Burning Forests for Power - We Cannot Afford It

Decades of on-the-ground experience by the environment movement in Australia provides perspective on the real agenda behind plans to burn native forests for power.

The environment movement in Australia, representing hundreds of thousands of members and even more supporters, have opposed the use of native forests for the generation of electricity since the concept was first touted. The most obvious reasons include concerns about the continuation and intensification of clearfelling of native forests around the country, and the dire consequences on species survival.

In this reply to John Raison's editorial (SMH 26/9/01), The Wilderness Society would like to address one of the most important issues facing those who believe that burning forests for power will be good for the environment- how can we afford it?

The focus of Raison's argument appeared to be the use of forest biomass in electricity production in Sweden and Germany. Sweden currently burns their 'managed forests' (what we would consider to be plantations). Yet there are some very significant differences between what happens in Sweden and what happens here with both the energy sector and the forestry industry.

One of the most significant issues is how much it costs to actually extract forestry waste from the forest floor. The Swedes pay over $A100 per tonne to pick up forest waste from their managed forest estate. Yet the proponents of burning forest for power in Australia will pay no more than $A25 per tonne delivered to the facility. There is currently no equipment in Australia's native forests for picking up genuine waste. There is no loading equipment and no trucks suitable for transporting the branches and butts of trees. So how will the industry be able to afford it? Will they just make the taxpayer cover the difference, as they have done with the woodchip industry to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars per year? The fact is that they will cut down more trees because it is the only economic alternative.

There are a range of reasons that Sweden will pay $100 per tonne of forest that do not apply to Australia. Firstly, the Swedes pay much more for electricity than Australians, so their power generators are willing to pay higher costs. Second, the Swedish and German governments have committed to decommission all of their nuclear power plants, leaving a significant shortfall in power supply, and a willingness to invest in newer technologies. Third, these nations have a real commitment to reducing their reliance on fossil fuels which is completely absent in Australia, as evidenced by our performance on the Kyoto Protocol. Also, the Swedes have committed to planting forests for power generation, and are currently planting many more trees than they use.

In Australia this sensible option of growing specific purpose energy crops, which would also restore seriously degraded rural land and improve land quality has been excluded under the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act, in favour of burning so-called 'forest waste'.

The final significant difference between nations like Sweden or Germany, and Australia is in their approach to environmental issues. While Australian governments continue to use taxpayers money to facilitate the clearfelling of old growth and wilderness forests, these European nations are closing nuclear power plants. While Australia continues to clear hundreds of thousands of hectares of land for agriculture, Sweden plants more trees than it consumes. While Australia commits to a one or two percent increase in renewable energy production, Germany has committed to ten times that amount. While Australia continues to increase its global lead in greenhouse gas emissions per person, nations like Sweden and Germany are aggressively cutting their already relatively low outputs.

When approached, representatives of the biomass industry in Sweden were appalled by the idea of burning high conservation value native forests for power generation. They would be very concerned that an Australian government agency like the CSIRO would be linking their industry with the practices of the woodchip industry in this country.

88% of Australians oppose the establishment of wood-fired power stations burning native forests (independent nationwide Morgan Poll, 13-14th March, 2001). This opposition stems from decades of watching the woodchip industry devastate our native forests. The woodchippers have always used the waste lie. The same lies which have perpetuated an industry which now exports 7.5 million tonnes of forest per year. The same industry which was supposed to pick up the millions of tonnes of waste from the forest floor that John Raison talked about, and which has never occurred.

Proponents of burning native forests for power are the same agencies supporting export woodchipping, and are using the same sales pitch. Unfortunately for them, no-one believes the lies. Unfortunately for us, and all the species dependent on the survival of our great old forests, there are still some very powerful agencies hell-bent on giving Australia this despicable industry.

It is clear that Australia cannot afford to burn our native forests for electricity, either financially or environmentally.

Glen Klatovsky

The Wilderness Society