Hi Individual,

Australia is a big country, with its northern rivers carrying more water into the surrounding seas than the entire Murray-Darling system. [The 'Darling system' ? Really ? ]. A lot of country would be near those major rivers, not necessarily hundreds of km away, maybe only ten or twenty km. There is no need for grandiose schemes pumping water a thousand km or more, only practical schemes which irrigate the nearby country, bit by bit, over the next fifty or a hundred years. And maybe, as time passes and experience grows, moving a bit further out from there. There's plenty of country, and plenty of time, to get it right.

I'm sort of in favour of tree-planting schemes from the Kimberley across the NT and the Gulf, to Cape York. Nothing fancy, maybe patches here and there in the most suitable areas, moving out and joining up over the coming decades. And of course, not just any trees, but furniture timber, sandalwood, fruit trees, all types of nuts, even date palms. That might provide full employment for Aboriginal communities across the north, forever. All sorts of spin-off industries could be developed, irrigation and hydrology expertise, milling (in 20-30 years), nurseries, transport, jobs for mechanics, etc. And if Aboriginal people were once, as the current myth goes, farmers, they should take to it like ducks to water. Sure-fire projects, they can't lose. They just need a bit of initial funding from joint private and government sources.

Cheers,

Joe

Loud mouth liked that, from little things big things grow
And quite sure many little things will be used
We know trees bring more rain

Loudmouth & Belly,
Thank you for understanding my argument.
Water wheels & wind mills don't require much of technology nor does the odd stick of dynamite.
Several small but permanent earth moving gangs would have freshwater flowing west in no time, especially without the interference of "experts".
Such work would also provide much needed experiencing of work for many unemployed by way of linking it to a National Service. As I suggested earlier, a very small levy would cover the cost of everything.
Do think there'd be a smart enough Politician Federal or State to grasp the significance re the benefits of such a project ?
I beleve Peter Beatty of all Politicians was all for it but the other insipid mutts voted him down.
I think it's time in the coming year to show them some sense at the polling booths. Give the two majors a real scare & we will get things done again.

individual,
>Will reading meteorology and ecology divert much needed freshwater inland ?
No, but it will enable you to understand why harebrained schemes you support (such as pumping seawater into Lake Eyre) are a bad idea. And it will inform you of the environmental hazards of diverting rivers

>I know where you're coming from with your argument but just placing projects beneficial to environment
>& people into the too hard basket simply because there's no immediate profit doesn't cut it.
If that's what you think I'm arguing for then you don't know where I'm coming from at all!

>Don't you think a Bradfield-type scheme would be beneficial all round ?
Not necessarily. I think it has the potential to be beneficial all round if certain obstacles are overcome and criteria met, but I'm not going to blindly assume it to be beneficial all round.

>Don't you think bringing at least some of the greening of the inland back &
>reverse the drying of the interior since the arrival humans wouldn't be beneficial ?
It certainly could be beneficial. But rather than blindly rushing in, we should try to understand the environmental impacts.

>The project would be very basic, low technology & that is what would make it so viable.
No, viability depends not on the level of technology but on whether it meets a need, and if so, whether it can fulfil that need more efficiently than alternatives.

>Don't think about your Super,
I'm not. I've realised if I'm going to get rich it will be through work, not investments.

>think about how your Grand children can use your Super to make
>Australia a better place than what you helped make it.
That's not what Super is for.
If a project's not viable without raiding the nation's Super, it's not viable.

Do I have to explain how this is about ,much more than immediate profit? Or can you figure it out yourself?

Aidan,
This thread's debate should about finding ideas & solutions for the future not for proving how brilliant you are in looking up links on Google.
How do you think some of the great civil engineering in the past was achieved ? Definitely not by being scared that it might actually be beneficial for both society AND environment & that it might cost every citizen $10/year.

individual,
>This thread's debate should about finding ideas & solutions for the future
Not just finding, but also evaluating. There's no point implementing "solutions" that fail to solve real problems. And solutions that create new problems can be worse than the Do Nothing alternative.

>not for proving how brilliant you are in looking up links on Google.
Now you're really clutching at straws! Of the ten links on this page, I provided two - one of which you described as "great" and the other being a topical Wikipedia link that I did not use Google to find.

>How do you think some of the great civil engineering in the past was achieved ?
Mainly by careful study to see what would work and what would not.

>Definitely not by being scared that it might actually be beneficial for both society AND environment
In the past the environmental effects were often overlooked. We can't afford to do that any more. And while nobody's scared of schemes being beneficial for both society and environment, the problem is that they may be detrimental.

>& that it might cost every citizen $10/year.
If it's to be an ongoing financial drag, is it really worth building? That's not a rhetorical question; there may be grounds for building financially unviable infrastructure, but it should not merely be assumed to be worthwhile.