Burning native forests for power - a lifeline to the woodchippers

Deliberate forestry burns in logged areas of high conservation value forest, Southern Tasmania. Photo: Rob Blakers. (click for larger image)

Native forest bioenergy: bad for climate change and bad for our forests.

In response to diminishing global demand for native forest woodchips, Australia’s native forest logging industry is pushing a particularly destructive power generation option. Native forest-based electricity generators are seen as a lifeline to an ailing woodchip industry, but they could be a perverse outcome of a community funded scheme that is designed to facilitate genuine renewable energy options such as wind and solar and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Burning native forests to produce electricity jeopardises our ancient forests and the survival of threatened species that depend upon them. It could also make global warming worse. The Federal Government is currently bringing in a 20% national renewable energy target, meaning that 20% of the Australia’s electricity supply must come from renewable sources. If burning native forests is included in this target, it would push aside truly renewable energy sources and undermine Australia’s ability to make the deep cuts in greenhouse pollution needed to avoid dangerous climate change.

Energy generated from burning native forests has been ruled out by all state governments except Western Australia and Tasmania. In addition, renewable energy retailers such as GreenPower have specifically rejected endorsing native forest-generated power [1].

There is an existing wood waste bioenergy proposal in Western Australia, located near Manjimup, that is about to be approved by the Government. This proposal is 100% based on plantation waste (from bluegums and pine trees grown on cleared farmland) and does not have the environmental impacts associated with native forest power generators. However, until a legislated ban on native forest inputs to all bioenergy plants is enacted, there is a risk that future wood inputs may by changed to accept native forest products.

In Tasmania there are three separate proposals for wood-fired power generators which would burn native forests of high conservation value. One of these proposals is at Gunns’ controversial Tamar Valley pulp mill. 500,000 tonnes [2] of green forest products would be burnt at the pulp mill each year. The renewable energy subsidy this would receive is an important factor in the profitability of the pulp mill proposal.

Native forests release huge amounts of greenhouse pollution when they are logged.

Logged forests typically contain between 40% and 60% less carbon than unlogged forests [3]. A recent Forestry Tasmania study shows that by 2030, the logging of Tasmania’s commercial native forest estate will result in the loss of 28% of the carbon that is currently safely stored as living forest [4]. Given the urgency in the global task of combating climate change, to continue this massive level of carbon emissions for decades is inexcusable.

It is not only the science of carbon and climate change that is a powerful argument against native forest bioenergy. Biodiversity impacts, especially with invertebrates that rely on the coarse woody debris on the forest floor, will be particularly bad as successive harvest rotations reduce the natural structure of the forest and push species closer to extinction.

A 2006 Federal Court ruling found that logging in a Tasmanian forest was not able to ensure the survival of three key threatened species and would push them closer to extinction [5]. Even Forestry Tasmania acknowledge the issue and have said that “the issue of waste raises interesting issues, as we now understand the importance of maintaining course woody debris on the forest floor for future maintenance of forest biodiversity, therefore the retention of logging residues is seen as an environmental necessity" [6].

The case for native forest-based power generation is not supported by science. It is a desperate bid by the logging industry to establish domestic facilities to consume the wood the rest of the world does not want to buy. In time, just like export woodchipping, it will drive destructive logging practices in old-growth and high conservation value forests that should instead be preserved to protect carbon stores, biodiversity and water supplies.

As the Federal Government grapples with Australia’s response to climate change and the policy decisions it must adopt, it is critically important that they hear the voice of all Australians. Contact them today to express your opposition to the logging industry’s plans to burn native forests for electricity. Let them know you support truly renewable energy options like wind and solar, and the need to preserve the massive amounts of safety stored carbon by protecting native forests.

Take action

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd
PO Box 6022
House of Representatives
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
Tel: (02) 6277 7700
Visit www.pm.gov.au to send him an email

Federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett
PO Box 6022
House of Representatives
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
Tel: (02) 6277 7640
peter.garrett.mp@aph.gov.au

Federal Climate Change and Water Minister Penny Wong
PO Box 6022
House of Representatives
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
(02) 6277 7920
senator.wong@aph.gov.au

More Information

• learn more about how our forests are crucial carbon stores
  

References

[1] Simon Miller, Acting Director-General, New South Wales Department of Water and Energy. Letter to Senator Bob Brown. August 2007.
 
[2] Gunns Ltd (July 2006) Bell bay Pulp Mill, Draft Integrated Impact Statement. Transport and Traffic Assessment, p.69

[3] Dean, C., Mackey, B.G., and Roxburgh, S.H. (2003), Growth Modelling of Eucalyptus regnans for carbon accounting at the landscape scale, In: Amaro, A., Reed, D., Soares, P. (eds.), Modelling Forest systems, CABI Publishing, Walliford, U.K

[4] MBAC (2007), Forestry Tasmania’s Carbon Sequestration Position
http://www.forestrytas.com.au/uploads/File/pdf/2007-75%20FT%20Carbon%20Report%20Dec%202007.pdf

[5] Brown v Forestry Tasmania (No 4) [2006] FCA 1729 (19 December 2006)
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/2006/1729.html

[6] Hans Drielsma, Executive General Manager. Forestry Tasmania, 22 December 2005.
http://www.forestrytas.com.au/forestrytas/media_releases/two_visions_for_tasmania.htm