wisemonkey

Forests that are harvested lose far more carbon than they ever regain. Forestry operates in 50-70 year rotations, yet scientists at ANU have assessed that it would take 152 years to regain 90% of the carbon, so they are not carbon neutral. The clearfell and burn technique employed by the logging industry in Australia releases massive amounts of carbon including from soil, woody debris and non-target species which are currently not accounted for. It has been demonstrated that with logging practices, carbon stored in a Mixed species forest reduces from around 1500tC/ha to 380tC/ha. The latest research is indicating that previous work has grossly undercalculated the amount of carbon in forests. Some wet Mountain Ashin Victoria contain as much as 2500tC/ha. While plantation/farm forestry is better than native forest & old growth logging 100% post-consumer recycled is the number 1 environmental choice. Difficulty is when you have a brand that produces both recycled and forest sourced paper, what do you do? I say go with the brands that only do recycled, SAFE & Naturale for toilet paper/tissues etc & at the moment I believe Evolve is the best brand for copy paper.

It depends what you want to do. There are always groups like The Wilderness Society if you are interested in politics and the like, or there are groups as mentioned like conservation volunteers australia who do tree planting. You could see if your state government needs volunteers for flora or fauna surveys as well. I would expect there to be a local Climate Action Group too

Hi all I dont think I've posted for about 6 months, anyway here goes Nuclear power is the last thing we need. It costs billions to build with no plant world wide ever being built to budget. No plant has ever been successfully decommissioned. It is all very well to say the energy production is cheap, but you cannot just ignore the building and dismantling costs which are enormous. Nuclear power is in no way clean or green, recent earthquakes in Japan resulted in leaks from a power station. It is still the most toxic substance every created and the only solution we have is to dig a hole in the ground. You might think they have some advanced storage facility, but all they do is bury it with some lining and hope it never reaches the groundwater. What we need to focus on is energy efficiency first. We actually produce & use far more energy than we need to carry out the required tasks. Our electricity grid is outdated, flowing only in one direction, losing energy along the way. If we had a system where energy can flow in both directions, then renewables would be much more effective. Nuclear power would only divert funding from renewables, it would take at least 10-15 years between a decision being made and power being produced with coal being used in the interim. Climate change requires action now. Nuclear power is also the most water intesive form of energy. In a continent predicted to go through increasing drought it is innappropriate. Hopefully now that Johnny's gone, it is no longer on the agenda

if its yellow I go outside

I had a quick look through the projects, most seemed ok. Some included maintaining carbon sinks, some included programs such as changing light-bulbs etc. My problem with this sort of thing is that often these programs do little to pull carbon out of the atmosphere, and some such as changing the light-bulbs still allow for growth in emissions while claiming to be reducing them. The idea of being able to buy the right to pollute has some fundamental flaws however it is probably an inevitable first step towards drastic emissions reduction. There are opportunities to engage in ecological restoration as well as offset carbon, but whether this kind of program will ultimately slow down or speed up the transition to a low carbon economy is yet to be seen. There are other companies not registered on the Australian Government scheme(and anything endorsed by the feds related to climate makes me suspicious) which offer some good offset systems. A lot of what these systems sell is guilt avoidance, but we must find out when purchasing what checks and balances are in place to ensure that what we pay for is actually reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and not just trusting that somebody will install those light-bulbs.

Always Good to a see a Green mechanic. As mentioned in other post just remember palm oil is being planted on Orangutan Habitat and sold as vegetable oil. Make sure what you buy is not supporting this practice

I did some reading a couple of years back in Renew magazine that most solar panels could payback its energy production in three years, some less than two. That grew to eleven if you used a battery. Citings of solar panels not paying back electricity come from the early days of space travel, as paying back the energy was not the objective.

Sure I am a bit technotarded. Will learn to use computer one day

I think I found one...

I agree, hydro is dodgy. That is why it is better to ask specifically for wind or solar. There is a real trend in environmental industries to employ people who know fuck all about the issues, all they are good at is selling shit.

I have friends in Melbourne who run their cars on biofuels no worries. One of the problems is that the oils contain natural detergents and actually loosen all the gunk that previous diesel use has left behind and this gets stuck in the filter. This is only a temporary thing as long as the filter is replaced after each tank for the first three or four tanks, until all the gunk is gone, then it should be clean from thereon in. And yes diesel engines were originally designed for oils and fats.

One of the reasons only touched upon in this article is that palm oil, often labelled vegetable oil is fast becoming the major source of biofuels worldwide as well as being put into many products we buy from the superrmarket. This is the single greatest contributor to deforestation in Indonesia & Malaysia destroying orangutan habitat and releasing vast amounts more CO2 than biofuels can ever save.

We use a bucket or a plug in our shower and other sinks and have grown vegies all year round with it. Just dont do this when shampooing or using chemicals.

I would agree with paradox, I think here would be a good space for stuff such as old growth forest (a favourite topic of mine). Potentially the title of the forum could encompass this a little more but I believe many environmental issues including sustainability are inextricably linked.

Some green energy is good some is crap like anything you have to ask more than the salesman is actually able to tell you. Check out http://www.acfonline.org.au/uploads/res_Gr...ricityWatch.pdf for a scorecard and raring of many of the options. If you get it for exactly the same price as normal electricity it probably isnt one of the best ones. If you want more detail contact ACF direct. Windpower placed in the wrong location can be very bad, but if planned properly offers electicity generation comparably priced to coal. I dont agree that its all a farce, although there is a large amount of greenwash going on. It is important to ask questions of the salespeople as they need to educate themselves on these issues related to the way their product is built. If your money is going towards investment in renewable energy even if that energy isnt the precise electrons reaching your home then that is better than continuing to use coal. It is also a statement that if you are offered the choice of green or not at the same price and you choose green.