Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Joanne Rea on June 15, 2012 at 11:15am

Thank you Beverley and Janet.

I agree it could be a new discussion but I am busy organising the Property Rights Australia Conference and don't think I can do it just now. Here is another article on the subject.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/warring-governments-uni...

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ian Davies on June 16, 2012 at 5:20pm

This may be of interest.

Environmentalists battle leftist author

Updated: 10:21, Saturday June 16, 2012 

http://www.skynews.com.au/eco/article.aspx?id=761547&vId=

The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) battled with a leftist author in a German court on Friday over his allegations that the nature-conservation organisation was cosy with big business. 

WWF had sought an injunction against a book by Wilfried Huismann, Schwarzbuch WWF (Black Book WWF), arguing that it contained 13 untrue allegations. The author had in turn accused WWF of censorship.

Put a smile on my face & a spring in my step, Dwaine. LOL.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dixie Nott on June 22, 2012 at 9:04am

This video highlights attempts by those who support legitimate Australian businesses to counter global environmental bullying.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-eNxbfLwpk&feature=player_embedded

 

Its well worth a watch and references Patrick Moore's book "Green Spirit".

Address for Tony Burke at the end of the video so send him a shot if possible. I reckon its worth sending one to Tony Abbot  also to help put lead in his sometimes droopy environmental pencil. He was recently quoted as being "devasted by clear felling" so the comparison with an slaughter house and the relevance to the industry in question is well directed to him also.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joanne Rea on June 22, 2012 at 9:41am

Dixie,

This short video and accompanying article show not only how responsible the forestry industry is being but how Markets for Change (a WWF invention) and others are given free reign to lie about opposition schemes. As the article points out, unlike businesses, environmental groups have immunity from prosecution if they lie under the Australian Competition and Consumers Act.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joanne Rea on June 26, 2012 at 4:57pm

Several weeks ago, in its Living Planet Report 2012, WWF sensationally claimed “that economic growth should be abandoned, that citizens of the world’s wealthy nations should prepare for poverty and that all the human race’s energy should be produced as renewable electricity within 38 years from now.”

Claiming GDP to be “too one-sided”, WWF Director General, Jim Leape, said, “We need Rio+20 to deliver new environmental indicators so that we can measure what we treasure. We need indicators that go far beyond GDP, measuring environmental quality, nature and biodiversity, and social stability and wellbeing.”

http://www.greencease.org/article/46/why_should_we_measure_what_wwf...

The Living Planet Report 2012 claimed to be a scientific document but was in reality closer to science fiction and one common denominator of the big green organisations is that they always give themselves plenty of “wriggle room” for inconsistent values.

 

In a separate article http://www.greencease.org/article/43/wwf_and_engrenage they have claimed that green regulation has not harmed growth and has indeed enhanced it.

The anti-growth activists have claimed that “there was no evidence of environmental regulations blocking economic development” and that, on the contrary, protection of important wildlife and habitats through sensible legislation contributed a significant amount to the economy in valuable goods and services including tourism.

This is an interesting sales pitch from an organisation which, just last week, sensationally claimed that “economic growth should be abandoned [and] that citizens of the world’s wealthy nations should prepare for poverty”.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joanne Rea on June 27, 2012 at 4:20pm

In a recent post Donna LaFramboise has questioned why WWF has drones.

By drones she means modified versions of the military kind as used by the US and other sovereign nations to spy on their enemies and sometimes to kill them.

How is it that an unelected, unaccountable non-sovereign body can use this military-style equipment with barely a whimper in the media.

As she rightly points out, the human rights record of WWF is not a good one with no judge or jury for people caught in a nature reserve, just execution.

Where do all the elitist donors to Environmental Non-Government Organisations think their money goes-to save the Pandas? They are already increasing.

These days mostly it goes to causes which ensure that the poorest people in the world remain poor and are often violently displaced from their homes.

 

The World Wildlife Fund is deploying anti-poaching surveillance drones in countries with spotty human rights records and non-existent oversight mechanisms

http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/06/25/the-wwfs-surveillance-dro...

 

Surely these days there are anti-terrorist laws which would forbid the use of such equipment by private organisations.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rob Moore on June 27, 2012 at 5:45pm

From Beef Central site

 

Average Qld rural debt surpasses $1m

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

27 Jun 2012

The average debt of a primary producer in Queensland has grown by 17 percent to $1.073 million in the past three years.

The figures are contained in the latest biennal survey of rural debt in Queensland conducted by Bentley’s Chartered Accountants in Brisbane on behalf of the Queensland Rural Adjustment Authority.

Agribusiness borrowings in Queensland have grown by 19pc or $2.6 billion since 2009.

QRAA Chairman, Wayne Carlson, said the increase in borrowings brings Queensland’s total rural debt to $16.9 billion, while the average debt per borrower has grown to $1.073 million – a 17 per cent increase since 2009.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jeff Hutcho on June 27, 2012 at 5:50pm

Hi Joanne,

Besides our feelings about WWF and their operations, I think that the UAV's as shown on that post would be incapable of anything other than surveillance. Not that this gives these NGO's any right to go spying on anything.

The UAV's as used by the military as surveillance and remote controlled armament - rockets, grenades and gun bearing are a lot more sophisticated and expensive than what is being shown.

Armament bearing UAV's such as the current Predator and Reaper unmanned aircraft are big and very expensive, and require a field station with operator(s) to control them.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joanne Rea on June 28, 2012 at 8:27am

"Can we look forward to a future in which wealthy organizations such as the WWF are in command of private armies? Armies made up of ruthlessly efficient, totally ammoral machines." asks Donna La Framboise in her blog linked above.

Jeff and Greg I know what you are saying about these machines being harmless but there are many recorded instances where WWF have used helicopter gunships to hunt people down. They are called poachers but often they are just poor and hungry people who have been removed from their traditional lands.

These drones may just take video but they are not taking it to put in the bin.

There is also the concept of  “engrenage” or gearing which is used in connnection with green groups to describe their ability to have legislation introduced in a seemingly haphazard manner but which becomes significant over time. Might this also apply to the equipment they use?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jeff Hutcho on June 28, 2012 at 11:48am

Hi Joanne,

As I said above :-

"Not that this gives these NGO's any right to go spying on anything."

UAV's that were shown, would have the facility for direct video feedback, so they could be used to track "poachers", or farmers clearing land and burning off, in real time. (You can even buy a "toy" helicopter, which has a camera, allowing you to spy on your neighbours, available from Dick Smith and Jaycar electronic stores, and from internet sales)

It's just that Donna la Framboise's article read like the UAV's were remote "gunships", as used recently to kill the al-Qaeda head. These remote controlled aircraft have also been used in Yemen, to track down and kill fleeing al-Qaeda fighters.

Whoever allowed helicopter gunships to hunt down and kill poachers, should also become answerable for these actions.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jeff Hutcho on June 28, 2012 at 12:13pm

While not in the toy category, this 4 prop UAV (UAS) from IdeaForge, an Indian company.

You can see from this, that privacy has flown out the window.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rory Donnellan on July 17, 2012 at 6:03pm

Who will ensure food security for the world's population - the WWF or the farmer???

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48H7zOQrX3U

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 25
• 26
• 27
• 28
• 29
• …
• 39
• Next ›
• Page