I live in the bush, in the headwaters of the Murray-Darling basin. My business depends directly upon the fortunes of the local agricultural industries which, if they haven't already exceeded the carrying capacity of our environment, are very close to doing so. Some of my neighbours and customers who have farmed in this district for generations have recently gone out of trying to make a living out of their farms because they are no longer sustainable. The same will happen with my business unless I can increase the income base by diversifying to appeal to the increasing numbers of seasonal workers and displaced 'grey nomads' who pass through the district.

While some correspondents here have responded enthusiastically to Marohasy's reprise of her environmental Pollyanna act on behalf of big business, they should be aware that her article has more distortions and porkies per hectare than our place has rabbits, and that her 'analysis' (read 'propaganda') runs completely counter to the respected scientists in CSIRO, MDBC etc who actually work in the field, rather than for a neoconservative 'think tank' as Marohasy does. However, I guess she's just doing her job as a paid attack dog for the far right.

Although some minor errors in the detail of Diamond's chapter on Australia detract from the overall quality of 'Collapse', I suggest that this is because he is attempting to synthesize grand theory to account for phenomena that span all continents and societies, and across millennia of human history.

Marohasy does not have that excuse: her project is to create 'spin' for those who wish to continue to degrade Australia's fragile environment in pursuit of short term economic gain. However, I suppose that mendacity is so much a part of her work that she might be forgiven for not recognising it in herself.

Jennifer Marohasy repeats a claim, first made in February 2004, that woodland and forest cover in Queensland has increased by 5 million hectares in 10 years.

While the officially reported forest cover may have increased over the past decade, this reflects improved satellite mapping techniques that enable more vegetation to be detected. The relevant Federal Government departments warn against claiming that actual forest cover has increased on the basis of nominal increases in reported cover due to improved methodology.

Sorry Ericc, but without dams and water regulation in the Murray, it would not flow at all during dry periods. Before regulation, the Murray would become a series of swamplands and shallow ponds when there was a severe drought.
It has been documented by pioneers in the west of New South Wales and happened countless times before the evil Europeans arrived in Australia.
I find it terribly amusing (and a little scary as well) that people think our rivers have always been free flowing and that us nasty people have changed what mother nature intended.
Dams create a constant flow - occaionally they may flood and only very occasionally do they run completely dry.
You know Ericc, your house is equally foreign in Australia as dams. But it gives you a regulated environment through winter and summer, heat and cold, wet and dry.

t.u.s

"people think our rivers have always been free flowing". Gee, I never would have suspected that such a thought existed until I read The Usual Suspect's post.
But then it could be a bit of creative writing of similar standard to the original article.

Eric, 1. I don't say "all Australian farms are operated sustainably" - I dispute Diamond's contention that agriculture has irreversibly destroyed the environment and it is on the verge of collapse. I suggest that there are issues to be address (e.g. overgrazing) and that these issues should be addressed with our minds open to the evidence. 2. In Brisbane Diamond said we are living on the world's most fragile continent and during a period of climate change therefore we should phase out agriculture altogether. Read page 415 and 416 of his book and he is a little more coy but writes: It would be a first for the modern world if a government [i.e. Australian] voluntarily decided to phase out much of its agricultural enterprise .. 3. I suggest you check your facts and figures on both river and dryland salinity.
Ludwig, 1. The 5 million hectares is official state government data - see the reference. I would be interested to know what stats you rely on? 2. Not sure how your message can be "rock solid" if you have the detail wrong?
Mahatma Duck, Which bits did I get wrong?
Dr Paul, I think you are confusing the national State of the Forests Report which came up with an increase in forest cover of 8million hectares, with the Queensland government data which shows a 5million hectare increase just for Queensland

Ludwig, you need to take a good look at the satellite data if you think non-forest clearing is nitpicking. Go to www.nrm.gov.au/slats and look up Landcover Change in Queensland 1999-2001.

If you add up the percentages in table 8 (lines 1-7,11,15,18&19) you will discover that in every period from 1991 to 2001, non-forest clearing exceeded 50% of the total. This was mostly "Tussocky or tufted grasses", "low trees (<10m) and <10% foliage cover" or "medium trees (10-30m) <10% foliage cover".

Land with <10% foliage cover is essentially a paddock with a few trees in it. The resident species are all grassland species, not forest dwelling species. They are not disadvantaged by tree removal.

And for the lazy, I will save them the trouble of adding the totals.
For the period 1991-95 non-forest clearing was 50.0%,
For the period 1995-97 non-forest clearing was 53.1%,
For the period 1997-99 non-forest clearing was 50.41%, and
For the period 1999-01 non-forest clearing was 50.46%.

And it should also be noted that partial clearing, thinning, is also recorded in the clearing stats. It is assumed to be forest that has been removed when the forest is still there, maintaining ecological functions. You have been seriously misled.

And as for Dr Paul, the statement that the huge flux in forest area was the result of better technology was almost plausible until one remembers that out of 35 million hectares of positive and negative revisions accross the country, they did not identify a single hectare of regrowth. They attributed the whole lot to "improved technology" yet felt the need to mention 50,000 piddling hectares of new plantation and landcare window dressing. Their credibility is zero.