A response to: Oakeshott Must Change Native Forest Furnace Stance


Vica Bayley, Bob Brown, Christine Milne and all the other commentators aggrieved by this need to take examine a few facts.

They are setting themselves up as most selfish economic saboteurs who to a significant extent compromise their own principles for the sake of winning a point, or attacking the industry they seem to love to hate: forestry.

In every other industry they encourage operators to recycle, to use waste, and to consider broader environmental principles, but in this case they are saying to the forestry industry you must do absolutely nothing with your legitimate waste and residues, even to the point of economic ruination. Their selfishness disgusts me.

Sawdust and flitches from saw milling are legitimate waste products that should attract RET Certificates, especially as all forests that are harvested are regenerated, and more especially as native forest harvesting to some extent is going to continue for decades as the plantation estate is just not there to replace the size and quality of logs currently coming from native forest.

In many cases those logs are coming from areas that have been previously harvested and regenerated, or which have regenerated from major fires, such as in 1967 and 1934. The plantation estate is quite small, and much of it will not be ready for anything for years, and a significant portion of it will never produce sawlogs, as it has not been managed for it. Some of it will never produce sawlogs, no matter how long it is left in the ground.

Given that many native forest sawlog contracts are in place until 2027, it is selfish to suggest none of the residues should attract RET certificates.

The people who advocate the position of denying RET certificates for this material should be condemned, and encouraged to undertake a proper examination of the science and practicality of modern forest management practices in the presence of those who really do know what they are talking about.