Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Destruction Of A Hardy Perennial | United Kingdom | |||
bind weed destruction | United Kingdom | |||
County Destruction of Trees | Texas | |||
Pruning a spherically shaped aussie native shrub? | Australia | |||
Death and destruction | Roses |