…and this is a 
About 2½ years ago, I highlighted the environmental threats to the Australian lungfish, in particular the planned construction of a dam that would destroy their habitat.
To my surprise, Australian environmentalists won this battle!
The proposed $1.8 billion Traveston Dam in Queensland has been quashed to protect endangered species, including Mary River turtle and cod, after a landmark decision by the Environment Minister, Peter Garrett.
In explaining his decision yesterday Mr Garrett said the dam would have ''serious and irreversible effects'' on threatened species - which also include the Australian lungfish and the southern barred frog - and he had no option but to reject it.
It's a little discombobulating—they actually made a good decision to protect some unique biology? The cynic in me says there has to be some other reason, too, but I'll take it.
Environment
Comments
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 12, 2009 2:28 PM
*clenched-tentacle salute*!
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
November 12, 2009 2:32 PM
Don't drown out lungs!
Should be the motto of all air-breathing vertebrates.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: Aunt Benjy
|
November 12, 2009 2:34 PM
Peter Garrett used to be the lead singer for Midnight Oil, and is an old school environmentalist from way back.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Garrett
Posted by: Bride of Shrek OM
|
November 12, 2009 2:40 PM
It is an interesting desision in more ways than one. It was, from the start, an EXTREMELY unpopoular decision with the people to build the dam. No one wanted it there and it would have destroyed such a beautiful area.
The body that decided it WAS going ahead was the Queensland LABOUR government and is being overturned ( still waiting for the final ink to dry but pretty much a done deal) by a Federal LABOUR minister. Doesn't happen often I can tell you but a good result all round.
FYI the Queensland state government is at an historical all time low in terms of popularity and definately won't survive the next election. They've buggered this state in recent years by selling off state owned assets at an obscene rate as some sort of small-minded short-term way to raise cash. Idiots
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 12, 2009 2:53 PM
btw, this is great news not only for the lungfish, but also for the endemic Mary River side-necked turtle and Mary River "cod"
Posted by: neon-elf.myopenid.com
|
November 12, 2009 2:54 PM
It's one of the first decent decisons Garrett has made since he was elected.
Posted by: Peter G | November 12, 2009 2:59 PM
Why should you be surprised that people are occasionally capable of enlightened self-interest?. How is this different from Judge Wanger's decision involving the pumping stations in the Sacramento delta? Environmental organizations that make a good case often win.
Posted by: SteveF | November 12, 2009 3:19 PM
Per Ahlberg organised the campaign, with Jean Joss, and broke the news here:
http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=19780
Posted by: Kel, OM | November 12, 2009 3:27 PM
Good on ya Garrett, finally doing something good for the environment while in a position of power.
Posted by: Josh | November 12, 2009 3:39 PM
It seems a little backward to me that someone with such a strong investment in evolution should be worried about endangered species. Species go extinct; they always have, they always will. It's a central tennet of natural selection. Another is that species tend to do what's best for their own survival. I'm sure putting in that dam would have helped the local people in one way or another. Why is it not okay for humans to do what's in their best interests?
Posted by: Knockgoats | November 12, 2009 3:48 PM
It seems a little backward to me that someone with such a strong investment in evolution should be worried about endangered species. Species go extinct; they always have, they always will. It's a central tennet of natural selection. Another is that species tend to do what's best for their own survival. - Josh
It seems to me that you are an ignorant idiot. Recognising that extinction happens does not imply approving of it, particularly when it is currently happening at a rate only previously exceeded in times of extreme natural disaster. The last sentence I have quoted shows that you haven't the slightest idea what natural selection is: species do not "tend to do what's best for their own survival".
Yay! For the campaigners, Peter Garrett and the lungfish!
Posted by: nodesalplantformarcoola | November 12, 2009 3:49 PM
I'm glad the dam won't go ahead, but this wasn't a win for environmentalism, it was a win for NIMBY-ism. The locals were trying to protect their jobs and idyllic lifestyles (which is understandable). They were willing to take advantage of the environmental angle to achieve their aims.
Parts of SE Queensland are already under long-standing water restrictions, and the population boom continues. Unless the citizens of that part of the state are going to learn to use water in a much more efficient and sustainable way, more water will be needed. It must come from somewhere. The people of Marcoola don't want a desalination plant near them anymore than the Mary River people wanted a dam. Everyone wants clean fresh water on demand, but no one wants to pay the price for it.
Posted by: MadScientist | November 12, 2009 3:53 PM
If there is any mention of protecting endangered species it's merely a ruse. I would have been shocked if the dam received approval simply because people whine a lot about those things and don't want a dam anywhere near them. It's not at all surprising that the self-proclaimed environmentalists won out. It's simply a matter of people fighting progress because many humans love the delusion that the status quo is fine (just look at all the self-proclaimed experts claiming that there is no such thing as global warming). It's merely coincidental that it happens to be true that some endangered species will receive a reprieve; that is a consequence of the fact that there are too many humans on the planet and anything humans do have a devastating effect on local flora and fauna, so curbing any large-scale project like mines and construction will be extremely likely to protect some species or other and as time goes on the number of endangered species protected by coincidence will also rise. Many species would simply not be threatened if there weren't so many humans to begin with. Another example of the excuses people will make up to support their delusions that the status quo is fine involves the decimation of the global stock of Atlantic Bluefin tuna. While fisheries researchers claim that the stock is down to about 15% of pre-industrial stocks and we are absolutely sure that the human population is still growing, fishing of wild Atlantic Bluefin continues to escalate rather than decline. The fish haven't got a hope in hell unless they develop a symbiotic relationship to an organism that produces toxins which are deadly to humans.
Posted by: Moriarty | November 12, 2009 3:57 PM
Good thing we have all these fossil fuels to take up the slack.
Posted by: julian | November 12, 2009 4:03 PM
We're a lot more enlightened down here at the arse end of the world.
Posted by: Sven DIMilo | November 12, 2009 4:09 PM
At varying rates. Current concern for biodiversity is about the rate of anthropogenic extinction.
No. It isn't. (And it's not a tenet, either.)
*rolls eyes* No. Individuals do, and in some social systems larger groups do, but species never do. How the hell is a species supposed to "do" anything?
Thanks for your informed opinion on the matter.
Are you kidding? Is it always OK for any humans, individually or grouped, to do what they perceive to be in their best interests?
Posted by: Levi in NY | November 12, 2009 4:09 PM
Josh: Your argument is fallacious. Just because extinctions happen doesn't mean we should be creating them. It's analogous to saying "well, people are going to die anyways, so if I kill people for my own self-interest then that's okay". Just because death is necessary for evolution to happen and for everybody to have enough food and oxygen, that doesn't mean it isn't immoral to go around causing death for your own selfish desires. I mean, that's like, Ethics 101.
Posted by: Peter G | November 12, 2009 4:33 PM
Josh@10 There is always the question of what constitutes short term self-interest and long term self-interest isn't there?
Posted by: garth | November 12, 2009 4:40 PM
How could he dam while his bed was burning?
Posted by: Moshe Reuveni
|
November 12, 2009 4:48 PM
Before we jump of our roofs in celebration:
While I suspect most of this blog's readers will know that Peter Garrett as the leader of Midnight Oil and will also have some clue about his history as an environmentalist, Aussies will tell you that Garrett has sold his soul to the dark side a few years back upon becoming a minister.
Sure, he made the right decision here with this dam; but he also made plenty of other, much more numerous, decisions towards the Dark Side.
Where shall I start? He approved the biggest-in-the-southern-hemisphere, and most redundant, water desalination plant for Melbourne. On it's own that desal plant will increase Melbourne's brown coal originated carbon emissions by a good many percents (estimates range between the effect of 20,000 to 40,000 additional cars on our roads).
Or what about his decision to allow a pulp mill in Tasmania that would ruin a beautiful area known for its nature? (He did put some clauses there so the matter is still open for debate, but the company behind the pulp mill certainly loves him)
Or his decision to cancel government subsidies on solar electricity panels, issued with less than a day’s warning and thus catching tens of thousands with their pants down?
The guy gives Darth Vader a bad name.
Posted by: Prometheus
|
November 12, 2009 4:53 PM
And why were they going to build a hydroelectric dam to begin with? Because it is an economically sensible way to reduce CO2 emissions. This wasn't so much a win for environmentalism as a preference towards one environmental stategy over another. Of course, the politicians most likely considered the non-environment issues anyway, so you really can't win.
Posted by: Sven DIMilo | November 12, 2009 4:56 PM
It was about water, much moreso than power.
Posted by: Moshe Reuveni
|
November 12, 2009 5:16 PM
Prometheus @21:
This dam idea was all about drinking water and had nothing to do with power. The politician that would dare confront Australia's coal industry is yet to be born.
Posted by: naturalist | November 12, 2009 5:23 PM
Josh sounds like one of those myopic Randian cultists who can sometimes be as delusional as religious fundamentalists. Usually neither of them no much about the real foundations of the world that we live in; which is biology or ecology, because they are both deluded by myths, one of supernatural nonsense and the other of the invisible hand(magical thinking)of so-called free market.
Nothing in this world is free from the responsibility and the consequence of our actions.
Posted by: naturalist | November 12, 2009 5:26 PM
Oops... sorry, "know" much not "no".
Posted by: maxamillion
|
November 12, 2009 5:31 PM
Just so you know it's LABOR ! Have you never noticed?
Posted by: Ronald Brak | November 12, 2009 5:32 PM
It was not a good place for a dam. It would have been very wide and very shallow, and would have suffered a great deal from leakage and evapouration. It definitely wasn't a good hydroelectric site. The damn was always an iffy proposition, but we are getting deprate for water in most of Australia. Temperate Australia has suffered declines in rainfall and it seems very likely that at least some of this decline is global warming related, so "normal" levels of rain may never return.
Posted by: Eyeoffaith | November 12, 2009 5:53 PM
While I am happy with the result I suspect it was all politics.
The site of the proposed dam was terrible. Most of it was going to be about 1 meter deep (a bit over 3 feet for the Americans - I think its maximum depth was 5m near the wall) and not what you would call a reliable body of water to make us drough-proof.
The Queensland Labor party get to look like they are addressing the issue of water shortages in Queensland, while the Federal Labor party get to look like the saviors of the day.
Maybe I am just a cynic though....Anyway, HORRAY for the lung fish. They are cool.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 12, 2009 5:59 PM
Not even that is true. Individuals do whatever they feel like, and some survive it.
Besides, you seem to have no idea how extremely important the Australian lungfish is to science. Without it, we'd for example have no idea where fingers and toes come from. And yes, specifically the Australian one, because the African and South American ones have lost the digit homologues. The development genetics paper on this only came out two years ago. If we don't understand the Australian lungfish, we can't understand ourselves ( = limbed vertebrates); together with the other lungfishes it's our closest remaining relative, closer than Latimeria.
Its genome hasn't been sequenced. If it dies out, we're left with bones alone.
Posted by: Bride of Shrek OM
|
November 12, 2009 6:03 PM
Yeh, thanks Maxamillion for your sarcasm over a couple of typos. I've been up all night with 3 sick kids under 4, I'm sick myself and I'm having an extremely traumatic relationship breakup so all I can say is I humbly ask your pedantic superiorness to forgive me.
Posted by: TomP | November 12, 2009 6:06 PM
"Unless the citizens of that part of the state are going to learn to use water in a much more efficient and sustainable way, more water will be needed." - nodesalplantformarcoola.
The attitude of the people of SEQ isn't the problem. At the height of the drought, the state government set a very ambitious target of a 140 litre per person restriction. At the time, many said that this target was unrealistically low. SEQ residents cut their consumption to 130 litres - and kept it there despite the restrictions lifting to 170 then to 200 liters. The people of SEQ recognise the problem and are doing the right thing.
The issue is the population boom and the lack of water infrastructure in SEQ.
I'm no expert on whether the overall environmental impact of damming the Mary River is better or worse than de-sal plants on the coast or widespread use of recycled sewage water. But something needs to be done, otherwise we will quite literally run out of water.
At some level we are going to have to pay for this on both an environmental level and from our own pockets.
Unfortunately, the combination of (1) continued explosive population growth, (2) cheap and readily accessable water and (3) no environmental impact is completely incompatible and unrealistic. Like it or not, (1) is not going to change any time soon, so harsh comprimises are going to have to be made on (2) and (3).
Water is going to be more expensive, we are going to have to cope with more restrictions and we HAVE to improve infrastructure one way or another - and this will be expensive and will have an environmental impact.
Posted by: mark | November 12, 2009 6:18 PM
I thought this was truly hilarious.
Reminds me of the controversy in the 18th century about whether it was sacrilegious for a church to put one of those newfangled Ben Franklin inventions on the church steeple. (Lightening rods)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/6547936/Holy-water-dispenser-combats-spread-of-swine-flu.html
Posted by: Paul G. Brown | November 12, 2009 6:35 PM
Woah. Something I can comment on ...
I grew up near Gympie, and have deep (5 generations) roots in the district.
Others above have asserted that the rejection of the dam was less a victory for environmentalism and more a victory for NIMBY-ism. Partially correct. The Mary River is a relatively degraded ecosystem these days. 150 years of gold mining, dairy farming and so on haven't helped. And so much water is pumped out of the river for irrigation that recently it stopped flowing entirely. Besides which, lungfish habitat would likely be increased by the dam, although there is some reason to suspect the cod (which is critically endangered - 20 years living in the place I saw only one, and several related subspecies have gone extinct) would have a harder time.
That said, the decision seems entirely reasonable to me because the dam wouldn't solve the problem it's supposed to solve. Others on the thread have noted that the twin problems of population growth and climate change (less rainfall) is hitting the east coast of Australia pretty hard. The ultimate solution here is going to be de-population. Not because you can't put de-salination plants all over the place, but more because the agricultural and industrial base the region relies on needs water.
And that doesn't fall out of the sky like it used to.
Posted by: Rorschach | November 12, 2009 6:42 PM
BoS,
i feel with you, my kid is sick as well, so am I, and I'm spending my birthday at work atm.
If you need to talk mail me, this is not good news.
Posted by: Mike | November 12, 2009 6:51 PM
Ah, but we kinda do need dams. There seems to be nowhere you can't dam without hurting something.
Posted by: Janet Holmes | November 12, 2009 6:52 PM
MadScientist, quite so. And today in The Age newspaper Federal Government minister Lindsay Tanner is calling for an increase in Australia's population to 35 million by 2049, saying that we have a much lower pop density that Bangladesh!! The man's insane, we have much less water than Bangladesh as well.
What politicians and businessmen whose increasing wealth depends on population growth forget, is that Australia is the only habitable continent without a major river system! The only continent with less water than us is Antarctica for gods' sake. I live in Melbourne where we've had water restrictions for so long we've forgotten what green grass looks like! What are all these people supposed to do for water in 2049?
I think I will move to Canada, one of the few places likely to benefit from global warming, so long as you're not a polar bear that is.
Posted by: RobertL | November 12, 2009 6:53 PM
I live in Brisbane, the capital of Qld, and the prime destination for the drinking water.
After several years drought and ever tightening water restrictions (as TomP #31 describes) the S.E. Qld water grid dropped to 17% of capacity. People were seriously worried about running out of water. The state government took a number of steps, including a new desal plant, use of recycled water by industry, rebates to install rainwater tanks, and a number of new pipelines to form an extensive water grid for the area - in order to move water and use it most efficiently. They also proposed the use of recycled water for drinking - but that was too unpopular. They also proposed this dam, which has now been stopped.
Our basic problem is that our last dam was finished in 1986. SEQ is the fastest growing area in the country with a population that is about 50% higher than when that last dam was completed. Because of our ongoing water restrictions we are now also about the lowest water users in a first world country.
The good news is that we've had two decent summers of rain and our dam capacity is now back up to 73%. (There's another change in behaviour - everyone in SEQ now takes an interest in these figures!)
The bad news is that stopping this dam does not solve the overall problem that the area needs more drinking water. The new proposal is to build two more desal plants. As nodesalplantfromarcoola @ #12 points out, Marcoola is one of the proposed sites. We can expect plenty of protests from those locals too. And wherever else they name.
As a Brisbane resident, I will be loading the shotgun and sleeping on top of my rainwater tank. That 3000 litres of pure fresh rainwater will be worth more than gold soon...
ps. The Mary River lungfish might be pretty cool - what with its fingers and toes - but the Mary River turtle has a green algal mohawk and breathes through its arse. See here:
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/opinion/politics/how-do-you-appeal-to-a-former-rock-star-grow-an-algae-mohawk-20091112-iaew.html
Who wouldn't want to save that?!?!
Posted by: Colin | November 12, 2009 6:56 PM
David Marjanović @29:
"Besides, you seem to have no idea how extremely important the Australian lungfish is to science. Without it, we'd for example have no idea where fingers and toes come from. And yes, specifically the Australian one, because the African and South American ones have lost the digit homologues."
So these are the Devil's Lungfish!!1!
Posted by: Kel, OM | November 12, 2009 7:19 PM
This is one of the things that's shitting me about Australian politicians. Why are we pushing for population growth when this country can't sustain the population it has already? This bullshit of pushing for economic growth is only serving to put further pressure on our natural resources. Are these economically-bent beurocrats really that oblivious to the barriers the environment imposes on us?Posted by: RC | November 12, 2009 7:21 PM
Don't discount the coolness of the Mary River Turtle. Was at an Aussie Herp Conference last year and the guy who worked on them showed that they are negatively buoyant (e.g. sink) and can breath entirely through their ass. Ok, scientifically the cloacal bursa.
His was the last presentation of the conference...and a great way to end. He started with a picture of the huge cloaca and said "I'm going to talk about ass-breathing turtles". Attention getting.
Anyway, he said that he thinks they spend all winter in the mud at the bottom of a pool with only their ass sticking out, and breathe through that all winter. Awesome.
Posted by: Paul Goodhew | November 12, 2009 7:28 PM
It's worth pointing out that the universe doesn't care if a few species go extinct. it doesn't even care if we destroy our whole planet. the frogs and the turtles and the fish don't care if their species goes extinct. They don't care about anything other than their own survival. The only things in the entire universe that care are humans.
Environmental conservation is just another opinion as to what should be done and is in no way less selfish than any other opinion.
Person A wants turtles to live long and prosper into the future, person B wants to kill them all and make some money or have some water to drink. Both are equal opinions.
Just like some like Britney Spears and some prefer AC/DC, neither is right or wrong.
Posted by: Broggly | November 12, 2009 7:37 PM
Not being a Queenslander I haven't spent much time researching this, but I read somewhere that the land around the proposed dam was porous enough that water would seep out too quickly for it to be much use in times of drought. Can anyone back me up, or give a source relating to the suitability of the location?
I'm a bit worried about any ill will Australia's generating over the whole asylum seeker issue. When we start trying to leave because of water shortages...
Posted by: Kel, OM | November 12, 2009 7:38 PM
A completely vacuous statement that has the appearance of profoundity.Certain species have intricate relationships with the ecosystem, removing particular species can have drastic consequences that flow on to other species and to the ecosystem as a whole. Conservation is no more opinion than whether if you drop a rock off a building whether it will rise or fall. The opinion is whether it is worth protecting the environment, whether it is worth preserving life, it is not that all opinions are equally selfish.
Posted by: Kevin Johnstone | November 12, 2009 7:47 PM
I'm a Brisbane resident and no fan of the dam proposal, but this decision will not by itself save the lung fish. It is already a threatened species, threatened ironically by the activities of the farmers who were prostesting about the dam. Call me a cynic but I can just imagine their squeals if goverment forces them to change their practices on enviromental grounds to save their very recently beloved lungfish.
Posted by: TomP | November 12, 2009 8:04 PM
Regarding the proposed de-sal plants, from what I know of them, they are horrendously power hungry and inefficient.
For those concerned about environmental issues, this decision really doesn't represent a victory. This represents millions more tons of coal being burnt so the we can produce drinking water from sea water in a massively inefficient way.
It is especially crazy, as we have ample clean drinking water delivered free from the sky every year to SEQ - even in the bad years. We just don't have the infrastructure to collect it properly and use it efficiently.
Given our current technology and economic situation, dams are the most cost effective and environmentally effective option for water management.
Sure, the local residents (turtles, lung fish and humans) in the Mary River catchment are going to be better off - but at what cost?
Posted by: Ex_Gov_Insider | November 12, 2009 8:22 PM
As someone who used to work in the water planning area for the Queensland government, I will just say that I was pretty sure that this dam was NEVER going to get up. It was always going to be a "sacrificial anode" for our new Premier Anna Bligh (Labor).
The Ex-premier Beattie (Labor) set this thing in motion, just before he retired. This was at the height of our 10+ year drought in the QLD south-east, with our 3 principle storages that supply water to ~3 million people rapidly approaching their dead-storage levels. We literally had only weeks of potable water left.
There was massive political fight between the Labor Party (government)and the Coalition (conservative opposition) about who was responsible for the failure in water long-term planning (hint: they both were). The Beattie Government's response included the construction of new dams, of which the Traveston Dam was one.
And then it rained, and Premier Beattie handed the reins over to Anna.
Never underestimate the power of political brinkmanship. This was a political decision which suited the both the Federal and QLD State Labor parties.
It allows the Bligh Government to look decisive, able to make the 'hard' decisions, and to shift the blame to the Feds for having to invest in the construction of a expensive and CO2 intensive de-sal plant, which is the alternative to the dam.
From the Federal perspective, it gives Peter Garret exposure and makes him appear as though he's actually got some kind of a spine, after he was effectively marginalised when he joined the Labor Party after defecting from the Greens (come on: an ENVIRONMENT minister who's had his responsibilities for CLIMATE CHANGE and WATER removed from his portfolio and given to another minister?).
Everybody wins.
Posted by: Lion IRC | November 12, 2009 8:22 PM
Josh,
I think you hit a raw nerve with your observation about evolution not having the heart of an environmentalist.
I'm sure I heard Mr Hitchens quoting something along the lines that evolution is not only indifferent to lovely and unique biology but wont even notice when it’s gone.
PZ Myers surely jests when saying his cynicism alarms are telling him it might have something to do with politics not the environment.
I drove through the Mary Valley 2 months ago on the way to Tin Can Bay and it is worth saving but the price will be high.
Forget about peak oil – peak water is here and in between election cycles there are several million RobertL’s (#37) who are right to worry about the price of water.
Its way too cheap – but not for long.
Lion (IRC)
Posted by: Scott
|
November 12, 2009 8:23 PM
Wow, that's great news! I remember writing the Aussies after reading about this mess in Pharyngula. It struck a real chord with me, inasmuch as a I use the notion of a 'walking fish' and 'living fossils' to make a case for the existence of transitional features between extant taxa, and the lungfish were part of a group of organisms that I specifically bring up in lecture to make that point.
A few weeks after I had sent in my letter of protest, I recall getting a very formal letter of reply from some government official acknowledging my concern....but, amazingly enough, that was two residences ago. I've moved twice since that time, and I had assumed that no progress was being made whatsoever.
How delightful to learn otherwise! Now if we can just get enough natural habitat of the axolotl protected so that wild populations of the 'Mexican walking fish' survive, I can rest a bit more easily. Not? Well, then, roll up the sleeves, write letters, keep the pressure on. For this 'victory' for the lungfish is just a delaying action in a global trend that is not going our way, I'm afraid.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 12, 2009 8:29 PM
Lyin' Lion, you are simply trolling, and should be plonked for stupidity and insipidity. Stay on topic and either show physical evidence for your imaginary deity on the other thread, or shut the fuck up. Welcome to science, which you don't have any chances of surviving.
Posted by: Kevin Johnstone | November 12, 2009 8:50 PM
@ Eyeoffaith #28
The average level at full supply level was to be 5m and depth at the wall at FSL was 24m (Wall height 59m). The EIS predicted FSL 23% of the time and above 50% capacity 92% of the time.
Posted by: CalGeorge | November 12, 2009 8:52 PM
O.T.:
http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-na-health-religion3-2009nov03,0,6879249,full.story
Posted by: Jim Thomerson | November 12, 2009 9:00 PM
The Australian lungfish in the Shedd Aquarium arrived fully mature in 1933, and thus is 85+ years old. Said to be the oldest fish on display in any aquarium. I think there may be an older carp or pike around somewhere.
There is a reasonable argument that we are causing a global mass extinction as bad as any of the several previous mass extinctions in geological history. We know that mass extinctions occured because the dominant life forms went extinct or were decimated. We are a dominant life form, so geologic history says we are putting ourselves at risk through our activities for our short term benefits.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 12, 2009 9:09 PM
yeah.
*sigh*
It's the way of the world, right? First mammoths and moas, then bison and sea-cows, then lungfish and pleurodires.
*shrug*
Best thread evar.
It's the realtime version of the human condition. Expand and kill or die. (or not)
Extinction is forever; I want my MTV.
Posted by: Josh | November 12, 2009 9:14 PM
I think some of you may have misinterpreted my description of what species "do." I didn't mean it in the sense that it's a conscious collective choice. I meant it in the sense that individuals generate advantages, whether through genetic mutation, adoption of certain behaviors, or creation of new behaviors, and that these advantages get used. On average(key point) these individuals help to perpetuate the species, or eventually split to form their own. Individuals in a species don't only compete with each other, it's a competition amongst every species, and against nature itself.
On that note, we're out-competing the lungfish, and I don't think we should put their interests in front of ours. Now of course the decision had more to do with other factors than whether or not it hurt endangered species. Let's be clear about this: I know that money wins over endagered species every time. But I'm suprised that there's anybody using endangered species as an argument at all, especially those who know anything about evolution. We're simply using our advantages to the fullest. You don't see the faster gazelles slowing down because they feel bad for the slower ones.
And yes, Sven DIMilo, it is always okay for people to do what's in their best interests, all the time. Why would you intentionally do something harmful to yourself? And I made a spelling mistake, so what? Fuck you. Did I spell that right?
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 12, 2009 9:30 PM
yes
a) false dichotomy b) because you give a shit about something other than yourself?
"red in tooth and claw," what?
You are a doofus, Josh, and there may well be medication available. Think about the us vs. them scenario you've constructed, and think about whether it's, like, a fair fight. Or an ethical one.
Posted by: MadScientist | November 12, 2009 9:32 PM
@Ronald Brak: Really? The dam was going to be wide and shallow? Wow ... what idiot would even suggest such a useless thing? Well, at least the tax payers get to save money on one obvious disaster; the next question is who paid their buddy millions of $$$ to say that such a dam was a good idea. Gee, for a wide and shallow dam to be of much use (especially if it is meant as a reservoir for potable water) would require something of a miracle - you can say it needs to be a God Dam.
Posted by: Kel, OM | November 12, 2009 9:35 PM
About a year ago I was doing some work for the Department of Environment. While looking at applications of this nature where threatened species were put at risk, it wasn't just to "protect the endangered species". In some species especially, there's a flow-on effect where the extinction of particular species could have drastic consequences on the ecosystem. And that's only one reason. Maintaining diversity isn't merely about protecting the weak, it's the realisation and recognition of the importance of biodiversity for even our own survival.But yeah, I take your point. Fuck the panda, fuck the siberian tiger, fuck the australian lungfish, fuck any creature that gets in our way. If dolphins were so smart, then why do they live in igloos?
Posted by: Ex_Gov_Insider | November 12, 2009 9:44 PM
"... what idiot would even suggest such a useless thing?"
It was the least worst option.
Welcome to the Real World™ where idealised visions of the 'environment' butt up against cold, hard reality...
Posted by: MadScientist | November 12, 2009 9:46 PM
@TomP #31: Yes, overpopulation is the basic problem. It is true that more dams can be built, but building dams can only accomplish so much. After all, not all sites are suitable for dams. On top of that, dams are environmentally destructive and that has been recognized for at least 100 years (and yet enormous dams were built to support the growing populations because a catastrophe due to lack of water was and still is unimaginably horrible). At the moment, water shortages can be alleviated somewhat by building more dams, but as the population grows the dam-building will become increasingly ineffective. Personally I think we need a few more dams (so that current dams can release more water and help rejuvenate the downstream ecosystems) and at the same time we need to plan for a declining population. We also need serious efforts to forest areas and even reclaim deserts. While some people believe that technological solutions will always come to the rescue, the reality is that technological solutions only temporarily overcome ever-growing problems - at some point technology and resources will be pushed beyond their limits.
Posted by: Cowcakes
|
November 12, 2009 11:03 PM
Bride of Shrek OM Author Profile Page | November 12, 2009 2:40 PM
FYI the Queensland state government is at an historical all time low in terms of popularity and definately won't survive the next election. They've buggered this state in recent years by selling off state owned assets at an obscene rate as some sort of small-minded short-term way to raise cash. Idiots
As the esteemed BOS would already know this has also been the mantra for the New South Wales State Government. In a pissing match between the two however I believe that unfortunately NSW wins.
Posted by: Rey Fox | November 13, 2009 12:27 AM
Everybody quit being so hard on Josh. He just doesn't want to think or have any ethical responsibility for his actions, and he's learned just enough science to sound smart. We should encourage him, and maybe some day he'll grow up to be a great Libertarian!
Posted by: Shawn Wilkinson | November 13, 2009 1:43 AM
On an unrelated note PZ,
Facebook can now be translated into Pirate. Scroll to the bottom of the page, click on languages and change to English (Pirate). Shiver me timbers, this be pleasin' to me eye!
Posted by: xenithrys | November 13, 2009 1:49 AM
BrideOfShrek @ 30
Sound like it sucks to be you at the moment. It must get better soon. Keep posting, typos and all!
Posted by: maxamillion
|
November 13, 2009 3:27 AM
Sarcasm? no! Typing mistakes are fine everybody makes typing mistakes. "Even the monkey can fall from the tree"
Pedantic perhaps, but read on.
About 10 years ago an acquaintance fancied himself as a NP politician and spent $1K on posters decrying something about Labor, he thought it was clever until I pointed out that he spelt Labor wrong. This is why its important.
I am saddened to read about your predicament, hope your children get better real quick.
Posted by: Rorschach | November 13, 2009 3:39 AM
I won't in the future.
So you know by heart how to spell " Labor" and are man enough to point it out to your friends ? Awesome.My hero.
And while you're at it, look up non sequitur.
Moron.
Posted by: StarScream | November 13, 2009 4:05 AM
OT but not really:
Some blogger please kill this:
http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroundtheworld/2009/11/12/atheists-can-be-so-inconsistent/
Posted by: Kazzaqld | November 13, 2009 4:09 AM
I too live in Qld - who knew you had so many fans here! :)
I think it is a very good decision, and am very happy that the dam isn't going ahead.
It was a bad choice for all of the abovementioned reasons!
Posted by: MadScientist | November 13, 2009 4:18 AM
@StarScream #66: Really, who would waste time with 'Answers in Genesis' - the perpetrators of that atrocity choose to remain ignorant and it would take a true miracle to change them. No ignorant garbage that they spew forth is ever surprising - or new for that matter.
Posted by: Clint Burky | November 13, 2009 4:42 AM
I don't think we should commend Garrett too much at all. All his work is still ahead of him.
He quit midnight oil to pursue his career in politics in an attempt to do some good. But sold out resulting in another useless politic lumped into making bad decisions and to have just another one of those do-nothing careers.
But glad to see he can make the odd descent decision
Posted by: wiley | November 13, 2009 5:07 AM
Oh whoopy-doo! Greenie-hypocrite Garret saves a liddle fishy and a cute widdle turdle who breathes through his butt from being drownded, while Aussies die of thirst. What happened to Survival Of The Fittest, evolution guys?
Posted by: Rorschach | November 13, 2009 5:48 AM
I sincerely hope dumbfucks like wiley will die of ..just,something.
Posted by: Clint Burky | November 13, 2009 6:18 AM
Well, being an Australian, I don't see anyone dying of thirst.
Posted by: raven | November 13, 2009 7:51 AM
Yes, ragged pale people keep crawling up to my doorstep, mumbling about "water, water, have ya got any mate"?
I give them a glass or two of water and they go away. Sometimes they try to trade some unknown substance called "vegamite".
Thanks for explaining that minor mystery.
Posted by: Peter Ashby | November 13, 2009 7:55 AM
@Josh
Few people HAVE to move to Queensland. Many do so simply for the lifestyle, it is warm there and there is no winter, just wet and dry seasons. People retire there in their droves. They could go live somewhere else that is not under quite the same level of resource strain. We humans can be pretty dumb at doing what is good for us too.
As a New Zealand passport holder I can go live there tomorrow if I want, but I won't be doing so. As others have said Australia is the driest continent after Antarctica and it looks like Climate Change is set to make it drier still. You can't eat dust or drink it either. Mind you it would probably help if all the NZers over there for 'lifestyle' reasons went home, despite it lowering the collective IQ of both countries.
Posted by: Knockgoats | November 13, 2009 8:09 AM
And yes, Sven DIMilo, it is always okay for people to do what's in their best interests, all the time. - Josh
Oh fuck, a Randroid. Or, equivalently, a psychopath. Clearly it's in our best interests to find Josh and kill him. But since we're not psychopaths like him, we won't.
Posted by: Michael | November 13, 2009 8:14 AM
It's amazing what happens when you appoint an environmentalist to the environmental portfolio instead of yet another businessman with ties to resource companies.... isn't it?
Posted by: Cliff Hendroval | November 13, 2009 9:41 AM
Peter Ashby @ 74
We have the same problem in the USA - Phoenix and Las Vegas are two of our fastest growing metro areas and they're also the driest. It's absolutely insane.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 13, 2009 11:23 AM
Are you sure lungfish breeding grounds – stretches with relatively fast-flowing water – would have been increased, too?
Evolution has no heart at all. Stop anthropomorphising her, she hates that. ;-)
Seriously: did you really believe anyone here except Josh, wiley, and you would commit an is-ought fallacy?
Is it even in our interest to live by the millions in an area that's too dry to support us in the long run?
You are still committing the is-ought fallacy.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 13, 2009 1:58 PM
It's interesting to see the suggestions here that "environmentalists" should always be weighing all possible variables in every land-use decision. Often these tough, tough choices are spun in a regretful, Realpolitik direction. Here it's been framed as A Few Obscure Species (zero mammals) vs. Global Climate Change!!!
As per usual, that's a false dichotomy (the real-world realized realities tacitly assuming both the need for "drinking" water for All Those People and the long-term generation of Queensland's electrical power from coal, etc.). But that aside.
I will go with the endangered species every time. Extinction is indeed forever. Please do not kill a riverine ecosystem that contains even one endemic species-level lineage. Three endemic vertebrates, all (I think; not sure about the "cod")uniquely Gondwanalandish? One as evolutionarily cool as the lungfish, one of the last remnants of the extant sister-lineage to all tetrapods and a fish with both gills and lungs, each with a separate circulatory circuit? And internal nares? Evacuate, pump, desalinate, solarize, I don't care. Don't fuck with that river any more, please.
I am, as always, left dejected by the supreme arrogance of picking and choosing which species must die so that particular humans may support the lifestyle to which they are accustomed. Decisions to consign species to extinction, especially via habitat destruction, will never be reversible.
Posted by: Paul G. Brown | November 13, 2009 2:43 PM
> Are you sure lungfish breeding grounds – stretches with
> relatively fast-flowing water – would have been
> increased, too?
It's a fair point. The Burnett dam has created problems, for example. Problem isn't (as I understand it) the "dam" per see though. It's the general disturbance to the habitat.
In the Mary though, it's my understanding that lungfish breed mostly in creeks and tributaries. And there's the point. The habitat degradation due to irrigation water pumped out of those tributary creeks by the same people complaining about the dam has much more impact, and has taken place over a longer period of time.
To gauge their sincerity about lungfish and cod and turtle habitat, I suggest you bring up the subject of irrigation licensing to these folk.
Posted by: wiley | November 13, 2009 2:45 PM
@#72&73
You don't wait til people are dying of thirst before you build a dam...unless you're a DF like Garret.
Posted by: wiley | November 13, 2009 3:01 PM
What's this bull-frog that keeps being regurgitated here about Australia becoming even drier because of "Global Warming"? I seem to recall a huge flood earlier this year...in Queensland! Flooding has always been a regular occurence in Oz, but rather than do something sensible (like build a dam) all the rainwater is allowed to flow out to sea, so they're spending billion$ on desal plants to get some H2O back again. Dumb as dingo doo-doo!
Posted by: naturalist | November 13, 2009 4:54 PM
Josh, I apologize for for insulting you.
Posted by: Steely Dan | November 13, 2009 5:30 PM
Ex Gov Insider has it right. This was Beattie's (old Premier) baby, Bligh (new Premier) didn't want it. Who would? Whether she didn't want it for environmental, social or political reasons is the question we'll never get an answer to. Personally, I'd have rejected it on all grounds.
Garrett's intervention is a gift for both the federal environment minister - who's been smarting from his demotion post-election (where's the power in an environment portfolio that doesn't include Climate Change and Water?) - and Bligh, who just didn't want to be lumped with a crappy bit of policy. Garrett looks stronger, Bligh looks more reasonable, the ALP looks like it allows dissent within its ranks. Bligh may have even told the frequently gutless Garrett to bin the proposal first chance he got.
Bride of Shrek's assertion that the ALP is going down because of it is absurd. If they survived an election (comfortably) with Traveston almost certainly going ahead, how can they lose the next one with Traveston clearly canned?
The only thing Ex Gov Insider got wrong was about Garrett's previous allegiances - he wasn't a Green, though he did get on famously well with them when he was ACF head.
So to summarise, PZ's cynicism is justified.
Posted by: Steve P | November 13, 2009 7:39 PM
>>I'm glad the dam won't go ahead, but this wasn't a win for environmentalism, it was a win for NIMBY-ism. The locals were trying to protect their jobs and idyllic lifestyles (which is understandable). They were willing to take advantage of the environmental angle to achieve their aims.
If NIMBY saved the environment then good for them. Dams are bad for the environment. If the Qld govt had moved to recycling and sped up the desalination plants years ago the need would not have arisen to build a dam.
Typical problem of decisions in the hands of elected officials.
Posted by: Monado | November 13, 2009 7:54 PM
When are you guys going to start generating power from wave action? It's practically infinite. Waves pounding on spring-loaded banks, hundreds of bobbing floats moving conductors up and down in coils, and so on.
Posted by: Ronald Brak | November 13, 2009 8:02 PM
Just in case non Aussies are thinking we are dying of thirst here, I'll mention that the average Australian probably still goes through more water at home than the average citizen of any country other than the United States. However, this may have changed recently, as household water use has dropped by 8% this century. Also, compared to California and other dry areas of the US, we pay much less for our water. So while drought and climate change are massive problems for Australia we generally aren't actually dying of thirst and very few armed robberies involve bottled water.
Posted by: Ronald Brak | November 13, 2009 8:08 PM
Monado, our wind resources are large and it's cheaper to build a wind turbine than a wave generator. South Australia currenlty gets almost 20% of its electricity from wind and it may get over 50% from wind within 6 years. But other states have little in the way of wind power due to the presence of cheap coal.
Posted by: Bride of Shrek OM
|
November 13, 2009 8:36 PM
Steely Dan @#84
I think if you read my post I most certainly DID NOT say the possible demise of the state labour government had anything to do with this dam. At no time did I link the two.
What I did say clearly was that the government was selling off state assets and THAT is why it is unpopular. Maybe you need to go back and read that post again before you call someone "absurd".
Posted by: Bride of Shrek OM
|
November 13, 2009 8:54 PM
..and yes, I know I just spelt labor with a "u" in it again. Force of correct spelling habit makes it hard to drop the vowel even when it is "proper" to do so and I never realise until afterwards that I've done it.
Posted by: Courtney Franklin | November 13, 2009 9:16 PM
It was pretty retarded. Hey lets say yes to the pulp mill so the company doesn't go overseas but lets not say yes to place that would have filled up at least ten times this year. Oh well companies > people.
Posted by: Steely Dan | November 14, 2009 12:17 AM
@ Bride of Shrek
"Maybe you need to go back and read that post again before you call someone "absurd"."
Sorry, but you mentioned 1) the dam was stupid and unpopular, 2) the ALP was 'outgoing' (that's bull, but anyway) and then 3) that they were selling off assets - in that order. I think it was quite reasonable to assume you were linking the first two.
The ALP won't go any time soon. You would need a party to beat them in an election. It's a clear two-party state, and the other party is the LNP.
Posted by: Bride of Shrek OM
|
November 14, 2009 12:38 AM
Steely Dan
Your exact words say I "asserted" something. Now you admit it was merely an "assumption" on your behalf. Maybe you need to go look up "assertion" because I deny I ever asserted anything and it is merely your misinterpretation that has led you to any such quantum leap of a conclusion. I don't think anyone else here came to that "assumption" so I reject your statement that is is reasonable.
And while you're misquoting, I never said the dam was "stupid", again your words. Maybe you should stop misquoting and putting words into people's mouths.
Posted by: Rorschach | November 14, 2009 12:51 AM
[citation needed]
It is astonishing though that you can still go to 4 or 5-star hotels in Australia and find bathrooms with antique water-wasting shower heads.
Posted by: wiley | November 14, 2009 4:14 AM
@Ronald Brak#87
1. I've never met a thirsty Aussie either, so why was a dam proposed in the 1st case? Was it that some Aussies feel the need to prepare for the demands of a future population increase?
2. Drought has always been a massive problem in Oz, but so also has flood; so in what way has 'climate change' changed anything (apart from goofy greenies claiming its not worth building a dam because of 'climate change')?
Posted by: Ronald Brak | November 14, 2009 6:48 AM
Wiley, the population of the region was and is growing and people were running out of water, so the dam was proposed. Other options were considered such as improved efficiency, recycling and desalination, but it was decided that spending resources constructing the dam was, as Ex_Gov_Insider put it, the least worst option. But the dam was never a clear winner.
There are two main reasons for not building the dam related to climate change. The first is that there is good evidence that increased global temperatures will mean less rainfall in temperate regions, which includes most of Australia. If rainfall has permenantly rather than temporarily decreased, then it changes the economics of building the dam compared to other options. The second reason is that, as a shallow warm water dam, it would release large amounts of methane into the atmosphere each year. This methane could potentially have a larger greenhouse gas effect than burning coal to power desalination plants.
Posted by: Knockgoats | November 14, 2009 8:47 AM
I see stupid arsehole wiley is a stupid denialist arsehole concerning climate change.
Posted by: wiley | November 14, 2009 4:34 PM
Most perceptive of you, Knockgoats. In fact, I'm with these Phd-type guys:
http://petitionproject.org/
Ronald Brak, have you got some kind of cognitive dissonance bypass? How else can you talk about 'climate change having caused a permanent or temporary decrease in rainfall' in an area that has just had a HUGE flood (in Jan, 2009)?
Posted by: Knockgoats | November 14, 2009 4:42 PM
wiley,
You really are a fucking moron, aren't you? A flood is a one-off event. It is entirely consistent with a decrease in rainfall per annum.
I've come across that dishonest petition before. Very few of the signatories has any relevant expertise whatsoever, and most are not actually scientists. Here's news for you, wiley: real science is not carried out be petition, but in the peer-reviewed literature.
Posted by: wiley | November 14, 2009 5:02 PM
Knockgoats, you're a bit of a FM yourself if you really think a flood is a one-off event in Australia, so who'd believe you when you say that most of these 31K scientists (including 9K Phds) are not actually scientists? If you yourself have a scientific qualification, perhaps you'd like to peer-review this:
http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm
..and explain why the IPCC are using a radiative forcing value for CO2 that is overestimated by a factor of 80.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 14, 2009 5:16 PM
Have you actually inspected their degree subjects? We believe Knockgoats due to his good track record. Your reputation is that of a liar and bullshitter. After all, if you don't know the difference between weather and climate, where else does your ignorance go? So, for us, who to believe is a no brainer.Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 14, 2009 5:19 PM
wiley:
It's a conspiracy. We scientists are selfishly thinking only of the lavish lifestyles we'll be able to support on federal grant money if we keep up the hoax. Don't tell, 'K?
Yes, Herr Professor Doktor Hug's seminal paper--published on the Internet with colored fonts and a little spiral-notebook-clipart border for that extra touch of class and sciency veracity--gives us nightmares, for he is the only one in the history of science to correctly measure the IR absortivity of CO2. Please, don't go spreading that around, or if you must, repost it in Comic Sans. Maybe more colors too?
Mum's the word. Thanks.
Posted by: Knockgoats | November 14, 2009 5:22 PM
wiley,
Knockgoats, you're a bit of a FM yourself if you really think a flood is a one-off event in Australia,
I didn't say it was, fuckwit. Can't you read?
so who'd believe you when you say that most of these 31K scientists (including 9K Phds) are not actually scientists?
Anyone with a fucking bachelor's degree including a science component is eligible. To call such people scientists is simply a lie.
The "paper" is garbage. The writer clearly hasn't the slightest idea how the greenhouse effect works. Do you really think the entire profession of climate scientists - including the few who have doubts about anthropogenic global warming - would have missed an 80-fold difference? You really are a complete cretin.
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 14, 2009 5:23 PM
By the way, is that sample signature at the petition site really Edward Teller's?
Nice touch!
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 14, 2009 5:24 PM
:)Posted by: Sven DiMilo | November 14, 2009 5:27 PM
...especially since Teller's been dead since 2003!
Posted by: Ronald Brak | November 14, 2009 5:42 PM
Dear Wiley, thanks for reminding me about my cognitive dissonance bypass surgery. For a while there I was thinking that North Queensland was actually tropical and not part of temperate Australia. I was also dreaming that there was a big drought that made people want to build a dam on the Mary River. Thank you for clearing that up. I feel so much better I am going to take a swim in the beautiful, fresh, clear water of lake Alexandrina. After that I plan to get myself beaten to death by a mob of angry farmers.
Posted by: Knockgoats | November 14, 2009 5:47 PM
To clarify for fuckwit wiley: "a flood is a one-off event" does not mean there has only ever been one flood, as wiley clearly thinks it does. It means that the fact that a lot of rain falls in a short time does not tell you what the average rainfall over one year, or ten, is going to be. It is weather, not climate. Many denialist fuckwits haven't grasped this elementary distinction, and wiley is clearly one of them.
Posted by: Knockgoats | November 14, 2009 5:57 PM
The bogus petition is discussed briefly here.
Posted by: Wonko the Sane | November 14, 2009 6:19 PM
@ wiley,
climate change denialist like yourself all seem to be unable to grasp the concept of what we are doing to our planet.
Basically, we are adding more energy to the weather system by increasing global overall heat. Does this mean that it will steadily heat up to the same degree all over the place? Careful, sharp learning curve ahead, so you might want to avoid further reading.
No it doesn't. It means that weather phenomena will get more extreme, causing much more damage to global economies than you might imagine. Ask someone working for one of the big global insurance agencies if you do not trust scientists who have actually spent a life studying these things. And now hold on to your seat, it might even get colder in some places! In New Zealand's Southern Alps glaciers seem to be growing for example, not because there is no global warming but because the warmer ocean waters cause more moisture to evaporate, which in turn leads to heavier snowfalls in the Southern Alps.
Go read a book once a while for squids sake. Otherwise, you just remind me of a customer we had when I was jobbing at an organic food place. He was called "Mr. Spanky" by one and all and tried desperately to get attention by being an annoying fuckwit and going on everyone's nerves. He actually enjoyed the punishment he got for this. Maybe there should be a Mr. Spanky award for trolls on this blog, you would make a good runner up.
Cheers for lungfish btw.
Posted by: wiley | November 14, 2009 7:04 PM
Thanx 4 the peer-review, fellers. If that's the standard of science @ the IPCC, no wonder they're only 90% sure of anthropogenic climate change, even working with an Rf for CO2 that's out by a factor of 80.
Posted by: Ronald Brak | November 14, 2009 9:19 PM
Your welcome, Wiley. And thanks for the good laugh. Your sense of humour is appreciated. Keep up the good work.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 14, 2009 9:22 PM
Wiley couldn't find a clue with a map, a GPS, and a guide dog.
Posted by: Steely Dan | November 14, 2009 9:45 PM
@Bride of Shrek
"Your exact words say I "asserted" something. Now you admit it was merely an "assumption" on your behalf. Maybe you need to go look up "assertion" "
Okay, lets do that. There is nothing in the definition of 'assertion' that says you can't assert something indirectly. Saying "I don't like cats" is as good as asserting "I dislike cats", even if only the former was a direct quote. I continue to stand by my comment that my assumption was reasonable. Please move on.
"And while you're misquoting, I never said the dam was "stupid", again your words."
I doubt anybody would think that I was misrepresenting your sentiments by failing to quote you directly. Please calm down.
Posted by: StevePr
|
November 14, 2009 10:29 PM
Logic is a wonderful tool. When you've been introduced to it please call back.
SE Qld got down to somewhere less than 30% available supply prior to some good rains in the last year. Gosford, Nth of Sydney, at one stage was down to 12% or so. Other towns have been trucking in water. Sydney hit ~35% available storage.
That indicates that there are a lot of people out there who would have been thirsty if unusual actions hadn't been taken. At the same time the irrigators, in a country where irrigation is contra-indicated, were up in arms at having their unfettered access to water removed.
Dams have been shown to be environmental disasters as they destroy river systems, flora and fauna etc. While understanding of how to protect these ecosystems is growing there is a fundamental discord between a healthy river system and dams as their purposes are contradictory.
Recycling, de-salinisation etc are better solutions but people who are up for election in a year or so rarely make hard choices.
There is also the issue with dams that over time the rainfall in the catchment area may decrease, look at Warragamba dam for eg. The people who sited that dam in the 40's would never have dreamed that the catchment area could move to be in an area of constant low rainfall. The ocean may get higher over time but the basic position will remain the same. Same as recycling.
Floods happen every now and then and are devastating. Droughts aren't quite the same thing.Posted by: Luke Weston | November 18, 2009 10:15 PM
The water has to come from somewhere.
People oppose dams, they oppose pipelines, they oppose desalination plants (for no particularly good reason) - and look at the way the scientifically illiterate public responds when water recycling is mentioned? You would think they're being asked to drink raw sewage or something.
Let's see more dams if they're environmentally sound, desalination plants combined with nuclear power providing abundant environmentally sound energy, and water recycling.