A LEADING environmentalist has warned land developers might benefit from a proposed study to map out Nillumbik’s Green Wedge. […] Geoff Mosley said the proposed landscape character assessment study could weaken the now-strict Green Wedge environmental zone because it would look at parts of the zone, rather than the importance of the whole area.
[…]
Dr Mosley, of Hurstbridge, said the money would be better spent educating people about the value of the Green Wedge as “the lungs of Melbourne”.
During question time at a packed community meeting in Arthurs Creek on Melbourne’s northern fringe, Warwick Spooner — whose mother Marilyn and brother Damien perished along with their home in the Strathewen blaze — criticised the Nillumbik council for the limitations it placed on residents wanting the council’s help or permission to clean up around their properties in preparation for the bushfire season. “We’ve lost two people in my family because you dickheads won’t cut trees down,” he said. “We wanted trees cut down on the side of the road … and you can’t even cut the grass for God’s sake.”
Iain Hall notes they were duly warned;
One of Australia’s leading bushfire experts, Rod Incoll, warned Nillumbik Shire Council in a 2003 report that it risked devastation if it went ahead with changes to planning laws proposed by green groups that restricted the removal of vegetation.
Mr Incoll, the Victorian fire chief from 1990 to 1996, and David Packham, a former CSIRO bushfire scientist and academic who also produced a report on the issue, argued against the regulations, which actively encouraged the builders of new homes to plant trees around the houses for aesthetic reasons.
Mr Incoll told The Australian yesterday the proposed planning rules were “foolhardy and dangerous and ought not to be proceeded with”.
“But they were nevertheless instituted,” he said. “That is certainly one of the things that people will be looking at as an aftermath of this tragic event.”
Mr Packham, now an honorary senior research fellow at Monash University’s school of geography and environmental science, wrote in his report, after inspecting the Kinglake to Heidelberg Road: “The mix of fuel, unsafe roadsides and embedded houses, some with zero protection and no hope of survival, will all ensure that when a large fire impinges upon the area a major disaster will result.”
Mr Incoll said that in 2003, green groups were pushing for changes to planning laws that included restrictions on the removal of vegetation, “and worse still, the requirement for planting vegetation around and almost over houses, as part of any planning permit to build a house in the shire of Nillumbik, so it gave the appearance from the outside of being a forest“.
Tell me, my dear “green” lurkers – how many more people do you plan to kill to advance your agenda?
Before you respond, let me clarify that I’m not interested in a rebuttal.
I want a number.
7 billion, give or take.
I wonder if the greentards can be charged with multiple counts of criminal negligence causing death?
Ah, they’re from the left. There’s no accountability there.
Tell me, my dear “green” lurkers – how many more people do you plan to kill to advance your agenda?
Before you respond, let me clarify that I’m not interested in a rebuttal.
I want a number.
Posted by Kate
You’d have to put a $ sign in before they’d come up with a number.
This is the exact reason we have had so many devastating wildfires here in Southern California- Environmentalists refusing to let us do clearing and controlled burns for over 20 years. Their “good intentions” have caused wildlife and human disasters.
The result of their “saving the planet” is destroying the environment more efficiently than any developer could or would.
Arrest the dickheads one and all and charge them with Manslaughter.
They can bring in Dr. Fruit Fly as an “expert” witness.
I’m not an environmentalist, but from what I hear and read, environmentalists would like to reduce the population of the US to about 50 million, the UK to perhaps 4 million, and the world population to around 1 billion. You probably won’t get a number from them, because most are not, shall we say, quantitative people. But one or two are – such as a member of the Sierra Club whom I know well. My numbers are based on estimated populations of eras described more or less as desirable.
“Arrest the dickheads one and all and charge them with Manslaughter.”
No, at the first sign of a wild fire tie them to a stake at the edge of your property.
Med Evil I know, but it’s a pleasing picture.
It appears the civil war is on and by body count, the left is winning.
500,000 a month.
From the DDT fraud in Africa, to the Australian bushfires of 2009, and countless examples in between, green zealotry has caused countless, unnecessary deaths since the birth of modern day environmentalism in the 1960s.
And yet it seems now, more than ever, governments bow before the alter of eniro-fascism unquestioningly.
Sad.
bwahahahahaha…..Over 30 years ago,these same green turds tired that in Fundy Nat’l Park.One leetle snag.We people who use the park constantly from May to Sept. cut back the dead falls and burned the underbrush ourselves.Oh.The “rangers” tried to stop us the first season,but after a few well-placed “arguments”,they still,30 years later,don’t try to stop the camper keeping his spot fire safe.But now that we are getting to old for this,and the new group of users are all greenie,eco-freak indoctrinites,Mugs’ idea makes perfect sense.
Or how about a waiver…..something like”use of this deadfall laden,tinderbox dry,underbrush filled,wood box does NOT remove you from your OWN responsibilty to NOT become a crispy critter,with or without sauce.”No wait.Scrape the waiver.That just lets the eco-freaks who are truly responsible off the hook.
Before you respond, let me clarify that I’m not interested in a rebuttal.
I want a number.
and I’d like to know if it’s more or less than Communism has killed.
nextstopmars, more or less than Communism killed?
Answer is more, see “The Black Book of Communism”, Courtois et al
In 1971, I graduated with a degree in Environmental Studies, the first year this was offered at my University.
From what my aging brain recalls, the major theme at that time was Ecology and Ecosystems. Essentially that everything was connected. Given the many instances where these had been ignored, where planning was not done and where development was unchecked, such a theme was more than needed.
However over time the Pendulum swung so far left that, for many “environmentalists”, humans are barely accepted, (if accepted at all) as legitimate parts of any Ecosystem. This is especially true of developing and growing humanity. Actually that should read, ‘western’ developing and growing humanity. After all, we are the only ones responsible for the worlds ills and must suffer because of this. Of course the ‘we’ does not include the wisest among us who have identified our guilt.
In 1971, I graduated with a degree in Environmental Studies, the first year this was offered at my University.
From what my aging brain recalls, the major theme at that time was Ecology and Ecosystems. Essentially that everything was connected. Given the many instances where these had been ignored, where planning was not done and where development was unchecked, such a theme was more than needed.
However over time the Pendulum swung so far left that, for many “environmentalists”, humans are barely accepted, (if accepted at all) as legitimate parts of any Ecosystem. This is especially true of developing and growing humanity. Actually that should read, ‘western’ developing and growing humanity. After all, we are the only ones responsible for the worlds ills and must suffer because of this. Of course the ‘we’ does not include the wisest among us who have identified our guilt.
How many have they killed in the tropics by banning DDT already? So that sets the bar at ohhh say… 150 maybe 200 million dead. So 150 crisped Aussies is not going to faze the Greenies one little bit.
Your answer is in this article:
http://www.congregator.net/medicalnews/tietjen/depopulation.html
Totally shitty. At least its will grow back even healthier.
Thats why we here in Alberta have preventative fires in the parks.
So to extend the theme just a bit….
I’d guess that about half the people who lost their homes in wildfires were either in favor of those environmental caveats or passively accepted them.
If such people are willing to allow their own homes and communities to be consumed in fires or choose to live in environmental risky areas without taking precautions or that they practice any other behaviours that put the whole community at risk does it not raise a question or two about their fitness to exist?
Darwin at work? I think so.
But what of the other victims who never wanted to be subjected to the idiocy?
Brought down themselves because they have lost the instinct to protect themselves from obvious threats.
Darwin at work.
I seem to recall several of these greenie types wanting to cut back the excess human population by about half. They were the more moderate ones.
So, pretty much every second person.
But I notice no greenie weenies have stepped up to the plate. Gutless wankers. Where’s troll brigade, Hmn?
Prometheus is a blog run by the Pielkes but has many contributors on science policy. A very worthy read. Particularly these comments:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/trends-in-homes-lost-to-autralian-bushfires-4950#comments
The entire population, less of course their friends in the Sierra Club or Greenpeace abteilung-because they are the only ones deserving of momma earth
This is the same reason we had the big fires in the Okanagan in 2003, no controlled burns were allowed in Okanagan Mountain Park, even though forestry experts warned them the conditions were ripe for a massive forest fire.
The dangers of the buildup of fine fuels was apparent to any experienced forester, but their warnings went unheeded, pols were too afraid of the environmental lobby.
In the end, no one was killed, fortunately, but 269 homes were burned to ashes.
Justthinkin at February 11, 2009 5:47 PM
If you read the comments pointed to in my previous post, you will find reference to the Ozzie Abos, who used to do this kind of maintenance by gathering wood for fire to cook yummy food.
They would also used “controlled” burns as a primative farming practice, to scare out yummy edible animals and as a weapon against other people who they needed to fight.
‘Victoria Bush Fires Stoked by Green Vote’ – David Peckham Feb 10 209
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/
dmorris at February 11, 2009 6:57 PM
..and it is worse in Australia because all those gum trees contain lots of flammable gum.
Each year the aboriginals in northern Australia set fire to the dead underbrush on their land, and just let it rage across the country side. I’ve seen it myself in Arnhem Land, shown around by a local. In a short time, the resulting ground vegetation is green and lush. Lands not burned become dry and choked with dead brush. The aboriginals have known for millenia a thing or two about the ecosystem there.
What irony, do the Ozzie environmentalists and Abos ever talk to each other?
Good Question Kate . I would like to know as well.
I do know the Sierra club wants the Earth’s population at half a billion. Means the green people want to kill 7 1/2 billion people off. Yeah have to give them points for thinkin big. Only a demented tormented psyche would look at humans that way. As just cattle to be rid of for an elites pleasure & ideology, if not Earth worship. Actually hypnotized so much they believe only they will be spared. Yet the tears flow for the tree’s. The drum beats to the moans of manlike mutants for Mother Nature with tolerance , always tolerance. Till death!
JMO
Lots of people denounced Michael Crichton for thinking that in State of Fear he made a case against anthropogenic climate disruption.
Having read the book (well-organized argument, paper-thin story), I think most people missed Crichton’s point completely. His argument wasn’t that humans weren’t affecting the climate, it was simply that nobody really knew enough about climate or ecology to know.
And that’s the tragedy of environmental measures that backfire like this. Everyone thinks they’re acting for the best, but the Law of Unintended Consequences gets us all in the end.
How many?
Well, let’s start with all the right wingers.
Then, the centrists, they don’t support “the cause” enough. Iggy supported the war!
Then anyone who can be remotely classified as a capitalist.
The state of Israel, that can be wiped out.
Then, anyone who isn’t a vegan.
The people who are left should be deserving enough to be allowed to live.
Unless, of course, you are a Muslim extremist. Lefties are afraid to do anything about Muslim extremists.
Meanwhile in PEI
“Ice has completely surrounded P.E.I., and its the thickest ice we’ve seen in 10 years.
And, in the coming weeks, its volume and density will only increase, according to a Canadian Coast Guard ice specialist.”
http://www.journalpioneer.com/index.cfm?sid=220933&sc=118
I say we have a vote, the 250 million people they want to eliminate can vote with the 50 million people who are supposed to stay and decide democratically what the “more or less desirable” number is.
Trees kill.
Here’s another example of enviromaniacs doing their thing.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16414-rampant-rabbits-trash-world-heritage-island.html
Good intentions have rarely gone so awry. When conservationists tried to save an island’s birds by culling its feral cat population, they overlooked one critical consequence: rabbits. A new study reveals that removing just 160 feral cats triggered a boom in Macquarie Island’s rabbit population from about 4000 in the year 2000 to 130,000 in 2006.
The cats were shot as they had been preying on the island’s burrowing birds. But the newly rampant rabbits have devastated vegetation over 40% of the island. Clearing up the mess is expected to cost at least $16 million, and it remains unclear whether the island will ever fully recover.
all people. for earth mother must be saved.
About 500 million throughout the 57 States.
…same thing happened recently at Lake Tahoe, when the enviro-nuts had succeeded in getting the Tahoe Regional Protection Agency in banning tree and shrub removal for years (the TRPA disputes it)…luckily no one was killed but it was close! It seems that no one wants to pay attention to experienced managers, instead, we follow extremist enviro-cults who think they’ve got it all figured out (or are happy top see progress undone one way or another)…
see:
“SOUTH LAKE TAHOE – Even before the ash from the Angora fire settles, some South Lake Tahoe residents have begun to lob accusations that decisions based on politics contributed to Sunday’s devastating blaze.
The League to Save Lake Tahoe, the Wilderness Society and the Sierra Club’s influence drew much of the ire of Sue Abrams, a resident of the Mountain View Estates subdivision, which was heavily damaged during the blaze. These groups exert too much control over Tahoe Regional Planning Agency policy decisions, according to Abrams.
“No policies in the 30 years I’ve been here allow us to create defensible space,” Abrams said during a phone interview on Monday. “Every ordinance that was put together over the past 30 years except for the past year or so has been hands-off. Every bit of this was preventable had politics moved aside.”
Abrams, unsure of the status of her house as of Monday evening, filed suit against the federal government in 1997 concerning the management of hazard trees in the basin and is looking to bring issues surrounding the Angora fire into court as well…”
http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/20070626/NEWS/106260073
see also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angora_Fire
I think Environmental Groups were responsible for the arson in Australia, Because they have been running low on catastrophes that they can blame on Global Warming.
RL
Whatever the number, it would never be enough for the Green Fascist’s. Give these people enough power and they would initiate their very own “Final Solution” to everyone who’s “not of their kind”.
Just like their political and idelogical ancestors, The Eugenicists.
re. JDN at 7:13 – I was in Arnhem Land quite recently too, and I thought at the time that the weird thing is that controlled burns could be SO politically correct. The Aboriginals have always done them – there are even government plans to encourage it in the Northern Territory. Circle of Life, people.
Seems to me that someone wrote , I believe on a blog somewhere, that Vancouver wanted to cut down some trees to help with some sort of reasonable project (at least in my opinion) seems there were complaints and the project was halted, then along came the wind storm and knocked down all the trees that the company wanted to remove for their project. They then re applied and were approved. With all the fire activity in Australia, i am wondering if perhaps the same scenario will repeat itself.
An example closer to home;
Zucchini and his pals protest over the removal of old growth trees in BC. Legislators put the brakes to harvesting, slowing it down considerably. The mtn pine beetle, which lays it’s eggs in old growth trees, has a population explosion. Infestation takes over the BC countryside. Zucchini and his pals blame the infestation on “global warming”…
And people wonder why I drink so much…
…and then these SONS OF BITCHES had the temerity to blame the brush fires on “Global Warming”(TM).
Fire them all? We’re beyond that…they shouldn’t just be fired, they should be fired on.
What a hodgepodge of comments to respond to.
Richard Evans – no organism dies because of “normal conditions”. Do a search about about the pine beetle – abnormal kills … just like everything else. Who says that the beetles are less natural than fires?
On fires.
There were no native fire fighters – either here or Australia. There were on both continents, native fire starters.
There is no such thing as “Unintended Consequences”. There are only idiots (and followers of those idiots) that can’t see that if you f*ck with nature, there are consequences. These consequences are non-debatable, non-negotiable, and non-nuanced.
Ural;
Are you drunk?
The irony with respect to the tree huggers is the symbol of their movement, namely the old, wise Indian who, being one with nature, would never cut down a tree. What utter BULLSH*T!
From the time they arrived in North America, up to the arrival of the white man 500 years ago, the Indians put the torch to about 70%-80% of North America’s forests.
I don’t know how many times the Indians were burned out before they figured out that the trees had to go. I’ve got to figure it was in less time than its taking California to wake up. We’ll see how long it takes Australia.
The Indians didn’t cut many trees, especially big ones. They didn’t have steel. Trees are almost too tough for stone tools, that’s why the only wood you’d ever see in an Indian camp was pole sized.
‘Victoria Bush Fires Stoked by Green Vote’
Fer Chrissakes, I wish headline writers would give Bush a break. He’s out of office already, y’know?
the stupid shall destroy the earth and all that is in it. zero population kate. then the poor planet can heal. what a load of shit.
the greenies in Oz are truly screwed
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/02/distorted-values.html