When I was writing my earlier post about Janet Jackson's Rock Hall credentials, my brother pointed out that Michael Jackson had died. Although I nowadays have no interest in his music except when it comes to potential theme songs for anti-road building campaigns, I am still extremely interested as to how people see the culture behind Michael Jackson. My mother herself is very critical, saying his extravagance, especially on drugs, makes CityLink look thrifty!!
Rod Dreher, a writer whose critiques are very interesting and revealing, has written on his blog a number of telling articles about Michael Jackson's childhood problems. His point that Michael Jackson had no childhood before he was thrust into the spotlight and that this made him extremely eccentric is very revealing. Even before I lost interest in him (and commercial 1980s music) I had heard similar things said about Michael Jackson in encyclopedias like Grolier. Dreher here is particularly revealing about the way Jackson used art, not to confront his own fears, but to escape from them into a fantasy world. Songs about loving young women may represent something Michael Jackson wished to be but was not and did not know how to be, though so much of it seems safe for the youngest and most strictly-raised children when they are insulated from the person making the music (though I have always been and still am generally a believer in letting art rather than the artist do that "talking").
A more revealing critique still can be found in the humorous but childlike King Of Pop Dead At 12. In King Of Pop Dead at 12, we see Michael Jackson's life compressed into twelve years. It does have a telling effect that is very revealing for a person like myself who has a tendency toward childish rants even in my thirties when everybody around me says I should be far more mature.
Monday, 29 June 2009
Sunday, 28 June 2009
Comparative climate in Brisbane for November 2008
The following table will illustrate how wet November 2008 was in Brisbane, as discussed in the Bureau of Meteorology's summary and map.
It can be seen that the only wetter November in Brisbane since 1860 when reliable records commenced was in 1981, whilst the total spring rainfall in Brisbane was the seventh highest. It is interesting to note that only in 1972 and 1943 was Brisbane's spring rainfall so nearly in excess of the annual rainfall in Melbourne.
Brisbane: Ten Wettest and Driest Novembers and Springs
Friday, 26 June 2009
Keltner analysis of undiscussed Rock Hall Artists: Janet Jackson
The site A List of Things Thrown Five Minutes Ago, discusses various artists' credentials for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.
After finishing my analysis of the Rock Hall backlog, I always intended to analyse artists who have never been discussed by the Nominating Committee, but still might have credentials to justify induction. The aim of the process is to find out whether, on the basis of the Keltner list for a Hall of Fame, the Nominating Committee really is completely ignoring artists who have undeniable credentials to be in the Hall.
I do admit that there are some problems with the criteria, especially given known biases of the Nominating Committee and how they effect who is already in the Hall, but still I cannot see any better alternative.
I have already done three Keltner tests on undiscussed artists:
She began with two albums of the typical MOR pop style of the 1980s, Janet Jackson and Dream Street, which however sold very poorly. It was only with her 1986 album Control that she attracted public attention. The album topped the US charts and reached the Top 10 in UK, in the process generating six singles and attracting attention for Jimmy Jam and Terry Lewis' production work, which was to become a critical part of Janet Jackson's career. Her next album, 1989's Rhythm Nation 1814, set a record with its seven Billboard Top Five singles, including "Miss You Much", "Escapade", "Black Cat", "Love Will Never Do (Without You)", "Alright", "Come Mack To Me" and "Rhythm Nation". Though the album was not universally praised, Robert Christgau admired the way she made her music into a message.
After Rhythm Nation 1814, Janet Jackson took a much more sexually assertive attitude with her fifth album janet. and made her film debut with Tupac Shakur in Poetic Justice. Her next full album, 1997's The Velvet Rope, was a concept album about her disillusionment with celebrity, but continued to sell in enormous quantities with its sexually explicit lyrics and guest appearances from cutting-edge rapper Q-Tip. 2001's All For You and 2004's Damita Jo showed Janet becoming more assertively sexual than ever, in the later case having to have a "clean" version issued in addition to the regular one. 2006's 20 Y.O. was her last album with longtime collaborators Jimmy Jam and Terry Lewis, and came simultaneously with a return to acting, whilst 2008's Discipline was marred by record company problems.
An evaluation of Janet Jackson's Rock Hall credentials based on the Keltner criteria, which actually come from the Baseball Hall of Fame follows.
1) Was Janet Jackson ever regarded as the best artist in rock music? (Did anybody, while Janet Jackson was active, ever seriously suggest Janet Jackson was the best artist in rock music?): Most likely not. Unlike preceding pop megasellers (Donna Summer, brother Michael, Madonna), Janet reached her peak whilst the pop charts were turning away from the synthesised pop of the 1980s towards more guitar-driven music like Nirvana, Pearl Jam and 1990s Metallica and Red Hot Chili Peppers, who took over from Michael as the premier artist on radio.
2) Was Janet Jackson ever the best artist in rock music in her genre?: Well, if we exclude Madonna, she could qualify in several genres, but having to do that would probably exclude her from any of them.
3) Was Janet Jackson ever considered the best at her instrument?: No, she was never highly regarded for her singing, which was often criticised even by sympathetic critics. However, as a dancer and stage performer, Janet might qualify because her dance routines were influential in the pop world of the 1990s.
4) Did Janet Jackson have an impact on a number of other artists?: Yes. Control and Rhythm Nation, though by no means the first albums of the New Jack Swing genre, were vital in popularising them and influenced such artists as Bobby Brown and Paula Abdul. They also were critical influences on established artists like brother Michael (Dangerous), Whitney Houston (I'm Your Baby Tonight) and Sheena Easton (What Comes Naturally).
5) Was Janet Jackson good enough that she could play regularly after passing her prime?: Yes, most definitely. Janet Jackson has been continuing to record at an unusual rate for one with so much experience, actually increasing her productivity with age even as her commercial and critical fortunes fall off. Even Madonna could not manage that so well, nor did previous pop megastars like Elvis Presley and Elton John. (
Brother Michael's death will prove a test for her I think).
6) Is Janet Jackson the very best artist in history that is not in the Hall of Fame?: No, unless you define "best" as most commercially successful. However, as outlined above Janet's artistic impact is too small for such a claim to be valid even compared to the few above her in terms of chart success.
7) Are most singers who have a comparable recording history and impact in the Hall of Fame?: Definitely. The nearest in terms of commercial impact who are not would be Olivia Newton-John or perhaps Dire Straits, and none who are not had anything like the non-musical impact Janet had over the years. I recall hearing on one news show that Janet was the second most hated artist after brother Michael by Chinese censors, and I know other megasellers who have never been discussed are accepted even by despotic dictators.
8) Is there any evidence to suggest that Janet Jackson was significantly better or worse than is suggested by her statistical records?: The fact that, despite the assertively sexual tone of many of her records, Janet Jackson not had the same public controversy of her rivals for "Billboard's biggest-selling artist" (Elton John, Madonna, Michael Jackson) might be taken as in her favour because it suggests Janet knows how to cope with the pressure of fame - which are notorious for bringing pop stars down - better. Otherwise little to say.
9) Is Janet Jackson the best artist in her genre that is eligible for the Hall of Fame?: Yes, there is little doubt that she is the most significant artist in the pop and dance/pop genres who is eligible for the Hall of Fame, and importantly will remain so for a long time yet.
10) How many #1 singles/gold records did Janet Jackson have? Did Janet Jackson ever win a Grammy award? If not, how many times was Janet Jackson nominated?: Janet Jackson had a total of ten number one pop singles and nine number one r'n'b singles. Every album she recorded from Control to Damita Jo has gone multi-platinum and to the top two positions, with six reaching the pinnacle. She won a total of five Grammys, only one of which was for a song.
11) How many Grammy-level songs/albums did Janet Jackson have? For how long of a period did Janet Jackson dominate the music scene? How many Rolling Stone covers did Janet Jackson appear on? Did most artists with this sort of impact go into the Hall of Fame?: Janet Jackson had only one Grammy-level song, "That's The Way Love Goes", but she dominated the music scene for almost two decades, as noted above in her six number one Billboard albums, which must be a major recommendation. Janet Jackson was certainly a prominent figure on Rolling Stone covers, as shown by her appearance here from its limited archives. Despite her limited Grammy success, the way in which Janet Jackson dominated pop music for so long means one would have to answer this question in the affirmative.
12) If Janet Jackson was the best artist at a concert, would it be likely that the concert would rock?: Most of the Grammy's Janet Jackson won were for her videos rather than for her music and her live performance, especially its choreography, was the most influential part of her work. Thus, one would probably give this a "yes".
13) What impact did Janet Jackson have on rock history? Was she responsible for any stylistic changes? Did she introduce any new equipment? Although the SOS Band with the production of Jimmy Jam and Terry Lewis was the truest inventor of New Jack Swing, Janet certainly changed black popular music in the late 1980s to a quite standardised sound. She could be credited with popularising portable microphones on stage, but they have hardly been a significant innovation.
14) Did Janet Jackson uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?: There seems very little to say here.
Verdict: Janet Jackson was really an extraordinarily solid hitmaker with great skill at adapting herself to cultural trends she did not start, and as such has not been surpassed in popular music. Her longevity and the sheer number of hits leads to a verdict of induct. (It would I think be unfair for Jimmy Jam and Terry Lewis not to get in as a Non-Performer if Janet does).
After finishing my analysis of the Rock Hall backlog, I always intended to analyse artists who have never been discussed by the Nominating Committee, but still might have credentials to justify induction. The aim of the process is to find out whether, on the basis of the Keltner list for a Hall of Fame, the Nominating Committee really is completely ignoring artists who have undeniable credentials to be in the Hall.
I do admit that there are some problems with the criteria, especially given known biases of the Nominating Committee and how they effect who is already in the Hall, but still I cannot see any better alternative.
I have already done three Keltner tests on undiscussed artists:
- The Smiths (eligible 2008/2009, not worthy)
- Slayer (eligible 2008/2009, worthy)
- Sonic Youth (eligible 2007/2008, worthy)
She began with two albums of the typical MOR pop style of the 1980s, Janet Jackson and Dream Street, which however sold very poorly. It was only with her 1986 album Control that she attracted public attention. The album topped the US charts and reached the Top 10 in UK, in the process generating six singles and attracting attention for Jimmy Jam and Terry Lewis' production work, which was to become a critical part of Janet Jackson's career. Her next album, 1989's Rhythm Nation 1814, set a record with its seven Billboard Top Five singles, including "Miss You Much", "Escapade", "Black Cat", "Love Will Never Do (Without You)", "Alright", "Come Mack To Me" and "Rhythm Nation". Though the album was not universally praised, Robert Christgau admired the way she made her music into a message.
After Rhythm Nation 1814, Janet Jackson took a much more sexually assertive attitude with her fifth album janet. and made her film debut with Tupac Shakur in Poetic Justice. Her next full album, 1997's The Velvet Rope, was a concept album about her disillusionment with celebrity, but continued to sell in enormous quantities with its sexually explicit lyrics and guest appearances from cutting-edge rapper Q-Tip. 2001's All For You and 2004's Damita Jo showed Janet becoming more assertively sexual than ever, in the later case having to have a "clean" version issued in addition to the regular one. 2006's 20 Y.O. was her last album with longtime collaborators Jimmy Jam and Terry Lewis, and came simultaneously with a return to acting, whilst 2008's Discipline was marred by record company problems.
An evaluation of Janet Jackson's Rock Hall credentials based on the Keltner criteria, which actually come from the Baseball Hall of Fame follows.
1) Was Janet Jackson ever regarded as the best artist in rock music? (Did anybody, while Janet Jackson was active, ever seriously suggest Janet Jackson was the best artist in rock music?): Most likely not. Unlike preceding pop megasellers (Donna Summer, brother Michael, Madonna), Janet reached her peak whilst the pop charts were turning away from the synthesised pop of the 1980s towards more guitar-driven music like Nirvana, Pearl Jam and 1990s Metallica and Red Hot Chili Peppers, who took over from Michael as the premier artist on radio.
2) Was Janet Jackson ever the best artist in rock music in her genre?: Well, if we exclude Madonna, she could qualify in several genres, but having to do that would probably exclude her from any of them.
3) Was Janet Jackson ever considered the best at her instrument?: No, she was never highly regarded for her singing, which was often criticised even by sympathetic critics. However, as a dancer and stage performer, Janet might qualify because her dance routines were influential in the pop world of the 1990s.
4) Did Janet Jackson have an impact on a number of other artists?: Yes. Control and Rhythm Nation, though by no means the first albums of the New Jack Swing genre, were vital in popularising them and influenced such artists as Bobby Brown and Paula Abdul. They also were critical influences on established artists like brother Michael (Dangerous), Whitney Houston (I'm Your Baby Tonight) and Sheena Easton (What Comes Naturally).
5) Was Janet Jackson good enough that she could play regularly after passing her prime?: Yes, most definitely. Janet Jackson has been continuing to record at an unusual rate for one with so much experience, actually increasing her productivity with age even as her commercial and critical fortunes fall off. Even Madonna could not manage that so well, nor did previous pop megastars like Elvis Presley and Elton John. (
Brother Michael's death will prove a test for her I think).6) Is Janet Jackson the very best artist in history that is not in the Hall of Fame?: No, unless you define "best" as most commercially successful. However, as outlined above Janet's artistic impact is too small for such a claim to be valid even compared to the few above her in terms of chart success.
7) Are most singers who have a comparable recording history and impact in the Hall of Fame?: Definitely. The nearest in terms of commercial impact who are not would be Olivia Newton-John or perhaps Dire Straits, and none who are not had anything like the non-musical impact Janet had over the years. I recall hearing on one news show that Janet was the second most hated artist after brother Michael by Chinese censors, and I know other megasellers who have never been discussed are accepted even by despotic dictators.
8) Is there any evidence to suggest that Janet Jackson was significantly better or worse than is suggested by her statistical records?: The fact that, despite the assertively sexual tone of many of her records, Janet Jackson not had the same public controversy of her rivals for "Billboard's biggest-selling artist" (Elton John, Madonna, Michael Jackson) might be taken as in her favour because it suggests Janet knows how to cope with the pressure of fame - which are notorious for bringing pop stars down - better. Otherwise little to say.
9) Is Janet Jackson the best artist in her genre that is eligible for the Hall of Fame?: Yes, there is little doubt that she is the most significant artist in the pop and dance/pop genres who is eligible for the Hall of Fame, and importantly will remain so for a long time yet.
10) How many #1 singles/gold records did Janet Jackson have? Did Janet Jackson ever win a Grammy award? If not, how many times was Janet Jackson nominated?: Janet Jackson had a total of ten number one pop singles and nine number one r'n'b singles. Every album she recorded from Control to Damita Jo has gone multi-platinum and to the top two positions, with six reaching the pinnacle. She won a total of five Grammys, only one of which was for a song.
11) How many Grammy-level songs/albums did Janet Jackson have? For how long of a period did Janet Jackson dominate the music scene? How many Rolling Stone covers did Janet Jackson appear on? Did most artists with this sort of impact go into the Hall of Fame?: Janet Jackson had only one Grammy-level song, "That's The Way Love Goes", but she dominated the music scene for almost two decades, as noted above in her six number one Billboard albums, which must be a major recommendation. Janet Jackson was certainly a prominent figure on Rolling Stone covers, as shown by her appearance here from its limited archives. Despite her limited Grammy success, the way in which Janet Jackson dominated pop music for so long means one would have to answer this question in the affirmative.
12) If Janet Jackson was the best artist at a concert, would it be likely that the concert would rock?: Most of the Grammy's Janet Jackson won were for her videos rather than for her music and her live performance, especially its choreography, was the most influential part of her work. Thus, one would probably give this a "yes".
13) What impact did Janet Jackson have on rock history? Was she responsible for any stylistic changes? Did she introduce any new equipment? Although the SOS Band with the production of Jimmy Jam and Terry Lewis was the truest inventor of New Jack Swing, Janet certainly changed black popular music in the late 1980s to a quite standardised sound. She could be credited with popularising portable microphones on stage, but they have hardly been a significant innovation.
14) Did Janet Jackson uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?: There seems very little to say here.
Verdict: Janet Jackson was really an extraordinarily solid hitmaker with great skill at adapting herself to cultural trends she did not start, and as such has not been surpassed in popular music. Her longevity and the sheer number of hits leads to a verdict of induct. (It would I think be unfair for Jimmy Jam and Terry Lewis not to get in as a Non-Performer if Janet does).
Monday, 22 June 2009
Is there really some land that can replace Australia's drying farmland way back in Europe?
In this New York Times article, the population decline that set in over the former so-called "German Democratic Republic" (more accurately something like the Stalinist Satellite of Germany!) since the fall of Stalinism in 1989 is described in serious terms.
Stories of:
1) 45 percent of apartment blocks in Hoyeswerda being demolished due to lack of demand
2) the number of school students in parts of Saxony falling by 46.5 percent from one year to the next
3) wolves returning to Saxony
make me feel as though, with forecasts of a fourth consecutive year of severe drought in southeastern Australia, there is a genuine opportunity if conservation bodies are willing to take it.
Even if for certain reasons not all of the land from which housing could be demolished is arable, it is, owing to the extreme youth of its flora and fauna, of negligible biological conservation value. Soils in Europe also contain around ten times more available phosphate than soils in Southern Australia that have been leached for as much as ten thousand times longer and under hotter climates.
So, if food prices continue to rise due to the inevitable desertification of Australia's farmland, there would be great sense in trying to re-establish farming on land in former Stalinist nations from which apartments are being demolished due to lack of demand. What would be still more satisfying is for people in Europe to recognise the exceedingly low conservation value of their land vis-a-vis Australia, Southern Africa and the tropics and accept that it is not in the best interest of the globe's lowest-fragility ecosystems that as much of them be conserved as possible.
Stories of:
1) 45 percent of apartment blocks in Hoyeswerda being demolished due to lack of demand
2) the number of school students in parts of Saxony falling by 46.5 percent from one year to the next
3) wolves returning to Saxony
make me feel as though, with forecasts of a fourth consecutive year of severe drought in southeastern Australia, there is a genuine opportunity if conservation bodies are willing to take it.
Even if for certain reasons not all of the land from which housing could be demolished is arable, it is, owing to the extreme youth of its flora and fauna, of negligible biological conservation value. Soils in Europe also contain around ten times more available phosphate than soils in Southern Australia that have been leached for as much as ten thousand times longer and under hotter climates.
So, if food prices continue to rise due to the inevitable desertification of Australia's farmland, there would be great sense in trying to re-establish farming on land in former Stalinist nations from which apartments are being demolished due to lack of demand. What would be still more satisfying is for people in Europe to recognise the exceedingly low conservation value of their land vis-a-vis Australia, Southern Africa and the tropics and accept that it is not in the best interest of the globe's lowest-fragility ecosystems that as much of them be conserved as possible.
Wednesday, 17 June 2009
The depth of the problem with free market conservation
In The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism, Robert P. Murphy says that:
"the free market encourages sound conservation and stewardship, whereas government regulation leads to waste and needless pollution"
Although I can sympathise to some extent with what Murphy says about how the free market can help conserve species, what I do know from basic books on global plant biodiversity that in fact the heavily glaciated regions of Europe and North America are of practically zero conservation value at all because all their species are shared with adjacent unglaciated regions and migrated a mere ten thousand years ago. Their species also generally have much larger populations than those of hotter unglaciated regions. In biological terms, the species that dominate cool to cold glaciated regions are generalists combining extreme competitiveness and high tolerance. They also have very reliable runoff with coefficients of variation usually around 10 percent, which is about the level required for reliable hydroelectric dams.
Despite their low conservation value, it is precisely these regions where free markets encourage conservation. The impossibility of agriculture in very cold and/or wet climates, plus the attraction provided by the
spectacular scenery, make
tourism a lucrative if costly business, as shown by these pictures from 
Iceland.
On the other hand, in Australia with soils containing soluble nutrients at levels an order of magnitude below European or North American soils and runoff ratios that range from ten to thirty percent those of comparable climates elsewhere, the free market does almost nothing to encourage conservation owing to the longage of both energy and land supply making agriculture cheaper than anywhere else in the world. This encourages highly extensive farming, but because there is little scenery to compare with that of most other continents outside of a few very remote areas and the Wet Tropics, Australia has lost completely many of its important ecosystems, especially grasslands. Australia is also ranked as the fourth most biologically diverse country in the world behind Brazil, Indonesia and Colombia, which of itself should require much tougher conservation standards than for other developed countries, although seventy-five percent of Australia's native plant biodiversity in concentrated in the Wet Tropics and South West Botanical Province of WA. A uniform requirement of 5 percent land in conservation reserves as suggested by the United Nations appears extremely lenient to tropical countries, Australia and southern Africa.
It would undoubtedly be better if levels of conservation required were graded according to that country's biological diversity and the fragility of its ecosystems - so that countries with unusual climate or runoff variability or poor soils were required to conserve more land. In heavily glaciated high latitude regions, unusable land undoubtedly provides all necessary conservation, but in countries like Australia which rank highly both in diversity and "ecosystem fragility" that is simply not the case and the free market provides distinctly inadequate conservation, even if state forests may encourage more rapid logging than under free market private forests (though there exists the danger of clearing then).
However, Australia's inability to establish higher conservation standards vis-à-vis other nations for Australia has even direr consequences.
Mountain ash and other tall eucalypts are the most efficient plants in the world at absorbing rainwater owing to their deep, dense root systems and long, thin trunks. Moreover, this efficiency at absorbing water makes the forests of the Central Highlands in Victoria, according to this ABC article, the world's most efficient carbon sinks when pristine. Full Story states that their efficiency as a carbon sink is greatly reduced when disturbed by logging, but the problem is even worse because it is now clear that the present (since 2006) climate is already too dry to sustain such trees indefinitely. This will both add to increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide and ultimately wipe out the native flora of the High Country and its foothills to be replaced by drier-climate trees or even shrubland.
The ultimate lesson from what I have said is that free markets, whilst able to provide incentives for efficiency and conservation of resources, have an easily explainable tendency to do so in precisely the places that have the lowest biological conservation value. It is for this reason that one cannot recommend relying on capitalism to solve every environmental problem, even when government has often failed badly.
Although I can sympathise to some extent with what Murphy says about how the free market can help conserve species, what I do know from basic books on global plant biodiversity that in fact the heavily glaciated regions of Europe and North America are of practically zero conservation value at all because all their species are shared with adjacent unglaciated regions and migrated a mere ten thousand years ago. Their species also generally have much larger populations than those of hotter unglaciated regions. In biological terms, the species that dominate cool to cold glaciated regions are generalists combining extreme competitiveness and high tolerance. They also have very reliable runoff with coefficients of variation usually around 10 percent, which is about the level required for reliable hydroelectric dams.
Despite their low conservation value, it is precisely these regions where free markets encourage conservation. The impossibility of agriculture in very cold and/or wet climates, plus the attraction provided by the
spectacular scenery, make 
tourism a lucrative if costly business, as shown by these pictures from 
Iceland.On the other hand, in Australia with soils containing soluble nutrients at levels an order of magnitude below European or North American soils and runoff ratios that range from ten to thirty percent those of comparable climates elsewhere, the free market does almost nothing to encourage conservation owing to the longage of both energy and land supply making agriculture cheaper than anywhere else in the world. This encourages highly extensive farming, but because there is little scenery to compare with that of most other continents outside of a few very remote areas and the Wet Tropics, Australia has lost completely many of its important ecosystems, especially grasslands. Australia is also ranked as the fourth most biologically diverse country in the world behind Brazil, Indonesia and Colombia, which of itself should require much tougher conservation standards than for other developed countries, although seventy-five percent of Australia's native plant biodiversity in concentrated in the Wet Tropics and South West Botanical Province of WA. A uniform requirement of 5 percent land in conservation reserves as suggested by the United Nations appears extremely lenient to tropical countries, Australia and southern Africa.
It would undoubtedly be better if levels of conservation required were graded according to that country's biological diversity and the fragility of its ecosystems - so that countries with unusual climate or runoff variability or poor soils were required to conserve more land. In heavily glaciated high latitude regions, unusable land undoubtedly provides all necessary conservation, but in countries like Australia which rank highly both in diversity and "ecosystem fragility" that is simply not the case and the free market provides distinctly inadequate conservation, even if state forests may encourage more rapid logging than under free market private forests (though there exists the danger of clearing then).
However, Australia's inability to establish higher conservation standards vis-à-vis other nations for Australia has even direr consequences.
Mountain ash and other tall eucalypts are the most efficient plants in the world at absorbing rainwater owing to their deep, dense root systems and long, thin trunks. Moreover, this efficiency at absorbing water makes the forests of the Central Highlands in Victoria, according to this ABC article, the world's most efficient carbon sinks when pristine. Full Story states that their efficiency as a carbon sink is greatly reduced when disturbed by logging, but the problem is even worse because it is now clear that the present (since 2006) climate is already too dry to sustain such trees indefinitely. This will both add to increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide and ultimately wipe out the native flora of the High Country and its foothills to be replaced by drier-climate trees or even shrubland.The ultimate lesson from what I have said is that free markets, whilst able to provide incentives for efficiency and conservation of resources, have an easily explainable tendency to do so in precisely the places that have the lowest biological conservation value. It is for this reason that one cannot recommend relying on capitalism to solve every environmental problem, even when government has often failed badly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
