This is all an immense embarrassment to the IPA. They have diminished themselves. We have to come down on the menace of government splurging on excessive consultancy fees. What is the point of all these reports if not to rig policy to their liking? If the politicians want to know something why not just buy a book?

No no. Its a mindless idiotic goal. Not growing trees. Thats not necessarily mindless and idiotic. But growing trees with the motivation of carbon capture and storage. There may be a need to grow trees in some instances. There is no need for carbon capture and storage.

Its the carbon capture and storage that is the idiotic motive here. Don’t be quoting the UN on this matter. They are idiots and liars.

If you have some evidence that any of this idiocy has legs scientifically either show up with it or admit you are wrong.

Its 2009. We don’t have time for this idiocy any more. Its not funny anymore.

According to official Department of Climate Change figures http://www.ageis.greenhouse.gov.au/
Tasmania has led the nation in reducing its carbon foot print from 11.1 million tonnes of GHG to only 8.5 million. A gigantic 23% reduction, such a reduction is more than the likely achievement of the massively expensive Emission Trading scheme.

This result has been achieved by the forest sector, valueing the forest, harvesting and processing timber, by regenerating the forest after harvest and planting new forests. Such activities have been strenuously opposed by the political green movement, by protest, legal action and political stunts. They have campaigned against the Tasmania’s forest agreement despite it locking up a million hectares of old growth forest which they claim hold over 2,000 million tonnes of carbon and against the approved pulp mill that will save the emission of over 1 million tonnes of GHG each year.

I don’t expect Jennifer to learn these facts, as a quick look on her blog, she is already fully aware of them; such solutions to perceived environmental problems (that are opposed by the greens) need to be subject to public discussion. Growing trees provide a cost effective alternative to the $ cost of an ETS and provides jobs, economic wealth as well as habitat and intrinsic forest values.

It is amazing to me that faced with this “crisis”, whether real or imaginary (pointless exercise in leftist-appeasement and unscience-accommodation) the Australian green political movement could be so out of step with the International environment thinking.

After all it was the IPCC who published:
“In the long term, a sustainable forest management strategy aimed at maintaining or increasing forest carbon stocks, while producing an annual sustained yield of timber, fibre or energy from the forest, will generate the largest sustained mitigation benefit”

Even if carbon capture is ‘pointless’, using photosynthesis will be the cheapest method of capture and storage.

What for? For what purpose would you want large-scale carbon capture and storage?

TREES?

TREES?

Is it TREES? you are talking about? I mean I kind of like trees but one should appreciate trees for being trees. Not for being some sort of pointless exercise in leftist-appeasement and unscience-accommodation.

And what makes you think that Dr Marohasy has something to learn by getting around looking at trees? Something to learn that you know but most of us don’t? The Doctor has likely been around trees most of her young life? What is the lesson to be learnt out there in Tasmania that you yourself have learned so much better than the rest of us?

Global warming is a racket. Trees can be a good thing but IF they are a good thing, in some cases….. This is quite independent of their alleged carbon capture and storage role. This is because carbon capture and storage is an entirely worthless undertaking.

She might consider our sustainably managed forests available for timber production and the massive wilderness/ old growth forests reserves. Even if sceptical about the relationship of human caused CO2 emissions and global climate, she could examine the amazing technology Tasmania has implemented for large-scale carbon capture and storage.

It’s a real solution that already delivers mitigation – 23% decrease in State GHG from Kyoto baseline year.

This technology is available throughout the world without complex technology transfer. It is proven and simple. It involves ultraviolet, visible radiation and molecular reaction.

Chemists know it as: 6 CO2 + 6 H2O + solar energy, the rest of us know it as Photosynthesis.

It is the process that grows our forests, for each tonne of wood produced by a tree; about 1.5 tonnes of carbon dioxide are removed from the atmosphere with the added bonus that when you make something from a tree, carbon sequestered in forests is stored in the products we use every day.

The Climate Institute was created in 2005 by a $10 million grant from the estate of one of the Murdoch clan to lobby government and to run a public awareness campaign for five years to ‘combat’ climate change.

Perhaps Jennifer, could lead a new environmental institute that is a non-partisan, independent research organisation that works with community, business and government to drive innovative and effective environmental solutions. An institute that will research, educate and communicate.

This may be better than a partnership with a University, just look at the compromise to the ANU’s reputation with its Wild Country Hub partnership with the Wilderness Society. http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=8094

Congratulations for your achievements with the IPA and the AEF, and in providing this blog!

Good luck with it all, & let us know when to buy the first book.