• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
Jennifer Marohasy

Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

  • Home
  • About
  • Publications
  • Speaker
  • Blog
  • Temperatures
  • Coral Reefs
  • Contact
  • Subscribe

Archives for October 31, 2005

Tree Clearing in Queensland: One Man’s Battle Against Bureaucracy

October 31, 2005 By jennifer

About six years ago Ashley McKay a softly spoken cattleman from south western Queensland was prosecuted by the Queensland Government for clearing cypress pine on his property. McKay had a permit to clear trees from the Department of Natural Resources and Mines (DNRM), but not a permit from the Department of Primary Industries (QDPI) Forestry Division. The second permit was apparently necessary to clear the pine trees scattered amongst the other trees.

It is now folklore in western Queensland that the decision by government bureacrats to prosecute the local hero was taken because McKay appeared on national television program Sixty Minutes speaking out against the government and then new Queensland Vegetation Management Act 1999.

Thousands of cattleman are being investigatged for illegal clearing under the legislation which many claim is unworkable.

The advice has been if your prosecuted, plead guilty because government and the courts will show no mercy if you take a stand.

Ashley McKay was proof of that. He has fought six court cases over the original charge of illegally clearing cypress pine. A central issue, continually disputed, is whether or not the original tree clearing permit permitted the clearing of the cypress pine trees.

I waded through the 77 page Decision handed down in August last year following ’round five’. It seemed to me that McKay had lost big time as he was found guilty and fined $270,000 and by the Chief Magistrate.

Some weeks later Property Rights Australia, an organisation founded in part to help McKay fight government, announced he would appeal the decision.

Last Friday the District Court in Queensland upheld the Appeal and reduced the charge from $270,000 to $10,000. I was amazed.

The Queensland Government could yet appeal this decision.

While Ashley fights on. The odd Constitutional law expert is starting to take an interest in the Vegetation Mangement Act 1999 and consider whether indeed it is constitutional, click here for a review by Prof Suri Ratnapala.
………………

Campaigns by the Wilderness Society have given the impression that western Queensland has been turned into wasteland as a consequence of tree clearing. But according to the State Government report Land Cover Change in Queensland 1999-2001 (Department of Natural Resources and Mines, published January 2003) even during the height of clearing, the annual clearing rate was 0.71 per cent of the 81 million hectares of woodland, forest and shrub cover across Queensland. According to page 14 of the same report, there has been a 5 million hectares increase in the area classified as woody vegetation over the period 1992 to 2001.

In other words, while large areas have been cleared, larger areas have regrowth.

Official statistics from the Queensland Herbarium (a part of the government’s Environment Protection Agency) show 81 percent of Queensland is covered in remnant vegetation – a figure that has remained constant over the last decade.

The dictionary definition of ‘remnant’ is ‘little or few that remains, a fragment or scrap’. Interestingly in Queensland ‘remnant’ is the dominant vegetation classification. Use of the word ‘remnant’ is deceptive as it suggests only a small amount of natural vegetation remains when in reality over 80 per cent remains.

The current legislative definition of ‘remnant’ is vegetation with 50 percent of its original cover and 70 per cent of its original height. Trees re-grow, so the relatively high level of remnant vegetation cover in Queensland is at least in part achieved by ‘re-growth’ turning into ‘remnant’ over a period of time.
…………………

I’ve written about how hard it can be to understand the ABS tree clearing statistics here, http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=2098

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Rangelands

Should We Take a Faith-Based Approach to AGW?

October 31, 2005 By jennifer

In today’s The Age Geoff Strong repeats federal Environment Minister Ian Campbell’s announcement of last week in The Australian, and Tim Flannery’s recommendation in The Weather Makers, that we should stop debating the science of global warming and just accept a human influence on climate.

But why would a secular society that respects evidence and the scientific process ever stop researching and debating an issue as important as climate change?

Let’s say we all broadly accepted the pronouncements of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Tim Flannery’s and Geoff Strong’s of the world – that is we all broadly accepted anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Wouldn’t we nevertheless still encourage debate and discussion and fund scientists to continue to scrutinize the emerging theories and test the predictions?

We still fund scientists to challenge and debate Einstein‘s Theory of Relativity.

As I understand it, the difference between science and a religion is that the latter is essentially faith-based. There is no real potential for debate of the core issue. Growing up in a Christian community I’ld always been told belief in God is ultimately a question of faith.

I am an atheist, however, I respect those who believe in God and I don’t challenge their belief, because I understand that it is ultimately a question of faith.

Is this how we want to proceed with global warming issues? If this is the case then let’s remove the discussion from the discipline of science and let us proceed as we might with an issue of faith.

I hear the followers of Tim Flannery et al say, but Jennifer, it is not that we don’t want discussion, it is just that if there was less debate there would be more action.

Really? As far as I can tell we’ve got Kyoto and while the Australian government hasn’t signed up it is intent on meeting its Kyoto targets.

Furthermore, neither the Prime Minister of Australia nor the President of the United States have recently denied the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Quite the contrary! Didn’t President Bush go along with all the rhetoric at the recent meeting in Scotland? Prime Minister Howard just says it doesn’t make economic sense – he doesn’t argue the science. If the Australian Conservation Foundation and a few others weren’t so opposed to nuclear power we could start putting in place plans to swap from coal to nuclear etcetera and really do something about the rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. There are no shortage of real technical and political options all of which will have economic and environmental implications.

Couldn’t one of more of these options be pursued while the debate about the science of climate change was encouraged?

Unless we want to insist that AWG is a core belief – a faith – then criticism and debate should really be encouraged?

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Climate & Climate Change

Primary Sidebar

Recent Comments

  • Ian Thomson on Vax-ed as Sick as Unvax-ed, Amongst My Friends
  • Dave Ross on Vax-ed as Sick as Unvax-ed, Amongst My Friends
  • Dave Ross on Vax-ed as Sick as Unvax-ed, Amongst My Friends
  • Alex on Incarceration Nation: Frightened of Ivermectin, and Dihydrogen monoxide
  • Wilhelm Grimm III on Incarceration Nation: Frightened of Ivermectin, and Dihydrogen monoxide

Subscribe For News Updates

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

October 2005
M T W T F S S
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31  
« Sep   Nov »

Archives

Footer

About Me

Jennifer Marohasy Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD has worked in industry and government. She is currently researching a novel technique for long-range weather forecasting funded by the B. Macfie Family Foundation. Read more

Subscribe For News Updates

Subscribe Me

Contact Me

To get in touch with Jennifer call 0418873222 or international call +61418873222.

Email: jennifermarohasy at gmail.com

Connect With Me

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Copyright © 2014 - 2018 Jennifer Marohasy. All rights reserved. | Legal

Website by 46digital