Tuesday, December 07, 2010

Australia must lead on forests at Cancun

Dear Minister Combet,

I’m writing to urge you and your government to avoid giving the timber industries special conditions by creating massive loopholes on forestry in a global climate treaty.

Developed countries such as ours need to play a bold leadership role to get the talks back on track. It’s time for us to lead, please ensure that Australia supports honest and complete accounting of emissions from forestry and land use at the current UN climate negotiations in Cancun, Mexico.

The world can’t afford accounting tricks -- what is needed is real, science-based climate action.

I believe that protecting forests is a very important action we can take as one measure for tackling climate change.


Peter Campbell
Home address supplied

Send your own letter via Avaaz.org: Trees not Tricks

1 comment:

Grant said...

Hardwood forestry is a minefield all Governments try to avoid. All Governments know that they need x million meters of hardwood each year, and if their country does not produce enough, they will need to import the shortfall.
I believe that Australia imports millions of meters from countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea to meet our short fall, and will need to keep importing for decades, reducing imports as sufficient hardwood plantations come on stream.
The only immediate alternatives are increased aluminium and steel production to replace the hardwood, with the resultant large increases of emissions from the production of these alternatives. Some companies are currently using alternatives, a simple example is railway sleepers, but how much polutionis generated making concrete sleepers. A few houses around our area have steel frames, but these are causing problems as non standard spacing needs to be used, making maintenance a nightmare.
I believe that the Fed Gov aims for reduction in Hardwood harvesting and are working toward this objective.
As for emissions from rural farming, I don't think anybody has been able to logically find a reasonable way of calculating.
The catch with both is to find ways for calculating emissions without increasing costs to the average family, which, as the previous Victorian Gov found out with energy costs rising, is political suicide (our local Labor member just got evicted on 2 major issues,
1. Transport reliability
2. Rising costs of energy)
In desperation, the Govs are now implementing energy subsidies to many families, and as costs rise, these will need to be extended, or energy companies regulated to reduce costs. If costs keep rising, next election the new Vic Gov will also be in trouble.