Gradual cascading effect of loss of Big Trees
30 September 2003
In regards to your tree issue. It does not stop there. Even after an approval process has identified trees that must be kept there is no certainty that they will. A case in point is the development at 35-41 Central Ave. Here a large jacaranda was to be kept. The tree was kept during the INITIAL clearing and development phase. Then the developer decided that the tree was in the way of his digger so it went. No approval and what is more no action by BCC, no fine, no order to replace the tree with a similar one&yes you can actually transplant full size trees (we really do send 40 m plus high trees in cargo ships to Japan and other places). The excuse in this case was that the embankment was crumbling and the tree posed on OHS risk&..go figure that one out. So what is the point of having an approval process. The developers know that BCC has less than 15 compliance officers for the entire BCC area. They know that BCC has no will to take them on. They also know that City Plan and the various area plans are so imprecisely written that no court can really make a determination as there are no measures only guidelines, points of opinion etc. There has been an increasing level of concern into why BCC is losing its birds. Well the answer would appear to have something to do with the loss of their food and nesting sites ie big trees. Start removing your large trees and the following happens. The food source and shelter for many tree dwelling species is lost or severely reduced. This triggers two events. Destruction of habitat means fewer individuals can survive in an area which leads to long term decline and if the habitat destruction is sufficiently severe the species become locally extinct for those of you with an ecological bent this is metapopulation theory at work. The second event is that in the short term the surviving critters are forced to overexploit a particular patch in this case the few remaining trees in the area. In short, the remaining creatures, desperate for food eat the tree to death. Then BCC, golf course owner etc etc comes along, sees that the tree is weak, damaged, dying and chops it down as a safety issue. Basically, BCCs green Brisbane view is pop-ecological nonsense without a shred of credibility. Within 20 years Brisbane will be facing a range of ecological negatives that will impact on each of us. Yes, we are actually part of the ecosystem. In ecological parlance we are messing our nest. We increase our density, put increased pressure on our services which were not designed for the load, we remove the sources of shade and bump up the local albedo (ie it gets hotter because big trees create shade and lower the surrounding temperature). In 20 years time we will have a Less livable Brisbaneunless there is a concerted change in attitudes,
- we will be using more electricity as the small lot developments will all be using more electricity to power airconditioners,
- we will have more problems with runoff and local flooding as the degree of impermeable surfaces (concrete, paving etc) will accelerate runoff into a drainage system that was never designed for the flow,
- we will have a smaller diversity of native species in our neighborhoods, but more nuisance species (these are the ones that benefit from human activity),
- we will have increased water usage per unit area and a resultant decline in local water pressure,
- we will have hotter suburbs with less shade,
- we will have increasing demands placed on the few remaining green spaces leading to their degredation,
- added to this will be fireants if we dont manage to get rid of them.
The question is how do you get people to act collectively. I have tried, but the minute the word commitment pops up and requires real input, the cracks start to show. BCC knows this, developers know this and the question is & would a change in BCC to liberal make any difference?