is climate science disinformation a crime ?, page-152

  1. 5,732 Posts.
    AntN - are you in Queensland? Queensland was one of the last, maybe the last state to regulate land clearing. Here is a research paper that might give some insight (I haven't read it all) - an excerpt:
    It is anticipated that the Bill will deliver �the largest single reduction in greenhouse gas emissions ever in Australia� through �20 to 25 megatons [per annum] of carbon emission savings and the protection of all �off concern� vegetation�. It also provides �a historical line in the sand for how we, as a community, manage our often fragile landscapes and their natural limitations to ensure we remain economically and ecologically sustainable�.


    And here is the Hansard with the second reading speech (page 63) - which provides the rationale as put to Parliament - from the opening:
    Today, the Beattie Labor government will put an end to the broadscale clearing of remnant vegetation in Queensland by the end of December 2006. Today, the Beattie Labor government delivers the largest single reduction in greenhouse gas emissions ever in Australia. Today the Beattie Labor government ensures the long-term protection of Queensland's unique biodiversity.Today the Beattie Labor government provides certainty and a financial adjustment package to assist affected land-holders in the way they manage the land.


    The above reasons are the political spin IMO. Stopping deforestation for carbon reasons is important as we now know, but there are equally important reasons for managing tree cover. Most states brought it in during the 1980s and early 1990s - well before Queensland where it didn't happen till recently - and were very concerned about other specific issues to maintain long term sustainability of land and the whole ecology - like water catchment management, riverways, water tables, salinity management, soil degradation (dust bowl prevention), ecosystem survival, biodiversity, ecological corridors etc as probably outlined in the documents. .

    In regard to local council regulations - reasons would be similar, but might include broader reasons such as amenity and aesthetics in relation to planning.

    If we had no trees we would not survive on earth. Without regulating it, there would be no way to stop everyone and anyone from removing trees - as was happening in Qld and elsewhere, or decide which was okay and which not - broader impacts beyond the private boundaries.

    In the same way you can't just dam a stream running through your land - without permission, because of the impacts elsewhere. Nor can you burn toxic materials willy nilly - the fumes can have impacts beyond your own property.
  2. This thread is closed.

    You may not reply to this discussion at this time.

 
arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch. arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch.