The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Climate change? No drought! > Comments

Climate change? No drought! : Comments

By Louise Staley, published 6/11/2006

It is unacceptable to suggest all farmers in drought, whether receiving assistance or not, are unviable.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
Well we did

..we changed the landscape. We cut, stripped, gouged, channelled and laid it bare.

I would not go so far as to say it changed the climate but the first bit is true.

And I am so over the pious stance adopted by men and women on the land represented by the scribblings of this bint - and yes I understand the link bewtween the work of a farmer and my bowl of wheeties - I am one of those country folk who actually thinks city folk do it just as hard as the noble farmer - some times harder than - they just dont make a song and dance about it

And the suggestion that someland currently farmed should not be farmed - makes some sense - particularly if you cant water the damn thing
Posted by sneekeepete, Monday, 6 November 2006 9:40:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with the article. The most morally bankrupt aspect of so much of the extreme end of the green movement is that they adhere to the famous maxim of many fringe parties in the past:

"We must make demands that cannot be satisfied".

The left has always seen farmers as their political enemy, possibly because of their conservative stance on many issues, and despite the fact that most farmers are natural conservators of their land, for the most obvious reasons of self-interest. The continuing cultural separation between city and country, where most city dwellers don't know or care there their food comes from, does not bode well for the future.
Posted by plerdsus, Monday, 6 November 2006 10:38:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
But but but; wasn't climate change supposed to bring us more rain ?
This is what the predictions for climatre change were just recently.
Are the predictions being changed to fit the facts ?
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 6 November 2006 10:40:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
G'day from a beef & wheat farm at Book Book near Wagga Wagga in NSW.

Nicely balanced piece Louise. Last Spring was a cracker. This year is close to our worst. We planned the year on the assumption we were going into drought. We didn't actually truly believe we were, indeed, the commentators at the time were declaring the drought was over.

Prudently/accidentally, we put aside half our fodder and held onto grain just in case. Good thing we didn't listen to the experts. Unless someone's on the land and deriving 95% of their income directly from the enterprise, I'd be suspcious of betting my future on the land from the best-intentioned advice offerred.

The current weather patterns will pass. Whilst we don't there'll be rain here until June 07 (apart from the odd storm), that rain will come.

Those who didn't plan for this current event don't deserve any subsidies in my view. Sympathy, yes. Subsidies, no.

However my reading of it is that not enough EC funding is directed towards the purchase of beer and so is of little interest to any tax-payer in this household.

Half-seriously though, if I might offer a practical solution that doesn't squander compulsory relief dollars on bureaucracy:

In the most basic terms:

1. Establish a fund for the sole purpose of subsidising the fabrication, purchase and distribution of seed silos with the view to having a "National Seed Bank" through out Australia.

2. Compulsorarily have each cropper in the nation have a Seed Bank silo or two on their farm for the sole use of storing up to 3 years of the cropper's own sowing grain.

3. The Seed Bank grain is to be pickled with an agreed colour poisonous to stock and is to be fully maintained by the farmer.

Planning for drought is a compulsory part of this business. It's nearly as important as planning out your weekend.

If anyone wants to chat to me about it, or catch up for a beer, drop me an email at BigCattle@BigPond.com

Simon Bedak
"Lorraine", Wagga Wagga NSW 2650
02 69281150
Posted by simon bedak, Monday, 6 November 2006 10:41:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The evidence points to the current drought being a classical El Nino event, which has affected Australia for centuries. I agree that the Greens and Bob Brown trumpet a lot of exaggerated and anti-anything nonsense (for example, the synoptic models can barely get the weather right one week ahead, so what hope is there of a long term model making accurate predictions?) . However, many parts of SE Australia have also experienced ongoing rainfall deficiencies since the end of 1999. This unusual “six year” drought has thus been compared to the similar Federation drought (1895-1903) and the War Drought (1935-1945). On the other side of the country, SW WA for the last 20 years has suffered a steady and alarming decline in rainfall. In addition, the entire globe has recorded significant warming of surface and sea surface temperatures over the past 15 years. The physical effects of global warming are readily seen in retreating glaciers and the receding extent of polar ice. While there is a strong correlation between global warming and rising levels of CO2, it is nevertheless extremely difficult to determine whether the warming is due to a possible natural cycle (if any) or the greenhouse effect (if any). The evidence presently favours the latter explanation. Whichever way, the unsustainability of fossil fuel consumption and the risk that climate change really will have adverse effects on Australia is good enough reason to start investing in alternatives energy sources now, and developing sensible population policy that is in keeping with Australia’s fragile environment.
Posted by Robg, Monday, 6 November 2006 10:54:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
climate change policies flies in the face of the reality this country has always had times of drought.

Isn't that what people are saying?
I live in the riverland, growers who in the past survived growing citrus
and stone fruit, food for the table. All that has changed, they now grow grapes, for wine. While still for the table hardly food.

The entrepreneurs conned growers into thinking they would all get rich, WRONG again, they ripped citrus and other fruit trees out, went into debt to plant grapes, Trees can take twelve years to crop commercially, a long wait. Some vines are still being flood or O/H watering with little or no incentive to change practice. Water has been traded for profit leaving people to buy water from the agent rippoff's. Market forces at work, not for growers but for the capital rich. No one wants, needs or expects to be bailed out for bad management except farmers. Why is that so? is it because of the sins of past govt, read country party holding the govt to ransom, I think so.
A lot of "unviables" being farms that produce commercial crops once every five years could be used as solar farms, the national grid frequently passes thru their land and connection is viable, I have read nothing about innovative assistance to help this happen.
Instead our proven science is now offshore again missing the opportunity to make profit and Australia more sustainable.
Subsidy may work if applied to proven solutions, not as it has applied
in the recent past let alone the future.

fluff
Posted by fluff4, Monday, 6 November 2006 10:54:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree we should let farmers farm: they own the land it's theirs to do with as they wish. In doing so, of course I'd remove the interest rate subsidies; the tax concessions; the protections in the form of import restrictions that apply to bananas and apples etc.

Ahhhh, the joys of agrarian socialism: capitalise the profits; socialise the losses.

Yes, this is a drought, one in a series that seem to be getting worse. Climate change? Well, not in the sense that "in the next hundred years...etc" but in the sense that Peter Cullen suggested: that we could be in the first part of a fifty year dryer cycle.

The hairy chested-knee jerk almost 'either you are with us or against us' negative response of the Prime Minister and others to the suggestion of offering farmers the opportunity to depart the land had a Jack Black McEwen-ness to it. I'd say to the PM et al to set up a such a scheme---rural (and other) industry adjustment is nothing new--and see how many farmers would like to leave farming with their dignity (and some capital). If there are no takers, so be it. Create a market: let it decide.
Posted by PeterJH, Monday, 6 November 2006 10:56:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Each of our major metropolitan centres have entire suburbs that fail every credible test of economic, social and ecological sustainability. So if the safety net of farmers is to be subjected to a "viability test" then when can we see the rest of the safety net withdrawn from these suburbs? When will we see the family payments being withheld from families that some faceless bureaucrat has deemed to be "unviable".

Wrap the argument in as much eco-babble as you will but it is still the same old ugly Dickensian era message.
Posted by Perseus, Monday, 6 November 2006 12:08:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Louise,
If you want to educate yourself I suggest you buy a book, any book written by Dr.David Suzuki, I am embarresed for your ignorance.
Posted by SHONGA, Monday, 6 November 2006 12:44:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
plerdsus,
Farmers are Agri-socialists, if the butcher goes broke, no one gives him a handout, but you can hear the farmers bleating from Cairns to Coonawarra, drought relief, flood relief. If they can't make a go of their business get out, and let someone buy the farm who has innovative new ideas. They can't have it both ways, though they try. They whine about dole-bludgers getting handouts from the government, similtaneously holding their own hands out for a drought relief handout, whilst driving their new $80,000 4WD's living in their million dollar houses, hypocrisy at it's best, and here are you defending them, you should be ashamed of yourself.
Posted by SHONGA, Monday, 6 November 2006 12:51:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ok, some farmers may need to be seriously reconsidering getting off the land - there's validity in the assertion that these particular farmers should be assisted into leaving the land instead of staying.

Here's what I disagree with, in terms of the views expressed by some posters -

The difference between a butcher and a farmer is simple: a butcher is operating on a local market - the farmer is often operating on an international one.

And on this international market, these farmers need to compete with other nations, many of whom subsidise their farmers to get an advantage. Then there are the farms that are permitted to use near-slave labour. This isn't just third world countries, some have it both ways - US farmers have been known to receive subsidies AND use cheap labour from mexico. How on earth are the Australian farmers supposed to compete with that?

Australian farmers operate some of the most efficient farms in the world. If you don't believe me, ask those in the know.

So my point here is, if you're going to compare a farmer to a butcher, compare him to a butcher that in many cases is also receiving a handout.

It's not just an international issue either. In the domestic market, Coles and Woolworths make up a massive proportion of the customer base. When they have that kind of a dominant position, they dictate what price they'll buy produce at.

Just keep this in mind before you go making simplistic comparisons.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Monday, 6 November 2006 1:11:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, we may have changed the landscape - but then you show me a country unchanged since being home to humans.

I'm in my final year of an agricultural degree and this year we've had guest speaker after guest speaker immersing us in details of climate change and the fact we need to do something about it. These speakers have been both environmentalists and agriculturalists and both sides have understood that agriculture does need to change to make a more sustainable future. The point is, climate change or not, we're in a period of warmer temperatures and less rain. We can't continue on methods and ideals we've had in the past - and we're not. Australian agriculture is looking not only to increase yields and production, as was the aim of the green revolution, but is increasingly looking to fulfill the triple bottom line ideology.

Australia's farmers are some of the most innovative and efficient in the world. It's part of the game. If you lose on innovation and lose the ability to compete with other primary producers - nationally and internationally - then you may as well shut up shop. You'll find that governmental subsidies (including drought relief) provided to farmers are some of the lowest in the world. For example:
Wheat producer subsidy estimates 1999–2001 (A$ per tonne):
Australia: $9
Canada: $25
US: $147
EU: $170
(Source: The Boston Consulting Group, ‘Maximising Returns to Growers Supplying The National Export Wheat Pool: Strategic Review for AWB (International) Limited, July 2004)

Rural Australia is hurting. You only need to be aware of the youth exodus, high suicide rates and withdrawal of services from rural areas to see that.

As for the new $80,000 4WD and the million dollar house... the majority of us can only wish.
Posted by doogs, Monday, 6 November 2006 2:01:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, unviable farmers do need to leave the land. And, they have certainly changed the face of the land; they could not otherwise farm. And, the author is kidding herself if she thinks that we are going to fall for the old one about getting our cereal on the table without farmers. Farming, like any other large-scale business, is about EXPORTING. We pay more for our food to enable farmers to export – now we will be paying even more.

However, Paul Sheehan’s claim that farmers have caused the problem of “climate change” is one he is not qualified to make. There is still no concrete evidence that there is a climate change, nor that humans, including farmers, have caused it.

As the author says, we are in a serious drought; farmers themselves – who should know – have said that it is the “worst since 1969”. They are not all whingers, and they firmly believe the current situation is something they can survive. So, without denying or confirming that climate change is real, the current climatic situation is caused by DROUGHT, not climate change. Australia is a country doomed to be affected by cyclic droughts. The current drought merely makes it easier for the climate change advocates to spread fear and alarm, and to blame people for simply doing what they have always been doing. There need to be changes – perhaps. But, unless smart acres like the Greens and lefty reporters can come up with the types of changes, they should keep their snouts out of the discussion.

We need to start ignoring gloom and doom experts, inept politicians and the media and take responsibility for our own thoughts, actions and well being. Crackpot politicians, who preach doom about water and restrict our use of it rather than getting ready for the time when rain does fall again, are also BIG IMMIGRATIONISTS.

We should not be listening to such hypocrites; nor should we be relying on them to do anything
Posted by Leigh, Monday, 6 November 2006 2:35:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Where would we be without Leighs caustic comments!

Hey! Leigh did you get a good super payout?
Posted by Kipp, Monday, 6 November 2006 5:25:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Standard fare from the IPA, notice how author gets frustrated at the lack of ammunition for exageration in Greens policy and so floats off on unreferenced "claims by others" that the Greens are somehow to blame for. Similar disinformation strategy to the Exclusive Bretheren, but then the IPA ia also a tax-dodging fundamentalist propaganda machine so it should be no surprise.

Note the misrepresentation: "this country has always had times of drought" - but P.Costello has already proclaimed this the worst drought ever; and the stalling: "The likely effects of climate change on Australia are worthy of study" - never mind the dozens of scientific reports already published in Aus by BoM, CSIRO DAR & SE, State govs etc. But then RightThink doesn't actually do science, its just reflexive "If in trouble, announce a (hamstrung) inquiry". Hey, its not original, but it worked for leaded petrol and tobacco industries for decades.

What i'd really like to know is what happened to J. Marohasy, the IPA's default environment mouthpiece? Is she still working on all that unfinished homework from her last post on OO?

-

Excellent idea, Simon Bedak (for distributed seed banks), good luck getting it past a Fed. gov that is abetting of the international agribusiness corporations busy buying up and 'rationalising' seed lines globally. All that open-source genetic heritage impedes profiteering, so we need to eliminate all those boring crop lines that don't require herbicides, pesticides and irrigation. Can't stop progress!
Posted by Liam, Monday, 6 November 2006 6:08:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No Climate Change!!
Wake up and smell the roses.
How ignorant can you get!! who is this person.

Things have changed and will change further.
Farmers need a rethink & now. Can they survive a 10 year drought? <on handouts>
If you don't know how UNSUSTAINABLE farming has changed and will continue to degrade the land, then educate yourself!!

It's time for a totaL RETHINK.

And as for you bro', its time to ditch the wheat and look at harvesting water or energy.
Posted by LivinginLondon, Monday, 6 November 2006 9:25:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
SHONGA,

When it comes to agri-socialism (and I would agree that the rural socialists make all the others pale into insignificance), my country relatives always told me that the trick was to collect drought relief at the same time that you were collecting flood relief.

So why do I defend them, and not the butcher?

Because at the moment Australia is the only country with the four vital things that will shield us during the horrendous later decades of this century. The things are:

1. A surplus of food.

2. A surplus of energy.

3. A surplus of minerals.

4. A sea boundary. (The most important one).

Farmers are vital because we cannot afford to have to depend on other nations for our food. If necessary other competing industries, such as cotton growing, will have to be sacrificed if we don't have enough water.

Look at the outlook for the world in 50 years time:

A population of 10 billion (fortunately 89% will be in the northern hemisphere).

Horrendous pollution (fortunately 94% of this will be in the northern hemisphere).

Continuous minor wars and terrorist attacks from the hopeless masses in africa/asia.

Uncontrollable illegal immigration.

Thank heavens we are tucked away in our own little region, with any invader having to advance over 3000 km of desert from Broome to Sydney, and thus with the best strategic defensive position in the world.

Now you know why I defend our food producers.
Posted by plerdsus, Tuesday, 7 November 2006 8:32:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting Plersdus - looking to the future is a wise notion. I tend to defend the agri-socialism concept for future developments as well, though my line is somewhat different.

At present, other nations subisidise their growers. Sooner or later the political winds change, and this will no longer be the case.

When that happens, our growers, who have been operating under much more harsh requirements, will be in prime position.

We've just got to keep them viable until such time.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Tuesday, 7 November 2006 8:54:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When I read this article I thought no farmer wrote this because the farmers are the first victims of Howard’s Climate change we had to have. At first I was confused how anybody could write such total rubbish, down the bottom came the answer the article is a propaganda piece. Australia has known about the risks of climate change for 25 years. Howard came into office at the time the risks were certain. Howard’s entire competence and credibility is to be judged on how far climate change has been arrested -he has absolutely no excuse.
Yes climate change means more rain in the sub polar regions and a narrow slice of sub equatorial regions. The anti cyclonic tracks are moving toward the poles which mean sub tropical – warm temperate regions are becoming dryer. Perth, Adelaide and Melbourne will have a climate akin to Alice Springs. In the last 5 years that is not so hard to envisage.
The article is anti Australian farmer because the farmers are on the front line of climate change and using the battle field analogy they are being massacred. Farmers are the climate change version of the Anzacs at Gallipoli. In essence they are so because of the leadership that created it.
One question that is not addressed by climate change is if Howard will take personal responsibility for his incompetence over the past decade, he truly has no excuse for his ignoring the problem. Will farmers now do to Howard what asbestos victims tried to do to James Hardy? What smokers did to the cigarette companies?
In Howard’s defence he has never been up to the job. A glaring example is his pathetic and misleading use of climate change as an excuse to waste money on Nuclear energy, a resource which like oil has already peaked long ago and faces a declining future. Howard seduced too easily by nuclear physicists looking for dwindling work. The other is his ridiculous magic filter concept. Whatever happens Staley’s article is about fifteen years outdated.
Posted by West, Tuesday, 7 November 2006 11:32:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good on ya doogs and simon bedak,

Those who believe there are many farmers living lavish lifestyles with ‘opulent’ 4WD’s live in their own cocoons of ignorance. No doubt, some might fit the old ‘tweed jacket’ brigade but, by and large, this species died out decades ago.

There are many in our urban areas who do it tough also. Doing it tough, however, isn’t a virtue to relieve us of being sustainable. Our urban regions indeed approach high levels of unsustainability. To list a few key areas: Urban sprawl, poor water use and allocation, environmental degradation of natural waterways, pollution through greenhouse emissions, inefficient transport systems, inefficient energy consumption, social degradation....

Humanity’s Ecological Footprint is over 23% larger than what the planet can regenerate. We maintain this overshoot by liquidating the planet’s ecological resources. Guess what. Our urban regions are the biggest culprits. Perhaps the solution is to go nuclear after all – lets eliminate a few these gargantuan vortexes (suck-holes of energy). Makes sense – according to some of the logic offered here
Posted by relda, Tuesday, 7 November 2006 12:51:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Except nuclear energy serves to expand our ecological footprint and has no environmental, economical or social benefit once costs are factored in. Of course unless you are working in the industry. Maybe those in the suburbs should grow up and use less toys. Perhaps wear a jumper when its cold instead of heating poorley designed houses, have a shower to clean ones self rather than using it as entertainment. Only turn on a light in an occupied room. Drive less and when drive- drive an appropriate vehicle rather than a middleage symbol, SUV's are only toys afterall.Our economists and governments should really learn to use cost benefit analysis rather than running blindly into pop solutions.
Posted by West, Tuesday, 7 November 2006 1:21:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Actually West, the solution proposed was meant to be a little more final, as in detonation. Forgive the ambiguity - but 'tis a little black humour.
Posted by relda, Tuesday, 7 November 2006 1:41:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for all your comments, as this is my first Online Opinion article I didn't really know what to expect.

I don't deny there is climate change, I actually think it is happening and I also accept carbon emissions are a cause of it. My point is that climate change is a gradual process. No scientists claim it happens overnight yet some commentators (e.g. Paul Sheehan) claim the lack of rainfall experienced this year is not drought but climate change - as if some massive switch was flipped to climate change just this year.

According to the ABS (cat. no. 7106.0) agriculture continues to restructure with 14,700 less farms now than in 1999. Unviable farmers are leaving the industry while others are just choosing to do something else or retiring. It is absolutely incorrect to categorize the overwhelming majority of remaining farmers as unviable.

In terms of policy proposals to change exceptional circumstances payments to some sort of exit payment it would seem more sensible if this was pursued as an option after this drought. To say to people with no income, a failed crop that cost thousands of dollars to plant, and increasing debt, that instead of being helped to get through the drought they will be expected to leave the land is too harsh. Irrespective of whether one agrees with the idea of drought payments, it is unfair to change it mid-drought when people are at their lowest point both financially and emotionally.

I make no apologies for being a strong supporter of a profitable and therefore sustainable agricultural sector in this country. Farmers will come through this drought and will adapt to the myriad of challenges they face, (including climate change,) as they always have. However the shrill response to drought by some writers that it is all climate change and farmers should leave the land is both inaccurate and unkind.

Louise
Willaura, VIC
Posted by Louise Staley, Tuesday, 7 November 2006 1:50:02 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It seems some of you didn't interperate my "butcher" analagy any company, let's say a company selling shoes to Japan goes broke, there is no government hand out, that is private enterprise, if you can't make a go of it, sell to someone who thinks they may be able to do something inovative and build the business up again.

Agr-socialism is exactly that, some want to pretend it's not but if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duch, in my opinion it is probably a duck.

I know a lot of free marketeers want to put more spin on this issue than Shane Warne can get on a cricket ball, but a fact is a fact.
Posted by SHONGA, Tuesday, 7 November 2006 2:24:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fair enough Shonga, but what do you make of the fact that Australian subsidies pale in comparison to those afforded to our competitors?

Despite this, Australian farmers are still competing - yes, it's hard for them, but they are subsidised to a far lesser extent, which goes to show that they are operating more efficient businesses.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Tuesday, 7 November 2006 2:39:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TRTL,
That is exactly what I'm saying mate, free, private enterprise does not have subsisies, the taxpayer subsidises businesses all business in fact as they can write off petrol and many other expenses to aid to manufacture, or some other lurk. While the working people can claim nothing, a wee bit unfair when the employee, subsidises his or her employer isn't it?
Posted by SHONGA, Tuesday, 7 November 2006 2:51:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don’t think it matters a hoot whether it is climate change or drought or a normal weather pattern!

The wake-up call is just the same – to get our collectives arses into gear, understand the limitations of this land and its resource base and quickly get ourselves off of this completely absurd continuous growth track and onto a stable sustainable foundation.

End of story!
Posted by Ludwig, Tuesday, 7 November 2006 3:32:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Turn Right Turn Left, thanks for your thoughtful comments about Aussie farmers. They have, in fact, over the years in WA here done pretty well, considering that we have been said over the years to have grown the most wheat on the poorest land in the world.

Also through crossbreeding our Department of Ag' is producing hardier varieties. Interesting about Canola, which when first grown here was nowhere near as hardy as wheat but only on a bit more than three inches of rain this year in the growing period, an improved variety is yielding reasonably well. Was a smidgeon of summer moisture however in the subsoil when planting.

It is said that the new canola has been crossed with one of the toughest cereal-type weeds we have ever had in the WA wheatbelt - Indian mustard brought over here in the bales of bags we used to buy from India. It is cross-breeding grains that our plant researchers have become so world-famous for - let us keep on supporting them.

In WA similar to Queensland, in our northern wheatbelt, any good summer rains we get, we till the surface soil back to hold in moisture. One wonders whether they do this in NSW and Victoria where summer rain is often more than in winter.

Whether the problem is a non-cyclical global weather disaster or not we must try to keep on going. Also to keep our Federal government awake, who seem to believe that pitstock ore production will last forever. In fact, the government has enough in kitty right now to subsidise graingrowing as is being applied in all Western countries right now apart from Australia and New Zealand.

The problem is that there are so few farmers in Australia now growing what grain there is, their votes don't mean much to the Howard Government as they do so handsomely for the US republican government, especially from the MidWest.
Posted by bushbred, Tuesday, 7 November 2006 5:28:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Doogs, good to see some stats. The fact is Aussie farmers ARE the most efficient in the world. We are also among the most innovative. Aussie farmers also manage to earn a living despite being severely disadvantaged on the world market.

Yes there are some farmers who are currently living beyond their means. I know of several who have recently exited the industry as a result of their continued extravagence, and others who despite subsidies, will not be far behind. As for million-dollar houses cant say I know of many. Most farm houses are pretty ramshackle. Yes there are the odd ones that might have cost $300k, but rarely more than that. Those that I know of that have nice big new houses are those farmers that dont qualify for EC assistance. Yes, shock horror there are criteria that have to be met before govt assistance can be received. Even if you do qualify to get incomesupport, it is only equivalent to the dole. Its no different to supporting unemployed workers! You have to meet the same tests, except that farm assets are excluded from the assets test. Are you suggesting we should withdraw all unemployment benefits too?

Shonga, You seem to have a pathological hatred for business. Taxpayers dont subsidise business for business tax deductions. Businesses are simply taxed on their PROFITS!! So are individual workers. You are taxed on yur income, less whatever it took you to generate that income. Businesses cant deduct private expenses and neither can individuals. Businesses by definition get higher tax deductions because it costs them MORE to generate their income. Farmers get slightly beneficial tax treatment to recognise that they have higher capital costs than most industries (except for mining which surprise, gets similar concessions), and also to recognise that factors completely beyond their control can wipe out a years income. To use your analogy, your butcher would have to have his shop closed down and be unable to sell for 12 months, to be in a similar situation to which many farmers now find themselves. It just doesnt happen in other industries.
Posted by Country Gal, Wednesday, 8 November 2006 2:51:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ludwig,
That is the first time I've found myself in absolute agreement with you mate. Sadly we have an old PM who doesn't even acknowledge that there is such a thing as climate change/global warming, apparently snow in Tasmania in October is "normal" along with a host of other examples. To make any ground on any problem, you first have to admit you have a problem before you can fix it, this gereatric old fool doesn't recognise the problem, because those who are making the mess, are also contribute to the Liberal Party, what does one do, the right thing by the world's population, or by one's backers, not difficult to see the choice made here.
Posted by SHONGA, Wednesday, 8 November 2006 4:27:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting bushbred, especially in regard to the canola.

I'd heard that the canola industry in particular was doing very well, due in part to the Australian moratorium on GM canola, which allowed Australian canola access to GM wary Europe where US canola was denied.

Shonga - seems like we both would like to see a free market operating. Basically, I'm saying I'll jump on the free market bandwagon as long as Australia's competitors do as well. I think in that atmosphere, the Australian farmers who have had to cope with extensive subsidising from overseas, would react like any hardened species introduced to a more forgiving environment... while a cane toad comparison is probably unflattering, I think it would be an apt one.

And if that were to coincide with the drought breaking... well... it's probably too much to hope for, but you can be sure the Australian economy (yes, even the city dwellers) would feel the effects.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Thursday, 9 November 2006 4:44:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TRTL,
We can wish nate, however if we are the onlt country playing by the rules, however I have seen how foe example South- East Asia ticks corruption wise having been there, nothing will change there in the short term.

Australia, in the past decades has relied on working smarter, not harder. With this in mind the time may have arrived when the drought has forced individual farmer to sell some of their assets and install smart technology to lower their operating overheads, i.e. solar powered pumps instead of diesel.

If an indivisual farmer is unable to do this they should, as private/free enterprise dictates sell their business to someone who has the capital to restructure the farm/property with the necessary technology and lower the operating overheads. Perhaps the stage has arrived when the "family" farm is no longer viaable, unless consolodated into a co-op type of arangement, much like workers and employers unions.
Posted by SHONGA, Thursday, 9 November 2006 5:59:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dry land farming and grazing has become smarter however rice and cotton has not. Rice and cotton should be abandoned in Australia. Australians should consider the traditional diets of North and south west Africa, Northern mexico and especially reconsider growing bush tucker most of which is very productive with a little extra irrigation. Linen or linseed is far more drought tolerant than cotton. There are many drought tolerant hibiscus and cacti that lend themselves to fine textiles. CousCous is less water intensive than rice and potatoes and takes less energy to prepare.Camel and kangaroo are better meats than beef. Goats should replace mutton in the drier extremes. Australians should adopt goat fetta and sheep haloumi and abandon irigated dairy cheeses. We can not blame the farmer for failing to farm the land efficiently if we dont adopt a lifestyle that suits and economically support apropriate farming within our climate. We are not Europe , we are not Asia , we are an arid continent which will become drier with greenhouse.
Posted by West, Thursday, 9 November 2006 8:02:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So many conciliatory noises from Ms Staley, but then,"..a profitable and therefore sustainable agricultural sector in this country".

Proving in a sentance that she, like the rest of the amoral economic fundamentalists at the Institute for Public Affairs, still thinks the environment is some subset of the economy, rather than the other way around. Duh.
How can extracting limited soil macro and micro nutrients and petro-chemically replacing some of some of them be sustainable?
How can the highly profitable rice and cotton farming at the head of the now dead Murray River be sustainable?
How much water can the summer fallow 'sustainably' add to groundwater recharge and future salt problems?

Care to answer any of my questions Ms Staley, or are you going to vanish until the next unreferenced press release like Ms Marohasy? I guess OO should be flattered the IPA spams it, but if their flacks wont participate in discussion they should be barred as bad users.
Posted by Liam, Friday, 10 November 2006 8:33:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Liam.

The environment is a subset of the economy. Yes we need our environment to make money from it, but the more money that we can make from it, the more resources we are able to dedicate to research and maintenance of that same environment. If you dont believe this then have a look at what is happening to the environments of third world countries who dont make enough money to manage their surrounds.

Usng the soils of this country to graze and grow crops is sustainable, if agriculture is given access to the science required to analyse and manage soil structure and nutrients.It is in a farmers best interest to have healthy soil. Why? Because it will give him/her the best chance at high yields and produce with a good nutrient content (and therefore sought after). More and more farms are being managed on the basis of maintaining and improving soil structure and nutrients and optimising the availability of nutrients to the plants (you can have all the nutrients in the world in your soil, but unless the conditions and chemical balances are correct, some or all of these will not be available to your plants to take up). There is a whole industry springing up around soil science.

Rice and cotton are hardly highly profitable at the moment: there is no water to grow them with. Cotton in particular has extremely high environmental regulations to comply with, including the EPA constantly looking over the shoulder of cotton farmers.

The Murray river is not dead. If you dont believe me, go for a look. I was there only 3 weeks ago.

"How much water can the summer fallow 'sustainably' add to groundwater recharge and future salt problems?" I am not sure what you are asking. Fallow refers to a length of time when no crop is grown. Rice and cotton do not have a summer fallow (unless long fallow is opted for), because they are grown over the summer. If you would like to restate your question I am willing to try to answer it for you.
Posted by Country Gal, Friday, 10 November 2006 9:47:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Murray is no longer a river but a line of ponds. It has been years since it has flowed out to the sea. The cost of over use is excessive in terms of environmental degredation, keeping the mouth open and the rising salinity of the water itself.

The rice and cotton industry should shoulder the blame for the degredation of the Murray. Both rice and cotton contribute almost nothing to the Australian economy compared with all other agriculture and most other sectors. If the rice and cotton industry disappeared today there would be no negative economic impact on Australia what so ever. Instead many rural economies in the Murray Darling basin would improve as they would no longer have to over subsidise rice and cotton in terms of water.
Posted by West, Friday, 10 November 2006 10:22:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Murray rarely flows out to sea naturally. Lake Alexandrina at the mouth of the Murray is normally closed off by sand bars, and only the biggest floods get through.There is more flow down the Murray today than ever, thanks to the harnessing of water that would have flowed down the Snowy.Dont forget that between 1900 and 1910 the Murray river stopped flowing twice.There was no rice or cotton industries then, so to blame the current low flows on these industries is fallacious.

If you close down the rice industry, there would be instant and devestating effects on rural communities.Look at the effect lack of water allocation is currently having on towns such as Deniliquin (which has the 2nd largest rice mill in the southern hemisphere). The town is near dead as there is little income coming in from farmers, and most workers at the rice mill have been laid off.

Rice and cotton are both reasonably labour-intensive sectors.A cotton farm in northern NSW will often employ 10 workers year round, whilst having work for another 10-20 at cotton-chip (done by hand) and pick (harvest).These jobs flow onto the surrounding towns in the form of more money spent in the local economies, thereby creating more jobs.If these farms were converted to wheat growing (for example), 2 employees would be more than enough, as well as getting most of harvest out of the way.Rice is an intensive industry, with the average size of a rice farm around Deniliquin being 1200acres. That is as opposed to the grazing properties less than an hour away which can be up to 90,000acres, run by one family with 1 employee. Again, think of the flow of money into the local economies. To say that these communities would benefit is just plain silly. For any benefit to occur, a replacement would need to be found that generates as much income and as many jobs. Have you any practical suggestions?
Posted by Country Gal, Friday, 10 November 2006 3:33:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Country Gal,
I do not agree or disagree with you, as a city slicker I am well aware of the need to retain those industries, and if they could be expanded, so much the better. My feelings on the matter are two fold
Firstly: We "greenies" are not advocating getting rid of rice or cotton, we are advocating that the cotton industry, and industry in general become enviromentally aware, and cause "much less" damage to our planet, in other words to be inovative, not conservative.
Secondly: If industry in general does not/ will not adapt, and continue to damage the planet, a job may be the last thing one would need, see Mad Max movie. We have a decade to turn things around, or see the gradual extinction of "our" species.
Posted by SHONGA, Friday, 10 November 2006 3:50:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Country Gal,

The economy IS a subset of the environment. Pick an industry any industry, they all involve consuming (meaning burning/degrading/co-mingling) the environment/natural resources (such as soil carbon & minerals, ore bodies, hydrological systems, fisheries) or are otherwise entirely dependant upon industries that do. Natural resources is the polite name humans give to the biophysical capital we extract for our purposes, reguardless of any previous function. And then we wonder where all the fish went and why it isn't raining any more.

Naming your spending on environmental damage control the Department of Environment limits the problems only in the tiny minds of commercial journalists and speechwriters. How many decades have locals & scientists been warning on the Murray River? And how many billions have been spent on bandaids while the systemic problems ("plenty of water, its my right!" "this region needs development!") worsened.

Sure the initial stock of natural capital was big, but humans are pretty big these days too. Expanding population, meet limits of finite planet. Planet being of fixed size - i mention this because its often revelatory news to sky god fundamentalists, but its a strange kind of Country Gal who doesn't understand limits.

Endless growth on a finite planet is insane, and we all know it. Sadly, it looks like the fundamentalists will maintain their fantasy till the end - taking us with them.
Posted by Liam, Saturday, 11 November 2006 12:20:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Liam, You couldn't be more correct, everything in nature is related to something else. When we humans disturb the balance we don't know what the consquences will be in the long term.

Sadly what we do know is being ignored for political expediency, by the two worst polluters of our asmosphere, Bush and Howard, because of profit. Profit and wealth will count for zilch when the crunch comes, sadly I'll be leaving my daughter to face that world, something I'm ashamed of on behalf of all common senseical people.
Posted by SHONGA, Saturday, 11 November 2006 3:13:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Country Gal The Murray is critically ill. The Murray had healthy flow most years before it was tampered with and only dried during the worst droughts. Today is barely flows. What you saw when you visited here is a stagnant and saline weir. Lake Alexandra is dying through rising salinity , having not having its natural flushes for decades. The Coorong is also dying as fresh water is replaced with sea water. Fisheries in the Southern Ocean are also suffering as nutrients are not entering fish breeding areas and there is no fresh water for species which need to incubate in lowsaline water.
For every job cotton and rice create we can assume thousands are lost as those incompetent and wasteful industries destroy the livelyhood of the majority down stream. We should reward good and appropriate farming but we must penalise practices that serve to undermine our nation. Environmental degredation is undermining this nation. As an Australian I do my part by Never purchasing products containing Australian grown cotton or rice. Austraia is too important to me than the greed of a few.
Posted by West, Saturday, 11 November 2006 8:35:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Louise, those who deny that anthropogenic activities contribute to environmental damage or get defensive on a personal level, need to think more of the big picture.

Forgetting the climate change issue, hydrocarbon emissions and farming practices are killing humans. "OK" some might say, "it's one way of reducing the hordes". Trouble is those who are physically and perhaps mentally damaged from exposure to hydrocarbon emissions, or pesticides and insecticides, often develop gene altering diseases which are inherited by the offspring. This exposure is continually weakening the species, which I believe is occurring big time!

For the health of communities alone, the release of uncontrolled, unregulated stack emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, must cease!

For the health of communities alone, farmers must cease dumping millions of litres of hazardous, toxic chemicals on to our fresh and processed produce and into our factory farmed animals. The issue is not exclusively economic - but a moral and ethical one!

We are now eating produce which is unfit for human consumption!

We are now breathing air which has been privatised and contaminated by serial polluters and unfit for humans who are developing the awful, insidious diseases from the excessive exposures to fossil fuels, pesticides and insecticides - and that's scientific!

Therefore, climate change or not? Anthropogenic? Biogenic? It matters not! We will continue to self-destruct because 'people before profits' is not part of the equation! Farmers are not entirely "goodie two shoes" and have shirked a responsibility to effectively reduce their use of pesticides and insecticides!

And, Louise - no connection to the "Greens" and have never voted for them - at least not yet - though things sure are achangin'!
Posted by dickie, Sunday, 12 November 2006 6:57:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy