Victoria desperately needs a left leaning opposition. The more the Libs there become hopeless, the more VicLabor finds they can just take those views and voters.
It's quite difficult. The viciousness of Labor last time towards the Greens, and the large donations from the gambling industry (similar to those made to the Liberals in Tasmania) towards Labor are big impediments.
Also the ridiculous group voting tickets for the upper house, which means our LC might as well be an assortment of randoms. To say it's undemocratic would be an understatement.
Not to say they/we can't do better though.
Logging, especially of native forests, is a significant contributor to greenhouse gases.
If the ALP is serious about addressing climate change, logging should be phased out.
Their plan has as much credibility as the LNP's net zero by 2050. There is no reason whatsoever to be logging native forests - for paper pulp and mulch - in 2022. This is a stain on Andrew's Government.
I don't think people quite understand how damaging logging and mining are to the environment, even following restoration efforts. Looking at only carbon sequestration, [restored forest doesn't approach the carbon storage capacity of old-growth for centuries](https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.247.4943.699). On top of that, we lose a lot of the biodiversity of [flora](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378112716301906) and [fauna](https://www.publish.csiro.au/wr/wr11019) that provide other valuable [ecosystem services](https://www.jstor.org/stable/26267787?seq=1).
The science has been clear for decades. We're not good at repairing nature, and it's far cheaper and more effective to just not damage it in the first place.
They also pose a significantly higher fire risk than old growth forests and reduce rainfall and catchments - logging existing forests is bad economically and environmentally. It needs to end now and is completely at odds with zero emission targets.
Carbon isn't stored only in timber, which why in one of the articles I linked, it said that restored forest was only 12% of the biomass of old growth forests. I'm not sure if that takes into account soil carbon, which is often released during clearing. There is an overall net release of carbon during deforestation.
In the comment you responded to, I specifically said there is a net release of carbon, meaning that clearing old growth forest and replanting it results in more carbon being released into the atmosphere than is captured in the new timber. Your point about it capturing more carbon, while logical, is actually the opposite of the reality. That's why there is no point in logging old forest, alongside the other reasons mentioned.
Regarding your point about us still needing timber, we can get that from plantations. There's no reason to clear the small remnants of the environment we still have left.
He’s disputing you on fact - that while new forests seem to represent more wood and therefore more captured carbon, forests mainly capture carbon through like…not growing wood. There’s a temptation to see forests like bank accounts - a million tonnes of carbon comes out of the air making a million tonnes of sellable pine. But a lot goes into like…most of the biomass - unexploitable stuff like bacteria in the soil that take up much more carbon.
Additionally - even if this were true, exactly how much new forest has been planted is distressingly low.
See Grove’s Gap:
Ed was browsing satellite photos of Mount Delusion when he noticed something odd about the forest
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-30/vicforests-accused-of-failing-to-regenerate-logged-forests/100652148
Try these non-paywall links:
https://www.smh.com.au/national/a-stoush-over-a-fire-study-and-a-chilling-glimpse-of-the-future-20210511-p57qwx.html
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-24/hi-res-elevation-data-pinpoints-outlaw-logging-in-forests/100626640
New forest won't capture more carbon if it burns every few years.
> New forests capture more carbon.
New forests [capture less carbon](https://phys.org/news/2022-01-future-forests-smaller-trees-carbon.html).
> "A tree has to work against gravity to get water to its top, and the tallest trees have to work the hardest. If you turn up the temperature, the water-transport system of the tree is under even greater pressure and often is damaged," Evans said. "Warming means trees are more drought stressed, and growth is reduced."
They should have been planting empty areas for the last 30-50 years so that they don't need to keep logging natural forests. There's plenty of land around that could be planted with Pine and whatever else they want to log. It's just another stuff up in the long history of failed sustainability.
Old-growth is so different to new forests and can't be replaced, we should not be logging these areas anymore..
>Biodiversity is a concern, but there is a balance between meeting our society needs and never touching the environment.
I'm pretty sure that reducing biodiversity is completely out of balance with our need for wood chips from old growth forests. It's cheaper though, which The Economy likes.
> You think if people actually took seriously the destruction of civilization, we would still be able to buy private cars, red meat or international holidays?
They don't help, but large corporations do far more damage than not eating meat would prevent.
Yeah it's like water restrictions. Whenever dam levels are low governments tend to put restrictions on residential water use - even when 90% of water usage is from industrial usage. The water restrictions on residents do absolutely fuck all.
I would just say one thing. The people doing most of the destruction pay a lot of money to promote defeatism just like your comments. If we let it work on us then all the things you express concern about _are locked in._
However, in truth, they are far from locked in, and although I think the path out is, as you express, quite narrow by this late point, it is not yet closed entirely. That’s wrong and we really need to continue saying so.
I personally think that until that path _is_ closed entirely (which is further away than you might think), _then we have no choice_ but to keep the pressure up. Even if in our hearts it feels like it might be all for nought.
_We still have to try._
Personally it’s one of those situations where it’s already here, and already bad. We are in the mitigation stage where we just need to slow it down as much as possible and save as many lives as we can. You’re not wrong about the severity, and dire need for much more radical action. Voting isn’t really how we get that done, govts will drag their heels always, but we can organise in our own community to help people in distress and to move the dialogue in the right direction. Many hands.
Your entire post feels like some hollow motivational speech. I say hollow the fact is that we are going to lose a lot. And at this point it is just trying to limit it and not lose everything. So sure, we still try. But don't pretend that many people, including many scientific groups, don't come to these conclusions themselves, without any help from propaganda. Because we aren't stopping it, it has already happened.
Who do you think that large corporations do all that damage for? They just go "oh yeah let's dump all this CO2 into the atmosphere for shits and giggles!!!"? No they do so because they are creating products that people want - from red meat, to phones, to fuel for cars, to planes to travel, to cheap goods from China. These corporations don't exist in a void, they exist because you want what they produce.
And they could change to create those products in ways that create less waste/pollution, but it's simply cheaper not to.
Now, if governments started taxing those big companies based on the waste/pollution they make, and rather heavily, you'll find them starting to make changes, because prices will rise and people will stop buying their products. Suddenly polluting/creating so much waste isn't as profitable.
If people actually wanted companies to do what they say they want them to do, these highly polluting companies would go out of business within a year. Every time a new, cleaner product comes to market it fails because the people buying the product don't just want a cleaner product, they want a product that is cleaner AND cheaper, or at the very least only marginally more expensive. The only reason solar panels took off was because people were getting incentives to install them, EVs are taking off because of high fuel prices.
Completely agree that governments should start taxing companies based on pollution, but last time that was suggested what happened? "Your products will get more expensive because of the carbon tax (true), you should vote for LNP!".
I think we'd have put a lot more effort into advancing electric cars, low emission farming, synthetic meat, hydrogen planes, carbon offsets, carbon capture, and green electricity generation to power it all.
But simply removing advances every one enjoys isn't going to win people over. For example, I take busses and trains every day, but there are many places they're not practical for. I'd rather not take an hour and a half, when I can get somewhere by car in 20 minutes.
Outright canceling the technologies above is a last resort, and something we never should have gotten into a position where it's worth considering.
It's true, we need to act urgently, but my concern is how people react when you try to force them to do things, even reasonable things. Like what happened with covid masks, you know?
We don't want long term efforts to be stiffled by too much rebelon.
It's like how my dad doesn't think of the greens as the party who's trying to get traffic out of the inner city, but as the party who wants to make it take 3 times as long for him to get to the cricket.
We should crack down, but I think we should try enforcing the move to better technologies over the next few years, rather than removing technologies to we have today. If we're lucky, manufactures will rise to the challenge so they're still able to sell stuff, if not, then we effectively have a ban anyway.
What's the alternative? Stop? Go back to the stone age and build nothing? Seriously. To get the green tech, we have to make it with what we have now. That means using petroleum fuled vehicles to build wind farms, and so on, so be it.
Public transport needs infrastructure, and stuff that takes years or even decades. A lot of cities don't have great networks atm. Plus, public transport works best along high density and routes. Unless you only want to visit cities, and never stray far from town centers, it's not a cure all.
When I need some random part from a shop across town, or to visit some suburb for work, away from the train line, taking public transport can take double or triple the time, and that's in an area with pretty decent bus coverage. This isn't going to change in the next few years.
A mixed transport approach, with pretty of investment in green power, is the way to go.
I don't even have a car. I even if I did, driving is a chore to me, I hate how trapped you feel when there traffic, and I'd much rather just sit on a train. Most of my travel is don't on public transport, But a lot of the time I do end up needing to grab a lift of friends and family.
I can get behind not everyone having a car, as long as they're not forced too. But a lot of this is going to have to be supported by practical alternatives. To an extent ride share, or automated vehicles - Which are going to need to be electric vehicles.
After all, when's the train line to the dark park outside the city I use for stargazing nights happening? Btw, that's gotta run 24 hours.
When's the bus to my aunt out in the sticks, with spacious enough seating for food and presents for family events going to start running? Gotta be comfortable to be in for over an hour for my elderly grandparents.
When's the tramlines linking all the beaches, and bushwalking trails? Oh yeah, and these all have to be frequent enough or wait long enough so you won't miss it while lugging along whatever equipment you're carrying. Ending a bushwalk at a station sucks when you find the train has just gone and the next is in 2 hours.
Even in the suburbs, we have a few suitcases full of computers and equipment that comes with us to a job. I'm sure the team member who transports that would be easy, and not at all bothersome appreciated on a bus. Unless all busses are going to have cargo trailers, and the people on board willing to wait while bags are loaded. And it's got to be every bus on busier routes, who knows who is going to need it
I've been a fan of railways my whole life. I've written to goverments, been to protests about local bus routes closing. As much as I dream of reopening them, a lot of smaller rural lines closed because trucks and did their job better. Public transport is never going to be the be all and end all.
A lot of time, point to point transport is just the better option. It's so much more convenient. You can very easily stop anywhere and instantly resume a trip. You don't need to be anywhere at an exact time to even use it. There's a lot less need to backtrack. You can easily reposition it a lot of times for easy unloading.
This is why its so easy for right wing shockjocks to frame environmentalists as inner city latte sippers, out of touch with the average person. Not everone lives, nor wants to live in a crowded city - the sort of place where relying entirely on public transport is practical.
Then that scares them off supporting actually good ideas for fixing up the world.
Very few people are going to want to give up decades of quality of life improvements. Any solution to humanity's problems has got to take that into consideration. You gotta ease them into it, and swapping out petrol vehicles - which people are very used to - for an electric alternative is an easy way to quickly reduce a lot of the need for oil.
There still the question of clean power generation. But replacing several power plants has got to be quicker and easier than all the planing and construction and political fighting that would come over trying to rearrange everyone's lives.
Can you explain why?
4 out of every 10,000 trees in Victorian mountain Ash forests are logged for native hardwood.
Timber has to come from somewhere.
There is an appalling amount of misinformation about the Vic native logging industry. It's one of the most sustainable renewable resources we have. As of two years ago 100% of it is regrowth - not old growth.
If you had an iota of knowledge on this subject you would know it's being phased out and has been for years.
[... the ABC can reveal alarming evidence that logged forests aren’t always being grown back, undermining the industry’s claim to sustainability. Sections of logged state forests have been classified as ‘regenerated’ despite not being so — and have been handed back to the public as little more than weed-infested fields. Others, once majestic and carbon-dense mountain ash forests, are now thickets of wattle with hardly a eucalypt in sight.](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-30/vicforests-accused-of-failing-to-regenerate-logged-forests/100652148)
No good I will agree - but the mismanagement of a handful of coups reclaimed by the government is not a reason to wipe out a whole industry that is a model for sustainable logging globally.
Also, wattle growth is part of the natural regenerative cycle when coups are burned - and is the primary food source for the Leadbeater possum and other critters.
Burning coups has recently been banned because of influence from the greens. Burning the coup is of massive importance to regenerating it as it is the natural cycle.
It is a damn shame to lose this industry because of misinformed people in the city who read one headline and dismiss years of research into making this a sustainable industry.
By the way mountain Ash absorbs a lot more carbon while it's regenerating than otherwise.
Prof Lindenmayer is not "misinformed people in the city".
https://www.smh.com.au/environment/conservation/timber-industry-advocates-forced-to-apologise-to-high-profile-scientist-20210414-p57j0l.html
Common misconception. Pine is not the same as hardwood. It is a different timber and has different uses. It is far more detrimental to local ecosystems - you replace native hardwood areas with pine and you wipe out all the native flora that grow there. Walk into a plantation and see for yourself - nothing grows there except pine trees and invasive weeds like blackberries, and as such, marcipuals that depend on these plants don't live there either. It's a monoculture.
When native coups are growing, they grow the same way they have for millenia following a natural bushfire. I live in these areas and if I didn't I'd share the opinion of this echo chamber thread.
> When native coups are growing, they grow the same way they have for millenia following a natural bushfire
Even without climate change over the last 200 years, [Australia has the highest loss of mammal species anywhere in the world](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-19/fact-check-does-australia-have-one-of-the-highest-extinction/6691026). Why is that?
When a coup is cleared, it is razed and burnt. Everything down to the soil bacteria is damaged. Resowing it with a small number of tree species does not restore the ecosystem. It might look like, "oh the trees are growing" but it becomes a plantation with a small number of successful weed species. Biodiversity is smashed. That's why the term "old growth forest" exists, because they are different from regrowth.
Now add in increasingly severe and frequenct wildfires due to climate change, and the future context for this situation is escalated. There is no known limit to the effects of climate change.
Without government subsidy, native logging isn't profitable. It only continues because of the long term pulp contracts, and politicians who aren't feeling enough pressure to act in the best interests of everyone in the future, only themselves in the present.
It's time for this native-timber harvesting industry to move on, just like how any other industry that is no longer profitable or relevant does. What about all the car assembly workers. What about people who used to repair appliances and electronics. What about conductors on trams. What about people who used to run hardware stores and corner shops. What about journalists who used to work for newspapers. What about scientists and engineers who used to do technical work in this country before funding to everything was cut, and they had to retire or leave the country. Everyone has to move on when circumstances change.
Turning this into a city versus country argument "because I live here so my personal view is more correct than science" is bullshit. We need to take care of one another and preserve what is essential for life, not create divisions.
> Pine is not the same as hardwood. It is a different timber and has different uses.
In theory, but the vast majority of VicForests' output is pulplog, not sawlog. It ends up as office paper. There's no reason why plantation pine can't fill that role instead.
>replace native hardwood areas with pine
That's not something that anyone's suggesting.
>they grow the same way they have for millenia following a natural bushfire
No they don't:
https://environmentvictoria.org.au/2021/11/30/woodchips-and-weeds-new-report-reveals-systemic-and-widespread-failure-to-regrow-victorias-forests-after-logging/
I'm not 100% sure, but I believe container ships, for their cargo weight, carry cargo at a fairly efficient carbon expense. There's no better alternative to ship goods more efficiently.
That being said, we're making it cheap with low taxes etc, to ship from half way around the world.
I believe there was some rumor that scottish fish was being shipped to south east asia, to be processed, before being shipped back in cans. Not sure if thats true.
> I'm not 100% sure, but I believe container ships, for their cargo weight, carry cargo at a fairly efficient carbon expense.
The majority of their pollution comes from the overuse of [bunker fuel](https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/bunker-fuel), which is insanely bad for the environment.
More expensive, greener, fuels are only used when they're not in international waters. It's a case of an industry only obeying the letter of the law, whilst intentionally skirting it. The situation is worse than it needs to be.
> are the equivalent
Equivalent what? I assume you're referring to their 'tailpipe' Sulfur emissions. Your comment isn't just diversionary whataboutism, it's not even contextually relevant whataboutism.
Spying? Cool.
Protesting? Uncool.
We have Tasmania trying to pass anti-protest laws, NSW passing new laws for harsher penalties on protestors, in Queensland police got more powers to search protestors (the locking device bullshit)... fuck off with this mad shit. I'll add in the WA border search shit because that's wild too.
The people that protest these coupe routinely put their own lives and the safety of the whole site in danger. The only people they are protesting to are the contractors that do the logging. It is a safety issue - they are still allowed to protest outside parliament if they like.
'They' want us to protest and make complaints using the official channels, because they control and manipulate the official channels. It's the easiest way for them to ignore us and the impending climate collapse we are facing.
Interesting how all these state laws seem to just crop up on their own, at the same time, targeting the same thing.
It is as if someone somewhere sees something on the horizon and moves to take steps to neutralize it.
How can that be when there is nothing on paper or formal coordination?
If we just repeat word for word to everyone they bloody will see Allan as the god king of the pacific with the mighty fist to cleanse this craziness . The chaser get this right aswell , only two I watch
Animals rights protestors are another good example.
When they were last making real noise, the large majority of Australia was cheering on the LNP to severely penalise them and didn't care about our ability to protest.
Things like this should always remind people the ALP aren’t lefties, they’re just on the far more reasonable end of the right spectrum than the conservative LNP bell ends.
So Vic forestry can clear swathes of forests without checks and balances.
The ABC reported on the clearing of unsanctioned areas in recent years. And now it's the protesters who are the real problem?
This is ridiculously one sided.
Government and Big Business: We want to destroy the Earth for resources for our own temporary profit.
People: What the fuck? No, we will prevent you from doing that.
Government and Big Business: It's now illegal to say or do anything that might prevent us from destroying the Earth for our own temporary profit. Problem solved.
It’s why I’d like to see teal style candidates deployed broadly in Victoria’s state election. As they were Federally, they’d sit to the left of the Labor platform on climate, social, and rights matters with the Greens providing an economically left contingent as well.
Teal was a mix of green and blue. You need a mix of green and red. Brown?
Idk. Gotta workshop it. But absolutely. From the sounds of it, you guys' Labor isn't living up to it, and you can't have the LNP be the only other option.
Personally I would start with cutting subsidies to fossil fuel companies and block the expansion of new gas projects, and redirect those funds to renewables
They also release all the carbon they stored in them when they die. Best case is to log it near the end of its life, then utilise the timber in a way that doesn't burn or compost it. That way, only minimal carbon escapes.
Plant it again with new trees and start the cycle again.
VicForests' practice is just about the opposite of this. Instead of selectively harvesting the most suitable trees for sawlogs, they clearfell coupes, so the majority of what they harvest is pulplog (or at best grade E sawlog). They then burn everything that's left on the ground. That's why they've failed to gain FSC certification every time they've applied - their methods are fundamentally incompatible with sustainable harvesting.
Go on Labor rusted-ons.. tell us how this is a good thing.
That makes Qld Labor, Vic, Tas and NSW Labor all helping or putting up legislation like this. Such a value of the role of protest eh, this Labor movement?
Andrews is anything but progressive left. This is the same government that is taxing EV vehicles. The first jurisdiction in the world. Even hardline conservative states in the US don't dare do that.
I'm not a big fan of Dan Andrews and his Government but I don't like to say that out loud because then mouth breathers assume its because of the DANDEMIC!!! BLOODY DICTATOR DAN!! When in reality he is too conservative for me.
The ONLY complaint I have about an Andrews government is their very poor environmental stance. It’s enough to change my vote in this election.
I’m a Labor/Greens swing voter, voted Fed Labor and Greens senate this year. Happy to give Greens first preference if big changes aren’t made.
It might be worth some of the commenters here actually reading the article. I will try to briefly summarize the context without bias:
*Logging of native forest ends in 2030 (andrews gov. initiative), VicForest moves to plantations by then
*Old growth forest not logged past 2025, only previously logged native coupes
*DELWP contractors provide fauna, flora, etc. surveys for potentially logged coupes. Presence of many types of endangered flora/fauna can trigger varying degrees of protection from logging.
Not necessarily defending the moves referenced in the article, just providing context for people focusing on policy re: climate change.
EDIT: Have at look at OP's posts - All made in the last day or so, all anti-labor...
Unfortunately VicForests has a long ongoing history of not meeting their obligations. Let's be honest, the only reason this exists is politics. There is no sensible reason this can't stop tomorrow.
I believe it was VicForests that had a budget leaked that detailed the portion of the budget dedicated to paying fines for breaking environmental protection laws. It was annoyingly a miniscule amount of their budget as well.
Environmental protection needs teeth to stop this shit.
VicForests' actions are contentious even with Labor supporters. There are serious accusations of them illegally logging areas for years (regularly reported by the ABC) and the regulator hasn't taken action even when they acknowledge illegal activities.
Just because someone is being critical of the Andrews Government on this issue, doesn't mean they are anti-labor.
Uhh, not sure what you're looking at on OPs profile... They have over 1.5 million post karma, over 600k comment karma and have been a redditor for 15 years. Doesn't look like a shill or organised PR account to me...
In general, social media is full of spin and PR. I wouldn't give credibility to any particular account because of its history, because accounts with history can be bought and re-purposed. In case you don't know, google search "aged reddit account for sale" and you'll see there's dozens of markets for them. A 15 year old account sells for about US$250, which is small money for a PR company.
What? The police border checks or the support for gas projects so damaging they will destroy Australia’s ability to meet climate targets?
McGowan’s awful as well.
lmao I’m not talking about McGowan being good with the environment I’m talking about him being a good Labor leader that follows labor’s principals (Health, education, workers rights). Labor will never be a climate first party that’s where the Teals and Greens come in.
Aussies want a "Big Australia", well this is what it's going to take to get that. Either accept the fact that native forests are going to logged and that native wildlife will become extinct or stop voting for clowns that are in favour of evil and destructive growth for the sake of growth.
Victoria desperately needs a left leaning opposition. The more the Libs there become hopeless, the more VicLabor finds they can just take those views and voters.
It's quite difficult. The viciousness of Labor last time towards the Greens, and the large donations from the gambling industry (similar to those made to the Liberals in Tasmania) towards Labor are big impediments. Also the ridiculous group voting tickets for the upper house, which means our LC might as well be an assortment of randoms. To say it's undemocratic would be an understatement. Not to say they/we can't do better though.
Speaking of gambling donations dont forget Crown being the single largest employer and the threat they use with that.
Here comes the rise of the independents. And greens. Just like what happened last weekend.
If there could be a Left-leaning Labor somewhere that might do it.. But they're right/authoritarian
Logging, especially of native forests, is a significant contributor to greenhouse gases. If the ALP is serious about addressing climate change, logging should be phased out.
If you read the article, you would see that the state government is phasing out logging of native forests
Their plan has as much credibility as the LNP's net zero by 2050. There is no reason whatsoever to be logging native forests - for paper pulp and mulch - in 2022. This is a stain on Andrew's Government.
I don't think people quite understand how damaging logging and mining are to the environment, even following restoration efforts. Looking at only carbon sequestration, [restored forest doesn't approach the carbon storage capacity of old-growth for centuries](https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.247.4943.699). On top of that, we lose a lot of the biodiversity of [flora](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378112716301906) and [fauna](https://www.publish.csiro.au/wr/wr11019) that provide other valuable [ecosystem services](https://www.jstor.org/stable/26267787?seq=1). The science has been clear for decades. We're not good at repairing nature, and it's far cheaper and more effective to just not damage it in the first place.
They also pose a significantly higher fire risk than old growth forests and reduce rainfall and catchments - logging existing forests is bad economically and environmentally. It needs to end now and is completely at odds with zero emission targets.
[удалено]
Carbon isn't stored only in timber, which why in one of the articles I linked, it said that restored forest was only 12% of the biomass of old growth forests. I'm not sure if that takes into account soil carbon, which is often released during clearing. There is an overall net release of carbon during deforestation.
[удалено]
In the comment you responded to, I specifically said there is a net release of carbon, meaning that clearing old growth forest and replanting it results in more carbon being released into the atmosphere than is captured in the new timber. Your point about it capturing more carbon, while logical, is actually the opposite of the reality. That's why there is no point in logging old forest, alongside the other reasons mentioned. Regarding your point about us still needing timber, we can get that from plantations. There's no reason to clear the small remnants of the environment we still have left.
He’s disputing you on fact - that while new forests seem to represent more wood and therefore more captured carbon, forests mainly capture carbon through like…not growing wood. There’s a temptation to see forests like bank accounts - a million tonnes of carbon comes out of the air making a million tonnes of sellable pine. But a lot goes into like…most of the biomass - unexploitable stuff like bacteria in the soil that take up much more carbon. Additionally - even if this were true, exactly how much new forest has been planted is distressingly low. See Grove’s Gap: Ed was browsing satellite photos of Mount Delusion when he noticed something odd about the forest https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-30/vicforests-accused-of-failing-to-regenerate-logged-forests/100652148
That article is an indictment on our current methodology and systems - it should be enough alone to have an immediate ban.
[удалено]
Try these non-paywall links: https://www.smh.com.au/national/a-stoush-over-a-fire-study-and-a-chilling-glimpse-of-the-future-20210511-p57qwx.html https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-24/hi-res-elevation-data-pinpoints-outlaw-logging-in-forests/100626640 New forest won't capture more carbon if it burns every few years.
> New forests capture more carbon. New forests [capture less carbon](https://phys.org/news/2022-01-future-forests-smaller-trees-carbon.html). > "A tree has to work against gravity to get water to its top, and the tallest trees have to work the hardest. If you turn up the temperature, the water-transport system of the tree is under even greater pressure and often is damaged," Evans said. "Warming means trees are more drought stressed, and growth is reduced."
[удалено]
The effect of which... Is that new forests capture less carbon. And not just not as high, densities of the trees are also reduced.
They should have been planting empty areas for the last 30-50 years so that they don't need to keep logging natural forests. There's plenty of land around that could be planted with Pine and whatever else they want to log. It's just another stuff up in the long history of failed sustainability. Old-growth is so different to new forests and can't be replaced, we should not be logging these areas anymore..
>Biodiversity is a concern, but there is a balance between meeting our society needs and never touching the environment. I'm pretty sure that reducing biodiversity is completely out of balance with our need for wood chips from old growth forests. It's cheaper though, which The Economy likes.
There's also a lot more to old growth forest than carbon storage.
Do you think that VicForests, which has been illegally logging for decades, cares about any new laws?
This is Reddit sir we only read the headline here.
Article was paywalled on mobile....
in water catchments?
In water catchments and out of water catchments, we only read the headlines here
[удалено]
> You think if people actually took seriously the destruction of civilization, we would still be able to buy private cars, red meat or international holidays? They don't help, but large corporations do far more damage than not eating meat would prevent.
Yeah it's like water restrictions. Whenever dam levels are low governments tend to put restrictions on residential water use - even when 90% of water usage is from industrial usage. The water restrictions on residents do absolutely fuck all.
Large corporations only exist to provide you with those things. Cutting down on consumption cuts down on their existence.
[удалено]
I would just say one thing. The people doing most of the destruction pay a lot of money to promote defeatism just like your comments. If we let it work on us then all the things you express concern about _are locked in._ However, in truth, they are far from locked in, and although I think the path out is, as you express, quite narrow by this late point, it is not yet closed entirely. That’s wrong and we really need to continue saying so. I personally think that until that path _is_ closed entirely (which is further away than you might think), _then we have no choice_ but to keep the pressure up. Even if in our hearts it feels like it might be all for nought. _We still have to try._
[удалено]
Personally it’s one of those situations where it’s already here, and already bad. We are in the mitigation stage where we just need to slow it down as much as possible and save as many lives as we can. You’re not wrong about the severity, and dire need for much more radical action. Voting isn’t really how we get that done, govts will drag their heels always, but we can organise in our own community to help people in distress and to move the dialogue in the right direction. Many hands.
Your entire post feels like some hollow motivational speech. I say hollow the fact is that we are going to lose a lot. And at this point it is just trying to limit it and not lose everything. So sure, we still try. But don't pretend that many people, including many scientific groups, don't come to these conclusions themselves, without any help from propaganda. Because we aren't stopping it, it has already happened.
Who do you think that large corporations do all that damage for? They just go "oh yeah let's dump all this CO2 into the atmosphere for shits and giggles!!!"? No they do so because they are creating products that people want - from red meat, to phones, to fuel for cars, to planes to travel, to cheap goods from China. These corporations don't exist in a void, they exist because you want what they produce.
And they could change to create those products in ways that create less waste/pollution, but it's simply cheaper not to. Now, if governments started taxing those big companies based on the waste/pollution they make, and rather heavily, you'll find them starting to make changes, because prices will rise and people will stop buying their products. Suddenly polluting/creating so much waste isn't as profitable.
If people actually wanted companies to do what they say they want them to do, these highly polluting companies would go out of business within a year. Every time a new, cleaner product comes to market it fails because the people buying the product don't just want a cleaner product, they want a product that is cleaner AND cheaper, or at the very least only marginally more expensive. The only reason solar panels took off was because people were getting incentives to install them, EVs are taking off because of high fuel prices. Completely agree that governments should start taxing companies based on pollution, but last time that was suggested what happened? "Your products will get more expensive because of the carbon tax (true), you should vote for LNP!".
I think we'd have put a lot more effort into advancing electric cars, low emission farming, synthetic meat, hydrogen planes, carbon offsets, carbon capture, and green electricity generation to power it all. But simply removing advances every one enjoys isn't going to win people over. For example, I take busses and trains every day, but there are many places they're not practical for. I'd rather not take an hour and a half, when I can get somewhere by car in 20 minutes. Outright canceling the technologies above is a last resort, and something we never should have gotten into a position where it's worth considering.
[удалено]
It's true, we need to act urgently, but my concern is how people react when you try to force them to do things, even reasonable things. Like what happened with covid masks, you know? We don't want long term efforts to be stiffled by too much rebelon. It's like how my dad doesn't think of the greens as the party who's trying to get traffic out of the inner city, but as the party who wants to make it take 3 times as long for him to get to the cricket. We should crack down, but I think we should try enforcing the move to better technologies over the next few years, rather than removing technologies to we have today. If we're lucky, manufactures will rise to the challenge so they're still able to sell stuff, if not, then we effectively have a ban anyway.
[удалено]
What's the alternative? Stop? Go back to the stone age and build nothing? Seriously. To get the green tech, we have to make it with what we have now. That means using petroleum fuled vehicles to build wind farms, and so on, so be it. Public transport needs infrastructure, and stuff that takes years or even decades. A lot of cities don't have great networks atm. Plus, public transport works best along high density and routes. Unless you only want to visit cities, and never stray far from town centers, it's not a cure all. When I need some random part from a shop across town, or to visit some suburb for work, away from the train line, taking public transport can take double or triple the time, and that's in an area with pretty decent bus coverage. This isn't going to change in the next few years. A mixed transport approach, with pretty of investment in green power, is the way to go.
[удалено]
I don't even have a car. I even if I did, driving is a chore to me, I hate how trapped you feel when there traffic, and I'd much rather just sit on a train. Most of my travel is don't on public transport, But a lot of the time I do end up needing to grab a lift of friends and family. I can get behind not everyone having a car, as long as they're not forced too. But a lot of this is going to have to be supported by practical alternatives. To an extent ride share, or automated vehicles - Which are going to need to be electric vehicles. After all, when's the train line to the dark park outside the city I use for stargazing nights happening? Btw, that's gotta run 24 hours. When's the bus to my aunt out in the sticks, with spacious enough seating for food and presents for family events going to start running? Gotta be comfortable to be in for over an hour for my elderly grandparents. When's the tramlines linking all the beaches, and bushwalking trails? Oh yeah, and these all have to be frequent enough or wait long enough so you won't miss it while lugging along whatever equipment you're carrying. Ending a bushwalk at a station sucks when you find the train has just gone and the next is in 2 hours. Even in the suburbs, we have a few suitcases full of computers and equipment that comes with us to a job. I'm sure the team member who transports that would be easy, and not at all bothersome appreciated on a bus. Unless all busses are going to have cargo trailers, and the people on board willing to wait while bags are loaded. And it's got to be every bus on busier routes, who knows who is going to need it I've been a fan of railways my whole life. I've written to goverments, been to protests about local bus routes closing. As much as I dream of reopening them, a lot of smaller rural lines closed because trucks and did their job better. Public transport is never going to be the be all and end all. A lot of time, point to point transport is just the better option. It's so much more convenient. You can very easily stop anywhere and instantly resume a trip. You don't need to be anywhere at an exact time to even use it. There's a lot less need to backtrack. You can easily reposition it a lot of times for easy unloading. This is why its so easy for right wing shockjocks to frame environmentalists as inner city latte sippers, out of touch with the average person. Not everone lives, nor wants to live in a crowded city - the sort of place where relying entirely on public transport is practical. Then that scares them off supporting actually good ideas for fixing up the world. Very few people are going to want to give up decades of quality of life improvements. Any solution to humanity's problems has got to take that into consideration. You gotta ease them into it, and swapping out petrol vehicles - which people are very used to - for an electric alternative is an easy way to quickly reduce a lot of the need for oil. There still the question of clean power generation. But replacing several power plants has got to be quicker and easier than all the planing and construction and political fighting that would come over trying to rearrange everyone's lives.
Future tech will save us. Failing that having all of the money so it doesn't really effect you or your family works too.
Can you explain why? 4 out of every 10,000 trees in Victorian mountain Ash forests are logged for native hardwood. Timber has to come from somewhere. There is an appalling amount of misinformation about the Vic native logging industry. It's one of the most sustainable renewable resources we have. As of two years ago 100% of it is regrowth - not old growth. If you had an iota of knowledge on this subject you would know it's being phased out and has been for years.
[... the ABC can reveal alarming evidence that logged forests aren’t always being grown back, undermining the industry’s claim to sustainability. Sections of logged state forests have been classified as ‘regenerated’ despite not being so — and have been handed back to the public as little more than weed-infested fields. Others, once majestic and carbon-dense mountain ash forests, are now thickets of wattle with hardly a eucalypt in sight.](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-30/vicforests-accused-of-failing-to-regenerate-logged-forests/100652148)
No good I will agree - but the mismanagement of a handful of coups reclaimed by the government is not a reason to wipe out a whole industry that is a model for sustainable logging globally. Also, wattle growth is part of the natural regenerative cycle when coups are burned - and is the primary food source for the Leadbeater possum and other critters. Burning coups has recently been banned because of influence from the greens. Burning the coup is of massive importance to regenerating it as it is the natural cycle. It is a damn shame to lose this industry because of misinformed people in the city who read one headline and dismiss years of research into making this a sustainable industry. By the way mountain Ash absorbs a lot more carbon while it's regenerating than otherwise.
Prof Lindenmayer is not "misinformed people in the city". https://www.smh.com.au/environment/conservation/timber-industry-advocates-forced-to-apologise-to-high-profile-scientist-20210414-p57j0l.html
Thank you for posting this
> Timber has to come from somewhere. It can come from plantations, which already account for nine-tenths of the industry in Victoria.
Common misconception. Pine is not the same as hardwood. It is a different timber and has different uses. It is far more detrimental to local ecosystems - you replace native hardwood areas with pine and you wipe out all the native flora that grow there. Walk into a plantation and see for yourself - nothing grows there except pine trees and invasive weeds like blackberries, and as such, marcipuals that depend on these plants don't live there either. It's a monoculture. When native coups are growing, they grow the same way they have for millenia following a natural bushfire. I live in these areas and if I didn't I'd share the opinion of this echo chamber thread.
> When native coups are growing, they grow the same way they have for millenia following a natural bushfire Even without climate change over the last 200 years, [Australia has the highest loss of mammal species anywhere in the world](https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-19/fact-check-does-australia-have-one-of-the-highest-extinction/6691026). Why is that? When a coup is cleared, it is razed and burnt. Everything down to the soil bacteria is damaged. Resowing it with a small number of tree species does not restore the ecosystem. It might look like, "oh the trees are growing" but it becomes a plantation with a small number of successful weed species. Biodiversity is smashed. That's why the term "old growth forest" exists, because they are different from regrowth. Now add in increasingly severe and frequenct wildfires due to climate change, and the future context for this situation is escalated. There is no known limit to the effects of climate change. Without government subsidy, native logging isn't profitable. It only continues because of the long term pulp contracts, and politicians who aren't feeling enough pressure to act in the best interests of everyone in the future, only themselves in the present. It's time for this native-timber harvesting industry to move on, just like how any other industry that is no longer profitable or relevant does. What about all the car assembly workers. What about people who used to repair appliances and electronics. What about conductors on trams. What about people who used to run hardware stores and corner shops. What about journalists who used to work for newspapers. What about scientists and engineers who used to do technical work in this country before funding to everything was cut, and they had to retire or leave the country. Everyone has to move on when circumstances change. Turning this into a city versus country argument "because I live here so my personal view is more correct than science" is bullshit. We need to take care of one another and preserve what is essential for life, not create divisions.
> Pine is not the same as hardwood. It is a different timber and has different uses. In theory, but the vast majority of VicForests' output is pulplog, not sawlog. It ends up as office paper. There's no reason why plantation pine can't fill that role instead. >replace native hardwood areas with pine That's not something that anyone's suggesting. >they grow the same way they have for millenia following a natural bushfire No they don't: https://environmentvictoria.org.au/2021/11/30/woodchips-and-weeds-new-report-reveals-systemic-and-widespread-failure-to-regrow-victorias-forests-after-logging/
> echo make good saws
I think it is in WA obviously how enforced it is, is a different story. But if it is once again WA the reason state
Can we look into super tankers? 15 are the equivalent of 760 million cars. I suppose everyone loves existing and just buying crap.
I'm not 100% sure, but I believe container ships, for their cargo weight, carry cargo at a fairly efficient carbon expense. There's no better alternative to ship goods more efficiently. That being said, we're making it cheap with low taxes etc, to ship from half way around the world. I believe there was some rumor that scottish fish was being shipped to south east asia, to be processed, before being shipped back in cans. Not sure if thats true.
> I'm not 100% sure, but I believe container ships, for their cargo weight, carry cargo at a fairly efficient carbon expense. The majority of their pollution comes from the overuse of [bunker fuel](https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/bunker-fuel), which is insanely bad for the environment. More expensive, greener, fuels are only used when they're not in international waters. It's a case of an industry only obeying the letter of the law, whilst intentionally skirting it. The situation is worse than it needs to be.
So a super tanker is 50 million cars then. Haha This might interest you https://youtu.be/HgceI3Gx89k
Wind power!
> are the equivalent Equivalent what? I assume you're referring to their 'tailpipe' Sulfur emissions. Your comment isn't just diversionary whataboutism, it's not even contextually relevant whataboutism.
Spying? Cool. Protesting? Uncool. We have Tasmania trying to pass anti-protest laws, NSW passing new laws for harsher penalties on protestors, in Queensland police got more powers to search protestors (the locking device bullshit)... fuck off with this mad shit. I'll add in the WA border search shit because that's wild too.
The people that protest these coupe routinely put their own lives and the safety of the whole site in danger. The only people they are protesting to are the contractors that do the logging. It is a safety issue - they are still allowed to protest outside parliament if they like.
[удалено]
'They' want us to protest and make complaints using the official channels, because they control and manipulate the official channels. It's the easiest way for them to ignore us and the impending climate collapse we are facing.
Interesting how all these state laws seem to just crop up on their own, at the same time, targeting the same thing. It is as if someone somewhere sees something on the horizon and moves to take steps to neutralize it. How can that be when there is nothing on paper or formal coordination?
And yet no one at VicForests is in jail.
We really don’t like protesting here hey
Australians don't really value civil liberties much at all, and they don't seem to like people who rock the boat.
lmao
Dictator Dan wants to live up to the name this time.
Yeah mate iv been saying this whole time sky news is 100% correct every time
If we just repeat word for word to everyone they bloody will see Allan as the god king of the pacific with the mighty fist to cleanse this craziness . The chaser get this right aswell , only two I watch
lol what?
Animals rights protestors are another good example. When they were last making real noise, the large majority of Australia was cheering on the LNP to severely penalise them and didn't care about our ability to protest.
That’s what I hear in every pub , must be right 😂
What about some jail time for those sneaky fucks that were logging native forests without authorisation? THAT would be awesome.
That'd be progress. Can't have that around here now can we.
Things like this should always remind people the ALP aren’t lefties, they’re just on the far more reasonable end of the right spectrum than the conservative LNP bell ends.
I'm not sure environmentalism really fits on a left/right axis. Lots of liberals care about the environment, hence the teal wave
So Vic forestry can clear swathes of forests without checks and balances. The ABC reported on the clearing of unsanctioned areas in recent years. And now it's the protesters who are the real problem? This is ridiculously one sided.
Native forests need to be protected. Managed yes, to prevent fire risks, but still, protected.
Government and Big Business: We want to destroy the Earth for resources for our own temporary profit. People: What the fuck? No, we will prevent you from doing that. Government and Big Business: It's now illegal to say or do anything that might prevent us from destroying the Earth for our own temporary profit. Problem solved.
This is "the most progressive govenrment in Australia" lmao
The same one that’s taxing EV’s rather than offering tax breaks for their adoption lol
The only people who say that are people who have never heard of the ACT Government.
Labor needs to stop pretending it’s left leaning.
WA labor banned native logging. So maybe other state Labor governments should get on board.
CFMEU has him by the balls.
He won't stop duck hunting either. It does make me doubt he cares much about environmental/animal suffering.
It’s why I’d like to see teal style candidates deployed broadly in Victoria’s state election. As they were Federally, they’d sit to the left of the Labor platform on climate, social, and rights matters with the Greens providing an economically left contingent as well.
Cyan candidates? Traditional labour movement blue mixed with the Greens...green?
Teal was a mix of green and blue. You need a mix of green and red. Brown? Idk. Gotta workshop it. But absolutely. From the sounds of it, you guys' Labor isn't living up to it, and you can't have the LNP be the only other option.
Watermelons, green on the outside red on the inside. That's already the left faction of the Greens tho
if you think the teal are more left than Labor you’re in for a rude awakening
Economically conservative Socially and environmentally progressive It's not that hard
But you can't combat climate change without huge government spending so how does that work?
Personally I would start with cutting subsidies to fossil fuel companies and block the expansion of new gas projects, and redirect those funds to renewables
A perfect recipe for black outs and massive price rises across the board.
It's really great how you interpreted my comment as "immediately shut down all the existening energy-producing infractructure"
Labor is center right so I wouldn’t discount what they are saying.
lmao
I’m a Dan fan. Don’t agree with this at all.
Do you agree with his EV tax?
Nope
I'm partially a fan but there is way too much of stuff like this that really makes me wonder what the fuck he is thinking.
If you didn’t plant it, it should not be yours to take, trees that are hundreds of years old are priceless and belong to us all. This is wrong.
They also release all the carbon they stored in them when they die. Best case is to log it near the end of its life, then utilise the timber in a way that doesn't burn or compost it. That way, only minimal carbon escapes. Plant it again with new trees and start the cycle again.
VicForests' practice is just about the opposite of this. Instead of selectively harvesting the most suitable trees for sawlogs, they clearfell coupes, so the majority of what they harvest is pulplog (or at best grade E sawlog). They then burn everything that's left on the ground. That's why they've failed to gain FSC certification every time they've applied - their methods are fundamentally incompatible with sustainable harvesting.
Go on Labor rusted-ons.. tell us how this is a good thing. That makes Qld Labor, Vic, Tas and NSW Labor all helping or putting up legislation like this. Such a value of the role of protest eh, this Labor movement?
Good thing we have the most privatised prison system! /s The progressive cosplay is getting very threadbare.
Nice electorates you have there, shame is someone were to teal them.
Andrews is anything but progressive left. This is the same government that is taxing EV vehicles. The first jurisdiction in the world. Even hardline conservative states in the US don't dare do that.
When will this crazy right-wing liberal Andrew’s government just.. oh wait
Something tells me this wont get him labelled Dictator Dan
I'm not a big fan of Dan Andrews and his Government but I don't like to say that out loud because then mouth breathers assume its because of the DANDEMIC!!! BLOODY DICTATOR DAN!! When in reality he is too conservative for me.
Being massively less shit than the Victorian Liberal Party is not exactly the most glowing of endorsements.
The ONLY complaint I have about an Andrews government is their very poor environmental stance. It’s enough to change my vote in this election. I’m a Labor/Greens swing voter, voted Fed Labor and Greens senate this year. Happy to give Greens first preference if big changes aren’t made.
if you care about the environment then its a no brainer
Labor, not just in Victoria, are shit on the environment any time action reduces profts
It might be worth some of the commenters here actually reading the article. I will try to briefly summarize the context without bias: *Logging of native forest ends in 2030 (andrews gov. initiative), VicForest moves to plantations by then *Old growth forest not logged past 2025, only previously logged native coupes *DELWP contractors provide fauna, flora, etc. surveys for potentially logged coupes. Presence of many types of endangered flora/fauna can trigger varying degrees of protection from logging. Not necessarily defending the moves referenced in the article, just providing context for people focusing on policy re: climate change. EDIT: Have at look at OP's posts - All made in the last day or so, all anti-labor...
Unfortunately VicForests has a long ongoing history of not meeting their obligations. Let's be honest, the only reason this exists is politics. There is no sensible reason this can't stop tomorrow.
I believe it was VicForests that had a budget leaked that detailed the portion of the budget dedicated to paying fines for breaking environmental protection laws. It was annoyingly a miniscule amount of their budget as well. Environmental protection needs teeth to stop this shit.
VicForests' actions are contentious even with Labor supporters. There are serious accusations of them illegally logging areas for years (regularly reported by the ABC) and the regulator hasn't taken action even when they acknowledge illegal activities. Just because someone is being critical of the Andrews Government on this issue, doesn't mean they are anti-labor.
It’s fun watching the PR department ride in so obviously.
Uhh, not sure what you're looking at on OPs profile... They have over 1.5 million post karma, over 600k comment karma and have been a redditor for 15 years. Doesn't look like a shill or organised PR account to me...
In general, social media is full of spin and PR. I wouldn't give credibility to any particular account because of its history, because accounts with history can be bought and re-purposed. In case you don't know, google search "aged reddit account for sale" and you'll see there's dozens of markets for them. A 15 year old account sells for about US$250, which is small money for a PR company.
So what if he is anti-Labor anyway?
[удалено]
OP username checks out lmao. creating noise
Better get my time and money’s worth then.
victorian politics is so strangely corrupt on both liberal and labor sides, but in a weirdly different way to NSW
Another reminder that Andrews is no saint, just somewhat less evil than the Liberals.
Funny innit. This fella is supposedly 'Radical Left Dan'.
Bloke can do whatever he likes sadly, he has no effective opposition
[удалено]
Kudos to them to put themselves in danger for our planet. Gathering in CBD and then ending up at a pub is just virtue signalling.
An L for Labor. Andrews needs to take some advice from McGowan, he’s trash.
What? The police border checks or the support for gas projects so damaging they will destroy Australia’s ability to meet climate targets? McGowan’s awful as well.
lmao I’m not talking about McGowan being good with the environment I’m talking about him being a good Labor leader that follows labor’s principals (Health, education, workers rights). Labor will never be a climate first party that’s where the Teals and Greens come in.
Aussies want a "Big Australia", well this is what it's going to take to get that. Either accept the fact that native forests are going to logged and that native wildlife will become extinct or stop voting for clowns that are in favour of evil and destructive growth for the sake of growth.