http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2011/s3160795.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2011/s3161072.htm

Well two enormous blows to the environment this week with not only the go ahead for the Gunn's Pulp Mill but a decision by Minster Tony Burke not to relist the Tarkine Wilderness for heritage protection.

From this link: http://www.tarkine.org/

"A relict from the ancient super-continent, Gondwanaland, the Tarkine contains Australia's largest tract of temperate rainforest, and is home to more than 60 species of rare, threatened and endangered species. These include such unique animals as the Giant Freshwater Lobster - the world's largest freshwater crustacean, and the Tasmanian Wedge Tailed Eagle - Australia's largest Eagle, and the famous Tasmanian Devil."

There has to be a point where a government decides to place forests of such significance over any potential mining proposal.

Here we have a Labor Government introducing a useless Carbon Tax that will not achieve the effects claimed and will put Australia at a distinct disadvantage and then fail to protect this unique wilderness - a natural carbon sink.

Can't believe the heritage protection has been let go by this government and more and more the ALP is adopting the same short sighted approach to the environment as the Liberal/Nationals. A disgrace.

the thing i hate is the idea of pumping the junk into the deep ocean
i have vissions of a poisen cloud of dead water[much like when they sank the oil off the coast of usa]

its the out of sight
out of mind [mindset of these fools]
that really gets me

it was comforting to hear 3 paper mills in japan are shutting down
and thus guns share price dropping[but heck we just know they will do anything they need do to make an extra dollar

it also burns me that the taswedgies
grant the land to these scummy crummy land grabbers..
simply for their efforts of clearing it..[they should at least be forced to pay rates]

anyhow what is a wilderness
thats leveled into the dirt
economic activity

the result?
[an asset]

not sure if this link relates

i googled it earlier
and my security susstem..says

you cant see this one
so see if your security susstem ..allows you to see it

http://revolutionarypolitics.com/?p=4844

i like this link
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1350811/In-China-true-cost-Britains-clean-green-wind-power-experiment-Pollution-disastrous-scale.html

it just reveals even greenies are blind and dumb

this one reveals much more
about those like gunns
http://desertpeace.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/what-class-war-looks-like/

plus this health warning
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/03/dont-take-potassium-iodide-unless-you.html

that applies to taking any chemical
[especially those dumped into the sea]

on the flip side the much depressed Tasmanian economy will get a boost. A few more young people who are deserting the island in droves will be able to get real jobs.

Dear Pelly,

I can't understand the decision of a government that supposedly is concerned with our environment - hence their "pollution fine," (or "Carbon Tax") aimed at forcing the large polluting industries to look for alternative ways of dealing with this problem that affects not only our country but the planet. Yet, here they are giving the go-ahead to the toxic Gunn's Pulp Mill and worse... giving up so easily on the magnificent Tarkine Wilderness. As John Wilson writing from Tassie states: "Tony Burke's decision to remove this precious expanse of wild forests and untamed coastal heath country in Tassie's NW from the National Heritage List is unwise and deeply disturbing. The Minister's excuse for "community consultation" doesn't ring true. We need an environment minister with backbone and integrity like former ministers - Ian Campbell and Malcolm Turnbull." Hear! Hear!

Oh runner. Those logger could retrain to be specialists in the green tree frog, and save them and put them in little boxes and wear National Paks Badges that will lift their souls... man how can you not see the grand picture.

pelican, I'm shocked! Has big oil gotten to you? We need to have a carbon tax as Australia needs to lead the world at the next summit. We're an example to all the other countries. They look up to us.

Pelican, when you wander around the botanical gardens do you read the plaques about what species of tree it is, and do you marvel at nature in all it's glory? Got a tip for ya; Most people are bored sh1tless by all that and are just looking for the kiosk.

That Lobster sounds tasty!

I sometimes wish I could raise some interest in these "hellup, hellup, the wilderness, she dissapearin'" cris de coeur.

Trouble is, I can't.

Wilderness is nice, don't get me wrong. But it would appear that the most exciting/breathtaking/life-enhancing bits of wilderness are those where nobody goes. Except an extremely small number of dedicated "wow, wilderness" fans wearing Arc'teryx jackets and Meindl Burma Pro boots, who can apparently go for weeks without showering.

Deep down, of course, these folk would prefer it if no-one else was able to enjoy it. Access roads? Heaven forfend. Parking areas? Oh, horror. Refreshment areas and rest rooms - please, no!

Stay away! Stay away, it's too... errr, fragile.

So you will forgive me if I don't support every single emotion-laden, apocalyptic plea to "save" another piece of wilderness for your own personal enjoyment.

Pericles
I accept your disinterest in the wilderness, many people may find the subject boring. But it is not all about you (or me).

It leaves me awake at night worrying (:)) why you make the unfair assumption that my hopes for heritage listing for the Tarkine are to keep it for my own personal enjoyment. That is not my style. Opening up these areas for mining is not going to do any more to the access issue that you are concerned about.

Houlley
Yes I'm on the payroll of big oil and must fight the carbon tax at all costs. :P

Environmental protection measures have to work that is the issue with the carbon tax. Not much point in making something more expensive so people use less if there is going to be compensatory measures. I reckon we are better off just weaning off fossil fuels and getting on with supplementing those energy sources with renewables.

PS: I can see you in a little ranger uniform sporting a green tree frog badge. Very dapper I'm sure.

oug and Lexi
The environment does not stir much interest in some quarters but no matter where we live the impact of environmental degradation impacts all of us, even those darn tootin' inner city types. The greenie bashing types sometimes fail to examine the potential impact these decisions may have in the long term. oug I share your concerns about what gets pushed out into the oceans.

runner
Jobs are important in the Tassie economy but there are many other ways to create employment in Tassie other than destroying it's natural beauty. There has been and could be further projects to decentralise some of the government's functions that do not require centralised access to bureaucrats and politicians. Nothing is too far away in Australia. Australia enjoys almost full employment at the moment, but I agree there should be more to retain young Tasmanians via other means. Tourism brought about by environmental preservation is one of them. Mining is another way but where does it end? Is mining to always override any other factors?

Poor assumption, pelican.

>>Pericles I accept your disinterest in the wilderness, many people may find the subject boring.<<

On the contrary, I find the whole topic absolutely fascinating.

After centuries of plundering, the developed nations have suddenly realised that there are far fewer unspoilt corners of the world than there used to be. So a bunch of folk with time on their hands, plus a bad case of the elongated existential guilt-trips, have decided to make it a "cause".

So exactly when, in your view, did it stop being ok to rip up tracts of our wide brown land in order to build a prosperous economy, and instead to wring our hands at each and every sod that is turned in the dirty name of corporate profit?

1900?

1950?

2000?

March 15th 2011?

I only ask, because I am interested in whether you are an Idealist, a philosopher or a thinker.

Any thoughts?

(We can discuss gold mining in Colombia another time, perhaps)

http://www.economist.com/node/17525904

Fear Not,
Tis March and only a few short months to the Day when 'Humanity'
"I love my fellow men" Brown will assume control of the Senate and all of these Government excesses will be reversed.

The boys and I went to support the crew at Lake Pedder, the United Tasmania group canvassed all the uni's for support. When we went down there was no Bob Brown, the cops were brutal and the forestry guys would give it to you as well, but now the Tassy greens are entrenched down there, why are there not activist down there making EVERY process involved with this Bleach Mill a battle.

The greens have become too big for their boots and like deluded Labor the only issues that they gravitate to are global. Bob is letting them defecate on his doorstep and crying about GLOBAL carbon emissions. What a chardonnay green bunch these pathetic self serving limelight seeking cretins are. The grotesquely mundane green mayor of Marrickville council is spending rate payer’s time and money hooking into Israel. The only reason that the green mayor and selected cronies are involving their local council in statesman like communications and announcements is to further their own careers at the cost of the rate payer. Garbage, roads, parks and street lighting are not important to the greens, as I said they are a global fixer not a local fixer any more.

Pericles
It became not alright when the rate of destruction grew exponentially with greater pressures on resources through industrialisation and population growth.

Of course there are less forests now than in the early 1900s. There was no need for a cause. People don't protest where there is nothing to protest is the simplest way I can put it.

To argue there is no line where the rate of destruction works against human interest rather than for it is just plain wrong. Perhaps we just disgree that NOW is the line in the sand.

Not every decisions should be based on the basis of economics or the profit motive IMO. A mixed economy includes deference to environment as well as social wellbeing. It is all interconnected. A healthy democracy should encompass some corporate responsibility as regards damage to the environment.

Despite the disdain in your tone, there is nothing derogatory in a cause. It all depends on your POV. I find many of the causes of the far right wing quite abhorrent.

If you think we can continue at the same rate as regards forest removal then so be it. I suspect neither of us will be dissuaded but I reckon people are pretty savvy by and large and will realise before it is too late that we can't wait until there is only one tree, or one forest standing to say enough is enough.

SOG
So you think the heritage protection should be removed? I am not sure what your post is arguing other than a rant about the Greens. The Greens may be too big for their boots but no more than any other political party who thinks they have a mandate.

Is Mise
Have you posted in the wrong thread. Government excesses are something the Greens have fought against, but this is about heritage protection. What is Ms Hanson's policies on heritage protection? Does she believe there is a place for environmental safeguards?

Dear Pelly,

National parks, wilderness areas, and wildlife refuges are admired the world over for their awesome grandeur and the flora and fauna they protect. Even so, there is constant pressure on these lands by economic interests that claim the federal government is "locking up" land needed for oil exploration, logging, mining or housing and recreation facilities. To some, the disappearance of other species as a result of human activity is a matter of no particular consequence. To others, it represents the height of human hubris, in that we are making ourselves the ultimate arbiters of which species may survive and which may be obliterated. Actually, there are many practical reasons why human society should protect other life forms. Forests are a stabilizing factor in the global climate, for they absorb vast amounts of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Many plants are medically valuable: most anticancer compounds, for example, come from plants of the rain forest, and this pharmaceutical cornucopia is still mostly untapped. Wild species are a "storehouse" for agricultural scientists who interbreed them with domestic species in order to create more fruitful or resistant strains. The rain forest itself is a vast and irreplacable "library" from which genetic engineers of the future may draw their raw material. Many species among the millions of uncatalogued plants could prove to be edible, and could become major crops in the future. And the trees and the flowers, the beasts of the field, and the fowls of the air, are an aesthetic treasure, capable of delighting our senses and giving us some vision of what we are so carelessly destroying. The breathtaking diversity of species has evolved in delicate and precarious balance over many millions of years. Most of them have been here longer than we have. Our technology has fleetingly given us domain over them. In awe, respect, and humility, we might just let them be.

Not the wrong thread at all 'Humanity' Bob will soon be in a position to use his influence to change all this, and he can act to save the forests and whatever else he sets his heart on.
Of course he might risk a double dissolution if he does.

Which way will he go?

I must agree Pelican that the Labor Party has lost it's way on the environment.
The Liberal National parties, have always been a disgrace, when it comes to the
preservation of wilderness.

The Tarkine is obviously of more national (even world) importance, than the jobs of people employed by interests
wishing too mine or deforest the area for pulp.

A Carbon tax maybe not be the right solution , but is at least a beginning, as I have said in other posts, it will take the courage of a Gov't that makes polluters pay , but in the context of this post, it will also take the courage of a Gov't to preserve remaining wilderness area's regardless of whether people are allowed to go there or not.

The Labor party has lost it's way or lost it's bottle for the harder more important things to mean much anymore. It's still the best of two evils Pelican, with the Opposition lurking, decrepit and self interested, just wishing for an opportunity to deny climate change or fail to understand the intrinsic value of wilderness, in favour of their friends Big Business, just as here in Victoria, where the new State Gov't demonstrates their cred by wanting to plonk some 5 star hotels on the pristine Wilson,s Promontory.

Where too from here ?, that is the question Pelican.

pelican:>>SOG So you think the heritage protection should be removed?<<

Absolutely not, how you could discern that from my post is a mystery to me.

>> The Greens may be too big for their boots but no more than any other political party who thinks they have a mandate.<<

Unfortunately pelican I can see no merit in any of the current left or green ecology policies, they are dancing to the music arranged by the polluters surely, as they mirror the Club of Rome’s strategy to move the burden of the cost of cleaning the environment from the manufacturers to the end users. If you do not understand this, you are only regurgitating an absorbed ideology, no offence.

I would really love to take all these greenies 5 kilometers int some real wilderness, & leave them there.

If any of them ever got out, they would be wilderness haters for the rest of their lives.

I spent quite a bit of time exploring WW11 sights in the tropic islands in the Pacific. People who talk about fragile wilderness are talking through their hats. It's the buildings of man that are fragile.

If I had not had some locals to guide me I would not have been able to find, [& recognise] the remains of some major bases, which had large engineering capacity, during the war. That was only 30 years after the war.

But I'm sure that you can see the point of my question, pelican.

>>Pericles It became not alright when the rate of destruction grew exponentially with greater pressures on resources through industrialisation and population growth.<<

But when exactly was that?

And according to whom?

Whichever way you cut it, the point at which it became (or will become) "not all right" is entirely a matter of personal opinion, is it not?

>>Of course there are less forests now than in the early 1900s. There was no need for a cause. People don't protest where there is nothing to protest is the simplest way I can put it.<<

So at what point did the number of forests cause them to become a cause?

>>To argue there is no line where the rate of destruction works against human interest rather than for it is just plain wrong. Perhaps we just disgree that NOW is the line in the sand.<<

Well yes. Almost.

If you are not able to argue that enough is indeed enough, it is almost certainly because you have defined the problem too loosely to measure it.

Which is the one and only point I am trying to make. Unless you are able to establish with clarity a measurement that everyone can look at and say "ah yes, now I understand", you will continue to operate on the fringes, and be nothing but a nagging voice in the background.

And the sad fact is that nagging voices tend to blur into an annoying background drone after a while.

You cannot, unfortunately, simply keep chanting the same old "woe is me, woe is us" routine, and expect everyone to suddenly fall in line and agree with you. It is necessary to make it important to them too.

That's how we human beings operate.

There is a tendency to align any discussion about forest preservation with radicalism. It is only 'radical' because the status quo has been to put economic interests over sustainability and population health.

The Government proposes a tax and with the same stroke of a pen removes the protection from the Tarkine. Parts of the Tarkine and areas around it are already home to some mining interests. I reckon the mix is already a bridge too far.

Removing protection from the rest of the park will only exacerbate a global forest problem.

Forests absorb carbon dioxide and measures to reduce carbon do not have to sit entirely with economic mechanisms and the emissions end. What about the absorption aspect?

"Africa, which accounts for about 16 per cent of the world's forests, lost more than 9 per cent of its trees between 1990 and 2005... In Latin America and the Caribbean, home to nearly half of the world's forests, 0.5 per cent of the forests were lost every year between 2000 and 2005 - up from an annual net rate of 0.46 per cent in the 1990s."

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/destruction-of-forests-in-developing-world-out-of-control-440122.html

While there has been some plantings in the form of plantation timber, this is not long term and there are different merits in old growth as opposed to new growth forests in terms of biodiversity.

The pressures on forest due to farming, oil and other mining or timber production need to be addressed. Apparently the North end of the Tarkine is being reserved for logging. The trend is to go into these forests and take out mixed species but then to replant with only one species.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/01/forests.conservation
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/09/24/us-climate-deforestation-un-enviro-idUSTRE48N91C20080924

The rate of destruction according to a UN report has declined but still continues at a rate not considered sustainable.

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=34195

Hasbeen
The whole point of preserving jungles and forests is not to encourage people to live in them. They are harsh places, home to many animal species, humans do not have to be ever-present in all habitats.

Humans benefit long term from retention of forests and greater biodiversity.

More about the Tarkine.

http://tarkine.com.au/

Good posts, Pelican

You have really said it all.

Just as an added point, I am currently reading Noel Kingsbury's book "Hybrid: the History and Science of Plant Breeding". It describes the extraordinary lengths that the plant breeders went to to put genes from wild relatives, often quite distant, into our staple crops. They included embryo rescue, where the parent plants are so distant genetically that the embryo will die after fertilisation, unless it is removed and grown in tissue culture. They also used bridging species, where a cross is made between A and B, and then B and C, as the only way to get genes from A into C. The wild genes were often vital to improve disease resistance, to extend the climatic range of species, and allow them to survive environmental shocks such as drought. It is safe to say that without this, many of Philistines who sneer at the concept of preserving biodiversity wouldn't be here today, because there simply wouldn't be enough food for such an enormous global population, even with most of it living under miserable conditions.

Would someone please explain just what I, & most other humans, get from Biodiversity.

I did hear some clown rabbiting on recently that mosquitoes, flies & sand flies should be protected, as they are part of biodiversity.

That greens are ratbags is a given, that they are suicidal ratbags is now becoming apparent.

Of course, most of the destruction is motivated by greed. Our political and economic systems are very good at bringing sociopaths to the top. But why do so many ordinary people go along with the greedsters, even if they are not going to benefit, even in the short term?

I think that a certain strain of Christian ideology bears some of the blame. Some Christian denominations teach awe and respect for God's creation, but others think quite differently. Many Christian fundamentalists think that God wants more and more human souls, much as Zeus or Apollo were believed to want more and more animal sacrifices.

http://www.quiverfull.com/

It doesn't matter if the people are wretched and unfree, because the rewards in heaven for the saved are so great as to justify any imaginable earthly suffering. The others, perhaps the vast majority, who will be tortured for all eternity in hell, after plenty of misery here on earth, will have only themselves to blame.

It doesn't matter if we wipe out other species, because God only intended the rest of creation as a scenic backdrop for us and our doings. Only people count. This goes much further than the 16th and 17th century Christians who believed that it didn't matter if a species was wiped out locally, because God would never allow it to become extinct worldwide.

It likewise doesn't matter if we degrade carrying capacity, decreasing the ability of the earth to support human life, because God will intervene with a miracle or because Jesus is coming soon.

http://atheism.about.com/od/religiousright/ig/Christian-Propaganda-Posters/Christian-Environmentalism.htm

Of course, Christianity is not the only religion that can be growthist. Even atheists such as Pericles can be growthist because of non-religious philosophies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere_addition_paradox

You also make excellent points divergence.

Hasbeen
I am constantly amazed why people mock the importance of biodiversity and potential impact on human survival

Read this link first:

http://www.globalissues.org/article/170/why-is-biodiversity-important-who-cares#WhyisBiodiversityImportant

For example wipe out a particular bug and you may find it's prey breed out of proportion and have an impact on vegetation including food crops.

Or one type of potato tuber might be more resistant to a disease than another but if is extinct it is not of much use.

It is important, I know, to keep things simple for you, divergence, otherwise you tend to get very confused.

But this is one simplification too far.

>>Even atheists such as Pericles can be growthist because of non-religious philosophies.<<

What, please, is a "growthist" in this context? You may occasionally find me pointing out the bizarre attitude demonstrated by folk who think that we can simply turn our population numbers on and off like some kind of existential bathtap. But you will also find that I am keenly aware of the finite nature of our existing resources.

But hey, if it makes you feel better to bung a label on me so that you don't feel you actually have to listen - or worse, think - then please, be my guest. Always pleased to help out where I can.

Pericles,

Please scroll down to the graph that shows legal immigration to the US since 1900. You will see that it is quite possible to turn immigration on and off like a tap. Approximately two thirds of our population growth is coming from immigration. Natural increase is another matter, since there is always a lag due to demographic momentum, unless a stable age structure already exists. However, our fertility rate has been below replacement level since 1976, so we are only in for another decade or two of it, and there will be less and less of it all the time, if we get immigration back to zero net and stop encouraging people to have large families by giving them money. Kelvin Thomson believes that it is quite possible to stabilise at 26 million without a draconian one child policy or the like.

http://www.environment.gov.au/sustainability/population/consultation/submissions/0004a.pdf

You are the one who is confused if you think that high population growth is compatible with addressing resource shortages. The idea that wilderness areas will be preserved in the face of human need is laughable.

Who mentioned immigration, Divergence?

>>You will see that it is quite possible to turn immigration on and off like a tap<<

Wasn't me.

"...folk who think that we can simply turn our population numbers on and off like some kind of existential bathtap"

Ah, you did.

>>Approximately two thirds of our population growth is coming from immigration<<

So in one stroke of your keyboard, you turn an observation on population in general into a debate on immigration. Complete with a "14 point plan", eight of which concern themselves with immigration.

>>You are the one who is confused if you think that high population growth is compatible with addressing resource shortages.<<

I don't, so I am not confused.

>>The idea that wilderness areas will be preserved in the face of human need is laughable.<<

Apart from the judgmental adjective "laughable" , this is exactly the point I was making. What we have - and it is a valid and highly pertinent discussion - is a range of opinions as to what represents human need. I happen to believe that blanket disapproval of anything and everything that might damage a tree or two, or cause another insignificant sub-species to find somehwere else to live, is not policy.

It's just "look at me, I have a cause that I fight for" fanaticism.

"I happen to believe that blanket disapproval of anything and everything that might damage a tree or two, or cause another insignificant sub-species to find somehwere else to live, is not policy."

We don't all see things the same way but I find it astonishing that someone can persist with the case for the continual destruction of the planet's forests. Fact is no matter how you want to spin it, there is an ever-growing destruction of vast areas of the world's forests (as per the previous mentioned UN report).

To minimise that very real scenario as the destruction of 'one or two trees' and only 'one species' (it is always only one species that adds up to numerous), is a gross distortion and in no way represents the extent of damage to environments whether it be deforestation, pollution or untold damage from mining concerns particularly in the developing world where there is little in the way of regulation or governance.

I happen to believe that blanket disapproval of anything pro-environment in favour of economic interests is not policy.

Clearly there has to be a balance, and so far the balance is heavily weighted in favour of the anti-environment lobby.

anti-environment? This assumes an explicit agenda to destroy the environment. I don't think that is plausible. An indifference, or a differing set of priorities would fit much better.

I always dream of someone discovering an endangered tree frog that passes through some greeny's back yard, and ask said greeny if they will be happy to vacate their premises so as not to disturb the mating rituals of this endangered species.

I really don't understand why greenies don't think they are 'interfering with nature' when they 'save' endangered species. What if that species is supposed to be become extinct. What if we save an animal's habitat, and it destroys another's habitat in the same area. We're picking winners.

Whales decide to beach themselves, and humans decide to 'save' them, out of some kind of misplaced guilt. How do you know it's anything to do with us. What if those whales go on to eat some endangered species?

It's a Messiah complex, or some kind of ego feeding is all it is. I await for rats to suicide en masse and see how many people look to stop them.

Humans are part of nature. Now stopping humans from doing what is human (raping and pillaging from the environment) is actually interfering with nature too.

Sure, when it suits us we should protect our environment to maintain it for future use, like a good farmer. But anyone who puts the needs of animals over the needs of children deserves a bullet.

Lions eat Wilder-beast. Humans cage Chickens, and knock down trees. Beavers build Dams. We are part of nature. Even the Greenies and their guilt.

I suppose it comes down to defining what is natural for humans, and then that has to be protected just as much as what is natural for lions. Nature is as nature does, and humans just happen to use a lot of resources.

Thanks, Houellebecq, that was rather nicely put.

>>It's a Messiah complex, or some kind of ego feeding is all it is. I await for rats to suicide en masse and see how many people look to stop them.<<

I call it the little fluffy baby seal syndrome. The tendency is always to save the prettier creatures, isn't it.

And pelican, I am in total agreement with you on this point...

>>I happen to believe that blanket disapproval of anything pro-environment in favour of economic interests is not policy.<<

...but in equally total disagreement on this...

>>...so far the balance is heavily weighted in favour of the anti-environment lobby<<

It is extremely rare for a project involving unoccupied land, whether for mining, holiday resort or simple home-building, to lack an objection based upon the potential to damage "the environment".

The scope for objection on the basis of "this must be preserved" is massively broad. It could be flora or fauna - I even witnessed, personally, an objection to a tree being felled on the basis that it was under that very tree that the objector had lost his virginity.

This observation of yours deserves greater scrutiny, by the way:

>>no matter how you want to spin it, there is an ever-growing destruction of vast areas of the world's forests<<

Indeed there is, pelican.

So, since you have brought the subject up, would now be a good time to discuss the illegal mining of gold in South America, and its consequent destruction and pollution?

http://rainforests.mongabay.com/0808.htm

http://agmetalminer.com/2011/03/08/illegal-gold-mining-activities-in-peru-and-colombia-spur-mercury-contamination/

It will put the few acres of Tasmania into perspective. And shine a spotlight on the raw basics of the battle between people's livelihoods, and nature.

In the modern industrialized world, we often feel insulated from nature and confident that our technology can give us mastery over the natural environment. We forget all too easily that we too are animals, ultimately as dependent on the environment for our survival as any other species. All over the world, and especially in the less developed societies, the pressure of the human population and its technologies is devastating natural ecosystems. This pressure takes many forms - urbanization and highway construction, transformation of virgin land into famland, chemical pollution of fresh water, dredging and landfill in coastal areas, uncontrolled hunting and poaching, especially of African wildlife, deliberate and accidental poisoning of wildlife with pesticides; disruption of natural predator-prey relationships; strangulation of millions of birds and fish with discarded styrofoam pellets, plastic bags and other synthetic flotsam, dam construction and irrigation, and massive deforestation. Biologists estimate that there are over 30 million species on earth. Of these only about 1.6 million have been classified. The rest - plants, insects, fish, reptiles, birds, and even some mammals - are still almost complete mysteries to us. They have never been named, catalogued or studied, yet many are becoming extinct before we even know of their existence. As I stated in my earlier post - to some observers, the disappearance of other species as a result of human activity is of no particular consequence. To others is represents the height of human hubris in that we're making ourselves the ultimate arbiters of which species may survive and which may be obliterated and as I also stated earlier - there are many practical reasons why human society should protect other life forms and the habitats such as rain forests - in which they live.

'To others is[sic] represents the height of human hubris in that we're making ourselves the ultimate arbiters of which species may survive and which may be obliterated'

Nope, that IS the greenies. Those that don't care are treating all species as expendable, it's the greenies that are picking winners by saving beached whales, and preventing some species from becoming extinct.

'disruption of natural predator-prey relationships'
That IS the greenies, humans are a natural predator.

Natural is as natural does. If the environment is worth saving because it's 'natural', then humans, being part of the environment are included in that umbrella, so any action humans take is automatically validated.

BTW: Paragraphs make posts more readable. Everyone knows you're Foxy, how about going back to the more readable style.

Houellebecq:

Don't take the limits of your own vision for the limits of the world.
btw: I do not enjoy interacting with you and would prefer not to do so in the future. How I post is my choice - yours is not to read it if you find it too difficult.

Species have become extinct for all sorts of reasons that is true. However in the last 200 years the impact of human activity has grown.

Yes you could argue man himself is a natural cause, but given human populations are growing, it is not unreasonable to use our naturally given brain capacity to ensure the survival of our own species.

Humans are not above and beyond the environment, humans are part of the environment. We can also be resilient and innovative, we are able to exploit and use the environment to our greater benefit but we have also demonstrated we can do it to our detriment, particularly if it is in someonelse's backyard.

Pro-environment is about people, it is not just about a singular cause for a tree frog as important as that one particular species might be in an ecological sense.

From a 'survival of the fittest' perspective, indiscriminate plundering and pillaging of the environment may mean the 'fittest' may turn out to be the weakest and their arrogance, the cause of their own demise. It is a possibility, but there are many who are pushing for environmental protection, if we didn't do you think those with only business interests could always be depended upon for responsible decisions when their charter clearly puts shareholder interests above all other?

"Greenie" is just a term someone made up, forget the rhetoric and just look at the big picture.

Dear Pelly,

Well put! Because they have the most developed technologies for altering the natural environment, the highly advanced industrialised societies have caused the greatest destruction of planetary ecosystems in the past. Today they are taking the lead - however hesitantly - in efforts to protect the threatened and endangered species. The United States, was the first country with the vision to establish a system of national parks, wilderness areas, and wildlife refuges, and these areas are admired the world over for their awesome grandeur and the flora and fauna they protect.

Even so, less than 2 percent of the land in the continental United States has been designated as wilderness areas, to be kept forever wild, and each day there is less and less other "undeveloped" land that might still be protected.

Humans are very much a part of their environment. Recently, an awarenss of an "ecological crisis" has led social and natural scientists from several disciplines to focus on the complex interrelationship among industrialisation, technology, population growth, and the global environment. The technology of large-scale industrialisation poses major problems.

First, it generates pollution of the natural environment, threatening or destroying life in a chain reaction that can run from the tiniest micro-organism to human beings. Second, it depletes natural resources such as wood, oil, minerals, many of which are in short supply and cannot be replaced. The question arises is whether a world population that will continue to increase and thus produce twice as many people to consume and pollute perhaps more than they do at present - can be supported by the environment.

Moreover as we know there is constant pressure on not only these land in the US but our own here in Australia by economic interests. The planet has a finite amount of resources and it can tolerate only a limited amount of pollution. If world population continues to grow rapidly, if industrialisation spreads around the world and if pollution and resource depletion continues at an increasing rate - and all these things are happening - where is human society headed?

That is the crux of the matter Lexi. Where does it end?

There is a need IMO for greater pressure to be exerted from the environmental protection side. Evidence suggests that those with a pro-mining or pro-logging agenda are winning most of the battles. This is not a good thing in the long term.

Minister Burke has just announced a review into the mining proposals in the Tarkine.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Tarkine-oil-plan-needs-assessing-Burke-F38JF?opendocument&src=rss

International Conservation bodies are also supporting the request for National Heritage listing of the Tarkine. I am hoping the new review will be positive for the forest and not just more window dressing.

The irony is, if Labor (or Liberal) placed greater importance on environmental policy, there would be no need to fear the Greens, but so far the Greens are the only party with a forward thinking agenda regarding sustainable environments. The two major parties always come out with the same rhetoric - "we will do a study", "assess the impacts", blah blah, but rarely do these studies come out in favour of protection and if you read the reports there are many contestible arguments and conclusions.

Pericles,

Anyone who believes in open borders in a world facing severe resource constraints has to be confused. You are effectively arguing that the world's most dysfunctional cultures, the ones with their collective fingers pressed most firmly on the self-destruct button, should be able to take all the others with them, completely trashing the environment worldwide as they do it.

It is quite true that people sometimes make specious environmental objections when they really want to stop a development for some other reason. But how often do they get away with it? The Australian government is hardly dominated by environmental fanatics. It ranks near the bottom of the developed world in international comparisons of environmental management.

http://epi.yale.edu/

http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/details/environment.aspx#context

Extinction rates in Australia have been particularly high

http://www.csiro.au/multimedia/Australian-Mammal-Extinction-Crisis.html

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=six-australian-birds-declared-extin-2011-01-06

Houellebeq,

Even if you only care about people, how do people know what might be valuable in the future? 32 genera of mammals disappeared from the New World suspiciously soon after the arrival of humans, mostly big and tasty ones, including elephants, camels, horses, and several species of bison. It is quite possible that some of these could have been domesticated, as close relatives were in the Old World. This was certainly true in the case of the horse, as it was the same species as our modern horses. It has even been argued that the American equivalent of brumbies should be protected as a reintroduced native species. I am reminded of the wife of the Egyptian peasant who discovered the Nag Hammadi manuscripts. A number of these were lost, even though they would have been worth large sums of money, because she couldn't think of anything smarter to do with them than use them to start fires.

Just who do you greenies think you are?

What gives you some special right to tell others how they should live their lives.

Just when did you buy my property?

If you haven't bought it, would you mind getting your beady eyes off it?

You may think you are god, & have some special right to dictate to everyone else. I reject your special right, to dictate to me.

I have not seen many of you accepting the responsibility for the deaths your stupid policies, resulting from your pressure tactics, caused in the Victorian fires. When you have all done that publicly, come back & talk. Until then you are just smug self satisfied vultures.

As someone else suggested, you go off & buy what you want to control, & get the hell out of every one else's lives.

Pericles"
<It is extremely rare for a project involving unoccupied land, whether for mining, holiday resort or simple home-building, to lack an objection based upon the potential to damage "the environment">

It's true that those pesky Greenies are now part of the process of development, reduced to an equation, the expense factored into the cost of the development, inclusive of the processes of "negotiation" and procurement. Developers, of whatever stamp, do not go in as wide-eyed entrepreneurs, only to be put down by goggle-eyed Greenies. The shrewd businessperson identifies "all" the hurdles that lie between him/her and the identified capital (I do not credit the entrepreneur with vision enough to see the forest for the cash, let alone to recognise ethical or sustainability issues as legitimate. Unthinkable! In any case, making money is the supreme virtue in our culture; it's a sign of weakness to prevaricate). Similarly, casinos do not set-up without establishing their credentials as "philanthropists" and sponsoring "safe" drinking and gambling programmes etc. (It would be hilarious if it wasn't all part of the same malignancy). Indeed they don't go in without already established PR infrastructure to deal with the knockers. Dealing with Greenies is no different to having to find a way to drill on the ocean floor; the problem's either negotiable or it's not, and they don't invest, for the long term, if it's not.
Despite those pesky Greenies, nothing is sacred; there will be the occasional high-profile win: the Franklin or Mary damns and the odd pulp-mill (token gestures to the Greens and kudos for incumbent governments), but the fracking and digging and clearing and mayhem go on almost without pause. It's a war of averages and attrition the Greenies are never going to win, because green can't compete with GOLD, and the promise of JOBS--to keep the pathetic imaginations of industry's minions whetted.
The Greenie is the new Aussie Battler, but does s/he get a fair go?
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

"Just who do you greenies think you are? What gives you some special right to tell others how they should live their lives. Just when did you buy my property?"

Hasbeen
May I suggest you read what this post is about. I was not aware you owned the Tarkine - "your property"!

The only people dictating what to do with publicly owned forests seem to be mining companies and the logging industry. Why don't we have a referendum when these heritage listings come up and put it to the people?

This topic is not about control of understory growth. There is little chance of the Tarkine going up in a bushfire given the high rainfall in the area.

If you want a discussion on fire control then start a new thread and stop making uninformed comments in a knee jerk reaction toward anything Green.

Dear Pelly,

Talking about the Greens and property. There was an interesting article in, The Age, Saturday, 19th March, 2011. p. 5. by Michael Gordon. It seems that Bob Brown's property Oura Oura,(meaning black cockatoo) his property at Liffey, near Launceston the Australian Greens leader is handing over to Bush Heritage Australia. Brown feels that its time for others to enjoy the magic of Liffey. "I've often thought, sitting here, that if only I could press a button and magically have people who have suffered come here for a few days," Brown says. It's too early to pre-empt a management plan for the property but it may include an education centre, enabling visitors of stay in the cottage that will be preserved as Brown leaves it. "Let's drink to the wedge-tails, the platypuses, the owls, and the ringtail possums. May they give visitors for the next 100 years the joy they have given me." It seems that not everyone wants to hang onto their own properties - some are willing to give theirs away for the benefit of others. There are those that care and work, and those that can only criticize them.

Lexi
Thank you for the referral to the article. I do remember when Senator Brown was mulling over the idea of handing Liffey over to the Bush Heritage Fund. What a generous gift. It is a beautiful area of Tasmania.

http://www.bushheritage.org.au/

The BHF is a worthy cause and it is good to see citizens making a difference while our governments continue to neglect forest protection policies as a general rule.

Proof it is, Lexi, of Dr Bob Browns personal commitment to the environment. A case of practising what you preach.
If I may inappropriately use evangelistic language.

You would have to say that it's represents leadership by example.

Something sadly lacking in Australian (major party) mainstream politics.

How dare he, the radical so and so. (lol)

Dear Pericles,

You raise an important point and one that vexed me for a long while. I got involved in an anti-logging campaign over a decade now primarily because it was impacting on my own business.

My resolve grew for a number of reasons. One I was lied to by a government official and I can't tell you how much that got up my nose. Next was an awareness of the impact clear felled logging had on my community's water supply.

Then came the growing recognition that the main economic reason for native forest logging in the area was to ship wood-chips to Japan, a country with twice the percentage total forest cover of my state (including our plantations) and three times the amount of native forest. In fact they have nearly 70% of their country forested, a hell of a lot of that is plantation and virtually untouched. Why? Because some 'stupid Aussies' were prepared to ship it to them cheaper than they can process their own timber. They can afford to reap the other benefits forests bring including amenity.

So I suppose I followed the path that many people do gaining awareness of what matters to them. When we are young (in age, information, or opinion) we are concerned about what affects ourselves or our immediate family. As we mature that concern engages the broader community, then the country, and possibly other nations. But that still didn't get me over the line when it came to accepting areas might be sealed away from all but the most minimal impact of humans.

I am there now but hadn't really thought why until your posts. Perhaps it is just a matter of me extending my awareness to the rights of other species to exist in viable populations.

Cont,

Cont,

My brother recently did seven days on a raft trip down the Franklin crapping into a bag that came out with him. He is one of the limited number in our society with the money and appropriate fitness who have got to enjoyed this wilderness. I for one do not begrudge him that. If it meant that to allow my family similar access a road had to be put through the area I am happier it be left as it is.

By necessity we exclude many species from our communities, I no longer have a problem with being excluded from some of the very few areas that are off limits to humans however I will concede it took a fair journey to get there, one I should not expect everyone to have made.

Perhaps in the end it is enough to recognise that people see the value of things in different ways. For a couple of hundred years loggers in this country saw forests for the timber they could extract from them. Even through those times there were those who viewed parts of our forests as having significant ecological value as evidenced by a fairly effective national parks movement. As forests have diminished and plantations have grown (in Victoria we have 4.9% old growth forest coverage to 22.1% plantations) more of the community are now seeing these forests (often by virtue of their growing scarcity) as holding greater ecological rather than commodity value. Ultimately we might just need to let democracy take its course.