Writing about The Changes to Come

I can hardly believe it. After starting a small novella in the early 2000s, it’s almost time to say goodbye to characters that have become as close to me as family. Who would have thought a #Clifi story first penned in 2003, before the genre even had a name, would have foreseen #Trump, #CoronaVirus, #Brexit, or (yet to come to pass) the #BritishRepublic? The impact of devastating #bushfires, #floods and #typhoons were still to be felt and the very notion of #ClimateChangeDisplacement nonexistent. In writing a story about #ClimateChange I thought I was processing the trauma of my life as an #activist, not writing a plan for surviving the next 100,000 years. Yet here it is. I lost friends, publishers and loved ones along the way. Do I regret it? No. In the end, it is the story inside all of us, that is constantly, insistently, forcing its way out, telling truth to power: you cannot stop #TheChanges. It is too late. Do not despair. Hope is an action, not an emotion, and we can all make a difference in what is to come.


Submission to the European Union’s land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF) review of rules: A response and set of alternative proposals

Prepared by Dr Tim Cadman

Spot the nature in this photo

Among the following drivers behind the decline of the land-based net carbon sink, which are the most important in your view 

Please rate from 5 (most important) to 1 (least important).

  • Natural disturbances (weather events, fires, pest outbreaks…) that are caused or accelerated by climate change
  • Unsustainable land management practices impacting carbon stocks and sinks       
  • Increase in wood harvests
  • Slowdown in forest growth due to their age
  • Slowdown in afforestation and reforestation activities
  • Conversion of carbon-rich land (deforestation, draining of wetland or peatland), land take and soil sealing (expansion of built-up and artificial areas
  • Use of biomass for bio-energy instead of long-lived products
  • Other…

Other: Loopholes under the old Kyoto protocol, and equating ‘like with like’ after land use change. A field of corn is NOT a forest, and does not have the same structure and function in regulating climate. Europe must stop seeing forests as ‘crops’: whatever the historical reasons for the drastic simplification of Europe’s forests, they are now a major source of greenhouse gas emissions, not a sink. Land managers are encouraged to simplify them, through forestry for bio-energy, wood-production, conversion to tree cropping and plantations. This is completely the wrong approach to land use, land use change, and forestry. Forests must be taken out of the LULUCF equation, and restored. Wood production should be only on previously cleared land, as an actual (clearly defined) cultivated crop, like any other. The confusion at the moment is harming forests, and encouraging other developing countries to turn their own forests into a version of Germany, Finland, etc.

Among these potential EU policy approaches to promote climate change mitigation in land-related sectors, which do you think are the most relevant to achieve a higher climate ambition in 2030? 

  • EU sets national targets which Member States can achieve in different ways (e.g. Common Agricultural Policy, national forest policies, other national policies)           
  • An improved EU framework on monitoring, reporting and verifying emissions and removals
  • Reinforce the creation of relevant EU datasets (e.g. dedicated Copernicus service)
  • EU labels for climate-neutral products or climate footprints
  • EU taxes or subsidies
  • EU market-based policies (e.g. the use of emissions trading for land-related sectors)
  • EU policies to promote more sustainable and healthier diets
  • Other…

Other: This is completely the wrong kind of thinking. The EU mentality is to look at land as a place for economic production. It’s not. It’s a place where nature prevails. The natural world is essential to planetary survival, and regulating climate change. At the moment rampant development of all varieties (mining, agriculture, urban expansion) are eroding Europe’s natural capital. The best way to mitigate climate change in the EU is to stop managing forests, let them expand and regrow. Natural ecosystems such as wetlands must be protected, and there should be no further human encroachment into the natural world. Cities should be greened, to reduce their emissions of heat and gasses, public transport should be mandated, and the urban environment used for the cultivation of food and fibre. This is all possible; there just has to be the political will. The people will not follow if the leaders do not lead.

An important function of the land is to supply bio-based and renewable materials (wood, ligno-cellulosic products, bio-plastics, bio-chemicals, etc…) that can substitute fossil-based and non-renewable materials. In addition, the LULUCF rules recognise long-lived wood products (e.g. those used in the construction sector) as a form of temporary carbon storage. 

What is the best policy approach to harness this substitution effect and carbon storage potential? 

  • Promote carbon storage in wood products via a modification of the LULUCF rules
  • Promote carbon storage in wood products via carbon farming approaches (e.g. using wood products in the construction sector leads to issuing carbon credits that can be sold on voluntary carbon markets)
  • Promote carbon storage in wood products via tax incentives or financial support
  • Support for research and innovation into more sustainable production of woody biomass and more sustainable use of wood-based materials, products and by-products
  • Training (e.g. for land managers, engineers, architects) and awareness raising
  • Other…

Other: The land is not a mine for products to be turned into things to the role that simply allowing natural processes to function effectively will do. You cannot ‘store’ carbon in wood, or plastics. Eventually they break down and become atmospheric pollutants. The only way to ‘store’ carbon is to main natural ecosystem structure and function. Forests function perfectly well as atmospheric regulators if they are left alone to achieve their true ecological productivity. There is more carbon in an ancient forest than any other kind, by orders of magnitude. Consequently, restoring Europe’s natural environment and its biodiversity will combat climate change. Therefore, and land use activity around production and consumption for human needs should take place within the urban context; not the land, not the waters. There is plenty of room, only the thinking is missing, because the policy settings are the wrong way round.

In which areas should the EU focus efforts to enhance carbon sinks and protect carbon stocks? 

  • Afforestation, reforestation, forest restoration
  • Agro-ecology and agro-forestry
  • Bioenergy coupled with carbon capture and storage (BECCS)
  • Soil carbon increase in agricultural lands
  • Protection and restoration of wetland and peatland ecosystems
  • Grassland management
  • Carbon storage in long-lived wood-based materials and products
  • Other…

Other: Bio-energy carbon capture and storage epitomises the muddle-headed thinking that seeks to ‘develop’ its way out of a problem created by excessive production and consumption. One of the original proponents in the early 2000s has subsequently claimed it was envisioned only as a backstop under an extreme climate scenario should ambitious emissions reductions prove unfeasible, in the context of commensurate broad-scale forest restoration and replanting, and as a risk management option – not as a regular emissions reduction pathway (Hickman, 2016).  Biomass energy was wrongly promoted as an emissions-reducing technology by the IPCC in 2005, and incorrectly sponsored by the European Union in the Renewable Energy Directive (RED). The result is a policy environment in which forests have become the crucible for conflicting management imperatives oof bioenergy creation, climate change mitigation and sustainability (Lindstad et al., 2015; Torvanger, 2019).

How should more ambitious climate action in land-related sectors be financed? 

  • Subsidies (e.g. Common Agricultural Policy or national policies)
  • Higher product prices (e.g. via label mechanisms that allow producers to set a higher price)
  • A dedicated EU or national fund
  • Revenues from selling land-based carbon credits
  • Other…

Other: None of these approaches will work, because the fundamental premiss is that the land should be used for producing commodities. It is the production of commodities that has got us into the situation we are now in: more manufactured materials than total planetary biomass (Elhacham et al, 2020), and humans 0.01% of all life but have destroyed 83% of wild mammals (Bar-On et al 2018). All public finance and fiscal instruments should be geared to resource recovery from land fill, urban self-sufficiency (energy, food, fibre, water), supporting land managers to revert lands and waters to natural ecosystem structure and function, and education and training for national populations to commence The Great Restoration. Any more subsidies, products, funds or credits that encourage production (e.g carbon offsets from monocultures) should be abandoned. These have done more harm than good, and resulted in perverse incentives like biomass energy (e.g. Drax) which is deforesting the southern US states.

Part II: Overall policy approach

Which is your preferred policy approach to revise the LULUCF Regulation in view of the increased 2030 climate ambition? 

  • Strengthen the current LULUCF Regulation and increase its ambition in line with the 2030 Climate Target Plan.
  • Strengthen the flexibility with the Effort Sharing Regulation.
  • Combine the emissions from agriculture and LULUCF sectors into a single climate policy pillar with a separate target.
  • Other…

Other: 1) Go back to the climate negotiations and negotiate an end to LULUCF, which was only ever designed to allow the continuation of unsustainable commodity production when the evidence was clear that consumption reduction is the only way to avoid damaging greenhouse gas emissions. 2) Remove forests from this equation. They cannot be equated like for like with agricultural commodities. 3) Focus ambition on restoring the natural world, which is the only method that can safely reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 4) Abandon all ideas of ‘climate engineering’ before they become entrenched, and thereby lock humanity into ‘techno fixes’ that encourage business as usual, such as BECCS, and negative emissions technologies including carbon dioxide removal and solar radiation management. 5) Develop a truly effective and implementable deep decarbonisation pathway for the EU, including all fossil fuel subsidies. 6) Invest in renewable energy technologies from recovered materials. That’s ambition.

Part III: Setting more ambitious rules for the Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry sector

The land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF) Regulation sets out rules to ensure that only human-induced changes in the net carbon sink are taken into account in the achievement of climate targets (so-called ‘accounting rules’). For instance, the rule for existing forests (which are by far the largest component of the LULUCF sector) is to only take into account changes in the net carbon sink with respect to the sink that would have occurred under the continuation of past management practices; this baseline is called a Forest Reference Level.

If, after the application of these rules, the net sink is larger than in the accounting baseline, Member States generate credits which can be used to achieve national emission reduction targets under the Effort Sharing Regulation (ESR); if, instead, it is smaller, Member States generate debits. Member States have committed, under the current legislation, to not creating any debits (“no-debit rule”) – if they do, the other ESR sectors must make a bigger climate effort to compensate for these debits and achieve the national climate targets.

This approach is now being reviewed to make it fit for the higher 2030 climate target of at least -55% and a climate neutral EU in 2050.

In your opinion, should there be more stringent targets for the LULUCF sector? 

  • Yes, there should be more stringent targets than the current “no-debit” rule
  • No, continue with the current no-debit rule
  • Other…

Other:  Again, the wrong question. There should only be climate mitigation activities in the land sector. The EU needs to restore the land, and stop confusing post-war ‘afforestation’ with restoration. Although Europe’s forest cover has increased since 1900, much of these forests have become commercial forests for wood production, and there is a confusion between natural forests (which contribute to global ecosystem structures and functions for climate regulation and other services) and plantations (which are crops, for commodities). The two are not the same. Consequently, all previous forest areas, pre-industrial revolution, need to be restored. This applies for wetlands, and other land and water-systems. If the EU continues current agricultural technologies it will push the land to exhaustion, and will not be able to meet its targets. Abandon the LULUCF sector. We live in a post-industrial age: remediate abandoned factories; produce sustainable commodities in the urban context.

In case there would be national targets for the LULUCF sector, what criterion should these targets be based on? 

  • The Member State’s wealth (GDP per capita)
  • The Member State’s potential to increase the net sink in a cost-efficient way
  • A percentage increase compared to the Member State’s past net sink
  • A percentage increase compared to the Member State’s net sink in a baseline that is specific to each land use category (historic baseline for agricultural land, the Forest Reference Level for existing forests)
  • The Member State’s share of agricultural land, forest land and wetland
  • Other…

Other: The only target for the land use sector should be its removal, and the deep decarbonisation of commodity production. Reference levels should be based on how much land has been converted to non-natural purposes, and restoring the original landscape to those levels. The EU should adopt a target that is below zero emissions, and where urban lands have encroached into natural systems, those areas should engage in carbon-negative production systems to take account of the initial loss of climate-mitigating ecosystem structure and function, subsequent industrial emissions, and post-industrial emissions. Historical cultural sites of agricultural production should be retained as World heritage properties, or similar, and be carbon-negative. This is not about member states’ capacities, or interests, it’s about the survival of the EU (and humanity) as a functioning polity in the context of planetary thresholds and climatic tipping points: we have reached the point of no return. The future is now.

In the current LULUCF Regulation, emissions and removals from existing forests are compared to a Forest Reference Level. The concept of reference levels was chosen to ensure a smooth transition from a similar concept under the Kyoto Protocol. Should the EU continue with the reference level concept? 

  • Yes, continue to compare the net sink from existing forests to a Forest Reference Level which is based on the continuation of past management practices
  • Yes, continue to use Forest Reference Levels, but harmonise the methodology to establish them across Member States
  • No, compare the net sink in existing forests to a historic baseline (“net-net” accounting); such a baseline corresponds to a larger sink than the Forest Reference Level.
  • No, take into account the entire net sink in existing forests, without comparing it to any baseline (“gross-net” accounting)
  • Other…

Among these options to reinforce the LULUCF monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) rules, which are your preferred ones?

  • Use more precise emission factors or emission modelling (i.e. tier 2 or tier 3)
  • Use high resolution and wall-to-wall satellite imagery to identify where land use change happens
  • Make the uptake of up-to-date data and advanced reporting methodologies a precondition for flexibilities with other sectors
  • Introduce new requirements to report estimates for all carbon pools and greenhouse gases
  • Reinforce biodiversity, ecosystem and adaptation considerations into the reporting requirements
  • Other…

Other: None. LULUCF must be abandoned; if it is not the planet will be locked into a perpetual cycle of continual emissions from the land sector (until the climate system collapses), rather than the natural carbon neutral cycles implicit in natural ecosystems. LULUCF has resulted in countries engaging in ‘smoke and mirrors’ accounting by assuming forestry is carbon neutral (‘the trees regrow’), when it is always carbon negative (unless the forest is allowed to return to its primary, natural state, and maintained as such). By removing commodity production from the land, and undertaking production in the urban context (where there is plenty of space, person power, infrastructure, and capacity to do so) there will be no need land -sector MRV, only accounting of natural carbon cycles.

Part IV: Links between land use and agriculture

EU climate policy covers emissions from agricultural land use under the LULUCF Regulation, and methane and nitrous oxide emissions from agricultural activities under the Effort Sharing Regulation. There is some flexibility between these two Regulations: if a Member State generates LULUCF credits, they can use them to achieve their Effort Sharing target.

The Commission estimates that the agriculture, forestry and other land use sectors, taken together (referred to as “AFOLU” in the technical jargon, and as “the land sector” in the following), could achieve climate neutrality already in 2035. The de facto very close link between agriculture activities and land use is sometimes used as an argument for integrating them more strongly in the climate policy architecture. Conversely, other stakeholders may consider that it is necessary to maintain a separation between emissions from agriculture and removals from the land sector.

  • How should the architecture of EU climate policy be designed when it comes to agriculture and land use? 
  • Continue to include agricultural non-CO2 emissions under the Effort Sharing Regulation; continue to allow for the use of LULUCF credits in the Effort Sharing Regulation up to the current limit.
  • Continue to include agricultural non-CO2 emissions under the Effort Sharing Regulation; increase the possibility to use LULUCF credits in the Effort Sharing Regulation, independent of a change to Effort Sharing Regulation target levels.
  • Continue to include non-CO2 agricultural emissions under the Effort Sharing Regulation; increase the possibility to use LULUCF credits in the Effort Sharing Regulation, but only in case Effort Sharing Regulation targets are increased.
  • Create a new policy strand, which covers agricultural non-CO2 and land use emissions together.
  • Other…

Other: This is precisely why the EU (and the climate negotiations) around land are in such a mess. Industrial agricultural commodity production generates emissions, from the activity itself (soil disturbance), and inputs (fertilisers, fossil fuels). The act of clearing land, historically, and currently, for commodity production (from fields of wheat to solar farms) also generated, and generate, emissions. Trying to account for this, instead of accepting the modern farming practices are inherently unsustainable and together with forestry account for 20% of global emissions, is futile. These accounting methods lock in anthropogenic land use change, instead of encouraging restoration. There seems to be a belief that humans can keep what they are doing to the land (only better, usually understood as more efficiently), and no alternative. There is. The majority of humans now live in cities. These areas can, must, and will, ultimately, become the main locality for production. Or we’re gone.

In case there were to be a single policy strand covering emissions from the land sector (agriculture, forestry and other land use), should there then be a specific target for this sector? 

  • Yes, there should be an EU-wide target, and then Member States should be required to ‘pledge’ their contribution to this target
  • X Yes, there should be legally-binding national targets
  • No
  • Other…

In case there were to be national targets for the land sector (agriculture, forestry and other land use), what criterion should these targets be based on? 

  • The importance of land-related activities in the Member State’s economy
  • The Member State’s potential to achieve climate neutrality in the EU land sector in a cost-efficient way
  • A percentage increase compared to the Member State’s past emissions and removals from the land sector
  • The Member State’s share of agricultural land, forest land and wetland
  • Other…

Other: Member state’s share of agricultural land, forest land and wetland by area cleared, and amount in need of restoration, less land lost to urban settlement, which is compensated by negative-zero carbon reducing technologies for commodity production, transport and other infrastructure within those urban areas.

The epic of writing an epic

View interview in which Debbie Lee and author Tim Cadman (research academic, environmental activist and author of “The Changes” trilogy)  discuss the epic work involved in writing an epic. In Tim’s fictitious world, climate change acts as chief protagonist, idiot presidents are breaking up the US, Europe is imploding, and a catastrophic viral outbreak is wreaking havoc. Be drawn into a vortex where fiction and reality bizarrely collide, and hear about the process of writing and the lessons learnt. Tim’s live Facebook event is 7.30 pm on 12 June 2020. Be sure to tune in.

Here’s the launch itself to get you started; you might like to watch it beforehand.


The Changes: The Complete Story

It’s FINISHED! @TheChangesBookSeries is complete and published on Amazon.

There is a free promotion April 25-28 on the Kindle Boxed Set (contains Refuge, Rescue and Return in a revised edition with a glossary and list of characters). With the Kindle at USD $2.53 for over 700 conventional book pages, it’s a bargain even if you miss the sale.

Volume 3 Return, in hard copy is now available as well (also with glossary and dramatis personae).

Check out my Amazon author page for more details.

Read the book – and you’re taking your own action on #ClimateChange, even if you’re still in #lockdown, enjoying #QuarantineLife ! 

Here are just some of the reviews for Volume 1 (Refuge) and Volume 2 (Rescue):

“The first in a larger series of cli-fi stories, Mr Cadman in Australia has written a start book that should light a fire worldwide. I’m looking forward to all the books in the series to follow. Bravo!”

Dan Bloom, originator of the term CliFi

“Cadman’s clear sense of the UN policy arena comes through in this fascinating novel. The characters are not only compelling, but they each represent some facet of the actual terrain of the impacts of climate change. While this is intended to be science fiction, there is much that we can learn from “The Changes” about our possible future–and, indeed, current reality.”

Dr Lauren Eastwood, on Amazon.com

“I loved the first book. It was a great story, had great characters and most importantly it made you think; about yourself and humanity. As the story continues in the second volume all these same attributes are further developed; and twisted around your ethical bone until you will question everything. Looking forward to the story continuing.”

Mark Davis, on Amazon.com.au


The Changes: Return

Volume 3, Book V


Marie-Claude was no longer the manic obsessive she had been in the last stages of her career as Executive Secretary. Her exile had been a blessing in disguise, and with Blanchflower and Major Armstrong to keep her company, she gradually became more of the person she had been before her breakdown. The dedication to reuniting the displacees with their families remained, but it was tempered by a greater recognition of her own needs, and the needs of those with whom she shared her tiny world, now renamed Cloister Farm. 

Jack had joined her shortly after her recovery; UNSAP was a thing of the past, as were the shuttles, and he was lonely without her. Feeling sorry for him, she made the mistake of asking him to help her in the office, where predictably, he was an absolute disaster. Blanchflower had come to the rescue, suggesting over dinner one night that if they were going to be more than a farm in name only, perhaps he might like to help? Jack gladly accepted, taking charge of cropping, and curiously, beekeeping. Marie-Claude couldn’t help commenting that he looked like an astronaut when he put on his bee-suit. With no tractor it was hard going to turn the ground, but he had not worked his way through the ranks by sitting on his hands, and he enjoyed being outdoors. The grain and the honey both went to make Jack’s bourbon, which, given the man’s drinking habits, was all the incentive he needed to become a full-time farmer.  

She played no further role in military affairs, except to take part in a holo-link conference at the farm arranged by Blanchflower in the immediate aftermath of the WorldCON surrender. She did not see or hear from Captain Branksome for some time after that, suspecting he thought she was being derelict in her duty. This was something that would have mattered to her old self, but not anymore; he would visit when he was ready. As soon as she returned from earth, Lt Stein re-entered the simulation and stopped communicating with her, although Marie-Claude did get an account of her activities from Cordwell. 

The priest took it upon himself to write her regular epistles every decade or so, detailing the various dilemmas that he was obliged to confront as WorldCON’s chief negotiator, now the colonies were gone. It was good to be kept informed, she supposed, and although she occasionally responded to his missives, she never offered him advice. She missed her old friend the Professor from Colony Four far more, and was always pleased to get one of his detailed reports on his wildlife projects. 

Bordeianu visited occasionally. This was a serious commitment, as it meant expending real life-hours to exit the one scenario, physically re-connecting the capsule to the Cloister Farm sub-systems, and repeating the process to return. The systems analyst even went so far as to create a new visualisation of The Repository for her when the need arose. Ms Gupta did not visit, and Marie-Claude did not ask after her, nor did the systems analyst speak of her unless necessary. Like Madé, she was one person she would no doubt have to meet one day, and she was not yet ready to confront either of them. 

Peters made the most substantive contribution to her own efforts, and over the years they developed a good working relationship. Communicating via terminal was not particularly useful, given the difference between real-time and virtual, so he visited by holo-link whenever he discovered anything useful. She found their exchanges worked best if she continued to treat him as the slightly bumbling but well-intentioned Cultural Retrieval officer she had first met in Geneva-Four, however significant a position he now occupied on earth. He was particularly concerned to secure her assistance in his own efforts to recover the original identities of the mysterious Comrades, and servitor-zombies that Gruber had created. Central had deliberately kept no records, and together they began to piece together who had been where, and done what, in those dark times. There were also thousands of flimsies in the Basel archive, incomplete and in total disarray, but they were nevertheless useful for adding to or confirming the data Marie-Claude had already.  

One major disappointment in her life was the lack of communication from Trappinski. He had attended the initial post-colonial holo-link, and she had expected him to stay in contact, but she neither saw nor heard from him after that. She had always considered him a friend, and was hurt by his apparent indifference to her existence. As a scientist, however, he had always been more attached to their research than people. Trappinski had little to no empathy for others, and she had learned the danger of fixating on problems she could not solve, so she acknowledged her feelings, accepting he would get in touch with her if and when he needed to. 

Meanwhile, she got on with her own undertakings.  The longer she worked in the office, the more familiar she became with her subject-matter, and she began to see her task as one of detective work, focussed more on finding the connections between individuals, and worrying less about daily targets. In this way, one single record could be linked to many others, and only one positive identification was enough to lead to many more as the work progressed. As the years passed, the number of individuals she reunited with their families became thousands, over the decades, tens of thousands, by the end of the first century, hundreds of thousands, and at the end of the first millennium, millions. As the numbers grew with the years, more and more displacees became aware of Marie-Claude, not as the Executive Secretary, but as Madame Bertillon. The dissonance grew between their memories of the tyrant who had condemned a billion refugees to the moon, and the woman who brought families together.Since her recovery, and his ascension to sentience, she and Blanchflower had become friends. Her therapy sessions were replaced by co-counselling, and they would share thoughts and feelings, both gaining from the exchange; emotions were new to Blanchflower, and Marie-Claude had spent many years supressing hers.  

The Changes: Rescue

Volume 2, Book III


Waking up was disorienting. It was dark and he was rocking gently. Familiar with the sensation, he began to piece together his previous movements. He had been in Colony One, on the transcontinental express, after visiting Camp Hope. He had gone there with Herr Niemand to gain more recruits for the revolution. Something had happened on the train. His memory was still fuzzy and he was unable to recall what. He felt odd, as if everything he was experiencing was not quite real. He sat up, hitting his head on the top bunk. 

It was enough to knock him to his senses. He was in the simulation. With a stab of recollection, he also knew he had been with Shanti – in real life. A familiar sense of claustrophobia threatened to take control. The blackness pressed in on him as if he were trapped in a malfunctioning capsule. Panicking, he fumbled around for the light. 

Regarding him impassively from the opposite bunk was the old man. 

 “Is that you, Niemand? You frightened me.”

 “There are worse things to fear. I am glad to see you are back in the land of the living. I had begun to think there was a malfunction in your interface with the simulation.” 

Seeing the construct was a relief and a disappointment, confirmation that he was back in Colony One.

“This is hardly the land of the living.”

“Perhaps not, but it is the best place for you right now. Your diagnostics went offline. You have been lying there for more than two days. We are not far from Berlin.”

“Shanti got me out, can you believe it? I met her – actually met her. We tried to get a tug to reach the shuttles and escape, but I was too weak. I collapsed in the tug hangar at Port Freedom. I don’t know what happened after that.”

“You were in a coma. It appears that you remained that way until you were patched back into the simulation. Even then you took a while to stabilise. Without re-encapsulation, you would most likely be dead. Your extraction was almost fatal.” 

“I saw my body. The tug accident all those years ago; it’s made me a cripple. A limp in here is nothing compared to what I am like out there. And Shanti is so much older than me. How can we ever be together? Everything is a mess.”

Sitting on the edge of the bunk, he cradled his head in his hands, miserable.

“You are being overly melodramatic. Your companion is extremely resourceful. She’s waiting for us at the terminus.”

“What are you talking about?”

 “I suggest you lie back down and listen.”

Despite his confusion, Madé complied. His recent experience had left him physically and mentally drained. The construct explained the rapid turn of events in Colony One. The preparations they had put in place over the past months had paid off. As soon as it became apparent that the scenario was nothing more than a simulation populated with constructs and displacees in capsules, the Sons and Daughters of Freedom had coordinated mass marches and street blockades. Captain Kiriov, Martin and the other conspirators that Madé had recruited also played their part, organising strikes and walkouts from WorldCON facilities, making the process of governing impossible. In a few days the whole colony had fallen into complete disarray. For the most part, their people had been well disciplined and non-violent. The military was still desperately and unsuccessfully trying to regain control. The tide had turned in favour of the Sons and Daughters.

He listened, occasionally asking questions, but was otherwise content to let Niemand speak. As the train steamed towards its destination – and Shanti – he began to feel a little better. He wondered what it would be like meeting her again. Already, his time outside felt like a long time ago. He was so much younger there. How could she really love him, given his condition? There was something almost obscene about the idea. It made him angry. He was glad the revolution was succeeding. There should be a reckoning for those responsible for having made him that way. 

“Did you hear anything I have been saying for the last few minutes?”  

“I’m sorry. There’s so much to take in.”

“There is more, so you had better pay attention. You have become the hero-saviour of Colony One. You are the cause célèbre of the revolution.”


“Your story has struck a chord. I have been circulating an unofficial biography and some of the more notable sayings from your essays are being painted on walls across the colony.”

“Essays? I never wrote anything.”

“You might not have, but I did. You have become a source of inspiration for millions. You are a legend. Shanti too.”

“I don’t want to be a legend. I want out of here. I want my life back.”

“Your life is not your own to make those kinds of decisions anymore, I am afraid. The fate of the entire simulation rests in your hands. You are the symbol of resistance against the authorities. You are lucky they are unable to harm you. If they did, the simulation would most likely collapse under the weight of mass protest. WorldCON is losing control. 

“You wanted to change things. You have. Now it is up to you to show leadership. Remember your time in the A-9 – when you were alone and landed the shuttle single-handedly?”

“Of course. It was one of the most terrifying things I have ever done – even if it was in the simulation. What does that have to do with what is happening here?”

“Everything. If you want to see a time when everyone can leave this place and return to earth, you have to be as brave now, as you were then. That was your first bold step. Now, you must accept responsibility for who you are and who you are yet to be. 

“Look, here come the outskirts of Berlin. We need to get you ready. I have brought you a new handy and some clothes. Put them on.” 

He was reluctant, but Niemand would hear no objection and as the train approached the terminus Madé had little option but to dress as quickly as he could. The construct had provided blue weatheralls, well made, yet plain enough for him to pass as one of the people. A matching cap and a pair of stout boots helped add a few inches to his otherwise slight frame.

The Changes: Refuge

Volume One, Book I


Charles Peters was late. He woke up in the sure knowledge that he had overslept. Panicking, he reached over for his handy and read the time: 07:23. The alarm had failed to go off. Dry tongued, he dialled for the nearest ground vehicle. 07:40. He had to be at the terminal for boarding at 8:20. Packing at the same time as he scrambled into his clothes, he gulped from the tap (unwise) and headed out.

The handy pinged in his pocket. The ground vehicle had been rerouted and a replacement wasn’t due to arrive until 07:50. He spent the remaining minutes waiting for the GV in an apoplexy of angst. Why today of all days? It was turning out to be his worst nightmare, just like the one he had this morning, shortly before he woke up. The GV came around the corner and the dream-memory vanished with the last vestiges of the hangover.

Sitting in the GV, he fell into a reverie that sang a harmony to the melody of his anxiety. It was a scorching hot morning as ever, but Charles Peters had broken into a sweat long before.

“Can’t you go any faster?” he demanded of the driver.

The driver – separated by a screen of bulletproof glass and with his intercom switched off – jabbered something muted and incomprehensible.

At last the terminal came into sight. It was 08:07 – still time to make it. They got to Security. The vehicle immediately in front had just set off an impressive array of sensors, lights and alarms, and a large mesh screen shot up, blocking the way forward. Any hope of catching that flight failed like the last blinking lights on the departure board.

In his frustration, Charles Peters rapped on the plexa-glass screen and gesticulated to the driver to turn on the intercom.

“Isn’t there anything you can do?”

He could just make out something that sounded like ‘handy’ and ‘here’. Unwilling to let go of the device but desperate to try anything, he slid it through the safety grille. The driver took it and pushed it into a slot in the dashboard. After a few moments’ silence a ping announced the outcome. 

“What did it say?”

The driver looked at the handy, pushed it back through the grille, and got out of the GV.

There was a message.

You have been placed on an alternative flight. 

Stay in the vehicle until it reaches the departure terminal.

By authority,


The vehicle resumed the journey on auto. His anxiety now somewhat in abeyance, he sat back in the relative comfort of the GV and examined his own life. He’d been working for WorldCON for more than twenty years. He knew that at some basic level he was being taken care of, unlike the billions who had not been. But the constant impacts of The Changes were escalating. Time was running out. His grandfather had been instrumental in the establishment of WorldCON, and its first Secretary General. This had brought privilege of a kind, but he had been expected to follow in the footsteps of his lineage. 

He was the only surviving child of high-ranking diplomats who’d married late. As a family, they’d been one of the lucky ones – at first. But then The Changes took his parents, and his only sister. A translator by training, Charles Peters had been drafted, and spent most of what he bitterly thought was wasted time recording customs and languages that had gone or were going extinct. Cultural Retrieval it was called. This was another one of such jobs, except that it was in Japan rather than anywhere else.

Not that it really made much difference to Charles Peters. He really only lived to work, had no social life, and was constantly tired from overwork. How could he complain? He had shelter, warmth – food in his belly. He had a gold pass compared to millions of his fellow WorldCON citizens who had to scramble for any kind of living just to survive. He had led the strangest life of being parachuted into the worst disaster zones and areas of deprivation he had to see himself to believe. He was almost always associated with a larger WorldCON rescue team; the incidental, not really part of the set-up, picking through the ruins of fire, flood, famine and drought.

This time in Japan, he had been debriefing from an operation in Hokkaido where he’d been sent to record the last of the songs being sung by the Ainu people about the bears and salmon with whom they had once shared the world. Years of drought and dry winters had left the island tinder-dry, and it had recently burnt end-to-end, leaving the population with nothing. He’d been with people from various WorldCON agencies. People didn’t really take much notice of a translator, but he had given his presentation anyway. He had got rather drunk at an underground bar that still sold real Sake. Then he had woken up late.

At a break in the fence, the GV turned down a huge avenue of razor-barb walls. His journey was to continue for another few kilometres yet; more time for reflection. Charles Peters was sick of his life: sick of working for people who didn’t care a damn about what he did for them. His research and reports went unread; people were dying as he wrote about them and he felt like a monstrous pirate, grabbing the last of his victims’ precious artefacts on their demise. 

The love of his life had been words; they were the only things he ever really interacted with on an intimate level. He had done well in his studies, but life had got in the way and The Changes had prevented him from finishing. He was pitched straight into WorldCON; a cultural vampire, yet driven to protect all that was left of the recorded fragments of civilisation as it was being extinguished on earth.

Initially, he’d found the work fascinating. His first major project had been in China. He had been sent to a region that had been devastated in a flood. Subsequent assignments kept Charles Peters busy for months at a time, usually at eighteen hour-long stretches or more. He never had time for anything except work. The privileged appeal of being one of the very chosen few on earth who were allowed to travel by air had worn thin. He didn’t have a person on earth who really cared for him or even noticed him. His life was at the proverbial crossroads: could he go ahead with everything as normal, or admit that he was going slowly insane? He knew too much not to know that the human race and countless other species were rapidly disappearing; The Changes had sped everything up. His research became an ever-increasing catalogue of disappearing people and their remains, and under such terms it could only be depressing. No one noticed him or what he did anyway; he was too unimportant. He just did his work for WorldCON and that was it.

The GV reached a security booth. At this point he was required to get out to be scanned. An anti-nausea pill popped out of an automatic dispensary, which he took, now ready for the flight, and resumed the trip. The GV swung past the main terminal, taking a route he had not gone before. He noticed an Authorised Access Only sign behind the razor-barb. Charles Peters wondered where he was being posted that required such secrecy, but he knew times were tough; people could be posted anywhere.

The GV approached a building unlike any of the other terminals Charles Peters was used to and pulled up at the main entrance. Taking everything he had – either in his pockets or his one piece of carry-on luggage – he entered into a large concourse. His handy pinged. On the screen was his flight number. He just had to find it on the departure board and he’d be off. He didn’t know where; you hardly ever knew until you took off.

By this time, being late was an irrelevancy. He was completely in the hands of WorldCON. There was nothing to do except wait until the handset pinged. 

He glanced up at the departure board. He looked at the list of flight codes, but couldn’t see his. He scanned it again. This was not usual. 

He approached the service desk. Two young Japanese flight attendants stood there impassively. He knew the rigmarole, and gave his flight number. One of them bowed, stood back, holding open the curtain behind the service desk. He passed into a smaller scanning booth, and emerged on the other side. A third flight attendant ushered him down a long snaky corridor, through its puckered end, and on board. 

He belted up and prepared for take-off. He felt himself being gently and increasingly forced back into the chair as the gees increased. This was the worst part of the flight, but it didn’t last long. 

He looked out of the tiny window. There she was below him, his whole world: bluer and browner than his grandfather would have seen it – and a lot more clouds. He wasn’t aware of falling asleep – one of the side effects of the anti-nausea pill – awaking to the insistent vibration of his handy.

You have been selected as a candidate for intensive training. 

You will shortly be arriving at Colony Nine.

You will undertake integration upon arrival, after which you will be given your next assignment.

They touched down. He unbuckled and made his way to the exit. He stepped into a tunnel. There were no windows. He walked alone down the corridor. Ahead he could see a crowd of people waiting in line in front of a security booth. The queue was long. Ordinary people, all with a single piece of luggage and dazed like him, were waiting their turn at the scanning booth. 

There were screens on the walls every ten meters or so. A vaguely familiar elderly man was sitting behind a desk, holding a sheaf of papers and looking directly at him.

“Welcome to Colony Nine. I hope you enjoy your second chance.”

Eventually it was his turn. He was instructed to leave his handy and bag behind, take off his clothes, put on new weatheralls, and proceed. He did as he was told, and walked into a new world.

Governing the sun: the challenges of geoengineering

Governments have previously sought to reduce climate-change inducing concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the earth’s atmosphere through mitigation and adaptation activities, but are now exploring other measures. Negative emissions technologies (NET) are aimed at carbon dioxide removal(CDR) to a level consistent with a desired temperature, while solar geoengineering, also known as solar radiation management, or modification (SRM) seeks to reflect sunlight away from earth and thereby reduce global temperatures. Existing measures to combat rising emissions have not been entirely successful, and CDR and SRM have consequently gained increased policy traction in recent years. Emerging technologies include bioenergy, carbon capture and storage (BECCS) and stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI). A careful, unbiased, and knowledge-driven assessment of the risks of these technologies is required, and that robust governance systems should be put in place before they are implemented any further.

CDR was investigated in an IPCC special report in 2005. The technology was acknowledged as one of the options for removing COfrom the atmosphere arising from the combustion of fossil fuels for energy production and the burning of forests. Solar geoengineering has emerged as a supplement to CDR as a consequence of concerns that global GHG emissions are still increasing, and may result in an increase to 1.5 degrees warming as early as 2030, which partly explains the growing interest in more radical technologies to reduce risks of climate change.

BECCS was originally envisioned only as a backstop under an extreme climate scenario should ambitious emissions reductions prove unfeasible, in the context of commensurate broad-scale forest restoration and replanting, and as a risk management option. Nonetheless the technology has gained traction because of a loophole under the Kyoto Protocol which exempted forest loss from being counted as an emission, under the accounting logic that if the cleared area regrows, or is converted to another land-use (such as agricultural crops) it continues to take up carbon. The problem with the implementation of the technology is that initial modelling and pilot projects assumed fuels would come mostly from energy crops and that if residues were used, they would all have similar emissions profiles. In reality, wood pellets are the most common energy source, and are not made from residues, but trees, with a measurably larger, and longer-term net emissions impact (NEI) than other sources. Countries have developed renewable energy policies on the basis of these prior assumptions, as was the case in the UK in 2015, where the government committed over £800 million in subsidies to biomass energy, while phasing out support for offshore wind power, and extending the life of coal-fired power stations using forests in their energy-mix, and net emissions are replacing zero emissions as a policy outcome.

SRM is a set of emerging technologies aimed at altering the Earth’s radiative balance, reducing the amount of climate change caused by greenhouse gases. Space-based techniques and stratospheric aerosol scattering have the potential to block or reflect a small portion of incoming sunlight, cooling the planet and thus reducing the risks of climate change. The leading suggested method is to mimic volcanic activity, whereby fine dust naturally lowers global temperatures for a year or two after large eruptions such as Mount Pinatubo in 1991. Another method involves spraying seawater upwards as fine droplets, which could brighten low-lying marine clouds, thereby reflecting more sunlight. This particular technology has been identified as the source for a range of popular conspiracy theories, including the belief that world governments were filling the atmosphere with toxic pollutants (‘chemtrails’). Although the injection of aerosols into the atmosphere might reduce heat stress on agricultural crops, the resulting reduction in sunlight could have other less positive impacts. Models replicating the impacts of sulfur in the atmosphere from volcanic eruptions, on which this technology are based, indicate the apparent benefits of planetary cooling are outweighed by a reduction in crop yields, while the effects on ecosystem function and human health are unknown.

Despite, or indeed, because of, the IPCC’s previous recognition of the need to give consideration to such technologies, it must continue be emphasized that the most effective approach to reducing climate change risks remains the prevention of greenhouse gas emissions in the first place, and where this is not possible, the reliable, safe and environmentally benign removal of CO2 from the atmosphere. In the case of BECCS there are issues of scale; with the appropriate feedstock and the correct energy mix of wind, solar and bioenergy, there are few adverse impacts. But if scaling up results in the destruction of the world’s remaining primary forests, or taking away land for agricultural production, scale becomes critical and the technology unfeasible. SRM might not only affect the radiation balance but atmospheric chemistry and rain patterns as well. In addition, such techniques do not address the root causes of climate change and other negative effects of high atmospheric CO2 concentrations would persist, including ocean acidification and changes to ecosystems. In other words, business as usual could continue, including the combustion of fossil fuels, while reducing some of the impacts of solar radiation through such techno-fixes, and if solar radiation management should cease as a result of economic or political crises, the result would be a rapid increase in global temperatures, as the GHGs would still be in the atmosphere.

It is the nation-states that will ultimately have to address risks posed by climate change – for good or ill. Global collaboration is key to speeding up efforts to address climate change risks; failure in co-operation, notably between the main emitting countries such as US and China, will quickly translate into a significant increase of climate change, and many more people will have to suffer than are already affected. The dangers inherent in emerging technologies are not always clear, but appropriate responses to the challenges of climate change depend very much on the careful consideration and effective implementation of any additional measures identified by the scientific community as necessary. In order to conserve human society and biodiversity, an unbiased and knowledge-driven assessment of the risks posed by engineering the climate, as well as robust governance systems, are required.

Lastly, no examination of emerging technologies for CDR and SRM is complete without recognising the risks that accompany the mitigation of, and adaptation to, climate change. These have their own inherent problems, notably around the use of market mechanisms, and other approaches that are being negotiated under the Paris Agreement. To ignore the existing tensions in the climate change debate by turning to geoengineering as a panacea could make the current climate emergency even worse.

For a full version, including references, see: Radunsky, K., & Cadman, T. (2019). Governing the Sun, The International Journal of Social Quality, 9(2), 19-34, which, due to the corona virus outbreak, is currently open source:


Tim Cadman, Research Fellow, t.cadman@griffith.edu.au

Klaus Radunsky, Chair, ISO TC207 SC7 Mirror Committee, Austrian Standardization Institute (ASI)

Originally posted on https://news.griffith.edu.au/2020/04/06/governing-the-sun-the-challenges-of-geoengineering/

Response to ‘salvage’ effort for bushfire-burnt timber: the letter SMH didn’t publish

Readers should refer to Noel Towell’s article in the Sydney Morning Herald 22/01/2020

I am writing to correct the misrepresentation of the issues in Noel Towell’s article “Massive salvage effort for bushfire-burnt timber a race against time.” The error is not so much in the reporting. Noel is indeed right that there is a scramble to log as much of Australia’s burnt forests as possible, but for one sole consideration: money. It has nothing to do with making the forests safe, or restoring damaged ecosystems. It is about scavenging and profiting from the greatest destruction of Australia’s forests and wildlife since colonisation. The truth is that Australia’s forest industry is on the ropes after decades of mismanagement and over-logging, and this post-fire attack on the bush the latest manifestation. We have all seen the green shoots after the burn. These forests are being cut because the recovering trees would no longer be ‘commercially viable’, and by removing them the risk of fire is being increased, not reduced. These salvage areas will now become the new fire grounds, as the piled up logging slash will burn again. So don’t believe the hype, and beware of the costs of buying the timber: lost habitat, missing koalas, and impoverished water quality.

Submission to the Parliamentary Inquiry into Australia’s Recent Fires

Tim Cadman BA (Hons) MA (Cantab), PhD (Tasmania), Grad. Cert. Theol. (Charles Sturt),
Senior Research Fellow, Earth Systems Governance Project,
Research Fellow, Institute for Ethics, Governance and Law, Griffith University,
Adjunct Research Fellow, University of Southern Queensland

This submission is in two parts, commencing with an analysis of the error of traditional European burning practices for fire mitigation, followed by an exploration of these issues in the forestry context; some examples are situated in Northern NSW and Bellingen Shire in particular.

In summary, forestry operations, land-clearing, and hazard and fuel reduction burning all contribute directly to bushfires. A new management strategy is required, recognising the real and present threat of climate change. The ongoing calls for more clearing and burning will only exacerbate the current environmental crisis. Native forest logging should be ended, and current unburnt forest areas protected for habitat conservation, notably for the koala. Above all, Australia must increase its ambition under the Paris Agreement. A focus on adaptation and resilience, when there is still an urgent need for mitigation of climate change (through decarbonisation of the economy, as per Article 4.1 of the Agreement) is a distraction. Climate change has arrived, and this changes everything.

1) Why Australia should stop burning its forests to save them

The ongoing fires in Australia, which are now approaching 11 million hectares in extent, have been exacerbated by human intervention. In an emergency, traditional practices are no longer relevant and ‘hazard reduction’ burning, followed (if the situation requires it) by ‘back-burning’ ahead of the fire front must be re-evaluated.

In the context of climatic tipping points and extreme weather events, we can see that this season’s initial ‘hazard’ burns were largely responsible for the fires. Some fires originated on public land, as a consequence of mandatory ‘fuel reduction’ burning, and targets, forcing agencies like the Parks Service to burn. The agencies started their burning in the traditional period (end of winter), but of course (on account of climate change) this was the wrong season. But because our governments and their coalition partners generally don’t believe in climate change, the burn period has not been adjusted. Agencies kept on doing the same old thing, and when the fires got out of control, they extended ‘hazard reduction’ burning to private property (as they have compulsory powers) under the guise of ‘protecting assets’ (such as plantations). This was when a significant part of the remnant rainforest on the New England Tableland in New South Wales was destroyed. Once all these fires got out of control, the agencies switched to ‘back’ burning, exacerbating the problem. This in turn emboldened local landowners to burn their properties (as was the case with the 30,000 hectares burnt at Ebor, NSW).

On a broader, ecological/environmental level, quite a few scientists have argued that we should not be burning natural areas. This is because we are increasing fire-loving plants and converting forests to more fire-loving states. In combination with the reduction in age of most forests, and leaving logging slash on the ground, fuel loads have been increased. This is all a consequence of human activity. 

Consequently, some ecologists argue that we should allow our forest communities to return to their natural state and age-class, and permit them to burn according to their natural condition, and focus on securing property in residential areas – not undertake broad-scale burning. Given these observations, we need to accept that all our forests and grasslands are extremely dry, and any burning is simply going to result in more intense fires, earlier in the fire season, which will be made worse by human intervention. And there is mounting evidence to support this claim, with homes destroyed in the Blue Mountains as a result of a supposedly ‘crucial’ back-burn that got out of control.

The correct strategy should be:

1) Immediate implementation of the Paris Agreement, including the target of keeping rising global temperatures to the ‘tolerable’ increase of 1.5 degrees centigrade above pre-industrial levels; 

2) Immediate protection of all high conservation value natural ecosystems; 

3) Restoration of all degraded natural areas, according to ecosystem type; 

4) A shift to alternative agricultural practices such as regenerative farming and massive de-stocking of rangelands; 

5) Restoring natural (environmental flow) levels to all water systems, notably the Murray Darling (no more irrigation);

6) Respecting and reintroducing the Indigenous approach to fire management, which is highly site-specific and relevant to the appropriate ecosystem (i.e grasslands, not rainforests).

If we don’t, then no amount of burning will work. Fire is a tool to be used extremely sparingly, in the appropriate ecosystems; the best examples we have of appropriate fire management are those used by Australia’s Indigenous peoples. Like clear-felling of forests to ‘regenerate’ forests, we are using one tool, for one context, and applying everywhere, because it seems like a magic bullet. It isn’t.

Supporters of burning claim that a cool burn must be preferable to a hot burn, and back burning is only done when it’s cool and humid.

We no longer have cool and humid periods. We are living climate change, right now. To undertake any burning in the current context this summer is little more than ecocide. Every unburnt area needs to be protected to allow for species’ recovery. Enough has burnt already; now we have a higher priority: to protect our biodiversity, because there is a link between biodiversity and climate change. The more we reduce our biodiversity, the more we are exposed to the impacts of climate change (the rangeland fires we have witnessed are a case in point: our soils are so impoverished they no longer hold moisture).

Sadly, by burning the natural environment in the misguided belief we are securing property, we are adding to the fuel load. The more you burn, the more fire-prone natural ecosystems become. Many farmers know this, which is why they have been burning ahead of containment lines, to destroy the ‘scrub’ (rainforest), in the belief they will promote eucalyptus species, for logging, and increasing ‘green pick’ (grass). And so the cycle starts over again.

In NSW, the Kalang River catchment in the shire of Bellingen is now one of the last strongholds for koala and other endangered ‘apex’ species (species which help maintain ecological integrity). There were plans to log the catchment, which were resisted by local residents. Now instead, there is a proposal to burn the catchment to protect the town. But if we kill apex species, we convert ecosystems (let alone undermine the quality of our municipal water supply). A good example is the destruction of Bison in North America. The Bluegrass prairie, which once covered millions of acres is now reduced to a few tiny fragments; it can no longer regenerate, as it was dependent on the buffalo, and has disappeared. In the case of the Kalang these forests must be protected from fire, not burnt, and this should be done by:

a) Not back burning;

b) Allowing natural ecosystems to recover; 

c) Water, not fire; and 

d) Targeted human intervention (manual, not mechanical, responses). 

Supporters of burning claim it’s better to stop a hot burning fire consuming everything in front of it, even if that means creating a narrow corridor of low level burnt material, as this means the fire runs out of fuel.

We cannot stop these fires. They are a consequence of climate change. Therefore, the best response is to change our behaviour in the face of the inevitable, and not deny its reality (adaptation). We also do this by giving the planet a break from extractive and destructive human activities, particularly the combustion of fossil fuels, and the degradation of the natural environment, and preventing further exacerbation of the problem (mitigation). 

Those living within semi-natural environments have to take responsibility for their own properties; those of us living in towns need to have a secure municipal perimeters – and we all need to implement other measures, such as sprinkler systems. We can no longer afford to lay waste to everything around us in the vain hope things will get better. 

This is the context I believe this debate is missing. I admire and respect all our firefighters, and I hope they get the resources they need to extinguish the fires, not make more.

2) The Bellinger Valley is an island of green amidst a sea of bushfires due to forest conservation and habitat protection 

The Bellinger Valley is an island of green amidst a sea of bushfires, and the Kalang headwaters are at the very epicentre of that island. The reason why our shire is so verdant, and so free of fire and drought, is because our water catchments are largely being managed for protection purposes. 

Sustainable development recognises that the economy, ecology, and society are inter-dependent, and you can’t have one without the other. Sustainable forest management, or SFM, acknowledges the same. Our governments, of all political colours, support SFM, and recognise the 1992 Statement of Forest Principles, which is part of Agenda 21, negotiated at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. 

SFM recognises that the environment also has economic value. The Upper Kalang and Middle Bellinger River catchments are still filled with ancient, old-growth forests, and rainforests. Such high conservation value forests provide and regulate water quality and quantity. Young forest does not make water, it takes water. The headwater forests of the Kalang River are an important source of what are called ‘ecosystem services’, or ‘natural capital’, and are worth far more than the individual trees or timber within them, which can easily be sourced elsewhere. 

In the Upper Kalang in particular, Bellingen Shire has one of the largest and healthiest populations of koala left on the eastern seaboard. Imagine the economic potential that lies at the heart of this shire, if these forests are managed for their natural values. To undertake extractive management for a few poles that can easily be sourced elsewhere, at no cost to jobs or the economy, would be a bit like grinding up the Taj Mahal to make marble benchtops. 

Finally, I would like to stress the third dimension of sustainability, namely society. SFM also accepts the role of the community in determining how forests should be managed. All of us who live here love Bello shire, we love our forests, and we love our community. We live in a very special place. Let’s keep it that way by managing our natural resources responsibly, for water quality and quantity, habitat and recreation, and let’s keep agriculture and forestry where they belong, which is outside high conservation value forests. Over one hundred years ago the NSW Lands Protection Board set the Kalang forests aside, recognising their extreme potential for erosion. All that stands between shire residents and the soils of the Kalang are its forests, so it is essential to keep them there, and maximise their benefits, instead of minimising their value, and compromising the future.

Tim Cadman has been a ratepayer in Bellingen Shire since 1997. He is not, nor has he ever been a member of the Green Party.  He is a research fellow at Griffith University in forest governance, sustainable development, and climate change. He works in countries and places as diverse as the Amazon, Nepal, Papua New Guinea, and India helping local communities, Indigenous people, governments, non-governmental organisations, and all stakeholders to create plans for the sustainable management of their forests. He has been recognised by the Federal Government for his commitment to sustainable forest management in Australia.

This inquiry, worryingly entitled Inquiry into the efficacy of past and current vegetation and land management policy, practice and legislation and their effect on the intensity and frequency of bushfires and subsequent risk to property, life and the environment is likely to lead to recommendations for more logging, salvage logging, clearing and burning. Please send your own submissions to Environment.Reps@aph.gov.au before March 31, 2020