News 
 State News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 General 
 Greenies again claim Qld tree clearing "out of control" 

Greenies again claim Qld tree clearing "out of control"

8/09/2008 11:54:00 AM
The World Wildlife Fund says land clearing in Queensland is still out of control despite the Government's ban on broadscale clearing methods.

The group claims land clearing accounts for 24pc of the State's greenhouse gas emissions.

According to WWF, the Statewide Landcover and Trees Study (SLATs) confirmed 375,000 hectares of forest was cleared in 2005-06, the equivalent of 5.1 million average-sized suburban blocks of land.

WWF says this was in spite of State laws banning broadscale clearing.

It claims legal loopholes - such as allowing landholders to control vegetation regrowth - have "allowed farmers to find new ways to clear an enormous and unacceptable amount of land".

WWF wants another clearing moratorium put in place in Queensland until "the loopholes are plugged in order to help reduce Queensland's carbon emissions, which are the highest for any state per capita in the country".

"There have been a lot of good intentions in recent years, but the fact remains total clearing is relatively unchanged from the 1990s," Nick Heath, WWF's Queensland program leader, said.

"Land clearing is still occurring on a huge scale, causing 41.1 million tonnes of carbon emissions and driving seriously threatened wildlife towards extinction."

At a conservative carbon price of $20 per tonne, closing these loopholes and protecting northern forests will save Queensland and Australia $800m per year.

WWF wants four "loopholes" closed to reduce clearing:

* the regrowth exemption: it says 10-14 million hectares of "recovering Queensland forests" can be cleared without a permit;

* fodder harvesting: WWF says more than 110,000 hectares of mulga is cleared or "harvested";

* urban, mining and infrastructure exemptions in small, but highly biodiverse areas; and

* boosted compliance to tackle unknown amounts of illegal clearing.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

Comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
The creative and arguably fraudulent use of statistics by WWF to inflame an issue and misrepresent the reality wastes more energy and only polarises genuinely concerned parties.
Posted by ian on 8/09/2008 2:41:50 PM
most of the trees cleared are over 70% dead and strict guidelines ARE inforced by the DNR. Also greenies never let the truth get in the road of a good story. Me thinks they cry wolf.
Posted by Richie 10 on 8/09/2008 6:45:33 PM
OLD NEWS ! NO LAWS BROKEN! Doesn't make a good headline does it? This story that WWF have latched on to all relates to perfectly legal clearing/fodder harvesting 3 years ago not 2008. I am a farmer who travels regularly across all regions of Australia by air and it continues to astound me how few people look out the window and take in our amazing country and see what is really happening down below. Most people on board are from urban areas and some are our decision makers, they could learn much from this simple activity. I have taken thousands of photos over the last 15 years that show a HUGE percentage of our land especially in the northern half of Australia is covered in natural scrub. I also note in the areas in the south where we have overcleared in the past line after line and clump after clump of trees have been successfully re-established. It is most unfortunate that groups such as WWF do not listen to the whole story. They certainly aren't allowing truth to get in the way of a sensational story. The modern farmer/grazier is attuned to his/her land and is diligently taking the utmost care to understand it, maintain and enhance it for the next generations.
Posted by Peter T on 9/09/2008 7:15:33 AM
The cane grower next to my orchard cleared 70 acres of about 30 year old regrowth when Beattie first threatened to stop clearing and has recleared that area a second time and has again let it grow a second time without using it.

Similarly, another cane growing neighbour has recently cleared small blocks which are not economical for a cane harvester to cut. Too often we are told farmers are the best placed to look after the land. These 2 examples illustrate that farmers make decisions that cost them and that add nothing to the value of their crop nor farm.

Posted by frank and alice Ekin on 9/09/2008 7:30:15 AM
That is a true statement that there are still loopholes in the system if you call good property management a loophole. If the WWF is so concerned with the activities it claims to be going on about then they should obtain the funds and buy out all of the properties in question so that the owners have a chance to get some return on their investment. But as far as I am aware there is no $20 per ton paid to the property owners for the carbon which is sequestered in the trees which they are being prevented from removing and those in the ongoing maintenance to ensure that they earn a return from agriculture. I am sure that all of those landholders that fall into the category of environmental vandal would gladly sit on the beach on the Gold Coast with the lights of the city glaring in the back drop rather then having to struggle to earn an income from agriculture in the environment that the WWF would like them to work in. I am sure I know who is doing the most in reducing the emission problems that Queensland is creating. So how come they do not share in the $800million stated as a cost to Queensland and receive income from a carbon trading scheme.

I say we put a moratorium on the wild statments made buy the people who contribute to emmissions that they do some thing about reducing their own carbon foot print.

Posted by worried on 9/09/2008 9:31:49 AM
How are we meant to grow crops with trees and there are more trees here in australia - look out west - there are grass flats that are now mulga hills. Every where is the same. Get ride of china and solve all the problems. and get ride of free trade.
Posted by BIlly on 9/09/2008 9:37:53 AM
A load of b...s... These greenies need to get their heads out of the sand. The real greenhouse gas emission problems lie in the cities and as a result of mining. Obviously they want all food producing farming activity in Aus to cease so we have to live on imported food which we have no control over (i.e. chemical use) and nor do we have control over supply. If there is a greenhouse gas problem with clearing it is with burning and not the clearing as such. In any case in the wet tropics more than three-quarters of the land area is 'locked up' in various ways - hardly a desperate situation!
Posted by greenie too on 9/09/2008 9:56:10 AM
This rubbish was around several years ago and they are just recycling with a few changes to the areas cleared. What they don't seem to realise is that to produce food we need cleared land. FOOD!! What do they eat? FOOD! If you don't eat you starve, then die. Import food I hear them say - what, be totally dependant on other countries to stay alive? Not likely. With a war they would starve you into submission in a couple of weeks. They need to get real.
Posted by Concerned Northerner on 9/09/2008 10:18:56 AM
Those greenies are out of control & going feral.
Posted by THE FARMER on 9/09/2008 4:24:35 PM
Dear Frank & Alice they farmers are the only ones to put their money where mouth is . If the truth be told farmers are not allowed to make decisions they are forced to make decisions by the same people who forced tree clearing originly, the real economic vandals who run this country. They just keep changing the goal posts as their brain evolves. What will they think of next to control the peasants?
Posted by Richie 10 on 13/09/2008 4:06:34 AM
1 | 2  |  next >

Post A Comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
File photo of anti-clearing protesters.
File photo of anti-clearing protesters.

Q: If a Federal election was held next weekend, for which party would you vote?

Labor
(12.2%)

Liberal
(38.2%)

Nationals
(27.5%)

Greens
(8.6%)

Family First
(1.7%)

Independent
(7.3%)

Undecided/Other
(4.5%)

Total Votes: 1040
Poll Date: 7/09/2008

11:11 AM AEST | Wool's ugly politics, seen at it's worst in recent months, will not change with new faces at Australian Wool Innovation; the problem is deeply rooted in the very structure of the body.
QCL Subscriptions
 
QCL Rate Card
 
Rural Bookshop
 
Horse Deals Australia
 
QCL - Mail Order Cataloge
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...