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.