Daggett, your proposed solutions, to pay farmers for environmental works, and some sort of new deal, may have had some traction were it not for the fact that the government that employs you has just reneged on the question of compensation for farmers impacted by the clearing ban. There was $100 million on the table seven years ago to cover the cost of preserving the 10% endangered ecosystems. Logic would then suggest that a move to preserve the 30% of concern ecosystems would need at least another $200 million in 1998 dollars. But spiv central went for the total ban, left the lousy $100m on the table and tried to blame the feds for not delivering the rest. Some of that money was then handed out to departmental agencies etc, funding themselves, but claiming that it was a form of compensation to the farmers who will not see a red cent of it.

There is also the missing carbon credits for the foregone clearing activity. These amount to $600 million each year but have been pocketed by Beattie to enable another power station to be built to service the people who vote for him in the SE Corner.

And lets not forget the $900 million in annual costs and lost production imposed on the rural sector because of the veg leg. You must remember that, surely? You know, the report by Bill Burrows, that the government suppressed, that the government intimidated the author over?

So your government is already $1.5 billion a year in arrears. That is 15% of total agricultural production in the State, and we don't get a cent in tax credit for the sacrifice. The credibility of this government and the administration is so low that no-one will believe a word it says until the hard cash is in our own bank account.

While I disagree with Jennifer Marahosey's pro-GM sentiment, I agree with her critical comments regarding Jared Diamond.
Mr Diamond has obviously not visited much of the agricultural area of Australia.
I live in the heart of the salt lake district in Western Australia and these salt lakes have always been here as part of an inland river system. When settlers first moved to this area, they complained of the eerie silence as there were very few animals.
The lack of fresh water and animals for food was probably why aborigines considered this area taboo.
Early surveyors considered this area barren wasteland.
With farming came dams and with water came animals, we now have an abundence of wildlife.
Crop yields have increased dramatically and our farming systems are advanced to prevent soil erosion.
Australian farmers produce "sun dried" grain rather than mechanically or chemically dried grain. Australian farmers mainly rely on freerange stock rather than intensive livestock farming.
Australian farmers are one of the least subsidised farmers in the world which indicates the efficiency.
Most farmers in this district spend money on conservation issues.
While we can not afford rational high cost techniques such as GM crops, we have a sustainable future.

Perseus,

I have no idea how you were able to jump to the conclusion that I work for the Queensland Government.

I would have thought that a lot of what I wrote would have shown that I am strongly critical of many Queensland Government polices. In any case, I don't see why you think that the practical solutions I argue for should hinge on what the Queensland Government chooses to do and not to do today.

Compensation to farmers is only one aspect of this problem, most of which you have chosen to ignore.

Nevertheless, I think that the costs of environmental repair should be fairly borne by the whole community, which should also include farmers, themselves. It is also important that the compensation payable to farmers should not be so great that there are insufficient funds left for other goverenment services.

I think many of the problems we face are simply that we pay too little for our food, whilst too much is spent on other items which would not be necessary if our Governments had done their jobs properly. Instead, they have chosen to serve the selfish interests of privileged sectors of our community at everyone else's expense.

The most significant of these sectors have been property speculators and developers whom we can thank for having caused our cities to have been built so that almost every single adult needs his/her own reliable private motor vehicle in order to be able to get around.

Other expenses which we now have to meet, but were, somehow, less necessary a generation ago, include hyper-inflated housing costs, charges for superannuation fund managers, bank charges, accountants' fees to cope with the absurdly complex government taxes, charges and regulations, insurance, litigation, medical expenses and physical security of our property.

Consequenlty, there is not enough money left over for many of us to be able to pay for our food sufficiently to allow our farmers to properly look after their land.

NonGMFarmer, the news just seems too good to be true. How do you respond to http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/bbing/stories/s743305.htm ?

NonGMFarmer,
1. It is extraordinary that our pioneers developed land that was considered a wasteland, let alone marginal. This says a lot about the mentality at the time – just do it, if there is any chance at all of it paying off. Don’t even think of failure. Don’t even think of delayed-action negative factors that could be set in train. Don’t even think of the natural environment.

2. These areas were thought of poorly by both Europeans and Aborigines, but they have (?had) amazing ecosystems, with all sorts of species adapted to these saline environments, moreso here than anywhere else in Australia because of the extent of these areas and their enormously long and stable geomorphological history. The building of dams, thus facilitating more animals and birds was just the same as introducing feral animals to other natural ecosystems.

3. Of course practices have improved, and yields have risen in some areas and presumably on average overall. But practices were so bad that they had to improve. And in WA, where the advance of salinity and other problems became very high-profile along with the advent of the landcare movement, the planting of trees and various other things became widespread practices. And improved crop strains have been progressively introduced, which by the way is genetic engineering in the broad sense. But this does not detract from the fact that a couple of monsters have been set in motion; salinity and climate change.

4. You say that most farmers in your district spend money on conservation issues. This is good, but is this money really being spent on minimising salinity and other threats to productivity, with gains for conservation as a spin-off?

5. And finally, WA wheatbelt (and just about all Australian) farmers only have a ‘sustainable’ future for as long as oil remains relatively cheap….. and that ain’t gonna be for long.

I think there is far too much government funding towards "environmental" issues wasted on building up mountains of paperwork and employing a flocadia of acadamia rather than the on- the-ground-treatment that works.
Daggett, Narembeen which does have isolated problems but here the salt was there first and the inland river drainage system is there to manage it. We have found that often new problems can be traced to the road system blocking the natural drainage and drainage forming new pathways that lead to salt affected areas.
Salt reclamation or prevention is not a quick fix solution, it is an integrated approach of observation, drainage, ensuring clearing is not too radical, fencing off areas that are looking salt prone, planting deep rooted lucerne on the heavy claypans that are looking vulnerable to allow subsoil drainage plus a multitude of others.
Perhaps because of the early claim that this area is a barren wasteland led to the lateness of land clearing that helped us. Farmers have the technology and knowledge to correct problems now and farm far smarter.
Sorry Ludwig, I fail to see how our existing humm of wildlife and natural (not feral) ecosystems are more of a detriment the environment than the barren wasteland of pre-settler days.
The "genetically modified" label is as misleading as the claims around it as GM plants are far more radically than conventional plant breeding techniques.
With rising costs and lower commodity prices, farm profits are declining and Australian farmers aren't subsidised like our opposition so we must be more efficient. If we flick off the industry parasites, we may have a better chance of being sustainable. Farmers look forward to the time when we do not have to buy oil, we grow the crop to produce our own energy on farm.
Believe it or not Ludwig, farmers genuinely care about our land. We are not corporate "plunder global resources" minded, we are planning for our land to be sustainable for future generations. A barren salt land is not sustainable and we do everything to prevent it.

NonGMFarmer

Increased birds and animals were bad for the saline communities that evolved without these species or at least anything like the new abundance of them. My point was, that we should always be considering ecological values as well as productivity values. I particularly made this point as you mentioned that most farmers in your district spend money on conservation issues.

I suspected that you don’t place any value at all in this sort of ecological but non productivity-oriented impact. This is why I asked; “is this money really being spent on minimising salinity and other threats to productivity, with gains for conservation as a spin-off?” Clearly it is.

I have no doubt that most farmers genuinely care about the land and that they are striving for sustainable productivity. But conservation issues, in terms of protecting endangered species and ecosystems and other things not productivity-related are still beyond the mindset of most farmers. This is most unfortunate, given the very high biodiversity and number of endangered species in the wheatbelt.

This is only one point of several that I could pick up on. I do so because it is the one that seems most alien to you. In fact, I reckon you will speed-read this posting with your head cocked sideways thinking; ‘ what is this looper on about?’ such is the (very common) one-eyed view of the world in which productivity is everything. After reading your one-line response on this particular issue, which was really contorted (“I fail to see how…….existing natural ecosystems….. are more of a detriment to the environment than the barren wasteland of pre-settler days”), it seems my meaning has completely evaded you.

It wasn’t a barren wasteland. That is a terrible view of a well-vegetation ecologically healthy non-humanised landscape. You can’t hope to achieve genuine sustainability if you have no regard for the natural environment. But then in talking about sustainability, you only mean sustainable productivity.

What do you mean, “if we could flick off the industry parasites” ?