In response to CJ’s first post (23 December)….

<< land clearing laws were enacted by various States to counteract the rampant environmental destruction caused by broadscale land clearing. >>

Yes, and not at all for reasons pertaining to climate change / greenhouse gas emissions / Kyoto agreement.

<< That they result in reducing carbon emissions is a fortuitous by-product… >>

But stopping land clearing doesn’t result in reducing carbon emissions. It results in the rate of carbon emissions being lower compared to open-slather clearing, but a halt to broadacre clearing is in itself carbon neutral!

Preventing regrowth from being cleared is carbon positive. That is, it creates a carbon sink. But not so for old growth vegetation.

<< Rudd's abortion of an ETS as finally proposed and rejected specifically exempted agriculture. >>

Yes. So at Copenhagen how the hell could he justify including carbon emissions foregone by preventing clearing, when he was going to take an agriculture-excluded ETS to the summit? Totally duplicitous!

<< While it will undoubtedly be sad for his family if this idiot starves himself to death, at least we'll be rid of another environmental vandal. >>

I strongly disagree. Peter Spencer is totally justified in his complaint about the lack of compensation. He bought the property on the understanding that it could be developed. The price he paid would have reflected that. Now not only can’t he develop it, but the property’s resale value would have been skittled. He absolutely should get compensation at least to the extent of the loss of property value that he has incurred.

My (thank goodness) very limited experience with our justice system has given me the same sort of profound disgust and dismay as it has for Peter. I mean OF COURSE he should be able to take his case to court and have it heard…and not suffer continuous strike-outs while incurring costs each time! How utterly disgusting.

To call Peter Spencer an environmental vandal apparently simply because he is a farmer who would like to undertake a bit of clearing and development of his property is really unfortunate.

PTB, grasp reality while you can.
Know without doubt, Rudd will win the next election with an increased majority.
Know Abbott will not be there for the following election.
Ludwig read his brother story in the Australian, you clearly have not.
Peter Spencer's whole history insures he will change nothing, Ludwig surely you are not unaware land clearing laws we live by today came into being under John Howard? before Rudd won leadership of my party?
That state laws stop him clearing not federal?
Research the subject Ludwig, you can do better.

You haven't been following this issue very closely, have you Ludwig?

Read this link and have a bit of a rethink:

http://larvatusprodeo.net/2009/12/23/tower-of-hope-or-vale-of-tears/

Also, maybe you should have read this thread a bit more closely before chucking in your 2c worth. I referred to Spencer as an environmental vandal because of his leading role in the execrable 'National Chop Down a Tree Day' in 2007, not because he's a farmer (which he isn't really, anyway).

My apology Ludwig - I did refer to the hapless Spencer as an "environmental vandal" in my first post. That description has been validated as the issue has unfolded. As an environmentalist, you'd have to agree that the 'National Chop Down a Tree Day' stunt that he helped organise in 2007 was nothing short of spiteful environmental vandalism.

If you read that discusion at Larvatus Prodeo, I think you'll see that it's mostly quite balanced and informative, with only minimal sniping compared to here.

As I've said elsewhere, if farmers want to be compensated for not wrecking the environment, then they should also be prepared to be levied for the cost of repairing the environmental damage caused by agriculture. Think about the Murray Darling Basin, for example (of which Spencer's property is part, if I'm not mistaken - the watershed for the eastern and western falls runs along a ridge that borders his property, I think). Or the effects of fertiliser on the Great Barrier Reef. Perhaps farmers should also be prepared to repay drought relief assistance from the profits they make in good years?

Frankly, I think that much of the land in Australia that is currently under agriculture is too marginal to be sustainable, and that this situation will worsen as global warming begins to bite. We can, however, feed ourselves sustainably on productive land that is already cleared and cultivated.

As for poor old Spencer - if he hadn't mismanaged his affairs to the point that he owes his family a million dollars that they want back, he could simply have run cattle in addition to his sheep and lived quite comfortably. Sorry, I still have very little sympathy for this guy and his cause.

It is so hard!
Not to say I told you so.
But Ludwig, not a bad person, wandered in without reading the thread or the news.
Sat down and gave further evidence my earlier post was right.
Look back even now, at posts in this thread.
Read CJMs link, see just how silly, how wrong some comments are.
Lets face it, we ALL get it wrong, me often.
But we MUST not hide it, pretend it did not happen.
When some comments appear, it is hard to know why it is so biased or wrong.
Is it lack of understanding? or the ability to understand?
I will forever remember a bloke we called the Minister for main roads.
He was never wrong, no room for improvement existed.
We got huge fun from his often used statement.
I am wrong but I am right.
Have a read Ludwig read it all enjoy, I did.

Belly, please!

Every one of us has the right to comment whether or not we have a detailed understanding of the issue at hand. In this case I don’t. So what?

I’ve got no problem at all with being pulled up about something and shown to be wrong or off-track if that be the case. I’ve got no problem with developing my knowledge of this matter as the discussion progresses rather than researching it to the Nth degree first.

So please, no more criticism for simply putting up a view. Instead, how about elucidating just what it is you think I’ve got wrong and debating it accordingly.

I notice that in your last two posts where you are being critical of me, you haven’t even given me a clue as to what your point of disagreement is!