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
25 March, 2011
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?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)