On the topic of water catchments... some of ours are situated in our National "lock-'em-up-and-let-'em-burn" Parks, futher reducing our catchments' ability to catch water. It's a simple fact that certain modes of trapping and transporting water are more effective. To trap water around a clay lined hole in the ground is efficient whilst to trap it in the middle of our unmanaged National Parks is a waste of time. To transport water by irrigation canals that are open to the elements and lined by soil is inefficient whilst to transport it by pipe is far better.

Some means of trapping the excess water that would normally flood the north of WA, Queensland and the NT for irrigation is bleeding obvious, especially in light of the recent flooding in WA... i'm not saying we can stop flooding, but having a way of diverting water into a holding bay when faced with imminent deluge would help. If that water from Queensland could be piped to irrigators down south as well, then the Darling's first steps could be less inhibited, and there might be some flooding in Northern NSW.

Often people talk of redistribution of wealth, but redistribution of water is equally important. Areas should strive for self-sufficiency, and lowering demand in urban Australia with better technology and tanks (preferably big ones) is obvious, but in areas whose productivity could sky-rocket, such as regional and rural areas, with greater allotments of water, then why not find a way of moving excess supply there?

Perseus lied to the forum. Pure and simple. Caught red-handed. He had every opportunity to explain himself or put whatever spin on it he could. He was left speechless. He had no response, and still doesn’t.

What sort of a braincell-deficient moron would assert that someone had gone on the record as espousing something totally opposite to what they believe in, thus effectively defaming them? Who did he think he was trying to fool? After pushing him a number of times to come up with the evidence that was “on the record”, he produced something which indicated entirely the opposite. He has many times stated that I have said things or believe things that have not and do not. He does to others regularly too. It is his standard operating procedure.

Regarding water tanks; for goodness sake, how narrow is his whole outlook? I try to encompass the big-picture issues while he sticks to some tiny subissue and completely fails to relate it to the bigger picture. He makes fair and reasonable points within this narrow focus, but when it comes to the holistic view, by crikey is he lost in the wilderness.

If he wishes me to answer his question, he has got about 50 of my questions, asked in the interests of healthy debate on other threads, to answer first.

Now this is the first time that he has come up with things like “gonzo mates” and “rent-a-crowd”.

Haaaaaaaa haa – yes here are indeed a lot of other people on this forum who share my concerns about continuous population growth and sustainability. His paranoia is beginning to show.

.
DFXK, there seems to be a contradiction in what you are saying;

“Often people talk of redistribution of wealth, but redistribution of water is equally important. Areas should strive for self-sufficiency”

Aren’t regional self-sufficiency and the moving excess supply to where it is needed opposing concepts?

Excuse me Ludwig, at the time of my supposed guilty silence I was away for a long weekend at my farm with, thankfully, no PC access. And when I got back I made the relevant post which confirms two things;
1 Most people will regard it as evidence of your willingness to discourage innovation for the sake of your ideology, and
2 Most people, especially if the review the rest of those tedious threads, that you are quite capable of serious self delusion.

But I take it from your silence that you have no children and certainly have no water tank. Remember water? This is a thread about water, not some elaborate ideology to justify your own absence of progeny.

Well it was perfectly obvious that Perseus finds the discussion of population stabilisation and sustainability tedious. It is also obvious that many OLO respondents don’t, because there is plenty of it on this forum. If he finds it not to his liking, why doesn’t he butt out or leave it alone when it is introduced? What sort of a clot partakes in lines of discussion that he is not interested or knowledgeable in??

As I said last time, he lives within his own little world with his own very narrow focus, and he really doesn’t want to know that we are living very unsustainably. What a shame. Thank goodness there are progressively fewer and fewer people who think like that.

Nothing I have ever written on this forum even remotely suggests that I discourage innovation. Innovation is a very important part of achieving sustainability, which is my bottom line. We’ve been through this and Persy couldn’t produce any evidence…of course…because there is no way in the world I hold that view or would ever espouse such a thing.

His view on this is a product of one of the weirdest brains I have ever encountered, which has the extraordinary ability to project things, in the most ridiculously polarised manner, not only to the end of the spectrum, but clean off it into the realms of pure fantasy. Time and time again he attributes things to people that are so far removed from what has been written that no one but him can make any connection. He is his own worst enemy. If only he would dwell in the real world, and accept things at face value, he might stand a chance of being a meaningful commentator and debater on this forum.

I take it from his silence on the many unanswered questions that I have put to him that he knows diddly squat, and cares even less, about sustainability.

I thought Perseus posed fair questions, Ludwig. They would certainly help put some of your observations in perspective.

So, do you have a water tank?

Do you have children?

Purely in the interests of understanding your position, which - you have to admit - is quite dogmatic.

It would be interesting to see some comments on the idea in the article of taking control away from governments and government agencies and giving control to those who work towards sustainability. Is this a good idea?