I note that yesterday a Coalition spokesperson announced that a future Coalition government’s plan would include “outsourcing” environmental protection to the States.
Trying not to be political here…
When I came to Australia in 1991 I saw that environmental protection had a long way to go (as in the UK), and through the 1990s it seemed little progress was being made. Through the 2000s it seemed that no progress was being made, and now we are in a situation where we seem to be going backwards.
Hi everyone
Can I please remind everyone that part of engaging in a healthy debate is to only ever attack the arguments, and NEVER the person making them. Some interesting points so far in this discussion – and I haven’t had time to read it all thoroughly yet – but I thought I should warn everyone to be careful about not making personal attacks, in ALL our posts, whatver the topic.
Thanks
Russell Woodford Birding-Aus List Owner
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
http://birding-aus.org ===============================
I didn’t say that it “does not matter [if] too much coal, oil, etc are depleted.” I didn’t say we shouldn’t conserve resources. What I said is that our estimates for the remaining amount of most resources have been increasing over time. Obviously, as I explicitly stated, the actual amounts of resources are decreasing, but our estimates of how long it will take for those resources to be depleted, in nearly every instance, have increased over the last 5 decades (and in some cases longer), even though our consumption has also increased. This is a factual statement assessing reality; it may be wrong (although I have no evidence to think so), but it is NOT a value judgement about how we should respond to the environment. I am an environmentalist, who has worked for and eNGO, handed out flyers for the Greens, studied biology and environmental science, *and have an interest in understanding the real state of the world. What I posted was in response to the notion that the population is growing so fast that soon all the resources will be depleted and the world will die. I may be slightly exaggerating that position, but not much. That’s not a position based on facts. It’s an argument people have been making for over 150 years, and so far everybody who has made those predictions has been wrong. At the same time, market economists have provided explanations for why that argument has been wrong, and they’ve not only been right, they’ve been right enough to win $10,000 bets with Paul Ehlrich on this. We should, at the very least, consider that if an argument has made failed predictions for 150 years, it might be a false argument.
Again I repeat, and I can’t stress this enough, I’m not arguing that we shouldn’t worry about the environment, I’m not arguing that things are perfect, I’m not arguing that there aren’t areas of policy and location where things could be better. I’m just arguing that we’re not going to see large scale economic, social, or environmental collapse in the foreseeable future.
Jeremy
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
http://birding-aus.org ===============================
Given that thousands of commonly used materials are derived from coal and oil – other than fuel for vehicles and greasing industry, I don’t think we can argue that it does not matter too much if coal, oil etc are depleted. A world without plastics would soon seize up. There are plenty of good reasons to conserve oil other than just the energy product, and these other uses alone justify every effort to move to alternative forms of energy. Conservation of all resources as well as the natural world and species in it just makes good sense. It does not make good sense to take things to the point where they are just hanging on – and just to try to stay relevant to this discussion site, the world is better having an abundance of all birds rather than many rare ones just hanging on.
And, on the point that predictions of doom in the past have proved wrong doesn’t mean that eventually we will not exhaust things to the point that digging deeper, processing more efficiently, etc, will not stop them running out.
Peter Morgan
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
http://birding-aus.org ===============================
What you say makes no sense. If further species decline occurs then that would not mean that my assessment is “not correct,” but that we’re dealing with a different environment and different assessment is required. My assessment is based on the current state of the environment, not a future environment.
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
http://birding-aus.org ===============================
It would be interesting to know how much further many of our species must decline before Jeremy agrees that his ” actually not too bad ” assessment is actually not correct. Many species are in serious decline – whilst he may be correct in actual extinctions there are quite a few birds that are only hanging on with lots of support – but maybe that is ” actually not too bad ”
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
http://birding-aus.org ===============================
Jeremy
With Climate change and the passing of peak oil, combined with the huge growth in resource demands of “middle class” populations in China and India and “head in the sand” attitudes of so many governments, I think that perhaps you also have a far too optimistic view!
Bob Cook
Meanwhile…in Victoria …
“National parks to be opened up for development”
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/environment/national-parks-to-be-opened-up-for-development-20120823-24o1q.html#ixzz24L64vP3R
We can’t leave anything alone it seems.
Steve
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
http://birding-aus.org ===============================
Well it’s because I value birds ahead of people having fun (and think you can have fun in other ways). But my comment in regards to those steps was somewhat facetious. If I were elected global poobah tomorrow, I think you’d have to consider those “non-core promises” and I may try and come up with policies that aren’t entirely in line with my own intangible values, but give some consideration to other people’s values.
But, of course, it’s worth noting the difference between “not too bad” and “good.” Obviously our approaches to many environmental issues could be better. I’m not saying we shouldn’t care about the environment, and we can’t do things better. I’m just saying we’re not going to end up with a completely destroyed environment in the near future (or even close to that).
Jeremy
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
http://birding-aus.org ===============================
Jeremy, why would you take those steps if you think the state of the environment is not too bad?
Peter Shute
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
http://birding-aus.org ===============================
Whilst the growth rate may be declining, it is still positive so absolute population is growing – and in many economies (China and India) the consumption rate is rising rapidly. I agree that estimates of reserves are not very accurate, and that with improving technology more marginal reserves can be tapped, but again none of them are infinite. I guess it can be argued that it does not matter too much if coal, oil etc are depleted as we can access solar and other energy forms to replace them, but even they have their limits eventually
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
http://birding-aus.org ===============================
Dave,
They burn excellently. All that blubber. But, they are not a sustainable resource, whereas humans…
BTW, anyone have a recipe for Soylent Green?
Cheers,
Carl Clifford
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
http://birding-aus.org ===============================
I think it’s worth noting that global population growth peaked in 1969 and has been declining since then.
http://www.google.com.au/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=sp_pop_grow&tdim=true&dl=en&hl=en&q=global+population+growth
I also think it’s worth noting that our estimates of the remaining resources of nearly every raw resource have been increasing over time (rather than decreasing). So for example if you look at estimates of how much gold is is left to be dug up, the estimates for 2012 are significantly higher than the estimates in 2002, which are higher than 1992 etc. So although, in some sense we must be depleting resources, the evidence suggests that the problem is far less serious than popular thought presents. People have been predicting economic collapse within a few decades due to depleted resources since the 19th century, and so far have been wrong.
Of course that doesn’t mean that they’re wrong now, but it’s worth keeping in mind the 150 years of these predictions being wrong, and wondering why they would be right now.
It’s 80 years since an Australian bird went extinct (not counting our island territories), and although if it were up to me, I’d massively increase national parks, ban the recreational use of beaches and wetlands, as well as dogs and cats, and presumably never get elected, I think we have to recognise that the state of both the Australian environment and the global environment is actually not too bad, and doom and gloom is not based on facts.
Jeremy O’Wheel
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
http://birding-aus.org ===============================
Do they burn well?????
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
http://birding-aus.org ===============================
Two points.
First. Bill, you might recognise that the economy might not depend upon growth but just about every economist, pseudo economist, politition, business person and commentator I hear in public media seems to think otherwise. I just wish that if economists really believed otherwise they at least would start to come out of the woodwork and say that growth is not necessary and will kill us in the long run.
Second. I once read a small piece that epitomized the whole attitude of most people to the environment. It said something like ‘most people may profess to be conservationists, green etc. but when it comes to the crunch most would quite happily shovel baby fur seals into the furnace if it meant being able to retain their current lifestyle a little longer.’
Cheers
Andrew
Sooner or later politicians have to recognise that infinite growth is not possible. Our whole economy is based on growth, but it can’t last forever. Unfortunately politicians have to keep the bulk of the people happy of they want to be elected next time (or if they want to avoid a revolt in a non-democratic society) so they have no incentive to take action – it would require action from both sides of politics to take any action as it is likely to be painful!
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
http://birding-aus.org ===============================
Richard
I commend you for being brave and stating the truth on this forum. I agree with all you say, except that “the environment and our lifestyles will have to change”. True, our lifestyles will have to change, but, as you point out over-population is the key issue and, as the Chinese have demonstrated, this can be addressed. I suggest that the environment (and a sustainable place for humans) can be preserved but it will take policy and a combination of acceptance and enforcement, a la Chinese model, for this to be achieved.
Probability of this occurring ….. hmmmmmmm!!!!
Bob Cook spanda8@bigpond.com
How can you change anything when the economy depends on growth?
Peter Shute
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
http://birding-aus.org ===============================
Certainly here in Victoria, where it has only been Federal intervention that has stopped cattle grazing in the high country! Having said that – and not wishing to start a political argument – it seems that in many areas Labor governments are just as pro-development as the Coalition!
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
http://birding-aus.org ===============================