TO:........................,
Parliament House
Sydney NSW 2000
Dear .....................,
I am writing to you regarding a decision taken under during the O’Farrell Premiership which could
negatively impact Liberal, National and affiliated state MPs at the upcoming state election March 28th
2015.
This was the amendment to the definition of ‘native forest bio-material’ under the Protection of the
Environment Operations (General) Regulation 2009 which, effectively, gives the green light for the use of
native forests in energy and fuel production.
The use of native forest biomass to generate electricity and/or its pelletisation for export (for energy
and/or fuel production) is highly unpopular with members of the public that become aware of it.
This might not be your ‘portfolio’ or as yet a stated concern of this electorate, but I draw your attention to
the issue as I won’t be voting for anyone whose party condones this.
At present this issue is misrepresented by The Australian Forest Products Association and Forests
Corporation NSW which have promoted the concept that only native forest ‘waste’ will be used as a raw
material for furnaces, export wood pellets and so on. However, the EPA website clearly states that native
forest trees are eligible for furnace material or for fuel production. Below (italicised) are extracts from the
EPA website. Eligible material for biomass generation is material from ‘forestry operations carried out on
land to which an Integrated Forestry Operations Approval (IFOA) applies under Part 5B of the Forestry Act
2012....This means that any pulp wood logs, heads and off-cuts and trees thinned in line with a private
native forestry property vegetation plan or integrated forestry operations approval can be used in
electricity generation.’
In effect 85%-90% of the trees currently logged in NSW public forests could be burnt for power.
There are unresolved ‘issues’ surrounding timber supply agreements in NSW. Far more wood had been
committed than can be sustainably logged and this has been acknowledged by the Auditor General. As
existing contracts for supply of wood to the unsuccessful woodchip industry convert to contracts for the
biomass trade, any regulatory change accommodating this is unlikely to reflect well on those enacting it.
‘Biomass is a dirty fuel. In the United States, leading Medical Societies and health advocacy groups have
called for a ban on biomass power plants as they pose an unacceptable risk to the public’s health by
increasing air pollution. Burning hundreds of thousands of tonnes of native forest will generate dangerous
emissions of nitrogen oxides, particulate matter and sulphur dioxide.’ 1
1
Extract from Australian scientists’ letter to Federal MP Rob Oakeshott when he attempted to have native forest biomass
deemed renewable in 2012. References below provide further indication of the dangers of biomass.
Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences. Biomass Sustainability and Carbon Policy Study Executive Summary.June 2010 and Hudiberg, T.W.,
Law, B.E., Wirth, C. and Luyssaert, S. (2011)
'Regional carbon dioxide implications of forest bioenergy production', Nature Climate Change, Vol 1 October 2011
Charles D. Connor. President & CEO. American Lung Association. Letter to United States House of
Representatives. June 24, 2009., Massachusetts Medical Society Adopts Policy Opposing Biomass Power Plants”
Some of the public are aware of this and over time more will become aware. There is growing community
concern across all political persuasions. Please make your political colleagues fully aware of the risk
involved in allowing your party to pursue this policy.
In addition, I note that the ex Premier got the EPA to get rid of the problem of Forests Corporation NSW
breaching their own regulation by ‘Remaking the Coastal IFOAs’ without limiting the amount of wood
allowed to BORAL in the timber supply agreement. Take note of the fact please that I am fully aware that
the Premier effectively inspired the EPA to revoke all regulations covering native forest logging and has
given the timber industry a ‘free for all’. I will make all attempts to get this into the public arena unless an
active stand is taken against this retrograde action. In fact I call for, and ask you to see reason in also
calling for a total exit from native forest logging so that the forests can do the job now most needed which
is protect water catchment health, give biodiversity a chance, cool our landscape, store carbon and no
longer cost taxpayers endless millions in subsidising the big and losing end of town, the native forest
logging sector.
In fact, make them national parks. We don’t have enough and it’s documented that Australia is at the
centre of the 6th greatest and man-made extinction crises of this planet.
Yours sincerely,
............................................................................................................................................................................
TO:........................,
Parliament House
Sydney NSW 2000
Dear .....................,
I am deeply concerned about an amendment which passed last year by the Liberal/National state govt
allowing trees to be used for power and fuel production.
The former Premier backed an amendment recommended by Minister for the Environment to the Protection
of the Environment Operations (General) Regulation 2009 which ‘changes the definition of ‘native forest
bio-material’ to allow two additional materials to be used in electricity generation. One of these additional
materials is biomaterial,
December 9, 2009. http://www.massmed.org/AM/Template.cfm?
Section=Search8&template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=32796
Macinstosh, Andrew. 'Oakeshott, Windsor biomass burner scheme Pythonesque.' Crikey. Monday, 13 February.
http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/02/13/oakeshott-windsor-biomass-burner-scheme/
A Morgan Poll commissioned by the Wilderness Society in 2001 found that 88% of people opposed the use of native forest for wood-fired
power.


obtained from pulp wood logs, heads and off-cuts resulting from clearing carried out in accordance with a
private native forestry property vegetation plan approved under Part 4 of the Native Vegetation Act 2003 or
forestry operations carried out in accordance with an integrated forestry operations approval under Part
5B of the Forestry Act 2012
obtained from trees cleared as a result of thinning carried out in accordance with a private native forestry
property vegetation plan approved under Part 4 of the Native Vegetation Act 2003 or an integrated forestry
operations approval under Part 5B of the Forestry Act 2012.
This means that any pulp wood logs, heads and off-cuts, and trees thinned in line with a private native
forestry property vegetation plan or integrated forestry operations approval can be used in electricity
generation.
That would mean that 85%-90% of trees currently available to be logged in NSW public forests to instead be
burnt for power.
I am deeply concerned about this development as it is common knowledge that any CO2 emission increase
accelerates deadly climate change. The diagram below represents accepted science.
It is inevitable that the media will seize on this, exposing a decision by the former Premier that has negative
state, national and indeed global consequences.
Also, it is now proven that the survival rate of NSW’s unique natural faunal heritage decreases proportional
to the increase in native forest logging that this amendment (if not disallowed) will create.
The decision to permit native forest biomass to enter the energy production arena is also outrageously
irresponsible from an economic perspective. Economists warn that for all the environmental destruction
burning native forest biomass causes its energy output is miniscule. For example, nationally, ‘if all the
native forest log production in 2009 had been burned for electricity it would have displaced only 2.8% of
total black and brown coal based power generation’ (Ajani, 2011).
Would you please discuss with your colleagues the need to remove from your policy or ‘keep removed’ if it
already is – burning native forest wood as a renewable energy. So much, environmentally and politically - is
at stake?
Yours sincerely,
............................................................................................................................................................................................
TO:........................,
Parliament House
Sydney NSW 2000
Dear .....................,
Ex-Premier O’Farrell passed an amendment allowing NSW native forests to be logged and burnt for
electricity production. The material that would be available for this use would include critical koala habitat.
It’s unthinkable that this habitat could be logged and burnt in furnaces or exported as wood pellets to
Europe and Asia. This amendment gives the logging industry permission to use whole trees for this
industry, not just leaves and branches.
Big old trees that would provide habitat for many native species are already scarce, and overcutting is
widespread. Species of trees that are currently not logged will now be permitted for burning, including trees
supporting koalas, black cockatoos and a multitude of threatened and endangered wildlife species.
Burning trees for power production is far from renewable and in many cases emissions from biomass are
more intensive than burning coal. Biomass power produces a toxic cocktail of emissions extremely harmful
to the health of nearby communities. This will take us back to pre-industrial times when we should be
concentrating on true renewables, like wind and solar.
Please see studies and commentary listed in footnote for further information.2
Please make sure you specify that you are against this practice when standing for re-election March 28th as
a NSW MP. I will be watching very closely your commitment to this issue and will be advising friends and
colleagues on how you stand.
Yours sincerely,
2
Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences. Biomass Sustainability and Carbon Policy Study Executive Summary.June 2010 and Hudiberg,
T.W., Law, B.E., Wirth, C. and Luyssaert, S. (2011)
'Regional carbon dioxide implications of forest bioenergy production', Nature Climate Change, Vol 1 October 2011
Charles D. Connor. President & CEO. American Lung Association. Letter to United States House of
Representatives. June 24, 2009., Massachusetts Medical Society Adopts Policy Opposing Biomass Power Plants”
December 9, 2009. http://www.massmed.org/AM/Template.cfm?
Section=Search8&template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=32796
Macinstosh, Andrew. 'Oakeshott, Windsor biomass burner scheme Pythonesque.' Crikey. Monday, 13 February.
http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/02/13/oakeshott-windsor-biomass-burner-scheme/
A Morgan Poll commissioned by the Wilderness Society in 2001 found that 88% of people opposed the use of native forest for wood-fired
power.
TO:........................,
Parliament House
Sydney NSW 2000
Dear .....................,
Former Premier Barry O’Farrell permitted the passing of an amendment earlier this year that – speaking
plainly - allows NSW native forests to be logged and burnt for electricity and/or fuel generation.
This ill advised recommendation was made by Minister for the Environment, Robyn Parker, after a phase of
community consultation during which the EPA received 263 non-petition submissions of which 221 or 84%
were vehemently opposed to this amendment to the Protection of the Environment Operations (General)
Regulation 2009 on the grounds that it effectively gives the green light for increased resource pillaging of
native forests in the name of ‘renewable’ energy and fuel production.
The amendment to the PEOR 2009 is not about a wise use of a ‘waste’ resource as the spin of the industry
(Australian Forests Products Association) and bureaucrats of Forests Corporation NSW would have the
public understand.
Below are just a few of the many compelling reasons why it is imperative that NSW native forests not be
burnt to produce electricity.
A plethora of NSW native animals are now on the brink of extinction with logging a major factor in their
extinction trajectory. Burning forests for electricity production will devastate native forests and the animal
populations within them. NSW native forests are already pushed to the brink. 60% of native forest cover
has been lost since 1788 and only 19% of NSW’s remaining forests are formally protected from logging.
Millions of native animals are killed and displaced each year as a result of existing native forest logging. The
koala is struggling to survive due to the destruction of its habitat from logging in coastal forests from the
state’s northern to its southern border. As logging has already decimated the old trees with hollows on
which other hollow dependent species such as possums, gliders, and owls rely for shelter and breeding,
this amendment would mean these big old trees can now also be burnt for electricity production.
Biomass burning means that trees not currently sought for woodchip will be cut for energy production.
These include koala feed trees (Redgums, Bloodwood, Woolybutt and Tallowood. In the south east of the
state, there are around 60 individual koalas left, yet Forestry Corporation NSW is still logging those forests.
Forests corporation will take (on behalf of its corporate clients) the rest of their remaining habitat given
this new ‘biomass’ incentive.
The burning of native forests for power generation has a range of serious ecological, greenhouse gas,
human and environmental health consequences.
The public will query why an industry which has been described by Justice R. A. Pepper as having a ‘cavalier
attitude to compliance’ in relation to the regulations with which it is meant to comply is now to have its
loss making vandalism propped up with an uneconomic and barbaric ‘psuedo’ renewable technology in the
form of native forest ‘biofuel’.
Native forest biomass power is not renewable. Logged trees do not recover and restore their full carbon
carrying capacity for hundreds of years, but forests are logged on much shorter rotations – 40, 30 and
sometimes 10 year rotations or less, so there is an ever accruing carbon debt. 4
Greenhouse gas emissions from logging native forests are greater than burning coal for the same unit of
electricity produced. Burning native forests for electricity will damage the market for genuine renewable
energy like solar and wind technology. This will have serious repercussions for these industries in NSW.
To uphold the amendment made by former Premier O’Farrell that allowed burning native forests as a so
called renewable energy will make MPs not speaking out against it politically vulnerable. The NSW public
will not forgive such flagrant disregard for science and ethical decency at this point in earth’s biological
history.
Yours sincerely,