"Next time you hop into the supermarket for a loaf of bread or a juicy steak, you need to consider the damage you are doing to the continent, the planet and your children’s prospects on it, with your tiny economic signal."

"...your economic signal has to change and you will probably end up paying much the same for food, in real terms, as your Nan and Gramps used to. They, after all, had a food system that was fairly sustainable."

Julian, the problem with this sort of reasoning is that only a small number of conscientious people will do it while the masses blunder forth regardless. It won't work unless a large portion of the populace do it - in fact, the vast majority. Conscientious people might modify their tiny economic signals as much as they can, and then see absolutely no change in society or the people around them for their efforts. I know. I've been there. It is a very disillusioning experience.

Sure we should be doing this sort of thing, that is; just being a whole lot more frugal and sensible about our purchasing and consumption practices. But the more important thing we need to be doing is advocating a regime of sustainability, in which not only reduced per-capita consumption is important, but also stabilisation of population and maximised effort put into developing alternative energy sources and more efficient food supplies.

We need to be yelling this from the rooftops, writing to newspapers, getting on talk-back radio, boring it up our political reps and plugging away on forums like OLO!

Even if the vast majority of us did reduce or modify our consumption practices, we'd achieve just about nothing for as long as the population continues to rapidly grow. I know that you appreciate this point. But unfortunately it is not emphasised in this article. This and the overall sustainability strategy imperative are all-important in addressing climate change.

Anyway, apart from this omission, your expression of concern is most apt. Keep the articles coming on this forum.

Are we about to see the first large-scale feed-back loop come into operation to help maintain a stable climate? The large volumes of red dust blowing from inland Australia are derived from our agricultural and pastoral topsoils. As such, they are rich in nutrients, including phosphorous. Much of this dust will settle into the marine waters of the western Pacific and the increase in phosphorous should stimulate the growth of algae which in turn will consume more atmospheric CO2, much of which will eventually settle to the bottom of the ocean.
Maybe Gaia is alive and well, with the first of its self-regulating feed-back mechanisms about to come into play.

Well pardon me for living. Professor Cribb blames man 'at least in part if not completely' for the recent dust storms. More codswallop. Malthus lives, but will forever be disproved as the Earth we inhabit has resources limited only by our imagination. My original (but censored) letter to The Australian this morning, read: "Our entire economy is carbon-based. Our well-being is carbon based. We live and breathe it. In the words of Freeman Dyson 'The fundamental reason why carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is critically important to biology is that there is so little of it. A field of corn growing in full sunlight in the middle of the day uses up all of the carbon dioxide within a metre of the ground in about five minutes'. One could add, 'The reason why coal is critically important to our economy is that there is so much of it - it provides cheap and abundant power to allow the prosperity we need to cope with natural climate change'.
Yet 'carbon' has been declared a pollutant by our political masters in Canberra? The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and its bed-mates, Emissions Trading Schemes and Renewable Energy Targets, will do nothing to change the climate, but will severely impact on our economy. The letter to the editor from Neil Lawrence (WE Aust 26-27 Sept) stating that he and the Australian Coal Association support the introduction of an emissions trading scheme must sound alarm bells. Seems the arsonists are in charge of the fire brigade."

Professor Cribb should re-examine his case against humanity, and consult with some eminent professors such as Bob Carter, Ian Plimer, Lance Endersbee to whom all Australians owe a debt of gratitude for standing firm with logic and reason against a whirlwind of Hollywood theatrics proclaiming the Chicken Little / Al Gore message of doom. No wonder suicide rates are so high.

"Two men looked through prison bars - one saw mud, the other, stars". Wish I knew who wrote that.

Regards
John McRobert

ps Any comments by anonymous correspondents will be treated with the contempt they deserve

So we should stop eating? Take another look at the topsoil loss stats you quote.. its all from the lessor developed countries.. there were substantial topsoil losses in Australia and America farming lands in the 1930s leading to major dust bowls.. these problems were overcome at the same time as yields were imporved dramatically.. If the losses are as serious as you say then we should get busy and work with the farmers of those areas, not studdenly stop buying food..

Julian you have mentioned that the supermarkets because of their size control the price of agricultural products, and Ludwig has correctly pointed out that there is not much an individual can do.
In that case should we not collectively urge the governmentto limit supermarkets to say 20% of market share? I understand that our supermarket duopoly control 80% of market share.

In a description of Sydney in the 1880s novel "The Boy Travellers in Australasia", such dust storms are common enough to be given a name: "Brickfielders".

Plus ça change, plus c'est la meme chose?

In "The Simpsons", Lucy Lawless excused every plot hole and discontinuity in "Xena" with the blanket explanation: "A wizard did it."

Climate change has become the "wizard did it" for green ideologues determined to blame every natural phenomena on that most pernicious of beasts: humans.