Is it already too late to save Australia from the effects of global warming? That seems to be the subtext of a recent New Scientist article titled "Australia - the continent that ran dry." (New Scientist, 16 June 2007, pp8-11)

See:

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg19426085.300-australia--the-continent-that-ran-dry.html;jsessionid=ILFEJJFFNBKK

The same edition also contains an editorial by Tim Flannery, professor of earth and life sciences at Macquarie University and 2007 Australian of the Year. The editorial is titled "Australia - not such a lucky country."

Quotes:

"….But by far the most dangerous trend is the decline in the flow of Australian rivers: it has fallen by around 70 per cent in recent decades, so dams no longer fill even when it does rain. …. I believe the first thing Australians need to do is to stop worrying about "the drought" - which is transient - and start talking about the new climate."

"While the populated east and south of Australia have parched, rainfall has increased in the north-west. ….models indicate that the increased rainfall is most likely caused by the Asian haze….This means that as Asia cleans up its air, Australia is likely to lose its northern rainfall…."

Some reality checks.

The PREPONDERANCE of evidence suggests that human-induced global warming is a real phenomenon. We'd be silly to ignore the RISK of a calamitous change in our climate.

The big emitters – China, Europe, India and North America – MAY cut back on greenhouse emissions IF they are convinced it is in THEIR interests. None of them are going to cancel a single coal-fired power station to save Bangladesh, Africa or Australia.

It may make you feel better to vent some spleen on Howard. But, in reality Australia is such a piffling player that it makes little difference what we do to cut emissions.

So what should we?

Should we devote more efforts to adapting to climate change than to fighting it?

Do we need to limit immigration because we may face water shortages?

Should we encourage our children to emigrate because Australia may become uninhabitable?

What?

"Is it already too late to save Australia from the effects of global warming?"
It has to be saved from the hordes of farmers first.

A supplemental question is this:

REALISTICALLY, what is the probability that the major emitters (China, Europe, India, North America) will PERSIST with steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions before catastrophe strikes Australia?

Steel, maybe we do need to cut back on agriculture? What other steps should we take?

if i may make a modest proposal?

i believe australia should have a population of 10 million or less.

but we have 20 million, rising, no politician dares say "enough", and the average ozzie suffers from cultural castration: the limit of their imagination is a fairy godmother in a position of power in canberra.

what to do?

send a copy of "soylent green" to your local pollie, with your approval for the demographic modulation therein.

Steven

“Should we devote more efforts to adapting to climate change than to fighting it?”

Absolutely.

“Do we need to limit immigration because we may face water shortages?”

Absolutely.

“Should we encourage our children to emigrate because Australia may become uninhabitable?”

No. But neither should we discourage emigration.

“REALISTICALLY, what is the probability that the major emitters (China, Europe, India, North America) will PERSIST with steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions before catastrophe strikes Australia?”

I don't know. But the unknown factor is just what the effects of climate change will be, not whether the world can reduce greenhouse gas emissions to the necessary extent via good international relations and policy development, as we did with ozone depletion.

I have absolutely no doubt that we won't be able to achieve that. Steps to reduce CO2 emissions will steadily improve. But so will the rampant growth in the number of polluters, especially in China.

The only thing that is likely to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions is peak oil, ie the price and availability of oil. But there will still be coal.

It is beyond our control in Australia, or worldwide. It’s time to put 100% of our current climate change effort into developing a sustainable footing for our society and country.

The most important prerequisites are population stabilisation and an abandonment of the continuous growth paradigm.

steel, I don't understand your view on the hordes of farmers. Aren't you happy to have the cleanest, safest and arguably the cheapest food right here in Australia. Not impressed that agriculture provides 20% of our export income?
What threats do farmers pose?

"steel, I don't understand your view on the hordes of farmers.

What threats do farmers pose?"

i've mentioned it before in a similar topic, but it's essentially the asinine situation of stealing *all* water from the system in a place that is extremely dry and in a dire situation. Efficient management of a finite resource seems the only intelligent course of action. Yet the prevailing idea is, that if water exists somewhere, it must be used all up and not managed. Decades of mismanagement by states, allowing thousands of farmers to hoover the river systems dry. It just doesn't make any sense at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aral_sea

"Aren't you happy to have the cleanest, safest and arguably the cheapest food right here in Australia."
Yes, but it's not entirely "clean". I believe that a certain amount of farmers overspray above health regulations and remain unpunished, despite their clear contempt for their fellow Australians and their families, who consume the produce.

"Not impressed that agriculture provides 20% of our export income?"
Apparently it used to be 80%, before the 1950s. All I'm saying is the farming situation is like the gold rush. If there is even a single drop of water left in a once glorius river, then it seems inevitable that it would be taken.

“It has to be saved from the hordes of farmers first.”

Crikey Steel, you know how to win friends and influence people!!

Or should that be; how to win enemies and make yourself seem like a complete fool!

Let’s work with farmers to fix the chronic water over-allocation problems along the Darling and elsewhere. For goodness sake, let’s not just outrightly alienate whole large sections of society.

[see the most irrational and vitriolic post ever put on this forum http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=728#13125]

"Crikey Steel, you know how to win friends and influence people!!
Or should that be; how to win enemies and make yourself seem like a complete fool!
Let’s work with farmers to fix the chronic water over-allocation problems along the Darling and elsewhere. For goodness sake, let’s not just outrightly alienate whole large sections of society."

I think they are a little tougher than you give them credit for.

One point that is missed in the whole irrigation/dry river debate is flow. Irrigators can only take water from the river when there is flow. Certainly on a number of rivers particularly in the southern areas of NSW and in Vic, the flow is regulated by dams, with farmers ordering water, then having it released to demand (within reason). In the main river that feeds the Darling, the Barwon, the flow is unregulated. That is, it is not release-controlled by a dam. So irrigators on the Barwon (and I dare say those on the Darling) can only pump when natural rivers flows occur, AND the water level is above the prescribed level for pumping. If these farmers DIDNT take the water at this point, it would flow all the way to the sea at the end of the Murray, with no use being made of it at all (at the river levels where pumping is allowed, there is more than enough lfow to meet the needs of the towns downstream AND maintain environmental flow). The situation particularly on these unregulated rivers is not as dire as some have made out.

On the Murray system, the Snowy River scheme was put in place to help ensure that water was available for irrigation. If the Snowy scheme was not in place the Murray would have run dry already, and none of it would have been the fault of the irrigators (who again can only access water if there is sufficient water there to be accessed). Supply to towns and the the environmental flows comes first.

"Efficient management of a finite resource seems the only intelligent course of action. "

Hang on whoah, don't blame farmers for the bad management of
city slickers. Farmers simply comply with the law. Why are you
overpaid city slickers so hopeless at managing that finite
resource or anything else for that matter? Too many expenses paid lunches with too much wine
perhaps?

it comes from letting pollies run our lives, yabby. "give us water licenses, we vote for you.- it's a deal." as usual, the public isn't present, doesn't get a voice.

parliament is a brokerage of power, buying special interest support with public resources. i don't despise the people who do this, it's a good living. the people who let them do this, on the other hand, seem pitiful, at best.

So steel, how are you affected by lack of water in the Aral sea? Or is this the best you could come up with, the consequences of a regime desperate for hard currency.

Australian irrigators most certainly do NOT take *all* the water, so take it from me the South Australian Basin will be OK. You really should inform yourself about water management in Australia and it's recent changes. Licences exist for water extraction, granted by the governments of the day. Having a licence does not guarantee supply, and water for irrigation us only allocated after town supply, stock and environmental requirements are met.
There has been nothing for irrigators to take so it's a fruitless argument. Literally.

So you believe "a certain amount of farmers overspray above health regulations and remain unpunished"
Are you making this up as you go along? Farmers are well aware of chemical testing in foods and specific withholding periods for same.
Putting aside that chemicals are costly, why would a farmer risk legal action from customers or disregard some of the most stringent laws regarding chemical application anywhere in the world.

"So steel, how are you affected by lack of water in the Aral sea? Or is this the best you could come up with, the consequences of a regime desperate for hard currency."
Aren't farmers desperate for hard currency? Doesn't Australia depend on agricultural exports? The Aral Sea example is about more than economics, though. It is an example of mismanagement. Why grow crops such as cotton, in a region with a water problem? Would you not use crops that make the best use of limited water resources?

"Having a licence does not guarantee supply, and water for irrigation us only allocated after town supply, stock and environmental requirements are met."
It would be interesting to look at how the requirements are measured, and if there is political pressure to craft them for a purpose.

"There has been nothing for irrigators to take so it's a fruitless argument. Literally."
I wasn't thinking of South Australia as the problem anyway. You can't argue with the fact that more farmers, equals a lot less water. Maybe Australia simply has too many? And inefficient crops and slack farming practices/laws, also mean a lot less water. There are many other sectors that waste water, so farmers are not alone by any means.

"Putting aside that chemicals are costly, why would a farmer risk legal action from customers or disregard some of the most stringent laws regarding chemical application anywhere in the world."
Any of the following possibilities. Customers are unable to test food. Monitoring and frequency is probably weak or nonexistant in some areas. It may be possible to hide by the stage of testing. It may be hard to prove. The farmer is of dishonourable character.

Shees guys, do we not look at polluters first? Who is standing up against fluoridating/chlorinating our drinking water? It's our own government who replies to emails with a standardized letter "it's for your healthy teeth".(yeah sure!) I should have taken a picture whilst visiting Carrum at the beach,where last year millions of young dead shrimps covered the water line.Let's not forget the dead eels in the Yarra last year also. Does anybody love a coke? Besides that it is bad for you, the coke co is draining our groundwater at millions of liters a day, and what about the other softdrink makers? A drop in groundwater means the top couple of feet will dry out which becomes unusable for farming, so when a farmer talks about a drought he means that the top layer of moister has dropped below a planting level.Cappice?So write to your representative about putting pressure on the health department to clean up their act and doing some studies on the disastrous effect those previous mentioned poisons have on our health and environment.

"The farmer is of dishonourable character."

ROFL Steel, your attempts at being a comedian arn't very
good.

I'll tell you something. I've done business with farmers
and done business in cities and overseas. I've never had
a farmer not pay his bill or have his cheque bounce.
When it comes to the sleezy, slippery, connoving characters
that live in the rat race, they seem to think that things
like payment are optional. Rat race is surely is!

So don't talk about dishonourable farmers lol, for in the
honesty stakes, farmers show you city slickers up for what
alot of you are, basically a bunch of rats.

steel, Australia has a tradeable currency, that of course farmers pursue. You miss the point that the USSR govt was after hard currency and valued money more than the environment. Farm workers made no decisions under the communist regime, and were simply servants to the govt.
No, Aust doesn't depend on on ag exports as long as other areas of the economy are doing ok.

Why grow cotton? for the very reason of "the best use of limited water resources" often related to the reliability of water, as opposed to volume. In Aust it is risky to grow permanent plantings with general security licences, perhaps even with high security. Crops such as cotton, corn and rice can be grown when water is available in response to seasonal conditions, unlike tree crops that need water every year to survive.

I wonder what political pressure there could be, 20 000 irrigators vs 1 000 000 green votes. (yes i'm guessing)

"You can't argue with the fact that more farmers, equals a lot less water" actually pretty easily. There are fewer and fewer farmers every year as properties amalgamate for economies of scale, but no extra water. What did you plan to use the extra water for?

"Customers are unable to test food".
Why not? there are plenty of laboratories in Australia. Or is it that they don't feel the need to because our farmers ARE trustworthy.

"Monitoring and frequency is probably weak or nonexistant in some areas".
So you really have no idea then.

http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/monitoringandsurveillance/foodsurveillance.cfm

"The farmer is of dishonourable character". As opposed to you? I don't see much merit in deliberate unjustified malevolence, although in fairness you're probably just ignorant, which is no excuse.

Cotton is one of those crops pulled out of the hat like the proverbial rabbit everytime there is an arguement about water and farming.

For the record: Cotton is a desert plant. It needs a certain number of heat units to grow to productive capacity. Areas where those heat units can be accessed are usually quite dry (remember, desert plant). It also needs a reasonable amount of water to be commercially productive. Where rainfall is high, the cotton bolls (which hold the developing cotton) are prone to rot and therefore are unproductive (a major problem in South American cotton-growing countries)). The most productive cotton is grown under irrigation. The trick is to make that irrigation as effective as possible so that the least amount of water produces the most amount of cotton. The industry works very hard at improving water efficiency with constant scientific trials. Water is a very big expense to all irrigators, and like most business-people, irrigators seek to keep that expense as low as they can, seeking to find the best balance between cost and production.

cgal, the solution is obvious: breed a long furred kangaroo that tastes good, and replace cows, sheep, and cotton with a local critter. can't think why someone didn't think of it sooner...

Ah but that would be genetic modification DEMOS, and we all know how the general public is opposed to that!

I dont disagree that there needs to be a radical review of production in Australia (and indeed in all parts of the world). What we grow and how we do it needs to be under constant review and development. Fact of the matter is that as we start to run short on oil over the next 50 years or so, natural fibres like wool and cotton will again become of utmost important, as man-made synthetics become prohibitively expensive. Costs of production for farmers is also likely to sky-rocket and new ways to keep down costs by smarter and more targetted farming will be sought. The wool industry is probably in one of the best positions long-term, as many functions can be reverted back to pre-oil/electricity days, without a great deal of cost increase. Eg blade shearers were not much slower than mechanical shearers, mustering on horse-back took only a few hours more than mustering on motorbikes.

http://straightfurrow.farmonline.co.nz/news_daily.asp?ag_id=43336

"Monday, 25 June 2007
Irrigated cotton and wheat farms in northern NSW have been accused of stealing billions of litres of water released specifically to revive one of Australia's most ecologically important wetlands, a new report claims."

And don't act as if water management practices are all efficient and beyond reproach. They are not. It's a lot worse (in some areas) than it's made out to be. Water waste and negligence at all levels is huge and has been happening for decades.

steel, can't you find enough inaccuracy in our own news sources that you need to look overseas.

The case in question actually involves graziers. The Inland rivers network doesn't worry too much about the truth when furthering their cause.