Well we did

..we changed the landscape. We cut, stripped, gouged, channelled and laid it bare.

I would not go so far as to say it changed the climate but the first bit is true.

And I am so over the pious stance adopted by men and women on the land represented by the scribblings of this bint - and yes I understand the link bewtween the work of a farmer and my bowl of wheeties - I am one of those country folk who actually thinks city folk do it just as hard as the noble farmer - some times harder than - they just dont make a song and dance about it

And the suggestion that someland currently farmed should not be farmed - makes some sense - particularly if you cant water the damn thing

I agree with the article. The most morally bankrupt aspect of so much of the extreme end of the green movement is that they adhere to the famous maxim of many fringe parties in the past:

"We must make demands that cannot be satisfied".

The left has always seen farmers as their political enemy, possibly because of their conservative stance on many issues, and despite the fact that most farmers are natural conservators of their land, for the most obvious reasons of self-interest. The continuing cultural separation between city and country, where most city dwellers don't know or care there their food comes from, does not bode well for the future.

But but but; wasn't climate change supposed to bring us more rain ?
This is what the predictions for climatre change were just recently.
Are the predictions being changed to fit the facts ?

G'day from a beef & wheat farm at Book Book near Wagga Wagga in NSW.

Nicely balanced piece Louise. Last Spring was a cracker. This year is close to our worst. We planned the year on the assumption we were going into drought. We didn't actually truly believe we were, indeed, the commentators at the time were declaring the drought was over.

Prudently/accidentally, we put aside half our fodder and held onto grain just in case. Good thing we didn't listen to the experts. Unless someone's on the land and deriving 95% of their income directly from the enterprise, I'd be suspcious of betting my future on the land from the best-intentioned advice offerred.

The current weather patterns will pass. Whilst we don't there'll be rain here until June 07 (apart from the odd storm), that rain will come.

Those who didn't plan for this current event don't deserve any subsidies in my view. Sympathy, yes. Subsidies, no.

However my reading of it is that not enough EC funding is directed towards the purchase of beer and so is of little interest to any tax-payer in this household.

Half-seriously though, if I might offer a practical solution that doesn't squander compulsory relief dollars on bureaucracy:

In the most basic terms:

1. Establish a fund for the sole purpose of subsidising the fabrication, purchase and distribution of seed silos with the view to having a "National Seed Bank" through out Australia.

2. Compulsorarily have each cropper in the nation have a Seed Bank silo or two on their farm for the sole use of storing up to 3 years of the cropper's own sowing grain.

3. The Seed Bank grain is to be pickled with an agreed colour poisonous to stock and is to be fully maintained by the farmer.

Planning for drought is a compulsory part of this business. It's nearly as important as planning out your weekend.

If anyone wants to chat to me about it, or catch up for a beer, drop me an email at BigCattle@BigPond.com

Simon Bedak
"Lorraine", Wagga Wagga NSW 2650
02 69281150

The evidence points to the current drought being a classical El Nino event, which has affected Australia for centuries. I agree that the Greens and Bob Brown trumpet a lot of exaggerated and anti-anything nonsense (for example, the synoptic models can barely get the weather right one week ahead, so what hope is there of a long term model making accurate predictions?) . However, many parts of SE Australia have also experienced ongoing rainfall deficiencies since the end of 1999. This unusual “six year” drought has thus been compared to the similar Federation drought (1895-1903) and the War Drought (1935-1945). On the other side of the country, SW WA for the last 20 years has suffered a steady and alarming decline in rainfall. In addition, the entire globe has recorded significant warming of surface and sea surface temperatures over the past 15 years. The physical effects of global warming are readily seen in retreating glaciers and the receding extent of polar ice. While there is a strong correlation between global warming and rising levels of CO2, it is nevertheless extremely difficult to determine whether the warming is due to a possible natural cycle (if any) or the greenhouse effect (if any). The evidence presently favours the latter explanation. Whichever way, the unsustainability of fossil fuel consumption and the risk that climate change really will have adverse effects on Australia is good enough reason to start investing in alternatives energy sources now, and developing sensible population policy that is in keeping with Australia’s fragile environment.

climate change policies flies in the face of the reality this country has always had times of drought.

Isn't that what people are saying?
I live in the riverland, growers who in the past survived growing citrus
and stone fruit, food for the table. All that has changed, they now grow grapes, for wine. While still for the table hardly food.

The entrepreneurs conned growers into thinking they would all get rich, WRONG again, they ripped citrus and other fruit trees out, went into debt to plant grapes, Trees can take twelve years to crop commercially, a long wait. Some vines are still being flood or O/H watering with little or no incentive to change practice. Water has been traded for profit leaving people to buy water from the agent rippoff's. Market forces at work, not for growers but for the capital rich. No one wants, needs or expects to be bailed out for bad management except farmers. Why is that so? is it because of the sins of past govt, read country party holding the govt to ransom, I think so.
A lot of "unviables" being farms that produce commercial crops once every five years could be used as solar farms, the national grid frequently passes thru their land and connection is viable, I have read nothing about innovative assistance to help this happen.
Instead our proven science is now offshore again missing the opportunity to make profit and Australia more sustainable.
Subsidy may work if applied to proven solutions, not as it has applied
in the recent past let alone the future.

fluff