Mr York, I think if you had a close look at the Traveston issue you will find it was more to do with NIMBY syndrome than anything. Most of these people who made the most noise have no problems with weirs or dams on their properties.
The endangered species are still as endangered today as on the 11 Nov 2009 when Mr Garrett made his decision.
Some of the so called NO DAM crew are calling for the river to be de-snagged etc so they can canoe on it, these snags are the habitat of the cod etc. The same group had no problem with the endangered turtle nests being trampled as they believed they were in good numbers so there was not a problem. So how many can we trample before it is a problem?
How do I know this? I have been at the meetings where these issues have been raised.
Have a look at who they vote for in this electorate, LNP, state and Federal, and what are they proposing? YES, a dam for the Mary Valley but not at Traveston.(Barnaby Joyce 23 Dec 2010)

At the heart of serious opposition to dams are the people expected to pack up and move to make room for it. It's a true grass roots phenomena - much more that than some growing green 'infection'.

Given the vast loss of natural habitat and species already sacrificed to the needs of progress, it's no surprise that a vocal section of the community wants things done better. It isn't about going backwards and preventing infrastructure being built out of misguided ideology - even if there are some vocal elements like that - but about better use of our productive capital and our resources without simply exploiting it all until it's gone. Focus on the extreme voices is a way to avoid focus on the underlying issues that no-one except the Greens appear willing or able to address.

Some extreme opposition to dams isn't well thought out but some big infrastructure isn't that well thought out and is, itself, based on selling simplistic and exaggerated notions of what such infrastructure is capable of delivering. It's not green religion at work, just recognition of the limits of our environment and planet. And the costs and limits of brute force infrastructure to fix things.

Mainstream politics has failed us on some crucial issues like resource management, sustainability, conservation of shrinking natural ecosystems - which do provide economic services - and growing climate change. Until it gets serious about them the Greens will continue to grow in popularity amongst people who are not extremists, not ideologues, who are not opposed to progress but in fact demand progress. These are people who are reasonably well informed and have legitimate concerns and are being let down by mainstream politics that is underscored by it's own inappropriate quasi-religious ideologies that devotes more to attacking the messengers than on developing appropriate solutions.

Why build dams at all, what we shouldn't be doing is building towns on flood plains. These areas a rich agricultural lands because of the periodic floods. Just because sometimes it is a long time between floods so people seem to believe that if they build on a flood plain then there should no longer be allowed to flood.
There is plently of room in Australia why not build where you will not get flooded?
You guys on the east coast get enough rain that you don’t need lot of dam’s you just need to use your water better, smarter

@ Ken Fabos

You want the middle road but the problem is that The Greens and Bob Brown do fit the extreme category that you are rejecting. Bob Brown in today's news has blamed the coal industry for the floods thus promoting a simplistic interpretation of causes which cannot be proven.

York's assertions that Stalinist Russia and Maoist China were left wing revolutionary governments in power is completely divorced from Marxism. Marx was about democracy and the working class itself, as the vast majority and the producer of society's wealth, taking power and exercising it through its own institutions.

These state capitalist dictatorships that York talks about destroyed the lives of hundreds of millions in the name of capital accumulation, using the rhetoric of 'socialism', not for some mythical improvement of living standards. York is driven by this dam and be damned stalinism, the gravedigger of the revolution.

It is telling that nowhere in his article does York talk about demcoracy and planning, let alone democratic planning. Such an approach - socialism from below rather than the top down dictatorial approach at the expense of the working class he favours - would see those who make the wealth of society - workers - deciding on dams, flood mitigation, addressing climate change and its effects, indeed on all productive and other matters - all to satisfy human need rather than make a profit either for the free marketeer or the apparatchik.

How ironic then that York nods in Marx's direction when he cites the Communist manifesto and Marx's comments about the monumental forces capital has unleashed. Too true, but that is the same manifesto that tells us that the working class can harness these forces for the good of humanity and abolish the profit system. Funny how York doesn't mention that in his panegyric to that profit system, reflecting his state capitalist view of the world.

Good and thoughtful piece
Dams are an important part of our infrastructure and are key to our standard of living.With the growth in population in the southeastand the increasing standard of living more water will be needed. The lower the cost the better for all!
Dam water is far more cost effective than any other alternative and it is only a matter of time before more will be needed. This flood event puts that into perspective again. Do we can we raise the level of the current dams? Could they store more water?
As far as the Traveston dam was concerned It was to be down stream of Gympie so would not have helped. It was small and shallow by the areas standards so it was a marginal proposal, from the start and at the expense of valuable dairy land and some unique animals.So It is not supprising it was never build. Gympie and Maryborough have had much worse floods with the 1890's flood at 25.5 metres and 12 meters respectively and then the 1955,1967 & 1974. Both town centres and Brisbane's as well were not build in the right places ( as far as floods are concerned) but everybody can be wise after the event. Practical flood pervention measures ( Moving, levies and higher dam walls) need to be considered down the track! Lets not let this agenda be stolen by the climate change religion let the proposals stand or fall on their own

Bill, I think the author's anti-green religious fervor is obvious. As for climate change - more extreme weather events are a consistent prediction. Warmer sea surfaces during weather patterns that draw air inland across them makes for more rainfall and global warming affects sea temperatures. As does ENSO which plays it's part in sometimes preventing such weather patterns (el Nino) or in producing them (la Nina). I think I'll wait on what the Bureau of Meteorology has to say on the details of this specific event but I'm confident they won't be saying the long term trend of drying for SE Australia has ended and we can ditch our rainwater tanks forever.

What Bob Brown has said is politically opportunistic but it is in line with what climate and weather science can tell us. But he's not the only politician to try and take some political advantage from this extreme weather event. Barry York's attempt to blame the Greens for lack of flood mitigation infrastructure is also politically opportunistic and his veiled swipes at climate change 'alarmism' almost superfluous in his fervor to paint real and credible concerns of ordinary Australians an evil green colour - a consequence of being misled by extreme ideology rather than as a result of being informed about well established science like climate change.

It is easier to stop or destroy things than to build them. This is what the greens are good at. The day that the greens ever build anything of real use to humanity I will eat my hat.

Ken,
I think Green politics has contributed to inadequate forward planning wrt floods, fires and energy - although there is no denying its current popularity.

Judith Curry is a climate scientist who puts the focus on the need for adaptation rather than attribution to climate change, (which she does not deny):

"How does attribution help save lives and property? We will still have floods and droughts, whether or not we stop burning fossil fuels. We have a big adaptation deficit with regards to floods, droughts, and hurricanes, relative to the events of the last two decades. If climate scientists were pushing strategies to adapt to extreme events through better land use policies, infrastructure, and better forecasts, then I would be more impressed. Instead, these attribution statements get tied up with statements about reducing CO2 (e.g. Trenberth’s statement, Santer’s statement, Somerville’s statement, etc.) Thinking that floods and droughts and hurricanes will go away if we stop burning CO2 is beyond a joke. Looking back at the 1890's, we saw a horrendous rash of extreme weather events that had nothing to do with global warming"
- http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/15/attribution-of-extreme-events/#comment-31852

No, Passy, I do not support 'state capitalism' or any kind of capitalism (save for those undeveloped countries where it would constitute an advance on existing feudal or semi-feudal conditions). In the Soviet Union and China, dams brought immense benefits, such as electrification and irrigation, to the people. Generally speaking, state capitalism is about as relevant to the C21st as Trotskyism.

As a leftist influenced by Marxism, I defend modernity and support struggle for democracy everywhere, including Zimbabwe, Iran, China, Cuba, North Korea and Burma.

And like any leftist influenced by Marxism's enthusiasm for mastering and exploiting nature to advance humanity, I have no problem in principle with dams.

If you look at the Traveston issue you will find that it was a win for common sense and sound economic decision making, rather than for any side of politics. The Nationals, Liberals, Greens and many independents, individual Qld Labor party people and in the end the Federal Labor Government opposed the dam.

Although it was the endangered species that ultimately stopped it, it would have been a shallow swamp, which would have water in it at times like now when Brisbane already has heaps of water. It involved significant pumping costs as well. As the independent economic analysis Garrett commissioned found, the costings were dubious. It would have produced expensive water, usually at a time when it was least needed.

As for flood mitigation, records show it would have made a marginal difference to the height of the 1999 floods in Gympie (which is downstream), but prolonged the flood (which translates to prolonged cutting of the Bruce highway an innundation of parts of Gympie's CBD). Without having seen an actual analysis of the recent floods yet, I think it is reasonable to assume the dam would have not performed any better in the last few weeks. In fact the dam is likely to have been full at the commencement of January and therefore would have had not capacity to store flood waters (it was not designed for this purpose) and is unlikely to have had much impact on flood height. Also, another major tributary of the Mary River (which already has a dam on it) usually contributes greatly to flows past Gympie. Traveston would have had zero impact on these flows from Six Mile Creek.

In addition, Traveston dam would have been likely to have caused flooding upstream of the dam impoundment because of inflow to the storage being greater than its capacity to be released. This would have affected about four rural townships and numerous other properties including schools.

Kenny makes sense.
re higher previous flood levels - is it perhaps due the far less cleared land hence more dammed up flows ? I don't like ruining nature for the sake of some industrialists or land speculators but I see absolutely nothing wrong with creating freshwater lakes which benefit nature as much as people. By building a dam most threatened habitats are simply moved to higher grounds. I mean no animal can hold its breath long enough to wait out a flood. So, they move anyway. Also, more freshwater attracts more fauna & flora. A dam is not environmental terrorism, it's much more aligned with enhancing nature. An enhanced nature is good for nature. Oh, and people too naturally.

Tes, thank you for your answer to the article's question: "What would have been the flood mitigation impact had the Traveston Crossing Dam been in place?" Some links to the records would be good. However, as the article states, there is need for debate - the wheres and whys of new dams should be debated - rather than a blanket 'No Dams!' dogma.

Bill, the point to mitigation is avoiding the escalating costs and potential failures of adaptation inherent in the worst case outcomes. I for one will not brush aside or discount the science coming from the world's leading institutions in order to feel good about doing as little as we can get away with. I want elected representatives to take climate science's clear and repeated warnings seriously. I'm not impressed with Judith Curry's attempts to avoid coming to grips with the serious and largely predicable consequences of failure to significantly reduce emissions; we are talking about effectively irreversible changes that don't stop at any arbitrary date such as 2100. Barry York might hold great hopes for geoengineering but closer examination reveals they are excuses for failing to act early and decisively on known causes, not credible solutions.

I would also note that there has never been a time when Green objections could not be outvoted in any parliament in Australia; Oppositions that put opposing (and their short term electoral chances) ahead of their perceptions of sound governance or legitimate infrastructure planning made those choices. That the Greens - on some of their core issues - represent the views of more Australians than their share of seats may have effected the decisions of Governments and Oppositions but they've never been outvoted by the Greens. It's mainstream politics letting everyone down. I say good on the Greens; without them some serious issues affecting our long term future prosperity and security would continue to go completely unaddressed.

That said, the solutions will have to come via mainstream politics guided by best available science based knowledge and without pandering to the vested interests of their backroom backers. I don't think that Barry York's attempt to blame it all on the Greens has contributed anything of value to debates on these issues.

MICHAEL S, you like many others are toatally unaware of Traveston and the Mary Valley, Gympie is downstream of the proposed Traveston Dam, the Mary River flows north old mate.

Please list all the Dams the Howard Govt built last decade, list anything at all the Howard Govt built last decade.................?
Why was it called the wasted decade......?
Now list anything and everything, "Abbott's religious extreme right" and the other State illiberal Nationalista coalitions of the lying oppositions have obstructed!

Ken,
By climate mitigation you must mean massive CO2 reduction. China and other developing countries won't accept that. Remember Copenhagen.

The Australian public is concerned (but not alarmed) about climate change and won't accept a policy which significantly impacts on their standard of living. In that sense if Green policies become mainstream, whether directly or indirectly, they will at that point lose support. Like it or not (and I like it) we will need more much more energy in the future. Renewables can't do the job on their own. Greens oppose nuclear. The clear implication is that under their policies standard of living will decline dramatically. The public won't accept this, so what do you do then?

I would support Barry Yorks proposal for much more R&D not only into geoengineering but other energy alternative proposals as well, particularly in the nuclear direction. Transport issues need more R&D too, eg. the boron car, for one. But nothing significant will happen until energy alternatives cheaper than coal are developed. The developing world is not planning to stop developing. Hence a moderate C tax for R&D is a good idea so we have lots of options available in the future. Nothing else, short of a Green dictatorship, is feasible.

You have made up your mind about the science at it seems to be closed. When I point you to a thinking climate scientist like Judith Curry you are not impressed. There are two issues here. One, scientists are divided between alarmist and luke warmists (with very few scientist deniers). Two, the connection between scientific findings and policy is a separate issue on which there is very little agreement. In a democracy there needs to be public agreement on policy.

HFR,
I think a more relevant & logical question is to list the many projects proposed by the coalition but vehemently opposed by the left & city green & because Australia was then a democracy the coalition had no choice but not to proceed ? It might also be more relevant for you to explain what the reasons were for all the opposition & where has it led us ?

Why, whenever there is a debate on dams, it comes down to green ideologies? It solves nothing.
The progress of this country is what matters to the people - without destruction of social standards.
The Greens are not offering this. They are only offering rhetoric and loss of living standards.
Dams, water storage and flood mitigation for the future are what is needed and the Greens can go fish.

@ Ken Fabos, Monday, 17 January 2011 4:31:05 PM

Well said.

billkerr
Do you really understand what China is actually doing, and how they have outsmarted the USA, again? Do you really expect the developing world to say no to the West's rampant consumerism? Do you really expect that the working class in China don't deserve what you have?

"the connection between scientific findings and policy is a separate issue on which there is very little agreement. In a democracy there needs to be public agreement on policy."

Absolutely! Many ask what is holding us back, why the delay? Answer: business as usual.

How many dams is the question we should be asking. Clearly with urban populations dams are necessary but do we dam all the rivers just to demonstrate some osmotic opposing principle of anti-Green-ness for its own sake. Obviously not.

Without the environmentalists and Greens opposing some dam developments over the years we would have more dams and less river flows which is also damaging to the environment and ultimately to populations. Just look at the impact on the Coorong at the end of the Murray system.

As soon as people start comparing environmental protection to religion you know you must be onto something.

I for one will be amazed if building new dams ever gets past the discussion stage for many years. It's fine for a politician to say they will "investigate the best locations" but they will probably find that the "best locations" will not be available and the whole matter will be dropped.

Recent attempts to build Tillegra dam in the Hunter valley were aborted due to pressure from the public and various interest groups. The "not-in-my-back-yard" brigade are well versed in stopping almost any development.

We also don't have enough good land available to sacrifice and it would probably be a better option to rebuild the drowned towns in less flood-prone areas.

Which state do you think we should put these dams. no matter where they are they will never be in the right place.
I think you are stuck with the situation you are in.
Mitigation will always be a dodgy way of controlling vast amounts of rain. Who is going to say when its the right time to release water.
I can not see any solution, and things are destined to get worse.

If the likely cost from the floods is ca $15B , we can pay for that by withdrawing from Afghanistan , as we intend spending $1.5 B over the next decade , it is a matter of deciding priorities and telling Hilary to stick it up her CIA .

I notice a lot of talk about sustainability, where, or where not to build houses, dams or no dams, finite resources and such.I notice a lot of finger pointing at mainstream parties but never a reflection or examination by greens of green policies - either by themselve, or other parties, in a rigorous, as opposed to, political manner.
However, doesn't the earth's ever expanding population stretch the need for resources and put pressure on all the things the Greens say should be preserved?
Is it fair that the Greens want to deny developing countries the kind of life the west enjoys for the sake of sustainability and preservation of species which get in the way of growing populations?
So, why so little talk of population policy and population control? This is something one only reads about in the nooks and crannies and never in the form of a full-blown debate. Perhaps it should become a mainstream issue worthy of serious discussion and debate.

bonmot,
If you read the thread or even my individual comment carefully you will see that I am not opposed to China's development. eg. I said, " Like it or not (and I like it) we will need more much more energy in the future."

The questions you ask of me should be directed to Ken Fabos, whose opinions you support but apparently without understanding their implications for China and the rest of the developing world. At any rate, China will go ahead with their development full steam and so Green thinking will only serve to hold back development in Australia and other developed countries, to the extent to which it gains a toe hold.

byork, in response to your request for more information about Traveston Crossing dam, unfortunately there is limited information available on the net. The best that is available is http://mrccc.org.au/downloads/traveston%20dam/MRCCC_TCD_Hydrol_Analysis_EIS%20Jan%2007.pdf If you go to Figure 21 it shows some of the data that was provided in the EIS. This 1999 event is the only event for which flood mitigation was modeled. In this case the modelers had the benefit of hindsight so to speak and were able to tweak the releases from the dam so as to obtain the best possible scenario. This of course is never possible in reality. The modeling itself was limited for several major reasons including the fact that it did not take into account the contribution of significant downstream tributaries to the water level in Gympie. Therefore this prediction needs to treated with caution and not be over interpreted. If you want to know more let me know.

billkerr
Of course we will need more energy in the future - the problem will be the way it is produced and its prolific abuse.
China does accept that mitigation is required (they are well into nuclear, solar, wind, etc) but expects nations like the US and OZ to also do their part - we're not.
You seem to think China scuttled Copenhagen, many others say it was the the 'developed' nations.

Just build the bloody dams. For heavens sake, it will take years to complete them but make a start and get it happening.
The population is increasing but there is no infrastructure to go with the increase.

What's so wrong with making Australia more efficient by having water stored and at the same time a means to check flooding in times of heavy rainfall.

I am over hearing all about the greens and their attitude of playing god, by wanting to control the environment rather than considering people who also have a place on this earth.

BUILD SOME DAMS SOMEWHERE.

Barry York,
what a hotch-potch of bilge. And I love the way you turn the Left into "reactioanries". As for the Chinese, they're in the process of beating the West at its own game. Just watch the politics change when we're the vassals!
You want to go on building damns, but can you spare a thought for our limited river systems and the biodiversity they support from the inland to the sea?
Why can't we live sustainably in this or any country? That is adapt to the conditions and curtail our population and infrastructure to be in harmony with nature?
Because of the growth monster. We have to have eco(nomic) growth at the expense of eco(logy).

No government is going to spend a fortune building a dam to protect a handful of small communities, who probably wouldn't reciprocate by voting for them anyway.

Far better to simply stop building on flood plains.

I agree with Squeers. This rant WAS a hotch potch of bilge, especially the first half which was just a stringing together of all of the usual anti-green cliches.

A businessman says he has a lot of work at the moment. You quickly respond you need to hire some more people. The businessman says "It's not that simple. You have to be sure that the new people can do the job, you have to be sure that the work will continue. It is a very complicated process that only someone with expertise in this business can properly do."

Switch to we've had a big flood. The same businessman who just gave you a lecture on how considerable expertise is needed when hiring new staff blurts out, "We need to build more dams." The same logic on staff applies to building dams, but it is much more complicated to find a good place to build a dam. This concept escapes Barry York. Mr. York admits he has no expertise in hydrology or geoengineering. It follows then that Mr. York sees the problem as political only, rather than a combination of political, social, economic and engineering problems.

Shadow Minister start the hat eating. Nutty, crazy, kookie ideas like sewage treatment plants, drinking water treatment plants, National Parks, air pollution controls, building insulation and Environmental Impact Statements were once nutty, crazy, kookie greenie ideas. Then of course we tried them and they became mainstream and we forgot all about the "greenies" who were ahead of their time in suggesting those and many more ideas.

Not all greenie ideas are useful, but they certainly have a strong record to fall back on and their ideas at least deserve to be heard and debated with all the other ideas.

Individual, The "Howard wasted decade' ended, with Howard in total control of the House of Reps and the Senate, there was no opposition! Howard did what ever he wanted, he just didn't do infrastructure, period! One of the reasons he was so humiliated in the end, the worst defeat of any illiberal leader in history!

Bob Green was quoted in my local paper as having said “the Mining companies created global warming which has caused the Brisbane River to flood so they should pay for it.”

The man is off with the fairies.

Anybody who has spent a lifetime living near big rivers have seen at least two or three big floods in their lifetime and would have seen more if not for the building of local dams
Particularly with the big wet seasons we’ve had in Queensland over the decades.

With all this hysteria about global warming. It seems as though fear took hold of some sections of the community and politicians in Brisbane and they were so intent on conserving water that they may have failed to release enough water from the Wivenhoe Dam after the first heavy rains. They should have had faith in the rainy season when it came and took the water restrictions off and let the population use a lot of the water in the dam thus draining it to a low level so it could handle the next lot of rain when it came.

Fear of climate change may have made them hold on to the water perhaps?

Are the greens who do not wish to provide more water by building dams, also in support of increasing the population by opening the flood gates to illegal immigrants as is the ideology of Bob Brown and my own local green candidate. How do they propose to ensure water supply for the ever increasing populations