phill Parsons

You may judge Peter Garrett as a Member of a Rudd Government by his own words in the Australian Parlaiment “I have opposed the destruction of rainforests in a country of Australia’s relative wealth….It is no coincidence that inbound nature-based tourism makes a substantial contribution to our national economy, especially to youth employment…..we could argue powerfully for native standing forests to be recognized as carbon sinks. That way, forests across Australia would make the country a great deal of money just by being allowed to exist.”

Peter Garrett on what Peter Garrett believes about forests …

“One of the policy goals for using the existing forest identified for that purpose is to add value to it.”

Garrett argued on the 4th of October that the tracts of old-growth forest that will supply the mill were already earmarked for logging under the Regional Forest Agreement, an intergovermental agreement not acceptable to the environment movement.

He and his party support a Tamar Valley pulp mill, although in fairness Garrett would like to see that mill fed by plantations.

This shows his failure to connect with Tasmania where farmland is being swallowed up for plantation by the tax minimization Managed Investment Scheme where Gunns charges investors for establishing plantations that are yet to prove the value of the investment made.

Perhaps Garrett is drawing on his First Speech in the Australian parliament to justify and bolster his position. Here is a paragraph on threatened species and extinctions.

“I know that statistics rain down like confetti on this place, but the fact that in South Australia nearly half the flora and fauna face extinction in the next 50 years ought to give real pause for thought. After all, that is only my lifetime up to now—and that has seemed like a pretty short period. This is the rollcall of evolution happening in the space of a few generations, the greatest loss of living things that make up our biodiversity since the disappearance of the dinosaurs. And there is no sign that we are adequately responding to the unfolding tragedy. As we continue to draw down on our natural capital at a far greater rate than it is being replenished, as oil supplies dwindle and populations increase, as each single threat—whether to wetland, forest or ocean—coalesces and collides, so the task of reconfiguring our economy to harness instead of degrading nature becomes more important.”

And on forests

“It has often been young Australians who have raised a mirror to our actions and who have seen fit to go out and protest the state of our environment—and on occasions I have gone with them. I have opposed the destruction of rainforests in a country of Australia’s relative wealth on many grounds, including loss of biodiversity, loss of beauty, loss of water catchment qualities, loss of scenic amenity and loss of carbon sinks—and, just as importantly, the loss of opportunity for future generations to enjoy and utilise nature, to be healed by nature, to derive long-term livelihoods from nature.”

If Garret had spent longer in Tasmania he would know that the old growth forests of the north east of Tasmania he has condemned to the proposed pulpmill contain areas of rainforest, southern cool temperate rainforest.

And then on the economy that operators in Tourism claim they will suffer a major impact if this pulpmill is built.

“It is no coincidence that inbound nature-based tourism makes a substantial contribution to our national economy, especially to youth employment. Thankfully, environmental organisations like the Australian Conservation Foundation have seen fit to contest plans by governments to allow oil exploration on the Great Barrier Reef, or to dam the Franklin River or, more recently, to destroy the rainforests of North Queensland. In due course those places became defining iconic sites drawing people from here and overseas to enjoy.”

People come to Tasmania for nature based experiences as well. Tasmanian earned its reputation as clean and green, clever is yet to come.

Garrett has defined himself through his first speech and it is well worth a read. Its in the Member for Kingsford-Smiths page on the Parliament of Australia website.

And then in the speech on the 29th of March when addressing a Ministerial statement on climate chaos by the government that was then denying it was caused by human activity [fossil fuel burning and deforestation].

Mr GARRETT (Kingsford Smith) (3.33 p.m.)— “We are entering a new era of action on climate change.

In the lead-up to the election we are seeing plenty of politics with regard to climate change, but very little policy. The Prime Minister was right when he said this morning:

“. . . 20 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions come from clearing the world’s forest and that’s second only to emissions from burning fossil fuels to produce electricity and it’s more than all the world’s emissions from transport.”

But the Prime Minister may not be aware of the fact that, for trees to act as sinks for carbon, they need to be left in the ground. For a forest to work effectively as a carbon sink it needs to be left in the ground for 30 to 40 years, not just whacked in and taken out on a short rotation basis.”

Actually 100 or more or turned into solid wood product to store the carbon, but what the heck.

“The government is correct to point out that, under the Kyoto Protocol, forests—that is, standing forests—are not recognized as carbon sinks. The Minister for the Environment is also correct to point out that this has led to an obscene level of deforestation across the world, something that we on this side of the House feel very strongly about. But—and it is a very big but—what neither the Prime Minister nor the Environment Minister are admitting is that the rest of the world, the Kyoto-compliant world, is hotly debating this very issue right now. And we have been politely asked to leave the room—we are allowed no role in the discussion because we have not ratified.”

A valid criticism of the government that has failed future generations by expending the most valuable resource in this matter – time.

“Had we ratified, were we to be in those negotiations, we could argue powerfully for native standing forests to be recognized as carbon sinks. That way, forests across Australia would make the country a great deal of money just by being allowed to exist. That way, the forests of Indonesia, Papua New Guinea and the Solomons would make more money for local landholders by being left alone than they would by being cut down. That is how we create market signals in a carbon constrained world that drive good economic and environmental outcomes. That is why it is vital for Australia to ratify and be part of that debate.

If we had a national carbon trading scheme in place in Australia we could be encouraging commercial investment in reforestation schemes that obtain carbon credits. Without the government seriously embracing a comprehensive framework for dealing with climate change, it cannot be seen as serious in its approach to climate change. Labor has a comprehensive framework. Had we ratified the protocol, Australia, through the clean development mechanism, would be able to achieve carbon reduction credits and assist in meeting its greenhouse targets and help forestry in the region by investing in reforestation activities.

The ministerial statement refers to the Kyoto Protocol providing no incentive for the developing countries to reduce deforestation. As a fact, a quick visit to the UNFCCC website shows that this is clearly not the case. A search on that site finds project No. 0547: Facilitating Reforestation for Guangxi Watershed Management in Pearl River Basin. Because we are not a party to Kyoto the government’s $ 200 million fund plan, welcome as it is, will not assist Australia in gaining highly valuable carbon credits. The fund is an entirely government driven mechanism.

If Australia were a Kyoto party Australian companies would have had the incentive to invest in reforestation in the region, through the CDM, potentially pouring large amounts of money in while achieving large emission reductions through sequestration in growing trees. We would be encouraging responsible action by building sustainable markets. This is another lost opportunity.”

And in conclusion

“The ministerial statement refers to the amounts that the Howard Government has spent on the environment, but it does not refer to the very poor progress on repairing, recovering and protecting our environment, clearly detailed in the last State of the environment report: growing numbers of threatened and endangered species, worsening river health and biodiversity literally in crisis.”

And Tasmania is not immune from this change with many iconic animal species dependent on large area of intact forest ecosytems. Extinction can occur locally, regionally as well as across the whole of an animals range.

Garrett offers a plantation alternative to using native forests without telling us where they will come from in 2009 when the maw of the mill is due to open and commence swallowing 3.2M tons of native forest. How will Gunns be compelled to use only plantation feedstock now the Commonwealth has ticked the mill off.

Garrett has further strengthened the perception that, other than winning the election, Labor does not really stand for much at all.