Delicate or Resilient

At the heart of much unproductive debate on conservation this decade is the failure of the worriers to FIND OUT where the vulnerabilities of particular ecosystems lie . The actual job of assessing these boundaries is diminishing .
The only result that I think is possible without professional ecological engagement is eventual public indifference to the political squabbles run in ignorance and for political gain.
The interest in conservation can be expected, as its done in the last decade, to destroy that delicate profession.

Why banning exports of live animals won't work

The Greens (this week) seem to think the best way to stop bad behaviour is to ban it. They want to ban live exports of animals and will use any examples of bad behavoiur to try and lever an even bigger "seachange" in how we see and use meat and grazing animals.

The banning will not work because the greens are being hypocritical over this issue and the public will see through this eventually. The greens are happy to play politics and play with the truth instead of playing credible and cutting conservation; Short term gain, long term pain .

If the only issue was cruelty, the sheep living their last days on a comfortable cruise to the middle east would have more vets up in arms about their situation ; if any of those animals weren't enjoying the best feed they ever had as their teeth give out.
The greens conveniently ignore the nature facts that grazing animals provide an important and absolutely neccessary links in natural regeneration cycles for soils ,carnivores and omnivores .The conservation issue is not "What use but How use" and its time all competent conservationists say so .

If the only issue was cruelty the greens would admit they are also interested in stopping people eating meat , believing as many do ( and are entitled to ) that that is the right thing to do. Truth is the casualty of playing political games with the best intentions. Not right !

The banning will not work and should not work because its an insult to sound leadership. Quickfiz. I clearly do not accept the way some animals are being killed in Indonesia at the moment , but i give my only support to those within the meat and other industries of true care who work to gain compliance by working with people ( Samaritan road practice. If political action is necessary it must be based on the truth - "we do want to insist that our stock to be treated well, but we understand as mature adults that we can't do that without your open cooperation!") .
Sensible parents don't try to force adults or growing adults to do what they disagree with by banning it. Only careless wannabes think they can make people care. The rush to try to impose punitive methods is a sign of desperation, not real confidence in outcomewhich is the stuff or reality politics.
The game playing greens will gain a few quick fix votes out of putting a simple badge on their good intentions . But in the long term, the result will be anything but a better consensus over how to improve animal treatment. More stock taken from poorly managed grasslands ( compared to ours ) and a lot of kudos for very little credible and sustained change . What we are on about HERE

Every Australian should support WMG ( well managed grasslands ) just as we can clearly support WMF ( well managed forests)
Short term gain , long term pain is the current game of certain greens this week - the greens should know better

To ban live exports on the basis of bad behaviour by some should be seen for what it is - a denial of human freedom. Western democracy has always put freedom before control whenever possible . Its always a bit too easy to solve someone else's problem on some distant shore. If the greens were serious about reform they would take out the plank , work with people and take seriously the Gracious way we teach people in the West to work.

All parties MUST take conservation competence seriously to survive

The first 10 years of the new millennium will go down as "The decade of Who care's " in conservation. Who really cares anyway?- is it all too hard or all too simple ????
If you are just an onlooker to the practical and theoretical science questions let me make it perfectly clear .
You will have to look very carefully to make sure you find someone who speaks and acts like a scientist with competence. Media, arts grads, lawyers, economists, quickrich gurus and businesss knows best sorts let themelselves go on subjects they only half know. While their passion is welcome, their fanaticism is not. You do not solve such problems as simply as you suggest!

This was the decade when nearly all the political parties and green groups are prepared to sacrifice themselves on the altar of sacred objects and half baked reactions to tough conservation questions .. Its a series of decades when even leaders lose their heads in a race to say something or nothing about the elephants in the room Read on Macbeth . What do you think?

The Libs go to one extreme one week, while labor goes to another another week ?
Tony Burke - it seems to me, is on a winner this week ( talking about alpine grazing ) because the Libs are wishy washy on tackling the real objective stuff.I know the trial ends shortly - but the point is -- have a plan B that's bigger than Libs currently have ( hacked up version of old plans)
Mr Walsh and Mr Ramsay are living in the past - farmers need competent conservationists NOT clones defending everything they do.
It maybe that the Libs have got a decent brief for research, but what I have seen so far looks like whitewash or should we call it "blackwash" or backwash .The media have only got to take some nasty pictures of fenced in areas ( not fair but could happen) and Mr Walsh And Mr Baillieu will be "in trouble"

The Libs won't get anywhere by acting in reaction to the conservation excesses of the left. ( Our PM was right to to state greens policies as "extreme" but is Mr Walsh in Victoria acting a little on the extreme?)
The Libs can only survive by BUILDING their own unique brand of conservation competence ( full not just fire ) and avoid the impression they don't take it seriously , say with their " high country grazing trial" .( the brief i have seen on the DPI website does not seem to include a proper review of ecosystem resilience and biodiversity issues )
The thinking people of Australia rightly expect , not necessarily an EIS ( a dumb reactionary tool often ) or a fire driven response to everything ( how reactive can you get) , but a clear commitment to careful research and proper review in this sensitive landscape . I will be the first to state the acceptibility of grazing, but also the first to insist on how it must be done ( based on ALL applied research so far ) .

The problem is so big only the government can do anything about it

Sorry post modernists are a sorry lot - lost the idea that people and ideas can make a difference.
I started this blog POST today after our Prime Minister announced a great big new tax that will cause us all to do good - great good, she thinks. That and the flood levy symbolize just how limited a vision they have of all the range of things that are really threatening us here .
First of all as a competent and well connected scientist I know that the unhappy alliance of the media and political extremists are into beat ups . They love to worry us .
Secondly , when you know quite a bit about how the ecosystems really work and more than the above group ( which doesn't mean we know much either) you know that they worry too much (because the eartb is very resilient ( they keep using that word about people but its the created order that exhibits it best )
Thirdly ( while there is lots more ) the action of this day is a reactionary action ,not a planning action ( which means are moving backwards ). A guilt driven thing in some cases which means you can test it for both projection and tokenism .
The only things we can really do to avoid disasters ( like the earth quake in Christchurch this week ) is to plan better to avoid the consequences of them and coerce those who chose poorly ( http://quickfix.blogspot.com/ ). We are doing this better than we realize (no1 above) . We need to help those in poor countries to do that more than we need a tax on Carbon and a new bureau to bless us when we choose well

What is the world's biggest environmental problem ?

I'm afraid you won't learn the answer to this question from any politician/ or therefore media wannabes ) in our country because they are ALL using the most complex profession and conservation challenge as a political football. Its Quite pathetic how much hot air , and our money , is wasted simply on hot air. emotional not rational . we must act rationally if we are going to do more than air our hot air .
But you can get somewhere near the truth, if you are an Australian, by looking at what's actually happened in your own country - one of the driest and most sensitive environments on earth.Each year by planning supporting and educating and exercising caution in risk the resiliance and sustainability of our ecosystems is increased - no reason why it can't be true the world over.
Here is one of my postings on ANSWERS - to the question
What is the biggest environmental (agricultural) problem TODAY
"Some will say resiliance but deeper than that is capability , Soil erosion and salinity . Failure of governments to minimize their rural peoples exposure to the instability and risk that come from "unrestricted attempts" to farm what scientists can identify as marginally capable land .Notice the problem is not the farmers, as much as it is the governments to solve.
In Australia, we ask governments to give rural people a fairgomate ( blogspot of the same name) .
A balance between being told what to do and supported to do . So, its not so much the type of use ( eg sheep grazing )((The "what" ) but the How ( the sheep footprint" ) Government support to resist overuse of land types and locations can direct citizens to develop uses better suited to some other use than the use proposed .( the "how")
Government can prevent much of the exploitation of land by using a range of planning. taxation and education methods - but all methods must be done sensitively because land managers can make up a large % of the population and are often are at great stress themselves .Relieving their stress is not really costly , but is poorly practiced even in the West, partly because exploitative political elements confuse the "what" issue with the "where" issues ( "Where" changes are harder to quickfix)
While this exposure to risk for soil and soil managers occurs most evidently in subsistence agricultural areas, this pressure can occur in developed countries.

Yours is a great question for a great country and region because its a problem that can and has been largely solved in the West. Resiliance planning just needs more practical political focus by conservationists worldwide . Young people like yourself?

Bleeding hearts and budgets

It was true when i started this blog and its still true today .
Unless Governments stop playing football with my profession, it may well be a profession of little note in ten years time. Australians in 2020 certainly won't be leading in it as there were in 1980's.
The art and science of sound practice should not be something that is the subject of constsnt change and experimentation - and yet this is what expenditure on environment has become - just another drip feed that feeds tokenism and softedged and misdirected crap.
The greens talk about the problems but do not work out real solutions - but the major parties now do the same . - its not there job------ why would they ?
Rudd may live to regret his trust in his conservation advisors in particular because they are so heavenly minded they are often of no earthly use.

If only one party would have the courage to say were going to end the marginalisation of a discussion that should be mainstream and professional our kids could keep building and extending the great work started in conservation in Australia and beyond .

Biosequestration - the natural limits.

Here they go again- Polys trying to tell us what they know about what we already know . While the word may not be familiar to farmers the idea is .
Tragically though its new to the wannabes. They LOVE new toys . Before you know it we will have yet another QUANGO or INVESTMENT company/ CRC to duplicate and frustrate progress of the people on the land/ those who know their stuff. Absolutely nobody needs duplication if we are into conservation and credibility
Thanks to a local farmer we have the perfect piece of onground logic for this week . Grasslands are good .
My apologies to those who asked for some buffering equations within the carbon cycle here - I decided that this isn't the place, because the wannabees who are always searching but never coming to a knowledge of the whole truth will keep wandering over the the territory ,if they think they are onto something new . see also 2 paras and 2 posts down . They will only be forced to stop talking when we stop feeding them This is their problem; the disease which ruins most cutting edge conservation in Australia - naming one part of the challenge but having no complete view of the whole .

Believe me, if you have doubts about government policy and where it comes from, you are not alone .Very scary when you are isolated from all the noise .
Just have a look at grist and how Obama is having to recant all the talk about biofuels and ethanol . Most polys want quickfix when slowfix is the only way.

Its easy for me because i worked and studied with earth systems all my life and know them well enough to see the huge pile of rubbish that polys and bureaubrats shovel around each week - all in the once good name of conservation .
For you who are not more clear about this , remember, Doubt is not wrong, as the true fundamantalists on CC would have you believe. Its very much part of sound science and common sense . Words ---you can't trust them to use them properly, let alone facts !
Try being an effective environmental risk management scientist over the last few decades. Telling the truth on basic chemistry and physics can cost you your job.
YET Reconciliation with the earth is not something you play with ; it comes at a cost – the cost of doing things properly and professionally; Its Not about quick fix .So whose really kidding who here !
For me doing science and post grad geoscience at University and working effectively in providing risk management advice on the environment for 30 years was no guarantee that you will be able to speak freely. (Bracks sacked me, one of the best water conservationists in the State of Victoria , in its most drought driven year . No wonder Hon Tim Holding has nowhere to go with all his mislaid pipes.( Remember you heard it first on blogger )

Doubts and questions used to define scientists; now only skeptics are doubters and doubters are supposedly stupid .
Our political spin merchants have redefined what scientists are - good scientists are those who are certain about the things they are advocating and they support what we , the leaders , say.
If only they knew what they are really saying--- they have made a game of football out of one of the most important challenges for humans on this earth -living within the chemical limits.
Since the post 2 down , Senator Fielding has asked a simple important carbon question of Senator Wong and got no scientificly defensible answer . These are the numbers in one chemical equation , even a undergrad could answer !
I could add to the reasons why Wongs latest diversion won't work , but that would be to give them talking space when we need an end to this waste of effort.
Carbon cycles are some of the most well buffered, both now and throughout geologial history. Temperature and .......( various other things that you need to look me up for)limits the application of sequestrtaion technology in ways currently censored. Obviuosly Wongs advisors don't know them - what a surprise !

You should not support Labor or the greens in ETS for many reasons. If you can't think of a good reason, he's one . The government pay for a pathetic ad that encourages questions (askmorenow)and yet , they can't even decide whether cows should fart, belch or breath.

Careless conservation talk is highly dangerous

Us greens are in the firing line over the most disasterous fire in Australia's history. And rightly so ! We know its not easy to get those who don't care motivated. But we as a group, have let the simple talk dominate ( "trees are good , preserving the trunks and branches, even when dead, is of supreme value ")
The complex and complete eco talk required to retain our credibility is going . We are getting a bad name. We have let the simple talk take over.
The biggest disaster in Australia's history is a reminder that careless talk about trees is no good if it doesn't respect the complex interactions that drive good design with nature : diversity, distinctions, deterministic necessities and real world decisions MUST come with our management of such complex, dynamic and unique associations.Planning scheme rules don't make good decisions; proper production ecology does.

A simple preservationsist approach has crept into even goverenmnet approaches. How long can they last with trivia talk ? How long should they last?

All the good intentions can be dissipated in the reality that , instead of diverting our disciples from disease, we have helped create it . A positive direction for conservation is to move to here

Its's time to take stock - we have been too busy into playing up to preservationist predjudices and not enough into acting professionally

People love trees - but not all trees should be treated the same.
Take gums vs stringybarks or western district cypresses. Some houses were protected by Western district cypress trees (WDC)during the western district fires in 1983 . This reality in the open country with one type of cypress tree helped create a bit of a false sense of security in form of complacency about "stay and defend" --a policy that is quite defensible in open country( CFA territory) - BUT just not appropriate near our native mountain forest gums ( DSE territory).
If you are green, but have never supported others to study to be properly green - NOW is the time. The country needs them .
Competent conservationists are an endangered species

Sequestration -the greens get distracted AGAIN

Bob brown believes in it : Mr Garnaut believes in it; Perhaps even the Opposition believes in it . The truth ? what is truth ? The majority believe in it so it must be right, right?

Wrong. From a practical scientists point of view this NEW fixation with ONE form of soil fixation is a dark and empty distraction when focus is needed. Clearly Mr Garnaut is not on top of the issues, to lose track of the key ones . If I was Rudd or Garrett, I would be worried that my best policy mate supporter is Mr Brown.

Sure, it sounds good, and is chemically an option ( like castration is an option ), but it won't work- that'sthe soil stuff so popular to talk about at the moment .

So why would anyone believe in the circular merry go round of ideas that is supposed to be ET at the moment?
Take sequestration of carbon in charcoal and timber .The greens are finally back at trying to open a building they knocked down only a few years before !
The revolving door of reactionary green talk in which Mr Brown is the lead agent is about to come back to one sustainable method for sequestration. . This is after his followers, in their ignorance and openess to quickfix , have closed down many timber industry areas .

If you voted for Mr Rudd , Stop Mr Rudd before his team lose the plot completely- maybe Labor should amalgamate with the Greens to fight the wave of cynicsm that awaits them next time they appear at the ballot box .
All this distraction and diversion is just another brick in the wall for those of who know how to manage soils and energy sustainably and would like to get on with doing just what we have been doing - without distractions .

Governments campaigns are way off target

I think the sheep are thinking - don't be like us : we can't help it ; we are sheep!.
Either wishy washy or overly fear driven, the government are wasting our money on ad campaigns that tell us how to suck eggs or insult our intelligence.
If I was Kevin Rudd , I would call in all these kindergarten level advisors ( the problem is clearly endemic) and ask them to consider and demonstrate their bonafides- those who can't show they work on planet earth and can touch base with sound science, engineering and economics must go.
Get some people who have real ecomia training in the field , before the wheels fall off completely from your hot airship Kevin !. The people of Australia deserve better , The bottom line is that talk is cheap -and you have been promoting it like hell itself.
Hot air talk in campaigns may win leader status, but it is no way to keep it .Talk to some real sustainability experts.

Planet Ark establishes a lead

Conservation organisations are good at identifying problems ; not always so good at getting solutions right .Full marks to Planet Ark for calling for a tap driven water solution. Not before time infact far too late - we could have bought up half of some overgrazed desert region by now with the money !
If Australians stopped wasting resources by buying bottled water, heaps more conservation jobs with cutting edge would grow . Why backward state governments have to be told where to go on water policy ,see thestockadestate.

Engineering our way out

Its true " You can do almost anything if you have enough money" .
Polys , especially before an election tend to believe this. After all, its not their money they are spending and they can do almost anything !!!??/.Mr Turnbull is happy to spend big on the environment. But His big water iniiative going a bit cold with the weather . Does he know what he is doing ?
Clearly ALL those in parliaments right across the country, when charged with the very complex questions of design with nature ,are tempted ( for quite rational reasons ), on both sides of the house,tend to leave all the questions of risk management to Engineers .The polys don't know what they are doing and its a good thing when they admit same right! yes , but who should they listen to??? . Does Turnbull know something the tasmanian parliament don't?.Does turnbull trust somebody others don't ? now we are closer to the heart of Cousins dilemma . Turnbull think engineers are the can dos, and other scientists now can " go jump" -
The big question is - who should our leaders be listening to ?

Even if the public welcome Turnbulls cando approach ( and why wouldn't they when the media meddle ) , Just getting one side of the story just won't work . The most efficient way forward is always to have designers and natural process experts working together . The best result by far ( and that's value for effort short and long term )is to use both. This clearly is not happening with engineers insisting on their own way, on our coasts, even to this day ! The whole idea of the last quarter century was to ensure the broadening of the engineering approach to everything - so that there was a tension in the debate between those could design around limitations and those who were trained to know natures limits .

The very big question for The Stockade State is whether they have anybody left in their depleted ranks who can stand up for nature in the discussions that would avoid us paving the world with steel and concrete.

The very very high cost of paperwork

as a result we have? ----Greasing the wheels of the environment?
Story : The Tasmanian government has recently HAD to change env planning legislation to get things happening in the state ( Pulp Mill) .
Finally something as a big as a state gets to feel the harsh wind of environemntal studies that cost the earth and take as long to complete . How big does the problem have to get before our polys do something about it ?
If tasmanian leaders can get the carpet pulled out from under them by good intentions locked up in paperwork - so can the bigger states .

Panic stations

YESTERDAY Rudd offers to buy everyone a water tank ( cost 250 million )blissfully unaware that for urban australia the idea makes no practical water, health and economic resources provision sense. let alone cost of installation and maintenance of an effective system!!!)
Pity he,campbell bracks and brumbles aren't listening to the former PS commissioner Podger who is today reminding the leaders of our country that they are lost at sesa through their own stupidity( a wise man would still have some independant inhouse advisers who were practicioners ( rather than the theoretitions they curently employ) on the subject of conservation - but they all head off to cullen's close up the rivers single desk ; paradoxically the rivers and creeks will dry up if cullen doesn't win the war against the pincer movement but who cares the debate about the future is not about facts- its about tokens in rska avoidance therapy - kind of trees as bandages posting)

Polys and their close collegues in fanaticism claim to be interested in the long term , but appeal to the short term quick fizzes of the moment .Clearly the peoeple too seem to prefer risk avoidance tokens rathr than the hard yards . rather than whether its water, child abuse or labor arbitration.