Dear Members of Parliament, AYCC members and all others who may be concerned,
Today Mr. Robert Oakeshott MP circulated a letter outlining the reasons for his moving a disallowance motion on the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Regulations 2011 (No.5).
The Australian Youth Climate Coalition 60,000 members are deeply concerned about this, for the following two reasons:
1. It displaces renewable energy such as wind and solar, which we need to invest in to get us on a path to a nation powered by clean, safe energy.
2. It incentivises the continued and increased destruction of native forests, which are important carbon stores.
Finally, we are concerned that Mr Oakeshott is going back on his deal to pass the entire carbon price package as it was agreed in the Multi-Party Climate Change Committee last year. Removing native forest burning from the RET was a key part of the package, and this should be upheld.
Please find attached our full response to the letter circulated by Mr. Oakeshott MP.
Kind regards,
Ellen Sandell
National Director
Australian Youth Climate Coalition
Point 1
Rob Oakeshott refers to a recommendation to the Government (from the ‘Standing Committee on Agriculture, Resources, Fisheries and Forestry). They recommended that bioenergy from native forests should qualify as renewable energy where it is a true waste product, not where it’s a driver for the harvesting of native forests.
Our response:
We agree that we should definitely not cut down native forests in order to burn them for ‘renewable energy’ – but that waste products might be OK.
However, the problem is, this is exactly what the native forest industry said about woodchipping over the last few decades. They said “we’re only going to woodchip the waste products, we won’t be chopping down old growth trees specifically for woodchips” – however, what happened in reality was that woodchipping became a driver for destroying our native forests, particularly in Victoria and Tasmania.
Also, it’s been found that over 90% of logs are woodchipped, with hardly any going to ‘high value’ products like furniture. See: http://weblog.greenpeace.org/tasmania/styx_background.html
http://www.oren.org.au/logging/woodchips/12ninety.htm
This means we are chopping down our native forests for a low-quality product like woodchips. This doesn’t make sense when native forests have a range of benefits: biodiversity, carbon, fresh air, which are much more valuable than woodchips.
Now, unfortunately the woodchip industry has collapsed, and the native forest industry seems to be looking for the next thing that will earn money. We cannot allow this to be burning our native forest trees for energy. We should be using solar and wind for renewables, and leaving our native forests to be carbon stores and habitat for native animals.
Secondly, if it is economically feasible for waste products to be used as energy (and the carbon price will help make it more feasible), the industry will do this – we’re not trying to stop that. However, the industry shouldn’t be given extra money (from Renewable Energy Certificates), because this money is really supposed to be earmarked for investing in reliable renewable technology like solar and wind, which are much more in need of a leg-up if we’re going to transition to a renewable energy economy.
Point 2
Mr Oakeshott reiterates that he would allow burning native forests under the Renewable Energy Target only if it was waste and in accordance with the principles of ecologically sustainable management.
Our response:
Unfortunately, we have seen this is often not the case, such as the example of woodchipping (above in point 1).
However, even if we’re only talking about using waste products, our main concern is that if we give native forest harvesting an extra leg-up, by allowing them to make even more money from their waste products, it makes logging native forests more profitable overall, and will incentivise native deforestation and degradation. At the moment, we need to be keeping our forests as carbon stores – because we need to be doing everything we can to address climate change.
Money set aside for renewable energy should be invested in technologies that are likely to provide us with large-scale, reliable energy into the future – such as solar and wind – not in burning wood, which is inefficient and won’t end up providing a significant source of our energy needs. Sure, it might be better than coal, but it’s not going to be a large-scale solution to our energy needs as a nation – and we should be using the RET to promote energy that will be part of this large-scale solution.
Point 3
Mr Oakeshott states that not one more tree will be cut down because of this motion. He says this is only a debate to do with the waste. He also says that approximately 5% of a pulp-log, and at most 15% of a saw-log is waste.
waste?
Our response:
For a start, his figures are a bit wrong: up to 65% of a native-forest sawlog can be counted as waste and pulp logs (ie. woodchip logs) are all waste (because the industry says they only pulp/woodchip stuff that is defined as ‘waste’). All of this could now be burnt for energy as it’s classified as ‘waste’.
Secondly, if we give native forest loggers more income (because they can now get extra profit from selling Renewable Energy Certificates for burning their waste) – it means native forest logging becomes more profitable overall, so of course more of it will happen!
It may not increase native forest logging, but it seems like this would be a pretty logical outcome (of course if something becomes more profitable, more people will start doing it – that’s the free market)
Also, again, we reckon it’s not true that only waste will be used.
Also, again, we’re not banning the use of waste products as biomass energy – we’re just saying the Renewable Energy Target should be reserved for renewable energy that is going to be part of the large-scale renewable energy solutions we need – like wind and solar.
Point 4
Mr Oakeshott asks why plantation forests are allowed to burn their waste as renewable energy, but native forests can’t – and says this is inconsistent.
Our response:
This is because plantations are very different from native forests. Native forests are habitat for important species, and studies show they store lots and lots of carbon (much more than plantations), and when we log them, this carbon is released.
(See a study from ANU on this here: http://epress.anu.edu.au/titles/green-carbon)
We’re not against using plantation waste as renewable energy, we’re just against using native forest logging as renewables, for the reasons listed in points 1 to 3 above.
He also makes an error here – Australia does not import logs.
Point 5
Mr Oakehsott says that native forests are not the same as ‘old growth’ or ‘pristine’ forests. He says all old growth forests in Australia today are protected and logging in native forest is mostly re-growth, with all trees less than 30 years old.
Our response:
This is unfortunately incorrect – we still log our old growth forests today in Victoria and Tasmania – cutting down trees that are much older than 30 years old.
Here’s some of the evidence:
1. Last year, the Climate Commission released a report showing how stopping logging our Old Growth Forests would save tonnes of carbon: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/conservation/forest-logging-a-big-carbon-culprit-20110523-1f0vv.html
2. Here’s evidence that a local group in Tasmania found, that the forest industry was planning on logging a tree that was 250 years old!
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-02-06/20120206-green-groups-claim-evidence-of-old-growth-logging/3813488
3. Here’s a campaign that forestry groups in Tasmania ran in 2010 saying we can’t stop logging old growth forests (if we didn’t log them already, why would they run this campaign?).
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-02-25/forestry-warns-of-old-growth-logging-halt/343258
Point 6
Mr Oakeshott says, out of interest, that Australia has 147 million hectares of mapped and ecologically sustainable native forests under management, and 1.87 million hectares of plantation forest.
Our response:
We don’t disagree with this – but it isn’t really relevant here. The fundamental point is that we are still logging native, old growth forest, and giving forestry industries an incentive to log them and burn the products, rather than keep the trees in the ground as carbon stores, seems a bit silly to us.
Point 7:
Mr Oakeshott says that Australia has a trade deficit in wood and paper products of $1.9 billion, exporting $2.48 billion, and importing $4.4 billion. In 2010-2011, we imported 846,000 cubic metres of sawn timber, 487,000 cubic metres of wood based panels, 1.89 million tonnes of paper and paperboard, and 233,000 tonnes of wood pulp.
Our response:
This point implies that we should be aiming to expand our forestry industry to increase Australia’s supply of wood and paper products. This point is only relevant if you remove the false assumption that Oakshott’s entire argument rests upon: including waste biomass from native forestry as renewable energy does not incentivise further harvesting.
The reality is, this is false. Including waste biomass from native forests as renewable energy will further increase deforestation and degradation in Australia, because it will provide greater economic incentives to harvest native forests. This is in direct opposition to what the science is telling us is necessary to address the climate crisis: shift energy investment away from fossil fuels to renewable sources and utilise the world’s greatest carbon sinks, native forests, to reduce emissions rapidly.
Point 8:
Mr Oakeshott says: as an example for consideration, I attach a media release from local NSW Mid-North Coast timber flooring processor named Australian Solar Timbers (AST). This business currently uses about 20-25% of the town of Kempsey’s electricity supply and is looking to invest in the use of existing wood waste to reduce costs and reduce the supply demands on the electricity grid for Kempsey. Through the use of waste that would otherwise just be buried or burnt, it is a sensible investment in lowering energy demands on the Mid-North Coast, and encouraging a business to be creative in its use of waste. For me, the very point of an emissions trading scheme and the associated renewable targets is to facilitate business choices and investments such as this one.
Our response:
Reducing carbon emissions at a business and national level is something we all need to be active in. We know that the most cost-effective way to do this is to undertake energy efficiency measures (which will reduce energy demand by up to 50%) and invest in solar and wind energy, which can power Australia with 100% renewable energy.
There is nothing stopping any small timber business in burning excess wood to reduce their heating or other energy demands. It does not make economic sense, however, to provide monetary incentives to do this, while simultaneously reducing incentives to transition to real renewable energy sources – solar and wind – which would allow thousands of small business owners to reduce their carbon emissions.
As we’ve said before – the RET should be used for energy solutions that will contribute to our large-scale future renewable energy needs – like wind and solar.
Lastly, today’s letter stated:
“The Australian Youth Climate Coalition, and others, have been widely circulating emails
suggesting this disallowance will lead to an increase in native forests being burnt, will
lead to more woodchips being made, and generally arguing that this will lead to more
forest destruction in Australia. In response, please read the above eight reasons why
such statements are all factually incorrect.”
We feel that based on our responses to Mr Oakeshott’s 8 points above, it is clear that AYCC members are right to be concerned that this motion will lead to a bad outcome for the climate and for our native forests. We believe none of the eight reasons presented by Mr Oakeshott provide evidence to the contrary.
Over 100 members of the AYCC chipped in today to buy an ad in the Port Macquarie News, encouraging him to withdraw his motion. These donations ranged from $2 to $50, and this shows how committed young Australians are to seeing good outcomes for the climate and our future.
We still strongly believe that Mr Oakeshott wants to do the right thing by the climate, and do the right thing by young and future generations. We know he’s a man of integrity and principle – and we applaud him for his advocacy on strong action on climate change.
We encourage him to withdraw his motion.
Yours sincerely,
The Australian Youth Climate Coalition.
