I recently finished reading the October Volunteer: Newsletter of the Threatened Bird Network. And what an interesting read I found it to be. A couple of things struck me in the newsletter.
Firstly, what wonderful work is being done by volunteers & professionals across Australia to monitor nest sites, count numbers & make other observations of various threatened bird species. E.g., the swift parrot & regent honeyeater.
Secondly, what an indictment it is of our country's general attitude & behaviour towards birds & their habitats that such good work is necessary in the first place.
I was particularly appalled to learn of the fragmentation of black-throated finch habitat by not only long term, extensive agriculture but, more recently, by the coal industry with its plans to dig a giant hole in the middle of precious habitat.
The full costs of human development are yet to be factored into coal mining and other developments. These costs should include the opportunities lost, particularly after the development has been abandoned. In my opinion such costs should be included but making the costing of these developments acceptable to bean counters is difficult. Is there a way of making developers & bean counters accountable for not including these costs in their calculations? It seems to me that there's a strong argument that unless they are held to account they will get away with fraud.
you might to read about Triple Bottom Line Accounting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_bottom_line
many companies are now reporting in this manner
Peter
Its thoroughly frustrating and depressing isn't it!
I was coming home late last night from doing a talk and caught most of an interview with Tim Flannery, David Lindenmyer and someone else who's name escapes me. They were talking about Tim's belief that there is a new extinction wave approaching and what government and business have to do to stop it. It will be on the 10pm till 11pm podcast from last night
Thanks for that, Peter. I was aware of triple bottom line accounting but I haven't seen yet how it can be put into numbers. Also, I've read a number of company annual reports but I haven't seen triple bottom line accounting mentioned yet. Do you know how widespread this approach is? Many of the annual reports I've read say that companies meet all the environmental legislation requirements but this, in my opinion, doesn't mean much when we consider how the environmental legislation doesn't yet reflect the state of the environment.
I thought it was deeply ironic to read in the Wikipedia article the following: "The phrase, "people, planet, profit", was coined by John Elkington in 1995 while at SustainAbility, and was later adopted as the title of the Anglo-Dutch oil company Shell's first sustainability report in 1997. As a result, one country in which the 3P concept took deep root was The Netherlands." Shell's recent performance in the Gulf of Mexico would suggest the company has, at best, a tokenistic approach to triple bottom line accounting, at worst a flagrantly reprehensible disregard for it.
Perhaps it's early days for triple bottom line accounting & it'll take time for the concept, if not the practice, to be widely adopted. However, it worries me that the environment doesn't have time to wait for tortuous human processes to stop its destruction.
Yes, Holly, it can be frustrating & depressing. Which is why I try to think globally but act locally. By acting locally I can see results for my efforts & this gets in the road of frustration & depression. Yiiiiiippppeee!
By the way, I did hear Tim Flannery talking about this. I think it was on Late Night Live. But even he, in order to sound conciliatory & responsible in the eyes of governments & corporations, had to trot out corporate blah. Perhaps there is no other way to slow environmental destruction but I do fear that the pace of destruction is gathering speed & is too fast for environmental repair & restoration. Perhaps I read & hear too much about the coal unseamly gas industry & its activities!