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.