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 .