It is time to get the facts straight with regard to the forest principles process and the Gunns pulp mill debate. Senator Abetz may be nostalgic for this glory days as Federal Minister promoting clear fell logging of high conservation value native forests and plantation establishment on our farms but he is completely out of touch.
The logging industry approached the conservation movement to seek assistance to exit native forests in Tasmania because native forest logging is unprofitable.
So Senator Abetz, it was the logging industry which approached the green groups, not the other way around. The Forest Principles process was the result.
The world has moved to plantations as a source of fibre as plantation woodchips are cheaper, higher and more even quality for pulp production than native forest woodchips. The market for them has collapsed. The Triabunna woodchip mill is closed because there is no market.
Without a woodchip market, it is not economically viable to log the forests for sawlogs. Rather than Forestry Tasmania buying the Triabunna woodchip mill to keep logging at a loss, it should rethink its 300,000 cubic metre sawlog quota. Tasmanians will be outraged if FT is subsidised to buy a woodchip mill.
If Senator Abetz wants to keep logging native forests then he will have to admit that he wants to tax Australians to pay people to cut down forests for which there is no market and no economic return. The forest industry recognises that there needs to be an exit and that is what is being negotiated.
Senator Abetz is living in a fools paradise to suggest that the majority of jobs in the native forest industry is in "family owned sawmill and furniture ventures". Since when has Gunns or Forestry Tasmania become a family owned sawmill and furniture venture? Communities are dying with the native forest industry, not without it.
As to the Gunns pulp mill, Bill Kelty is wrong to propose a trade off - the pulp mill for the forests. Senator Abetz is falling into the same trap thinking that the fate of the native forests is linked to the fortunes of Gunns pulp mill. It is not. There are two separate processes.
The people and industries of the Tamar Valley are not for trading as they have made clear at meeting after meeting and rally after rally and the Greens agree.
The Tamar Valley is not a suitable site for a pulp mill on environmental grounds because Bass Strait off the Tamar is too shallow to achieve the dilution and dispersion of effluent. Furthermore the atmospheric inversion in the winter will trap the pollution and the stench. Gunns knew it could not meet the RPDC siting guidelines and that is the main reason it pulled out of the process.
We need to stop the corruptly approved pulp mill and at the same time transition the forest industry out of native forests and into long term jobs in a genuinely sustainable, diversified forest industry. That would be the "Clean, Green and Clever" response rather than the ideological cant of a ghost of ages past.

This appeared as an opinion piece in The Examiner, 5 April 2011.

The following piece is by NSW Greens MLC Cate Faehrmann.

The election of the first Greens MP to the NSW Legislative Assembly is a historic breakthrough for the party, but if success for the Greens in NSW is to continue, we need a reality check and some soul searching.

The nail-biting win in Balmain, with an almost certain increase in our upper house numbers from four to five, means the Greens have come close to achieving the objectives we set at the start of the election campaign.

But if truth be told, more than a few of us are feeling a little flat about the overall result. That is because the success in Balmain was not repeated in Marrickville and our statewide vote was expected to be significantly higher.

A month before the election, an increase from four to six upper house Greens MPs was not in the realm of fantasy. But despite an unprecedented swing away from Labor, support for the Greens in NSW increased by only about 1½ per cent.

We failed to capitalise on what may turn out to have been a once-in-a-generation opportunity to attract large numbers of once loyal Labor voters, who stampeded away from the party many had voted for since turning 18.

The necessary soul searching is not just about the party's future fortunes. Climate change, the loss of native plants and animals, the need to foster healthy communities, the reduction of air and water pollution, and the creation of a sustainable economy, are urgent challenges. We must be a party of government within one generation.

If we are to reach our potential within the next couple of elections, we need to be honest about our mistakes and learn from them. The party's handling of the boycott, divestment and sanctions policy against Israel was an unnecessary distraction from issues relevant to a state election.

Like all Greens, I strongly support the rights of the Palestinian people, but I watched dismayed as the issue was elevated to national prominence. Parts of the print media and right-wing radio commentators treated us roughly, but it should not have been surprising that they smelt blood, and we were ill-prepared for the avalanche of ridicule that followed.

In an election that should have been fought on local issues, public transport and integrity in politics, the Greens in Marrickville unwittingly found themselves the bandwagon for a motion on a foreign policy issue that was rejected by the Australian Greens National Council little more than a year ago.

Its original proponents within the NSW Greens were nowhere to be seen, and our overwhelmed candidate for Marrickville was left with little support. In any language, it was poor strategy and bad behaviour.

The experience can teach us important lessons. These should focus party members and strategists on bridging the gap between those who vote Green and those who agree with our values, but don't vote for us.

We must be smart and mature enough to operate in a heavyweight political environment while maintaining Greens values. We must show voters that wanting a fairer, more compassionate and more sustainable future is not incompatible with pragmatism, responsible governance and genuine negotiation.

We failed to explain what we could deliver. We can't promise sweeping changes without a clearly communicated plan of how to implement them. The Greens must speak to people about the issues important to them, bringing green solutions to their daily lives.

Many voters were searching for a progressive alternative to NSW Labor, and we failed to present as that. This should not be surprising since we have no leader in NSW, no shadow cabinet and, therefore, offer no picture of what a Greens government would look like.

Whether or not the Greens adopt some or all of these features of our modern political system are matters of debate within the party. Until voters can picture us as a government in our own right, or as a key player in shaping a government, we will struggle to poll more than a few percentage points higher than we did.

It has been evident in all elections for more than a decade now that targeted campaigns by the major parties deter some voters from going Green. It is all too easy and predictable a tactic to focus on creating doubt in the minds of people who identify with our principles, but have not made up their mind to switch their vote.

With this in mind, we must prepare and avoid providing our opponents with fodder for attacks as best we can.

Like my Greens colleagues about to join me in the NSW Parliament, I am focused on delivering solid results for the hundreds of thousands of people who voted Green, and the many more who share our values. But armed with some election humility and self-reflection, we can also start to build on our Balmain win and play a role in government within a generation.

First published in the Sydney Morning Herald.

Were you to arrive in Australia and read the front pages of our newspapers you would be forgiven for thinking that we are living in some type of black hole, devoid of information, news and expert opinion from the rest the world.

What other possible explanation could there be for the ignorance of those who warn of the end of civilisation were a carbon tax to established than by claiming Australia would be out on a limb, leading the world.

Leading the world? You've got to be joking. Many other countries have already put a price on carbon and introduced realistic pollution reduction targets. And while they are spending significant public and private dollars firming up investment in the technologies and energy sources for the future, Australia is still locked in a debate over whether big polluters should even pay for their pollution.

Unfortunately this isn't just leaving us with a reputation of being environmentally blind, it is also costing us real jobs right here in our own backyard.

Let's just take Europe for example, where many countries have already had a carbon tax for 10 years or more.

I've just returned from an official parliamentary delegation to Denmark, Sweden and Greece, meeting with various governments, MPs, businesses and industry leaders. Meeting after meeting the message was clear - Australia is far behind in tackling greenhouse gas emissions and absent in using smart investment choices to drive the use of renewable energy.

Business leaders wanting to invest in Australia would say "Australia has great wind, solar opportunities but until there's a carbon price we can't afford to start-up there".

The delegation would have to explain that Australia is lagging because we still don't have an agreement from some parties that polluters should pay for their pollution and that the market should be given the signals to drive reform.

Admittedly, many European countries had to change their ways some 30 years ago as a result of the oil crisis in the Middle East, forcing them to find more self-sufficient ways to power their homes and industry. Development in wind-power, hydro-electricity and bio-fuel among others ensured that there has been a multi-source mix of power for decades.

Now, in the face of climate change, the EU members have signed up to the 20-20-20 platform (20 per cent emission reductions with at least 20 per cent of renewable power and energy efficiency increase all by 2020). And as a result there is now a race between the countries as to who can be more ambitious in order to secure the industry investment on their soil.

While countries like Sweden have had a carbon tax for 20 years, the debate in parliaments throughout Europe is how they can become carbon neutral by 2050. The idea that those who pollute should pay for the cost of that pollution is simply understood as commonsense. Political parties from the far-right to the far-left agree with a carbon tax and the need to reduce pollution.

They all agree with the polluter pays system and that taking action on climate change can also be good for business.

The message to take home from our European cousins is that we are falling embarrassingly behind in facing the realities of climate change. From a business perspective our lacklustre someone-else-will-wash-the-dishes attitude is costing investment opportunities and real jobs in manufacturing, construction and service delivery.

And to Barnaby Joyce, who doesn't want Australia to lead the way - well, it's okay, no need to worry, we're not.

This was first published on the National Times on the 19th of April 2011.