And there’s no justification for you to pull the moral card, endeavouring to obfuscate your ignorance on cool chain “shipping”. In addition, the third world countries to which you refer, have modern supermarkets and refrigeration.

Regional CO2 emissions from cool chain “shipping” can not be compared to three weeks on the high seas. A recent report is available. CCS can not be compared to feeding some 40,000 dead and diseased animals and hundreds of thousands of tonnes of drug laced faeces and urine every year to marine life and more particularly when millions of humans are starving!

“Do you grow ALL your own food???” Actually I do the best I can Murragang. You see I don’t much like consuming food from Australian agriculture due to the biosolids (human faeces) used as fertilizer (plus the gratuitous use of hydrocarbon based pesticides and insecticides!)

While I appreciate the necessity for recycling, consuming food which has originated from the collaborative endeavours of departments of environment and overly eager self-regulated growers, is not all that appealing:

“Sprinkled over each hectare were up to 30 kilograms of radioactive thorium, six kilograms of chromium, more than two kilograms of barium and up to one kilogram of uranium.

“On top of that there were 24 kilograms of fluoride, more than half a kilogram each of the toxic heavy metals arsenic, copper, zinc, and cobalt, as well as smaller amounts of lead, cadmium and beryllium.”

http://savingiceland.puscii.nl/?p=929&language=en

“An action group opposed to a biosolids storage facility at Annadale Farm in the mid-west Western Australian Moora Shire is hoping to win the support of state politicians.”

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/16/2006666.htm

The action group did not win the support of politicians - naturally, however, human sewage has been applied to Australian food and livestock crops for years and is increasing - so is food poisoning - now an estimated 5 million victims a year:

http://www.afgc.org.au/index.cfm?id=130

Murragang: no, not joking. You misunderstood. A century ago California was infested with Eucalypts. They know them. So new urban plantings as per the site referred to would presumxbly avoid them at all costs.

Also, you left a reasonably important part out of your quote: the fact that through correct management practises soil can “be continually ADDED TO and IMPROVED.”

Many farmers realise that historic practises are not sustainable. I am the first to admit that there is a major issue here; which is why I am advocating the inclusion of Soil Carbon in Climate Change policy. There are people endevouring to change the face of agriculture in Australia, through sustainable practises (e.g. controlled grazing, promotion of soil health, etc); but such change will not come over night and certainly does not come with out a COST.
However, trying to include Soil Carbon as part of an ETS would mean that funds would be taken up by Government Funded Carbon Accountants, rather than PROMOTING SOLUTIONS to the problems faced by modern agriculture.

My opinion is simply that Sustainable Agriculture activities need to be promoted and supported in any proposed Climate Change Policy. A Climate Change Policy will remain incomplete and ineffective unless these matters are taken into account.

I personally think that food is an important part of life and I would like to see a world where my kids aren’t facing a Global Food Shortage. I am not sure how much energy localised sluaghter would save being that such activities would require cool chain shipping. And I am not sure it would work when shipping to third world countires that do not currently have the required cool store infustructure to keep large volumes of meat.

The end of you post seems an little extreme and I hope you can change the world taking such a moral stance.
Do you grow ALL your own food???

“…If the shoe fits big mama wear it…not only are you devoid of a funny bone you are a sad sack as well. No matter slip the sack over the old prune like face, that will help old girl…”

The adults are laughing at you dear boy.

Know how to tell the difference.

A) Raising taxes on consumers

B) Cutting spending in the budget

C) Adding to the national debt

Correct?

I was simply endeavouring to truncate a lengthy post. The truncation in no way takes the quote out of context therefore your “integrity” innuendo is BS!

“Some of the most effective (not just the loudest) environmentalists are farmers.”

No doubt they are Murragang – these are the relatively new kids on the block but it’s a foolish man, snoring at the wheel, who endeavours to greenwash a major environmental calamity by espousing the good works of a few.

1. EPA Western Australia - State of the Environment 2007: Excerpts:

• “Loss and degradation of native vegetation continues to negatively affect biodiversity in WA.

• “The agricultural Wheatbelt zone is the most highly cleared area in WA due to past land clearing. Some local government areas have less than 5% of original native vegetation remaining.

• “About 7000 and 8000 hectares were approved for clearing in 2005 and 2006 respectively under the clearing provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 (which equates to about 10 football ovals per day).

• “Over 14 000 hectares of land is lost to land salinisation each year (equivalent to 19 football ovals per day):”

http://www.soe.wa.gov.au/report/land/land-salinisation.html

2.

http://www.csu.edu.au/research/ilws/research/publications/crsr/docs/Critical_Landcare.pdf

“WA has not enforced ecologically sustainable productivity on the management of its publicly-owned rangelands. Whereas the land-use managers – whether of pastoral leases or agricultural freehold – are culpable for the resource degradation they tolerate or have caused, society is culpable for allowing those who have over-cropped, over-grazed, over-cleared and are continuing to do so.

“The common public good seems to have been neglected by government in favour of private landed property ownership. The plea of government ignorance could once have been sustained, but certainly not at any time during this last quarter century at least.”

Furthermore, the jolly old Farmers’ Federation, Pastoralists and Graziers are forever whinging and holding the nation to ransom, forgetting that their soil eroding, cloven hoofed livestock, and the crops which feed them, occupy 57% of Australia’s landmass but the farmers, never satisfied are now exporting live, anything that can manage to hop along on two legs out of four (with the help of an electric prod!) – all aboard!

These ships and their filthy bunker fuel, significantly increase global CO2 emissions and contaminate marine life. Slaughtering these critters in their own regions would reduce global emissions and benefit the economy of the nation, not just the profits of a few avaricious farmers but who cares, so lock up your cats, dogs and parrots (live ones only!) – the potential is enormous!

I agree with you that there are much better species that could be used.

But, maybe not the best example.

Oh deary deary me….

It’s probably hopeless ……but pray for open mindedness and, with an attitude that perhaps there’s an alternative meaning to my original post other than the one you persist in fantasising about, try re-reading it.

Government money comes from where?

1. China(borrowed and unfortunately will need to be paid back…approx a record $150 billion on the way to $300 billion)

2. The aussie tapayer (never ever ever paid back unless you never ever paid in the first place and you vote ALP)

3. Playing with budget (robbing Peter to pay Paul see no. 2 for the ALP)

I am not against urban tree planting - I’ve participated in a few tree plantings myself - but I can see how quickly this could mean no real improvement on the way things were going to be anyhow.

You are not planting more trees in my back yard unless you volunteer as a firefighter and give me your mobile number !

But even if it is a smaller amount you would still support a tax to raise it yes?

It appears that MPM is speaking from troubling personal experience here. Some women can be very unkind.

While Abbotts scheme is far from perfect, it does provide a vehicle to promote activities which could add to and improve soil fertility and organic life (carbon)..However, I am very skeptical about how is going to fund such a vehicle.

On the other hand, Rudd’s ETS also falls short of the mark… there has been no mention of soil carbon or sustainable agricultural practises; which is half the reason it was criticised in Kopenhagen.

Soil carbon and sustainable agricultural practises don’t fit in to this accounting based scheme; there are too many variables. If there is to be positive change in agriculture, funding needs to be provided to support farming families during the change over.

And what’s with the us and them mentality: “…farmer friends persist with the notion that all environmentalists are city dwellers”…
Some of the most effective (not just the loudest) environmentalists are farmers. From the work of P.A. Yeoman (http://www.yeomansplow.com.au/) in the 1950’s through to Peter Andrews’ Natural Sequence Farming (http://www.naturalsequencefarming.com/); farmers are living on the land, love the BUSH and rely on soil health.

Check out yesterdays story on Triple J’s HACK (http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/hack/features/boomshadow/) or the latest issue of the Australian Farm Journal (http://www.farmonline.com.au/farmmags/AustralianFarmJournal/index.aspx) and you will see that the issues of Soil Health are at the forefront of farmers’ minds. The vast majority of farmers feel a moral obligation to leave the land in better condition, for the next generation.

So why are there salinity and fertility issues you may ask?
Controlled Environment Laboratory Analysis: Science at large has become too focused on statistically significant data sets; i.e. measuring a few variables in a controlled environment, then drawing conclusions on how the real world works.

Hence the UK Data scam.

Meanwhile, people who take a Wholistic approach like
Elaine Ingham (http://www.soilfoodweb.com.au/), and
Maarten Stapper (http://www.abc.net.au/austory/specials/stapper/default.htm) face an army of academics willing to discredit their work.

Rudd’s ETS will reduce emmissions, but there also needs to be funding set aside for sustainability projects; in this regard Abbott is on the right track.

I think if you ask Father Tony he’ll say they were thinking of gum trees, to the extent they were thinking at all.

I’m pleased to see you don’t rule out “exotic” trees in urban areas. Better talk to those councils and catchment management authorities around the country who are busying destroying them and replacing them with either nothing (preferred) or pyrogenic natives…check out Clunes and Creswick for starters.

If you really believe that urban forests (a great idea) have a ‘key role in mitigating climate change’ you’re fantasising: the site you link to refers to shade and windspeed reduction. The US assumption is (as the illustration shows) great fat oak-like trees. I’m sure California for eg wouldn’t pack urban areas with eucalypts as they score poorly on both shade and windspeed reduction. In any case, available urban land is so tiny that CO2 reduction globally would be risibly small. The Right is right on this: given the shaky condition of the AGW hypothesis, any environmental work should have multiple justifications. Pity the Abbott plan is still a hodge-podge of unclarified ideas.

“…I’ve always thought the Government paying for solar on roofs was an inefficient way to provide low emissions power…”

100% Base Load Power
o% Emissions

“…Hey there Big Fat Mamma…”

Hiding behind stupid childish insults betray a deep oedipal frustration and anatomical inadequacies.

Seek help.

And grow up.

The Environmental Protection Act (or similar) was legislated in most Australian states (and also in the US) during the 70s. In both countries the Act has been corrupted, manipulated and exploited by industry, sycophantic governments and senior bureaucrats thus rendering the Act unenforceable.

The EPA legislation (properly enforced and suitably amended) should replace the ludicrous ETS. The “Polluter Pays” is already written into the Act, however, I look forward to the day when a Royal Commission is conducted into the affairs of EPA government agencies but more particularly, their sidekicks: the departments of “environment” and “conservation.”

In the Parliamentary Enquiry, “the lead pollution of Esperance WA” (where industry slaughtered 9,000 native birds), the bipartisan committee identified:

“Major failings in the Department of Environment’s industry regulation function and shortcomings in other regulatory agencies.

“The committee believes that these regulatory failures combined with the irresponsible and possibly unlawful conduct of the Esperance Port Authority, Magellan Metals Pty Ltd and BIS Industrial Logistics exposed workers and the community to unacceptable and avoidable health and environmental risks.

“Finding 18: Industry regulation by the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) is grossly inadequate.”

The same senior bureaucrats are running the show at DEC (except those who’ve jumped camp and are now on Alcoa’s payroll) so it’s “business as usual!”

The DEC’s shadowy cousins in the US operate in similar fashion : “ Coal Ash Industry Manipulated EPA Data, Ghost-Wrote Agency Reports for a Decade:”

http://www.alternet.org/story/145507/coal_ash_industry_manipulated_epa_data%2C_ghost-wrote_agency_reports_for_a_decade

Is there any hope for the survival of the species – any species?

David - Sure its only one component of the policy. There are many urban areas that have open space that may be adequate for trees and more broadly vegetation.

Jamie.paterson - The policy document indicates that areas for urban forests will be carefully selected in consultation with local authorities and communities, and in accordance with principles of public safety, including fire and road safety provisions.

Oldskol - urban forests do have a key role to play in mitigating climate change. There are several reports on the web that capture this. Take a look http://www.fs.fed.us/ccrc/topics/urban-forests/