but the end of the big popular media world of crapping on carelessly about conservation is ,
The left can go on and on about how big business of some careless bastard ( WWLF ads for tigers) does this wrong - but only for so long ---- before we ALL pay and pay big time-- if they go political .
Should we be worried about the state of the Murray River Basin ? I think not, but I'll tell you why later.
Here' s a clue for later .
The majority of Aussies get off scot free ---- theoretically
Their rivers are on the coast... Not my problem mate?
Let me remind you of the journey so far , Lots of great ideas but great costs that eventually hit YOUR hip pocket .$1 a litre for made water and carbon taxes to fund solar and windmills,
Worse -we have pretended collectively that solar and wind
will keep us warm in winter. Blind sided twaddle that makes people feel good-
at least in the short term,
This thinking is not true conservation at all True conservation IS "short term pain long term
gain"inspired by the option" short term gain , long term pain"
.
We as a society have collectively been kidding ourselves .
Now that the chickens have come home to roost collectively
public political conservation games are going to be sat on . The euphoria of
just pretending to do something good will
stop because the costs of the ineffective drugs we are taking to you and
me and our kids is huge
Did we and our leaders pretend that conservation doesn't
cost ? The simple correct answer is that we have.
Our water and electricity costs have got up because someone
has to pay and that's us .We must learn to be more realistic about what happens
in the real world. Thats a basic restarting point for all who want to still be
conservationists in the best sense of the word ( sustainable productive economy
)
THE TRUTH is that leaders and the media can only get greedy people to vote for a conservation measure if those people think someone else will pay . eg Big business or, in the case of the river or the reef, the farmers or the ship or coal owners.
(The wonderful small
group who do conservation by paying for it themselves is small ; They can only
do it because THEY manage to keep costs
down ( something Govt isn't so good at) or are prepared to wait for a
quality reward.)This group plus professional advisors is the proper building model for conservation
action, NOT the now more common idea of
popular licence for government coercion
( Ok in those rare moments when danger is unseen)
When this ANU teacher
Pittock wants more money for studies in his area , why does it make news? Why
is Pittocks story news ? I suggest it is "news that is not news" because the audience like feel good stories
and worse :
Internet assent is dangerous because they is no cost for comment
The audience still don't get it that to agree with him will cost someone money.
Its hypocritical
assent action news because the Professor wants more money for his cause ( and
their are probably equally worthy causes )and WE allowed him time to play the
violin in our houses; Switch em off i
say
The reason this issue is
on your screen is because if we have a history of assent to giving the
bloke money ( 5 billion in his case )---because it will make us feel good .see
Telecom 2000 report on Futures ( 1978)
We should NOT say "its worthy of attention and
money" if WE are not prepared to pay (and to weigh up which bucket)
-We should not say YES
just because to say no will make us feel bad .
( This is surely the mistake at the heart of the modern ages
messy dealings with morality)
We should say NO because
-the decision is not ours ( none of our business) and
-there is a high risk that its appearance on the screen has
more to do with making someone
feel better ( by
responding in a certain way) and
- our BLINDNESS about the fact that SOMEONE WILL PAY is still current ( blowing the
budget in fact)
Dairy farmers along
the Murray have already paid dearly as a result of actions dictated , not by sound cost benefit
analysis
but by feel good
reactions to press and party predictions of disaster. Disasters that the WENTWORTH group have NOT
identified ,
It is in the nature of catchment development that we reduce the amount of water flowing out of rivers . Sure if there is a species or systems issue lets hear it --- BUT not guilt trips about the very fact that it happens . The muart river system is highly modified .
It is in the nature of catchment development that we reduce the amount of water flowing out of rivers . Sure if there is a species or systems issue lets hear it --- BUT not guilt trips about the very fact that it happens . The muart river system is highly modified .
If in doubt say no and spend your conservation dollar
locally so government don't charge you so much for US all giving in to those who don't want to pay
a cent for their decisions/goodwill gestures.
