If Water Planners Had Listened to Bob Katter

drsmith said:

More water westward could also support more natural vegetation and a greater diversity of life in general. The additional vegetation could be a potential carbon sink for the future.

If one is going to be Green, one should be able to have their hardcore raw vegan food and eat it too.

Click to expand...

It sure would Doc, and it would also provide an opportunity for population growth west of the Divide.

It never ceases to amaze me in Queensland any how deserted the country is once you drive over the Range.

Agriculture, new cities would flourish if there was only water.

gg

Bradfield sounds good, but you can't tinker with nature to that degree without some sort of massive unexpected effects elsewhere in the ecosystem. Nature is perfectly balanced as it is. It's people who need to change, by orienting themselves properly around nature. That means not building in low lying flood prone areas. Duh!!!

"But we must have high density inner city living!!"
I'd say: "fine, you build where you like, but don't expect the government to bail you out. Get proper insurance, read your fine print, and away you go".

Where on Earth were the council urban planners when this building was going ahead? It's their job to warn governments of the looming disasters due to improper urban planning.

The solution is extremely simple. Stop trying to make it complicated with nutty schemes and expensive damns.

Quite possibly, old Bob has spent too much time in Charters Towers and become one of the colony members out there.

Gringotts Bank said:

Bradfield sounds good, but you can't tinker with nature to that degree without some sort of massive unexpected effects elsewhere in the ecosystem. Nature is perfectly balanced as it is. It's people who need to change, by orienting themselves properly around nature. That means not building in low lying flood prone areas. Duh!!!

"But we must have high density inner city living!!"
I'd say: "fine, you build where you like, but don't expect the government to bail you out. Get proper insurance, read your fine print, and away you go".

Where on Earth were the council urban planners when this building was going ahead? It's their job to warn governments of the looming disasters due to improper urban planning.

The solution is extremely simple. Stop trying to make it complicated with nutty schemes and expensive damns.

Click to expand...

As an example, the Hoover Dam was hardly a nutty scheme.

Our future does not lie with subsistance living controlled by nature. Do that and we will likely suffer the same fate as 99% of the species that have ever lived on Earth.

Nature is ever changing, sometimes violently. It has no underlying respect for life. Life just has to survive, whatever cards it is dealt.

That being said, we need to be able to live within our immediate environment untill we can harness new energy sources. The immediate environment for our civilisation in now represented by Earth as a whole.

There is obviously a role for conservation but there is also one for augmentation. Where low biodiversity environlemts exist such as arid areas, augmentation of those envoronments should be considered. Obviously impacts elsewhere also need to be considered as the aim is a nett positive result. Individual projects would of course need to be considered on merit, both economic and envoronmental.

What we learn could also be important for the next vital stage of our technological evolution, the colonisation of space.