Basslink: Turning a blind eye to its lessons

 

A compulsive obsessive desire to ignore the lessons of history is slowly choking us.

If Tasmania is to become a renewable energy powerhouse, shouldn’t we have some understanding how existing wind farms and the Basslink interconnector work, who profits and who pays?

What’s the difference between regulated and unregulated interconnectors and what are the ramifications of the termination of the Basslink Services Agreement announced on 10^th February, an agreement covering an interconnector that was supposed to have a life of 60+ years but is falling apart after only 15 years.

Without stopping to analyse what went wrong with Basslink we seem to be careering ahead to build an even more expensive one, whilst the State refuses to face up the underlying fiscal sustainability of a government  which is gradually falling behind in attending to its core functions.

At the centre of energy policy is a Minister who is the shareholder minister in charge of Hydro, TasNetworks and the retailer Aurora Energy, and who pretends he is able to seamlessly resolve any conflict between competing parties whilst also looking after the interest of renewable energy proponents, consumers and Tasmanian taxpayers.

If it sounds too good to be true that's because it is.

Native forest logging mythology

 

THE fact that trees may regrow does not make native-forest logging industry sustainable.

Dorset Mayor Greg Howard was reported (Mercury, February 2) as slamming people who do not accept his reality that because forests regenerate, forestry is one of the only truly sustainable industries.

It’s a non sequitur that is easily shown to be such by a close examination of Sustainable Timber Tasmania’s financial statements.

Over the past 20 years net contributions by governments to STT have been about $500 million.

Over that period the value of STT’s forest estate has plummeted by 75 per cent.

The latest financials show the estate is worth $186 million.

Despite all the assistance, it still lost most of its value. Ipso facto STT is financially unsustainable. No other conclusion is possible.

If that sounds bad, the reality is worse.

STT’s forest estate is based on expected future net proceeds. That is, future harvest revenue less future expected costs. But STT only values standing timber. The costs of regenerating the forest are ignored.

“All coupes regenerate,” claimed Mr Howard. Maybe, but if regeneration costs are not counted when valuing forests, how can Mr Howard claim they are sustainably managed? This is the fundamental flaw in arguments peddled by the native-forest harvest lobby.

Were regeneration costs included when calculating future expected proceeds, almost all native forests would have a negative value.

Standing timber may have a value. Most native forests don’t, if one includes the mandatory regeneration costs when calculating future net harvest proceeds.

It gets even worse if one attributes a value to all the other non-timber losses that occur when forests are harvested and which bean counters preparing financial statements overlook.

There are habitat, water catchment and carbon losses and, in the case of Blue Derby Mountain Bike Trails, clear spillover costs that affect tourism.

Harvesting trees generates cash, but that does not make it sustainable.

(published in The Mercury 5^th Feb 2022)