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? :(