Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Measuring the real cost

We all love a bargain – sure there are those who like to tell you how expensive something was when they purchased it in the exclusive store in the High Street, but they would probably be even more excited to tell you that they actually bought it at a huge discount.

As for the rest of us, we just like to shop around and, even when we spend half a day making endless phone calls and have to travel an extra 20kms, if it means we can save $50 we’ll do it.

And how many of us, believing ourselves to be environmentally conscious, don’t think twice about doing this?

I really like wearing my $10 Rolex and I’m not sure why. I can say it’s because I bought it from a second hand shop, (and No, I don’t for a moment believe it is real) but I can’t help but think about the people who made it, who mined the metal to produce it, who worked in the factories to assemble it. How much did this Rolex cost before it became a consumer item sitting in a shop?

I first began thinking about this sitting inside a very inexpensive tent on a wet summer evening. Allowing for a 50% markup, the various zips, mesh, poles, mats and moldings for the tent were cut, assembled, packaged, transported overseas, to the warehouse and then to the store for about $18. Was the $25 I paid from my visa the true cost of this tent?

Imagine how our decisions might be different if we paid the real cost of the items we fill our homes and lives with.

Costs in human rights, human lives, environmental degradation, water quality, air pollution, loss of biodiversity. Long term we can only guess at the effects each throwaway product will have on climate change and species extinction, on the delicate balance of small ecosystems and on the ecosystem that is planet earth, on the health of our children and grandchildren.

And for what? Drop by drop we are eroding our lifestyles in ways too small for all but the most observant among us to see.

Perhaps if we paid the true value of consumer items then we would demand these items be made durable rather than cheap.

But instead we mistake our “wants” for our “needs”, and allow advertising agencies and TV characters to convince us what our lifestyle should be, convince us that we deserve the newest, best and fastest, and convince us that we should have it now.

You might be lucky enough to know someone who remembers a time when children shared a bedroom, when a family had just one car, when people usually had at most three pairs of shoes, and there was only one telephone in the house.

If you do know someone – make sure you take the opportunity to talk to them.

If you don’t, you might like to look up old copies of Australian Newspapers at Trove (http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper )

Letter to The Age October 25 2010

Woodchips are the main game

ACCORDING to the most recent Monitoring Annual Harvest Performance report, published by the Department of Sustainability and the Environment (August 2008), 1,667,600 cubic metres of commercial timber was harvested from Victoria's state forests in 2006-07. Of this, 24.7 per cent became sawlogs and 68.5 per cent became woodchips. (In fire salvage areas, 11.5 per cent became sawlogs and 75 per cent became woodchips.)

It would seem that sawlog production has become a byproduct of the woodchip industry. There has to be a better way to produce paper.

The same report stated that ''sufficient information on regeneration and thinning operations [within Victoria's state forests] was not provided to allow adequate reporting'' of regeneration operations.


Surely it is not possible to regenerate 600-year-old trees in 120 years. And it is certainly not possible to regenerate extinct wildlife.

Letter to The Age October 11 2010

Conflicting figures

NATHAN Trushell assures us (Letters, 9/10) of the success of VicForests' regeneration program, but the latest Department of Sustainability and Environment report, Monitoring Annual Harvesting Performance in Victoria's State Forests, estimates that 19,000 hectares are overdue for regeneration surveys, and that a further 7191 hectares ''require additional effort for successful regeneration''. These figures do not include the effect of fires in 2006 or 2009.

Mr Trushell also assures us that the regeneration is maintaining biodiversity, yet on its website, under the headings of topics like ''monitoring change in species composition'', ''monitoring stocking survey success'' and ''monitoring root regenerating species'', it reports that ''results are still being collected''.

Furthermore, Mr Trushell states that VicForests harvests 5500 hectares of native forests each year but Victoria's State of the Forests 2008 reports that 9470 hectares of native forest are harvested each year. Who do we believe?


Thursday, October 21, 2010

Adopt a logger?

Latest available figures from the Department of Sustainability and the Environment (Victorian State of the Forests Report 2008) are as follows...
9470ha of native forest harvested annually
50ha Old Growth Forest harvested annually (0.528% of harvest by area)

22500 employed in wood and wood products industries
9% of these in forestry and logging (2025)

Assume all of these are employed by Vicforests in the logging of native forests although some will be employed in plantation logging and some will be in non-logging activities.

So...
2025 employed in the logging of 9470ha of native forests of which 0.528% is Old Growth Forest.

0.528% of 2025 is 10.67 loggers.

If each earn $100,000 before running costs then they earn $1M per year.

If 1million people donated $1 per year we could keep these guys employed doing nothing until they found alternative employment...

Fancy employing a logger anyone?