Cutting down trees and destroying forests is akin to deliberate suicide. The trees are the only lungs of the planet and the ONLY way we currently have of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Technology has come up with no solutions to this problem and even reduced emissions are cumulative and will still increase the inherent dangers. It is a non sequitur to argue jobs in forestry, for if we go down that path, we increase the speed of climate change. ‘Jobs’ will sound a little hollow once the atmosphere has been destroyed. Surely there must be more work available in saving the world, rather than destroying it!

In your TV interview you stated that your group supported using Tasmanian land to grow pulp mill feedstock.

Isn’t that going to significantly increase the probability of a pulp mill?

And the “artificial conflict between protecting jobs and protecting ancient forests” looks a lot more like a real conflict between one industry attempting to monopolise and remove a public resource for its own ends, versus a survival strategy of retaining those forests.

Why have you called this ‘artificial’? Upon what facts is that idea based?

What were the compelling reasons that you folks came out in support of using scarce resources like land and water to produce pulp mill feedstock anyway?

Without those answers it’s just going to look like you propose to use our common ground to produce more pulp mill feedstocks.