'; ?> Greenhouse | What The People Want
Greenhouse
Wednesday, 16 November 2005 21:55 | Written by Graham Young

This is posted for Gillian Axelsen. Having been a conservationist since I was a teen - I am 62 - all the things we predicted are happening: severe storms, melting ice caps, global warming, etc. If we'd been taken notice of then, we would not be suffering now. However, very little was done & I am now concerned about the effect on ordinary people here & now. We have lived on acreage for 30 years. Like all our neighbours, we've always loved the trees, birds, possums, and wallabies. So we let the bush grow. Bush fire: However in 1994 it was a real shock when bush fires suddenly became a problem. We nearly lost our house. If it wasn't for local farmers, rural brigades & a green area around the house, we would have lost it. The Fire Brigade was over stretched & couldn't come. Since then we've spent thousands felling large trees around the house. We hate seeing them go but the change of climate has made it essential. There are still trees we need to remove but we don't have the money yet. If our house burns tomorrow in a bush fire, people will say why didn't they clear around their house ! Well that's the reason, the climate change & not enough cash ! There are lots of people in the same situation. Surely Government could put in a fire prevention clearing programme for private property owners. The Government has access to heavy machinery & trained people. It could prevent a tragedy, like the one in Canberra, happening in the near future. Water: Part of our fire prevention program is keeping a green zone around the house. Now we are not allowed to run the sprinklers/drips which do this. We supply all our own household water by tanks so are less of a drain on the town water than most. But no allowance has been made for this. When town water was put on here, we were all encouraged to pull out tanks & connect to town system. We kept our tanks for the house as we like tank water. We'd love to put in more tanks but we cant afford it. Some councils have given rebates to people putting in tanks, but our council won't. Couldn't this become a Government requirement or a tax rebate ? Weeds: While farmers can claim removal of noxious weeds as a tax deduction, the ordinary private property owner can't. Yet we see degradation happening more each year, as more people move in. We have cactus, groundsel, new weeds, new grasses all taking over. We can't cope with it ourselves. But the Government could, by using the DPI to liaise with Private Landowners. Instead some years ago, the Government changed the Tax Laws, to exclude a lot of small landowners from claiming land improvements. These people fenced their land, treated the weeds, landscaped, planted trees & cared for the land. They could afford this because they could claim such expenses against their wages. But the Government declared they were just "Queen Street" farmers & could no longer make primary production claims. The local landscape really suffered from this decision. People who could no longer afford to maintain their land, sold to developers, who totally cleared the land. Those people probably were not really farmers but the land benefited. May be this kind of thinking needs to be reversed. Any kind of environmental improvement on acreage could become claimable.That would create a big army of people caring for the land. Summary: Everyone seems to be talking about the environment and the big picture. But no-one seems to look at the small, easy to apply, local fixes which could happen quickly with co-operation between the Government and its people.
Share this article on your favourite social bookmarking sites:
Digg! Reddit! Del.icio.us! Google! Facebook! StumbleUpon! Twitter!
 

Comments   

 
0 #1 Comment — Phil 2005-11-18 02:46
Yet another who wants the tax payer to pay for their personal interests, & expenses. Remember the song" He aint heavy, he's my brother", well I'm getting too many brothers. I am retired, living on a part pension, on 20 acres, with no town water. I spend $700 to $1000 every year controlling "declared weeds" which I am required to by council. I also spend another $300 or so controlling other weeds which are not declared, but are a problem. The thing I bould like the "government" {council} to do, is crack down on these weeds being cultivated in suburbia, so my place doesn't get re infected so quickly. I no longer do anything productive with the land, it doesn't pay. I have a few of the kids old retired horses wandering around. I spent $13,000 on my water supply. Dam pump & piping, tanks, pressure pumps, & gray water system for the house & garden. It was my choice to live here, & I can see no reason why the people who choose to live in town should have to subsidise that choise. They probably have some other use for their money. I do object to loosing control of the number of trees on my property. I object to being unable to do anything about the large numbers of kangaroos, which destroy my fences, & the huge number of ducks, which have made it impossible to have a vegetable garden, they pull every yhing out by the roots. If, as appears to be the case, I am going to be forced to provide a pretty GREEN rural seen, for the city folk to ocassionally drive to on sunday, then I do think I should be subsidised. If however, the effort & cost of living here become too great, I will move to some where else with less effort & cost required. I will not scream for the tax payer to pick up the bill for my choise of life style.
Phil
 
 
0 #2 Comment — john tiplady 2006-02-11 20:35
These Global Climate changes which the world is facing, and our own country in particular, have never been properly addressed.
I recall, some years ago, when gases used in refrigeration equipment, were identified as being the main culprit in the depletion of the Ozone Layer, but politicians worldwide, decided that they would put in place a TEN YEAR programme to change away from these damaging chemicals. It was clear then, as it is clear now, that this planet doesn't have the luxury of such generous time allowances. Action should have been immediate, and positive, regardless of economic impacts and effects. There was simply no excuse for the world's leaders coming to such lax conclusions.