| |
| hey guys! its been a while since anyone has posted...hope some ofyou still read!
Sorry if this is terribly off-topic, but I'm a Uni student currently studying environmental science & management. I have an assignment coming up which I've left to the last minute (true student here) where I need to interview people in the work area that I want to go into after I finish Uni (if I ever pass that is)
I really need some people to interview!! I'd love to talk to some conservation biologists or ecologists but I'm finding it difficult where to start, and also trying to find people who will be willing/not too busy. I'm trying to get a little list together of places to ring (such as ACF etc. and I see there's a good little list in the userinfo for this comm too!) but does ANYONE here by any chance know of anyone fitting? Or even better what do you guys do for employment? Just to give me some ideas would be great, or hell I can interview you! (lol)
If you know anyone, please let me know! The interview is only a few basic questions (stuff like daily routine, responsibilities etc. nothing about how much they earn or anything personal) and its all completely confidential, no personal details are given out.
Thanks heaps to anyone who can help!!
- Mood:hopeful
| |
|
| Liberal MP rubbishes human link to climate changeBy Online parliamentary correspondent Emma Rodgers Federal Liberal MP Dennis Jensen says the cause of climate change is still in dispute and has attacked environmentalists as "anti-democratic alarmists". Dr Jensen, who has spoken out previously on the issue, has also called for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to be disbanded. His comments come as the Coalition struggles with internal division on climate change policy. In a speech to open the Australian Environment Foundation's annual conference in Canberra today, Dr Jensen said the question of whether climate change was caused by human activity was still up for debate. ( rest of story under cut )My thoughts... well first and foremost, I am glad that I have recently moved and this guy is no longer my local member! In regards to the debate over whether this is purely natural ecological change or human induced, well while I am not an expert (then again I dont think this is Dr Jensens area of study/expertise either) like many things it probably comes down to some combination of the two factors. It may be part of a natural ecological cycle but what we do and produce I am sure would at the very least have amplified any effects. To me, that then becomes the key point, in that whatever was the key driver or instigator, we can have an effect and help lessen the impacts by changing what we do and output, not just in terms of overall global warming but on our day to day health and living. To say that "oh these behaviours didn't cause or create it" does not mean that we still shouldn't change those behaviours to lessen the problem. That to me is like a patient saying "Oh it wasn't my diet that caused my diabetes, that came from genetic/hereditary reasons, so why should I change my diet to try and fix it?" In the end, no matter what the cause was, if there are actions that can be taken to try and solve a problem then surely it is worth trying. Even if it may not be a direct benefit, it has to help the general health and well-being of our home, this planet. To continue on the previous medical analogy, it may be that changing the diet doesn't directly fix the diabetes, but if it helps improve your general underlying health and well-being, its got to make coping and dealing with the other problems easier. - Mood:exanimate
| |
|
| As you should know – shark fishing (in particular for the fin trade) is a major problem worldwide – one that will almost certainly cause the demise of the ocean's most important predator. Sharks have been around 200 million years before the dinosaurs! But if the current rates of exploitation and demand for shark products continue at their current rate – many shark populations will be depleted if not become extinct in the near future! With life cycles that cannot sustain heavy fishing pressure and a lack of fishery data for sustainable harvest levels in addition to an exponentially growing black market for shark fin – all shark populations should deserve a strong level of protection. I don't normally write letters or emails like this – but I think this is important – So send Peter Garret an email TODAY using this pre made form the Australian Marine Conservation Society http://www.amcs.org.au/default2.asp?active_page_id=491 It will take less than 30 seconds! I am sure you can spare that amount of time for something as important as this – with a bit of hope other states and countries will follow. | |
|
| Sobering reading. Meanwhile, Pier Ackerman and the liberal-conservative-business oligarchy do their best to pooh-pooh the whole idea, and ostrich-neck the whole shebang. Part of this ostrich-necking includes the awful reality of an industrialising Third World and the BRIC economies (Brazil, Russia, India, China) which are seeing astonighing and dreadful increases in energy consumption, emissions and pollution. One has to merely cast one's mind back to August 7th and read the articles about the Beijing Olympics to see the effects which we are all too aware of in terms of the direct impact of burining far too much coal, before we realise Ackerman and company are just being disingnuous bastards. It may be the IPCC is wrong. It may be that Garnaut is wrong. But regardless of anything else, resources are scarce and will become scarcer and we need to put a price on gluttony, which here is represented by irrelevant use of energy for personal transportation, entertainment and cultural effluvia (plasma screen TVs, etc). For this alone, we need to consider our impact on the environment, not call the government dilly-bags and fools. | |
|
| Queensland is investigating various ways to reduce congestion in the city including one years free public transport for owners of redeveloped apartments. Other ideas includes reserved car parking spaces at apartment blocks for car clubs. An interesting idea, but I have to wonder what kind of incentive a year's free public transport really is, in the grand scheme of things. After all, its only a year's worth. We also lack the culture and necessity of car clubs, which thrive in the much more congested and much more heavily taxed British cities, eg, London. In Australia I really doubt that we have the need for car clubs, whereas most pople would identify a greater need for having a private car to go on long road journeys for holidays or visiting relatives interstate. One solution I'd suggest would be to give subsidised public transport to people who live within an amenable distance of a major public transport artery, via a rebae scheme, so that only those people who actually use the system benefit. This can be recouped via an increased congestion levy on parking in the city, or a small surcharge on council rates within the public transport zone. Ie; you use or you lose - and this applies to those who live in apartments which have been redeveloped, as well as existing buildings. More generally, we seem to build poorly constructed cheap tawdry units with no amenities. Reducing amenities via cutting car spaces isn't going to encourage more people into high density inner-urban living where, by definition, you use less fuel and are advantaged by access to public transport. Admitting that a car owner who both lives works in the inner-urban zone should be using public transport on average more than suburban dwellers, implies that the objctive is to encourage inner-rban living - car or not. This will by default reduce car use for commuting, relieve congestion, and encourage environmentally friendly living modes. So, to encourage this, we must strive to make ur units amenable - with decent fixtures, finishes, sensible appliances and interior dimensions and energy effiiency features - and liveable. We can't force cultural change, and its irrelevant anyhow. If you don't use your car because you don't need to because the public tranport allows you to live properlyu, you'll get rid of it anyway. | |
|
| Hi all, I thought some of you might be interested in this, particularly as a way of meeting new people in the Brisbane area: Makers Group – Carindale library Are you a maker? Do you paint, craft, make models, build robots, grow your own veges, keep chooks, make your own clothes, sculpt, write stories, illustrate or do anything else creative or home grown? Come and join fellow Makers at the Carindale library every second Tuesday from 12-4pm, starting September 2nd. Each week a volunteer from the group will hold an informal workshop on a favorite maker project. The first workshop will be Coptic Binding and Book Making with Renee Dillon, a local artist. Book a place or just show up. Absolutely everyone is welcome! | |
|
| This year, April 1 will not be April Fools Day, but Fossil Fools Day. In Sydney we are planning a day of action and pranks against corporate climate vandals and fossil fuel companies. Here is some more info:
Any plans for Fossil Fools Day elsewhere? | |
|
| It is no surprise to me that Australian office workers are lazy when it comes to saving energy in the business environment, with 70% leaving airconditioning on overnight at the office. It is amazing that, in times of cost and competition isues, more businesses don't realise that it is often in their best interests to be green. For example, aside from the environmental costs, leaving the aircon on overnight especially in a large building or office space, will cost considerable dollars over the course of a summer. A 10Kw aircon running all night (16 hours of non-business) will set a business back around $20 a night, which stacks up considerably over the course of a year - $7,008! The worst thing is, this is $7008 spent for no economic gain to the building. Even a relatively small 1.5Kw home aircon will still cost a business $700 a year or thereabouts in power costs, just in the non-business hours. Lights ae less of an issue, but still can be an incredibly wasteful habit if you leave them on for 16 hours a day for no apparent reason. The average office lighting density in a properly managed and planned lighting system is 10W per square meter ( example) but could be up to 45 watts/square meter for incanescents and poorly thought-out systems. This is, first and foremost, a cost - a 100m^2 office could use between 1Kw and 4.5Kw of power - again, between $700 and $2800 a year of electricity costs, just for non-business hours. This also then costs money to remove the waste heat from the office space - via the already costly airconditioner. An example, given in the link there, shows how lighting costs can be slashed by 76% just on wattage alone; that's $ in the bank. This is, of course, ridiculously expensive. For small businesses where every dollar counts, being able to slash up to $10K a year in energy costs ought to be a total no-brainer. So maybe everyone who is concerned about the environment should raise this issue with their boss - from the point of view of their boss wanting to save money. It won't take a genius to work out that saving electricity saves the hip pocket and institute a green energy use policy as simple as; - turn off your aircon when you go home (server room excepted); investigate having it come on automatically 30 minutes before start of business in the morning - turn off your lights when you go home - turn off your computers - replace incandescents with fluorescent tubes - manage the lighting required by workers - clean the airconditioners and have them serviced regularly - close the front door to retail outlets to prevent airconditioned air from escaping | |
|
| If not a world first, a certain world-leading effort, has seen the Isle of Eigg transform itself to 95% renewable energy.This was a 3 year plan to convert from a mix of conventional diesel/hydroelectricity to a mix of wind/solar/hydro/(diesel), and cost around 1.6M pounds (AUD$3.85M), for 45 households, 20 businesses and several civic buildings to convert over to renewable energy. The town is now 95% sufficient on renewables, with a back-up diesel generation system the only remaining fossil-fueled alternative. For an Australian perspective, the cost per household and business is around AUD$59,000 for the scheme, though that did involve undergrounding the power cables. We have $10K, and soon more, in rebates from the government for rainwater and other green schemes; we can get a rebate on solar hot water systems; we have new building codes in NSW and soon other states mandating certain levels of energy efficiency in new homes (and renovations) to reduce energy intensity, but we have yet to tackle the issue of conversion to renewable energy on a large scale via any scheme except the GreenPower system, which is an arms-length greenpower wholesaling arrangement with little up-front cost to consumers. So, the discussion point here is - if we accept $60K as a rough figure for conversion to 95% renewables per household, do we see it as excessive, reasonable, or cheap? To put it in perspective, there are roughly 9 million households in Australia, so to convert Australia over entirely to renewables would be a $540B price tag. | |
|
| |
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif?v=92.2){kind=small}
eco_australia
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.2){kind=small}