Agmates Editor Steve Truman writes:
Over the next 40 years Australia will convert a staggering 84 million acres of productive food producing agricultural land into tree plantations to fight climate change. That’s over 6,000 acres a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year, every year for the next 40 years.
That’s the result of the ‘carbon sink’ legislation that the Labor government with the backing of the Liberal party passed into legislation in the Federal Parliament this week.
In the face of Global Food shortages this policy is at best stupidity, at worse it’s a crime against humanity.
If Malcolm Turnbull’s Liberal party had not supported Labor this legislation would not have passed as it was opposed by the Nationals, The Australian Greens, Family First Senator Steve Fielding and Independent Senator Nick Xenophon.
Rural & Regional Australia holds Malcolm Turnbull personally responsible for this appalling outcome. He had the numbers to stop it, but chose not to. We won’t forget that come the next election. Liberal or Labor have consistently demonstrated that they care nothing for the people who live outside of the Australian capital cities.
TURNING tens of millions of hectares of prime agricultural land into carbon sink forests to fight climate change would dramatically increase food costs, destroy rural communities and take substantial amounts of water out of Australian river systems.
The ‘carbon sink’ legislation just demonstrates that both the major political party’s, Labor and Liberal only govern Australia for those that live in the Capital cities.It is only the minor parties, The Nationals, The Greens, Family First and the independent Nick Xenophon who stand up for rural and regional Australians.
Head of the Australian Farm Institute Mick Keogh [pictured] said:
By altering land use patterns and locking up millions of hectares in carbon sinks, rural Australia is being made the “sacrificial lamb” for Kevin Rudd’s emissions trading system.
“The resulting reduction in farm output would have a significant impact on food prices, as well as major socio-economic impacts. This is the dark underside of the glossy and optimistic conclusions about the potential costs of an ETS.”
The National Party Senate leader Barnaby Joyce [pictured below] who defied Liberal Leader Malcolm Turnbull to lead his Senate team across the floor to vote against the legislation said:
The law was “completely mad – akin to an art movie. You don’t know whether to be shocked or to laugh. It is outrageous when the major threat to rural communities is not the international economy but domestic tax policy”.
The Australian Greens also voted against the Bill. Tasmanian Senator Christine Milne [pictured] said:
the Prime Minister must explain to the people of regional Australia “why he is determined to drive them off the land and further undermine the viability of their communities with another tax rort for plantations dressed up as climate change policy”.
Gippsland Farmer Robert Belcher, chairman of Sustainable Agricultural Communities Australia [pictured below] said :
“As soon as you take a farm, you take a family, you take kids out of school, money out of the local community,” he said.
“We have had to work really hard to get the average punter to realize he’s been duded.”
Size of Agricultural land to be turned into carbon sink forests (source: ABARE)
| 2007 2012 | 2013-2022 | 2023-2032 | 2033-2042 | 2043-2050 | 2013-2050 | |
| ha | ha | ha | ha | ha | ha | |
| NSW | 0 | 3,521,000 | 3,521,000 | 3,521,000 | 2,817,000 | 13,381,000 |
| Vic | 0 | 65,000 | 65,000 | 65,000 | 52,000 | 247,000 |
| QLD | 0 | 3,989,000 | 3,989,000 | 3,989,000 | 3,191,000 | 15,159,000 |
| SA | 0 | 244,000 | 244,000 | 244,000 | 195,000 | 925,000 |
| WA | 0 | 610,000 | 610,000 | 610,000 | 195,000 | 2,317,000 |
| Tas | 0 | 2,000 | 2,000 | 2,000 | 1,000 | 7,000 |
| NT | 0 | 525,000 | 525,000 | 525,000 | 420,000 | 1,997,000 |
| Aus | 0 | 8,956,000 | 8,956,000 | 8,956,000 | 7,165,000 | 34,033,000 |
| Acres | 0 | 22,130,000 | 22,130,000 | 22,130,000 | 17,705,000 | 84,095,000 |
*****
END
Have Your say!
December 12, 2008 at 11:44 am
Hi MattB,
Good to see your getting out into the real world into your own business. It isn’t easy, as I can tell you from my experiences of running my own business for over 35 years. Good luck!
Before you disappear into the real workforce, the full document now of the report on 650 scientists who have become sceptics, is now available:
US Senate Minority Report, Release December 11, 2008
http://tinyurl.com/5mf54s
A full report of 231 pages in pdf.
Have only read part of it, at the moment, but there are some scientists there whose work is peer reviewed.
MattB:
“Ahh so IPCC scientists suddenly have credibility when they oppose AGW do they?”
MattB, I would say they have earned respect for their convictions that the IPCC is not correct, and by airing their beliefs in the public arena, will probably be ostracised for it.
December 12, 2008 at 11:27 am
Byron - you should have a read of this page:
The best bits are towards the bottom on Inhofe’s list:
“Meteorologist George Waldenberger is on the list. In response, George sent an email to Inhofe’s staffers that began:
Take me off your list of 400 (Prominent) Scientists that dispute Man-Made Global warming claims. I’ve never made any claims that debunk the “Consensus”.
You quoted a newspaper article that’s main focus was scoring the accuracy of local weathermen. Hardly Scientific … yet I’m guessing some of your other sources pale in comparison in terms of credibility.
You also didn’t ask for my permission to use these statements. That’s not a very respectable way of doing “research”.
Yet, as Dessler notes, “he’s still on the list.”
And he is still on the “new” 2008 list from Inhofe’s office!”
and
“As a result, Inhofe was forced to include on this list people with zero qualifications as well as people who are not actually skeptics. In the end, I estimate that his list is 80-90 percent bogus — which leaves a few dozen credible climate skeptics on the list. “
Lol I think even Tim Curtin is on the list!
December 11, 2008 at 8:23 pm
G’day Byron from Wahroonga,
I don’t know, you guys – I leave you alone for a few hours and WOW.
Byron, that was a good link – Houston, Texas Jeez.
As you’ve shown, our friend MattB has a filter switched on and won’t look past the header page (of Inhofe’s blog). Pity because most of the scientists listed are amongst the forefront of people in the sciences.
December 11, 2008 at 8:47 pm
****our friend MattB has a filter switched on****
Yes. Yes, he does.
Jeff, I’m reminded of pig hunting trips to Yantabullah, way back when. By the time we got to Ford’s Bridge, the air filter on the old FJ40 would be chockablock with dust and muck, and we’d have to blast it out using the compressor at the old garage there. Maybe the same instrument might clean out Matt’s clogged passages? Just a thought, Byron
December 11, 2008 at 11:10 pm
the report is not even released yet. The message I got form the front page was to call back in a day for the full report.
December 11, 2008 at 11:21 pm
G’day MattB,
You said earlier today your about to start a small business. Good on you. Can you tell me what it is or is it still ‘under wraps’.
All credit to you, anybody who has a go in the world of business has my full support and respect. God knows I’ve had a few and not all of them turned out that well.
The only reason I ask, is I’m wondering if it is something Agmates can help you promote through the community. If we can do anything to help, we will.
Cheers mate – Steve.
December 11, 2008 at 11:34 pm
lol it is most likely a private consultancy to save the world from dangerous greenhouse gases:)
December 11, 2008 at 11:36 pm
you may not have noticed but I’m a tad bored at work in my regular job:) Public Service, for all the good side, is just not for me or my gene pool – we are a bit outside the square (for better or for worse).
December 11, 2008 at 11:42 pm
Good on you mate – love to see people get out and have a go. I rather see you as a private citizen get the millions being poured into ‘saving’ us from GHG than some public servant.
Good luck with your venture.
December 11, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Ok I confess I’ve never been in a rooom with either of them… you got me.
Some closet issues there Byron?
December 11, 2008 at 5:53 pm
I’d prefer not to post an opinion on that, Matt.
Your feelings for Barry are none of my business.
December 11, 2008 at 6:29 pm
LOL – You guys are killing me -
How refreshing it is to follow a couple of intelligent guys having a lively and good hearted debate – Most entertaining.
I’m for one am applauding both your whit.
Very enjoyable.
Cheers Barry
December 11, 2008 at 6:44 pm
You’re very kind, Aggie.
Y’know, people say Internet forums are places for endless arguments, and exchanges of insults.
But take a look at what we’ve accomplished on this thread.
Matt came on talking about Australia’s racist past, how Andrew Bolt posters are all rednecks, about his support for global warming boosters… and in just a few posts he’s now starting a business with a grant from Penny Wong, and has revealed that his support for GW boosters is… of a personal nature.
Not only that, he hasn’t posted for at least thirty minutes, thereby saving Australia incalculable amounts of CO2. I think you, and everyone on this thread- Matt included- deserves a pat on the back. Keep up the great work,
Byron
December 11, 2008 at 5:33 pm
He has some more stylish photos on his Uni of Adelaide profile. “blue steel” I think he calls it.
December 11, 2008 at 5:40 pm
You’ve been…. checking out his ‘stylish photos’, Matt?
Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
December 11, 2008 at 5:43 pm
I was checking to find out if he was in fact Steve from Agmates… I for one have never seen them both in the same room.
December 11, 2008 at 5:45 pm
So you’ve ….been in a room, with Barry?
Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
December 11, 2008 at 4:49 pm
***some of those 600 certainly seem credible though***
‘Seems credible’? He he. Yes Matt, Nobel prize winners and IPCC scientists have somewhat more credibility than professional contrarians like yourself:
***************
“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” – Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” – Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.
“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC “are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” – Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.
*****
Makes Barry Brook from Adelaide seem a little underqualified, doesn’t it?
December 11, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Ahh so IPCC scientists suddenly have credibility when they oppose AGW do they?
INhofe’s “400″ was widely discredited, qith many examples of including people who were not sceptical at all… but I’m happy to wait and see how this pans out… the report is not even released yet save a few sound-bytes.
Lol I’m not here to defend Barry, but I’d say other than the Nobel prize and the Sheila I reckon he is at least on a par with the other quotees.
Lol Bryron from Wahroonga thinks Barry from Adelaide is underqualified:)
December 11, 2008 at 5:29 pm
He! Yeah, you’re not here to defend Barry from Adelaide. Just by the way Matt, Barry has been the subject of a previous Agmates thread:
http://www.agmates.com/blog/2008/09/29/economist-tim-curtin-rebuffs-barry-brook-on-gcp-report/
Not to get personal, but Barry’s pic (at the link) is not what you would call confidence building. When the GW scam falls over he has a great future in a remake of ‘Steptoe and Son.’
December 11, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Given your support for Nobel scientists I’m sure you’ll be happy that Obama’s Secretary for Energy has the 1997 prize for physics under his belt, and “Chu was an early advocate for finding scientific solutions to climate change and has guided the laboratory on a new mission to become the world leader in alternative and renewable energy research, particularly the development of carbon-neutral sources of energy.”
December 11, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Thanks, but I was just funnin’ with ya. I thought sending you off on a wild google hunt might give us some temporary peace here.
And it worked- for about ninety seconds.
December 11, 2008 at 1:39 pm
MattB,
I think you’ll find that the older scientists “dissenters” are mostly independent, self financed and are not waiting on their next handout of public funds from universities etc. Therefore they are less afraid to speak out against the onrushing tide of Anthropogenic Climate Change alarmism.
I feel Dr Tim Ball(Canada) was one who expressed this opinion, but many others have also expressed it, as it is happening around the world.
Logically, the average person that works in the Climate Change industry isn’t going to speak out against the guidelines, but there has been quite a few who have:
Dr David Evans, who you continually decry,
Garth Paltridge, University of Tasmania (?)
just come to mind without looking up references.
While I’m around the subject, what do you have against Dr Bob Carter? He is very articulate, well referenced, his CV is impressive.He also states categorically his funding is not from the energy industries.
Is it a reaction to the ad hom. eminating from Real Climate et al, just because he doesn’t agree with the principles of AGW?
December 11, 2008 at 2:05 pm
I have nothing at all against Bob Carter – I just linked to some counter opinion didn’t I? What do you have against Barry Brook, whose CV is also impressive? On Carter, from wiki “While Carter offers a critique of the mainstream view on climate change, he has no published peer reviewed papers providing evidence to discredit the climate change consensus, although he has contributed papers to several journal publications which review some of the scientific evidence”
As for the older dissenters… as I said you can put whatever spin you like on things ’tis the wonders of the blogosphere. They could always get their thoughts published in a journal? You;d think that amongsts the 600 of them they would still have some publishing power.
David Evans is not a climate scientist – he is a computer programmer and he does not work in the climate change industry, although he used to be a programmer in the industry. His work has been well critiqued elsewhere – well actually it is not his work, but the work he references has been well critiqued elsewhere. Some of those 600 certainly seem credible though, far more so than Evans, but when have all experts on a subject agreed on anyting?
December 11, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Jeff, check this out:
Surprise flurries warm Houston hearts
Fluffy flakes bring delight to some, consternation to others — and tie a 64-year-old record
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/6156862.html
December 11, 2008 at 10:22 am
MattB,
In light of your last paragraph 10-12-2008:
” – according to anything other than the overwhelming weight of current science?”
Maybe you should read the Real Scientist’s comments, further down in Inhofe’s blog. It won’t really contaminate you, but you MAY see that there is science from International sources out there.
Real Climate and Professor Barry Brook are only minor sources, with narrow opinions.
December 11, 2008 at 10:09 am
On our local commercial radio this morning, it was reported that the Climate Conference in Poznan, Poland is not going well. It appears as though there has been nothing of any importance achieved since the Bali Dec 2007 (which was a half hearted, last minute effort anyway)
From Senator James Inhofe’s Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW) Blog – reports that:
“650 International Scientists Dissent over Warming Claims”
“Warming Fears in Dustbin of History”
Makes for good reading here:
http://tinyurl.com/5laabm
With apparently a full report on Poznan to be forthcoming in the next day.
Apologies to MattB, but he doesn’t have to read it.
It will be “illuminating” to see what our Minister for Climate Change comes back with from Poznan, in light of the reports that not much was achieved.
It has been suggested that the CO2 reduction may be set as low as 5% – 15% reduction. What we do not need is any form of legislation that will allow incrementation, as the Greens have pushed for 80% reduction, and in future may have the power to implement that figure or higher.
What Andrew Robb and Barnaby Joyce are proposing is logical, unless your a Labor government facing an election in 2011. Kevin07 may become KevinOne (term).
December 11, 2008 at 11:34 am
Yeah I saw that Jeff… not that it matters and you;ll call it Ad-Hom… but it seems a lot of those dissenters are “older” scientists… which fits with my interepretation that the AGW “believers” are Gallileo, fighting against established and entrenched views, not the other way round.
I have no doubt that current climate science will be improved upon in the future – hopefully they do indeed find out it is bunkum.
December 11, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Matt, how about the angle that the younger AGW “believers” have been fully educated in affluent corporate times and corporate directed and possibly corporate funded universities and they have been duped into believing carbon dioxide causing AGW – don’t discount older wiser scientists like David Bellamy who says it is absolute bunkum.
December 11, 2008 at 1:37 pm
you can put whatever spin you like on it Madge.
December 11, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Don’t worry Matt thousands of factories are shutting down in China so that should fix your carbon dioxide problem much better then a TAX will!!!!!!
December 11, 2008 at 4:32 pm
For sure – mismanagement of the economy is doing a superb job of ridding carbon pollution all on its own. That is why i think it is the perfect time to focus the economy (when it starts growing) on low carbon technology.
This is the golden window of opportunity, 2010, rather than delay to 2012.
December 11, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Can you imagine the savings in hot air and CO2 if Matt shut down? Now that’s an ETS I could support. (:^D)
December 11, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Hey it’s Christmas – cut a guy some slack.
December 11, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Matt, I’m serious. You personally generate a huge amount of hot air. Consider contacting Penny Wong for a grant? Cheers, Byron
December 11, 2008 at 5:10 pm
I have no idea where Wahroonga is, but I’m really hoping the sea levels rise enough to wipe it off the map.
Byron from “WAAAAAHHHHH”-roonga
December 11, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Damnit I think you are safe. Will have to rely on bushfires from the national park.
December 11, 2008 at 5:19 pm
***I’m really hoping the sea levels rise enough to wipe it off the map***
That’s a distinct possibility, Matt.
We’re well above sea level, but your personal hot air output could negate that advantage.
December 11, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Every extra post from you Byron makes me worry that the answer to the question of this Blog is a resounding YES.
December 11, 2008 at 5:24 pm
MattB must want to kill small buisness and farmers right off – the credit crunch is not enough for him – HE wants to land a KING HIT on them with a CARBON TAX – that should do the job in 2010 he says and then he’ll be happy believing he has saved the earth.
December 11, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Gee I’m just about to start a small business so I must be some sort of masochist.
December 11, 2008 at 5:33 pm
***I’m just about to start a small business***
Wow! Penny’s grant came through already? This government is second to none, in speed of response to climate change.
December 11, 2008 at 10:05 am
They’ve been saying 2012 all aloang – thjat is their party policy. The went to the election on 2012 and got roundly FLOGGED. Why would you want to introduce in 2012 when the economy is getting back on its feet. I always reckon you should change the tractor’s tyres when it is stopped, not when it is chugging along at 15kmh.
December 10, 2008 at 9:45 am
MattB,
Besides the first paragraph of that post, which I find inaccurate and in part at least, offensive, by your last sentence, I see you believe that the – science as currently understood is pretty clear cut.
“The science is settled” (if the science is settled, it is not science but policy – ie. political)
Which from your words these scientists are wasting their time:
http://tinyurl.com/64z35j
This is an extract from the article published in the prestigious journal ‘Climate Dynamics’.
Wasn’t it reviewed on Real Climate? (LOL)
December 10, 2008 at 11:14 pm
Ahh well I seem to be offending everyone this week so maybe I need to have a good lie down and take a good look at myself. But similarly maybe some people need to take offence a little less easily – what I am saying is that the only way I can see AGW being a total scam is for the kind of conspiracies that Margaret refers to being 100% correct.
But there is a difference in believing that the science today is clear, and that it will never ever change. I’m totally open to new genuine science showing that we are off the hook when it comes to climate change – it is just that there is no such science at present. There are interesting little possibilities that you never know may just turn out to be the saving grace, but they are in no way even remotely coherent or backed up by evidence to not think that there is a serious problem that needs addressing in AGW.
I ask you to outline why it is you want government policy made according to anything other than the overwhelming weight of current science?
December 11, 2008 at 7:11 am
***I seem to be offending everyone….. I need to have a good lie down ….. what I am saying ….. only way I can see AGW being a total scam…. I’m totally open to new genuine science….. I ask you to outline why it is you want****
Matt, don’t bother having a good lie down.
Just stop flapping your trap about yourself for a minute, that’ll do it.
December 11, 2008 at 10:07 am
Reminds me of an o;d Guns and Roses fave line “with your bitch flap rappin and your cocaine tongue you get nothing done.”
Hmm the last line rings a bit too true for my likine!
December 11, 2008 at 7:28 am
Andrew Robb and Barnaby Joyce are both saying this morning that an ETS should be delayed till 2012 because of the financial crisis. It would be ludicrous for the government to bring it in in 2010 . Barnaby said an ETS now will just make small business and farmers unviable – YIPPEE – that should give independent scientists time to get real science out there and swamp the corporate paid ,mumbo-jumbo, junk carbon dioxide, global warming nonsense.
December 10, 2008 at 1:28 am
Ken, if ETS is a scam, then surely everything you ever fought for was a scam. Has there been a war in the past 100 years that has not had kids sent to their deaths by creating national pride, just to further the positions of the manipulative powers?
I have NO DOUBT that an ETS is only on the agenda because it benefits the powers that be, but that doesn’t change the science. I’m fully aware that if the powers that be didn’t benefit then it would not matter how strong the science would be nothing would be done.
If global agreement is not reached this year or next it will be because the powers that be are not 100% sure which action is the best for their wallets… that is why they fund the sceptics to give them a way out.
But the science as currently understood is pretty clear cut.
December 10, 2008 at 12:50 am
G’day All,
The debate on “Is Australia The Stupidest Nation On Earth?” is interesting with all manner of related topics, attitudes, views, opinions and beliefs being put forward. This type of forum is healthy for us all in one way or another to share ideas and for learning, or to ignore should one choose.
To the topic and question – I believe not, despite my previous comment which, incidentally, related to government policy that ultimately affects society as a whole, one way or another. Australia has some of the most intelligent and professional people around in the world today.
However, successive governments are to blame for the ‘bumbing down’ of our society, and for what purpose? It is unfortunate that our governments refuse to acknowledge this and, on a myriad of issues, continually fail to listen to the voice of the people who elected them to office, such as it is today.
I believe that the title of this debate should only apply to our governments, both federal and state, and some of the ‘fringe dweller’ organisations that creep the halls of government for unjustified handouts in lieu of grudging support. Unfortunately those organisations, and a number political parties and associated organisations, have agendas which are not in the best interests of the country – politically, economically, environmentally, socially or at any other level which one wishes to include.
One thing that saddens me is the way our nation is heading through ‘misguided’ leadership at all levels of government – but by whom and for what purpose?
Very briefly, I served in defence of our country for over 20yrs, doesn’t matter when, where or which service, and have been ‘out of service’ for almost the same period. To keep our country ‘free’ and ‘safe’ I was prepared to give up my life, without question should the occasion arise, to protect the values that were once an integral part of our society, i.e. human rights, freedom of speech, property rights and freedom, as put by John Michelmore, among many other things that we once took for granted – issues that I firmly believe in and stand up for today and always will. Up to only early this year when asked if I would do it all again I used to say without hesitation “No worries mate”.
Today, I have to seriously think twice, for many reasons. Australia is not, and never will be ever again, the same. Unfortunately there are powers outside this country which are in control and dictating policies – how and when those policies will be implemented. We think that we, the public, have a say by electing new governments and we do, but only to a point, at the ballot box, nothing more.
All the hype about climate change, the ETS and the like of such rubbish, is just another tactic to keep the people preoccupied with waffle while being complicit in conducting the real business of consolidating the position of the ‘NWO’ through the back door by stealth and deception, under the ruse of ‘globalisation’ whilst justifying the reasons for and benefits of such a system.
Look outside the boundaries, the information is out there for those who are willing to be patient and probe deeply, you will be amazed at what you will find behind all the lies and deception.
I will not take part any further in this debate but will follow comments with interest.
December 10, 2008 at 7:25 am
As crazy as it sounds it does appear that there are politicians here and around the world going for ‘world government’ – the evidence seems to point to that – even if they did manage to do that – it would not last long – it is the absolute height of stupidity.
Globalism has caused the present financial disaster so why on earth would we want more of it !!!
December 10, 2008 at 9:31 pm
“To keep our country ‘free’ and ’safe’ I was prepared to give up my life, without question should the occasion arise, to protect the values that were once an integral part of our society
Today, I have to seriously think twice, for many reasons. Australia is not, and never will be ever again, the same. Unfortunately there are powers outside this country which are in control and dictating policies – how and when those policies will be implemented.”
Being a military man Ken I would love to read your opinion on the following – false-flag terrorism, the ‘war on terror’, our so-called democracy, humanitarian aid and its close ties to the military and corporations and as well as all that your views on World War ll history considering that the history we have been taught was written by the victor.
But I realize you may not be interested and this may not be the forum.
December 10, 2008 at 10:25 pm
You got it in one. Perhaps a different forum.
December 10, 2008 at 10:26 pm
Hello Margaret,
Briefly, these topics, on the surface appear simple and straight forward however, they are interesting but very complex and require, individually, considerable explanation for these to be understood, even at the basic level. That can not be provided in this type of forum. I do have personal opinions on these topics however, as you correctly stated, this is not the forum for the topics raised. Sorry, but I prefer not to comment further and thanks for your interest.
December 9, 2008 at 11:06 am
“If you would like some reading material ”
I don’t think I’ll bother Jeff I get their drift and it might make me feel ill. The green movement has gone off to into outer space and left me far behind back on the farm producing beef which they don’t value so that’s that really – they may come back down to earth one day.
December 9, 2008 at 10:14 am
Hi Margaret,
That Aust Gov. document is only the tip of the iceberg, giving legitimacy to TNC.
If you would like some reading material – from the American Ranch Magazine
http://tinyurl.com/5gntdy
This is archived material – Special reports, and include some very American western rancher material.
But it also include some interesting material on TNC and other green planet savers.
Amongst it you will get to know what the words “land links” and “wildlife corridors” means.
December 9, 2008 at 8:25 am
So thats where all the money for green groups has come from Jeff – no wonder I can’t relate to them anymore !!! Farmers don’t even come into their vision at all they are just an obstacle they ignore or squash.
“One of The Nature Conservancy’s great global strengths is its strong relationships with big corporates, and its ability to muster the enthusiastic financial support of big business. With the establishment of a Corporate Conservation Council, TNC is now mustering the as yet untapped commitment of Australian business to build a sustainable environment.
In 2006, The Nature Conservancy announced one of its biggest ever private donations, with the pledge of $10 million over five years by philanthropist and businessman, Mr David Thomas.”
December 8, 2008 at 11:18 pm
Hi Margaret,
With your post above stating:
“While the Liberals and their mates in the Labor party keep promoting their WTO ‘free trade ‘ version of globalism they will keep killing farmers and rural Australia and making it available for a big corporate buy up when land prices drop for tree plantations – charming isn’t it!!!!!”
What do you know about The Nature Conservancy, Bush Heritage Australia, Greening Australia?
My reason for asking is this identifiably Australian Government Document:
http://tinyurl.com/468gtl
If you trace the Nature Conservancy back to the Clinton administration, you will see it may not be as first seen. Their ‘Modus operandi’ is “interesting”.
References to: The Wildlands Project (TWP), Y2Y – Yellowstone to Yukon.
December 8, 2008 at 11:05 pm
you do realise kevin11 works too… he will be in for a long time yet.
roll on a republic too! I had a queen once, but I left that country and would rather embrace australian culture than an english monarch.
to coin a right wing phrase – Jeff if you don;t like Australia I can give you a lift to the airport;)
December 9, 2008 at 8:10 am
Knowing that legislation can be slipped thru parliament with ease, because of the party political system; don’t you think it is unwise to just support a republic without knowing the detail in the document.
Are you just going to vote yes because you dislike embracing a queen?
What about human rights, freedom of speech, property rights and freedom. Are we going to be better off with a republic? I don’t believe you can answer these most important questions and yet you support something you know little about.
Just don’t follow the other lemmings of the cliff!!
Politicians and in particular the major parties will be furthering their own party political agenda’s ,not the people whom they are supposed to represent.
The republic question is much much more than considering whether we want an English monarch.
December 9, 2008 at 11:18 am
well our current constituation allowed offshore detention, upcoming internet censorship laws, discrimination against same sex marriage, so it is not a bed of roses.
Why the assumption we will automatically get a dud of a constitution under a republic?
All thigs being equal I’d rather we were a republic, and I have faith that we will get a great republic and constitution. Don;t you?
December 9, 2008 at 11:51 am
Yes. Our current system leaves a lot to be desired.
Having faith, without questioning what we will get is extremely dangerous to our society.
I’m not assumming anything. I want to see what we will get in detail. Not what they will advertise in the media, when they try and persuade the lemmings whether to jump off the cliff or not.
December 8, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Hi Ken,
Even more scary is that amongst many others, Kevin08 is a Republican, and that would be on the slate as well, given the opportunity.
Can you imagine in your worst nightmares, becoming a Republic with the likes of President Kevin (or President Malcolm for that matter)at the helm? And it would get worst when you realise that the Australian Constitution would have to be overhauled to accommodate these changes.
What sort of claptrap could be inserted into the Constitution? Climate Change?,redefine land useage and water useage, maybe take a leaf or two out of the Brigalow Corporation (Qld) Handbook as a guide.
OMG it’s enough to make you want to immigrate to New Zealand. (nuffin’ against Kiwi’s)
December 8, 2008 at 9:49 pm
Seems to me that our wonderful elected leaders of the major parties have become the lords of the manor, believe that they are invincible and can do what they like.
Climate change is a phenomenon that occurs naturally and all the scare tactics and BS to justify additional forms of tax are being thrown at us by the lords of the manor. We are expected to believe all this tripe through continued media hype and government brainwashing.
Obviously, to them and some others at least, country folk are just the workers, plebs and leftovers from the good old colonial convict days and don’t deserve any better than to lose their livelihood.
Hasn’t anyone noticed that successive governments are obsessed with turning our country into a fully dependent nation – for everything under the globalisation scheme? Manufacturing almost gone, imports on the increase, including foodstuffs, urbanisation on the increase replacing valuable agricultural land, ridiculous water policies at both levels of so called government that will cost the country dearly, failing health systems and education down the plug hole to keep the nation dumb except for those who are born to rule.
This is very cynical and a little over the top however, one must wonder if our elected leaders are really serious about getting the country on its feet again as we once were.
Australia used to be the lucky county – no longer. I know that Oz is a still great country, compared to many others however, since Mr. Krud (Kevvy07)has taken over the helm the government has gone mad with total stupidity with numerous policies and unfortunately, it will take many years to recover.
Bearing in mind that there is more lunacy to come with Kevvy and Co. wanting to give municipal councils Constitutional recognition as ‘local government’. Heaven forbid, we’ve been there twice already and had our say on that stupid idea and here we are to be subjected to more stupidity.
I know that this off the subject track but this is just another example of how stupid the so called leaders have become.
They simply are not listening to the people and I wonder where and when the madness will end.
December 7, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Another interesting point is that land in the NT that is currently under National Parks and Reserves control are annually burnt to “propogate seeds of native species”, keep the ecosystem healthy and reduce fuel loads (lighting up in July usually does lower fuel loads in the park and the pasture in the neighbouring paddocks!).
If native trees are to be used as carbon sink plantations does this mean plantations will have to be burnt annually to keep them healthy?
The annual burns in the NT on Crown Land and National Parks is a carbon belching environemntal travesty!
There is no good solid science or any other credible evidence to support this law. It doesnt benefit the people the land or the nation!
December 7, 2008 at 12:24 pm
A factor that hasn’t been mentioned here is the increasing risk of devastating fires such as the shown in the recent history of Canberra/Brindabellas, Kosciuzko National Park, Victoria’s Alpine National Park, Grampians National Park.
With this proposed “Turning tens of millions of hectares of prime agricultural land into carbon sink forests to fight climate change”, would increase the fuel available for conflagration.
Add to that the vast amounts of forest covered land already tied up in National Parks and reserves, with poor or no access roads to allow fire management.
National Parks and Forestry do not have the man power, equipment or financial backing to cope with fuel reduction at present, let alone the ability to cope with wildfire situations.
With the addition of another 84 million acres of ‘carbon sink forest’ sets these areas up for devastation. Trees which are destroyed in wildfires such as Canberra emit enormous amount of toxic pollutants, as well as carbon dioxide (which is not a pollutant). The soil is sterilized of essential bacteria and small organisms and the breakdown of nutrients that are important for plant growth.
National Parks Association (NPA)are continually boasting in their journal of how they have saved a butterfly or frog from extinction by their conservative actions. Yet when wildfires go through an area, they can wipe out a complete species and subspecies that is indigineous to a particular area.
A good read is from a submission put to the Senate by Ralph Barraclough, Captain of Licola (Vic) Fire Brigade. It is a description of a common situation in regard to forests being locked up.
http://tinyurl.com/5o3kt6
All this grief for the theory of Man Made Climate Change and computer modelling of that theory – or is that the reason?
December 6, 2008 at 6:55 pm
How can this ever work? Now that the law has passed lets look at it seriously.
All the jungles in the world are carbon and oxygen neutral, they expell and retain roughly the same quantities of the major gases. They do however have an effect on the micro-climate and sometimes cause rain from transpiration.
What is to be done with the trees when they reach say 20years and in tropic areas begin to decay, releasing large amounts of CO2. Do we dig pits and bury them or will it become a commercial logging venture?
Are we supposed to wage war on termites? Who not only emit methane like nobodys business but are partial to timber and very destructive. Australia is the home of some of the largest termites in the world.
Sustainable agriculture through grazing deep-rooted perenial grasses such as Gamba grass has shown an immense ability to sink carbon. Its proved much more efficient than trees or native grasses with the added benefit of economic growth and improved social structures. Mulching crop waste and grazing stubble has also worked out carbon friendly. There is more than enough evidence to support sustainable farming as opposed to “carbon forests”.
What sort of trees are they going to plant anyway? Artifical ecosystems? Or African Mahoganys (which seems to be the current trend)?
Trees, as I have said in previous comments are only a part of the solution. A move towards smarter, cleaner and cheaper Agriculture will not only help our ailing finances, but also our soils and the food security of our nation is such desperate times.
December 6, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Byron, I dont know that getting rid of Mr Turnbull will achieve anything at all, as there is no-one better to take his place in terms of representing rural people in the Liberal Party. Bill Heffernan is the biggest fraud for rural Australians we have seen in a while. The Nats are the best hope we have & hopefully under Mr Joyce they will get away from the tweed jacket society & continue with their more modern agenda. Mr Rudd & Ms Gillard have no reason to side with rural people on anything & neither do the Libs, unless the Nats have a strong voice like Mr Joyce did with Telstra
December 6, 2008 at 9:48 pm
There has to be someone, Trevor.
If you look at what’s happened in the States there’s a huge discontentment with policians like Turnbull. Look at Palin’s Alaskan popularity, or more recently Chambliss’ win. The only time McCain was ahead in the polls was when he announced Palin as his VP candidate. Then, the Dems and the MSM tore into her via their media pitbulls. But over here we’re much more cynical about the media. Just the law of averages tells us there must be a Lib who’s a social and economic conservative who’s prepared to take on the greenies and the unions, and form a rump of like-minded types within the coalition. I had hopes for Brandeis but maybe Sophie Mirabella? It has to be someone feisty (like Palin) who can attract backbench support and build an alternative. One or two years to do that is fine. Because right now we are looking at what we’ve had for years in NSW but replicated on a larger scale. Yuppie MPs waiting for the public to become so disenchanted with Labor, that they’re a shoo-in. But it never happens because Aussies have well tuned BS detectors, and won’t vote for change unless the change is of certain benefit. Why would they?
December 7, 2008 at 8:50 am
While the Liberals and their mates in the Labor party keep promoting their WTO ‘free trade ‘ version of globalism they will keep killing farmers and rural Australia and making it available for a big corporate buy up when land prices drop for tree plantations – charming isn’t it!!!!!
You never hear about the crime of treason anymore because of globalism I suppose – BUT it sure could be applied to many Liberal and Labor politicians.
THOUGHT FOR THE DAY!
“In any society the dominant groups are the ones with the most to hide about the way society works.”– Barrington Moore, 20th century philosopher
December 6, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Ask yourself whether we’ve ever known a bigger egomaniac than Malcolm Turncoat, in public office.
Any normal bloke straight from the Latte Land of Wollahra would know, as Leader of the Oppositon, that his insights into rural Australia would be greatly limited. But this man’s hubris is so overwheening that he is an expert on everything- in his own mind. When Fiona Nash airs quite legitimate concerns about global warming, he boots her out of shadow cabinet. When Nationals MPs explain that the bush can’t afford the ETS, he puts out a press release supporting it anyway. Australia’s best interests, his Coalitions’ interests, all account for nothing. Because all he cares about is his own interests, and it’s always been that way.
So the first thing we have to do is get rid of Turnbull, aka Captain Mainwaring. You can’t fight battles with a martinet like him leading the way. We’re only one year in to Labor’s term so there’s still time to replace him with someone who’s a team player (and who actually cares more about the team, than their own captaincy) before policies for the next election are decided. Who’s available, on our side, who has the interests of the bush, and small business, at heart? Someone with a bit of ticker and ready for a stoush. Once sidelined, Captain Mainwaring can still bring the oranges on at half-time. Most likely special oranges, he’s had flown in from his own estate in Tuscany. Which is fine, just as long as he stays on the sidelines.
December 6, 2008 at 2:59 pm
This appears to be all plantation timber from Christine Milne’s comments. Is it Christine Milne’s concern that these plantations will be mono cultures, such as Gunn’s plantations are in Tasmania?
Does this also include the acreage locked up in National Parks, Wilderness Areas, Conservation Reserves, wildlife corridors, and also by agreements and leasing – trees locked up on private land?
If these 84 million acres are separate to the above parklands whose average cover represents > 10% of each state, the combined areas would have to reduce the availability of viable food producing land. And that goes along with the locking up of water resources that the Federal Government seems so hell bent in obtaining.(Trees sink carbon and huge amounts of water)
I did warn of smiling faces bearing open cheque books and promises of tax breaks.
Names such as The Nature Conservancy, Bush Heritage, Greening Australia, Wilderness society, National Parks Association, along with many others.
Maybe the Rudd camp will be able to achieve the ultimate green ideal of us living in the forest in bark huts, eating indigineous animals for food and wearing loin clothes and animal skins.
Should appease Gaia, and make James Lovelock at peace with the world.
December 6, 2008 at 3:12 pm
G’day Jeff,
My understanding is that the 84 million acres is in addition to everything else. The talbe from ABARE also suggests that is t6he case as the increases do not start until after 2013.
It is a staggering amount of ag land. Infact the Australian report says that in total it is 30% more land than we currently crop in Australia.
The reason is the huge tax breaks that will be available to plant these carbon sink forests. – As Barnaby said:
“It is outrageous when the major threat to rural communities is not the international economy but domestic tax policy”.
As I said thanks a lot Malcolm Turnbull.