X

Continued (Response to Pericles from yesterday)

Fluorescent light globes etc are not the solution as you say. I would actually suggest that the Prius and light bulb thing are more about greenwash than genuinely about solving the problem. Earth Hour is more about activating and educating and trying to bring pressure on those in power (who do have the potential to bring about solutions) to address the problem.

Now to the matter of extinctions. As I have said before somewhere there is perhaps an exaggerated effort to save species from extinction but that is so because it is only at this point that the normally complacent public and uninterested governments can be induced to commit resources to the effort. Even so if the particular species is unremarkable or unknown and its extinction could be prevented by for instance preventing mining interfering with its niche habitat its existence is more often than not compromised.

Species extinction is incremental. One by one they disappear until hey presto there are only humans, their domestic animals the microbes and a few other adapters left. Of course far fewer humans than we presently have swarming around the planet.

In the end too it is a value thing. You can't force anyone to care.

Well said Kulu.

Pericles

Yes, environments change and either flora and fauna adapt or die out. I am sure that planet earth will endure, but vastly altered from the planet we know. It may or may not be able to sustain a population of humans, but certainly not in the level of comfort that western societies currently enjoy. Either way humans won't be living in a 'magic pudding' economy. We can either take control of how we live or just let come what may.

As for your skirting around "business as usual" am I correct in surmising that you don't see any need to do something now? That later generations can deal with resource depletion and mass extinction of viable eco-systems? That these same generations will wonder at the diversity of animal life that only exist via films and photos.

Things we won't need to photograph:

Cockroaches
Algae
Ants
Algae
Sparrows
More Algae
Maybe some lichen

Cheers

How many opportunities do you need to come up with one, just one example of a species in Australia that has become extinct due to logging (not likely to or is about to or is incrementally becoming extinct or is at the tipping point or someone feels is disappearing or their studies show a decline). It is a simple request in response to someone’s glib assertion. NAME ONE SPECIES THAT IS NOW EXTINCT DUE TO LOGGING TO BACK UP TLTR's CLAIM. Last chance. Any takers. Going going go…

Tragedy, for starters, you altered my claim to state 'in Australia.'

I never stated any such thing, and yet, it appears to be the lynchpin of your argument.

The point I was making earlier, was that I loathe people who put in no effort whatsoever, but ask others to do the hard yards to prove simple points.

In fact, you haven't even done us the service of stating categorically that you don't think any species in Australia has been wiped out by logging.

That way, you'd actually put your name to something instead of playing these games.

You'd have to take an actual stance instead of forcing others to do the hard yards - a debate tactic I loathe for its laziness.

So, seeing as you're putting words in my mouth, I'll put some in words - but making other people run around to satisfy this point, you must clearly believe it.

So now I'll prove you wrong, even though you haven't said it.

For starters, lets just look at mammals. Here's a basic list of now-extinct animals in Australia.

http://www.epa.qld.gov.au/nature_conservation/wildlife/threatened_plants_and_animals/extinct_in_the_wild/extinct_in_the_wild_animals/

Now lets get more specific -

The paradise parrot:
http://www.epa.qld.gov.au/nature_conservation/wildlife/threatened_plants_and_animals/extinct_in_the_wild/paradise_parrot/

Reasons for extinction: Land clearing, grazing by sheep and cattle, and changed patterns of burning all contributed to the destruction of the paradise parrot’s habitat and, in particular, the reduction in the availability of native grass seeds.

Point one was 'land clearing.' Now, you can make a point about modern logging being a sustainable practice, something I'm not disputing in some instances - but it has not always been thus, and in many cases (perhaps not all) dating back to the 1920s this parrot was last sighted, logging and land clearing have been one and the same.

Cont'd.

Now, if you want to make any arguments, I expect you to do more than froth and foam and act like a child.

You'll need to actually provide links and show yourself to be a worthwhile debater instead of a lazy krank who wants us to perform for him, because I'm not in the mood for more silly games.

The point I was making, am making, and have been stating all along, is that this article wasn't about whether global warming is anthropogenic, and like it or not, people are responsible for species being wiped out - so species relocation is a topic worth discussion.

Are you actually challenging this? I don't think you are, because you seem to be picking obscure points then making people run around.

Ball's in your court.