Yes. So, have a look at what you wrote. That's in reply to me mentioning 4000 km², which in turn is the exact same size as 400,000 hectares.pErvin wrote:You do realise that 400,000 square kilometres is 1000 times larger than 4000 square kilometres, right?mistermack wrote:I do apologise. I shouldn't rely on idiots for my facts.Hermit wrote:Maybe you should have checked. The 400,000 hectares (not square kilometres, by the way. Tasmania's total size is only 68,000km²) were added to a 800,000 hectare area that was put into protected mode earlier, and the total of that is only a fraction of the 3.2 million hectares of native forests covering the island. So, yeah, exaggeration+.mistermack wrote:without bothering to go back and check, I believe that felling those 400,000 sq km will leave about one percent.Hermit wrote:MM loves to exaggerate, but the state government did repeal the Tasmanian Forest Agreement recently, in which 4000 square kilometres of native forests were set aside from harvesting for six years.
So not all that much of an exaggeration.Right?
.... Right?
Whatever. Half of Tasmania's 68,000 km² is covered by native forest, so cancelling a moratorium on 4000 km² of it goes nowhere near your claim that this means "allowing virtually all of the remaining virgin forest to be logged".