The amount of water that flows off Australian rooves is around 900GL each year regardless of climate change. With rainwater yield from a roof, what you see is what you get. This compares with rainfall in catchment areas where what you see is three-times what you get (a 14% decline in Perth’s rainfall led to a 52% decline in runoff into its catchments – must have those pesky trees).

85% of Australians live within 50KM of the coast and coastal rainfall is probably the most reliable source of water.

About one-half of the water that falls onto roofs can be economically captured in rainwater tanks and used in replacement of mains-supply drinking water.

This will be sufficient to supply 20% - 25% of the nation’s drinking water requirements.

Well might Governments, as Jennifer notes, “be frightened to make some of the necessary and practical decisions which could alleviate some of our water problems because they might be unpopular”.

What’s unpopular about rainwater tanks?

The National Water Commission is one Government agency that stands ready to take action should the integrated water cycle be threatened by rainwater tanks.

Says the Commission: “If rainwater tanks were to be adopted on a large scale such that their existence impacts significantly on the integrated water cycle, consideration could be given to setting an entitlement regime for this class of water.”

Sounds like a dry argument to me.

Greg Cameron

Jennifer, what a dangerous and misleading statement you make in your article: "The boogey man is now climate change, and according to the popular press and some meteorologists, it is responsible for the current drought."

I would suggest that you research further afield amongst the scientific community (climate scientists for a start) before declaring your position as a climate change skeptic. I would also suggest that from your statement "the popular press" your reading on the subject has been very limited.

Australia is a dry country, there is no doubt about that but activities by humans have changed weather patterns (climate change)and therefore the amount of rain that we receive has changed.

Historically, (read Jared Diamond) civilisations have perished because of unsustainable consumption of resources, which have ulitmately changed weather patterns and created permanent drought. What we are now experiencing here in Australia is not dissimilar.

What we do have now is the chance to alter the pattern by stopping our destructive behaviour burning fossil fuel for our energy - it's as simple as that!

Alternative energy represents a paradigm shift away from "dirty energy" and Australia has more than enough solar and wind power to energise our nation.

It will take a bag full of money and a huge committment by all sections of our community but if the Europeans can do it with their limited renewable energy sources, then we can do it sitting down.

We need to make this shift - for the sake of our children.

Phil Bramley
Tanja
NSW

“In summary, there is a water shortage in Australia but rainfall has not been exceptionally low and it is indeed drawing a long bow to blame climate change.”

Agreed Jennifer. But we still need to address the greenhouse gas emissions / climate change issue as best we can, not because our emissions are significant on the world scale, but because we need to set an example for the US and China and thus pressure the big emitters into stronger action. And we certainly must NOT be seen to setting the opposite example, of business (and very high per-capita emissions) as usual.

“But perhaps the water shortage in our cities has more to do with a lack of investment in water infrastructure coupled with a steady increase in population, than global warming?”

Absolutely. There has certainly been a lack of investment in water infrastructure, and thus a failure to keep up a secure supply to the rapidly growing population. But of much more significance is the rapidly growing population itself….that has stressed one of our most basic and eminently renewable resources to the point that the supply is no longer sustainable.

We need to do all sorts things to improve this situation. And one of the biggest and most fundamental, and relatively easy, steps has surely got to be to slow and then stabilise this population-driven demand.

We should thus be gearing immigration down to at least net zero over the next few years…. and killing off Costello’s baby-buying bonus once and for all.

How crazy is it to continue to have rapid expansion of all things human while our basic resources (life-support systems) are under great stress?

Good post Greg.
The national water commission is obviously worried about the loss of state & council income, if it looses too much of the water rip off.
It can't be about any ecological effect. If we caught all the water from our roofs, the run off from built up areas would still be much more than natural, for the area.
Of course the bull sh#t runs much deeper than the water.

Jennifer your piece is quite hilarious. I mention just a few holes:

“Geological history and modelling, including by the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado, indicates that as the world warms it will generally get wetter. Yet we have a drought in southern Australia.”

The word to pay attention to here is generally. It does not mean everywhere will be wetter. The drought in SE Australia is likely caused by a weak El Nino and also cooler than normal sea surface temperatures over the NW of the continent. This has starved inland areas of the NW cloud band that in the past preceded cold fronts in low pressure troughs, often delivering heavy rain. Heavy rain means run-off, something we haven’t seen for almost 6 years over Sydney’s water catchment. Nonetheless we cannot entirely dismiss the possibility that human induced climate change is partly responsible for recent changes in weather patterns.

“Rainfall may not have been exceptionally low, but there is certainly a water shortage and not just in the Murray Darling Basin. .....perhaps the water shortage in our cities has more to do with a lack of investment in water infrastructure coupled with a steady increase in population, than global warming? Perhaps water shortages in the Murray Darling Basin have been exacerbated by how we are now managing the landscape based on a past fear of rising ground water?”

The lack of water in the Murray is due to extremely low rainfall this year. Why? Because last winter was characterised by an almost complete absence of cold fronts that normally deliver snow to the Snowy Mountains. It was one of the worst snow seasons on record, like 1982. You are correct in saying that reducing CO2 emissions will not solve our drought. However, the supply of fossil fuels is fixed and will eventually run out, so there is no harm in starting to do something now, in addition to measures to harvest rainwater. In addition, as Ludwig suggests, stop the rising population and we may save ourselves the need to invest in costly, energy wasting and polluting infrastructure.

You guys at this forum really know how to argue logically - not!
Robg, I think your response is so lacking in logic and so misleading it is truly sad. You actually agree with me that as it warms the world will generally get wetter and that low inflow rather than low rainfall is the problem for the Murray. Your El Nino explaination is not inconsistent with the idea of changed wind patterns.Your explaination may have more relevance to Sydney. But probably not to southern Australia more generally.
As regards fossil fuels running out before we move beyond the oil age... well you are a pessimist.

What action could be simpler than stabilising Australia's population? I am amazed by the contrast of scepticism of global warming with the almost dogmatic acceptance of the benefits of population growth. How can the scientific evidence be crucial for one and irrelevant to the other?

To say that climate and hydrology aren't related is to go against what all hydrologists believe. To say that we are so small that we cannot make a difference to global warming is exactly the same thinking that got the world into the problem. That is, one power plant is so small it couldn't possibly make a difference on the climate.

Renewable energy invested and commercialised 10, 20, 30 years ago would have made a difference to this drought. Pity no one was listening.

So what to do today? Well if renewable energy isn't going to solve the problems of this drought, should we not invest in them for the future? Should we not invest in sustainable farming practice for it will rain as it did before if we wait long enough? I belive that we should make these investments, otherwise we will look on 2006 as the golden years where fresh water was in plentiful supply and the climate was overly favourable.

“You guys at this forum really know how to argue logically - not!”

Crikey Jennifer! That’s a terrible response. Tar everyone with the same brush…. and then offer reasoning for your dirty little dig in brief to only one respondent! Wow!

And just when I thought that I had finally found a reasonable degree of agreement with you, after several articles on this forum!

You mention population growth as one factor in the water crisis. But when are you going to call on our government, scientific community and general populace alike to do something about it?

Jennifer

"But perhaps the water shortage in our cities has more to do with a lack of investment in water infrastructure coupled with a steady increase in population, than global warming?"

Nice to see you taking population growth into consideration. Of course, population growth has contributed, in fact is is the MAIN factor behind the entire water shortage. There was plenty of water for Sydney when its population was only 2 million. There is almost enough now that it is 4 million. There will not be enough when it is 6 million, whether there is climate change or not. Even if you could build the infrastructure, it would mean damming up every little creek within 500km of Sydney, further buggering the environment. And the cost at the margin gets higher and higher. Enter Malcolm Turnbull to turn the stuff into money.

As Fester said, what could be simpler than just restricting the population size? What is it with this human race that it must be the only animal to expand out of all balance with its environment? Australians have had the temerity to choose a family size that would mean a stabilisation of the population in around 2030 - so Peter Costello (let's hope he is NEVER prime minister) exhorts them to have more. Why? So the property industry can continue to cover the entire landscape with Hong Kong type towers. Turn down the immigration tap, and some of our property developers will not be able to make the absurd windfall profits they have been making and will have to do an honest day's work for a change. But there will be enough water.

Ludwig,
My apologies for not explaining myself. But honestly, most all of you seem to be determined to read into my article your own particular prejudices:

GC, implies I'm against rainwater tanks, as a launch pad for explaining their benefits

Philby, can't read a rainfall chart

Ludwig, implies I'm for controls on population. no. just against population growth without the necessary associated infrastructure development

Hasbeen, uses GC's advertisement for rainwater tanks to extrapolate further

Robg, well, misleading

Fester, an extra 3-5 million in Australia should be quite manageable, its fitting the extra 2.5 billion into the rest of the world that I would be more concerned about

AustinP, just wants to do something nevermind whether or not it will be useful, or how expensive

Thermoman, also doesn't seem to realize that Australia is a large country with few people

... and please don't infer from this comment I'm advocating more people.

Yes, population is an issue globally. As regards Australia, we should be able to provide water, energy and food to the few already here and a few more.

An extra 3 to 5 million in Australia would require the utilisation of an extra 2700 to 4500 gigalitres of water, based on current levels of consumption.

http://www.waterfootprint.org/WaterFootprintCalculator_Indv.asp?Country_ID=6&income=

Perhaps this is an easy task, but not having this task might be easier. The prospects for the rest of the world are more challenging, especially as there is a world water deficit.

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2006/10/10/the-water-boom-is-over/#more-1019

India now imports 40% of its food, so how will an increasing population and the effects of global warming change things?

Surely there is more sense in being cautious? "should be quite manageable" is hardly convincing evidence for a population growth sceptic.

The “lack of investment in water infrastructure” is something we should be harassing our do-nothing-but-talk-and-then-introduce-restrictions politicians about. Politicians are not only too “frightened” to take practical steps to ensure Australia has water for the future; they are also too dumb. The handing out of charity to unviable farmers, who are to blame for the degradation of our land, is the proof.

All of the nonsense about overcoming “climate change” is a crock of the proverbial

Jennifer, Some dams in the Darling Range WA have NEVER overflowed since they were constructed in the 1960's and 1970's In the past 15 years Mundaring Dam and Wellington Dam have overflowed once each.The question that needs to be asked is. Were the dams built too large to begin with? You mention logging as a means of increasing the water yield yet in the highest rainfall area of the Range logging in the guise of bauxite mining has not filled the water catchment dams any more that the other dams. Perhaps roof catchment tanks with appropriate hygiene would be a more effective means of getting water without having wasteful infrastructre being built

In response to Jennifer, as a small business person who seeks to bring about policy change in relation to rainwater tanks in Australia, of course I am using the ONO forum to promote what I think should happen whereby a market opportunity will be created for me and others.

One is privileged to have readers of ONO comment as vigorously as they do on the ideas that are offered.

When Jennifer says “governments are frightened to make some of the necessary and practical decisions which could alleviate some of our water problems because they might be unpopular”, is she not inviting comment on relevant aspects of government policy?

The example I offer is that governments should adopt a uniform policy in support of rainwater tanks for every building in Australia. If they do this, and I make a gazillion dollars, I hope the Institute of Public Affairs will celebrate the success of my small business.

However, it is Federal Government policy to restrict large-scale use of rainwater tanks, on environmental grounds.

It is the policy of all State Governments and the Federal Government to reject rainwater tanks as an option for providing up to 25% of Australia’s drinking water supply, on cost grounds, without providing their cost estimates.

It is a fact that no government is willing to consider whether large-scale production and installation of rainwater supply systems will produce a cost per kilolitre of rainwater that is comparable with the cost of mains-supply drinking water.

(continued below)

The National Water Commission makes the claim that, under the National Water Initiative Agreement, ownership of rights to rainwater from a roof is vested in government.

If this is true, the use of rainwater could be restricted by governments setting entitlement regimes, or imposing taxes.

National Water Commission policy is: “If rainwater tanks were to be adopted on a large scale such that their existence impacts significantly on the integrated water cycle, consideration could be given to setting an entitlement regime for this class of water”.

However, no State law explicitly vests in the State the ownership of rights to rainwater collected from a roof.

The South Australian, Western Australian and Tasmanian governments interpret their respective State laws to be that this right is vested in the State.

The New South Wales, Queensland and Victorian governments do not, as yet, claim ownership of the rights to rainwater collected from a roof.

No State Government, or the Federal Government, has a policy to support rainwater tanks being used by every existing building to reduce consumption of mains drinking water.

A national market warrants significant new investment in large scale manufacturing facilities and installation services such that the cost of rainwater per kilolitre would be competitive with the cost of mains-delivered water.

State and Federal Government policy is preventing such investment.

Current demand for rainwater tanks is fuelled largely by government subsidies – because the cost of rainwater installations is high compared with the cost of mains water.

There would be no need for subsidies, obviously, when the cost per KL of rainwater was competitive with the cost per KL of mains water.

Government rainwater tank policy is contrary to the national interest.

Governments can:

(1) Confirm ownership of rights to rainwater from a roof.
(2) Establish the cost of rainwater supply when utilised by every building in Australia within 10 years.

Greg Cameron

“Ludwig, implies I'm for controls on population.”

Whaaaat??

Jennifer, I realised a long time ago that you would the last person on the planet to be in favour of any sort of population controls!

And therein is your greatest flaw. You write about a wide range of environmental subjects. But the bottom line is that if you are in favour of continuous population growth, then you are fundamentally missing the core issue of environmentalism, which is sustainability, and you just can’t call yourself an environmentalist.

“…and please don't infer from this comment I'm advocating more people.”

But if you are not in favour of any population-growth mitigation measures, then you ARE advocating more people!!

“just against population growth without the necessary associated infrastructure development”

But you are not against population growth despite critically stressed resources…most notably water! This doesn’t make any sense!

“….Australia is a large country with few people”

omygoodness! With all your environmental qualifications and experience, you would know as well as anyone what the limitations of this continent are, in terms of low rainfall, unreliable rainfall in areas that might otherwise be much more productive, and predominantly piss-poor soils and salinity.

“we should be able to provide water, energy and food to the few already here and a few more.”

“Should” indeed! Surely we MUST make sure that the provision of these resources is confidently implemented BEFORE we increase population, instead of struggling to keep up substandard supply to an ever-increasing number of people.

“and a few more”. How many more?

Given the critical nature of urban water supplies across the country and of drought and overallocation of water in many rural areas, and the need to pull right back on our activities in much of rural Australia, how on earth can you not be strongly favour of stabilising our population….and quickly?

Ms Marohasy continues her solid work on behalf of the IPA's more reptilian clients, though the use of strawman argument and selective statistics is now taught at high school level.

Posing but not actually naming or citing anyone so rash as to suggest some link between drought and climate, Ms Marohasy flourishes her carefully chosen data as if it is conclusive and then parrots the 'hard decisions'/more centralisation of power theme being broadcast from Canberra lately (Mr Howard is never one to waste an opportunity).

A dissection would be tedious, but this was template stuff: "Australia is responsible for less than 2 per cent of global carbon dioxide emissions." Overlooking coal & gas exports, & aviation, how convenient for IPA's clients. Ignoring per capita extravagance, how convenient for individuals rationalising away their impact. 'Excuses for the corpulent' should be the IPA's slogan.

No surprises really from the fundamentalist pro-growth church, but i have to worry for the author. Selling the sustainable growth fantasy takes a tremendous personal and intellectual toll, all the more so in the face of the mounting ecological, social and economic evidence against it. Sure, statistics can be found to support your valiant attacks on strawmen, and you can hide among fellow neoliberals to avoid thought, but the rest of the populace know you for what you are, and thats gotta hurt.

Also, with Business and Wealth finally grasping the sheer scale of our intertwined sustainability crises, apologists like Ms Marohasy and Mr Howard may find themselves without a client base if they don't adapt fast.

So 4/10 Ms Marohasy, please complete supplementary homework (it may improve future employability):

Why is Robg a pessimist for worrying about fossil fuels when global oil production is falling (1st half 06 vs. 1st half 05, US EIA figures)?

How is your opposition to Kyoto different to a smoker refusing to quit smoking until all other smokers do too?

-

thanks GC for the drum on rain water tanks, very interesting

Greg Cameron,
Your point is well made. But tell me, on what environmental grounds is the federal government against the widespread use of rainwater tanks?

Ludwig,
Population will look after itself if we get the fundamentals right. Indeed, empower women and give them a good standard of living, and they will stop having lots of babies. Scientific America had a feature on population in its September (2005) issue. Prof Joel Cohen wrotes that

"... the dramatic fall since 1970 of the global population growth rate to 1.1 or 1.2 percent a year today resulted primarily from choices by billions of couples around the world to limit the number of people born. Global human populations growth rates have probably risen and fallen numerous times in the past. The great plagues and wars of the 14th century, for example, reduced not only the growth rate but also the absolute size of global population both largely involuntary changes. Never before the 20th century has a fall in the global population growth rates been voluntary."

Jennifer,

“Population will look after itself if we get the fundamentals right.”

But isn’t the most fundamental objective to achieve sustainability? How can we achieve sustainability with a pretty rapidly increasing number of consumers and polluters? Doesn’t this work diametrically against all the technological improvements we are struggling to develop that are designed specifically to reduce consumption of stressed resources and reduce waste production?

How can population stabilisation not be one of the most fundamental elements?

“….empower women and give them a good standard of living, and they will stop having lots of babies.”

We’ve done that pretty effectively in Australia, and our moderate birthrate reflects it. But the birthrate is not the main population issue. Immigration is. We can’t hope to significantly lower our birthrate further, but we can easily lower immigration. Every true environmentalist should be calling for much lower immigration levels.

This issue is critically connected to the subject of this thread. So can I ask again;

‘Given the critical nature of urban water supplies across the country and of drought and overallocation of water in many rural areas, and the need to pull right back on our activities in much of rural Australia, how on earth can you not be strongly in favour of stabilising our population….and quickly?’

I have read for weeks about this problem and this is what it seems most experts (Scientists, Engineers etc.) are saying:

- Help farmers improve their water efficiency as 80% of Australias water use is for irrigation. Investment in R&D is needed. Even a small 2-3% increase in overall efficiency would be great. Alot of water is simply evaporated through irrigation.

- Increase stormwater recapture. Each city should be aim for 10-20% or so.

- Build more water recycling plants.

- Fix up aging pipeline infrastructure where much water is simply leaking.

- Slowly start increasing the price of water consumption as there are increases in efficiency in order to make sure greater efficiency doesn't result in greater use(Which sometimes happens with efficiency improvements).

This needs a joint effort between the states and the federal government. Billions of dollars will be needed for such a scheme. Hopefully, they will bypass the federal-state pissing competition they have had with every other federal-state issue.

Thanks for your responses.

You are right about “women stopping having lots of babies” if they are empowered and have a good standard of living. This has happened in Australia, but Ludwig is spot on in pointing to immigration as a major environmental problem here.

There are certain industries, in particular construction and real estate, that depend on high immigration for making super profits. Not just ordinary profits, but outrageous profits arising from the con trick of turning one little plot of land into hundreds of apartments stacked on top of each other.

These industries have a stranglehold on the democratic process so that Liberal, Labor, Democrats and even the Greens will not publicly debate Australia’s doubling of net immigration from 60,000 to 120,000 a year since 1996. The economic growth that comes from that is easy, but not necessarily good for this country now or in the future.

Australia is 90 per cent arid, with a small “fertile crescent” along the east coast and another patch in the south west. The so-called fertile parts have topsoil measured in centimetres, not metres as in Europe. Our total flow of fresh water is equivalent to half the Mississippi. Our climate is highly variable, with droughts and floods occurring more severely than elsewhere thanks to El Nino.

Countries such as Sweden, Denmark and even Japan have proved that you can have prosperity without high population growth.

The single most effective environmental measure we could take would be to cut our net immigration (i.e. the numbers permanently arriving minus the numbers permanently leaving) down to around 40,000 a year. That way, we could still bring in large numbers of genuine refugees, but stop raiding countries such as Bangla Desh for their highly qualified people - and our population would stabilise around 2040.

There are lots of other ways of reducing environmental impact, maybe rain water tanks, maybe recycled sewerage, but any overall improvements they bring about will just be eroded if our population keeps growing.

As Sam Kekovich used to say in his raves in The Fat, “you know if makes sense”!

Actually I can read a rainfall chart but more importantly, living on the land, I have seen first hand what the rainfall chart tells me.

Anyway, any further interest in what Jennifer has to say about the subject is negated by the fact that there seems to be a strong vested interest in her views on the subject.

I think Liam has hit the spot with his comments about IPA. Do a google search and all will be revealed.

Cheers

Philby 2

In reply to Jennifer’s question (above), the Federal Government is against the use of rainwater tanks by every building in Australia because they “might impact significantly on the integrated water cycle”.

Does government own the rights to rainwater from a roof?

The National Water Commissioner wrote to me on 25 August, as follows:

“I refer to your email of Friday 2 June.

“You asked "who owns water collected from roofs for rainwater tanks in each State and Territory”?

“There is no straightforward answer to this question and I have to say that I am not convinced that ownership or who owns the water in the rainwater tank should be an issue as I will explain below.

“Legally, all water in Australia is vested in governments. Governments however, allow others to access and use water for a variety of purposes including for irrigation, industrial, mining, urban and rural communities and amenity value. These entitlements to use (not own) water are issued on the basis of legislation in each jurisdiction. Entitlements are generally issued for classes of water that are in demand and deemed to be in need management by legislation. Regulations are also traditionally applied in regard to wastewater and stormwater that needs to be managed in terms of its impacts rather than its use (usually under Health, Building or Planning Acts). From time to time particular uses that may have been largely unregulated may be assessed as a risk or as potentially having an impact on entitlements issued to others (eg. interception from farm dams) and even though the rainwater falls from the sky and is captured on private land, the water stored in the farm dam may then require an entitlement to be issued or purchased on the market (as applies in Victoria). This is not so different from the capture of rainwater on a private roof or stormwater on a large car park or other surface for which there is currently no specific entitlement regime. Currently the priority of governments is to ensure that water captured in rainwater tanks is safe for consumption.”

(continued below)

“No entitlement to use the water is specifically issued under a water management Act. Entitlement to (not ownership of) the water captured would by default rest with the building owner, provided that it has been captured in accordance with whatever regulation might apply for rainwater tanks in each jurisdiction.

“As we understand it, governments have not yet considered the capture of water from roofs in rainwater tanks to be of sufficient magnitude to warrant the issuing of specific entitlements to use this class of water. However, if rainwater tanks were to be adopted on a large scale such that their existence impacts significantly on the integrated water cycle, consideration could be given to setting an entitlement regime for this class of water. It is important to think of the capture of water from any source in an integrated way. Taking your reference to Goulburn as an example, if 1000 homes were to install 5 KL tanks with an annual yield of 57KL, this is 57 ML that would not have reached a river or groundwater system or, viewed another way, is taken from either the environment's entitlement or another productive use. So as you can see these things are not that straightforward and rainwater tanks is only one option not the solution. As has been pointed out before, the NWC supports the use of rainwater tanks as an option and the NWI provides the mechanism to allow rainwater tanks to be considered as an option.

“As you point out, and my comments above confirm, we are moving into a constantly changing field where sources of water once regarded as a nuisance to be disposed of, are now being considered as a realistic supplement to the more traditional water sources. Governments are responding and adapting to this changing environment. The NWC recognises that there is uncertainty about entitlements to "new sources" of water such as stormwater (including capture from roofs), recycled wastewater, desalinated water and intercepted water and is initiating work that will assist governments to decide on how they should most effectively be managed.”

Greg Cameron

Letter to parents/Strict Father figure: Jennifer must complete her homework if she expects to play in the dialogue sandpit, else she may as well stick to the press release/MSM broadcast media format more suited to propagandists. What homework?

1. How can sustainability possibly be approached without a stable or falling population? (Incidentally, Pr Cohens claim that fall in birth rates is voluntary lacks credible supporting evidence, but i guess thats never stopped the IPA before.)

2. Why is Robg a pessimist for worrying about fossil fuels when global oil production is falling (1st half 06 vs. 1st half 05, US EIA figures)?

3. How is your opposition to Kyoto different to a smoker refusing to quit smoking until all other smokers do too?

The drought is a controversial subject and everyone seems to have an opinion and often times every opinion seems right or has some validity. As a person who lives in a small rural town suffering from severe drought we are aware of how hopeless it can often feel. In Mount Morgan, a town of only 3000, we rely on a small dam as our water source. Unfortunately the dam is nearly empty.

In these kind of situations there are not really any genuine solutions that are long lasting. Several years ago, we had a town prayer meeting and in a miraculous series of events our dam was filled in a matter of weeks. Story at http://www.davidsplace.info/id/276/index.htm ... however since then rain has not been forthcoming. It may be time to pray again.

People often talk about the farmers but forget the population and towns that support the rural industry. Without these towns there would be no farmers, and the drought is just a serious for these people too.

Indeed yes dalleyasaurus, and the non-farmer rural population can go whistle as far as the Howard government is concerned. You are all just another conveniently uncosted externality to the economic fundamentalists, go sell your labour making coffees for those on the corp-gov teat.

Even the farmers are of interest only as a means of funnelling government money to the banks (via 'exceptional circumstances' bank interest payments) & maintaining gerrymandered conservative electorates.

When the bush eventually wakes up to how neoliberalism continues to f**k it over, Brown will turn Green and the National Party will be just an embarrassing memory.

Well Jennifer, you are obviously not going to respond to my post of 28 Oct or the questions that I addressed to you therein, which strike right at the core of environmentalism / sustainability.

It is just terrible that you haven’t even attempted to address these points.

It only confirms my earlier statement;

“You write about a wide range of environmental subjects. But the bottom line is that if you are in favour of continuous population growth, then you are fundamentally missing the core issue of environmentalism, which is sustainability, and you just can’t call yourself an environmentalist.”

As an oldie, did mention a couple of months ago, how German migrants in our district in the 1920s, one Gustave Liebe historically famous, did mention that if the Germans had this country they would have already dammed or altered courses of our northern rivers to make up for the lack of rain and watercourses in our south. It was even said during WW2 that the Japanese knowing that tropical downpours are the most substantial and reliant, had talked of similar plans for Australia

It is also interesting that it was not till the Great Depression in the US, that the Hoover dam was constructed, an idea that lay there from the 1920s, till it took the use of cheap government sustained dole labour to do the job.

Now rather than horse teams and scoops we have oodles of modern earth-moving equipment laying idle in secondhand machinery yards, possiblly waiting for another Financial Depression with the unemployed paid sustenance wages to make use of all our surplus machinery even digging drains to divert northern waters into the northern end of the south-flowing Darling, trapping enough water to forever overflow the Murray.

What is this we hear about the Costello Future Fund having accumulated so much cash that Peter is not game now to tell us the full amount in case we might want some of it used
for the above.

Maybe it is economic rationalism that is the trouble, with it being now irrationalism for governments to make use of, or boss around private enterprise?

Finally right here in WA, what about plans for more damming and diverting of the Ord and Fitzroy? With inflation starting to sky-rocket it might be an idea to at least start talking about it.