News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 Political 
 Anger at independent MPs on woodchips 

Anger at independent MPs on woodchips

10 Feb, 2012 06:18 AM
THE independent federal MPs Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor have backed out of what the Greens say was a ''critical'' part of the carbon tax deal, moving to allow the forestry industry to continue burning native woodchips as renewable energy.

In a manoeuvre that will infuriate conservationists, the two independents have moved to strike down regulations that were to tighten the definition of renewable energy to exclude electricity created from burning waste woodchips from native forests.

Since 1997, forestry firms have been able to earn renewable energy certificates, which can be sold for profit, by burning such woodchips in furnaces to create electricity.

The Greens leader, Bob Brown, said the regulations were a critical part of the carbon tax package agreed to by the multi-party climate change committee, made up of Labor, the Greens, Mr Oakeshott - who moved the disallowance yesterday - and Mr Windsor - who seconded it.

The legislation was passed last year, but some details are still being dealt with in the form of regulations.

''Rob Oakeshott signed up to this agreement as we all did and … I hope we all end up honouring it,'' Senator Brown said yesterday.

Conservationists say that defining native woodchip waste burning as renewable energy helps to boost the financial value of logging. Senator Brown said that it would be ''a swindle on the public who thought they were buying accredited sustainable energy''.

Neither Mr Oakeshott nor Mr Windsor could be reached for comment.

A spokesman for the Minister for Climate Change, Greg Combet, said the government would ''continue to work with members of the Parliament to progress changes to the eligibility of wood waste under the Renewable Energy Target to help protect our native forests''.

The Coalition climate action spokesman, Greg Hunt, said: ''We would be very interested in talking with Rob Oakeshott and Tony Windsor and we'll look at their proposal. Our view has always been that the government proposal would both destroy renewable energy from waste through biomass and destroy blue collar jobs.''

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
Once again, the greens demonstrate that their ideology takes primacy over any fact. In this case the fact is that when a tree is cut from a native forest the trees beside it can then grow to absorb the same amount of carbon, and more. If the tree is not cut then the trees beside it cannot grow at anywhere near the same rate.

The fact that new and existing trees can grow in any native forest makes power generated from that wood 100% renewable. The greens are in total denial of this most basic of facts and therefore are not fit and proper people to have any forest policy input.

Posted by Ian Mott, 10/02/2012 11:07:02 AM
The greens should take a look a the Pilliga Scrub, the sustainable forest harvesting was squashed and the timber companies that had opperated for generations are gone. And what do we have in its place, bloody toxic CSG wells, bulldozed areas, salt water spills pipelines and general environmental vandalism. Which is the cleaner, safer, sustainable enterprise, I expect the condition of this forest like many others will be a lot different than when the timber men were forced out after CSG is finished with it. Be carefull what you wish for because if you get it there is always a catch.
Posted by Liesandmorelies, 11/02/2012 12:07:48 AM

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.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
POLL
Q: Should Cattle Council get a proportion of the $5 transaction levy to boost funding of its operations?

Yes
(13.2%)

No
(46.8%)

Only if Cattle Council starts doing more to represent the beef industry
(31.1%)

The government should provide additional funding
(8.9%)

Total Votes: 447
Poll Date: 06 February, 2012



 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...