Comments

<Back to Article

1. Hang on, Bob. The PAL Policy says it doesn’t want unviable and unsustainable enterprises on agricultural land.  This new policy should wipe out tree plantations once and for all!

   Posted by Brenda Rosser  on  19/06/07  at  07:16 PM

2. Onya, Bob, keep on about this, it may be the root of all the evil we are seeing.
   Eric Abetz’s credibility on forestry must surely be coloured by this quote from “http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/brown-cant-see-the-truth-for-the-trees/2007/02/08/1170524232882.html” his comment in the Age.  (I think it was a letter to the editor): “Forests are harvested for sawlogs and specialty timbers, such as for furniture. Rather than being wasted, the residue from this process is turned into woodchips to make paper, or burnt to create carbon-neutral energy. You simply cannot make square boards from round trees without some leftover.”
   Now isn’t this the most stupid public statement you have seen on forestry for a long time? From the federal minister.

   Posted by Mark Hanna  on  19/06/07  at  07:21 PM

3. The saddest thing I find in all of this is the memories I have of my early working days in the WA wheatbelt. There were still old blokes around then who remembered clearing land by hand. I learned very quickly that you didn’t try to keep up with them, even though they were fifty or sixty years older. Every time I look at a nice piece of pasture being converted to a Tassie tree farm I think of those old blokes and others just like them who slaved away to create a nice piece of farming land. They must be turning in their graves!
   Even now with machinery it’s not an easy job to create a good bit of pasture. All these farms being destroyed mean a big drop in the actual capital value of Tasmania as it’ll take a lot more than the value of the trees to get back what’s being lost.

   Posted by Steve  on  19/06/07  at  09:59 PM

4. And although there has been little mention of it - check out the interview with Abetz in the ‘extras’ transcript section of the 4Corners doco on MIS recently. He admits, in passing, that GM ‘forests’ have already been planted in Australia. These ‘crops’ are pioneered to grow even faster and because of their lengthy lifespans, there is still no idea about their ultimate environmental impact, contamination of native forests, more rapid decimation of soils and water table, etc. Until Abetz dropped this nugget, as far as i’m aware, talk of GM forests was either speculative or focussed on non-release research such as that in Vic.

   Q. I mean there are concerns among others, that some operators are moving into marginal rainfall country where the yields simply won’t be there. Do you share those concerns?

   A. I have heard that concern, but when you then ask the companies involved, are you doing this, from time to time they tell me yes they are, and the reason they’re doing it is because they believe they have genetically modified seedlings that are more adaptable to a lower rainfall environment. And so when you drill down these people are interested in being in the market in the long terms and for that to be sustainable they of course have to provide a return to the investor and that is what motivates them.

   Treechange here
   Abetz interview here

   Posted by typingisnotactivism  on  20/06/07  at  03:55 PM

5. Why, when rural properties increase in notional value, should rates follow?

   Council’s costs don’t increase and the owners don’t have additional disposable income to pay for the rates increase, which increases each household’s tendency to debt.

   The current method shields Council’s from price signals and direct customer feedback leading to diminished services and poor customer relations.

   Surely the rates should be set from community requirements, not artificially calculated from notional land values.

   Posted by Mike Bolan  on  21/06/07  at  07:39 PM

6. “Forests are harvested for sawlogs and specialty timbers, such as for furniture. Rather than being wasted, the residue from this process is turned into woodchips to make paper, or burnt to create carbon-neutral energy.”

   Thank you Mr Arbetz for this profound statement.

   No.2.According to the people that make this fine furniture, one tree lasts them two years. They actually receive about 0.016% of all old growth timber that is logged, for which they pay heavily. That leaves 99.984% for chips. A compelling argument, don’t you think!

   I just love that bit about burning to create carbon neutral energy. How is it when anybody else burns, it creates carbon dioxide? Maybe you’ve discovered a new process that will save the planet?

   No.5. Why, when rural properties increase in notional value, should rates follow?

   The rates are determined by the amount of money that the Council requires for its budget divided into the gross ratable value of the area times a factor that. That gives them the factor which they multiply each individual propery by to determine the rates. However, PTRs do not pay rates or taxes and are outside the jurisdiction of the council, so the base for the rates decreases with the amount of plantations within their boundaries. The timber companies get everything fro free and the remaining rate payers subsidise them. This wouldn’t be too bad if the money from the PTRs atayed in Tasmania, but it does not. It goes to the MIS companies who are based on the mainland and paid out to their investors as a tax free income.

   Thank you very much, Tasmania! Keep up the good work.

   Posted by Gerry Mander  on  25/06/07  at  04:55 AM