 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Environment Forum » Holier Than Thou Greenies Not So "Green"!... |
|
Page 1 of 2 Goto page 1, 2 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| b-n-o... |
 Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 11:19 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
November 2 2009
Why is it that passionate greens often have the slobbiest houses in the
street?
Or, as Gavin Atkins shows, the messiest camps in the forest.
People from communities that depend on Tasmania's timber industries are as
mad as hell at protesters threatening their livelihoods and they're not
going to take it any more.
Timber workers have decided to give forest activists a dose of their own
medicine by releasing photographs to Asian Correspondent that they say show
the rubbish, including abandoned car bodies, that environmentalists have
left behind in their forest camps in southern Tasmania.
Rex Flakemore, a retired forest worker from Tasmania's Timber Communities
Australia (TCA) doesn't mince his words:
"These protesters preach about looking after the environment, yet in reality
they are two-faced. What they created and then abandoned in the Florentine
Valley can only be described as a dirty, filthy slum."
Mr Flakemore rejects claims by the protesters that they did not have time to
remove the rubbish.
http://asiancorrespondent.com/gavin-atkins-shadowlands/gloves-are-off-in-tassie-forests.htm
Warmest Regards
Bon z0
"It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
from natural variation."
Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| terryc... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 11:19 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:19:03 +1100, b-n-o wrote:
[quote]Mr Flakemore rejects claims by the protesters that they did not have
time to remove the rubbish.
[/quote]
Actually, Mr Flakemore is probably pretty flakey himself. That car
photrograph loks more like a pile of flood debris.
The other photograph looks more like walkways. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Fran... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:18 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 2, 7:23 pm, netvegetable <notrealem... at (no spam) all.com> wrote:
[quote]On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:19:03 +1100, b-n-o wrote:
November 2 2009
Why is it that passionate greens often have the slobbiest houses in the
street?
Or, as Gavin Atkins shows, the messiest camps in the forest.
People from communities that depend on Tasmania's timber industries are
as mad as hell at protesters threatening their livelihoods and they're
not going to take it any more.
Timber workers have decided to give forest activists a dose of their own
medicine by releasing photographs to Asian Correspondent that they say
show the rubbish, including abandoned car bodies, that environmentalists
have left behind in their forest camps in southern Tasmania.
Easier than discussing the issues I suppose
[/quote]
Hmmm ... a small pile of crap that can be remedied in about a day or
destroying an ancient forest and its associated biome?
Which is worse?
Hmmmm tough choice ... but I'm going to say clear felling the forest.
You can't fix that in a day.
Fran |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| netvegetable... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 3:23 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:19:03 +1100, b-n-o wrote:
[quote]
November 2 2009
Why is it that passionate greens often have the slobbiest houses in the
street?
Or, as Gavin Atkins shows, the messiest camps in the forest.
People from communities that depend on Tasmania's timber industries are
as mad as hell at protesters threatening their livelihoods and they're
not going to take it any more.
Timber workers have decided to give forest activists a dose of their own
medicine by releasing photographs to Asian Correspondent that they say
show the rubbish, including abandoned car bodies, that environmentalists
have left behind in their forest camps in southern Tasmania.
[/quote]
Easier than discussing the issues I suppose. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Fran... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 12:49 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 8:29 am, "APR" <I_Don't_W... at (no spam) Spam.com> wrote:
[quote]"Fran" <fran.b... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4f947de2-65fa-41e5-a5e1-159d121157c3 at (no spam) a37g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 2, 7:23 pm, netvegetable <notrealem... at (no spam) all.com> wrote:
Hmmm ... a small pile of crap that can be remedied in about a day or
destroying an ancient forest and its associated biome?
Which is worse?
Hmmmm tough choice ... but I'm going to say clear felling the forest.
You can't fix that in a day.
Fran
So Fran, anything is OK when pushing your agenda as long as you believe the
outcome provides some positive no matter how small?
[/quote]
Not at all. I have no problem with requiring those who erected the
structures being required to come back and remove them, or, failing
that to be charged with the bill for same.
I merely note the disproportion between the trivial mess caused by a
handful of activists and the major damage done to the commons by the
felling of forests.
Fran |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| APR... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 4:29 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Fran" <fran.beta at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4f947de2-65fa-41e5-a5e1-159d121157c3 at (no spam) a37g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 2, 7:23 pm, netvegetable <notrealem... at (no spam) all.com> wrote:
Hmmm ... a small pile of crap that can be remedied in about a day or
destroying an ancient forest and its associated biome?
Which is worse?
Hmmmm tough choice ... but I'm going to say clear felling the forest.
You can't fix that in a day.
Fran
So Fran, anything is OK when pushing your agenda as long as you believe the
outcome provides some positive no matter how small?
Who should have to pay for the cleanup required after the protesters/wackers
have left, are you prepared to pay for it? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| mose... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 5:17 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"APR" <I_Don't_Want at (no spam) Spam.com> wrote in message
news:4aef4f44 at (no spam) dnews.tpgi.com.au...
[quote]
"Fran" <fran.beta at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4f947de2-65fa-41e5-a5e1-159d121157c3 at (no spam) a37g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 2, 7:23 pm, netvegetable <notrealem... at (no spam) all.com> wrote:
Hmmm ... a small pile of crap that can be remedied in about a day or
destroying an ancient forest and its associated biome?
Which is worse?
Hmmmm tough choice ... but I'm going to say clear felling the forest.
You can't fix that in a day.
Fran
So Fran, anything is OK when pushing your agenda as long as you believe
the outcome provides some positive no matter how small?
Who should have to pay for the cleanup required after the
protesters/wackers have left, are you prepared to pay for it?
IF YOU GUYS WERE NOT SO PANICKED ABOUT MONEY WE MIGHT GET SOME SENSE OUTOF[/quote]
YOU.
I'M SURE THE GUYS WHO MAKE THE MONEY AINT THE WORKERS , AND YOU'RE TALKING
ABOUT A JOB THAT DOES NOT PAY THAT WELL AND IS LIKE CHOPPING THE EARTH AWAY
UNDER YOUR FEET.
SOMEHING YOU CANNOT PAY THE REST OF US BACK FOR.
IT AINT YOUR FOREST, IT'S OURS AND WE CAN CHOOSE HOW YOU USE IT, YOU USE
THE PROFIT YOU MAKE FROM BRINGING IT DOWN.
AND IF THE PROFIT IS INSUFFICIENT IN OUR VIEW FIND ANOTHER JOB AND LEAVE
YOUR ORIFITEERING BOSSES .
AND DONT COMPLAIN ABOUT A MESS, IT WOULD NOT BE NECESSARY IF YOU WERE GAME
ENOUGH TO LEAVE YOUR GREEDY BOSSES AND FIND ANOTHER JOB.
OR MAKE SURE THAT OUR FORESTS ARE PROPERLY AND GAINFULLY HARVESTED WITH A
VIEW TO THE FUTURE. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| george... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:20 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 3, 11:49 am, Fran <fran.b... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]I merely note the disproportion between the trivial mess caused by a
handful of activists and the major damage done to the commons by the
felling of forests.
[/quote]
Last summer in Australia they had a series of large bushfires.
Because of their 'greens' they live in areas of heavy bush that
encroach their towns.
No firebreaks
The roads out of these towns are also surrounded by trees.
When the bushfires strike the people are trapped by the surrounding
fires and when they try to get away the only exit is along miles of
tree lined roads.
So in that case you would keep the trees and let the people perish ? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Fran... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 9:45 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 4, 6:20 am, george <gbl... at (no spam) hnpl.net> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 3, 11:49 am, Fran <fran.b... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
I merely note the disproportion between the trivial mess caused by a
handful of activists and the major damage done to the commons by the
felling of forests.
Last summer in Australia they had a series of large bushfires.
Because of their 'greens' they live in areas of heavy bush that
encroach their towns.
No firebreaks
The roads out of these towns are also surrounded by trees.
When the bushfires strike the people are trapped by the surrounding
fires and when they try to get away the only exit is along miles of
tree lined roads.
So in that case you would keep the trees and let the people perish ?
[/quote]
Massive misdirection.
1. Like all responsible environmentalists, I support fuel load
reduction measures when part of a well conceived propgram.
2. No part of the bushfire problem was a consequence of the opposition
of environmental organisations to fuel reduction programs
Fran |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| george... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 1:20 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 4, 8:45 am, Fran <fran.b... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]Massive misdirection.
[/quote]
Bullshit.
When the news of the fires came through I used Google Earth to look at
the towns concerned.
The towns where people died were heavily treed right throughout the
urbal area.
One in particular had the only entry to the town through a road under
bush canopy.
[quote]1. Like all responsible environmentalists, I support fuel load
reduction measures when part of a well conceived propgram.
[/quote]
So why doesn't such a scheme operate in Australia to protect people?
You should maybe burn more midnight oil
[quote]2. No part of the bushfire problem was a consequence of the opposition
of environmental organisations to fuel reduction programs
[/quote]
So that law about you not being able to remove trees from your
property doesn't exist?
Must tell my mate that. He got fined for clearing trees off his
land ! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John - Melb... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 1:39 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 4, 6:45 am, Fran <fran.b... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]1. Like all responsible environmentalists, I support fuel load
reduction measures when part of a well conceived propgram.
Yes. many "greenies" NOW support "fuel load reduction measures[/quote]
[quote]2. No part of the bushfire problem was a consequence of the opposition
of environmental organisations to fuel reduction programs
[/quote]
Not exactly true
==========================Greenies blamed for Victoria bushfires' scaleFont Size:
Stephen Lunn | February 12, 2009
Article from: The Australian
THE green movement was yesterday blamed for the severity of the
Victorian fires that cost so many lives and ruined so much property.
David Packham, a former supervising meteorologist for fire weather
nationwide at the Bureau of Meteorology, said environmentalists'
politically successful campaign to stop controlled vegetation burning
off allowed the Black Saturday fires to rage uncontrollably. "The
green movement is directly responsible for the severity of these fires
through their opposition to prescribed burning," Mr Packham said.
"Elements of the movement are behaving like eco-terrorists waging
jihad against prescribed burning and fuel management. They believe
fundamentally that if we keep all fire out of Australia's forests, the
trees will grow, the canopies will close up, the ground will become
moist and there will be no fires. This is absolute and total
nonsense."
The ending of the practice of controlled burning left vegetation at
unprecedented levels, he said.
"The fuel levels were the highest in Victoria for 30,000 years. This
led to the intensity of the fire that led to the deaths of these
people and destroyed their homes," Mr Packham said.
Greens senator Bob Brown said his party was not opposed to prescribed
burning. "Everyone in Australia has been deeply affected by Victoria's
devastating bushfires and it reminds us again of the danger inherent
in Australia's beautiful bush," he said. "Greens' policy supports the
ecologically appropriate use of fire. Scientifically based controlled
and careful burning is an important tool in protecting lives and
property, as well as being a natural part of the bush life cycle."
The Wilderness Society's Victorian campaign manager, Gavan McFadzean,
said his organisation was preparing a report on the bushfires. He
would not comment on Mr Packham's allegation.
"Frankly, it is inappropriate, opportunistic and grossly insensitive
to bushfire victims for Mr Packham or anyone else from the anti-parks,
pro-logging lobby to push their agenda while the deceased are being
found and the CFA are still risking their lives trying to put out
these bushfires," Mr McFadzean said.
In its winter 2008 newsletter, the Wilderness Society mapped out its
response to bushfire management, noting "a massive increase in hazard
reduction burning and firebreaks is destroying nature, pushing
wildlife closer to extinction and in many cases increasing the risk to
people and properties by making areas more fire-prone". But its
response accepts the need for fuel reduction burning.
Mr Packham said he wrote an email early last Thursday expressing
concerns about the looming weather conditions, encouraging it to be
widely circulated. "I doubt if the state has ever before faced such
extreme conditions with fuel levels higher than ever, the prospects
for Saturday are horrible," he wrote. That afternoon CFA chief Russell
Rees issued his grim warning about the weekend's fire danger, saying
the "forecast is worse than in 1983 for Ash Wednesday".
Mr Packham said he "wouldn't be surprised" if the CFA was spurred into
action after the concerns raised by his email.
CFA spokeswoman Adele Buhagiar said it had received the grim
predictions from the Bureau of Meteorology on Wednesday and acted
quickly to disseminate the advice to the public
=====================================
Let's read that again
"In its winter 2008 newsletter, the Wilderness Society mapped out its
response to bushfire management, noting "a massive increase in hazard
reduction burning and firebreaks is destroying nature, pushing
wildlife closer to extinction and in many cases increasing the risk to
people and properties by making areas more fire-prone". But its
response accepts the need for fuel reduction burning."
So, the Wildreness Society was opposed to fuel reduction burning until
after the massive bushfires of last summer. It's response AFTER the
fires claims it accepts the need for fuel reduction burning.
I'm not really sure our forests should be being managed by what
Americans call "Monday morning quarterbacks" |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Fran... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:41 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 4, 10:20 am, george <gbl... at (no spam) hnpl.net> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 4, 8:45 am, Fran <fran.b... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
Massive misdirection.
Bullshit.
When the news of the fires came through I used Google Earth to look at
the towns concerned.
The towns where people died were heavily treed right throughout the
urbal area.
One in particular had the only entry to the town through a road under
bush canopy.
[/quote]
I wonder though whether the complaint isn't simply a kind of last
resort fallacy. If for example, one wanted to build a house on an
unstable cliff face overlooking the ocean, merely because of the
views, would the opposition of people to buttressing the face with
steel beams and concrete be whom you'd blame if the house tumbled into
the sea?
While there's no doubt, propoert risk or not, that hazard reduction
measures and other related hazard abatement are good whatever the
proximity to residential or other buildings, isn't the bigger problem
the desire of developers to cash in on the whole "tree change" thing?
Ought one to assume that every development where you can plonk houses
is a good idea?
[quote]1. Like all responsible environmentalists, I support fuel load
reduction measures when part of a well conceived propgram.
So why doesn't such a scheme operate in Australia to protect people?
You should maybe burn more midnight oil
[/quote]
I going to guess there isn't a simple answer. Personally, I like the
idea of harvesting the waste biomass and using it to run local biomass
plants or converting some of it into biochar.
[quote]2. No part of the bushfire problem was a consequence of the opposition
of environmental organisations to fuel reduction programs
So that law about you not being able to remove trees from your
property doesn't exist?
[/quote]
Councils make their own rules, but AIUI anything that relates to fire
hazard is deemed OK.
[quote]Must tell my mate that. He got fined for clearing trees off his
land !
[/quote]
He should have checked with his council and if necessary gone to the
L&E Court for a ruling.
Fran |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| george... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:55 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Fran... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 7:04 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 4, 12:55 pm, george <gbl... at (no spam) hnpl.net> wrote:
[quote] Explainhttp://www.smh.com.au/national/fined-for-illegal-clearing-family-now-...
The only house that survived in the area.
[/quote]
Maybe the house should not have been built there. If you have to live
in a moonscape, I'd not call that a victory for good sense.
I'm reminded of that famous Cobb cartoon with the guy who survives
armageddon but has nowhere to plug in his TV.
If you want to be safe from bushfires, staying away from bush is a
good idea. If you go live in the bush, it's mad to want to raze it
willy nilly.
What's missing from this story is whether the trees he culled fit
properly within council ordinances. If they did, maybe the ordinances
were wrong, or maybe the development of his house should not have gone
ahead.
[quote]This is why Greenies should go away and leave the real world to them
who operate in it !
[/quote]
Fabulous. Here's an idea: Why not raze all the trees and vegetation
and concrete over the lot? Make bushfires history!
All jokes aside though, this really has nothing whatever to do with
commercial forestry.
Fran |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| John - Melb... |
| Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2009 7:13 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 4, 4:04 pm, Fran <fran.b... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]All jokes aside though, this really has nothing whatever to do with
commercial forestry.
Fran
[/quote]
I thought this thread was about :"greenies" not practicing what they
preach? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Tue Dec 15, 2009 4:05 am
|
|