Comments

<Back to Article

  1. Go Peg Go!!!

    Aint it sad the way people tend to mistrust the Greens ability for pragmatic government. As though their ‘newness’ leaves them less equipped than the old ‘trusty’ parties. A little bit of packaging and a long standing label tends to win the day despite the fact that the contents of the ‘major’ party packets are yet wet behind the ears.  It’s the established community, industry and government departments that carry the core of the pragmatics.

    Even if the Greens are thought to be wet behind the ears also they surely can put up a better face than the current majors.

    Paul Lennon, Peg Putt, Al Gore, Steve Irwin, Paul Eslake, George Bush; which are the two off-key? 

    And who voted them in?

    There is hope, but it is firstly far away from the train that the West currently rides.

    Low Carl

    Posted by Low Carl  on  28/09/06  at  09:52 AM
  2. The theory of the market - which is put forward as the basis of the capitalist system - would necessitate the following. That a firm that is incessantly dependent on public subsidies would be allowed to go bankrupt. This, in turn, would allow the evolution of more viable enterprises.

    This is not allowed to happen in Tasmania. Therefore, either capitalism is not a market-based economy here or we are actually dealing with FEUDALISM in Tasmania.

    Other questions.  How come the ‘forest’ industry is enjoying higher productivity based - NOT on technological innovation - but on the accelerated rape and pillage of our environment?  Surely this contradicts the notions of ‘enterprise’ and ‘innovation’. 

    Inflation is the destruction of ‘real value’.  Our health and safety, our water, our beautiful forests - that’s REAL value.  Don’t let the economists reduce such a concept of value merely to the amount of woodchips China can buy from us.

    Posted by Brenda Rosser  on  28/09/06  at  10:15 AM
  3. Pure market theory is not and never has been the basis of capitalism in the real world.

    If a company can con a subsidy out of public funds, it is duty bound to do so.

    What I would like to know is how the Greens can reconcile their views and attitudes with the management of an economic system that can only succeed by operating in contradiction to them.

    Posted by Justa Bloke  on  28/09/06  at  10:49 AM
  4. The use of the word rape in relation to perceived damage to the environment is to demean those who have actually suffered this fate in my opinion.  The green cause is constantly hurt by its use of alarmist and emotionally charged rhetoric.

    Posted by John Herbert  on  28/09/06  at  04:17 PM
  5. Its all very well Peg, but if you can’t nail Lennon with a smoking gun then you are travelling in a very empty vessel.

    Posted by John Herbert  on  28/09/06  at  08:20 PM
  6. “The use of the word rape in relation to perceived damage to the environment is to demean those who have actually suffered this fate in my opinion.  The green cause is constantly hurt by its use of alarmist and emotionally charged rhetoric…”

    Actually I live on the edge of the Tarkine and have personally witnessed the clearfelling of rainforest by these ‘anti-forest’ corporations.

    ‘Rape’ is a word that simply isn’t strong enough to describe what actually happens.

    If I could find more words to conjure up the need for public alarm and high emotion at what is going on in this state I would!

    Posted by Brenda Rosser  on  28/09/06  at  10:28 PM
  7. I agree Brenda. I consider myself a feminist and am closely associated with people who have been raped or abused and I use that term to describe the plunder for profit of our great forests and the obscene scar on the environment after forestry has cut a swathe through it.

    I actually, and I’m sure this will be provocative, view the dead carcasses of trees, piled high on log trucks, as akin to piles of bodies we see every day in war zones, mass graves and in Iraq on our tv screens. Emotional? Perhaps. And why not. When I drive to work and enormous log trucks course through the main streets, carrying dead circles of great trees. I feel like crossing myself as they pass, these once proud, great living creatures, naked, stripped of their skins, lying dead, unheralded and exposed in a jumble on the back of a dusty truck.

    It is a disgrace and thank goodness people are speaking out about it.

    Our water is scarce, plantations are soaking up water in farming communities across the north east, precious water is promised to the Pulp Mill from Trevallyn dam when after a dry winter and with increasing hot summers, we can’t spare any.

    It is a joke. We can’t eat or breath or drink money. The money raised by this destruction goes into the pockets of a few, a major company, its shareholders, and the fundraising election coffers of our very own government.

    Maintain the rage.

    Posted by Rachael Krinks  on  29/09/06  at  05:48 PM
  8. I’ve seen it as well and I disagree with you Brenda.  It’s no pretty but it’s not rape by any measure.

    Posted by John Herbert  on  29/09/06  at  06:27 PM
  9. “The RHH – one enormous embarrassing backflip.  We give it a big tick of approval, mind you, because it’s Greens’ policy”. - Peg Putt.

    Well done, Peg.  Yet one more Greens policy poached by Lennon & Labor.  Anyone out there willing to draw up a list of other policies poached from the Greens & later adopted by this out-of-touch “no ideas” party?  “Tis about time the rest of Tasmania woke up to what’s going on!

    “Its all very well Peg, but if you can’t nail Lennon with a smoking gun then you are travelling in a very empty vessel.” - John Herbert.

    Nailing Lennon with a smoking gun sounds painful.  When can I have a go?  What implement to you suggest I use to nail the smoking gun to Lennon with?

    An empty vessel is a very apt way to describe Lennon’s cranium! It could also describe the Tasmanian Labor party in general….

    Posted by Tassie Smurf  on  29/09/06  at  08:24 PM
  10. okay, okay.. so we’re quibbling over the word ‘rape’. can we agree on ‘pillage’? how about ‘plunder’? despoil? ravage?

    in my mother’s day, anyone who was raped was considered to have been ‘ruined’. can we agree on ‘ruin’?

    anyway, herbie, the macquarie dictionary describes rape as an act of agression by which one state seizes the territory of another. hhmm.. close, very close.

    i luv ya, john. your mixed metaphors are a wonder to behold. and you carp about the use of the word ‘rape’? carp?. it means cavil. cavil? um.. to raise irritating and trivial objections…

    alan taylor

    Posted by alan taylor  on  30/09/06  at  03:41 PM
  11. Well maybe the self proclaimed defenders of the forest will volunteer the rest of your lives to the extremely difficult and dangerous task of selective logging in the forests.

    There is bugger all money in it and you may die in the process but wood is needed in life. Unless of course you don’t have wood in your homes and never plan to use anyting that is directly or indirectly involved the production of timber.  Have fun in your cave in the desert. Send me a rockcard!

    Posted by John Herbert  on  01/10/06  at  03:00 PM
  12. John Herbert,

    You sound ridiculously like that man at the recent Pulp Mill Debate that tried to tell us without the mooted Pulp Mill we will all be communicating with slate. He went on and on and on. And now you reckon we’d be living in caves in a desert communicating via rockcard. And you reckon we Greens are ‘alarmist’ and use ‘emotionally charged rhetoric”!

    too funny!

    Posted by Rachael Krinks  on  01/10/06  at  07:20 PM
  13. John Herbert wrote:
    “Well maybe the self proclaimed defenders of the forest will volunteer the rest of your lives to the extremely difficult and dangerous task of selective logging in the forests. There is bugger all money in it and you may die in the process but wood is needed in life. .”

    First, let’s make it clear to the public that most of our beautiful rainforests and old growth have simply gone to woodchip for paper pulp.  Not wood.

    Second, most of the wood is actually piled up and burnt using a napalm like chemical that leaches into our waterways.

    Third.  The reason why there is so much waste is because it allows the acceleration of the rape of the forest.  This then ensures profits to the ‘forest’ company who has to compete with other ‘forest rape’ companies in Indonesia, Brazil and elsewhere.

    This is what globalisation is.  The rapid movement of capital, labour, goods and (in this case) bulldozers that make it possible for profits to be wreaked out of the plunder of nature.

    The neoclassical economic theory - that John Howard, Paul Lennon and their big business mates use - doesn’t acknowledge that there are limits to natural resources.

    While you continue in your deluded state the rest of us can go to:
    http://www.thomasleavitt.org/personal/blog/archives/category/activism/death-of-the-planet/
    to watch the death of the planet.

    Posted by Brenda Rosser  on  01/10/06  at  07:44 PM
  14. Wood is renewable resource.  You can watch the death of the planet with all the wigged out links you want Brenda. I’ll continue living thank you very much for the offer anyway.  Why aren’t you folk all selling pencils with ‘the end is nigh’ hanging around your neck I keep asking myself.
    If you had any integrity you’d be living in a cave in a desert.  But you are not so there can be only one conclusion.

    Posted by John Herbert  on  01/10/06  at  09:02 PM
  15. yes, john, wood is a renewable resource. forests are not. it amazes me that there are still people on the planet who are so unfamiliar with forests that they imagine that they’re made of trees.

    forests are interdependent ecosystems, entire unto themselves. they self organise, self perpetuate, and maintain their own equiibrium. trees, plants, fungii, animals, enzymes, moulds, insects, all come and go. the forest ~ that web of interrelated cycles ~ remains.

    until, of course, some latterday viking mistakes the forest for the trees ~ and the trees for wood.

    Posted by alan taylor  on  02/10/06  at  08:05 AM
  16. the community forest agreement commits tasmania to reduce clear felling to less than 20% of logging in old growth forests but the commission claimed after the high court case that the finding meant that clear felling was safer ~ and therefore necessary. the sound of long bows being drawn was twanging even more heavily in the air. according to the commission, the finding apparently meant that selective logging had somehow been put ‘at risk’, something the high court didn’t imply.

    that wasn’t the end of it for the commission. not to be denied, the case was scheduled to reappear in the tasmanian supreme court last august and is, i presume, still continuing.

    the forest worker, paraplegic since 1998, must be well pleased with the commission’s efforts on his behalf.

    currently, over half the state’s logging operations use selective methods and any injury rate seems to be related more to the management of the coupe, not whether it is selectively logged or clear felled. clear felling still accounts for well over the intended 20% of all harvesting for the simple reason that it is more profitable. further pressure is being put on the government by the industry to extend both the community forest agreeement, and clear felling within it.

    there has, however, been one case of a worker being killed during a selective logging operation but the cause of death determined by the court was that the worker died of cerebral haemorrhage from a fractured skull after being crushed by a fallen tree when a skidder backed into that tree, shearing it off at the base. the logger was warned, panicked, and ran directly into the path of the falling tree.

    the finding in this case was not that selective logging had nothing to do with the accident, rather that safely procedures were not properly in place and those that were were not followed. the type of accident could have happened under any form of logging, selective or otherwise.

    but the tasmanian forestry commission can be absolved completey from any responsibility in this instance. it happened in missouri, USA, in 1999.

    the whole issue does bear closer examination, however, so thank you for drawing it to our attention, john herbert.  the english did, after all, win the battle of agincourt by drawing a longer bow than the french.


    alan taylor
    policy covenor
    tasmanian greens

    Posted by alan taylor  on  02/10/06  at  12:50 PM
  17. #6 I see they’re moving the Tarkine boundries again, now Brenda claims they’re at West Calder, the way these boundries have moved over the years people in Launceston will be claiming they live on the edge of it next.

    Posted by Tess  on  02/10/06  at  05:36 PM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Remember my personal information

Before you submit your comment, please make sure that it complies with Tasmanian Times Code of Conduct.