The end of an error - cost of feel good tokens is coming home to roost

The end of the world is not nigh ,
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 . 

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.