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 > Howard is failing the nation on water policy > Comments

Howard is failing the nation on water policy : Comments

By Bruce Haigh, published 8/1/2007

The issue of water is held to be important by too many Australians for Howard and Turnbull to get away with crude and superficial spin.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. All
Rojo a one in a hundred year drought is statistically based on historical occurrence. Planning for occurrences of drought, bushfire, flood, famine to be effective when needed planning must expect the worst case scenario. In the case of water depletion full merit must be given to the worst drought possible. I am not suggesting we have the technical abilities to survive long term but we could extend our survival ability.

As it happens we are burying precious agricultural lands under urban sprawl. Catchments are depleted through the historical creation of many thousands of small dams. Rice and cotton are grown depleting our resources which are undervalued to compete on a global market. Desertification which is essentially the real issue behind our water problems rolls on unabated. What governments are doing is disaster control, rationing (allocating) water. The horse has bolted; there had been no buffer in place. Turnbull’s market forces panacea has already failed and has contributed the greatest to water depletion. Cotton, rice, shiney sparkling cars, gardens of deep green lawn, spa’, swimming pools, water wasting dishwashers, our appetite for North European and North Asian vegetables has (a pun) bled us dry.

Robg climate change was already understood when Howard came in he has no excuse. Much of the work could have been undertaken under the guise of Keating’s better cities. One major outstanding aspect of the Howard Government is that it has always operated with a focus on historical social grievances or very short term economic get rich quick programs and not one policy actually effectively plans for the future. An example is the NHT in which Howard dumped his responsibilities to a civil system of entropy. It has always been a Government which had never offered a light at the end of the tunnel. Australia essentially has no future and I see no indication from Rudd that things will improve as he too seems to hold his focus on religion and historical social grievances.
Posted by West, Wednesday, 10 January 2007 9:58:28 AM
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
As far as reducing agricultural use goes, how about outlawing the purchasing of additional water licences, with these to instead be bought back by the taxpayers (who are the ones after all who granted too many licences anyway)? At the moment there is a monumental shift towards ownership of water rights by big business. This shows up in the rice growing areas of the country, where many small farmers are selling off their water licences seperate to the land, to large scale producers. Whilst these large producers may have benefits from economies of scale that the small producers dont, they also dont have the natural incentives to look after the resources that they have. If reducing the number of licences is a priority, then these corporate farms should not be allowed to purchase anymore on the market.

You might ask, why are these small farmers selling off their water, when it provides the backbone of their business? Simple, given 0 allocations for several years running, but STILL having to pay for the water that they dont get, is a quick way to go broke. Some producers are having to pay upwards of $50,000 for water that they are not getting, and therefore not being able to produce an income. Most people will not seriously object to a user-pays system, but are rightly deeply offended when asked to pay for something that they will never receive.
Posted by Country Gal, Wednesday, 10 January 2007 10:30:33 AM
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
Rojo, the doings of the devious Mr Howard should have been enough to drive any opposition leader to address sustainability issues in a concerted manner and thus set their party up as a distinctly different and very appealing alternative to the incumbent mongrels.

But the influence of big business is so powerful that it keeps all political ‘subordinates’ under the continuous-growth vested-interest profit-motive-reigns-supreme thumb.

The very nature of our political system gives power to big business rather than the ordinary citizen. So in essence the profit-motive or greed-paradigm or political-donations-and-other-support-mechanisms-from-big-companies is the most important factor.

THIS is what drives the opposition to be a shadow of the government rather than a meaningful alternative. They feel that they cannot step out from under the oppressive umbrella of big business or the profit-motive-ahead-of-anything-else-syndrome or the continuous-economic-growth-paradigm… or whatever you want to call it.

But I reckon Kim Beazley could see the light, and started to show it…. perhaps in desperation when he could see the end of his leadership looming….or perhaps after reading the Online Opinion Forum or being advised of some of the opinions expressed therein, especially the oft-repeated comments from Ludwig, exhorting him to embrace sustainability in a very forthright and open manner!!

Years ago, I think he showed the same sort of resolve, but then he lost it to overwhelming political forces.

Anyway, he’s gone the way of the dodo… and his replacement is, who looks as though he could be Howard’s little brother, is also acting as though he could be Howard’s little brother, and showing no signs of this enlightenment.
Posted by Ludwig, Wednesday, 10 January 2007 8:28:25 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
Of course we must halt migration and the population increase. But this is opposed by a) Harry Triguboff and all developers and builders b) Woolworths, Coles and all retailers c) the Tax Department. What to do when other countries like Japan and France are trying desperately to get people to breed more human beings ? What academic/economist can argue for population decrease when the idea is that we'll all be "rooned" if population declines though obviously we're also being "rooned" in our water-deprived country if it increases ? But I don't know anyone who does not want immigration to be cut back urgently. The first major party to support this will be on a winner.
Posted by kang, Friday, 12 January 2007 10:43:35 AM
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. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. All

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