27 December, 2011
Toorale Money Waste and Community Economic Damage
Just in case the telling point is lost in too many words-see below. The Darling River flow past Louth for the 2010/11 year was 7,910,553 megalitres. The Government claim of "water returned to the river" in 2010/11 as a consequence of the Toorale close down, was 7,672 megalitres-0.01% of the flow.
26 December, 2011
Toorale Ramifications
The Sydney Morning Herald (David Wroe) has written a well balanced article on the waste of money in buying Toorale (pronounced Too-rally) Station at Bourke.http://www.smh.com.au/environment/station-buyout-a-waste-of-money-20111223-1p8ln.html.
I attempted to leverage this with a letter to the Editor which failed to make the final cut-
"Congratulations to the SMH (Station buyout a waste of money- 23rd December) for "outing" the Commonwealth and former NSW State Government for the total waste of $23.75m in purchasing Toorale Station. Not only was this a waste of taxpayer's funds for negligible environmental benefit, it also took out of production the hard hit Bourke community's most productive enterprise. How downstream grazier Justin Mc Clure can argue that a 0.01% increase in flow can generate downstream environmental benefits is a real mystery.
I attempted to leverage this with a letter to the Editor which failed to make the final cut-
"Congratulations to the SMH (Station buyout a waste of money- 23rd December) for "outing" the Commonwealth and former NSW State Government for the total waste of $23.75m in purchasing Toorale Station. Not only was this a waste of taxpayer's funds for negligible environmental benefit, it also took out of production the hard hit Bourke community's most productive enterprise. How downstream grazier Justin Mc Clure can argue that a 0.01% increase in flow can generate downstream environmental benefits is a real mystery.
The episode has wider ramifications in terms of the Draft Murray Darling Basin Plan. The Commonwealth Water Act 2007 and the approach of the Murray Darling Basin Authority is deeply flawed and the Toorale outcomes represent a good example of the likely consequences-negligible environmental benefit, but significant negative economic consequences. When flows are low, license conditions prevent extractions and diversions, when flows are significant the impacts of extractions and diversions are minimal. Dorothea Mackellar was absolutely right in describing inland Australia as a land of "droughts and flooding rains", she could have added and "not much in the middle".
In using absolute numbers as the MDBA has done, to prescribe acceptable extractions/diversions limits without gearing these to actual flows (availability) is really nonsense. To argue that these numbers are "averages" doesn't help, given the enormous spreads around the averages. Our current water bureaucrats could do worse than studying how the existing control system operates. It works rather well.
J.D.O.(David) Boyd
J.D.O.(David) Boyd
7A Eastern Arterial Road,
St Ives NSW 2075
Tel: 02 9449 7501
Mob: 0429 999 444
(Former Chairman and CEO of Clyde Agriculture, the previous owner of Toorale Station)"
Tel: 02 9449 7501
Mob: 0429 999 444
(Former Chairman and CEO of Clyde Agriculture, the previous owner of Toorale Station)"
16 December, 2011
Global non-Warming
Hitting the Nail on the Head!
Durban failed to explain why models were not achieved (Letter published in The Australian, 16 December 2011)
Your editorial (15/12) discussing Canada’s withdrawal from the binding Kyoto agreement also states your continued acceptance of “the strong evidence of anthropogenic climate change and support (for) limits on greenhouse gas emissions as a precautionary and remedial measure”.
But surely questions must be raised by the failure at Durban to hold any serious discussion of the now obvious failures of the supposed consensual climate science.
Most astonishing is the failure to explain at Durban why predictions based on scientific (sic) models are not being achieved.
Why do we need even to take precautionary action when there has been no real warming for almost two decades, no recent sea-level rise, no Arctic ice-melt, fewer hurricanes than at almost any time in 30 years and no Pacific atolls disappearing beneath the waves?
And, going back further, how do the modellers explain why over the past century temperatures did not rise for about 40 per cent of the time even when CO2 concentrations were increasing?
As the barman said to excessive imbibers, time’s up mate. Your precautionary action is to recognise you can’t get away with believing models.
Des Moore, South Yarra, Vic
11 December, 2011
Entitlements and Allocations
The following letter was published in the Sydney Morning Herald on 9th. December, 2011:
"The focus on the 2750 gigalitre (GLS) figure of claimed water "returned to the rivers" is highly misleading. This number refers to extraction entitlements.
( ) Omitted by Letters Editor
"The focus on the 2750 gigalitre (GLS) figure of claimed water "returned to the rivers" is highly misleading. This number refers to extraction entitlements.
( ) Omitted by Letters Editor
28 November, 2011
Matt Ridley on Climate Change
My favourite author of the moment ("The Rational Optimist") Matt Ridley has given a highly acclaimed speech on Climate Change. I commend it to you_
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/ridley_rsa.pdf
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/ridley_rsa.pdf
Murray Darling Basin Authority Draft Plan-November,2011
After a quick "skim" of the new Report I have prepared the following Questions for the Authority-
Guidelines For
Questioners At MDBA Plan Meetings –November, 2011
·
What is the specific evidence on which you state
the Basin is “unhealthy”, particularly after the recent wet years?
(The MDBA website states -“Our use of the
water in the Basin has changed how the rivers flow. These changes in
volume and timing have led to increases in salinity,
blue-green algal blooms and water quality degradation, while wetlands, red gum
forests, native fish and water bird populations are decreasing (my
emphasis). All of these features are symptoms of overuse and they are
what have led to the latest impetus for water reform.
What is the scientific basis for these
claimed symptoms? They are inconsistent with the practical observations of many
on-the-ground, knowledgeable, riparian dwellers.
·
Are you sure that you are not confusing the
natural results of a typical (but extreme) Australian dry period with chronic
“ill-health”?
·
Does the Authority accept that the ACF claim
that the Murray Darling Basin is on the point of “eco-collapse” is nonsense?
·
Given that the Water Sharing Plan guided allocations saw a cut of over 4,000 GL in
extractions during the recent drought and given that critical human needs and
assessed environmental needs have first priority; what is the point of the
Government buying entitlements?
Won’t this only prevent production when water is plentiful?
·
Does the Authority acknowledge the point made by
Harvard Professor John Briscoe that Australia achieved a rare accomplishment in
keeping the Murray River flowing when run-off was at all time (since European
settlement) record lows? Does the Authority acknowledge that this was achieved
by the existence of upstream storages, the Snowy River diversions and strict
limits on irrigation extractions? Does this not call for additional storages to
better spread the extreme variability of our river flows?
·
When, during the Millennium Drought, there was
no water available for irrigation extractions or to maintain the Lower Lakes in
there unnatural fresh water state, what was the logic for not allowing sea
water to enter the Lower Lakes as it always did under such dry conditions before
the Barrages were built?
·
Why does the report not examine the management
of Snowy Scheme diversions, particularly the use of Eucumbene Dam, the largest
storage feeding the Basin? Evidence suggests that Snowy Hydro are not required
to give sufficient weight to water conservation and supply considerations, consistent
with their hydro electricity generation objectives.
17 November, 2011
MDB Water-Two Contradictory Quotes
Quote -
"A very uneven distribution of water resources across Australia and high year-to-year variability means that water resources in some regions are fully or over allocated, while others remain largely undeveloped"
"A very uneven distribution of water resources across Australia and high year-to-year variability means that water resources in some regions are fully or over allocated, while others remain largely undeveloped"
CSIRO Water -Science and Solutions for Australia, 2011
Given allocations are not fixed but made subject to availability, how can anyone argue that water resources are over allocated?? Sure, irrigators face great uncertainty because of Australia's variable rainfall. It is the system of allocations that we use to deal with the variability'
A great quote-
"Perhaps more than any other parts of the Australian economy, farmers understand uncertainty. They live with uncertainty about rainfall and growing conditions. They live with uncertainty about the costs of their key inputs. And, of course, they live with uncertainty about the world prices for their outputs. It is this ability to deal with uncertainty that is one of the strong and enduring characteristics of the Australian farming sector.
Philip Lowe, Assistant Governor (Economic), Reserve Bank of Australia.
"Perhaps more than any other parts of the Australian economy, farmers understand uncertainty. They live with uncertainty about rainfall and growing conditions. They live with uncertainty about the costs of their key inputs. And, of course, they live with uncertainty about the world prices for their outputs. It is this ability to deal with uncertainty that is one of the strong and enduring characteristics of the Australian farming sector.
Philip Lowe, Assistant Governor (Economic), Reserve Bank of Australia.
I think claims of over allocation are nonsensical! What do you think? Am I missing something?
Our Unbalanced ABC
On 6th November the ABC Radio National programme"Background Briefing" featured the Qantas dispute.The
programme concentrated on the Coalition's IR policy, or lack of it. I sent in the following comment:-
programme concentrated on the Coalition's IR policy, or lack of it. I sent in the following comment:-
David Boyd :
14 Nov 2011 9:30:34am
12 November, 2011
Uncertainty
A quote worth remembering-
"Perhaps more than any other parts of the Australian economy, farmers understand uncertainty. They live with uncertainty about rainfall and growing conditions. They live with uncertainty about the costs of their key inputs. And, of course, they live with uncertainty about the world prices for their outputs. It is this ability to deal with uncertainty that is one of the strong and enduring characteristics of the Australian farming sector."
Philip Lowe, Assistant Governor (Economic), Reserve Bank of Australia.
"Perhaps more than any other parts of the Australian economy, farmers understand uncertainty. They live with uncertainty about rainfall and growing conditions. They live with uncertainty about the costs of their key inputs. And, of course, they live with uncertainty about the world prices for their outputs. It is this ability to deal with uncertainty that is one of the strong and enduring characteristics of the Australian farming sector."
Philip Lowe, Assistant Governor (Economic), Reserve Bank of Australia.
Latest Murray Darling Basin Plan-Apprehension
Those interested in maintaining Australia's long term agricultural productive capacity are awaiting the release of the latest iteration of the Murray Darling Basin Plan at the end of this month, with great interest and some apprehension. The attached video, particularly Louise Burge's comments, is spot on.
The Murray Darling Basin rivers are not, in general, unhealthy. In fact, following the recent wetter years the Basin has arguably never been in better shape. Yet the likes of the ACF continue to talk about "on the brink of eco-collapse".
The fear is that the Report will proceed from the false premise that the rivers are unhealthy and that this is due to excessive extractions. Leaks suggest that it will again focus on aggregate entitlements and ignore the success of the Water Sharing Plans and their limit on allocations when water is in short supply.
It will fail to recognise the great achievement, as a consequence of storages, diversions (Snowy) and extraction limitations of keeping the Murray River flowing throughout the lowest run-off period in Australia's recorded history. We should be celebrating not lamenting!
The Murray Darling Basin rivers are not, in general, unhealthy. In fact, following the recent wetter years the Basin has arguably never been in better shape. Yet the likes of the ACF continue to talk about "on the brink of eco-collapse".
The fear is that the Report will proceed from the false premise that the rivers are unhealthy and that this is due to excessive extractions. Leaks suggest that it will again focus on aggregate entitlements and ignore the success of the Water Sharing Plans and their limit on allocations when water is in short supply.
It will fail to recognise the great achievement, as a consequence of storages, diversions (Snowy) and extraction limitations of keeping the Murray River flowing throughout the lowest run-off period in Australia's recorded history. We should be celebrating not lamenting!
28 October, 2011
Irrigation Extractions in the MDB
This is worth listening to, especially when Tony Windsor (belatedly) expounds on the allocation process and the compere has a BGO (Blinding Glimpse of the Obvious) and immediately asks "well what's the problem". Good question! But, our ACF representative sticks with his programmed dogma and ignores the obvious.
17 October, 2011
A View of Murray Darling Irrigation from New York
Well known New York based Australian author and journalist,Kate Jennings,has contributed an interesting and colourfully expressed article to "The Monthly". It is well worth reading.
02 October, 2011
Europe
I have been much interested in the sovereign debt problems of the poor countries of Europe and how the creation of the Eurozone and the single currency, has removed the former main method of dealing with individual economic problems, namely currency devaluation, from the unfortunate members. How fortunate are the U.K. and the Czech Republic under my favourite President, Vaclav Klaus, (to name two), in not being members. The linked speech by Daniel Hannan, the member of the European Parliament for South England, strikes an appealing chord.
26 September, 2011
The Riverina
I wonder if the Riverina got its name from all the water which flows thru' it?
Gail and I have just had a great trip out to Condobolin, down the Lachlan River to Hillston, across to the Murrumbidgee River at Hay and then across those various watercourses (the Billabong and Yanko Creeks and the Edwards River that flow out of the Murrumbidgee and Murray Rivers), to Deniliquin. We returned via Conargo, Jerilderie, Lockhart, Wagga Wagga and Gundagai. Crops west of Parkes down to Lake Cargilligo were mostly struggling. Across the southern Riverina pastures and crops were wonderful.
Our main purpose was to attend the Annual Ram Sale and the big party put on by FS Falkiner and Sons (the Bell Group) to celebrate the 150th anniversary of the Wanganella Merino Stud which has had such an impact on the development of the Australian Merino's genetics over all those years. With fabulous sheep prices, (the auctioneers were able to announce at the ram sale that young merino ewes in the Hay Sale that very day had made $280/head) and much better wool prices, the mood was buoyant.
We had a wonderful trip meeting so many old friends including some Sydney and Melbourne based Bell associated friends who were having there first real exposure to the bush and the Merino world in particular. One group asked me to explain why I did not believe that irrigation extractions were having a negative impact on the health of our Murray Darling Basin rivers and why I believed that Commonwealth Government "buy backs" were a waste of taxpayer's money. For once the words seemed to fall out convincingly!
In summary, this is what I said:
Gail and I have just had a great trip out to Condobolin, down the Lachlan River to Hillston, across to the Murrumbidgee River at Hay and then across those various watercourses (the Billabong and Yanko Creeks and the Edwards River that flow out of the Murrumbidgee and Murray Rivers), to Deniliquin. We returned via Conargo, Jerilderie, Lockhart, Wagga Wagga and Gundagai. Crops west of Parkes down to Lake Cargilligo were mostly struggling. Across the southern Riverina pastures and crops were wonderful.
Our main purpose was to attend the Annual Ram Sale and the big party put on by FS Falkiner and Sons (the Bell Group) to celebrate the 150th anniversary of the Wanganella Merino Stud which has had such an impact on the development of the Australian Merino's genetics over all those years. With fabulous sheep prices, (the auctioneers were able to announce at the ram sale that young merino ewes in the Hay Sale that very day had made $280/head) and much better wool prices, the mood was buoyant.
We had a wonderful trip meeting so many old friends including some Sydney and Melbourne based Bell associated friends who were having there first real exposure to the bush and the Merino world in particular. One group asked me to explain why I did not believe that irrigation extractions were having a negative impact on the health of our Murray Darling Basin rivers and why I believed that Commonwealth Government "buy backs" were a waste of taxpayer's money. For once the words seemed to fall out convincingly!
In summary, this is what I said:
- It rains or it doesn't. Our dams fill (or partially fill) or they don't.
- An irrigation license (entitlement) grants the holder the right to extract water when, and only when, there is an allocation.
- Allocations are reviewed several times per year and subject to water availability allocations are made, or not made.
- Allocation decisions are guided by water sharing plans and these plans, in general, specify that critical human needs have first priority, assessed environmental needs have second priority and when, and only when, these priorities are met are decisions made on allocations. These may be anything from nil to 100% of the entitlements specified in licenses.
Given this process the purchase of licenses by Government during say, drought conditions, when there are no allocations is pointless. In fact, the purchase of licenses under all conditions would seem to be pointless. The group appeared to get the logic.
29 August, 2011
Murray Mouth
I today sent the following letter to The Australian. Probably too long for publication-but I felt better!
The article by Jennifer Marohasy (The Weekend Australian- Sea Will Save the Murray-27th August) is a very accurate, well balanced review of the Lower Lakes issue in the context of the Murray Darling Basin Plan.
The key characteristic of the Australian rainfall pattern is massive variability. So much so that average statistics, with the massive spread around the average, are effectively meaningless. This variability results in fresh water flows at the Murray mouth being highly irregular. The Murray mouth was regarded by explorer Sturt as being the entrance to Lake Alexandrina with Lakes Alexandrina and Albert and the northern end of The Coorong forming the river estuary, with the actual entrance to the Southern Ocean being an ever changing channel, difficult to negotiate at the best of times and sometimes closed altogether. At times the lakes were mostly fresh water, sometimes mostly salt, depending on tides, winds and most of all upstream river flows.
In the 1930's the South Australians constructed "The Barrages" between the lakes and the ocean outlet to convert the Lower Lakes (Alexandrina and Albert) into an all times fresh water storage held above sea level. This was beneficial for navigation, irrigators and more recently for recreation/canal style housing development. This action carried with it a quite unreasonable expectation that there would always be sufficient fresh water flows from upstream to maintain the lakes at their elevated fresh water levels, notwithstanding very high evaporation. When this failed to happen, the failure was always blamed on upstream extractions for irrigation when the major cause was simply lack of run-off.
This situation was dramatically demonstrated in the 2002-2008 period when catchment run-off was at record low levels and there simply was not enough water to maintain the lakes in their elevated fresh water state even though upstream irrigation extractions were effectively prohibited. Fortunately upstream storages were sufficient to meet critical human needs and maintain minimal river flow.
The bottom line is that under dry conditions there is simply not enough water to maintain the lakes in their unnatural elevated fresh water state and better management of the Basin strongly suggests that, at least under these conditions, The Barrages should be opened to allow salt water to enter. A weir (or lock) would need to be built on the Murray above Lake Alexandrina to provide fresh water for river and lake irrigators (piped) and to protect Adelaide's fresh water supply from downstream salt water intrusion.
The article by Jennifer Marohasy (The Weekend Australian- Sea Will Save the Murray-27th August) is a very accurate, well balanced review of the Lower Lakes issue in the context of the Murray Darling Basin Plan.
The key characteristic of the Australian rainfall pattern is massive variability. So much so that average statistics, with the massive spread around the average, are effectively meaningless. This variability results in fresh water flows at the Murray mouth being highly irregular. The Murray mouth was regarded by explorer Sturt as being the entrance to Lake Alexandrina with Lakes Alexandrina and Albert and the northern end of The Coorong forming the river estuary, with the actual entrance to the Southern Ocean being an ever changing channel, difficult to negotiate at the best of times and sometimes closed altogether. At times the lakes were mostly fresh water, sometimes mostly salt, depending on tides, winds and most of all upstream river flows.
In the 1930's the South Australians constructed "The Barrages" between the lakes and the ocean outlet to convert the Lower Lakes (Alexandrina and Albert) into an all times fresh water storage held above sea level. This was beneficial for navigation, irrigators and more recently for recreation/canal style housing development. This action carried with it a quite unreasonable expectation that there would always be sufficient fresh water flows from upstream to maintain the lakes at their elevated fresh water levels, notwithstanding very high evaporation. When this failed to happen, the failure was always blamed on upstream extractions for irrigation when the major cause was simply lack of run-off.
This situation was dramatically demonstrated in the 2002-2008 period when catchment run-off was at record low levels and there simply was not enough water to maintain the lakes in their elevated fresh water state even though upstream irrigation extractions were effectively prohibited. Fortunately upstream storages were sufficient to meet critical human needs and maintain minimal river flow.
The bottom line is that under dry conditions there is simply not enough water to maintain the lakes in their unnatural elevated fresh water state and better management of the Basin strongly suggests that, at least under these conditions, The Barrages should be opened to allow salt water to enter. A weir (or lock) would need to be built on the Murray above Lake Alexandrina to provide fresh water for river and lake irrigators (piped) and to protect Adelaide's fresh water supply from downstream salt water intrusion.
19 August, 2011
Czech President Vaclav Klaus
This great man has charmed his way around Australia with his simple clear economists's logic. Although he speaks with a thick accent he has a great command of the English language and is worth listening to. I heard him in person in Sydney and closely watched his presentation to the National Press Club. His experience of communism makes him very alert to threats to freedom. Here is an edited version of his Melbourne presentation.
Later
Here is the speech to the National Press Club, which is even better.
Later
Here is the speech to the National Press Club, which is even better.
22 July, 2011
Global Population
"The spread of birth control and a desire for smaller families tend to accompany economic growth and development almost everywhere." The Economist,21st July,2011
This fact has led demographers to project world population peaking at 9/10 billion by mid century and then beginning to drop continuously as it would already be doing in the developed world, if it were not for immigration.
To my mind this should encourage countries such as Australia to concentrate their production on energising,feeding and clothing the developing world in the knowledge that lifting countries out of poverty and disease will not only make life more bearable for them, but will have the environmental benefit of stopping global population growth. The sooner living standards are improved in the third world the sooner population growth will cease.
In the interim we'd better concentrate on lifting productivity growth in preparation for the economic challenges we will face when global population starts to decrease. For Australia, a more flexible deregulated labour market would be a good place to start. Unfortunately Julia Gillard as P.M. and Labour Minister has been taking us backwards in this regard.
This fact has led demographers to project world population peaking at 9/10 billion by mid century and then beginning to drop continuously as it would already be doing in the developed world, if it were not for immigration.
To my mind this should encourage countries such as Australia to concentrate their production on energising,feeding and clothing the developing world in the knowledge that lifting countries out of poverty and disease will not only make life more bearable for them, but will have the environmental benefit of stopping global population growth. The sooner living standards are improved in the third world the sooner population growth will cease.
In the interim we'd better concentrate on lifting productivity growth in preparation for the economic challenges we will face when global population starts to decrease. For Australia, a more flexible deregulated labour market would be a good place to start. Unfortunately Julia Gillard as P.M. and Labour Minister has been taking us backwards in this regard.
15 July, 2011
Optimism
In these grim cold days of carbon taxes and incompetent Government,falling confidence and retail sales (David Jones), we all need something to cheer us up. Have a listen to Matt Ridley,The Rational Optimist. It is very refreshing.
05 July, 2011
My Climate Change Position
I just don't have enough basic education to evaluate the technical arguments. My firm sceptic position is more influenced by my view of human motivation, my tendency to want to challenge conventional wisdom and my attraction to the logic of people like Nigel (Lord) Lawson.
When I read the comments of Freeman Dyson (Princeton) and all the other sceptic material, I perceive a very compelling case on the sceptic side.
Then when I listen to the Parliamentary ravings of Wayne Swan, in particular, constantly quoting the Stern Report, discredited by our own Productivity Commission, and suggesting that Australia, with its tiny proportion of greenhouse gases, can change the climate, I smell bullshit!
I liked Tony Abbott's comment the other day- "socialism disguised as environmentalism"
When I read the comments of Freeman Dyson (Princeton) and all the other sceptic material, I perceive a very compelling case on the sceptic side.
Then when I listen to the Parliamentary ravings of Wayne Swan, in particular, constantly quoting the Stern Report, discredited by our own Productivity Commission, and suggesting that Australia, with its tiny proportion of greenhouse gases, can change the climate, I smell bullshit!
I liked Tony Abbott's comment the other day- "socialism disguised as environmentalism"
27 June, 2011
Carbon
The Editor
Letters to the Editor
Herald Sun
24 June 2011
Open Response to Eminent Persons and Others
Carbon is a dirty grimy substance that pollutes the atmosphere and for this reason is presented to you as the Government's target to tax.
However the substance the Government intends to tax is carbon dioxide[CO2] which is neither a pollutant or a poison , but a colourless tasteless, odourless gas that as my agricultural science master taught me is nature's greatest fertiliser necessary for the life of all trees plants, pastures and crops. Then through photosynthesis those same trees, plants, pastures and
crops turn CO2 into oxygen the very substance we breathe to live and that sustains all human, animal and bird life on earth.
It is intellectually dishonest for Prime Minister Gillard, Minister Combet, and advisors Garnaut and Flannery to mislead people by using the term carbon pollution.
The people of Australia deserve honesty in a debate that seeks to raise billions of dollars in a new tax.
Peter Nixon
Fmr Minister for Primary Industry
Letters to the Editor
Herald Sun
24 June 2011
Open Response to Eminent Persons and Others
Carbon is a dirty grimy substance that pollutes the atmosphere and for this reason is presented to you as the Government's target to tax.
However the substance the Government intends to tax is carbon dioxide[CO2] which is neither a pollutant or a poison , but a colourless tasteless, odourless gas that as my agricultural science master taught me is nature's greatest fertiliser necessary for the life of all trees plants, pastures and crops. Then through photosynthesis those same trees, plants, pastures and
crops turn CO2 into oxygen the very substance we breathe to live and that sustains all human, animal and bird life on earth.
It is intellectually dishonest for Prime Minister Gillard, Minister Combet, and advisors Garnaut and Flannery to mislead people by using the term carbon pollution.
The people of Australia deserve honesty in a debate that seeks to raise billions of dollars in a new tax.
Peter Nixon
Fmr Minister for Primary Industry
Carbon Dioxide
Extract from Senaor Nick Minchin's Valedictory Speech-
"Perhaps the most curious thing to me on reflecting on my career is the amount of time and energy occupied by consideration of the issue of carbon dioxide. Little did I know when I entered this place 18 years ago that carbon dioxide would play such a significant role in mycareer.Education, health, defence, foreign affairs,taxation and fiscal and monetary policy—all of these I expected to dominate political discourse. But carbon dioxide? Never. As I learnt in school, carbon dioxide is a clear, odourless, tasteless and invisible gas that is actually vital to life on earth. It constitutes 0.04 per cent of the atmosphere. Nature is responsible for 97 per cent of the earth's production of CO2; humans, just three per cent. And yet many now see anthropogenic CO2 as the greatest threat to humankind on our planet, a threat which demands no less than an economic revolution to avert. Anyone who dares question this as yet unproven theory of anthropogenic global warming is branded a denier, as we heard from my good friend Senator Evans today, and treated as a veritable pariah.
I must say that when I first learned of the existence of the Australian Greenhouse Office, I assumed it was responsible for supplying tomatoes to the Parliament House kitchen. But, no, as I soon learnt as industry minister, it was in fact a government funded redoubt of veritable soldiers in a war against carbon dioxide.The zealotry and obsessive passion of these warriors in the battle against the apparent evils of carbon dioxide remains a curiosity to me. After fighting these people for three years as industry minister, I really did wish they would just go away and grow tomatoes. I am quite surprised and rather disappointed by the loneliness, isolation and indeed demonisation the sadly misunderstood CO2 is experiencing. Thus,upon leaving the parliament, I am contemplating the foundation of an organisation called 'The Friends of Carbon Dioxide'. Membership will of course be open to all, including the plants whose very existence depends on CO2. I think this organisation's slogan, 'CO2 is not pollution', self-selects. It has both accuracy and melody to commend it. I do acknowledge the remarkable power of CO2. After all, it led me to have to do something I had thought unthinkable, and that was to resign from the coalition frontbench at the end of 2009—albeit for only a very short time. CO2 played a significant part in the demise of Kevin Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull.It may well result in the demise of our current Prime Minister, so that really is some gas!
I do remain optimistic that one day the world will realise that carbon dioxide is more of a friend than an enemy to the earth's flora and fauna, and I do seriously believe that, given the extraordinary complexity of the natural forces controlling our climate, which have done so for millions of years, the only sensible policy response to the natural process of climate change is prudent and cost-effective adaptation."
"Perhaps the most curious thing to me on reflecting on my career is the amount of time and energy occupied by consideration of the issue of carbon dioxide. Little did I know when I entered this place 18 years ago that carbon dioxide would play such a significant role in mycareer.Education, health, defence, foreign affairs,taxation and fiscal and monetary policy—all of these I expected to dominate political discourse. But carbon dioxide? Never. As I learnt in school, carbon dioxide is a clear, odourless, tasteless and invisible gas that is actually vital to life on earth. It constitutes 0.04 per cent of the atmosphere. Nature is responsible for 97 per cent of the earth's production of CO2; humans, just three per cent. And yet many now see anthropogenic CO2 as the greatest threat to humankind on our planet, a threat which demands no less than an economic revolution to avert. Anyone who dares question this as yet unproven theory of anthropogenic global warming is branded a denier, as we heard from my good friend Senator Evans today, and treated as a veritable pariah.
I must say that when I first learned of the existence of the Australian Greenhouse Office, I assumed it was responsible for supplying tomatoes to the Parliament House kitchen. But, no, as I soon learnt as industry minister, it was in fact a government funded redoubt of veritable soldiers in a war against carbon dioxide.The zealotry and obsessive passion of these warriors in the battle against the apparent evils of carbon dioxide remains a curiosity to me. After fighting these people for three years as industry minister, I really did wish they would just go away and grow tomatoes. I am quite surprised and rather disappointed by the loneliness, isolation and indeed demonisation the sadly misunderstood CO2 is experiencing. Thus,upon leaving the parliament, I am contemplating the foundation of an organisation called 'The Friends of Carbon Dioxide'. Membership will of course be open to all, including the plants whose very existence depends on CO2. I think this organisation's slogan, 'CO2 is not pollution', self-selects. It has both accuracy and melody to commend it. I do acknowledge the remarkable power of CO2. After all, it led me to have to do something I had thought unthinkable, and that was to resign from the coalition frontbench at the end of 2009—albeit for only a very short time. CO2 played a significant part in the demise of Kevin Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull.It may well result in the demise of our current Prime Minister, so that really is some gas!
I do remain optimistic that one day the world will realise that carbon dioxide is more of a friend than an enemy to the earth's flora and fauna, and I do seriously believe that, given the extraordinary complexity of the natural forces controlling our climate, which have done so for millions of years, the only sensible policy response to the natural process of climate change is prudent and cost-effective adaptation."
17 June, 2011
Truth-a self lecture
I like this:
"Perception will not be our driver,because reality ultimately takes over from perception and it's reality we rely on in establishing our record. (Graeme Samuel in discussing his time as Chairman of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission 12.06.11.)
I believe we should constantly seek after our perception of the truth, uninfluenced by whatever the conventional wisdom may be. In pursuing a point, don't get angry or rude,but just keep hammering away at what you believe to be true. Sir Gustav Nossal talks of "sweet reason".
Beware of being dogmatic and remember the saying (attributed to J.M. Keynes and/or Einstein)- "When the facts change, I change my mind - what do you do, sir?"
"Perception will not be our driver,because reality ultimately takes over from perception and it's reality we rely on in establishing our record. (Graeme Samuel in discussing his time as Chairman of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission 12.06.11.)
I believe we should constantly seek after our perception of the truth, uninfluenced by whatever the conventional wisdom may be. In pursuing a point, don't get angry or rude,but just keep hammering away at what you believe to be true. Sir Gustav Nossal talks of "sweet reason".
Beware of being dogmatic and remember the saying (attributed to J.M. Keynes and/or Einstein)- "When the facts change, I change my mind - what do you do, sir?"
13 June, 2011
Live Cattle Exports
I am deeply concerned at the turmoil caused in Northern Australia by the suspension of the live cattle trade to Indonesia.
Nobody would condone the animal cruelty witnessed in the Four Corners programme. And nobody would contend that what we witnessed was representative of the whole Indonesian abattoir scene. The cruelty must be stopped, but to do that by suspending the entire export trade is surely using a sledgehammer to crack a nut and creating more problems than it solves.
What we are now witnessing is a Government reacting to an extreme television expose stirred up by animal liberation extremists, with apparently no understanding or real concern for the massive impact upon northern Australian beef producers,Indonesian farmers and all of the ancillary services which support Northern Australia's major agricultural industry, at the height of their selling season.
Industry experts, many of whom have visited Indonesian abattoirs, say that they have never witnessed such cruelty. Whilst any cruelty is unacceptable,there is no doubt the Four Corners producers dug deep and hard to find footage to meet their chosen angle.
Industry experts also say that it would be a relatively simple matter to immediately make export sales conditional upon ultimate slaughter in Australian approved abattoirs only. The Indonesian President has personally advocated this solution.
Most of the Australian public would not know of how exports of weaner cattle to Indonesia have in recent years dominated the beef industry in our North. Station programmes,transport (road and shipping), marshalling yards,feed production etc. all represent significant investment and employment to service this trade. At the Indonesian end,local investment in feedlots, abattoirs and small farmer production of feed for the feedlots, all represent very important economic activity and employment for a developing country.
If our Government has any real concern for human and animal welfare, rather than pandering to noisy extremists,it would immediately move to resolve this matter now,not in six months time.
(This post, minus the fourth and fifth paragraphs, was published as a letter in The Australian on 14th June.)
Nobody would condone the animal cruelty witnessed in the Four Corners programme. And nobody would contend that what we witnessed was representative of the whole Indonesian abattoir scene. The cruelty must be stopped, but to do that by suspending the entire export trade is surely using a sledgehammer to crack a nut and creating more problems than it solves.
What we are now witnessing is a Government reacting to an extreme television expose stirred up by animal liberation extremists, with apparently no understanding or real concern for the massive impact upon northern Australian beef producers,Indonesian farmers and all of the ancillary services which support Northern Australia's major agricultural industry, at the height of their selling season.
Industry experts, many of whom have visited Indonesian abattoirs, say that they have never witnessed such cruelty. Whilst any cruelty is unacceptable,there is no doubt the Four Corners producers dug deep and hard to find footage to meet their chosen angle.
Industry experts also say that it would be a relatively simple matter to immediately make export sales conditional upon ultimate slaughter in Australian approved abattoirs only. The Indonesian President has personally advocated this solution.
Most of the Australian public would not know of how exports of weaner cattle to Indonesia have in recent years dominated the beef industry in our North. Station programmes,transport (road and shipping), marshalling yards,feed production etc. all represent significant investment and employment to service this trade. At the Indonesian end,local investment in feedlots, abattoirs and small farmer production of feed for the feedlots, all represent very important economic activity and employment for a developing country.
If our Government has any real concern for human and animal welfare, rather than pandering to noisy extremists,it would immediately move to resolve this matter now,not in six months time.
(This post, minus the fourth and fifth paragraphs, was published as a letter in The Australian on 14th June.)
08 June, 2011
The Barrages and the Lower Lakes
The linked article,published in The Australian on 7th June should be compulsory reading for all those interested in the management of the Murray Darling Basin.
I wrote the following letter to the Editor in support, which at this point has not been published:
Congratulations to Johnny Kahlbetzer for so succinctly explaining (‘Free-Flowing Estuary Vital to Healthy River System-The Australian 7th June) the mis-treatment of the Lower Lakes at the mouth of the Murray River. For far too long the South Australian's have been playing the "end of the river victim's card" and this has diverted attention from the unnatural state of Lakes Albert and Alexandrina and has focused attention on upstream diversions rather than the root cause of downstream barriers blocking out the Southern Ocean. It is extraordinary that this situation and the enormous losses of fresh water to evaporation, did not rate a single mention in the much criticised Guide to the Murray Darling Basin Plan.
I wrote the following letter to the Editor in support, which at this point has not been published:
Congratulations to Johnny Kahlbetzer for so succinctly explaining (‘Free-Flowing Estuary Vital to Healthy River System-The Australian 7th June) the mis-treatment of the Lower Lakes at the mouth of the Murray River. For far too long the South Australian's have been playing the "end of the river victim's card" and this has diverted attention from the unnatural state of Lakes Albert and Alexandrina and has focused attention on upstream diversions rather than the root cause of downstream barriers blocking out the Southern Ocean. It is extraordinary that this situation and the enormous losses of fresh water to evaporation, did not rate a single mention in the much criticised Guide to the Murray Darling Basin Plan.
23 May, 2011
Today The World Has Gone Mad!
Get Up on the Murray Darling Basin-
"The Murray Darling Basin has been sucked dry by decades of over extraction. Despite recent rain and floods the Murray Darling Basin is on the brink of ecosystem collapse. Already over 90% of the floodplain wetlands have been destroyed along with native fish and bird populations."
That is total rubbish.In the last ten days I have travelled extensively in the Basin, including along the Darling,Macquarie and Lachlan Rivers and can report the MDB has never been in better shape!
Climate Commission On Global Warming-
"ONE of Julia Gillard's top climate advisers says climate change denial is a luxury the world can no longer afford, declaring the decisions Australian politicians make now will affect future generations."
Apparently, Australia's 1.3% component of the 3% (that is .000039%) human induced contribution to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will make the difference!
Really, do these alarmists think we are all stupid!
"The Murray Darling Basin has been sucked dry by decades of over extraction. Despite recent rain and floods the Murray Darling Basin is on the brink of ecosystem collapse. Already over 90% of the floodplain wetlands have been destroyed along with native fish and bird populations."
That is total rubbish.In the last ten days I have travelled extensively in the Basin, including along the Darling,Macquarie and Lachlan Rivers and can report the MDB has never been in better shape!
Climate Commission On Global Warming-
"ONE of Julia Gillard's top climate advisers says climate change denial is a luxury the world can no longer afford, declaring the decisions Australian politicians make now will affect future generations."
Apparently, Australia's 1.3% component of the 3% (that is .000039%) human induced contribution to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will make the difference!
Really, do these alarmists think we are all stupid!
18 April, 2011
Murray Darling Basin-The Lower Lakes and The Barrages
Jennifer Marohasy recently debated a representative of the Australian Conservation Foundation on the Murray Darling Basin Plan. Here are the notes of what she said.
05 April, 2011
Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)
This paper by the highly regarded Don Aitken is probably, in my ever humble opinion, the best balanced commentary on this issue that I have read. I commend it to all for quiet, contemplative reading.
25 March, 2011
Garnaud and Climate Change
What a clear, crisp communication. Factual and unemotional-
Need for review of Garnaut policies (Letter published in AFR, 25 March)
You report that, in an address to the National Press Club, Blue Scope Chairman Graham Kraehe accused Ross Garnaut of using “very selective, highly misleading” figures (“Bluescope fires salvo at Garnaut”, March 23).
Kraehe was, in fact, being generous to Garnaut’s latest “updates”, which are replete with incorrect or misleading data and analyses.
In his “key points” on the science of climate change, Garnaut claims that “the statistically significant warming trend has been confirmed by observations over recent years”. It is widely accepted that this is not the case and careful statistical analysis shows no significant change since 2001.
Garnaut also claims that “the rate of sea level rise has accelerated and is tracking above the range suggested by the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]”. Again, this is not the case. Satellite measurements show the average sea level has risen at 2.2 mm a year since 2002, which if continued would produce a rise of only 22cms by 2100. This would be well within the range of 19-59cms projected by the IPCC and would result in minimal inundations.
Garnaut also grossly exaggerates the extent of scientific support for the dangerous warming thesis. For example, in a recent letter to the US Congress 74 scientists drew attention to 678 peer-reviewed scientific studies providing a point-by-point rebuttal of that thesis.
If it is to be responsible the government must carefully review the Garnaut expositions before starting additional emissions policies.
Des Moore
Director, Institute for Private Enterprise
South Yarra Vic
Need for review of Garnaut policies (Letter published in AFR, 25 March)
You report that, in an address to the National Press Club, Blue Scope Chairman Graham Kraehe accused Ross Garnaut of using “very selective, highly misleading” figures (“Bluescope fires salvo at Garnaut”, March 23).
Kraehe was, in fact, being generous to Garnaut’s latest “updates”, which are replete with incorrect or misleading data and analyses.
In his “key points” on the science of climate change, Garnaut claims that “the statistically significant warming trend has been confirmed by observations over recent years”. It is widely accepted that this is not the case and careful statistical analysis shows no significant change since 2001.
Garnaut also claims that “the rate of sea level rise has accelerated and is tracking above the range suggested by the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]”. Again, this is not the case. Satellite measurements show the average sea level has risen at 2.2 mm a year since 2002, which if continued would produce a rise of only 22cms by 2100. This would be well within the range of 19-59cms projected by the IPCC and would result in minimal inundations.
Garnaut also grossly exaggerates the extent of scientific support for the dangerous warming thesis. For example, in a recent letter to the US Congress 74 scientists drew attention to 678 peer-reviewed scientific studies providing a point-by-point rebuttal of that thesis.
If it is to be responsible the government must carefully review the Garnaut expositions before starting additional emissions policies.
Des Moore
Director, Institute for Private Enterprise
South Yarra Vic
24 March, 2011
Indigenous Employment in the Murray Darling Basin
The linked well expressed submission by the NSW Aboriginal Land Council strikes a chord. My mind was focussed on this issue during my time as Chairman of the Darling Matilda Way Sustainable Region Advisory Council. The central conclusion I came to was the need for economically sustainable job opportunities in those river towns with significant aboriginal populations. The cotton industry's aboriginal employment initiative was a great example of what can be achieved.
The major impediment was identifying those industries that were economically sustainable in what are mostly remote areas. Almost by definition, irrigation in "river towns" is a stand out and this aspect needs to be given full weighting in consideration of the socio-economic impact of the proposed water reforms.
The major impediment was identifying those industries that were economically sustainable in what are mostly remote areas. Almost by definition, irrigation in "river towns" is a stand out and this aspect needs to be given full weighting in consideration of the socio-economic impact of the proposed water reforms.
18 March, 2011
Harvard Professor John Briscoe on Murray Darling Basin Plan
This submisssion to the Barnaby Joyce inspired inquiry by Senate's Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, is in my opinion one of the best things I have read on this subject. A clear, objective view, from an expert not caught up in local politics. I commend it to all. It puts the Craig Knowles interview (see previous post),in perspective. Some of my water expert friends have told me(nicely),that my enthusiasm in that regard was naive!
16 March, 2011
11 March, 2011
Farmer's Water Allocations
All licenses/entitlements in the Murray Darling Basin are subject to seasonal allocations, or on the "unregulated" rivers, the attainment of minimal river heights. I believe it was the late Professor Peter Cullen who made the statement that "in a dry country like Australia we shouldn't be growing thirsty crops like rice and cotton". Both Australian industries lead the world in their use of science and technology. By every measure they lead their respective world "competitors"-yields, water use efficiency, etc..
The Peter Cullen statement was "parroted" by the "chattering classes" over their chardonnays in Paddington. Cullen was subsequently convinced by the likes of fellow Water Commissioner Peter Corish, that annual crops like rice and cotton are in fact ideal for our highly variable rainfall and river flows. No or little water, no crop. He recanted before he died and withdrew the comment, but the chattering classes never caught up and the statement is still frequently quoted.
Likewise I still hear references to "rights to permanently extract water which need to be withdrawn". There are no such things! For some reason people seem to resist thinking about it sequentially. It rains or it doesn't. Dams fill or they don't and water is allocated or it is not. The defined requirments of the environment, critical human needs and stock and domestic needs are all given priority before allocations for irrigation are granted. This process is all set out in the much debated Water Sharing Plans applicable to each river. And this is why it is just plain wrong to blame extractions for irrigation for low water flows. The simple cause of low river flows is lack of natural run-off! Dorothea Mackellar understood this so well,hence "droughts and flooding rains". See Clive James wonderful essay.
The Peter Cullen statement was "parroted" by the "chattering classes" over their chardonnays in Paddington. Cullen was subsequently convinced by the likes of fellow Water Commissioner Peter Corish, that annual crops like rice and cotton are in fact ideal for our highly variable rainfall and river flows. No or little water, no crop. He recanted before he died and withdrew the comment, but the chattering classes never caught up and the statement is still frequently quoted.
Likewise I still hear references to "rights to permanently extract water which need to be withdrawn". There are no such things! For some reason people seem to resist thinking about it sequentially. It rains or it doesn't. Dams fill or they don't and water is allocated or it is not. The defined requirments of the environment, critical human needs and stock and domestic needs are all given priority before allocations for irrigation are granted. This process is all set out in the much debated Water Sharing Plans applicable to each river. And this is why it is just plain wrong to blame extractions for irrigation for low water flows. The simple cause of low river flows is lack of natural run-off! Dorothea Mackellar understood this so well,hence "droughts and flooding rains". See Clive James wonderful essay.
07 March, 2011
Climate Change and Water Conservation From Clive James
For someone who for decades has been 'dining out' on "Droughts and flooding rains", (and not much in the middle) in trying to explain the massive variability of Australia's climate and inland water flows and the need for conservation, it is deeply satisfying to read Clive James' wonderful article. I commend it to all.
06 March, 2011
MD Basin Plan
Spot-on!
Axe Murray-Darling plan and start again: US expert
Peter Ker
March 5, 2011
AUSTRALIA'S performance on reforming the Murray-Darling Basin has been savaged by one of the world's top water experts, who says the process is flawed by political deception and opportunism.
Harvard University professor John Briscoe - a former senior water adviser for the World Bank - has urged Australia to dump the work done on the plan and start again with a new act of parliament.
His comments follow months of controversy over whether the Water Act of 2007 had forced the Murray-Darling Basin Authority to prepare a reform plan that favoured the environment over social and economic concerns.
In a statement to a Senate inquiry, Professor Briscoe said there was no doubt the Water Act gave priority to the environment, and claims to the contrary were ''poppycock''.
Despite living abroad, Professor Briscoe is well acquainted with the basin plan as he was hired by the authority to participate as a foreign expert, and was asked to review the basin plan before it was released publicly in October.
The Water Act was created by Liberal MP Malcolm Turnbull during the Howard government, and Professor Briscoe said the environment was given legal primacy in an act of political opportunism because it was one of the few ways the Commonwealth could constitutionally take control of water from the states.
''That original sin is responsible for most of the detour on which Australian water management now finds itself,'' he said. ''Australia cannot find its way in water management if this act is the guide.''
Professor Briscoe said his involvement with the basin plan was dogged by the most ''elaborate confidentiality'' measures he had ever seen, and he had urged authority chief executive Rob Freeman and former chairman Mike Taylor to tell the Labor government that the Water Act ''would not and could not work''.
''We were given to believe that there was no appetite for such a message at higher levels in the government in Canberra,'' he said.
The Gillard government has resisted calls to replace the Water Act in recent months, and has declared - unlike most observers - that the act is designed to treat environmental, social and economic factors equally.
Putting himself further at odds with the government, Professor Briscoe took a dim view of plans to spend taxpayers' money on the modernisation of irrigation infrastructure.
''This is a very expensive way to save water and many of the investments will be made in areas that will, sooner or later, go out of production,'' he said.
In a further blow to the authority's credibility, leading scientists have accused it of misusing their work in creating the basin plan.
The CSIRO cited several instances where its work was wrongly applied, including one occasion relating to illegal interception of water. ''CSIRO has some concerns with how the authority has interpreted or applied this work in the development of key aspects of the basin plan,'' it said.
The CSIRO asked the basin authority to correct certain references to CSIRO work in the final version of the plan.
Axe Murray-Darling plan and start again: US expert
Peter Ker
March 5, 2011
AUSTRALIA'S performance on reforming the Murray-Darling Basin has been savaged by one of the world's top water experts, who says the process is flawed by political deception and opportunism.
Harvard University professor John Briscoe - a former senior water adviser for the World Bank - has urged Australia to dump the work done on the plan and start again with a new act of parliament.
His comments follow months of controversy over whether the Water Act of 2007 had forced the Murray-Darling Basin Authority to prepare a reform plan that favoured the environment over social and economic concerns.
In a statement to a Senate inquiry, Professor Briscoe said there was no doubt the Water Act gave priority to the environment, and claims to the contrary were ''poppycock''.
Despite living abroad, Professor Briscoe is well acquainted with the basin plan as he was hired by the authority to participate as a foreign expert, and was asked to review the basin plan before it was released publicly in October.
The Water Act was created by Liberal MP Malcolm Turnbull during the Howard government, and Professor Briscoe said the environment was given legal primacy in an act of political opportunism because it was one of the few ways the Commonwealth could constitutionally take control of water from the states.
''That original sin is responsible for most of the detour on which Australian water management now finds itself,'' he said. ''Australia cannot find its way in water management if this act is the guide.''
Professor Briscoe said his involvement with the basin plan was dogged by the most ''elaborate confidentiality'' measures he had ever seen, and he had urged authority chief executive Rob Freeman and former chairman Mike Taylor to tell the Labor government that the Water Act ''would not and could not work''.
''We were given to believe that there was no appetite for such a message at higher levels in the government in Canberra,'' he said.
The Gillard government has resisted calls to replace the Water Act in recent months, and has declared - unlike most observers - that the act is designed to treat environmental, social and economic factors equally.
Putting himself further at odds with the government, Professor Briscoe took a dim view of plans to spend taxpayers' money on the modernisation of irrigation infrastructure.
''This is a very expensive way to save water and many of the investments will be made in areas that will, sooner or later, go out of production,'' he said.
In a further blow to the authority's credibility, leading scientists have accused it of misusing their work in creating the basin plan.
The CSIRO cited several instances where its work was wrongly applied, including one occasion relating to illegal interception of water. ''CSIRO has some concerns with how the authority has interpreted or applied this work in the development of key aspects of the basin plan,'' it said.
The CSIRO asked the basin authority to correct certain references to CSIRO work in the final version of the plan.
05 March, 2011
Climate Change (Note not "Global Warming" as its effectively non-existent)
I can't vouch for the precise accuracy of the following, but the general perspective would be correct.
ETS tax for dummies
Let's put this into a bit of perspective for laymen!
ETS is another tax. It is equal to putting up the GST to 12.5% which would be unacceptable and produce an outcry.
Read the following analogy and you will realize the insignificance of carbon dioxide as a weather controller.
Pass on to all in your address book including politicians and may be they will listen to their constituents, rather than vested interests which stand to gain by the ETS.
Here's a practical way to understand Julia Gillard Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.
Imagine 1 kilometre of atmosphere and we want to get rid of the carbon pollution in it created by human activity. Let's go for a walk along it.
The first 770 metres are Nitrogen.
The next 210 metres are Oxygen.
That's 980 metres of the 1 kilometre. 20 metres to go.
The next 10 metres are water vapour. 10 metres left.
9 metres are argon. Just 1 more metre.
A few gases make up the first bit of that last metre.
The last 38 centimetres of the kilometre - that's carbon dioxide. A bit over one foot.
97% of that is produced by Mother Nature. It’s natural.
Out of our journey of one kilometre, there are just 12 millimetres left. Just over a centimetre - about half an inch.
That’s the amount of carbon dioxide that global human activity puts into the atmosphere.
And of those 12 millimetres Australia puts in .18 of a millimetre.
Less than the thickness of a hair. Out of a kilometre!
As a hair is to a kilometre - so is Australia 's contribution to what Julia Gillard calls Carbon Pollution.
Imagine Brisbane 's new Gateway Bridge , ready to be opened by Julia Gillard. It's been polished, painted and scrubbed by an army of workers till its 1 kilometre length is surgically clean. Except that Julia Gillard says we have a huge problem, the bridge is polluted - there's a human hair on the roadway. We'd laugh ourselves silly.
There are plenty of real pollution problems to worry about.
It's hard to imagine that Australia's contribution to carbon dioxide in the world's atmosphere is one of the more pressing ones. And I can't believe that a new tax on everything is the only way to blow that pesky hair away.
Pass this on quickly while the ETS is being debated in Federal Parliament.
ETS tax for dummies
Let's put this into a bit of perspective for laymen!
ETS is another tax. It is equal to putting up the GST to 12.5% which would be unacceptable and produce an outcry.
Read the following analogy and you will realize the insignificance of carbon dioxide as a weather controller.
Pass on to all in your address book including politicians and may be they will listen to their constituents, rather than vested interests which stand to gain by the ETS.
Here's a practical way to understand Julia Gillard Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.
Imagine 1 kilometre of atmosphere and we want to get rid of the carbon pollution in it created by human activity. Let's go for a walk along it.
The first 770 metres are Nitrogen.
The next 210 metres are Oxygen.
That's 980 metres of the 1 kilometre. 20 metres to go.
The next 10 metres are water vapour. 10 metres left.
9 metres are argon. Just 1 more metre.
A few gases make up the first bit of that last metre.
The last 38 centimetres of the kilometre - that's carbon dioxide. A bit over one foot.
97% of that is produced by Mother Nature. It’s natural.
Out of our journey of one kilometre, there are just 12 millimetres left. Just over a centimetre - about half an inch.
That’s the amount of carbon dioxide that global human activity puts into the atmosphere.
And of those 12 millimetres Australia puts in .18 of a millimetre.
Less than the thickness of a hair. Out of a kilometre!
As a hair is to a kilometre - so is Australia 's contribution to what Julia Gillard calls Carbon Pollution.
Imagine Brisbane 's new Gateway Bridge , ready to be opened by Julia Gillard. It's been polished, painted and scrubbed by an army of workers till its 1 kilometre length is surgically clean. Except that Julia Gillard says we have a huge problem, the bridge is polluted - there's a human hair on the roadway. We'd laugh ourselves silly.
There are plenty of real pollution problems to worry about.
It's hard to imagine that Australia's contribution to carbon dioxide in the world's atmosphere is one of the more pressing ones. And I can't believe that a new tax on everything is the only way to blow that pesky hair away.
Pass this on quickly while the ETS is being debated in Federal Parliament.
MD Basin-Eucumbene
Letter published in The Land on 24th February-
"Max Talbot, Cooma makes an excellent point in his letter (Look outside basin-The Land, February,10). At 4,800 gigalitres, Eucumbene Dam is the largest single dam feeding the Murray Darling Basin (MDB). It is essential that its operation, and the operation of the other Snowy storages, be fully integrated in any comprehensive plan for optimising long term benefits from water management in the MDB.
It is quite extraordinary that for Eucumbene, the most important dam in the entire system, information on the amount of water in storage and releases, is not readily available. Does somebody have a vested interest in not having an informed market?
David Boyd"
I have followed up with the following-
"Each week you faithfully publish Dam Levels for all the major dams storing water for use in the Murray Darling Basin-with the notable exception of the biggest one of all-Eucumbene. Can you not get the information? If so, do you know why? Can this be corrected?"
"Max Talbot, Cooma makes an excellent point in his letter (Look outside basin-The Land, February,10). At 4,800 gigalitres, Eucumbene Dam is the largest single dam feeding the Murray Darling Basin (MDB). It is essential that its operation, and the operation of the other Snowy storages, be fully integrated in any comprehensive plan for optimising long term benefits from water management in the MDB.
It is quite extraordinary that for Eucumbene, the most important dam in the entire system, information on the amount of water in storage and releases, is not readily available. Does somebody have a vested interest in not having an informed market?
David Boyd"
I have followed up with the following-
"Each week you faithfully publish Dam Levels for all the major dams storing water for use in the Murray Darling Basin-with the notable exception of the biggest one of all-Eucumbene. Can you not get the information? If so, do you know why? Can this be corrected?"
31 January, 2011
Murray Darling Basin Plan-New Broom
I sent the attached letter (so far unpublished) to The Australian on Saturday:-
Would someone please explain to Minister Burke and new MDBA Chairman Craig Knowles that:
1)the Murray Darling Basin was not suffering from "ill-health", but the natural results of extreme dryness,
2)these dry symptoms have, in recent months, been dramatically cured by Mother Nature,
3)the extreme variability of our inland rivers is dealt with by issuing irrigation licenses which are subject to seasonal allocations, when water is short allocations are minimal or non-existent,
4)buying back licenses when there are no allocations is buying "phantom water", activation of licenses , at times of plentiful water, could amount to flood mitigation,
5)if there truly is a problem of "over-allocation" when water is scarce, then it is the Water Sharing Plans that guide the allocations which should be reviewed,not the number of licenses on issue.
David Boyd
Would someone please explain to Minister Burke and new MDBA Chairman Craig Knowles that:
1)the Murray Darling Basin was not suffering from "ill-health", but the natural results of extreme dryness,
2)these dry symptoms have, in recent months, been dramatically cured by Mother Nature,
3)the extreme variability of our inland rivers is dealt with by issuing irrigation licenses which are subject to seasonal allocations, when water is short allocations are minimal or non-existent,
4)buying back licenses when there are no allocations is buying "phantom water", activation of licenses , at times of plentiful water, could amount to flood mitigation,
5)if there truly is a problem of "over-allocation" when water is scarce, then it is the Water Sharing Plans that guide the allocations which should be reviewed,not the number of licenses on issue.
David Boyd
28 January, 2011
Global Warming-Motives of Alarmists
The following is a quote from James Delingpole's blog. It struck me as a good summary.He is describing ideological differences with a "friend".
"The biggest of those ideological differences has to do with Anthropogenic Global Warming.In a nutshell, I think it has been greatly exaggerated by a number of special interest groups with an axe to grind:scientists in pursuit of the trillions of dollars worth of funding; eco-charities who depend for their donations on scare stories; leftists using environmentalism to further an anti-capitalist agenda; deep greens who believe man is a blot on the landscape and that he should be punished through tax and regulation; governments and NGOs who see it as a way of raising taxes, increasing control, and being seen to be addressing popular concerns;cynical corporations who wish to “greenwash” their image or make easy money through taxpayer funded scams like wind farms;and so on."
"The biggest of those ideological differences has to do with Anthropogenic Global Warming.In a nutshell, I think it has been greatly exaggerated by a number of special interest groups with an axe to grind:scientists in pursuit of the trillions of dollars worth of funding; eco-charities who depend for their donations on scare stories; leftists using environmentalism to further an anti-capitalist agenda; deep greens who believe man is a blot on the landscape and that he should be punished through tax and regulation; governments and NGOs who see it as a way of raising taxes, increasing control, and being seen to be addressing popular concerns;cynical corporations who wish to “greenwash” their image or make easy money through taxpayer funded scams like wind farms;and so on."
22 January, 2011
Conservatism and Inland Water Management
I think it was John Howard who once described a conservative as someone who did not believe that everything his grandfather said was necessarily wrong!
Nobody could accuse present day water managers (bureaucrats and attention seeking scientific advocates)of being conservative. They appear to approach current issues from the clear position that their forebears didn't really have a clue about what they were doing.
So much so, we now have a widespread "conventional wisdom" view that in the Murray Darling Basin (MDB) our rivers are all "over allocated" and that this has given rise to their "ill-health".(They conveniently overlook the fact that the "ill-health" was really the natural result of extreme dryness which Mother Nature has dramatically corrected over recent days.)
The much maligned forebears of these modern "dark green" commentators recognised the massive variability of the inland rivers of temperate Australia and devised a dynamic, adaptive, self correcting management system. Water licenses/entitlements were issued subject to seasonal allocations. Think of it sequentially-it rains, or it doesn't. Our dams have plenty in storage or they don't. Our water managers then, guided by long debated Water Management Plans, determine the percentage (if any) of the licensed amount which may be extracted.
This methodology allows account to be taken of environmental and critical human needs before any extractions for irrigation are allowed. It means that in a year when water is in short supply such as in 2008/9 only 3,500GL were extracted in the MDB, not the 13,700GL upper limit which the Guide to the Murray Darling Basin Plan keeps referring to.
Farmers understand the system and its logic and accept the risks involved. They also recognise the smoke screen of politicians talking about granting certainty. A concept totally foreign to Australian farming!
Likewise, they recognise the nonsense of asking the CSIRO to calculate the Sustainable Diversion Limits for each of the rivers. If "sustainable" means the "annual" amount that can always be extracted, then given the fact that all of our inland rivers,including the mighty Murray, sometimes actually stop flowing, then the limit must be placed at nil.
Faced with these variability issues the modern water managers then revert to using averages. Given the massive spreads around the average such mathematics quickly becomes meaningless.
All of this was well understood by those who devised the system. It is clearly not understood by those who glibly state that our rivers are over-allocated and advocate correcting the perceived problem by having the Government buy up water licenses without ever mentioning the role of seasonal allocations.
Oh for more conservatives!
Nobody could accuse present day water managers (bureaucrats and attention seeking scientific advocates)of being conservative. They appear to approach current issues from the clear position that their forebears didn't really have a clue about what they were doing.
So much so, we now have a widespread "conventional wisdom" view that in the Murray Darling Basin (MDB) our rivers are all "over allocated" and that this has given rise to their "ill-health".(They conveniently overlook the fact that the "ill-health" was really the natural result of extreme dryness which Mother Nature has dramatically corrected over recent days.)
The much maligned forebears of these modern "dark green" commentators recognised the massive variability of the inland rivers of temperate Australia and devised a dynamic, adaptive, self correcting management system. Water licenses/entitlements were issued subject to seasonal allocations. Think of it sequentially-it rains, or it doesn't. Our dams have plenty in storage or they don't. Our water managers then, guided by long debated Water Management Plans, determine the percentage (if any) of the licensed amount which may be extracted.
This methodology allows account to be taken of environmental and critical human needs before any extractions for irrigation are allowed. It means that in a year when water is in short supply such as in 2008/9 only 3,500GL were extracted in the MDB, not the 13,700GL upper limit which the Guide to the Murray Darling Basin Plan keeps referring to.
Farmers understand the system and its logic and accept the risks involved. They also recognise the smoke screen of politicians talking about granting certainty. A concept totally foreign to Australian farming!
Likewise, they recognise the nonsense of asking the CSIRO to calculate the Sustainable Diversion Limits for each of the rivers. If "sustainable" means the "annual" amount that can always be extracted, then given the fact that all of our inland rivers,including the mighty Murray, sometimes actually stop flowing, then the limit must be placed at nil.
Faced with these variability issues the modern water managers then revert to using averages. Given the massive spreads around the average such mathematics quickly becomes meaningless.
All of this was well understood by those who devised the system. It is clearly not understood by those who glibly state that our rivers are over-allocated and advocate correcting the perceived problem by having the Government buy up water licenses without ever mentioning the role of seasonal allocations.
Oh for more conservatives!
14 January, 2011
Murray Darling Basin Plan
Letter published in "The Land" of 13th January:-
Your article ("Floods won't stem Basin reform" The Land January 6) attributes remarks to the MDBA CEO, Rob Freeman, where he claims the existing planning systems allocate too much water during dry periods. If this is so, which I doubt, it is the Water Sharing Plans which guide seasonal allocations, that should be addressed not the total licenses/entitlements on issue. This is not the first time Mr Freeman has made this ambit claim.
In my view the entire Plan and the Water Act are based on two false premises and a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of our inland rivers in temperate Australia.
The first false premise is the belief that our rivers are "unhealthy". We have confused lack of health with the natural results of extreme dryness, a condition which has been dramatically corrected by Mother Nature in recent months.
The second false premise is that this "unhealthy condition" was the result of excessive extractions by irrigators.
Nowhere in the Plan Guide does it acknowledge that in the last two years for which we have figures available, total extractions were only 3,500GL in 2008/9 and only 3,000GL in 2007/8.
In other words, the allocations governed by the water sharing plans for each major river, would seem to be working well and this self-correcting mechanism is doing just what it was designed to do.
The Plan Guide constantly refers to the total extraction limit of 13,700GL without explaining that licenses/entitlements without allocations amount to phantom water.
The fundamental misunderstanding is in not recognising that the key characteristic of Australia’s inland rivers is massive variability. The last 7 to 10 years of drought and the recent "big wet" is a classic example.
In such circumstances it is really nonsense to ask CSIRO to calculate “Sustainable Water Yield” which I take to mean the annual amount that can always be extracted. Likewise the setting of Sustainable Diversion Limits makes no sense unless these are set at zero. Irrigators understand and live with these risks and the Minister's call for certainty is really a smoke screen.
I firmly believe that the Water Act (2007) should be repealed (not fiddled with and only amended) and we should start the whole process again.
DAVID BOYD
St Ives
Your article ("Floods won't stem Basin reform" The Land January 6) attributes remarks to the MDBA CEO, Rob Freeman, where he claims the existing planning systems allocate too much water during dry periods. If this is so, which I doubt, it is the Water Sharing Plans which guide seasonal allocations, that should be addressed not the total licenses/entitlements on issue. This is not the first time Mr Freeman has made this ambit claim.
In my view the entire Plan and the Water Act are based on two false premises and a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of our inland rivers in temperate Australia.
The first false premise is the belief that our rivers are "unhealthy". We have confused lack of health with the natural results of extreme dryness, a condition which has been dramatically corrected by Mother Nature in recent months.
The second false premise is that this "unhealthy condition" was the result of excessive extractions by irrigators.
Nowhere in the Plan Guide does it acknowledge that in the last two years for which we have figures available, total extractions were only 3,500GL in 2008/9 and only 3,000GL in 2007/8.
In other words, the allocations governed by the water sharing plans for each major river, would seem to be working well and this self-correcting mechanism is doing just what it was designed to do.
The Plan Guide constantly refers to the total extraction limit of 13,700GL without explaining that licenses/entitlements without allocations amount to phantom water.
The fundamental misunderstanding is in not recognising that the key characteristic of Australia’s inland rivers is massive variability. The last 7 to 10 years of drought and the recent "big wet" is a classic example.
In such circumstances it is really nonsense to ask CSIRO to calculate “Sustainable Water Yield” which I take to mean the annual amount that can always be extracted. Likewise the setting of Sustainable Diversion Limits makes no sense unless these are set at zero. Irrigators understand and live with these risks and the Minister's call for certainty is really a smoke screen.
I firmly believe that the Water Act (2007) should be repealed (not fiddled with and only amended) and we should start the whole process again.
DAVID BOYD
St Ives
08 January, 2011
Dams
Letter published in today's Weekend Australian:
"At last a senior politician has had the political courage to tell it like it is.("Dam them -- Abbott's solution to harness flooded rivers", 7/1). The last seven to 10 years of drought and the recent "big wet" is a classic example of Australia's natural variability.
We need to conserve water from the big wet events, when retention has minimal environmental impacts and in many cases is flood mitigation. In these circumstances a tiny proportion of the flow amounts to a lot of water.
It should be recognised that during the recent drought years, if it were not for the storages in the catchment of the Murray, the Snowy diversions and restrictions on irrigation, the Murray River would have stopped flowing as it has done several times since white settlement.
This fact demonstrates the value of dams in a country with such variable rainfall and we need more of them.
David Boyd, St Ives, NSW
The following sentence at the end of the second paragrph was omitted from the published letter-"Such storages need to be efficient (read deep for evaporation minimisation), and built in a manner which allows smaller flows to pass when there are real environmental or critical human needs downstream."
"At last a senior politician has had the political courage to tell it like it is.("Dam them -- Abbott's solution to harness flooded rivers", 7/1). The last seven to 10 years of drought and the recent "big wet" is a classic example of Australia's natural variability.
We need to conserve water from the big wet events, when retention has minimal environmental impacts and in many cases is flood mitigation. In these circumstances a tiny proportion of the flow amounts to a lot of water.
It should be recognised that during the recent drought years, if it were not for the storages in the catchment of the Murray, the Snowy diversions and restrictions on irrigation, the Murray River would have stopped flowing as it has done several times since white settlement.
This fact demonstrates the value of dams in a country with such variable rainfall and we need more of them.
David Boyd, St Ives, NSW
The following sentence at the end of the second paragrph was omitted from the published letter-"Such storages need to be efficient (read deep for evaporation minimisation), and built in a manner which allows smaller flows to pass when there are real environmental or critical human needs downstream."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
How about the lack of labour productivity improvements, Labor's winding back of the Hawke/Keating reforms, entrenched Qantas work practices being protected under the guise of job security,enhanced Union power and inflexibility and the flaws of the FWA arrangements?