Do we have “too many forests locked up” in Australia as the PM says ?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-05/abbott-timber-industry-dinner-forestry-council-forest-locked-up/5299046
rumpole said:
Do we have “too many forests locked up” in Australia as the PM says ?http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-05/abbott-timber-industry-dinner-forestry-council-forest-locked-up/5299046
He’s got his head up his bum.
roughbarked said:
rumpole said:
Do we have “too many forests locked up” in Australia as the PM says ?http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-05/abbott-timber-industry-dinner-forestry-council-forest-locked-up/5299046
He’s got his head up his bum.
We all know that, but is there any merit in his argument ?
rumpole said:
roughbarked said:
rumpole said:
Do we have “too many forests locked up” in Australia as the PM says ?http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-05/abbott-timber-industry-dinner-forestry-council-forest-locked-up/5299046
He’s got his head up his bum.
We all know that, but is there any merit in his argument ?
No. what he should be doing if he wants trees is using all the waste caused by housing developments.
Wonder why the statisticians never really tallied up the amount of wasted timber from farming, mining, housing developments, road building, city building and etc. Why cut the pristine stuff for chipboard and paper bags for Macdonalds?
Someone should Lock him up
We need to plant more trees
Billions of trees
CrazyNeutrino said:
Someone should Lock him upWe need to plant more trees
Billions of trees
Trouble is, we’ve buggered the climate and the topography let alone the topsoils.
where forests have been left untouched, they should remain that way other than for the occasional bit of really good timber for specialist needs. All forestry should be done from plantations.
that’s the problem with abbott and his team, thye have some sensible policy then some batshit crazy policy
you might remember he was proposing BUYING boats to stop people smugglers
the only forests that should be felled are plantation OR sporadic trees in existing forests – not wholesale levelling
Tony is attempting to mollify voters by announcing batshit crazy stuff. However it is about supplying the demand and if the consumers are batshit crazy, what else can we expect?
roughbarked said:
rumpole said:
Do we have “too many forests locked up” in Australia as the PM says ?http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-05/abbott-timber-industry-dinner-forestry-council-forest-locked-up/5299046
He’s got his head up his bum.
Fair enough, it is the suppository of all knowledge after all.
Wisdom.
CrazyNeutrino said:
Someone should Lock him upWe need to plant more trees
Billions of trees
Meanwhile, truckloads of large karri trees continue to head towards the local mill, though it is set to be closed down in the next few years. Already the large jarrah mill in Manjimup has been closed down, though there is another that has recently been refurbished. Much of the jarrah forest has been logged already and all the big trees have been taken. There are a lot of large trees lying on the ground in those areas that were cut but never milled, probably because they didn’t meet grade.
The wood chip trade here has wound right back over the last couple of years as the demand has died off.
Peak Warming Man said:
Wisdom.
Thanks, but it was more of a cheap shot really.
Picture in your mind’s eye if you will an ‘Eco resort’.
What is the principle building material?
morrie said:
Picture in your mind’s eye if you will an ‘Eco resort’.What is the principle building material?
He’s a destructive fool, but he’s the destructive fool that most Australians wanted. Don’t blame me.
“Locked up”
He’s going to set them free. Run, my pretties!
I mourn the loss of the CSIRO Forestry Division. It was swallowed into other divisions and then just recently all the remaining CSIRO Forestry staff were sacked.
Why don’t people realise that the timber industry is the best way to get rid of atmospheric CO2?
“When I look out tonight at an audience of people who work with timber, who work in forests, I don’t see people who are environmental vandals; I see people who are the ultimate conservationists, no bat-shit!” he said.
Hmmmmmm
morrie said:
Picture in your mind’s eye if you will an ‘Eco resort’.What is the principle building material?
Bamboo.
mollwollfumble said:
Why don’t people realise that the timber industry is the best way to get rid of atmospheric CO2?
But not by ripping into old growth.
Ian said:
mollwollfumble said:Why don’t people realise that the timber industry is the best way to get rid of atmospheric CO2?
But not by ripping into old growth.
Mmm. I would think timber plantations would be a more efficient way to get rid of atmospheric CO2.
dv said:
Ian said:
mollwollfumble said:Why don’t people realise that the timber industry is the best way to get rid of atmospheric CO2?
But not by ripping into old growth.
I think you are right. I am not sure that old growth consumes more carbon dioxide than new growth.Mmm. I would think timber plantations would be a more efficient way to get rid of atmospheric CO2.
morrie said:
dv said:
Ian said:But not by ripping into old growth.
I think you are right. I am not sure that old growth consumes more carbon dioxide than new growth.Mmm. I would think timber plantations would be a more efficient way to get rid of atmospheric CO2.
Well plus, it must be technically harder to harvest randomly scattered trees of varying sizes and shapes on varying terrain than it is to harvest nice neat trees in rows all of about the same size and kind … right? Surely.
morrie said:
dv said:
Ian said:But not by ripping into old growth.
I think you are right. I am not sure that old growth consumes more carbon dioxide than new growth.Mmm. I would think timber plantations would be a more efficient way to get rid of atmospheric CO2.
I read somewhere recently old growth takes up more CO2 than new but not sure if that includes say three harvests of new in the place of old over the same 100 years.
>>I think you are right. I am not sure that old growth consumes more carbon dioxide than new growth.
I heard something recently about even careful selective logging of old growth being bad from a carbon sequestration POV.
Of course, there are environmental issues other than atmospheric carbon dioxide…
dv said:
Of course, there are environmental issues other than atmospheric carbon dioxide…
Yairs, maybe a new method is needed. Strips of plantation with strips of old growth, the strips of new act as corridors and the old acts as a haven when it is harvested. Maybe the problem is that the blocks allowed to harvest and preserve are by themselves too big and it would be better for it to be more mixed up which would help island populations.
My 2 cents:
Plantation forests are good as they are normally established on land that is not great for cropping.
New growth takes up carbon more rapidly than old growth.
Native forests that are selectively logged are also good as you get some economic return from the timber plus ecological functions such as soil conservation and a nice clean catchment for water supplies (although there is some concern that trees take up too much water in dry areas).
High ecological value forests should (and mostly are) protected in National Parks. That is essential to ensure they are managed for conservation.
When I used to work for the NSW Foresty Commission (now State Forests) there was one person I knew who thought we should selectively log National Parks. I think we should just leave those areas alone, let the old trees develop hollows and let the nutrients cycle naturally over time.
When done right forestry truely is a wonderful, sustainable industry.
Bamboo might seem sustainable however I have heard the flattened and glued products require a lot of energy and raw materials (glue) during manufacture. A life cycle analysis is the process to use to compare different products like bamboo vs boards. (particle board also uses a lot of glues).
Abbott’s speech is sickening as he invokes the Christian claim of man’s domination over nature. This reeks of anti-science and is an insult to the forest scientists out there trying to develop and promote a sustainable industry. Some may have agreed with him on the night but for many it would have rung hollow – like a mining conference (for environmental practitioners) I went to many moons ago where Bill O’Chee derided all the environmental regulations – dude, wrong audience! We are the practitioners who are devoting our careers to protecting the environment during mining operations :(
The area Abbott talks about going into the World Heritage Area which is plantation may have some other important environmental value/benefit such as a buffer zone or ecological linkage. I am not sure what the case is but I would not dismiss this area as important to protect just because it is plantation. Tourism associated with a World Heritage Area (and National Parks) is another wonderful, sustainable industry…
podzol said:
My 2 cents:Plantation forests are good as they are normally established on land that is not great for cropping.
New growth takes up carbon more rapidly than old growth.
Native forests that are selectively logged are also good as you get some economic return from the timber plus ecological functions such as soil conservation and a nice clean catchment for water supplies (although there is some concern that trees take up too much water in dry areas).
High ecological value forests should (and mostly are) protected in National Parks. That is essential to ensure they are managed for conservation.
When I used to work for the NSW Foresty Commission (now State Forests) there was one person I knew who thought we should selectively log National Parks. I think we should just leave those areas alone, let the old trees develop hollows and let the nutrients cycle naturally over time.
When done right forestry truely is a wonderful, sustainable industry.
Bamboo might seem sustainable however I have heard the flattened and glued products require a lot of energy and raw materials (glue) during manufacture. A life cycle analysis is the process to use to compare different products like bamboo vs boards. (particle board also uses a lot of glues).
Abbott’s speech is sickening as he invokes the Christian claim of man’s domination over nature. This reeks of anti-science and is an insult to the forest scientists out there trying to develop and promote a sustainable industry. Some may have agreed with him on the night but for many it would have rung hollow – like a mining conference (for environmental practitioners) I went to many moons ago where Bill O’Chee derided all the environmental regulations – dude, wrong audience! We are the practitioners who are devoting our careers to protecting the environment during mining operations :(
The area Abbott talks about going into the World Heritage Area which is plantation may have some other important environmental value/benefit such as a buffer zone or ecological linkage. I am not sure what the case is but I would not dismiss this area as important to protect just because it is plantation. Tourism associated with a World Heritage Area (and National Parks) is another wonderful, sustainable industry…
You might be interested in this article podzol.
PermeateFree said:
podzol said:
My 2 cents:Plantation forests are good as they are normally established on land that is not great for cropping.
New growth takes up carbon more rapidly than old growth.
Native forests that are selectively logged are also good as you get some economic return from the timber plus ecological functions such as soil conservation and a nice clean catchment for water supplies (although there is some concern that trees take up too much water in dry areas).
High ecological value forests should (and mostly are) protected in National Parks. That is essential to ensure they are managed for conservation.
When I used to work for the NSW Foresty Commission (now State Forests) there was one person I knew who thought we should selectively log National Parks. I think we should just leave those areas alone, let the old trees develop hollows and let the nutrients cycle naturally over time.
When done right forestry truely is a wonderful, sustainable industry.
Bamboo might seem sustainable however I have heard the flattened and glued products require a lot of energy and raw materials (glue) during manufacture. A life cycle analysis is the process to use to compare different products like bamboo vs boards. (particle board also uses a lot of glues).
Abbott’s speech is sickening as he invokes the Christian claim of man’s domination over nature. This reeks of anti-science and is an insult to the forest scientists out there trying to develop and promote a sustainable industry. Some may have agreed with him on the night but for many it would have rung hollow – like a mining conference (for environmental practitioners) I went to many moons ago where Bill O’Chee derided all the environmental regulations – dude, wrong audience! We are the practitioners who are devoting our careers to protecting the environment during mining operations :(
The area Abbott talks about going into the World Heritage Area which is plantation may have some other important environmental value/benefit such as a buffer zone or ecological linkage. I am not sure what the case is but I would not dismiss this area as important to protect just because it is plantation. Tourism associated with a World Heritage Area (and National Parks) is another wonderful, sustainable industry…
You might be interested in this article podzol.
Sorry
http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/5658/20140116/older-trees-grow-faster-take-up-more-carbon.htm
Thanks PermeateFree, I hadn’t seen that info. Past studies I have seen show that the younger stands grow faster on a per hectare basis. The article and associated link does not specifically say this study is on a per hectare basis, rather referring to individual tree growth. It would be nice to know if it is just per tree or per ha.
From link:
“The revelation goes against the long-held assumption that trees lose their vigor with age. An analysis of more than 600,000 trees belonging to 403 species found that trees grow more as they get older, which enables them to trap more carbon than their younger counterparts.”
Trees will naturally thin out due to competition for light/nutrients and in managed forests or plantations they will be actively thinned. Side branches may also be removed. Cypress pine (a native tree) will not self thin, the saplings all grow at a similar rate and become “locked up”, unable to grow any bigger. In the Depression teams would go out thinning these stands in western NSW.
morrie said:
CrazyNeutrino said:
Someone should Lock him upWe need to plant more trees
Billions of trees
There are thousands of hectares of bluegums here in WA that were planted in a frenzy of schemes that have gone bust. Now they are useless because they aren’t economic to harvest. In fact, getting rid of them and reverting to farmland is a cost.
Well fuck.. the investors should have jacked up and asked for WA timber.
morrie said:
Meanwhile, truckloads of large karri trees continue to head towards the local mill, though it is set to be closed down in the next few years. Already the large jarrah mill in Manjimup has been closed down, though there is another that has recently been refurbished. Much of the jarrah forest has been logged already and all the big trees have been taken. There are a lot of large trees lying on the ground in those areas that were cut but never milled, probably because they didn’t meet grade.The wood chip trade here has wound right back over the last couple of years as the demand has died off.
Those that didn’t meet grade could still have been chipped.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Peak Warming Man said:
Wisdom.
Thanks, but it was more of a cheap shot really.
So is everyone else’s.
The forestry industry has been in critical mode for decades. and it isn’t about government intervention..Bubblecar said:
He’s a destructive fool, but he’s the destructive fool that most Australians wanted. Don’t blame me.
and why does it worry you enough to have to say it?
mollwollfumble said:
I mourn the loss of the CSIRO Forestry Division. It was swallowed into other divisions and then just recently all the remaining CSIRO Forestry staff were sacked.Why don’t people realise that the timber industry is the best way to get rid of atmospheric CO2?
People realise it but the industry has its head up its bum.
roughbarked said:
Bubblecar said:
He’s a destructive fool, but he’s the destructive fool that most Australians wanted. Don’t blame me.
and why does it worry you enough to have to say it?
Abbott is a puppet. Always has been, even back in the 90s. Strings lead back to the Melbourne Club, the RC church, the BCOA, mining companies, and Peter Reith and his cronies.
podzol said:
Thanks PermeateFree, I hadn’t seen that info. Past studies I have seen show that the younger stands grow faster on a per hectare basis. The article and associated link does not specifically say this study is on a per hectare basis, rather referring to individual tree growth. It would be nice to know if it is just per tree or per ha.From link:
“The revelation goes against the long-held assumption that trees lose their vigor with age. An analysis of more than 600,000 trees belonging to 403 species found that trees grow more as they get older, which enables them to trap more carbon than their younger counterparts.”Trees will naturally thin out due to competition for light/nutrients and in managed forests or plantations they will be actively thinned. Side branches may also be removed. Cypress pine (a native tree) will not self thin, the saplings all grow at a similar rate and become “locked up”, unable to grow any bigger. In the Depression teams would go out thinning these stands in western NSW.
I haven’t read the article yet but indeed thinning is a necessary part of forest management. The thinnings however are not utilised. If they were clear felling for the chip mills, they would be.
captain_spalding said:
roughbarked said:
Bubblecar said:
He’s a destructive fool, but he’s the destructive fool that most Australians wanted. Don’t blame me.
and why does it worry you enough to have to say it?
Abbott is a puppet. Always has been, even back in the 90s. Strings lead back to the Melbourne Club, the RC church, the BCOA, mining companies, and Peter Reith and his cronies.
You are preaching to the converted.. Abbott has been on my dangerous shit head radar, ever since he arrived in politics.
If forestry is about economics, it will make a loss in natural forests.
If forestry manages plantations, it is like any other cropping industry.
There is a lot more to a forest than just trees. Eucalyptus trees in Australian forests make up less than 1% of the species present, but they are responsible for making these important habitats and without them, you lose its great biodiversity. Besides the trunks, co2 is also stored in the roots and this also applies to the other species in the forest, so comparison with a single species plantation is no comparison at all.
Much of our fauna diversity hangs by a thread and to wreck pristine habitat for such a low bulk woodchip price, which to make it profitable relies on enormous volume and vast environmental destruction, and all for such little return. The fact that we should be willing to destroy so much to keep a handful of people employed is beyond stupidity. It is as if the entire country is in an virginal state and some exploitation is acceptable, but that is far from the truth and to find unlogged virgin forest is today is not easy to do, yet we run headlong into even more environmental vandalism, as if to leave anything untouched is a blot on humanity.
The largest component of the Australian wood harvest is coniferous plantations which makes up about half of the total volume. Next is native forest, then broadleaf plantations.
We often think of forests in terms of sawn timber, but woodchip dominates the harvest in terms of volume calculated on a log basis. It is the only product in which we have an economic advantage.
http://data.daff.gov.au/brs/data/warehouse/pe_abares99001795/CP11.13_Outlook_paper_AsiaPacificForestry.pdfFrom what I see around here, harvest from native forest for chipping involves close to clear-felling. Anything that can be called a log can be chipped. Only a handful of trees are left standing. I don’t see any virgin forest being logged though. In fact it is hard to find any true virgin forest here. Even in the middle of the National Parks there are stumps from logging a long time ago. Some very big trees disappear into the chip mill though. From areas that have been logged for sawn timber years ago.
There has been a steady downward pressure on access to native forests over time. If that prevents it being clear-felled for wood chip then that’s probably a good thing.
Selective logging for sawn timber might be a different issue but I think that the two often go hand in hand.
Morning from overcast western Sydney.
Sustainable forest management and climate change
What would the 1980s have been without big hair, wine coolers and the discovery that the earth’s atmosphere had a hole in it over Antarctica. This blanket of ozone blocks most of the sun’s high-frequency ultraviolet rays. This discovery set the stage for the Montreal Protocol in 1987.
Today, the hole in the ozone is headed for a happy ending. Due to global mitigation measures, the hole is actually shrinking. Now however, some scientists say the environmental triumph of recovering the ozone layer could have a troubling side effect — boosting global warming, at least in the Antarctic region.
more…
Sorry. Fred Wong.
Morning punters and correctors, another spiffing day in the Pearl, the dart throwers think showers for the weekend.