I feel so much better for reading that, only 100,000 a day, nothing really.
Oz is still a world leader at land clearing. Koala numbers are still falling. Species extinction due to habitat destruction (mainly due to land clearing) is still setting new records. If it was 200,000 a day there might be a problem.
The last two sections of the article explain some of the differences, including that one of the measures equates full grow trees in a forest cleared with anything over two meters in a 20% coverage in replantings. That’s as insane as the Goverment counting a job as anything over one hour a week.
The article says that the WWF is calling for a standardised national system for calculating forest cover. So perhaps the WWF went from using one of the systems to another as the basis of it’s calculation?
There is a wealth of content including detailed inter-actives from the main web page.
Are the annual measurements reliable?
Is the 100,000 or 200,000 trees per day correct?
It’s not self evident.
The claims of ongoing land clearing and forest loss however are a contradiction. The Federal Govt National Quarterly Accounts of Green House Gas Emissions suggests we are continuing to generate credits. IE over the previous decade more forest growth than loss!
is counted as regeneration. This can hardly be compared to the density and diversity of cover provided forests, including old growth forests, which are cleared. This is why WWF are up in arms, because the new two meter high 20% plantings do not provide a suitable habitat for the displaced flora and fauna.
The koala have been placed there. As a protected animal, I hope they had necessary approvals in place to handle, move and disturb the koalas for the photo-shoot.
No one has tried to account for the change in the claimed daily tree clearing numbers from a nice round 200,000 daily to a mere 100,000 daily.
A very convenient reduction of 50%. Perhaps they thought no one would spot the change in the TV ads.
Whilst I strongly believe that the enviroment should be protected, I do not trust organisations such as the WWF, especially with their promotions of “become a sponsor and we will send you an adorable cuddly koala”.
I guess the Chinese factories are doing quite nicely making stuffed koalas.
The koalas are most likely from a sanctuary, wild life zoo or other with a legal permit to keep koalas. Wild life that is not accustomed to humans would never be so cooperative. Nor would a duet of koalas hang around in such a vulnerable position.
It’s simply providing a message. No different to the local politician with their mug shot in front of the latest project or an Aussie flag. Excepts the koalas are real, and the mug shot of the politician is often from 20 years prior.
No comment as to whether they are adequate. The following link is to an interactive web page that allows the user to take a more local and personal look at the distribution of native forest types by state, condition, ownership and use.
One ready observation is that Queensland holds the greater portion of all remaining native forests in Australia. It holds approx 47% of the nations acacia forests and 35% of all eucalypt forests while setting aside/protects just 8% of acacia and 7% of eucalypt forests.
Because Eucalypt forests broadly are not considered vulnerable the retaining just 15% of the original rule applies.
Note:
WWF is competing for funds with other not for profit Australian conservation organisations. Each has a particular focus. It’s worthwhile looking at whether joining a particular community focussed organisation is the one that best meets your needs. They all have a purpose.
It’s important to scrutinise charities - CHOICE has some advice on effectively donating that may be useful. I think the point about changing the messaging has been clearly made, as has the complexity of calculating land clearing rates so for this reason we’re closing this thread for now.
For those interested in this topic, I’ve started a new thread to frame this discussion more broadly over and from a consumer perspective here.