The biggest problem for truth, fairness and transparency is the notion that foreign owned companies bearing Australian brand names like BHP or Quantas should get EXCLUSIVE rights with NO competition to Australian Assets.

My advice is to change the laws so we can put mining out to Tender for the companies that will deliver the best profits for Australian taxpayers with all bets off as far as filial privileges are concerned.

At the end of the day the Autralian taxpayer takes all the risks associated with mining through taxation rebates so whay do the miners get exclusivity based on high risks?

I'm telling you we are being CONNED.

I know some chinese and Canadian companies that could treble Autralian mining profits and still make a healthy profit themselves.

Is this a DEMOCRACY or NOT? Or are we just a DOG nation with foreign mining PARASITES sucking our lifeblood and telling us its GOOD FOR US!

Mongrels!

Ham, you can clearly understand what ‘unsustainable’ means but you need a precise definition of ‘sustainable’! I don’t get that.

Anyway, I outlined it two posts back. I wrote:

< … 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 … >

Obviously sustainability means a balance between the demand for energy and resources and the supply capability, as opposed to a society that is dependent on non-renewable fossil fuels and minerals and which keeps increasing the demand on these things.

You wrote:

<<You want an end to continuing expansion, which means an end to economic growth >>

No it doesn’t. Not at all. That’s just silly and indicates the most fundamental misunderstanding of sustainability.

<< If it can be shown to make economic sense and can be done in an ecologically sound manner, it should be done - unless of course it's 'unsustainable', in which case the project wouldn't even begin. >>

YES!!

So, why are you poo-pooing the concept of sustainability then??

May I suggest that you start listening to the likes of Bob Carr, Dick Smith, Ian Low, Tim Flannery, David Attenborough and an ever-increasing number of learned people so that you may gain an appreciation of the absolutely vital importance of us developing sustainable societies, on all levels from local to global.

It is interesting, last week former PM Paul Keating was quoted as saying “Creativity is central to our progress as it is to all human endeavour, the ability to divine the bigger picture and the commitment to drive towards it. The great leaps of humankind do not come solely from rational deduction. Intuition and passion provide the real points of progress so we must have a mix of passion and reason and wherever the two lie together, invariably the outcome is of an altogether higher form”

Rational deduction suggests we must deal with Murray-Darling issues, river health, future food supply in the face of population growth, the devastation of floods and sustainability of inland communities. In this context, Compton’s proposals are not "pie-in-the-sky expansionism" but a response to national need. Since time immemorial mankind has had to survive, progress and deal with challenges of the day. The way forward is to engage the best experts of the day to deal with the challenges and Compton opens our minds and way to this.

Our nation has moved on, even from Snowy River Scheme days with a new level of awareness and expertise covering issues from cost benefit analysis to environment and ecological challenges, evaporation, siltation, social impact and more.

There is no way the nation will or should ignore quality of life geared to economic growth, or to completely shut down mining on various fronts, resource exploration, scientific and energy research. We are an intelligent and adaptable nation able to apply the vision, passion and reason as Paul Keating suggests.

There is positive opportunity to harness the mining industry support for the benefit of all and I don’t see any suggestion in Compton’s proposal that public funds will surely be wasted on feasibility studies. Dealing with critical national challenges is not a waste of time or investment – public or private.

I agree in part with Ludwig’s posting that “if it can be shown to make economic sense and can be done in an ecological sound manner, it should be done” and I add, the mindset of “rational sustainability” should apply

Now we know!

Have-a-go works for the survey companies. They will charge Australians $100 million to give us an answer to IF Compton's dream is viable.

Then - we'll never hear any more about it while BHP fills acres of tailing ponds to overflowing with precious Aquifer waters laced with a million years worth of radioactive wastes.

Taxpayers will be held responsible, because they weremade accomplices by the fact of a connected Compton survey. Meanwhile all the profits, and the surveyor people will go offshore. Foreign investors will be laughing. With some of the intellect displayed here they probably are laughing now!

Lake Eyre can be sustainably ameliorated with HIGH TECH vegetation around a chain link of ENGINEERED WETLANDS. at its deepest points only. When dealing with something as vast as the interior of this DESERT land it is imperative to show some MODESTY and RESPECT.

Have a Go, you wrote:

<< I agree in part with Ludwig’s posting that “if it can be shown to make economic sense and can be done in an ecological sound manner, it should be done” and I add, the mindset of “rational sustainability” should apply >>

You are actually quoting Ham here.

But yes, we do have some agreement in that economic sense, ecological considerations and rational sustainability are all-important prerequisites. It COULD be done under these circumstances. But if and only if it is really needed.

Sure, we’ve got the ability to undertake projects like this much more economically and environmentally sensibly than we’ve done in the past.

Trouble is, we are still a million miles from that third prerequisite of rational sustainability.

Everald Compton’s article doesn’t even consider this. And Ham’s expression pertaining to sustainability is confused and appears to be a disingenuous expression of support for it while at the same time lambasting those who desire a sustainable society!

They are really good at promotion and presumably pretty good at working out all the details and costings in order to get the maximum short-term benefit. But without the longer term considerations, it simply doesn’t make sense…and as I’ve said before; it has huge potential for actually making it a whole lot worse for the country, come the time that we are forced to embrace sustainability…which can’t be far off.

Sorry, but with these sort of people in charge or with strong influence or indicative of the prevailing mindset, this project has just got to be a complete NO-GOER!