mhaze, your knowledge of trees is at the same level as your knowledge of koalas, zero.

mhaze,

<<Of course there are examples of trees and forests being felled in Australia. But the point is that, in total, the area of forest in Australia is larger today than it was in 2010. Ditto Europe, Asia, North America.>>

In terms of much of Australia's native vegetation and old growth forests, these have PERMANENTLY dissapeared. They are now gone forever. Goodbye.

They cannot be replaced by a few trees planted here or there or by a plantation forest. After a plantation forest, for forestry will eventually be removed.

I also previously referred to tree plantings and I was referring to trees planted for carbon credits. Not only is such a move questionable, it provides limited benefit. The real benefit is to protect the native forests and native vegetation already in existence.

Re my earlier comments re survival of the fittest:

<<Well no. We have a society that has solved the famine problem that plagued mankind since there was a mankind. We have a society that solved the child death problem (before the 20th century, 1 in 2 children died before the age of 5). We have a society that is solving the assumed population crisis without coercion.>>

Tell that to the one child that dies every 10 seconds on the planet from malnutrition.

http://www.wfpusa.org/articles/10-facts-child-hunger/

Also one needs to consider the loss of animal and plant life, many which are not surviving due to actions taken by humans day in, day out.

Finally, in terms of any golden age and today, I disagree we are in that position. As humans we have always been in mixed circumstances in terms of how we live with a mix of good, bad and indifferent. For example 70+ years ago a lot of furniture was of a high standard and commonplace, today a lot is very cheap and ends up in landfill. On the other hand today we have things like electric vehicles for example.

"Tell that to the one child that dies every 10 seconds on the planet from malnutrition."

Nathan,

We were talking about current western society. That was the whole point. In our current modern western society, child mortality is largely conquered. In those other places which have yet to achieve that level of modernity child mortality hasn't been defeated.

The policies you support would stop them from achieving that and would partially return us to past disasters. I don't understand how the logic of that eludes you.

"The real benefit is to protect the native forests and native vegetation already in existence."

Old growth forest don't provide any benefit in terms of carbon reduction. Growing trees absorb CO2. Mature trees don't. Indeed its calculated that forests like the Amazon emit more CO2 than they absorb.

"In terms of much of Australia's native vegetation and old growth forests, these have PERMANENTLY dissapeared. They are now gone forever. Goodbye."

Well that's just false. Land that has been previously native forest that is left untouched for 20 years or so, returns to its old status to the extent that it is indistinguishable from the original. There is a forest just outside Eden where I've seen that exact process develop over time. And there was the famous example in Tasmania where Brown's greenies were claiming a particular are to be 'pristine' old growth only to find that it had once been clear felled to become a landing strip and then allowed to return to native.

mhaze,

The whole world doesn't focus around the western world - if there is such a thing.

Secondly, perhaps you'd like to come over to my house. Are there any trees, native plants and regrowth from old growth forests popping up there? No there aren't.

Why? Because its simply not possible. All of the homes built over the land make that impossible - and of course the vegetation here at one stage in a natural state and untouched by not much more than nature has completely dissapeared due to land clearance.

Vegetation clearance and loss of old growth forests is still occuring today and such practices must be stopped, after all we only have so much of these pristine environments left. This does not say they haven't regenerated from previous times, but they haven't been hit by housing, grazing, farms, commercial and industrial development etc, where the habitats cannot regenerate and flourish following such activity.

"We're still clearing much more native vegetation than is being replanted or regenerating naturally. Irreplaceable, high-quality habitat is being cleared, and any natural regrowth, over the short term will be of much lower diversity and lack important structural elements such as hollow trees and ground timber."

http://www.bushheritage.org.au/what-we-do/our-challenge/land-clearing

<<And there was the famous example in Tasmania where Brown's greenies were claiming a particular are to be 'pristine' old growth only to find that it had once been clear felled to become a landing strip and then allowed to return to native>>

It also depends what one considers suitable in that area. For example a lot of native plant species are now no longer in existence. So if you clear an area of native vegetation and old growth forest it cannot be guaranteed that every plant there will regenerate, so it's better to opt on the safe side and preserve such environments.

Continued...

Continued...

From Tasmania...

"The draft Conservation Advice recommends the Black gum – Brookers gum forests (in Tasmania) may be eligible for listing as nationally Critically Endangered. The draft assessment found that it has declined in extent by about 90%, from about 230,000 ha originally to only
25,000 ha currently. Much of this was historicaly due to agriculture and forestry,but more so from urban/peri-urban clearing in recent times."

"The remaining forests (as per above) provide vital habitat for many plants and animals. They include some that are now threatened, such as the swift parrot and the eastern quoll. Keeping intact forest vegetation helps to minimise serious erosion problems. It helps prevent the loss of valuable topsoil from farmlands and salt pans from forming."

http://www.awe.gov.au/sites/default/files/env/pages/6cc03081-4237-49c9-9cc6-e051ec11cca3/files/information-guide-tasmanian-ovata-brookeriana-forests.pdf

It wasn't until humans arrived that things started to change, for the worst. Vegetation and old growth forests do regenerate, for example after fires - but the areas need to be primarily left alone for that to happen.

Finally, I haven't said no to planting more trees. But those that eventually go to forestry, don't make up for land clearance or loss of native forests. If people plant trees/plants generally that's fine, but still doesn't adequately compensate.

What utter garbage Nathan.

You may have heard of Fraser Island. It's a pretty big island off the east coast of Queensland. It is a sand island, like many coastal islands. Where do you think all that sand came from? Could it be from erosion washed down our rivers? Oh in case you didn't know, these islands were there before the good Captain Cook sailed the seas, so I don't think you can blame white man farming for the erosion.

Incidentally I can prove it is trees that cause erosion of river banks. My back boundary is a river, a little coastal one. It is 70Ft below the plain, with a steepish bank, mine covered in trees. Being a silly boy, & liking trees, I left them all. We get floods every few years up to & over the river flats.

These are big mature trees with large spread of roots. I have lost 3 of these, washed away in floods, & each has taken over 20 meters of my bottom paddock with them along with my fences. I fence the top of the bank & don't use the bank for anything. That is a lot of dirt now in the ocean.

A near by neighbor, after 30 years of this got sick of it. He removed all trees on his river bank 20 years ago, bulldozed it to a gentler slope, & planted Rhodes grass on it. He then locked it up, & it is only grazed by our plentiful kangaroos. It offers a smooth flow for floods. He has not lost an inch of river bank in 20 years, while I have lost 3 large chunks.

Just asking, do you have any personal knowledge of trees?