Climate Commission needs to re-think forest carbon

“Recognition of the need to protect primary forests has helped to catalyse formulation of the REDD (Reduction of Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation) agenda item under the UNFCCC negotiations.”

True, but REDD programs target the unsustainable treatment of forests in developing countries primarily in the Asia-Pacific, West Africa, and Latin and South American regions. Sustainable timber production in Australia is not targeted, despite the efforts of ENGOs to shamelessly misrepresent it as ‘deforestation’ when it clearly is not. The Critical Decade’s mention of REDD in relation to a discussion of Australian forestry suggests that the Climate Commission has been overly influenced by this ENGO deceit.

Arguably, what has not been said in The Critical Decade report is of far greater significance than the few references to forestry which it contains. In particular, the lack of acknowledgement of sustainable forest management reflects a questionable understanding amongst the Climate Commission and its advisors that is rather astounding given the numerous studies commissioned by the government and others which have found forestry to be one of the few carbon-positive activities in Australia, with wood products being an important vehicle for carbon abatement.

The Climate Commission’s treatment of forest carbon therefore raises concerns about how it may have treated other natural resource use issues. Rightly or wrongly, it creates a perception of the Commission as a vehicle for ticking-off items from a populist ‘green’ wish list even when they are counter-productive to combating climate change.

If Australia is to effectively respond to climate change by reducing carbon emissions, its citizens deserve to have the requisite actions determined by the best available scientific advice. Taking a lead from an activist agenda is far from this, and will be counter-productive to efforts to reduce carbon emissions given that wood is our only renewable resource, embodies very low emissions in its harvest and manufacture, and with its local production off-setting demand for high emissions alternatives or imports from developing countries associated with deforestation. The Climate Commission must do better than this if it is to indeed help reduce Australia’s carbon emissions.