Bob Manton
I recently sent a letter to Prime minister Rudd expressing my opinion on the effects of Forestry burn offs in Tasmania being responsible for 40% of the Tasmanian carbon emissions.
I requested that he consider stopping the clear felling of old growth forest for wood chipping if he was serious about reducing emissions and tackling climate change in a way that would have a big effect.
I was surprised when I received a newsletter from Forestry Tasmania saying that they had been given my name and address by the Prime minister and were rebutting my comments. If I had held out any hope of truthful information from them I would have written to Forestry Tasmania my self.
Below are parts of their letter and my comments on them.
Branchline: News from Forestry Tasmania
Tuesday 5th August 2008
Thank you for your interest in Forestry Tasmania.
We have received several copies of the form letter “Australia Must Lead By Example…” addressed to Prime Minister Rudd, to which you have attached your name.
If constructed, a pulp mill in Tasmania will not “indefinitely extend large-scale clear felling of precious primary forests” as your letter claims. The mill will only use wood from plantations or regrowth forest, not old growth and it will not affect the rate of harvesting in Tasmania. It will simply use wood that would otherwise be exported.
My answer to that is from an article on the 13/07/06 and is as follows:
The potential appetite of the country’s biggest pulp mill for Tasmanian native forest has been detailed for the first time – and it appears to be gigantic. The proposed $1.5 billion Gunns pulp mill near Launceston would take millions of tones of native forest timber, perhaps never to be totally replaced by plantations, a leaked draft impact statement says. The pulp mill would not end low-value woodchip exports, it states. Instead, these exports would continue at almost their current rate of about 4.4 million tonnes a year.”
They go on to say;
Forestry Tasmania is committed to ensuring that there will be more forest and more trees in 90 years than there is today “ something the author of your letter chooses not to mention.
To this I reply:
The “more trees in 90 years “ will be only of small growth and there will be a smaller selection of tree species. The “wet’ forest will have been dried out so the soil will not contain anywhere near as much moisture than if it was left undisturbed.
It will result in fiercer fires because of this. The native habitat will be destroyed; there will be contamination of the watercourses by pesticides etc. A forest produces rain through the transpiration of trees and because of the smaller size and lower moisture content rainfall will be reduced even further resulting in lower growth rates.
The next Forestry Tasmania so called facts are: In relation to carbon stored in state forests, Forestry Tasmania published the results of a study that shows for the next 43 years, Tasmania’s state managed forest will absorb 31 million tonnes more carbon than will be released, making Tasmania’s state forests a net sink of carbon. The study, titled Forestry Tasmania’s Carbon Sequestration Position shows that between now and 2050 the state’s forests are absorbing an average of 720,000 tonnes per year “ an amount equivalent to the emissions of 585,365 cars every year.
My answer: is that they are cutting by their own admission nearly five million tons a year and there is probably another million or two added to this figure going by the amount they burn off of as “unsuitable” timber.
It takes twenty years for new tree growth to reach a size where they will hold a reasonable, amount of carbon and in that time they will have cut another one hundred million tons. So in effect there will always be a net loss of carbon stored in trees.
They go on to say: Forestry has shown itself to be the only industry with the capacity to be greenhouse gas positive. It is a fact that the sustainable development of forest products can help reduce society’s energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. Further, when compared to other building materials such as concrete, steel, and plastics (a by-product of fossil fuels) forest products require less energy to produce and are a renewable resource.
This is the usual propaganda half-truth that is expected from a corporation bent on masking the truth and of course the answer is:
It is not a total ban on logging that is asked for, the objections are not against proper selective logging with the logs being used by sawmills, but rather the clear felling for woodchips.
Bob Manton
