I have just received the following note:
“Over 200 farmers in western NSW today blockaded state government officials from entering the Cobar property of Kevin and Gwen Mitchell, who are the latest victims of a radical green campaign that will force farmers off their land.
“Farmers trying to rehabilitate land degraded by woody weeds are the innocent victims of a political game being played in Macquarie Street to gain green preference votes in Sydney,” said a spokesperson for the NSW Regional Community Survival Group, Doug Menzies.
“The farming communities of Cobar and Nyngan are no longer prepared to stand by and let decent, hard-working families be sacrificed on the altar of green politics. Today we are preventing bureaucrats from entering a farm as a protest against a government that constantly appeases the demands of radical greens.”
Last Monday, the Mitchell’s farm was “buzzed” by a low flying plane registered to a Sydney pilot who farmers suspect was ferrying an activist from the radical green group The Wilderness Society.
Two farm workmen, who were legally clearing 250 hectares of land degraded by woody weed infestations, witnessed the plane circle and cross the area at least five times at low altitude.
Woody weeds (also called invasive scrub) are native plants that have spread beyond their natural range and density, invading formerly open woodlands and grasslands of western NSW.
Mr Menzies said that the Mitchell family reported the pilot’s reckless behavior to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.
“Immediately after the incident, a prized bull went missing from the paddock and was found five days later over five kilometres away, while three pregnant cows died during calving. Cows are extremely sensitive to stress in the latter stages of pregnancy and can’t handle being spooked by low flying planes.
“Things are pretty rotten in the state of NSW when farmers can’t go about their daily chores without being harassed in the paddock from the air,” Mr Menzies said.
“To rub salt into the wound, the next day a bureaucrat from the Department of Natural Resources rang Kevin Mitchell to report a complaint of illegal land clearing and wanting an inspection of the farm.
“The NSW Government is too quick to take the word of radical greens as gospel. What has happened to the Mitchell family is nothing short of government-sanctioned harassment,” said Mr Menzies.
On 22 July 1998, Kevin and Gwen Mitchell were granted consent by the Western Lands Commissioner for a term of 10 years to cultivate the 250 hectares of woody-weed infested land.
The Regional Community Survival Group is made up of farmers and business people from western NSW who have had a gutful of the NSW Government pandering to the wishes of radical greens in a bid to win preference votes in marginal inner-Sydney seats.”
Journalist Ross Coulthart detailed some of the problems with the Wilderness Society Campaign and environmental impact of native invasive scrub encroachment, in the cover story for the Sunday Program of the 6th August entitled ‘The great land-clearing myth’.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Establish a formal “Picket Line” and test the government’s respect for core Labor values.
REST OF THIS COMMENT DELETED BY JENNIFER AT 12.30PM 22 AUGUST FOLLOWING REQUESTS FROM SEVERAL READERS.
Hey Luke,
Appropos of your dopey comments in a previous thread, I have one thing to say
Just add this to the list of life experiences that most of us have, and greenies and their bag carriers dont.
Good on the NSW Regional Community Survival Group for taking a stand to protect their hopes and aspirations and to provide a future for their families.
In promoting these values they need to be able to use the media and the government as well if not better than the green activists. The media love vision, where was the pictures and the video of the protest and of the plane acting illegally. Those who advocate a total ban on land clearing are never without a video or digital camera.
Nothing scares a politician more than an electorate seeing images of wrongs brought by “bad” government policy.
On my travels, I saw some anonymous yellow signs nailed to telegraph poles in urban areas saying stuff like salinity brought to you courtesy of NSW land clearers. Anyone know who’s behind them?
Does the Wilderness society have known ties to the Greens?
What dopey comments relevant to this issue were they pray tell Malcolm? I have expressed my support for bulldozing the NSW woody weeds patch have I not?
Surely government inspectors are entitled to request an inspection of any property after someone lodges a complaint? ie they are merely doing their job? It may well be a condition of the licence after all. And once they have done their inspection and found everything is satisfactory then really where is the harm done?
Now we have cowboy Ian recommending busting the noses of government officials who may simply being doing what their job demands of them -they may not like having to make an inspection. What a childish response Ian.
Ian also recommends taking a pot shot at a low flying aircraft which reputedly contained a greenie – where is the evidence. It may be nothing more than coincidence that a low flight over the farm was followed by a complaint.
It may have been a criminal act to fly low over the property but its also a criminal act to shoot at aircraft and under Australias new terrorism laws carries hefty penalities.
One of the two compliance blokes who came out to the blokade today is actually a very nice fellow, so it was unfortunate that we had to stop him from carrying out his task for the day.He didn’t want to be there anymore than we did. We had a courteous conversation and they left. This and other blockades are simply an expression of our communities frustration at being given nowhere else to turn in regard to land management options for our particular environment. The government and the greenies refuse to understand the need to grow grass to protect the soil from baring and erosion. Our rainfall zone does not allow for us to grow grass and trees, so we must create a mosaic of tree cover and grasslands to get balance. For soil health we need the majority to be grasslands.
The low flying aircraft was not too far above the tree tops and made five passes over the people working in the paddock and 24hours later the department of Natural Resources rang up asking questions about a report we later found came from the Wilderness Society. Coincidence?
I hope this is the “shot heard ’round the world,” spurring farmers everywhere to action! Three cheers for you guys!
Hi Doug,
I am not familiar with the arguments over woody weeds, and am not in a position to make any specific comments about the issue.
I support the right of anyone to make a public statement whenever they feel aggrieved, and believe its what makes a democratic country strong -that freedom of expression. I therefore am pleased to see you and your colleagues were able to make your protest in a peaceful manner and assume it got the media coverage you wished.
What I object to is the notion that the underlying issue is always a them versus us, city versus country, socialist greenie versus freedom loving stoic and noble farmer situation as consistently portrayed by Ian and others. These situations are always complex and never quite so clear cut as some would have us believe.
Therefore is it not better to have the decision making based upon sound assessment of the facts in a case -ie what this site is always trumpeting should be the approach?
In my view, applying that philosophy should mean that in the long run it is better that the inpsectors are allowed to visit the farm and make a judgement on the compliance with the licence after a complaint. That is their job, and lets assume that they are capable of making a rational, objective judgement – if there is no breach then the couple concerned have no problems do they?
Situations like this blockade always have some potential to get out of hand, and I’m sorry, but I cannot accept that advocating violence is acceptable in Australia where there are always other avenues to pursue in resolution of contentious issues. I live in a country where violence is the accepted means of settling most disputes related to land and consider Australians are fortunate indeed to have other legal and political avenues to resolve disputes.
I am also puzzled by some on this site who seem to think it’s only the poor farmer who is subject to such inspections. As a some time city dweller I can confirm that many of those despised urbanites are also subject to the whims and caprices of officialdom -try putting up a shed, or cutting down a tree, or setting up a home office without council permission.
A role for AEF as mediator ? Get the various parties together in a regional workshop and thrash it out. Why not make one serious attempt to get somewhere with govt and and greens. Surely an attempt gives you the moral high ground as well.
Luke, Good idea that the AEF take such a role. Get the high moral ground publicity going, for in my experience of such meetings, Milton got it a bit wrong – “There are none so blind as those that cannot see, but even blinder are those that will not see”.
You are also up against the “prevention of egg on face” reaction of this sector when it comes out that their policies and publicity were in fact up the creek.
Ian B – whether or not you could get the greens to the table remains to be seen. But I suggest there is powerful evidence that the Cobar weed thicket is not natural and needs rehabilitating. If AEF were sophisticated enough you might be able to get agreement on a philosophical position on maintenance of western vegetation, grazing, biodiversity, the role of fire etc. Of course you may need to restrain Motty for the meeting as per Silence of the Lambs – transporting Hannibal. http://www.onpointradio.org/content/2002/10/17/1017evil140.jpg
Luke, Powerful evidence for a few other areas that are not natural either – eg Pilliga, Thrushton. This all does need to be shifted from parked conveniently as now to prominence, and AEF might be a means.
No others for restraint?
“VEHEMENCE AND VERACITY ARE SELDOM SYNONYMOUS”
could be added to the rules for this blog – IMO.
Ian Motts comments are nothing short of psychopathic, extremely counterproductive and criminal.
Sure he might think it’s a joke to talk about inciting violence against environmentalists. We are talking about an emotive issue here that many farmers and environmentalists take seriously. To joke about violent solutions is extremely foolish thing to do.
Jennifer you really should delete Ian Motts comments, and have a polite word to him to refrain from his childish outbursts in future.
Shame on you Ian Mott, your comments degrade the rural communities that you think you defend.
Ian – possibly putting words in the AEF’s mouths here to act as a mediator/solution finder but reckon it could be an interesting possibility and would demonstrate a solutions-based as well as evidence-based approach. Jen – our mutterings here offered in good faith.
Luke et. al.
Don (Burke) sees the AEF as potentially having the sort of role you suggest … of bringing groups together with a view to solving issues/ seeking practical solutions.
I’ll alert him and others to this post and thread. There is merit in your suggestion.
I wonder what Doug Menzies’ thinks?
Selfrighteous indignation, Michael? Dapple in a bit of that too, do we? Give me a break.
Michael, the same green movement is converting our forests into death traps by way of culpably negligent management prescriptions yet, are never there to actually help with the fire. People have, and will continue to die, in greater and greater numbers as a direct consequence of misguided, almost randomly destructive ideology.
My own and other families spend a lot of time in those death traps and you have the affront to react with feigned outrage when my comments in jest clash with the stultifying beige of your barbie world existence.
Have a nice daaiiy.
OK Motty – keep focussed & stop squabbling down the back – do you think with some engagement you can debate this through logically with the greenies and get an outcome. Or not !
Luke, you gotta be kiddin.
The words “logically” & “greenies” can not be used in the same sentance.
Did You see the eyes of that bloke on the ABC the other day? No one could ever talk “to” that, let alone logically.
Luke, what would you say or more to the point what do you think the ‘Greens’ would say to a Royal Commision into the environmental management of the past 30 years, starting with the ludicrous period when the Greenie wanted to preserve, not conserve, the environment. Preserve as per a museum. The themes would be based on the greatest of the ecological threats we now have and that were apparent back then. Such threats as wildfire, wild dogs etc. Such things as local fuel load levels could be compared, as then and now. I would be very interested in presenting some evidence pertaining to individual species and the way such things as population and habitat extent have been calculated. Also some of the species status under threatened and endangered species legislation would be interesting to run through a Q.C.’s mind.
Stewie – as they say – never start an inquiry that you don’t know the answer to. I know where you’re coming from but you may find some fairly ordinary land management by the agricultural sector as well, water deals that should not have been done, pesticide kills in creeks, governments failure to properly fund NRM research etc. So if you open Pandora’s box I’m not sure what the overall answer will be.
What I do think is that it is time to move on – maybe AEF is part of that wave – what is a fair go between biodiversity conservation, resource management (which may or may not retain biodiversity), property rights, feeding the nation, some export income, having a lifestyle and earning a quid.
Certainly this blog has had a sea of information on inappropriate fire regimes and poor forest management. Needs redressing big time. Needs campaigning for. But if you want to play the blame game with greenies I’m not sure you’ll succeed.
In the end the urban democracy will determine the fate of biodiversity and natural resource policy – if this is so then I expect the urbanites will have to pay for the ecological services they desire. Having a no-burn policy is totally stupid for managing a vegetation evolved on fire. The greenies need to get their heads clear on these issues. I would like to think we could still find a common ground or decent compromise.
AEF could attempt to define what they think optimal land management looks like. Finding solutions is harder than making war.
All this persecution of farmers is nothing more than palliative treatment for urban angst and substance abuse. It is based on a hitherto correct calculation that farmers offered cheap thrills at low political and economic cost.
Farmers have every right, indeed, an obligation to their children who may inherit even worse persecution, to take a good long look at this equation and conduct appropriate modifications.
And for those who wring their hands in McHorror at the prospect of increasing tension should check out the story of Joe Camilleri, the late Joe Camilleri that is.
You see Joe won a minor skirmish with DNRM when a case against him was thrown out of court. But our little band of Gombeen Men would not accept the considered decision of the justice system and pursued what can only be described as a vendetta.
They ground, and they ground but couldn’t break him. But not so his wife or his marriage. But even that wasn’t enough for our young “Lions of Ecology” who took their holidays and flex days in relays while continuing to grind, and grind.
“And when no hope was left inside on one starry, starry night, he took his life as farmers sometimes do …”
So whats the matter folks? Can you tell me that stuff about farmers inciting violence again? And I really liked the “childish outburst” bit, sort of takes you back to grade three, doesn’t it?
Ian,
I canot see how anyone can have a rational discussion with you in regard to these issues. your response ultimately is always to reach for the emotive crutch.
This image you present of farmers as noble, long suffering protectors of the environment -if only the rest of us would get out of the way and let them get on with it is an interesting device.
Lets be clear about some things.
If the situation really is so untenable for so many farmers then let them make lifestyle changes and pursue other more lucrative futures for themselves and their families. And please do not respond with the familiar old line about the stoic cockies out there, living in areas the rest of us do not want to live in purely because they are thinking of the common good and beavering away for all of us producing essential foods and services. Thats the same bunch of crap Australians like to indulge in when they see themselves as bronzed ANZACS.
Farmers are farmers because they like it, and consider it to be lucrative. They are motivated by the same base desires as everyone else and choose their opportunities like everyone else. In the past, they skilfully manipulated the politics in Australia to place their interests at the forefront of domestic policy -fair enough, its what everyone also tries to do and they were very good at it. Lately farmers have not been so successful at it, and in part that reflects the shift in the structure of the economy away from a focus on primary producers, and in part it also reflects the skills of another group of lobbyists -the environmentalists.
You consistently and conveniently demonise urban people with an interest in environmental issues through your choice of descriptive phrases – e.g. Lions of Ecology -in exactly the same manner you claim they demonise farmers. The problem is they are the people you need to win over to your way of thinking if you really want things to change.
The fact is Ian, I as an urbanite do not owe you anything, just like you do not owe me anything.
You and your family have made a choice about where you live and what you do, just like I and mine have. If things are not the way you not want them to be then you have to either change the way things are……or change what you do.
In a democratic society there are well established mechanisms for implementing change and lobbying is one of them, but really, blaming the greens for being better at lobbying than your group is unlikely to win many over to your side is it?
so put aside the playground antics and get better organised, and put forward cogent arguments in the right places and maybe you will win the changes you seek.
Russell,
Think of it this way. If your property was to be acquired for some purpose and you were offered a tenth or less of its commercial value would you be satisfied and feel you weren’t owed by someone? And would you just move out to somewhere else without a squeak?
You may be believing Qld TV etc pronouncements of “compensation” for rural land now locked up by the tree game. In reality there is a maximum of $100,000 which is only obtained by passing the non-trivial game of “justification”. And that is no real no substitute for losses in property value, lost production etc measured in $ millions, often $ millions per property – unless perhaps you have given an unexpected answer to my first question.
And this we are told because urbanites are voting in favour of a conservation spree, on dubious grounds as in other threads on this blog – past, present and future.(eg salinity that isn’t there etc
As I see it, you and your kind do owe and considerable, but the day of payment is likely to be later and at the whim of the Law of Unintended Consequences.
Luke, I and fellow ‘veterans’ have been to war, of sorts. It was called Ash Wednesday. Using the favorite tool of the pseudo-ecologist, extrapolation, I would consider much of the states flora and fauna to be at war. It’s currently on hold is all.
There is a major difference between a group that is earning a living, supplying necessary food and material supplies than to a group that is driving an ideology from a distance in the comfort of their living rooms.
What does it tell you when a group of people lean towards a no-burn policy in the type of forests we have and then their ‘clever’ (biased), emotionally based media campaigns produce no-burn policies, by underminding the facts. Ignorance? Stupidity? Political posturing? Something akin to a war crime?
You take it to lightly it seems Luke. I was born an urbanite, lived many years as one but following that fire went bush, deep into the mountains, often solo, a lot. This is where I confronted facts. One of those facts is millions of acres of over-vegetation. This problem is so serious that to reduce it to a battle between lobby groups that live in cities and people who live with it, is a dangerous and foolish fallacy.
Worse these ‘clever’ urban lobbyists avoid facts, relying on slick, emotional media campaigns to coerce ignorant minds into believing fantasies, like; National Parks are for future generations.
All this talk of ecology. Would not evolutionary ecology, from the word go, dictate that indigenous burning regimes were calculated into the mix as a fundamental building block for understanding today’s forests? Indigenous burning more than likely changed the course of evolution. The trouble we have is that it seems “more than likely’ scenarios are disregarded under biodiversity legislation with rather a pretence that ecologists will work it out. When? It is hard not to sound completely anti ecology, I am certainly not that but under the guise of ecology, politics has caused our intellectual databases to become seriously demented. And I am talking in areas that your average joe blow or journalist does not go, such as individual species management plans.
You are wrong indeed with your inference that I am trying to blame the greenies for our wildfire problems. That would be naive in the extreme. It’s just that the wildfire issue completely highlights the naivety of those called green. Naivety at a catastrophic level.
This ignorance is clearly displayed in Russell’s post, where he regards it as an issue of competing lobby strengths. He is a fool. I am a member of a lobby group regarding wildfire and we are begging for more fuel reduction burning, using best known ecological methodology, urgently. Fuel loads are at extreme and historically high levels over millions of acres. Fires with the intensity of a few atomic bombs threaten contiguous land mass. Individual species are under threat of extinction from one fire event alone. Hydrology parameters are up the creek or should I say don’t even make it into the creek. There is a good reason we cannot carry on like the emotive ‘sky is falling’ greenie campaigner. Can you guess what that reason might be Russell?
Also I think the urbanite may be ignorant of such issues but I know they are not stupid.
Oh and Luke, how do you think the wildfire threat would sit in the Native Title debate, with regards to public perceptions, environmental stewardship and species extinction?
May I suggest that the war for our flora and fauna started along time ago but when modern man began to get an intellectual grip on this issue, along comes the greenie who would rather highlight increased sediment input from a 4wd crossing rather than of a wildfire. After the 1939 wildfires a wall of ash and sediment 15 ft high was seen coming down the Mitchel River.
Up near the Cobungra station a pile of animals, including sheep, wombats and roos was found after the same fire, in the corner of a paddock. There was no vegetation on the paddock prior to the fire, that is zero vegetation, the closest forest was at least a mile away and the corpses showed no sign of direct contact with flames. The reason for this was what? The answer is scary.
In my post calling for a Royal Commission I alluded to there being issues with species populations and habitat extents. Important statistics for the intellectual database of ecology.
Let’s see what the AEF come up with. It sounds very intersesting but how much courage have they got? We will see and I hope it is a great success but it will have to be to a level that is opposite to the level that is the current level of impending catastrophe from wildfire and other serious and real ecological threats. It will otherwise be nothing than positive semantics.
The red steer is at the gate. Emotive but true.
Stewie – you have my full support for a reasonable fire regime in pretty well all our vegetation systems save rainforest. I don’t take it lightlt at all but your terms of reference before were very broad. I
f government or green groups let our natural systems grow, detach and acculumate litter to an extent that natural values are compromised and hazardous wildfire is likely, then they need signficant education and fast. Anyone who does not recognise the role of fire in the Australian landscape is a psuedo-greenie and deserves to be rightly challenged ! We now have a situation where mid to southern Australia has too little fire and and northern Australia perhaps too much?
If you can get a Royal Commission up on the current situation fair enough – just make sure your ToR is well defined.
Russell does a degree in political science with a sub-major in spanish dancing and then dishes up half baked homillies and gratuitous advice on how best we might overcome his collective ignorance. Gosh, I just can’t wait to heed that sage advice. Yeah, sure thing.
I have a farm because of my family background. I inherited only one fifth of it and am still paying for the remainder that went to my siblings. I do this because I was imprinted from birth. I am not whole unless I get my regular dose of vitamin F(arm). I belong to a piece of ground that is covered by trees that my father grew to repair the urban imposed insanity of compulsory clearing.
Like Jews or Blackfellas, we are born and raised as what we are. We all have the choice of leaving our community but most of us regard the price of that departure as far too high. And as with any minority community, we have every right to object when the factors confronting the survival of our kind are all driven by the ignorant whims of an indifferent majority.
And as for your statement, “The fact is Ian, I as an urbanite do not owe you anything, just like you do not owe me anything”, merely emphasises the depth of your ethical poverty.
You and your urbanite majority owe every last one of us the obligation to be treated equally, fairly and with proper respect for our rights and obligations. Just as we have that obligation to you. It is called THE SOCIAL CONTRACT.
And that is the fundamental difference between your community and ours. You have given free rein to a religious cult who has demonstrated a willingness to continually erode your part of this contract while we have made no similar changes in our obligations to you.
But if history has shown us anything it is the fact that imbalances in any of the “tripple bottom line”, that is economic, environmental and social values, results in degradation of all three values.
Yet, you barbie worlders seem to think that the preservation of mild language, neatly mown lawns and poolside niceties is the sum total of “social values”. Like some sort of zombies on a Prozac holiday, blissfully unaware that the social values being trashed are none other than habeous corpus, natural justice, equity, the primacy of fact over perception and respect for rights and liberties.
Whether you agree or not, you have provided sufficient evidence on this blog to lead reasonable men and women to conclude that you are the kind of person who can dismiss a persecution induced suicide as a “reach for the emotive crutch”.
So where would you put this emotive crutch in relation to saving the planet/fur seals/Murray River/Barrier Reef?
In short Luke, Motty is so frustrated that he has given up all hope of ever engaging fruitfully or intelligently with the green bureaucracy and green vote influence. It’s sad because engage these sides must to reach a real outcome. I don’t believe that Motty’s extreme recommendations represent the majority of farmers (as Micheal said above), particularly as Motty has the luxury of being a gentlemen farmer within cooeee of developed areas; and most pragmatic troubled farmers realise we need real solutions, not bile.
I don’t want to see farmers forced to walk off their lands or marginalised on their own properties. Yes the social contract needs to be included and rights to livelihoods protected. I doubt few urban green voters want the outcome that they’ve apparently brought about. So…
What I want to know is what, other than blockades and threats of establishing independent states, the disenfranchised farmers have done to put forward a co-ordinated, documented message to reach the urban constituencies? Delivering rabid anti-green tirades works against rural farmers and spreading the message via pre-existing conservative/lobby groups isn’t convincing many either. Even the journalistic piece linked to in Jennifer’s earlier blog post didn’t show the farmers’ dilemmas in a substantiated manner. What effective means are farmers organising to spread their message and get open-minded people to the table like Luke suggests?
Stewie,
I don’t believe I have anywhere indicated that I am not in favour of appropriate fire management regimes -and I am as aware as you are of the heavy fuel loads in many Australian vegetation types as a consequence of the end of indigenous fire management techniques.
If you read my post at the head of this topic you will note I admit scant knowledge of the specific topic of woody weeds in QLD and western NSW. But I am not an armchair bound, urban greenie as assumed by yourself and Ian Beale.
My post was in response to the tactics of Ian Mott in consistently describing all of these issues as a conflict between the people who really know what is going on – the people on the land, and the people who dont -the urban majority. Worse, this sterotyping is developed by Ian Mott to portray all urban dwellers with a green bent as basically malacious -and who have as a major focus the destruction of the Australian farming community. And on the other hand all farmers and country people are portrayed as noble souls who only wish to do the right thing by everybody in all these issues of land management.
This is stereotyping of the worst kind and does nothing at all to promote what is clearly needed in this issue -good, open and honest debate on all sides -not name calling.
And, ultimately, the failure of the farming community to get their way on this issue at this point in time does come down to lobbying -that is not a foolish statement Stewie, and I am not a fool. Obviously the green political side has the upper hand in lobbying at the moment….yes? Well if you want that to change then all issues of right or wrong arguments aside you have to change the attitudes of many urban people toward the issue -and telling them they are foolish and sitting in comfort in their cosy urban centres is not likely to make them anymore favourably disposed to you or your argument, I would have thought that was obvious. I think it is unfortunate that Australia has moved so far toward the American political model where politicians are basically pragmatists who change their policies more often than their underwear because of what the pollsters tell them and the pressure exerted by lobby groups.
and Ian Beale, I am not familiar with the particular circumstances you speak of with respect to the level of compensation available -I do not live in Qld. However, in relation to the issue of the loss of potential income and property values. Australian city house prices are currently overvalued by somewhere between 25-40% if you look at long term trends and it is inevitiable there will be a large scale correction – when that occurs will the majority of large scale borrowers be able to claim compensation for the loss of value? No, and nor should they, for there is always an element of risk involved in the acquisition of property and business. Now you may claim that as the government changed the rules then compensation is due….but there are plenty of examples in Australia where this is clearly not the case (the Tax office is a prime example). Compensation has been made available, and clearly is considered to be inadequate by you, but that is not my fault Ian and I do not owe you anything. It has more to do with the level of risk that you consider acceptable in your business decisions.
Ian Mott,
You continue to engage in the same rather tedious tactics.
I dont see that anywhere in my posts I have made any dimissive comments about the suicide of a farmer -nor would I ever be flippant about the reasons why someone takes their own life.
I simply pointed out that you consistently reach for emotive crutches here, and yes the issues of fur seals, Murray River and Barrier Reef are also emotive crutches -but I do not recall using them here?
You and others here clearly have built up a picture of me which is a stereotype and therefore have already dimissed what I might say before you read it -you could not be more wrong, its partly amusing but also reveals how easily you jump to conclusions about anyone who disagrees with you.
This stereotyping and the them and us mentality is maybe why so many urban people do not listen to what you are saying. If you want them to listen then you have to change the tenor of your language and your descriptors of what you see as the enemy.
But what do you really want out of this blog? The opportunity to discuss issues thoroughly without the emotive crutches? The chance to convince open minded people like myself of where Australia’s environmental policies are wrong?
Or a kind of blokey positive re-inforcement club where everyone agrees that bloke Ian Mott is always right?
All – it’s sad that it has come to this. I empathise strongly with Motty’s angst on these issues but persecutions by government and corporations have also broken city people and been major factors in their demise. I am personally thinking of an automotive repairer I used to know and his personal journey with council etc ending in suicide.
I don’t hear any of the conservation minded folks here dismissing the need for appropriate fire regimes or getting stuck into some woody weed thicket. Get organised – get some reseach submissions and TV publicity and rip it into the bureaucracy, and stay on them. What’s the rural leadership doing?
But if that becomes a wedge to nick off east and flatten the last stand of Myall or Wilga in the cropping zone I might have a different view. (Don’t worry -it’s only a blog and only one vote.) Or to say we bowl over the last Brigalow remnants in CQ. Now some people will be sitting on properties with these remnants when the portcullis of legislation comes down. So their properties devalued due to lost development potential. So I’m happy for some of my dodge free tax dollars to go to compensating those producers. It’s called ecological equivalence, ecological services – whatever.
Joke doing the rounds up here- What is the difference between the Nigerian scam and the Qld vegetation management laws? Not much really, except that participation of Qld landholders is required by law.
What amazes me, Russell and Pinxie, is that you can so easily slip into the gratuitous advice on “getting through” to the city as if myself and every other farmer has only just entered the fray.
I am the third generation of my family to be bull$hitted to by urban spivs who have never stuck around to deal with the consequences of their ignorant condescension. My Grandfather was forced to clear 120,000 tonnes of high grade forest which, today would be worth $35 million, but then, was worthless because of the policy induced glut.
I have also lived and worked in London, Athens, HongKong, Vancouver and 15 years in inner Sydney where I dealt with a Blue Chip client base.
And for the past decade I have been playing the “lets consult, build links and form policy partnerships” game in a milleau that has has proven to have the greatest concentration of shonks and pimps this side of Phat Pong Road.
And I have lost count of the number of times when months and months of (unpaid) work has gone into some aspect of policy only have the whole lot gazumped by some ignorant crap out of left field.
I might also point out that ten years ago my net income was over $150K a year but my attempts at educating the policy process have seen me forego over $1.2 million since then. And still you sit there in your comfy little world making sage pronunciamentos about our need to reach out and engage.
If you had any exposure to people who really have made a difference in the world you would know that the the most important rule to them is;
“never do business with spivs”.
But what I find most amusing about your little homillies is the fact that, just because urban Australia has devised a set of rules of engagement that suits itself, you are so naieve to assume that we will abide by them to our detriment.
Ian Mott,
I do not think that anywhere in my comments I have stated or implied you are a relative newcomer to the “fray”.
Believe it or not I have read the posts where you have discussed the issue of woody weeds from a number of technical aspects and I can see you make some very good points and may well be right about the situation in respect of vegetation management. As I have said repeatedly I am not in a position to know myself with respect to this specific issue, but that does not preclude me from making comments about whether incitement to violent acts and breaking the law is the way forward on any issue.
As soon as I made such a remark you and others conveniently lumped me into the urban radical greenie basket -after all what else could I possibly be? You and several others on this blog site could make the olympic team for jumping to conclusions.
My point was that knee-jerk emotive responses are not the way forward for either side.
I live and work in a country where knee-jerk emotive responses to difficult issues are the order of the day, and it makes things much much worse -not better, for everyone.
And, in terms of your prospects of convincing the urban population of the veracity of your arguments, really what other way forward is there other than engagement and dialogue?
One of the central tenets of a democracy is the rule of the majority -however misguided that might be.
My own limited experience of urban people in a big Australian city is based on 3 years living in Brisbane and my recollections are that a great majority of the urbanites I met and talked to had a very low view of the radical, dreadlocked tree-hugging greenies because they were so radical in the way they pushed their policies. The danger in farmers becoming as radical is that they risk being lumped into the same radical=dangerous and unsettling boat that the deadlocked greens are in now. In my view that’s counterproductive to what you want to achieve. Unless of course what you really believe is that urban people should just do what they are bloody told because it’s you doing the telling? If that is your position then I really don’t see that there is any real difference between you and the radical greens.
and as for the bits about the urban spivs -what has that got to do with me -or I am now one of those as well as someone with a political science degree and a sub-major in spanish dancing?….unfortunately Ian there were no spanish dancing lessons at my Universities.
Jen – perhaps a blog post on the politics of engagement in political debate? Is it worth it? Motty is saying – been there – done that. Call to arms now required? “Once more into the breech, dear friends”.
Can you trust a spiv. How many spivs does it take to change a policy light fitting. Are spivs simply greenies with a business degree?
Anyway – does mediation stand a chance. Or is it eye-gouging, name calling and dirty tricks. Seems awfully gloomy and bad news for the social contract if this is the future.
Rural Australia reduced to a sea of weeds, thickened bush, ravaged by occasional wildfires, roo plagues and dusted by willy-willies, with everyone living within 50kms of the beach.
Russell,
Your attempt at rapprochement is appreciated, but the fact is, urbanites–greenies and others–do not have the sense of “ownership” embedded in them, the way rural people do.
Urbanites seldom truly own things. The bank has their mortgage, the landlord has their apartment, their car is subject to a loan, and their job is dependent on a business owner.
In short, the urbanite, who seldom truly owns anything of consequence, is by turns plagued and manipulated by owners. This means the urbanite cannot innately comprehend what it means to be an owner. To be, in a sense, one’s own landlord, banker and business owner.
When the mass of voters are urbanites who lack any sense of ownership in their lives, and who are often hostile to the “ownerships” that hedge them in, it is not likely that everyone will scratch their heads and reach a consensus.
I’ve said this here before, and I’ll say it again: the notion of ‘ownership’ is swiftly eroding, and will soon become a thing of legend. The notion of the “planned ecology” will engulf everything, a planetary amoeba named ‘Gaia’ but with neurons supplied by the self-appointed greenie elitists.
“the fact is, urbanites–greenies and others–do not have the sense of “ownership” embedded in them, the way rural people do.”
Well, a true Australian does not have any sense of owning the land. They see that they are part of the land and if anything, the land owns them.
“Urbanites seldom truly own things. The bank has their mortgage, the landlord has their apartment, their car is subject to a loan, and their job is dependent on a business owner.”
I hope you have some statistics to back that up Schiller. It is another tiresome gross statement on the way people who don’t live on the land exist.
Schiller is plainly unAustralian.
Motty, I say ‘yeah what he said’ to that reply from Russell as it’s spot on fit for me too. I’ve made voluntary sacrifices too, bring on the violins. Your assumptions don’t fit. You miss the mark on all fronts – real rural farmers protest your comfortable, elitist gentlemen farmer’s position and you don’t have an accurate position on the urban greenies either. You promote separation from the state, where is the resolution in that? People on all sides of the barbed wire fence ask Jennifer to delete your inflammatory posts – so just whose interests do you actually represent?
2 possible reasons why you might not be seeing any results:
You fire up over fabrications and take so much pleasure in forming insulting, seductive arguments and threatening bush-lawyer rants that you don’t even realise that you’re leading yourself down the garden path. Who could imagine you ever engaging without 1st insulting? Do you want real outcomes? I wage that you subconciously prefer to win the argument and lose the battle. You get too much pleasure of carrying the 3rd gen difficult victim burden since yr grandfather’s error of judgment sent that valuable wood heap up in smoke. Cleared the bloody land for nothing, what a genuine tragedy.
You’re incorrectly diagnosing the real problem, so yr not helping to find a solution.
Motty I don’t doubt that you’ve contributed spades of useful information to various forums that sadly hasn’t made it into actual policy. But is that really due to greenie farmer-hatred as you’d have us believe, but no-one can locate? Incompetence, political motivations and time pressures are rife – regularly causing crap outcomes, inefficiencies etc. That happens on all kinds of projects. Human failure is rife. Worse, such poor outcomes are almost inevitable when the people-on-the-ground give input with an attitude of I know everything and you’re a moronic obstacle to justice. Your insulting attitude Motty likely inspires people to ignore your otherwise useful info, perhaps even retaliate, so other farmers pay the price.
Travis,
What do you own, outright, free and clear, that nobody anywhere can mess with or tell you what you can or can’t do with it?
If you want to rebut me, lay down your own statistics. Crikey, every time I run into greenies, they beg for an education. And then refuse to be educated.
This is a case-study in why it doesn’t help to talk to urbanized greenies. You need farmers to draw a line and say, we *own* this out here.
And Ian is *not* out of line with suggesting that a .302 will settle some questions. Good dogs can also help.
Not too long ago, government agents in Brazil went out to check if farmers were growing genetically modified soybeans; if those soybeans were detected, the government said, the crops would be burned and the farmers jailed and fined. The farmers drove the government agents away with guns and dogs, and the government agents had to take refuge in a police station. GM soy is now legal there.
A month ago, farmers united and drove Greenpeace out of Brazil when greenpeacers wanted to blockade a seaport. They intercepted a greenpeacer parachuting in, and a few others crushing their crops were rounded up and sent packing. And they launched skyrockets at the greenpeacers’ luxury yacht in the harbor. It drove away in haste.
A day or so ago, fishermen blockaded a Mediterranean port to prevent the entry of the greenpeacers’ luxury yacht. They were repelled.
There are limits to democracy. Democracy hits a wall when fundamental rights are endangered, or just plain taken away. On the other side of that limit, voting is irrelevant. Some places are owned.
Brasil has one of the highest rates of income inequality in the world. Few latifundios lolling about on unused glory lands while the multitudes starve and relocate to urban slums. Some attempts to redistribute land have done little to alleviate the inequities. Ie farmers who farm for their own independent livelihoods are discriminated against.
Schiller you refer to big areas of deforestation due to larger scale organised soy farms (selling to China) driving out smaller farmers at gun point or property destruction, ruining their only desperate livelihoods. Corrupt or impotent govt officials can’t protect the small farmer. Hardly a bloody case for independent farmers Schiller – that’s the biggest cock n bull bloody analogy you could have pulled out of yr darkest moist nether regions. The small scale farmers, trying to support their hungry families, are forced to clear land afresh and penetrate deeper into the forest, or join their friends in the favelas.
Schiller – greenies – as a major threat to well being ? Come on – stoke up the duelling banjos a bit more – what is a major threat to well being is your government getting involved in rampant adventurism in Iraq. It’s sure made the world heaps safer – not. This is where serious guns bigger than 303s blow people away for real. (and of course Aussies always seem to accompany you lot on your global policing actions coz we’re loyal after WWII (thanks) and stupid).
On ownership – Aussies have very high levels of home ownership and aspire to own property regardless of cost. And we love to recreate in “unspoilt” forest and beach. We have inherited our need to own larger and larger properties from our Irish-Celtic heritage.
If we do well in life we aspire to own acreage outside the city so the poor little kids can run a horse and flog the paddocks bare while we enjoy the view. And many of us dream about buying a farm – unfortunately without selling drugs or having a rich Mummy/Daddy – it won’t happen. And we’d stuff it up anyway.
The reality though is that corporate farms, which are not well represented in these blog discussions, own more and more of the landscape. More cashed up and enlightened agribusiness employ staff to look after the natural resource issues. So is the family farm dead ? to be replaced with major corporations who simply see the exercise as another business to be managed. Kids are leaving the boring land for the loathed cities and more exciting cafe latte lives. What does that mean for land and vegetation management?
Pinkxi,
Thanks for displaying to everyone how you just don’t get it at all. Income inequality? That’s how the world works. Land redistribution? That’s theft. Deforestation? Where do you think crop land comes from, Mars? Government officials, corrupt or honest, should be irrelevant except when it comes to defending rights.
Unfortunately, the greenies have such a stranglehold on Europe that police often simply “supervise” crop destruction by greenies with sickles, or with logs they drag behind tractors.
So I must admit, in Europe, the police are corrupt to the point where they don’t understand, and won’t enforce, the simplest notions of private property.
If the government won’t enforce rights, those who have them must do the job themselves.
And, Pinkxi, I bet you would be glad to drive the Brazilian farmers out of their new-plowed land, where they are desperate to make a living. But guess what. They’re making a place to live and eat, and you’d drive them out of it. If they have guns and dogs, they’d run you off their land and go back to working for their livelihood like any other one of us.
Luke,
I can’t see a connection between the war in Iraq and the growing backlash among farmers against the greenies.
Your remarks about corporate farms are poorly taken. Increasingly, family farms are declaring themselves to be corporations in order to avoid the taxes it takes to pacify the unpacifiable urbanized greenies. Corporate farms are for the most part family farms.
Here I go again, attempting to educate the ineducable.
Ian,
I agree completely.
Schiller – you’re the one prattling on about how dangerous greenies are – define real danger is my point !
And I assume you’re familiar with Australian demography are you – doesn’t sound like it with the amount of b/s you’re peddling. (Mate!) I’m talking about farms run by external salaried managers – not the owning family, their trust or their business name.
Luke,
You still don’t get it.
I’ve run a search on the word “danger” and its variants in this thread, and nowhere did I say greenies are dangerous. If you can’t follow a thread, how could I hope to help you? Pointing you in the direction of demographics would merely embroil you in hopeless challenges. Just sit down with a copy of “Das Kapital” and put a smile on your face.
So if greenies are not dangerous therefore they’re harmless or benign so you don’t need to worry about them. QED. Is Das Kapital a new musical?
Ian Mott,
You are at least consistent with your responses and always start with an insult or two.
Personally I do not see what my background or where I live has to do with whether or not I can make a comment about the use of violence and law breaking as a means to an end?
But in deference to your holy self-righteousness here is my background.
Which damned country I live in?
Have lived in Nigeria for the last three years where I am a freelance consultant on projects in Nigeria, Ghana, and lately Indonesia. and to head off any insulting comments about what I probably do for a living-I am currently engaged on projects in urban planning, coastal and land-use management, reconstruction (Aceh), rural development (primary health care, water and sanitation at village level).
Prior to that I spent a year in Germany where I was the technical advisor to Iraq in their defence of claims against them at the UNCC for damages caused to the coastlines of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iran by the largest oil spill in history.
For two years before that I lived in Townsville where I was the head of an environmental sciences group for one of Australias largest consulting engineering companies and ran projects in Australia (QLD, WA, NT, SA, TAS) and New Zealand.
Before that I lived and worked for two years in Indonesia running a mangrove reforestation project.
Prior to that I lived for 3 years in Brisbane and ran my own consulting company and working in QLD, NT, Indonesia, Vanuatu. Iwas also the unfortunate owner of a restuarant in Brisbane during that time.
Prior to that I lived and worked for 15 years in the Northern Territory for the NT government as a marine and coastal ecologist and spent a lot of time engaged in coastal management and planning. I also completed my PhD parttime and was resident on a bushland block at Humpty Doo.
Prior to that I was at Uni for 4 years where I studied zoology and botany, statistics, chemistry.
Before that I wandered and worked around Australia, mostly in SW of WA, and have worked as a truck driver, storeman and packer, share cropper (wheat and sheep), on the mutton chain in an abbatoir, fruit picking, builders and brickies laboring, casual farm laboring, factory hand, ships chandler (VIC), and numerous others.
Oh a incidentally I am currently completing another degree by distance education in Development and Economics.
Hmmmm is there anything else you may wish to know?
My shoe size is 45.
So your holiness, do I pass muster?
Can I continue to make comments here please?
Schiller, on the topic of Brasil, it’s clear that you really don’t understand what it is that yr trying to pin an argument on. And given the demise of self-sufficient family owned or run farms in Australia, you would find few Aussie farmers who would support the similar but even more rapacious activities that are going on in Brasil. Perhaps you want to mind business in your own backard 1st:
US annual expenditures (off the top of my head, a couple of yrs old now):
$1,000 million on military
$300 million on agricultural subsidies, plus a host of non-tariff barriers
$56 million on foreign aid
And you tell me I want to run (small scale) Brazilian farmers off their land? I wouldn’t have to try. Your country is already doing a brilliant job of increasing international inequality, particularly thanks to US (+ EU) agricultural dumping and trade barriers that reinforce the sad inequalities that you chose to defend. You don’t seem to realise that you are arguing for smallscale subsistence farmers to be forced off their land with few alternatives for survival. Don’t presume that you can draw relevant analogies for highly productive, comparatively well managed and relatively unsubsidised Australian farms.
“What do you own, outright, free and clear, that nobody anywhere can mess with or tell you what you can or can’t do with it?”
I own my home, car and have my own business. Anything else? Are you telling me people on the land don’t have mortgages or owe money to others? Get real.
“If you want to rebut me, lay down your own statistics. Crikey, every time I run into greenies, they beg for an education. And then refuse to be educated.”
You are the one making the sweeping statements. Are you labelling me as a greenie? You know stuff all of my views. You have nothing ‘educational’ to offer anyone Schiller.
“This is a case-study in why it doesn’t help to talk to urbanized greenies. You need farmers to draw a line and say, we *own* this out here.”
Another example of you presuming you know. How do you know what environment I live in, or anyone else that contributes here apart from say Ian Mott. Labelling is the domain of the school yard. As I said, true Australians don’t say they own the land. And by true Australians Schiller, I mean indigenous Australians.
Motty, what you say about the media and the crucial role of media in democracy is too true but again, that can’t be put down to a green agenda. Influenced by reporting for urban interests perhaps, but not due to green interests, but the immediacy of self-interests.) We just have crappy dumbed-down media and a decline in proper journalism and rigorous reporting. The general neglect of rural issues is one of many outcomes of our lack of national leadership.
Schiller mentioned somewhere in his post ” private property” in Europe.
I think we have an unique case in Sweden regarding private property. There really ain’t such a thing as ” private forests or land”. Everyone has the right to trepass any big forest or ground to pick mushrooms or trekking as long as you don’t destroy anything. It is called ” allemansräätten”, rough translations “any person has the right to wander around in the forests and fields as long as you don’t destroy anything”.
Oops, I meant billions not millions for those USD expenditures above. Mind boggling.
Yes I know Schiller thinks I’m an idiot or cretin because I support Greenpeace’s actions for the most part.
I must point out for Schiller that most small scale farmers in Scandinavia don’t support GM crops. Only a minority of pig farmers want to buy GM feed to their pigs because they think it is cheaper. But do they realise they have to pay royalties to Monsanto, so actually the real costs for GM feed for pigs is as expensive or even more than traditional feed.
Regarding fisheries, I must also point out that Norway,a whaling nation, supports Greenpeace’s actions on pirate fishing. You unfairly describe Greenpeace as fishermens and farmers enemy when the case is actually the opposite.
Thank you, Russell, marvellous what people reveal when they have something to prove. But when you have a major portion of your kids inheritence under serious threat then, please, come and have a chat about tactics. There is not a farmer in Australia that actually wants to go down the road to Bosnia. But there is no shortage of people who seem hell bent on pushing us as far as they can.
And I think I would prefer “your excellency”, has a much better ring to it, don’t you think?
And Pinxie, either way, it is a structural democratic failure. Any news item of a rural nature automatically goes to the environment reporters desk at every major metro paper. We have no functioning media of public record so we have no functioning scrutiny of governance and without informed consent there can be no legitimate urban mandate over the rural minority.
Gosh Pinxi,
Europe spends sixty percent of taxation on subsidies for farmers. Sorry to disappoint your anti-Bushyness. The average cow in the EU gets a subsidy of $500 a year, which is not bad, considering that it totally eclipses per-capita (human) income in the areas of Africa that the greenies are fond of pointing to in their complaints about Bushy-ness.
But the opponents of progress love Europe, because Europe funds the opponents of progress. “Fortress Europe” will soon bankrupt itself. The downside of the euro.
Ann,
Farmers who feed GM to their pigs don’t have to pay royalties. All they get is pig feed at lower cost.
And you raise pigs, apparently, just like Pinxi farms in Brazil.
Travis,
You say, “I own my home, car and have my own business.” Well, and what would you think about someone imposing limits on them? Your home is too tall; you must lower it by three feet. You drive your car too much; you may not exceed your quota of 5,000 miles per year. You have a business; you are limited to A$100,000 per year in receipts. Would you welcome these things, or would you say, no, I *own* these things?
Schiller – mate – this is Aussie so don’t bother us with the subsidised Euro stories – come down here and make it in farming with no subsidies.
Actually don’t do that – yanks go home ! At least Euros don’t go on with things like “Goddamm”, “you-all” and “Texas is bigger” etc – they’re a lot quieter. and next time you decide to shoot somewhere up for WMD don’t ask us to help.
And yes rules rules and regs exactly the stuff urbanites have to put up – rules and regs galore on houses design, engineering and style, restrictions on signage, fences, vegetation protection orders, heights of bldgs, noise rules, distance from boundaries rules, water/drainage routing rules, duelling banjo noise limits, having your home resumed for freeways, parking restrictions, hosing your car or driveway, number of dogs, cats and chooks owned, future bans on entering the city with a vehicle. You can’t even pee off your front porch without being arrested. It’s great !
This post has been diverted by people not sticking to the subject, it seems by professional agitators trying to force the discussion into a debate of semantics. Russell, how impressive your background may seem but I smell an exaggeration. My family has run one of the biggest consulting engineer companies in Australia (most capital cities), with offices in Singapore and Hong Kong. I can’t help but think your glorifying your contribution to this world and your position it. A glorified office worker?
Disciplines such as mechanical, structural, civil, electrical, etc. have clear underlying standards and are dealing with physical properties that are known and appreciated by all. This is dictated by things like we do not want buildings to fall down and such. Your discipline has the underlying property of ecology and it is this standard that is often guided by perception. Disciples of this ‘expertise’ not only deal with vague properties but seem to shrug their collective shoulders when systems (industries) break down, applying phylosiphies of denial, politics and ‘I am God’. The language in environmental consultancy, unlike the afore mentioned disciplines, uses broad language and unproven methodologies. Certainly not always but they certainly can. It is open to total abuse.
The art of exaggerating your resume and your contribution is today rife. I could only imagine what it is like in ‘environmental’ consultancy.
Oh, I lived in Bouganville in the 1970’s for a while in a small camp in the middle of the jungle, as my father worked as a mining engineer for the Panguna copper mine. Got to know some native Bouganvillians pretty well as they showed me around their ‘garden’. Everynow and again you heard of people in Australia (Melbourne I think) encouraging a fight for independence, on behalf of the natives. What a priveledge it was to meet and live with these beautiful people for a short while. But what has happened now? The notion of human rights and affiliated hangers on has seen machine guns find there way into their hands. They are killing for politics. The Panguna mine has been destroyed. The fact was though, that most of the natives couldn’t have given a stuff about the politics. So much for human rights and non-violence. Negotiation and management not scaremongering, exaggerated media campaigns and remote agitation.
Have you heard of eco-terrorism, Russell? What about intellectual vandalism?
Environmental consultant. Hmmmmm.
Lets stick to the highlighted issue and the thread. Sweden?!?! What. Hello. This is Australia, mate.
Luke,
Just because you like the government telling you what to do with what you “own,” the notion of ‘ownership’ therefore being somewhat illusory, doesn’t mean that others like the notion of illusory ownership.
Consider the possibility that rural folk don’t want people butting into their affairs to the extent you seem to enjoy.
You got your life-style, but that doesn’t mean it has to be everyone else’s life-style.
Me, I spring a leak off my front porch whenever I want, and anyone available to complain about it is a trespasser. And, unlikely as it seems, that near the core of the issue. Urbanites live with restricted freedoms, and accomodate themselves. They simply don’t comprehend that the rurals want to live a different way.
So let’s call a truce; you don’t mess with us, and we won’t mess back. Can you live with that?
Schiller – sure we can reach a truce – but alas we may to negotiate it. It isn’t simple a matter of we urbanites buggering off.
I didn’t say I adore ALL the rules imposed on myself as an urban dweller. But in many respects some of these rules provide the quiet leafy suburbs we enjoy, people living together in a degree of harmony, in some degree of order, waste removed, lawns mowed etc. It’s reasonable that I don’t annoy my neighbours with heavy metal music at 3pm in the morning or route my stormwater at their front door. There are rules where you can open retail business – town planning/zoning. Some people like standards of housing so the street isn’t devalued. And cost price squeezes and issues of sustainability/sprawl inevitably mean smaller blocks away from the Aussie urban quarter acre dream to something much smaller. More liberal folks may find all of this an imposition and resent any rules at all. But a concept called democracy in search of a liveable society has imposed these rules on us (either wisely or not).
So it raises the point as what is a reasonable level of freedom that can be exercised by freehold title. Can you do anything you want? You will still have rules on building construction to abide by. You may or may not be able to bury your kin on your land. Geological survey and mining can still extinguish your rights. You will be subject to rules on use of chemicals, pesticides and herbicides. You still have rules on occupational safety for your workers. But are you able to do as you please in general to the natural resources – can you cultivate it, bulldoze it, clear fell it, shoot all the wildlife, etc. What is a fair go here? Difficult issue I suggest.
Not all Australian land is freehold title. Vast tracts are crown leasehold. Many forests are state owned.
http://www.ga.gov.au/education/facts/tenure.htm will give you the numbers.
Leases are granted on condition that they are “looked after” appropriately. It’s the state government’s responsibility to do that. The land is not owned outright. There are prescriptive acts like the Lands Act that provide a regulatory basis. And we urbanites in the main (unless you like gerrymandering) elect that government. So if we through the government are dismayed at the way you’re running your property i.e. overgrazed, flogged out, soil loss, salinity, all trees removed, wildlife zilch – we won’t be happy.
Then there are the issues of externalities – who owns the rivers – there are massive fights on water rights at a national and international level. Can you pump all the water out of the river and deprive your downstream neighbours. Can you pollute that water or fill it with sediment with impunity. If agriculture cumulatively affects icons such as the barrier reef or river estuaries does the public have a say – you bet they do and will.
So you can see from above that there are large areas of land which we simply are not obliged to let people do what they like with. Despite the rules I’m not sure there has been any prosecutions of land managers under the Lands Act and mostly graziers have had pretty free rein to do what they bloody liked. This of course is now changing to the annoyance of many.
Now this is where it gets trickier – Australian society (mainly urban and through its elected governments) has develops a view that land clearing in many areas has become excessive i.e. loss of regional biodiversity, threatened species, the extinction of regional ecosystems. e.g. the Brigalow in central Queensland has pretty well all gone under the plough.
So rights have been removed and new legislation banning remnant clearing brought into effect (stops this December 2006!). This is where Motty comes in. A consultative process with industry to achieve reasonable conservation limits has been bulldozed aside overnight by legislation. Development rights removed and legal gotchas abound. People stuck with land they cannot develop. Arguments about what is remnant and what’s not. Major philosophical differences about the need for any nature conservation anway.
So what I am interested to hear as to what the philosophical, scientific, legal and ethical basis of nature conversation, agriculture and individual rights should be.
Hard core greenies are calling for the full force of the law. Motty is encouraging civil disobedience as a last resort. The Labor government isn’t elected by the bush. The bush/city divide is increasing. Rural leadership has done a crap job on this issue and is still sucking up to government. I think we’re far from finished and have it nowhere right. You’d think we could do a lot better. Fire regimes and woody weed management are big messes.
But I don’t hear any positive solutions from the blog. We’re all still shadow boxing and name-calling (fun though it is you yokel red-necks 🙂 )
But Dear Schiller – so should we urbanites and our elected governments simply bugger orf and leave you rugged rural individualists alone to urinate off the front porch with impunity while we have another café latte or chardonnay? Is it that simple?
Stewie,
It was me with the Sweden stuff, sorry mate. I’m just here to learn some English and watch what you are doing down under.
Stewie,
Actually I’m only here because of the whaling threads… but jump in here and there in discussions … you seem to have fun…
The nearest urban example of what is happening in the bush would be if the far left, with high moral concern for the homeless, managed to bring in a decree that housing the homeless was everyone’s duty. And in pursuit of this end, they then announced that the front 2 metres of every house lot should be made freely available for use by the homeless as part of the homeowners duty of care.
And this would mean that every homeowner would still pay rates on those front 2 metres and assume all public liability obligations for an endless procession of homeless who light camp fires (Warmth is a right, after all) leave empty bottles and cardboard boxes after partying into the night, and spill over into what remains of your front garden after it has been urinated and defecated on.
And of course, those with the nicest and most amenable front gardens will have more visitors while those of the Nullarbor school of landscaping will have none.
And the ultimate outcome will be that a new, high fence goes up between the social “buffer” and the remining garden, no-one will ever mow the front and it will degrade the entire streetscape.
Luke,
I offered a truce. I didn’t offer capitulation. You manage the biodiversity in your back yards and we’ll deal with ours.
Your decrepit analogy treats rural land like your sidewalks. As I suspected, your urbanite perspective is such that you believe everything is public property.
Schiller,
Are you calling the Rainbow Warrior, a luxury yacht? Thanks for the compliment, but actually it is an old retired trawler.
What’s the difference between Schiller and a computer. Something about entering the data only once into a computer goes the joke. Anyway Schills mate what we have here is a failure to communicate. 67% of the place is leasehold land is owned by the Crown. Who owns it?
BTW if we separate bush and city with Motty’s Israel/Gaza strip fence style of landscaping that’s good – we won’t have the pay the millions of drought relief to keep the bush in business and no bush kids get educated in urban unis. City teachers, nurses and police won’t be needed for country service either.
Motty – what intuition on the new urban streetscape – sounds like my current address. But I do find St George cathead cultivars a good deterrent.
And Schills mate – it’s footpath or nature strip (if you an Adelaidian toff) – sidewalk is what Aussies do after too many beers.
Luke, You’ve inadvertently raised an interesting sidelight WRT Texas.
Texas joined the Union on the condition that there would be no government land – making an interesting comparison with the other states. As I recall Nevada has the most. And I don’t think Texas stands out for more (or probably less either) land degraded.
Texas also has an interesting sidelight on land for urban spread – if an area is acquired, genuine agricultural pursuits are taxed at agricultural rates – until they cease, when the land owes 5 years back-taxes at urban rates. As described, stops the land going out of production till it’s really needed.
When the Federal Wild Horse and Burro act was brought in in the 1970’s it was reckoned that there would be something like 20 million acres of Nevada ruined before sense got back into the deal.
And, if you’re from Qld, Texas is not so much a state as a state of mind (Steinbeck).
Stewie,
Couple of points.
1. My resume is correct -no exaggerations there. I would count Sinclair Knight Merz as one of Australia’s biggest wouldn’t you? While I was employed by the NT govt, and while I was freelancer in Brisbane I also did projects for GHD, Connell Wagner, AGC/Woodward Clyde, Dames and Moore, Bishaw Bowman Graham, etc. What you want copies of all the contracts now??? Give me a break or give me an email address and I’ll send you my CV complete with publications list.
2. My only point in posting my background was not to toot my own trumpet because frankly I do not need to -you will note I prefaced it with the comment that my background should not influence whether or not I am able to make a contribution on this forum. It was in response to Ian Mott’s and others constant denigration of me as having no right to say anything here because I was a (insert insult of your choice) simply because I am disagreeing with you – and you are still doing it, as now it seems I am exaggerating who I am, and a professional agititator ,and even if I am who I say I am, it does not matter because I am only an ecologist -strewth!
Why do you mkae these reactive, knee-jerk comments? Because in your closeted minds the only people who could possibly disagree with you on any topic are the enemy – who are the enemy? Why anyone who disagrees with you. Its crap Stewie, and if you are all doing it then its no wonder to me that you are not getting very far in your quest – you will note I have not made any specific comment on the issue of woody weeds here, other to say I have not made up my mind, I have merely questioned you tactical nous. That’s all Stewie, and in response?
All I can say is that if that is how you and your colleagues are lobbying the urban majority for a change in their opinions -its tragic as you will continue to alienate them.
And that’s not my problem Stewie -I don’t give a rat’s clacker one way or the other if you are successful in this issue because you are third or fourth generation farmer, its not an argument. What I do care about are land management issues in Australia, and (if you accept I am who I say I am) other countries. Because I care Stewie I want to see debate that is fair, free and open on this and other land management issues.
A lot of you say that’s what you want too, but I am now beginning to suspect all you really want is the accursed urban majority to do as they are told.
Stewie would massively (re-)engineer nature no doubt. Shoot all the environmental scientists and consultants, put engineers in charge of achieving equitable outcomes for all, and nature will behave accordingly. Nup, there are certainly no problems to do with reductionism, industry blinkers or bias going on here.
Actually Stewie I have read your last post again and see that I am also called a “glorified office worker” – your arrogance and presumption is amazing.
I spent 15 years in tropical Australia, mostly in the field. What was I doing?
Mostly diving in difficult conditions -rough seas, poor visibility strong currents, and when I wasn’t diving I was working in mangroves, up to my waist in mud, covered with sandflies and mosquitoes -why, because I was interested in developing quantitative techniques that took some of the guesswork out of whether or not environmental impacts were really taking place from effluent streams such as sewage -that rights Stewie, up to my neck in you know what.
and I would not trade those experiences for anything -I loved it and still do. When I got promoted to a level where I was sitting behind a desk, I quit and went out on my own. I came back into SKM because I had lost my network while I was away in Indonesia -living incidentally in villages in the middle of a lagoon with no facilities, where no one spoke any english, and the vilage chiefs agreed to participate in the program I was promoting but made it clear they would cut my throat if I do not deliver what I said -I wonder how long you would cut it in place that like Stewie? I left SKM precisely because it was full of suits with no real experience of the field and whose main interest was simply getting a stamp of approval on a project -not actually determining what the environmental impacts might have been, or how they might be overcome -and gee they were all engineers.
Hi Russel,
I think you are fantastic and I love your comments.
Hi Ann,
That’s certainly the nicest thing anyone has said to me on this blog -thank you.
I had no intention of dragging this argument out here -I consider it obvious that incitements to violence and civil disobedience are in no ones best interest. And it would be legitimate as a statement from me, or a child with no experience of the world.
I’m am either being deliberately baited (trolled) or some of these guys can only respond to a divergent point of view with insults and character assassination – and that would be very sad.
Bythe way, I think Norway is one of the most impressive countries in the world in the way it has developed and maintained an inclusive society -there is much Australians could learn from that model.
This post has nothing to do with woody weeds but is a reply to Russell.
Ok Russell, I accept you are perhaps who you are (you maybe guilding the lilly a little?? Whatever.) and I apoligise for my well meaning mis-conception but…
How do you some up relevant life experience in this world of buearacratic experts and their consultants?
Within the environmental movement, you must be aware that there are people calling themselves ecologists and environmental scientists who have flaunted their own basic codes and made some very serious mistakes of fact, deliberately it would seem in many instances, to push their own ‘fundamentalist’ barrow. I’d bet that it’s occurring within the issue of woody weed management. (I have added at the end an excerpt from a Parl. Inquiry I was involved with over a piece of hobby prospecting equipment greenies wanted to ban.)
We now have ecoticians. (Ecologist + Politician).
I don’t have a ‘closeted mind’, I have experience.
They, these infuriating radical greenies, have in the process done environmental science/scientists, in fact often the very environment they spruik about, no good and have alienated people with a profound knowledge of those environments.
Facts have been ignored in favor of media campaigns that seem to rely on brainwashing techniques. And this alienation process has caused serious pain (ongoing). It is also causing political procrastination on serious ecological issues. The medias behaviour in the past 20+ years has been appalling (especially the ABC).
It seems, it is quite possible that certain groups, especially the greens, are running campaigns to completely alter our style of governance, an experiment at that, and if so, then other ‘green’ issues have been treated in the same way as environmental ones often have, that is, they (the authorities) have turned a blind eye or have an alarming level of ignorance.
I think what you need to do is first accept my apology but to be fair, admit that greenie politics may have a bit of serious fessing up to do. Then the idea of positive, win, win communications could start, maybe. There is a lot of very upset people out here now, for good and various reasons. And many feel our country is going backwards, fast.
Have the last word Russell if you want. If you want to go on though, name the place. Not here anymore.
Apoligies to Jennifer, for running off thread and including vague personnel info.
Bye.
Here’s a exert from a parliamentary inquiry I was involved in a while ago:
(In part)
The Chairman: Did you say your occupation was a scientific officer?
Mr. X : Yes.
The Chairman: Would you agree with me that a scientist should realise that he needs well documented evidence to support his conclusions? You made a couple of comments and I would like to know if you had any scientific evidence to support them.
Mr. X : Most of my scientific information comes from contacts with people involved in the Dept. of Conservation…. I do not have anything offhand.
The Chairman: Are you aware of any scientific report on the long term ill effects of xxxxx?
Mr X : I am not sure.
The Chairman: Can you tell us where you heard of the stirring up of cyanide and arsenic?
Mr. X: That information came from the submission put in by the DCNR.
The Chairman: You must have information we don’t have. We have not yet had a submission from the DCNR.
Mr. X: I must have a draft copy. I received a draft copy.
Ms Marple: Can you tell me a little more about your groups activities….?
Mr. X: Yes, we are concerned primarily with environmental issues but we are also looking at the social and economic impact of them.
Ms Marple: What does that mean in practical terms?
Mr X: For example, our group is opposed to the very fast train. We prepared various submissions to government on various things such as wilderness recommendations and so forth.
The Chairman: Thank you for your attendance today.
This person has now gone onto become a senior flora and fauna manager while his wife at that time taught ecology (one of the first people to ever teach it) in the Natural Resource Management course at TAFE (now community liason officer involved with community environmental project funding and community lobbying). They and their friends are radical greenies, some running eco-buisnesses. He signs off on flora and fauna management plans that effect fuel reduction burning in areas where fuel loads are amongst the highest in the State. Fuel reduction has dropped significantly since the appointment of him and others like him. Many I know who have profound ecological knowledge despise the man but must now bow to this twit (he is a twitter like our J Thwaites), as he attacks their livelihoods via his reporting methods from his office. He, I am sure, is involved with a network within and out of government that I believe promotes skewed and weighted scientific data, so that they get their way, no matter what, on issues of land tenure, threatened species, recreation, etc.. They are radical but when you meet them, oh so nice and polite.
The DNRE held back their submission to the last moment during this inquiry, so nobody else could read it. Information was virtually impossible to get from them. FOI had to be used, where possible. I’m talking basic ecological info. The ecological vagaries put forward as science were appalling. The precautionary principle was incorrectly applied in the end. We did hundreds of hours of lobbying. 2 suicides followed. You give me your email and I will send you some details.
Ecology. Hmmm. Environmental lobbying. Hmmm. Environmental management. Ha. This Parl. Inquiry and other life experiences have shown me the holes in ecology and how ‘ecologists’ manipulate it.
And you want people to stay calm.
Hi Stewie,
Apology accepted. And yes I do agree there is a lot of very bad “science” out there and it’s being used to push a political position -much of what I have been engaged in is debunking a lot of that stuff -on both sides of the fence- and may be why I continue to get a lot of opportunities as a consultant.
I will ask Jen to send you my email address and by all means send me some more info.
OK guys – so you’re all very impressive and qualified/experienced to the hilt. We at home are in awe of your abilities.
Now what about this woody weed business and the city/bush divide thingy. And no punch ups in the back bar with Motty.
Luke,
Stewie might be we angry with me again if I mention Sweden on an Austalian forum- damm foreigners you know… but this urban / bush thing exists even among us and I’m kind of something between.
When I help out with the haymaking where my horse is stabled I’m used to the Motty stuff… and when I’m in the city I always hear about them rednecks, haha, but some city dwellers really have the most strange views on farming I must admit, even organic farming can be bad according to them and I find that very, very strange…
hi Ian,
Hope you don’t take it as an insult that I called you Motty! Apologies! Just influensed by Luke!!!
I notice that none of this expertise has appeared as comment in the companion thread on NSW private forestry, which is another chip off the same block
Dear, dear Ann,
I promise you have not experienced my anger and I found your spin on things so amusing I’ll take the bait, once, to show that you are, well, a naughty little girl.
My parents are foreigners. Left holland after the Nazis did what they did. I have a high respect for honest thinking people where ever they come from. Are you honest Ann?
I grow organic vegtables, eggs and meat but as a commercial industry you know it is not that easy. It’s easy for people to talk about it.
To show we are not red-necks here, my daughter recently won a national poetry competition. She is very good. We promote art and expression in this family. (Music, instruments, books,etc.)What is a redneck anyway? Name enough of them to show that people like yourself can apply demographic connections to the extent that you do?
Do you allow anybody to freely ride your horse at anytime (as long as they don’t hurt it)?
My wife is a highly experienced zoo-keeper and worked in the ABC for many a year. When you are on the inside you see things, you know what I mean? What you see, you soon realise, does not always match the public spin. People for example have deliberately perpetuated and promoted this city/bush divide thing. Wedge politics.
My families history, sees me, through default, have a small but unique window into political ‘stuff’. I have learnt that there is no city/bush divide just mis-information and those that wish to promote it through “door stop’ media campaigns. The greens and some unions are classics for this hit and run style.
I do follow foreign intereests if they are applicable or enlightnining to my interests eg/ the wildfire situation (ecologically and politically speaking) in the US.
I do not rely on emotion (maybe a little where applicable) as a reason of involvment. Facts resist emotion. If not……
I tried to get people together on above mentioned enquiry, including the Australian Conservation Foundation. Their answer “F–k off”.
I was a bit innocent back then to the extent of their intent and methods which includes not listening to anybody who disagrees. Oh, the “F–k off” came when we had began to see the methodology used by certain ecologists. Eg/We used FOI to get hold of the diaries of a threatened species field survey. You could easily see, if you were experienced enough in that (remote) environment, that they had no idea of population/habitat extents. The public reports however painted a completely different picture. This awareness of the ‘scientific’ methodology, at the basic level, seemed to greatly concern the ACF. They were very nice to that point.
I would suggest you are the one who is angry and concerned because the veracity of environmental science is being questioned, which may expose the extent to which campaigners push the envelope of bad science (at the cost of the environment). The hollow arguements maybe exposed.
And you would not want that would you?
Woody weeds, Luke. We have millions of tons of it on the Great Divide. Put a few years to the side. Come and check it out. I could take you where ever you want to go. You can,t rely on satelites and extrapolation in this case. You need legs, eyes, a good sense of direction and a good cardio-vascular system. Oh and a good guide ie/ not the Department of Sustainability and Environment.
Pinxi. What the hell are you on? How amusing you are. You leave me with a wry smile. What a classic.
I am definetly not going to take this tit for tat any further but if your intent is a publicity stunt Ann, Pinxi you go ahead and have the last word. Amusing stuff.
Yes, Luke, no country kids at city unis. The federal funding for their education would be spent in their own regional state, by their own regional state, on their own regional universities. And that money would continue to circulate within that regional economy and create quality job opportunities in that region so country kids could have the option of pursuing careers that include local, interstate and international choices.
Regional based public servants could aspire to the highest levels without the need to relocate to the big babylon.
Good fences make good neighbours, and the unsustainable edge will be taken off the SEQ growth rate to slow, and possibly halt it’s journey Gaza.
Stewie & Russell – let me introduce myself – my name is Luke – I used to think that was in Star Wars as Luke Sky Walker but then someone pointed out to me that I was delusional. I have made no contribution to society – my hobbies are Coke can collecting , basket burning and panel beating. I also like to hunt small insects in the undergrowth with my machete and creep around the institution in the dark. I had a girlfriend once in primary school.
Anyway brain freeze – back to the thread – Motty are you really serious – as I suspect you probably are at this point ? How pray tell are you going to excise Brisvegas – does Ipswich, Gold and Sunshine Coast go too? Will Cairns & Rocky get the chop from the region? Where does the fence run? Who’s cool and who’s out?
Anyway seems to me like you can do all that you describe now – it’s just the tree clearing rules in the end and the unalienable right of land holders to do what they feel like with their property – even if that is flogging the shit out of it. The bush wants no restrictions on any resource use? Correct? It is an interesting philosophical point.
Ann,
When you buy yourself a boat like the Rainbow Warrior II and float yourself around looking for publicity shots, you can tell me about “luxury yachts.” If I could afford a boat like that, I’d look for an honest living, instead of photo opportunities.
Luke,
I can see you are quite enthused about the notion of “Crown Property.” Thank you for making my point.
Schiller-diller – I’m not enthused – it’s just the way it is. Did I make the rules? But given it is Crown property it is our parliament that makes the day to day rules for our Queen. (the parliament representing our western democracy of course). And we know how much you yanks would love some royalty.
In the final analysis we’ve annexed our land from the Aboriginals as you have from the North American Indians.
Hi Stewie,
Thanks for your comment, and good to hear that you are into organic farming, really nice!
A short comment here.
Maybe this city/ bush divide nowadays is just a lover’s quarrel? How deep is it really? Yes, I know you have had bad experience and personally I have also heard some amazing comments from city people regarding farming and so on…
Stewie I am in no position to make any comments on woody weeds in Australia, just about the divide issue.
Yes, we hear them harsh comments, but how serious are they really? A redneck here and there( as English is not my native language, I’m not familiar with how insulting such word is)and my personal experience is that rural people have even more naughty comments on city dwellers.Don’t think we can take them too seriously though, can we?
And city people who try farming , they are really laughed at sometimes, in Sweden they are called , moonshiners,but isn’t that something with booze??
Anyway, if there are too much of this woody weed, I think you should try maybe to make some wood pellets out of such material…
“When you buy yourself a boat like the Rainbow Warrior II and float yourself around looking for publicity shots, you can tell me about “luxury yachts.” If I could afford a boat like that, I’d look for an honest living, instead of photo opportunities.”
Schiller, the Rainbow Warrior does not just float around looking for publicity shots, believe it or not, and she is certainly no luxury vessel.
I realise this is off topic, but I am sick of ready your sweeping statements about everything. You may want to make an honest living, but honesty seems to stop there with you.
Hi again Stewie,
After another morning coffee, I reread all the posts.. I must really point out that I admire your and your families skills and education( yes, Russel was impressive as well).
I want to stress again that I don’t mean to be condescending when I use the word redneck, hell I’m planning to be a redneck myself in the near future… planning to buy that small scale farm that I have always dreamed about…if you are lucky you still can buy them quite cheap in some parts of the country…of course my posts are off topic btw
Hmmm,
A separate state?
I know there was pastoralist in WA during the 1980s? who formed the Hutt River Province because he did not like anyone telling him what to do. I think he even printed his own stamps for a while and made a bit of money out of tourism, but I cannot remember how it eventually ended.
While I was living in Darwin there were occasional calls for a separate state comprised of the north -ie everything north of the tropic of Capricorn to be called Capricornia, which had a nice ring to it, and made some sense in terms of geography, demographics and economics, especially the east-west rail link -one of Jo’s better ideas.
But excising the SE corner? Are there no benefits and services flowing to country people in QLD from their city cousins? I think there are -err, well….beer for example.
Before embarking on a separatist push which would require considerable investments in legal services, wouldn’t it be better to spend at least some money on legal challenges to the laws you find so distasteful?
And if you fail/have failed there does it not suggest you have to abide by the umpires rules, however much that might chafe? Or will you have a different system of challenging decisions and laws in the new rural Utopia?
The other questions I have about this issue is in relation to the forthcoming election -is it an issue? What are the Nationals going to do on this issue if they win -and there is some chance of that this time round is there not? I would have thought the time is ripe for another go round on the public forum circuit and as suggested by Luke (a.k.a. Skywalker)the new AEF might be a good kickoff point?
There is, I admit, a tiny suspiscion in the back of my mind which relates to the bad/good old days of National Party govt in QLD when if you were on the winning side it paid handsome dividends in terms of access to the decision makers, funds, brown paper bags, etc.
When you say its completely fruitless talking about the issue now – is some of that motivated simply by the fact that you don’t have the same level of political clout you had in years gone by and are having a hard time coming to grips with what that means? You know, like most liberal minded people had for years in QLD under the yoke of Uncle Jo?
Stewie,
My last post for today… checked Wiki on the word redneck… guess I have been totally out in the blue… well, I just thought redneck was somebody who lived in the countryside… apologies to all…
If 197,000 Northern Territorians can have their own Assembly and are due for full statehood in 2008, then why is it not OK for 600,000 North Queenslanders or 700,000 South & SW Queenslanders? Ditto 900,000 in “New North Wales”.
These are distinct communities of interest from the community of SEQ. And they would still be states within the Commonwealth but would actually get to spend their own share of GST revenue on their own priorities without SEQ taking its cut first.
Believe it or not fellas, there is no boost to intellectual penetration that comes from spending two hours each day with your nose up a buses muffler. So there is no intellectual advantage to be gained by having regional needs vetted by an urban dropkick prior to forwarding to Canberra.
Regional decline is directly related to the reverse multiplier effect of the proportion of regional GDP that is spent on metropolitan government overheads. Shift those funds back to the region and the regional economy stops shrinking and growth in the metropolis slows to a sustainable level.
It is in everyone’s interest.
Right now I can’t find the comment that was posted by some one here, was it Stewie?, who mentioned ” radical eco-business”?
Now I’m very keen on to know what that really is…
I dont understand plz explain