The Tasmanian forest industry feels it satisfies it's smoke obligation by posting a daily map of it's proposed deliberate burns for the day on the internet.
When any private forest companies burn, their burns disappear. They do not appear on the 'burning now' map. How good is that?
Tasmania is hiding its burns from the public.
Not everybody has access to the internet, and those who do can not keep 'logging' on (excuse the pun) to their site all day in case there are updates. Why should the general public, and in particular susceptible groups, have to have their lives run and ruined by forestry polluting our air with their waste?
Forestry has had to publicly defend it's actions for smoking out Tasmania by admitting they got their "air modelling wrong".
Even when they "get it right" Tasmanian's still have to breathe their smoke.
In Tasmania it is impossible to predict wind direction. The wind quite often blows to all four points of the compass in one day. If a burn is lit in the morning, later in the day large communities are being smoked out. There are many burns alight at once and the burns last for days and cannot be extinguished. The Bureau of Meterology acknowledges the short comings of smoke modelling with all methods available to us at this time.
Forestry's aim is to put the maximum amount of smoke they can into an airshed. They do not worry about what other burns are taking place in the state at the time.
The forest industry claims they have to burn. They say:
"Fire is a vital and necessary part of the life cycle of Tasmania's eucalypt forests and by conducting these burns we are mimicking the natural process.,"
This is absolute nonsense. Forestry are burning on a much shorter rotation than any natural fire could occur.
Then there was this...
It was reported in the Mercury newspaper (3/9/2008) by Forestry Tasmania’s assistant general manager Michael Wood that the fuel wood being transported to Japan would have just been burnt. He claims there could be up to a million tonnes a year of this fuel wood spread across Tasmania.
Bob Gordon states in the same article,”… instead of wood in forests being burnt to create a seedbed for eucalypts..” he would like to see it feeding wood fired power stations.
What does this tell us?
That these so called forestry regeneration burns are not regeneration burns at all. They are forestry operation residue burns or rubbish burns because if they can send the wood to Japan or use it in power stations then they are now stating there is no need for eucalypt forests to be regenerated by fire, there is no need for an ash seedbed, there is no need for smoke!.
Forestry Tasmania's Fire Management branch manager Tony Blanks said the burns were expected to run throughout the Autumn.
Forestry do not have to burn. Plantation seedlings are raised in nurseries, so why all the smoke?
TONY BLANKS: "So it means that even though we generate smoke, we can't absolutely guarantee that there will be a direct benefit as a result of it."- ABC Stateline 20/8/2010
The forest industry claims the burns are "regeneration burns."
The burns being done are mostly residue burns, not regeneration burns. Forestry are burning rubbish left behind after they have logged or cleared an area. In other words forestry can not even clean up their own mess, without making another mess.
In haste to replant, the forest industry sets fire to their residue when a lot of it is still green.
What is "cost shifting? Cost shifting is when forestry perform residue burns to save themselves money, and then transfers the associated cost onto our health system, community, environment, and so on.
There is no reason to burn or to produce harmful smoke when other cleaner alternatives exist.
The Forest Practices Code states, "Care should be taken to ensure that emissions of smoke, dust or noise from forest operations do not cause serious or material environmental harm under the Environmental Management and Pollution Control Act.1994."
Because of the public outcry over forestry smoke, there were plans afoot to introduce a permit system for burns in 2009, ie to stagger the burns.
If the same area is to be burnt, this would have the effect of lengthening the burning season. It would also create a not-so-visable smoke haze all the time, meaning people would be breathing harmful smoke without knowing it for extended periods and this is a very serious matter for everyone.
This would be like giving a smoker 100 cigarettes in one hit and telling them not to smoke them all at once!
The forest industry needs to go back to school to learn their three R's.
There is a big difference between Reduction, Regeneration and Residue/Rubbish burns.
Most of the smoke we are breathing comes from forestry Residue.
Planned Burns must stop completely. There are other smokeless methods available to forestry to get rid of their Rubbish.
Planned clearing does not mean planned burning.
Deforestation practices in Tasmania cause harmful air pollution.
Go here to read what other methods are available.
Forestry pollution figures in 2008 were way under-estimated - EPA
Smoke levels across Tasmania could be substantially reduced by curtailing the constant, deliberate burning of rainforests, which rarely burn naturally.
Participating burners in the FPA's Co-ordinated Smoke Management Strategy trial.
This trial is not compulsory.
It has failed to deliver clean air each year.
People have still suffered severe smoke inhalation. Why?
Right to Information
Here are Forestry Tasmania's burns for earlier in 2010
Here are the private forestry burns but you will notice how FT claim these industries do not have to state whether the planned burns were actually lit.
Clive Stott takes his clean air message to private forest industry Gunns Ltd's AGM on the 25/11/2010
Gunns were proposing to build a 2.5 billion dollar pulp mill in the Tamar Valley.
If it was natural for human beings and other forms of life to breathe wood smoke we would all be born with hospital-grade filters
attached to our air intakes." - Clive M.Stott 2013
The plannedburntas website shows the forestry burns planned for the day. The Forestry Tasmania (FT) burns that were lit go onto another map. The private forest burns that were lit are not available to the public.
The Forest Industries
As cleanairtas has always said, these are not regeneration burns as claimed.
The reason Forestry Tasmania burns is to reduce fuel loads in their production forests, i.e., to get rid of their waste by burning it.
The smoke is suffocating - Miranda Gibson and the Observer Tree : Day 127
Camouflaged mobile phone tower in the USA.
Try chipping this one!
There has not been a Review of the Fire Managent Smoke Dispersal Guidelines since 2011 according to the FPA.
Go here to see why
June30 2013 to June 30 2014 - Forestry Tas says: We conducted 177 planned regeneration and fuel reduction burns.
Go here to view FT's interactive map of deliberate burns and chemical applications.
The future for biomass energy from our native forests
Burning wood increases global warming more than coal
POLLUTION OVER PEOPLE !
Logging can greatly increase fire severity for 50 years!
Click on the picture above for the ABC story
See the article, photographs and comments HERE
The protest followed on from Clive Stott's smoke flare being set off in the Environment Minister's office HERE
Event to Protest Forestry Firestorms
‘In 2017 alone Forestry Tasmania burnt more than 3500 hectares of Tasmanian forests after logging, releasing 2.4 million tonnes of C02 into Earth’s atmosphere,’ Jenny Weber said.
‘Every Autumn, Forestry Tasmania burns whatever’s left after industrial logging has destroyed vast tracts of our island’s magnificent forests. These firestorms are an outdated tool used to engineer the forest, killing off the rainforest species and wildlife habitat that make Tasmania’s native forests so unique,’
Then watch the old video Two Visions
Death by Euphemism - How the Forest Service cons us into thinking "prescribed" burning is good for us
Interesting articles from Prof. David Lindenmayer -
The Fenner School of Environment and Society - ANU.
June 2018 - Image taken In Westerway by Andrew Kellett and Bert Lawatsch
Push the kids into the gutter. Cross over onto the wrong side of the road!
STT Regen Burns for 2019 Rebadged Forestry Tasmania, a government business enterprise.
"The only factor to keep in mind is that the size of the burn is not necessarily an indicator of the smoke produced because not all treated area is burnt. In addition, other factors such as weather conditions, fuel conditions and the intensity of the fire will determine the amount of smoke produced.
Burns will be conducted when conditions are suitable (including weather and site conditions and smoke dispersal) and therefore the timing of burns is not known well in advance due to the accuracy of long range weather forecasting."
"Fire-spotting people might be old technolgy but it still works well."
So why are our fires not put out in their infancy and left to burn and smoke?
The head of the fire should be attacked aggressively in its early stages until it is out.
Click on the photo to read the ABC report.
We estimated that 14 premature deaths (95% confidence interval [CI], 5-23), 29 cardiovascular hospitalisations (95% CI, 5-53) and 58 respiratory hospitalisations (95% CI, 0-124) were attributable to smoke from hazard reduction burning on the six smoky days.
Simulating the effectiveness of prescribed burning at altering wildfire behaviour in Tasmania
"The study highlights that prescribed burning can theoretically mitigate wildfire, but that an unrealistically large area would need to be treated to affect fire behaviour across the island."
"In most bioregions prescribed burning is likely to have very little effect on subsequent extent of unplanned fire, and even in regions where leverage occurs, large areas of treatment are required to substantially reduce the area burned by unplanned fire....
...prescribed fire had the opposite effect (fire-follows-fire)"
Burn-offs have almost no effect on bushfire risks, Tasmania study finds
"Modelling shows nearly a third of the state would need to be burned to have significant impact on wildfire threat
Prescribed burn-offs have little impact on reducing the extent and intensity of bushfires"
Planned burning programmes do not reduce the risk of wildfires as people would have us believe.
Under Section 81 of the FORESTRY ACT it is illegal to smoke in public...
Prescribed burns fall short of goals in California
There are so many things wrong with the deliberate lighting of fires.
Read the above article....
"Prescribed burn-offs have little impact on reducing the extent and intensity of bushfires"
Pyromania is a disease.
21/8/19 - Deforestation and Climate Change
Burning fossil fuels, in combination with destruction of carbon sinks due to deforestation and other activities, has contributed to more and more carbon dioxide building up in the atmosphere - more than can be absorbed from existing carbon sinks such as forests.
Burning causes a flamable landscape.
The more you burn the more you will have to burn.
Bushfires, wildfires, convert our landscape to be fire tolerant.
These fires must be jumped on and put out in their infancy with sufficient resources.
Plannedburning has the same effect.
Logging: Huon Valley wildfire in Tasmania in January, February 2019
The lower flammability of older forests, and their importance as an increasing store of carbon, suggests that a cessation of logging outside plantations might have considerable benefits.
Post-bushfire logging makes a bad situation even worse, but the industry is ignoring the science
Multiple independent, peer reviewed studies show logging forests after bushfires increases future fire risk and can render the forest uninhabitable for wildlife for decades or even centuries.
2009 graphic by Anonymous
Smoke from Australian fires rose higher into the ozone layer than ever before
How ludicrous the suggestion that more hazard reduction burns can prevent or reduce such wildfire activity.
How ludicrous is it when forestry tell us high intensity burn smoke is not dangerous because it goes up into the stratosphere