Worst drought ever

[Smurf1976]

But the fact that are are going to flood the Mary R Valley - with absolutely brilliant farms going under
As Barnaby Joyce said where are the pollies at this meeting? - they prefer to speak to the people from "Cowards Castle " as someone at the meeting said.

But to be fair, they announced it prior to the state election (as I understand it)

Just that it is damned criminal to my mind to flood such country.

Not much has changed over the years. It took a while for me to find this but following is a quote from page 84 of the book a million horses, published by the Hydro-Electric Commission in 1962. The specific comment was made in the context of the 3 Lower Derwent power stations then at the planning stage.

...The alienation of land by inundation behind a new dam seems to be regarded as much more objectionable than any other variety of change of use, not only in Tasmania but everywhere where hydro-electric power or water supply developments are undertaken. On the outskirts of towns, large tracts of very valuable agricultural land, especially market gardens, are lost every year under houses, schools, factories, and roads. The news that a great industrial concern has acquired a hundred acres of pasture for a new factory is acclaimed with joy by all local inhabitants; the threat of the loss of an equal area under water can rouse intense and prolonged oppositon...

That was written 45 years ago and well before the term "environment" was in common usage. Indeed it was written in the misdst of the then often stated (most notably by the Churches themselves) "only authority higher than God" era of massive public support for new dam construction. And there was no popular opposition to the Lower Derwent scheme when it was actually built.

Not much seems to have changed in that time but those words are as true now as they were then. Put the land under bitumen and bricks and nobody really cares. Put it under water and you get an entirely different response.

If we're worried about the effects of loss of land due to dams then it's time to also put a stop to houses, schools, roads etc. Indeed with Australia having recently seen a boom in house construction plus the climate change issue and the drought, I would argue that the case for expanding water storage is a lot stronger than the case for expanding housing or roads. The dam supplies at least water and perhaps renewable energy too whereas the houses and roads directly add to greenhouse emissions and, in the case of housing, water consumption.

If you live in any of the major cities then odds are you're living on what was once not only farm land, but the very best farming land the country had. That agricultural capacity being one of the reasons the cities were located where they are in the first place. Then we concreted over the whole lot...

 

[Uncle Festivus]

If we're worried about the effects of loss of land due to dams then it's time to also put a stop to houses, schools, roads etc. Indeed with Australia having recently seen a boom in house construction plus the climate change issue and the drought, I would argue that the case for expanding water storage is a lot stronger than the case for expanding housing or roads. The dam supplies at least water and perhaps renewable energy too whereas the houses and roads directly add to greenhouse emissions and, in the case of housing, water consumption.

If you live in any of the major cities then odds are you're living on what was once not only farm land, but the very best farming land the country had. That agricultural capacity being one of the reasons the cities were located where they are in the first place. Then we concreted over the whole lot...

Yes, and I think we are paying for that sterilisation of prime farmland now. Only these days we are starting to value the environment & living aesthetics more than in the past. If it wasn't so bad it would be a good thing in that some/most people are becoming more aware of their impact on the planet and are trying to limit their footprint for the sake of the next generation, and maybe save some money themselves.

But what makes it (urban sprawl onto farmland) worse is that what is usually built is one of those McMansions with a million lights & gadgets, pool & air cond. Building energy efficiency codes are far too lax due to pressure on the government by builders & their lobby groups.

I'm against more dams because until we as a society learn to live with what we already have more efficiently and effectivly then we will continue to live the bad way and prolong a flawed ideal (excess consumption/consumerism), in the meantime sterilising either pristine wilderness or prime farmland.

I'm sort of thinking this drought will be some sort of fuse, where we will get to the stage where we will have no choice but to be forced to live within our means, basically because we will have no water or electricty to do otherwise.

 

[bel532]

But what makes it (urban sprawl onto farmland) worse is that what is usually built is one of those McMansions with a million lights & gadgets, pool & air cond. Building energy efficiency codes are far too lax due to pressure on the government by builders & their lobby groups.

I'm against more dams because until we as a society learn to live with what we already have more efficiently and effectivly then we will continue to live the bad way and prolong a flawed ideal (excess consumption/consumerism), in the meantime sterilising either pristine wilderness or prime farmland.

I agree. It's about time we stopped building these so called McMansions, which are a blight on the landscape. Why are we constructing these buildings which house fewer and fewer people? It is an indulgence we can no longer afford.

 

[2020hindsight]

Realist,
I have to concede, you sure called these three posts spot on
next thing I guess is to see how close to $40 we get for beef.
Also to see if a few engineers in the wealthy mining market are prepared to come over to water engineering to help save the country and life in a thousand country towns

And let's not forget that BHP will take heaps of water free from the Gt Artesian Basin , and turn a lot of it into radioactive waste .

post #43 and #49, and #48 - ... Australia is the dryest continent in the world (apart from Antarctica) - farmers get huge amounts of cheap land in areas known to be very dry. Then they moan about it not raining enough. No sh*t, of course it doesn't rain much! If you want rain got to New Zealand or England.

If we need lamb, beef, veges, bananas or whatever buy them from Tasmania or NZ or overseas. They need to buy Australian uranium, nickel etc. It is a global economy. Survival of the fittest, if you are farming a desert expect poor results.

And I do not want to have to pay $40 for a roast beef, or $12 a kg of bananas because it hasn't rained here, or rained too much - import from overseas for christ sakes.

#49...So if someone in Alaska wanted to start a farm growing pineapples and the snow ruined their crops the government should bail them out year after year? I think not. Obviously pineapple cultivation and snow don't mix, much like farming and deserts don't mix.

I do sympathise with the farmers, but I believe they need to bite the bullet now and accept most of Australia is too dry to farm. The government should help these people relocate and/or reskill to other jobs, not just pay compensation year after year when it doesn't rain.

The drought aint gonna end, outback Australia aint gonna be getting wetter, it is only gonna get worse. Time to change.

#48 Australia rides on the miners back now doesn't it?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200704/s1903220.htm Dire Murray-Darling predictions released
The report which prompted the Prime Minister's warning to farmers that they will no longer be able to rely on water from the Murray-Darling system has been publicly released. It contains more dire warnings on the reliability of town water supplies.... etc

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200704/s1903118.htm
Mining boom drains water sector of much-needed skillsA leading water expert says there is a serious skills shortage across all areas of water management in Australia.

Professor Peter Cullen of the Wentworth Group of Scientists told ABC TV's Lateline program that state agencies have lost many water specialists in recent years.

Professor Cullen says the lack of expertise will make the drought harder to manage. "Overall, I think we have a real problem with the right sort of skills to manage water in this stretched situation," he said.

"A lot of the water engineers have gone off to the oil and gas industries where there is a lot more money. "So yes, there is a skills shortage right across the water industry, which is a serious one."

Not necessarily replying to any post in particular, but ....Let's do a George Orwell and see if we can guess what it'll be like in 2050 or worst case 2100. Half as many cars, andeach about half the size maybe? Battery powered? - come home and plug into the grid originating from a few nuclear powerplants and a handful of hydro stations where they get enough rainfall to work - nuclear waste has to be guarded, but that's easier than trying to “turn back the tide” twice a day - air conditioners banned maybe? the wealthy first world no longer allowed to take so much more than their share - (don't we realise that others will suffer from our extravagance). Solar panels on all roofs – especially in Aus – .. “thrift” at all levels – now there’s a brave new word for a Brave New World.

Anyone want to modify those guesses we made about where we'll be in 2050?
I'm more pessimistic that I was then ( 6 months ago ) -
or should I say (even) more Realistic
Maybe no sports cars either ? (see attachment )

PS Gotta feeling that either Realist or Smurf suggested the option of farmers going to NZ. (yep Realist takes the credit there too)) - you would have to assume that will be a reality as well, yes?.

 

[2020hindsight]

Realist , Just playing Devil's Advocate here..

you say "Australia is the dryest continent in the world - farmers get huge amounts of cheap land in areas known to be very dry. Then they moan about it not raining enough. No sh*t, of course it doesn't rain much! If you want rain go to New Zealand or England."

Would it be fair comment to add ..

"Australia is the dryest continent in the world - miners get huge amounts of cheap land (and water) in areas known to be very dry. (AND THEY NEED HEAPS OF WATER) . Then they moan about not having enough water to go round due to it not raining enough. No sh*t, of course it doesn't rain much! If you want water and mining-without-limit-and-without-social-responsibility, go to Namibia!"

This from an article on Green Left. I only want to talk about the water , ok? - and maybe BHP's insistence that the deal they have with SA govt cant be change ( I think it can, you know, BHP ).

Hell maybe they could filter out the radioactve content ? so that the water returns? Certainly they should be recycling radioactive water where possible ( probably they are I guess - as long as it can't leechout anywhere - they've just had a scandal there as well)

http://www.greenleft.org.au/2007/702/36477 Uranium: Leave it in the ground!
In 1994, it was revealed that at least 5 million cubic litres of radioactive water had leaked from the mine’s waste-water dams over two years, wreaking unknown damage on the local environment and endangering the safety of groundwater.

Now I'm for 100% in favour of uranium mining - PROVIDED
a) they pay their way, (whereas BHP get their water free at the moment - subject to SA govt overturning that)
b) that they take into account the fact that water is now worth more than oil.
c) that they act like good corporate citizens
d) maybe also that they acknowledge that they are "last on the block" after all - in some British Law, I would have thought "last in first out" would apply :2two cents

Summary
Could be that not only do farmers have to reduce their expectations for central Aus, but also the likes of the miners?
Could it be that the entire centre of Aus must limit its expectations every which way.
Could it be that the entire world, FIRST WORLD mankind (the selfish bastads), has to stop ruining the planet and "get real".?

 

[2020hindsight]

Its about time that NSW gave something back to Queensland after sponging off its wealth and natural resources since Federation.The ACT, NSW and Victoria owe WA, Qld and the NT more than they can ever repay with a dinky little dam on a secondary creek like the Clarence.

Garpal, I guess thousands of NSWelsh retirees went up there , (in the Joh BP days they were considering redesigning the Pacific Highway three lanes north and one lane south ) - then we could consider sending them a contribution to their water - maybe a tanker or two of water every second week, lol.
Provided they send back a contribution of their retirement funds they earned in NSW and took with em (joking on both counts) .ABC report refers http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200704/s1903447.htm

Population growth 'madness' ruining SE Qld water savings
South-east Queenslanders are being warned that savings in water consumption are being eroded by the region's rapid population growth. The group, Sustainable Population Australia (SPA) wants the Queensland Government to examine ways of capping the region's population. SPA spokesman Simon Baltais says efforts to conserve water are being undermined by the Government's support for population growth.

"Now we're telling farmers not to irrigate so we're putting people out of business. We're putting out the services that rely on those businesses and we're destroying communities," he said. "We're being told to conserve water, yet any reductions we make by way of consumption is whittled away by population growth.

"So you can only describe it as madness, in that we've been asked to get less and pay more for it, but by the way we're handing on anything we save to others who come that we're inviting - so it's quite a state of madness."

I guess since Joh was involved in this trend - that makes sence, I mean he always liked to dabble in a bit of "madness" knowingly or otherwise. lol.

Joking aside, and comparing two hypothetical river options - lets call em the Clarence R (which I'm assuming - big assumption - is pretty wild country somewhere up in the headwaters) with Mary R Valley (which I'm assuming includes a lot of beautiful land - tearing farmer's hearts out to leave it etc), you'd think they'd have to take into account the loss of good land.

So either
1. wildlife will lose out ( there is damn all forest left for them anyway) or
2. farmers will lose out (there is damn all decent watered areas for them as well).
3. or a third option demand management / serious discipline etc might have to be imposed on city folk ( here I'm including Gold Coast - and Sydney for that matter).

i.e.Since wildlife can't vote, it would (hypothetically) come down to damming uncleared forested less-arable valleys.

Proposal then :-
a) have a referendum on these dams
b) give two votes each to farmers (the givers), and one to city folk (the takers), and
c) give a vote to koalas and other wildlife .
just a thought.

PS and you're probably right in that states' boundaries will start to become lost to history - in every respect, not just this one.

 

[noirua]

There is no shortage of water in NSW as the miners are finding it by the plenty at their longwall and underground mines. Trouble is it's a trifle salty.

 

[2020hindsight]

Well, we don't appear to have any problems. Hurry up and do something everyone else, in the "emo" states.
I'm pretty sure most people in WA are sick of hearing about the water problems. Funny how WA is the driest state, yet we seem to have the least problems.

Chops,
concerning whether you have water problems, you think they won't have water problems in the future around Mandurah ?
You all got sick of it because the last election was all about a channel down from Kimberleys surely.
and btw what does "emo" stand for ? electo motive orgasmatron ? lol
maybe an emu bending over ?

 

[Smurf1976]

All this discussion about dams, McMansions, loss of farmland, nuclear power and so on all comes back to one central issue.

Growth.

We can't avoid the reality that we are living in a finite planet and that we know how large that planet is. There's zero prospect of a major new land discovery.

Renewable energy etc won't save us if we continue with the notion of infinite growth on a finite planet. It works at first but ultimately you reach the limits of the underlying resource, the ability to develop it and community tolerance over the effects.

Which leaves us with 3 options.

1. Keep going as we are until it is physically impossible to continue. That likely results in a population / consumption overshoot followed by some sort of collapse as resources are used beyond their sustainable rate.

2. Continue population growth with ever diminishing per capita consumption, including of food.

3. Limit the population.

Realistically I'm expecting option 1 although option 3 is the only one that makes any sense as I see it. Keep up x% annual growth and we end up at some point with Sydney having more people than the entire USA does at the moment. Even with 1% growth it happens eventually.

 

[Smurf1976]

Joking aside, and comparing two hypothetical river options - lets call em the Clarence R (which I'm assuming - big assumption - is pretty wild country somewhere up in the headwaters) with Mary R Valley (which I'm assuming includes a lot of beautiful land - tearing farmer's hearts out to leave it etc), you'd think they'd have to take into account the loss of good land.

...

Proposal then :-
a) have a referendum on these dams

A dams referendum with a choice between two dams.

Now where have I heard that one before...

The mere mention of anything involving dams and referendums is enough to get me worried given the history of that one in Tas.

 

[2020hindsight]

all comes back to one central issue. Growth. We can't avoid the reality that we are living in a finite planet and that we know how large that planet is. There's zero prospect of a major new land discovery.
Which leaves us with 3 options.
1. Keep going as we are until it is physically impossible to continue.
2. Continue population growth with ever diminishing ... consumption / food.
3. Limit the population.
Realistically I'm expecting option 1 although option 3 is the only one that makes any sense as I see it.

cripes you make sense Smurf !

Assumption on my part :- although you mention Sydney being overpopulated - I imagine you 'd agree that the real problem is the third world

Meanwhile here's John Billings suggested contraception method of achieving it. - proudly being taught to the third worls as " the only natural method". claimed to be "98.5% effective, WHO". (I wonder if that's WHO as in ..
World Health Organisation, or
WHO the heck would be mad enough to claim that?

The fine print in that pie chart reads :-
"THE BILLINGS OVULATION METHOD - Scientifically proven only entirely natural family planning method of achieving or postponing pregnancy - simple, effective (98.5% W.H.O.) healthy, costfree and culturally acceptable"

if they are saying 98.5% chance of {{{achieving or postponing}}} - ahh then maybe they could get someone to agree with em. I mean 5% chance of achieving it, 88.5% chance of postponing it

healthy ? - I would have thought that condoms were a damned sight healthier - millions of deceased AIDS victims might agere with me

costfree? - yep, except for the medical aspects, and the cost of bringing up big families

culturally acceptable? lol according to which culture? the one the people naturally hold and aspire to, or the one you preach to them when you make this nonsense a condition of foreign aid.

The press release on this website simply says "he is survived by widow and large and loving family".. doesnt mention the fact that (assuming I heard right on the ABC) he was survived by 8 of his 9 remaining children.

"Abstinence make the heart grow fonder" - in Doc Billing's case, it wasnt the only part of him to grow fonder you'd have to assume

http://www.billings-centre.ab.ca/general/vale.html

 

[Smurf1976]

cripes you make sense Smurf !

Assumption on my part :- although you mention Sydney being overpopulated - I imagine you 'd agree that the real problem is the third world

I only used Sydney as an example. I could have equally used Melbourne, Adelaide... even Launceston.

If you have constant growth at X% per annum then no matter what you are measuring, at some point it becomes very large.

Energy supply is a classic example as is water.

If we keep doubling energy use in Australia every 25 years as we are now then it's not a debate about nuclear versus coal anymore than Tasmania had a debate 25 years ago about hydro versus coal. Keep going and we end up building every dam, every coal-fired plant, developing every gas field, geothermal everywhere and still building the nuclear plants. And still "needing" more power.

 

[2020hindsight]

If we keep doubling energy use in Australia every 25 years as we are now ...

or little things like the number of blank pages that go through the photocopier at work maybe? I see the day when we'll all be allocated two sheets of paper each morning, and told "use it wisely, this is all we have until one of the trees in the backyard regrows".

 

[Uncle Festivus]

or little things like the number of blank pages that go through the photocopier at work maybe? I see the day when we'll all be allocated two sheets of paper each morning, and told "use it wisely, this is all we have until one of the trees in the backyard regrows".

Um.... would that be toilet paper or photocopier paper.....

 

[Aussiejeff]

All this discussion about dams, McMansions, loss of farmland, nuclear power and so on all comes back to one central issue.

Growth.

We can't avoid the reality that we are living in a finite planet and that we know how large that planet is. There's zero prospect of a major new land discovery.

Renewable energy etc won't save us if we continue with the notion of infinite growth on a finite planet. It works at first but ultimately you reach the limits of the underlying resource, the ability to develop it and community tolerance over the effects.

Which leaves us with 3 options.

1. Keep going as we are until it is physically impossible to continue. That likely results in a population / consumption overshoot followed by some sort of collapse as resources are used beyond their sustainable rate.

2. Continue population growth with ever diminishing per capita consumption, including of food.

3. Limit the population.

Realistically I'm expecting option 1 although option 3 is the only one that makes any sense as I see it. Keep up x% annual growth and we end up at some point with Sydney having more people than the entire USA does at the moment. Even with 1% growth it happens eventually.

Now, where do I get the dejavu vibe from?

Oh, yeah! The collapse of the EASTER ISLAND civilisation, wasn't it? Since they lived on a small island, their resources were very limited and needed to be veeery carefully managed to avert a catastrophic collapse of society. Did they worry? NO WAY! Twas more important to cut down all the trees to move idiot images of themselves all over the ruddy island! Then, the rain would not fall as much, the food petered out, the natives got RESTLES-S-S...

So, once the islanders had used up 100% of all their natural organic environment (food, trees etc), as a last bloody resort thery cannibalised each other until *poof* ..... no more problem....

See, I know where we are heading...

Smurf1976, are you edible???

AJ

 

[Smurf1976]

http://www.news.com.au/mercury/story/0,22884,21600961-421,00.html

Big dry may force power outage

It seems the media has finally woken up that Snowy Hydro is in serious trouble...

Dartmouth - completely empty as far as power generation is concerned
Snowy - almost gone
Tarong, Tarong North, Swanbank - restricted water supply, dams low.
Several others, some very large, not doing too well either.

Any candle, torch or battery stocks listed on the ASX?

 

[Uncle Festivus]

I wonder if insurance companies will invoke 'out' clauses for possible claims resulting from power shortages?

 

[Smurf1976]

I wonder if insurance companies will invoke 'out' clauses for possible claims resulting from power shortages?

Easy fixed. Won't be able to process the claims at all when the computer stops working.:

 

[Aussiejeff]

News release just in:

"PRIME Minister John Howard has rejected the idea that climate change is the overwhelming moral challenge facing Australians.

Speaking in Queensland today, Mr Howard said Australia was a minor emitter of greenhouse gases and could not influence the global climate by acting alone.

The Prime Minister said he rejected the Labor Party's zealotry about the issue.

"Do we need to lower carbon emissions over time? Of course we do," he told the Queensland Media Club in Brisbane.

"But to say that climate change is the overwhelming moral challenge for this generation of Australians is misguided at best and misleading at worst.

"It de-legitimises other challenges over which we do have significant and immediate control."

Mr Howard said such an approach also obscured the need for balanced government decision-making and fed ideological demands with kneejerk policy reactions.

Climate change was a serious policy challenge and a major priority of his Government, he said.

"At the same time we know that independent action by Australia will not materially affect our climate," he said.

No one in the environmental movement had claimed action by Australia alone would help, he said.
"Australia emits fewer greenhouse gases in a year than the United States and China emit in a month," he said."

Ah, good to see our esteemed leader is taking the issue seriously... *lol*

AJ

 

[2020hindsight]

Um.... would that be toilet paper or photocopier paper.....

ahh forgot to mention
one of each m8 - but with freedom to allocate to either in accordance with fluctuating supply and demand.