Thread: SHOULDN'T WE BE SERIOUSLY STOPPING OUR POPULATION GROWTH?

Originally Posted by Hugh42732

That is like saying “stop all the people from using water out of our dams and see how much water they retain”

100% factual yet totally useless point....

I have also seen property that has had no livestock on it for over 30 years that is full of erosion due to any decent ground cover by grass to stop erosion and is in very poor condition compared to the property through the fence.

That is of course before the destruction that will occur when they burn and nearly the same amount of emissions will escape directly into the atmosphere without producing anything.

Poor land management is still poor land management regardless of whether you remove hard hoofed species off the ground or not. People need to remember that before Europeans came this land was extensively modified by Aboriginal hunting and burning practices, and unless you actively control regrowth some way it ain't gunna be a paradise.

Originally Posted by ozscott

It's easy...

I suggest it's not easy since it does nothing to address population growth.

I wasnt addressing the original topic. Just looked at it now!

Cheers

Originally Posted by ozscott

It's easy. Governments will eventually stop clearing for cattle.production and reduce water allowances save for vegetable and grain production for human consumption. Eventually meat supplies will drop and the cost of a steak will became prohibitive and people will turn to veg. So meat won't be banned as such but it might as well be.

Cheers

Overseas maybe. How much land is cleared for meat production in Australia? We are fully self sufficient for beef and lamb in this country and most of it is grown free range anyway, with available rainfall, so not sure how that's going to be cut back.

Will all happen after I'm dead anyway so happy days - I'll keep chewing on what I want. 👍😊

Not sure how much has been cleared here. I know 50 percent of our landmass is used for meat. A fair chunk near the coast in particular would have been cleared.

Cheers

What's done is done - the clearing would have been over a century ago, I'm asking what goes on now?

50% for meat production? Would like to see the figures to support that claim - the ABS shows 53% of Australias landmass is used for Agriculture overall, so not sure how that figure came about. And think about it - most of the Northern and inner parts of Australia can't be used for cropping because there's no water, so all that area is either used for nothing or cattle and sheep because they can have an animal or 2 per dozen acres if needed, but you'd never grow your plants there anyway.

Most of our land clearing was for the timber not farming. Most of England is built with Aussie timber!

Originally Posted by Homestar

What's done is done - the clearing would have been over a century ago, I'm asking what goes on now?

.

You are so wrong.

Of the eleven world regions highlighted as global deforestation fronts, eastern Australia is the only one in a developed country. This problem threatens much of Australia’s extraordinary biodiversity and, if not redressed, will blight the environmental legacy we leave future generations.

edit.

The State of Queensland has suffered the greatest loss of forests and woodlands. But while stronger laws by the mid-2000s achieved dramatic reductions of forest and woodland loss, recent weakening of laws reversed the trend. Loss of mature forest has more than trebled since 2009. In Victoria, home to four of Australia’s five most heavily cleared bioregions, land clearing controls were weakened in 2013, and in New South Wales, proposed biodiversity laws provide increased opportunities for habitat destruction.

Page not found | UNSW Newsroom