Australia has many native rainforests, locating from the top of Australia in QLD, all the way down the Australian coast through NSW and Victoria. Woodland and rainforests are also located in South Australia and Western Australia. There is 4 % of Australia's forest left since European settlement. When they first settled they cleared most of the forested land for agriculture and for their settlement. With only 4 % left though of our native forests, it brings to a point if we should log them or not.
             After looking at both points of view, I can see why conservationists are so passionate about stopping the logging to Australia's native forests, but on the other hand why logging companies are adamant that they need access to native forests. If we stopped logging completely Australia wouldn't be earning $4 billion. Also 182,500 people are employed in the forest industries, if logging was to stop there is a huge number of jobs at risk, and would leave Australia with a huge unemployment list. Conservationists though are worried about Australia losing its native forest, which would cause a huge economic lose with no tourists coming to Australia to see the native forests. A huge number of animals would also loose their homes, and also the habitats of new plants would be destroyed.
             Conservationists point of view is to do with the greenhouse effect, salinity problems, the native forest being sold for 9 cents a cubic meter when commercial forest is being sold at $10.00 a cubic meter, and as said Australia's tourism and animals/plants habitat. Using heavy machinery and trucks and tractors for logging and harvesting is adding to the greenhouse effect, which is already bad enough. Australia lacks in native soft woods, and having our native forest sold at 9 cents a cubic meter compared to commercial being sold at $10.00 a cubic meter is insane. Australia thrives on tourists bringing money into the country. With our forests being
             ...