green on the power of timber
7 March 2011

One of the biggest challenges facing designers and construction companies today is the selection of building materials for minimum environmental impact. In his keynote address at Green Cities, Michael Green, principal of Canadian architectural firm mgb Architecture+Design, argued strongly for timber as a superior alternative to concrete and steel, from the suburban home to the tallest high-rise tower.

World housing and climate change are the two great issues of our time and they are interconnected said Mr Green. Given the number of houses that will be needed over the next few decades, if we continue to build the way we are today, particularly in the developing world, an escalation of climate change would be inevitable.

“The reality is three billion people will need an affordable house in the next 20 years. That equates to 40 per cent of the world,” he said. “That means we have to build 100,000 new homes every single day for 20 years, which is obviously something people aren’t getting their heads around in terms of how we’re going to do it.”
..
“Today 50 per cent of the world lives in urban environments and we expect that to go to 70 per cent by 2050. So obviously that scale requires another way of thinking about a solution.”
...

“To reduce global carbon we have to reduce carbon emissions and remove carbon from the system. The reality is the only thing we build with day in and day out that does that is wood.”
http://www.thefifthestate.com.au/archives/21410/

rehctub,

Of course most housing should be made from Australian timber, and if we got going right now in massive tree-planting projects in the North, where the rainfall is supposed to be increasing, thanks to global warming, those trees wouldn't come into production until 2050-2060. Used in housing, which would last, say, fifty years or more, brings us to about 2110-2120.

Surely by that time, ways will be found to either re-cycle timber, make it last longer in buildings, or otherwise use the carbon in soil enrichment. There's no particular need to burn it, ever.

Sorry to burst your bubble, Foxy :)

Joe
www.firstsources.info

Rechtub you have told us in your posts about getting out of the Butcher business.
And into the timber industry, that have any impact on your thoughts here?
But it is true timber does as you say and we should use much more.
However to do that we must start to plant two trees of every one we cut down.
In the short term even more,we face shortages right now.
Mills are closing and a foreign company in my state has contracts that are forcing Forrest's NSW to clear fell just to stop massive fines for not meeting the contract!
Too our wast timber , now wanted here and over seas to power plants, here a sugar mill that puts power back in to the grid watches it burn in forests as greens mistakenly and unwisely thought timber was to be cut down, not salvaged from already down timber stopped and such action.
Burning of waste timber turning it to char coal to improve soil is an option that stores carbon and improves soil, greens stand against forest conservation every time.
Forests can both be money making and preserved if we take the green string away from its throat.

That all sounds very nice in theory Rehctub, but I wouldn't want to live in any wooden houses in cyclone or storm prone areas.

I can't see any country being able to find the time or the space to grow enough timber to sustain such a venture in the long term anyway.

Suseonline, "That all sounds very nice in theory Rehctub, but I wouldn't want to live in any wooden houses in cyclone or storm prone areas"

Nonsense. See here,

http://www.timberqueensland.com.au/Docs/News%20and%20Events/Media-Releases-2011/Feb-14-Timber-structures-withstand-Yasi.pdf

Suseonline, "I can't see any country being able to find the time or the space to grow enough timber to sustain such a venture in the long term anyway?

Nonsense

Australia has applied internationally recognised standards for maintaining sustainable forests. Done years ago. Would the Greens Watermelon Party please catch up?

Suse,

1. Not much of Australia is subject to cyclones.

2. There are vast areas in our North where, millions of square kilometres, which with increased rainfall and irrigation infrastructure, could be put under forests, for the next century.

Just trying to help :)

Joe

The greenies have been pretty successful at hiding the fact that there are more trees in Oz today, than at anytime since white settlement.

Evaluation of satellite photos have shown that where once was open forest, now is overgrown, overcrowded thickets producing very poor trees, useless to man or beast, but producing them by the millions. The last thing we need to do is plant more of this junk. What we should be doing is thinning them out, making them productive, stopping wildfires, then harvesting the damn things.

Much of the stuff the Queensland Labor government was refusing clearing permits for, was previously improved pasture, let go by graziers earning too little from their cattle to maintain their properties. As they aged, & could not do the work themselves, much productive land went to useless regrowth. Some of this junk was claimed to be virgin forest country.

This is of course standard when Labor want to shore up greenie votes, or at least their preference deals.

A far better building materiel than wood is available all over Australia and is fire proof, vermin proof and is often on site at no cost.

MUD.

Belly, my thoughts are not driven by profits, simply because I am too old to start a timber plantation business, however, it's never too late for upcoming generations.

Besides, many of our forests are too heavily timbered and, thinning is the best method to promote growth.

I didn't know this, but, there are such things as dominant trees and, once removed, sub dominant trees compete (with excelerated growth) to become the new dominant.

The only reason I suggest local timber, is job security.

We can also look at ways of using waste, chip wood beams etc.

Lexi, I am in no way suggesting we stop using steel, but any replacement of steel, given it's negative carbon factors, is worthy of investigation.

Suze, as I said to Belly, many of our forests need thinning, a method that replaces replanting to some degree.

Hasbeen, here in Miles, vast areas of forest were open plains back In the 60's, it was the banning of burn offs that changed the forests.

Is Mise, if mud stores carbon, great idea.

At the end of the day, if anyone thinks we as a nation can reduce our emissions by 20%, while providing for population growth and OS demand, and maintain our standards of living, all I can say is dream on.

Carbon capture and storage, along with reduction where possible are the answers in my view, not just reduction.

Well obviously I am not the only one to think that way or wouldn't all the houses be built of wood already?

The thought of all wood houses in our fire zones and cyclone areas is a complete nonsense. The whole top half of the country would not be suitable for a start, without adding on all those people that live in fire prone areas in the southern states.

If this was viable, then all those planners and architects, who do know what they are doing, would have thought about it.

We need many more trees planted to address our considerable environmental problems, not for houses....

<< At the end of the day, if anyone thinks we as a nation can reduce our emissions by 20%, while providing for population growth and OS demand, and maintain our standards of living, all I can say is dream on. >>

And what is the most important factor here??

Yes it is population growth.... by far!

How about we concentrate on that issue, which can so easily be dealt with in Oz by lowering the immigration rate to net zero or something close to it.

If we deal with that factor, then using more timber in construction might actually achieve something.

Hey rehctub, if your prime motive for using more timber in construction is to store carbon, then you really need to think about the ever-increasing number of C-to-CO2 converters.

Storing carbon at a slightly increased rate while we have rapid population growth is not going to achieve anything!

There is NO POINT in storing more carbon if we are going to continue to have a rapid increase in the number of carbon burners!

Suse,

I have lived in a cyclone rated timber house for many years.
It is located right on the coast and whilst it has never had to deal with a cyclone it as handled some very severe storms.
It creaks a bit in a blow but has stood up to the weather when more substantial looking houses in the vicinity have suffered damage.
Its all in the design.

SD

Suseonline, "The thought of all wood houses in our fire zones and cyclone areas is a complete nonsense"

Keyboard greens. Where does one start? :(

Suse & Lexi,

How much coal is burnt in producing the steel for the framework of a house ? How much coal is burnt in producing the timber framework of a house ?

I rest my case. Plant more trees - and not just for house material but for a host of other long-term uses as well. And down the track, when a particular bit of wood has no more uses, mulch it up and plough it into the soil. Win-win-win !

Joe

Suse that is not right, & that is putting it nicely.

We moved to Townsville straight after dad came home after the war. We lived in what was the 6Th last house on the road up Castle Hill, so very high & exposed. It was a bit of a prestige area, open to all the breezes, with great views across the bay to Magnetic Island.

It was a typical Queenslander, high set, with 10 foot verandahs on 3 sides. It was the typical single skin weatherboard structure, & was surrounded by similar houses. I believe most of the homes in the area were built in the 1920s.

I was back there a few years ago, it is now a high prestige area, & all bar one those timber houses are still there, & looking beautiful. The only one missing had a huge mango tree fall on it in one of the many cyclones they have seen.

Of course, those houses were built when every joint was checked in, & cross nailed. Quite different to stuff built in the last 30 years, where things are popped together skew nailed, with little nails from a nail gun.

You really should stop believing everything fed to us by academics. They usually have vested interests in these things, particularly when they have research grants to protect, & even if they actually believe what they tell us, it is highly coloured by those interests.

The Building Code is fine, as are the Australian Standards. Manufacturers also issue installation and use guidelines. All good stuff.

However builders are NOT required to satisfy any of that as an absolute minimum. A builder can do as he chooses. It is not possible to object where one sees, for example, a builder installing a compressed particle board floor with a nail gun , instead of gluing and screwing in accordance with the manufacturer's guidelines (and creating unsolvable problems later for the home owner). Or supporting decks and house flooring joists with untreated pine posts into soil and surrounded with blueboard or brick veneer.

What the home owner must do is shut up and pay up when the builder declares practical completion. Otherwise the home-owner is in breach of contract. Later, when problems ensue, the home owner must hope that problems evidence within the statutory insurance period and that he can prove that the said problems were directly the consequence of deficiency by the builder. Any builder who cuts corners will also play hard ball.

The government building regulators are diplomats. Worse, they are not proactive.

Years ago, an inspector for construction, plumbing, electrical (to take some instances) did inspect thoroughly and he had support to say 'No!'.

Building regulation and inspection is all show. Builders regularly cut corners with impunity. Decks fail, showers leak, you name it.

Loudmouth, that house hasn't been through a cyclone, so it hasn't really been tested.

In any case, I am not suggesting ALL wooden houses would be wrecked by cyclones, like the houses built back in the good ol' days that Hasbeen loves so much.
We all know that those days are long gone...

I have lived in Derby and Darwin, and been through cyclones in both places.
Believe me, they don't build wooden houses in Darwin anymore....

None of you have commented on wooden houses and fire yet?
How would we get past that problem boys?

Suseonline, "Believe me, they don't build wooden houses in Darwin anymore"

It is the design and construction, not the framing material. I did give this link to you earlier,

http://www.timberqueensland.com.au/Docs/News%20and%20Events/Media-Releases-2011/Feb-14-Timber-structures-withstand-Yasi.pdf

Suseonline, "None of you have commented on wooden houses and fire yet?"

How many country homes are constructed of timber? Thousands and they still survive. Heavens, they have stoves and fireplaces which might surprise some.

Any house will burn, or its contents will, or its occupants will not survive through heat and oxygen deprivation, or gas poisoning.

The solution is prevention. Burn-offs. Fire breaks. Pro-activity in keeping a clear area around and no fuel in gardens or roof guttering. Fire warning and fire-fighting protocols.

Greens don't understand any of that. They don't even understand why farmers mowed fire breaks along country roads and cleared brush away from assets. To keyboard greens, indigenous fires are different somehow. Cultural, must be good. Firebreaks by old white men (farmers) are not good, somehow. For Greens it is always complicated.

Why are you always on about Greens OTB?
I didn't vote for the Greens.
You obviously have some sort of anti-environmental phobia ....or something....

Rechtub timber has been a big part of my familys life.
Dad with his father cut timber for a living and as a side line made timber fences in the post ans slab way.
Born in an area that to have a job ment timber cutting or the mills I gained some insights.
Even now those who work in my home village are involved mostly with timber.
I had a thread, about using by products such as my post above, few know we export this now, but can not use it here.
Not just the greens but politicians on both sides do not understand our timber industry and forests.
Believe me, we do not need to bother about thinning out our forests, we constantly in NSW at the least threaten the future of our Forrest with clear felling.
Abbott plans to grow trees,my side laughs at the pospect of growing them ten high to get the numbers he promises.
But if he gets more trees planted and makes it work we will be all the bettor for it.
Greens in my mind taint the thoughts of us all and this vital issue is damaged by their shadow, we need open debate free of greens demands, if we get that we will use timber and produce it far better.

What type of timber are you suggesting, our native trees are not designed for streight timber. Does that mean our fauna further gets pushed back into pockets of eucalypt.

Timbers used for housing can be impregnated with fire retardant chemicals. It is paints and plastics that cause fire hazards. Lamination and reconstitution increases the strength of timber and is more flexible than steel; and does not use as much carbon in its production.

Mud requires a carbon furnace for creating bricks or cement; or straw which is insect prone nor weight bearing and builds at ground floor only.

Although I'm a great fan of mud as a building material, I live in a timber house that was built some 90 years ago as a war service home, so naturally it's a bit 'no frills'.

The frame is all local hardwood as is the floor and outside covering, which is machined weatherboard on the front and 'off the saw' boards back and sides. The roof is corrugated iron.
The whole place is recyclable and the only problem would be that any fixing of the frame or the outside boards requires drilling as it is almost impossible to drive a nail because of the hardness of the wood.

Suse,
Like you I have lived in cyclone prone areas such as Darwin and others.
The majority of houses in existence before Tracy were very lightly built and not in the same league as the engineered timber house I now live in.
Engineering and design is what it is all about.
SD

Suseonline, "I didn't vote for the Greens"

Maybe you should. You talk the same talk and walk the same walk.

578, "What type of timber are you suggesting, our native trees are not designed for straight timber"

Plenty of straight timber there. There is a commercial building in Brisbane that is the tallest timber framed building in the Southern hemisphere. Also look at wharves where long, large sectioned Australian hardwoods have endured for many years and are being recycled for new developments.

578, "Does that mean our fauna further gets pushed back into pockets of eucalypt"

Felling has to be sensitive to environmental needs.

BTW, you can thank the 'original people' the Aborigine for the advance of the eucalyptus scrub and the loss of the previous rainforest, only patches of which remain. Aborigines destroyed the rainforest by centuries of fires to kill and maim animals to collect for food. As well, their dogs from SEAsian fisherman killed off the Mainland Tiger.

Josephus,

"Mud requires a carbon furnace for creating bricks or cement; or straw which is insect prone nor weight bearing and builds at ground floor only."

Not so, mud construction requires no fire, the bricks are sun dried nor is the binding material subject to insect attack. 5,000 year old bricks are evidence of that, the stuff also lasts!!

The largest mud brick buildings are several stories high and I took part in a mud brick project (mainly as a mud stomper) in the Hunter Valley; the house is two storey and as an earth covered and grassed roof. The grass is kept trimmed by hoisting a goat up for a few hours each day.
---
"The Great Mosque of Djenné is a large banco or adobe building that is considered by many architects to be one of the greatest achievements of the Sudano-Sahelian architectural style."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Mosque_of_Djenn%C3%A9

Height is 16 metres.

You have forgotten paper which is made from wood and also stores carbon.

But once again the greens has stopped this.

579 Welcome back.
But ah do you know much about out timber?
Sorry bloke it appears not my home so the last man in the roof said is the best quality hard wood he ever saw.
I in the year 1974 helped pull our of the sea hard wood pilings, from Terigal Beach it was as new, missed the orgy said to be taking place at the ALP conference round the corner.
Australian hard wood is world class and grown in places all around the world.
Habit of mine when working on the road was to walk in to state roadside land and plant Black Bean tree seeds, a soft wood but world class many are a joy to see today.
This country STILL can grow both hard wood and rain forest timber.
In fact putting both a price on it and a law demanding more is grown than used we can save our forests.
Here is the reason I say greens stop conservation.
SM in this thread is quite right, in fact without the greens tainting the issue both majors can make timber one truly renewable industry.
Over coming the uninformed and greens is harder than actualy doing it.

And surely it should go without saying that trees suck CO2 out of the atmosphere ? Why this antipathy to trees ? Amazing.

I recall President Reagan was also hostile on trees, why I don't know. Maybe because birds sit up in them and sh!t on you, is that it ?

Across the North, where our largest rivers (by volume of water) pour out into the sea, vast areas of managed forests of furniture-timber trees, with regular cool-burns, would do wonders for global warming reduction, isn't that so ? Not to mention the employment of northern Aboriginal communities, forever, especially if they also managed the saw-mills and took the profits.

Or is that all missing the point of bringing down Westernism and capitalism by any means ?

Joe

Radiata pine is not going to be replaced with hardwood ever.
Builders are not going back to hammers.
Pine is far to easy to work with.
Hardwood would push the price of housing through the roof.
Over time hardwood KD's itself, and is difficult to recycle.
Far to much wastage / tree. It would have to be machined on the spot to make cartage viable.
Hardwood only good for fence posts, and furniture,
There are to many reasons for not giving away pine.

Belly, "Australian hard wood is world class and grown in places all around the world"

From the gum trees that recover desert in the US and Israel to the Sassafras that is grown in Ireland.

I believe it was Sassafras that was used for the chamferboard cladding and floors of a Fifties 'English-Revivalist Colonial' house I had some years ago.

What is also interesting is that previously, builders used to discard all hardwood except the white-ant proof species. There must be something in that because I have done voluntary work on the old ex-WW2 army huts used by charities, Scouts, Guides, Red Cross and the like and particularly noticed that where left un-maintained for decades and with a bit of moisture about to encourage them, the white-ants only attacked a few door surrounds and the odd piece here and there, leaving the remaining hardwood frame alone. The white-ant species in the areas concerned are otherwise very tenacious and destructive.

I'd like to see Tasmania compete in the niche luxury timber speedboat and cruiser market. Our more durable fit-out (mechanical, tanks etc) can compete with Asia. However the Greens' idiotic extremism is losing the craftsmen and industry that built beautiful vessels out of Celery Top for example.

579,

I agree with you regarding builders' preference for lightweight construction. Many even refuse to work with treated timber, which given the problems of rot and termites, some of which have not yet arrived in Australia but could, is creating problems for the future.

Many builders only look as far as the statutory warranty period and some only until their ute leaves the site. We had a builder make a right mess of a cypress timber frame by not using covered storage and using sharp nails instead of the recommended blunts. Split timber everywhere and unauthorised pine substitutions. No effective remedy under the contract law for building of course, notwithstanding the implied 'protection' given home-owners by government regulators (who are toothless diplomats, not allowed to be proactive, which is the problem!).

There is a future for laminated timber and similar cladding/structural ply.

Belly, Turpintine was a popular timber used for bridge poles, it's also extremely hard, but quite rare these days.

Nowadays, Ironbark is up there with the hardest, but must be naturally grown and not around the coastal areas as it's too fast growing.

579, Pine also stores carbon and, once treated can also last for many decades.

It's greatest enemy is wood rot, so must be kept our of the weather.

As for waste, perhaps I could be buried.

Bamboo is another great building material, very strong, termite resistant and most likely the most renewable source of timber, although it's actually a grass.

In fact, Bamboo exhaubs 6 times the Co2 of native forest timbers, not sure about carbon storage though.

OTB, laminated timber is extremely strong and a viable alternative to many steel beams, however, the biggest problem is it can't be welded and drilling reduces it's strength.

We have used bamboo throughout our our home and it is extremely hard wearing.

Rechtub yes quite true.
As I have said here my work life only settled down to long term employment in the last 32 years of along working life.
Not unusual for a country born kid, and even less so for the eldest in a big family.
I worked in timber even before leaving school.
Was quite content to work there forever.
But a wiser father and mother sent me to Sydney.
And after running in and out of Butcher shops to collect bones and fat,the city mills for a time was my working place.
That timber along with others was white ant proof.
I can only speak about those long ago years in relation to soft woods, I cut them, stacked them, and sent them all over this country, massive amounts to Gove in the NT to build workers houses .
Oregon was starting to be replaced with another imported pine,cheaper.
We then and now produce the best flooring from an Australian Native pine.
But lets look at 579, now I admire and respect the bloke, but see standard issue block any progress words and thoughts in use.
The thought that using timber is making our forests subject to being nothing less than a mess is wrong.
Any plan that includes planting twice that taken away has to by pure maths, lead to better forests.
In NSW we are killing our forests clear felling them, introducing non Native weeds and vines and killing our country side.
No true replanting other than pine is taking place, we halt action in fear of impacts that do not exist, no one with out doubt wants to kill forests productive use combined with mandatory replanting is a way forward.
In fact it is true conservation.

Dear rehctub,

My initial reaction to "why we should be building with
timber" as you read in my first post - was that timber is
already being used extensively in house-building. I love
timber homes). It was
high-rise buildings that I had a problem with. Simply
because I not all timber is suitable for construction. Timber
rots, timber cracks, it warps, it shrinks, it's attacked by
parasites. It's affected by moisture. And the grand-daddy of
them all - it burns (imagine a multi-story timber building
on fire). Plus it takes a very long time to grow and produce.
It needs large areas for cultivation, harvesting. Razing
forests creates problems and devastates the landscape and
the environment. And the list goes on.

However, who knows what the future holds and if we can get
around these problems, it is worth looking at the potential
of timber. It does have so much potential - especially
to simplify construction by eliminating pouring delays and
enabling pre-fabrication. If we're serious about reducing
carbon emissions in the building industry - the future
may well hold timber high-rises.

As one expert pointed out:

"If we can remove the structural issues, the questions of
fire-resistance, the availability of the product, the code
restrictions and the lack of experienced labour, we
should have no reason to deny timber's place in high-rise
buildings..."

The following link is also worth a read. I think it sums
up the situation very well:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/24/science/appeal-of-timber-high-rises-widens.html?_r=0

Belly,
I have owned a couple of timber (Jarrah) homes over the years. Jarrah is as hard as hell and none to nice to work with. Makes for beautiful furniture.
My current timber home is pine, composite and cedar planked but is built in completely different method to the Jarrah homes. Traditional style with full length verandas but it is engineered and designed to make the most of pine and it is strong, far stronger than my Jarrah homes.
Hardwoods are good but not necessary utilising modern design and techniques.
A pine log takes 30 years to mature and it makes more sense to utilise these timbers rather than destroying our slow growing native forests. Use the native timber for sure, use it wisely but make sure it is used where it fits best.
SD

The problem with pine is that it has to be grown and pine plantations have been aptly described as "tree deserts".

IM,
Just a 30 year crop instead of an annual like cereals. Not too many trees in a wheat paddock.
They can be grown on some rather poor soils as well.
SD

There is very little timber in a modern pine house, as is quickly realised of you want to build an awning onto the frame or put shades on window frames.

Along with lack of mechanical barriers against termites, suspect termite treatments and the other corner cutting that causes the cracks that are common in concrete slabs, these houses are home-owner financial catastrophes waiting to happen when termites get into the untreated pine structure. God knows what happens when new pests arrive through our 'risk managed' ie hit and miss import inspection.

One other problem is that the blue-board and other cladding such as used for architectural purposes as for mimicking concrete columns is usually but-joined, without sealants and only covered by decorative surface treatments, which shift and crack allowing water penetration after a few years. With water, that so-called 'hardwood' pine can rot to powder in a few months. When buying property, I can go past dozens of large, expensive homes and see the cracks apparent where sheeting meets. Up closer there is the tell-tale stream of black ants where mould is within. Expect to see more decks collapsing and Tuscan and similar style beams and columns failing. They are heavy too!

We cannot expect to build more durable homes without proactivity in government inspection and a bar set for the obligatory minimum standards for construction. At present there is a Building Code, Australian Standards and manufacturers guidelines, however it is NOT a formal requirement to meet any of it. That was also the root cause, the fundamental systemic fault, that inevitably led to the previous Labor government's insulation debacle.

OTB,
Plenty of pine in our house. The house is all timber including the inside wall panels which are also structural. The roof as one would expect is corrugated iron.
It is now 20yo, no signs of white ants, no damage despite winds well in excess of 100kph.
As I say it is an engineered structure, looks conventional but it isn't.
It is warm in winter and cool in summer, we are happy and more than satisfied with it.
SD

Shaggy Dog,

Pleased to hear that. It is all in the building. Where the Building Code and manufacturers' guidelines are adhered to there should be a long trouble free life with minor maintenance.

The various booms in construction have seen a lot of shabby corner-cutting. For example, it is commonplace for showers to leak despite the excellent materials and detailed Standards available.

By way of another example, I saw a builder only yesterday propping window frames on the Gyprock wall liner edge while he nailed them in place. You may realise that the wall liners should be clear of the window frames to allow movement that doesn't disturb the window fitting. The manufacturer's 25mm wide installation guide square in the middle of the window glass is at face height but ignored.

Laziness, rough work and lack of care ('bang 'em up') that will see the luckless owner with warped aluminium windows and doors.

Cut and fill construction - all smell mouldy, all leak. Yet in Europe there are basements dry and cosy for a hundred years and more.

Paint - it is see-through in many new homes. A builder I chipped said "Why should you worry about the colour coat(!) when you will likely sell the house in a few years?". Total lack of care about the preservation of the asset and no pride in seeing 'his' work enduring beyond the statutory warranty period, if that.

Yet there are hundreds of good young tradesmen in northern Europe who want to migrate to Australia but are prevented from doing so.

Para 3, last sentence should be, "The manufacturer's 25cm wide installation guide square in the middle of the window glass is at face height but ignored".

rehctub,

I’ve been a little late in joining your thread on the use of timber. Mostly because I’ve been putting in a new timber fence for my son- in-law, extending the house with a timber framed, brick clad, 22 sq mt, three level extension and a bio furnace, wood burning energy system.

Timber is great, I like the smell, the look, the grain, the malleability, durability, ease of construction and the way it burns. (just ask the pink bats customers).

Timber has something for everyone. The Greenies love it because it locks up CO2, providing you don’t burn it (accidentally or otherwise). They also love the fact that they can control supply by activist legislation. The Europeans love it because you can convert coal fired Power Stations to bio-fuel in the form of imported wood chips from Canada without EU penalty.

Governments love it because you can burn as much timber as you like in your power stations under “renewable energy obligations” whilst releasing the very same CO2 that you once purported to save?

The public loves it because we can buy cheap timber furniture from Asia that we in Australia are restricted from processing due to 5,342 regulations that prevent us from competing.

The politicians love timber because they can redefine it as, renewable, old growth, hardwood, chipping, staple, farmed, plantation or political timber, depending on your party of preference and the day of the week.

Trade Unions love timber because they can exploit their own hypocrisy by supporting jobs in the timber industry whilst destroying those same jobs by aligning themselves with Green ideology to save the planet.

The Banks and finance industry love timber because nobody has a freaking clue what, why or how they are doing but need some money whilst they work it out.

Financiers and industrial opportunists love steel, coal, timber, legislation, nuclear, renewables, mining of everything, lignite, coking coal and palm oil. Basically anything that they can turn into money because the rest of the numb nuts on this planet have lost their brains

I'm also one of those who came in late.

But I love timber: you can build the nicest bookshelves out of lumber and pulp the leftovers for paper to make books to enshrine on your bookshelf and also read.

It broadens the mind and it's an excellent carbon sink.

Ban e-books!

If the Rosetta Stone wasn't a stone we wouldn't have been able to decipher hieroglyphics. If the Dead Sea Scrolls weren't scrolls we've had lost a lot of Biblical history. If the Domesday Book wasn't a book and the Bayeux Tapestry wasn't a tapestry we'd have lost a lot of English history.

Imagine a world without Aristotle, Chaucer or Swift. If they'd been recorded on e-books their ideas would not have survived.

You can't preserve history in electrons and LEDs. Once the power goes so does the history.

Bring back the book! And by default, the (hopefully timber constructed) bookshelves!

Cheers,

Tony

Shaggy Dog regards, drop out fever got tome in trying to answer your post.
Jarrah, yes heard of it and let us be honest, this country until about50 years ago built homes with hardwood frames and some stand today.
We have great hardwoods and they are valued in other parts of the world

Here is our problem in my view, if we plant three for every tree used, reducing to two as we near wanted plantations/forests we can give our old growth forests a rest.
And no matter how long it takes to grow a tree the day will come we have plenty to meet any wants.
We set up barriers to real results by oposeing without thought the other sides points.
Both sides can win this one and carbon reduction comes as a result.
Comments about pine being a dead area plant, forget the soil they and for that matter most hard woods grow in is poor.

One problem with plantation hardwood is that it's just not stacking up, as it grows too fast.

At the end of the day, I am not suggesting we stop using steel, however, for every ton of steel converted to wood, we store about 500kg of carbon.

Has to be worth a look.

Belly,
Good morning to you.
Back a bit I developed a real interest in dry land timber and ended up with a dry land tree farm as a result.
Made a lot of mistakes but did learn quite a bit along the way. It is just an interest these days, I still have a good collection of information on the subject and despite advancing years am still inclined to scramble up trees to collect seed for propagation.
There have been some good rains in the area that interests me the most and the country is looking good, a few ambles into the bush this summer will be on the agenda.
Take it easy.
SD

Saggy Dog well small world, I have an interest in the bush and its many plants including trees.
Not so much my age but illness has nearly stopped my walks.
Still get in my small 4x4 on a Winter Sunday, tuned to NRL broadcast and go bush.
Great way to clear the mind, sometimes find myself down at the bottom of a hill that is near impossible to get back up, do so sometimes after much hard work.
I have friends who are very much involved in forest preservation, some times they seem to fear using any timber.
Clear felling in this state is killing the forest introducing weeds that are near impossible to remove.

Rechtub it has been a very good thread.
Few city dwellers know just how much some towns and whole areas exist because of the timber industry, still.
I would like as a trained negotiator, to see both sides sit and talk, we have shown here the ability to both protect the industry and our forests.
Some wrongly thought of plantations as the only way to replant forests, yes pine is done that way.
But seed trees are left in some cases and natural regrowth is used, slower less effective but it works.
We can and should improve that.
Near here a coastal City pumps its recycled water on to hardwood true plantations, IMO to closely planted ,some idiot set it on fire and more loss than better thought out planting would have bought.
Hope others are thinking about this.

Spot on, Belly.

For the life of me, I don't understand this antipathy to trees. Trees suck CO2 out of the atmosphere and store it for fifty years or more while they are growing, and then for however long the timber is used. At the end of its working life, a piece of timber could be mulched and put back into the soil to eventually enrich it.

Across the North, using the vast flows of rivers there, what would be so bad about drip-fed swathes of trees of a multitude of Indigenous species, call them plantations if you like, being planted and maintained by Aboriginal communities, who could then harvest, mill and process that timber, accruing the revenue from it ? And re-planting three to one, as you suggest ?

Of course, species should be appropriate to the areas. Of course, they should be planted far apart, ten metres or more, and of course there should be periodic patch-work cool-burns to minimise the risk of catastrophic fires. Christ, it's not rocket-science.

And who knows what sorts of technologies will be available in fifty or a hundred years, to fire-proof, termite-proof etc., that timber ? Who knows what uses it may be put to with the introduction of those technologies ?

Cheers,

Joe

Belly,
Since the beginning of mining in Western Australias Eastern Goldfields in the late 1800s the dryland forests were decimated, the timber being cut to fuel boilers and mine props etc. Railway lines running every which way in the bush purely to provide timber to the mines. An estimated 25 million tons of timber were harvested.
This all stopped in the 60s with the advent of electrical and diesel power and a change in mining. Over the last 40 odd years or so I have been watching these dryland forests slowly coming back and come back they have. Nothing done by man except protection. From the Western edge of the Nullarbor through to the wheat belt it is slowly becoming forest again. Not dense rainforest for sure but it is an asset once again for a variety of reasons.
Good to see I have to admit.
SD

Shaggy Dog in my childhood in the southern highlands dad cut pit props.
I went with him far more often than to school.
It is interesting that my then teacher tore up my enrollment form in front of the class! in quite a rage at my work/not going to school.
He ran for the ALP!
5 standard props came from one mountain ash, but cutters serving 5 mines cut the area out , all harvesting then came from right near the place I settled.
Joe yes every word true.
A new forest base industry is in its infancey here, for more than 100 years we have burned old wood to make charcoal.
Used mostly in steel improvement but much more.
Now a known but not used use has been revived, Market stalls sell it by the bag full to add to any type of garden.
It massively improves growth and stores carbon!