09/27/01 -- AUSTRALIA: We can't afford to cut down our forests for power

AUSTRALIA: We can't afford to cut down our forests for power

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, representing hundreds of thousands of members and even more supporters, has 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 clear-felling of native forests around the country, and the dire consequences on species survival.

In reply to the CSIRO's John Raison (Herald, September 25), 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 burns its managed forests (what we would consider to be plantations). But there are very significant differences between Sweden and Australia's energy sectors and forestry industries. One of the most significant issues is how much it costs to extract forestry waste from the forest floor. The Swedes pay more than $100 a tonne to pick up forest waste from their managed forest estate. Yet proponents of burning forest for power in Australia will pay no more than $25 a tonne delivered to the facility. There is no equipment in Australia's native forests for picking up and transporting genuine waste. So how will the industry afford it? Will it make taxpayers cover the difference, as it has done with the woodchip industry to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars a year? The fact is that they will cut down more trees because it is the only economic alternative.

There are a range of reasons why Sweden will pay $100 a tonne of forest that do not apply to Australia. First, 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 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 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. Also, while Australian governments continue to use taxpayers' money to facilitate the clear-felling 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 1 or 2 per cent increase in renewable energy production, Germany has committed to 10 times that amount. While Australia continues to increase its global lead in greenhouse gas emissions per person, nations such as 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 such as the CSIRO would be linking their industry with the practices of the woodchip industry in this country.

According to a nationwide Morgan Poll in March, about 88 per cent of Australians oppose the establishment of wood-fired power stations burning native forests. This opposition stems from decades of watching the woodchip industry devastate our native forests. The woodchippers have always used the waste lie; the same lie which has 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 spiel. 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 is the Wilderness Society's NSW campaign manager. Error: Unable to read footer file.