WOODWORKER, aka George Harris in response to Steve, comment 13, on 07/08/09 at 10:17 am on the topic: TT Question Time: How can a private company close public access to the Wielangta State Forest?
C’mon Steve

Bob Brown’s quote is part of an integrated campaign. Not only will I refer you to the source of the quote itself, but I will spell out the context in which it was made, and my analysis of the politics that surrounds it, and maybe you can give it more consideration.

Starting firstly with the politics, I think it is something that Bob Brown has had a lot to do with initiating, but he may have lost control of it along the way, though is keen to try to convey the image he is still numero uno.

Many others have observed that there is an interstate power struggle going on amongst the Greens, with other states wanting to gain control of it. NSW is keen to gain a Greens senator, and their numerical superiority at a grass roots level is flexing muscles. The other elephant in the room is the Wilderness Society, which has greater membership, but much common membership, and significant cash resources. How high Bob Brown jumps, despite however willingly, is dictated by the Wilderness Society. This leads Bob Brown to say things nationally, or interstate, that he might not say locally, or hopes will not get noticed. If these things do get noticed, the hope is they don’t spread out from the Tasmanian backwater, and have not unmanageable effect locally. Certainly the desired effect for him is a greater positive impact in other states where there is much more to gain.

The quote I was referring to was published in ‘The Mercury’ of Friday, June 5, 2009, on page 13. It was part of a sequence of events leading back to the fanfare of the release of the Green Carbon report, much touted by Greens senator Christine Milne at a Wilderness Society function at the Bali conference in November 2007. This was eloquently referred to by Mark Poynter, in his article in On Line Opinion of July 16, 2009, in which he was critical of the relationship between the ANU, the Wilderness Society, and the Greens. I attach the following extract:

“The progress of the ANU’s forest carbon research thus far points to a disturbing slackening of academic process to assist the Wilderness Society’s political activism. As pointed out in an earlier article in On Line Opinion (“Blurring the lines between science and political activism”, October 30, 2008), the Green Carbon paper by Mackey et al was part-funded by the Wilderness Society. However, more significantly, the paper failed to conform to accepted academic standards when:

it was published without any technical data to support its findings;

its key findings were publicly launched by its lead author (Professor Mackey) some nine months before it was published. This was at a Wilderness Society function held at the UN Climate Conference in Bali in November 2007;

the pre-publication launch occurred before the academic peer review process had been completed;

it was able to satisfy peer review standards without any supporting technical data. thereby raising concerns about the veracity of the peer review process;

one of the peer reviewers was Emeritus Professor Henry Nix, Chairman of the Wild Country Hub’s Advisory Board and co-Chair of the Wilderness Society’s Wild Country Science Council of which the paper’s lead author, Professor Mackey, is also a member; and

also prior to publication, the paper’s findings were made available to Wilderness Society members to assist them in making submissions to the Garnaut Climate Change Review.

The key finding of the Green Carbon paper that halting native forest timber production will give superior carbon accounting outcomes fits neatly with the Wilderness Society’s position articulated in its Forests and Woodlands Policy:

The Wilderness Society “does not support the use of native forests to supply woodchips for pulp, wood for power generation, charcoal production, commercial firewood, or timber commodities”.

The recent release of a follow-up paper by three of the same ANU scientists has raised further concerns. While this new paper is more measured and does not directly advocate closing timber industries, the timing of its publication and the activities of the authors have again been integral to the current round of carbon-based political activism.

The most recent phase of the environmental movement’s carbon campaign appears to have been specifically designed to coincide with Federal parliamentary debate about a proposed carbon pollution reduction scheme. As can be seen below, the recently released ANU research is integral to this:

June 5: Australian Greens media release – Greens in vigorous pursuit of forests solution in climate change – announces that Senator Bob Brown has “… explained to the PM, in detail, the latest research from the ANU showing that carbon emissions from logging native forests in NSW, Victoria, and Tasmania could be more than ten times above government estimates”.

June 16: Senator Brown signifies his intention to move that the Senate:
(a) notes the findings of Professor Brendan Mackey, Professor David Lindenmayer and Dr Heather Keith of the Australian National University that Victoria’s Eucalyptus regnans (mountain ash) forests are the most carbon dense on Earth; and
(b) calls on the Government to inform the Senate by 24 June 2009:
• whether the report has validity,
• what government measures are being taken or considered to protect Eucalyptus regnans forests in Australia that are currently targeted for logging,
• what area and volume of such forests are available for logging under current planning regimes, and
• whether ending native forest and woodland removal in Australia would reduce the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions by 10 to 20 per cent.

June 16: ANU Media Release – Australia home to forest carbon winner – announces that Victoria’s Central Highlands are the most carbon-dense forests in the world according to a paper by Dr Keith, Professor Mackey and Professor Lindenmayer published in the US-based Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

June 16: an article appears in Melbourne’s The Age newspaper – “Mountain ash the best for carbon” – referring to the Keith et al paper;

June 16: Professor Mackey is interviewed on ABC radio’s AM program. The program includes a supporting interview with Dr James Watson, University of Queensland. Dr Watson was formerly a key figure in the Wilderness Society and is thought to have played a role in obtaining funding for the forest carbon research.

June 16: an article in the Brisbane Times extensively quotes Wilderness Society campaigner, Virginia Young, who believes that the latest ANU research outlines “a huge opportunity for the government to help solve the climate problem through protecting and restoring native forests”.

June 22: The Wilderness Society’s Gavan McFadzean has an 800-word opinion piece published in Melbourne’s The Age newspaper – “Preserving old growth forests is vital to saving the planet” – which draws extensively on the ANU research.

June 24: Professor Mackey, Dr Keith, and Professor Lindenmayer conduct a public lecture at ANU to explain their latest research.

June 24: the ANU paper so extensively promoted in the media since June 16 is finally published online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

June 25: the Senate defers a vote on the introduction of an emissions trading scheme until August.

July 1: an article written jointly by Wilderness Society campaigner, Amelia Young, and the Australian Youth Climate Coalition’s, Lucy Manne, appears in On Line Opinion – “Forests – the essential climate fix”.

It is a concern that the ANU’s latest forest carbon research paper was for most of the time unpublished while its findings were being promoted as published fact in the media. This raises the question of whether this is a deliberate ploy to stifle debate by denying critics (and journalists) the opportunity to examine the veracity of the science.”

So there you have it. While Nick McKim and the Greens at a state level might seem more conciliatory and moderate, they are being contradicted by Brown and Milne at a national level, but as I contend, it is all for political consumption in other places. Surely Bob Brown could not get away with effectively seeking to shut down the Special Timbers industry in Tasmania, could he? (Christ, I hope not!) That is the implication of what he is saying! Similar things have happened before….

In the lead-up to the 2004 federal election, there was a bidding match to see who could lock up more Tasmanian forest. John Howard got sucked in. Mark Latham got even more sucked in. Senator Nick Minchin from South Australia got sucked in to trading off Tasmania’s interests to satisfy the perceived benefit of trying to satisfy the middle-class urban green-leaning voters of Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide, etc. (his fortunes have dropped ever since!) Only strong characters with real working-class links like Paul Lennon, Scott McLean and Michael O’Connor stood up to them in a strident fashion! The ramifications have been felt ever since. Labor lost Braddon and Bass, but regained them in 2007. The lesson has been well learned!

The clearest ringing of the alarm bells for me was the similarity in Bob Brown’s quote to the terms in the Wilderness Society document, when they refer to ‘forest and woodland policy’ and where they say they don’t support the use of native timber for (sic) timber commodities. This can only cause those of us with a deep love of working with our Special Timbers to tell them to piss off!

Woodworker AKA George Harris