"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

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

"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.

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.

"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

"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

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.

"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

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.

"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

"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.

"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.

"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.

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.

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.