Comments on: Tourism will be more severely affected by climate change than any other industry sector

By: Robert Merkel

Robert Merkel — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 01:09:28 +0000

Furious: Lots of ecosystems get disturbed and destroyed every year around Australia. I’ll see your mound springs and raise you rare orchid habitats that were cleared by a local farmer to raise half a dozen sheep (pretty much all it would support).

By: Brian

Brian — Sun, 31 May 2009 14:58:16 +0000

furious, there is much to worry about the Olympic Dam expansion and I’d still like to post on it if I get time.

It’s more than uranium, though, and of course largely if not completely for export.

David @ 20, we can take the longer view, but there are people working in the tourist industry and people who have expectations that tourist facilities will continue to be there for them to enjoy. So there is no crime in spending a bit of effort looking at those issues. It might prevent the facile comments made by the likes of John Howard about protecting coal miners jobs while ignoring the reef nearby.

But yes, agriculture and food production in particular is going to be a problem under business as usual, which will be anything but.

By: furious balancing

furious balancing — Sun, 31 May 2009 08:18:01 +0000

http://www.austmus.gov.au/factsheets/mound_springs.htm

By: furious balancing

furious balancing — Sun, 31 May 2009 08:08:06 +0000

Yeah, I’m having a crack at you. You should go visit the “near identical” mound springs some time Robert. Each one is unique. I also know that the folks at WMC were caught in the act of trying to relocate species from one mound springs to another, so that it may appear that those species weren’t quite so rare and unique and that some springs may therefore be ‘expendable’. That’s the kind of shit the people that care for that country have to deal with, and I think your posts on the subject reflect an insensitivity that is bordering on ignorance regarding the region. At least finally, you’re capable of saying you don’t give a shit, which is basically what I suggested, but you refuted in your “how green is the budget” thread. Again, I have no problem with what you say, I just wish you’d drop the ‘green’ from your rhetoric, I think your concern for biodiversity is selective.

By: Robert Merkel

Robert Merkel — Sun, 31 May 2009 05:53:20 +0000

Furious balancing: Clearly, you’re having a crack at me. I take your point about desert ecosystems being important. But, gimme a break. If the trade-off is the damage of one mine in the middle of thousands of square kilometres of near-identical desert compared to the complete obliteration of Australia’s alpine ecosystem and the Great Barrier Reef, I’ll take the trade off.

By: David Irving (no relation)

David Irving (no relation) — Sun, 31 May 2009 05:05:28 +0000

I guess I’m taking a longer view, Brian.

Although I (hopefully) won’t live to see it, I reckon climate change could easily finish off our civilisation, mostly because agriculture is likely to collapse.

By: furious balancing

furious balancing — Sun, 31 May 2009 01:06:51 +0000

I understand that the article attempts to raise awareness about the cost of inaction on climate change, for that reason an industry by industry analysis makes sense, but it’s obvious when you list the Barossa Valley that job losses in the tourism industry will be as a consequence of an agricultural failure.

I live in a wine region that sees itself [perhaps naively] as having an advantage in this regard, because McLaren Vale, being very close to a large population centre has greater access to recycled effluent, and therefore more water security. In that sense, they seem to be hoping that the Barossa’s loss will result in their gain.

I thnk the tendency to want to look at things in black and white economic terms is really flawed. Economics and ecology both involve the study of interactions, but when when we assess economic data we seem content to oversimplify it. If we are looking at the winners and losers in climate change based on only economics wouldn’t we have to acknowledge that every loss making situation for one group, is a potential gain for another? I think it’s an ugly, rationalist way to view the situation..but if you follow this type of discourse to it’s natural conclusion, that’s where you get. Dont you?

By: Brian

Brian — Sat, 30 May 2009 15:23:50 +0000

David, hospitality employs 512,000 people, which is more than just tourism, of course, but although I wouldn’t use the tern “least” I share your concern for agriculture and horticulture.

By: David Irving (no relation)

David Irving (no relation) — Sat, 30 May 2009 07:58:43 +0000

Although I have some sympathy with the snow field operators, I reckon the state of the tourist industry is the least of our worries. I’m much more concerned about agriculture and horticulture.

By: furious balancing

furious balancing — Sat, 30 May 2009 07:00:59 +0000

We should encourage the global growth of nuclear energy that’ll potentially mitigate some of the affects of climate change on our fragile alpine regions, and fragile reef systems. Oh yes.

We have plenty of Uranium, you know, the stuff in our fragile desert ecosystems, that require that we build desalination plants adjacent to our fragile marine systems. Even low-grade Uranium could be mined, because it will eventually become economically viable to mine the low-grade stuff – and that stuff is everywhere!! woot!.

We can always find ways to intellectualise the loss of these ecosystems because they are remote and less pretty than the others.