My thoughts and opinions on Climate Change

Discussion in 'The big picture' started by Earth's Internet, Nov 8, 2012.

  1. annette

    annette Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2010
    Messages:
    889
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Hi Len

    I didn't particularly say that climate change was a red herring. What I have said is that it has dominated the environmental discussion at the expense of most of the environmental challenges that were on the agenda before the climate change debate. This is what I find so dissappointing. The whole issue of climate change has divided even those that care deeply about how much shit the earth is in. I agree with Grahame, you have only got to walk outside to see the destruction going on. Whether or not climate change is happening or whether or not it is man made is being debated endlessly. I see no end to it and no real solutions to the degradation that is happening world wide.
     
  2. Michaelangelica

    Michaelangelica Junior Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2006
    Messages:
    4,771
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You are so wrong Len it is scary, but it is pointless talking to you
     
  3. gardenlen

    gardenlen Group for banned users

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,464
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    but i do annette,

    it ia all red herring stuff, taking thinking away from how we want the rich and powerful to be responsible for the habitat and not rape it for wealth. teh lower classes don't go out and clear fell land for wealth.

    everytime i look out our new window in this estate got no idea how large but a lot of ground i see the results of the excesses of gov' and powerful people chasing wealth. saw the same thing in the suburb we just left and nearby burnt earth technology persists.

    am i allowed to tell the story in short it is about destruction of habitat and this level of man forced climate change.

    some time back the state gov' needed money so they shed state forest which they were custodians of for the people, but they have no ethics, so 2 brothers bought it and did nothing with it, then the state gov' bought it back at the time these weed radiata pine forest were in peak fashion.

    then the state gov clear felled the whole area and planted it in pines, so obviously the place is not good for pine trees only eucalypts and acacias.

    so they sold it back to those 2 brothers, who ten subdivided it into 1.25 to 5 acre blocks of mostly useless dirt, won't hold water dams won't hold water unless the bentonite them.

    yes wasted habitat, for the greedy of which thankfully i am not one.

    yes i drive past cleared maleleuca scrub now full of pine tree weeds in the sunshine coast hinterland, i see they are still clearing to expand the pine plantings. yes whilst this climate change red herring rot continues the habitat continues to be raped by teh wealthy and their hanger on supporters.

    so come all all who really care lets cut to the chase and save something real.

    yes we drive to maryborough we see it; we drive to gympie we see it; we drive to brissy we see it. absolute degradation in the worship or power and wealth and worship of mythology.

    len
     
  4. Michaelangelica

    Michaelangelica Junior Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2006
    Messages:
    4,771
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    An almost rational post Len! Thanks
    So do you believe in 'Man made climate change' or not?
    Is that the mythology you refer too?
    I am confused.
     
  5. annette

    annette Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2010
    Messages:
    889
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Hi Len

    You know I think we all agree about the destruction we are all seeing and what you are talking about. Your observations between destruction of habitat and environmental degradation is spot on. Yes i knew about the forests you are talking about. There are so many examples of the greedy developers and stupid government decisions and such it does my head in. Remember the hinchinbrook development that was fought so hard against? Well apparently now there is raw sewage leaking everywhere into the environment up there and surprise surprise, the developers son reckons it's not true. Meanwhile residents are seeing raw sewage in the marina. Anyway I digress.........

    People will always disagree on some things, reasons for stuff, how it happens etc. What I think we all agree on is that the destruction needs to stop.

    I don't know exactly why things are happening but in my gut I know they are and that is what is important to me. My own research makes me question the dominant view of why and when of climate change, but I don't have any definitive answers on it, only questions. Only time will tell who was right but until then, I'm trying to focus on the agreements we have on things not the disagreements and walk my own talk (like you do). I do the things I can do to make things better for all. And you know most people here and in the permaculture community do so also. Respect the differences and celebrate the agreements.

    Cheers
    Annette
     
  6. gardenlen

    gardenlen Group for banned users

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,464
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    annette things are going bad because other support the greedy and powerful who at the end of the day have enough wealth to live where they choose us others get to stay in the devastation they cause.

    yes michael in simple terms and have stated so in many of my posts there is a man created climate change, nothing to do with the mythology based co2 climate change. you only need to look around you to see the final disaster that awaits us, simple thing now and permaculture ahs failed to educate the grass roots about we will have no fresh food unless we have our own gardens and with mcmansions being built on 360sqmts of land, there is no room for more than one pansy, and don't cloud the issue with community space there is none, how are those community gardens down melbourne way going? my hope they do well.

    so hope you don't jumble and denigrate my words again please. though the word almost shows no respect but then how are you able to respect someone you've chatted with for years you know me not.

    the positive side of gov' and private ruination of our urban villiage is we can grow some bird habitat and our grow own vegetables maybe our saving grace though climate co2 supporters would try and block that, look at agenda 21.

    if you are so right then why get so defensive?

    len
     
  7. Michaelangelica

    Michaelangelica Junior Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2006
    Messages:
    4,771
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    len don't you see the connection between Planet wide deforestation and rising CO2 levels?
    CO2 and many other greenhouse gasses have been rising for 100-200 years at a rapid rate as we burn fossil fuels at an ever increasing rate. Deforestation ( and Greed) only exacerbates this problem as the seas and plants (That are not there any more) are not able to soak up the excess GHGs

    I don't jumble your words len, you do.
     
  8. gardenlen

    gardenlen Group for banned users

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,464
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    i just admitted that michael,

    yes co2 levels in our level of atmosphere are rising co2 is still heavier than air so logically can't be up much more than 60k feet where the jets fly.

    forget renaming co2 to anthrapological or some such sill name. call it what it is co2 heavier than air.

    instead of a cost of living tax system plant trees many on welfare could be paid to plant habitat as opposed to agricultural forestry which is not full term growing. clip the wings of the powerful and wealthy who lord over us all, make them pay to repair what they decimated.

    len
     
  9. Michaelangelica

    Michaelangelica Junior Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2006
    Messages:
    4,771
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I prefer the science rather than your logic Len CO2 is slightly heavier than air but is easily carried in slight air movements is in the troposphere and tropopause.
    https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/11/2455/2011/acp-11-2455-2011.pdf
    Why is that relevant?

    Anthropomorphic just means 'from man" Roughly 5% of greenhouse gases come from sources that are entirely human made. These include the hydroflurocarbons (HFCs) perfluorocarbons and sulphur hexafluride.

    Methane and water vapour are also greenhouse gasses. As the temperature of the planet rises we are getting more water vapour and methane in the air.

    When we (or them horrible scientists) found the hole in the Ozone layer was caused by CFCs they were quickly banned.
    Greenhouse gases, as you rightly remark, are important for too many people who make money by spewing them around, so aban is unlikely.

    Tree planting is a great idea, but not a complete answer, just one of many that will be needed to reduce all greenhouse gasses
     
  10. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    G'day Len

    I'll not add to the discussion re: the drivers of human-induced climate change, for the NASA webpage (previously referred to) succinctly presents the position I support concerning that topic. Furthermore, Michael also seems to be making some headway with you on that particular topic.

    However, please allow me to respond to the second part/s of your latest post, specifically:

    Firstly, re: the issue of reduced allotment size (regardless of dwelling size), via-a-vis the perceived reduction of private open space on said allotments, and any subsequent increases in public open space requirements:

    It's true, average allotment sizes in suburban Australia have been on the decline for the past 30-years. Maybe not to the size that you suggest (360 sqm), but certainly to around 500 sqm (or approximately half of the 'old' standard 1/4 acre - 1,000 sqm). There are two main reasons for this: 1) people demand it, and 2) developers supply it. Sure, local governments play a role at subdivision stage, where and when local government planning authorities are supposed to ensure a 'diversity' (see below) of allotment sizes are proposed in all development applications. But, in reality, developers have the upper hand - i.e. threatening to not develop at all if their particular specifications are refused. As a result, subdivision layouts often reflect the best possible profit margin for the developer, as opposed to a net community gain (the latter being the primary goal of planning).

    Diversity of allotment size: Ideally, lot sizes should be provided to cater for a range of dwelling types/densities. Everything from 150 sqm 'end-of-block, rear-loader terraces', to 1,000 sqm 'family-sized' plots. For example, see: first para dot point four, here.

    Secondly, re: the issue of public ('community') open space. Once again, in a correctly regulated planning and subdivision environment, allocation of public open space (see below) by the developer for use by residents is a mandatory requirement. Sometimes, this requirement too can be whittled away throughout the course of the planning process. This is particularly so when 'political favours' are involved. However, and for the most part, all new greenfield developments occurring in Australia - at least those with permits issued less than ten-years ago - do have a provision for public open space. As such, it is up to the new residents of these new 'estates' to appropriate this 'public' land and use it for their ends. The end result being, that sometimes residents do choose to develop 'community gardens'.

    Public open space: For example, see: pp. 2-3, here.

    Thirdly, re: Agenda 21. Contrary to what some may believe, there is no evidence to suggest that the UN (via Agenda 21) is planning to 'block' the growing of vegetables, or for that matter, the planting of wildlife habitat. Indeed, if people were to take the time and study the development and implementation of Agenda 21 in its entirety, I'm sure those very same people would come to realise that principles as espoused from Agenda 21 (from the local scale, right through to the global) could become a worthy part of anyone's permaculture plans.

    Finally, I offer you the following (just a few from the many dozens of) resources detailing what we and many other 'evil' social scientists in collaboration with Agenda 21 are doing to further the food security of all Australians:

    Budge & Slade (2009) Integrating Land Use Planning and Community Food Security: A New Agenda for Government to Deliver on Sustainability, Economic Growth and Social Justice

    Wood & Ray (2011) Good Governance and Municipal Food Security Planning

    MCC (2008) Food Access and Food Security in Moreland

    Donovan, Larson & McWhinnie (2011) Food-sensitive Planning and Urban Design: A Conceptual Framework for Achieving a Sustainable and Healthy Food System

    VLGA & VicHealth (2011) Thinking Food Security

    Cheerio, Markos
     
  11. S.O.P

    S.O.P Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    1,456
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    38
    I can't add to your excellent post but thought I would offer a local tidbit.

    Our Council recently approved 70sqm blocks and were quite proud of that achievement according to the article in the paper. A great step-forward.
     
  12. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
  13. gardenlen

    gardenlen Group for banned users

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,464
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    yes mark you know it all hey?

    sorry they are now approving blocks of 360 sq meters(might be 380 but who's splitting hairs?) it is fact, all part of the world gov' heritage dept's plan to reduce our living space footprint down to around 130/150sq meters no spare land(heard this at least 15 years ago.

    sop 76 sqmeters wow that is bad news for us under the sustainability plan of agenda 21, they say it is not sustainable to leave us living on our own land in our own houses. the stopping growing of food plants is well on the way, we will if we are left on our land be allowed to grow only native plants. that came out in the US 10 or so years ago.

    len
     
  14. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    G'day Len

    Sorry, Len. I did not mean to come across as a 'know-it-all'.

    I did however embolden the term 'average'. Perhaps you missed that?

    I also discussed the need to provide for anything between 150 to 1,000 sqm allotments, all depending on the overall site context of course - access to PT, services, POS including, dare I say it, community gardens. Perhaps you missed that too?

    Anything below 150 sqm (once again, within the correct site context) is a bonus. The example as provided by S.O.P. truly is a reason for celebration.

    As for the rest of your Agenda 21 conspiracy theories...

    Honestly, Len, you really should try to broaden your reading material. Especially if this is the sort of thing you are referring to.

    Cheerio, Markos
     
  15. S.O.P

    S.O.P Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    1,456
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    38
    That requires some community drive and Council lateral thinking, both of which are in short supply in this area. I wish them all the best.

    As for the prices, I don't remember the advertised prices being good value (to someone like me). I get sucked in by media releases so easily.

    Had a quick glance at the Master Plan, that is really quite deceiving. That centre section is Melaleuca and Euc forest from memory, and I've planted trees in the suburbia section. It's a topsoil-scraped, designed flat area that isn't very forgiving.
     
  16. gardenlen

    gardenlen Group for banned users

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,464
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    sorry mark don't get you at all?

    you say a block of land 150 sq meters in size is a good target and SOP's 76 sq meters is to be applauded? if so no wonder the world is a mess. they won't need to stop you from growing your own you won't have any room.

    can't imagine people coming back to modest homes which still need 25 perches about for a family to live on in a 9 or 10 square house(foot i think), teh block we had was 750 sq meters, just enough room for a couple gardens with a house getting near to 200 sq meters, being a corner block made it, all other blocks were 660 sq maters that was noticeably smaller.

    the living part of our home is 54 sq meters, with a 27 sq meter patio would be cramped without that and we have 36sq meter shed an absolute necessity.

    len
     
  17. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    G'day S.O.P.

    Yep, if the people want them - community gardens - they will happen... with or without the help of Council. Although, Council does seem supportive of the idea in general.

    Regarding prices and marketing: Typical developer/volume builder spin. Personally, I prefer the co-housing model of development, and this is where the bulk of my efforts are expended. But, little steps and all that.

    Regarding site (soil) suitability for community gardens: I would not suggest that the 'wild' (and I use that term loosely) spaces be appropriated for the same. Rather, my suggestion would be for sections within the 'pocket parks' (hidden under the 'swings' on the masterplan) be utilised for this purpose, and developed with the principles of universal access in mind (i.e. raised beds, etc.). More detailed, 'earthwork' plans of the overall estate can be found at their website, for example.

    But, like I said, it's all up the 'community' of this new estate. They can either choose to live insular lives, or they can get out and meet their neighbours, and in doing so perhaps start planning to build gardens and a more truer sense of community... all regardless of the size of their lot!

    Cheerio, Markos
     
  18. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    G'day Len

    Perhaps you missed the 'within context' caveat?

    Oh well... *sigh*

    I really do need to open that bottle of red...

    But, before I go, you may like to checkout the following:

    27 dwellings (all solar-oriented)...

    ...around 40 residents (ages ranging from birth to 80s)

    ...all water (including 'waste') retained on site, some for later reuse on the extensive community gardens

    ...and all on 2,000 sqm!

    Christie Walk, and places like it, are the way of the future, Len. No longer can the planet afford to support individual household (average 1.7 persons) dwelling units on lots of 650 sqm, or even half that size!

    Cheerio, Markos
     
  19. gardenlen

    gardenlen Group for banned users

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,464
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    well mark,

    i dunno what drives your thinking but people live in a unit if they choose or in a house on a decent block of ground minimum size around 750 sq meters, in the suburbs up here there is nothing over 800 sq meters and they are few and far between, as for 1k and 2k sq maters forget it.

    how do you get 1.7 people? sounds manipulative, and sounds like you want people crammed into very high density accommodation, that was tried in those terrible council flats in melbourne not fit for humans, we are not animals.

    anyhow like i said before lots of the masses out there have any idea about this sort of stuff, sounds like those who support their rite to live over someone else rites.

    len
     
  20. mouseinthehouse

    mouseinthehouse Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2012
    Messages:
    782
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Here I go again :p
    My thinking Len is that today in Australia (and pretty much everywhere else) we are very much an urbanised population and this trend is growing AFAIK. Therefore the planet cannot sustain the option for every person to have the land size we might once have found desirable. If that were the case, urban sprawl would be even worse than it is now, with the attendant problems of providing (or not) the necessary public transport and other services ever increasing distances from the city hubs.
    We don't have to repeat the past mistakes in terms of the high density housing you describe, when it is possible to plan urban communities like the one Markos referenced. It is possible to have urban communities (for all) where a sense of community can be fostered, local networks can be established for all sorts of enterprises (including growing food)and in ways that ensure the smallest footprint. This is the way forward.
     

Share This Page

-->