Dear News of the Area,

I RESPOND to the letter by Wayne Duesbury, “More misrepresentation of facts” (NOTA 17/1/2025), in which he accuses me of “a glaring misrepresentation” and “resorting to devious tactics to support an argument” .

I had stated in a previous letter that larger older trees store the most carbon, not regrowth after logging.

Mr Duesbury argues that large older trees grow more slowly than younger ones and therefore absorb less carbon from the atmosphere.

This seems to make logical sense but is incorrect.

Numerous scientists collaborated on this study in respected journal “Nature” on 15 January 2014, “Rate of tree carbon accumulation increases continuously with tree size”.

The study negated the previous view that growth slows with age and found that large, older trees grow faster and absorb C02 more rapidly than smaller younger trees.

Many other global studies support this.

The statement by Mr Duesbury that “timber produced from old trees still stores the carbon it absorbed through its lifetime” is misleading.

Perhaps he has not been into a forest after logging and seen the gigantic piles of bark, leaves and branches left behind to release their carbon to the atmosphere.

While it’s true that timber stores carbon, less than one fifth a tree’s biomass ends up as long lived timber products, with much of it going to short-lived products and mill waste.

With only 10 percent of NSW old growth forest remaining since colonisation (NSW EPA) large old trees are more precious than ever.

Animals relying on them for food and shelter are becoming increasingly endangered. The fate of our publicly owned native forests deserves well-reasoned discussion not letters based only on opinion and unfounded accusations.

Yours sincerely,
Judith KIRWOOD,
Valla Beach.