'Saving' Australia’s forests for carbon - valid science or 'green' activism?

The ANU research has ignored all these factors. In particular, its failure to consider the role of fire as the ultimate determinant of forest carbon storage is a stunning omission from scientists of such high standing. The magnitude of this flaw was emphasised when the February bushfires killed most “old growth” ash forest in the O’Shannessy catchment (north of Melbourne) which had been the study area for the most recent ANU research.

Forest carbon storage is clearly a complex matter. It cannot be simply assumed - as the Wilderness Society does - that “saving” forests from timber production is a climate change fix. Their campaign is also deceitful because it lumps Australia’s sustainable forestry (in which trees are harvested and regenerated), with deforestation in developing countries (where trees are permanently removed for another land use). It is the latter activity which is mostly responsible for a reported 18 per cent of the world’s carbon emissions.

Australian environmentalists view themselves as an ally of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). However, with regards to forests, they are out of step given that in 2007, the IPCC stated that:

In the long term, a sustainable forest management strategy aimed at maintaining or increasing forest carbon stocks, while producing an annual sustained yield of timber, fibre or energy from the forest, will generate the largest sustained mitigation benefit.

Deceptively avoiding inconvenient truths is almost expected of activists fixated on an ideological outcome. However, similar behaviour should be intolerable among scientists working for respected academic institutions carrying credibility for being apolitical and scientifically objective.

Unfortunately, there is a growing suspicion that the ANU scientists researching forest carbon have been less than objective since their Fenner School partnered the Wilderness Society to establish the ANU Wild Country Research and Policy Hub. The lead scientist working on forest carbon - Professor Brendan Mackey - is the Hub’s Director of Research and is responsible for its management.

The progress of the ANU’s forest carbon research thus far points to a disturbing slackening of academic process to assist the Wilderness Society’s political activism. As pointed out in an earlier article in On Line Opinion ("Blurring the lines between science and political activism", October 30, 2008), the Green Carbon paper by Mackey et al was part-funded by the Wilderness Society. However, more significantly, the paper failed to conform to accepted academic standards when:

• it was published without any technical data to support its findings;
• its key findings were publicly launched by its lead author (Professor Mackey) some nine months before it was published. This was at a Wilderness Society function held at the UN Climate Conference in Bali in November 2007;
• the pre-publication launch occurred before the academic peer review process had been completed;
• it was able to satisfy peer review standards without any supporting technical data. thereby raising concerns about the veracity of the peer review process;
• one of the peer reviewers was Emeritus Professor Henry Nix, Chairman of the Wild Country Hub’s Advisory Board and co-Chair of the Wilderness Society’s Wild Country Science Council of which the paper’s lead author, Professor Mackey, is also a member; and
• also prior to publication, the paper’s findings were made available to Wilderness Society members to assist them in making submissions to the Garnaut Climate Change Review.

The key finding of the Green Carbon paper that halting native forest timber production will give superior carbon accounting outcomes fits neatly with the Wilderness Society’s position articulated in its Forests and Woodlands Policy:

The Wilderness Society “does not support the use of native forests to supply woodchips for pulp, wood for power generation, charcoal production, commercial firewood, or timber commodities”.

The recent release of a follow-up paper by three of the same ANU scientists has raised further concerns. While this new paper is more measured and does not directly advocate closing timber industries, the timing of its publication and the activities of the authors have again been integral to the current round of carbon-based political activism.

The most recent phase of the environmental movement’s carbon campaign appears to have been specifically designed to coincide with Federal parliamentary debate about a proposed carbon pollution reduction scheme. As can be seen below, the recently released ANU research is integral to this: