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
===============================
|
