Hi Jennifer,
The former Premier of NSW, Bob Carr, has made the following claim in a Daily Telegraph Editorial:
“ONE of my first acts as premier in 1995 was to introduce controls on the clearing of native vegetation. It was controversial and it involved me in endless arguments.
But stopping broadacre land clearing in NSW (Queensland followed) is the only thing that has enabled Prime Minister John Howard to boast that Australia can meet its Kyoto targets.”
I have compared this claim with information compiled by the Australian Greenhouse Office and it doesn’t appear to stack up.
The table indicates that landuse change emissions have reduced dramatically from 1990 to now by about 70 percent. Much of this occurred prior to 1995, the date Mr. Carr claims that he acted. In fact the table shows an extremely small decrease from 1995 to 2003 for New South Wales. There was no significant change in Queensland from 1995 to 2002.
Mr Carr’s statement that stopping broad acre land clearing in NSW in 1995 is the only thing that allows Australia to meets its Kyoto targets is not supported by the available evidence.
In the same article Mr Carr claims:
“In 1800 much of North America, South America, Australia and Asia was covered by forest. But the explosion in the human population meant massive clearing. Australia lost an estimated two-thirds of its vegetation.”
These statements can be compared with the Department of Environment and Heritage Australian Native Vegetation Assessment 2001 that states:
“At a continental scale, approximately 13% of the total land has been cleared.”
This assessment estimates that about 50% of the continent was covered by forest and woodland. Indeed this was mostly woodland, with forest accounting for just over 44 million hectares or about 6% of the continent. In 2001 the Audit estimated that over 31 million hectares remained, that is 71% of the original extent. This is less than a third of the forest cleared not two thirds as claimed by Bob Carr.
Regards Cinders.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Cinders says; “This assessment estimates that about 50% of the continent was covered by forest and woodland. Indeed this was mostly woodland, with forest accounting for just over 44 million hectares or about 6% of the continent. In 2001 the Audit estimated that over 31 million hectares remained, that is 71% of the original extent. This is less than a third of the forest cleared not two thirds as claimed by Bob Carr”
Reckon Cinders sweeps up NSW here in ‘national’ data? That’s just too easy.
Elsewhere; Jennifer says get out and look for your selves at the bush, down the Murray and so on. I’ve been doing that all week along the coast. IMHO Carr did a good job.
In our previous discussions regarding data assessment, BRS maps etc. I pointed to a need to understand how we are still building this information state by state and region by region because each authority and groups within were pulling the “wool” sawdust over our eyes so to speak.
We should start here before trying to jump all the hurdles at once.
http://audit.deh.gov.au/ANRA/vegetation/docs/native_vegetation/nat_veg_mapping.cfm
Early explorers went looking for grazing land, to name a few Blaxland Lawson and Wentworth went over the Blue Mts and “found a great expanse of open country, which they surveyed”, Mitchell named the Grampians Ranges – the western most tip of the Great Dividing Range and the pasture land around it ‘Australia Felix’.
Bob Carr is away with the fairies, his recent analysis of US politics on Lateline was embarassing and fanciful.
Gavin,
you might want to look a bit harder at the details of that web site for NSW the Audit states:
“In New South Wales, 30%, or 23.4 million hectares, of native vegetation has been removed … New South Wales has one of the largest areas of cleared land in Australia.”
It is no where near the claim of two thirds.
Table 18 of the NSW section gives a list of vegetation types and their estimated clearance rates woodlands far out strip forests.
You can play all sorts of games with statistics – like “there’s more trees now than there used to be” – maybe – but what sort, what condition, and where? Big areas that will never be touched like Cape York distort absolute numbers yet it’s very hard to find substantial areas of southern brigalow left.
We have clearly developed the best soils for agriculture and pastoralism. Drive down the Newell highway and you’ll see little remnants of brigalow, box, myalls and all manner of things that used to be there. Fly over it and you’ll vast areas under the plough/cow.
Some vegetation communities are doing OK and will do OK while others are not. Leaving the emotional and charismatic Tasmanian and east coast “big trees” forestry out of the debate for a minute and talking about the beef/wheat/sheef zone from Central Queensland down to the Mallee we’ve obviously cleared stacks and stacks.
It’s the food we eat, fibre we wear and export.
And if you like to eat you’re involved in agriculture. If you want that Toyota to drive around in we need some export income to pay for it.
But when’s enough enough and what’s a reasonable amount to retain. None – 10% – 30% ??
Bob clearly can’t count – bob’s history so who cares – but for you seriously “evidence based” blogians – more importantly – what are the real NSW numbers ?? (And not on absolute area – proportion of original extent.)This is the supplementary follow-up question.
And I can’t look it up as Phil has me on a Google diet. No more than 10 searches per day – I was over by 6am so 24 hours before next go.
Luke – driving down the Newell – what did you do shut your eyes when you drove through teh Piliga?
I don’t or you’ll clip a roo or a Victorian. I see thickened woodlands/forest on not really good for cropping soils on that 100km atypical stretch. Sometimes big fires. Sometimes good cypress. Speedsters, caravans, cops and roos. Some interesting sites including caves off the track.
And Brown – what do you see with your eyes open from Goondiwindi to Narrabri?
Woodlands and cropping areas why what did you see? If your saw “good cypress” in the area you refer to then you really did have your eyes shut!
Luke reckons “If you want that Toyota to drive around in we need some export income to pay for it”. How did you know I still had one on the wish list? And Luke – what do you see with your eyes open from Goondiwindi to Narrabri? Red dust !
Cinders notes “New South Wales has one of the largest areas of cleared land in Australia.”
Mate; the odd bits of scrub west of the divide would not build a stockade. Let’s chat about what Carr saved on the east after you tell us about your last eyeball in this area. As Luke says any good soil was cleared for farms and cities long ago. What trees grow on these days is paper thin topsoil or bare rock. This remaining rough country is now mostly locked up in Carr’s National Parks.
I’ve driven Toowomba (through Goondidwindi) to Narrabri and also Dirranbandi to Brewarrina in the last couple of years. From memory there were a lot more trees/forest on the Queensland side of the border. Cropping towards Narrabri, open grassland towards Brewarrina.
Gavin, I didn’t keep a log/journal but can’t remember much red dust. Along which stretches? There is a lot of black soil country under cropping and forest under?
I’ve driven Brisbane (SEQ Qld) to Forster (NSW mid north coast) a few times over the last year and I am always surprised at how much forest there is right along the way.
Brown – I think you see massive dryland cropping.
So do any authorised Googlers have a number for how much forest and woodland have been cleared in NSW – or is that a off limits subject.
So you think that Google can replace commonsense? gimme a break Luke.
Carr is living in a fantasy world of dungeons and dragons and you want to Google.
Jen says “I’ve driven Brisbane (SEQ Qld) to Forster (NSW mid north coast) a few times over the last year and I am always surprised at how much forest there is right along the way”.
Good. Did you hug a tree?
What we are debating here is Cinder’s assessment of Carr’s claims and I’m maintaining as usual there is a trick or two in all data interpretation. Hugging a tree along your journey is the best way to get on top of stats. Next best is asking a local.
Stats aren’t facts in my book. My trip will end only after I get round to following up with some sawmillers what is what out in the bush. It seems they are cutting timber from afar.
So we have on one hand Rog’s commonsense that would insist chalk is actually IDENTICAL to gritty cheese or we could cite some study or evidence. Rog at the Salem witch trials – “listen everyone – commonsense says they’re witches”.
Anyway who cares about Carr – lets’ talk numbers. This is an evidence based blog n’est pas – not Rog’s right wing small business whinge of the day (pers. comm.)
Luke says about Bob Carr claims: ‘Bob clearly can’t count – bob’s history so who cares”
Yet perhaps we should care as Bob has a public role in the Global warming-Climate change Debate. A debate very much based on facts, statistics and mathematical models. Bob Carr, is the Chair of The Climate Institute Advisory Council.
The Climate Institute is running an ad campaign to get Government’s to legislate to stop Global warming, one of their slogans is:
GAS EMISSIONS FROM OUR POLITICIANS ARE NOW AT A CRITICAL LEVEL.
By comparing official government figures on GHG emissions and on native vegetation clearance in either NSW or Australia we can assess how much hot air the former politician is still making.
Note for those wanting to compare pre 1770 vegetation to present in NSW hop out of the car and onto the web at http://audit.deh.gov.au/ANRA/vegetation/docs/native_vegetation/nat_veg_nsw.cfm
Fair enough Cinders – but with broadscale land clearing restrictions in place in Qld and NSW isn’t the debate essentially over for GHG contributions from land clearing.
Cinders – what’s the point with your link may I ask. Yes there are lots of good parts of NSW to look at. But as the report adds “In New South Wales, 30%, or 23.4 million hectares, of native vegetation has been removed in the coastal lowlands and floodplains of northern New South Wales, the central coast from the Hunter to Illawarra and the south coast around Bega district. The alluvial plains, adjoining north-west slopes and New England Tableland of the Murray-Darling Basin have also been extensively cleared, as have the south-west slopes and southern highlands such as the Monaro Tableland. New South Wales has one of the largest areas of cleared land in Australia. ”
I not overly lamenting that or suggesting we turn back the clock to 1770. But we have been very heavy with some communities and have little representative natural vegetation left in some systems. When is enough enough was my question above. No limits or ?
(Conversely the Cobar woody weeds patch needs a good haircut).
You are avoiding the main issue, ex Premier Bob Carr is clearly wrong on all counts. As Premier, by using complex native vegetation legislation and by creating National Parks out of sustainable forestry (eg Watagans and Pilliga-Goonoo) Carr locked up as much forest as possible whilst diverting funds away from essentials such as water supply, transport, health, police & education.
The Climate Institute is a thinly disguised political organisation much as is the Australia Institute, ACF, Friends of the Earth, Wilderness Society and other green groups – all funded by the Tom Kantor Fund (strangely enough the Kantors form part of the Murdoch dynasty).
oooo – the Tom Kantor fund – quiver. “Thinly disguised” – looks “thickly explicit” to me with some “explicit donations”. But we’d better not start talking about donation disclosure or we’ll be in trouble.
The real main issue Rog is that you can’t trust the data in the above table (intro post). It’s totally untrustworthy.
And the entire post is simply doing a bit of background astro-turfing on Bob for the (gulp, quiver) TCA. Jeez I hope they don’t come around to my house. It wasn’t me – it was the others ! I like timber – I do. Just not 4×2 from Roget.
I could say more but I’m on Google diet restrictions and would have to give thinly disguised pers. comm. biased remarks.
Clearly the definition of ‘forest’ (a dense collection of trees covering a relatively large area) is at odds with ‘vegetation’ (plants) and to say that we have lose 2/3 of vegetation is a meaningless statement.
The Resource Assessment Commission estimated that 40.3% of native forest and woodland in Australia has never been logged since records have been kept.
There is a pre and post 1778 vegetation map here
http://www.ga.gov.au/nmd/products/thematic/veg.htm#1788
Another map
http://www.deh.gov.au/biodiversity/publications/strategy/app1.html
Interesting that the question has been ask when is enough, enough I guess most will know that when it comes to forests there is a national agreed criteria for this very question. Its called JANIS. And odd as it is the role of JANIS is to establish a CAR reserve system for Australia’s forests, wonder if the reason Mr Bob Carr chose to ignore it was because it didn’t have two R’s
Could I suggest that Luke dust of his copy as its well worth a read, bit to big to post but the contents is as follows
Nationally Agreed Criteria for the Establishment of a CAR Reserve System for Forests in Australia
CONTENTS
Page
1. INTRODUCTION 1
2. THE FOREST CONSERVATION FRAMEWORK 2
2.1 The CAR Reserve System and Conservation Management 2
2.2 A Regional Approach to Conservation 2
3. CAR PRINCIPLES 4
3.1 Comprehensiveness 4
3.2 Adequacy 4
3.3 Representativeness 5
4. COMPONENTS OF THE CAR SYSTEM 6
4.1 Public Land 6
4.1.1 Dedicated Reserves 6
4.1.2 Informal Reserves 6
4.1.3 Values Protected by Prescription 6
4.2 Private land 7
5. APPLYING THE CAR RESERVE CRITERIA 8
5.1 Underlying Principle 8
5.2 Flexibility 8
5.3 Urgency and Practicability 8
5.4 Economic and Social Considerations 9
6. CRITERIA FOR THE CAR RESERVE SYSTEM FOR FORESTS 10
6.1 Biodiversity Criteria 10
6.1.1 Discussion 10
6.1.2 Criteria 11
6.2 Old-Growth Forest Criteria 12
6.2.1 Discussion 12
6.2.2 Criteria 14
6.3 Wilderness Criteria 14
6.3.1 Criteria 15
7. RESERVE DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT 16
8. REFERENCES 17
9. APPENDIX 19
If you go back in history, there was no Pilliga Scrub. It was used as farming country. Along came a severe drought and the farmers stopped farming, allowing the cypress to regenerate, which allowed sawmillers to start operating. It is a great pity that this valuable, sustainably managed forest is now locked up forever. Cypress pine doesn’t need chemicals to make is termite proof. It regenerates on its own.
The energy (and GHG emissions) needed to make a timber home is a lot,lot less than steel/concrete, and it is a lot easier to recycle at the end of its life. I
Although Luke beat me into another description of the leftie bashing that supplants meaningful discussion of environment matters on this blog I won’t let it pass, rog behaves like a little lad with a big stick given less than half a chance by Jen or any one else. Rog; its time we had some real substance for a change. I actually have a good deal of respect for Cinders who I reckon has only limited knowledge of the bush in NSW.
Rog says “Clearly the definition of ‘forest’ (a dense collection of trees covering a relatively large area) is at odds with ‘vegetation’ (plants) and to say that we have lose 2/3 of vegetation is a meaningless statement” then offers some more maps in his private pursuit of Bob Carr.
Thanks TJ. There is a great basis for our discussion known as the CAR system, but I must raise the question; was Bob Carr aware of it back in 1995? When he started to shut down land clearing in NSW?
http://www.affa.gov.au/content/output.cfm?ObjectID=D2C48F86-BA1A-11A1-
A2200060B0A03722
Another question remains; are we discussing wood volumes or areas here? The great bulk of Australia’s pre 1770 wood was in forests were east of the Great Divide. I can say there was continuous heavy forest cover from Hobart to Cairns with some extensions on the gentler slopes to the west, and much of this cover was naturally impregnable. I reckon this is what Carr was after in parts.
The evidence for this dense cover is not on any maps, and rebuilding the info is difficult, perhaps too difficult for some.
Timber Jack – as I said above my main argument is not with east coast high growth forestry – it’s woodlands and how far we wish to keep going.
In Queensland if you want to talk numbers 57% of the regional ecosystems as defined by the EPA are endangered or of concern. “Of concern” being the majority in the 57%.
The problem with Cinders front piece is that he has quoted Mt of CO2 from the sector – which if you read the report listed by Cinders is much more than simply land clearing. But if you traverse the AGO report to page 23 (I can’t give the web link or Rog will attack me for Googling) you’ll see the clearing numbers.
The problem is that if you compare the NCAS numbers to the Qld SLATS numbers from NRM you’ll see they bear utetrly no resemblance. Yes there are some definitional differences but the pattern and magnitude beggars belief that one is measuring from the same population. Could give you the links but Rog wouldn’t like it – so you’ll have to Google the lastest SLATS report and look at Figure 1 for yourselves.
Of course one study has extensive ground truthing and one does not. One has extensive on ground daily use by farmers and field staff and one does not. One’s printed more nicely and one is not. Someone said that it is rumoured that NSW is most disillusioned with the accuracy of the NSW veg mapping from NCAS.
Frankly I think Cinders is up a dry gulley with a crook set of Fed data (even though Bob may still be a tosser overall) so the post cops an Exocet up the jacksie for that. Jeez I hope their previously quoted Tassy data is better than the NCAS stuff – jeepers ! Now I’m worried about Tassy again. Hope those TCA guys don’t show up though.
Gavin
Surly you are not saying that the only lock up made by Carr (the two rr one) was back in 1995, my understanding is that his forest lock up was a regular event coinciding with state election periods. The very example of what’s been driving land lock ups in Australia over the past 20 years that is politics over riding naturally agreed science.
I would argue that Australia has more political driven map boundaries that science none more evident than Tasmania’s South West WHA created by the then Federal Hawk Federal Government in 1989 to win green preferences for the up coming federal election, This saw the political requirement overturn the Federal Helsham inquiry recommendation of 30,000 hectares to become 330,000 hectares of forest declared WHA,
Yes I agree that JANIS wasn’t in place back then but this 1989 political corrupting of process become a driver to establish JANIS, but its clear that Carr was hell bent on keeping the 1989 dream alive right up to the last days of his term in office .
When TJ says “Surly you are not saying that the only lock up made by Carr (the two rr one) was back in 1995, my understanding is that his forest lock up was a regular event coinciding with state election periods”, I can say for me and one or two others, this lock up campaign started back in the 1960’s. TJ there is a long history leading up to CAR.
But I depended a lot on people who went before like Peter S who was once our rep in the ACF. We also combined with Milo then and dragged QLD into the picture. However it was the next generation that built the CAR and set it up under the noses of the states and what a good job they did. Bob (either one will do) was only Johnny come lately in terms of our combined pressure on the Libs and the ALP. Please note this lot was not the greens in action. It began in my mind at least with the first rumors of the Pieman Scheme.
Timber all the way TJ. I’m currently thinking of ways to unlock good saw logs in water catchments and perhaps the odd NP. A lad I know grinned a bit when I asked what was either side of the fence in one particular RFA a little while ago. We were discussing the quality of wood in reserves. Guess what he said; the states were cheating!
How do you extract timber out of a national park?
According to some the National Carbon Accounting System does not have credible figures for greenhouse emmissions. Perhaps they are right! Yet the people working in the Australian Greenhouse Office use these figures to report to the Government, the UN and the people, whilst subject to continuous improvement and refining they appear to be the best we have.
As per my original post they clearly show that GHG emmission due to landuse change had decreased dramatically before the introduction of Carr’s land clearing controls and subsequent creation of National Parks etc.
What is surprising is that the figures and those of the National Vegetation Audit have been out for some time and appear widely accepted as something close to accurate. Whilst no one can be sure what vegetation existed in 1770 to the fine detail, we can make a pretty good informed guess.
The simple matter of the post is that these best available figures do show that land clearing of about 1/3 rd has occured not 2/3rd as claimed not only by Carr but Federal Governments, Green Groups and school text back in the 1980s and 1990s. The 2/3rd clearance was used as a reason to close industries pay compensation and create national parks as well as create a beuracracy for NRM. All this money perhaps could have been better spent on hospitals, schools, infrastructure and social justice issues.
As we move into a world of spending billions of dollars on global warming lets hope we don’t make the same mistakes and spend our money on the wrong priorities.
Jennifer: It’s my wish that all timber users understand the complexity of maintaining our asset. The CAR system and the numerous state reserves based on keeping the diversity of our native species is only the first big step.
All development including timber and agriculture operations as they were abused the landscape and ignored the ability of soils, rivers etc to recover long term. High wood production regions were first farmed then built on. What’s left is often the poorest of the poor.
Our 2020 vision for sustainable timber production can’t be met from cutting down more remote forests, most of which have been badly damaged by extreme wild fires since euro settlement. Fire in the wrong hands is a very dangerous tool. So is fuel. Putting crops in a straight jacket in this country likewise. Diversity must also include shape and form relative to an area’s ecology. Wrecking everything in a coup is all too new TJ. We need to be smarter. Big trees need to be winners not losers in a forest, however it’s just the opposite on a farm.
IMHO reading data such as we have on a government map can’t tell the right story.
Cinders: Two areas that are currently starved of funds, CSIRO bushfire research and Greening Australia. There are simply not enough young technicians under the supervision of practical experts with a long history of hands on.
Jennifer; your readers should be aware that while we are considering forestry in terms of rural adjustment funds, the Australian dairy industry copped about two billion after the idea of market forces taking total control was dumped at the Federal level in 2000.
Industry pressure was brought about by Victorian dairy farmers back then who had access to cheap water. Could be a slightly different story today hey.
Cinders – yes there are better figures. The baseline 1990 area clearing rate may be double the AGO numbers ! One might think some numbers are there to give the answers required.
Cinders actually unless you know what you’re looking at and who did what with what technology, a lot of Fed natural resource and agricultural statistics numbers are nonsense. Add in the Ag Census too. You owe it to yourself to get briefed properly.
When the Australian Climate Group of Tony Coleman , Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg , Professor David Karoly, Professor Ian Lowe, Professor Tony McMichael , Dr Chris Mitchell, Dr Graeme Pearman , Dr Peter Scaife and Anna Reynolds prepared ‘Climate change – solutions for Australia’ for the WWF, ACF and just about every green group to base their political lobbying strategy on Global Warming/ Climate change their major Australian reference was:
Australian Government, (2003): Tracking to the Kyoto Target 2003 – Australia’s Greenhouse Emission Trends 1990 to 2008 – 2012 and 2020. Canberra.
This reference uses the figures collected and published by the AGO, if I need to be briefed properly then so do these leading players on the “Green” team. Perhaps Luke could provide the briefing notes to the ACF and WWF and tell them where they are wrong!
In the 2005 AGO version there is a graph which dramatically shows the reduction of GHG before Bob Carr’s 1995 action. (There is also a graph just for forestry as well showing a similar time scaleand result)
Yep maybe they do. I suggest you read the NCAS report critically (lots of “modelling” – based on what ?? – how good – how many soil carbon points in Australia?, how many overseas assumptions on numbers). Then compare the Qld SLATS numbers and see if adds up. I can’t see that it does. The energy and transport stuff is relatively easy to measure, but biospheric much more difficult. And land clearing is what Australia has pseudo-complied with Kyoto on – nothing else. Energy and transport are all up up up. Maybe the ag and forestry sector have done a much better job than they’re given credit for.
Compare page 23 on clearing – your AGO document with figure 1 latest SLATS clearing report. Tell me the historical sequence makes sense between both reports.
Luke advocates SLATS as a better source of figures than those Federal agencies (DEH & AGO). For non Queensland people the acronym SLATS is Statewide Landcover and Trees Study. This is an NRM project commenced in 1995, same year as Bob Carr claims he acted in NSW. SLATS is a result of the 2/3rd land clearance ‘claim’.
It is the “Big Brother” NRM project using satellites orbiting the planet, “to investigate the overall woody vegetation cover and report on the previously unquantified extent of land clearing in Queensland.” According to its web site it only looks at woody vegetation (forest and woodland).
The project was set up despite all that ‘science’ and ‘evidence’ behind the infamous Richardson decision to wipe out the forestry industry in North Queensland in the 1980’s. (ALP Minister offered redundancy to 600 workers) to save the last of the forest.
Some thing like SLATS will soon be coming to a state you live in, as Deforestation is still seen as a major issue in Australia, despite massive reserves created by RFAs , National parks etc and what all the “official figures” tell us, including those in the Stern report that indicated whilst deforestation was a major problem world wide, the Stern reference document showed it to have limited effect in Australia.
Hopefully every one will note that forestry is not Deforestation.
Cinders – I’m saying its very different and it appears to have ground truthing. Don’t think Bob would know about SLATS.
Would you like to measure national land clearing with a tape measure perhaps.
Hardly big brother as you can go down the street and buy the same imagery from any number of suppliers. Geologists use the same stuff. The world is awash with public satellite imagery. Anyone can do it with a decent PC and a GIS can have a go – many groups do from all sides of life do. SLATS won’t be coming to a state you live in soon – it’s been there for 10-15 years already. All state governments and territories in Australia and resource agencies around the world routinely use satellite images as a mapping tools to some extent.
Sounds like you’d like your operations to be carried on in secret Cinders – wouldn’t be hiding anything would you? And yep officially recognised forestry is forestry not deforestation.
In your haste of knee jerk industry protection you have missed the subtly of it all. Good data would indicate that the land use and forestry sector has actually saved much more carbon for the nation than has been given credit??
Cinders: As I said up the thread, states were kidding us over resources inside and outside reserves. Methods differed so much it was almost a laugh. Think about it for a mo.
Satellites is just part of the story. Hawk had the first official RAAF surveillance sent up the Gordon with a suitably fitted F111 to get the facts on dam building. They had been flight training every day up the Pieman under my nose in all weathers. The Gov. of the day must have had a stack of forestry photography in between. The only problem was practically mapping it all in terms of types, stems density and trunk development.
The mapping science is not crooked. In every bush type under surveillance there should be a typical ground photo to accompany the data. If BRS data is rough then the states are late in supplying official detail. I know Tasmania cooperated well, and now have a good basis for a sound RFA. This ongoing process could still give and take a bit with respect to CAR.
My 90’S communications PS exec went on to Greenhouse. Our mutual acquaintance in engineering with a flare for navigation was a F111 vet and some heavy landings. I bet he had a hand in it early on. The other side of the story is the data merging technology. Cinders would be amused to know, people on that project have moved on to tracking our money, those alternative public issues he mentioned up this thread.
Lets finish with a question: What is a plastic wrapped hardwood log on the Burnie wharf with a euro export license worth today?
Luke, your line about 57% of regional ecosystems being in trouble is classic departmental BS. These ecosystems have been systematically fragmented into more and more sub-categories so more and more vegetation can be classed as endangered (on the basis that there is <10,000ha).
You know perfectly well that some RE’s have only 300ha in them while others have a million ha. And you blatantly tried to infer that 57% of the land area was endangered when it clearly is not.
The fact is that the wildlife couldnt give a ringtails grunt for the distinction between a spotted gum forest with ironbark on quaternary sediments and an ironbark forest with spotted gum on an alluvial plain.
It is pure departmental sleaze to break single ecosystems into obscure fragments that provide 99.9% identical ecological services.
Shame on you, Mr 57%.
It should also be pointed out in relation to the carbon emission data for NSW that there is a lag between a reduction in clearing area and the corresponding reduction in emissions. This is because the carbon in tree roots etc is deemed to break down over 20 years while the tree itself is deemed to release it’s carbon in the year it is cleared. So the recorded decline in carbon emissions from 1990 to Carr’s election in 1995, and the subsequent levelling since then, is due to declines in clearing in the 1970’s and 1980’s.
This was subsequently confirmed by the satellite data which has proven that the 150,000 hectares of annual clearing that Carr thought he was preventing with his SEPP46 was only in the order of 8,000 to 12,000 hectares a year all through the 1990’s. By the time Carr and the greens “discovered” land clearing in NSW, it was essentially over. Real clearing had long since been overtaken by woodland thickenning. It was not even recognised as being present in the clearing debate but, curiously, the clearing of it was exempt under Carr’s policy.
The aerial photos of the NSW North Coast make it clear that the kind of forest that Carr thought he was saving had actually spent the previous four decades expanding much faster than the clearing rate. In Byron Shire, for example, where the lamentable Carr has apparently retired, the 1942 to 1998 photos prove that native forest has expanded three fold since the last significant ‘old growth’ clearing in 1948.
The inescapable judgement of history is that Carr spent a major portion of his time and energy on fixing a problem that existed only in his own head and the heads of his green mates while the real infrastructure needs of his community were ignored. “Cheap thrills at farmer’s expense” would be the most apt description of Carr’s place in history.
Ian reckons “The fact is that the wildlife couldnt give a ringtails grunt for the distinction between a spotted gum forest with ironbark on quaternary sediments and an ironbark forest with spotted gum on an alluvial plain”.
Ian must know what any good farmer knows; soil types do count in the fertility stakes of both crops and domestic stock. Why not native flora and fauna?
Did you ever wonder what’s biting Cinders and TJ?
While searching for info on early south coast forestry I came across this –
“Jurisdiction report – Tasmania – Final Report” National Framework for the management of Australian Native vegetation (2000)
http://kaos.erin.gov.au/search.php?query=Data+exchange&s=&theme=all&p=252
Elsewhere I came across a bit on stunted NSW spotted gums and soil deficiencies, characteristic in some coastal areas. Millers hand picked these regions for good reasons so why not modern resource management science?
Hi Motty – thought that might flush you out. You’re about as bolshy as Louis – at least you have resorted to crudities (yet).
Given you the posters here were doing some astroturfing thought I’d post some facilitating data. Wasn’t an govt departmental b/s – was just quoting some public numbers actually – I actually had to do a calculation.
So given you’ve denounced me – what is the status of vegetation communities then? (ecologically speaking) Or a process if not numbers. Are you asserting we actually don’t know?
Return serve.
Well said Ian Mott,
know what you mean with the fragmentation of vegetation at the stroke of the pen or perhaps a white board markers.
During Tasmania’s RFA we went from 30 odd different tree communities to about 50. We went from IBRA 4 to IBRA 5, despite Government agreeing that all of Tasmania was to be one region. Now as a result of the white board exercise we have a bioregion with virtually no reservation, we also have the most bioregions per 7 million ha or probably per capita.
And of course according to the majority of Green groups such as the WWF land clearing is the major threat to biodiversity in a state that only has 42% of its land mass in conservation reserve. A threat so critical on a bioregional basis that we must introduce legislation as per Bob Carr to save the environment, etc etc
Interesting debate fella’. In regards to AGO greenhouse science and NCAS legitimacy, the NCAS is probably the only national carbon accounting system in the world that is open and transparent in its methodology and underpinning assumptions. One of the beautiful things about it is that any one of us can go the the NCAS section on the AGO web site and review the literature, including peer reviewed and independent critiques.
I think that such openness demonstrates the cedibility of the NCAS project in comparison to many of the State based black box systems.
As for NCAS utilising satellite technology, the resolutions available today, sub metre level, and teh technology available today support a high level of trust in the results.
Of note is that as each new year is added to the data set all previous years are re calculated to take into account new data, improved technologies and improved methodology. Up until 2008, when Kyoto kicks in (even though Australia is yet to ratify)the data set remains a work in progress.
Having had to utilise such data and that which emerges from the States I place my faith in that which provides an open and transparent system over a black box approach any day. Also teh AGO data is available to all at cost of transfer from ACRES.
Sounds most impressive.
Of the course the states’ systems are no black box. Seems to be many publications and fullsome reports. So transparency? Black boxes?
I wonder if the Feds actually measure anything in the bush.
I noticed luke’s talk of driving down the Newell forgot to mention of all the land clearing for
Pete says “the NCAS is probably the only national carbon accounting system in the world that is open and transparent in its methodology and underpinning assumptions. One of the beautiful things about it is that any one of us can go the NCAS section on the AGO web site and review the literature, including peer reviewed and independent”
critiqueshttp://www.greenhouse.gov.au/ncas/
Pete; “peer reviewed and independent” are key words in my idea of a strategy for dealing with many aspects of forestry operations, land clearing, water conservation etc as we go toward a carbon emissions management scheme.
From experience; transparency in land management including forestry was rather hap hazard under state control right up to Carr’s time. Primary production dominated any process. National Parks and reserves were also blunt instruments in terms of lack of fire control and other purist ideologies. Public campaigns and private lobbies became the norm in our recent development. Extreme views are still everywhere.
Marty; “I wonder if the Feds actually measure anything in the bush”. One reply is how deep do you want to dig? Early on, one of my Nikons was borrowed for what I call a “pilot” program in satellite landscape data mining. The work that revealed probably sent reps off to the states seeking expert help at ground level in all directions. I suggest what came back varied according to the wisdom in each admin at the time. Another reply, what have we all learned meantime? IMHO that picture is still building but I wonder if my FM2 will come out of his wardrobe again in this modern era of rapidly obsolete technology.
Maurie ? hmmmm.. ..
Now let’s see – perhaps it was because ripping through scrub on a D9 with a bloody big ball and chain feels pretty sexy for those with minor endowments
or was it the pulling scrub gets you away from the nagging wife and kids (sort of like recreational tillage does) [and apologies to the ladies who drive tractors – substitute husband]
or did I say
“It’s the food we eat, fibre we wear and export.
And if you like to eat you’re involved in agriculture. If you want that Toyota to drive around in we need some export income to pay for it.”
Trying reading Maurie.
I also then followed with “when is enough enough”
Cinders; I still say stats aren’t facts. Reading the “Year” books as I did for decades is dry stuff in a dynamic world. Living and working as we all wish to requires much more. Let’s get into it hey.
Your industry’s continued dependence on an incestuous lobby will be its own downfall. I’m just about to discus generating public confidence timber development as we grapple with global warming. Separate groups with fixed agendas are doomed to fail. We must rise above a Hobart versus Launceston mentality (or loggers versus greens).
Timber Jack asks “How do you extract timber out of a national park?” I say most surviving native timber will eventually be locked up in some kind of reserve system because we can’t let any one organization manage it exclusively for themselves. Also building enough trust in our public land management practice to openly take wood out of parks will take as long as it takes to fix international carbon trading schemes however we have a head start on some other countries. Unfortunately IMHO we put the wrong foot forward. This about OUR accreditation schemes TJ.
Let’s first look at the now very tricky case of managing public access, timber and fire in our water catchments. The peak body authorizing operations of any kind in our sensitive catchments must be totally independent and highly experienced in all associated disciplines. NB: IMHO AFS accreditation can’t ever do this.
To work under such an important environment body we need to be very smart. Our forms of industry accreditation need to be as clever as those used in public health, education, perhaps forensics too. A bundle of papers from Standards Australia and company certification like we had with Gunns by another “industry” owned private company won’t do here; or internationally in the long run. Neither can we have the Wentworth Group sitting permantly on the right hand of a government.
Transparency must be complete but that only works when each discipline has peer access in the review of what we do. Who appoints our guiding lights should never be a problem. Who funds our public bodies beyond our government agencies CSIRO, Bushfire CRC, NATA etc is an issue only when they become dysfunctional.
One night last week I part-heard an interview on Steve Austin’s segment on ABC radio which had some interesting comments (such as I’ve not read here) on:
the Stern Report
Kyoto
Why the European carbon trading model isn’t the one to follow.
I’ve tried to find a link without luck (a conspiract theorist might suggest that it definitely didn’t fit the ABC party line).
I’d appreciate if anyone can come up with a link
Lets get back to the point fellas. The 20 year lag for soil carbon emissions after clearing is IPCC mandated methodology. And this can only mean that the year in which emissions from clearing appear to stop declining (ie. 1993) is 20 years after the actual clearing rate has declined.
Significant clearing in NSW had essentially ceased by 1973, or had undertaken a major shift in the type of land cleared. That is, the same area continued to be cleared but it was of a vegetation type that had much less biomass.
It is one thing for Carr to array the resources of the state while in office to present a gross misrepresentation of the facts on land clearing. But the judgement of history will be made on the actual facts of the matter and the more he seeks to satisfy his craving for recognition the more pathetic his pleading will become.
Of course greenhouse emissions is only one criterion to judge land clearing on – there’s economics of clearing and subsequent development, forestry, biodiversity conservation, salinity risk and catchment hydrology considerations.