Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

Paul

Scared to Death: From BSE to Global Warming — How Scares are Costing Us the Earth

By

No one can deny that in recent years the need to “save the planet” from global warming has become one of the most pervasive issues of our time. As Tony Blair’s chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, claimed in 2004, it poses “a far greater threat to the world than international terrorism”, warning that by the end of this century the only habitable continent left will be Antarctica.

Inevitably, many people have been bemused by this somewhat one-sided debate, imagining that if so many experts are agreed, then there must be something in it. But if we set the story of how this fear was promoted in the context of other scares before it, the parallels which emerge might leave any honest believer in global warming feeling uncomfortable.

The Sunday Telegraph: ‘The deceit behind global warming’

New Book:

Scared to Death: From BSE To Global Warming — How Scares Are Costing Us The Earth by Christopher Booker and Richard North (Continuum, £16.99)

Less is More

By

Energy savings in UK households could be up to 30% lower than previously thought, jeopardising efforts to cut the nation’s carbon dioxide emissions.

The UK Energy Research Centre (UKERC) blamed the miscalculation on “rebound effects” from energy-saving measures.

As people cut their bills by using more efficient devices, they tend to spend the extra money buying additional goods that cancel out some of the savings.

BBC News website: UK energy savings ‘miscalculated’

Blog comments

By

As readers will see from the last 2 blog entries, comments of a defamatory nature made against organisations or individuals can get the blog owners into legal trouble. We will have to be more vigilant in future.

Retraction and Apology Notice

By

I hereby make a full public apology to the Australian Rainforest Foundation and its Chief Executive Officer, Roger Phillips, in relation to entries on blog site etitled ‘Daintree Compensation’ by the following persons (bloggers):

John Rainbird on 1 September 2007, at 3.40pm

Hugh Spencer on 3 September 2007, at 7.06pm

Zainab on 4 September 2007 at 11.01am

Wayne Brandon on 10 September 2007, at 10.07pm

I hereby repudiate all claims, assertions or imputations that:

The Australian Rainforest Foundation’s claim for compensation pursuant to the Queensland Government funded scheme to compensate will adversely affect the preservation of Daintree rainforest;

The Australian Rainforest Foundation is attempting to manipulate and impede the Daintree rainforest buy back scheme;

The Australian Rainforest Foundation has sought donations, sponsorships and/or grants for purposes other than education, research and habitat rehabilitation for Australia’s rainforests.

The Australian Rainforest Foundation Chief Executive Officer, Roger Phillips is other than a competent and professional Chief Executive and that he is more interested in commercial gain by the Australian Rainforest Foundation than the conservation of Australian rainforest habitat;

I make full apology for any detrimental effect entries on my blog site have had on the Australian Rainforest Foundation and Roger Phillips.

‘Daintree compensation’ originally posted August 25 2007 – comments removed at the request of the ARF and Roger Phillips

By

August 25, 2007
Daintree compensation
Posted by neil, at 02:41 PM

The Australian Rainforest Foundation (ARF) has thrown a cat amongst the pigeons, by lodging twenty-two applications for compensation with Douglas Shire Council, for development rights stripped from Daintree freehold properties.

The applications concern land bought by the ARF with funds allocated by the Commonwealth Government from its Biodiversity Hotspots Program.

Douglas Shire Mayor Mike Berwick is quoted in today’s Cairns Post: “This…undermines the entire Daintree conservation effort by claiming compensation.”

State Member for Cook, Jason O’Brien MLA, thinks it is outrageous, a joke and double-dipping.

Federal Member for Leichhardt, Warren Entsch MP, says he does not see a problem with the ARF’s compensation bid.

Under the provisions of the Integrated Planning Act 1997 an owner of an interest in land is entitled to be paid reasonable compensation by a local government if a change reduces the value of the interest or if the only purpose for which the land could be used (other than the purpose for which it was lawfully being used when the change was made) is for a public purpose.

The stated effect of the expropriation of development rights on the land in question is conservation.

The ARF adopted a freehold conservation model that had been suggested by the local community, with lands voluntarily acquired, consolidated into larger holdings, covenanted to perpetuity with an exclusion envelope for an overall reduction in development capacity, and then on-sold. Funds would be reinvested in a rolling conservation trust.

The Queensland Government and DSC scuttled the ARF conservation initiative through the compulsory expropriation of development rights. By whom will the cost be borne?