5 thoughts on “David Archibald exposes Queensland carbon farming”
If you don’t burn the grass or graze sheep, what you will get is shrubs and then trees growing (without fire). Which may be the intent. This is the evolutionary struggle between grasses and trees that has been going on for millions of years.
Not sure David has got this right, because in northern WA grass fires are set in order to prevent more intense fires that kill trees. Thus increasing Carbon capture or so it’s assumed.
His “stupidest thing” is paying farmers to allow grass to grow, supposedly to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, which it won’t since the grass will eventually rot or burn anyway.
Like you I am not sure if it’s the stupidest greenhouse policy – they all seem to be both totally ineffective and counterproductive, to say nothing of the fact that the problem they address is almost certainly non-existent to start with.
But as the Germans say, “gegen Dummheit ist kein Kraut gewachsen” – no grass is grown that cures stupidity.
” I am not sure it is the “stupidest” but will leave that for now.”
Fair comment Warwick.
Just one correction to David’s article, the capsules are not left to shatter on the ground, the glycerine is injected into them before they are ejected from the aircraft. I worked for the Department that pioneered this process.
Thanks for the money-spraying list – I think. Actually it makes me sick to see all those politically correct projects, many of which are going to do more harm than good. I especially liked “protecting Antarctica”, as if it were an endangered species instead of an uninhabitable frozen wasteland.
Really it would be much better to close down the federal department of Environment and Energy. Whatever they do that might be useful, local nature projects etc., would be much better handled by local councils. Then people close to the community would have to decide if it’s really worth the money. Giving Canberra bureaucrats hundreds of millions to spray around to all sorts of odds and sods with their hands out is a recipe for waste.
Leave a Reply
Primarily exposing faulty methodologies behind global temperature trend compilations
If you don’t burn the grass or graze sheep, what you will get is shrubs and then trees growing (without fire). Which may be the intent. This is the evolutionary struggle between grasses and trees that has been going on for millions of years.
Not sure David has got this right, because in northern WA grass fires are set in order to prevent more intense fires that kill trees. Thus increasing Carbon capture or so it’s assumed.
His “stupidest thing” is paying farmers to allow grass to grow, supposedly to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, which it won’t since the grass will eventually rot or burn anyway.
Like you I am not sure if it’s the stupidest greenhouse policy – they all seem to be both totally ineffective and counterproductive, to say nothing of the fact that the problem they address is almost certainly non-existent to start with.
But as the Germans say, “gegen Dummheit ist kein Kraut gewachsen” – no grass is grown that cures stupidity.
” I am not sure it is the “stupidest” but will leave that for now.”
Fair comment Warwick.
Just one correction to David’s article, the capsules are not left to shatter on the ground, the glycerine is injected into them before they are ejected from the aircraft. I worked for the Department that pioneered this process.
To look for the projects mentioned in the Spectator – Try this map – choose Qld – you can select project type – I looked at Vegetation but have no time this week to check individual sites.
www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/maps/Pages/erf-projects/index.html
If you enjoy to marvel at how our Govt sprays your money around.
www.environment.gov.au/about-us/accountability-reporting/grants-listing
Thanks for the money-spraying list – I think. Actually it makes me sick to see all those politically correct projects, many of which are going to do more harm than good. I especially liked “protecting Antarctica”, as if it were an endangered species instead of an uninhabitable frozen wasteland.
Really it would be much better to close down the federal department of Environment and Energy. Whatever they do that might be useful, local nature projects etc., would be much better handled by local councils. Then people close to the community would have to decide if it’s really worth the money. Giving Canberra bureaucrats hundreds of millions to spray around to all sorts of odds and sods with their hands out is a recipe for waste.