Media release – Nick McKim, Greens Senator for Tasmania, 16 August 2024
Railton cement plant
A $53 million grant given to upgrade Cement Australia’s Railton kiln will fund the burning of native forest woodchips, documents revealed to the Senate show.
A letter from Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen confirmed that the new kiln would be burning woodchips from a number of sources, including native forests.
“Minister Bowen’s letter admits that native forest will be burned in the furnaces at Railton,” Greens Senator for Tasmania and Forests Spokesperson Senator Nick McKim said.
“It’s an outrage that Labor is pouring climate funding into native forest destruction.”
“This funding should be used for genuine emissions reduction, not throwing yet another lifeline to Tasmania’s mendicant native forest industry.”
“Replacing coal with native forest woodchips may actually increase carbon emissions.”
“Mr Bowen has left open the possibility that Cement Australia will burn wood from high conservation value native forests that should be protected in national parks or the World Heritage Area.”
“This is a direct attack on Tasmania’s forests, and a clear example of how the government is failing to take the climate crisis seriously.”
“Mr Bowen needs to rescind the grant immediately.”
“Cement Australia needs to understand that Tasmanians will not put up with native forests being fed into its furnaces in a sham emissions reduction program.”
“Labor should be ending the public subsidies for native forest logging, not expanding them.”
Review – ‘The Forest Wars’, by David Lindenmayer – Tasmanian Times
Adrian
August 21, 2024 at 08:34
Regrowth native forest, not untouched old growth native forest. How stupid does Minister McKim think we are?
We are over the Greens’ lies, and their blatant misinformation.
Ben Marshall
August 21, 2024 at 10:41
The distinction between ‘regrowth’ versus ‘old growth’ is often regarded as Old Growth = good, and Regrowth = useless bush. But while old growth is valuable as habitat, and for climate control, biodiversity support, catchment protection, reduced fire risks, and for better carbon sinks etc, regrowth forest of a sufficient size and age is also incredibly valuable on the same metrics.
We see local forests that have been selectively logged back in the day, and over the last century, yet if they’ve been left alone for 50+ years, with stands of old growth and big old hollow-bearing trees, they’re incredibly useful habitat for all sorts of threatened and endangered forest communities and critters and birds of all sorts. When STT and others claim these ‘regrowth’ native forests aren’t valuable, they don’t understand that a forest isn’t just ‘a bunch of trees’ – it’s a system that’s either regenerating and healthy, or too small or divided or too frequently clear-felled to be regarded as healthy.
I recommend David Lindenmayer’s terrific new book ‘Forest Wars’. It’s a terrible title because it’s not a history of industry Vs greenies etc, but rather a properly researched, peer-reviewed breakdown of the claims in regard to contemporary native forest logging practices by someone who works in the industry, and who also does the science.
His conclusions about what forestry practices work sustainably into the future, and what should be immediately stopped on both economic and environmental grounds, are based on decades of in-the-field science and current data, and it’s clear that the native forest logging industry and their political cheer-squad are all about money or votes.
Native forest logging is already propped up with big taxpayer bucks, and schemes to prop up and accelerate their unsustainable and destructive industry, burning habitat forests to make cement, make zero economic or environmental sense.