Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #16   Report Post  
Old 26-04-2007, 04:50 AM posted to aus.gardens
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Mar 2007
Posts: 43
Default Aussie environment destruction

0tterbot wrote:
"Jonno" wrote in message
...
on a positive note, many people are waking up to better ways to do things
here, and it's a learning process that i believe is almost at critical
mass, but essentially are hindered by a few things (see jonno's post) but
mainly our godforsaken dickhead gobshite ****knuckle federal govt, who
have now decided it's a top idea to drain wetlands so that people who
already waste water can waste even more of it. i could just scream (in
fact, sometimes i do!)
kylie



Aboslutely That came out wrong. Am I getting into fruedian slips?


maybe even freudian ones! (that pink looks noice on you).

Better than womens underwear I suppose.


take that back!! _i_ wear women's underwear & there's nothing wrong with me,
by jingo!!!!!!111

I hope I made sense on that last post.


to me, many of your posts don't always make sense g but it was orright, i
got it.

and quite frankly, i couldn't care less if people come across like commie
pinkos anyway. which isn't to say that you did. the mainstream is
extraordinarily broad.
kylie


Have a look at what future contentions are with ROBOTS though.
http://openfordesign.msn.com/default...nemma&GT1=9268

As if we need this sort of stuff.
  #17   Report Post  
Old 26-04-2007, 12:04 PM posted to aus.gardens
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,358
Default Aussie environment destruction

"George.com" wrote in message
"0tterbot" wrote in message


my only real comment would be: "don't get me started". :-)

on a positive note, many people are waking up to better ways to do things
here, and it's a learning process that i believe is almost at critical

mass,
but essentially are hindered by a few things (see jonno's post) but
mainly
our godforsaken dickhead gobshite ****knuckle federal govt, who have now
decided it's a top idea to drain wetlands so that people who already
waste
water can waste even more of it. i could just scream (in fact, sometimes
i
do!)
kylie


sorry, I am going to get you started as I am going to enlarge the issue a
little. The way I see it, there is a very real potential the human race
(as
we currently enjoy ourselves) is phuqed.


Yep. Only a matter of time.........

What makes me think that? Arguably
the current methods and patterns of production and consumption we 'enjoy'
are unsustainable from an environmental perspective.


Yep. Only a matter of time before we collapse under the ecological threats
that surround us.

This writer Diamond list 12 major (global) environmental problems: loss of
natural habitat; loss of wild food sources including seafood; loss of
bio-diversity; loss of soil and soil nutrition; limits on major energy
sources; limits on freshwater availability (as well as water degredation);
finite amounts of usuable sunlight; toxic chemicals; introduced pest
species; human produced gases deterimental to the atmosphere; polulation
growth; rising standards of living amongst the burgeoning population and
the
strains placed on the earths resources.

Even if we can argue that the current style of life amongst the developed
world is sustainable, and debatable point, the strain will only increase.
In
the last 15-20 years several nations have reached first
world/developed/western living standards - Malaysia/Taiwan/South
Korea/Hong
Kong/Singapore & (apparently) Mauritius. These countries have added around
125 million people to 'our' production/consumption habits. Several nations
in Eastern Europe are starting to accelerate toward first world income
levels, China is rapidly adding people to that class and India slightly
less
so. Then we have the likes of Brazil and Russia, even Thailand, who have
aimed that way. If China alone realises its goals of first world living
standards the impact on the world of production & consumption patterns
will
double what it is now. IE any problems now left unsolved will double with
China alone reaching our living standards. Never mind the other large
populace countries.

Likely the problems of development (along first world
production/consumption
patterns) will grow rapidly for China (if not addressed swiftly and
successfully). The problems won't just be Chinas alone. If problems grow
rapidly, even exponentially, public opinion and preparedness to find
solutions/change the way we live will need to adjust just as rapidly. Am I
confident that will occur? Not at present, not at the moment. I look
around
and despair at some of the everyday ways people live, I am included in
that
of course.

If we are currently rooting the earth beyond its ability to cope long
term,
and I tend in the favour of we are, then any further increase in people
living like we do will further root the earth. Things are happening so
rapidly in the likes of China and India, the consequential enviro impacts
growing so rapidly, that some solutions to enviromental problems will need
to be as equally rapid and the populations acceptance of this will also
need
to be as rapid. I see the genesis of awareness and movement but no major
'enlightenment'. The dickheads (or choose stronger terms as necessary) who
simply say the 'freemarket' or 'technology' will take care of things,
allowing them to merrily go on as usual, are to my mind f wits.

A simple way of course would be for developed nations to ensure the 3rd
world remains 3rd world and therefore never develops our lifestyle habits.
War, terrorism, genocide, mass migration of peoples is possible as a
result
of this. I am cynical, there may be hope for society yet however if it
comes
time to bite some hard bullets I just can't see the preparedness at
present
to do so.

If you want an example of some of this go and visit Cuba. Look at their
economy/society in the 1980s, the 1990s and today.


Can't argue with any of that, but what has happened in Cuba? I thought that
they had gone backwards economically and socially since the 50s?


  #18   Report Post  
Old 26-04-2007, 12:16 PM posted to aus.gardens
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,358
Default Aussie environment destruction

"Jonno" wrote in message
FarmI wrote:


I also didn't think he came across as a commie pinko just someone who
thought about the issues, but if he'd been posting in an American
dominated group he probably would have.

I post regularly in misc.rural which IS dominated very much by Americans
(I often wonder why so many of them don't seem to be able to think beyond
their own borders - dumb questions or comments keep apearring there that
show how limited many Yanks world view is - they seem to think that they
are the only ones who have access to this world wide online community -
but I digress).

I've been accused of being a left wing pinko in misc.rural more times
than I've had a hot dinner. If I wrote or said the same think either
here or in any group in Oz it wouldn't even raise a flicker of comment
about my political affiliations. To Yanks it would seem I do appear to
be a raging leftie, but to any others in the western world I'd be middle
of the road (which my voting history of everything from Country Party to
Labor [and not in a linear fashion, but in a swinging voter fashion]
would indicate to anyone with half a brain).

I find many Yanks to be very exasperating.


Youre my kind of thinking.
I cant stand anyone voting blindly for one party. You have to change the
bed linen too as its gets soiled. Same with the political parties.


Yup. I also think that they start to stink after a couple of terms.
Regardless of which party is in power, they start to get arrogant in the
extreme.

I vote on issues if theyre are real issues.
Bugger the parties involved.
But only if they have a credible attitude.
I cant vote for the transparent policy of bracks for instance.


I don't know enough about him to comment. I would comment if you were
writing about Iemma. If the Libs hadn't self destructed in NSW, there is no
way that Laborr should have got back in NSW based on their performance in
the last 5+ years.

He's anything but that.
Howards is semitransparent


Ummmmmm. No he isn't. And I say that in very big capital letters. He IS a
brilliant politician but that is not a compliment. He is able to fool more
people for more of the time than any other politician has managed to do
since Federation. He has also managed to very effectivley and very
deliberately, through political appointments managed to emasculate the
Public Service. The role of the PS has always, till Howard, been to give
advice to government "without fear of favour". That means that the Public
Service used to give Government bad news and try to look after the interest
of all Australians not just the few interests of the govt supporters. I
know that you probably won't believe this if you've never been in the Public
Service. People like to joke about it but having spent nearly 30 years
there, I know how it used to be and how it is now. Now, it's stuffed.

and we have yet to see if Rudd can make the
transparent grade.


Doubtful. Labor has watched and learned from the Libs and this is a truly
scumbag govt that knows and used more dirty tricks than any other govt ever
has before.

In the end it is all whatever deals they can strike with big business to
support them.
It should be otherwise though.
No big business no Corporations but the people who are the issue.


Yep. We the people are now and have been since Hawke, screwed over.


  #19   Report Post  
Old 26-04-2007, 12:21 PM posted to aus.gardens
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,358
Default Aussie environment destruction

"Jonno" wrote in message
FarmI wrote:
"Jonno" wrote in message


Im sure womens underwear has its place....but its o so tiny.



You're buying the wrong size and style. Try size 24 Cottontails - aka
"big girls bloomers".

Dems fighting words I aint no big sheila See you behind the shelter shed
if you dare!!!!!


:-)) I was told by a pretty tough construction engineer after I saw off a
contractor that he couldn't deal with that I had balls. Still wanna take me
on?


  #20   Report Post  
Old 26-04-2007, 12:54 PM posted to aus.gardens
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 805
Default Aussie environment destruction


"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote in message
...
"George.com" wrote in message
"0tterbot" wrote in message


my only real comment would be: "don't get me started". :-)

on a positive note, many people are waking up to better ways to do

things
here, and it's a learning process that i believe is almost at critical

mass,
but essentially are hindered by a few things (see jonno's post) but
mainly
our godforsaken dickhead gobshite ****knuckle federal govt, who have

now
decided it's a top idea to drain wetlands so that people who already
waste
water can waste even more of it. i could just scream (in fact,

sometimes
i
do!)
kylie


sorry, I am going to get you started as I am going to enlarge the issue

a
little. The way I see it, there is a very real potential the human race
(as
we currently enjoy ourselves) is phuqed.


Yep. Only a matter of time.........

What makes me think that? Arguably
the current methods and patterns of production and consumption we

'enjoy'
are unsustainable from an environmental perspective.


Yep. Only a matter of time before we collapse under the ecological

threats
that surround us.

This writer Diamond list 12 major (global) environmental problems: loss

of
natural habitat; loss of wild food sources including seafood; loss of
bio-diversity; loss of soil and soil nutrition; limits on major energy
sources; limits on freshwater availability (as well as water

degredation);
finite amounts of usuable sunlight; toxic chemicals; introduced pest
species; human produced gases deterimental to the atmosphere; polulation
growth; rising standards of living amongst the burgeoning population and
the
strains placed on the earths resources.

Even if we can argue that the current style of life amongst the

developed
world is sustainable, and debatable point, the strain will only

increase.
In
the last 15-20 years several nations have reached first
world/developed/western living standards - Malaysia/Taiwan/South
Korea/Hong
Kong/Singapore & (apparently) Mauritius. These countries have added

around
125 million people to 'our' production/consumption habits. Several

nations
in Eastern Europe are starting to accelerate toward first world income
levels, China is rapidly adding people to that class and India slightly
less
so. Then we have the likes of Brazil and Russia, even Thailand, who have
aimed that way. If China alone realises its goals of first world living
standards the impact on the world of production & consumption patterns
will
double what it is now. IE any problems now left unsolved will double

with
China alone reaching our living standards. Never mind the other large
populace countries.

Likely the problems of development (along first world
production/consumption
patterns) will grow rapidly for China (if not addressed swiftly and
successfully). The problems won't just be Chinas alone. If problems grow
rapidly, even exponentially, public opinion and preparedness to find
solutions/change the way we live will need to adjust just as rapidly. Am

I
confident that will occur? Not at present, not at the moment. I look
around
and despair at some of the everyday ways people live, I am included in
that
of course.

If we are currently rooting the earth beyond its ability to cope long
term,
and I tend in the favour of we are, then any further increase in people
living like we do will further root the earth. Things are happening so
rapidly in the likes of China and India, the consequential enviro

impacts
growing so rapidly, that some solutions to enviromental problems will

need
to be as equally rapid and the populations acceptance of this will also
need
to be as rapid. I see the genesis of awareness and movement but no major
'enlightenment'. The dickheads (or choose stronger terms as necessary)

who
simply say the 'freemarket' or 'technology' will take care of things,
allowing them to merrily go on as usual, are to my mind f wits.

A simple way of course would be for developed nations to ensure the 3rd
world remains 3rd world and therefore never develops our lifestyle

habits.
War, terrorism, genocide, mass migration of peoples is possible as a
result
of this. I am cynical, there may be hope for society yet however if it
comes
time to bite some hard bullets I just can't see the preparedness at
present
to do so.

If you want an example of some of this go and visit Cuba. Look at their
economy/society in the 1980s, the 1990s and today.


Can't argue with any of that, but what has happened in Cuba? I thought

that
they had gone backwards economically and socially since the 50s?


roftl, no, not really. Maybe in some respects they have not advanced a whole
lot since the 1950s however it is a different kettle of fish. I was there
recently for 3 weeks (a fascinating place, a real 'experience', not really a
'holiday'. Worth a visit, just be aware of what you are going to). The 1980s
was, according to some Cubans, a 'golden age' of abundance and prosperity
with large subsidies from the Soviet Union and favourable terms of trade.
They exported sugar, tobacco, coffee etc at inflated prices and bought
things like Bulgarian sauerkraut. That all came to an end when the USSR fell
apart. The Cuban 'good times' were premised, imho, on a false economy of
living beyond what the Soviets could sustainably provide. Arguably a little
like we have now.

With the soviet demise Cubas economy, living standards, imports/exports etc
all took a big tumble. So did availability of things like food, machinery,
oil, agricultural equipment etc etc. The country went through the "Special
Period", ostensibly massive rationing, austerity programmes and national
reorganisation of agriculture, transport and such like. Peoples calorie
intake decline by 1/3, from around 3000 (I think) calories a day to 2000
calories. Due to various measures people did not starve, neither did they
get rich and fat however. The country made do and got by. 3 national phrases
are conseguir (to get, manage), resolver (work out, resolve) and "it is
difficult". The country made it through a potential disaster period through
various collective actions, fairly massive change forced on them by the
state and innovation.

Even 10 years later the results of the "Special Period" are there to see.
Don't drink the local water, cope with the sewer smells, try and find a
bright new sparkling building, watch peopel queue for rations etc etc. A
degree of that is to do with the communist system Cuba operates under, some
is to do with the (lack of) relations with the US and trade embargos, some
of it is to do with Cuba being a poor country.

Put that aside and it serves as a little microcosm of what severe
environmental degredation, or large scale economic collapse, or the 2
combined may do to western economies. The Cuban situation was a little
artifical (though reality for the Cuban people) in as much as the western
world enjoyed relative prosperity (except for those the freemarket reforms
left behind) whilst Cuba suffered the collapse of its international support
network. That said, it provided an example of what our future could be
(though the future is open to human agency) and how one country coped. For
that reason alone Cuba is worth a visit, though you will burn some fossil
fuel getting there.

rob




  #21   Report Post  
Old 26-04-2007, 01:32 PM posted to aus.gardens
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 713
Default Aussie environment destruction

"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote in message
...

that's right, but can i point out: i use inputs that other people don't
WANT! (and are free as well :-)


It wasn't a criticism of what you are doing


sorry, i know it wasn't a criticism.

(we all do it - I mine my
neighbour's place for horse poos, she mines from commercial sources by
buying in horse feed - I take her unwanted stuff she buys - same, same in
effect). It was on observation on your previous observation.


it's just that i can't believe that i can get this stuff nearby, and free,
and that nobody else wants it, i guess! i can be a bit forward at times i
suppose, but i feel it's really lucky for me.

And that also applies to tip 'rubbish'. Our local tip used to be a
goldmine for the local residents.


ah, the tip. gleaner's heaven :-)

In fact there is one wonderful true story about
one of our rather large Ocker blokes (who I first met when he was dressed
up as a fairy complete with wand and pink wings - but that's another
story). He wanted to build a garage and had submitted plans to Council
which were promptly rejected because he hadn't specified what the garage
would be built from. He was outraged; "How the hell do I know what it'll
be built from" he ranted, "I haven't even been to the tip yet!".


lmao. (sounds like my house ;-) - only without going through the motions of
submitting plans or any of that malarkey g

But back to the tip, if you had something that still worked, you'd leave a
sign on it and it woud disappear quick smart, now our stupid sodding local
Council, in it's 'wisdom', has put up signs saying that no 'rubbish' can
be removed. Now we just put in orders with the tip attendant who 'saves'
to fill the orders. So, for example, it took my husband 2 weeks to have
his order of a bike pump filled.


our tip has a big "no scavenging" sign. then, come to find out, someone told
me that's just a "legal obligation", you can scrounge away to your heart's
content & they don't mind at all. tee hee.
kylie


  #22   Report Post  
Old 26-04-2007, 01:34 PM posted to aus.gardens
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 713
Default Aussie environment destruction

"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote in message
...
"Jonno" wrote in message
FarmI wrote:
"Jonno" wrote in message


Im sure womens underwear has its place....but its o so tiny.


You're buying the wrong size and style. Try size 24 Cottontails - aka
"big girls bloomers".

Dems fighting words I aint no big sheila See you behind the shelter shed
if you dare!!!!!


:-)) I was told by a pretty tough construction engineer after I saw off
a contractor that he couldn't deal with that I had balls. Still wanna
take me on?


not to interrupt, but nobody could beat the size of my nan's knickers. if
you looked at her clothesline from an angle, you'd have thought it was the
sydney to hobart yacht race.

as you were!
kylie


  #23   Report Post  
Old 26-04-2007, 01:35 PM posted to aus.gardens
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 713
Default Aussie environment destruction

"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote in message
...

I find many Yanks to be very exasperating.


you're hardly alone, poppet.
kylie


  #24   Report Post  
Old 26-04-2007, 01:42 PM posted to aus.gardens
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 713
Default Aussie environment destruction

"Jonno" . wrote in message
u...

and quite frankly, i couldn't care less if people come across like commie
pinkos anyway. which isn't to say that you did. the mainstream is
extraordinarily broad.
kylie

Have a look at what future contentions are with ROBOTS though.
http://openfordesign.msn.com/default...nemma&GT1=9268


nooooooooo! i refuse!!!!

As if we need this sort of stuff.


well, exactly. there are actually serious things to be done.
klyie


  #25   Report Post  
Old 26-04-2007, 01:57 PM posted to aus.gardens
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 713
Default Aussie environment destruction

"George.com" wrote in message
...

sorry, I am going to get you started as I am going to enlarge the issue a
little.


no. bad man. shoo!

The way I see it, there is a very real potential the human race (as
we currently enjoy ourselves) is phuqed. What makes me think that?
Arguably
the current methods and patterns of production and consumption we 'enjoy'
are unsustainable from an environmental perspective.


why do you think that wouldn't change, though? (admittedly, never as fast as
one would like.)

This writer Diamond list 12 major (global) environmental problems: loss of
natural habitat; loss of wild food sources including seafood; loss of
bio-diversity; loss of soil and soil nutrition; limits on major energy
sources; limits on freshwater availability (as well as water degredation);
finite amounts of usuable sunlight; toxic chemicals; introduced pest
species; human produced gases deterimental to the atmosphere; polulation
growth; rising standards of living amongst the burgeoning population and
the
strains placed on the earths resources.

(snippage
A simple way of course would be for developed nations to ensure the 3rd
world remains 3rd world and therefore never develops our lifestyle habits.


a far simpler (and, obviously, fairer, and obviously, smarter) way would be
for the first world to downgrade, and for landholders of all kinds
(including those with only a balcony) to work together on just doing the
right thing. i mean, that sounds simplistic, but it's about that easy :-)

as the greens commonly say, we know we (the first world) are going to _have_
to change, so why not do it in a timely manner, and it won't be at all
painful. :-)

i feel that being a first-world person certainly does NOT have to mean
consuming (anything) beyond one's allocation. it just doesn't. i know that
we (my family) have a pretty modest lifestyle compared to some people, but
modest doesn't mean miserable, sparse, joyless or desperate. it's merely the
tiniest of mental adjustments & doing things a little differently.

keep in mind now that many people are now thinking about these things &
trying to sort through conflicting information, govt propaganda, their own
inertia & needfulness, and other matters just to get to the crux of what to
do. BUT, it's become a completely mainstream thing now, and therein lies the
answer. (i truly think nothing much gets achieved until a mode of thought
goes mainstream). in the meantime (sorry, i can't help it) we have a prime
minister who's still living in 1956 who thinks showering with a bucket is, i
quote, "extreme". it boggles the MIND. not only is that not extreme, but
there's a whole load of people who go further than that & _that's_ not
extreme, either!

War, terrorism, genocide, mass migration of peoples is possible as a
result
of this. I am cynical, there may be hope for society yet however if it
comes
time to bite some hard bullets I just can't see the preparedness at
present
to do so.


not much preparedness, or not enough, but i don't know. have you not noticed
how after al gore's movie, this issue has just _exploded_? which isn't to
say everyone's on board or anything like that, but it's a continual loud
dialogue now where for many years it was just a few people on the edges
being ignored.

we in the first world can (and do) supply good technology to the second(?)
and third worlds and i think it's our moral duty to, basically, make sure
they don't have to make hundreds of years' worth of first-world mistakes
from scratch. it's not fair (or wise) for us to say "you can't have what we
have". we can't do that. what we can do is revise our own selves down so
each person makes one little footprint each. and i know it's not hard. we'll
get there :-)
kylie

If you want an example of some of this go and visit Cuba. Look at their
economy/society in the 1980s, the 1990s and today.

rob






  #26   Report Post  
Old 26-04-2007, 02:59 PM posted to aus.gardens
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Mar 2007
Posts: 43
Default Aussie environment destruction

FarmI wrote:
"Jonno" wrote in message
FarmI wrote:
"Jonno" wrote in message


Im sure womens underwear has its place....but its o so tiny.

You're buying the wrong size and style. Try size 24 Cottontails - aka
"big girls bloomers".

Dems fighting words I aint no big sheila See you behind the shelter shed
if you dare!!!!!


:-)) I was told by a pretty tough construction engineer after I saw off a
contractor that he couldn't deal with that I had balls. Still wanna take me
on?


Nuthing a 4 b 2 wouldnt fix.
But maybe the metric equiv.
Wed use the balls for cricket afterwards....
  #27   Report Post  
Old 26-04-2007, 06:22 PM posted to aus.gardens
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 805
Default Aussie environment destruction


"0tterbot" wrote in message
...
"George.com" wrote in message
...

sorry, I am going to get you started as I am going to enlarge the issue

a
little.


no. bad man. shoo!

The way I see it, there is a very real potential the human race (as
we currently enjoy ourselves) is phuqed. What makes me think that?
Arguably
the current methods and patterns of production and consumption we

'enjoy'
are unsustainable from an environmental perspective.


why do you think that wouldn't change, though? (admittedly, never as fast

as
one would like.)


because, as you say, change may never be as fast as one would like, or more
so IS NECESSARY. I am cynical about peoples preparedness to change anything
markedly until the shtf. By then it may be a little late.

This writer Diamond list 12 major (global) environmental problems: loss

of
natural habitat; loss of wild food sources including seafood; loss of
bio-diversity; loss of soil and soil nutrition; limits on major energy
sources; limits on freshwater availability (as well as water

degredation);
finite amounts of usuable sunlight; toxic chemicals; introduced pest
species; human produced gases deterimental to the atmosphere; polulation
growth; rising standards of living amongst the burgeoning population and
the
strains placed on the earths resources.

(snippage
A simple way of course would be for developed nations to ensure the 3rd
world remains 3rd world and therefore never develops our lifestyle

habits.

a far simpler (and, obviously, fairer, and obviously, smarter) way would

be
for the first world to downgrade, and for landholders of all kinds
(including those with only a balcony) to work together on just doing the
right thing. i mean, that sounds simplistic, but it's about that easy :-)

as the greens commonly say, we know we (the first world) are going to

_have_
to change, so why not do it in a timely manner, and it won't be at all
painful. :-)


ahuh, see my comment above.

i feel that being a first-world person certainly does NOT have to mean
consuming (anything) beyond one's allocation. it just doesn't. i know that
we (my family) have a pretty modest lifestyle compared to some people, but
modest doesn't mean miserable, sparse, joyless or desperate. it's merely

the
tiniest of mental adjustments & doing things a little differently.


I agree, something I am starting to practise in degrees. Just worries me a
little sometimes that maybe time will catch me out, there won't be enough
time left for me or mine to adapt sufficiently.

If you want an example of some of this go and visit Cuba. Look at their
economy/society in the 1980s, the 1990s and today.


Cuba didn't see the special period coming, though they had started to adapt
to some change. The guts ripped from their economy/society with the soviet
demise was a huge shock, something they responded to within a matter of
years but a massive shock to the system nevertheless.

rob


  #28   Report Post  
Old 27-04-2007, 01:42 AM posted to aus.gardens
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 301
Default Aussie environment destruction

In article ,
"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote:

I've been accused of being a left wing pinko in misc.rural more times than
I've had a hot dinner. If I wrote or said the same think either here or in
any group in Oz it wouldn't even raise a flicker of comment about my
political affiliations. To Yanks it would seem I do appear to be a raging
leftie, but to any others in the western world I'd be middle of the road
(which my voting history of everything from Country Party to Labor [and not
in a linear fashion, but in a swinging voter fashion] would indicate to
anyone with half a brain).

I find many Yanks to be very exasperating.


LOL, you too? I'm in the midst of a stoush on gun control atm. Talk about
black-and-white mindsets -- suggesting that you should prevent nutcases and
boofheads from getting weapons makes me a pinko who wants to strip away their
Right To Bear Arms. Which of itself tends to make me think that the pro-gun
types in the US ARE all nuts in the first place. Worse, they are *terrified*
of each other. The only thing worse than a yank gun-nut is a frightened yank
gun-nut.

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

"Parenthood is like the modern stone washing process for denim jeans. You may
start out crisp, neat and tough, but you end up pale, limp and wrinkled."
Kerry Cue
  #29   Report Post  
Old 27-04-2007, 02:45 AM posted to aus.gardens
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 301
Default Aussie environment destruction

In article , "George.com"
wrote:

Interesting book I and 3/4 the way through, Collapse - How societies choose
to fail or succeed, Jared Diamond (I can recomend it). There is a chapter on
Aus that is good reading. The chapter is titled "Mining Australia" and says
essentially that for decades ockers have mined not only minerals but also
soil nutrients, timber resources, moisture/water and fishing stocks.

The bit about timber I found expecially interesting. I am aware that Aus
exports timber, we get oz hardwood in NZ for decks and the like. I presumed
that it was from a sustainable resource. According to Diamond this is not
the case.


No. There is surprisingly little sustainably managed timber around. In
Australia, it's plantation radiata and huon pine, according to the Forest
Stewardship Council. These are people who certify sustainable timbers.

The rate of timber growth is slow for you compared to say NZ. Once
a forest is stripped of mature trees the conditions for regrowth is quite
difficult and can lead to the drying out, even desertification, of the soil.
Not sure I will buy any more Aus hardwood if that is the case.


Thanks -- don't.

The trendy timber here atm is "merbau". Changed its name from Pacific Maple,
not that most people know what that is. It's a group of rainforest timbers
from bastions of environmental responsibility like Malaysia and Indonesia!

He reckoned that much of the nutrient value of your bush is held in the
trees themselves. I have understood for a while that your soil is low in
nutrients given its age. It seems the trees store much of the nutrients and
recycle it through the growing cycle as they shed leaves or die and decay.
Once the trees are gone so is much of the nutrient. The trees could curvive
and grow as they existed in a closed cycle with the existing nutrients
recycled many many times. Once the nutrients were stripped away by forestry
there was nowt left in the soil for regrowth. If true, a really fascinating
example of closed cycles in nature and the way ignorant human activity can
destroy it.


Yep, tell us about it. We know it's happening; we just don't know how to stop
them. Apart from by voting green, investing ethically and buying carefully --
but lots of people don't do that.

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

"Parenthood is like the modern stone washing process for denim jeans. You may
start out crisp, neat and tough, but you end up pale, limp and wrinkled."
Kerry Cue
  #30   Report Post  
Old 27-04-2007, 02:52 AM posted to aus.gardens
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by GardenBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 301
Default Aussie environment destruction

In article ,
"0tterbot" wrote:

on a positive note, many people are waking up to better ways to do things
here, and it's a learning process that i believe is almost at critical mass,
but essentially are hindered by a few things (see jonno's post) but mainly
our godforsaken dickhead gobshite ****knuckle federal govt, who have now
decided it's a top idea to drain wetlands so that people who already waste
water can waste even more of it. i could just scream (in fact, sometimes i
do!)


Oh good. I'm not the only one who thinks that killing off inland fish and
bird stocks for the sake of crack-brained irrigation schemes is ridiculous.

When I heard Honest John saying that we'd have a crisis on the Murray-Darling
if there wasn't rain in the next 6 weeks, I wanted to throw up. I suppose the
public servants Didn't Tell Him About It (TM).

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

"Parenthood is like the modern stone washing process for denim jeans. You may
start out crisp, neat and tough, but you end up pale, limp and wrinkled."
Kerry Cue
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Destruction Of A Hardy Perennial Saxman United Kingdom 7 22-05-2006 08:15 PM
bind weed destruction yammyr6 United Kingdom 5 22-03-2005 02:50 PM
County Destruction of Trees JulioF Texas 15 22-03-2005 12:28 AM
Pruning a spherically shaped aussie native shrub? Gen Australia 1 22-08-2003 02:02 PM
Death and destruction Mark. Gooley Roses 3 30-07-2003 11:45 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:54 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 GardenBanter.co.uk.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Gardening"

 

Copyright © 2017