The wolrd's experts agree with Tonys "Green Army"

Quote:


http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/declining-trees-spell-gloom-for...

let me help you.

It says planting trees is good for the environment.
Abbotts idea of a green army is to plant many many trees.

So they agree that tonys idea to plany many many trees is good for the environment.

better than the leftards idea to tax the air, many would say

Sprintcyclist wrote on Aug 25^th, 2010 at 3:35pm:

No one has a tax on air sprint
Its a tax on Carbon Dioxide released into the atmosphere by polluters.
Labor want the taxpayer to pay
Greens want the polluters to pay
and Tony wants to plant tree's & do nothing.
Fantastic questions Ernie pity the media didn't ask Abbott them.

So, still smarting from the insulation furore, I ask:

If Abbott drives the planting of huge swathes of trees, and people are killed planting them, or in bushfires in those forests, will you hold him responsible?

I also remember what happened in Tassie, where good farmland was converted to monoculture forests, often trapping the only farmer that decided to stay.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Aug 25^th, 2010 at 3:35pm:


I'm all for Australia-wide environmental rehabilitation but we need to give priority to environmentally-sensitive and responsible programs - rather than waste time, energy and resources promoting more money-making scams and rorts that cause more environmental harm than good!

Giving blinkered priority. to planting "many many trees" (as quickly as possible, without proper regard to environmental interactions) will cause a range of other problems. Unfortunately, Govts tend to goal organisation on the basis of narrow and easily-measured criteria - such as the number of trees planted (and surviving).

What our pollies need to know, is that: natural systems are diverse and comprise of multiple layers - and therefore that planting monocultures (or even polycultures) of trees alone is not a responsible solution!

Not only is it a sub-optimal approach, but it is likely to be counter-productive - so we need to consider the costs, costs-benefits and opportunity costs!

Abbott & Co already have bad environmental form, on creating ad-hoc large-scale broadacre plantation tax and investment scams - operated predominantly by Macquarie St and Collins Street crooks - which not only went bust but caused untold environmental damage...

Moreover, given that land rehabilitation necessarily goes hand-in-hand with rehabilitation of the nation's ailing waterways, it is imperative that we focus any such efforts around our river, creek and wetland catchments (i.e. riparian zones) to restore multi-storey functional wide wildlife corridors that are harmonious with the local geology and native ecology.

Bear in mind, that this cannot be done effectively, without simultaneously: controlling local runoff; ensuring soil integrity and bank stability by systematically controlling (slowly removing) weeds, and; gradually rebuilding a robust ecosystem that emulates both the stratified form and diverse composition of a natural riparian zone.

Therefore, our future climate planning must include a national riparian land buy-back and rehabilitation plan - with re-planting of diverse multi-storey buffer zones comprising of species in strata that occur naturally in the local area.

We should be permanently-entrusting our experienced and knowledgeable National Parks and Wildlife Services with this responsibility - and guaranteeing ongoing funding for at least 2 decades - not creating an ad-hoc and disjointed fly-by-night pseudo-privatised 'Green Army' (and especially not one that doubles as a cynical 'Work for the Dole' scam)...

Vegetation is crucial for soil stabilisation, infiltration, aeration and water retention - especially riparian zones...

I personally think that we need to do serious research,. into the importance of native inland vegetation, in air-conditioning and seeding of rain - and moderating the cycles of drought and flood...

Some people seem to think that riparian native vegetation wastes valuable agricultural water - and denies waterways of steady flows - but there is evidence to suggest that the opposite is true...

Water that quickly runs straight off exposed soil tends to take much valuable soil with it (which also gets deposited in our waterways) - rather than infiltrating and being slowly-released through the water table and also gradually transpired back into the atmosphere...

Please delete wrote on Aug 25^th, 2010 at 4:04pm:


Not only that, but the Tassie tree monocultures (of natives) actually led to broader environmental toxicity - especially in waterways and riparian zones.

This is because monocultures are not balanced - mass-planting of a single species drains the soil of specific nutrients (eventually causing impoverishment in certain nutrients and raising the levels of others to toxic levels).

Moreover, that single species releases large amounts of potentially-toxic substances into the surrounding environment that cannot be consumed by other species and therefore can build up to toxic levels.

Oh, and another problem is that: all species of plants provide a certain habitat function, for everything from soil microbes and bugs through to small reptiles, birds and mammals to higher order species. So, a monoculture doesn't provide a complete food chain...

Such microclimatic conditions tend to favour opportunistic plant and animal pests! Eventually, the monoculture tree stand dies off and a polyculture of weeds, that favour introduced animal pests (rather than native fauna), is likely to prevail...

Another little known fact, is that Australian native plants have evolved to rely upon specific (often exclusive) species of fauna for reproduction and certain soil and light conditions and favourable climatic regimes (including humidity, flood, drought and fire) for reproduction and growth.

Light, humidity, mulch and soil conditions vary according to the stratification of layers within an ecosystem - and many climax canopy and upper-storey species cannot survive until pioneer species are well-established!

It is therefore not sufficient, to simply plant stands comprising of artificially-propagated species of native plants that aren't indigenous to the area (or even altitude) - because they will not be able to reproduce and grow without appropriate soil, wind, temperature, humidity, rainfall conditions - and without exclusive insect, bird and mammal pollinators!

As much as I agree that Australia needs to be re-vegetated, such programs cannot be done instantly on a cynical and politically-expedient whim - and without due regard to the short, medium and longer-term environmental (and economic) ramifications!

Bush regeneration takes time, patience and care! Natural systems are complex and dynamic - so this is a case where 'direct action' needs to be properly and holistically planned, co-ordinated, implemented and followed-up into the long-term!

BigOl64 wrote on Aug 25^th, 2010 at 4:44pm:


Actually, that argument is based on a narrow and incomplete assessment of what is going on in the real world!

Fact is, the big polluters are focused on high short-term profits and are happily exploiting the ignorance and/or vulnerability of current and future generations. They are already costing us too much - in both financial, social and environmental terms - and robbing us all of longer-term sustainability! There is plenty of evidence that the opportunity costs, of for-multinational-profit 'business-as-usual', are enormous!

It's just that some of the more significant costs haven't been properly acknowledged, measured and/or factored in! Consequently, our Govts have been privatising profits and socialising losses - and allowing untold damage to our priceless life-giving environmental systems!