David Young exposes the truth on deforestation in NZ
An excellent blog by David Young at Pundit:
On Friday, all of New Zealand’s main online media outlets reported the news, with headlines like “New Zealand forest ecosystem crisis” and “New Zealand’s forests disappearing“. The rationale for the story was that US environmental group Conservation International had concluded that our forests are currently “the second most threatened in the world”.
Radio New Zealand reported, “Only Myanmar is reportedly worse than New Zealand and countries often criticised for deforestation – such as China and the Philippines – fare better.”
The media’s attention appears to have been directed to this startling news by the Green Party’s Kevin Hague, who issued a press release (“World’s eyes focus on New Zealand’s disappearing forests“) that said, “New Zealand stands at the brink of losing some of our most precious plants and animals unless the Government works smarter to protect them”.
Sounds awful doesn’t it. Only nasty old Burm is worse than us.
I went in search of what Radio New Zealand and Mr. Hague called the “report” that sparked this reportage. It turned out not to be a new research paper, but a press release issued by Conservation International to bring attention to the launch of the International Year of Forests.
I always try to read the source report also, when something comes out ranking NZ. Unless you know the criteria they use, the ranking is useless.
First of all, I thought this might be because of Conservation International’s measurement criteria. in determining which forests in the world are the most at risk of disappearing, Conservation International didn’t measure anything as obvious as current deforestation rates. It didn’t count the percentage of forest that was protected.
What it claimed to have done was to calculate New Zealand’s “original” forest cover. Which it considered to be 100% of New Zealand. Then it claimed that only five percent of the “original” cover is left.
Another criteria for inclusion in the list was that forests have at least 1,500 endemic plant species.
And that combination was apparently how we ended up second.
So the ranking was not based on any current deforestation rates. It is all based on the fact we have lots of plants and 150 years ago lots of trees got chopped down. We’d have that ranking regardless of anytthing we are currently doing.
But even setting this objection aside, the numbers appeared plain wrong. About 6.5 million hectares of New Zealand is covered in native forest. That’s close to 25 percent, and a long way from 5 percent. Even Conservation International’s own figures don’t match the claim.
So. even on their stupid criteria, they also got the data wrong. Will they admit this? they they have said:
CORRECTION: The press release distributed originally in February 2nd reported erroneously that New Zealand was #2 in the ranking, when New Caledonia is actually #2.
So it turns out that we are not even in the top ten. Will mainstream media report this correction?
It’s disturbing that neither the Green Party MP who trumpeted the news in New Zealand, nor the media who reported it, seemed to spend any time looking at the “report” itself.
Neither Mr. Hague, his press secretary, nor a series of reporters and sub-editors stopped to think that the figures might be just a little counterintuitive. They just shared the grim news.
Well done David Young for actually reading the report.
February 7th, 2011 at 3:08 pm
Voting green and smoking green it would seem
February 7th, 2011 at 4:09 pm
No doubt Toad will hop along shortly running interference!
February 7th, 2011 at 4:13 pm
We should not be at all surprised.
Newsrooms don’t any more have the people with the wit or the will to challenge garbage like this.
For more than 20 years that which has come from Greenpeace, Green MPs, and other tree-huggers gets space and air time virtually unchallenged.
Why else has the ‘global warming’ nonsense gained such traction.
February 7th, 2011 at 4:18 pm
calculate New Zealand’s “original” forest cover. Which it considered to be 100%
That’s not a calculation, it’s an assumption based on nothing. I’d have thought that significant areas in inland South Island in particular would not have been in forest 150 years ago.
February 7th, 2011 at 4:21 pm
The eco-terrorists are masters of disinformation and never sleep. The Luddites specialise in fearmongering, so Hagues’ press release contains the same usual littany of lies they are infamous for.
The possibility of these lunatics gaining full access to the levers of political power is very frightening. NZ would be the big loser.
February 7th, 2011 at 4:27 pm
A bit of basic geography and biology might have helped too. NZ has some 11% of its land area in the alpine zone….i.e., above the tree line. Yes, our vascular flora does have a high degree of endemism with about 1944 species only found in NZ, but many of these are plants of open habitats. Our native forests aren’t in great shape, but there are a number of other ecosystems in NZ (wetlands, dunelands, dry shrublands, cliff communities etc.) that are much worse off.
February 7th, 2011 at 4:46 pm
Masters? Hardly. And it seems that they were asleep at the wheels. A little research on the net and it all fell apart.
The real shame is that no one else bothered to check the facts even though it would have been so easy to do.
February 7th, 2011 at 4:48 pm
“Conservation international” should have sounded the alarm bells. How many commie outfits have International in their titles, it makes the tossers feel important. None of these pricks could give a flying fuck about conservation, it’s all about power and control. Bullshit the masses, put heat on government, call for greater taxation for conservation purposes, get job running conservation programs, skim funds for party central, the cycle starts again.
February 7th, 2011 at 4:50 pm
I hope Credulous Kevin will not be allowed to forget this when Parliament starts again.
February 7th, 2011 at 5:07 pm
Ecobollocks.
February 7th, 2011 at 5:31 pm
David was right to pull me up on the error. I should have noticed the problems with the material from Conservation International, but didn’t. I’m sorry about that. In my defence I really only used their material as a platform for making some claims that are undeniably true: NZ has many plants and animals, unique in the world, which are now threatened with extinction. Our forest (and other) ecosystems are in deep trouble from habitat loss and introduced predators (possums, rats and stoats in particular). Right now only a small proportion of the threatened species and habitats receive any active protection, and I think most New Zealanders would be upset to know that and would support spending more to protect more. In the face of this situation, the Government cutting the Budget for Conservation (by $54M over 3 years) is a bad move.
February 7th, 2011 at 5:51 pm
Countdown to “fake but accurate” claim from the Gullible Greens.
5….
4….
3….
…
February 7th, 2011 at 5:53 pm
So the vast tussock and high alpine areas of the South Island and the considerable areas of the central north Island devegetated in the Taupo eruption were so small that the wonderful scientists and researchers of “conservation International” still considered Lil Ole Nu zilan was 100% forested. If that doesn’t expose their published info as bulshit I don’t know what would.
February 7th, 2011 at 6:45 pm
I have it on good authority that if you go back far enough what is now New Zealand was once bare rock.
So really, any forest now should count as a plus.
February 7th, 2011 at 6:46 pm
gravedodger: I was told once by a high country farmer that those tussock areas actually were forest some time ago, but there was a massive fire which wiped it all out. May have been after the Maori arrived but not sure.
February 7th, 2011 at 6:54 pm
Kevin, you can FRO! The minute you offer up lies and then try to reclaim your credibility you are stuffed. You will be forever known as the man who lied and therefore can not be trusted. Once the ability to believe what you say is lost it can never be regained.
Not checking anything before claiming it is correct is lazy, sloppy and marks you as, at best, incompetent.
February 7th, 2011 at 7:05 pm
Kevin, it’s not so much the failure to check as the complete lack of a decent bullshit detector or the wilful decision to ignore it.
As soon as you hear that NZ has the second worst deforestation in the world, the only reasonable reaction is that this claim is surely wrong and has to be investigated thoroughly before repeating it. Unless you are horribly gullible or just don’t care. As for the media, they are too incompetent to expect better but it’s annoying how their errors are all in the same direction.
February 7th, 2011 at 7:21 pm
Well Kev, I’m afraid Christopher Thompson is spot on…
Good you apologised here and I must say the comments have been somewhat timid but, after saying ….. problems with the material..
you should have STFU, instead you blathered on trying to cover your arse
Blind Pugh knows the information purported as fact was utter bullshit.
February 7th, 2011 at 7:33 pm
“Pete George (9,059) Says:
That’s not a calculation, it’s an assumption based on nothing. I’d have thought that significant areas in inland South Island in particular would not have been in forest 150 years ago.”
Yep you’re right – I think that area would be called ………………… “The Southern Alps”
not much forest above 2000 mtrs.
February 7th, 2011 at 7:39 pm
Kevin Hague>In my defence I really only used their material as a platform for making some claims that are undeniably true
Kevin… Is there any chance you could supply us a list of other press releases that you’ve issued that are based on less than 10 minutes research? I, and I am sure others, would be happy to do some research and fact checking to ensure that Green Party policy doesn’t have a similarly erroneous basis.
February 7th, 2011 at 7:46 pm
The Greens havent bothered to update or amend their press release as of yet
Clearly they consider “the facts” as a hindrance to their message.
February 7th, 2011 at 9:17 pm
@ VoR – The Greens have never let the facts get in the way of a good fear campaign …
February 8th, 2011 at 7:34 am
The watermelons were found lying (again). What’s new?
Norman and henchmen are recividist liars.
February 8th, 2011 at 8:21 am
Well there we are, our ‘our bad’: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4628133/Group-overstates-deforestation-of-NZ
February 8th, 2011 at 10:33 am
There has been more deforestation on the West Coast (where Kevin is from) in recent times than since the start of last century.
I am astonished that some of you chaps have such a lack of respect and perhaps even a contempt for your own country.
By all means attack the greens, but don’t throw the baby out with the bath water.
If you don’t care about the deforestation of our land then you are the one with the problem, what we have here is unique and should form part of the pride every Kiwi has in their country.
February 8th, 2011 at 11:04 am
Fake but accurate!
This isnt something where it was a difference of opinion, or some obscure facts were overlooked, or there was some information that was simply unavailable.
If you cant even get the facts straight on your headline claim, why should anyone think you got anything else right?
This is why the Greens lack credibility!
Almost every time the Greens come out with some big scary statistic it is quickly proven to be wrong or grossly misleading.
The Green are actually quite reliable as providers of contrarian indicators. If the Greens say something is true, it probably isnt.
Short the Greens!
February 8th, 2011 at 7:51 pm
Define “original”… are they including the 1/3 to 1/2 of the forest that was burned down by pre-European Maoris? http://sites.google.com/site/msupaleoecologylab/Home/projects/maori-use-of-fire-in-new-zealand