Webdiary - Independent, Ethical, Accountable and Transparent
header_02 home about login header_06
sidebar-top content-top

Forests good for water, climate change, yet the majors keep cutting 'em down

On Monday, Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull said in a speech to the 'High level meeting on forests and climate change':

"Deforestation is the second greatest contributor to global greenhouse gas emissions, after energy use, accounting for 20 per cent of all emissions... A global challenge demands a global response; just as climate change threatens the whole world, only the whole world, working together effectively can meet it...attacking the problem of deforestation is one of the most important steps we can take to reduce CO2 concentrations in the here and now. The economics of climate change demand it...

"Maintaining the sustainability of the world's forests also pays an enormous environmental dividend by protecting 70 per cent of terrestrial biodiversity which finds its home there.

"As the world continues to develop and deploy the low emissions energy technologies need to achieve the deep cuts in emissions needed in the future that I referred to earlier, reducing deforestation, combined with planting new forests and encouraging sustainable forest management is one of the most cost effective ways to reduce global emissions now.

"This initiative spearheads efforts to breathe new life into the lungs of the earth. And by doing so, give the world the breathing space it needs until the technologies of the future are able to deliver us abundant zero, or near zero emissions energy.

"Our $200 million global initiatives on forest and climate will be committed to working with developing countries to build technical capacity, to assess and monitor forest resources, and to develop national forest management plans. To establish effective regulatory and law enforcement arrangements to protect forests, including through preventing illegal logging. To promote the sustainable use of forest resources, and diversify the economic base of forest dependent communities. And to support practical research into the drivers of deforestation, and encourage reforestation of degraded forests areas..."

(By the way, Malcolm presents his media releases as news articles - see here.)

Right. Got it. So why is Australia continuing to log old growth forests? Especially in Tasmania?

Mark Latham saw the problem, and at the last election proposed an $800 million n package tio stop such logging in Tassie and help logging communities through the transition. Yet yesterday, Kevin Rudd dumped all that, and backed Howard's 2004 policy to keep knocking down the big old trees:

"TASMANIA'S old growth forests will receive no greater protection under a Labor Government than they do from the Coalition.

"On a visit to Tasmania yesterday, the Opposition Leader, Kevin Rudd, vanquished the ghost of the former leader Mark Latham's disastrous forestry policy by promising to honour existing agreements but dashed the hopes of environmentalists who wanted more of the state's ancient forests protected."

(By the way, I could find no mention of the announcement on the front page of the ALP's website, or any statement any where there. Can someone find something?)

OK, so neither major party actually gives a shit. But both would like other countries to.

I stayed in Elands last week with my friend Susie Russell, a Webdiarist who is standing for The Greens against Deputy PM Mark Vaile in the safe National Party seat of Lyne. Believe it or not, Wingham's Rotary Club asked her to speak about the National Party's policy of diverting the area's Manning River in Lyne over the range to Tamworth, once strong Nats country, but held by an independent. Federally, Tamworth is in New England, also held by an independent, Tony Windsor. You'll recall that after the last election he accused the Nats of trying to buy him off so they could get the seat back. And regional rorts were exposed all over the place.

I went along to the event as a guest, so I won't report it except to say I had a great time and there was a lively Q and A after Susie's speech. I'm publishing the written speech she spoke to give you a bottom up view of the problems water is causing the Nats in the regions, and because I never understood until I read it that old growth forests are not only good for climate change but also for our water supply. That's two very PRACTICAL reasons to save them, besides leaving them to future generations and protecting what's left of our native flora and fauna.  Enjoy!


I Acknowledge the traditional owners the Biripai, and pay respect to their elders past and present.

In march this year I was the Greens candidate for the seat of Port Macquarie in the state election. While the property I live on drains into the Hastings, half of Elands, where I live drains into the Manning and my social catchment is the Manning, that is, I do most of my shopping and socialising in the Manning.

I was horrified when I heard that at the launch of the National Party’s election campaign, in Tamworth on February 18, a key promise was the diversion of 50 billion litres of water annually (also known as 50GigaLitres) from the Barnard River, a tributary of the Manning, to Chaffey Dam and from there to Tamworth and beyond.

Among the guests applauding this plan was of course the Federal member, Mark Vaile and then leader of the Liberal Party in NSW Peter Debnam.

In a written response to questions from the Australian Council of Built Environments Design Professions, Peter Debnam promised that if elected the Coalition Government (that is a State National-Liberal Party government) would , and I quote 

“commit $20 million in our first term of government to commence construction of a dam on the Barnard River and divert the water to Chaffey Dam.”

This of course was a popular promise in Tamworth, where Peel Valley irrigators, like most of the other irrigators dependent on the waters of the Murray Darling Basin, were looking at significantly smaller water allocations.

The issue of river diversions didn’t go away with the defeat of the coalition at a state level, because no sooner was that election out of the way, than a proposal was put forward by the Howard Government to divert water from the Clarence River. That proposal is still on the table, and depending on who is spruiking it whether or not the water is going to go to south-east Queensland or to western NSW.

One interesting coincidence about the proposals to take water from coastal NSW rivers is that the recipients are in marginal seats. The seat of Tamworth at a state level, and all the electorates of south-east Queensland nationally are up for grabs and may be won over by promises of more water.

While reading about this issue I discovered that already there are 22 billion litres or 22,000ML of water allocated from the Barnard River to Macquarie Generation in the Hunter Valley. It seems they need more water in their coal-fired power plants than is available from the Hunter. So water can be diverted via Orham Creek. I also found out that this allocation of 22GL can be increased to 70GL and that not only that, Macquarie Generation can on-sell the water it doesn’t use.  

I mentioned earlier the need to respect the traditional owners of the land. One of the things that many westerners have lost is the ability to see the land as a living entity. We think about what we can get out of it, what we can get off it, how we can divide it up and sell it off and get more, but we don’t think about it from the point of view of what we can do for the land to make it healthier. The Australian landscape is not very healthy at the moment. It’s the result of the cumulative impact of many activities. Let me run through a few that are relevant to the topic.

Since European settlement more than 50% of our forests and woodlands have been cleared and of those that remain, more than 90% have been logged or damaged and fragmented in some way. The issue of forest is particularly important because there is plenty of research that has been done both here in Australia and around the world that demonstrates the link between forests and water.

Put simply it’s like this. Old forests usually have deeper more complex root systems. They capture rain and transport it deep into the soil and store it, they are not putting on a huge amount of bulk, they have done most of their growing, so they store more water than they use. The soil in such a forest is less compacted there is an increase in humic acid and as a result the soil holds more water. In dryer times when there is less rain, the old tree root systems are able to move the water up through the soil. But what is truly remarkable is that this water actually makes its way into creeks and streams and flows on down the rivers. So one of the main functions of an old forest is that it maintains water supply in dry times.

It amazes me that the Government agencies still haven’t worked out that there is a connection between the groundwater and the surface water. Many of you will own land where there are places, known as springs, where the water comes out of the ground. Much of the base flow in our rivers and streams comes from springs.

Young forests, grow rapidly and use all the available water. They need to get to about 50years of age before they are starting to use less water than what is available and begin the process described above.

So as we have cleared the old forests and replaced them with younger ones, we have decreased the amount of water that will be available to us in drier times. This process is continuing. Of course in many areas there is little vegetation and the rain either runs straight off or it doesn’t take long for the soil to be saturated and then the rain runs off, often carrying topsoil as sediment. So you get floods and high flows when it actually rains, but that’s not much good to you when it hasn’t rained for months.

Of course one of the arguments for dams is that they capture these high flows. Of course they often come with enormous amounts of soil, because the greatest runoff is coming from the cleared country where there is less vegetation holding the soil together. So over time dams hold less water and more mud, and the process of removing that mud is probably more expensive than the dam construction in the first place (think about where and how you are going to put the mud). Another problem with dams is that they capture all the small flows. So month in, month out, most of the water is kept behind the dam wall, starving the river downstream. Other problems with dams are the temperatures of the water releases. Water is usually released from below, where is it extremely cold. This can have a negative effect on fish as they are hit by a wave of icy water.

And speaking of fish, a lot of people have the view that water that flows out to sea is wasted. One industry that doesn’t see it that way is the fishing industry. They depend on good flows of water coming down our major rivers. It’s not for nothing that the Manning and the Clarence have good fishing. It is because they have good volumes of water as well as wide deltas which allow young fish to grow and survive before heading out to sea. The drought has lead to a decline in the water flowing down the Clarence and the fishermen up there said it has had a significant effect on fish stocks.

Another activity that is creating problems globally are increasing temperatures. Some people still don’t believe this is so, although again, there is so much research to show that this is the case that it’s a bit like those who continued to believe the earth was flat because they wanted too, or that the earth was the centre of the universe, or that there is no link between smoking and lung cancer.   

With the hottest years since human record keeping began being experienced in the last decade, it is clear that temperatures are going off the chart. What is more alarming is that the temperature of the oceans is now clearly rising. The Indian ocean has warmed by 2o. It is the temperature of the ocean that drives much of our weather. Increasing temperatures will mean more wild weather events such as cyclones, hurricanes and typhoons. As well as increased intensity of rainfall. Our average rainfall mightn’t appear to change much. But instead of summer and spring rains it may come is only one or two wild events that do more harm than good.

So back to the Manning.

The issue of water security, drought-proofing the future etc are simple phrases, easy to promise, hard to deliver.

You can build enormous dams but that of course doesn’t mean that you’ll get the rain to fill them.

We are increasingly being made dependent on large-scale infrastructure. The national electricity grid is an example. Connect everyone together and thus in the private world, you can sell electricity generated in the Hunter Valley, to the aluminium industry in western Victoria. A very profitable venture for the middle men and futures traders. But look at the experience of Transgrid and Basslink. Huge dam and powerline projects built to provide greater electric efficiency. But low rainfalls in the Snowy and Tasmania mean that there is no power coming from these stations. A better solution would have been local renewable energy generation stations.

The future for the Manning is currently being touted as growth, growth, growth. There is a projected population increase for the mid-north coast of 90,000 people. At least 10,000 of those will probably end up in the Manning if not more. That means more land clearing, more sewage works, more water needed for everything. Robbing Peter to Pay Paul is not good planning for the future.

Now don’t for one moment think that the plan to divert more water from the Manning has been dropped. Earlier this month, Andrew Stoner, leader of the Nationals at a State level called for “new dams and weirs on the Mole River near Tenterfield and the Barnard River near Tamworth”. Be assured any water dammed on the Barnard will almost certainly end up in a catchment other than the Manning.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Jager Bomb at the Club of Rome

The Manning to go nuclear?

I thought you meant The Manning Bar for a moment. They won't even do a Jager Bomb. Bastards.

Comments today by Mark Vaile that no nuclear reactors will be built on the north coast in the next three years because they will take 10-20 years to develop, have raised the temperature of concern that they are certainly on the agenda.

That's ironic, because there's now about next to no chance that the Coalition will even be in office in three years.

And in 20 years, the Greens may support some kind of nuclear option for all we or they know.

The Green's are world's foremost practitioners of predicting doom in the medium term, based on practically nothing at all in the present term, aren't they?

The looming disaster is always ten or twenty years from now though we'd be "unrealistic" to expect too much evidence of it just now, but mark my words, by 2027 the signs will be clear, etc, etc, blah, blah, etc.

I had my XL Falcon up on blocks through most of the late '70s because we were going to run out of fuel by 1985 as I recall.

That's if dioxins and nuclear winter didn't kill us first.

Here's a radical policy suggestion for Susie Russell. Stop exaggerating everything all the time, fer chrissakes.

The Manning to go nuclear?

Press release from Susie Russell today:

Vaile wedges door open for local nuclear reactor

The Macleay and Manning rivers are both potential sites for nuclear reactors, claimed Greens candidate for Lyne Susie Russell.

Comments today by Mark Vaile that no nuclear reactors will be built on the north coast in the next three years because they will take 10-20 years to develop, have raised the temperature of concern that they are certainly on the agenda.

They also contradict claims by the National party candidate for Richmond, Dr Sue Page who says the Nationals won’t support nuclear power “unless and until it was supported by all major political parties at the federal and state level”.

“It seems Mr Vaile is prepared to put his support for Mr Howard and the Liberal party ahead of the interests and safety of his own electorate,” Ms Russell said.

Mr Howard has already signalled that he will try and use federal powers to over-rule opposition by any State Government that stands in the way of his nuclear agenda.

“The comments by Dr Page suggest that the Nationals are very aware that some north coast rural electorates meet the main pre-requisite for nuclear reactors, namely large volumes of fresh water.

“The north coast of NSW would therefore be high on the list as a location for one or more of the twenty-five nuclear reactors the Howard/Vaile government would like to see up and running as soon as possible.

Ms Russell said The Greens policy on the issue was unambiguous. “We oppose the mining and export of uranium.

“If we don’t mine it then those millions of tonnes of radioactive mine tailings generated each year won’t be able to poison Australia’s underground aquifers. And if we don’t export it, then we won’t be contributing to the spread of nuclear weapons. We also won’t be forced to accept the world’s nuclear waste.

“There is a real danger that part of the Howard/Vaile uranium export deal is that Australia will have to take ‘spent’ fuel and other nuclear waste. Can Mr Vaile tell us what it will cost to safely store that waste for the tens of thousands of years it will remain dangerously radioactive?

“When will we see serious support for renewable energies that can be introduced NOW from Mr Vaile?” Ms Russell asked.

Liberal MP still a climate change sceptic

Liberal MP and former CSIRO scientist Dennis Jensen says he is a climate change sceptic.

"It's an issue of my analysis of the scientific literature and in my view, there is a great amount of uncertainty on it," he said.

"To be making very damaging policy to try to mitigate something where there's a great deal of uncertainty, is a foolish way to go."

How can we trust a Liberal Government to act seriously on climate change when still at the core lie climate change sceptics?

tour de force.

Should have got round to commenting on this thread earlier but sidetracked elsewhere, although said in passing elsewhere that am angered at  Garrett/Rudd/Lennon/O'Connor sellout. And will not dignify  Turnbull/Gay/Robin Grey/  Howard with further mention.

Was going to catch 4 Corners tonight but only caught the last twenty minutes, so hope it's on tomorrow night or I'll have to rely on transcripts.

RIchard: Usually it's 11ish 

From what  I saw, Liz  Jackson is a pale shadow of both "disappeared" Walkley award winner Ticky Fullarton and her own past self. But what appeared  was ample enough to indicate that the bilaterally inflicted Dark Age inflicted on Australia's answer to  West  Virginia,  Tasmania,  looks set to remain.

No sign of any light at the end of the tunnel.

Actual highlight came in following  Media  Watch, with a delightful interview from  Monica  Attard with that old cogitator, Laws.

Qantas, like  Gunns in Tasmania, gets an armchair ride from press and media and the example provided from  MW shows why, particularly  in certain cases.

Paper mill and a very bad smell

Ever driven past a paper mill? Well the mill will stink as does the role the Lennon government has played in this whole matter. There could not be a better case of a Government being in bed with a big developer than this. And we cannot expect Rudd to make a peep about this one.He has totally sold out.

A sorry day for Tasmania and the forests and no doubt everyone who will be affected by this ghastly development. Two hundred hectares in a pristine valley with a mill with a voracious appetite for millions of tonnes of timber and going to use it is reported hundreds of tonnes of chemicals every year.  Nice one, Lennon.

Rudd = a browner case of Howard

An excellent article by ANU researcher Judith Ajani in the Canberra Times of Wed 25th is here.

Rudd = a browner version of Howard. Howard = a greener version of Rudd. If you like.

Tilba forest camapign

See the site to try to stop logging in the NSW Galaga national park.

CO2 and reforestation

Hi Margo. Susie Russell touches upon an important point here when she explains that it takes 50 years for a regrown tree to trap the water, and that the soil then starts to retain the water more efficiently.

Reforestation also takes an enormous amount of time to pay off as a CO2 reduction method. While the trees themselves end up absorbing a large amount of CO2, the soil and organic matter under the forest ends up absorbing much more CO2 than the trees!

What sort of time frame are we talking about here? In general terms, around 200 years before both the trees and the soil start to absorb the CO2 in a substantial manner, with best results in around 400-500 years.

You might ask what good that will do us when the scientists are telling us that we have 10-20 years to act on CO2? The answer is not much. Although it should be done, reforestation is a long-term investment.

Now let's move to Howard's Reforestation Plan. If we remove the actual "replanting" part of the plan from the equation, as it will not start to reduce the CO2 in any serious way for hundreds of years, we are left with a plan that requires the Indonesians (and if he's really lucky, others) to stop cutting down their forests to sell to the West, and take a big financial hit on their economies.

It seems to me that his plan is fatally flawed. He is offering to donate money to countries that are more reliant upon these forest clearings for their economic well-being than we are, while he is not prepared to do the same here for political reasons. He is asking the Indonesians to do the hard yards and "the right thing" – the money is a poorly disguised bribe.

It is truly unfortunate that he has chosen such a flawed approach to climate change action. It has some merit in theory, but it is also cynical and selfish. Paying someone else to make our emission reductions for us should be, at best, a secondary plan, with a strong primary plan geared to serious emission reductions here.

Cutting down more forests here is doubly insane. It will take us hundreds of years to replace those carbon sinks, if they are ever replaced at all, and our CO2 emissions continue to rise with no real domestic reduction plan in sight...

Reforestation reference (requires RealPlayer):

John Seinfeld: Global Climate Change (Caltech)

The "reforestation" explanation starts around 27 minutes in.

Clearing the mallee

I am really pissed off about this; actually it makes me quite ill. I grew up in the mallee and when I was quite a young kid Bob Menzies committed one of his most heinous of crimes by paying farmers to strip clear millions of acres of marginal scrub land to "grow food for the old country". We used to watch the farmers gleefully put the chains on the tractors and haul out acre after acre of centuries old gum trees to grow wheat.

Some of the root stumps were 10 foot high and some of the trunks were 10 foot around. Beautiful, majestic gums that were native and had survived being husbanded by the aboriginal tribes were just gone. Dead. Or dying.

To help feed the poms. Today the soil is too saline to grow much, the rainfall halved, the towns started to die because nothing much grew and the artesian water became muck.

The majors should be chained to one of the old growth trees until they love them like I loved the trees I climbed as a kid, trees the farmers pulled out of the ground to grow food for the poms.

My vote stays with the Greens.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
© 2006 - 2008, Webdiary Pty Ltd
Disclaimer: This site is home to many debates, and the views expressed on this site are not necessarily those of Webdiary Pty Ltd.
Contributors submit comments on their own responsibility: if you believe that a comment is incorrect or offensive in any way,
please submit a comment to that effect and we will make corrections or deletions as necessary.

Margo Kingston

Margo Kingston Photo © Elaine Campaner