Mother nature has provided only so much in areas like water, trees, flowers, forests, soils, rivers, oceans, wetlands, animals, birdlife and fish.

As humans we are putting ourselves and others in a dangerous position where we could destroy all life on Earth. At present globally we deforest around ten million hectares of forest every year. Since European settlement in Australia, approximately 80% of Koala habitats have been decimated.

The planet is overpopulated and as humans we dump huge amounts of waste, much of it going into waterways and oceans, the continuing use of fuel powered vehicles is polluting the environment. Rivers are also drying up due to over use of water and climate change.

The seemingly insatiable human tendency to consume is also changing the planet and the life on it - for the worse.

As humans, do we truly understand where nature has come from and will we ever truly show any respect for it? Can we better connect with mother nature and change our behaviour?

A few decades ago, a song about the destruction of
the countryside for super highways and urban sprawl
became a hit. It was titled, "Tar and Cement."

It does suggest that we should be careful of leaving
anything worthwhile before it is too late.

"The town I came from was quiet and small
we played in the meadows where the grass grew so tall
In summer the lilacs would grow everywhere
the laughter of children would float in the air

As grew older I had to roam
Far from my family, far from my home
Into the city, where lives can be spent
lost in the shadows of tar and cement

And every night I'd sit all alone and learn
what loneliness meant
up in my rented room above the world
of tar and cement

Each day I'd wake up and look at the sky
think of the meadows where I used to lie
then I'd remember all of that's gone
You're in the city, you'd better push on
get what you came for, before its too late
get what you came for, the meadows can wait

Many years later, tired at last
I headed for home to look for the past
I looked for the meadows, there wasn't a trace
Six lanes of highway had taken place
where were the lilacs and all that they meant
nothing but acres of tar and cement..."

Can humans better connect with mother nature?

Humans are having a hard time changing habits
and routines. It will take a devastating
large-scale incident to change the way humans treat
their planet. At present we have deforestation, we
have illegal trading of animals, poaching, polluted
rivers and oceans, the extinction of species, and
the list goes on. Some rivers are so polluted - they
catch fire.

Progress in curtailing our destruction of nature will
come about not by humans triumphing over nature but
through our collective realization that the survival
of our species depends on how effectively we keep
human nature in check and heed Mother Nature's
warnings.

COVID - 19 has forced cities to lockdown, industries to
halt, and families to shelter in place. This would be a
good time for us to think about what needs to be done
to try to save our planet and connect with nature instead
of taking part in the planet's destruction.

There's small acts like turning off lights we aren't using,
unplugging technology, taking shorter showers, and so on.
Every bit helps.

I wonder who started the idea that nature is female. The same person who decided to call ships 'she', possibly. Both are ITS.

Up until the ratbags and carpet-baggers started chuntering on about man made climate change, nature, the environment, was fine. There had never been a better time to be a human, either. A huge drop in poverty with increased prosperity - all because of cheap energy from fossil fuels. Just look at China.

Now though, it has all come to a grinding halt: because of this ridiculous obsession with 'nature', the poorest countries - e.g those on the African continent and parts of Asia - are going to miss out. Even in countries like Australia, the cost of living is soaring because of this 'nature' BS - particularly the BS that we can survive, even flourish, in a world driven by wind and sun beams.

That "80% of Koala habitats have been decimated" is simply wrong. There are now more koalas in Australia than there were at the time of white settlement. It took them 15 years to find one. (Vic Jurkis, "The Great Koala 'Extinction' That Never Happens").

These regular cries of 'Extinction'! are as crooked as man-made climate change scam, and the lies about the Great Barrier Reef (which has disappeared and returned 60 times in the last 3 million years). It's all about government grants.

As for global 'deforestation', well forests are cleared to grow food, and forests might not be the holy of holies some people prattle on about. The Amazon rainforest, for instance.

Amazon rainforests are 'The Lungs of the World' and a major source of the world’s oxygen supply plus a large carbon sink absorbing 25% of CO2 (actually 5% ) taken up by forests around the world every year it is claimed.

"Amazon plants consume about 60% of the oxygen they produce in respiration. Microbes, which break down the forest biomass, consume the other 40%. The net contribution of the Amazon ecosystem to the world's oxygen is effectively zero". (Ian Plimer, "Green Murder").

Don't worry Nathan in Australia we are converting that much open grazing land into rubbish scrub every year.

Nature has always required a break on it's rampaging, & we have let the brakes off. The Aborigines burned the place to somewhere suitable for human & animal habitation, but that is now going to pot. We can't put a fire through it as too many people have built among the gum trees. Many get burnt out by nature, & they complain if a graziers fire gets away & does the same.

Your type have managed to get the chemicals successful in taming nature a bit, banned, so now the garbage is taking over everywhere. Don't complain about the high cost of meat & veg, it is getting so expensive to produce the stuff only farm loving fools keep doing it.

The 10,000 acre paddock across the river from me used to be lovely open forest improved pasture. We loved training our eventers through it. It needed an aboriginal type fire through it every 4 years or so to keep it that way. The owners gave up, sick of the phone ringing off the hook with Johnny-come-lately tree changers complaining about the smoke. It is now useless scrub avoided by even the wallabys.

The quickest way to ruin any good country, let a greeny have any say in managing it.

Well Nathan, lots of assertions there with very few facts or support.

But its part of this whole Gaia worship movement that has overtaken so many these days. Effectively, as people lost their faith in the deity, any deity, they replaced it with faith in this anthropomorphised 'Mother Nature'.

Not only do they worship Gaia, they seek to remove man from Nature, even though man is the finest achievement of the forces of Nature.

As I said, Nathan is heavy on assertion but light on evidence. One such claim is...."we deforest around ten million hectares of forest every year".

This is simply wrong. Not even close. According to the 'Food and Agriculture Organisation of the UN', in the last decade we have lost 470,000 ha of forest per year. And all of that is in South America and Africa. Forest area is increasing in Europe, Asia, the US and Australia.

This is the only testable claim is the post and its laughably wrong. Koalas aren't endangered. 'We' aren't polluting the rivers or ocean although some other nations are. Rivers aren't drying.

David Attenborough and many others would disagree.

Yet there are people who still believe the answers to
our environmental problems are not to be found in
science.

Some of the most eminent economists, psychologists,
and philosophers have made clear what should be most obvious,
we don't become happier if life is led in search of the next
material object, in conspicuous consumption.

Scientists know that pollution, resource degradation, and all
sorts of negative environmental impacts come at a genuine cost
to society - usually not to all of society, but significant
parts of it.

One person's free disposal of toxic waste
is another person's
cost. That cost could be severe and
life-threatening, as with water-borne
diseases and particular air-pollutants.

Appealing to our professionals and philosophers is one thing but
its up to us as global citizens who need to put aside our
narrow self-interests and work together
if there is to be a world for those humans
and other animals who follow us

"David Attenborough and many others would disagree."

With what specifically?

David Attenborough says lots of things, only some of which is true.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IatVKZZcPG0&t=625s

"we don't become happier if life is led in search of the next
material object,"

Did anyone ask the actual people what they though would make them happier? Or are they too stupid to know what makes them happy?

Life, liberty and the pursuit of what others think is happiness. The inversion of democracy.

The fact is that the environment is doing just fine in those places with the greatest wealth. Forests are declining in backward areas and increasing in advanced areas. Pollution is declining in advanced areas but growing in backward areas - 90% of ocean pollution comes from just 10 rivers all of which are in economically disadvantaged regions.

Want to save the environment? then support, cheer for economic advancement.

Bjorn Lomborg summed it up perfectly 20 years ago. The major concern of the poor is getting food and shelter. Once that is achieved then, and only then, but equally inevitably, they want to improve their living conditions. ie "Now that I'm well feed and sheltered, I'd like to cough less".

Deforestation, the loss of trees and other vegetation
can cause climate change, desertification, soil erosion,
flooding, fewer crops, increased greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere and a host of problems for indigenous people.

Our rivers, reservoirs, lakes and seas are drowning in
chemicals, waste, plastic, and other pollutants. Some
80% of the world's waste water is dumped largely
untreated back into the environment polluting rivers,
lakes and oceans.

Koalas are listed as a vulnerable species in NSW,
Queensland, and the ACT under the federal government
classification - prompting a review to check
how close they are to extinction in the wild amid
widespread habitat loss from land clearing and
increasing impacts from climate change, bushfires,
heatwaves and droughts.

That will do for now.

BTW: Many can survive without money or love.
But none without water.

So Foxy, are you going to just ignore the fact that the UN says Australia is reforesting not deforesting?

Mhaze,

Re the first figure re deforestation try this:

"Globally we deforest around ten million hectares of forest every year."

http://ourworldindata.org/deforestation

Whilst one can also consider replanting etc, planting a few trees and shrubs here and there to make up for deforestation to simply reduce the impacts of such a practice isn't good. I would argue to save the forests in their natural state and not destroy them in the first place. Secondly, any type of replantings assume that every plant, tree, shrub etc. put in as a replacement will survive and that is not always be the case. I mean planted trees do need to be looked after. They're not trees that have grown, developed or generated by themselves.

In terms of the detail re Koalas and the 80% figure, that came from here:

"Since European settlement, approximately 80% of Koala habitat has been decimated".

http://www.savethekoala.com/about-koalas/koala-habitat/

Re drying rivers and water use, please visit the following. Just one example, including a short video.

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/partner-content-australia-water-problem

There is other content I could put here re water use, drying rivers and associated matters but there would be a lot. I can add some later on, depending on the discussion.

You either have the option to be part of the problem or be part of the solution - and can you provide at least one example on how people can better connect with mother nature? Such a question is of course open to interpretation, that being what one considers mother nature to be of course.

Thanks NathanJ and Foxy,

For painting the real picture of the state of the planet. Predictably the Forums Usual Suspects will be in denial of the reality. Unfortunately they live in a fools paradise where for them personally things are okay, bugger koalas, bugger rainforests, bugger you Jack, I'm doing all right, so where's the problem, is the pathetic attitude.

Our Planet is in strife because of greed which of course equals stupidity !

Nathan,

You walk into a shop and buy an item for $47. To pay for it you plunk down a $100 note. The shop-keeper gives you $53 change. Did you just spend $100 or $47?

We cut down 10 million ha of forest in some year. At the same time we reforest 5.3 million ha of forest in that year. Did the amount of forest decline by 10million or 4.7million?

Obviously, if you want to maximise the scare, you use the 10million figure and hope the audience doesn't notice the slight-of-hand. And generally the audience doesn't. The very article on this you linked tells you about the different numbers and still you fall for the headline.

80% of koala habitat is decimated. (decimated means reduced by 10% so does that mean its been reduced by 8%?). Yet somehow koalas thrive and their numbers are at least as high as the were in 1788. There is great angst that koalas are disappearing from the Eden region. Yet before whites arrived there were no koalas in the Eden region. Still at least some people are making a living out of the fear-campaign.

This might sound crass, but so what if all the wild-koalas disappeared?

Australia has water problems. Australia has always had water problems. Australia will always have water problems. If we use 100000 litres per capita pa there's little point in spending money to ensure there's 120000 litres per person. As the population grows the capacity grows, Always was thus. But the doomsayers assume that we'll never be able to improve despite the fact that we've always improved. The same concerned were rife in the 1940's and the 1960s yet somehow we survived.

Humans have the intelligence , the tools, and the
natural resources to survive or provide for a
good sustainable life as long as there are not
so many humans that they exceed the globe's carrying
capacity. All the evidence suggests that we must turn
around population growth and aim for a much smaller population
than we have today.

This doom mongering has been around for as long as we have records. The Bible would be half the size if you took out all the bits predicting doom and gloom.

Malthus was sure we were going to run out of food. Yet we grow more food per capita per year than ever before. (In 1961 world-wide we grew around 2200 kilocalories or food per person per day. Today that figure is around 3000 kcal. This while world population more than doubled). Erhlich 'knew' there'd be famine in the USA in the 1980s. Didn't happen.

We are always 'about' to run out of this or that. But we've never ever run out of any resource. Never. Peak oil has been predicted for every decade since 1920s.

We are always on the brink of catastrophe and when it doesn't come a new catastrophe is predicted. The end is always nigh but never quite happens.

Yet there is a massive audience for this type of fiction. In the days of yore when there were genuine things to be worried about (cholera, TB, child-birth) people didn't need to have made-up crises to get their Armageddon fix. But now, as we live in a golden age for humans, made-up scares find a ready audience.

Remember when polar bears were on the brink? Didn't happen. Apply that lesson to all the other scares and enjoy the golden age rather than fret.

mhaze,

The first thing you feel a need to do is compare this matter to money, why?

<<We cut down 10 million ha of forest in some year. At the same time we reforest 5.3 million ha of forest in that year. Did the amount of forest decline by 10million or 4.7million?>>

A plantation is not a forest. A forest is an ecosystem. Your description would be akin to calling a pine plantation an ecosystem. The reality is, it is not, nor is it the same.

"Forest restoration is a complex undertaking that can never fully bring back the original forest. That’s why it’s far better to conserve existing healthy forests."

http://www.worldwildlife.org/stories?threat_id=deforestation-and-forest-degradation

So we are losing these vitally important ecosystems through deforesting and they cannot be replaced. Once cut down they are lost forever.

<<80% of koala habitat is decimated.>>

Decimated means decimated and in terms of Koalas it is important they are preserved and the habitats they reside in.

"Sadly, being iconic and symbolic is not enough to save the koala from the threat of extinction. In the 1920’s, hundreds of thousands of koalas were shot for the fur trade and now koalas are contending with the consequences of ongoing excessive tree-clearing for agricultural and urban development in Queensland and New South Wales."

http://www.wwf.org.au/what-we-do/species/koala

In terms of water this is a serious issue and will not go away.

"Many of the water systems that keep ecosystems thriving and feed a growing human population have become stressed. Rivers, lakes and aquifers are drying up or becoming too polluted to use. More than half the world’s wetlands have disappeared."

http://www.worldwildlife.org/threats/water-scarcity

Finally mhaze, sadly in your society and under your control we will having nothing much more that "survival of the fittest".

"their (koala) numbers are at least as high as the were in 1788"

mhaze where did you get that "fact" from, pluck it out of you know where.

Maybe "the were" high refers to what you were smoking in 1788. You have the hide to question what, and how I post! Another one in a glass house.

Paul,

I find your attitude unbelievable. Your regularly just make stuff up (stuff-up being the operative word). You've specifically said you refuse to explain things you assert. Whenever caught out in one of your flights of fantasy you habitually just 'disappear'. Yet as soon as you see something that doesn't fit you fantasies you demand evidence and cry foul.

So, Koalas. There were so few koalas around Sydney that it was 10 years before Europeans sighted their first. Thereafter because of the reduction in aboriginal hunting in the region and the active remove of the dingo, the numbers exploded. This remained true for all areas settled by Europeans. So by the end of the 19th century, koala numbers reached their hiatus being unnaturally high due to European practices.

A review by the NSW Chief Scientist found that genetic and historic data showed the numbers in NSW were quite low pre-European settlement. But 'low' is a subject number. They were low compared to the hiatus in the late 19th century. But perhaps they were the 'right' numbers and the higher numbers were 'wrong.

This is a standard problem among the doomsayers. They look at things at their best and assume that is normal. Agricultural land that wasn't viable in 1930 became viable in the 1960s. Now that they are losing viability, the doomsayers see....well doom.

Nathan,

"A plantation is not a forest. "

So why are you mentioning it in a deforestation discussion?
You assume that everything cut down is natural and everything replacing it is plantation. Evidence?

People plant plantations with the aim of cutting it down. A large portion of the yearly 'deforestation' is plantation which gets replanted. But that doesn't sound scary so.....

"sadly in your society and under your control we will having nothing much more that "survival of the fittest"."

Well no. We have a society that has solved the famine problem that plagued mankind since there was a mankind. We have a society that solved the child death problem (before the 20th century, 1 in 2 children died before the age of 5). We have a society that is solving the assumed population crisis without coercion.

Do you deny that this is a golden age for mankind? Not perfect but closer to perfect than ever before. Yet you want to tear up the things that made that society possible?

We can't escape the visible signs of pollution,
particularly in the rapidly developing cities in the
poorer parts of Asia. One can't escape the
urban slums and water-borne diseases in
many of those countries. And we can't help but
notice the famines and poverty in much of sub-Saharan Africa.

We have to change our ideas
about nature, about human nature and about how we wish to live.
It's a valid question raised by Nathan - how do we humans relate to nature?

Our demands on nature are a crucial constraint in determining how
many of us there should be and how much we should consume.
The more each one of us consumes, the less there can be of us
if we're not to overload and degrade the natural system on which
we depend for food, shelter, clothing, and ultimately life.

If we get to the stage of seriously overloading the planet,
nature itself will take revenge and there will be less of us.
An overload of pollution will result in epidemics with disease
carried by polluted water, and overload of our soils will
result in declining yields of food. There are so many more
pressures we are applying to our ecosystems, that we will see
the human population culled by our own excessive behaviour.

We are going to need to understand both
nature and ourselves much better. We are
going to need a science-based framework - and
science itself to guide us.

The first recorded European encounter with a koala was by John Price in 1798, 10 years after first settlement. As the koala requires a very selective habitat, something the Sydney region was not particularly suited for.

The Eora people who were settled in the Sydney region at the time of the first European arrival were highly dependent on the harbour, bays, rivers and creeks as their primary source of food supply, and food was in abundance. Combined with carefully attended gardens Aboriginal people had little need for such animals as koalas.

The fact the first European crossing of the Blue Mountains did not take place until 1813, 25 years after first settlement, the European environment was very much restricted. It was John Oxley in 1817 and 1818, 30 years after settlement that any extensive exploration of NSW took place. Oxley went on to survey the Moreton Bay region in 1823.

Hi Foxy,

My wife tells me of her childhood, they lived in their ancesteral valley about 10 miles from the sea. On a kai (food) gathering expedition, often walking the 10 miles to the seashore. There was an abundence of kai to catch and gather, they were told only take what we need, get greedy and you upset Tangaroa, and bad things happen.

Foxy lists the various places where she thinks there are problems....

"...the rapidly developing cities in the
poorer parts of Asia.....the
urban slums and water-borne diseases in
many of those countries....sub-Saharan Africa."

All poor undeveloped parts of the plant. Notice she doesn't notice problems in the US, Europe, Australia etc. Wealthy means good for the environment. Every rich part of the planet shows REforstation not deforestation. Pollution is either gone or massively reduced in these places. Famine? A thing of the past. Ditto water-borne disease. Ditto slums. The major disease killers of 1900 are no longer a problem.

So what's the solution to the problems in those countries Foxy et al fret about? Development. As nations become wealthy they conquer pollution. They conquer famine. They improve their water supply and eliminate diseases therein. And (the BIGGY) they stop population growth.

Every rich nation on earth currently has fertility rates below replacement. Want to reduce world population. Develop the poorer nations.

Without the slightest thought of actual evidence Foxy asserts that "The more each one of us consumes, the less there can be of us". But history and a little enquiry shows that to be utter rubbish. We've been consuming more per person for at least the last 200 years. And not only hasn't that resulted in less of us, its resulted in more of us. A lot more. Yet, on average, those extra people are better off than the generation before. Better fed, better educated, better life expectancy.

The doomsayers have a ready audience in those who panic rather than think. Try being one of those who do the opposite.

Different nations have a different impact on the environment- that's why "a one size fits all" policy doesn't work. Australia's population density has increased from 2 - 4 people per square kilometre over 50 years- whereas between 1950 and 2000 India's population increased by 100 million every 10 years now at 1,400 Million and very soon to gain the dis-respectable qualification "the most populated nation". Africa though not a nation (continent) is also at 1.4 B. Adding up China, India, Africa gives a population of about 4.5 B. The western nations especially the Anglo-Sphere are the more responsible actors. It's been argued that the Anglo-Sphere production mean more impact but without the populations the production is redundant- so the population problem takes primacy.

Also these irresponsible nations want to send their nationals to Australia- reprehensible.

Sorry mhaze-
I like the ideas of Malthus but care must obviously be taken in it's interpretation

mhaze- You said before that rivers aren't dying.

What's your view of the claims of the lowering of the Cartesian Basin in WA, the dam situation in Queensland, and the issues of the Murray-Darling System- including the dredging of silt and low water flow at the headwaters.

I understand that your views often have nuance on these issues. Sometimes inaccurate claims are a shorthand to highlight issues- other times the issue is grossly misrepresented.

Patrick Deneen in book "The Death Of Liberalism" makes the point that Liberalism on both the Left and the Right (mainly the Economic Globalists) are contributors to Global Tyranny and Collapse. Both the Left and the Right are industrial systems based on production growth. The "Traditionalists" OTOH stand opposed to Liberalism on both the Left and Right and make up sections of the Australian Liberal Party.

Any organization needs to grow to survive however growth in theory doesn't always have to mean more resource requirements and great population growth.

Generally I think that the Anglo-Sphere is doing a good job- but there are always power struggles- and arms and resource races

mhaze,

Firstly, deforesting has been an ongoing issue. It is an attack on the natural environment, in terms of clearing naturally occurring forests, not simply clearing pine plantations etc. In fact many of the plantations you refer to came at the expense of native forests, so that's hardly anything positive.

<<Forests provide a home to millions of diverse flora and fauna around the world, but, the benefits of forests extend far beyond the wildlife who live there. They play a vital role in the world’s carbon cycle by balancing greenhouse gas emissions, making the air in our atmosphere breathable, and protecting against climate change, but, as companies cut down more and more of our forests to make room for agriculture and industry, the whole planet suffers the consequences. Deforestation threatens our environment, impacts human lives, and kills millions of animals, every year.>>

http://thehumaneleague.org/article/effects-of-deforestation

Secondly, in terms of this discussion topic, some talk about planting trees in terms of carbon credits for farmers for example. The problem with that is that planting a few trees doesn't address the issue of greenhouse emissions or the fact that farmers for exmaple who have cattle, often have such cattle on land which has been cleared in the first place and cattle is responsible for large amounts of greenhouse emissions.

The average tree takes around 20kg of carbon dioxide a year. If a person planted a tree every year for 20 years – and each one survived, which is unlikely – those 20 trees would take up about 400 kg of carbon dioxide per year.

The average person in the U.S produces around 7kg of carbon dioxide a year. If each person in the U.S. planted one tree per year it would offset only about 3% of the carbon dioxide they produce each year, after all 20 trees had matured.

Planting trees is certainly part of the climate change solution, but there are more important ones, like saving existing natural forests & going though a huge lifestyle change. We can only do that when we better connect with nature & the environment we live in.

Canem writes: "Sorry mhaze- I like the ideas of Malthus"

Me too. And he had the good grace to recognise he was wrong when it was clear he was wrong. We find little of that these days.
But the fact is that Malthus was initially wrong about population and is really the first of a long line of chicken-littles who fret about population to the point where people like Nathan says things like "we are over-populated" as though its a demonstrable fact rather than a largely discredited theory.

"What's your view of the claims of the lowering of the Cartesian Basin in WA, the dam situation in Queensland, and the issues of the Murray-Darling System- including the dredging of silt and low water flow at the headwaters."

Much of these issues are cyclic. The world and all regions in it go through cycles of high relative rainfall and low relative rainfall. The trick used by the doomsayers is to pick the low point in the cycle and declare that that is the new normal. It is how we end up with declarations that the dams will never fill or the salinity in the Murray will destroy the Riverina. If Nathan was writing this a few years back he'd be talking about the low dam levels in Sydney that applied then.

But the IPCC admits that there is no evidence that overall world rainfall has changed over the last century. So if its lower than normal in one place it would be higher than normal in another. Picking this or that place at one particular point in time is invalid.

Now of course sometimes the cycles run over decades and its easy to be deceived into thinking the change is permanent. But its not. Rainfall in western NSW was high and land that up to then wasn't viable became viable. The cycle has now turned and that land is now becoming unviable. But people assume that the conditions in 1960s were normal and this is not. But that's just wrong

Nathan,

I'm not arguing that deforestation didn't occur in the past and some of the original forests in this or that place were destroyed. But that, a regrettable as it is, is in the past and cannot be undone.

My point is that its no longer occurring in some locations - Australia, Europe, Asia, North America. Indeed the main places it is still occurring is the economically depressed regions in South America and Africa.

I note that you haven't offered any possible solutions to the problems of which you complain. I have. The solution to deforestation is wealth. Wealthy nations REforest. If you support REforestation you need to support economic growth.

Its pretty simple.

Thanks mhaze for your cohesive reply to my questions. CM

mhaze,

<<My point is that its no longer occurring in some locations - Australia, Europe, Asia, North America. Indeed the main places it is still occurring is the economically depressed regions in South America and Africa.>>

No longer? In Australia? Well that is simply not correct and of course land clearance is also an issue, it's not just about forests by the way.

Any land clearance has a negative impact environmentally, and yet such a process is still being undertaken in Australia and the environment is paying the price.

In some areas for example in Australia, pristine environments and forests have been cleared for wind farms in Queensland, upsetting those concerned about the environment, despite the fact they are not opposed to rewewable energy. This is despite the fact people have been told rewewable energy is the way of the future and will be huge in terms of economic development. It seems though the environment doesn't matter according to the Queensland Government.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-12-12/queensland-wind-farms-clearing-bushland/100683198?fbclid=IwAR0I7ReOmk-H2lT902CItM7dSOmuk9oGVcLUL1z5st7iGeTYJ-4X1aOL7Ws

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/backgroundbriefing/giant-wind-farms-clearing-queensland-bush/13670398

There are lots of other examples of dofresting and land clearance through to removal of large trees still occuring in Australia.

When you talk about the need for finance to preserve the environment, I agree, but in the areas of scientific research and moving to a sustainable economy away from the mining sector, wind farms devestating the environment, fossil fuels and a consumer based form of living with a lot of things simply going to landfill.

We the people must take affirmative action in terms of change. I am not the one to provide all of the solutions, but I can advocate and encourage change. We already have the David Attenborough's & Tim Flannery's of this world, plus of a whole range of other scientists and experts in the environmental field who can and already have provided answers and ways forward, but are being ignored by those who think they know better.

Dear Nathan,

Humans have the intelligence, the tools, and the resources
to provide for a good sustainable life as long as there
are not so many humans that they exceed the globe's carrying
capacity. In Australia we have leading climatologists,
scientists, economists, along with our country's pre-eminent
public research organization - CSIRO. Australia is one of
the standout countries in terms of human development status.
It is not corrupt. Our science is world-class. All this matters.

We should welcome new ideas and the opportunities they open up
for the improvement of the human lot. We need to be aware also
that on issues which require radical solutions that are likely
to harm vested economic and political interests - will be seen as
a threat. But that can't and should not stop us. Our leaders
should take notice of the vast army of experts who are willing and
able to guide us through the coming difficult times.

A better world is possible. It will take effort. It will be
difficult. But it will be worth it.

I heard on the news this morning just how polluted the
Parrammatta River is. Dead fish floating everywhere.
It's my old stomping ground. So sad.

Come off the raw prawn Nathan, most of the so called pristine forest cleared today, is the re-clearing of once improved grazing land, gone back to scrub & over thick forest, due to the high cost of maintaining grazing land.

Even the extremely woke CSIRO recently said that there are 3 times as many trees in Oz today as there were at white settlement.

If you want to reduce the destruction of prime forests stop the burning of them in the name of green in powerhouses around the world. An example of the usual unintended consequences resulting from half baked green schemes.

Nathan,

Now you're just fudging...."There are lots of other examples of dofresting and land clearance through to removal of large trees still occuring in Australia."

Of course there are examples of trees and forests being felled in Australia. But the point is that, in total, the area of forest in Australia is larger today than it was in 2010. Ditto Europe, Asia, North America.

This isn't just an assertion. The UN has done the numbers and published them. How come you characters always bleat about following the science until the science says something you'd prefer wasn't true?

mhaze, your knowledge of trees is at the same level as your knowledge of koalas, zero.

mhaze,

<<Of course there are examples of trees and forests being felled in Australia. But the point is that, in total, the area of forest in Australia is larger today than it was in 2010. Ditto Europe, Asia, North America.>>

In terms of much of Australia's native vegetation and old growth forests, these have PERMANENTLY dissapeared. They are now gone forever. Goodbye.

They cannot be replaced by a few trees planted here or there or by a plantation forest. After a plantation forest, for forestry will eventually be removed.

I also previously referred to tree plantings and I was referring to trees planted for carbon credits. Not only is such a move questionable, it provides limited benefit. The real benefit is to protect the native forests and native vegetation already in existence.

Re my earlier comments re survival of the fittest:

<<Well no. We have a society that has solved the famine problem that plagued mankind since there was a mankind. We have a society that solved the child death problem (before the 20th century, 1 in 2 children died before the age of 5). We have a society that is solving the assumed population crisis without coercion.>>

Tell that to the one child that dies every 10 seconds on the planet from malnutrition.

http://www.wfpusa.org/articles/10-facts-child-hunger/

Also one needs to consider the loss of animal and plant life, many which are not surviving due to actions taken by humans day in, day out.

Finally, in terms of any golden age and today, I disagree we are in that position. As humans we have always been in mixed circumstances in terms of how we live with a mix of good, bad and indifferent. For example 70+ years ago a lot of furniture was of a high standard and commonplace, today a lot is very cheap and ends up in landfill. On the other hand today we have things like electric vehicles for example.

"Tell that to the one child that dies every 10 seconds on the planet from malnutrition."

Nathan,

We were talking about current western society. That was the whole point. In our current modern western society, child mortality is largely conquered. In those other places which have yet to achieve that level of modernity child mortality hasn't been defeated.

The policies you support would stop them from achieving that and would partially return us to past disasters. I don't understand how the logic of that eludes you.

"The real benefit is to protect the native forests and native vegetation already in existence."

Old growth forest don't provide any benefit in terms of carbon reduction. Growing trees absorb CO2. Mature trees don't. Indeed its calculated that forests like the Amazon emit more CO2 than they absorb.

"In terms of much of Australia's native vegetation and old growth forests, these have PERMANENTLY dissapeared. They are now gone forever. Goodbye."

Well that's just false. Land that has been previously native forest that is left untouched for 20 years or so, returns to its old status to the extent that it is indistinguishable from the original. There is a forest just outside Eden where I've seen that exact process develop over time. And there was the famous example in Tasmania where Brown's greenies were claiming a particular are to be 'pristine' old growth only to find that it had once been clear felled to become a landing strip and then allowed to return to native.

mhaze,

The whole world doesn't focus around the western world - if there is such a thing.

Secondly, perhaps you'd like to come over to my house. Are there any trees, native plants and regrowth from old growth forests popping up there? No there aren't.

Why? Because its simply not possible. All of the homes built over the land make that impossible - and of course the vegetation here at one stage in a natural state and untouched by not much more than nature has completely dissapeared due to land clearance.

Vegetation clearance and loss of old growth forests is still occuring today and such practices must be stopped, after all we only have so much of these pristine environments left. This does not say they haven't regenerated from previous times, but they haven't been hit by housing, grazing, farms, commercial and industrial development etc, where the habitats cannot regenerate and flourish following such activity.

"We're still clearing much more native vegetation than is being replanted or regenerating naturally. Irreplaceable, high-quality habitat is being cleared, and any natural regrowth, over the short term will be of much lower diversity and lack important structural elements such as hollow trees and ground timber."

http://www.bushheritage.org.au/what-we-do/our-challenge/land-clearing

<<And there was the famous example in Tasmania where Brown's greenies were claiming a particular are to be 'pristine' old growth only to find that it had once been clear felled to become a landing strip and then allowed to return to native>>

It also depends what one considers suitable in that area. For example a lot of native plant species are now no longer in existence. So if you clear an area of native vegetation and old growth forest it cannot be guaranteed that every plant there will regenerate, so it's better to opt on the safe side and preserve such environments.

Continued...

Continued...

From Tasmania...

"The draft Conservation Advice recommends the Black gum – Brookers gum forests (in Tasmania) may be eligible for listing as nationally Critically Endangered. The draft assessment found that it has declined in extent by about 90%, from about 230,000 ha originally to only
25,000 ha currently. Much of this was historicaly due to agriculture and forestry,but more so from urban/peri-urban clearing in recent times."

"The remaining forests (as per above) provide vital habitat for many plants and animals. They include some that are now threatened, such as the swift parrot and the eastern quoll. Keeping intact forest vegetation helps to minimise serious erosion problems. It helps prevent the loss of valuable topsoil from farmlands and salt pans from forming."

http://www.awe.gov.au/sites/default/files/env/pages/6cc03081-4237-49c9-9cc6-e051ec11cca3/files/information-guide-tasmanian-ovata-brookeriana-forests.pdf

It wasn't until humans arrived that things started to change, for the worst. Vegetation and old growth forests do regenerate, for example after fires - but the areas need to be primarily left alone for that to happen.

Finally, I haven't said no to planting more trees. But those that eventually go to forestry, don't make up for land clearance or loss of native forests. If people plant trees/plants generally that's fine, but still doesn't adequately compensate.

What utter garbage Nathan.

You may have heard of Fraser Island. It's a pretty big island off the east coast of Queensland. It is a sand island, like many coastal islands. Where do you think all that sand came from? Could it be from erosion washed down our rivers? Oh in case you didn't know, these islands were there before the good Captain Cook sailed the seas, so I don't think you can blame white man farming for the erosion.

Incidentally I can prove it is trees that cause erosion of river banks. My back boundary is a river, a little coastal one. It is 70Ft below the plain, with a steepish bank, mine covered in trees. Being a silly boy, & liking trees, I left them all. We get floods every few years up to & over the river flats.

These are big mature trees with large spread of roots. I have lost 3 of these, washed away in floods, & each has taken over 20 meters of my bottom paddock with them along with my fences. I fence the top of the bank & don't use the bank for anything. That is a lot of dirt now in the ocean.

A near by neighbor, after 30 years of this got sick of it. He removed all trees on his river bank 20 years ago, bulldozed it to a gentler slope, & planted Rhodes grass on it. He then locked it up, & it is only grazed by our plentiful kangaroos. It offers a smooth flow for floods. He has not lost an inch of river bank in 20 years, while I have lost 3 large chunks.

Just asking, do you have any personal knowledge of trees?

Can humans better connect with mother nature?

Yes, get a good rifle and go hunting pest animals, just back from a highly successful time hunting pigs.
Our team of ten had killed 1,027 by yesterday and have a few days left,
Admittedly they haven’t made much impact on the local pig population, but another group are due to start in a few days and hopefully they’ll do as well.

Hi Issy,

What do you do with all those dead pigs? Do you have to eat them like Elephant Bob had to eat all those elephants he shot.

Paul,
Nope, some of the team took hides to make leather but most pigs were left as bait for their mates, pigs being quite keen to have a feed of their own kind.

Pigs are keen to have a feed on their own kind. Makes them almost human.

Probably a few of them are posting here, I can guess nom de plume they are using.

Issy,

Did you see any flying pigs? As they say "pigs might fly". Me thinks ye done well, I'll give you another Porky Award for your effort.

Captain Bligewater, thankyou for your comment.

Paul
They fly for a few feet when hit with a .45-70.

Hi Issy,

I hope you didn't buy a "pig in a poke".

Haven't asked for a few years, how's sales of that book of yours; 'Road Kill Recipes for the Unsuccessful Hunter' I particularly enjoy your 'Fricaseed Wombat with a Koala Saurce", sure beats stewed gallah.

Don't mind pork bones I put them in my 'Smoker' true I do have a Smoker, Maori people love bones. I tell the wife, its a hangover from the missionary days. She says, you better believe it, those huge boiling pots were used for more than boiling whales.

Paul,
The current edition is called “Field to Fork” and is available from the SSAA website