Pericles

All of that needless rationalisation and not one dam.

You have not managed to dispel any of the concerns expressed by the State and local Government leaders I quoted.

It is time the federal government took its heavy foot off the gas pedal of growth at any cost and considered what the States, Local government and voters are saying. Anyway, since when did PM Rudd have a mandate for his Big Australia, or is that all 'Never you mind'?

There is water, Fester.

>>Sometimes they find water, sometimes they dont.<<

Quite a lot. It's just that the scenery will be spoilt if we build dams to store it in, and a few fluffy ducks will have to find somewhere else to breed. Oh, and the ecology of the region will be upset. Apparently. Or maybe. No-one is really sure, because not many people live there. But it's best to be on the safe side, isn't it.

Your mastery of the subtle art of sarcasm deserves recognition, ericc.

>>By the way I wonder when we are going to find a cure for cancer. I would have thought that we really needed one, but since we haven't got a cure yet maybe not.<<

But it's just a teensy tad overdone, when we are talking about digging holes in the ground. Very few PhDs are required.

Oh, and Cornflower...

>>Pericles All of that needless rationalisation and not one dam. You have not managed to dispel any of the concerns expressed by the State and local Government leaders I quoted.<<

They're just excuses for inaction, expressed as "concerns"

The easiest thing in the world is to find reasons not to do stuff. The difficult thing is actually getting off your backside and making it happen.

It is a really good job that previous generations of Australians didn't think like you do. What a boring, insular and dirt-poor country we would live in, eh?

No, I can't be arsed to build a dam, there's too much evaporation. No, I can't be arsed to build a power station in the Snowy mountains, it's too much like hard work. No, I can't be arsed to dig for coal, it's too dirty and pollutes the atmosphere...

What's wrong with you people?

Pericles

There you go again, making lazy arsed assumptions about people. It does you no credit. If the north could be developed and have year round water to support tens of millions, that would be great. But as previous generations of Australians realised, there is no point building a dam unless it is makes economic sense. And for the physical realities I mentioned, which were realised by talented scientists many decades ago, the dreams of huge irrigation schemes have no foundation in fact or economics. But as you demonstrate, there will always be some who think the experts have missed something. Here is another link to an article outlining the reality:

http://www.wentworthgroup.org/docs/Can_We_Myth_Proof_Australia.pdf

Pericles,

OK, so the Emperor Pericles has no clothes.

Isn't the main point here that a country like Norway is able to prosper with a relatively small population, precisely because they were smart enough to nationalise the exploitation of natural resources, rather than flogging them off to whoever wants to make a quick buck? It seems to me that Australia's reliance on an ever-burgeoning population of workers and consumers is intrinsically tied to our national economic tradition of being the world's quarry, in exchange for the temporary benefits that derive in extracting the resources that other countries want in order to manufacture the stuff that they sell back to us.

If you want to see where that leads, look at Nauru as an example.

Pericles' attitude is one that sees humans as urban creatures, which it is the function of the environment to sustain, regardless of the ecological and social costs. Unfortunately, I suspect that this attitude is prevalent among the majority of Australians who do indeed live in our awful cities, relatively few of whom actually get out and see the damage that is wrought on our fragile environment in order to support their unsustainable lifestyles. I suspect that Pericles has never ventured west of the Blue Mountains in order to witness what I'm talking about.

It's not about fluffy ducks - it's about reorganising the way we live collectively in order that our descendants have sustainable futures.

You'd be pretty right there, CJ

>>I suspect that Pericles has never ventured west of the Blue Mountains in order to witness what I'm talking about.<<

However, I have been to the Top End, through seemingly endless rainforests, along tiny tracks that are invisible when you fly back over them. It has always struck me that there is an entirely new country out there, waiting to be explored -and yes, developed - in much the same way that occurred two hundred years ago.

You object to it, because it "spoils" the countryside, and "wreaks damage on our fragile environment".

On the other hand, there are many millions of people in the world, presently living from hand to mouth, who would give their grandmother (if she hadn't died at the age of forty) for the chance to make a go of it there.

Ok, so I am exaggerating. But only to make the point that we are exhibiting an enormous level of selfishness when making decisions like this.

It is very trendy to use "the environment" as a reason to maintain the status quo. Which means preserving the vast landmass in perpetuity for its present "owners".

It might be valid to point out that there was a time, not that long ago, when this country had different "owners". Who had a very different view of the land than those who now "own" it. It doesn't take a great deal of imagination to envisage a time when our own views of "conservation" might be entirely alien to folk who just want to live.

Just saying.

Of course we won't find ways to irrigate the land, if we deliberately choose not to look. Of course we won't be like Norway, unless we install a government similar to that which they have elected. And of course nothing will ever change while people are happy to sit on their backsides and say "we tried that once, and it didn't work".