Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

jennifer

Name Calling

By

I dislike editing comments from contributors to this site. I have done so recently to try and remove at least some of the personal attack – from more than one contributor. The trouble is that it is a slippery slope – both ways. You don’t edit and a wad of comment ends up being ‘nasty’. You do edit and you ‘destroy’ the point that was being made amongst the name calling?

And then this morning I was emailed the link to Prof Bob Carter’s speech to the Melbourne Rotary Club last week in which, perhaps tired of being called a ‘climate skeptic’, he has labelled belief in human-induced climate change ‘Hansenism’.

When is name calling OK? Can it be a useful short-hand?

Anyway, perhaps this is just the excuse I need to stimulate discussion about how to ‘moderate’ this site. What should the rules be?

When I edited a post some weeks ago the angry ‘commenter’ emailed me asking for ‘the rules’. I lamely replied something along the lines that “I edit out the personal attacks when they don’t progress the argument”.

Your suggestions?

Perhaps you know of a site with some ‘good rules’ we could borrow?

Kiwi’s Counting Cost of Kyoto

By

New Zealand has signed up to a contingent liability of $9 billion to $14 billion at present values through its commitment to the Kyoto protocol, according to what has become know as the Castalia Report. While the report was published last September it is still being quoted, and is still being emailed about.

The Executive Summary concludes:

The Government’s financial statements are required to comply with generally accepted accounting practice, including disclosure of contingent liabilities. It follows that the Government’s accounts should disclose its commitment to the Kyoto Protocol as a contingent liability. It is a possible obligation that arises from ratifying the Protocol, and it becomes a liability if and when the Protocol comes into force. Accounting standards require the disclosure of each class of contingent liability at the balance date, with a brief description
of its nature and an estimate of its financial effect.

We have estimated the financial effect. This involves two steps: estimate of excess emissions and forecast of the prices of emission units. Clearly, there is considerable uncertainty about
the likely outcomes. We therefore consider a range of possibilities. In general, we err on the conservative side, that is on the side of least cost to the Crown.

Depending on the assumptions, a conservatively estimated present value of the contingent liability for the first four Commitment Periods ranges from $9 billion to $14 billion. This is the amount that needs to be disclosed in the Crown accounts. We have not attempted to forecast beyond 2027, since by then new technologies may emerge. On current technologies, with the addition of each subsequent period, the liability would increase further. Hence again, we have deliberately erred on the conservative side.

Still in NZ, but on the subject of British PM Tony Blair trying to get President George Bush to move forward on cutting C02 emissions, the following is from a piece in yesterday’s New Zealand Herald.

WWF’s (Jennifer) Morgan said there was still a chance to get a strong deal to cut carbon dioxide emissions but that if it didn’t materialise then Blair and the rest of the G8 should go ahead without the US – the world’s biggest greenhouse gas polluter.

“If you can’t get something with Bush in it, then you shouldn’t reduce it to the lowest common denominator. You should move forward in other ways,” she said.

“There is a very heated debate going on right now about leaving Bush out in the cold.”

I am not sure about the choice of words from the WWF campaigner – so the earth is going to heat up because the US won’t cooperate, but their President is going to be left out in the cold?

Noongars Knew Best

By

The following essay is from, and by, David Ward of Western Australia. Thanks David.

Before Europeans arrived, Noongar people managed our south-west dry forests and woodlands very well without fire trucks, water bombers, helicopters, television journalists, concerned politicians, the Conservation Council, hundreds of firefighters, or the Salvation Army to give them all breakfast. They did this by burning frequently, in most places as often as it would carry a mild, creeping fire.

Even where there were no Noongars, most of the bush would have burnt frequently by unimpeded lightning fires, trickling on for months. Such large lightning fires continued up to the 1920s, before there were any Bushfire Brigades. They could travel a hundred kilometres before autumn rain doused them. Most of the landscape would have burnt as often as it could carry a fire. Fire suppression and exclusion are unnatural, new fangled notions.

Frequent fire made the bush safe, and promoted grass for yonka (kangaroo), and a host of bush tucker plants. It produced byoo, the red fruit of the djiridji, or zamia. Frequent light smoke germinated seeds, and provoked flowering of kangaroo paws and balga grasstrees.

Kangaroo paws and byoo are increasingly rare, under a muddle headed advocacy which claims that we should exclude fire from large bush areas for long periods. This phoney idea makes the bush very dangerous, as we have recently seen. Fire cannot be excluded indefinitely, and the longer it has been absent, the fiercer, and more damaging it will be.

Ecomythologists claim that, left alone, the litter will all rot down to enrich the soil. The truth, as any Perth Hills resident will testify, is that there is some decay in winter, but the summer blizzard of dead leaves, bark, and capsules is far greater, so litter builds up. After twenty years or so, there is a mulching effect, and build up ceases. However, by then most wildflowers are smothered and straggly, and most of the nutrient is locked up in dead matter. Frequent, mild fire releases the nutrients, sweetens the soil, and prunes the plants. Gardeners will appreciate that.

In the 1840s, the early West Australian botanist James Drummond wrote “When I was a sojourner in England, I never remember to have seen Australian plants in a good state after the second or third years and that, I think, is in a great degree owing to their not being cut down close to the ground when they begin to get ragged; how for the pruning knife and a mixture of wood ashes in the soil would answer as a substitute to the triennial or quaternal burnings they undergo in their native land, I am unable to say, some of our plants never flower in perfection but the season after the ground is burned over…”

There are many historical references to frequent, widespread burning by south-west Noongars. In 1837 Lt. Henry Bunbury mentioned “…the periodical extensive bush fires which, by destroying every two to three years the dead leaves, plants, sticks, fallen timber etc. prevent most effectually the accumulation of any decayed vegetable deposit… being the last month of summer… the Natives have burnt with fire much of the country… ”

In 1975 Mr. Frank Thompson was interviewed about his memories of fire near the south coast, before the First World War. He said “You see, the Natives …they used to burn the country every three or four years… when it was burnt the grass grew and it was nice and fresh and the possums had something to live on and the kangaroos had something to live on and the wallabies and the tamars and boodie rat …It didn’t burn very fast because it was only grass and a few leaves here and there and it would burn ahead and… sometimes there?d be a little isolated patch of other stuff that wasn’t good enough to burn the time before, but as it burnt along perhaps there might be some wallabies or tamars ?those animals didn’t run away from fire, they’d run up to it and you’d see them hopping along the edge of the fire until they saw a place where the fire wasn’t burning very fierce...”

It is hard to imagine wallabies hopping along the flame front of the recent Karagullen fire, looking for a way through. Long fire exclusion is causing fires of unprecedented ferocity, and many avoidable wildlife deaths. The longer fire has been excluded, the longer the bush takes to recover when it is eventually, and inevitably, burnt.

Over the last decade, research in south-western Australia by the Department of Conservation & Land Management (CALM) and Curtin University into fire marks on hundreds of balga grasstrees has confirmed traditional two to four year fire in dry eucalypt areas. Ridges with pure jarrah burnt every three to four years, slopes with some marri every two to three years, and clay valleys with wandoo every two years. There would have been thousands of small refuges, in rocks or near creeks, which would have burnt less often, perhaps never. Recent fierce fires destroy these, and the fire sensitive plants they protect. The ecomythology of long fire exclusion over large areas, is destroying the very plants and animals it claims to care for. Equally guilty are those ‘talking heads’ in politics, and the news media, who unthinkingly promote ecomythology.

The oldest balga records go back to 1750, and show traditional frequent, mild fire until measles epidemics killed many Noongars in 1860, and 1883. In some places two to four year burning continued until the First World War. In others, it continued up to the 1930s, and even the 1950s. Some old Perth Hills families remember when any fire could be put out with wet bags or green branches. This is only possible when fires are in litter no more than four years old, with flames less than a metre high.

Far from destroying diversity, this frequent burning enhanced it, by creating a rich mosaic of different aged patches. Animals had both food and shelter, and wildflowers flourished. Today’s muddle headed blanket fire exclusion leads to an eventual single, blanket, fierce fire, which simplifies the ecosystem down to a single age.

By insisting, through our political representatives, that CALM burn the bush more often, and more patchily, we will make it safer, see more wildflowers, avoid most animal deaths, and avoid dense, choking smoke from fierce wildfires. We will have to live with occasional light smoke from prescribed burns. If most litter were less than five years old, smoke would be minimal, and arson would be futile. All it could cause would be a mild, creeping fire, which would benefit the bush.

Think of the savings and benefits by working with nature, instead of fighting it. No more squadrons of aircraft, anxious home owners, and choking smoke for a week or more. The police could get on with catching burglars. More young Noongar people should be employed by CALM to help manage the bush with fire, restoring their culture and healing their self esteem.

Copyright David Ward
10th April 2005

Diamond Gets Most Visits

By

Until recently the most popular blog piece (measured in terms of traffic/hits) on this site was ‘What do Geologists Know about Climate?’ (posted 29th April) – the Michael Duffy interview with Bob Carter.

The most popular blog piece is now ‘Vague about Collapse’ (posted 1st June) – the piece I wrote after watching Jared Diamond (author of ‘Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Survive’) on SBS Television.

What is it about Jared Diamond that he always gets read?

I have been emailed links to two excellent reviews of ‘Collapse’.

Victor David Hanson reviews the book at the following link http://www.nationalreview.com/books/hanson200505200837.asp.

Mick Keogh has written a devastating critique of the chapter on Australia which can be downloaded at the Farm Institute website, go to http://www.farminstitute.org.au/__data/page/1/2005_NJA_May_Keogh.pdf .

In the comments following my ‘Vague about Collapse’piece I said I would write about the lecture he gave in Brisbane on the Thursday – but I still haven’t got around to transcribing my notes.

Graham Young was at the same lecture and has written a blog piece on the lecture at http://ambit-gambit.nationalforum.com.au/archives/000643.html .

How can Diamond be so revered – he spoke to 850 at the Brisbane lecture which was a full house and there was much cheering and clapping – yet he gets things so factually wrong?

Expert Advice on Alpine Grazing

By

If we care about the environment, we must also care about rural and regional Australia because this is where most of our environment is.

A lot of people in the bush (I use bush in the broadest context to include even rainforest dwellers) are extremely unhappy with how national parks are being managed/not managed.

The banning of cattle grazing in the high country has become a catalyst for the coming together of different groups in Victoria and the new Country Voice website.

This site includes an expert opinion on grazing in the Alpine National Park from x-University of Melbourne botanist Peter Attiwell. He writes:

“It is now critical that Parks Victoria clearly define goals for management of biodiversity. A critical goal for future management is the definition of appropriate burning regimes. The question should not be one of grazing or no grazing. The critical question is: what are our goals for management of ecological diversity and of fire?

The critics of alpine grazing use science to support the basic tenet that grazing is incompatible with use of the land as a national park, as encapsulated in the slogan ‘National Park or Cow Paddock?’. The slogan is totally misleading. A cow paddock, once abandoned, will never return to the ecosystem that was destroyed to create it.

In contrast, there is no evidence that cattle grazing in the High Country has eliminated rare and threatened species, nor has species composition or diversity been irrevocably altered. Indeed, 170 years of controlled cattle-grazing has left by far the greater part of the High Country in excellent condition. Clearly, at the long-term and landscape levels, cattle grazing over some part of the High Country can be accommodated within management plans to achieve specific goals without an irreversible deterioration in biodiversity.

There is no doubt that the opponents of grazing use science to achieve their end of stopping grazing completely (just as the opponents of timber harvesting in native forests will continue to pursue their aim until there is no harvesting in native forests). That is, there is no point of compromise, despite the fact that both the intensity and extent of cattle grazing has reduced dramatically over the years.

… Cattle-grazing in the Alpine National Park now covers less than 15 per cent of the area. Let us now stop quibbling and taking the high moral ground offered by this or that bit of science. The record stands for itself – the quality of the ecosystems of the High Country has not been destroyed by grazing over the past 150 years, and the cattlemen are hallowed within the image and folklore of Australia.”

While Attiwell’s opinion is respected, and on the Country Voice website, there is a lot of anger with ‘expert scientists’ generally as expressed in the following comment:

“As a long time resident of the Licola area, a landholder and a fire Brigade Captain with landholders adjacent and surrounded by the Alpine National Park to look after, I am just appalled at the level of scientific debate supporting the removal of Alpine cattle grazing. The so called science to support this has been non existent, less than honest or shonky at best, with I believe deliberate efforts to mislead.

After the Caledonia fire of 1998, plots were fenced off around rocky outcrops, dead limbs, fallen bark and places where little grass ever grew, then monitored to see how they would grow. Botanists placed transect lines beside active wombat and rabbit burrows and on areas last burnt out decades ago as there was so much grass on the areas under study. “Expertise” was bought in from the NSW National Parks and Wildlife service – who had been repeatedly burnt out.

Decisions on grazing in burnt areas were made with vegetation surveys consisting of two drafts and a summary, all unsigned. A “Draft Internal Working Paper” was passed off as “scientifically credible information needed to determine management options for the area.” This had no finding or conclusion, no indication of who did the work, or their qualifications and no references from text books on the methodology, which in places could have been little more than guess work.

The science was so bad even their own people on the “expert” panel to recommend on the return of grazing were critical “is the PV draft proposal a joke? Its appalling! I have read both drafts of the proposed methodology and, in their current state, neither would pass as first year biology assignments”.

Grass fuel on areas burnt in 1998 is now at dangerous levels around sphagnum bogs, ancient single trunk snow gums and private land holdings and in two years would have carried a hotter faster fire. The risks from snow grass on places like the Wellington Plains can only be measured in how many times it is off the fire intensity scale over the extreme category. Much of this country that did not burn in 1998 because of grazing, would now carry a frightful fire from 4 to 16 times the extreme intensity. This is on areas where grazing was banned and not allowed to continue because of claims it had not regenerated enough, as there was too much bare ground.

A few years ago we were told by alpine ecologists that fires were not part of the ecology. Now that their management has failed, with the 2003 fires, we are told fires are a one in a hundred year event. If this is the best we are getting out of our universities they should close down the environmental sections and concentrate on turning out engineers, chemists and bushfire scientists where they have an impressive record.”

L.Ralph Barraclough Target Ck Rd. Licola Ph 5148 8792. 14-6-2005

I am keen to post some text/opinion from those against grazing in the Alpine National Park, or perhaps the Macquarie Marshes?

Platypuses Can Live with Supermarkets

By

There seems to be much excitment about the discovery of lots and lots of playtpuses at Maleny, 100 odd kms north of Brisbane, where some locals have been trying to stop the building of a Woolies for many, many months.

The ideas is that because there are Platypuses there should be no supermarket. Indeed according to ABC Online:

Opponents of the development of a major supermarket at Maleny, in south-east Queensland’s Sunshine Coast hinterland, are hailing extensive research they believe may sound the death knell for the development.

They say a team of scientists has irrefutable proof of a large colony of platypuses, living under the site and they have called on Environment Minister Desley Boyle to intervene to stop construction of the supermarket.

Under the Nature Conservation Act it is an offence to knowingly disturb a platypus habitat.

One of the scientists, Graham Kell, says more than 50 platypus burrows have been discovered on the site and all have been photographed and their location fixed by satellite tracking.

Mr Kell says it is a remarkable discovery.

“There’s a lot more activity at the proposed Woolworths site than I’ve seen in many regions before…the burrow activity at Maleny is just phenomenal,” he said.

Yeah, And isn’t the development well back from the watercourse and aren’t there platypuses in the Yarra as far downstream as the suburb of Heidelberg in Melbourne.

The idea that wild animals can’t coexist with development, and using the presence of wild animals to block development, may not be in the longer term interests of this and other platypus colonies.