Harvey’s massive Aussie forest clearance must stop

Anthony of WA says:

09:00am | 14/02/12

Brando, way to obvious for the over indulged hypocritical bunch at Get up.

Gregg says:

10:11am | 14/02/12

If you have a look at management of forests you might well find that when native forests are used, there are plantation operations developed.
A lot of plantation timber is softwood or pine as that is faster growing than hardwood but there are also hardwood plantations.

With a growing world population and desire of people to have timber for building and furniture purposes, there is always going to be a huge demand for timber that will likely outstrip available plantation supplies.

I’d expect that even Get-up have some timber in use as would their members in their places of abode.
Many of their members probably also use many items and services that are manufactured abroad, just as about all of us do.

acotrel says:

08:17am | 14/02/12

’ a moral scare campaign with undertones of class warfare. ‘

Tony Abbott mentioned it first, now they are all taking up the tune!
Poor Gerry Harvey might be slowed down a bit in his greedy pursuits, so it is ‘class warfare’.  Tell us about the ‘trickle down effect of wealth’, and how it is OK to exploit everything and everyone to ge t it.

Nathan says:

07:21am | 14/02/12

Whilst i agree with what you where saying about it just going off shore because i think you are spot on but i do not believe our logging industry is that well regulated. We will sell it off if there are votes in it, i am thinking back to Eden when logging was an issue. Australia will lower it standards and are not above doing the wrong thing

Trumpster says:

07:25am | 14/02/12

Exactly right Bertrand.

Apparently Australian trees are more valuable than Malaysian or Indonesian ones to GetUp.

It is interesting to note that preventing logging in Australia not only exports potential problems associated with logging to countries that may not have the same level of regulatory oversight as we have here, but also exports any of the benefits as well.

So, we get poorer economic, environmental and social outcomes.

Good call, GetUp.

ronny jonny says:

07:28am | 14/02/12

Exactly Bertrand, where would these people prefer the timber came from? I suppose we can all just sit on the lovely lush grass in the sunshine of their green Utopia.
The same argument can be put for any natural resource sent out of this country but iron ore and gold don’t have the romantic aspect to them that “old growth native forest” does. And no Harvey Norman to demonise.

Angry God of Townsville says:

08:01am | 14/02/12

Bertrand, correct.

Idiots like Simon do not understand that controlled logging of Australian forest and forestry management systems in place is globally responsible. To have unmanaged logging in the Amazon or Malaysia is as stupid for the environment as sending a complete moron to the US to monitor their elections.

He has provided a campaign based on misinformation and then claims success. Well we have seen the PM get where she has through this tactic so it does seem to work well for the left.

Simon would not know a fact if it left $50 on the night stand after leaving the room.

acotrel says:

09:04am | 14/02/12

Bertrand, Your argument comes down to ‘we should do bad things in Australia, because if they do them elsewhere, they will be worse’ !  What ever happened to ‘do it right first time’ , and ‘continual improvement’  ?
What is Gerry going to do with all his money - become a philanthropist, and spend it creating new forests ? Or he could start a business disposing of second hand useless furniture ?

Australians R Bunnies says:

01:50pm | 14/02/12

“we should do bad things in Australia”.  Acotrel. Can you confirm something for me? In his article Simon Sheikh merely refers to ‘native forests’. He doesn’t qualify this to mean old growth, pre European, prime, etc habitats does he.  So are we also talking forests of natives that have completely grown back from having been clear felled 50, 70 and 100 years ago?  If not then why didn’t Simon make it clear?  After all, the green movement in Tasmania has taught the reading public that there is a difference between prime (old growth) forests and forests of regrowth natives.

marley says:

02:56pm | 14/02/12

@acotrel - let me explain this to you.  Trees are a renewable resource. Properly managed, a native forest can be logged, replaced, logged again, replaced indefinitely.  Where I live, there are signs stating the native forest was clear-cut in 1912, selectively logged in 1937 - and it’s just been selectively logged again.  The best of the wood is going north to a sawmill for flooring and veneers. 

Now it seems to me that the loggers did the wrong thing in 1912, but have done the right thing ever since - allowing the forest to regenerate, using the timber for useful purposes, creating jobs for locals.  So what do you propose should be done differently?  Not log this forest, and instead cut down old growth trees in Indonesia?  How is that in any way related to continuous improvement?  It’s actually a lot more a case of passing the buck.

year of the dragon says:

04:02pm | 14/02/12

acotrel says:10:04am | 14/02/12

“What is Gerry going to do with all his money”

And so we come to the heart of the issue. Envy. Base, ugly and odious envy.

Gregg says:

04:22pm | 14/02/12

@Acca,
Hey buddy, you were cited as MIA today over yonder.
Couldn’t find your way out the forest for all the trees was it?

Bertrand says:

05:52pm | 14/02/12

@Nathan - I’m coming back into this discussion quite late, sorry.

I agree that the management of our forests could be better. For example, I have issues with the use of old growth forests for wood pulp and paper manufacturing. (Not sure if Tasmania is still doing this or nor?)

However, we are light years ahead of places like Indonesia, and that’s what this debate boils down to. This GetUp campaign is about trying to destroy Australia’s forestry industry. Destroying forestry in Australia won’t stifle demand for timber, but it will stifle supply, and increase the need to source it from seriously non-sustainable sources,

Australian's R Bunnies says:

12:45pm | 14/02/12

“Job’s will always be cheaper in China. ” Only while currency exchange rates can be manipulated. This whole thing would be hilarious if it wasn’t so worrying. Chinese control over its exchange rates has really poked a stick into the West’s spokes. China is like a big kid with an outstretched arm holding a little kid’s head. No matter how much the little kid flails his arms he aint going to be able to land any body punches.

Australians R Bunnies says:

02:04pm | 14/02/12

And the great irony Anthony.  It’s the Chinese that 20 odd years ago said, right, that’s enough citizens and introduced the one child policy. That’s one tough decision. Meanwhile the West has been breeding consumers like crazy. Consumers that suck up the resource like Aussie timber.  No surprise then that China is disinclined to listen to pontificating from West.

marley says:

03:03pm | 14/02/12

@Australian’s R Bunnies - actually, the birth rate in the west isn’t a whole lot higher than in China.  Australia’s birth rate is around 1.8; so is China’s.

Australians R Bunnies says:

04:06pm | 14/02/12

Thanks Marley.  Let’s call it ‘growing their consumer populations’ then. Birth rate + migration. Doesn’t change the fact that China made one tough decision to stop the number of resource consuming humans from increasing. It was a tough but globally socially responsible decision.

Meanwhile the likes of Get Up advocate easier migration into Oz.  In practice wouldn’t this just reduce the incentive of high population growth countries to slow their population growth.  And we know from Get Up’s support of the carbon price that they know all about incentive. It’s hard sometimes to know what Get Up really stands for.

year of the dragon says:

11:46am | 14/02/12

Good on Nilbog, that’s now 52,298.

Fezzbo says:

12:02pm | 14/02/12

Wideandthinlyspread support…

SimonFromLakemba says:

02:37pm | 14/02/12

Still about 50,000 thousand more then what turned up to the Liberal climate change rally.

Fezzbo says:

03:30pm | 14/02/12

@ Simon

You can’t turn up to an online petition mate… Mind you, if we had an online petition regarding whether or not GetUp should pack up and bugger off, I reckon we’d get more than 50,000 saying yes please…

I got more likes on a photo of an Australia-shaped corn chip…

Mickey T says:

04:09pm | 14/02/12

What’s wrong Fezzbo…Does GetUp scare you?

“I got more likes on a photo of an Australia-shaped corn chip” - You should stick to what you know best then Fezzbo.

Fezzbo says:

05:09pm | 14/02/12

@ Mickey T

“What’s wrong Fezzbo…Does GetUp scare you?”

GetUp doesn’t scare me at all… Political lobbyists are nothing more than money sponges attached to particular arms of government. They hold very little clout in the real world unless it has to do with denying wanker Talk Radio Hosts the sponsors they don’t deserve.

“You should stick to what you know best then Fezzbo.”

Repeating my persona twice in 3 lines; did you think I’d forgotten who you were talking to? And if by “sticking to what you do best” you mean putting lame posts in their place, consider it done.

Have a great night.

Australians R Bunnies says:

11:48am | 14/02/12

I don’t know if Get Up solely acts for Labor. It has supra national bonds. But definitely agree with you about baiting. If I wanted to set up a mechanism for Australians to part with their wealth at bargain basement prices then Get Up is the sort of get up I’d invent.

Australian natives are fast growing right?  Much to their regret they were planted locally in masses by the South Africans and Californians.

So what’s the problem with growing bucket loads of native trees and then harvesting them.

Oh and Aussie Natives are good carbon sinks.  Especially Victoria’s Mountain Ash.  The Romans started the clear felling of much of England. Then that island rapidly filled full of consumers. 50 Million of em. Do we see anyone pushing England to return to its pre roman forestation? Similar thing happened to the huge forests on the US east coast. Sounds a bit like foreign interests are hustling Australian companies to do what they say rather than do what they do. Why? They want in?

fitter says:

12:37pm | 14/02/12

Well put sonia. Get a dog up ya + shit spelling = bogan

year of the dragon says:

04:10pm | 14/02/12

Kipling says:04:07pm | 14/02/12

“given how little the science world actually knows beyond doubt, it seems wholly ignorant and foolhardy to, in effect, conduct unsupervised experiments (on the enironment) without an effective control”

But I thought that the science was in.

It appears Abbott was right when he said, that the science behind AGW was “crap”. It seems you agree.

“we might have to sacrifice some material comfort”

Material comfort? Try telling that to the people losing their jobs because of it, the industries being destroyed by it, the pensioners unable to heat or cool their homes because of it.

Tell that to the Brisbane residents who lost their homes and family members because the damn was over 100% full because of ALP climate policy based on Tim Flannery’s lie that it would never rain again in SE Qld.

Tell that to those in the third world who are striving to improve their wealth, their health and their living standards.

Yeah mate, it may mean you have to ponce around in a Prius or putting another goose down doona on your inner city flat, but to most of the rest of the world it means more than sacrificing a little bit of “material comfort”.

Kipling says:

06:01am | 15/02/12

YOTD
Oh it is to laugh, you quote Tony Abott on the science behind AGW glibly, yet totally fail to grasp the bigger picture behind the statment. The science on both sides is as your idol says, “crap”...

Although not crap really, clearly, at least one scientist acknowledges how little we actually know and even less of that we understand. Oh and that wasn’t just about AGW, that was about stuff in general.

Exactly what industries have been “destroyed” by “it” whatever it is….

That merely supports the statement about conducting an unsupervised experiment without propr contols… Do you honestly think “industry” knows anything beyond the boundaries of trying to make a buck (bare in mind it is your position that industry is closing down, hence they might not actually KNOW too much eh)

Beyond that, yu pretty much sum up most of the misguidedness of the debate. You actually try to politicise this, ROFLMAO as if the poiticians (or more specifically your clearly favoured brand) actually know stuff. Ignorance in action there ol matey.

Your final paragraph is merely an erronesous assumption making an ass out of you and trying to out of me… Oh, consequently your final paragraph actually proves the point about not knowing stuff yet proclaiming your ignorance as a knowledge of soemthing…. That is some well articultated ignorance there mate.

Thanks for your backhanded support and please keep up the good work. You are a fine representative of our species.

Bertrand says:

10:32pm | 14/02/12

I don’t know. I like that The Punch generally puts forward ideas from all sides of the spectrum. This is just a rebuttal to an article by Penbo attacking GetUp for their ridiculous campaign against Australian timber. Better to have an opinion site that puts forward all opinions - daft and sensible.