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 > The divine right of environmentalists > Comments

The divine right of environmentalists : Comments

By Justin Jefferson, published 14/1/2010

The ideal of sustainability is a dream of stasis; a utopian fantasy of paradise.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
< So Peter Spencer, and thousands of Aussie farmers, have been expropriated of their livelihoods and property, in breach of the Constitution… >

Yes!

But then it gets a little weird….

< …to stop their land from producing food, causing people in the poorest countries to sacrifice their lives so Australia’s spoilt environmentalists will not have to sacrifice the slightest luxury! >

Whaat?

That’s an enormously long bow – vegetation management laws that are implemented in order to strive for a balance between human usage of the environment and the retention of healthy ecosystems, supposedly leading to the sacrifice of lives of those in poor countries and no sacrifice of anything in Australia!

Tis very weird and whacky logic!

The great constitutional breach is not the prevention of clearing of old growth and regrowth vegetation on thousands of properties, it is the lack of compensation for farmers' losses.

Bringing an end to broadacre clearing was GOOD! Allowing regrowth to grow back to maturity is GOOD, generally speaking. But doing this to the extent of completely skittling the viability of properties without ANY compensation is akin to criminality.

I’d like to get right into the nitty gritty of this debate, if the author would be so kind as to come into the discussion.
Posted by Ludwig, Thursday, 14 January 2010 9:24:10 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
Justin, take a bex and lay down. This all boils down to ownership of land. There are two basic camps Justin and other believe that an individual can own land and should have exclusive control over what happens on that land. The other camp basically say's that society owns the land, sure there maybe custodians of parts of it, but ultimately we all have a say in its management.
No one lives in a bubble, our actions affect other people, and any single individual will only be here for a short while the land and hopefully society will be here much longer. Is the author saying people should be able to do whatever they like on their own property, how far can we go before even he gets uncomfortable with that idea? Land clearing, mining, urban spread affects us all, and trying the emotive angle about personnel freedoms just will not work, this is not the US. No one is starving in Australia through lack of food; however our ecosystems are under a great deal of strain. The author may not understand but the air we breathe the condition of the solid the very health of the worlds replies on the little bit of native vegetation, all over the world. Halting land clearing in Australia holding onto those little bits of native bush will not condemn people to starvation, however bad land management will. Our advertcating bad land management.
Posted by Kenny, Thursday, 14 January 2010 9:32:11 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
Ludwig,
You are far to kind.

This article belongs in the letters to the editor pile. A load of over hyped emotional drivel.

I'm sad to see anyone suffer but in the final analysis it is the choice of the person involved to adopt this strategy.
I wonder what he really hopes to achieve
Posted by examinator, Thursday, 14 January 2010 9:37:15 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
The author has confused sustainability with stasis. They are not the same thing. An example is the predator/prey relationship of fox and rabbit. The rabbit population will increase and decrease but not beyond certain levels. If it gets too large the foxes will cut down the numbers. If it gets too small then foxes who do not have enough other prey will die out. The populations will be in continual flux. However, if lack of habitat, disease or other means wipes out one of the populations the other may also become extinct. The system is no longer sustainable. However, no sustainable relationship is static.
Posted by david f, Thursday, 14 January 2010 10:06:47 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
Kenny, you are right about one thing, but little else. Yes, there are basically two camps.

In one corner are those who respect the sanctity of property. They go through life trying their best to respect contract and consent.
In the other corner are those who do not respect the sanctity of property. As long as they can dream up a good enough reason, they believe it is okay to use force to obtain what they want. The ones in this corner are very devious, because deep inside they know that their behaviour is wrong and immoral, so they hide it. The tell us all that they are acting in “the common good”, or “the public interest”, and usually employ the government to act on their behalf to do the dirty deed. To support this, they tell us that we need strong powerful government to make sure society is “orderly”, knowing that a strong powerful government is also better placed to rob some and hand the loot over to others.

For any democracy to have a chance of surviving – of avoiding descent into mob rule and tyranny – there has to be a line beyond which the government cannot trespass. That’s one of the key reasons why respect for private property rights lies at the heart of most constitutions in free, non-communist countries.

Few here seem to understand this pivotal issue. You would all do well to research it before you wake up to find yourselves living in poverty under a totalitarian socialist dictatorship.
Posted by Winston Smith, Thursday, 14 January 2010 10:08:44 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
Ah yes let the Barbaric Heart and techno-"man" rule, and hence inevitably destroy the entire world.

http://www.orionmagazine.org/index.php/articles/article/4680

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~spanmod/mural/panel14.html
Posted by Ho Hum, Thursday, 14 January 2010 10:14:44 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
This essay also addresses what a Truly Human and humanizing culture would be based on--that is the right acculturation of human beings to a Culture of Wisdom and thus by extension the right use of the natural world.

http://www.dabase.org/socrevip.htm
Posted by Ho Hum, Thursday, 14 January 2010 10:29:52 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 agree with the under-current of the thread

I always believe those who own and work the land know better about that land

than some amateur, yet loud, environmental activist or professionally paid bureaucrat with a bee in his bonnet about wood lice, living in the burbs, demanding that every tree (living or dead) be sanctified.

I fear we have too many busy-bodies usurping their acquired authority in local and state politics.

I find the price or practice of turning a blind eye to dictatorial abuse of governmental powers, regardless the manner in which it is dressed or the supposed sincerity of the abusive proponents, just too high to pay or even bargain with.

Justin is correct in his basic premise -

He who owns the land and is possibly assessed taxes on that land, should control what happens with that land.

Conversely, those who sit in a cute office, funded by the tax payer must be forced to remember, they are the servants, not the masters, of the electorate and as such have no right or authority to usurp the rights of their land-owning electors.

And those who feel they have to succumb to some god-given desire for “environmental activism”, should take a cold shower or find something else to burn off the excesses of their emotional righteousness…

Maybe try working for a living.

Winston Smith, as you might guess, I agree with your view.

Ah Ho-Hum… you illustrate my point perfectly, ”environmental degradation” was more excessive under the jackboot of the collectivist government in USSR than it was anywhere else. Just look at what “leftwing politics” did to the Aral Sea

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/678898.stm

doubtless we would find similar excesses in North Korea, if anyone was allowed to go and check.

Honest and open government is only ever preserved when the rights of the collective are acknowledged as being subordinate to the rights of the individual.
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 14 January 2010 10:57:05 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
Peter Spencer probably (I’m not sure of the facts of the case) should have been compensated, as should all farmers being forced into ‘helping’ the environment. However, I must say that, for a person supposedly living on nothing except water and vitamins for 55 days, Mr. Spencer looked to be in good shape physically and was very lucid when he was being interviewed. True, he couldn’t walk when he was brought to the ground, but nobody else who had sat for 55 days, eating or not, would have been able to walk either.

The same media who brought us the story also advised the public that Mr. Spencer had declined an offer of $2 million dollars for his property. Now, we don’t know the truth of that, but nor do we no the real truth about anything to do with Mr. Spencer when we have to rely on the media for information.

The fact remains that governments in Australia can take away land, and even peoples’ houses; there is usually compensation involved and, as said above, we don’t know the true facts of Mr. Spencer’s dealings with the government.

As one who does not believe in the man-made theory of climate-change, I don’t think that preventing anyone from clearing land is going to make a damn of difference; it only gives the government the chance to say, “Look what we are doing.”

Nevertheless, I don’t think we should be making political comment on this case, or any other case, until we know the full facts. We do not no the full facts of the Peter Spencer case
Posted by Leigh, Thursday, 14 January 2010 11:29:36 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
There are some good points made in this article. However, they are the kind of uneducated, poorly informed, inflammatory points made to stir up a good argument where proper logic holds firm.
As an earlier comment accurately stated populations are in a constant state of flux. As one population increases another may fall. In the end they balance out. The continuity of both is very important. Each small part of an ecosystem plays a role in the sustaining the whole. If the ecosystem collapses production will also collapse. Allowing unfettered use of land through ownership would enable profitability to rule. This would be the worse case possible as preservation of ecosystems has no market value. Without one– ecosystems – the other would not be able to exist.
Secondly, people are motivated to act out of self-interest. This does not mean that they will do what is good for them. We need strong government and regulations to protect people from themselves. Farmers’ clear land for production because they want more profit or other land is no longer usable. Self-interest is the motive and environmental factors are not considered. Farmers in the West Australian Wheat belt were told 100 years ago that if they cropped the land it would cause salinity issues. The farmers cropped and now there is a huge salinity problem in the Wheat belt. Land needs to be protected from narrow self-interest.
Finally there is the issue of ownership. There is a strong link here to market profit and to motivation. People see profit from farming but there is no visible profit from preservation. It is difficult therefore for large sums to be spent by philanthropic individuals to preserve land which does not generate any financial reward. So next time you pen such an inflammatory story do more research before you open up a debate on subjects which you clearly do not understand. This can undo much of the hard fought victories of the environmental groups because people do not always see what is in their best interest.
Posted by Darron C, Thursday, 14 January 2010 12:10:38 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
Theoretically, if for some reason an owner has been overseas for a couple of years, and there is regrowth over his entire farm, he may never be able to farm there again.

If the law was rationalised to a limit of say 25% or some other figure, both the biodiversity and the farmers would be protected. However, this was easy to forsee, it simply boils down the the greens not giving a damn about people.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Thursday, 14 January 2010 12:14:28 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
Thank you Justin
You have outlined how the theft of millions of hectares of privately owned land has been stolen by government because they hold the power to do so and have acted aganst the moral intention of the constitution. Those who think that it is ok to steal would be the same people who would complain the minute that someone touched anything they owned. Try locking up 90% of the rooms in your own homes and see how that feels. Not real good eh! Don't forget to continue to pay the rates and taxes even though you can't use those rooms. Many environMENTALS think it is ok to go against the commandment "Thou shalt not steal". How about saving up and buying as much land as you can and turn that land into a private parkland at your own expense and you can then become what most farmers have become unpaid park rangers.Don't covert what others have paid for.
Posted by 4freedom, Thursday, 14 January 2010 3:27:49 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
"It is no answer to say that the laws are to protect native vegetation. Native vegetation is not an ecological category: it is an historical and aesthetic category. It means species that were here before 1788, that is all. The issue is not native vegetation itself: it is whether some people should be able to indulge their fancy of having a “pre-1788” botanical museum imposed on other people’s property, paid for by the subject property-holders, or by the productive portion of the population under compulsion"

There is no comment to a troglodyte who would make such a statement.

You loose all credibility right there.

Do not look at both sides of the coin, for when minted, they all look the same. Look instead at the marks, dints and scratches, for it is the imperfections that tell the story.
Posted by Wybong, Thursday, 14 January 2010 5:43:25 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
I don't even know where to begin this piece was so ignorant and just wrong. The glib demonising of environmentalists is just stupid - there are an incredible variety of greenies from all walks of life. To characterise any greenie as suggesting the elimination of farming and replacing it with vegetation is just inane. That said, the notion that food production in Australia treats the land well is equally inane. Farmers for a variety of reasons have hammered the land. Most of the major environmental problems in Australia are a result of poor land use. We can reduce inputs, we can improve soil, we can increase diversity, improve water quality and quantity, increase production etc through a variety of measures. Regulating the way we produce food is not about pitting farmers against the environment, it's about creating a farming culture that supports our life support systems - food, water, soil. Native veg laws were absolutely justified. Rather than fighting about compensation (which is legally really doubtful), the discussion should be about pricing of food and why farmers get less and less for their food; why farmers are increasingly leaving the land - the problem isnt greenies - it's the big boys such as Coles and Woolies that have made farmers into modern serfs. If farmers received a decent wage for producing decent food (and that is a long thread in itself, then regulations that protect our other life support systems wouldn't be an issue.
Posted by next, Thursday, 14 January 2010 6:40:29 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
next: a breath of fresh air.

although this "it's the big boys such as Coles and Woolies" is easily fixed. When I Coles and Woolies took o'seas sourcing to extremes I started using the old Green Grocer, the better Fruit and Veg. Hey there are a lot of Con The Fruitier out there, great people, service and a smile. The big boys will change if we boycott them.

As for the rubbish of this article, amazing, they (the farmers) ask scientists to develop weedicides, herbicides, pesticides; to ask them to study nature and ignore what they (the farmers) don't want to hear, is another "cide", suicide.

The day of enlightenment is near, whether we like it or not.
Posted by Wybong, Thursday, 14 January 2010 7:14:48 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
The plight of Peter Spencer is the result of demands by society on an individual land owner, although Peter is just one of many landowners that have been impacted by international agreements signed by the Federal Government on behalf of society such the convention on biological diversity or the Kyoto Protocol that have seen States introduce legislation controlling the clearing of native vegetation.

In 2004, the Productivity commission completed its inquiry into the impacts of native vegetation and biodiversity regulations. http://www.pc.gov.au/projects/inquiry/nativevegetation/docs/finalreport

Two key recommendations by the Commission apply to Mr Spencer’s situation and are echoed in Justin Jefferson’s article that argues that social co-operation is fairest when based on respect for individual freedom. These are:
Landholders should bear the costs of actions that directly contribute to sustainable resource use (including, for example, land and water quality) and hence, the long-term viability of agriculture and other land-based operations, and
Over and above agreed landholder responsibilities, additional conservation apparently demanded by society (for example, to achieve biodiversity, threatened species and greenhouse objectives), should be purchased from landholders where intervention is deemed necessary and cost-effective.

The Government responded by agreeing that these additional biodiversity conservation services sought by the community should generally be purchased from landholders, where intervention is deemed necessary and cost-effective.
At the time the Federal government stated its position that, prior to the removal of landholders’ rights, State and Territory governments must consult fully with landholders and any other interested parties and meet any legal requirements for direct compensation to property rights holders.

While management of native vegetation and biodiversity is primarily the responsibility of State governments, the Federal Government has over the last three decades taken action to conserve and manage biodiversity by seeking agreement of the States or using its legal authority ( e.g. Regional Forest Agreements, High Court action, such as the Tasmanian Dam’s Case).

Therefore it is entirely appropriate for the acquisition of the property on just terms as provided by Section 51 (xxx1) of the Australian constitution, as made famous by the Australian movie The Castle.
Posted by cinders, Thursday, 14 January 2010 8:36:19 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
Thank you Justin, For those who comment without any practical or applicable experience in dealing with governments today and their unsustainable land use controls, it is easy to poo poo your article. But, for those who deal in the real world and plan, purchase and aim to produce the necessary goods which are conveniently consumed on a daily basis, your article highlights the reality, hypocrisy and corruption of the some of these so called statutory controls.
Posted by Dallas, Friday, 15 January 2010 12:00:11 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
One of the biggest problems in the Murray Darling is that water is now too expensive to buy - that is the result of the Howard Government capitulating to demands to make water a private property right. It never was and never should have been. Not all 'things' should be owned; there should be a commons that belongs to all of us. That includes the life support systems that produce our food and protect life in Australia. It is not surprising that the PC recommends private ownership etc - they are in the extreme economic rationalist camp and believe the market is the greatest good. How much longer do we have to put up with that insane cargo cult?
Posted by next, Friday, 15 January 2010 6:15:14 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
@ W Smith so you do agree with me you just want to continue the emotional appear, and to add that anybody who doesn't agree with you is evil.
Now while you're going on about private property rights being the centre of most constitutions. Can you show the rest of us where in our constitution is these rights are talked about.
Posted by Kenny, Friday, 15 January 2010 8:37:19 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'd like to know what is meant by the rather strange phrase "sanctity of property". It's something I don't think I'd ever heard until the Spencer sideshow.

Since when has property been sacred or holy?
Posted by CJ Morgan, Friday, 15 January 2010 6:32:53 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
Why don't you try answering Justin's question: how could a government power to manage the environment be limited, even conceptually?
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Friday, 15 January 2010 8:14:39 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
Some of you here seem to be saying that every landholder has his own little fiefdom and they can do anything they want. Each individual plot of land should be its own little country only subject to its owners will and not the wider society or government. Each property owner a king or dictator over his holding. A billion petty tyrants lording over their estates.

Can you not see how ridiculous you look?
Posted by mikk, Sunday, 17 January 2010 12:47:41 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
mikk
Unfortunately your intellectual dishonesty doesn't make up for your stupidity. What's the answer to the question?
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Sunday, 17 January 2010 6:41:00 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
What is all this twaddle about "native vegetation"? In most of this we are talking about regrowth.

Regrowth is not native vegitation. In every instance I have seen it is a very restricted vegetation, of just a few species, most often with very few of the species native to the area.

Not only does it make the land useless for food production, it usually makes it all most worthless to native wild life as well. It generally becomes a vast thicket, offering nothing to man or beast.

Only a city based fool, [definition of a greenie perhaps], who has no idea of what native vegetation is or was like, could see any value in allowing this cr4p to spread across the landscape.
Posted by Hasbeen, Sunday, 17 January 2010 11:35:16 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
These ideas have been created by unelected public officals, who have continuous tenancy in a public funded position in federal, state and local governments. These positions transcend the tenancy of elected politicians. (That is not to excuse the dopey politician who must recieve ideas, from somewhere, into a barren mind).

The word LAND is polarising the readers here and elswhere.

What I would like to offer to the debate is that we must understand our position if, and when, the word land is exchanged for Medicare, social security, old age pension, superannuation, freehold tile to land, privacy, one party government (although they dont really need this one), freehold title to homes, non jury trials, guilt without trial, incarceration without a trial, restricted internet use (banning blogs and forums), the end of public hospitals, and the end of open public education.

I may have overstated the potential position, but everything has to start somewhere.

It has started with land.

You can do no harm by supporting this move to have the governments act, only, in accordance with the "United Kingdom colony of Australia constitution"
Posted by benito, Thursday, 28 January 2010 11:17:27 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. All

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