Capturing carbon and protecting our forests

The Forestry Industry: The truth.

The Australian forestry industry has only one purpose, to provide revenue for state governments. Our forests are considered fodder for governments that lack the ingenuity to devise alternative and sustainable sources of revenue to provide for the needs of the state to which they refer.

There is no ecological reason to log our state forests. There is no moral imperative to log our native forests. There is no overriding social or economic need to trash our forests. The only reason for continuing to log our forests is to shore up the revenue of the appropriate state government.

Of course there are associated issues. One is that the logging industry has existed over a matter of time and there may be reasons for it to continue to exist, for the livelihood of the families and the communities involved. There have been arguments that if there is no good reason to log our native forests, and indeed if there are strong and overriding reasons for a discontinuation of logging of our native forests, then the real question for families and communities with an interest in the continuation of the is different to the question of whether or not logging ought to continue. For instance there could be assistance programs for retraining foresters, and for relocating families. This is only one for instance and ought not to be taken as the only one.

The issue I want to address is why governments continue their policy of logging native forests. The reason is that our native forests are a source of income for state governments. The arguments in support of this source of revenue is that the logging of our native forests is sustainable after time and does not damage the environment. For if there were detrimental environmental concerns this would place into question the moral rightness of continuing to log our native forests.
Are there reasons not to log our native forests? Historically, our forests were only selectively logged. Several trees would be selected per hectare and these would be removed for forestry purposes without large scale disruption of the forest. In recent years, perhaps the past forty years or so, there has been a radical change in this form of forestry. Now it is more likely that the forest is entirely clear felled. Usually in this case two or three "seed" trees will be retained, but the entire rest of the forest will be bulldozed, taking with it every other tree and all undergrowth in the process. Only a small portion of this wood is used to make timber, on average approximately 23% of the entire yield ends up in timber for building and furniture. The rest is either waste of is used in paper production, cardboard, etc., low level and waste producing industries.
Australia has witnessed an enormous loss of biodiversity over the past two hundred years of white settlement. The single most loss causing activity has been deforestation. Now it is argued that native forests which are logged for the forestry industry but that are regenerated , so that there is no loss of species or loss of biodiversity. The argument is that forestry is sustainable, that logging of our native forests is sustainable, that there is no environmental cost or environmental loss.

This argument, that there is no loss of biodiversity, is unproven. There is no proof that you can regenerate a clear felled forest to return it to its original condition. Nor does the forestry industry argue that it ought to be allowed to return to an original condition. Because the idea is that these forests will be harvested on an 80 year cycle. This form of "sustainable forestry" has not been tried in the past, and therefore there can be no proof that it can be done in a way that does not cause loss of biodiversity or species.

There has been some argument that some studies have been done that support the idea that these forests can be appropriately regenerated with no loss of biodiversity. This seems on the face of it to be a bizarre claim. We do not even know all of the species that exist in our forests. We do know that there has been a massive loss of known biodiversity due to deforestation over the past 200 years. We cannot say that there is not continuing loss of biodiversity. Many species within Australia are on the endangered species list. The following is just one article amongst many that support this point of view. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-05-20/scientists-find-new-species-of-fro.... How can it be argued that bulldozing such important areas for the forestry industry will not cause any loss of species?
Our forests are not just home for biodiversity, they are carbon sinks. Our forests ameliorate climate change. Now there is an argument that logging our forests for timber "stores" carbon in that timber product. But only 23% of the forest yield is contained in this way. The rest is carbon that is released over time back into the atmosphere.

In fact if you want forest products to store carbon the most effective means of maximising the storage of carbon is through plantation timber. Plantation timber provides higher yields of timber and maximise the carbon capture potential of the forestry industry.

Why are we not maximising plantation timber today? Because to grow wood costs money. To buy that wood from the farmer costs more than the cost of taking wood directly from our state run native forests. So our native forests are a preferred source of wood. They are cheap! Governments practically throw them at foresters!
Well I say if you want wood GROW YOUR BLOODY OWN! Stop trashing our native forests. Stop destroying our biodiversity. Stop putting species at greater threat of being lost. Protect our forests, our carbon sinks, our biodiversity, and if you need wood INVEST IN WOOD. It is a pretty simple formulae. It is only greed that feeds our destruction of our native forests. We need to price our forests appropriately. This is what the Federal Government has now understood about our minerals. The Australian community has an interest in our forests. They are not simply a source of wood you can run to because you have not invested the resources into producing plantation timber. And so long as we continue this travesty of logging our native forests no-one will have the incentive to invest in plantation timber.

Plantation timber will store future carbon. It is the greatest means of maximising carbon capture in forest products. We have a duty of care to our forests, and to future generations. Let us not destroy these wonderful forests. I feel ashamed to live in a world where even tigers and lions and elephants have become endangered in the wild. In Australia we have our own loss of biodiversity and species, and we have very many species that are on the endangered list, or that are yet to be discovered. There is no proof that these forests can be regenerated, indeed the science seems to speak against this. It seems like a wild claim that clearfelling does not result in loss of biodiversity. it seems sensible to think that as in the past, as history has shown us, deforestation kills species.

It is time for Australia to get out of its native forests and to source wood from plantation timber. Only the will of governments can achieve this, to tear up the misguided agreements that allow the continued destruction of our forests. The forestry industry ought to be growing timber. We need to be investing in plantation timber. This is good for the environment and also good for carbon capture.