Views on Environment and Conservation Issues.

[jay]

lets not be selfish. and lets not pretend grey kangaroos are anything more than the equivalent of NZ sending a few feral possums.
.

Well not quite, possums aren't suppossed to be in NZ in the first place.

Isn't conservation tricky, so many levels of practice, thought and what's required. And the further one digs into the depths the harder it gets to seperate the rhetoric from the reality. The need to trade of some things against others. Even having to do or accept what is distasteful for yourself because it is for the greater good.

 

[Monty]

and lets not make more of irwins conservation ethics than there was. i truly believe he was obsessed with animals and nature. i also truly believe he made a contribution. but he was clearly not a deep thinker. had he been so he probably wouldn't have been such a outspoken supporter of a government with an appalling, appalling environmental record. seems steve, like so many other self proclaimed conservationists out there, completely forgot that you can plant as many trees as you like but unless you vote for parties with good environmental policy, you look, in my book, like as big an idiot as steve irwin did every day of his profession career.

I did not think Erwin was a big fan of Howard, I thought it was the other way around. I am sure I read that Howards wife convinced him to give Erwin $6.5 million to buy a station in north Queensland. That is a prety good deal for them. Taxpayers pay for the land but get no access and they still run cattle there. I would have been a big fan of Howard if he gave me $6.5 million.

 

[phoenix]

i probably didn't articulate myself well jay. but you are right. it is tricky.

i'm one of those people who is so fascinated by nature that i get depressed for days sometimes when i think about the thoughtless destruction of it. since we are so intrinsically liked to the earth - i sincerely have come to the conclusion that if you don't care for the environment, then it means you don't lie in bed at night and think deep thoughts, otherwise you would have realised how important it is. and if you're not a deep thinker, well then you don't have a curious mind and essentially - you're a bit dumb.

now i have nothing against dumb people, its not always their fault but the problem is there are so many of them and...

sorry i'm ranting. anyway. the point i REALLY want to make is that i have, after many nights in bed thinking, come to the conclusion that the absolute most valuable thing i can do to care for the environment, is to not give power to those that don't. its not that doing other things aren't helpful, or important. they are just never as important as it is for me to give power to someone who can do more than i can as an individual. a conservation minded minister can do much more than i can.

and even if that person or party doesn't get in power it sends a message to whoever does get in what i care about. and if you want my vote next time you might want to look at those issues. so i don't see it from a wasted vote either. far from it.

i'm not telling you who to vote for. i'm just reminding everyone that voting with the environment in mind is like planting millions of trees. or saving gazillions of litres of water, or whatever.

think of it this way...(and i could be wrong here).

i wonder how many people have water tanks in australia now. and i wonder how much water that saves in the next 30 years. i would love to compare that statistic with how much water hypothetically we would save, in the same time period, if all the people who bought water tanks instead voted for a party that was proactive and serious about climate change and conserving water. not people who didn't buy water tanks, just if everyone with a watertank had instead voted green on their ballot papers. i wonder what the difference would be?

i dunno. i actually don't know how many people vote green and how many people have water tanks. but i bet there are a lot more people that have water tanks than there are green voters.

anyhow i apologise if i am preaching to the converted. i just feel its THAT valuable.

 

[Jarkari]

Unfortunately there is more than the environment to consider when voting as there are many things that need to be considered that voting green may not cover.

P.S. Our purchasing of a water tanks had nothing to do with being green. We have only been connected to town water for the last five years. I think you will find the majority o people purchase them more for personal gain.

 

[Monty]

I dont know about voting green helping our environment. Most of the green policies are more related to increasing imigration, animal libberation (no zoos), banning activities and controling us with more regulations. They want to stop the managment and control of kangaroo numbers, you wont be eating much kangaroo then. Their policies will increase the costs of most things and reduce our incomes without providing much environmental benefit.

 

[phoenix]

without engaging on an an argument relating to the above statements monty, all i can say is, that by voting green you make a clear statement to whomever gains power that you voted with the environment in mind. that encourages them to look at improving their own policies.

you'll still end up with a labor or liberal government - just one that can't afford to forget where those preferences came from.

 

[Steve Robinson]

you'll still end up with a labor or liberal government - just one that can't afford to forget where those preferences came from.

As has been clearly demonstrated in Queensland today by the Federal Minister's decision not to allow the Traveston Dam to be built. Senator Bob is currently wielding a very strong "preference" stick.

 

[jay]

And Green preferences in the last state election, which in their own small way helped get the labour govt. back in has both pushed the govt. into the wild river legislation and gave Premier Bligh credibility for the Traveston dam.

 

[Monty]

I'm sorry but almost all the issues I have heard the greens harping about are social not environmental. The main environmental one is the cuts in carbon emissions they want us meet which will make no difference on a global scale. They use the old chestnut we should be the world leaders.

I heard the same thing with tariffs protecting manufacturing and the importation of subsidized agricultural products. We now compete with subsidised products and our manufacturing industries have been moved offshore. Australian jobs were sacrificed so politicians could say they were first and are world leaders. They are prepared to put Australians second to increase their world profile and get cushy UN jobs after they retire from politics in Australia. (I am referring to Rudd with that one)

 

[phoenix]

I'm sorry but almost all the issues I have heard the greens harping about are social not environmental. The main environmental one is the cuts in carbon emissions they want us meet which will make no difference on a global scale. They use the old chestnut we should be the world leaders.

they certainly do have plenty of social policies. which is very fortunate, since they are, after all, a political party - not a conservation organisation.

as for the rest of your comments - i'm disappointed to hear that you are in the "why should we do anything when nobody else will" camp. since the west relies entirely on keeping developing countries like china and india at a lower standard of living to subsidise our over consuming lifestyle, i find that a rather narrow minded view.

due to the simple fact that the planet can't accommodate almost 7 billion car commuting, materialistic, home renovating obsessed carnivores - you do realise that in order to raise the rest of the world from poverty we must first adjust our own standard of living to be largely sustainable. only then can we ask those nations that have not what we take for granted, to follow suit.

 

[Monty]

they certainly do have plenty of social policies. which is very fortunate, since they are, after all, a political party - not a conservation organisation.

as for the rest of your comments - i'm disappointed to hear that you are in the "why should we do anything when nobody else will" camp. since the west relies entirely on keeping developing countries like china and india at a lower standard of living to subsidise our over consuming lifestyle, i find that a rather narrow minded view.

due to the simple fact that the planet can't accommodate almost 7 billion car commuting, materialistic, home renovating obsessed carnivores - you do realise that in order to raise the rest of the world from poverty we must first adjust our own standard of living to be largely sustainable. only then can we ask those nations that have not what we take for granted, to follow suit.

I do not believe we should not do anything, but we should wait until reduction amounts are set. Us jumping in with big reductions before Copenhagen will achieve nothing beneficial. Australia has a small population, and other countries do not look to us for guidance no matter what our politicians say. Look at foreign web sites like the BBC, you will be lucky to find a mention of Australia.

I agree that our planet can not accommodate almost 7 billion car commuting, materialistic, home renovating obsessed carnivores. That does not mean we should increase our population and reduce our living standards. As a food producer (farmer) I am looking forward to higher prices for food. There will not be enough for everyone unless some sort of disease reduces population. We should limit our population and reduce emissions with more solar generation as well as Nuclear power stations, as they would be the quickest way to reduce the reliance on coal.

 

[phoenix]

I do not believe we should not do anything, but we should wait until reduction amounts are set. Us jumping in with big reductions before Copenhagen will achieve nothing beneficial. Australia has a small population, and other countries do not look to us for guidance no matter what our politicians say. Look at foreign web sites like the BBC, you will be lucky to find a mention of Australia.

I agree that our planet can not accommodate almost 7 billion car commuting, materialistic, home renovating obsessed carnivores. That does not mean we should increase our population and reduce our living standards. As a food producer (farmer) I am looking forward to higher prices for food. There will not be enough for everyone unless some sort of disease reduces population. We should limit our population and reduce emissions with more solar generation as well as Nuclear power stations, as they would be the quickest way to reduce the reliance on coal.

with such a small population (for now) and an abundance of coastline and desert - its really inexcusable that australia doesn't shift entirely to renewable energy sources. unlike congested europe - we don't need nuclear to make this happen quickly. i see nuclear waste as not even the lesser of two evils. its worse.

as for food - most scientists agree that the planet could support a far greater number of people if we used best practise, politics didn't get in the way and we reduced our dependance on meat. but just becuse we can increase our population doesn't mean we should. an interesting thing to note is that as living standards improve, humans naturally have less children. you want to curb population growth in china and india - help them feed themselves rather than hope for for the apocalypse.

australia, with so few of us here and being the only country in the world that owns an entire continent - would have to be the easiest nation to transform to a largely sustainable, high standard lifestyle. its not about lowering our standard monty. its about converting it. yes there will be some concessions - but since we live in total excess anyway i think it might actually be good for us anyway. restrictions drive innovation anyway. we have the technology to to far, far more superior things that we invest in.

you also mention how nobody looks at australia anyway - then cite the BBC. first of all, you can pick up an australian paper on any particular day and struggle to find a single story on the UK as well. or when was the last time you read about germany in your local paper? - doesn't mean you have forgotten it exists or that it doesn't have a high international profile. also, go to indonesia and you'll find that we rate quite highly in the international headlines. with the worlds fourth highest population thats a pretty decent percentage of the world's people who know who we are.

you only need to read new scientist or scientific american to know that humans technological advances are far, far superior than what governments give ourselves credit for. the international scientific community form the brains of our species, yet we underfund them and ignore their advice whenever its convenient. nuclear power was superceded eons ago. we just need governments and people that are prepared to proactively initiate change.

 

[jay]

you only need to read new scientist or scientific american to know that humans technological advances are far, far superior than what governments give ourselves credit for. the international scientific community form the brains of our species, yet we underfund them and ignore their advice whenever its convenient. nuclear power was superceded eons ago. we just need governments and people that are prepared to proactively initiate change.

Scientific American Nov 2009. Headline article. "A Plan for a Sustainable Future: How to get all energy from wind, water and solar power by 2030"
It literally is possible, if we had the will.

I would also like to highlight a small devolpent in Adelaide as a way that we cam live in cities, in attravtive and affordable houseing that doesn't have the huge impact that the MacMansion style housing devolpments do.
Christie Walk EcoCity Development
Chrisities walk is a medium density small housing devolpment which shows how it can be done. And yet political and social will hasn't taken it up.