Lying greenies creating moral outrage

Right, I’ve got to get something off my chest here. I’m jack of the Green movement who like to stand up, spreading fear, uncertainty and doubt.

I can’t stand people who claim the moral high ground based on outright lies, dispersions, and complete fallacy – just so they can get an unfounded, baseless point of view across and accepted by people.

I’d like to apologise from the outset, as I’d love to put a number of references to back up my views and assertions into this article. However, being a Saturday I have neither the willpower or patience to do that. I’d strongly encourage you to independently seek out the information and resources on these matters so you can come to your own informed opinion.

Also, in the interests of full disclosure, I am someone who has come to the forestry industry from a number of years in junior and senior board-level positions in the Higher Education sector. I have taken the time to understand all sides of the debate, researching and listening diligently all the different points of view. I have come to my own conclusions, and I hope you’d take what I post as food for thought before making up your own mind instead of being blindly led down a point of view.

My annoyance today is spurred by groups such as the so-called Preston Environment Group, who in an attempt to gain whatever they seek, continues their campaign to smear and besmirch an industry which is the sole thing separating them from the environmental holocaust they claim is going to happen and want to stop.

Their latest storm in a teacup is the planned harvesting of a 372Ha patch of forest in the Dardanup area.

Their claims

Their reported claims include:

  • will destroy the last pocket of isolated, ecologically significant bush in the area, taking down some of the remaining centuries-old curly jarrah trees
  • harvesting will endanger the rare western ringtail possum.
  • the ecological significance of the area would be destroyed as logging equipment would clear vegetation to get access to the area.
  • Australia already had the global record for wiping out native species and the logging would further endanger rare flora and fauna.

Four statements, all disproved by logic, reason, science, procedure, and common sense.

The realities

Let’s break this down piece by piece:

Harvesting will destroy the last pocket of isolated, ecologically significant bush in the area, taking down some of the remaining centuries-old curly jarrah trees

Not true. The strictly observed procedures put in place before, during lead-up, during, and after harvesting are specifically designed to prevent this from happening. Let’s break this one apart piece by piece

‘Ecologically significant’ is a statement constantly rolled out by the Green movement – a blanket phrase/statement they throw into the mix every time someone wants to harvest an area of forest. But what is it you ask? Well, they’ve never defined it, they’ve never stated it or given an accurate description of what it means. It’s a meaningless phrase they keep rolling out as some blanket defence without any science or truth to it.

WA’s Forest Management Plan and harvesting protocols are specifically designed to seek out and identify areas of flora/fauna habitat BEFORE harvesting takes place. They also look out for significant trees, stream reserves, visual amenities, as well as implementing the relevant silvicultural guidelines are implemented to retain an appropriate number of trees (look up basal area) for regrowth, regeneration and places for any potential wildlife to house themselves (referred to as habitat trees)

As these are identified, they are reviewed, checked, and checked again.

Once everything is done these areas are mapped, recorded, buffer zones added, and are declared out of bounds for harvesting.

And who assesses these areas you ask? People who are entirely independant to the harvesting process – namely the Conservation Commission and the Department of Environment and Conservation.

And who reports these issues to them for independent assessment? More often than not it’s the same foresters who care about the environment and practice these strict protocols and procedures day in, day out to make sure our forests are cared for.

Can the public nominate areas for independent assessment? Yes. Simply get in touch with the Conservation Commission and chat with them about your concerns. They’ll assess it and do all the necessary work to make sure that if its not already identified for protection and should be, it will.

harvesting will endanger the rare western ringtail possum.

Again, another deliberate lie designed to tug on heart strings.

As far as I know, the western ringtail possum has not been identified in this area. And even if it has been, or when the pre-harvesting protocols do – the appropriate protections will be applied.

the ecological significance of the area would be destroyed as logging equipment would clear vegetation to get access to the area.

First question – what ecological significance? You’ve already used that claim once, but haven’t defined what you mean by that.

And what do you use to back up that claim that the machinery operates in a way that’ll clear vegetation?

Come spend some time in a native forest harvesting operation, and you’ll see first hand that what you’ve just said is an outright lie.

I’ve already covered the ecological significance argument – so let’s talk about the protections used to bring machinery in and out of the forest.

A whole number of procedures and protocols are applied to protect as much of the native flora and fauna as possible as and when harvesting equipment moves through the forest. This involves base layers (matting) that keeps the equipment from direct contact with the forest floor, planned movements to disturb the soil as little as possible, and strict hygiene procedures mandated and policed by an agency independent to the harvesting process to prevent the introduction of plant diseases such as Dieback into areas not already infected by it.

Australia already had the global record for wiping out native species and the logging would further endanger rare flora and fauna.

Bollocks, with a cherry on top.

Show me one piece of peer-reviewed, scientifically accepted research which backs up this claim.

Insert the sound of crickets here.

Nothing more needs to be said about that.

What does this all mean?

In short, nearly every position and claimed fact these so-called environmental defenders roll out is without merit. It has no basis in science, fact, logic or common sense – but press organisations such as The West Australian continue to roll these lines out unchallenged and unquestioned. It’s poor reporting on their part.

And the facts remain – that if they have genuine concerns, there are long established, independent, and working processes they can go through to raise these concerns so the appropriate action can be taken.

And just on these greenies and environmental defenders for a moment – has anyone bothered to take a look at their activities, and all the carbon and energy intensive products you use.

Think about all the pollution they put into the air every time they turn the key for your engine. Think about the pollution that goes into the air with every new house they build from the concrete, bricks and steel. Think about the atmospheric damage caused by every aluminium can they use and fail to recycle.

Once that’s been done, you might see just how big hypocrites they truelly are. You may also have a chance of realising that it’s science based forestry that gives our planet the only true chance of survival from their wasteful and hypocritical ways.

Every tree that’s systematically and scientifically harvested permanently locks up the carbon pollution you put into the atmosphere every year. And the new tree that grows in its place will continue to absorb the pollution they continue to output.

And let’s be honest, do they really want to start wipe their backsides with plastic every time they sit down on the can? I don’t think so, because its the environmentally friendly and sustainably managed timber that helps their backsides stay nice, comfortable and clean every time they need to relieve themselves.

One final thought, from a real environmentalist

I want to end my comments on this one point, and its a comment by Patrick Moore Ph.D.(me), the chairman and chief scientist of Greenspirit Strategies Ltd, and co-founder and former director of international environment organisation Greenpeace. He said this:

“One of the best ways to address climate change is to use more wood, not less. Wood is simply the most abundant, biodegradable and renewable material on the planet.”

If someone who’s as big a green defender as Patrick Moore realises that wood is one of the best ways to save the environment, why hasn’t the rest of the so-called green movement woken up to this fact?

Simple – because its politically inconvenient for them to do so. They’d prefer to stick with their old talking points that have no basis in science, reality or cold hard facts. And you wonder why intellectual people like myself have come to the conclusion they don’t have a leg to stand on and are full of rubbish.

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Lying greenies creating moral outrage

  1. Ed’s notes in bold.

    fancy the blogger being employed by the industry!

    At least I have the honestly and decency to be up front and fully disclose whatever my associations may be, allowing people to take an objective view and make their own minds up. Prey tell, what might yours be?

    And why is the opinion of a citizen of the State who has obviously taken the time to learn about the issues in the course of their roles from both sides of the debate any less valid, just because they happen to work in the industry? Sounds like another one of those standard tactics members of the environmental movement use to dismiss the views of educated, intelligent people who’s views don’t necessarily line up with theirs.

    [PEG] can all be shown as having no basis in logic, reason, science, procedure, and common sense.”
    “Bollocks, with a cherry on top.”

    mmm very erudite!
    you sound like a young dalkeith sort of person that went to uni and earned a few brownie points. Whoa, must’ve taken years! I’d like to refute you with stats etc but unfortunately it’s people like you who rely on figures/papers rather than local residents’ logic, reason, science, procedure, and common sense as you so easily discount.

    For the record, you couldn’t be any more wrong if you tried. I’m a northern suburbs lad through and through, who chose not to go to uni, instead choosing the TAFE path and learning at the School of Hard Knocks before entering the workforce. Everything I’ve learned and earned is off the back of blood, sweat and tears.

    So, a lame attempt at branding someone an elitist hasn’t worked for you. Strike one for proving of my core thesis.

    And you harp on about local residents’ logic, reason, science, procedure, and common sense – where is it? All that’s been seen from them is tugging at emotional heart strings without providing one shred of evidence or credible science & information to back it up. You just proved my entire thesis with a single statement. Seriously, claiming that 500-year old trees will be destroyed – if you’re that concerned, there’s open, public and accountable processes available to voice these concerns and have what you think might be significant trees protected.

    If you were so concerned about the trees, the requests to the Conservation Commission would already have been filed. Instead the green movement creates fake moral outrage to further their cause and ignore established, accepted, and agreed processes for dealing with these issues in the first place.

    I’ve been in that forest, harvesting is criminal, remind me, what’s it for again?

    This is a moot point, because the public already had the debate on this issue and the rules under which harvesting in native forests can occur have been decided.

    99% of WA’s forests you claim to love are protected in formal reserves, national parks and the like. The less than 1% remaining under the FMP is permitted for harvesting, and about 0.08% of that is harvested every year. Harvesting of timber like jarrah and karri takes place because:

    a) so called greenies like yourselves have been the obstruction preventing Australia from establishing high yield plantation timber resources, which leave Australia doing $2.4 billion worth of environmental damage to overseas countries who can least afford to deal with it, and have far less stringent controls and management of timber resources,
    b) because there is a demand for these high quality timbers in a large number of high-value processing streams, and
    c) by selectively harvesting these permitted forests through a system of science-based, systematic harvesting, we can continue to retain values of local ecology, biodiversity, and most importantly have that forest stay around for generations to come.

    You also seem to forget that it was a West Australian, Charles Lane Poole, who was the founding father of these scientifically-based, systematic forestry practices that have been used in Western Australia since the 1920’s. Its because of this and the dedication of professional foresters who I have the pleasure of working with that a sizable portion of WA’s national parks and protected reserves have achieved that status.

    When you stop looking at this as a single forest and see it for the bigger picture, you might wake up and realise that the scientific, sustainable harvesting methods employed on native forests have a massive net short, medium and long term benefit to both local communities and the state as a whole.

    “planned movements to disturb the soil as much as possible,”

    come on mate, say what you mean!

    Another tried and true green tactic – selective quoting, and twisting words. For the benefit of those who skimmed over the article, here’s the text referred to in full:

    A whole number of procedures and protocols are applied to protect as much of the native flora and fauna as possible as and when harvesting equipment moves through the forest. This involves base layers (matting) that keeps the equipment from direct contact with the forest floor, planned movements to disturb the soil as little as possible, and strict hygiene procedures mandated and policed by an agency independent to the harvesting process to prevent the introduction of plant diseases such as Dieback into areas not already infected by it.

    It says exactly what it means, every precaution is used to protect the forest. It details some of the precautions and measures which are taken to achieve this.

    “Think about all the pollution they put into the air every time they turn the key for your engine. Think about the pollution that goes into the air with every new house they build from the concrete, bricks and steel. Think about the atmospheric damage caused by every aluminium can they use and fail to recycle.

    Talk about unconfirmed, emotional codswallop!

    Unconfirmed, emotional codswallop you say? Care to revise this statement? There’s been significant independent scientific study and research which examines in detail the environmental impacts of emission intensive activities. And guess what – all the scientific evidence and reporting over the last 10 years universally indicates the greatest environmental impact and damage is done through the use of concrete, bricks, steel and aluminium. And when compared to timber, even after you consider potential recycling options for the others, it still comes out as the only environmentally positive resource in the planet.

    In short – stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

    “chance of survival from their wasteful and hypocritical ways.”

    Is this the pot calling the kettle black?
    Your refutation sounds like crap

    And here’s the kicker, you’ve managed in a single comment to completely prove my thesis – that the green movement relies on pseudo-science, emotional phraseology, name calling, dispersion and outright b.s. to hold onto its positions which have no basis in science, fact, common sense or logic. You’ve done nothing here to further the debate, provided no evidence to refute the points made, and all in all made a complete arse of yourself.

    And by the way, who is M? I doubt you’re some James Bond character. How about having the decency to admit who you are and what your true interests and allegiances are on this matter.

  2. well done editor about time the rational public stood up and supported the only truly sustainable industry practised in australia i also have had enough of the basketweaving,potsmoking,treehugging uninformed hippies that are slowly but surely destroying the country!!!!

  3. I can only agree with every element of this editorial. I would encourage any rational person to fully investigate any, and every claim made by PEG. DO not believe the biased propaganda peddled by PEG and the enviro-zelots involved in this group. If you are passionate about making a green difference and having your voice heard and listened too- do NOT follow the protocols and practices of this group.. Speak to people, talk and LISTEN, review, assess, LISTEN, discuss, debate, ask, question and treat people making decisions with RESPECT.. BEFORE you take the aggressive PEG /Green method of attack. Use your passion in a positive and constructive way. teach and assist before accusing and attacking those involved in works that you may not agree too.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s