Comments

The Japanese to claim sushi is not under threat is akin to saying the sky will fall in. When they get home the Japanese must really laugh at the bullcrap that western countries and organisations believe.

Australia already sells farmed bluefin tuna to Japan for sushi.

"The southern bluefin tuna (Thunnus maccoyii) farmed in Australia is one of two species of bluefin tunas. Its close relative, the northern bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus), is being used to develop tuna farming industries in the Mediterranean, North America and Japan."

Go to Australian Aquaculture Portal

Successive reductions in annual fishing quotas in Australia waters "prompted a move away from canning to value adding through farming. The first experimental farm was established at Port Lincoln in 1991 under a tripartite agreement between the Australian Tuna Boat Owners' Association of Australia, the Japanese Overseas Fisheries Cooperation Foundation, and the South Australian Government. Over the past decade the farmed sector has grown to the point where around 98 per cent of the Australian southern bluefin tuna quota is now farmed.

Farming is undertaken by those operators who have access to part of the Australian quota and who possess the necessary farm lease sites, and the equipment and expertise to catch tuna. There are currently fifteen tuna farms on eighteen sites, which range in size from 20 to 30 hectares.

New areas off Port Lincoln have been opened up from 2003 when there is expected to be twelve farmers operating on twenty-five lease sites."

So all that froth and bubble by Japan at CITES is akin to loggers claiming only 500 year of Eucalytus regnans provide quality woodchips for toilet paper.

Japanese spin is palpable. The 'scientific whaling' crap is more of a con than the Year 2000 bug. The sad thing is that the CITES mob believe them.

Tiger Quoll
Snowy River 3885
Australia

A national park "is a large area of land which is protected by the government because of its natural beauty, plants, or animals, and which the public can usually visit." (Collins English Dictionary). Logging is an incompatible ananthema, so NSW use of the term is deceptively misleading and inappropriate for its Riverina declaration. Sounds like Sartor-Keneally spin trying to have their cake (NP) and eat it (log it) too. Logging National Parks is like saving koalas by shooting them. Such government greenwashing needs to be legislated to make it an offence against the public trust and so trigger no confidence government elections. Sack the bastards! Tiger Quoll Snowy River 3885 Australia

It's not unknown. I'm referring to various state auditors' reports on wildlife statistics on threat and planning to mitigate it. Basically our lack of useful data means that we are not keeping up with species threats and extinctions and, given the massively destructive processes associated with human expansion and intensification of development, threats, endangerment and extinctions can only be increasing. See this site tag on auditor generals' reports: http://candobetter.org/taxonomy/term/1719, notably "Damning Auditor General Report on Fauna protection for Victoria," posted January 3rd, 2010 and 09, and "Tasmania, West Australia, Victoria - our wildlife are ignored by government", posted January 3rd, 2010 by Sheila Newman. The first article summarises:

"In a press release on April Fools Day 2009, Gavin Jennings interpreted as a 'pat on the back' a terrible report by the Auditor General on the Victorian Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988.[1] The report said "the government's lack of baseline data or output performance measures means that it is not possible to conclude whether or not the Act has achieved its primary objectives. The available data, which is patchy, indicates that it has not," and notes failure to use the conservation and control measures in the Act, inadequate listing of threatened species, failure to develop action statements, to monitor implementation of these, or to assess their effectiveness, and that penalties for offences under the Act have not been reviewed or updated and therefore are not an effective deterrent." So government has no reliable statistical basis to make statements on wildlife numbers and health or to issue cull-permits in Victoria. Local independent counts are potentially more influential - like this one."

There is every reason to assume the same problems in all the other states and territories. This information is of utmost importance and can be used in important battles, such as in the Environment East Gippsland trial about endangered species. The Victorian government's response to the Auditor General's report was that they would do what they can within budgetary constraints - which is to say that, despite spending taxpayer money to launch unsustainable growth, they won't spare a penny to fulfill their meager obligations towards wildlife under their own laws. The Auditor General's report for Victoria noted that it would take them 30 years or so to achieve what they had said they would do under the law at the pace they had undertaken. *

CITES is a start. But how do you know about these known unknowns with statistics? Hunch? Given Australia has possibly the worst human record causing species extinctions, and is a first world country with no excuse, it should be attending and presenting at the CITES conference defending the species against poaching and illegal trade particularly in our region. Garrett should have been preparing for the conference not looking after insulation. Garrett and the Rudd Government have done little to address the risks of species extinction in Australia and have no voice on the world stage to protest against and address trade in threatened species. What was the most recent national park in Australia listed? Why are threatened species recovery plans not funded federally? Tiger Quoll Snowy River 3885 Australia

But, Tigerquoll, Australian governments keep incompetent or non-existent statistics on our wildlife populations, so CITES only reflects a very inadequately researched picture. There would be many more threatened species in Australia than are formally identified.

Why can't the Japanese farm tuna like salmon? Atlantic Bluefin Tuna (Thunnus thynnus) is proposed by CITES for inclusion in its Appendix 'Species threatened with extinction' - mandating trade in specimens of these species is permitted only in exceptional circumstances. Under CITES COP15 Monaco on 14-Dec-09 proposed Thunnus thynnus be included in Appendix I (Proposal 19). "The species is found in the North Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranean Sea, in waters down to a depth of around 200 m. The proponent demonstrates that the species is certainly affected by trade and claims, in paragraph 15 of its summary, that the species qualifies under two of the biological criteria for inclusion in Appendix I: – The wild population is small, with a majority of individuals being concentrated geographically during feeding and spawning and has a high vulnerability to intrinsic factors (behavioural factors, specifically migration and aggregating behaviour) – A marked decline in the population size in the wild which has been observed as ongoing or having occurred in the past (but with a potential to resume) or is inferred or projected on the basis of levels or patterns of exploitation, high vulnerability to intrinsic factors and (for the west stock only) decreasing recruitment. With respect to the former, however, population size information is only provided for part of the range: the Mediterranean Sea – where the genetically effective population size is given as 400-700 individuals, although the supporting statement does not indicate the total size of this population." Japan's Objection Japan has objected to the inclusion of Atlantic Bluefin Tune in Appendix I for the following reasons: 1. The stock condition of Atlantic Bluefin Tuna does not meet the criteria for CITES Appendix I listing and the species is not threatened with extinction. a) Monaco’s proposal assumes that the spawning biomass stock of the east Atlantic Bluefin Tuna will decline to 18% of the 1970 level, which is claimed to meet the criteria for Appendix I listing. However, this assumption has already lost ground, since the 2007 level fishing mortalities (i.e., total allowable catch (TAC) at 29,500 metric tons), which the assumption is based on, can no longer be applied as a valid figure, now that ICCAT (International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas), an international body in charge of management of this species, adopted the following measures at its 2009 annual meeting last November: i) The measures in 2010 - Reduction of TAC down to 13,500 This is equivalent to a 40% reduction from the previous year’s TAC level, and a 54% reduction from the above-mentioned TAC of 29,500 metric tons in 2007. - Reduction of the allowable fishing period by 50% (from 2 months to 1 month) in the Mediterranean for purse seine fisheries Reduction of over-capacity of fishing vessels by 25%. CoP15 Doc. 68 Annex 2 – p. 34 ii) The measures in 2011 and thereafter - All the fisheries on the species shall be suspended if the scientific committee of ICCAT detects a serious threat of fishery collapse. - A three-year recovery plan will be established with the goal of achieving the spawning stock biomass which will provide a maximum sustainable yield through 2022 with at least a 60% probability. - Continued reduction of over-capacity. b) Although Monaco’s proposal claims that the stock of western Atlantic Bluefin Tuna continues at a level of approximately 15-18% of its pre-exploitation biomass, the Scientific Committee of ICCAT demonstrates that the stock will recover if the measures agreed upon at the ICCAT in 2008 are implemented. c) It should be noted that there was no consensus on the listing of the Atlantic Bluefin Tuna in the Appendix I at the FAO expert meeting held in December 2009. 2. Conservation and management of Atlantic Bluefin Tuna should be implemented within the framework of ICCAT. a) For the purpose of the sustainable use of fishery resources, trade restrictions alone are not an effective tool, and the resource management of Atlantic Bluefin Tuna should be left to ICCAT, which can appropriately take comprehensive measures, from catch through trade. For sustainable use of Atlantic Bluefin Tuna, ICCAT is the most effective organization. b) Now we are in a situation in which measures taken by ICCAT should be more respected and prioritized, as the strengthened management measures, as described in 1.(1), were agreed to by consensus in November 2009 at the annual meeting of ICCAT. 3. Atlantic Bluefin Tuna is not species to be effectively addressed by CITES, and its listing in Appendix I would result in various negative effects, including an increased burden at market and confusion in trade and distribution, caused by complication and intricacy of process. a) Atlantic Bluefin Tuna is not the type of species that can be effectively addressed by CITES, for the following reasons: i) It is estimated that the absolute number of spawning stock biomass of the East Atlantic solely is about a million, which is much above the number of other species listed in CITES Appendices. The large population is one of the mitigating factors to reduce the risk of the species from being endangered. ii) The large scale of international trade, exemplified by the fact that annual imports only by Japan are around 20,000 tons, and the wide and various consumption patterns are other elements that distinguish Atlantic Bluefin Tuna from other species on CITES Appendices that can be effectively regulated under CITES. b) Listing Atlantic Bluefin Tuna on CITES Appendix I should be avoided, as it would eventually result in various negative effects. Tens of thousands of tons of Atlantic Bluefin Tuna are traded annually and they are traded in various forms such as fresh and frozen, round and filet as well as in other processed forms. Restrictions of trade, if introduced, would influence a large number of traders and put a heavy burden on them with cumbersome procedures." So in lay summary, Japan's excuses are: 1. Atlantic Bluefin Tuna are not threatened with extinction. 2. The framework of ICCAT is a better authority than CITES to impose rules on trade of Atlantic Bluefin Tuna 3. Declaring Atlantic Bluefin Tuna threatened with extinction would cause "negative effects", "confusion in trade". Recommendation by the CITES Secretariat "The Secretariat concurs with the majority of the FAO Ad Hoc Expert Advisory Panel, that this species meets the criteria for inclusion in Appendix I. A marked decline in the population size in the wild has been observed as ongoing. The Secretariat notes that this determination and its consequences differ from the actions of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), which, at its 21st regular meeting (9-15 November 2009, Porto de Galinhas, Brazil), considered the conservation status of this species and decided to continue to permit fishing and the international trade that accompanies it. On the basis of the available information prior to the discussion at CoP15, the Secretariat recommends that this proposal be adopted." Tiger Quoll Snowy River 3885 Australia

Problem is that we have already had multiple enquiries. The Government will just use this as an opportunity to gain time and to deploy the same growthists to influence 'debate'. We need to call for a small population and ignore the government and the incumbent parties until they also do this.

Interesting article Helga. Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought an organism needed to possess a central nervous system before it could be termed a sentient being. The abilties of plants to deter predators is an adaptation they have developed through natural selection. They have no more conscious control over these biological actions than we do the beating of our own hearts. I have however encountered people who refuse to eat any plant material that has resulted in the death of a whole individual (I'm not sure I believe them). The domestication of animals particularly for food has benefited humans immensely but it is debatable how much benefit the animals concerned have gained. Wildlife, particularly predators of these domesticated animals have lost out as have any endemic herbivores that potentially compete for feed. I wouldn't be so quick to portray the "wild" as being such a bad place either. What we preceive as being a horrible fate in nature such as disease or being ripped apart by predators is irrelevant. It is these very forces that have shaped the natural world for a very long time. For example, I am very fond of kangaroos but I would still rather a kangaroo joey fall victim to a dingo than by smashed against a towbar by a kangaroo shooter. Calling humans a compassionate predator is drawing a very long bow indeed, maybe apathetic predator would be more appropriate especially in modern times. The benefits of introduced animals such as the birds and rodents you mentioned may have some superficial benefits for those people in an urban environment starved of any other animal interaction. Unfortunately they are all too often responsible for the further decline of endemic species. For example rats are notorious for raiding the nests of native birds and introduced birds tend to displace native species. Yes the natural world has been shaped to some degree by the interaction of predator/prey but humans as a species are taking this relationship into unchartered territory. Top order predators such as humans are traditionally present in much smaller numbers than their prey. We have got around this rule of nature by producing our own prey using methods developed by our own intelligence. How long we can continue to do this is anyones guess. What seems clear though is that the taking of animals from the natural world is no longer sustainable, there are just too many of us. I believe we lost our place in nature a long time ago, most likely when we as a species began worshipping other things instead of the natural world around us.

I believe I heard that the Greens are now calling for a national inquiry on population (although can't find any corroborating information on Google News, my Greens media releases or on the Greens website). All the same, if I heard right, it's about time, but why couldn't this have been said years ago? If so, how confident can we be that the Greens have finally grasped that population growth is the most critical of all environmental questions and will treat it, from now on, with the seriousness it deserves? If past experience is any guide, this will be forgotten again in a matter of days. Perhaps, this time, the Greens 'rediscovery' of the population question will prove tobe a little more than yet another flash in the pan. Even so, it remains to be seen if it is actually from conviction or a hasty attempt to be being seen to be doing something arising from the louder voices that are being raised on population by Kelvin Thomson and William Bourke, Founder of the Stable Population Party of Australia in his Sydney Morning Herald article "How many is too many? Australia's people problem".

"Real Estate and the People factors" Eureka report March 10th is another piece of vitriol against ordinary Australians from Bernard Salt. He talks of "gen y" as the children of "rich baby boomers". I wonder what generation the non indulged children of baby boomers of modest means are called. Salt is so into lazily stereotyping and labeling people. Salt seems to utterly despise Australian society by the tone of his writing. Barry Humphries made us laugh at ourselves. Bernard Salt makes me feel utterly defensive. He dangerously sets one generation against another making out that baby boomers have it all, are soon to be a drain on the system and should then drop dead. He endangers life with these comments. If he were talking about a racial group he would not get away with it , but as he is talking about an age group he thinks this is OK. The more anti baby boomer rhetoric there is the more dangerous life will be later on for anyone now in the 50-65 age bracket. It is very difficult to hide one's age. He says that baby boomers should be told that without population growth there will be no-one to fund the last phase of their lives. It seems baby boomers are now blamed for the "imperative" to have a large population. Imagine the huge population that will be necessary to fund the retirement of the "baby blippers" (my term-result of baby bonus and Peter Costello- "one for the country") mentioned also in his article. He also suggests that people to invest in mining town real estate - sounds exploitative and encourages speculation. He also refers to Australian suburbia as a "stain" of low density. I would see Australia's suburbs as a possiblity for self sufficiency, a chance for other species to survive in the urban /suburban environment, and a much needed cooling influence in cites that will suffer increasingly from global warming. Australia's better designed suburbs are quite rightly admired and appreciated by people from overseas.

The Queensland Greens comprise a separate entity to the Tasmanian Greens and I feel that it's unwise for those living interstate to compare the two, especially when the truth about one is simply not known. Nick McKim is not the slightest bit lacking in self-confidence and the Tasmanian Greens always behave democratically. This contrasts markedly with Tasmania's Labor Party which is secretive, deceit-ridden, ignorant, unskilled, unlearned, incompetent, uncaring and thuggish, and with our Liberal Party which is quietly complicit in Labor's wrongdoing. It's only the Tasmanian Greens which offer the opportunity for real change down here, and that party's four parliamentary representatives are outstanding citizens. I am awed by their talents and their ability to nut things out, and for the Tasmanian Greens to present carefully crafted policies that indicate incisive perspicacity of the first order. I really don't know how so few achieve so much. It's mind boggling. Unfortunately there's lots of malicious slander about, particularly from those making gain from Tasmania's devastating forestry industry, and it appears to me that the majority of our citizens is still not suffering enough under Labor to warrant giving serious thought to the state's direction. There's never been a better opportunity for real change than now. Reports that other states' Greens' party personalities appear flawed do sadden me, but to compare our magnificent Tasmanian Greens with such seems to me a most unwise comparison. I suggest that a years' residence here would prove my case. Peter Bright www.pebri.net

Peter,

Why should it be arrogant for the Tasmanian Greens to tell Tasmanian voters that they are worthy of forming Government?

What seems arrogant to me is that the Labor Government, with its appalling record of having corruptly tried to ram through approval of the pulp mill and with its overall ecological vandalism should presume to deserve the support of the Tasmanian people.

And it would be not that much less arrogant for the Opposition Liberal Party who has not offered any decent alternative policies to those of the Labor Government (I am asuming that the Liberal Party down there behaves much the same as the Liberal National Party up here in Queensland) to presume to be entitled to form Government.

If the Tasmanian Greens don't believe themselves more capable of running Tasmania better than either of those alternatives, and if they don't believe that they can convince ordinary Tasmanians of that in a fair and open debate, then I think they should take a long hard look at themselves.

If they did, they just might find that the reason that they don't believe themselves to be more capable is that they don't have policies that address the bread-and-butter concerns of ordinary Tasmanians.

If they are like the Queensland Greens and the Greens nationally, they probably lack the kind of policies that would attract the support the support of ordinary working Australian.

In Queensland at the 2009 state elections, their policies seemed to amount to not much more than saving the odd rainforest, stopping the Traveston Dam and throwing a few pemnies towards solar energy, domestic rainwater tanks and public transport. They did not mention privatisation and failed to move in to occupy any of the ground that had been abandoned by the Labor party to suit its corporate masters in recent decades.

In an e-mail, sent over one and a half years earlier on 29 August 2007 to the then intending Federal Queensland Greens Senate candidate Larissa Waters, I suggested that the Greens adopt such policies:

Great media release! I aim to put it on my web at http://candobetter.org site ASAP.

Can I urgently suggest that the Greens adopt a few polices:

1. Encouragement of Open Source software. All govt bodies to use Open Office, Linux and BSD rather than Micro$oft products. It would save us easily many tens of millions each year.

2. Adoption of No-fault insurance such as exists in NZ ad such as Whitlam tried to introduce in 1975.

3. Set up a Peoples' Bank to Stop abuses of public by commercial banks. (In other words set up a new 'Commonwealth Bank')

4. set up a Government owned Insurance company.

5. Oppose privatisation of Austrtalia Post and Medibank Private.

6. Opose privatisation of publlicly owned land

7. More Government owned housing.

I had also raised population on other occasions, although not on that particular occasion.

The list was far from comprehensive. They were just what came to my mind on the spur of the moment.

Any one of these policies is self-evidently reasonable and just and could have easily attracted the support of the majority of electors and have instantly broadened the electoral appeal of the Greens.

But neither Larissa Waters nor the Greens acted upon my suggestion Instead, they offered up a handful of policies that could only hope to rectify about 2% of what is wrong with our society and which ignore the other 98%.

Essentially the same happened at the Brisbane City Council elections of 2008 and the Queensland state elections of 2009.

By failing to offer real choice, the Greens not only harm their own electoral chances, but I consider them to be behaving undemocratically. They are, by failing to offer electors policies to roll back the 'free market' economic neo-liberal counter-revolution that has been imposed on Australia these past three decades, in practice indicating their acceptance of those undemocratically imposed policies.

Should it therefore have been any surprise that Queensland voters did not flock to the Greens in numbers sufficient to get Larissa elected?

If what is true of the Queensland Greens is also true of the Tasmanian Greens, then, perhaps Nick McKim's lack of self-confidence may be warranted after all, but surely that could be rectifed if Nick McKim had the will to do so.

Peter, Below is the interview, I was referring to. It is from the story "Tough fight ahead for Labor in Tasmania" of 24 Feb 10. Whilst McKim has been given very little time, the message he gave was not the one I believe he should have given: ANTONY GREEN: Labor is on the nose after its last 12 years in office. You don't see sort of massive swings that would put the Liberals in Government. The only alternative in the meantime, with the Greens holding their ground, is a hung Parliament. NICK MCKIM, GREENS LEADER: These are out pledges and how we're going to deliver them... MARTIN CUDDIHY: If the Greens can add to the four seats they already hold, party leader Nick McKim could play political kingmaker. NICK MCKIM: The stability that the Tasmanian community wants is best achieved by a constructive, co-operative, negotiated agreement between the Greens and one or the other of the other two parties. MARTIN CUDDIHY: During the campaign, Labor and the Liberals have publicly ruled out any deal with the Greens. DAVID BARTLETT: Because a back room deal with the Greens is a deal with the devil, and I'm am't - am not going to sell my soul for the sake of remaining in power. WILL HODGMAN: If David Bartlett and Nick McKim want to go off and strike deals between themselves, that's a matter for them, but I won't. MARTIN CUDDIHY: Nick McKim believes things will change once the votes have been cast. NICK MCKIM: I think there's every chance that David and Will will pick up the phone and have a chat. MARTIN CUDDIHY: Even though David Bartlett is insisting he won't negotiate, he's admitted he will try and cling to power even if there's no majority. Would you consider governing from minority? DAVID BARTLETT: Well, yes. I believe we're ten years through a 20-year transformation of our economy and of our community, and we need to keep that momentum going. (end of interview) Note: Antony Green is the leading ABC commentator on elections, David Bartlett is the Labor Premier, Will Hodgman is the Liberal Leader and Martin Cuddihy is the reporter. As I wrote, if McKim truly believed in the Greens, he would not have limited the Greens goals in advance to simply becoming a junior partner to either of the two parties of environmental destruction. He should be telling Tasmanians that the Greens, rather than either Labor or the Liberals should be the governing party. Whether or not the majority of Tasmanians come to accept that view is another matter, but they should at least give it a try.

Peter, if I was in Tasmania, I probably would vote Green, because it seems that there are no other alternatives and an outside chance that they may actually mean well (in contrast to the Liberals and Labor). I have voted Greens for years and I urge people to vote Greens where there are no other better alternatives, which is the case in most electorates (except in Wills, where I would obviously urge people to give their primary votes to Kelvin Thomson -- both a true Labor candidate and a true environmentalist). Nevertheless, the fact the Greens, in four elections I have closely observed -- The 2004 Federal elections, the 2007 Federal elections, the 2008 Brisbane City Council elections, and the 2009 Queensland State elections -- have failed to substantially improve their vote or representation, in spite of the obvious glaring deficiencies of the alternatives, suggests to me that those wielding power within the Greens don't seem to even want them to succeed. They actually seem to prefer the Greens to remain indefinitely, at best, tiny ineffectual rumps in all of our Parliaments, than to actually put themselves in positions where they could actually do some good. How could they have possibly failed in 2007 to pick up one Senate seat in Queensland in spite of Democrats Senator Andrew Bartlett losing his? They also lost a NSW Senator (Kerry Nettle) and failed to pick up one in Victoria. As a result they don't even comprise a true balance of power, often having to rely on the vote of Family First Senator Steven Fielding to hope to achieve a bare majority on, for example the repeal of the "Work Choices" laws. In the 2009 state elections, they refused to act upon my suggestion, which I put personally to Bob Brown, Drew Hutton and Ronan Lee (their one sitting member who had only months before defected to them from the Labor Party) on the day before the early elections were announced that they campaign against privatisation. That left me as the one candidate in all of Queensland that attempted to raise privatisation as an election issue and, perhaps unsurprisingly, I was ignored by the newsmedia. If the Greens had bothered to raise that one issue could have made all the difference to the Greens' own fortunes as well as to the people of Queensland who are now looking on as helpless spectators as the Bligh Government proceeds to flog off $15 billion worth of their property against the objections of 80% of the Queensland public. Instead, the Greens achieved a worse result than in 2006. Bob Brown claimed it was an improvement (only just), but that did not take into account that in 2009, they contested every seat for the first time. It didn't take into account that having a sitting member of Parliament should have raised the profile of the Greens. Give that 59% of the public opposed the Labor Party and 59% also opposed the Liberal National Party and hence 18% were seeking alternatives to both at the outset of the campaign, this was a particularly dismal return on all the hard efforts of Greens members. Whether the Greens perpetual failure to meet the expectations of their supporters is intended, the fact remains that they have given us no reason to expect that they will do significantly better from now on. Either the Greens will have to finally take a long hard look at themselves and change themselves accordingly or get out of the way of others that want to show a way forward out of the rut that Australian politics has been stuck in since at least 1983.

I emailed Greg Barber about this article, he did reply. His response has not raised my esteem of him.

he says:

I'm simply trying to have a debate about the most
effective and fairest way to do it.

Does anyone have any evidence about Greg Barber's public utterances on the population debate?

Or is his only contribution are the quotes in the "Melbourne Times"?

Below is Greg Barber's email response to my email, which includes my original email.

---

Well, everybodys been calling for a debate on population.
And I'm not even debating whether we need to reduce population. I'm simply trying to have a debate about the most effective and fairest way to do it. And many of kelvins solutions are ill thought out and thereby do damage to your cause. Cheers greg

Greg Barber MLC

State Member of Parliament for Northern Metropolitan Region
Suite G-01 60 Leicester Street Carlton VIC 3053
P: 03 9348 2622
F: 03 9348 2699
E: greg.barber[AT]parliament.vic.gov.au
W: http://www.electedgreensvictoria.org.au/index.php

From: Ilan G [xxxx]
Sent: 03/09/2010 10:24 PM ZE11

To: Greg Barber
Subject: CanDoBetter Article

Dear Mr Barber,

>

I am writing to you to find out your response to an article posted at:
http://candobetter.org/node/1895

Specifically, Sheila Newman has emailed you asking questions regarding an article that appeared in the Melbourne Times (Fairfax media), "Welcome to Australia - Now that's enough," by Bianca Hall, (Wed.3 Feb, 2010, p.4.).

her email:

> Dear Greg,

>

(See above, in article, for text of letter.)

> Yours for reform in democracy, environment, population, land use planning and
energy policy,
>
> Sheila Newman
she goes on further in her article...
> Strange silence from Mr Barber
>
> I never received a reply from Mr Barber, although I spoke to a person at his office several times and exchanged emails with that person, and was led to assume I would at any moment receive a reply. I made it very clear that I was dead serious in seeking an explanation and also that I was absolutely furious that someone was apparently trying to pull the racist card to shut up perhaps Australia's single most courageous, ethical, effective and environmentally literate politician - an ALP long-stayer who was standing up for democracy, despite his party. I said that I would write an article on the subject and so it was important for him to defend himself. (See also above, in main article.)

I vote Green, not out of my fondness for all their policies or what they stand for on various issues, but because there is no real alternative to the big 2. As Sheila Newman says "I know how fraught politics and environmental movements are with this kind of thing.", but if you can't find common ground with Kelvin Thomson's ideas there is absolutely no hope for Australia at all.

We are faced with the looming catastrophes of climate change and peak oil, and you find time to criticise someone who is finally publicly stating things that are absolutely rational in light of these serious threats. Kelvin Thomson's plan are in the best interest of the vast majority of Australians and the environment, they are exactly the sort of thing we should be hearing from the "GREEN" party.

Please explain your position regarding Kelvin Thomson's ideas and the nature of your quotes that appeared in the Melbourne Times.

regards,

Ilan

Interesting comments around Ealmes' speech, James - from you and from Sunshine Coast residents. With regard to your comments on decentralisation: "Nevertheless, I believe that it is appropriate to carefully examine the capacity of some currently sparsely settled regions to support greater populations. Some factors which could bend the odds more in our favour are (1) The potential of Natural Sequence Farming as well as Permaculture techniques to restore fertility the land, (2) the capacity of the Internet to allow much intellectual work to be perfomed remotely, (3) Cheaper building techniques as described by US architect Michael Reynolds in his video Garbage Warrior." What regions did Bob Abbott name as suitable for bigger populations? Do you have some suggestions yourself? It is difficult to discuss the matter without specificities. Natural Sequence Farming and Permaculture are designed to rehabilitate the land for people to farm in a localised closed system. The current system is globalised and the government expects people to live on imported food and goods in areas which could not normally support them. To have people live from local produce on land which has been rehabilitated through permaculture or natural sequence farming would usually require a completely new approach to land-use planning. People would have to get back local control over government so as to be able to cooperate with eachother for local trade and land-use planning. In the case of alternative communities, they would need multiple titles on land to be used principally for farming. Title-holders would have to have legal-planning guarantee that neighboring titles could not be transformed into suburban developments etc. All of this is possible but difficult politically due to vested interest and systemic paralysis (cause and effect). I'm glad you mentioned Garbage Warrior, which is a fantastic true story about an architect in America who builds amazing self-supporting communities which have such magnificent thermodynamic structures that they can retain heat in subzero winters in incredibly thick walls without requiring material to be burned for heat, using passive solar from huge thick glass window with skilfully calculated slopes. They can also supply food to families all year round, using passive solar. The architect, Michael Reynolds, was brought to a skidding halt after something around a 25 year successful track record, by a change of town planning personnel. He had then to confront the problems of post-war planning and construction traditions which had become set in concrete due to insurance-induced risk-aversion, which now means that planners massively resist innovation and thereby can no longer react to changing circumstances - notably overpopulation, pollution and fossil-fuel decline. We see Reynolds go to battle over several years to push through a bill to allow architectural and planning experimentation so that new functional communities can be built. The petrified-wood accumulated in the parliamentary and planning communities was amazing to behold. During this time Reynolds is deregistered at State and Federal level and takes a trip to a tsunami-affected island off Sri-Lenka, where water is being imported in bottles due to ground-water contamination. There he teaches the survivors to build a wonderful round house with a double roof for shade (like two umbrellas) and a basement that collects water from the roofs. The whole thing is constructed mostly of rammed-earth-filled tires and bottles (which is just what I would like to build an extra wing on my house from - but would the council let me - um... NO. I may have given away a fair bit of the story but the visual information on the buildings that Reynolds has constructed, and the observations of the people who built them and live in them, is highly stimulating and only available on the dvd which people can obtain here. Best $29.99 or so you will spend in a long time. Makes a great present. Could make all the difference to your future. Here is another link to a Wikipedia article about Reynolds and it includes "the packaged earthship". With regard to working by internet long-distance. Yes, excellent idea which many would surely prefer. That means that broadband networks would have to cover the areas in question and be sustainable. I am not an expert in this, but you know quite a bit of what would be involved. I believe that you would be of the opinion that all the infrastructure would need to be laid out well ahead, before material (and rare earths) and fuel depletion set in. The best places to grow food, of course, are where our cities have covered the land with concrete, unfortunately. Our cities have most of the water and most of the soil and the best climates and the highest density populations. Gee, what a coincidence - not!

And the loggers and farmers say 'trust us' with virgin lands, while in their wake like recidivist criminals they have deforested, burnt, overgrazed, introduced rabbits, noxious weeds, genetically altered crops, over-irrigated, made saline, acidified with superphosphate, robbed rivers and eroded marginal lands into virtual deserts. And Vicforests, Forests NSW and Forestry Tasmaia say 'trust us'. Yeah sure, like foxes with chickens and Ivan Milat with backpackers. Look at the Riverina, the Wimmera, the Murray Darling, the Barkly Tablelands the Channel Country and Australia's Wheat and Sheep Zone. Show me one logged or agricultural region in Australia that can proudly boast sustainable best practice, where families on the land are not constantly pleading for interest rate favouritism, where lands are sustainable to the extent that successive generations are inheriting improved lands in a healthier more viable/profitable state, and where they co-exist sustainably with the natural environment - ie. health soils, mixed forest habitat and wildlife species not closer to regional extinctions. Most of Australia's European agriculture fashioned on imaginary fertile soils and reliable rainfall only survives due to government concessions. How can recidivist colonist despoilers dare to criticise indigenous Australians who have respected the land for millenia? Australian traditional peoples deserve to own and control all Australian Crowns Lands and National Parks. Our racist ''anonymous'' commenter shouldn't throw stones in his glass house. Tiger Quoll Snowy River 3885 Australia

James, Your defense of Madden's actions seems byzantine. I cannot follow it. Could you restate it in logical points or something? At the moment it looks as if you are defending Madden's apparent intention to pretend to evaluate something seriously whilst not doing so. Please clarify what is it that you are actually defending. Sheila N

I would also have pleasure in hanging this prolifer imbecile up by the scruff of her neck from a tree..

Yet more government greed..Where will it end?. The WA Government is embroiled in a new logging controversy with the revelation that a Dardanup forest containing 500-year-old jarrah trees will be logged and part of the timber burnt for charcoal. Taxpayers stand to make as little as $160,000 from the sale of wood from 372ha of forest - about the size of Kings Park. Locals claim the plan will destroy the last pocket of isolated, ecologically significant bush in the area, taking down some of the remaining centuries-old curly jarrah trees and endangering the rare western ringtail possum. The Preston Environment Group says if the logging goes ahead they will consider a non-violent, human blockade to stop the felling. The Government-run Forest Products Commission says the project's "stumpage value" for sale of the timber was expected to be between $160,000 and $240,000. Eight to 10 per cent of timber will end up as charlog. Remaining regrowth, jarrah and marri logs will be used for high-value products such as flooring and furniture as well as for domestic firewood. Under the FPC's plan, the remainder of the 1200ha forest will not be logged. The commission said it was likely a "significant portion" of the proposed logging area would not be harvested. But it was too early to say what size that area would be. "To the extent that less area is deemed appropriate to harvest, the yield and value derived may be reduced," the commission said. A commission spokesman said its harvest operations were strictly regulated by the Forest Management Plan and audited and certified to internationally-accepted environmental standards. He said it was not a case of simply wiping out the area in question. Strict procedures were in place to make sure the forest would be regenerated and that the harvest would take place only in permitted areas. While trees deemed "significant" will not be logged, the FPC could not say that the 500-year-old jarrahs would be saved. Environment group chief Peter Murphy said the ecological significance of the area would be destroyed as logging equipment would clear vegetation to get access to the area. Boyanup local Terry Lightfoot said the area was proposed for conservation in 1981 but the plan was never put in place. He said Australia already had the global record for wiping out native species and the logging would further endanger rare flora and fauna. Forestry Minister Terry Redman said the Government was strongly committed to equitably balancing conservation and other uses of State forests. "I am confident that both ecological and social values of the coupe were well understood by the Conservation Commission of WA during the development of the FMP," he said. The logging will take eight to 10 weeks and is due to begin later this year. Follow thewest.com.au on Twitter

Many people are similarly disgusted Vivienne, but I suggest that if you yourself had the heavy responsibilities of wise government on your shoulders, and the welfare of the Australian population at large on your mind, you too would be obliged to deeply consider the overall picture. I believe that Kevin Rudd is doing exactly that.

It is often the case that restraint, even though invisibly backed up by quiet strength, is seen as cowardice.

I suggest that we all withhold condemnatory judgement for the time being.

Peter Bright
www.quietas.net

---

 

Where are the missing comments?

(Repeated from the top of this page.)

Some may be wondering why the two comments listed below can't be found on this page, it is because they have flowed over to page 2. The "Recent comments" links are not incorrectly point to this page. I don't know how to easily fix his. I have manually rectified the problem in a limited sense by adding correct links here.

This is Kevin Rudd's idea of "tough" action regarding whaling of 6 Mar 10 by Milly Osborne

No wise governance, just a wise guy of 6 Mar 10 by Sheila.

Announcement: for now I am momentarily turning off the commenting capability on this page in the hope that people will, instead add new comments, unrelated to any already in this page, to "Miscellaneous comments from 1 March 2009", linked to from the page linked to by the "Your say" link on the Primary menu. If you want to respond to a comment on this page, in the meantime, please let me know. - JS 6 Mar 10.

Those readers who value kangaroos will not be pleased to read this item at http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/newshome/6895081/us-festival-uses-roo-in-bo... which further reinforces my view that human beings are the worst people on Earth. "A red kangaroo that is goaded into fighting a human clown is the star attraction at a festival in the US designed to celebrate Australia. "The Daily Telegraph reports that the BorderFest festival in Hidalgo, Texas, features an event called Rocky Show Circus, involving two kangaroos and their owner, Javier Martinez, who dons the clownsuit. "The festival is sponsored by Kraft, the US owners of Vegemite. "The report says Mr Martinez baits the kangaroo by pushing it and poking it before placing it in a headlock. "If Rocky fights back too much, Mr Martinez's wife Sandra restrains it using a heavy tether attached to a harness around the animal's chest." Peter Bright www.quietas.net

Brumby's self-imposed desal industrial overrun of a quiet rural Wonthaggi community, his belittling of Kinglake fire survivors, his prepossessed deals with donating commercial developers, and his carte blanche for native fowl poaching, convey an imported Westminster cultural dictatorship in action, or a unicameral presumptive autocracy.

'Community consultation' in Lib/Lab factional politics only exists in the expensive public documents of outsourced government consultants.

Australia's unquestioned and antiquated Westminster system lingers from mother Britain 200 years ago. On paper it is eulogized as 'responsible government', while in political practice discredited in Lib/Lab co-op party politics reliant upon cults of personality.

You make a very good point. It requires the same callousness. It requires the overcoming of another creature's natural defenses.

Road safety is a composite factor of safe road design, safe vehicle design and safe driver behaviour; the latter a product of training, ongoing re-education and road monitoring and policing. It costs a lot of money for all these to be in train.

If government is not ensuring an acceptable standard of road safety, then it is failing the people. If a key driver of the problem is the failure of road safety to meet a growing population of road users then revenues need to be raised to reflect the full cost of road safety. Alternatively, less road users could be achieved by adjusting down discretionary policies like mass immigration.

But roads are just one part of our nation's transport solution. Rail should be the prime government focus for mass commuter transport solutions, because it is safer as well as cheaper per capita over the life of the asset compared with road.

Governments have an electoral charter to honour when coming to power. Solving urban transport congestion should be a key outcome of any government that is responsible for transport in urban areas. Congestion is a symptom of poor infrastructure planning and that living standards are falling. Not only does congestion cumulatively cost the economy in lost productive time and logistics delays, it aggravates pollution and contributes to social stress and loss of life.

In 2007 the Australian Government's 'Bureau of Transport and Regional Economics' Estimating urban traffic and congestion cost trends for Australian cities - Working Paper No 71' projected "the value of national metropolitan costs rising to an estimated $20.4 billion by 2020 (on an avoidable cost of congestion basis). Of this total, private travel is forecast to incur time costs of approximately $7.4 billion and business vehicle use $9 billion.

Extra vehicle operating costs contribute a further $2.4 billion and extra air pollution damages a further $1.5 billion. The city specific levels rise to approximately $7.8 billion for Sydney, $6.1 billion for Melbourne, $3.0 billion for Brisbane, $1.1 billion for Adelaide, $2.1 billion for Perth, $0.07 billion for Hobart, $35 million for Darwin, and $0.2 billion for Canberra." [p.108]

Governments avoiding rail solutions are economically, socially and environmentally negligent, huh?