The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Windmills are not a solution to this drought > Comments

Windmills are not a solution to this drought : Comments

By Jennifer Marohasy, published 27/10/2006

Blaming the drought on climate change and investing in renewable energy may be fashionable, but it is not a real solution to our current water woes.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
What action could be simpler than stabilising Australia's population? I am amazed by the contrast of scepticism of global warming with the almost dogmatic acceptance of the benefits of population growth. How can the scientific evidence be crucial for one and irrelevant to the other?
Posted by Fester, Friday, 27 October 2006 7:32:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To say that climate and hydrology aren't related is to go against what all hydrologists believe. To say that we are so small that we cannot make a difference to global warming is exactly the same thinking that got the world into the problem. That is, one power plant is so small it couldn't possibly make a difference on the climate.

Renewable energy invested and commercialised 10, 20, 30 years ago would have made a difference to this drought. Pity no one was listening.

So what to do today? Well if renewable energy isn't going to solve the problems of this drought, should we not invest in them for the future? Should we not invest in sustainable farming practice for it will rain as it did before if we wait long enough? I belive that we should make these investments, otherwise we will look on 2006 as the golden years where fresh water was in plentiful supply and the climate was overly favourable.
Posted by AustinP, Friday, 27 October 2006 8:14:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“You guys at this forum really know how to argue logically - not!”

Crikey Jennifer! That’s a terrible response. Tar everyone with the same brush…. and then offer reasoning for your dirty little dig in brief to only one respondent! Wow!

And just when I thought that I had finally found a reasonable degree of agreement with you, after several articles on this forum!

You mention population growth as one factor in the water crisis. But when are you going to call on our government, scientific community and general populace alike to do something about it?
Posted by Ludwig, Friday, 27 October 2006 9:08:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jennifer

"But perhaps the water shortage in our cities has more to do with a lack of investment in water infrastructure coupled with a steady increase in population, than global warming?"

Nice to see you taking population growth into consideration. Of course, population growth has contributed, in fact is is the MAIN factor behind the entire water shortage. There was plenty of water for Sydney when its population was only 2 million. There is almost enough now that it is 4 million. There will not be enough when it is 6 million, whether there is climate change or not. Even if you could build the infrastructure, it would mean damming up every little creek within 500km of Sydney, further buggering the environment. And the cost at the margin gets higher and higher. Enter Malcolm Turnbull to turn the stuff into money.

As Fester said, what could be simpler than just restricting the population size? What is it with this human race that it must be the only animal to expand out of all balance with its environment? Australians have had the temerity to choose a family size that would mean a stabilisation of the population in around 2030 - so Peter Costello (let's hope he is NEVER prime minister) exhorts them to have more. Why? So the property industry can continue to cover the entire landscape with Hong Kong type towers. Turn down the immigration tap, and some of our property developers will not be able to make the absurd windfall profits they have been making and will have to do an honest day's work for a change. But there will be enough water.
Posted by Thermoman, Friday, 27 October 2006 9:23:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ludwig,
My apologies for not explaining myself. But honestly, most all of you seem to be determined to read into my article your own particular prejudices:

GC, implies I'm against rainwater tanks, as a launch pad for explaining their benefits

Philby, can't read a rainfall chart

Ludwig, implies I'm for controls on population. no. just against population growth without the necessary associated infrastructure development

Hasbeen, uses GC's advertisement for rainwater tanks to extrapolate further

Robg, well, misleading

Fester, an extra 3-5 million in Australia should be quite manageable, its fitting the extra 2.5 billion into the rest of the world that I would be more concerned about

AustinP, just wants to do something nevermind whether or not it will be useful, or how expensive

Thermoman, also doesn't seem to realize that Australia is a large country with few people

... and please don't infer from this comment I'm advocating more people.

Yes, population is an issue globally. As regards Australia, we should be able to provide water, energy and food to the few already here and a few more.
Posted by Jennifer, Friday, 27 October 2006 10:21:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
An extra 3 to 5 million in Australia would require the utilisation of an extra 2700 to 4500 gigalitres of water, based on current levels of consumption.

http://www.waterfootprint.org/WaterFootprintCalculator_Indv.asp?Country_ID=6&income=

Perhaps this is an easy task, but not having this task might be easier. The prospects for the rest of the world are more challenging, especially as there is a world water deficit.

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2006/10/10/the-water-boom-is-over/#more-1019

India now imports 40% of its food, so how will an increasing population and the effects of global warming change things?

Surely there is more sense in being cautious? "should be quite manageable" is hardly convincing evidence for a population growth sceptic.
Posted by Fester, Friday, 27 October 2006 11:50:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy