Thomas Brabin (9/6) is quick to accuse Jill Redwood of making "wild unsustainable statements" yet he is misleadingly selective in quoting information to put his case.
Mr Brabin asserts that 200 years of logging has not led to the extinction of one species, he fails to mention the very great difference in logging now, compared with even 50 years ago. Then, trees were selectively felled, in the main, for sawlogs. Economics alone dictating that unwanted timber be left standing, thus providing continuity of supply as saplings grow to usable timber, wildlife habitat, protection from erosion and biodiversity; four of the more obvious proven benefits of managed harvesting.
Most of the "unusable harvesting residues" comes from the wasteful practice
of clearfelling, not the inevitable wastage of tops and litter: it is timber
harvested purely for woodchips. If wood chipping is so attractive, why
is "$5 billion of residue" burnt ? On the question royalties, he quotes
a figure of $5 per tonne, presumable covering all government charges, but
gives no details. How is this figure arrived at?