Skip to content Skip to main navigation

News

Fly direct from
Canberra to New Zealand

The arboretum to save the planet?

By johnboy - 24 June 2009 40

The Greens’ Shane Rattenbury is up in arms over the ACT’s climate budget being used to fund the Chief Minister’s beloved arboretum:

    ACT Greens MLA for Molonglo, Shane Rattenbury MLA has slammed the Government’s funding of the Arboretum from the climate budget following the tabling of a report* that indicated the emissions that will be saved by the project.

    “The Government has indicated that over a period of 200 years, the Arboretum will sequester around 63,000 tonnes of CO2. Annually this is around 0.00007 percent of the ACT’s emissions each year!” Mr Rattenbury said.

    “Yet the Government is spending something like 16 percent of the climate budget on the Arboretum, even before they had any indication of its effectiveness as a climate mitigation measure.”

Would we expect anything else?

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
40 Responses to
The arboretum to save the planet?
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
astrojax 9:03 pm 25 Jun 09

nah, in 200 years time we’ll be winging out there on solar powered wind-driven bicycle-planes. or teleporting…

Woody Mann-Caruso 7:23 pm 25 Jun 09

What’s the bet the CO2 from people driving to the arboretum offsets any gains from planting the trees?

astrojax 5:50 pm 25 Jun 09

i think i like the cut of your jib, cranky…

cranky 5:39 pm 25 Jun 09

Slightly OT.

Has consideration been given to the many visitors who will undoubtably cark it whilst attempting to scale the mountains that this site provides?

Amazing health will be required to walk the site, as even vehicular access will be problematic.

Perhaps a (waste) wood fired crematorium on site would supply a steady stream of additional visitors, garbage wood disposal device, and a ready source of fertilizer.

AG Canberra 4:53 pm 25 Jun 09

What is the climate budget anyway? 16% of it could be ‘nothing’ or it could be a ‘sh1^load’. That is the key argumant here.

The cat did it 3:59 pm 25 Jun 09

@astrojax- Flannery is a well meaning and a good zoologist, but his paleontology has been got in bits and pieces from his various mates, and is a rather flakey assemblage. The paleo evidence doesn’t really support his tabloid catastrophist conclusions. Plimer’s case is weak because his choice of material is selective.

The main stink about the Arboretum is that the ACT Government has apparently has used funds allocated to climate change to fund it. The climate change return on investment, in terms of carbon sequestered etc, is b*ggar all. Probably much better return if they had put the $$ into insulating older Canberra housing or something like that. It was painful listening to Simon Corbell’s verbal contortions defending this ‘reallocation’.

Deckard 3:16 pm 25 Jun 09

Hahaha, Love it Woody

Of course though all these scientist are Reptoids trying to stop us using all the worlds resources so that there’s some left for them when the Reptoid mother ship arrives in 20 years time.

Woody Mann-Caruso 2:46 pm 25 Jun 09

*paints lipstick and draws eyes on hand*

“Look at me! I’m Ian Pilmer! I believe that all of the world’s scientists are wrong and involved in a global conspiracy spanning four decades!”

“You look hungry, Professor. Here, have a sausage.”

ant 2:02 pm 25 Jun 09

He was a good sport on The Chaser last night, too!

Thumper 1:15 pm 25 Jun 09

Oh don’t get me wrong, i think flannery wrote one of the most important books about Australia ever in ‘The Future Eaters’.

Mr Evil 12:37 pm 25 Jun 09

I take my climate change advice from Steve Fielding – because his imaginary friend in the sky knows everything!

Clown Killer 12:20 pm 25 Jun 09

Neither Plimer and Flannery are climate scientists. But I think the point here is that people working across a really diverse spectrum of fields – atmosphere, oceanography, glaciology, meteorology, flora and fauna ecology, biology etc. are consistently coming up with results for which a changing climate is the most probable explanation.

Some sceptics have tried to suggest that the agreement of a significant body of the worlds scientists is in fact a sign that something is amiss, but ‘agreement’ is essentially a misunderstanding of what is happening – there researchers are not so much agreeing with each other, as time and time again turning up results for which a changing climate is the most probable explanation.

But should the ACT government be spending climate change programme money on the Arboretum? Hell yeah, it’s got to be a far superior investment than subsidising the private cost of insulation or slapping solar panels of the roofs of eco-mentalists in the leafy suburbs even if it doesn’t contribute to sequesting a gram of carbon – it’s benefit comes from starving out other nonsensical ideas that the greens would otherwise breath life into.

astrojax 12:03 pm 25 Jun 09

i didn’t see them cited here. who has declared flannery a climate science expert? [he is of course a hugely respected paleontologist which discipline adds data to the stockpile used by other scientists]

if you ask woody i expect he’ll provide you with the ipcc and the myriad refereed scientists cited therein…

Thumper 9:49 am 25 Jun 09

Neither is Tim Flannery, but he seems to be an expert on the subject.

Nor Al Gore for that matter.

ant 9:40 am 25 Jun 09

housebound said :

Using climate change as a justification for the arboretum is a bit of a retrofit and a con. Hence with the maths – a cheap but hilarious point.

The arboretum was proposed while there was no official ACT Government greenhouse/climate change policy.

And that’s it in a nutshell. (boom boom).

astrojax 9:22 am 25 Jun 09

plimer isn’t a climate scientist, thumper. well said, woody. and exactly, housebound, the arboretum is in itself a good thing and should be resourced. the rest of the guff around this is just politics.

chewy14 9:10 am 25 Jun 09

I agree with Monomania,
when the Greens stop supporting stupid ideas that will have no effect on climate change or are ridiculously expensive, then i will listen to their argument about the Arboretum.

housebound 9:05 am 25 Jun 09

Using climate change as a justification for the arboretum is a bit of a retrofit and a con. Hence with the maths – a cheap but hilarious point.

The arboretum was proposed while there was no official ACT Government greenhouse/climate change policy.

Thumper 8:58 am 25 Jun 09

You need to stew them for at least 30 minutes and add garlic.

I love trees, but I’m afraid the Arboretum leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

You do realise these trees aren’t for eating, right?

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site