Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Environmentalists have crossed the Rubicon

By Max Rheese - posted Friday, 18 December 2009


Not only is this a poor environmental outcome for significant areas of these two states leading to erosion and a lack of biodiversity, but the social outcomes are devastating as once viable properties will now not support farming families. One farmer from the Brindabella Ranges near Canberra, Peter Spencer, is perched ten metres up a communications tower on his property as you read this, 20 days into a hunger strike seeking compensation for the loss of property rights to satisfy an environmental campaign and the requirements of an international treaty regarded as a complete and utter failure in reducing carbon dioxide emissions.

Thousands of citizens of NSW and Queensland have been gutted on the altar of Kyoto and most Australians are not even aware of it. Wait until they see what a full blown emissions trading scheme can do.

Perhaps we can shrug that off as sacrifice for the common good? A Kyoto outcome financed wholly by struggling landholders, to satisfy green political agendas.

Advertisement

Major environmental organisations in Australia have a stated policy of stopping the harvesting of native forests and have worked incrementally towards this goal for more than 30 years, while at the same time campaigning for a ban on the importation of illegally harvested timber from other countries. It is well recognised that native forestry operations in Australia operate on world’s best practice that improves the management of our forest reserves while other countries do not. Surely it is better to provide timber and paper products that society craves under strict guidelines we can monitor, than to pursue an ideological agenda leading to increasing deforestation in overseas forests over which we have no control. Apparently not. Even though only 9 per cent of the forest reserve in Victoria is available for sustainable timber harvesting, under government supervision, campaigns to reduce this amount available continue.

There can be no good global environmental outcomes from the success of such a campaign, but it does mean another big tick win for Australian environment groups if they shut down sustainable timber harvesting in this country.

Campaigns to exclude timber harvesting and controlled, seasonal cattle grazing from the Riverina red gum forests of Victoria and NSW have already led to perverse environmental outcomes. This year four new national parks were declared in Victoria’s red gum forests along the Murray River, leading to the exclusion of seasonal cattle grazing which is the only effective means of reducing fine fuels in the forest of fire sensitive red gums. The Department of Sustainability and Environment conducted a small fuel reduction burn last year of 25 hectares that destroyed 80 red gum trees (PDF 1.33MB), some up to 500-years-old, in a known nesting site of the nationally vulnerable superb parrot. They recently conducted a 70-hectare burn near the Barmah township after townspeople agitated for fuel reduction via cattle grazing fearful of a repeat of Black Saturday firestorms coming from the 29,000-hectare forest nestled up against the township. This small burn appears to have killed more than 50 per cent of the red gum forest within the burn. The conservation values of the forest have been sacrificed to the ideology that low intensity, controlled cattle grazing, practised in the Barmah forest for 150 years, is harmful to the environment. The Victorian National Parks Association, Wilderness Society and Friends of the Earth who campaigned for the national parks and the exclusion of grazing, have not commented on the destruction of habitat trees - the very values they sought to protect.

If people are regarded as an integral part of the environment, certainly a core value of the Australian Environment Foundation, then the Wild Rivers legislation enacted by the Queensland government on the Cape York Peninsula at the behest of the Wilderness Society produces a perverse environmental outcome. This legislation has fractured the close relationship between environment groups and Indigenous people as it precludes small scale development by Indigenous people to overcome welfare dependency, on land they have cared for and occupied for millennia. Backroom political deals between the Bligh government and environment groups hid the extent of the protection sought by the legislation until the state election was completed. Open, transparent and democratic this was not.

Perhaps the greatest environmental and financial impact on the largest number of people in recent times has been the success of the environmental movements No Dams policy in Victoria over the last 20 years. All Victorians are paying the price for a policy induced water crisis imposed by a cabal of environment groups opposed to more dams. For sure, Victoria is in the grip of drought like much of Australia and this should have sharpened policy responses, but the Victorian government sat on its hands hoping it would rain, not daring to announce new dams or implementation of water recycling for potable supply, fearing political backlash. Captured by the environmental ideology it courted.

The political solution to this environmental crisis needs to be in place before Premier Brumby faces the electorate in November 2010.

Advertisement

The two major solutions, with a price tag of $5 billion, were the building of Australia’s largest desalination plant and the transfer of up to 75 gigalitres of water from the parched catchments of northern Victoria - a scheme first rejected by the Brumby government as too expensive, but embraced when it realised the desalination plant would not be in operation prior to the 2010 election. The irony is that environment groups oppose both of these solutions, which they helped bring about by their ideological campaign flatly opposed to more storage capacity.

Without a doubt these political solutions to Victoria’s water crisis are a result of a No Dams policy that had little merit in the face of state government intention to grow the Victorian population by another million people in the next few decades. Clearly, the environment and the Victorian taxpayer have been the losers in this public policy disaster driven by a green agenda.

However, our biggest test is yet to come is the introduction of an emissions trading scheme [ETS] that purports to limit the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide, a largely naturally occurring and essential element for life on earth, to stop climate change.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

22 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Max Rheese is the Executive Director of the Australian Environment Foundation.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Max Rheese

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Article Tools
Comment 22 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy