Deceptive timber

Recently there have quite a few queries on this BB regarding the sourcing of timber: from native forests or recycled. Looking back through the archive it becomes obvious that the majority of woodworkers prefer to use recycled timber for many reasons, not the least of which being that we do not want endangered native forests being felled to provide timber for our use.

Some posts recently appear to have been persuaded by the logging and woodchipping industry line that native forest logging is conducted in a sustainable manner, nothing could be further from the truth. You will all be aware that multinational industries and government regularly tell lies and deceive people about what they are doing. There are very large PR firms employed to specifically deceive the people of Australia as to what is happening in our native forests, that they are being trashed and chipped, with a small percentage of timber being used for furniture grade applications.

The vast majority of logs from native forest logging goes to woodchip production. For example, logging in the Central Highlands of Victoria, the water catchments for Melbourne have some horrifying statistics, gathered from industry and government sources by ABARE.
72% goes to woodchip, only 2% goes as appearance timber with 16% going to palings, pallets, scantingling and seasoned timber production.

It is even worse in Tasmania, this state is on par with the worst environment practices in the world for logging. You might have noticed that recently the Tasmanian government has allowed logging in the Tarkine wilderness, an act of supreme environmental vandalism.

I won't barrage woodworkers on this list with more statistics, anyone that wants them is welcome to email me for further details: [email protected]. I have added a quote from experts on the certification process.
Suresh Pathy

“The ecoSelect brand is nothing more than a public relations stunt invented by the woodchipping industry, in conjunction with the Timber Promotions Council, costing as much as $1 million in tax payer funded dollars.

To the timber industry, ecoSelect means business as usual logging and woodchipping of old growth forests, water catchments and homes for endangered flora and fauna. There is no difference between ecoSelect timber and other similar timbers on the market. Put simply, ecoSelect timber is amongst the most environmentally unfriendly timber products available.

The environment movement strongly rejects the ecoSelect label as an environmentally friendly product. Current intensive clearfell logging and woodchipping practices are destroying Victoria’s biodiverse native forests at an unprecedented rate. By buying ecoSelect, you are unwittingly contributing to this ongoing destruction.

ecoSelect is the deceptive branding of a highly destructive industry. It is the ultimate in corporate Greenwash.”

Hey Suresh

I remember reading this same blurb in a Wilderness Society handout from one of those idiots who walk around in Koala outfits...that is when they (the greenies, not the koalas) are not damaging ancient trees in old-growth forests by climbing all over them as a media stunt.

Interestingly you'll find they use a large multi-national PR firm to pen their spin (so whose to be believed?)....and get this, the leaflet I was handed WASN'T printed on re-cycled paper!

My concern is that if the died-in-the-wool greenies (who are also the ones controlling the organisations pushing Suresh's line) had their way woodworking for a hobby would eventually be branded as an elitest pursuit which uses a valuable and finite resource, and if it wasn't outlawed then it would certainly become regulated, licensed and controlled, similar to what's happening now to the amateur fishmen.

Maybe instead of spending all their time, energy and (other people's) money employing PR flacks and government lobbiests to campaign their personal ideology the greenies could be doing something more constructive - like collecting and recycling all the wood I see jutting from curb-side dump bins outside renovation and building sites in the city and suburbs, which is otherwise mainly destined for landfill.

Not to say you are a radical greenie Suresh but regurgitating their spin, without adding any clarity (with a more balanced argument) on what is a slightly more complex issue than you purport to believe, sure means you're following their wagon...if you're not already on it, that is.

Personally I support the notion of fertilising our forests...starting by 'dozing in a fair swag of greenies.