Of course there is no limit on clearing remnant vegetation to replace it with cement and bitumen and iron as that doesn’t seem to effect the environment....
Printable View
Of course there is no limit on clearing remnant vegetation to replace it with cement and bitumen and iron as that doesn’t seem to effect the environment....
A lot of you have taken on the increase of population in Australia as a food consumption/production problem.
This will probably never be the case as primary producers react continuously to population demand.
What does occur though is a continuous demand for housing and the additional infrastructure associated with it. You know...roads , sewerage , power, supermarkets, recreational facilities ,etc etc
What this in turn creates is increased heat sink. This actually changes local weather patterns , because the concrete/bitumen/reflecting glass etc holds heat into domestic areas for longer periods each day. This changes anabatic/ katabatic winds and also onshore/offshore wind periods which affects inland moisture and temperature distribution.
This can already be seen if you look at BOM temperatures and weather as our population increases.....it is only happening as we rapidly increase our population.
Our current crop of politicians who preach increased migration to boost economy will not be here to see the outcome.
Everybody is totally free to believe what they want , but science will not be denied. There is no power to assist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob10
I wouldn't say he was "awesome" exactly,,, but we think he's pretty special [thumbsupbig]
Who needs enemies with friends like that...
Supposedly the average westerner eats too much meat, meaning it is unhealthy for them and may reduce their lifestyle and longevity (that partly includes me right now).
There seem to be both positive and negative environmental consequences of humans eating too much meat.
Positives: kills people quicker reducing their environmental impact, meat production occupies space and consumes resources thus reducing possible human populations.
Negatives: meat production has direct negative environmental consequences.
If they can make tasty and nutritious burger patties from bugs things might change slowly (?).
We will know fish stocks are critical when the prices go up and up (?).
And I thought the AGA Khan was up himself. [biggrin]Quote:
Originally Posted by Homestar
Sugar cane, a crop, not livestock farming.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh42732
Based on what?Quote:
Originally Posted by rammypluge
He's got nothing on me I can tell you but has a few more followers. 😆 FIGJAM.Quote:
Originally Posted by bob10
High meat consumption correlates with increased heart disease and more, killing people quicker, and thus reducing their environmental impact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh42732
Meat production occupies more space and resources than most other food products. (But it does use land typically less suitable for other types of food production.)
Grazing typically has more negative than positive environmental impacts. Any clearing of the native vegetation is typically enough to ensure an overall negative impact, whether that is done by humans or the animals.
All that being said i dont think it should be the prime focus of discussions about Australia's ideal population.