Farming practices and their impact on the environment

Discussion in 'Living Room' started by Propagate, 24th Jul, 2018.

Join Australia's most dynamic and respected property investment community
  1. Propagate

    Propagate Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    1,495
    Location:
    Melbourne
  2. Propagate

    Propagate Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    1,495
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Those farms that were set up 200 years ago with irrigation systems to suit a population of what, a few hundred thousand? Even by 1850 the entire population of Australia was less than half a million people.

    AUSTRALIA: population growth of the whole country

    A little over a hundred years ago the pollution of the Australia was still less that 4 million, Wikipedia says 3.75 million in 1900.

    It's now approaching 25 million.

    I'll admit, I don't know much about the Murray Darling basin issues but what I have ready and listened to does not sound good to me on any level and there seems to be no real solution to it?

    We can't keep indefinitely drawing from a finite source.

    The tragedy of the Murray-Darling river system is man-made
     
  3. Alain

    Alain Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    22nd Nov, 2016
    Posts:
    117
    Location:
    Sydney
    Like LVR said, Australia contributes less then 1% of total carbon emissions. So if we managed to somehow stop all carbon producing activities the impact would be negligible, it would give us a warm feeling of smugness but that's about it.

    I'm sorry, i like my meat, my heat, my cool and my comfort and i suspect most other people do too.

    You seem very passionate about this so i encourage to keep on preaching, as long as you don't use tyrannical means and techniques on others to implement the changes that you want.
     
    Phar Lap and D.T. like this.
  4. geoffw

    geoffw Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    15th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    11,655
    Location:
    Newcastle
    Propagate likes this.
  5. Propagate

    Propagate Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    1,495
    Location:
    Melbourne
    That's not the point and it's got nothing to do with feeling smug.

    Per capita we are the second biggest polluter on the planet, how can our leaders rationally discuss environmental issues on a world stage when we are one of the biggest polluters on a per person basis?

    By that logic the reverse argument is just as legitimate, why should China and India do anything about their emissions when on a per person basis they are polluting less than us? They would be just as entitled to say well "if Australia isn't doing anything", why should we?

    Everyone has a responsibility to do what they can, don't take this as a dig at you or anyone particularly, it really isn't. I really don't give two ***** what you do or don't do and I'm no greeny holier than thou preacher either, I could do a lot better than I do but I'm also not going to stick my head in the sand, pretend there isn't a problem and just say "I'm alright Jack, bugger the rest of the planet".
     
  6. Propagate

    Propagate Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    1,495
    Location:
    Melbourne
  7. LVR

    LVR Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    17th Jul, 2018
    Posts:
    89
    Location:
    world or bust
    Is this referring to people?
    Which Countries on Earth have people that aren't pollution then?
    I am very unhappy to be referred to as "pollution". I think you owe everyone an apology.
     
  8. LVR

    LVR Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    17th Jul, 2018
    Posts:
    89
    Location:
    world or bust
    CO2 is not pollution - it is a naturally occurring gas in our atmosphere.
    The oceans - of which cover 4/5ths of the Planet, produce the most CO2. They also reabsorbs CO2. So do plants and trees.
    Many areas are now planting in desert areas and previously un-irriigated and unsuitable areas, and tree farms etc.
    But notwithstanding all of this; the predictions of supposed dire consequences relating to CO2 have not materialised. The models have proven to be wildly inaccurate.
     
    Phar Lap likes this.
  9. Propagate

    Propagate Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    1,495
    Location:
    Melbourne
    I can't tell if you're serious or joking? I'm obviously referring to "Population" as is abundantly obvious due to the context of the post and the links.

    Sorry EVERYONE, I unreservedly apologize for my spelling ability resulting in the spell checker using the incorrect word.
     
  10. geoffw

    geoffw Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    15th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    11,655
    Location:
    Newcastle
    Tickets have just gone on sale, they usually sell out quickly. Otherwise wait 6-12 months for the talks to appear on YouTube.
     
    Propagate likes this.
  11. Propagate

    Propagate Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    1,495
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Agreed, but the balance isn't there anymore. The Oceans are thought to be absorbing only 40% of man made CO2 with the rest remaining in the atmosphere.

    The additional CO2 that is being absorbed is making the oceans acidic, creating further issues.

    As water temperatures rise the oceans release their stored CO2 more quickly.

    How do human CO2 emissions compare to natural CO2 emissions?

    "About 40% of human CO2 emissions are being absorbed, mostly by vegetation and the oceans. The rest remains in the atmosphere. As a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20.000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years."
     
    LVR and geoffw like this.
  12. spludgey

    spludgey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    3,483
    Location:
    Sydney
    You're not actually sorry at all though, are you?
    This attitude is what's holding us back. "Who cares about future generations, as long as I'm happy now!"

    I'm rich (by world standards) and I only have another 40 years to live (if all goes to plan), so I personally will most probably be just okay in regards to climate change, but it's those that are less fortunate than me and those that are much younger (perhaps not even born yet), that I'm extremely concerned for.
     
    Propagate likes this.
  13. spludgey

    spludgey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    3,483
    Location:
    Sydney
    Read up on "Ocean acidification", scary stuff with serious knock-on effects.
    I think oceans cover closer 70% than 80%>
     
    Propagate and LVR like this.
  14. LVR

    LVR Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    17th Jul, 2018
    Posts:
    89
    Location:
    world or bust
    That is not how anyone who is a climate skeptic feels. That's like saying people who don't support unchecked immigration are racists - it is simply not true. Both are exaggerated and inaccurate statements.
    All of us a very concerned about the planet, and you will find that most people are mindful of the planet (varying degrees though). The difference between a skeptic and a believer is the skeptic doesn't blindly believe all the information presented - they question the validity, the motivation and the agenda behind the information.
    When an "expert" predicts we will have no rain in our dams at all by now - and they are doing quite nicely most of the time currently; then you can understand why a skeptic keeps questioning the validity.
    The thing that automatically makes skeptics dig in their heels too, is when you watch a Global Warming program suddenly change from only ever being a "Global Warming" discussion (as was the original push by people such as Al Gore) into a "Climate Change" discussion after about a decade....you have to ask yourself; why have they shifted gears all of a sudden??
    Forget about models and predictions; does anyone ever bother to ask a 90 year old farmer who was born, raised and now close to dying on a farm; what they have witnessed? The answer may shock you.
     
  15. Stoffo

    Stoffo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    14th Jul, 2016
    Posts:
    5,301
    Location:
    In the Tweed
    Add in all the farm animals bred for our consumption as @Propagate talked about at the start of this thread and things aren't good.
    Appreciate the sums also, am no good at those. Are they for all water or only fresh water ?
    Clearly myself and @Scott No Mates are like cows FOS :p
     
    spludgey likes this.
  16. Phar Lap

    Phar Lap Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    1,060
    Location:
    NSW
    So give us the figures needed for Australia becoming "per capita" non polluting ?

    You have got to be kidding comparing Australia to China in the pollution stakes and painting Australia as a larger polluter. Its about the volume. There are billions of Chinese, a few million of Australians yet occupy around the same or similar landmass.
    Context.

    I am also a concerned citizen for the earth and how we treat it and do my very best I can to minimise my footprint. But you will not take my meat away from me.
     
  17. Propagate

    Propagate Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    1,495
    Location:
    Melbourne
  18. LVR

    LVR Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    17th Jul, 2018
    Posts:
    89
    Location:
    world or bust
    Freudian slip? :D
     
    Propagate likes this.
  19. geoffw

    geoffw Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    15th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    11,655
    Location:
    Newcastle
    That's when you say one thing and mean a mother.

    While meat production may or may not be a big problem, it would take a massive change for vegetarianism to provide any solution whatsoever. The responses to that suggestion so far are just indicative of the attitude of the general population I would think.

    What may be a bigger problem is traditional farming. We've farmed the same way for generations, with increasing pressure on yields, with increasingly variable climate. While a lot of work has been done with sustainable farming (for instance CSIRO) getting techniques into farming would be a huge job, and any farmer would be very wary of the huge risk involved in trying new techniques. This is possibly an area where government aid could go a long way
     
    Propagate likes this.
  20. Scott No Mates

    Scott No Mates Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18th Jun, 2015
    Posts:
    27,101
    Location:
    Sydney or NSW or Australia
    Nah.

    Total output is much more important. Australia, though individually, are high polluters, collectively, we account for half of #^(* all of the pollution generated globally.

    If Australia was destroyed by a cataclysmic disaster, the reduction in the total pollution generated would be virtually immeasurable.
     
    Phar Lap, Alain and LVR like this.

Build Passive Income WITHOUT Dropping $15K On Buyers Agents Each Time! Helping People Achieve PASSIVE INCOME Using Our Unique Data-Driven System, So You Can Confidently Buy Top 5% Growth & Cashflow Property, Anywhere In Australia