What you say makes no sense. If further species decline occurs then that
would not mean that my assessment is "not correct," but that we're dealing
with a different environment and different assessment is required. My
assessment is based on the current state of the environment, not a future
environment.
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 5:59 PM, Dave Torr <> wrote:
> It would be interesting to know how much further many of our species must
> decline before Jeremy agrees that his " actually not too bad " assessment
> is actually not correct. Many species are in serious decline - whilst he
> may be correct in actual extinctions there are quite a few birds that are
> only hanging on with lots of support - but maybe that is " actually not
> too bad "
>
>
> On 23 August 2012 14:16, Bob Cook <> wrote:
>
>> Jeremy
>>
>> With Climate change and the passing of peak oil, combined with the huge
>> growth in resource demands of "middle class" populations in China and
>> India
>> and "head in the sand" attitudes of so many governments, I think that
>> perhaps you also have a far too optimistic view!
>>
>> Bob Cook
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From:
>> On Behalf Of Jeremy
>> O'Wheel
>> Sent: Thursday, 23 August 2012 2:04 PM
>> To: Peter Shute
>> Cc: ; Richard King
>> Subject: Re: [Birding-Aus] future prospects for the environment
>>
>> Well it's because I value birds ahead of people having fun (and think you
>> can have fun in other ways). But my comment in regards to those steps was
>> somewhat facetious. If I were elected global poobah tomorrow, I think
>> you'd have to consider those "non-core promises" and I may try and come up
>> with policies that aren't entirely in line with my own intangible values,
>> but give some consideration to other people's values.
>>
>> But, of course, it's worth noting the difference between "not too bad" and
>> "good." Obviously our approaches to many environmental issues could be
>> better. I'm not saying we shouldn't care about the environment, and we
>> can't do things better. I'm just saying we're not going to end up with a
>> completely destroyed environment in the near future (or even close to
>> that).
>>
>> Jeremy
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Peter Shute <> wrote:
>>
>> > Jeremy, why would you take those steps if you think the state of the
>> > environment is not too bad?
>> >
>> > Peter Shute
>> >
>> > >-----Original Message-----
>> > >From: [birding-aus-
>> > > On Behalf Of Jeremy O'Wheel
>> > >Sent: Thursday, 23 August 2012 1:25 PM
>> > >To: Richard King
>> > >Cc:
>> > >Subject: Re: [Birding-Aus] future prospects for the environment
>> >
>> > >It's 80 years since an Australian bird went extinct (not counting our
>> > >island territories), and although if it were up to me, I'd massively
>> > >increase national parks, ban the recreational use of beaches and
>> > >wetlands,
>> > >as well as dogs and cats, and presumably never get elected, I think we
>> > >have
>> > >to recognise that the state of both the Australian environment and the
>> > >global environment is actually not too bad, and doom and gloom is not
>> > >based
>> > >on facts.
>> >
>> ===============================
>>
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
>> send the message:
>> unsubscribe
>> (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
>> to:
>>
>> http://birding-aus.org
>> ===============================
>>
>> ===============================
>>
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
>> send the message:
>> unsubscribe
>> (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
>> to:
>>
>> http://birding-aus.org
>> ===============================
>>
>
>
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
http://birding-aus.org
===============================
|
