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 Whatever happens Staley’s article is about fifteen years outdated.

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

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.

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.

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

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.