Queensland Premier Campbell Newman says he will protect the environment but not at the expense of the state’s economic future.
His comments follow a UNESCO report, released today, which warned the reef could be listed as a World Heritage site in danger unless Australia makes substantial changes to its supervision of the area.
It says the adverse listing could go ahead if the federal Government does not convince the international body it has improved its performance before February next year.
The report urges Australia not to permit the creation of ports separate to those which already exist near the reef and asks for a strategic assessment of the entire area, implying that new developments should be held up until that report is complete.
Queensland Premier Campbell Newman said his Government was aware of the issues raised in the report but could not accommodate some of its chief recommendations.
“We will protect the environment but we are not going to see the economic future of Queensland shut down,” Mr Newman said.
” … We are in the coal business. If you want decent hospitals, schools and police on the beat we all need to understand that.”
A good, sane and rational reply to UNESCO, thank you Premier Newman.
Well done Campbell, nothing like stepping forward into the past.
Yup, “Can do” is marching us to a past when humans counted for more than bugs and we didn’t take human rights edicts from dictators and despots. Isn’t he awful? Next thing you know he’ll be lifting Queensland’s restrictions on uranium mining and broadening the state’s development base. Gosh-darn you, Campbell Newman!
What, with his support for the release of plant food to the atmosphere he could be a giant mutant radish! They’re taking over I tell you! Taking o v e r !
The CO2 is plant food canard. Good job.
See, now you are proving you speak nonsense
The basic ‘recipe’ for photosynthesis is H2O, CO2 and sunlight. It’s actually really difficult to make carbohydrates without carbon, (realists would say impossible but apparently not you).
Nonetheless, we allow all manner of dissenting views as your comments testify.
Do please tell us how aerobic life on earth is nourished if not through photosynthetic reformation of CO2 and H2O. Please, oh mike, tell us how plants manufacture polyhydroxy aldehydes and ketones (Cm(H2O)n) and release free oxygen without carbon dioxide.
Alternatively you could simply admit CO2 is an essential photosynthetic plant nutrient, a.k.a. “plant food”.
Edited to correct subscript (H2O) => (H2O)
You and I know full well that I am not denying the role CO2 plays in plant growth but am referring to the simplistic denier canard that more CO2 equals more plant growth. I understand your desire to try and demonstrate some sort of scientific prowess by throwing a few “sciency” words and chemical formulae around. It reminds me of the denier posterboy, Monckton speaking a dead language. He is also full of shit. So, you can spare me the the basic biology lesson. If you really want to get into a discussion about plant physiology just say the word and we can really get into it. Whereabouts in the Calvin Cycle do you want to begin? My favourite place is where it moves from the carboxylation phase to the reduction phase. You know? It’s where the Glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate molecule is split by Triose phosphate isomerase into two Dihydroxyacetone phosphate molecules. Its the multiple pathways that stem from that point that I like. Does it go on, with the help of aldolase, to become Fructose 1,6-biphosphonate or Sedoheptulose 1,7-biphosphonate? Either way it doesn’t really matter as the end goal is to find its way back to becoming Ribulose 5-phosphate. It’s a beautiful thing. If however, plant physiology really isn’t your thing, maybe we can discuss what enhanced CO2 and associated temperature increase does to the rates of soil nitrification, fungal pathogen incidence or maybe even plant eating insect pests…oh, and don’t forget the effect on other limiting factors like phosphorous and other essential nutrients. It’s your call. Where do you want to start? Personally, I’d like to know your opinion, since you seem to know a few sciency words, on what the evolutionary advantage was in plants making 2-phosphoglycolate given the C2 oxidative carbon cycle only recovers 75% of it that is lost through the Calvin cycle?
Arrgh! Skewered by your devastating c&p
And the bottom line is that (in your reality) plants don’t thrive with increased atmospheric CO2 and commercial market gardens increase diurnal levels in their greenhouses because they like to increase costs and reduce profit margins…
Dang, & I thought I was onto something with carbon being an essential component in that carbohydrate stuff
Mike, let me guess, biology major? Your tone sounds about Junior level. Seniors and graduate students in the sciences tend to get whacked in the head with the humility of what they don’t know. You speak a lot, but you fail to understand something simple. Plants grow better at elevated levels of CO2. This has been repeated time and time again, and the detailed mechanism really doesn’t matter (Sorry, environmental engineer here, I care about what works, not how it works).
Also, Mike. I can tell you that your avatar is 100% steam from a properly running plant (it looks like a wet scrubber, it’s hard to tell from the small picture), it is not indicative of pollution in any way. In fact, I think I might take it. This, alongside the “stepping into the past” comment shows just how ignorant you are about the actual workings of industry. By deriding a reasonable point about CO2 increasing plant growth, you have shown that you really don’t care about truth, which is always far more subtle than either extreme.
I cannot understand why everyone seems to make this an all or nothing scheme. Why can we not protect the environment AND make products? Allow development within reasonable limits and with reasonable environmental restricts, and EVERYONE can be happy.
You are worng and right and wrong in your first paragraph. PhD in Ecology. Post doc in plant pathology.
Yes I am humbled by what I don’t know but when it comes to what I do know I will become very vocal when I see bullshit.
No, plants do not always grow better at elevated CO2. Short term controlled glasshouse studies will show that, but out in the real world it is a very different story.
Finally, yes we shouldbe able to allow development within reasonable limits but there is unfortunately a very severe lack of scientific literacy amongst those who make the decisions about what those limits should be,
You got one right mike – CO2-enhancement does not benefit all plants all the time. However, any readers wishing to search on CO2 and primary productivity are going to find a wealth of papers and articles on demonstrated real-world enhancement and yet I suspect you will still obstinately claim that CO2 being ‘plant food’ is a ‘canard’.
and I am still waiting for your responses to my questions…unless you were just pretending to know what you were talking about?
Oh, sorry for underestimating you, Professor. However, in lecturing us, you fail to address the actual point. IN GENERAL plants grow better with higher CO2. Therefore, your very verbal and derisive quibble looks even more beneath your stature. Why? Because that’s what it is, an off-topic quibble with a minor point.
Now, let’s get back on topic, shall we?
From what I have seen, the UN has greatly overestimated the fragility of the barrier reefs. I believe that the government of Queensland is right in their decision to ignore the warning from the UN.
“IN GENERAL”? Yes they do if you ignore all the other factors like nitrification, temperature, pests and disease. How do ecosystems function with higher CO2?
But since you don’t wish to go there…lets look at the rest of your statement.
“From what I have seen….”
What have you seen? Since I’m not an expert on coral reefs I would really like to read your indepth analysis.
National Geographic in April 2008 credits the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere with the unexpected stopping of the encroachment of the Sahara into the Sahel. The extra CO2 makes the plants hardier.
No it doesn’t. It says,
“In places, the Sahel continues to starve, to lose ground to the Sahara. On the banks of the Niger River houses lie buried in coffins of sand. Yet in Niger, a country twice the size of France, researchers have been fascinated to discover that 19,000 square miles of savanna are more vegetated today than 20 or 30 years ago. Similar regeneration of trees, grasses, and bushes appears to be under way in parts of Mali and Burkina Faso. The most precious line in the Sahel has always been green. And lately it has been growing thicker, brighter, more lustrous. Why? Ecologists disagree. Some credit global warming, which may be boosting rainfall in sections of northern Africa. Others say years of warfare and chaos in the Sahel have depopulated the African countryside, allowing millions of acres to lie fallow and recover.”
If you’re going to paraphrase something, please be accurate. Otherwise you run the risk of appearing foolish.
No point in nitpicking kids.
Nonsense, you are being obtuse. If you are sentient and older than about 12 you should be aware of NASA’s greening press releases attributed to rising CO2. Even if not, how much does it take to check repositories of greening links? This one is on the first page of results of whatever search engine is default on a borrowed browser.
“It is better to remain silent and appear foolish than to speak up and remove all doubt.”
“This may be partly because rising levels of carbon dioxide in the air have promoted plant growth.” p.44, National Geographic, April, 2008.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/04/sahel/paul-salopek-text/5
Perhaps the online version is slightly different to the print version. Regardless, Naional Geographic is a magazine. Does the one you’re reading offer any references to peer reviewed literature that demonstrate the author’s assertion? Also, the negative effects of elevated CO2 are not expected to kick in until there is a doubling at least and when the associated problems of nitirification, temperature and the like start to emerge. Also, cherrypicking individual cases where there are apparent (more than likely short term) gains whilst ignoring the negatives will no doubt continue as is usual for the unscientific.
Mike, you forgot one thing.
This is an online forum commentating on new articles. While you deride everything we say, you have failed to provide anything of your own. You cannot demand peer reviewed literature and deride us as short-sighted, when you have failed to provide a single actual statement of fact to support your position. You make insinuations, and I’d actually like to hear your opinions on the matter.
Do not presume that we are so foolish as to believe that forces will act universally in one direction or the other. I realize that they are multivariate and that there will be conflicting effects. Don’t try the “it’s too complicated”. That’s just pretentious chatter. Give me some reason why you conclude that the total effect will be detrimental to plant growth, when basic intuition states that it should be in the other direction.
You are too presumptuous. Far from suggesting that the effects of human induced climate change on plants are “too complicated”, I would be more inclined to say that it isn’t complicated for anyone who wants to try and understand what are complex systems and is prepared to put some effort in.
I am pleased that you are prepared to accept that there are a multitude of potential outcomes. I probably have shown some foolishness in presuming that you all believe “forces will act universally in one direction or the other.” However, in my defence, I have more times than not encountered the overly simplistic “CO2 is plant food therefore more CO2 equals more growth” argument put forward by people who really lack even a basic understanding of plant anatomy let alone physiology. I can either try and educate people or facepalm myself. Given I’m not into masochism….
Anyway, here is the first 10 of a very long list of references. I recall from my reading and saving efforts many months ago, most of them deal with wheat and rice. I have focused mostly on papers that have investigated more then just chlorophyll content or yield weight, but have looked at nutritional qualities as well. The trend seems to be that of generally greater growth but much reduced nutritional content.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2007.01511.x
DOI: 10.1111/j.1438-8677.2009.00230.x
DOI: 10.1046/j.1469-8137.2001.00107.x
DOI: 10.1111/j.1439-037X.2008.00348.x
DOI: 10.1002/jsfa.2165
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02489.x
DOI: 10.1111/j.1439-037X.2011.00478.x
DOI: 10.1007/s10661-012-2544-x
DOI: 10.1080/17429145.2010.513483
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2009.11.009
Thank you Campbell Newman. UNESCO lost all its credibility when it: went broke through its own bureaucratic extravagances, supported a New World Order, admitted “Palestine” as a member, and dissed Israel for its work in preserving antiquities and replacing the Mughrabi Bridge.
Bunch of interfering know-alls.
Conferring the moniker “World Heritage Site ” on any place does not change anything about that place. Please enlighten me and tell me what would happen if the designation no longer applied. Big deal! The sun will still rise and fall even without UNESCO’S imprimatur. Does anybody still believe the twaddle that comes from the UN anyway.