Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics
posted by Fnord666 on Saturday February 06 2021, @09:19AM   Printer-friendly [Skip to comment(s)]

Arthur T Knackerbracket has processed the following story:

The independent review of Australia's main environment law, released last week, provided a sobering but accurate appraisal of a dire situation.

The review was led by Professor Graeme Samuel and involved consultation with scientists, legal experts, industry and conservation organizations. Samuel's report concluded Australia's biodiversity is in decline and the law (the EPBC Act) "is not fit for current or future environmental challenges".

[...] To reverse Australia's appalling track record of protecting biodiversity, four major reforms recommended by Samuel must be implemented as a package.

  1. Setting standards [...]
  2. Greater government accountability [...]
  3. Decent funding [...]
  4. Increase ecological knowledge [...]

[...] Samuel recommends Regional Recovery Plans be adequately funded to help develop some knowledge. But we suggest substantial new environmental capacity is needed, including new ecological research positions, increased environmental monitoring infrastructure, and appropriate funding of recovery plans, to ensure enough knowledge supports decision making.

Samuel's report has provided a path forward that could make a substantial difference to Australia's shocking track record of biodiversity conservation and land stewardship.

But Environment Minister Sussan Ley's response so far suggests the Morrison government plans to cherry pick from Samuel's recommendations, and rush through changes without appropriate safeguards.

If the changes we outlined above aren't implemented as a package, our precious natural heritage will continue to decline.


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 0, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 06 2021, @02:12PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 06 2021, @02:12PM (#1109631)

    Given the lethality of nearly every animal in Australia, I'd say these laws aren't necessary.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 06 2021, @02:47PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 06 2021, @02:47PM (#1109650)

    With the coral bleaching maybe fewer tourists will go to Mission Beach, easing development encroachment on the Cassowary habitat
    https://researchonline.jcu.edu.au/2368/1/15891_Moore_2007.pdf [jcu.edu.au]

  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Saturday February 06 2021, @02:56PM (19 children)

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Saturday February 06 2021, @02:56PM (#1109653)

    Setting standards

    Yawn, TLDR and the same will be true for people who actually make a difference in the field, starting with poachers and illegal violators.

    Greater government accountability

    It's great when it actually happens. Somehow government seems immune to long term accountability increases.

    Decent funding

    Always essential.

    Increase ecological knowledge

    More school? It's great when it actually happens. Somehow conservative politics seems immune to pesky things like new knowledge.

    So, what to do? Simplify, with a binary mask on land-use regulation. There's no misunderstanding: no, No, always and forever NO, not here. Keep the land use and environmental regulations we have, continue to improve them, set standards, fund education, fund research, increase government transparency and accountability, all that, but we're already doing all that everywhere anyway. Don't stop, continue making such progress as we are able, plus this one simple trick:

    WEEZ - Wildlife Economic Exclusion Zones, places with zero tolerance for human economic exploitation (aka use). Get out, stay out, like it was a nuclear accident area, but permanently - or at least on a long term rotation like 500-1000 years, maybe tease the money hungry with some old growth timber production, but... let the wildlife be wild, without serving man. More value will spill over from adjacent wild spaces into regions we still exploit than we can create from those regions through direct exploitation - at least at the rate of practical controls we have exhibited the capability to implement so far.

    We can bend 100% of the surface of this planet to our will, proven fact. Let's stop throwing our weight around and give nature some space to do it's thing. Reliance on nature is how we got here in the first place, we are clearly leading in the game of evolution 1.0 but we're precariously close to sinking the 8 ball before the game is over.

    How much WEEZ do we need? I'd target 50%, with representative sampling of all climates and ecosystems. http://5050by2150.wordpress.com [wordpress.com]

    --
    My karma ran over your dogma.
    • (Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 06 2021, @04:46PM (18 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 06 2021, @04:46PM (#1109682)

      Parent said:
      “ Somehow conservative politics seems immune to pesky things like new knowledge.”

      At least conservatives aren’t confused over the concept and science of sex, called “gender” by the confused. XY or XX chromosome pairs, end of. No “men who menstruate” nonsense.

      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 06 2021, @04:49PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 06 2021, @04:49PM (#1109683)
        Exactly. Why can't anyone see you are victimized by all this gender stuff? Why can't they see that you are the true victim? WHY???
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 07 2021, @03:30AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 07 2021, @03:30AM (#1109862)

          Failed middle school biology? Answer the question, or do you deny science if it conflicts with Leftist ideology of the week?

      • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday February 06 2021, @05:01PM (2 children)

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Saturday February 06 2021, @05:01PM (#1109686)

        At least conservatives aren’t confused over the concept and science of sex

        Warning: Troll food follows.

        Conservatives seem quite confused over the concept and science of sex and its repercussions, like teenage pregnancy, STDs, etc. Abstinence? Nice try, I believe that's how Sarah Palin became a grandmother in her daughter's non-traditional circumstance.

        --
        My karma ran over your dogma.
        • (Score: 0) by Ethanol-fueled on Saturday February 06 2021, @06:49PM (1 child)

          by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Saturday February 06 2021, @06:49PM (#1109728) Homepage

          She learned bad habits from her mama, who was known to rustle up with Black men during her college basketball days. Mama Palin was bangin' Black-buck biscuit-lipped homeboys wearing afros and short shorts.

          Sheeeeeit.

          • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Saturday February 06 2021, @09:36PM

            by JoeMerchant (3937) on Saturday February 06 2021, @09:36PM (#1109790)

            Mama Palin was bangin'

            And went on to become the great white hope female VP candidate... all I can say good about Palin is: we've got worse in Congress right now, so very very sad.

            I don't mind having Republicans in government, but do so many of them have to be such obvious morons?

            --
            My karma ran over your dogma.
      • (Score: 2) by unauthorized on Saturday February 06 2021, @05:38PM (6 children)

        by unauthorized (3776) on Saturday February 06 2021, @05:38PM (#1109693)

        At least conservatives aren’t confused over the concept and science of sex, called “gender” by the confused. XY or XX chromosome pairs, end of. No “men who menstruate” nonsense.

        Found the ignorant conservative.

        The chromosome configuration isn't what determines the sex of the organism. There is only singular characteristic which biologists use to determine sex and that's the size of the gamete - an organism is male if it produces the smaller one and female if it produces the larger one.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 07 2021, @03:25AM (5 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 07 2021, @03:25AM (#1109859)

          So you deny XY and XX chromosome pairs. I think we have found the real science denier.

          • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 07 2021, @04:35AM (2 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 07 2021, @04:35AM (#1109880)

            Every hear of XYYs? or Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome?

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 07 2021, @06:00PM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 07 2021, @06:00PM (#1109990)

              That's an incredibly rare genetic defect. Am I wrong to say humans are tetrapods (possessing two arms and two legs) because some unbelievably tiny percentage might be born with the defect of missing one arm? If you hold that standard, then nobody can say anything about humans at all. It's a defect BTW because it prevents the organism from functioning in a basic manner. Same as men who want to put their pee pee in other men instead of in a woman.

              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday February 08 2021, @01:50AM

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday February 08 2021, @01:50AM (#1110096) Journal

                Am I wrong to say humans are tetrapods (possessing two arms and two legs) because some unbelievably tiny percentage might be born with the defect of missing one arm?

                Or injury which is far more common. Also, two legs work better for location than one leg.

          • (Score: 3, Informative) by unauthorized on Sunday February 07 2021, @12:28PM (1 child)

            by unauthorized (3776) on Sunday February 07 2021, @12:28PM (#1109925)

            Are you unironically retarded? No one is denying sex chromosomes exit, but they aren't used to determine sex in biology.

            • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 07 2021, @05:52PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 07 2021, @05:52PM (#1109987)

              For human babies, we merely glance at the genitals to know: vulva = males, penis and scrotum = female.
              Are you seriously trying to say it's any more complicated than that? Are you a tranny with an agenda to obfuscate the obvious in order to validate your own mental illness?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 07 2021, @04:33AM (5 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 07 2021, @04:33AM (#1109879)

        No, you're the confused one. Sex and gender are NOT the same.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 07 2021, @08:25AM (4 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 07 2021, @08:25AM (#1109907)

          The trouble is that as soon as you define a term to differentiate male from female those confused about which they are try to appropriate it.
          Here's a question for you; What are the currently correct terms for an individual with a vagina and ovaries, and for an individual with a penis and testicles?

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 07 2021, @08:37AM (3 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 07 2021, @08:37AM (#1109908)

            Varies. The first could be a ciswoman (female sex and gender), a transman(female sex and male gender), or a genderfluid female. Fairly similar for the latter.

            • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 07 2021, @11:02AM (2 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 07 2021, @11:02AM (#1109920)

              Varies. The first could be a ciswoman (female sex and gender), a transman(female sex and male gender), or a genderfluid female. Fairly similar for the latter.

              And there you have the conservative's problem with this. It is physical reality, that has to be addressed differently based on a mental condition. Historically If it had a vagina and ovaries it was a woman. If it had a cock and balls it was a man. If it wished it were different then it was unhappy. If it surgically changed it, then it was post-op.

              You are denying that there can be a single word that describes physical reality. Make up a couple of new words if you like, eg:
              boogly = born with a cock and balls
              reebly = born with a vagina and ovaries

              And I guarantee that if you could get them widely accepted you would very soon have people claiming to be cis-boogly and trans-reebly and boogly-fluid and demanding that people address them as such.

              Nobody gives a shit if the man wants to wear a dress and mince around, or the woman wants to wear flannel and be a lumberjack. It is just a psychological power play to redefine terms and then insist on your definitions, and the insistence that other people be able to see inside their heads and change terms based on that is offensive to them.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 07 2021, @06:56PM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 07 2021, @06:56PM (#1110006)

                Or one could just not worry about it unless wishing to engage in physical sexual relations with the individual in question. Much simpler.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09 2021, @08:09AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 09 2021, @08:09AM (#1110599)

                  It's not conservatives making a big deal about it.
                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2NjsKrI0ac [youtube.com]

  • (Score: 2) by deimtee on Saturday February 06 2021, @03:36PM (1 child)

    by deimtee (3272) on Saturday February 06 2021, @03:36PM (#1109664) Journal

    She'll be right mate.

    --
    No problem is insoluble, but at Ksp = 2.943×10−25 Mercury Sulphide comes close.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 06 2021, @03:46PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 06 2021, @03:46PM (#1109669)

      She'll be right apples mate.

      FTFY.

(1)