The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Our extravagance is the greatest enemy of the environment > Comments

Our extravagance is the greatest enemy of the environment : Comments

By Vivien Langford, published 23/1/2019

'Our biosphere is being sacrificed so rich people can live in luxury.'

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
What can we top 10% emitters do? Simple really. We should lobby state and federal governments to tell them to spend our money not on renewable subsidies (which are barely making a dent in our CO2 emissions) but on R&D and commercialisation of the new technologies that the entire world needs if we are to decarbonise while also producing power that is despatchable, affordable, safe and industrial scale. The world still does not have the clean, cheap, despatchable, non-intermittent, industrial-scale sources of energy we need to become carbon free, especially when you consider that another 2 billion people around the world want to lift their standards of living to our level.
Posted by Bernie Masters, Wednesday, 23 January 2019 10:54:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bernie masters,
Well, we could for a start, reduce the 12 hour Mt Panorama Race to 6 hours. We also could curb Bureaucrat excess travel & use video conferencing equipment stored away in boxes.
We could install hinged windows instead of using AC 24/7.
The options are almost endless. A National Service would help change the present mentality of I, Me & Entitlement !
Posted by individual, Wednesday, 23 January 2019 11:02:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nothing Australia could do would make a damn of difference, and we should stop acceding to charlatans and hysterics wanting to give our wealth to no hopers and basket cases.
Posted by ttbn, Wednesday, 23 January 2019 11:24:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Our greatest and most dangerous extravagance is having more than replacement number of offspring.
ONE per person is enough.
Posted by ateday, Wednesday, 23 January 2019 11:32:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ateday,

Oh good....like most western countries Australia is already below your target. Latest figures are 1.74 births per woman. So way below replacement levels.

Many European countries are below that again and in some cases way below.

So its just those brown and black babies you want to restrict?
Posted by mhaze, Wednesday, 23 January 2019 2:48:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Vivien

u might mean well but having heard these 'scientist' over the last 50 years getting the vast majority of predictions wrong I suggest you take up a real cause of concern. If you are going to stress how about protect the unborn or feed to poor. The high priests of the gw movement are chief hypocrites usually with a vested interest.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 23 January 2019 3:21:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Our extravagance is not our extravagance but Theirs! If we had representatives that represent the folk who elect them, all of them instead of narrow vested interest and patent partisan politics, things would be very different? We'd have reticulated energy back in public hands and charge ourselves less than 2 cents per KwH for it.

Thereby, make the task of actually recycling everything, both feasible and profitable for cooperative enterprise. Moreover, that energy doesn't need to be coal per se, but the methane we could cook out of it using flameless heat from carbon-free MSR thorium.

Even if just to produce cheap fuel for less than 44 cents per cubic metre to power on-farm irrigation and reduce not only the cost of irrigation but reduce CO2 emission from those sources by as much as 40%!

And even compress it to use in farm tractors trucks etc. The only thing absent from this public good is our alleged representatives and the political will? And could be sent around the nation in a gas grid pipeline not much more expensive than new clean coal and adjacent geosequestration. And with that reduce both transmission and distribution losses, currently a combined 75%.

And then use that scrubbed gas in onsite ceramic fuel cells to produce on demand reliable dispatchable electric power, and where the exhaust product is mostly pristine water vapour. Given this combination has an energy coefficient of 80% and most of the current transmission and distribution losses are eliminated at power prices we can only dream of.

I have to own up to my own extravagance, I have left the aircon on day and night through the last hot spell.
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Wednesday, 23 January 2019 3:49:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So its just those brown and black babies you want to restrict?
mhaze,
What are you trying to stir up now ? ateday made it perfectly clear by stating one offspring per person. To me that says 2 children per couple. What is that is so difficult to comprehend there ?
Nowhere was race brought into this, you did that ! What's wrong with you ?
Posted by individual, Wednesday, 23 January 2019 4:44:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Let me try to make it simpler for you 'individual'.

Replacement level is 2.1 children per woman ie 1 and a bit (to allow for deaths etc) per person.

In Australia we are already below that level. In Europe they are already below that level. In North America they are already below that level. China. Indonesia. Japan. All below the replacement rate.

So since the world population is increasing, who is above the replacement rate? Places like Niger,Angola, Burundi, Chad, Mali, Somalia, Uganda,,Zambia,Malawi,South Sudan,Afghanistan,Mozambique, Liberia etc.

Do you see a pattern there?

So when people blithely call for zero population growth, they are actually calling on all those brown and black parents to have less kids. They'll be the ones making the sacrifice, not those blond-haired, blue-eyed parents.

Its not conscious racism...but it is unthinking racism nonetheless.
Posted by mhaze, Wednesday, 23 January 2019 5:13:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No, mhaze, the hope for a stabilisation and then a reduction in human population growth is not racism. It is simply a comment that reflects on the racial character of the issue. Big difference.
Posted by Bernie Masters, Wednesday, 23 January 2019 5:21:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This graph from the Global Footprint Network shows environmental footprint (consumption) against rank on the UN Human Development Index (human well-being), which gives a rough indication of the relative importance of excessive consumption versus population.

http://www.footprintnetwork.org/our-work/sustainable-development/

You can see the extent of excessive consumption from those countries that have much bigger environmental footprints than the other countries that are similar to them in rank, i.e., they are using up more resources, but not making their people any better off. Nevertheless, if all the resources were divided equally, we would all be poor. There are simply too many people to give everyone a decent quality of life and not trash the planet.

Why does mhaze want to condone irresponsible behavior simply because people are black or brown? Barbados, a black country, has a fertility rate of 1.80, not much different from Australia, and is in the very high human development class on the UN index. Costa Rica (fertility rate 1.78) is in the high class and almost the very high. It ranks far above the other Central American countries that are sending those caravans to the US. The real issue is to do with culture, not race.
Posted by Divergence, Wednesday, 23 January 2019 7:09:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
went for swim Bondi recently. Sea levels just the same as 50 years ago and just as cold. Just thought I would point that out.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 23 January 2019 7:17:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mhaze,
So, suddenly mere numbers are now racist ? From 1 to 10 which is the most racist ?
Or, are you saying that preventing little kids from starving to death because their parents can't feed them in the first place is now racist ?
I think you should look up the difference between racism & starving or runaway breeding with birth control. You'll find you feel better once you understand.
Posted by individual, Wednesday, 23 January 2019 9:18:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Individual,

Actions have consequences. There is a very bad rape culture in Africa and Africa is set
To double it’s population in the next couple of decades. They can’t feed their population now, and the population is set to double?

This is not the fault of Western countries. This is the fault of stupid irresponsible behaviour.

We’ve poured billions in aid into Africa for decades. Nothing every improves.
I think it’s time they sorted out their own bloody population problems.
The more we help them the less they try to help themselves and turn the situation around it seems. Every new child born in Africa will grow up and need a piece of land to build a shelter or house on. This spreads them further and further into animal habitats.
The lions and tigers and elephants are being left with no land to live off.

When these big populations use fires to cook food, they burn wood, wood puts more carbon in the air when burnt, than coal does.
Why can’t they build fresh water pumps in Africa to every village, like Australia. They’ve had enough billions pored into the country. Why hasn’t that money been spent on medical clinics close to every village dispensing the pill and contraception, and looking after the health of the babies. Just what have a they done with all the decades of assistance? The Americans and European countries, know how to run a country, it’s not their fault if some races seem incapable of doing the same thing.
We’ve assisted them for years, bought the world to our universities to teach skills.

Stop blaming us for the stupidity of leaders like Mugabee and other African warlords.
Fix the bloody rape culture for a start.
People carry on as if the Western world is their nanny. We’ve fought our own battles against kings and tyrants. Let them sort themselves out.
You don’t mind helping people, but if they are still coming around to your house 50 to 100 years later, with no improvement, you start to wonder if they are incapable of improvement.
Posted by CHERFUL, Wednesday, 23 January 2019 10:27:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CHERFUL,
I'm 101 % in agreement with you on that ! It's in a way rather uncanny how the sitution in Africa in many ways has the same symptoms here. People are simply incapable of learning from mistakes & remain stoic in their mentality of not even trying to work on solving problems caused by minoroty groups.
The lack of discipline is of course the cause of the relentless downgrade of standards whilst greed is placed on the highest pedestals.
Posted by individual, Thursday, 24 January 2019 8:12:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Vivien raises an interesting and partly valid point about over consumption by many in the western economy.
However one cannot take her seriously when she shows such a poor understanding of climate and change and the effects.
Climate change is a negligible cause in the fish deaths at the Menindee Lakes. The Lakes are now an artificial construction dependent entirely upon human controlled water flows. They were never permanent lakes supporting the fish population that has suffered with the algae bloom.
The recent widespread bush fires in Queensland were as much caused by the Greens forcing land management policies through an ALP Government that prevented both the construction of effective fire breaks and controlled burns of excessive fire fuels in both privately owned forest and State parks and reserves. None of the fires actually occurred in "wet tropics" forests. Many of these areas that burnt were either closed or open eucalypt woodlands that typically cycle through lush growth to brittle dry tinder waiting for a single spark (as can come from a dry lightning strike).
While Viviene couples her concerns to such a lack of knowledge, she must consider that many of her other conclusions may be badly flawed.
Posted by Jay Cee Ess, Thursday, 24 January 2019 9:54:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Take, if you will, an average Frenchman. He lives in a nice inner suburb of a major French city. He has a modest but more-than-adequate house for his wife and two kids. He has access to all the food he wants with an enjoyable selection from many parts of Europe. He has all the usual mod-cons imported from all around the world but mainly China. He takes public transport to work. For his holidays he drives to a reasonably near-by resort or sometimes indulges in a cruise around the Mediterranean. Like his countrymen his activities generate around 4.5mt of CO2e emissions per year.

Now suppose our Frenchman relocates to Australia. He lives in a nice inner suburb of a major Australian city. He has a modest but more-than-adequate house for his wife and two kids. He has access to all the food he wants with an enjoyable selection from many parts of Australia and the region. He has all the usual mod-cons imported from all around the world but mainly China. He takes public transport to work. For his holidays he drives to a reasonably near-by resort or sometimes indulges in a cruise around the South Pacific. Like his countrymen his activities generate around 24mt of CO2e emissions per year.

His life-style is no more luxurious than when he lived in France. But he's generate 5 times more CO2e. How?

By moving to Australia he's taken on part of the 'overhead' associated with living in a vast country dedicated to producing and exporting the wherewithal that the world needs.

Our seemingly enormous per capita emmissions has effectively nothing to do with our life-style. Living simpler would have only marginal effects on our per capita or overall emissions.

The whole notion is merely a device to get people to live as their betters decree.

Oh, and our Frenchman. He decided to do his part to save the planet by moving back to France. There you have it...save the Barrier Reef - move to Paris.

Better still, move to Nigeria (emissions 1mt/pa). Don't scoff- greatest moral challenge and all that.
Posted by mhaze, Thursday, 24 January 2019 10:50:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Or, are you saying that preventing little kids from starving to death because their parents can't feed them in the first place is now racist ?"

No I'm saying that advocating a fix for a perceived problem which disproportionately affects some races over others (one of those others being your own) is casual, unintended racism. As to starving, this is a separate issue and nowt to do with alleviating the supposed CO2 monster which is the issue being covered here.

The true believers are all pretty much on board with doing 'sumfing' to fix AGW. But they are all pretty much convinced someone else ought to pay for it or sacrifice for it. Reduce population to save the planet? Yep, get those people over there to do it.

Inner-city greens are all good with stopping Adani. Well a few 1000 people will lose or not get jobs, but we've all got to sacrifice, n'est pas?

If we really wanted to save the planet, we'd be on board with increasing power costs to reduce emissions. But as soon as prices rise, suddenly there's a hew and cry and governments rush to offer solutions and reduce costs. Where are those calling for sacrifice from others? Why aren't they cheering increase electricity costs?

Mr greatest-moral-challenge-of-out-time was all gung-ho for saving the planet. One method would be to increase fuel costs to reduce demand. But as soon as that happened, he tripped over himself to roll out fuel-watch and demand that prices drop. If he or his ilk or the greens really believed their hype they'd be advocating not just a doubling of electricity costs or fuel costs, but a second doubling and a third until the GBR was saved...or whatever. But it seems, getting and keeping political power overrides climate fetishism.

I'm sure, if asked, the yellow vests are down with saving the planet from the CO2 monster...but not when they have to pay.

We're all gunna die and someone (else!) should do whatever necessary to save the planet.
Posted by mhaze, Thursday, 24 January 2019 11:09:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mhaze, within your Frenchman's (and for that matter, the generic European)case, according to Wikki, over 70% of his power comes from clean nuclear power. If Ms Langford was serious about Australia cleaning up our climate changing emissions, she would be working hard to remove the unrealistic opposition to nuclear power and be lobbying her listeners to not just accept nuclear, but march to Parliament house to demand that her Andrews Government immediately start building one to replace the coal stations that have been removed from generation.
The truth is, those running and attending COP24 do not want the western economies to have cheap and clean reliable electricity supplies.
Posted by Jay Cee Ess, Thursday, 24 January 2019 11:48:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I generally agree with you, Jay Cee Ess. A lot of the difference in the Frenchman's greenhouse gas emissions before and after he moves to Australia are due to our widespread hysteria about nuclear power, which is probably more of a factor than any conspiracy to keep power prices high. This hysteria, generally found on the Left, is just as foolish and counterproductive as the climate change denial on the Right.

It is not as though keeping the population within reasonable bounds is optional. If it keeps growing, it will cancel out any other strategy for fixing our environmental and social problems, either locally, or even globally, if the open borders fanatics get their way.

mhaze should look up the racism of lower expectations. Many Western people in the past saw non-white people as childlike little brown and black brothers and believed that it was unfair to expect too much of them. No one expects a child to reliably plan for the future, to forego an immediate reward for some greater future benefit, or to consider the rights or welfare of anyone other than himself.
Posted by Divergence, Thursday, 24 January 2019 2:32:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"But who wants a conversation about reducing our emissions from 25 tonnes(Australia) to 8 tonnes (EU) and even lower with deep awareness and resolve?"

Not me because it's stupid.

The climate whinge wouldn't even be an issue if we didn't keep taking migrants.
The fertility rate is around 1.7, less than replacement, yet we still have projected population growth.

Why?

http://www.afr.com/news/politics/national/why-australia-needs-to-get-real-on-population-growth-20131130-ij9ym

I didn't ask for the immigrants, and I didn't ask for your stupid climate guilt trip.

You lefties have to choose - stop the immigrants and the increased population growth or there's no way in hell you'll reduce Australians carbon emissions by two thirds.

If you stop the immigrants, and rely on new technology you might make those targets but it's doubtful.

Why?

Because you need the immigrants for the growth and if you don't have the growth you cant pay for the new technology.

And if you turn all the coal plants off to meet the targets and increase the price of energy you'll send the country broke; and we wont have money to pay for new technology.

So basically we're all just stuffed, yet we're going to have our money stolen from us for nothing anyway.
Posted by Armchair Critic, Thursday, 24 January 2019 8:17:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/41452/4/pop-targets.PDF

Stable population should be 60,000 immigrants a year.
Posted by Armchair Critic, Thursday, 24 January 2019 8:22:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My electricity bill is saying 8.3 kWh per day per person. But that doesn't include the car which I don't use everyday. I wouldn't expect those with health issues to do this in the Australian climate- Europe is better for climate in many places. But house design can make a difference- old style double brick houses appeared to be a better design for Australian conditions- than "modern" brick veneer- I'd need to do some more research to confirm this.
Posted by Canem Malum, Thursday, 24 January 2019 9:48:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jay Cee Ess,

Thanks for pointing out the nuclear element. That was why I made my European a Frenchman. I was going to make that point but ran out of allowed posts.

So yes, if these people really do think we're-all-gunna-die, they would be out there demanding that nuclear plants be built the day before yesterday. But they don't because they don't really think that. It's a device to alter society t their liking.

Equally, I always like to point out that the US has reduced its per capita emissions by moving some coal to CSG. So again, if these people really thought we have to reduce our emissions to save the planet, they'd be demanding that we get fracking asap. But again...crickets.

Divergence,

I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at with your post. You seem to be saying that these people are incapable of understanding their own best interest and need to be led to the truth. I really hope that's not what you're saying and so assume it isn't. But I can't discern any other interpretation. So please elaborate.
Posted by mhaze, Friday, 25 January 2019 10:37:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mhaze,

I am saying just the opposite, that there is no reason that people shouldn't be criticised for behaving irresponsibly simply because they are black or brown. The people of Barbados (black) and Costa Rica (Latino) are behaving responsibly and not having more children than they can decently provide for, so why can't the rest of them? Not everything is the fault of the West.
Posted by Divergence, Friday, 25 January 2019 1:53:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Divergence,

Oh I see. You're assuming that Zero Population Growth is desirable and that anyone who doesn't buy that is "behaving responsibly". Very open-minded of you.

FYG I don't mind how many kids they have. Its their call....no matter how much melanin they have. The facts are that, as societies become wealthier their fertility rate declines. All first world countries are below replacement.

So the best way to encourage these people to do what you consider the responsible thing is to all them to accumulate wealth. Imposing your opinions on them is, shall we say, somewhat imperialistic.

Since this thread is about the ways to reduce our emission, decrying their life-style choices seems rather crass. They are living a life that emits very little CO2 which is one reason they see the need to have more kids. Perhaps we should take their lead and reduce our per capita emissions by having lots more kids.
Posted by mhaze, Friday, 25 January 2019 4:10:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
m haze, Simply put, the opposition to nuclear power was driven by and paid for throughout the West by the Communist Soviet Union when they realised that their economy could never compete against Western industries driven by the cheap electricity that was capable of coming from the nuclear power stations. This opposition was based on poor science and over reactions and it has become so solidly embedded in the public mind that it will take years (generations) to defuse.
The climate change facade is one way of destroying affordable and reliable power systems.
Now the left is driving a strong anti-achievement sentiment along the lines that it creating social division between the haves and have not's.
Posted by Jay Cee Ess, Friday, 25 January 2019 7:40:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jay Cee Ess,
Perhaps we should do an experiment & ask the Leftists to live in caves for a year. The outcome would be truly astonishing, especially to them.
Posted by individual, Saturday, 26 January 2019 8:01:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
individual, the trouble is that the Leftist who so strongly espouse the sacrifice of so many "luxuries" that capitalism and the free market have made affordable to all of us, would never go on their own but force everyone into their darkness. Notice the over 200,000 electricity consumers throughout Victoria that suddenly lost their power on Friday. That took all levels of society and of all political persuasions into the dark. (Fortunately nearly all of Melbourne voted red in their recent State election, but they will probably accept it as it would've hurt those on above average incomes who had installed their own air conditioning the most. And those capitalist shop keepers forced to close and lose money.)
By the way, the dominant print media in Queensland has kept that mass blackout out of sight. If not for the ABC, it would not have been known to many north of the Border.
Posted by Jay Cee Ess, Saturday, 26 January 2019 9:39:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mhaze,

You are correct that making people in high fertility countries better off would bring fertility rates down, but this is extremely difficult to do if a population is doubling every 25 or 30 years. The resources that could be used for development have to be diverted to meeting the basic needs of more and more people. I don't see these people as helpless victims of the evil white man; I see them as lunatics beating their heads against a brick wall. If they stayed at home, they would have to wear the consequences, but a lot of them want to emigrate at any cost and consume like us, as we can see from those drownings in the Mediterranean.

http://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/71b6/e0119df7070088f82a35a8f8cefb9284e4b7.pdf

It is clear from the graph that I linked to above that cutting consumption alone would not be sufficient to solve our environmental problems. China is now the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, not the US, and it would still be the biggest even if you exclude production for export. This is not because the average Chinese is living high on the hog. If all the resources were divided equally we would all be poor right now, let alone when we have 11 billion people, as the UN medium projection shows.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/12/want-to-fight-climate-change-have-fewer-children

We in the developed world are already having fewer children, but we are more than compensating by taking in huge numbers of migrants. Unless the migrants are already rich or come from other rich countries, they will have a much bigger environmental footprint when they move to a developed country.

http://www.swinburne.edu.au/news/latest-news/2018/11/chinese-migrants-follow-australians-giant-ecological-footprints.php

I will believe that the Left are serious about global warming and the environment when they encourage nuclear power and genetically engineered food, get over population denial, and oppose more than zero net immigration.
Posted by Divergence, Saturday, 26 January 2019 3:06:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Divergence,
We really can't prevent evolution & the insipid Left is part of that. Since we started the practise of genetic engineering the Left has become like a mistakingly introduced specie. Similar to the Cane Toad & sensitive weed. It'll take a special procedure to rectify the problems.
Posted by individual, Sunday, 27 January 2019 6:10:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Great article, Vivien. Couldnt have put it better myself.
To estimate your carbon footprint go to: http://www.ghgenergycalc.com.au/calc.html and download the calculator. There's heaps we can do as individuals to live sustainably.
Posted by Roses1, Monday, 28 January 2019 10:58:56 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Finally, excess travel has been brought up with environmental hypocrisy. They're onto Elon Musk now & not a minute too early. This is one bandwagon I'd like to see rolling on.
Posted by individual, Friday, 1 February 2019 6:40:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy