Blurring the lines between science and political activism

Ms Blakers, who was mentioned earlier, is a well-known environmental activist who has worked for Greens Senator Bob Brown and latterly founded the Greens Institute. Ms Edwards assisted The Wilderness Society during its campaign against the proposed Gunns’ pulpmill. She was described by The Age newspaper in April 2006 as a “former high flying Sydney actuary who threw in the towel …. to became a mini-skirted performer and forest activist in the hippie community of Cygnet in southern Tasmania”. Neither would appear to have the ideological independence needed to objectively review Ajani’s paper.

It is particularly significant that although both the Ajani and Mackey et al papers are about forests, there is no evidence of input from forest scientists who are surely experts in this field. Unsurprisingly, both papers display a poor understanding of basic forestry concepts. This is amply demonstrated by the Green Carbon paper which:

• seriously overstates the extent of current and future timber production in SE Australia;
• displays only a simplistic understanding of what logging is, and what its variations and components mean in terms of carbon accounting;
• wrongly presumes that every forest left untouched by human disturbance will develop into “old growth” with maximum carbon storage;
• seriously understates the inevitability and severity of natural disturbances that affect forests, such as wildfire, and their impact on carbon accounting;
• misunderstands the role of lightning, access, topography, and suppression capability in shaping where the largest and most destructive fires occur;
• is unaware of the acknowledged link between forest use and the capability to effectively manage landscape-scale fire which has the greatest impacts on biodiversity and water, as well as carbon storage;
• does not understand that management expenditure and effort in particular parts of the forest provide flow-on benefits for other parts of the forest estate;
• draws a seemingly illogical distinction between the ecological resilience of regrowth after logging and fire even though the regenerative processes are the same;
• appears to ignore the ecological implications of totally avoiding disturbance which can ultimately result in the replacement of eucalypt forest by other vegetation; and
• fails to address the carbon accounting implications of not harvesting native forests - such as more imports and greater use of steel and concrete - given that its favoured plantations “solution” is unviable due to insufficient hardwood plantations capable of producing sawn timber.

It is clear that addressing the above matters would have severely weakened, if not invalidated, the paper’s central assertion that not logging forests will massively increase carbon storage. A cynical view is that in recognition of this, Mackey et al may have chosen to avoid informed scrutiny of their paper so as not to compromise findings that fit a pre-ordained agenda.

In view of the doubts surrounding its objectivity and veracity, it is very disappointing that the Green Carbon paper has gained such traction in the media and in some scientific circles. In particular, its infiltration into the Garnaut Climate Change Final Report is unfortunate given the likely influence of this on future government policy.

This was apparently driven by representations by the environmental movement during the public consultation phase which ended in April 2008. In the latest Wilderness News, a text box attached to an article entitled, Green Carbon, by Dr Heather Keith (one of the co-authors of the Green Carbon paper) states that:

The Wilderness Society made an organisational submission [to the Garnaut Review] that spells out the compelling science about forests and carbon. And we co-ordinated thousands of Australians to have their say on this critical issue by making their own submissions.

This shows that even before it was published, the Green Carbon paper was being commandeered for use in submissions to the Garnaut process. This would seem to further confirm the strength of linkages between some ANU scientists and the environmental movement.

In a recent media release, the ANU claimed that it was “proud of researchers who challenge current views and develop new ways of understanding our environment”. If this means supporting scientists who willingly compromise objectivity and academic process to serve the political agenda of a financial backer, the university may have a problem.

It is important to appreciate that conclusions being drawn from the Green Carbon paper are out of step with the international view of the role of forests in climate change. In 2007, this was articulated by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which stated that:

In the long term, a sustainable forest management strategy aimed at maintaining or increasing forest carbon stocks, while producing an annual sustained yield of timber, fibre or energy from the forest, will generate the largest sustained mitigation benefit.