|
Aussie environment destruction
"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote in message ... "George.com" wrote in message ... 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. It is exactly the same in any other western country which is rich in "natural resources". The only difference between Oz and other western countries is that Oz has a (generally) extremely fragile soil and being a very old continent, limited fertility except for thin coastal strips. indeed true, however I never realised the extent of the fragility of Aussie forests. I find it odd that the forests are still felled given that the resulting land is not much productive for anything else. Even worse, exporting wood chip to Japan to be made into paper. Were the export of woods sustainable I could at least understand. As it seems the export is not sustainable it is surprising. We learnt a few years back to stop felling native forests, including chipping our native beech trees for export to Japan. Moreover, our native forests have a much better ability to regenerate than Aus forests it seems given better soil we have. 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. 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. 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. The importation of exportation of ANY products on or off the land on which it is raised or grown is mining. If you eat meat or vegetables that are not grown on your own land, or wear clothes that are not produced from your own land, you are involved in mining the fertility belonging to someone else. We all do it and have done since time immemorial. I don't know anyone who can only survive on the products of their own land or return all their wastes to their own land. If you have been reading this ng for some time, you may recall that at one stage Otterbot made the comment that there is no such thing as unproductive land. She was (generally) right because any land can be made productive but it at the cost or mining somewhere else for nutrients. Tree cropping is perhaps the most "sustainable" form of cropping but it is dependant upon the soil and I have no doubt that there are some areas of Oz that could be very much depleted after a single tree harvest. I can't think of any area off the top of my head but I don't know about all our timber growing areas. He also described in some length the salinisation of your soils. I knew about it however the author described in length how the salt pans came to exist, how irrigation can cause the salt level to rise and dryland salinisation results from leaving productive land bare for much of the year allowing rain to wash salts through waterways or raise it to the surface. The soluable salts then infest waterways. If he wrote that about dryland salinity, then he doesn't know what he's on about. Dryland salinity and salinity on irrigated land have differing causes, as is perhaps the salinity of WA (which I have read has largely been caused by millenia of onshore winds bringing in ocean salt which has then settled on the land). That latter explanation could be pure crud, but I've certainly read of that being an explanation for WA. I summarised in (very) brief. The explaination is much moe detailed. The explaination seemed plausible enough in the book. rob |
Aussie environment destruction
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. 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. 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. He also described in some length the salinisation of your soils. I knew about it however the author described in length how the salt pans came to exist, how irrigation can cause the salt level to rise and dryland salinisation results from leaving productive land bare for much of the year allowing rain to wash salts through waterways or raise it to the surface. The soluable salts then infest waterways. This isn't a criticism mind, kiwis have done a good job of habitat degredation as well. I guess our environment is not so fragile in many ways. I did not realise just how fragile the Aus environment was (aside from your droughts). Comments welcome. rob |
Aussie environment destruction
"George.com" wrote in message
... 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. It is exactly the same in any other western country which is rich in "natural resources". The only difference between Oz and other western countries is that Oz has a (generally) extremely fragile soil and being a very old continent, limited fertility except for thin coastal strips. 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. 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. Without reading the book, it is impossible to know what he's writing about or which areas of Oz he is writing about. I presume he may be writing about old growth forests. What is happening in the destruction of old growth forests in several of our States is simply criminal IMHO. As is the spread of Pinus radiata into our much of our fertile farming lands. 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. The importation of exportation of ANY products on or off the land on which it is raised or grown is mining. If you eat meat or vegetables that are not grown on your own land, or wear clothes that are not produced from your own land, you are involved in mining the fertility belonging to someone else. We all do it and have done since time immemorial. I don't know anyone who can only survive on the products of their own land or return all their wastes to their own land. If you have been reading this ng for some time, you may recall that at one stage Otterbot made the comment that there is no such thing as unproductive land. She was (generally) right because any land can be made productive but it at the cost or mining somewhere else for nutrients. Tree cropping is perhaps the most "sustainable" form of cropping but it is dependant upon the soil and I have no doubt that there are some areas of Oz that could be very much depleted after a single tree harvest. I can't think of any area off the top of my head but I don't know about all our timber growing areas. He also described in some length the salinisation of your soils. I knew about it however the author described in length how the salt pans came to exist, how irrigation can cause the salt level to rise and dryland salinisation results from leaving productive land bare for much of the year allowing rain to wash salts through waterways or raise it to the surface. The soluable salts then infest waterways. If he wrote that about dryland salinity, then he doesn't know what he's on about. Dryland salinity and salinity on irrigated land have differing causes, as is perhaps the salinity of WA (which I have read has largely been caused by millenia of onshore winds bringing in ocean salt which has then settled on the land). That latter explanation could be pure crud, but I've certainly read of that being an explanation for WA. But having said that, European farming techniques did not suit most of this country (and certainly not the dry interior) and it has taken till recent decades for that fact to become evident. Dryland salinity is being combatted effectively but slowly and it will be an ongoing battle for decades. I know very little about salinity on irrigated land. |
Aussie environment destruction
The problem is understood to be
1) Inability to do everything at once by independent farmers. Due to COST and ignorance in the past. 2) Corporations who are only mining for money, who stuff the country they re mining in. (They have no heart soul or care, as someone else will pick up the tab) They wont pay. 3) The general public too busy to do anything about this, and sticking their heads into the sand, hoping it will go away. 4) Governments, who are backed by big business (Read : Overseas CORPORATIONS with local names eg Gunns timber in Tasmania) who toe the corporation lines. 5) The need for greed to survive by others. 6) Local properties which have been sold of to foreign nationals . 7) The supposed inability for Australia to develop and invest in its own country. Read this We have a right to a fair trial. Can we say the same of machines or corporations? "'A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law. Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of creation confers upon it, either expressly, or as incidental to its very existence. These are such as are supposed best calculated to effect the object for which it was created.'..." The legal attitude in America must be considered in Australia Corporations are created by humans to further the goal of making money. As Buckminster Fuller said in his brilliant essay The Grunch of Giants, "Corporations are neither physical nor metaphysical phenomena. They are socioeconomic ploys - legally enacted game-playing..." Corporations are non-living, non-breathing, legal fictions. They feel no pain. They don't need clean water to drink, fresh air to breathe, or healthy food to consume. They can live forever. They can't be put in prison. They can change their identity or appearance in a day, change their citizenship in an hour, rip off parts of themselves and create entirely new entities. Some have compared corporations with robots, in that they are human creations that can outlive individual humans, performing their assigned tasks forever. Wisconsin, for example, had a law that stated: "No corporation doing business in this state shall pay or contribute, or offer consent or agree to pay or contribute, directly or indirectly, any money, property, free service of its officers or employees or thing of value to any political party, organization, committee or individual for any political purpose whatsoever, or for the purpose of influencing legislation of any kind, or to promote or defeat the candidacy of any person for nomination, appointment or election to any political office." The penalty for any corporate official violating that law and getting cozy with politicians on behalf of a corporation was five years in prison and a substantial fine. Before I am accused of being a pinko commie, this is everyones nightmare. This explains the reasons why things are as they are and why some countries have a legitimate beef with others... FarmI wrote: "George.com" wrote in message ... 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. It is exactly the same in any other western country which is rich in "natural resources". The only difference between Oz and other western countries is that Oz has a (generally) extremely fragile soil and being a very old continent, limited fertility except for thin coastal strips. 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. 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. Without reading the book, it is impossible to know what he's writing about or which areas of Oz he is writing about. I presume he may be writing about old growth forests. What is happening in the destruction of old growth forests in several of our States is simply criminal IMHO. As is the spread of Pinus radiata into our much of our fertile farming lands. 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. The importation of exportation of ANY products on or off the land on which it is raised or grown is mining. If you eat meat or vegetables that are not grown on your own land, or wear clothes that are not produced from your own land, you are involved in mining the fertility belonging to someone else. We all do it and have done since time immemorial. I don't know anyone who can only survive on the products of their own land or return all their wastes to their own land. If you have been reading this ng for some time, you may recall that at one stage Otterbot made the comment that there is no such thing as unproductive land. She was (generally) right because any land can be made productive but it at the cost or mining somewhere else for nutrients. Tree cropping is perhaps the most "sustainable" form of cropping but it is dependant upon the soil and I have no doubt that there are some areas of Oz that could be very much depleted after a single tree harvest. I can't think of any area off the top of my head but I don't know about all our timber growing areas. He also described in some length the salinisation of your soils. I knew about it however the author described in length how the salt pans came to exist, how irrigation can cause the salt level to rise and dryland salinisation results from leaving productive land bare for much of the year allowing rain to wash salts through waterways or raise it to the surface. The soluable salts then infest waterways. If he wrote that about dryland salinity, then he doesn't know what he's on about. Dryland salinity and salinity on irrigated land have differing causes, as is perhaps the salinity of WA (which I have read has largely been caused by millenia of onshore winds bringing in ocean salt which has then settled on the land). That latter explanation could be pure crud, but I've certainly read of that being an explanation for WA. But having said that, European farming techniques did not suit most of this country (and certainly not the dry interior) and it has taken till recent decades for that fact to become evident. Dryland salinity is being combatted effectively but slowly and it will be an ongoing battle for decades. I know very little about salinity on irrigated land. |
Aussie environment destruction
"George.com" wrote in message
... 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. 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. 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. He also described in some length the salinisation of your soils. I knew about it however the author described in length how the salt pans came to exist, how irrigation can cause the salt level to rise and dryland salinisation results from leaving productive land bare for much of the year allowing rain to wash salts through waterways or raise it to the surface. The soluable salts then infest waterways. This isn't a criticism mind, kiwis have done a good job of habitat degredation as well. I guess our environment is not so fragile in many ways. I did not realise just how fragile the Aus environment was (aside from your droughts). Comments welcome. rob 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 |
Aussie environment destruction
"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote in message
... The importation of exportation of ANY products on or off the land on which it is raised or grown is mining. If you eat meat or vegetables that are not grown on your own land, or wear clothes that are not produced from your own land, you are involved in mining the fertility belonging to someone else. We all do it and have done since time immemorial. I don't know anyone who can only survive on the products of their own land or return all their wastes to their own land. If you have been reading this ng for some time, you may recall that at one stage Otterbot made the comment that there is no such thing as unproductive land. She was (generally) right because any land can be made productive but it at the cost or mining somewhere else for nutrients. that's right, but can i point out: i use inputs that other people don't WANT! (and are free as well :-) so what you say is 100% right, & i'm getting off the track a bit, but i'm profiting from other peoples' waste & more peeps would be better off to do that (imho). it's amazing. frankly i think that as well as creating less "waste" in future, we will all be learning about how other peoples' "waste" is a goldmine. Tree cropping is perhaps the most "sustainable" form of cropping but it is dependant upon the soil and I have no doubt that there are some areas of Oz that could be very much depleted after a single tree harvest. I can't think of any area off the top of my head but I don't know about all our timber growing areas. He also described in some length the salinisation of your soils. I knew about it however the author described in length how the salt pans came to exist, how irrigation can cause the salt level to rise and dryland salinisation results from leaving productive land bare for much of the year allowing rain to wash salts through waterways or raise it to the surface. The soluable salts then infest waterways. If he wrote that about dryland salinity, then he doesn't know what he's on about. Dryland salinity and salinity on irrigated land have differing causes, as is perhaps the salinity of WA (which I have read has largely been caused by millenia of onshore winds bringing in ocean salt which has then settled on the land). That latter explanation could be pure crud, but I've certainly read of that being an explanation for WA. But having said that, European farming techniques did not suit most of this country (and certainly not the dry interior) and it has taken till recent decades for that fact to become evident. Dryland salinity is being combatted effectively but slowly and it will be an ongoing battle for decades. I know very little about salinity on irrigated land. do do do read "back from the brink" by peter andrews. not least because he explains this. it's a top read, i'm telling you :-) kylie |
Aussie environment destruction
0tterbot wrote:
"George.com" wrote in message ... 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. 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. 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. He also described in some length the salinisation of your soils. I knew about it however the author described in length how the salt pans came to exist, how irrigation can cause the salt level to rise and dryland salinisation results from leaving productive land bare for much of the year allowing rain to wash salts through waterways or raise it to the surface. The soluable salts then infest waterways. This isn't a criticism mind, kiwis have done a good job of habitat degredation as well. I guess our environment is not so fragile in many ways. I did not realise just how fragile the Aus environment was (aside from your droughts). Comments welcome. rob 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 Aboslutely That came out wrong. Am I getting into fruedian slips? Better than womens underwear I suppose. I hope I made sense on that last post. |
Aussie environment destruction
"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 |
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 Errr I know what I mean to write, but dont always write it rite. Im sure womens underwear has its place....but its o so tiny. That the trouble with email. You can make mistakes rooly fast. Having spent a little time in the mining industry, I got to keep my eyes out for the problems they have and their concern isnt for the ecology, but for the dollars involved, and keeping to the schedules. They have ships to load and times to catch. When people started seeing holes left and habitats destroyed, we got a little better care locally, but look what theyre doing in less civilised countries like Papua and Indonesian Papua. Mud volcanoes and poisoned rivers etc. They use Australian mining names overseas. But theyre really mainly owned by American Corporations with us copping the brunt of bad publicity, which doesnt do our political image any good in Indonesia. An example was, we had this 60 ton truck which did a seal in the hydraulics and was loosing some $1000 dollars (44 gallons) worth of fluid a day, so we ordered 10 ($10,000) drums of the stuff so we could keep pumping explosive so the mine could operate. At $20,000 a shot twice a day we lost no time or income apart for the fuid and called in repairs, which fixed the problem in a week and we sprayed this fluid all over the place. The dams where the tailings were stored was near to overflowing. This was 30 or so years ago. Its still much the same and probably worse in the west coast of Tasmania. We werent the only ones having these sorts of problems I bet. |
Aussie environment destruction
"0tterbot" wrote in message ... "George.com" wrote in message ... 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. 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. 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. He also described in some length the salinisation of your soils. I knew about it however the author described in length how the salt pans came to exist, how irrigation can cause the salt level to rise and dryland salinisation results from leaving productive land bare for much of the year allowing rain to wash salts through waterways or raise it to the surface. The soluable salts then infest waterways. This isn't a criticism mind, kiwis have done a good job of habitat degredation as well. I guess our environment is not so fragile in many ways. I did not realise just how fragile the Aus environment was (aside from your droughts). Comments welcome. rob 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. What makes me think that? Arguably the current methods and patterns of production and consumption we 'enjoy' are unsustainable from an environmental perspective. 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. rob |
Aussie environment destruction
"0tterbot" wrote in message
"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote in message The importation of exportation of ANY products on or off the land on which it is raised or grown is mining. If you eat meat or vegetables that are not grown on your own land, or wear clothes that are not produced from your own land, you are involved in mining the fertility belonging to someone else. We all do it and have done since time immemorial. I don't know anyone who can only survive on the products of their own land or return all their wastes to their own land. If you have been reading this ng for some time, you may recall that at one stage Otterbot made the comment that there is no such thing as unproductive land. She was (generally) right because any land can be made productive but it at the cost or mining somewhere else for nutrients. 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 (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. so what you say is 100% right, & i'm getting off the track a bit, but i'm profiting from other peoples' waste & more peeps would be better off to do that (imho). it's amazing. frankly i think that as well as creating less "waste" in future, we will all be learning about how other peoples' "waste" is a goldmine. And that also applies to tip 'rubbish'. Our local tip used to be a goldmine for the local residents. 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!". 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. do do do read "back from the brink" by peter andrews. not least because he explains this. it's a top read, i'm telling you :-) I will get to it, but at the moment we are deep into other things - sigh. |
Aussie environment destruction
"0tterbot" wrote in message news:w2HXh.23847
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. 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. |
Aussie environment destruction
"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". Having spent a little time in the mining industry, I got to keep my eyes out for the problems they have and their concern isnt for the ecology, but for the dollars involved, and keeping to the schedules. They have ships to load and times to catch. It's all about giving a return to the shareholders and stuff their responsibility to their fellow world inhabitants. |
Aussie environment destruction
FarmI wrote:
"0tterbot" wrote in message news:w2HXh.23847 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. 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. 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. He's anything but that. Howards is semitransparent and we have yet to see if Rudd can make the transparent grade. 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. |
Aussie environment destruction
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!!!!! Having spent a little time in the mining industry, I got to keep my eyes out for the problems they have and their concern isnt for the ecology, but for the dollars involved, and keeping to the schedules. They have ships to load and times to catch. It's all about giving a return to the shareholders and stuff their responsibility to their fellow world inhabitants. |
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>1=9268 As if we need this sort of stuff. |
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? |
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. |
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? |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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>1=9268 nooooooooo! i refuse!!!! As if we need this sort of stuff. well, exactly. there are actually serious things to be done. klyie |
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 |
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.... |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
Aussie environment destruction
"Chookie" wrote in message
"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? :-)) Prolly something all of us have in common when we come in contact with them on usenet :-))))) I'm in the midst of a stoush on gun control atm. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt :-)) I've had the "you Ossies are sheeple letting your govt take your guns off yoo" a lot. They don't (or won't) try to understand that the gun buy back was popularly supported, that guns aren't part of our culture like they are in the US, that most Australians don't fear for their lives etc, etc and nor will they understand that I actually increased my gun ownership after the buyback went into operation. They know better about our gun laws that I do as a) a resident of this country, b) a licenced gun owner and c) a gun buyer after the buy back went into operation. No wonder so many of them give me the poops. 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. Yep (in their weird wee minds). 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. Indeed. Thier fear of each other is palpable. I would hate to live in the US given the attitudes they express but they can't see it. Give 'em heaps! |
Aussie environment destruction
"Chookie" wrote in message
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). :-)))) No, his very highly paid Advisers (who are neither elected or Public Servants so cannot be made in any way accountable) would have seen the advice and made sure that Howard knew about it but didn't actually see a piece of paper. When and if Howard is questioned he can very truthfully say that no such advice ever reached his desk. Howard is probably the most hardworking, diligent and vigilent politician this country has ever had but he is also one of the cleverest. He is the master of the very careful wording and because Australians don't bother listening or analysing what he says he keeps getting away with it and our stupid press don't call him on it because they don't analyse what he says and how he says it. All positively puke making. |
Aussie environment destruction
"Chookie" wrote in message
I'm in the midst of a stoush on gun control atm. I've just been off to read that thread. Some right turkeys in there! Is that idiot whose sig is "nimue" really a teacher of English Lit????? Having read what it has written, I'd say it was barely literate. |
Aussie environment destruction
"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote in message
... He is the master of the very careful wording and because Australians don't bother listening or analysing what he says he keeps getting away with it and our stupid press don't call him on it would you say he's still getting away with it? i mean, admittedly he's not in jail where he belongs for Crimes Against Democracy. ;-) but the opinion polls and my Very Mild Superpowers * tell me my woes will all be gone by christmas. kylie * with thanks to david o'doherty |
Aussie environment destruction
"Chookie" wrote in message
... Worse, they are *terrified* of each other. The only thing worse than a yank gun-nut is a frightened yank gun-nut. they are a fearful breed. and scared people are more dangerous than anyone. but the ones going "if all the other students could have handguns secreted all about their persons for a typical day at uni (as you do), it never would have happened!!" do my head in entirely. gah!!!!!!! it makes me gibber incoherently. kylie |
Aussie environment destruction
Coward I was funnier than you!! Jonno wrote: 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.... |
Aussie environment destruction
In article ,
"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote: "Chookie" wrote in message I'm in the midst of a stoush on gun control atm. I've just been off to read that thread. Some right turkeys in there! Is that idiot whose sig is "nimue" really a teacher of English Lit????? Having read what it has written, I'd say it was barely literate. Well, she's previously said she is. And said in this thread that she'd graduated summa cum laude, which is probably with a distinction average. OTOH on the internet, nobody knows if you're a dog... -- 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 |
Aussie environment destruction
"Chookie" wrote in message
"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote: "Chookie" wrote in message I'm in the midst of a stoush on gun control atm. I've just been off to read that thread. Some right turkeys in there! Is that idiot whose sig is "nimue" really a teacher of English Lit????? Having read what it has written, I'd say it was barely literate. Well, she's previously said she is. And said in this thread that she'd graduated summa cum laude, which is probably with a distinction average. OTOH on the internet, nobody knows if you're a dog... :-))) I would have thought that it becomes obvious very quickly if one is a dog. I've had another look earlier tonight and nimue has made even more outrageously ignoramus statements today. And someone else has chimed in claiming that Oz has banned guns (wonder why I didn't hear about that???) and our homicide figures are worse than ever! One year in the past 10 they are higher and all the rest show a lower rate than before the buy back. It could still be lower per 100K of population because of increase in population but that fact has obviously escaped her. It's impossible to get sensible thoughts from dopes like those 2. |
Aussie environment destruction
FarmI wrote:
"Chookie" wrote in message "FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote: "Chookie" wrote in message I'm in the midst of a stoush on gun control atm. I've just been off to read that thread. Some right turkeys in there! Is that idiot whose sig is "nimue" really a teacher of English Lit????? Having read what it has written, I'd say it was barely literate. Well, she's previously said she is. And said in this thread that she'd graduated summa cum laude, which is probably with a distinction average. OTOH on the internet, nobody knows if you're a dog... :-))) I would have thought that it becomes obvious very quickly if one is a dog. I've had another look earlier tonight and nimue has made even more outrageously ignoramus statements today. And someone else has chimed in claiming that Oz has banned guns (wonder why I didn't hear about that???) and our homicide figures are worse than ever! One year in the past 10 they are higher and all the rest show a lower rate than before the buy back. It could still be lower per 100K of population because of increase in population but that fact has obviously escaped her. It's impossible to get sensible thoughts from dopes like those 2. Regarding guns, it would seem that other methods are now being used to kill like machettes, swords knives and the most dangerous, jealous girlfriends (only if youve got a few bob.) I reckon they should all be banned. As well as this, misleading statistics are kiling more people every day. They should all be banned, and anyone using them (see coming elactions) should be made to listen to John Howards speeches for the next 5 years or so. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:41 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter