Conservation: Future Directions

[cement]

I'm building a house at the moment that has no power from the grid. Its actually pretty easy to not need mains power with a solar/gas hot water, gas stove and fridge and three or four recently manufactured roof panels and batteries to get a few hrs of tv a night. A hell of a lot of houses could easily go off the grid.

 

[cris]

Just a question. Why are you arguing for Nuclear and Coal when im sure you could all find yourselves in agreement in RENEWABLE sources of power, no waste, minimum enviromental damage (as just being alive causes damage), and it keeps going forever (providing it doesn't break and there are no clataclismic earthly events). So lets not argue the runners up, but argue the leader shall we?

Im not wasted on hallucinogens, nuclear is the only practical clean solution for the medium term power supply. Eventually it wont be needed as much and become much cleaner. Currently its the cleanest realistic option, hence why most civilised countries use it. Australia supplies it, but wont use it, the government would rather trash our land and its inhabitants with coal power.

 

[percey39]

Im doing what, where? I support clean power not coal. I didnt vote for krudd and his arroagant no nuclear even if its the best option attitude, even if it does impress the ignorant majority of working families, working families, working families :lol:

Sorry for my generalisation not getting through. I meant your coal mines not you personally my bad. As for renewable energy lets talk windfarms and tidal turbines. If you think for a second these are great for the environment you are wrong. Both of these have an adverse effect on the many species. Wind turbines kill birds and still use diesel generators, we have a few of these down here and they are not sufficient otherwise they would of built alot more. Tidal turbines will destroy sea life and cause more problems then they are worth. Lets also forget that these two sources cannot produce enough energy to run cities let alone a whole country.
Brown coal can burn a whole heap cleaner, one of these many ways is to dry it better before burning as when its wet it produce a hell of a lot of carbon emmisions. Also eventually when some engineer and environmentalist solve this problem the old coal mines will be turned into native tree populations and create native wildlife another place to go. This is already happening around here at the moment, they backfilling old seam segments and planting tens of thousands of trees.

 

[Australis]

. Also eventually when some engineer and environmentalist solve this problem the old coal mines will be turned into native tree populations and create native wildlife another place to go. This is already happening around here at the moment, they backfilling old seam segments and planting tens of thousands of trees.

Percy, the very same already happens in QLD, with re-generation of mine sites.

If every coal burning power station closed shop tomorrow in Australia we would
still keep mining coal big-time and exporting it big-time.

 

[mattmc]

just a fact - of all the coal that china uses, on 4% of that is from Australia...and you think of how much is actually exported to china....thats alot of coal in china....

anyways

i think one underestimated green technology is geothermal.

that is all

 

[cris]

just a fact - of all the coal that china uses, on 4% of that is from Australia...and you think of how much is actually exported to china....thats alot of coal in china....

anyways

i think one underestimated green technology is geothermal.

that is all

The most underused power is cranking up the price of all exports to China and other highly destructive countires, while also taxing the cheap rubbish they import here at a much higher rate, this is the only way any green house emission tax can be effective, even though our government is deluded enough to think taxing our country alone will make a differance.

We should tax all exports/imports based on the sustainability of the buying/selling country. We have heaps of resources that are in high demand, we can sell for what we want to charge. We just need to make sure the only people we ever send to China are politicians :lol: China is stuggling at the moment to understand the idea of a free market, we need to teach them a lesson for trashing the planet, jack up the prices and get everone else in on it too

 

[Gekambi]

i think one underestimated green technology is geothermal.

He does have a point there. No-one really ever brings it up, everyone thinks of solar and that.
There is one option that is often used as a joke but is starting to seem like a reasonable option. Hooking up exercise equiptment to the power grid. They can be easily altered to produce power and Australia does have a growing obesity probem. I think my coach would do our fitness training at his house if it eventually happened. lol.

 

[Slickturtle]

Another thread needed

A discussion has taken place in another thread that I feel deserves a wider audience than the title it has would get.

I would strongly suggest before posting to go a read:

APS Thread : 'Australia thinking about exporting again' (The title doesn't give the discussion the justice it deserves) http://www.aussiepythons.com/forum/...stralia-thinking-about-exporting-again-134454

and a link posted by Slickturtle http://www.audit.wa.gov.au/reports/p...ciesInsert.pdf (very interesting). It is about WA but in the real world you can put any state in there.

I might be asking for too much here but I am hoping for serious and well thought out responses and ideas here (Not that the above thread wasn't, I just thought the topic deserved a better title).

When I look around the bush these days all I see are systems and resources slowly failing and dying off. We have inherited a system of conservation that is failing us. We are not making headway to many of the threats to conservation. Our governments are slowly realising that they cant save everything thats endangered and funding for projects each year are drying it (It will probably be many more years before they openly admit it).

IMO what people need to realise is that:

a) We just don't have the money. Not only implement projects needed to get species off the endangered species list but to avoid those not on the list getting on the list. We live in a push / pull system where by to put the amount of money and effort required to make a difference in the time frame needed something else has to miss out. Its a sad reality but thats the way it is.

b) This systematic failure to protect natural resources hasn't just happened over night but is something that has slowly been building with each generation. Our environment is in a desperate state of affairs that are being bombarded by so many threats that extinction of species is inevitable as we simply can not keep up. Governments may not like to admit it but you only need to look around you to see we are losing this war despite our best intentions.

c) Once was accept the situation for what it is, you start to think...where do we go from here? How do we get the best and most effectively value for money we spend thats going to achieve measureable and achievable results for our future generations? How do we limit the extinction to the absolute minimal possible?

I believe this is the kind of talking that should be happening right now, not in 5, 10, 15 years time. What future directions should we take in terms of conservation?? It certainly isn't a put everything in captivity and let the ecosystems die kind of solution I'm talking about, although I believe it would be better to survive in captivity than to lose it forever. I for one want my grandchildren and their grandchildren to see the variety of wildlife about that I see today. But sadly I know deep down that without radically new ideas the bush they will see will be nothing like we see today just like today's bush isn't what it was 50, 100, 200 years ago.

Do we just let it happen like we are doing now or do we say hey our conservation efforts are not working we need something new? If our government cant protect our wildlife should the public and industries be given greater access to wildlife in an attempt to avoid extinction of that species? To save some things are better than nothing.

Have you wondered about this? What future direction should we take???

Hi Bushfire

It looks like you will have to start another thread to get back on topic. I don't know anything about coal vs nuclear or what not. But I have been a professional snake keeper for many years and am keen to talk about reptiles. I am new to web forums but thought this one would be about snakes. Is there somewhere else that I can read and talk about reptiles?!

Cheers

Slick

 

[levis04]

A discussion has taken place in another thread that I feel deserves a wider audience than the title it has would get.

I would strongly suggest before posting to go a read:

APS Thread : 'Australia thinking about exporting again' (The title doesn't give the discussion the justice it deserves) http://www.aussiepythons.com/forum/...stralia-thinking-about-exporting-again-134454

and a link posted by Slickturtle http://www.audit.wa.gov.au/reports/p...ciesInsert.pdf (very interesting). It is about WA but in the real world you can put any state in there.

I might be asking for too much here but I am hoping for serious and well thought out responses and ideas here (Not that the above thread wasn't, I just thought the topic deserved a better title).

When I look around the bush these days all I see are systems and resources slowly failing and dying off. We have inherited a system of conservation that is failing us. We are not making headway to many of the threats to conservation. Our governments are slowly realising that they cant save everything thats endangered and funding for projects each year are drying it (It will probably be many more years before they openly admit it).

IMO what people need to realise is that:

a) We just don't have the money. Not only implement projects needed to get species off the endangered species list but to avoid those not on the list getting on the list. We live in a push / pull system where by to put the amount of money and effort required to make a difference in the time frame needed something else has to miss out. Its a sad reality but thats the way it is.

b) This systematic failure to protect natural resources hasn't just happened over night but is something that has slowly been building with each generation. Our environment is in a desperate state of affairs that are being bombarded by so many threats that extinction of species is inevitable as we simply can not keep up. Governments may not like to admit it but you only need to look around you to see we are losing this war despite our best intentions.

c) Once was accept the situation for what it is, you start to think...where do we go from here? How do we get the best and most effectively value for money we spend thats going to achieve measureable and achievable results for our future generations? How do we limit the extinction to the absolute minimal possible?

I believe this is the kind of talking that should be happening right now, not in 5, 10, 15 years time. What future directions should we take in terms of conservation?? It certainly isn't a put everything in captivity and let the ecosystems die kind of solution I'm talking about, although I believe it would be better to survive in captivity than to lose it forever. I for one want my grandchildren and their grandchildren to see the variety of wildlife about that I see today. But sadly I know deep down that without radically new ideas the bush they will see will be nothing like we see today just like today's bush isn't what it was 50, 100, 200 years ago.

Do we just let it happen like we are doing now or do we say hey our conservation efforts are not working we need something new? If our government cant protect our wildlife should the public and industries be given greater access to wildlife in an attempt to avoid extinction of that species? To save some things are better than nothing.

Have you wondered about this? What future direction should we take???

Hey Bushfire this is a fantastic question imo. I think that putting endangered species in some private breeders hands would be a good start to helping. Mainly because private breeders spend alot of money and time setting things up and usually would only have a few species to maintain unlike zoo's having 1000's. I just look at how the Latta's do it with the turtles and think it is fantastic. I personally would love to do something similar if given the chance but our DEH have to many rules and reason against it. I dont think this will be a quick fix to the main problem habitat destruction.

 

[mattmc]

Hi Bushfire

It looks like you will have to start another thread to get back on topic. I don't know anything about coal vs nuclear or what not. But I have been a professional snake keeper for many years and am keen to talk about reptiles. I am new to web forums but thought this one would be about snakes. Is there somewhere else that I can read and talk about reptiles?!

Cheers

Slick

i dont think he has to start another thread.....everything links in what has been said to some extent to the original question...you can just look at conservation in its own context, you need to look at the bigger picture, and how humans as a species and work on conservation and work around conservation for our own advantage...

its one word : conservation

it creates one hell of a big picture for things to be done right.

 

[Slickturtle]

Generalities vs specifics

i dont think he has to start another thread.....everything links in what has been said to some extent to the original question...you can just look at conservation in its own context, you need to look at the bigger picture, and how humans as a species and work on conservation and work around conservation for our own advantage...

its one word : conservation

it creates one hell of a big picture for things to be done right.

Hi Matt Mc

Good words there. You are right about everything being connected in a general way. But I don't know anything about the coal industry vs nuclear. i am too busy writing an essay on the specifics of conservation of Australia's threatened wildlife because this is something I know a little bit about. But I need a hand. Can you help with some of these topics that I have yet to sort out? : -

1. Demonstrating that captive breeding IS a conservation strategy – if extinction is the alternative.
2. Participation by children and schools as part of a broader conservation education strategy?
3. The issue of genetic diversity in captivity?
4. The issue of incompetent or non-committed pet owners and resultant cruelty?
5. How do we recruit thousands of new high quality Wildlife Keepers?
6. The issue of defining a “pet”? E.G., Is a Death Adder a “pet”?
7. The need to demonstrate that keeping and breeding native animals is a legitimate end unto itself and need not be a means to an end, (e.g. need not be a conservation or preservation tool.)
8. The need to develop the lists of animals which may or may not be the subject of captive breeding priorities. There will be 4 categories each within the groupings of birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians and fishes.
9. There would be a rush to pick up the high value and popular spp. but nobody will want to take on the more obscure animals. How will this be dealt with?
10. Pet Shops. What is their future role in all of this?
11. The problem of hybridising in a conservation context?
12. Loss of ecological fitness in captive animals?
Ect., Etc., Etc.

Anything you can write on these topics and send to me would be good - even though it is all a bit specific. I don't mind if you want to stick to generalities, but who are you working on? Also, we need to build up an argument against people who will try to stop us from conserving Australia's wildlife. Can you help to counter these: -

o Animal rights extremists
o Wildlife carers
o RSPCA and PETA
o Environmental law enforcement agencies
o People who argue that wildlife should never be bought and sold.
o People who fear disease transmission from animals to humans.
o People who insist that wildlife should only live in national parks and conservation reserves and argue that it is fundamentally cruel to put a wild animal in a cage.
o People who argue that the Government must spend more on parks and reserves so that this proposal is not necessary.
o Etc., Etc., Etc.

Any help gratefully received

Cheers

Slickturtle

 

[levis04]

just thought by bumping this thread other members can help you out slickturtle.

 

[syeph8]

just going to jump in even though i havnt read all the recommended material or any of the other posts. your second link is down mate. if it is an interesting read, as stated, if you could direct me via PM to this page. thankyou

 

[Slickturtle]

Conservation of reptiles - where the thread started

just going to jump in even though i havnt read all the recommended material or any of the other posts. your second link is down mate. if it is an interesting read, as stated, if you could direct me via PM to this page. thankyou

Hi Seph8

It all started at: -
http://www.aussiepythons.com/forum/...stralia-thinking-about-exporting-again-134454

It is getting to be a fair bit to read there.

Cheers

Slickturtle

 

[Slickturtle]

Bumping a thread?

just thought by bumping this thread other members can help you out slickturtle.

I am a forum newbie and don't know what bumping a thread is!

Slick

 

[levis04]

bumping means (bring up my post)

 

[Snakeluvver2]

Geothermal energy is a great idea... it has one main fault, one it is underdeveloped and the amount of energy loss from the technique itself would be a facet that needs to be greatly looked into.

Just so everyone else knows what geothermal energy is. Basically its pouring thousands and thousands of water on a granite beds in the MIDDLE of australia, these granite beds then super heat the water till it turns into steam, the steam then rises and subsequently turns a turbine. This turbine provides electricity.

Which brings me back to its main fault, these granite beds are in the middle of Australia, power has to be transported a VERY long distance to the "grid" (cities towns and such) which results in power loss, this is caused by the large amount of resistance provided by its means of transport (generally copper wire).

I would love to use geothermal energy its smart, clean and basically unlimited just not realistic though


Anyone saying that Nuclear power is dangerous is really a fool to the media hype created by Chernobyl and probably the link between nuclear power plants and nuclear weapons.
The disaster in Chernobyl was a result of a poor quality power plant. NO power plant in this day and age would use the same programs, safety schemes and techniques that Chernobyl used. That particular power plant used systems that were outdated even at the time.

Any way we are gonna be screwed for ages no matter what. If we keep using black coal for energy, its going to progress the same in regards to the environment. Using "cleaner" black coal techniques will just waste money and time and in the end result hurt us more because we spent to much time and energy integrating newer systems into society. SO when we have no chioce but to use a new source of energy we are going to have a LOT of infrastructure based on coal therefore loss in jobs, and money to keep us going and no coal to export.

If we change energy sources now we going have to change our infrastructure completely and it will extremely hard for a period of time but in the end run will be worth it. During that time we can jack up the prices (not sure on this) in coal ad export to countries that still need it

IMO Nuclear energy would great for a certain amount of time. (check out sweden), its waste will have many used when nuclear power isnt something to be afraid of or thought of negatively. Ask anyone in sweden about nuclear power, they'll tell you its awesome.
Geothermal has a lot of potential.
Most other renewable energy is fine in small doses I.E. couldn't realistically be used for the whole nation.
Brown coal i'm not to sure about sounds to similar to black coal and we would end up in the same place we are now eventually
But really we need to change now, prolonging the end of coal is just hurting the Earth more
This was based all on my year 12 report for physics (oh yer got an A ), which was yonks ago sorry if some bits are inaccurate.

 

[Bushfire]

Most of you are all missing the point in that when you look at all talk going on about the environment today they are talking about long term projects on climate change that may or may not have an impact in the future. What about the losses that will happen from this time till when ever any of these projects / ideas have had an significant impact (if at all). Global warming is only one threat faced by our wildlife.
Overall its the combination of threats that drive many to extinction. As far as I have seen, in government policy they had already written off many species that haven't even made the endangered species list yet. Where is the planning and ideas that will make a difference now? The reality is that no matter what path we take we are going to lose something its a lose - lose situation. Wouldn't future generations be thankful if we could save more than what we lost for a change?
This isn't just evolution. We are changing the habitats that fast and that significant that most of the species wouldn't have time for evolutionary processes to be maintained. Evolution isn't a massive die out. It effect we are replacing native plants and animals with exotics.

 

[Slickturtle]

Geothermal energy is a great idea... it has one main fault, one it is underdeveloped and the amount of energy loss from the technique itself would be a facet that needs to be greatly looked into.

Just so everyone else knows what geothermal energy is. Basically its pouring thousands and thousands of water on a granite beds in the MIDDLE of australia, these granite beds then super heat the water till it turns into steam, the steam then rises and subsequently turns a turbine. This turbine provides electricity.

Which brings me back to its main fault, these granite beds are in the middle of Australia, power has to be transported a VERY long distance to the "grid" (cities towns and such) which results in power loss, this is caused by the large amount of resistance provided by its means of transport (generally copper wire).

I would love to use geothermal energy its smart, clean and basically unlimited just not realistic though


Anyone saying that Nuclear power is dangerous is really a fool to the media hype created by Chernobyl and probably the link between nuclear power plants and nuclear weapons.
The disaster in Chernobyl was a result of a poor quality power plant. NO power plant in this day and age would use the same programs, safety schemes and techniques that Chernobyl used. That particular power plant used systems that were outdated even at the time.

Any way we are gonna be screwed for ages no matter what. If we keep using black coal for energy, its going to progress the same in regards to the environment. Using "cleaner" black coal techniques will just waste money and time and in the end result hurt us more because we spent to much time and energy integrating newer systems into society. SO when we have no chioce but to use a new source of energy we are going to have a LOT of infrastructure based on coal therefore loss in jobs, and money to keep us going and no coal to export.

If we change energy sources now we going have to change our infrastructure completely and it will extremely hard for a period of time but in the end run will be worth it. During that time we can jack up the prices (not sure on this) in coal ad export to countries that still need it

IMO Nuclear energy would great for a certain amount of time. (check out sweden), its waste will have many used when nuclear power isnt something to be afraid of or thought of negatively. Ask anyone in sweden about nuclear power, they'll tell you its awesome.
Geothermal has a lot of potential.
Most other renewable energy is fine in small doses I.E. couldn't realistically be used for the whole nation.
Brown coal i'm not to sure about sounds to similar to black coal and we would end up in the same place we are now eventually
But really we need to change now, prolonging the end of coal is just hurting the Earth more
This was based all on my year 12 report for physics (oh yer got an A ), which was yonks ago sorry if some bits are inaccurate.

Hello Jannico

That is an interesting observation. If you were suddenly told that you could, - would you be interested in maintaining a breeding colony of a snake species such as Simoselaps bertholdi or any other of its Genera? I ask this (more or less at random) to gauge how interested Australian reptile keepers are in the idea of keeping reptiles as an anti-extinction strategy.


Cheers

Slickturtle

 

[Waterrat]

Hello Jannico

That is an interesting observation. If you were suddenly told that you could, - would you be interested in maintaining a breeding colony of a snake species such as Simoselaps bertholdi or any other of its Genera? I ask this (more or less at random) to gauge how interested Australian reptile keepers are in the idea of keeping reptiles as an anti-extinction strategy.


Cheers

Slickturtle

Of course there will be a "reduced" interest in breeding some of the less charismatic species that have no market value whatsoever. In such cases there should be some incentive from the government (if they were serious about such scheme). Not necessarily a financial assistance, perhaps a permit to collect from the wild and breed one other commercially viable species that would offset the costs of keeping / breeding the less attractive species.
However, there is always going to be an issue of genetic diversity in any captive population.