25/09/2026
The last post created a fascinating scientific study into human behaviour. We posted about illegal logging in the state forest and national park (protected area, no logging) and left comments open to the public…(yeah mistake number one!).
We observed a significant amount of what is now referred to as “whataboutism”. This is defined as when someone else picks another (often unrelated) issue to minimise the problem at hand. The most common sentiment expressed was why even care about illegal logging when mining clears more trees, when fire is a bigger issue, when green energy is…
If we were to follow the philosophy of whatsboutism to its end, the world would be destroyed. The idea is simply perverse when applied in different contexts. E.g. why wear a seatbelt to save lives when statistically most people will die of a heart attack or cancer? Why bother saving one species of animal when so many more are threatened? It provides a convenient get out clause, is intellectually lazy and provides a means of deflection for an argument that makes people uncomfortable (or they are not intelligent enough to argue). In this case it was primarily advanced by people supporting illegal logging or with a business interest in it. The first response was even someone running a logging business that seemed to freely admit they would illegally take trees from public land. Whatboutism should be fought against hard whenever it is raised.
The other argument that is often put up is the humanitarian angle. The “untouchable” nature of humanitarian arguments is relied upon to advance their goal of also deflecting from the main issue. One raised on our page was “if you stop illegal logging all the poor older folk that can’t afford heating will suffer”. This is unrelated to the issue and parallel arguments again highlight the ridiculousness of this approach. For example, it might draw the parallel that we should not arrest people for stealing and burglary offences anywhere as they inevitably are in need of money. Those actions are an offence and there is a law and a penalty. If these arguments were advanced then civil society would collapse.
So how bad is illegal logging in Australia? The only recent study we have is fairly old (2000) but did report that up to 20% of all firewood in Australia is illegally sourced. It’s a thriving illegal industry with extensive ecological impacts. Multiple studies in Tasmania have exposed the extent and regulatory challenges of the illegal logging industry and there are well known cases of some of the few nesting trees for critically endangered Swift Parrots being cut down while nests are active.
Responses from the public on our post make it clear that there is widespread apathy on the issue. Despite being something relatively simple to address from consumer education and change there are many who don’t want to change. If all consumers were to stop buying from any unlicensed operators who are not part of regulated supply chains, the issue would significantly improve. Without increased enforcement it may never go away, but it is actually an issue we can all do something about right now by making better choices. How easy is that?
