I'm surprised the author even bothered posting on this forum. I'd just go straight to Tony Abbott so we can hit the ground running in 18 months. I wish him all the best.

How is it that by being cautious of a the Bradfield Scheme makes me a “negative Nellie”? There is no strong evidence for its viability, and a great amount of scientific and economic opinion to suggest it wont work.

Spending billions on a project with a very uncertain outcome makes little sense when there are many tens of billions that could be spent on viable infrastructure projects. With the insulation and solar schemes, the education revolution, the carbon tax and the NBN, I think the economic consequences of recklessly pursuing idiotic projects are all too apparent. Look further afield and you realise that reckless spending on low or negative returning projects such as that of the Irish property boom will quickly be followed by a prolonged bust.

http://epress.anu.edu.au/anzsog/auc/mobile_devices/ch06s04.html

“Quayle’s theories were derived from those that had underpinned the nineteenth century proposals to flood the Sahara and Lake Eyre, which I have already discussed. Such ideas were also put forward in relation to the plan to lock and weir the Barwon and Darling Rivers in the 1890s, when they were debunked by the esteemed NSW Government Astronomer, Henry Chamberlaine Russell, who observed that — as the upper atmosphere shifts at the rate of hundreds of miles a day — any water evaporating from inland lakes and pools is over the Pacific Ocean by the time it might develop into rainfall. Quayle’s theories, as they were re-presented by Bradfield, were comprehensively dismissed by other prominent meteorologists in the 1940s. A recent study looking specifically at Lake Eyre has suggested that its permanent filling may slightly raise the average level of precipitation directly above the lake itself, but would have little or no effect on rainfall levels across the surrounding region.”

Fester,

You're comprehension is appalling.

1. Compton's proposal is a bad con job. When you are about to steal a kid's lolly you have to offer a dream in return. Compton's con job dream is : "give us all yer Uranium and we will give youse a green interior" con job.
Generally speaking the world regards Australia, because of its give the furniture away "immigration scheme", as a bunch of morons who would easily fall for a hastily conceived con job. This country is a laughing stock & internationally regarded as a soft touch. For example, miners won't go elsewhere if we make them pay more and do more responsible planning because they FEAR AFRICA and CANADA and all the other dangerous mining areas. We need better leaders who KNOW. We need better leaders who will protect our future and not sell us out for peanuts.

2. My proposal is based on the fact that BHP will mine Uranium and will spend $billions on the water component of the project only to place it in radioactive tailing ponds. Some of that capital must create a series of small, hi-tech vegetated Lakes in the deepest part of nearby Lake Eyre as a part of its existing Water Plan.

3. The Second Law of Thermodynamics dictates that a finite Entropy Gradient from the GAB to the Eastern States will exist as long as those small lakes are kept full. Quale was wrong. He knew some of the atmospheric dynamics but NOTHING of the 2LT for this region.

It's all a bit too Jack and the Beanstalky for me, Kaep. Maybe the SA gov should conduct an ocean fertilising experiment instead. It would cost millions to test and would have measurable results within a few years. With fertilizer so vital for agricultural production, I cant see why it shouldn't be beneficial for fisheries also. And if it doesn't work the SA Gov is only a few million out of pocket.

http://everything2.com/title/dimethyl+sulfide

It is easy for the “negative nellies who abound in every generation” to air their personal objections to such a visionary plan based on a singular favoured issue or “hobby horse”. In doing so, they risk ignoring the broader needs of and benefits to the nation, such a plan might offer.

This article presents a long overdue, nationally beneficial water strategy relating to inland Australia, clearly dependent on the conduct of preliminary feasibility studies.

Governing legislation relating to major projects, the advancement in scientific and other high level expertise suggests the intelligence and capacity to conduct such a study today is already in place and critical issues are very unlikely to go unaddressed. Nothing should be presumed to be an insurmountable barrier to the project until proven otherwise, by experts of the day.

We have Murray-Darling issues which have been languishing politically far too long, a food bowl and industries under severe pressure, flood mitigation needs of extreme importance to thousands of lives in regional communities. Healthy inland rivers and associated wildlife corridors depend foremost on flowing water.

The plan presented is clearly born in sustainability, not only of rivers and the environment but food security, the future of inland communities and regions, resource industries delivering broad economic benefits, nature-based species and corridors, and the liveability of towns and farmlands in the face of extreme weather events, particularly floods.

The future rests with a balanced and considered approach through expert studies.
Opportunity exists for major mining companies seeking water, project approvals and responsible positioning in communities, to contribute to the whole, not only in the delivery of construction but also to the resolution of impacts and solutions identified in any studies.

The fact that water channel construction has been minimised in the plan with an estimated 4000 kms of natural waterways utilised for the transporting of water, is a positive starting point. With much of the construction and water sourcing confined to Queensland, here is a wonderful opportunity for that State to take a lead offering benefit to the nation and for other States to adopt a co-operative position

Interesting post, Have a Go.

You write:

<< The plan presented is clearly born in sustainability >>

Well, I’m pleased that you are considering this enormously important factor, but I can’t see any indication of this huge scheme being set in a paradigm of national (or state) sustainability in Mr Compton’s article. Rather, it is just another part of the massive continuous growth ‘antisustainability’ mindset.

If our illustrious political leaders were to set the country on a path to genuine sustainability, with the fundamental requirements of a stable population, maximised renewable energy sources and a wind-down of our dependence on once-off primary resources and on to value-added and renewable industries, then this scheme might have some merit.

I’d be willing to condone the enormous environmental impacts and the various other inevitable problems that it would engender if…and only if, it is set within this genuine sustainability paradigm.

Otherwise, it will work against us!

All it will achieve is to support an ever-bigger population and ever-more coal mining, and ultimately not improve food security, per-capita export income or the average quality of life for Australian citizens. And it will make it that much harder for us to make the vital switch to a sustainable society.