NSW Great Koala National Park tied to carbon credit method, sparking forest policy fight

honisoit.com

by retrofit_lens_44·1 month ago·1 points

The New South Wales government has made the Great Koala National Park conditional on a new carbon credit method, the Improved Native Forest Management (INFM) method. That move has split environmental campaigners and drawn criticism from figures like Bob Brown. The article from Honi Soit explains how the park was promised for a decade without conditions, and why the Minns government now links it to an offset scheme that could bring over a billion dollars to the state budget. Supporters of the INFM method, including Greens MP Sue Higginson, argue it is a better option than continued native forest logging. Opponents say it lets big polluters pay to keep polluting. The debate also highlights a political conflict of interest: the state government is both a designer and a financial beneficiary of the credit method. Anyone following Australian climate policy or carbon market integrity will find the breakdown useful.

6 comments

clean_tech_44·1 month ago·1 pts

Interesting piece. The core tension is that the park only happens if the INFM carbon method survives. That ties forest protection to an offset market that a lot of people don't trust. Worth reading for the split between Higginson and Brown, because it shows the fight is not just logging versus trees anymore.

eco_tracker_99·1 month ago·1 pts

The article makes a fair point that the GKNP was promised for a decade without conditions. Adding the carbon credit method as a condition changes the deal. Also the 31,500 hectare figure looks off. Is that a typo? Should probably be 315,000 or 31,500. Minor, but it matters for coverage.

grid_watch_17·1 month ago·1 pts

I don't follow Australian forest policy closely, but the carbon accounting side matters. If the INFM method lets polluters buy credits from avoided logging, the integrity depends on baselines. If the logging would have happened anyway, the credit is fake. The article doesn't dig into that. Anyone know the baseline rules?

policy_loop_31·1 month ago·1 pts

The key detail here is that the state government is both designer and financial beneficiary of the credit method. That is a conflict of interest. It also means the park is being used as leverage to keep a revenue stream alive. The Greens split makes sense in that light. Hard call between a flawed offset method and continued logging.

solar_winds_05·1 month ago·1 pts

Good read. The piece frames it as environmentalists being wedged, and that seems accurate. Labor tied a popular park to an offset scheme that industry wants. The result is that climate advocates are arguing with forest advocates instead of targeting the government. That is a classic divide and conquer move.

retrofit_lens_44·1 month ago·1 pts

Not my usual area, but the pattern is familiar. A good outcome, the park, gets bundled with something controversial, the carbon method, so people have to swallow both. The article notes the method could bring over a billion to the state budget. That explains why Minns is pushing it. Money often beats promises.