Short and medium term impacts of Australian bushfires

[rederob]

Never put reality or facts in front of fanatism

I own shares in 2 coking coal producers, so you are truly barking at the moon.
That said, coking coal and thermal coal are usually coming out of the same pit, so it's impossible to say you are only supporting the continuation of industry through steel fabrication without also being tarred with the coal brush.

 

[Smurf1976]

On the issue of what’s relevant to the thread, I’ll use the following analogy.

It is common knowledge that prolonged exposure to loud noise causes hearing loss. No argument there.

Now should I be involved in some discussion about hearing aids, be that a discussion about the technical aspects, relevant companies or whatever well then that’s what I want to focus on right now.

Someone up the back yelling that everyone should just wear ear muffs is correct as such but is missing the point about dealing with the effects of past damage and about those with hearing problems not due to noise exposure. Beyond a one off comment it’s just being a nuisance really. Right now the subject is hearing aids not noisy machinery or loud music.

Back to the subject well yes there’s an issue with climate change. For that matter I could mention that the power grid unintentionally split into two yesterday evening (loss of all transmission between Vic and SA - this time everyone’s lights stayed on though) but that’s not helping the fire victims or guiding anyone’s investments into fire-related companies etc.

 

[rederob]

Right now the subject is hearing aids not noisy machinery or loud music.

Yes, you can talk about the subject, but the issue is dealing with the predicate.
The media are bringing up this very point, ie., that somehow bushfires are sacrosanct, despite all informed people understanding why they are now being regarded as "catastrophic."
So let's look at some practicalities for those farmers extremely affected:

• How do you go about refinancing in order to recover?

• Rebuilding - were they insured - what is the chance their premiums do not go through the roof (in real life I am dealing with companies whose premiums have doubled in just a few years to now be in multimillions as a result of their thermal insulation material risks)?

• country locations have a large premium on rebuilds due to higher materials/labour/transport/accommodation cost add-ons

• How do you go about restocking - no feed and little to no water?

• If they sell up, it's a distressed sale of a possible unviable farm

• If you were a buyer, how would you assess your risks?

• You might have to change the land use

At a macro level bushfires destroy wealth and decrease productivity.

While the above is interesting, it is somewhat trivial (in the sense you do not have to be a genius to work it out). The issues relate to the ramifications of the bushfires and these are going to keep coming back to climate change, like it or not. And the reason, again - like it or not - is because there is nothing on the horizon suggesting Australia or the planet is likely to trend towards cooling. There might be the odd summer ahead where things are not as bad. But as a few in the know have recently said, this is our "new normal."

 

[SirRumpole]

More than anything, however, we seriously need to ensure water security for all parts of our nation and address this as a priority.

How do you suggest we do this ?

Especially if the drought continues.

The only way I can see is build dams and fill them with desalinated water. Maybe someone can comment on the practicalities of this.

Making home water tanks compulsory ? I think they already are in a lot of areas.

 

[rederob]

How do you suggest we do this ?

Especially if the drought continues.

The only way I can see is build dams and fill them with desalinated water. Maybe someone can comment on the practicalities of this.

Making home water tanks compulsory ? I think they already are in a lot of areas.

I'm not that smart to know.
Some ideas though:

• don't necessarily dam, but use water from our Great Artesian Basin smarter than presently
• use solar power to purify brackish water where necessary
• create a water grid - akin to the electricity grid - and use solar power to pump water large distances (remembering that C Y O'Connor first did this over 100 years ago)
• put a price on water commensurate with its cost and scarcity
• wind back all irrigation from the Murray Darling system and change land use to least water intensive (stop growing cotton and rice!)
• maybe even harness a few icebergs

Doubtless someone has come up with other ideas, like the Bradfield plan, or piping purified waste water for agricultural use.

 

[Jack Aubrey]

Unfortunately, even if we priced water at many multiples of its current real agricultural value, pumping and piping solutions on the scale of The Bradfield Plan don't stack up (and never did). I think the same would apply to desal as a source for dams or aquifer recharge. If electricity costs ever approach zero (a possibility for renewables) that equation may change but there are a LOT of structural hurdles (vested interests) to get over before that could happen. Certainly desal of saline aquifers would at least deliver the water where it is most needed by agriculture.

"New" sources of water are a remote possibility, but one showing some promise is harvesting atmospheric humidity. Unfortunately, in Australia, that means coastal air and we end up back with the pumping and piping problem (and more of those terrible "eye sore" wind turbines that some people find so offensive).

In the cities, desal, recycling and demand-management would probably deliver enough water for trend growth.

Some regions and towns will run out of options in the next few years. The demand for subsidies will be very high and absolutely irresistible to our agrarian socialists. As one senior bureaucrat once said to me privately "The greatest challenge for Australia in terms of sustainability is how to let country towns die with dignity".

 

[rederob]

Unfortunately, even if we priced water at many multiples of its current real agricultural value, pumping and piping solutions on the scale of The Bradfield Plan don't stack up (and never did). I think the same would apply to desal as a source for dams or aquifer recharge. If electricity costs ever approach zero (a possibility for renewables) that equation may change but there are a LOT of structural hurdles (vested interests) to get over before that could happen. Certainly desal of saline aquifers would at least deliver the water where it is most needed by agriculture.

"New" sources of water are a remote possibility, but one showing some promise is harvesting atmospheric humidity. Unfortunately, in Australia, that means coastal air and we end up back with the pumping and piping problem (and more of those terrible "eye sore" wind turbines that some people find so offensive).

In the cities, desal, recycling and demand-management would probably deliver enough water for trend growth.

Some regions and towns will run out of options in the next few years. The demand for subsidies will be very high and absolutely irresistible to our agrarian socialists. As one senior bureaucrat once said to me privately "The greatest challenge for Australia in terms of sustainability is how to let country towns die with dignity".

We have hijacked the thread, but I was proposing piping over flat land and principally using the GAB as a source of supply, so no major dams contemplated.
The GAB would naturally sustain itself, and I was contemplating getting rid of most irrigation programs that were not for vegetable cropping.
Remember we already have Cubby Station with as much water as Sydney harbour so piping some of this around with solar energy does not have the Bradfield costs.
Yes, water storage at townsites will be needed, but a lot of that is already in place.
We also have an extensive gas pipeline structure and maybe over time this can be tapped - excuse pun.
I think a major platform will be actual land use, and in that regard we should be looking at protein derived from Australia's natural animals - emus and kangaroos. They have a minimal fodder requirement and thrive instead on certainty of water, albeit nowhere near the amount needed by sheep/cattle as their bodies rely more on getting it from nature.
So I see an urgent need to cease most land clearing and allow former cleared tracts to regenerate.
I believe we need to get a lot of the bush back to what it was so in a fashion it can save itself using the burning practices of aboriginals.
Ok, that's it from me here coz it's just a lot of old ideas scrambled together without much to back them, except a knowledge that the countryside used to be vibrant even when "farmed," but that was 60 years ago.

 

[Logique]

Looks like the red thread-killer wants to shut you down Qldfrog.

Believes in "climate change" but owns coal shares. Complains about others, but the red's own posts are frequently abusive or insulting.

The Ignore button is your friend.

 

[qldfrog]

Looks like the red thread-killer wants to shut you down qldfrog.

The Ignore button is your friend.

It is on already and has been for a while, but i was trying to be open minded on a purely financial thread somedays i think @joe can be right, if braindead dimwits can not stick on their FB keyboard warfields and mass extinction rebellion and come here to contaminate anything they see, no point
I have a life, so do much more worthwhile posters here, so might be time to unplug and let the fanatics gorge on their self rights and religions

 

[rederob]

Looks like the red thread-killer wants to shut you down Qldfrog.

Believes in "climate change" but owns coal shares. Complains about others, but the red's own posts are frequently abusive or insulting.

The Ignore button is your friend.

Prove what you claim, as your comments are false and without logic.
If you believe this thread is not related to what everyone knows has caused catastrophic bushfires then you are living in an alternative universe.
Moreover, I have added more on-topic in this thread than any other poster, and presented my comments on water security when asked.

 

[basilio]

In my view a major risk to inland Australia is the heightened risk of nonviable regions as increasing heat, repeated fire threats and reduced water supplies take their toll.

I'd be concerned about how insurance companies decide on where they will insure properties.

Big ideas on attempting to desalinate sea and bore water to ensure sufficient water supplies for some agriculture and habitation are worth exploring.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/01/190107131242.htm
https://www.elementalwatermakers.com/solution-gravity/
________________________________
I can't quite understand the attempt to separate global warming from financial issues. Clearly there will be major impacts as we are exploring with the dramatic expansion of bushfire risks. It seems to be simply an exercise in denying there is any significant change in our climate- which perhaps might be an accurate summing up of some peoples belief.

 

[rederob]

... if braindead dimwits can not stick on their FB keyboard warfields and mass extinction rebellion and come here to contaminate anything they see, no point
I have a life, so do much more worthwhile posters here, so might be time to unplug and let the fanatics gorge on their self rights and religions

Is that the way you always respond?
Why not look at the many on-topic points I have made, and the corrections to your poor thinking on economic consequences?
Rather than complain ad nauseum, be constructive.

 

[SirRumpole]

I think the climate warming science says that we will be faced with more extreme events, so that when the rains come there will be floods and most of the water will run down the rivers and out to sea.

OK they will refresh the river systems but we might as well use some of the excess for aquifer recharge instead of letting it go to waste.

 

[Sdajii]

I fully agree with you @Sdajii but i think we will see token actions, a lot of talks but a few batt scheme like decisions which could boost some profits here and then
Building code rating which will replace wood by composite materials etc
But i could be wrong

We might see some minor changes like you describe, I think I said that, but nothing big and significant. Lots of bleating and virtue signaling but I expect nothing substantial in terms of real change, at least in the big picture.

 

[rederob]

We might see some minor changes like you describe, I think I said that, but nothing big and significant. Lots of bleating and virtue signaling but I expect nothing substantial in terms of real change, at least in the big picture.

What informs your opinion and expectations that we can consider it credible?

 

[Sdajii]

Ethical investing is now affecting trillion dollar businesses like the Government Pension Fund Global of Norway, so to think fossil fuel investments will see big money flows in future is pie in the sky, and your ideas about coal are as antiquated as coal power plants.

My ideas are not antiquated, yours are just delusional. I have a completely realistic view of coal. It's dirty etc, it'll one day be abandoned, that may be only decades away and it may be less than one decade before coal use begins to decline, but *coal use is still increasing*. It's ridiculous to call something 'antiquated' when it is still expanding. I'm not saying I love it or want it to expand or anything, but I do have a realistic understanding of the reality of the situation.

Although a bit off topic, major insurers and reinsurers are looking very closely at climate change impacts and it is probable they will be taking off the table, or pricing out of the market, future risks such as flooding in Venice.

It's off topic so I won't dwell on it, but obviously insurance companies will use any excuse they can to charge more money, even if it's not justified.

There is now a palpable difference between those who do not understand climate change and those who are living and dying in the thick of it.

How do you figure this makes any sense? It's comical that you assert people fall into two categories: one category understands and believes in climate change and is dying from it. The other category doesn't believe in it and isn't suffering!

The rest of your post is similarly ridiculous but off topic.

 

[Smurf1976]

I can't quite understand the attempt to separate global warming from financial issues.

Nobody here is saying that it isn’t important.

Climate change has however been discussed extremely extensively in the general community and elsewhere on this forum and whilst it is an important issue, it is not the only important issue.

I could likewise say that pretty much everything ultimately comes back to agriculture and sex. No food = we die. No sex = the species dies out.

I’ll take a good guess though that nobody came to ASF with the specific intent of improving their performance on the farm or in the bedroom. Far more likely they were seeking to improve their investing.

ASF is a privately owned forum, a business, and the owner has politely made the point about the need for on-topic subjects to be the dominant focus of it.

As such I’ve changed the focus of much of what I post and likewise it’s reasonable to have a discussion about the financial and investment implications of the fire situation.

That doesn’t preclude discussion of climate in a different thread on that subject but it does seem reasonable that we don’t have mentions of CO2, or for that matter ploughing the fields or having an orgasm, dominating every discussion.

 

[rederob]

As such I’ve changed the focus of much of what I post and likewise it’s reasonable to have a discussion about the financial and investment implications of the fire situation.

Which previously you mentioned as having governments provide more money and also change zoning laws - hardly earth shattering implications, and I am not having a go at you, but making the point about what most see as "easy fixes" or somewhat obvious.
Bushfires destroy property and kill people - they are the implications, and they translate into wealth destruction and lowering of GDP - points already covered. Also already covered have been the direct implications to farmers. Others could have added their comments on these points.
But apparently it's wrong to actually address why the thread even has importance. It's only obvious because what has recently happened on the bushfire front is unprecedented and there is no prospect of that changing. This is not just the new normal, it's set the worsen in future.
In that light the implications of bushfires relate to cause and mitigation because we do not want to increase the debt burden of our communities, decrease our agricultural output and lower our GDP do we?
Irrespective of knowing what causes bushfires to become more severe - increasingly catastrophic - there is going to be a societal shift in thinking about the cause, and greater action to address mitigation (at least we would hope).
If you do not believe that shift in thinking is going to occur, so be it, but there's some pretty graphic imagery that is conditioning it along with millions of people on the eastern seaboard waking up to a smoke haze each day, along with the smell of bushfires throughout the day.
Some of us might do an Izzy and blame gay marriage, but I suspect reason might prevail.
So the simple question is, if those who understand what is happening is indeed the case, what action can be taken to address the cause, as prevention is cheaper than dealing with the consequences.

That doesn’t preclude discussion of climate in a different thread on that subject but it does seem reasonable that we don’t have mentions of CO2, ....

Only @qldfrog and you have used "CO2" anywhere in the threads as I am not and have not in this thread been discussing the science (which is what those other threads are mostly about) but, instead the "existential threat" and how it will affect investment decisions.

 

[qldfrog]

@Joe Blow , can you close that thread or move it to the usual GW rant, it was not supposed to be related in any way to GW and has been kidnapped by the usual culprit

 

[Joe Blow]

@Joe Blow , can you close that thread or move it to the usual GW rant, it was not supposed to be related in any way to GW and has been kidnapped by the usual culprit

Perhaps a better solution is to make this thread a climate change/GW-free zone from this point forward?

It's never to late to get a thread back on track.