Comments

Sheila Newman

Mon, 2009-05-25 00:25

We should not overlook that dogs communicate with their distant colleagues by barking. It's not always distress. They have conversations. I am not personally bothered by barking dogs unless they sound distressed, in which case I would go and knock on the door and ask what was going on and call the council if I thought something was wrong.

I do worry that dogs and their owners can be victimised by people who use the law to bully not to help.

That said, I agree with James that our population pressure makes life miserable for everyone - and was totally unnecessary. When I was a child dogs took themselves for walks and it was no big deal. Some do still in my street today, but they are the exception; most lack traffic sense.

We have neighbours on all sides who seem to like to know there are noisy dogs to discourage burglars.

And, give me a loud-mouth but happy dog any day over traffic noise and construction racket.

Sheila Newman, population sociologist
home page

James Sinnamon

Sun, 2009-05-24 23:32

Thanks, Quiet Tasmania for a useful article about an important topic.

I have also had my quality of life ruined in a number of past periods in my life by barking dogs and agree that this problem and the wider problem of noise pollution should be more widely acknowledged and dealt with. Even now, my peace is often destroyed by one pair of barking dogs in my area. (The fact that there are two together to keep each other company shows that dogs having company may not always be the whole solution.)

The problem is exacerbated by Government policies of deliberately growing our population and crowding ever more of us together in order to line the pockets of developers and land speculators at the expense of the rest of us.

The fact that it is necessary often for both partners to work to pay off the mortgage on massively hyper-inflated houses mean that many have no choice but to leave their dogs alone for long periods of time. This is not to entirely absolve such people in such circumstances to train their dogs so that they behave in their absence, but, nevertheless the situation does not make it easy for those trying to do the right thing.

Whilst I think that laws against barking should be enforced, carrots need to also provided to help those owners who try to do the right thing. Perhaps traininig of dogs could be subsidised, or some services to care for dogs left alone could be provided.

I am not particularly in favour of revenue raising as a justification for councils enforcing laws against barking dogs. I think the principle purose of fines should be as a deterrent. Any money raised above what is necessary to meet the costs of enforcement should go into programs to help dog owners to the right thing.

Vivienne (not verified)

Sun, 2009-05-24 22:35

Jon Stanhope is an environmental expert and warped conservationist now? He says that any further delays in kangaroo "culls" would mean that "the ecosystem could be irreparably damaged"! This is raising the bar of green washing to new and dizzy levels! If he was really interested in protecting delicate ecosystems and endangered moths and lizards, he would get expert and independent advice and fund an inquiry into ACT's ecosystem health and maintenance. He would find that kangaroos are not an environmental threat! The Defence department and the ACT government are not being honourable, transparent or honest about their real intentions and plans for the land at Majura. Traffic is colliding with kangaroos due to a lack of wildlife corridors and crossings and nothing is more damning for animals than financial losses! Stanhope and Defence are using public apathy to green wash us with pseudo-science.

Anonymous (not verified)

Sun, 2009-05-24 21:38

Yes, borrowed Shock Doctrine from library, then bought it. Excellent insights into Disaster Capitalism. Today I heard that Queensland Treasurer is contemplating distress sales of public assets. Disaster Capitalism in action. Dud the public. Unfortunately, I have no confidence in Mainstream Media in preventing this slide into corporate feudalism. MSM, Public Relations for the corporate world might air some comments by Opposition, but will quickly gloss over the situation and make it sound unavoidable and even a good long term idea, which it is not. MSM, didn't vote them in, can't vote them out.

James Sinnamon

Sun, 2009-05-24 21:03

Some other discussion on the demise of the Tamil Tigers (aka Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam or LTTE) can be found at The end of the LTTE on John Quiggin's blog and Learning from the LTTE from the Indian Express of 20 May 09, which is linked to from the former. The following from within that article seems to confirm my own understanding of the conflict:

"The rise and fall of the Tigers, in fact, is a lesson for insurgent groups across the world. From a gang of 40 boys in 1975, the group rose to achieve a military prowess unknown for any insurgent group in the world. The discipline and determination of its cadre to lay down their lives for the Eelam cause was unprecedented. After 25 years of single-minded devotion and readiness to kill and die for the Tamil homeland, Tiger leader Prabhakaran seemed invincible. But the Tigers failed to understand that war alone is never enough. And at the height of their military success when they forced Colombo to enter into a peace process, Prabhakaran and his group didn’t understand the necessity of the transition from terror tactics to pure politics. History had given the Tigers a rare chance even in a post-9/11 world to sit at a negotiating table and ensure that the Tamil minority gets genuine political and constitutional rights in Sri Lanka. But like several other insurgencies, the Tigers too were blinded by their military success and a false sense of invincibility. Today, the Tamil minority, in whose name the Tigers killed and died, are at the mercy of a ruling alliance in Colombo which is dominated by a Sinhala-Buddhist supremacist discourse. In the process of the Tigers’ humiliating defeat, they took away any semblance of credibility from the moderate political forces from the Sinhalese majority too. The military success of Rajapakasha regime has effectively eclipsed Ranil Wickramasinghe and other political parties who had supported a historic truce with Tigers in 2002.

"Like the Tigers, the Kashmir insurgency also had several opportunities to understand the world’s changing political realities, halt violence and take a moral high ground on a negotiating table. But each time, the opportunity provided by a military success was lost with a complete underestimation of the power of the state."

It would interesting to contemplate whether the ransacking of Sri Lanka by disaster capitalists which followed the Boxing Day 2004 Tsunami as described in "The Shock Doctrine" could have been resisted if the peace negotiations had been allowed to continue.

James Sinnamon

Sun, 2009-05-24 01:34

Many of the Tamils of Sri Lanka were there before the British came as Steven's article states. There were two groups, according to Wikipedia, the Sri Lankan Tamil people and the Sri Lankan Moors or Muslims

Certainly, the importation of other Tamils, known as the Hill Country Tamils or Indian Tamils of Sri Lanka, in the 19th century by the British to work on tea plantations on land stolen from native Sinhalese, would not have helped.

Interestingly, the Wikipedia article about the Sri Lankan Moors confirms what I said about the Tamil Tigers own past ethnic cleansing practices:

"In recent times, the Sri Lankan Civil War has produced large population movements in the northern region of the country, resulting in significant demographic changes. Hence the once-flourishing Muslim (mostly Moor) community is now non-existent in the Northern Province of the country as a result of ethnic cleansing carried out by Tamil Tiger rebels in 1991. "

Sheila Newman

Sat, 2009-05-23 23:04

My understanding of the situation is that the Tamils were 19th and 20th C immigrant labour imported by British colonials to work colonial tea plantations. Some Tamil business immigrants also came. The local Sri Lankans resented the occupation by the British and the British stealing of their land for tea plantations. They certainly didn't appreciate the Tamil immigrants, many of whom were eventually repatriated in their thousands. The situation bears similarities to the problems caused by Colonial engineered mass immigration, with citizenship rights in question. I would like to know more about land-rights and citizenship there. My recent reference source is this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hill_Country_Tamils#Disenfranchisement

British imperialism sure has a lot to answer for, especially where mass immigration is concerned: Israel-Palestine; Sri-Lanka; Fiji; Australia; Canada; Africa; India.... Stuffing up land-rights and imposing new laws. And still it goes on, in the form of the economic shock doctrine and the Growth Lobby - right here. And it will get worse and worse.

Sheila Newman, population sociologist
home page

Tim Murray (not verified)

Sat, 2009-05-23 16:16

vivienne: The business card I have carried for a year reads: "Canada's immigration policy HMCS Ecological Titanic stopping to pick up more passengers" Two nations, two continents, a vast ocean apart. It is amazing how many similarities there are. We are both led by Captains who have charted a suicidal course and are hell bent are breaking speed records to rendezvous with castrophe. And those who would take the wheel in his place are little better. Most are obsessed with the plight of third class passengers and dream of a ship without classes, never thinking that the ship is fatally flawed in its engineering and cannot be fixed by throwing more coal into the furnace. Drowned passengers have no human rights. TM

Milly (not verified)

Sat, 2009-05-23 15:12

The RSPCA's vision of "for all creatures great and small" is slightly askewed! As long as the animals are not a food source, an extra burden on society, or native animals that have to be removed because they are considered a "pest"! The "starving" kangaroos were removed because Defence wanted the land for housing and whatever else they have planned. The RSPCA may be struggling to rake in donations from the public. It's not hard to understand why, if they help in a massacre of over 500 healthy kangaroos and joeys! Shame, Michael Linke!

James Sinnamon

Sat, 2009-05-23 14:53

I understand that many other people in your region also work very hard to rehabilitate the land. Usually they do so at considerable cost to themselves. Very rarely do they receive any remuneration, let alone fair remuneration for their hard work. What makes you presume that your own claimed efforts at rehabilitation gives you the right, against the objections of almost everyone else in your region, to completely change the character of the region into what will be effectively more urban sprawl, for your own personal once-off windfall profit? Exactly what is to be achieved for a remote region by plonking into the middle of it 130 three storey units, 250 houses, a 100-bed backpacker and 100-bed motel and 50 assorted shops? How are these people to obtain their livelihoods, if not by commuting daily to the Gold Coast or other regional towns over roads built and paid for by the ratepayers of Tweed Shire and the taxpayers of NSW, thereby destroying the peace and tranquility of the area and adding further to the traffic congestion in the locations to which they commute? How is the food and other necessities for all those extra people to be obtained except by importing it from elsewhere at greater expense using our finite stocks of petroleum? Exactly what, in return, will this development contribute to the Australian economy, other than being yet another sink for our finite stocks of energy and other natural resources?

Anonymous (not verified)

Sat, 2009-05-23 11:31

In 1990, I was a member, (along with Peter Van Lieshout) of a company which purchased this land with the view of a sustainable community. When we took control of the land, it was 3000 acres of head high groundsel (a noxious weed) and very little else. Since then I have seen a vast improvement in this degraded peice of farm land. Today, mainly thanks to "developer" Peter Van Lieshout, this same piece of land has been transformed from degraded land to a native tree plantation which will acts as a carbon sink and a valuable resource for the future generations. I have lived next to this property since 1990 and the river is cleaner now with more life than when I arrived, there are more birds and other wild life since the removal of cattle. As for the accusations of logging old growth forest. This was already done back in the 1940's. People have the right to protest but please get your facts straight.

James Sinnamon

Sat, 2009-05-23 08:55

Thanks, Tigerquoll, for an helpful, informative and timely article on this conflict.

For my own part, I have not kept myself sufficiently informed as to be able to be able to offer useful comments on conflicts such as this.

I remember back in the early 1980's, when the Tamil insurgency was launched. I viewed the Tamil struggle through the prism of the world view of a far left wing socialist organisation to which I belonged a the time. The Tamil Tigers (LTTE) were considered to be one of a large number of armed progressive movements that would help liberate the people of the Third World from the shackles of colonialism and neo-colonialism and bring about justice, harmony and prosperity.

Other movements were the South African African National Congress (ANC), the South West African People's Organisation (SWAPO), The Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO), the Eritrean People's Liberation Front (EPLF), The Tigrean People's Liberation Front (TPLF), various Latin American movements, etc.

However, few of these movements have lived up to the hopes that we had held in them (with the possible exception of SWAPO, which appears to have very capably governed the nation now named Namibia after it gained independence from South Africa).

The EPLF and the TPLF became the respective governments of the newly independent Eritrea and the part of Ethiopia that remained after Eritrea had broken away and have since engaged in pointless border wars with each other. I remember that at least one of those conflicts was deliberately started by the EPLF, flying flat in the face of assurances, made by EPLF political representatives in Australia at a public meeting in support of the EPLF in the early 1980's, that an independent Eritrea would do its utmost to get along with its former coloniser. In fact, even before the TPLF overthrew the former Ethiopian dictatorship, there were clashes between the two movements, even though both were supposedly fighting the same common enemy.

Naomi Klein has shown in the chapter on South Africa in "The Shock Doctrine" how the ANC negotiators betrayed nearly all of the principles for which the ANC supposedly stood making circumstances for many blacks (as well as whites) in the supposedly liberated South Africa even worse than they were under the Apartheid system.

In Sri Lanka, the Tamil Tigers were themselves accused on at least one occasion of engaging in their own Zionist style ethnic cleansing in order to drive non-Tamils including Muslims from the areas of Sri Lanka that they laid claim to. In 2002 they were reported as having unilaterally broken the peace negotiations that were underway and launched military attacks. If this is true, then the Tamil Tiger leadership would themselves have to be held partly responsible for the calamity that has befallen their people. (However, I would hesitate to make an absolute pronouncement on this until I can be more certain that the version of events that depicts the LTTE as having caused the breakdown in peace negotiations was not simply yet another example of misreporting of these conflicts by the Western newmedia.)

A Chapter in "The Shock Doctrine" tells how the Sri Lankan government cynically exploited the 2004 Boxing Day Tsunami to steal coastal land from fishing villagers in order to give it to resort developers. They also exploited the crisis engaged in an extensive program of neo-liberal economic prescriptions including privatisation, completely contrary to the platform upon which that government was elected. No doubt this would have had some bearing on the Tamil/Sinahalese conflict.

Vivienne (not verified)

Fri, 2009-05-22 23:36

The electorate are being silenced by "political correctness". It is not "nice" to criticise population growth as people must reproduce, and it is "racist" to suggest that we stop immigration that is boosting our numbers! We hear little about environmental or biodiversity concerns from the growth lobby. On one hand, we are supposed to be reducing greenhouse gases, but on the other hand the growth lobby want to continually "grow" our economy through population growth and continual building and land developments. We can't swim against the tide! More people means more natural resource plundering, more jobs needed, more energy needed, more logging and more mining and wildlife threats. The RMS Titanic, our mother-Earth ship, is still taking on passengers but will sink faster when it hits the iceburg of ecological collapse!

James Sinnamon

Fri, 2009-05-22 23:04

I certainly agree with Menkit that this is an excellent article.

In regard to Alex Jones, I find him a courageous and likeable figure who is highly credible in most regards and certainly far more credible than almost any high profile corporate or government journalist that anyone can name. However, my mind remains undecided about some aspects of the global conspiracies of which he talks.

I take strong exception to his dismissal of concerns about population growth. Part of the conspiracy by the world's elites, according to Alex Jones is a plan to wipe out most of the world's current population. Whilst I wouldn't rule that out altogether, I need to see the evidence.

Unfortunately, those of us who argue, on the basis of the best available evidence, that the earth's human population has most likely badly overshot the earth's carrying capacity and therefore we stand a serious risk of having the world's population decline catastrophically unless we act very quickly and decisively to stabilise the world's population, are at risk of being tarred with the same brush by Alex Jones and likeminded people such as those who operate Truth News Radio Australia. This unfortunately happened to Sustainable Population Australia (SPA) President as a consequence of her statement that Australia's natural capacity was likely to be 7 million, rather than the current 21 million as Tim Flannery has also argued. The podcast dated 30 Apr 09 can be downloaded from here.

After the broadcast, I posted some comments in defence of Sandra Kanck on that page and a brief discussion ensued.

Menkit Prince

Fri, 2009-05-22 08:20

Excellent article, Sheila.
Fits right in with Alex Jones' video at here or on YouTube where he talks about how the Treaty of Rome set up the EU in 1957 as a vehicle for world domination through banks and the elite.

"It’s embarrassing for Australia that we eat our own wildlife ....I’m here to tell you it’s just not right. Simply do not buy, use or eat kangaroo products”
   ~ Steve Irwin
Sign the most important petition ever created to help kangaroos (linked to from www.stopkangarookilling.org).

Tigerquoll

Thu, 2009-05-21 23:28

The biggest unaddressed issue of the federal budget is the massive war spend, while Rudd and Swan cry poor and utter innumerable cliches of belt tightening. How is this different to hubby getting a new SL-Class Mercedes because because, while the family budget cannot fund school fees, health insurance, housekeeping and bus concession tickets for the kids. The $26 billion largess is perhaps the greatest budget elephant in the room during any recession. Rudd deserves to win an award for spin so tantalising that none of the media nor opposition or Greens are critical. Wow, he could get a job at Clemenger in his after-life!

James Sinnamon

Thu, 2009-05-21 22:19

I feel ambivalent on the issue of Australian military spending. On the one hand many wars in which Australia has participated have been clearly immoral. These include: the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the invasion of Iraq and the invasion of Afghanistan. The latter two have been justified largely by the Big Lie of 9/11 of which I have written elsewhere on this site.

Nevertheless, there has been at least occasion in our history when a large expenditure on our armed forces was clearly essential, that being during the Second World War. Given the massive size of Australia's potential enemies in the region, it is hard to know for sure what amount of spending on our armed forces would be necessary to hope to dissuade or, if necessary, defeat, any military aggressor as it did in 1942.

Of course, our first line of defence should be a Foreign Policy which seeks to establish justice and harmony in the world. This is clearly not what the purpose of our Afghan military adventure is or what our Iraqi military adventure was.

Nevertheless, even if (for a change) Australia behaved like a model world citizen, I don't see that as being an absolute safeguard against military aggression from China, Indonesia or India.

Today some, including Bernard Salt spuriously justify the ever greater encroachments upon Australia's sovereignty by China, in particular, as necessary price to pay in order to prevent outright occupation.

However, if we don't have an adequate defence force as our forefathers did in 1942, that choice will be taken away from us altogether.

However, the difficult question posed in 2009 is to what extent that military expenditure will be abused to threaten world peace rather than safeguard our own borders.

For a contrary view, see Australian Military Buildup And The Rise Of Asian NATO of 6 may 09 on Global Research.

James Sinnamon

Thu, 2009-05-21 20:42

Mike wrote, "In my experience, no amount of discussion will sway one camp or the other, ..."

It is my own experience that those who attempt to defend the official explanation of 9/11 quickly give up.

If you don't believe me, check out these discussions: Tactics in a cosmic war", "Aussie, Aussie, Aussie, oil, oil, oil","What do we do about George W Bush?", "Bush's democracy of hypocrisy", "Australia has no business in Afghanistan" and "War: not in my name" on Online Opinion and Weekend reflections of 17 Apr 09 and It’s over of 21 Jan 09 (which was extended into the Monday message board of 19 Jan 09).

Quite possibly I have not swayed the other 'camp' (as often happens in discussions in which participants on at least one side of the debate is determined to cling to its pre-conceived opinion regardless of the evidence presented). Nevertheless, important and useful resources have been created and the fact that defenders of the official explanation of 9/11 quickly give up shows that this issue can be quickly resolved, contrary to what you have implied.

Only one discussion tat I have been involved with was prolonged. That was the 9/11 Truth forum on Online Opinion which I initiated in September last year. After January this year, no serious challenge to the case of the 9/11 Truth Movement endued. The one contributor, who attempted to address any of my arguments at all gave up and hasn't been heard from since on OLO.

As a consequence, use of 9/11 as a catch-all justification for each and every crime of President George Bush has become far less common on Online Opinion and other forums in which I participate these days. So, it would seem to me that there is good reason to discuss this issue.

Mike continued, "... you either fervently believe the conspiracies, or you don't ..."

This is anti-scientific hogwash. I don't "fervently believe" the "conspiracies". I have become convinced of the case of the 9/11 Truth Movement because I have taken the trouble to study the evidence. I might add that I did so extremely belatedly, that is over six years later than I should have. I know of people who saw 9/11 for what it was on the day, and that is because they were capable of observing with their own eyes what had happened rather than allowing the newsmedia to tell them what had happened.

So, why won't you do the same as what I did, at least, at this very late stage? Or, if you insist that you have, have, why won't you enlighten the rest of us as to why you apparently uncritically accept the Bush administration's version of 9/11?

What's so special about the events of 9/11 that would prevent a proper investigation from establishing the truth of what occurred? As with any crime, evidence has been left in the form of eyewitness testimony, audio, video, photographic records, seismographic, thermal and other recordings as well as physical evidence. (If you want a succinct presentation of some this evidence, then please view the You Tube Broadcasts, "9/11 Science vs. Conspiracy Theories" part 1 and part 2, each of which is less than 10 minutes in length.)

For what reason do you suggest that it is any less possible to learn the truth of 9/11 than it would, as examples, to have established the truth about the death of Azaria Chamberlain, the existence of Iraqi Weapons of Mass Destruction or whether Howard Government ministers knew that AU$296million was paid in bribes to the regime of Saddam Hussein by the Australian Wheat Board?

Mike continued, "... which is why I too banned discussion on roeoz (the Running on Empty Oz (roeoz) mailing list)."

That's most disturbing.

How can any avowedly open-minded critical-thinking person ban discussion on what is the principle justification for the so-called 'war on terror' and the removal of civil liberties and human rights of ordinary Australians?

Mike, could you tell us how you would respond to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's words spoken to Jim Lehrer on the US Public Broadcasting network's NewsHour program in the US and cited by ABC Radio's The World Today:

"... the bottom line is this: It's the right place to be.

"When you think about Afghanistan, think about this. I cannot remove from my mind the image of the twin towers coming down. We are there because terrorists, operating out of the safe haven of Afghanistan, caused that to happen. They also, having been trained in Afghanistan, were responsible for murdering nearly a hundred Australians in Bali a year later.

"We have therefore a combined responsibility to do whatever we can to make sure Afghanistan does not become a safe haven for terrorism again."

Given that you evidently accept Kevin Rudd's premise that terrorists based in Afghanistan launched the 9/11 attacks, would you:

(A) Agree wholeheartedly with Kevin Rudd;
(B) Nevertheless, dispute America's and Australia's right to attack the terrorists' safe haven inside Afghanistan; or
(C) Have no opinion?

Mike wrote, "There is ample material on the web to form an opinion with. Google the matter, and leave us all alone...... I'm sick to the back teeth of even mentioning it."

Hadn't it occurred to you that quite a few people out there are "sick to the back teeth" of the way 9/11 has been used as the pretext to justify the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and to justify torture, murder, imprisonment, and the removal of basic civil liberties and human rights of people all over the world including in Australia?

Hadn't it occurred to you that because so many people, who should have know better, including you and me, accepted the Big Lie of 9/11 that this country had to endure at least six more awful years of misrule by the Howard Government that it should have, together with the awful environmental, economic and social calamity that it entailed?

Why do you apparently consider those momentous issues less important than the personal inconvenience that having to think seriously about 9/11 would entail?

Pregnant woman (not verified)

Mon, 2009-05-18 02:54

First by studying and comprehending the theosophical doctrines, so that they may teach others, especially the young people. Secondly, by taking every opportunity of talking to others and explaining to them what Theosophy is, and what it is not; by removing misconceptions and spreading an interest in the subject. Thirdly, by assisting in circulating our literature, by buying books when they have the means, by lending and giving them and by inducing their friends to do so. Fourthly, by defending the Society from the unjust aspersions cast upon it, by every legitimate device in their power. Fifth, and most important of all, by the example of their own lives.

Mike Stasse (not verified)

Mon, 2009-05-18 00:06

Title was "9/11 conspiracies". - JS Why do Larvartus Prodeo, WebDiary and other alternative news sources impede discussion of 9/11? How about "because it's a load of rubbish..." Frankly, I'm disappointed this subject has turned up on this blog. 9/11 truthout beliefs are like religion: you either fervently believe the conspiracies, or you don't. In my experience, no amount of discussion will sway one camp or the other, which is why I too banned discussion on roeoz. End of story. There is ample material on the web to form an opinion with. Google the matter, and leave us all alone...... I'm sick to the back teeth of even mentioning it. Mike.

Supporting Loca... (not verified)

Sun, 2009-05-17 11:23

The only problem with the rally going ahead is the people complaining about it! Its one weekend!!!! We aren't hosting a monthly event or even a yearly event. Its a one off, one weekend! It will bring more tourists and therefore more money. During this bad time economically I don't think any business owner would reject the extra cash flow for that one weekend. As for environmental issues.... Once again its one weekend! It wont cause a life time of damage to the area. If the wildlife move away from the noise, they will be back because it's not continuing. Changes aren't to be made to the road or surrounding areas to cater for this event. Once it's over everything will be back to normal. A few people may not be able to go anywhere that weekend because their roads may be cut off. I think that they are lucky, front row seats to a very exciting event. The organisers of the rally, I feel have done a great job in the organisation of the upcoming rally. After speaking with rally organisers and listening to thier plans to the running of the rally. There is one instance that stood out, where a woman is due to give birth on that weekend and her street will be closed due to the event. The rally organisers have arranged a helicopter to airlift her to hospital if she does infact go into labor on that weekend. So they obviously have more concern than just the event itself. Give them a break! They are bringing an enjoyable event that everyone can enjoy for the one weekend that it is here. I SUPPORT THE RALLY..... AND SO DO ALOT OF OTHER LOCALS!!!! Do some real research and get a wide range of locals opinions.

Tigerquoll

Sat, 2009-05-16 00:04

The blood of the slaughtered 4000 kangaroos at Majura should be on ACT Commissioner for Sustainability and the Environment, Dr Maxine Cooper. It is she of unqualified authority who is ultimately accountable for one of Australia's worst natural heritage massacres, and Joel Fitzgibbon the immoral gatekeeper of all this. The two of them have lost all credibility. Flagged 'The Fitzgibbon Massacre' and 'The Maxine Cooper Conspiracy', I call on Cooper and Fitzgibbon to be jointly sacked and dragged publicly to be defiled through the powerful International Ecological Court of Justice, if only it existed.

jim barton (not verified)

Fri, 2009-05-15 18:12

$2.50 a ton is not quite the truth. $2.50 a ton is what a machine operator is paid. You keep saying that wood chips are sold for $2.50 a ton, so show me a genuine document that states the chips are going for that price. $2.50 is a tonnage rate for being loaded onto the truck so technically they can't be sent for that price. So if they are fallen for $3.50 a ton, snigged for $2.00 a ton and loaded for $2.00 ton, then the mills would have gone broke years ago wouldn't they? Then you have the transport costs i believe that this is proof enough that you are scaring people again with more unproven lies. Yeh they are being loaded onto the truck for that price but no way sold for it.

Vivienne (not verified)

Fri, 2009-05-15 09:59

Tribunal president Linda Crebbin has ordered a stay to the "cull" of kangaroos at the Majura site until the issue can be considered by the tribunal's full panel. The slaughter started before the end of the public submissions deadline was due, and without independent scientific reports, the killings were based on shonky and biased reports. This "stay of execution" should send a strong message to our Government that green-washing , the blaming of kangaroos for environmental damage and threats, will not be so easily swallowed! The army has already massacred 4000 kangaroos. The "overgrazing" of native grasslands excuse for target practice, under the guise of "conservation" and concern for staving joeys, is particularly insidious. Congratulations for the campaigners, and let's hope that the corruption and pseudo-science is exposed ,!

Jose (not verified)

Thu, 2009-05-14 16:05

Yes, Jim Barton, the earth is undergoing a natural process that no one can control. There are things we can't control, but there are also things we can! The massive plundering of our planet to accummulate riches and exports for continual growth is something we can control, if we get rid of self-interests and greed. Gaia will continue, the rock that rotates around the Sun, but it may not take kindly to the human "virus" it is infected with! Stephen Hawkings said humans were a bit of biological "scum" on a medium sized planet. We should not take our only home for granted! We do not have another to exploit! Our ecology is finite and so is Earth.

Mike Stasse (not verified)

Thu, 2009-05-14 15:48

I have been championing zero growth economics for many years, but not being an economist, I didn't really understand the challenge. Until now that is. Anyone reading this should definitely see Chris Martenson's Crash Course at http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse. Martenson is a Master Communicator, and the CC is a masterpiece of communication. The CC will explain to you what Exponential Growth means, and why Compounding is such a problem. It will also explain fractional and reserve banking, Peak Oil, and other Environmental limits to further growth. But, having now seen the CC many times (I have shown it publicly four times) I realise that before we can switch to zero growth, we need an altogether different economic system. Why? Well the current one utterly relies on debt. There simply is not the cash lying around to pay for the growth, so money is created out of thin air to pay for it. As the CC says, the simplicity of this system is such that the mind is repelled. To boot, the money to pay the interest on all the new debts doesn't exist either, and THAT is why we 'have to have' growth - to create even more money of course!! It's a no brainer that such a ponzi scheme is simply unsustainable, and that it will not be able to keep going. It is no surprise to me that Capitalism is now failing, it is literally in its death throes! If you think I'm over the top, well I can understand that, but you go and do the Crash Course before replying to me..... So, before we switch to zero growth, we will have to cancel all debts. I really don't care if you think I'm nuts, or just plain over the top, because not only do I know I'm right, it WILL happen, it's only a matter of time. How long is not something I want to speculate on, time will tell. This will be a revolution at least as important as the industrial revolution. Once we all declare ourselves out of debt, we can then spend the left over wealth, knowledge, and labor, to concentrate on devising a new sustainable economy.... if it's not too late, and it just might be so. Again time will tell, but the matter is now very urgent as far as I'm concerned, and the powers that be, bailing out banks and car companies etc are not exactly showing signs that they understand the problem... We certainly live in interesting times. Mike

Vivienne (not verified)

Thu, 2009-05-14 10:55

Yes, you have a job! The point is , it is a dead-end type of job if you must continually destroy the habitat and ecosystems that support life. Most of our ancient forests end up at woodchips, for $2.50 per tonne! Nobody here is "putting their hands out", but the logging industry should not be immune from retrenchment like other industries. You are right about other issues, about rubbish, feral animals and weeds. Retrenched loggers should be part of a new industry of "green" jobs of managing our native forests. There is so much good that could be done, as you have mentioned! While writing this, kangaroos are being massacred in Canberra as being "environmental threats", but the real threats are humans, and the greed for profits! I think you have a conflict of interests with your source of income. The Government must take most of the blame for bending to these industries to get the rural votes. Our government cannot and will not address climate change because it is contrary to the growth mentality they are addicted to. Our materialistic greed is escalating, I believe, because our leaders know that our planet as such does not have another millenium left!

Tigerquoll

Thu, 2009-05-14 00:32

NAFI (or perhaps 'Not Another Freakin Import' provides a chainsaw scream for Australia's scarce and depleting forests. Japanese woodchippers rape Aussie forests only to import A4 paper back to us at a profit. Aren't we NAFI suckers?

NAFI is committed to ensuring clear fell logging and woodchipping of old growth has strong representation in political and public engagement to ensure this desperate slaughtering is supported in order to achieve the best possible outcome for NAFI and short contract loggers with no future prospects.

Australia's forest industries, made up of remnant old growth habitat, plantations and any outlying unoccupied timber houses on the edge of towns, offer significant benefits for NAFI and no-neck loggers with no future prospects. By the year 2020 forest industries are projected to contribute:

* 16,000 short term forestry contracts and base pay with no security, no annual leave and no sick leave
* 81 million tonnes of Australian native forests sold out to Mitsui (the Japanese)
* $19 billion of Australia's native farm sold out to the Japanese woodchippers - who have the hide profit from selling back to Australia white shiny A4 photocopy paper.

And so how is the multinational raper of Gippsland forests, Japanese Sumitomo Mitsui fairing these days? Well as at 10th April 2009, Sumitomo Mitsui reported its largest loss in six years and has desperately proposed to raise 800 billion yen in public offering.

Gippsland loggers have become losers in every sense. Contract logging to feed Jap woodchippers may pay the rent for a few months, but forget supporting a family or paying a mortgage! How many forestry workers called into the CES since the start of 2009?

Jim Barton (not verified)

Wed, 2009-05-13 21:39

Thats the best you can come up with? Show me facts and figures on much it subsidises actual harvesting procedures. Now if it is so unsustainable why are we logging areas that have been logged 2, 3 and up to 4 times over the last 100 years. Going on the dole would be the easy way out, wouldn't it gutless anonymous? That is why all you loser protestors are putting your hands out every week. If you really care about the environment get out there and start working towards reducing wild dog numbers, helping to erradicate feral cats and why don't you do something about the introduced vines that are strangling the native forests to death. The vines are spread through water ways that usually start their journey from up in the national parks that you lot won't let anyone into to even maintain. If you new anything about what you are talking about you would see this every time you are heading up the combienbar road dodging stubbies on your way to another pointless protest at bungywarr. But it is just easier to throw empty accusations once again without concrete evidence at the people who actually work for a living to feed their families instead of relying on someone else to feed them. I would like to say however, thank you to the person/s running this web site who have let me have a say on this subject. The greens have a terrible history of twisting what actually happens into a tangled web of what they think the public should hear, even as made up as a lot of it is. A healthy discussion is good for both sides, but eventually you will see the the country cannot survive on beautiful views, love and goodwill. unfortunately money makes the world go round and it is far to late to change that. Even climate change is a money making lie. The earth has been changing temperature for millions of years and unfortunately buying a hybrid car and some solar panels is not going to make a lick of difference. To those who doubt my thoughts, show us all some hard evidence over the last million years of the temperature difference to now. As much as you may hate the idea the earth is undergoing a natural process that no one can control. Why i seem to recall a history lesson at school that showed tasmania, the mainland and indonesia was all one continent. With rising sea levels we now have more continents than we did millions of years ago and the sea will continue to rise no matter what we do. It is clearly a scare tactic to sway voters and the general public. I am not a complete monster i still recycle and don't litter but we have to be realistic.

questioner (not verified)

Wed, 2009-05-13 16:24

China has done more to tackle overpopulation than any other country, to the point of forced late term abortions. I wonder if you require water, food and use energy? I hope not. "That just ruins what they came there for" ie they are nimbys, not lovers of the whole Tweed. The protesters probably ruined it for someone else, who ruined it for someone else - right back to the original inhabitants. There are more important things to worry about. I'll see your Goose, and raise you a "Boy who cried Wolf".

Anonymous (not verified)

Wed, 2009-05-13 16:14

Every living being " takes up space... uses energy, requires water and food " etc. Answer me this - at what point are you guys happy? If I lie in my home made (from recycled materials) hammock, and with one hand pull out my organic carrots on one side of the hammock and the other hand bury my waste, then that is OK I think. But how much further can I go? Short of all killing ourselves I'm not sure you will be satisfied. Poor Katie Milne that has to keep you lot happy- hardest job in the shire. I feel sorry for her. What are they not worried about very not green development on the coast, 30 times the size of this one - oh, it's not near where they live.

James Sinnamon

Wed, 2009-05-13 14:31

David C,

Firstly, I greatly appreciate your interest and your reply.

You wrote:

"... I decided not to make any comments myself because JQ has made it known that he doesn't want discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories on his site."

Did you read the post> original post in which I challenged John Quiggin's objection to the discussion of 9/11 on his forum?

He never responded to that, so I think I can fairly say that the case I put stands. In any case, I raised it in a general forum, which he said he would allow.

I think it would have been better if you had joined in that discussion, because, frankly,it would make it easier for those of us who believe 9/11 to be a legitimate discussion topic.

When people are trying to discover where the truth lies in these controversies, they will inevitably come across seemingly credible people who will effectively tell you, "Trust me. I have looked at the evidence and it supports the official explanation."

That is what Baer appears to have done. Another seemingly credible (to some) person who backs the official 9/11 fiction is ostensible US dissident Noam Chomsky. No doubt his influence has caused many people, otherwise opposed to US Government policies, accept the official US Government 9/11 myth.

However, I think one should take with a grain of salt anyone who pronounces that they accept the official account of 9/11 without acknowledging the evidence of the 9/11 Truth Movement. If Baer has ever directly challenged the evidence put by the 9/11 Truth movement, I would like to know where.

BTW have you checked the two Youtube broadcasts that I referred people to on John Quiggin's blog?

BTW, not everyone considers Seymour Hersh to be a journalist of complete integrity. Yes, he appears to be critical of what he says are the brutal excesses of the US 'war on terror', but he won't challenge the underlying rationale for the claimed necessity of covert US special forces assassinations or the renditions program, that is, that the people they are killing or torturing are held to be either responsible for 9/11 or are planning similar acts of terror. For useful information about Seymour Hersh, please read "Screwed Again: Seymour Hersh Puts Pro-War Spin On What We Would Normally Call Acts Of Terrorism" on the Winter Patriot web site.

Anonymous (not verified)

Wed, 2009-05-13 01:54

You would have to be blind not to see that your line of work is unsustainable. That means that it costs more than it produces financially (the community subsidises logging). Do us all a favour and get a real job, or go on the dole and stop costing us all more than money.

Anonymous (not verified)

Wed, 2009-05-13 00:10

As a past competitor and official of Australian Ralling I have no doubt about the ability and quality of the competitors who intend to compete in this event but I do have serious doubts about the so called benefits to the community, as they are almost zero, the hotels on the Gold Coast where the competitors are staying will do OK but forget the rest of the rubish you are hearing of thousands of spectators. If it was such a beneficial event why did WA get rid of it, why did QLD or VIC that has better roads not want it, simply financially it doesn't stack up. The sport rightly is comming under environmental scrutinisation for noise, emmissions, native animal and habitat destuction and social disruption not to mention what it does to the lower echilons of ralling itself as all the funds of advertisers and sponsors etc are utilised in this major event for predominatley the promotion of world teams with little or no significance to Australian competitors or the sport. Basicly NSW is spending its money to promote forign teams and sponsors whilst destroying our environment for the potential financial benefit of one or two directors. Wow hats a certain winner to northern NSW no wonder no one else want it.

jim barton (not verified)

Tue, 2009-05-12 20:00

(originally entitled 'more lies') Righto jose and tigerquoll lets get a few things straight. first and foremost, i have a job. i am a logger currently logging the bungywarr creek area incase you didn't read my first piece properly. Secondly, tigerquolls new name is now guinea pig because thats what he looked and sounded like when he was running back for cover into the bush at last weeks tax payer funded protest when we wanted to talk to him. It is bullshit for you dole bludgers to say that loggers incomes are not an important issue when it comes to this arguement. ... (For the rest of jim barton's post, go here. - JS)

Anonymous (not verified)

Tue, 2009-05-12 02:06

Hi!
Dear moderators, these blogs are social in nature, so please do not delete these references. Thank you for your understanding, thanks in advance.

(JS: Could you tell me through the contact form why you think why the links you have posted would be of interest to people visiting this site? It doesn't seem to me that they will be of much interest.)

James Sinnamon

Tue, 2009-05-12 00:27

Thanks for your comment. No need to apologise for your 'ramblings'. It is great to hear from someone else who also feels the anger that we feel about the wanton ecological vandalism committed against Mornignton Peninsula.

That said, I will address a few points in this post.

I dispute that wrecking the environment can be good economics. It can only be considered good economics if we accept as valid the badly deficient ways that many economists measure prosperity and fail to measure the loss of natural capital including biodiversity which is necessary for a healthy environment and, ultimately, an economy.

You wrote:

"... until Environmental Groups somehow Unite, all individual groups who have their causes to fight - which are all very valid, unfortunately will achieve nothing against Governments."

Unfortunately many supposed environment groups have been co-opted into the system.

Nevertheless, it is necessary that genuine environmental groups, and the rest of us who share their goals, begin to pull in the same direction.

That's why it is in our best interests to get behind those fighting against the destruction of Old Growth Frest in Gippsland and why they and the rest of us should give what support we can, for example, to those fighting the ecologically criminally World Rally car race on the far north coast. of NSW.

admin

Mon, 2009-05-11 23:43

The following was e-mailed to me in response to this article - JS, I have just read the comments about the forthcoming loss of the Pines Reserve in Frankston due to the planned Frankston by-pass. I have never heard of candobetter.org. I have lived on the Mornington Peninsula for well over 40 years and have seen much degradation and total loss of Habitat all along with the well wishes of the Shire Council. I am appalled at the seemingly total disregard for our environment and the future of our quality of life. Unfortunately Governments, from local level to Federal Level, are totally hell bent on Economics and the wrongly perceived well-being of only human beings. I have personally witnessed loss of habitat in areas protected by Council overlays simply for the aesthetics of that property; hectares removed without any penalty whatsoever. As with the Dredging of the Bay, the Desalination Plant, the massive white elephant Marina at Safety Beach and the Pulp Mill in Tasmania, money and power talk, and ALL governments are the same. So what if an animal goes extinct? will that change the way the "average" Australian lives? would they really care? NO. Why not? simply because they do not get the ramifications of loss of our environment. Unfortunately the Frankston By-pass will go ahead because the Brumby Government says so. The Pines Flora and Fauna Reserve will be no longer and the Southern Peninsula will be a massive traffic bottleneck...all in the name of economics and progress. My apologies for my ramblings but until Environmental Groups somehow Unite, all individual groups who have their causes to fight - which are all very valid, unfortunately will achieve nothing against Governments. Even the Greens don't appear to achieve much these days.

Anonymous (not verified)

Mon, 2009-05-11 22:24

There is no such thing as a 'green village'. It is made of mined and manufactured materials, takes up space that other creatures used, uses energy, requires cars, water, roads and food. Why would anyone in that area approve of a so-called 'Green Village'? That just ruins what they came there for. Same old . Same old. Greedy people delude themselves that by killing the goose they will get all the golden eggs at once. After they have spent the gold they are in a lifeless prison. Why didn't they all go and live in China if they like money and overpopualtion so much??

David C (aka Smiley) (not verified)

Mon, 2009-05-11 21:04

James, I noted your comment on JQ's blog a couple of weekends ago, however I decided not to make any comments myself because JQ has made it known that he doesn't want discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories on his site. I won't go into why I think its the wrong approach to use the "towers brought down by explosives" or the "no plane at the pentagon" theories but instead I'd like to highlight a credible quote from some who would know... Bob Baer the former CIA operative with over 20 years of experience in the Middle East. George Clooney's character in the movie Syriana is loosely based on Baer. I haven't read his books yet, but I plan to soon. Anyhow if you look at his wiki page you should notice this section: In an interview with Thom Hartmann on June 9, 2006, Baer was asked if he believed "that there was an aspect of 'inside job' to 9/11 within the U.S. government". He replied, "There is that possibility, the evidence points at it."[3] However, he later stated, "For the record, I don't believe that the World Trade Center was brought down by our own explosives, or that a rocket, rather than an airliner, hit the Pentagon. I spent a career in the CIA trying to orchestrate plots, wasn't all that good at it, and certainly couldn't carry off 9/11. Nor could the real pros I had the pleasure to work with."[4] And also note what Seymour Hersh said of Bob: Baer "was considered perhaps the best on-the-ground field officer in the Middle East." When someone like Baer says something like that I sit up and take notice.

Tigerquoll

Mon, 2009-05-11 18:20

Illegal logging involves "wood harvesting, processing and trade that do not conform to law. Illegalities occur right through the chain from source to consumer, the harvesting procedure itself may be illegal, including corrupt means to gain access to forests, extraction without permission or from a protected area, cutting of protected species or extraction of timber in excess of agreed limits. Illegalities may also occur during transport, including illegal processing and export as well as misdeclaration to customs, before the timber enters the legal market." Other examples of illegal logging are: * Underreporting harvest volumes and tax payable * Ignoring selective cutting guidelines * Harvesting outside concession boundaries * Falsifying log transport documents * Accepting falsified log transport documents Timber can also be considered illegal if the plantations are not properly managed. This includes: * Clear-cutting natural forest, then failing to replant * Not planting at rates required to maintain long-term production * Replanting with low-quality species * Replanting at low density." SOURCE: http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2002/timber_mafia/resources/resou... So perhaps Jim Barton can explain the forest impact difference between VicForests endorsed slaughter of Australia's heritage oldgrowth at Bungywarr Creek and at Brown Mountain in East Gippsland and what the Indonesia's Timber Mafia are doing?

truthteller (not verified)

Sun, 2009-05-10 23:12

(Original subject heading was 'Nightcap Village and the Mayor' - JS) All the conservative councilors that voted for the village basically hate the mayor, either because they wanted to be the mayor, or because she keeps voting against them, with the greener councilors. They voted for it because the Land and Environment Court was going to pass it anyway. This way they got to put lots of conditions on it, like all the streets having to have Aboriginal names etc. The tree clearing referred to was noxious weed clearance ordered by the council. If anything losing Joan van Lieshout (the Mayor) as an independent advocate for the village was to their disadvantage, as she is a very good speaker. As it was widely publicised that the protesters were going to "stack the gallery" many people who approve of the idea of a green village, with water tanks, solar power, gray water systems, own sewerage etc were scared to attend. With good reason.

Milly (not verified)

Sun, 2009-05-10 14:19

With the threats of climate change, environmental destruction, population growth, global water and food security short-falls, it seems that our leaders are suffering from short-sightedness and future-blindness! The grab for economic benefits and growth, at the expense of finite ecosystems, surely is a symptom of greed over logic and sustainable practices! Our immigration rate/population growth is supposed to insure our economic growth, however, our debts are worse than ever! It could be possible that as our population grows it may mean also the destruction of the ecosystems that sustain us. Maybe we are heading for mass suicide with our own habitat destruction, and the grab is on to maximise the short-term benefits at all costs!

Jose (not verified)

Sat, 2009-05-09 19:19

Extreme protests are because our State Government is only interested in money and the votes of businesses, and jobs for forest workers. Extreme protests gets the public and the media's attention. The income of loggers is a minor and short-term affair. These old-growth forests and trees have been here since Columbus discovered America, or before! They have TIME and GREATNESS on their side, and these stalwarts stand as sentinels against the wreckage that humans in power want to inflict on them, for a paltry $2.50 per tonne! They store massive amounts of carbon, and chopping them down is environmental vandalism. Get a job, Jim Barton! Nobody accepts the green-washing bulls**t our State government comes out with! They are all lies.

Mel (not verified)

Sat, 2009-05-09 17:47

Not to mention the thousands of animals that are poisoned each year by the logging industry, who obliterate the native forests and then kill the wildlife to prevent browsing on forest re-growth! This is particularly prevalant in Tasmania... disgusting!

If only the loss of a single iconic species - the Tassie Tiger - would have been enough to make people realise that re-establishing a viable population of an extinct species is impossible! Instead, copious amounts of money is used to try and bring it back using genetic material - instead of using the money to try and stop other species from falling victim to the same fate. For the most part, we really are not an intelligent species!

Our native animals and plants are not considered as important until their numbers are so low that they need to be listed as rare or threatened.

Our native animals and plants are not considered as important until their numbers are so low that they need to be listed as rare or threatened. Basically the point of no return! Great strategy isn't it!
So where to go from here? Who knows? The majority of the population are so caught up in their own little worlds that they couldn't care less about issues like this. Money is always more important, as the Government has just proven (once again) with its backflip on climate change. The human race is basically doomed to wipe itself out. Bring it on I say!

jim barton (not verified)

Sat, 2009-05-09 12:41

i have lost several thousand dollars in income due to the pathetic protests the greens have undertaken over the last 2 weeks in the bungywarr area. If you have a problem take it up with the state government directly or the vic forests office. No one will ever take you seriously while you are illegally chained to a machine or strung up a tree stopping the people who are there to make money to feed our familys. Do you honestly think the state government gives a shit while you are taking this sort of illegal action? The only people losing out are the loggers by taking away a slab of our income, the easily led pawns the greens send in to the protests that come out feeling like heroes but now have a criminal record for life. Also not to mention the tens of thousands of tax payer dollars that get spent on the police rescue squad coming from melbourne just to release the protesters and also the local police time wasted. Start using your brains and be a little more democratic and also start telling people the truth about our logging practices instead of just the lies you make up to sway the public to your way of thinking. Old growth forest dosn't absorb carbon dioxide like you say so if you want to get technical we can say that we are helping climate change by replacing it with smaller re growth that with filter the atmosphere a lot more efficiently. This is a saw log driven industry, the pulp that goes for wood chips is what is left over from the tree after the saw log has been taken. Stop the lies and the pathetic protests because no one listens when you go about it in this way. Your protests are just an excuse for camping up the bush smoking dope, dancing around a fire by night, then during the day trying to fighting for a cause that not that many of them really know that much about.

Anonymous (not verified)

Sat, 2009-05-09 12:23

What Salt is saying is a recipe for inevitable gross overpopulation of the relatively small habitable part of Australia (even tho we occupy "an entire continent") and the obliteration of arable land and natural areas near the coast under dense housing . Salt makes no reference to the actual nature of our continent- only giving the impression that it is large. The impression one gets from what Salt writes is that Australia needs to accommodate a proportion- in relation to its area of the 3 billion extras to arrive on the planet in the next few decades. How many would this proportion be? As Australia is about 5% of the total global land mass, by my estimates Australia's "share" would be 150 million of these 3 billion quite apart from Salt's implication of the obligation also to accommodate a proportion of the present population on the basis of the square kms. of our continent which is largely uninhabitable! - These are the figures he appears to want us encompass. If this is our future, then I think we should warn the current population that they are facing disaster either for themselves or for their descendants and if they can possibly migrate elsewhere they should do so. The rest of us who have no rights to migrate to a country outside Australia should seek refugee status in the country closest to Australia that seems to have a long term future. Australia certainly won't . Salt is attempting to make his audience think in terms of these large projected global population figures in order to discredit the 7 million population figure which I understand was mentioned to a journalist by Sandra Kanck as a possible long term sustainable population for the dry infertile continent of Australia.

Sheila Newman

Sat, 2009-05-09 01:36

Steve, You write, "Salt’s article in The Australian newspaper constructively promotes the immigration and population debate in the mass media, which is where the debate should be if the broader community is to be better informed. The broader community holds most influence to effect government immigration policy." Well, I don't think that 'debate' is possible in the mainstream press because they don't play fair; they manipulate perception; they prevent 'debate' because it is not to their advantage to allow growth to be questioned - especially not in the current financially desperate circumstances. Since Salt has been repeating the same thing for years and the mainstream press have been printing the same things for years, to humour him and them [i.e. to take them seriously] is simply adding to the problem. How can you have a debate when it is scripted by a media which is addicted to the inflation produced by population growth and the spokespersons are in the business of selling population growth? It is the mainstream media which has constructed the monumental ignorance of the public on the subject of population policy and immigration. Only the alternative media has some chance of deconstructing that pernicious influence. To encourage any trust in their management of the subject of population numbers is, according to my experience, akin to expecting a fox to put the welfare of hens ahead of his own appetite. I guess I also think that it is counterproductive to cite the overexposed Salt without showing where his investment interests lie. Most people are not aware of them and they need to be told. That is, in my view, the main story. Population growth in Australia is driven by the commodification of resources and the bringing about scarcity. People need to hear that again and again because they have been misled that it is all about something quite different. The Growth Lobby (inc Bernard Salt) took up Tim Flannery's 1994 and then SPA's cry of "Let's have a population policy" (which I used to call for as well) and used it to their advantage, constructing a big population policy. They have run conferences and summits ad nauseum on the pretext of having a 'population policy' and 'having a population policy debate', but all that ever happens is that they put journalists, hired guns and politicians on stage, who tell us we are desperately in need of a big population. I thought your criticism of government immigration stats was good. I like the idea of an immigration tide. Australia and France both had unusually good and continuous population statistics dating back to 1788 and 1789, but the Howard Government changed the collection and definition processes, thus interrupting a 200 plus years series. The government has also been running dodgy partial series, but we could still fall back on the total in and total out in overseas migration. It has become far more difficult now and one assumes this was done on purpose to keep us all totally confused. Sheila Newman, population sociologist home page

Tigerquoll

Fri, 2009-05-08 23:51

What is lacking in Australia’s immigration policy is the federal government’s failure to gather, disseminate and engage in open dialogue about the statistics on immigration and the short, medium and long term triple bottom line quantitative and qualitative impacts on Australia over time. All such information ought to be readily available and kept current on Australia’s Immigration Department and Citizenship website – so all Australians can get the facts ('tide tables' if you like) on immigration, so then we know the reality of Australia's population issues. The current available statistics merely show how many from where and what state they settled and the type of employment category they fit within. The Department's website area is at: http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/statistics/ By 'immigration' keeping the full impacts secret, serves no-one. The article ‘Rudd’s Flood’ I published 7-May-09 includes a full text quotation from demographer, Bernard Salt, in his recent article in The Australian: ‘No room to be smug about population peaks.’ My purpose by including Salt’s article on the back of mine, is because his adds to my message that Australia faces serious immigration pressures. Further, Salt substantiates his case by presenting stark population statistics. While I supported Salt’s highlighting of the threats and implications of excessive population growth, for the benefit of the population sociologist, Sheila Newman, (above reply) I do not agree with Salt’s two contentions. (a) “Australia’s best interests are best served by snuggling up to the prevailing superpower”. No, Australia’s maturity, wealth, influence and size is sufficient for it to be its own master, developing networks of alliances is more effective to deal with pressures of global population growth and redistribution. How would closer ties with the world’s most populous country, China, mitigate population pressures on Australia? Conversely, it would likely encourage more Chinese to move to a more democratic and Australia with our higher standard of living. (b) “The Australian nation should accommodate a far greater share of the world’s population”. Why should we? Australia’s land mass is large yes, but most of it is uninhabitable. A key metric ought to be to gauge what natural resources are required to sustain a set number of the existing population at the current living standards and which are sustainable (economically, socially and environmentally) in the long term? By long term, a fair estimate is three generations, which is typically how long it takes for new migrants to fully assimilate into the community without special treatment). Let’s suggest 100,000 people as a useful number. What parts of Australia can accept 100,000 immigrants to meet the two tests (1) maintain Aussie living standards and (2) achieve triple bottom line long term sustainability? Our existing population can’t achieve either, let alone add to the pressures! However, why I included Salt’s article with mine is because I support Salt highlighting the following immigration pressures facing Australia: 1. There is a need for long term population policy for Australia 2. “The real pressures in terms of access to water, food and energy (natural resources) to feed and sustain this humanity” are just a few decades away. “the global situation by the 2040s will be dire”. “World approaching peak population and with limited resources will be a dangerous place” 3. Before 2050, pressures from “global geo-political forces will compel Australian nation to accommodate” higher immigration – that doesn’t mean we have to but the pressures will be immense. 4. “Sovereign Australia must navigate the next 30 years carefully” – hard to argue against this. 5. Laying a foundation for accepting migrants “from a wide range of countries” is more sensible than just letting high numbers from a narrow range of countries – e.g. China, Lebanon, United States, Sri Lanka. Salt’s article in The Australian newspaper constructively promotes the immigration and population debate in the mass media, which is where the debate should be if the broader community is to be better informed. The broader community holds most influence to effect government immigration policy. Having read Sheila's reply above, I ask how does Sheila's response objectively add to this immigration policy debate?

Nightcap-chaser (not verified)

Fri, 2009-05-08 12:16

For Christ's sake. I just read that the MAYOR of Tweed Shire is MARRIED to the Developer of this totally unpopular development. This is SCANDALOUS! I don't care if she didn't vote. It cannot help but look as if she was in a position to place psychological pressure on the councillors who voted. The only way I would be convinced that this wasn't an inside job is if they had skittled this obscenely destructive of natural heritage development. Please, send us the INSIDE STORY!

Daisy Uriad (not verified)

Fri, 2009-05-08 12:09

How about some Tweed Shire residents writing an open letter to the Councillors who endorsed the development, requiring them to justify their decision, especially if they came in to council on a green ticket. (What have the Greens got to say about THIS? Can a person be accused of false advertising if they run on a green ticket and then vote on a greed ticket?) It looks like, from reporting in the Tweed Daily News, that the NSW Government was applying pressure through the courts or something. What's going on in Tweed Heads? What's the pressure from the NSW Courts? How come our courts are marching to the developers' tune and not the residents'. How can this decision stand? Are there any constitutional lawyers out there prepared to defend our right to representation? Detailed reports needed. The public need education in how such travesties come about.

Sheila Newman

Fri, 2009-05-08 11:20

Steve, Bernard Salt reads better with a lot of salt and preferably wrapped around some nice fish and chips. Did you not have a faint unease in reading Bernard Salt's bland assertions about what is 'our' share etc.? I see that you also have formed the impression that the States have no control over immigration to Australia. This is a widespread misconception. In fact the reality is dead opposite. Most or all of the States have their own immigration departments and they are constantly touting for high immigration numbers over the internet. They do this because they have become infiltrated by property development interests to the degree that no-one in Parliament even dares to criticise these trends. Bernard Salt and KPMG have been making money out of predicting and driving population growth trends for business to speculate on. I became aware of them in about 1993, through advertisements in the press for a report they sold then for around $300 or $400 to businesses. Mr Murdoch's press owns a huge property dot com and, frankly, I cannot tell Murdoch Press interests from KPMG and Bernard Salt interests, seen from a sociological perspective. Finding out where exactly the Murdoch Empire has invested its money is a task beyond my ability but I would be surprised if our daily news were not daily producing attitudes to bolster those and the many similar investment vehicles which unfortunately dominate the Australian landscape - physical and political. This is a good argument for legally requiring full disclosure of all financial interests including corporate investments on a daily basis in all media organs. If you actually analyse what Bernard Salt says you would possibly feel, as I do, that there is little objective reason to publish him for his originality, intellectual rigor or philosophical leadership. What you will find if you google Bernard Salt is that he is always spruiking for population growth and housing, using whatever reasons come to hand. Sometimes the rationale is as crude as suggesting that growth will only stop when the reasons to grow run out - i.e. the Queensland coast is completely ruined. The industry he represents along with other growth lobby spruikers has no concern for democracy and, in my opinion, represents the greatest threat (along with the mainstream press) to democracy and security in this country. Mr Salt is not alone and the industry is extremely well organised and funded via a political monopoly on the use of taxpayer funds. The industry has successfully pressured states for new laws which severely erode Australians' ability to self govern. The industry has a population policy and influences Australia's population policy to the degree that I would say that there is no difference. Australia does have a population policy, but the electorate was never able to vote on it and the subject is rigorously suppressed from the electoral agenda. (See Brisbane ABC suppresses alternative candidates in state elections despite listener dismay with major parties and "Courier Mail, ABC back Department of Main Roads land grab" of 29 Mar 09, "Why the Brisbane Mayoral elections should not have been 'boring'" of 23 Mar 08, "Courier Mail provides 'boring', yet unbalanced, coverage of Brisbane City Council elections" of 17 Mar 09.) Our political elite are engineering Australia to grow according to the dictates of the property development industry and to ignore the wishes of the electorate. In the 2020 Summit Mr Rudd basically rammed that policy through officially. In Victoria and most states there are appalling objectives for unsustainable population growth. I really wonder when it is going to get so bad that they will need to bring out the tanks to stifle the protests. However they manage pretty well by keeping the public confused with the unstinting cooperation of the commercial and ABC media (which runs a lot of Murdoch Journos these days and others, like Geraldine Doogue, who are members of Growth Lobby organisations, like Australia Unlimited of the Globalisation Foundation.) Could I suggest that, when you quote card-carrying growth-lobbyists, like Mr Salt, you do so with ... um... a grain of salt :-) On candobetter's "On the dark side", we have a page devoted to his propaganda Check out The Growth Lobby as well, since Bernard Salt is only one of many organs and ideology promoters in Australia. We often forget to classify these growth lobbyists under all the headings, but another heading is "a href="http://candobetter.org/PropagandaWatch">Propaganda Watch, which contains some gems. Sheila Newman Sheila Newman, population sociologist home page

Tigerquoll

Thu, 2009-05-07 23:31

Jose, yes I take your point about the lack of sustainable goals and the culpable neglect to set and apply transparent standards for Australia's population policy. The myth that increased population growth promises increased government revenue and so by deduction must be good, warrants independent academic challenge. What needs clarifying is the total net impact, economically, socially, environmentally, of the impact of population increase - a stepped quantity of say 100,000 would be start. A core problem with Australian federal immigration policy is that its stops after clearing customs, and hand balls the social, environmental and economic consequences and costs to the States. The States are grossly underfunded and ill-prepared to deal with - evidenced by the chronic shortfalls in State public services and infrastructure to cope. The bandaid accomodating of the flood of immigrants is seeing the rise of suburban ethnic ghettos in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. The Cronulla Riots of 2001 were and early warning of pending systemic problems. But the immigration department says this is not its responsibility. Immigration is encouraged under one man's noble Christian idealised 'samaritan' gesture that has become simply Rudd's Flood. I remain unconvinced that population growth presents and asset to a country, and tend to see it being a liability. The following article from 'The Australian newspaper by Demographer Bernard Salt dated 30th April, 2009 is relevant reading: "No room to be smug as population peaks" "THERE has been a recent suggestion from what I am sure is a well-meaning environmental group that the preferred population of the Australian continent should be 7 million. The population at present is 21 million. This means 14 million would need to be wiped out (by attrition, I am sure) to achieve what is claimed to be a sustainable population for the continent. I see real merit in this concept. Not because I agree with its crazy objective but because it raises the issue of a long-term population policy for Australia. The world population is 6.7 billion and this number will rise to breach the 9 billion mark in about 2050 and will continue to rise before it subsides in the 2080s. At the end of the 21st century, planet earth is projected to contain 9.1 billion people. The real pressures in terms of access to water, food and energy to feed and sustain this humanity will not come late in the 21st century. By the 2080s, world dominance, trading blocs and alliances will have been established in the Resource Wars 40 years earlier. In other words, three decades after reaching peak population, the planet's component interests, let's call them countries, will have sorted out how to divvy up the world's resources. Sounds all very civilised but the fact is this need not be a fair and equitable divvying process. The real pressure for resources will come as the world transitions from 6 billion to 9 billion and quite possibly during the final and tumultuous decade of this 50-year process. Imagine: our planet is 4 billion years old and humanity reaches peak population during the lifetime of more or less anyone under the age of 50 today. The bottom line in this equation is that the world will add 3300 million people over the next four decades. In this time, the Australian population is projected to rise from 21 million to 34 million. Our share of the global population increase will be 13 million out of 3.3 billion. My argument is that a world approaching peak population and with limited resources will be a dangerous place. Australia's interests in such a world are undoubtedly best served by snuggling up to the prevailing superpower. But then this is what we, Australians, are really good at. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, Australia was inextricably linked to Britain, our great protector. This changed in December 1941 when, fearing Japanese invasion, the Australian prime minister made an impassioned plea for US support "free of any pangs as to our traditional links or kinship with the United Kingdom". If China is the dominant global superpower in the 22nd century, will Australia dump the US and sidle up to the Chinese? I think "probably, yes we will". And if this is the case, then Australia will do whatever it takes to remain "on side" with China over coming decades. In either case, the global situation by the 2040s will be dire. The world population will then be close to 50 per cent greater than it was at the turn of the century. In this environment, what advice do you think the Australian nation might have for the rest of humanity? "I understand that things are tough where you come from and we'd really love to accommodate a high level of immigration to alleviate the pressures. However we are terribly concerned about the quality of our environment and so we would really rather you lot stay where you are." At this point it would not be unreasonable for the rest of humanity to consider Australia's "lot". Australia is the only nation on the planet to claim sovereignty over an entire continent. We claim also the land (and sea) resources of numerous offshore territories to the east, west and south, including a suspended claim to more than a third of the Antarctic continent. Not a bad ambit land grab for 34 million people at a time when much of the rest of humanity is scrambling over dwindling resources. Maybe, just maybe, there will be a view, somewhere, that the Australian nation should accommodate a far greater share of the world population. This might come from those who envy our lot. (Hitler justified expansion into Poland as the pursuit of lebensraum or living space.) It might come also from our allies who, bowing to pressure from other interests, might suggest it is a tad unrealistic to want moderated levels of immigration at a time of peak global population. There is a case to say that before the middle of the 21st century, global geo-political forces will compel the Australian nation to accommodate a much higher rate of overseas migration, regardless of the environmental impact. In fact, the notion of Australia wanting to be some special "green refuge' might even pique the ire of those who envy our resources and space. Why wouldn't our enemies say at this time "the white Australia policy has been replaced by a green Australia policy; after all they are both designed to prevent the sharing of resources". Sovereign Australia must navigate the next 30 years carefully and part of this process involves laying a foundation of accepting overseas migration from a wide range of countries. This is as much an investment in the politics of our future as it is an investment in the skills and taxpayer base of our country today. " Bernard Salt is a KPMG Partner; [email protected]; www.twitter/bernardsalt

Jose (not verified)

Thu, 2009-05-07 16:11

Our leaders are quite prepared to use the lazy and short-sighted route to boost our economy and our country's coffers.

Higher population means more taxes, revenue and Stamp Duty for the States. Our leaders are quite prepared to use the lazy and short-sighted route to boost our economy and our country's coffers. They are not interested in "sustainable" anything, and people have become not citizens but economic units and consumers for their own ends! The stress on infrastructures, housing, transport, power, and climate change all fade into insignificance as our present politicians will have retired by the time the worst of our over-populated States fully impact! They would be happy to families living in high-rise apartments, fueled by nuclear power, and see our living standards similar to that of Russia and Europe. The massive unemployment in Europe should be a warning that this is where we are heading.

Vivienne (not verified)

Thu, 2009-05-07 11:37

About 90% of what comes out of our old-growth forests ends up as woodchips to make paper, the majority of which is sent overseas. The "management plan" for Tasmania's Upper Florentine Valley means a growing logging industry for wood chips, with a current price a mere $2.50 per tonne!

Despite the area being surrounded by mountains of the Tasmanian World Heritage Area, the Colonial ignorance of slash and conquer the bush has changed little since the last Tasmanian Tiger was captured there in the 1933.

All this so-called "sustainable forest management" is just thinly disguised eco-destruction by Tasmania's logging industry.

We are bombarded with ecologically "friendly", "sustainable" and "green" language, but the euphemisms are totally contrary to everything they claim!

We are encouraged to avoid plastic bags, turn off power when it is not needed, use energy-friendly light bulbs, save water, use public transport, but the benefits of these actions belie the fact that our governments continue to support the large polluters and industries that are adding to climate change and conservation threats!

Our leaders must be held accountable the rampant materialism and environmental destruction that our nation is succumbing to.

Jose (not verified)

Mon, 2009-05-04 23:12

A predicted price hike to $936 by 2013 for Yarra Valley water and sewerage is due to a lack of planning on the part of the State government. While the Premier of Victoria, Mr Brumby, insists on increasing our population and extending the urban sprawl, he is making water more expensive by having residents pay for the extra infrastructure needed to maintain the supply for our increasing numbers. We have no population plan or policy, and without a target for sustainable numbers, there is no way of planning water supply or other essential infrastructures. "Sustainable growth" is often heard, but the public are being hoaxed. People are taken in by terms like "green" and "eco-friendly" and "sustainable" when the truth is they are likely to be complete green-washing! The desalination plant and the north-south pipeline are questionable with regards to long-term sustainability and costs. The scarcity of water, a basic essential for our gardens, ecology, agriculture, hygiene and consumption, shows that our growth is far from being sustainable! Governments collect more revenues and taxes, and the pro-growth businesses are placated, but the vast majority of Victorian families are being squeezed and stressed due to our government's insistence on rampant growth at all costs! Our governments are obliged to enforce policies that are in the interests of the general public, not themselves or a small minority.

What's the latest? (not verified)

Mon, 2009-05-04 15:08

Hi, What is the latest with the development? Are things going ahead? It seems hard to find info on the subject that's not more than a couple of years old...

marisa

Mon, 2009-05-04 05:46

Dear Sheia, I wish I could answer to all of you that have commented on my article, thank you so much. What I think is that Attenborough is just naive, as I pointed out. The trouble is that he can be seen as pleasing everybody, he is the ideal spokesman for everything- pro and against, left and right, cynics and realists,he just muddles through happily in his suburban garden looking at butterflies .... Marisa
Tony Boys's picture

Tony Boys

Sun, 2009-05-03 10:29

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8030211.stm "Hundreds of thousands of people in Burma's Irrawaddy Delta still need assistance - a year after a deadly cyclone, the UN and aid agencies warn." The BBC does not mention the Karen. I do not believe they do not know of the existence of the Karen in that area since Britain is LARGELY responsible, historically, for the horrors that have taken place there since WWII and anyone who has any connection at all with Burma/Myanmar or any of the ethnic peoples knows the basic history. We lack objective evidence (how convenient) but one has a right, given the circumstances, to be suspicious about who the aid is not reaching... I will try to follow up on this.

Sheila Newman

Sun, 2009-05-03 05:40

Reasonable questions. Where to start? I'm a land-use planning and population sociologist, so I tend to notice these things. I have been writing a book on a subject which leads me to study traditional land tenures, changes during colonisation, and revolutions in Britain and on the continent. I'm not inclined to preview my entire book here, of course, so you will have to be satisfied or dissatisfied with a few info-grabs and refs. Citizenship was originally membership of a community and was defined by land-rights. In a subsistence community, any child born without land would die. There were rules to limit the production or survival of children beyond the capacity of land to provide. Until a few decades into the 20th Century in Australia no-one who did not own land could vote. And British and British colonial women's ability to inherit or own land was compromised between the 11th C and the 1920s - coinciding with their not being able to vote. The Roman Empire started off with about 2% of people citizens and finished up (for a variety of reasons) with about 9% citizens. Citizenship was defined by right to own land, and, not always, right to vote as well. (Women couldn't vote, for instance, but they could own land). Most people in the empire were tenants, serfs or slaves, and could not bequeath their land to their children, only their [lowly] status. You might say that the French revolution was an enlarging of the Roman model rights to all people born to a polity. (More further down.) Note that medieval systems of land-ownership were different from private ownership, but most people were still excluded from dominion over land. God actually owned all the land and the king was his real-estate agent, and he let lords dominate parcels of land and the people on it into perpetuity, and bequeath this, in return for services in time of war. The serfs were the people who provided the means for this system, but they were chattels with some basic rights, like horses. The 1381 Peasants' Revolt, with Wat Tyler and 60,000 landless peasants, in England was a demand for land. Anyone without land was obliged by law to work for anyone with land. People demanded land as their right and as the basis on which to refuse to work for the incumbent landed. (This was after a lot of land became available following the black plague but nobles got the king to make sure that lots of people remained dispossessed and obliged to work for them.) Unfortunately Tyler and his supporters were massacred. The Puritan revolution associated with Cromwell was fought on two levels. The bourgeois who had benefited from Henry VIII's repossession then selling off of the monasteries (which the bourgeoisie had purchased with bullion circulating from South America) wanted more power in parliament. They ultimately beheaded Charles 1 in 1649. However, the Modern Army, led by Cromwell, relied in large part on common soldiers who thought they were fighting for land-rights and voting rights. Famously they were done out of these, even though Cromwell had led them in a massacre against the Irish among others, whose land was divided up for speculators. (Another good reason to revolt). Among the English soldiers were Diggers and Levellers. Both these groups wanted land-rights and voting rights. The Diggers wanted a return to common land and cooperative living. They quoted from the Wat Tyler revolt 261 years prior. The Levellers tended to be land-owners already but landowners who did not have parliamentary representation. None of these people got what they wanted, but Cromwell used them up. Here is a quote from a typical document of the time: Leveller Colonel Rainborough wrote to Cromwell's son-in-law, General Ireton, "For really I think that the poorest he that is in England that a life to live, as the greatest he; and therefore truly, sur, I thinkt's clear, that every man that is to live under a government out first by his own consent to put himself under that government… I should doubt whether he was an Englishman or no, that should doubt of these things." General Ireton replied as follows: "… no person hath a right to an interest or share in the disposing of the affairs of the kingdom … that hath not a permanent fixed interest in this kingdom'. When pressed, he added this: "All the main thing that I speak for, is because I would have an eye to property. I hope we do not come to contend for victory – but let every man consider with himself that he do not go that way to take away all property. For here is the case of the most fundamental part of the constitution of the kingdom, which if you take away, you take all by that." "If you admit any man that hath a breath and being, a majority of the Commons might be elected who had no local and permanent interest. … Why may not those men vote against all property?… Show me what you will stop at; wherein you will fence any man in a property by this rule.", E.P. Thompson, The Making of the English Working Class, Pelican, England, 1968. With regard to the French Revolution: Once again, only people with land were citizens with political rights. There were still a lot of serfs in France and those who had bought out their lords, were still saddled with taxes and charges and duties, yet no representation. They fought for these reasons. (Note that the right to inherit and bequeath is fundamental to property rights.) Here is a translation from a document about the situation of the French on the Eve of the Revolution, which I translated from F.A Aulard, La révolution francaise et le régime féodal, Paris, 1919: “They paid tithes [taxes] to the lord. They were not allowed to marry except between serfs of the same lord. They could not have inheritors beyond those in the same community. They could not get rid of their contract of serfdom except to serfs from the same lord In the custom of Nivernais, they could not inherit from each other if during more than one year they had not had the same dwelling. In Burgundy custom, they could no longer inherit from each other, even if they had constantly occupied the same premises, if it could be proved that they no longer lived ‘by a common fire, bread and salt’. Some were ‘under pursuit’. That is to say that they could be pursued by the lord for payment of tithes they owed him, wherever they went to live Serfs could cease to be serfs by unswearing themselves, which [also] meant renouncing the [land], furniture, [tools, buildings which they had inherited from their parents] within the lord’s landholding.” The 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man, which was the original document of the first days of the Revolution, precised property as a fundamental right in the 2nd and the 17th article. Article 2: The aim of every political association is the defense of man's natural and imprescriptible rights. These are liberty, property, security and resistance to oppression. (Article 2 - Le but de toute association politique est la conservation des droits naturels et imprescriptibles de l’homme. Ces droits sont la liberté, la propriété, la sûreté et la résistance à l’oppression.) Article 17: Property, in as much as it is an inviolate and sacred right, no-one may be deprived of it, unless there is a public necessity, legally constituted, which necessitates it, on condition that there first be paid a fair indemnity. (Article 17 - La propriété étant un droit inviolable et sacré, nul ne peut en être privé, si ce n’est lorsque la nécessité publique, légalement constatée, l’exige évidemment, et sous la condition d’une juste et préalable indemnité.) The French Revolution enlarged citizenship/the right to own and inherit property to all those born in France instead of to just a few families. Women and men could inherit equally. The Napoleonic Code codified this (although it disallowed management of their land by women if there was a man around. Repealed only in the late 20th C.) With regard to the Fijians. As Pacific Islanders they practised Pacific Islander land-tenure - i.e. they did not buy or sell land, although they could lease it. Unlike their treatment of many islanders, the British rulers showed some pity and allowed the Fijians to keep their land-tenure system, as they also allowed the Cook Islanders and a few others. This meant that the Indians and other immigrants who had been imported by the colonisers to provide larger quantities of cheap labour, were unable to buy and sell land. (Many sources, but here is one: "Tenure", in The Pacific Islands: Environment and Society, ed. M. Rapaport, "Tenure": Exerpts from Chapter 17, www.cba.hawaii.edu/pbcp/pdf%20Pac%20studies/tenure.pdf) This meant that Fiji did not get sold off and alienated from the control of the Fijians. For this reason Fijians have land and self-government. It is unfortunate for the Indian Fijians that they do not have land-rights, but, if they did, the island-land would soon be bought and sold internationally and there would be a lot of dispossessed Fijians, just like the Aborigines of Australia and so many other islands in the Pacific. Here is a revealing document about the mentality that imported mass labour to the Islands of the Pacific for colonial purposes and the impact this had. "Depopulation is a distressing reality in most of the islands despite the fact that labour for tropical agriculture is so urgently required; and Asiatics have had to be imported in large numbers. The future development of the islands will demand much labour, but here are the facts about declining populations. In 1870 it was estimated that Polynesia contained 690,000 native people. In 1930 there were about 200,000, but 145,000 Asiatics and 37,000 whites had come in. Melanesia was computed to have three million natives, but recently numbered scarcely one million. Micronesia declined from 273,000 to less than 90,000. In fifty years two-thirds of the native population have disappeared." Gordon L.Wood, The Pacific Basin, OUP, 1930 The struggles in Fiji always boil down to land rights and the Murdoch press keeps getting thrown out of Fiji. My guess (but not my knowledge) is that the Murdoch press infuriates the Fijians because it is always going on about 'democracy' but it is also a big advocate of land-privatisation and just happens to do a lot of business in international land sales. I don't agree with the Murdoch Press's notion of democracy. If I were a Fijian, I would hold onto my land-rights above all else. That is what is at stake if the Fijians 'embrace' "our" version of 'democracy'. You can also read about the struggle to retain communal land-rights in Papua New Guinea, against the constant propaganda from World Bank economists to privatise land and sell it off in Jim Fingleton (Ed.), "Privatising Land in the Pacific, A defence of customary tenures,” June 2005, https://www.tai.org.au/file.php?file=DP80.pdf. I cannot say that I have studied every revolution but I would be most surprised if there were one that did not boil down to struggles between landless and land-monopolists. Communist revolutions are typically about land-rights, with the notion of returning to common-land, but on a huge scale. I guess you could say that the US revolution was about no taxation without representation, but if we were to investigate this, would we also find that representation was only available to those who had land? (I'm not sure here, although I am sure that US citizens have few remaining real rights through citizenship. They have to buy power - health care, land, housing, education etc. Australia is of course going that way too. Land-rights have been commuted to more abstract and less secure rights, such as right to work, right to unemployment benefits - which we now see disappearing - in Anglophone post industrial democracies. And our right to vote has been very watered down, hasn't it, since the media broker the election candidature. In France and Continental Europe (and Britain since 2008) citizens have the right to shelter which the state is obliged to provide. So do immigrants as long as they are legally present in a country. Sheila Newman, population sociologist home page

Tigerquoll

Sat, 2009-05-02 21:48

Just as I am always keen to explore recommendations based on sound analysis, I challenge ambit claims like: * "redistribution of land is the general cause of revolutions" * "The French revolution was all about land redistribution" * "The Fijian revolutions are all about not allowing land to be bought and sold and thereby conserving land within the original islander bloodlines" Claims like these are alarming, but without source and argument are hollow ambit claims.

James Sinnamon

Sat, 2009-05-02 12:56

Bernard Salt's duplicity is breathtaking. For years we have endured this man's facile pretence of disinterestedly inviting us to join with him in welcoming and celebrating the phenomenum of population growth in Australia. He did so as if there were complete unanimity in our society that populatin growth was beneficial rather than being fiercely controvesial. Now, he would apparently have us beleive he has suddenly realised that population growth is not an inherently good thing after all, rather a necessity to avoid an invasion that he inists would be invitable should the Australian nation ever again assert its own right to determine its own population levels. His recipe to avoid invasion, in effect, amounts to effectively turning Australia into a Chinese colony, given the already large Chinese government investments in this country including in an Alminium refinery to be built to the north of Bowen in Queensland to be cntrolled by them and its current bids to buy out mining companies. To imply that this is equivalent to Australia's relationship with the US during the Second World War is a lie. Before the Second World War, unlike today, Australia had self-reliance with a large manufacturing sector capable of being quickly converted to serve the needs of a war economy as indeed happened after war broke out in 1939. And during the war, contrary to a view propagated by most commentators, Australia's relationship with the US was one of partnership and not of subservience. This has been well documented in Andrew Ross's monumental "Armed and Ready - the Industrial Development and defence of Australia" referred to in "The myth of the Howard Government's defence competence " of 21 Nov 07 (also published on Online Opinion). If Australia's ruling elites of 2009 are so willing to prostrate our country in this way in 2009, should it be any wonder to us that so many of Europe's elites proved themselves so willing to do business with the German occupiers in the Second World War?
Tony Boys's picture

Tony Boys

Fri, 2009-05-01 20:19

..."allow populations which have blown out during the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries to gently decline"... Absolutely agree that this is necessary, but manufactured 'consent' will allow nothing of the sort until (probably) the situation gets so desperate that we are all up to our necks in organic matter and the people who are currently running the shop finally realize we're up organic matter creek with no paddle. How do we start the movement back to sanity when we can't find the starting line - can't even see the bars of our own cages (as Daniel Quinn put it)? I've spent well over 15 years searching for the way to the "soft landing" through dialogue, democracy, human understanding and objective data on where 'we' are heading. Meanwhile, our wonderful manufactured consent keeps people in the dark about Burma and Tibet and all the other good causes you and others have mentioned. Although I now know a lot more than I did 15 years ago, I'm really no closer to finding any kind of 'solution' than I was in 1993/4 (or in 1971, I think it was, when I was a very early member of FOE). We talk to each other while no one else is listening as the current elite fills the airways and newsprint pages with (mostly) drivel. Sorry, I'm not in a wonderful mood today...

Anonymous (not verified)

Fri, 2009-05-01 17:25

I heard a woman talking to Jon Faine on ABC local radio this morning about this. She was saying how many farmers are walking away from their farms because of what is being done with water i.e the pipeline. J.F. kept saying that it had nothing to do with the pipeline but it was the drought ad the pipeline had had no effect at all yet so anything that was happening with water had to be because of the drought- not the pipeline. The woman stuck to her guns- she may have been one of the C.W.A. women - I only caught bits of it as I was doing other things - she said that water form her area was right now being stored in one of the dams - mentioned the figure of 10 G.L. can't remember which one - water which should have gone to the river - which river Goulburn I think ??? to flush away the blue green algae J.F. finally conceded her point in a rather offhand way and awaits an interview with Tim Holding. Sorry this is so muddled- that's what happens when you are half listening! JQ

Sheila Newman

Fri, 2009-05-01 01:06

The short answer is that redistribution of land is the general cause of revolutions, because those who have it do not give it up easily and those who do not have it must be desperate to try to take it back. The French revolution was all about land redistribution. The Fijian revolutions are all about not allowing land to be bought and sold and thereby conserving land within the original islander bloodlines - which is the basic notion of citizenship. Another way to redistribute land is to allow populations which have blown out during the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries to gently decline, stop land-sales, retain leasing, reform inheritance laws to make it impossible to dispossess children and to make people realise that if they have children they must provide land for them. No child should be born without sufficient land to find shelter and subsistence on. This was Roman citizen law under Justinian and the basis of the European Napoleonic code, which greatly widened citizenship to include all those born in a particular territory rather than only those of certain clans. Land used for community good, possibly for industry, could still be leased out with the agreement of the affected community, but it could never be alienated. Effective management of land and effective self-government work best locally. Roman/Napoleonic codes are based on subsistence societies and the notion of membership of a tribe that has a specific locality. In Europe land-rights have been abstracted to rights to shelter, social security, health care, income etc. But all those rights, of course, come from the product of the land originally. Europe has a lesser divide between rich and poor than the Anglophone nations, and less dislocation from the land and less disruption to clans and regional settlements than do the Anglophone nations, which guarantee virtually no rights of shelter, social security, health care, income where work is not available etc. It is very hard for the Anglophone national populations to organise and in England there has been a huge portion without land and with precarious rights for centuries, who are encouraged to believe that they can somehow boostrap themselves up continuously merely as wage-earners or investors whilst paying banks all their lives for the privilege of shelter at exorbitant rates. Those people need to take the land back from the banks. Sheila Newman, population sociologist home page

Tigerquoll

Thu, 2009-04-30 22:58

I am always keen to explore recommendations based on sound analysis as Sheila has offered.

So how does a country effect the giving back of land to its indigenous?
The idea would seem to offer a genuine reason for refugees not to flee, assuming all their other threats are removed. Take the Tamil civilians in Sri Lanka currently forced to retreat down to a beach refuge; not dissimilar to the plight of a third of a million Allied troops at Dunquerke in May 1940 early in WWII, cut off by a German armored advance.

While indigenous citizens will demand indigenous rights to land, birth citizens will demand birth rights, legal immigrants will demand immigration status rights. An attractive and popular country like Australia will, indeed long has, become crowded and busy with all these versions of land rights claims. If truejustice says that indigenous have higher moral jurisdiction, how does a country compensate the rest morally? For the indigenous saying to the rest: 'bugger off home' would be the most simplistic option. But human culture rejects such simplicity and one must bare in mind that human culture (especally the religious tainted) has been the spark of nearly all wars.

The hurdle for colonists morally honouring land sovereignty rights to indigenous people lies in the token framework of international justice that is the United Nations. Rwanda, Somalia, Bosnia and almost every war-affected (impoverished) country since WWII (when the UN was formed) has experienced gross moral and legal neglect at the hands of the UN. The UN has a reputation as a toothless, politically correct and grossly underfunded watchdog of international justice.

If only the UN had a similar sense of urgency that Thatcher committed to in 'national' defence the Falklands; irrespective I might add, of glaring immoral justification by the British Tory Government to preserve a distant outpost of an Victorian empire for nothing but political ego and voter distraction.

For indigenous to reclaim just sovereign rights, the UN as a colonist power base is an anathema - the wolves minding the chickens, so the UN must be wound up. A new international organisation of justice should replace the UN with indigenous only members - perhaps the 'IN' (Indigenous Nations) with the English included as indigenous inhabitants of just...England!

Vivienne (not verified)

Thu, 2009-04-30 19:06

Is David Attenborough is being politically correct, or just naive? Globalisation is the way to conflicts, disease, population increases, unemployment, crime, drugs and human vices. Also, it dilutes national identities and culture. This is what went wrong in Europe with immigration! Natural ecological forces and stresses from over populated nations will eventually force than to limit their own size and off-spring, like non-human creatures. Society should be allowed to evolve, as in Japan, to new values rather than achieving identity from offspring. Opening borders encourages the extention of the problems, and thus immigration. Animals have territories, and so should we! The human herd instinct is strong, and we see more people as security and strength, and it makes us blind to the threats we cause to ourselves and our own habitat.

Nurse X (not verified)

Thu, 2009-04-30 16:20

It is a bit late to panic when the death-rate goes up as the virus morphs. I went to a restaurant yesterday (in Australia) and infection was at the back of my mind much of the time. The problem rises geometrically. Seven deaths out of x number of confirmed cases, will still multiply exponentially. Of course that may not seem a big deal until the death is to your child or elderly parent. Passed largely from hand to face and mouth and nose and from droplets on other surfaces. Humans constantly groom themselves by touching hands to face. You need an antiviral disinfectant - basically sodium hyperchlorite (bleach). It needs to be of adequate strength. Only way to disinfect the immediate environment, say in an office, is to use sodium hyperchlorite on fomites like door handles, benches, phones, keyboards ... anything that hands often touch and where spray may land ... and wash hands constantly, using something that breaks protein down - like liquid detergent - especially before, after food and not touch other people and stay away from crowds, especially inside closed spaces. Unfortunately WHO doesn't really tell people how to keep their environment safe. I guess it relies on governments to tell shopkeepers etc, which I don't think they do. Once nurses and doctors had good knowledge about which disinfectants to use and what to disinfect. They have become so reliant on luck and the average basic good health of patients or the ability to use antibiotics to fight secondary infections. The chart inside the article explains the stages very well. Basically this epidemic has spread REALLY QUICKLY internationally. It has sustained infection so far, but not for a very many days. But, you see, it doesn't take many days, does it? I don't know if we can predict the death-rate on the information we have so far. I can think of a number of factors which would not yet be apparent. One is that it is nearly winter in Australia - that will make our risks higher. Another is the global financial crisis, homelessness, lack of heating, lack of access to hospitals. But also, can we talk about a typical survival curve at this stage, with so few cases confirmed? And, finally, the reason we fear this kind of pandemic is because of the rate that such viruses can change - too fast to keep up with. (Anonymous for professional & political reasons)

Sheila Newman

Thu, 2009-04-30 16:06

Wonderful article, Marisa. I wish I had more time to criticise the position that Attenborough takes, but I will do it quickly just here.

I have also read William Rees (who invented the 'Ecological footprint') making similar unjustifiable assertions. It's like saying, "Give a mugger your wallet and he won't beat you up." We can guess that it comes from the highest colonialist and big business echelons. They are the expert muggers of the world and they also own the press which manufactures 'consent'. Tim Murray has long criticised David Suzuki on a similar attitude. Perhaps Attenborough and Rees simply have flown too high, like Icarus, and now their wings have been politically clipped; they have lost their independence. In a world of steady states immigration was always a given, but never the problem it is in our time of massive overuse and overstocking of the world by humans. Mass immigration is now a huge problem for democracy and human rights. It cannot happen without destroying local democracies and denying people the right to settled self-government and control over their environment. For this reason free borders are championed by big business, which is anti-democracy.

Mass immigration is now so close to invasion and a constant source of international friction, exploitation and downright wars and massacres. Think of the overflow from Britain - the first hugely overpopulated country - from which the fossil-fuel-fed diaspora led to the total takeover and massive land-stealing and destruction of biodiversity and democracy, of so many steady-state polities - India, Africa, Australia, Pacific Islands etc.

Think of the overflow from Rwanda (a victim of colonisation and big business and the servants in the pulpits) to neighboring countries, or of El Salvadorian immigration to Honduras, or of the problems created in the Costa Rican social welfare system by the overflow from neighbours and the impact on land-prices from North American immigration. And David Attenborough's words simply promote more of the same chaos. There are peace-keeping solutions, both commercial and humanitarian, that are effective and stem the push for immigration. One of the most effective ways to stop overpopulation and exoduses is to give back land which has been taken by commercial and colonial interests - but you will hardly ever read of this in Aid literature.]

Sheila Newman, population sociologist
home page
Copyright to the author. Please contact sheila [AT] candobetter org or the editor if you wish to make substantial reproduction or republish.

DaveK (not verified)

Thu, 2009-04-30 14:50

http://www.smh.com.au/world/only-7-swine-flu-deaths-not-152-says-who-200... Only 7 swine flu deaths, not 152, says WHO April 29, 2009 A member of the World Health Organisation (WHO) has dismissed claims that more than 150 people have died from swine flu, saying it has officially recorded only seven deaths around the world. Vivienne Allan, from WHO's patient safety program, said the body had confirmed that worldwide there had been just seven deaths - all in Mexico - and 79 confirmed cases of the disease. Sydney's swine scared arrivals Face masks are worn by some at Sydney Airport, but many say strict new swine flu precautions are in reality 'low key'. "Unfortunately that [150-plus deaths] is incorrect information and it does happen, but that's not information that's come from the World Health Organisation," Ms Allan told ABC Radio today. "That figure is not a figure that's come from the World Health Organisation and, I repeat, the death toll is seven and they are all from Mexico." Ms Allan said WHO had confirmed 40 cases of swine flu in the Americas, 26 in Mexico, six in Canada, two in Spain, two in Britain and three in New Zealand. Ms Allan said it was difficult to measure how fast the virus was spreading. She said a real concern would be if the flu virus manifested in a country where a person had had no contact with Mexico, and authorities were watching all countries for signs of that. "There is no pattern that has emerged at this stage to be able to say that it is spreading in a particular way or it is spreading into a particular country ... the situation is continuing to evolve," she said. She said the WHO was not recommending against overseas travel, but urged those who felt sick to stay home and others to ensure they kept their hands clean. No decision had yet been made about vaccinations. "This virus is not airborne, it's caused by droplets ... so it's not a time for worry. It's a time to be prepared," Ms Allan said.

Sheila Newman

Thu, 2009-04-30 13:29

The European Union advises against travelling to Mexico or to the United States. Brussels advises cancelling any non-indispensable trips to directly affected zones. A meeting of Ministers of Health at the European Union is scheduled for Thursday to consider the threat this type of flu represents. Contrary to the World Health Organisation, which has not recommended restricting travel, the Spanish authorities have advised their citizens not to go to Mexico. Source Translation by Sheila Newman Sheila Newman, population sociologist home page

Vivienne (not verified)

Tue, 2009-04-28 00:08

Call it "intensive animal farming", "factory farming“, or "industrial farm animal production.” A report from the Union of Concerned Scientists prefers the term “confined animal feeding operations.” No matter what you call it, it adds up to the same thing. Millions of animals are crowded together in inhumane conditions, causing "significant environmental threats and unacceptable health risks for workers, their neighbors and all the rest of us". The first case of H1N1 swine flu virus was discovered in a North Carolina factory farm in 1998. Within months of the 1998 emergence, the virus showed up in Texas, Minnesota, and Iowa. Dr. Robert Webster, one of the world’s leading experts of flu virus evolution, blames the emergence of the 1998 virus on the “recently evolving intensive farming practice in the USA, of raising pigs and poultry in adjacent sheds with the same staff,” a practice he calls “unsound.” "Influenza in pigs is closely correlated with pig density,” said a European Commission-funded researcher studying the situation in Europe. Given massive concentrations of farm animals within which to mutate, these new swine flu viruses in North America seem to be on an evolutionary fast track, jumping between species at an unprecedented rate. Changes in animal husbandry, including increased vaccination, may be spurring this evolutionary surge after years of stability, according to science writer Bernice Wuethrich in Washington DC. Hundreds of industrial-scale hog facilities that have sprung up around Mexico in recent years, and the thousands of people employed inside the crowded, pathogen-filled confinement buildings and processing plants. Cheaper labor costs and a desire to enter the Latin American market are drawing more industrialized agriculture to Mexico all the time, wiping out smaller, traditional farms, which now account for only a small portion of swine production in Mexico. Smithfield operates massive hog-raising operations Perote, Mexico, in the state of Vera Cruz, where the outbreak originated. The operations, grouped under a Smithfield subsidiary called Granjas Carrol, raise 950,000 hogs per year, according to the company Web site. The Mexico City daily La Jornada has also made the link. According to the newspaper, the Mexican health agency IMSS has acknowledged that the original carrier for the flu could be the “clouds of flies” that multiply in the Smithfield subsidiary’s manure lagoons. Residents [of Perote] believed the outbreak had been caused by contamination from pig breeding farms located in the area. They believed that the farms, operated by Granjas Carroll, polluted the atmosphere and local water bodies, which in turn led to the disease outbreak. The inhumane conditions of large scale pig farming, that depend on vaccinations and mutilations, should finally make us question the sustainability of our pig industries. Maybe this “sting in the tail” is payback time! We ultimately reap what we sow!

Anonymous (not verified)

Sat, 2009-04-25 12:57

This disaster, an ongoing one too, is such a tragedy... Ironic being that the Incan civilization pioneered the idea of sewerage pipes and systems, way before their European conquistadors had such systems back home. I find it so disgusting too that so many Aussies and the like visit Lake Titicaca, and not because they do visit it, but because I wonder whether they notice the pollution and secondly, whether if they do, they fear the notion of the reality might poison their mirage of Peru and their holiday. Sure it's amazing - people living on a lake, a step back in time. But the pollution and poisoning, the fish carcasses and sewerage in the Lake is not how things were when it was under Inca rule. It is but a reminder of a continuing colonization of Peru by the West, of their domination and rape and plundering of their mining resources and enjoyment and satisfaction with leaving villagers without sewerage. It doesn't make an impact for corporations. And what is clear too - that tourists are content to turn a blind eye to the reality of the state of Peru. Wake up tourists and those who see Peru as a cute, magical land and Wonderland, and smell the feces and think about why that is...

April (not verified)

Fri, 2009-04-24 23:52

The Council have changed their meeting date from Tuesday 19th May to Thursday 28th May 2009.

How convenient for them!

The process for this rally was already in place before the new Councilors were elected and I suspect that they have been told that the rally will go ahead with or without them voting in favor of it. Rayner at the 2nd council meeting told the new councilors when he was asked about a conflict of interest, that he had had legal advise and told them he was told there was no conflict.

We must remember four of them were new to the job and a bit green behind the ears and of course the GM was suppose to be there to guide them in policy matters and how could they know if he was misleading them or not.

I am REALLY surprised that Dot Holdom who I thought was an honorable smart cookie was taken in by all this or was she? Funny how she has closed up shop now, as she kept the business going when she was in council before. If she had retained the business she would have had to excuse herself from voting on the rally proposal but now she is free to vote on it (how will she vote I wonder) will it be worth giving up the job she loved. What will she gain from it? Maybe now she will have time to devote herself to a takeover bid to be mayor it could be a race between her and Polglaze to see who gets to the post first. I wonder would they take turns year about. Maybe they can try and bring in a vote of no confidence to try and take the reigning mayor down, who knows we will just have to wait and see. Where is the GM in all this could he possibly be the puppet master?

Really all politics aside however, if the councilors had any gumption they would take notice of the people and the promises they themselves made before the election and do what is right, firstly for the environment and wildlife (once our native environment and wildlife are gone that's it they won't come back) and then the people, as we are supposed to be masters of our own destiny it's the rest of the planet that needs to worry as it is at the mercy of us humans. But then I guess prospective councilors will say anything to get in and then do exactly as they like or else kowtow to the powers that be because they are afraid and have no courage to do what they know is right. God help Australia and the rest of the world because Tweed Council sure as hell doesn't.

GENERATIONS to come will condemn this council if they let the rally go ahead without a fight. They will be known as the Environmentally Irresponsible Council.
WHY? Answer= Because they knew better!

Vivienne (not verified)

Fri, 2009-04-24 09:48

Dear Mr Brumby, I a utterly shocked and appalled that the logging of the ancient trees in Brown Mountain is still continuing, despite protests and the facts and broken promises. Please do NOT give me the "sustainable" excuse! Some of the trees could be up to 800 years old! Isn't anything worth more than $$ these days! I can't believe these giants will end up as mere woodchips! We are losing perspective in Australia, and due to the shortness of days (climate change), rampant materialism and consumerism is taking over logic and policies. Please STOP and think! Not everything has a cash value. What about the intrinsic value of these giants, their impenetrability to fire, the homes they create for native (and diminishing) native species? The officer of Environment Minister Gavin Jennings apparently now has the DSE report about threatened species and is considering what to do. All this talk of "sustainable" when nothing is now! It is just greenwashing and disrespectful to Nature and history! This logging is pure vandalism, and nothing else! Please STOP.

Sheila Newman

Thu, 2009-04-23 21:45

Hi Macca, There is a way around this, and it is an honest way. I think that you could edit the content from the film you are criticising down to less than ten per cent of that film, then mix it in with your own critical film, which shows how the rally will actually drive through the natural areas it is using as a free showcase. Since your film would be educational you should be able to select parts - in effect quoting them - of the rally promotional film. If it were my educational film I would select the rapturous starts of the various scenes the rally promotional film depicts, as an introduction to your footage of car racing. Keeping them proportionately below ten percent of the original film and ten percent of your short production should keep you in the clear. As far as I know, any work not for profit may use material from a commercial product for educational purposes, as long as it does not use more than 10%. You would have a shorter and more effective film. To really cut things down, you could just use still-shots taken from the promotional rally film, and insert your fast car footage. I would be interested to see the notice of infringement of copyright you received. Sheila Newman, population sociologist
Macca's picture

Macca

Thu, 2009-04-23 13:09

The video is no longer available through You Tube. I received a copyright infringement notice and as a result have removed the video. Macca

Anonymous (not verified)

Wed, 2009-04-22 20:32

In the United States, the state of North Dakota has a wholly state-owned bank that creates credit on its books just as private banks do. This credit is used to serve the needs of the community, and the interest on loans is returned to the government. Not coincidentally, North Dakota has a $1.2 billion budget surplus at a time when 46 of 50 states are insolvent, an impressive achievement for a state of isolated farmers battling challenging weather.3 The North Dakota prototype could be copied not only in every U.S. state but at the federal level. (See also section "Building on a Successful Tradition" in article "Revive Lincoln's monetary policy - an open letter to President Obama" of 12Apr09, republished from Global Research. - JS)

Tigerquoll

Sun, 2009-04-19 22:01

Burning native habitat is State-sanctioned arson. If not, then perhaps Matthew in his claims above can offer verifiable ecological authority behind the myths he relies upon to justify why deliberatly setting fire to native habitat is 'good' for it? Myth 1: "Increased burning is exactly what we need." Arsonist profess this, so how do you differentiate yourself? Arsonists feel good about lighting fires. Myth 2: Bushfire is "good for human safety." Ambit claims deserve no more than single words rebuffs like: 'crap'. But politely, I offer a more reasoned response. Many prescribed burns actually get out of control and become the threat to human safety they are trying to avoid. Human safety is about not building in bushfire prone areas and not using materials that burn. Why is this logical solution avoided? If you choose to build in the bush and then burn the bush so that there is no bush around to burn, have you ust defeated your purpose of building in the bush? Bushfires burn down houses mainly fronm ember attack which can travel by winds many kilometres, so to remove the threat of ember attack, how many kilometres circumference of bush do you need to destroy to feel safe - 3km, 10km? You may as well build you house on farm land with no trees, undergrowth or grass in sight. Then you may be safe from ember attack. Think of the St Andrews example during the February Victorian Bushfires. Bushfire fighting is all about rapid detecton, response and suppression of ignitions. Currently most bushfires are detected by thoughtful members of the public calling 000, then volunteers are called in and drive out in fire trucks. What are the performance statistics for say 2008 for all ignitions in Victoria in terms of elapsed time between estimated ignition time and response on site? Hours? Days? Such delays are not good for human safety or habitat. Myth 3: "Australian ecology depends on fire" Another ambit claim and so I say, crap. Name your ecological authority? Name species of flora that are threatened with extinction due the lack of fire? Name species of fauna that are fire dependent and relish being burns victims and displaced for years due to habitat destruction by fire? Myth 4: "The natural adaptation of Australian plants to fire means that fire suppression actually helps drive native species to extinction, as they are outcompeted by faster growing, more prolific seed spreading imported weeds. This is often accompanied by native animals being pushed out in the same fashion." So you are now claiming bushfires are good because weeds grow faster than native plants. How is putting out bushfires logically connected to weeds? I am being really patient now. Some Australian flora have become more fire tolerant that others, but others remain sensitive to fire and vulnerable to fire. This generalist claim disregards the complexity of biodoversity. It's like claiming the bush growns back and so must be ok. Again, what ecological authority do you base you claim? How does putting out bushfires (fire suppression) "drive native species to extinction"? Weeds do not invade undisturbed bush easily - there is too much bush in the way. Heavy rain after burning will leave exposed subsoils and attracted weeds, but bushfire authorities who engage in prescribed burning abrogate themselves of responsiblity for follow up weeding - 'not our problem' they say. Myth 5: "Strange as it may sound, continual fire protects native species." Really strange this one. What ecological source, evidence, location do you have for this claim? Myth 6: Aboriginal firestick farming has proven to be best. Small mosaic occasional fires have prevailed across Australia, but the frequency and scale of that applied since 1788 has been a thousand fold - hardly comparable. Now we have a fraction of the good bush left, so hardly a comparable practice when we only have islands of the original natural landscape left. Referring to Tim Flannery's book is a start as a source, but what argument are you drawing upon? Name dropping is not supporting evidence. Matthew, here's some an ecological authority to counter your myth that 'fire stick farming' is an age old environmental condition "best" for the Australian bush. "Professor Gell has uncovered evidence that the incidence of fires increased dramatically with the arrival of Europeans after the 1830s. Contrary to conventional beliefs, he says, the first squatters burnt the land far more regularly than Aborigines ever did." Source: "Researcher questions fire strategy" by Geoff Maslen in the SMH of 23 Mar 09. One must recognise that the bush (habitat) is also the innocent victim of bushfires, so how can you argue fire is good when the bush burns and by burning is killed, habitat lost and native animals burned alive, displaced because home ranges of native mammals are not transportable? Think of a 'home range' like a farm dog chained to a tree - it can't just walk to the next hill to escape fire. Home ranges are geographically fixed. Fire destroys them and the animals do know to move elsewhere. They may roam to feed but return to their burnt out home after feeding - exposed and so many die. I can cite evidence if you want. Simplistic myths trying to generalise bushfires being good for Australia's native flora and fauna are overdue their time of reckoning. Bushfire authorities simply are flying blind with no ecological idea of what they do. The CFA in Victoria and RFS in NSW have become more adept at letting remote fire burn millions of hectares of native habitat and to lighting prescribed burns systematically every year, to the extent that bushfirefghting has forgotten its core task of bushfire suppression and supplanted it with prescribed burning. This is defeatist. Perhaps the CFA now stands for Country Fire Arsonists and the RFS stands for Rural Fire Starters? Notably not a Australian native zoologist among them.

Sheila Newman

Sat, 2009-04-18 21:21

You might try reading http://candobetter.org/node/287 The British ruling (corporate) classes colonised Australia using slave labour - political prisoners drawn from the dispossessed landless who had been maintained as a constant labour pool since the middle ages. Those people where held in the same contempt as aborigines were by the British. If you go to this site you will find a document I transcribed from Black Deaths in Custody, NSW, which gives a very angry opinion of high immigration to Australia. http://home.vicnet.net.au/~aespop/aespkoori.htm Anyone who comes here by choice, should take responsibility for that. That responsibility should entail sticking up for this land. Why on earth would it entail lying down and allowing the land to be raped - as the aboriginal document cited above suggests. Defend the land, Steve, as you do, and you are not its enemy. Oh, and yes, the Fijians are simply maintaining the normal Pacific Islander land-tenure traditions - the ones that prevent overpopulation and the selling off of islands. Among a few islands, they were accorded that mercy by colonial administrators. That doesn't please the monsters who attempt to turn every scrap of earth in the Pacific into private tenure so they can market it to overseas millionaires looking for a cheap island, miners and industrialists looking for cheap labour and no effective environmental rules. (Which is, of course, what they get now in Australia). You might notice that the Murdoch press keeps getting chucked out of Fiji. I wonder why. Might have something to do with their business obsession with marketing land and high immigration. Sheila Newman, population sociologist home page

Vivienne (not verified)

Sat, 2009-04-18 09:55

The ACT Commissioner for Sustainability and the Environment, Dr Maxine Cooper, in her Report on ACT Lowland Native Grasslands states that only 5% (1,000 hectares) of the estimated 20,000 hectares of Natural Temperate Grassland that existed in the ACT prior to European settlement remains. Her report identifies that there is an "urgent need for land management actions to be undertaken to protect the 60% of the Territory’s lowland native grassland sites”. She identifies the threatening processes to include weeds, inappropriate mowing regimes, overgrazing by stock, Eastern Grey Kangaroos and rabbits. However, without qualifications, she concludes that it was the "over abundance of kangaroos is a recent and highly significant threat" and that they are "likely to adversely affect other sites in the future". It is well known that kangaroos are frugal in the amounts of water and grasses consumed, and they padded feet are soft on the soils. Surely, the more obvious and more robust impacts to manage would be the weeds, overgrazing by livestock and rabbits? Maxine Cooper's agenda, it appears, is to rationalise what Defence and ACT leaders really want, the massacre of kangaroos, and find the "science" to justify it!

Ian Austin James (not verified)

Sat, 2009-04-18 06:58

Thank you for your recent post on the NSF blogsite. It is exciting to read your comments and to navigate to this blog and read further information backing up your comments. Of course reforrestation on a massive scale is possible, it is just a matter of will. The fact that there is an awakening of awareness amoung the land managers of the Australian continent is a hugely encouraging first step. Keep spreading the good word. Cheers

Tigerquoll

Sat, 2009-04-18 00:00

National sovereignty holds strong, deep and true with natives of a land by birth. But these same souls wrestle with a divided sense of origin. I can even claim this mixed sense of origin as a sixth generation Australian, having mixed ancestry from England, Scotland and Ireland and Northern Ireland, like so many colonist Aussies. Perhaps if I was an Aboriginal Australian I would shout 'bugger off all you immigrant lot' and feel down right just. As a desendant of an immigrant, I can only shout this but in a compromised sense, despite being born here and despite having five generations of forebears born in Australia before me. But despite Australia's history of its dominant coloniser, Britain, instigating the immigration flood gates which has perpetuated since then under various convincing justifications, invasion wrongs don't morally justify invadors' rights over indigenous pre-existing rights. The undeclared Australian indigenous war did that. Someone important should really start asking the true indigenous peoples of the many countries that was Australia for their view of all this 'open immigration policy'? A few preconceive 'immigration myths' warrant challenging, such as that Australia is large and so has plenty of room to accommodate mass immigration. I challenge this premise with two facts - (1) Much of Australia is inhabitable and not population supportable in terms of all modern human needs/resource dependencies - potable water, arable land, raw energy, urban infrastructure, public services to name a few - so the 'plenty of room' myth must be downsized to the eastern sea-board and then again to provide for the already minimal footprint of threatened native habitat and then again to the fertile pockets left. Perhaps at a wild guess this reduces the plenty of room concept to just 1/50 Australia's total land mass - so not so supportable after all, and (2) that the existing population must meet Australian standards for health, viability, sustainability, quality of life, fair share of wealth and aspirational opportunity. But given Australia's poverty, indigenous short life span and third world housing conditions, and given the unemployment and desperation of Australian charities in trying to cope with the burden of the needy, cast out by Australian governments, a moratorium on all immigration into Australia should be a priority so Australians can get their own incumbent populous to a minimal standard of human health, decent living conditions and sustainability, before any consideration is given to further population invasion pressures. Democratic rights rightly start with the traditional people of any land. They diminish with subsequent arrivals. Else, if this is not held as the right of possession, then a million Indians or Chinese could turn up in 2010 and claim equal land rights and equal democratic rights for their own determination for the future direction of Australia and they would dominate through sheer numbers, and so claim democratic rights over the existing population. I guess this is how Aborigines of any country feel - Scotland, Wales, Ireland, Northern Ireland, the Aran Islands, Maories, Koories. So what is democracy? Is this what the indigenous Fijians are reclaiming after a century of immigrant domination, under their own cultural right to self-determination?

Sheila Newman

Fri, 2009-04-17 22:36

For anyone keen to read something relatively detailed on this, there is a really excellent article by Victorian forester, Andrew Campbell, on the bushfires and the various associated ecological controversies here Sheila Newman, population sociologist home page

Sheila Newman

Fri, 2009-04-17 20:29

I particularly liked this bit. It is so true that the political economics of forced overpopulation trample democracy. "It undermines a core component of quality of life, namely the self-determination of communities through open and equitable democratic processes." And a core human right. Governments who ignore their constituents erode their authority to govern. If a government takes its authority from being elected, yet ignores the electorate's interests and dismisses their protests, how does it maintain its legal authority? Sheila Newman, population sociologist home page

Milly (not verified)

Fri, 2009-04-17 09:26

"Report on ACT Lowland Native Grassland Investigation" by the Commissioner for Sustainability and the Environment The ACT Commissioner for Sustainability and the Environment, Dr Maxine Cooper, has completed a Report on ACT Lowland Native Grasslands. Lowland native grassland comprises several types of grassland communities; of particular importance is Natural Temperate Grassland, which is one of the Territory’s most threatened ecosystems. Only 5% (1,000 hectares) of the estimated 20,000 hectares of Natural Temperate Grassland that existed in the ACT prior to European settlement remains. Nationally, less than 1% of this community remains. The Report identifies that there is an urgent need for land management actions to be undertaken to protect the 60% of the Territory’s lowland native grassland sites that are currently in a critical condition or approaching this state. The threatening processes that have caused the demise of the grassland sites include weeds, inappropriate mowing regimes, overgrazing by stock, Eastern Grey Kangaroos and rabbits . "The over abundance of kangaroos is a recent and highly significant threat that has changed the condition of many of the lowland native grassland sites, and likely to adversely affect other sites in the future." Interesting that with all the loss of native grasslands and the threats, she focuses on the easy targets - Kangaroos! Surely they have been residents in Australia for thousands of years, whereas the other threats are RECENT!

Sheila Newman

Fri, 2009-04-17 08:57

Naive question, Steve. Obviously, when they employed a planner in environmental management, they were looking for someone to promote overpopulation, overdevelopment and a love of concrete on behalf of Australia's Growth Lobby. There are people like this in every state now. Australia is going to the dogs... wolves... um ... the hairless apes. Apologies to wolves. Sheila Newman, population sociologist home page

Matthew (not verified)

Fri, 2009-04-17 07:05

I don't doubt your commitment to the environment, but you've got it exactly backwards. Increased burning is exactly what we need. Not just for human safety, but because the Australian ecology depends on fire at the very least as a means of recycling dead matter (The Australian ecology is different from many others in that our lack of water tends to inhibit microbial decomposition - as a result fire takes on that role).

There are many other reasons, as well. The natural adaptation of Australian plants to fire means that fire suppression actually helps drive native species to extinction, as they are outcompeted by faster growing, more prolific seed spreading imported weeds. This is often accompanied by native animals being pushed out in the same fashion.

But the weeds, by putting their effort into spreading widely, have few resources left to recover from periodic annihilation events (like bushfires), meaning that where the bush burns periodically, native plants and wildlife have a natural advantage. Strange as it may sound, continual fire protects native species.

So long as the fires are not the huge events that just happened, of course. Continual small fires (such as aboriginals lit - look up "firestick farming") has proven to be best. This is not to say that exactly the same areas should be burned each time, of course.

An early paper of Tim Flannery's on the subject would be a good introduction to the historical importance of fire, and how it relates to the rest of the Australian environment - please don't be put off by the windy title: "The Timing, Nature, and Aftershock of Pleistocene Extinctions in Australia" (www.amnh.org/science/biodiversity/extinction/Day2/bytes/FlanneryPres.html)

Tigerquoll

Thu, 2009-04-16 23:11

[Appreciate the alert Menkit - sounds like it's all about inconvenience to Duntroon's Army officer field training on country acquired at Majura]. ACT Commissioner for Sustainability and the Environment, Dr Maxine Cooper, is ACT's inaugural full-time Commissioner in the role, yet what relevant environmental qualifications and experience does the incumbent have, or indeed lack, to be officially condemning another local indigenous popluation of Australia's iconic marsupials, our kangaroos, to slaughter for cat and dog food? The Environment Commissioner's own website lists her formal qualifications in the areas of Environmental Planning, Environmental Design and Environmental Science. All these 'environmentally' friendly prefixes sound impressive, until one realises that each of these areas of academic study are not fauna focused, but indeed all about human-centric utilisation of the natural environment for the benefit of humans. That is, these qualifications are all about maximising the convenience of the environment for humans. A wolf in charge? Such qualifications offer no insight into the surival and habitat needs of Australian wildlife. "According to ACT's inaugural Environment Commissioner, kangaroos at Belconnen were a threat to certain vulnerable and endangered species of fauna and flora on the site. Where's the bloody independent zoological evidence, who would attest to this view under the test of peer scrutiny? Now if our roo-shooting redneck commissioner had a more relevant Bachelor of Science in Zoology from say the University of Melbourne, she may be of a contrary mindest, less aligned to human planning needs and monetary gains more empathetic to ecological needs of nativa fauna. The introductory paragraph for the University of Melbourne it Honours degree in Zoology online instills the followng focus: "How animals live and why they live that way are questions addressed by zoologists. Most of the Australian fauna are poorly understood or not even formally named, yet informed management and resource use of Australia's flora, fauna and habitats depend upon zoological knowledge. We need to catalogue what species exist and how they survive in their natural environments. This requires knowledge of their physiology, breeding and reproductive systems, ecology, evolution and behaviour." [SOURCE: http://www.unimelb.edu.au/HB/areas/SZOOL.html] Maxine Cooper, where are your qualifications in zoology and in the conservation and Australian wildlife to entitle you to officially condemn thousands of Australia's iconic kangaroos to slaughter for dog and cat food? Can you guarantee the Australian public that none of these kangaroos is to be minced for dog and cat food? The standard setting for the job prerequisites for the ACT's Environment Commissioner are woeful and clearly not in the best interests of the target subject - our natural wildlife. What were they thinking by employing a planner in environmental management?
Tony Boys's picture

Tony Boys

Thu, 2009-04-16 12:13

Thanks Helga, It's so good to hear from someone who has actually walked the Earth in the villages. A friend of mine, Francis Ferguson, has done interesting work with the Karen in northern Thailand which suggests that the Karen would do far better if the government would simply leave them alone. It would be even better if the govt would try to assist the Karen on their own terms and not let all the modern concepts of development and economy get in the way, but that isn't going to happen just yet... You can reach Francis at: pgazknyau[AT]yahoo.co.jp He can then point you to his documents and so on.

Menkit Prince

Wed, 2009-04-15 21:34

GOOD question, Sheila. Not sure. I don't think anyone has a clue how many koalas are left, especially after the devastating fires and floods recently. I do know however that the normal mortality rate for koalas is 2-3% but if it goes up to 3-4% that colony will become extinct. They get very stressed when there are too many deaths and they stop breeding. I heard that directly from Steve Phillips, world koala expert. He would probably know the answer to your question by the way. The situation looks pretty grim. It's a big reason why I am fighting Kings Forest/Cobaki Lakes and the Repco Rally. cheers, Menkit "It’s embarrassing for Australia that we eat our own wildlife ....I’m here to tell you it’s just not right. Simply do not buy, use or eat kangaroo products” ~ Steve Irwin Sign the most important petition ever created to help kangar

Pages

Click to read all comments.