Here is another one who thinks that majority opinion is OK if it suits her own dogma and ideology. The majority in this case might very well think as she wants them to because they have been brainwashed and browbeaten by a selective media carefully suppressing alternative thought because it is not sensational – does not engender fear.

Fear is the key, and it is being used more and more by politicians for whom democracy is becoming a nuisance.

Yes. The environment is changing. But, is it in ‘trouble’? Environment/climate changes occur cyclically (naturally), so there is no trouble; we just have to ride it out and learn to cope.

The change is caused by human activity. Well, that’s the opinion being pumped out by ‘environmental scientists’ looking for money, and it’s the opinion upheld by the sensationalist media and fear-mongering politicians. The suppressed opinion of equally qualified scientists is that is not caused by human action.

So, we have to make up our own minds, not blindly follow majority hysteria and help out the likes of Al Gore, billionaire and big time polluter.

The rest of the article is a plug for the author’s employer, Anglicare, and drones on about the same old impractical ‘solutions’ for trying to help people who cannot be helped.

Climate change has nothing to do with heart-string pulling.

I am not a fan of Benny Hinn but these climate change scaremongers make him look good.

First of all the author is just plain wrong in attributing the current problems of global worming to all mankind which is factually untrue. The problems of today happened over centuries of emmissions comming from factories in the heart of england and europe and then transfered to the rest of the world through invasion.

It is the white world and its greed that has cause this problem and it should be them in the Industrial world that grounds it to halt.

Like the cane toad the white man has spread out from his native land to invade others, and also like the cane toad he has consumed all that was available to him whilst looking for further opportunities to meet his insationable greed.

It is America and its polluting ways that will ultimitly kill the rest of us so they should start first that is if it isn't already too late now.

Again an assertion of more "wild weather".
Where are the studies that our current events are OUTSIDE the statistical norm for weather extremes.
There have been academic studies recently on the occurrence of hurricanes in the Atlantic that reach conclusions that are on either side of the AGW fence.
The science is still being debated.
The only sure thing is the the Earth cannot support the projected 9 billion people at an Australian standard of living.
Is overpopulation something that is in the "Too Hard Basket"!

The paper by Kasy Chambers meets the criteria of “virtuous corruption.” “Virtuous corruption” is a term introduced by Professor Aynsley Kellow of University of Tasmania. [ABC Counterpoint 4-Feb 2008].

The argument goes something like this. Kasy is convinced of the “truth” of anthropogenic global warming (GW). Therefore any argument no matter how far fetched, no matter how much based on emotion rather then hard evidence can be used. The important point is to exaggerate estimates, cherry pick examples, all to gain converts and further the cause.

Kasy is not acting immorally. GW is “self evidently true.” Great will be the catastrophe, if sceptics get their way, so any action is morally justifiable.

There is an analogy with the concept of “noble cause corruption.” That is when the police are convinced of the guilt of a suspect. They take the view that it is justifiable and indeed necessary for public protection that the evidence that goes before the court is appropriately “doctored”.

For myself, I remain unconvinced of GW and thus un-corrupted by GW rants.

"So, we have to make up our own minds, not blindly follow majority hysteria and help out the likes of Al Gore, billionaire and big time polluter."

Leigh, How can you make up your own mind if you are reluctant to study the science?

If it's true, that millions of humans die each year from man-made air pollution, what makes you believe that our eco systems are immune to man-made pollution coupled with climate change?

Climate change has the potential to alter many of the Earth's natural ecosystems over the next century. Yet, climate change is not a new influence on the biosphere, so why can't ecosystems just adapt without significant effects on their form or productivity?

First, the rate of global climate change is projected to be more rapid than any to have occurred in the last 10,000 years.

Second, humans have altered the structure of many of the world's ecosystems. They have cut down forests, plowed soils, used rangelands to graze their domesticated animals, introduced non-native species to many regions, intensively fished lakes, rivers and oceans, and constructed dams.

These relatively recent changes in the structure of the world's ecosystems have made them less resilient to further changes.

Third, pollution, as well as other indirect effects of the mining and utilization of natural resources, has also increased since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

Consequently, it is likely that many ecosystems will not be able to adapt to the additional stress of climate change.

Already in WA, 362 plants, 199 native animals and 69 ecological communities are under threat from man-made interference.

"The change is caused by human activity. Well, that’s the opinion being pumped out by ‘environmental scientists’ looking for money, and it’s the opinion upheld by the sensationalist media and fear-mongering politicians" (Leigh)

That's fine Leigh. Just give us some credible link to support your accusations please and then advise us on how humans can best intervene to mitigate the effects of climate change.

Another way to look at this is:

Most people appear to accept that global warming (GW)is occuring - the evidence is too great in the changes in the physical world around us. What is argued, even among the scientists, is the extent to which GW is attributed to human activity. Personally I feel man has contributed and continues to make poor choices in regard to the future (eg. GM foods) but I understand not everyone agrees with this view.

Even the most hard-line sceptic has to accept that man has caused great environmental problems through land clearing, pollution, lack of water management etc. Surely this in itself is enough to encourage us to mend our ways to a more sustainable existence.

Who cares in 50 years time if one side of the debate gets to say "...see told you so we were right". The fact of the matter is if we don't become more environmentally focussed with our ever increasing populations we will all feel the detrimental effects of complacency.

“our convenience and self-indulgence come at the cost of a natural despoilment that most of us, by choice or indifference, casually ignore.”

What Kasy Chambers defines as “self-indulgent” is up to her, what I might consider is “self-indulgent” is likely something completely different.

“Or that this is in large part a result of human activity.”

I see criticism to the activity of humans, I see nothing which suggests the benefits to be derived from limiting the number of humans.

Like most of the half baked environmental threads, the author attacks the symptom instead of the cause.

As for the plight of “poorer Australians”: since it is the richer Australians who pay more of the taxes (community net contributors), on which the poorer Australians draw a greater part of their gross income (community net neutral or net beneficiaries), I fail to see how it is a meaningful argument to presume the less-poor are less-disadvantaged by any environmental issue.

This is just another pleading for national and international leveling, where an individual is denied the right to benefit from his own effort and is economically “leveled” in the name of the defunct philosophy of socialism.

Leigh “Fear is the key, and it is being used more and more by politicians for whom democracy is becoming a nuisance.”

Absolutely right, fear and self-righteousness

Until the socialist levelers accept that ever increasing world population numbers work against all theories of sustainability for any given set of life quality expectations, the debate to who should pay for GW is going to go no where.

As for all this “bad” developed nations versus the “virtuous” under-developed nations.

One of the primary beneficiaries of the productivity of the “bad” developed nations are the under-developed nations, through the organs of international aid, debt interest relief, debt forgiveness, technical and governmental support and the bounties of modern medicines, modern production methods as well as direct capital investment of the developed nations into the less developed nations.

Global Warming...evidenced by both droughts and floods, more storms and less storms...more ice and less ice. Why...it's the new wonderdrug!

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

Never mind we have just had our coldest year since the early 90's. Global warming is still upon us! Repent yeah capitalist sinners.

Why, we certainly need thousands of people to fly private jets to Bali to discuss climate change...never mind the green house gases that causes!

Never mind that most of the computer models use different forcings for CO2, but still all manage to correctly model the past...I'm sure that at least one of them MUST have them right.

Never mind that most of the old data comes from proxies that have proven to be completely unreliable and the new temperature data comes from badly corrupted data sources, the trends are undeniable!

Never mind that more people die of cold than from heat, we need to make sure that we only mention the extra heat deaths because that way people will feel bad.

Never mind that the cost of drastic green house gas reduction far outstrips the cost of global warming, we have to stop it now, and all those struggling developing countries can continue to have massive deaths from poverty. We'll just not mention that.

Global Warming is a joke people. It was the last time it was trumpeted as a doomsday scenario and it is today.

*Across the world it is the poor who live in areas of greatest environmental degradation: from the slums built on rubbish tips in South America and the Philippines*

Perhaps its time that those poor were offered family planning
and abortion services, so that they can limit how many kids
they are forced to raise. Kasy should tap her Catholic
comrades on the shoulder and ask them, why they still resist
these changes.

Its pointless going on about the poor, if they are poor, due
to the efforts of the Catholic Church, in the name of Vatican
ideology.

People in South Australia, look at their backyards and see their backyard Gardens dying.

Trees that have grown over many decades, are in distress, established fruit trees are bear, of foliage and fruit.

What better indicator is there, than the flora in your home, to indicate; Something is not right!

Gee willikins, it didn't take long for the climate change deniers to raise their heads did it.

I must say that for the most part, I agree with what Kasy has had to say. There were a couple of omissions however which perhaps have been overlooked. The poor, in general seem to have larger families, for various reasons which I will leave others to enumerate. This means that the disadvantages which they will suffer under an energy deficient regime will generally be exacerbated.

The other is undoubtedly the fact that the ever increasing world population is the main reason why we have reached this situation. Unless very serious steps are taken universally to reverse this, we really are only putting off the inevitable, no matter on what other remedies we embark.

We in NSW have just had the coolest summer for 50 yrs.
Climate does change,that cannot be denied.The greatest influence on our climate is the Sun and Co2 gases only have a minor effect as witnessed by our geological history that spans millions of yrs.

Some scientists are now saying we are entering a cooling period and possibly a mini-ice age by 2050,as experienced in 1400 AD.

Fact;co2 is a minor global warming gas and it is improbable that it it is the sole source of heating.In the realm of improbability,believe nothing of what you hear,and only half of what you see.

"The greatest influence on our climate is the Sun and Co2 gases only have a minor effect as witnessed by our geological history that spans millions of yrs." (Arjay)

Eh...not quite Arjay. Emeritus Professor of Mathematical Astrophysics at Cambridge, whose research interests are Solar and Stellar Magnetic Fields, Astrophysical Fluid Dynamics and Nonlinear Dynamics had to recently defend himself against the misleading claims made by the lunar right when he said:

"Following a misleading account of my views in the Toronto National Post in February, a number of right-wing lobbyists have asserted that I claimed that an impending drop in solar activity would lead to global cooling that would cancel out the warming caused by greenhouse gases.

"On the contrary, I have always maintained that any temperature changes caused by variations in solar activity -- while interesting in themselves -- are not significant compared to the global warming that we are already experiencing, and very small compared to what will happen if we continue to burn fossil fuel at the present rate.

"On April 11 2007 the National Post published an apology and withdrew its allegations. They have nevertheless appeared again in the recent book `Scared to Death' by Booker and North."

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/now/

And more on the lunar right and an example of how desperate they have become when they deliberately defame reputable scientists and continue to manipulate the cold hard facts:

Excerpt:

"But mainstream scientists agree that the sun does have some influence on fluctuations in the Earth's temperature. As Prof Lockwood said: " I do firmly believe that there is a solar influence on pre-industrial climate and that may well have extended into the last century - up to about 1940 - but our results confirm that recent climate change is not caused by the sun. We do this with a simple and direct analysis of data and not using climate computer models - which are often a cause of scepticism."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/07/11/scisun111.xml

All sounds eminently sensible. Don't worry about climate-change denialsm. Those who follow this political line of typically brainless right-wing thought will change their tune as they get hotter under their collars.

Sheesh, talk about someone living in the dark ages.

Arjay, if you want to comment on global warming, may I suggest you check out the difference between weather and climate.

To do otherwise demonstrates to all and sundry you don't know what you're talking about.

Tip: check out the BOM site, or better still, email them with your profound findings.

Hey Arjay, why stop there - maybe you can convince them that global warming is a load of crock, a conspiracy concocted by ALL the world's governments, big businesses (banks, insurance companies, etc) and religions of ALL faiths.

Forget the scientists, what do they know anyway?

Dickie, you are on the button!

Hay Q&A, does it make any difference that there has been no warming, & infact a little cooling now, in 9 years. Just how long is it weather.

How anyone can be stupid enough to believe anything coming out of such an incredibly corrupt organisation as the United nations, I fail to understand.

Perhaps if you read some of the latest research you would have a better idea

The Rud governments target for emission cutting is 60%, with a recommendation of 90% by some leading expert.

As a nation we are what is known as ‘resource rich’ and prosper from exports and as such we over produce to meet this demand, in some cases, meat by example – by 85%, which simply means that we as a nation survive on exports for our very existence. Without them we would quite simply NOT SURVIVE!

Wheat is another example whereby if we were to consume our total output of wheat we would each have to eat thousands of loaves of bread per head, per year. Just not going to happen. I forget the exact amount of wheat exported last year but it is in the 10’s of millions of tons.

Then there are the real export dollars, the minerals.

China for example, which I believe to be our largest buyer of raw materials has a growth rate the equivalent of 1.25 BRISBANE’S PER MONTH with no end in sight. India has not really started yet but soon will be and is predicted to be a larger customer than China.

So for all of you out there who support the cutting of emissions by 60%, brace yourself because the way of life you are accustom to is about to come to a grinding halt if we adopt this strategy.

To suggest that we can cut emissions by 60%, or worse, 90%, while continuing to grow and prosper is quite simply irresponsible thinking, unless of cause we all don a pick & shovel and start digging up the minerals. But then we don’t have the population to do that do we, so we run the risk of being taken over if for nothing else but for the wealth of our commodities.

Think very very hard before you take that huge step, especially when the US, China and India have not made similar commitments.

p.s. Dear YINDIN- Where did your education come from? Whites perhaps!

2003-4 wheat exports were a record 17.8 million tonnes.
Last year if my memory serves me correctly was 8 million tonnes, due to the drought which still exists in a large part of inland Australia.

The whole point of the argument is that if we don't do something fairly drastic about reducing our carbon footprint now, then the longer we wait, the more pain we will suffer, and I don't mean maybe.

We are currently living in a fool's paradise.

David

Why is it that true believers like Q & A berate skeptics for confusing 'weather' and 'climate', yet fail to berate their fellow travelers who constantly talk about the weather as if it was evidence for global warming?

Q&A, you may remember our previous discussion re .... one arrogant Dr. Pierre who prefers the pulpit to proper debate on the warmers website RealClimate. Well you may be interested in the fact that I recently volunteered out of curiosity some thoughts there on cloud cover over Antarctica and cloud forcing as a possible explanation. I need to report that, not unexpectedly, all efforts to raise a few polite questions on the RealClimate website have been savagely deleted without explanation.

Further, these warmers are not just looking foolish but are becoming desperate and no doubt the debate will become increasingly dirty. Take this economist yesterday.

Garnaut is an economist/banker who recognises that the control of CO2 is a dream-come-true. e.g. The case of ENRON is illustrative in this respect. Before disintegrating with a big bang display of unscrupulous manipulation, ENRON had hoped to become a trading firm dealing in carbon emission rights. By the size of it this was no small hope because these rights were likely to amount to over a trillion dollars with commissions running into many billions. Hedge funds are actively examining the possibilities and it is no accident that AlGorithms himself is associated with such activities. No wonder AlGorithms too prefers the pulpit to proper debate.

In Australia the possibilities for corruption are immense, however there are numerous well meaning individuals who have allowed a weak media and propagandists to convince them that in accepting the alarmist view that they are carbon sinners, that they are in fact displaying intelligence and virtue.

But, with all this at stake, it is not surprising to see that jokers like Garnaut might be creating a sense of urgency, provoked by the possibility that warming has ceased for ten years. i.e. The need to act soon, before the public appreciates the situation, is real indeed.

Well David, we may be living in a fools paradise as you put it, but I for one don't want to loose my way of life. The solution lays with finding how to deal with the omissions as much as it does to reduce them.

I think carbon trading may well be the solution however I don't know if we can plant enough trees to deal with the carbon we omit, or will omit in the future. Bamboo on the other hand exhaubs six times the carbon that trees do so maybe there is something here.

Either way to suggest that we can cut our emissions by 60% is just ridiculous never mind by 90%. 'Remember, it takes more energy to manufacture a solar pannel than the panel it's self can produce in it"s life time'. So I doubt this is the answer.

We must find a way of dealing with emissions rather than just reducing them. Sure we must try to reduce as well however China and India are going to continue their phenomenal growth rates due to their desire to become 'westernised' as it has been described.

It is impossible to reduce omissions by 60% while fueling this level of demand.

*The whole point of the argument is that if we don't do something fairly drastic about reducing our carbon footprint now, then the longer we wait, the more pain we will suffer, and I don't mean maybe.*

The fact remains that if all Australians were wiped out tomorrow,
CO2 levels globally would hardly change, as we 20 million simply
don't matter, when looking at the bigger picture.

So we'll have plenty of feelgood exercises, but if they have
real impact, is another question. Without real impact, why bother?

The world population keeps increasing at about 80 million a year,
so us Aussies would be replaced by 90 days of human breeding.

Until we get serious about this question and start to provide all
women on the planet with family planning and abortion services,
so that they can choose the size of their families, we are pissing
in the breeze so to speak.

Yabby
Hilarious, Why Am I not surprised- Your membership to the Old boys National Club keeps shining through ;)
Just the women Ah? Why not provide the people - all people and that would include the men as well. After all it’s got to be a lot less expensive for men to be given a small injection than pay for abortions. Of course you do realize I am stepping out of my comfort zone here however it just so happens I agree with your comments one hundred percent.

Its time we addressed the birth control world wide.
Well past time.

It is the white world and its greed that has cause this problem and it should be them in the Industrial world that grounds it to halt.
Yindin,
I totally agree with part of this statement. The whites have developed all technology & the rest of the world very, very quickly took advantage of it. Greed is everywhere. The desire for wealth is everywhere. The desire for commodities & comfort is probably the greatest of all. Whilst the methods of production are from whites, the desire to have these commodities is entrenched in every race. I don't believe that this technology is the cause of pollution. What is the cause is the overuse & frivolous use of it. People want things, it's as simple as that. The greedy exploit this, it's as simple as that. Look at motor sport, boat racing, excessive travel, excessive building with excessive lighting, excessive frivolous consumption of electricity. You can finish the list if you like. Western society & that includes more non-whites than whites is obviously the worst offender. I once saw a documentary on the Beauty Industry & it was found to be extremely polluting. Look at the excessive white & non-white air travel. Look at the extremely polluting white & non-white health industry. Look at the insanity of white non-white warring. One of the worst & most unnecessary polluters is sport but, hey we like that in Australia don't we.
Yindin, whilst the white man has had the ability to create this technology he is definately not Robinson Crusoe in using it to capacity. In fact, it was he who was the first to take action in seeking a remedy. In australian indigenous communities consumerism is even more rampant per capita. Only lack of spending ability curbs this consumerism. In fact, we hear daily of "the lack of this'n that" in those communities & this'n that refers to commodities. What I am stating is that it's not white man who is the cause of pollution. It's the white man & all the other humans with access to money.

hey, it's been 10 hours. C'mon Yindin & Rainier, surely I must be wrong. let's have some your intellectual flak.

Just a little food for thought. 478 million years ago, the (carbon) content was three hundred times more than today. So its fair to say, that the earth has held it (IN) quite well, don't you think. In the Silurian period, this world would have been Deadly to us. So what is my point! Well! I think it explains its self. On opinion, 33% has joined us in the last hundred years, and it may just explain the high rate of respiratory problems.
The time it takes the earth to soak this all in, well! you get the picture. Sorry people, but in my opinion, its to late. Not too save the planet, but to make the whole world do it together. We have to work as one to shorten the effects that we are seeing today

Re! I am starting to think that carbon\dioxide just might be natures extinction tool. Just thought!

So not one mention about neclear power in all this debate.

I would love to here 'SOME REAL FACTS' about this as an alternative power sourse and in saying this I don,t want to be bombarded by all the 'ANTI-NUCLEAR WARRIORS' out there. So if you enjoy taking a cheap shot without factual backing please vent your splien elsewhere!

At the risk of repeating myself, the real issue is how do we deal with carbon because, unless you want to walk everywhere, work in a non-airconditioned office/workplace then someone must come up with a solution.

I for one don't have the answers however there has been some suggestion that nulear power is clean but uses a lot of water.

We have plenty of water we just catch it and chanel it out to sea.

PLEASE'PLEASE'PLEASE, don't make this into a bun fight about neclear power I just think we must explore every option.

" Few outside the contrarian redoubts now deny that our environment is in trouble. Or that this is in large part a result of human activity."

Yeah, but they're all logged onto OLO. I'm trying to remember when scientists got a bad rap and became the bad guys, as opposed to those with vested interests in selling up the environment.

Evolution. I think you're on the money. You may be interested in perusing paleontologist, Dewey McLean's hypothesis on the impacts of CO2 on biodiversity.

His hypothesis, although presented in 1994, on mass extinctions, is interesting where he suggests that the emissions of CO2 and greenhouse gases, from volcanic eruptions, sparked the extinctions millions of years ago.

I do believe his hypothesis was worthy of more attention.

http://filebox.vt.edu/artsci/geology/mclean/Dinosaur_Volcano_Extinction/pages/law_natr.pdf

Rehctub, I'm not sure if you want everyone to agree with you, or you actually want to hear "SOME REAL FACTS?"

Nevertheless, uranium mining does in fact use a massive amount of water. U mining does in fact use a massive amount of energy.

Olympic Dam in SA are the largest private users of energy in the state. If we resorted to nuclear power to solve our problems, this would mean that some states in Australia would see large areas of land mass dug up to extract uranium, releasing large amounts of CO2 and of course the resulting problems of the release of radioactive waste and its monitoring for perpetuity, all adding to the pollution which is now out of control.

In addition, when the land uranium runs out, we would then resort to mining ocean uranium - our last surviving ecosystem. This is already an ecosystem which is seriously threatened.

Currently there are some 200 ocean dead zones which are so polluted, that fish cannot live there. Thousands of sea and shore birds around the planet are dying - the "canaries in the coal mine?" We are now resorting to desalinating sea water to supply major cities and beyond, with unknown ecological consequences particularly if many more nations adopt this practice.

And how long would it take to construct the 25 nuclear plants recommended which will do little to reduce emissions of CO2 but simply increase them. These are just a few concerns for starters.

There are several ways that anthropogenic CO2 could be mitigated. Unfortunately, successive state and federal governments are having none of that!

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:BTx7EF9lcoQJ:home.att.net/~thehessians/birds.html+dead+birds+western+australian+coastline+discovered+2007&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=au&lr=lang_en

Dickie "There are several ways that anthropogenic CO2 could be mitigated."

Such as?

David

Dickie, rehctub here. I thank you for your information however I see little difference between digging up coal or uranium.

As for the water,(now there's another topic in it's self) I can't believe we are resorting to de-sal plants when we are already catching millions of litres it's just that rather than re-direct this water to our dams we choose to dump it into the rivers and oceans.

As for nuclear power costing more, I take your word for this as I don't know enough about it.

Another power sourse suggested was wind power. Not what we know today as this involved huge turbines being teathered at 10,000 feet to catch the high winds at that level.

Has anyone heard or followed this one?

As for the extincion theory, some years ago a theory was put up that dinosoures bread themselv'es out due to climate change, casued by the mediorite dust storm rather than dieing from CO2 poisoning.

Reserchers found through the farming of crocodiles, outside of their normal region, that the off-spring were born either all males or all females depending on the location of the farm. This was due to the change in the climate. Tropic/non-tropic or hot/cold as such.

We all know the mediorite struck and it is thought that the dust storm that followed had such an effect on the atmisphere/climate that the dinosores where born all the same sex and therefore bread them selv'es out.

Has anyone heard or followed this one?

The earth's history, in each event, is true. Some by volcanoes, and really! I don't want to type out all variables when it comes to extinction's.

But none the less, the Co2 is a killer! And I think its fair to say, we are slowly snuffing ourselves out. Yes it will take a long time, but what if, the levels just happens to co-inside with the worlds next great shift. No-one knows what going to happen next, but I think with the evidence available, and its also fair to say, that we are just at the beginning of a new cycle, and unfortunately, and apparently, we are well over due for it. Generally, there are the here and now people and there's the, I think of the future people.

The now people are chewing this planet alive cause they know its not going to affected them in their short pointless lives. selfish isn't.

All the best. and thank you.

Hi VK3AUU.

1. Shipping: Crucially, shipping exploits a ready supply of the world's cheapest, most polluting "bunker" fuel. Marine heavy fuel oil, which is burned by all large ships, is the residue of the world's oil refineries.

"Bunker fuel is just waste oil, basically what is left over after all the cleaner fuels have been extracted from crude oil. It's tar, the same as asphalt. It's the cheapest and dirtiest fuel in the world," said Christian Eyde Moller, chief executive officer of the Rotterdam-based DK Group, a leading shipping technology company.

The world's burgeoning shipping fleet (about 90,000 large ships)currently emits 1.21 billion tonnes of CO2 a year. Why is this industry escaping the attention of governments? In addition, why do Australian governments permit the ocean dumping of dead and diseased animals from its ships of live exports (some 43,000 last year). Why does the industry refer to this as a mere one percent? Why is it prudent to continue to dump million of tonnes of animal faeces and urine, on a single voyage, into international waters?

2. Biodiversity: Again I harp on the millions of sheep, cattle and other cloven hooved animals bred annually for export. No more is that more evident that the state of the environment in WA which is in big trouble though is it just me who has any concern over the maniacal endeavours of governments here who continue to encourage growth in the export of live animals and every other damn thing?

3. Motor vehicles emit the largest source of CO in Australia (2.2 billion in the last NPI report). CO converts to CO2 once burnt. Air pollution is blighting the lives of millions of people where those who drive bumper-to-bumper daily in the sea of chaos, are inhaling petrol and diesel fumes beyond their capacity to remain immune to these contaminants.

Governments have a duty to implement best practice in pursuit of high standards to reduce emissions. Those who continue to drive the most polluting vehicles should incur additional taxes to those already implemented.

4. Population increases? Suicidal!

Hehe, so shipping, by far the most efficient method of transport,
is the problem.

Plus of course 40'000 sheep, how could we forget them?

Never mind the tens of billions of fish, crapping in the ocean
every day. Never mind the many passengers liners, dumping their
waste in the oceans. Never mind the sewerage of billions of
people, being discharged into the ocean.

Get rid of shipping and 40'000 sheep and you will change
the world! :)

Time for another cup of tea for our Dickie, to calm her nerves :)

Oh hi there Yabby

How did your last shipment of live sheep go to the Middle East?

You are a dag, Yabby. Your arrogant attempts at logic, corrupted by avarice, lies outside the embrace of ethical environmental sustainability and your childish ad hominens play no part in the light of reasoning.

Nevertheless, your self-interest will not discourage me from providing information from credible sources where all continue to warn that the status quo of growing animals for export in this arid nation is less and less tenable.

And according to the current environmental EPA report, WA loses more than 14,000 hectares of land to salinity each year, the equivalent of 19 football ovals a day.

Therefore, perhaps you may enlighten posters of the hidden "benefits" you constantly allude to and why you believe it's OK to grow sheep for export on Australia's most ecologically threatened land mass, which is also one of the planet's worst environmental hotspots.

Following are a couple of credible sites (global and domestic relevance) for you to peruse which, I'm afraid, entirely contradicts the "expert" fount of knowledge that you boastfully exhort:

http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/2007/s1952570.htm

"America’s farmed animals produce 1.3 billion tons of waste per year, or 5 tons for every U.S. citizen. (Just one cow produces 100 pounds per day.) And the pollution strength of it all can reach levels 160 times greater than that of raw municipal sewage.

"The livestock business is among the most damaging sectors to the earth’s increasingly scarce water resources, contributing among other things to water pollution, euthropication and the degeneration of coral reefs.

"The major polluting agents are animal wastes, antibiotics and hormones, chemicals from tanneries, fertilizers and the pesticides used to spray feed crops. Widespread overgrazing disturbs water cycles, reducing replenishment of above and below ground water resources. Significant amounts of water are withdrawn for the production of feed.

"Manure is laden with phosphorous, nitrates, and heavy metals and emits ammonia, methane, hydrogen sulfide, carbon monoxide, and cyanide. Manure has always been seen as fertilizer. But in today’s quantities, it is an under-regulated industrial pollutant."

Source: http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html

Dickie, you had better tell all the people of the earth who raise goats to stop doing it instead of just railing against a poor sheep farmer.

http://www.worldlandtrust.org/news/2005/11/getting-my-goat.htm has the following :-

"Put your head around these statistics. In 1965, at a time when states were becoming independent, there were some 95 million goats in the developing countries of Africa (FAO statistics), and relatively little poverty. By 2004 , with poverty widespread, there were some 225 million goats; that's nearly two and a half times as many. Is there a connection? And if so why are Oxfam, Farm Africa and other charities suggesting increasing the goat population?

In fact the increase is not uniform, and in some countries the goat population has actually declined. But a detailed look shows that those countries that have seen the largest increases in goats are also among those where poverty is rife. Zimbabwe's rose from 700,000 to nearly 3 million, Sudan from 6.8 million to a massive 42 million. And in Mauritania, which is one of the countries least suitable for massive goat populations, the goat population has doubled from 2.7 to 5.6 million. A quick glance at any other statistics shows that desertification increased, human populations increased, and in general it would be safe to say that quality of life decreased for large numbers of people."

I agree with you about population increase though, seems like it applies to us as well as goats.

David

Err Dickie, changing the subject is not going to save you, but
we can address those points too, if you wish.

This was your claim:

*Why is it prudent to continue to dump million of tonnes of animal faeces and urine, on a single voyage, into international waters?*

Bollocks Dickie!

Do you have the foggiest about marine biosystems and how they
function? Pollution occurs when too much is dumped in too small
an area, like human and other waste, along coastlines. Next you
have a dead zone, for obvious reasons. Yet out at sea,
with oceans miles deep, algae and nutrients are critical to
marine life. No food = no fish and algae are a critical part
of the ocean food chain. 40'000 sheep a year would do little
but feed a few sharks.

Extensive livestock production is quite sustainable. Herbivores
have been eating grass and crapping waste for eons. Intensive
anything is a problem. Enough people cramped together and you
have people pollution. Cattle are no different.

Without herbivores keeping the grass down, you would have massive
annual buhfires, started by lightning. Do not compare extensive
and intensive farming, they are quite different.

Salinity is not due to livestock, but due to bad Govt policies.
Govt could fix it by channeling that salt back from where nature
took it, the ocean. Salinity is in fact quite natural.