“The Earth is under attack, and we're its attackers. How can we defend it?”

The Earth is NOT under attack, and we’re NOT its attackers. We don't have to defend it.

What is under attack is Western society. It is under attack from Islam. All this 'earthy werthy' business is a frivolous Left wing propaganda campaign to take our minds of the the real threat from their ally, Islam. It is also designed to remove more money from us.

Gosh, I didn't know they had ivory towers at Charles Darwin Uni. How's the view from up there ?

Been there done that. And as I learned just 6 years old, the only way is to fight back and win.

And given the attempted connection, totally irrelevant. The earth is not injured by essential mining connected to mandatory mining site re-vegetation, nor more so by essential food production.

What is harming the earth are so called green activists, spreading outright lies and or massive information pertaining to green energy, Super Fuel, thorium.

Green energy coupled to space age desalination, is arguably the only option for not just saving the earth, massively improving food and fibre production, without clear felling whole forest; but rolling back and reversing both poverty, famine and drought related dislocation and conflict.

The disingenuous green agenda would return the world to an agrarian lifestyle replete with artisans, and a dawn to dark gut bust. we'd keep stuff like solar panels and wind farms to ensure our laptops and ubiquitous mobile phones functioned.

This model would require vastly more ARABLE LAND AND WATER, than we have, with every family needing around ten acres for food production and another forty for the woodlot/ self replenishing fuel source. Moreover, each beast of burden needs at least 8 acres of sustenance graze.

Arable land an exponentially diminishing resource! And down to resolutely anti industrial anti development green activists!

I could elaborate, but commend Graham's blog that largely explains how they do that just by blocking the very thing that has a snowflakes chance in hell of turning back and repairing the harm as we look for a better final solution? Mass migration to other worlds?

We can't wait while we or completely natural events remove that option/chance or decision from us!
Alan B.

The earth's radius is 6371 kilometres.
Man's deepest mines are around 3 kilometres deep and there are only a few of those.
This means that humans barely scratch earth's surface - and there's not much more they can do.

Even had Earth been actually attacked by feeble humans, rather than slightly tickled, the author's analogy omitted the most obvious and effective response - prayer!

Worship and serve the Creator and the creation will be taken care of. Ever seen the mess left behind by some of those who claim to have connection or love the earth?

And AJ Philips has the hide to tell me I should pay attention to & respect academics. There is only one word to describe this bloke, his mates, & the AJ Philips of this world. It starts with W & ends with W & ends with ers.

For god's sake.

* thorium reactors providing cheap energy; driving

* multi-storey hydroponic towers (solar-powered for 240hour light and heat), if land is scarce; Australia ? Scarce land ? not if those reactors drive

* cheap desalination plants around the coast, with water pumped back to new farm land, perhaps hundreds of thousands of sq. km. which used to be dry pastoral land.

* re-forestation across the North, providing lifelong employment for all able-bodied people in Indigenous communities, therefore increasing the perception of the need for and possibilities of education in the children, and eventually providing a wide range of skilled forms of production.

So what's not possible ?

Joe

What a ghastly little nazi this idiot is! So he is going to start killing people if we do not agree with him? How he got this to OLO is beyond me although it shows what these filthy greens are up to.
One thing we can be sure of is when anything kicks off this contemptible little bully will be well away from any danger hiding under some stone.
Universities have degenerated into spiv dens hawking rubbish degrees to uneducated people so as to make a very disgusting buck

A rather turgid essay to say the least.
But his thesis that we are systematically destroying the integrity of the Earthworld is correct - as these very prophetic dramatic images show:
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~spanmod/mural/panel14.html
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~spanmod/mural/panel21.html

As does the contents of this website too:
http://openfield.earth

And such is the inevitable manifestation/outcome of the naive self-serving essentially Godless creater-"God" idea.

CDU, building Yellow 1, is it the mould spores from the rotting carpet on the second floor which still affect everyone there ?

It is not possible to ascertain from this article whether it is based on the author’s ignorance or on his dishonesty.
If Mark is unaware that there is no science to show any measurable human effect on global climate, then his article is based on his ignorance.
If he is so aware, but supports the climate fraud regardless then it is based on his dishonesty.
Only Mark can enlighten us as to his ignorance or dishonesty when he makes the scurrilous statement:” We should applaud efforts like the summits in Rio, Kyoto, Copenhagen, and Paris in terms of attempting to tackle it.”

Surprised no one has made the link to terrorism from this article. We apparently have difficulty imagining what causes people to take the lives of others on the basis of religious ideology. Yet, if I'm reading this article correctly, we have a mainstream academic considering the possibility of using violence in pursuit of ideological aims. Political violence isn't unique to Islam.

I think runne has a point, worship the creator of the earth and the creator is going to take care of the earth, enough of this teaching that says no creator for the earth.

Hi Graham,

Yes, what you advocate, depends on the story you tell: one could start out with a hypothetical yarn about a gang of left-handed women, picking on lone men in dark alleys, identifying them as right-handers and then brutally beating and castrating them, leaving them naked and near death - until a group of RH male defenders heroically fights them off.

The story that you choose justifies your story's solution: in this case, someone who organises men to - equally brutally - combat and exterminate those evil women. A hypothetical story's premises and the solution to its dilemmas go together.

So what does this author mean by system-directed 'ecological violence' ? After confecting some grave dangers for the planet, and identifying the culprits, who is he suggesting are its champions ? Who are they supposed to exterminate - for the good of the planet of course ?

Paranoia seems to breed psychotic responses. I've always been uneasy about most of Clint Eastwood's film story-lines, which seem to follow this pattern: of an innocent village brutally attacked by thugs, left defenceless until a strange but good man rides in, witnesses what dreadful atrocities have been done, rides back out and exterminates the thugs, equally brutally, to the eternal gratitude of the villagers and their most beautiful daughter, and rides off into the sunset. That scenario has always struck me as something a psychotic would concoct. Maybe I'm wrong.

So who is the hero in this bloke's scenario ? Obviously, we, the consumers and craven supporters of neo-liberalism, are the villains, brutally and uncaringly raping the earth. Who will save it ? Can there be a way for the Protectors of the Earth to save it besides extreme brutality ? Clearly not, according to the author. Well, I suppose it's his story, he can end it any way he likes, just so long as he stays up that ivory tower.

Joe

Can someone explain to me please?

1. What is a neo-liberal?
2. Who are those neo-liberals?
3. How big are they that they can threaten planet earth (are they perhaps related to the sons of God that are mentioned in Genesis 6)?
4. Has Earth been complaining of the pain they cause and asked for help?
5. If those neo-liberals are indeed that big, how can we possibly punish them?
6. Is one born with this condition of neo-liberalism, or does it develop later in life? Does the author intend to also kill neo-liberal children?
7. Joe has suggested that neo-liberalism is somehow connected with consumption: I live within my budget, but I admit that I do occasionally consume - what are my risks of becoming a neo-liberal?
8. If the author catches me and wants to slit my throat, is there a way to convince him that I am not on of them? Perhaps some verse I could recite?
9. Any remedy for children screaming in fear at night, dreaming that the author is out to eat them?

Thank you all!

Graham Y
You are right in your assessment of this, "save the earth",by the Greens
As being basically an ideology designed as a tool to bash and blame Western countries
as being an evil force destroying the world. They never include the 7billion people destroying and polluting the land and waterways in obscenely overpopulated countries.
Because to do so would take away what global warming ideology is all about. A political weapon of hate and envy designed to punish people living in countries, the world envies.
Or envious inhabitants like this academic, who is envious of others in his own society. Or else is guilty of self flagulation and guilt that leads them to try and tear down their own societies.
These overpopulated societies, strip the land of trees and animals as they expand.
Timber for fuel and makeshift homes. The result, ever spreading deserts.
No trees, no rain. But people like this academic would rather blame the lack of rain
on global warming and thus prove beautiful Europe and the Western world are evil and must be stopped.

It's no co-incidence that the Muslims vote the Greens into power in Melborne.
They like the idea that the West, the infidel, is an evil force destroying the earth.
Global warming, is indeed a fundamentalist, fanatical, ideology. The awful part is the so called intelligent academics who run around like hippies, espousing this stuff.

Hi Cheerful,

The author condemns what he calls neo-liberalism, by which I presume he means contemporary capitalism. There isn't much of that in Africa just yet, but Chinese capital may start to make huge differences, both to the local economies and to the revolutionised use of land.

We forget that Africa is larger than three Australias, and is not all that crowded (except insofar as inefficient use of land supports far fewer people per sq.km. than efficient use). It has some of the biggest rivers in the world by volume of water, currently barely harnessed for power and irrigation, and millions of sq. km of relatively flat land, ideal for large-scale mechanised farming - funded by capitalism.

I'm certainly not suggesting tomorrow, but if the people in African countries could force their governments away from corruption and cronyism, there may be a chance for the continent to be the food-basket for the world, later this century.

Many African countries have tried socialism, in different forms, and none of it has worked. Traditional social and economic organisation doesn't seem to be working too well either.

So perhaps, very cautiously, we should watch to see if Chinese investment makes a significant difference. They seem to be focussing currently on Kenya, as part of their One Belt, One Road strategy.

Of course, the Chinese will be exploiting this initiative as part of a neo-imperialist policy, while the US is going down the tubes, but imperialism has had surprising and unexpected consequences elsewhere.

IF, in his use of the term neo-LIBERALISM, the author means something to do with what we recognise as Western values, that too may be a major project to keep an eye on - IF he means by '-liberalism', the development of Enlightenment values, freedoms of expression and belief, equality for women, a focus on the development of democracy and growing international economic co-operation.

Chers,

Joe

When this twit gives up his iphone, macbook etc then he might have a point.

Typically these greenies want everyone else to make the sacrifices.

The author has put forward a ridiculous analogy, likening people going about their lawful business to a thug in an alley, on the basis of the invalid assertion by the IPCC and other climate fraud promoters that we are doing damage to the planet.
A valid analogy is the fraud promoters as the thug, attacking citizens whose activities bring them within the ambit of the climate lie.
We need protection from these fraud promoters, and their criminally minde supporters, like Mark.

Hi Joe,
, China is part of the problem, of overpopulation. They still have a lot of people,
despite having taken steps to turn the problem around, unlike the Arabs and Africa
and India.

If there were no consumers demanding coal to cook and power their homes in big populations like China then coal would not be able to be sold in such mass amounts by Western countries.

The consumers are part of the problem, but the author of this article only bashes the
capitalists and the west. It doesn't suit His agenda to blame the consumers in non Western countries as being
a big part of the problem.Eventually the world will start to catch up with solar but that is going to take a couple of decades and more in emerging nations.

I like solar power, but I can't take a liking to those wind turbines. Too strange looking and a blight on the landscape.

Hi Cherful,

No, China is in a lot of trouble with its population - that its one-child policy, in effect for 35 years, may have crippled its population growth for many decades: with few children being born for more than a generation, there are now many fewer child-bearers, especially given the cultural attitudes to female children in a one-child regime. Within a decade or so, China will have a rapidly growing elderly population, and very few younger working people to support them. They may be in a downward-population trap. Their population may stabilise, then start to decline by 2040-2050.

On another issue that you raise, people in every country are entitled to comforts as much as anybody else. If they have to use coal, that's a problem that they alone don't have, we all do, because we all want comforts, luxuries, consumables.

Nuclear power may become inevitable if renewables can't make life easier for people in those poorer countries.

Cheers,

Joe