Passionate, succinct words. Let's hope Australia heeds them. Bravo.

Thankyou Noel. I will need to reread. How do we get to be influential and make a difference when the lack of sensitivity to the environment and our place in it is the predominant paradigm? Will it only be when peak oil really strikes? Will it only be when individualism comes up begging?

Over the centuries in the tradition of the British Isles, environments have been protected that they might serve us and serve human leisure. For those environments to be protected, man had to be placed within nature - maintaining animals for hunting, streams for fishing, and so forth - and yet above it, adapting it to his own ends like hunting, fishing and agriculture. Consider the image of the British countryside, and the symbol of the plough-horse which was used to boost Allied morale during the second world war... the close connection with nature only exists when it has been turned from wilderness into a human controlled environment. An holistic appreciation of nature which involves careful stewardship of it must involve human domination of it, yet awe over the miraculous thing which he rules, and knowledge of the difficulty with which he rules. The British command of environment lead to the use of animals, which which humans formed close bonds, in literature, as the ways of the country were stabilised and codified. In the Black Forest in Germany, a similar example exists with hunters, where tradition commands respect for animals and nature, and hunting in a manner which is proper and respectful... because human and animal interaction leads to a respect, and a propriety in our relations with nature.

Environmentalism and care for animals, once the domain of those of the country, is moving to the cities, and city-based environmentalism is dangerous in that it is ideological, almost theological, in its views of the environment... that humans are the problem, not the solution; that we must be parted from the land if it is to survive. To this, all I can say is that if nature exists and it serves nobody, neither tourism, nor industry, nor leisure, then it might as well not exist at all. Without us, it is mere chaos.

Industrialisation and colonisation changed the rules of the game... a situation mastered in rural areas of the British Isles and the Continent were unsuited for new environments are rapid industrialisation, yet nonetheless survived where they were born, that is, unless parliaments get in their way. Finding a way in a country like Australia to tame nature is difficult, it was no doubt difficult for the itinerant inhabitants of Australia, and will no doubt be for the settled ones too. In all, an ability to maintain lagoon waterways, and a constant clearing of difficult wooded shrub will encourage water retention, soil quality and plentiful grass and trees; laws do not necessarily encourage this yet. A domestication of the environment, mainly achieved through fishing, the rearing of beasts of leisure like horses, and constant communal action to erradicate pests, and maintain low numbers of other animals (such as Kangaroo) will lead to the establishment of a new culture which appreciates and manages the environment. This is not a task for the cities, but a task for those living in the country, as they shall form the personal and domestic ties to nature which are the true base of good stewardship.

The rest, especially a liberation theologist spin on environmental social justice, is mere folly. Nature is not just, it is rather the opposite: the young and snuffed out, the old and killed and debased. Only when humans can weild culture upon the environment, like a hunter killing his prey unawares with a shot to the head, then respectfully dealing with the corpse, that any semblance of propreity and justice exists. The natural order is preserved, but the only by the element with space for rational thought and self-awareness taking full dominion.

Firstly I would like to acknowledge Dr. Preston as one of my teachers as a young man, whose profound insights and personal actions have had a lasting effect on my own opinions, even in my post-christian times.
I say these nice things because I am about to rip into him.

The social justice movement of the 60's - 80's developed a new aspect of society - critical analysis of the status -quo and a willingness to go outside the status quo ideologically and strategically in order to bring about change. The civil disobedience movements, especially against old Joh in Qld, marked an important step out of the status quo.
But everyone ran back to the status-quo. Noel identifies "live simply so all may simply live" as a key slogan of the time. How many old radicals are living simply today?, who made a real change and who just momentarily echoed the sentiments of the times, but forgot it all over time.

The social justice movements were focused on opinion, ideology and theology and not on real structures of conectedness and political power. This is why everything collapsed, it was just a head trip. For example, Today's queensland police are more violent, aggressive, and racist than in Joh's time. Yet Noel and other leaders of the social justice movement have been lecturing police trainees about social justice for decades - a result of the Fitzgerald inquiriy's reccomendations.. How can this be? The acedemic model of social justice has made real political struggle irrelevant. This is the problem

One of the things Dr. Preston taught me in the late 70's was about "action/reflection". I have not forgotton about this even if others have,

But as long as justice is a personalised concept like prayer or study , the real power brokers will continue to do their thing in the real world unobstructed.

John Tracey

The notion of social justice need no redefining rather simplification.

While it is usefull to attmept to draw into the debate the need for ecological sustainability and stability the term eco-justice just restates the obvious. There are countless examples of how a failure to exercise due enviromental care has harmed the ecology of a region - human and non human; you cant separate the two - the same can be said for forest dwellers being hounded by timber cutters that can be said for the urban poor being priced out of the housing market. There shold not be social justice or eco-justice -

there simply needs to be justice.

Ecology is us. Separating the two makes no sense. We live in and off the environment. Equally we live in and off of each other. The interdependance is undeniable and the so called independance of thought, deed and survival claimed by some individuals is an illusion.