FEEDBACK
Have Your Say
In an on-line survey towards the end of 2008, Australians said that environmental protection was among national issues that worried them most.
Of all national issues they ranked their environmental concern just behind
- health;
- water shortages; and
- education.
Of environmental issues, they said their greatest concerns were for
- river and waterways pollution;
- renewable energy production;
- recycling; and
- protection for Australia's endangered species.
As well, more than one in two of those surveyed believed there had been a deterioration of Australia's natural environment in the last decade.
Australian Governments spend about $13 billion a year on nature conservation.
But is this spending effective?
David Lindenmayer, Professor of Forest Wildlife Management and Conservation at the ANU, says we simply don't know.
In a recent interview he told The Thomas Foundation: "We are making very large investments, but we don't know if they are the right investments, and we don't know because we are not doing the work to see how well we are travelling."
Yet Prof Lindenmayer said knowledge of conservation program results "is critical to making them effective because bio-diversity is not doing well in this country."
In his book "On Borrowed Time" Prof Lindenmayer reminds us that more than 20 uniquely Australian mammals have become extinct since European settlement, with 88 more mammal species and 107 bird species now vulnerable to extinction, some critically so.
So what do you think?
Do we know enough about the effectiveness of our conservation programs? And if not, what should we do to change this?
My challenge to the Thomas Foundation is to ask what is your response to this imminent threat and how do you see your Foundation can respond (or not)?
I look forward to the Foundation’s response.
Donald Coventry
............................................................................................................................
Thinking the new future: establishing appropriate climate change, biodiversity and sustainability responses in a lower net energy situation.
An increasing body of literature as well as analysis from reputable oil industry analysts argues that the world is at the point of peak production of oil, both conventional and non conventional, and that on the decline side of the production curve we will see depletion in the range of 2 to 6% per annum. In many regions of the world natural gas is also peaking and going into decline.
Alternatives in terms of scale, energy type and use, available net energy return, and timeframes cannot adequately replace conventional oil and natural gas.
Economic and social development has been based upon the industrial model associated with most industrial western economies (continental variants notwithstanding). This has been built upon displacement, expansion and ecological destruction, which has been greatly increased via heightened industrialisation, changed agricultural practice, population increases, globalisation and influences of economic and social theory derived directly or indirectly from significant flows of high net energy resources.
This will mean an increasing reliance by our industrial global economy upon energy reserves of declining available net energy. We will have to pay more for the energy to do work in our economy. As economic growth is linked directly to primary energy consumption we see negative economic changes through increased costs in production of goods and services as well as systemic disruptions in transport, point of sale and in the long chain industrial systems that support modern agriculture and society.
The current form of industrialised society, agriculture, leisure services, manufacturing and nodes of mining related development will not be energetically sustainable in a post Peak Oil world. This will be coupled with large scale challenges from climate change and possible economy scale changes to how carbon is measured, valued and reduced in output.
Established thinking upon climate change, biodiversity and sustainability has been based both upon higher estimates for total world oil production and upon there being a continued world economic model based upon continued growth. Unless the economic constraints that Peak Oil will entail are considered, then the current frameworks and discussion on both impacts, mitigation and adaptation measures will not reflect the real world situation. This conceptual flaw frames the thinking upon carbon trading models as provided by Stern and Garnaut, and nearly all land use planning, societal planning and government thinking and policy.
Conceptions of the future tend not to reflect these challenges, with the projection of continued growth, technological development and increased resource consumption, with flow on ecological and climate impacts. Research, discussion and planning needs to take into account this paradigm shift in energy stocks and flows in order to best build an economic, social and environmental model that best accommodates built in climate change impacts as well as peak oil.
A model for managing the transition to a lower net energy economy and society needs considered and debated. Unless this is effectively undertaken the risk of societal collapse is greatly increased.
However contained in this energy shift is a powerful argument for building a more localised and resilient community, one that needs and values sound and resilient landscape that reduces energy inputs and frames a less consumptive economy and society. The green/conservation community has yet not recognised either the challenge we face and will not be well positioned in its thinking and responses when it is required to provide a energetically and ecologically sound vision for a new future, as we struggle to maintain our industrialised economy. The great risk is we will attempt to keep the model we have, run dirtier and fail by multiple badly thought half measures.
Donald Coventry
biodiversity loss about 10 years ago. We consulted many scientists and
with some scientific expertise on the Board we also looked at mechanisms
where we could make a difference. Over that time we have invested in a
range of projects in most states of Australia. We also tried to locate a
space where philanthropy might make a difference if we focussed on one of
the many issues and you raise a number which all require adressing. But
with only limited funds we decided to focus on the science of biodiversity
where there is still much to be done and also to invest in ways of linking
landscape scale conservation sites running north and south to try to
assist species to cope with climate change or at least slow down the rate
of loss. The Foundation alone can only contribute to this process as the
scale of investment required to reverse it is enormous. The David Thomas
Challenge is now well on the way to raising $20 million for this purpose
which on top of our own investments both in people, through the Babara
Thomas /Ecological Society of Australia Fellowships plus support to assist
scientists with time out to write up their research, we hope can make some
difference.