Immigration has been the back bone of the economy for the last 230 years, why change now?

An economy of zero population growth will sustain their standard of living with zero GDP growth%.

Sydney and Melbourne both have water shortages, are both reliant on expensive and carbon intensive desalinated water.

I'd like to see you blame that one on Hawke and Keating.

Immigration has been the back bone of the economy for the last 230 years, why change now?

An economy of zero population growth will sustain their standard of living with zero GDP growth%.

Sydney and Melbourne both have water shortages, are both reliant on expensive and carbon intensive desalinated water.

Most of the country's desal plants are in operation now and most likely few will be turned off anytime soon. Its already been recognized Sydney's on trigger is likely too low. The plant is also been doubled in size.

Desal is energy intensive, but so is pumping water more than 100-150km, however you can off-set or reduce the CO2 emissions as they have in WA.

"Carbon off-set" is a load of rubbish as Aaron and myself discussed earlier on the "Climate Change" thread.

Blue-gum and box-gum forests on Kangaroo Island were planted as carbon sinks by Japanese and European companies 10-15 years ago taking money from people for 'carbon off-set' - now they've all burnt and released their carbon back into the atmosphere because they couldn't be defended against fire. What was the point?

Immigration has been the back bone of the economy for the last 230 years, why change now?

An economy of zero population growth will sustain their standard of living with zero GDP growth%.

Sydney and Melbourne both have water shortages, are both reliant on expensive and carbon intensive desalinated water.

I'd like to see you blame that one on Hawke and Keating.

That one falls squarely in court of Howard who quietly tripled the long-term migration intake in 2002 without telling anyone what he was doing - including the state governments who were forced to provide infrastructure at great expense for these new arrivals. More than a new MCG every single year for Melbourne - just ponder that one if you will.

I have witnessed first hand how increasing immigration has changed the whole cultural fabric of existing communities, which only creates inter-racial and cultural tension.  I'm not against immigration per se, but it should be at a more moderate level to allow harmonious integration with existing communities, rather than being a slave to growth.  The other issue is our inability to keep up with the level of expenditure on infrastructure to service this population growth.

I was wondering how long it would before someone raised the race angle on this topic. There is always some bogeyman to scare the gullible. First it was reds under the bed and now its boat people. Its all designed to raise xenophobia levels and keep the red necks in power.

In Sydney I am not aware of any major problems with immigrants integrating into the community except the few that the Daily Telecrap manages to dredge up to keep xenophobia bubbling along.

Correct.

Those that complain the loudest about a lack of 'harmonious integration' are normally the ones least likely to do anything about it. They are least likely to employ a foreigner or befriend one at work to help them integrate. They are also least likely to befriend one outside of work. They are also least likely to acknowledge that they have done nothing to integrate harmoniously themselves, i.e. learn the didgeridoo or become fluent in the local native dialect. Hypocrites.

The failure of infrastructure to keep up has nothing to do with importing people as the issue would still remain if rapid population increases was solely due to organic growth. It was also an issue when population growth was much lower than today.

I don't recall the same sort of scale of problems in Sydney and Melbourne before Howard's turbo-charged mass-migration program kicked in - in fact state governments (the primary givers of services) seemed to be coping okay up until that point.

Since 2003 they've been trying to play catch-up but can never get ahead. And the problem is that the poorest Australians are the ones who suffer the most from this uncontrolled permanent migration program. Public housing is non-existent and impossible to obtain, public hospitals are stretched to their limits - for example there's been no new public hospitals in Sydney planned for years and yet the population has increased by a million in the last ten years. Even the so-called Aerotropolis planned for Badgery's Creek - planned to house more than a million residents when complete - has no plans whatsoever for a new public hospital to service those new residents. None. Perhaps Gladys Berejiklian is hoping that none of those million new residents will need to visit a hospital during their lives?

And do the people living in Point Piper even notice? No they don't, they don't use public hospitals or public schools, their roads are not congested with lots of extra traffic, they rarely even venture into (ugh!) western Sydney and would have no idea what's going on out there. And yet they've been making a motza off it - Harry Triguboff, Gerry Harvey et al have been making a fortune from the increased demand for sky-kennels and consumer goods - stuff the fact that its making life harder for the plebs in the rest of Sydney. Who cares about them anyway?

I have witnessed first hand how increasing immigration has changed the whole cultural fabric of existing communities, which only creates inter-racial and cultural tension.  I'm not against immigration per se, but it should be at a more moderate level to allow harmonious integration with existing communities, rather than being a slave to growth.  The other issue is our inability to keep up with the level of expenditure on infrastructure to service this population growth.

NSW and VIC governments are both BROKE, both governments have run out of things to privatise and are going deeply into debt to keep up with growth. This is in no way sustainable.

NSW is not broke or suffering from significant debt.

WRONG again. Berejiklian's debt is projected to expand to $40,000,000,000 in the next year. Not as bad as the projected debt for Victoria @ $90,000,000,000 by 2024 but nevertheless deteriorating at a very rapid pace.

I have witnessed first hand how increasing immigration has changed the whole cultural fabric of existing communities, which only creates inter-racial and cultural tension.  I'm not against immigration per se, but it should be at a more moderate level to allow harmonious integration with existing communities, rather than being a slave to growth.  The other issue is our inability to keep up with the level of expenditure on infrastructure to service this population growth.

I was wondering how long it would before someone raised the race angle on this topic. There is always some bogeyman to scare the gullible. First it was reds under the bed and now its boat people. Its all designed to raise xenophobia levels and keep the red necks in power.

In Sydney I am not aware of any major problems with immigrants integrating into the community except the few that the Daily Telecrap manages to dredge up to keep xenophobia bubbling along.

Correct.

Those that complain the loudest about a lack of 'harmonious integration' are normally the ones least likely to do anything about it. They are least likely to employ a foreigner or befriend one at work to help them integrate. They are also least likely to befriend one outside of work. They are also least likely to acknowledge that they have done nothing to integrate harmoniously themselves, i.e. learn the didgeridoo or become fluent in the local native dialect. Hypocrites.

The failure of infrastructure to keep up has nothing to do with importing people as the issue would still remain if rapid population increases was solely due to organic growth. It was also an issue when population growth was much lower than today.

That's total BS!  I live in a middle class area where reverse discrimination is in fact the case.  You don't know what you're talking about.

Our shopping centre has been completely taken over by a new wave of immigrants over the past couple of decades, where foreign language signage predominates and English is at best an optional choice, in spite of Council regulations to the contrary.  I feel like a foreigner in my own country and you expect me to just cop it in the name of multi-cultural political correctness?

The reality is that these new immigrant businesses rarely employ anyone other than their own kind, which is contrary to anti-discrimination legislation, but it's a one-way street, when it is applied to existing Australian businesses.  It doesn't apply to them.  The majority of these new businesses aren't interested in catering for the needs of what remains of the Anglo-Euro population, who are forced to go outside the area to shop.

Is it any wonder that long term locals, who are still a significant proportion of the population, feel pissed-off? Rather than the locals being obliged to fit in with the newcomers, it should be the reverse.  We have our own culture and new arrivals should respect that, just as we should in migrating to another country.

I'm far from being a red-neck conservative and more likely the opposite, but even I can see how there is an underlying racial tension within communities where the overwhelming influx of immigration has created division and far from harmonious integration.  This is exemplified throughout Europe with the rise of Far Right political movements because of uncontrolled immigration compromising existing cultures, and you can't blame them, which I don't want to see happen here.  It's a legitimate concern, but unfortunately you're immediately branded as a racist for daring to speak out.  The debate is all one-sided.

Granted, the failure of infrastructure to keep up with population increases due to organic growth would still be an issue, but it is exacerbated by an unrealistically high immigration intake.

I have witnessed first hand how increasing immigration has changed the whole cultural fabric of existing communities, which only creates inter-racial and cultural tension.  I'm not against immigration per se, but it should be at a more moderate level to allow harmonious integration with existing communities, rather than being a slave to growth.  The other issue is our inability to keep up with the level of expenditure on infrastructure to service this population growth.

I was wondering how long it would before someone raised the race angle on this topic. There is always some bogeyman to scare the gullible. First it was reds under the bed and now its boat people. Its all designed to raise xenophobia levels and keep the red necks in power.

In Sydney I am not aware of any major problems with immigrants integrating into the community except the few that the Daily Telecrap manages to dredge up to keep xenophobia bubbling along.

Correct.

Those that complain the loudest about a lack of 'harmonious integration' are normally the ones least likely to do anything about it. They are least likely to employ a foreigner or befriend one at work to help them integrate. They are also least likely to befriend one outside of work. They are also least likely to acknowledge that they have done nothing to integrate harmoniously themselves, i.e. learn the didgeridoo or become fluent in the local native dialect. Hypocrites.

The failure of infrastructure to keep up has nothing to do with importing people as the issue would still remain if rapid population increases was solely due to organic growth. It was also an issue when population growth was much lower than today.

That's total BS!  I live in a middle class area where reverse discrimination is in fact the case.  You don't know what you're talking about.

Our shopping centre has been completely taken over by a new wave of immigrants over the past couple of decades, where foreign language signage predominates and English is at best an optional choice, in spite of Council regulations to the contrary.  I feel like a foreigner in my own country and you expect me to just cop it in the name of multi-cultural political correctness?

The reality is that these new immigrant businesses rarely employ anyone other than their own kind, which is contrary to anti-discrimination legislation, but it's a one-way street, when it is applied to existing Australian businesses.  It doesn't apply to them.  The majority of these new businesses aren't interested in catering for the needs of what remains of the Anglo-Euro population, who are forced to go outside the area to shop.

Is it any wonder that long term locals, who are still a significant proportion of the population, feel pissed-off? Rather than the locals being obliged to fit in with the newcomers, it should be the reverse.  We have our own culture and new arrivals should respect that, just as we should in migrating to another country.

I'm far from being a red-neck conservative and more likely the opposite, but even I can see how there is an underlying racial tension within communities where the overwhelming influx of immigration has created division and far from harmonious integration.  This is exemplified throughout Europe with the rise of Far Right political movements because of uncontrolled immigration compromising existing cultures, and you can't blame them, which I don't want to see happen here.  It's a legitimate concern, but unfortunately you're immediately branded as a racist for daring to speak out.  The debate is all one-sided.

Granted, the failure of infrastructure to keep up with population increases due to organic growth would still be an issue, but it is exacerbated by an unrealistically high immigration intake.

Your shopping centre has been completely taken over? By hard working people prepared to have a go and start a business? To cater for a market that traditional Anglo-Euro didn't want to know about? I call that clever. Just like Aussies owning Aussie themed businesses in downtown Kuta which are patronised by Aussies.

None of your Anglo-Euro mates are 'forced' to shop elsewhere. Stop dog-whistling.

Long term locals, gimme a break. A few generations does not make a 'culture' and you are still a hypocrite for thinking that it is ok for Anglo-Euros to turn up here with their own language and completely take over the whole country (not just a shopping centre, mate) like they did, but not ok to witness a new arrival get off his ar5e and start a business.

Your shopping centre has been completely taken over? By hard working people prepared to have a go and start a business? To cater for a market that traditional Anglo-Euro didn't want to know about? I call that clever. Just like Aussies owning Aussie themed businesses in downtown Kuta which are patronised by Aussies.

None of your Anglo-Euro mates are 'forced' to shop elsewhere. Stop dog-whistling.

Long term locals, gimme a break. A few generations does not make a 'culture' and you are still a hypocrite for thinking that it is ok for Anglo-Euros to turn up here with their own language and completely take over the whole country (not just a shopping centre, mate) like they did, but not ok to witness a new arrival get off his ar5e and start a business.

Read again what I said DB.  You're very selective in taking some of my comments out of context.  I'm not against immigration or the hard working people who come here, but I want to see a more modest intake to allow time for harmonious integration, rather than being swamped with new arrivals, which in some instances changes the whole face of existing communities beyond recognition.  You can hardly blame some for feeling antipathy towards them.  What are we supposed to do?  Turn the other cheek and just cop it!  It may surprise you to know that I am actually resigned to the changes that are occurring, but it doesn't mean that I have to like it.  One thing is certain though, I won't be forced to move out because of the changing demographics, in spite of my misgivings.

As for your last paragraph, it's totally irrelevant to what's happening in the 21st Century.  It's time you moved on.

Your shopping centre has been completely taken over? By hard working people prepared to have a go and start a business? To cater for a market that traditional Anglo-Euro didn't want to know about? I call that clever. Just like Aussies owning Aussie themed businesses in downtown Kuta which are patronised by Aussies.

None of your Anglo-Euro mates are 'forced' to shop elsewhere. Stop dog-whistling.

Long term locals, gimme a break. A few generations does not make a 'culture' and you are still a hypocrite for thinking that it is ok for Anglo-Euros to turn up here with their own language and completely take over the whole country (not just a shopping centre, mate) like they did, but not ok to witness a new arrival get off his ar5e and start a business.

Read again what I said DB.  You're very selective in taking some of my comments out of context.  I'm not against immigration or the hard working people who come here, but I want to see a more modest intake to allow time for harmonious integration, rather than being swamped with new arrivals, which in some instances changes the whole face of existing communities beyond recognition.  You can hardly blame some for feeling antipathy towards them.  What are we supposed to do?  Turn the other cheek and just cop it!  It may surprise you to know that I am actually resigned to the changes that are occurring, but it doesn't mean that I have to like it.  One thing is certain though, I won't be forced to move out because of the changing demographics, in spite of my misgivings.

As for your last paragraph, it's totally irrelevant to what's happening in the 21st Century.  It's time you moved on.

It's up to YOU to allow the harmonious integration that you crave! Like it or not we're all Life Members of the same club, the one that allows passage on the journey aboard the good ship Planet Earth, so if you want things to change, then bloody well change!

Arguing back that you were here first just reinforces your hypocrisy.

Your shopping centre has been completely taken over? By hard working people prepared to have a go and start a business? To cater for a market that traditional Anglo-Euro didn't want to know about? I call that clever. Just like Aussies owning Aussie themed businesses in downtown Kuta which are patronised by Aussies.

None of your Anglo-Euro mates are 'forced' to shop elsewhere. Stop dog-whistling.

Long term locals, gimme a break. A few generations does not make a 'culture' and you are still a hypocrite for thinking that it is ok for Anglo-Euros to turn up here with their own language and completely take over the whole country (not just a shopping centre, mate) like they did, but not ok to witness a new arrival get off his ar5e and start a business.

Read again what I said DB.  You're very selective in taking some of my comments out of context.  I'm not against immigration or the hard working people who come here, but I want to see a more modest intake to allow time for harmonious integration, rather than being swamped with new arrivals, which in some instances changes the whole face of existing communities beyond recognition.  You can hardly blame some for feeling antipathy towards them.  What are we supposed to do?  Turn the other cheek and just cop it!  It may surprise you to know that I am actually resigned to the changes that are occurring, but it doesn't mean that I have to like it.  One thing is certain though, I won't be forced to move out because of the changing demographics, in spite of my misgivings.

As for your last paragraph, it's totally irrelevant to what's happening in the 21st Century.  It's time you moved on.

It's up to YOU to allow the harmonious integration that you crave! Like it or not we're all Life Members of the same club, the one that allows passage on the journey aboard the good ship Planet Earth, so if you want things to change, then bloody well change!

Arguing back that you were here first just reinforces your hypocrisy.

Don't lecture me about acceptance of change.  It's a two-way street brother.

Your shopping centre has been completely taken over? By hard working people prepared to have a go and start a business? To cater for a market that traditional Anglo-Euro didn't want to know about? I call that clever. Just like Aussies owning Aussie themed businesses in downtown Kuta which are patronised by Aussies.

None of your Anglo-Euro mates are 'forced' to shop elsewhere. Stop dog-whistling.

Long term locals, gimme a break. A few generations does not make a 'culture' and you are still a hypocrite for thinking that it is ok for Anglo-Euros to turn up here with their own language and completely take over the whole country (not just a shopping centre, mate) like they did, but not ok to witness a new arrival get off his ar5e and start a business.

Read again what I said DB.  You're very selective in taking some of my comments out of context.  I'm not against immigration or the hard working people who come here, but I want to see a more modest intake to allow time for harmonious integration, rather than being swamped with new arrivals, which in some instances changes the whole face of existing communities beyond recognition.  You can hardly blame some for feeling antipathy towards them.  What are we supposed to do?  Turn the other cheek and just cop it!  It may surprise you to know that I am actually resigned to the changes that are occurring, but it doesn't mean that I have to like it.  One thing is certain though, I won't be forced to move out because of the changing demographics, in spite of my misgivings.

As for your last paragraph, it's totally irrelevant to what's happening in the 21st Century.  It's time you moved on.

It's up to YOU to allow the harmonious integration that you crave! Like it or not we're all Life Members of the same club, the one that allows passage on the journey aboard the good ship Planet Earth, so if you want things to change, then bloody well change!

Arguing back that you were here first just reinforces your hypocrisy.

Don't lecture me about acceptance of change.  It's a two-way street brother.

Then feel free to spit on your forebears graves.

NSW and VIC governments are both BROKE, both governments have run out of things to privatise and are going deeply into debt to keep up with growth. This is in no way sustainable.

NSW is not broke or suffering from significant debt.

WRONG again. Berejiklian's debt is projected to expand to $40,000,000,000 in the next year. Not as bad as the projected debt for Victoria @ $90,000,000,000 by 2024 but nevertheless deteriorating at a very rapid pace.

Bum bum, not next year, 3 years away and that's if they do nothing in between. The state is running a surplus, its committed capital spending pushing it into the Red.

NSW retains its Triple A credit rating and net debt is currently at zero, with $8.8  in the bank. But net debt levels are forecast to rise to $12.3 billion in 2019-20, and up to $38.6 billion in 2022-23.billionJun 18, 2019

So back to your beginning statement, no, that is incorrect for NSW!

Immigration has been the back bone of the economy for the last 230 years, why change now?

An economy of zero population growth will sustain their standard of living with zero GDP growth%.

Sydney and Melbourne both have water shortages, are both reliant on expensive and carbon intensive desalinated water.

Most of the country's desal plants are in operation now and most likely few will be turned off anytime soon. Its already been recognized Sydney's on trigger is likely too low. The plant is also been doubled in size.

Desal is energy intensive, but so is pumping water more than 100-150km, however you can off-set or reduce the CO2 emissions as they have in WA.

"Carbon off-set" is a load of rubbish as Aaron and myself discussed earlier on the "Climate Change" thread.

Blue-gum and box-gum forests on Kangaroo Island were planted as carbon sinks by Japanese and European companies 10-15 years ago taking money from people for 'carbon off-set' - now they've all burnt and released their carbon back into the atmosphere because they couldn't be defended against fire. What was the point?

...and the perfectly good example of it working in practice in WA is conveniently ignored?

Build the Desal, they will need it anyway, the way the rest of the world is going and then build a wind farm or solar to generate the power to off-set the power the desal uses.

OR, do what the GCC states do, build a thermal power station (for obvious reasons) and use the waste it to boil sea water to make drinking water.

Its not rocket science!


The trees in Kangaroo island are unlikely burnt to the ground and just lost their leaves and other bark and hence will regenerate. If however the true has been completely killed, plant another one.

Again, its not rocket science!

Don't lecture me about acceptance of change.  It's a two-way street brother.

Then feel free to spit on your forebears graves.

If you want to continually bring up past discrimination suffered by our indigenous population, which I acknowledge, then that's your prerogative, but don't try to tar everyone in this era with the same brush.  This is 2020, not 1788.  It's also totally irrelevant in the context of the current conversation in the 21st Century, which is about the economy and the impact of immigration.

"Carbon off-set" is a load of rubbish as Aaron and myself discussed earlier on the "Climate Change" thread.

Blue-gum and box-gum forests on Kangaroo Island were planted as carbon sinks by Japanese and European companies 10-15 years ago taking money from people for 'carbon off-set' - now they've all burnt and released their carbon back into the atmosphere because they couldn't be defended against fire. What was the point?

...and the perfectly good example of it working in practice in WA is conveniently ignored?

Build the Desal, they will need it anyway, the way the rest of the world is going and then build a wind farm or solar to generate the power to off-set the power the desal uses.

OR, do what the GCC states do, build a thermal power station (for obvious reasons) and use the waste it to boil sea water to make drinking water.

Its not rocket science!


The trees in Kangaroo island are unlikely burnt to the ground and just lost their leaves and other bark and hence will regenerate. If however the true has been completely killed, plant another one.

Again, its not rocket science!

I'm really not sure what point it is you are driving at here - if a carbon-sink forest burns it releases it carbon back into the atmosphere so it's not a carbon-sink any more is it. What are you paying for when you buy a 'carbon off-set' - is it the temporary storage of the carbon from your trans-global flight or is it supposed to be permanent? It isn't really clear what the aim is.

Anyway - interesting point about the national park burning on Kangaroo Island is that manna-gum in the park was being eaten to death by koalas which is why the SA government spent tens of millions on sterilising 13,000 koalas several years ago - shooting them was too unpopular with the public. For anyone who doesn't know koalas are actually an introduced pest on Kangaroo Island, they don't have any predators and their population requires ongoing management. Speaking the other night to a friend of mine who lives on the island said that approximately half the island's koala population has died as a result of the fires and that locals are quietly relieved because it means population controls shouldn't have to be considered again for a long time. Don't tell anyone from the mainland or overseas that though as they'll scream at you for not caring about the koalas!

Anyway these 'carbon sinks' will have to be replanted - they've burnt to the ground and will not spontaneously regenerate as you suggest.

IN terms of our own situation, it's very hard to predict what will happen next but there's no doubt that interest rates will have to be cut - this morning the AU$ now inching towards US$.77 - starting to head back to mining boom territory merely because our official interest rates are relatively high at 2.00% compared to 0.5% in the US and UK.

Globally, we have this perverse situation where central bankers like Draghi are seriously talking about permanent 'helicopter money' to try and keep the European economy going - a bit like Kevin Rudd's $900 free cash except on a regular basis. Keynes once proposed the same sort of thing during the Depression: His idea was that the British government would bury bottles of cash on beaches and in coal-mines for people to find so that their subsequent spending would stimulate the moribund economy.

Do they seriously have no other ideas for keeping the global economy going apart from throwing money away? Surely it's got to ring alarm bells for the future of the fiat currency system when they start actually giving the stuff away because super low/negative interest rates didn't work.

70c

"Carbon off-set" is a load of rubbish as Aaron and myself discussed earlier on the "Climate Change" thread.

Blue-gum and box-gum forests on Kangaroo Island were planted as carbon sinks by Japanese and European companies 10-15 years ago taking money from people for 'carbon off-set' - now they've all burnt and released their carbon back into the atmosphere because they couldn't be defended against fire. What was the point?

...and the perfectly good example of it working in practice in WA is conveniently ignored?

Build the Desal, they will need it anyway, the way the rest of the world is going and then build a wind farm or solar to generate the power to off-set the power the desal uses.

OR, do what the GCC states do, build a thermal power station (for obvious reasons) and use the waste it to boil sea water to make drinking water.

Its not rocket science!


The trees in Kangaroo island are unlikely burnt to the ground and just lost their leaves and other bark and hence will regenerate. If however the true has been completely killed, plant another one.

Again, its not rocket science!

I'm really not sure what point it is you are driving at here - if a carbon-sink forest burns it releases it carbon back into the atmosphere so it's not a carbon-sink any more is it. What are you paying for when you buy a 'carbon off-set' - is it the temporary storage of the carbon from your trans-global flight or is it supposed to be permanent? It isn't really clear what the aim is.

Anyway - interesting point about the national park burning on Kangaroo Island is that manna-gum in the park was being eaten to death by koalas which is why the SA government spent tens of millions on sterilising 13,000 koalas several years ago - shooting them was too unpopular with the public. For anyone who doesn't know koalas are actually an introduced pest on Kangaroo Island, they don't have any predators and their population requires ongoing management. Speaking the other night to a friend of mine who lives on the island said that approximately half the island's koala population has died as a result of the fires and that locals are quietly relieved because it means population controls shouldn't have to be considered again for a long time. Don't tell anyone from the mainland or overseas that though as they'll scream at you for not caring about the koalas!

Anyway these 'carbon sinks' will have to be replanted - they've burnt to the ground and will not spontaneously regenerate as you suggest.

Then just grow the damn thing back. Its not like its the world only one. Its not rocket science.

A mature forest reaches a break even where it doesn't absorb CO2 any further, thats the target position. Its hardly temporary if you sustain it or allow it to grow back should it be burnt out.

Burnt to the ground? Mmmm, the photos being circulated in the media don't support your claim. The regrowth has already started in other burnt out areas.

If you want to continually bring up past discrimination suffered by our indigenous population, which I acknowledge, then that's your prerogative, but don't try to tar everyone in this era with the same brush.  This is 2020, not 1788.  It's also totally irrelevant in the context of the current conversation in the 21st Century, which is about the economy and the impact of immigration.

OK, Boomer.

Comeback of the year!

Then just grow the damn thing back. Its not like its the world only one. Its not rocket science.

A mature forest reaches a break even where it doesn't absorb CO2 any further, thats the target position. Its hardly temporary if you sustain it or allow it to grow back should it be burnt out.

Burnt to the ground? Mmmm, the photos being circulated in the media don't support your claim. The regrowth has already started in other burnt out areas.

Wrong on all points.

Mature forests absorb just as much carbon dioxide as young forests - in fact trees that are many hundreds of years old continue to absorb carbon dioxide for as long as they're alive at the same rate as when they were young saplings - discussed further here. They don't suddenly reach a 'break-even' point where they don't absorb carbon any longer, respiration of carbon is how trees as living organisms 'breathe'. They don't suddenly 'break even' and stop absorbing it - where did you get that idea from?

Organised forestry is not the same thing as natural bush - if you want to re-grow a box-gum or blue-gum plantation it will have to replanted in an organised fashion. The bush is indeed regenerating itself - many plants like wattyls and banskias require fire to germinate but we're talking about plantations here which by necessity are a monoculture and need to be set up in a way that they can be harvested later on with no competing plants interfering with their development. You can't compare the two.

We've had this discussion before; just because you've seen footage of something or some pictures doesn't automatically mean you know what's going on. It's like me saying "I saw a video of Dubai once, now I know everything about that place.".

IN terms of our own situation, it's very hard to predict what will happen next but there's no doubt that interest rates will have to be cut - this morning the AU$ now inching towards US$.77 - starting to head back to mining boom territory merely because our official interest rates are relatively high at 2.00% compared to 0.5% in the US and UK.

Globally, we have this perverse situation where central bankers like Draghi are seriously talking about permanent 'helicopter money' to try and keep the European economy going - a bit like Kevin Rudd's $900 free cash except on a regular basis. Keynes once proposed the same sort of thing during the Depression: His idea was that the British government would bury bottles of cash on beaches and in coal-mines for people to find so that their subsequent spending would stimulate the moribund economy.

Do they seriously have no other ideas for keeping the global economy going apart from throwing money away? Surely it's got to ring alarm bells for the future of the fiat currency system when they start actually giving the stuff away because super low/negative interest rates didn't work.

70c

There's a rumour that the RBA will cut by half a percent on Tuesday 4/2 taking us down to an extraordinary 0.25% official interest rate. Several reasons: The bush-fires (of course), the carnage going on in retail presently, GST revenues plummeting and the unemployment rate continuing to edge up.

The only problem seems to be that the fire has well and truly been ignited under the Melbourne and Sydney residential property markets with an extraordinary boom going on right now in both of those cities - not surprisingly that boom began when the RBA started cutting aggressively last year. So they've done exactly what they said they wouldn't do in terms of fuelling the east coast property bubble again...

Then just grow the damn thing back. Its not like its the world only one. Its not rocket science.

A mature forest reaches a break even where it doesn't absorb CO2 any further, thats the target position. Its hardly temporary if you sustain it or allow it to grow back should it be burnt out.

Burnt to the ground? Mmmm, the photos being circulated in the media don't support your claim. The regrowth has already started in other burnt out areas.

Wrong on all points.

Mature forests absorb just as much carbon dioxide as young forests - in fact trees that are many hundreds of years old continue to absorb carbon dioxide for as long as they're alive at the same rate as when they were young saplings - discussed further here. They don't suddenly reach a 'break-even' point where they don't absorb carbon any longer, respiration of carbon is how trees as living organisms 'breathe'. They don't suddenly 'break even' and stop absorbing it - where did you get that idea from?

Organised forestry is not the same thing as natural bush - if you want to re-grow a box-gum or blue-gum plantation it will have to replanted in an organised fashion. The bush is indeed regenerating itself - many plants like wattyls and banskias require fire to germinate but we're talking about plantations here which by necessity are a monoculture and need to be set up in a way that they can be harvested later on with no competing plants interfering with their development. You can't compare the two.

We've had this discussion before; just because you've seen footage of something or some pictures doesn't automatically mean you know what's going on. It's like me saying "I saw a video of Dubai once, now I know everything about that place.".

Any plant/tree that has green foliage will process CO2. Regardless of age.
Dormant species oak/maple/elm will not during their dormant period. No green.
Evergreens, eucalyptus/pines/figs will slow during their dormant time.
Forests closer to the equator, have a much reduced dormant time span, usually bigger leaves, greater activity, and a greater carbon sink. Likely one reason the Amazon is targeted, and NIMBY.

But, yes, if it’s burnt. All that hard work is undone.

Then just grow the damn thing back. Its not like its the world only one. Its not rocket science.

A mature forest reaches a break even where it doesn't absorb CO2 any further, thats the target position. Its hardly temporary if you sustain it or allow it to grow back should it be burnt out.

Burnt to the ground? Mmmm, the photos being circulated in the media don't support your claim. The regrowth has already started in other burnt out areas.

Wrong on all points.

Mature forests absorb just as much carbon dioxide as young forests - in fact trees that are many hundreds of years old continue to absorb carbon dioxide for as long as they're alive at the same rate as when they were young saplings - discussed further here. They don't suddenly reach a 'break-even' point where they don't absorb carbon any longer, respiration of carbon is how trees as living organisms 'breathe'. They don't suddenly 'break even' and stop absorbing it - where did you get that idea from?

Organised forestry is not the same thing as natural bush - if you want to re-grow a box-gum or blue-gum plantation it will have to replanted in an organised fashion. The bush is indeed regenerating itself - many plants like wattyls and banskias require fire to germinate but we're talking about plantations here which by necessity are a monoculture and need to be set up in a way that they can be harvested later on with no competing plants interfering with their development. You can't compare the two.

We've had this discussion before; just because you've seen footage of something or some pictures doesn't automatically mean you know what's going on. It's like me saying "I saw a video of Dubai once, now I know everything about that place.".

Any plant/tree that has green foliage will process CO2. Regardless of age.
Dormant species oak/maple/elm will not during their dormant period. No green.
Evergreens, eucalyptus/pines/figs will slow during their dormant time.
Forests closer to the equator, have a much reduced dormant time span, usually bigger leaves, greater activity, and a greater carbon sink. Likely one reason the Amazon is targeted, and NIMBY.

But, yes, if it’s burnt. All that hard work is undone.

Biology 101,
Plants absorb CO2 to build growth.Correct?

So as the forest grows from a cleared field its absorbing CO2 and storing, ie carbon capture or also carbon offset.

As the forest grows it drops leaves and branches, this falls to the ground and decomposes over time, or a fire comes. Regardless the net result is the same, the Carbon used in the trees biochemistry is released. If the forest is still growing the loss is off-set with more growth.

However at some point all forests reach a break even point, ie the new growth Co2 uptake is matched by the decaying material on the forest floor. At this point the forest is deemed mature and basically absorbs no extra net CO2 overall. Hence as stated by many, an old growth forest cannot provide any net carbon capture to reduce global warming.

The exception to this is over time lines way beyond human existence, ie the biomass builds up on the floor and some of its contained in the peat and the forest grows on this. ie  how oil/coal was made. As this process is counted in millions of years it is not relevant to today's issue as as a means of carbon capture. ie we cannot grow new oil fields or coal seem in a few human generations.

However what you can do is grow trees then cut into timber and grow replacement trees. As this sort of happens anyway, I don't personally believe this is a genuine means of carbon capture and much of the tree is waste that is mulched and timber eventually finds its way into a fire somewhere.

Biomass power stations are considered carbon neutral, because you grow, you burn and you grow again.

If you want to continually bring up past discrimination suffered by our indigenous population, which I acknowledge, then that's your prerogative, but don't try to tar everyone in this era with the same brush.  This is 2020, not 1788.  It's also totally irrelevant in the context of the current conversation in the 21st Century, which is about the economy and the impact of immigration.

OK, Boomer.

Wrong!  You shouldn't assume anything until you know the facts.  This discussion is going nowhere, so let's call it off.

"Carbon off-set" is a load of rubbish as Aaron and myself discussed earlier on the "Climate Change" thread.

Blue-gum and box-gum forests on Kangaroo Island were planted as carbon sinks by Japanese and European companies 10-15 years ago taking money from people for 'carbon off-set' - now they've all burnt and released their carbon back into the atmosphere because they couldn't be defended against fire. What was the point?

...and the perfectly good example of it working in practice in WA is conveniently ignored?

Build the Desal, they will need it anyway, the way the rest of the world is going and then build a wind farm or solar to generate the power to off-set the power the desal uses.

OR, do what the GCC states do, build a thermal power station (for obvious reasons) and use the waste it to boil sea water to make drinking water.

Its not rocket science!


The trees in Kangaroo island are unlikely burnt to the ground and just lost their leaves and other bark and hence will regenerate. If however the true has been completely killed, plant another one.

Again, its not rocket science!

I'm really not sure what point it is you are driving at here - if a carbon-sink forest burns it releases it carbon back into the atmosphere so it's not a carbon-sink any more is it. What are you paying for when you buy a 'carbon off-set' - is it the temporary storage of the carbon from your trans-global flight or is it supposed to be permanent? It isn't really clear what the aim is.

Anyway - interesting point about the national park burning on Kangaroo Island is that manna-gum in the park was being eaten to death by koalas which is why the SA government spent tens of millions on sterilising 13,000 koalas several years ago - shooting them was too unpopular with the public. For anyone who doesn't know koalas are actually an introduced pest on Kangaroo Island, they don't have any predators and their population requires ongoing management. Speaking the other night to a friend of mine who lives on the island said that approximately half the island's koala population has died as a result of the fires and that locals are quietly relieved because it means population controls shouldn't have to be considered again for a long time. Don't tell anyone from the mainland or overseas that though as they'll scream at you for not caring about the koalas!

Anyway these 'carbon sinks' will have to be replanted - they've burnt to the ground and will not spontaneously regenerate as you suggest.

Then just grow the damn thing back. Its not like its the world only one. Its not rocket science.

A mature forest reaches a break even where it doesn't absorb CO2 any further, thats the target position. Its hardly temporary if you sustain it or allow it to grow back should it be burnt out.

Burnt to the ground? Mmmm, the photos being circulated in the media don't support your claim. The regrowth has already started in other burnt out areas.

That's the main benefit of gum forests is that they grow back after a fire and indeed need fires to germinate the gum nuts. I have seen photos of gum trees completely burnt but they are probably very young trees or old trees with rotten cores. In the latter case you can see the fire burning the core of the tree. Gum forests do not burn to the ground. Pine trees etc just burn and die and that's why they are not a great idea in fire prone areas of Australia.