Everyone knows how far 100m is. It's an insult to your fellow Aussies to suggest they don't know that a hectare is 100m x 100m. We all learned about hectares in primary school.

I live on the other side of the country, so don't know the gravity of the topic as you put it, and after reading this article, I still have no idea of the gravity.

We aren't told how much woody land NSW has. We aren't told whether this reducing figure is even a problem. All we are given is a number and that the chief executive of Nature Conservation Council of NSW finds that number disappointing. That's the whole core of the article.

No suggestion of what that number should be. No proposed policy that would be preferred. They don't even tell us whether that land is being cleared for construction and development or for pulping woodchips to make toilet paper.

It's a lazy article that is lacking in all the relevant info and hangs everything off 'clearing land bad. Rage bait engagement good'. And look, here we are discussing it. So, from their perspective, it's a great article.

I'm not hostile to land conservation by any means. And if the land is being cleared in an unsustainable way, I will be critical of that. But that's the issue as well - this article doesn't actually address that topic. For all I know, 0.03% of NSW per year in cleared land is perfectly sustainable.