Comment on Sid Maher and Jared Owens “Tony Abbott's dam solution for flooded rivers”, 7/01/2011, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/tony-abbotts-dam-solution-for-flooded-rivers/story-fn59niix-1225983272814
It is encouraging that a major political party is talking about building more dams in the wake of the recent floods in Queensland.
I have thought that a country that often experience draughts and floods as Australia should build a system of dams and canals to mitigate both droughts and floods.
See the following for a proposal that was developed for a AIC competition, though it was not awarded as a winner in that competition: http://mrlincolns.blogspot.com/2010/05/dam-and-canal-system-or-systems-in.html
Given that the flood damage in Queensland this time could be in billions, it should make sense to consider building such a system.
Showing posts with label water. Show all posts
Showing posts with label water. Show all posts
2011-01-07
2010-10-10
Think outside the Murray-Darling Basin!
Comments on Graham Lloyd “Plans must stay true to use of scarce resource”, 9/10/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/plans-must-stay-true-to-use-of-scarce-resource/story-e6frg6xf-1225936209319
Given the reported costs to both farmers due to water cuts and the government due to water buy back, why don't the nation and indeed the Commission think outside the square to be creative and more cost effective and efficient in dealing with the environment?
The thinking should be outside the basin, not just within it!
For example, with those costs in mind, why can't the nation (the government) spend some money in getting water from the northern part of the country into the river system?
Australia is a dry continent. It pays to build water infrastructure to utilise natural rain water from the north. That will last forever and will be a true nation building project.
PS: The article starts with:
"IT is tempting to let the focus stray from the parlous state into which the river system was allowed to slip.
WITH the Murray-Darling Basin charged, birds returning to the wetlands and the rivermouth open to the sea for the first time in half a decade, it is tempting to let the focus stray from the parlous state into which the river system was allowed to slip.
Environmentally, the starting point of yesterday's report by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority that the river mouth remain open at least 90 per cent of the time is a good one.
Consistent flows are needed to preserve the health of the internationally important wetlands such as the Coorong and Lower Murray Lakes and ensure the continued overall health of the system."
Given the reported costs to both farmers due to water cuts and the government due to water buy back, why don't the nation and indeed the Commission think outside the square to be creative and more cost effective and efficient in dealing with the environment?
The thinking should be outside the basin, not just within it!
For example, with those costs in mind, why can't the nation (the government) spend some money in getting water from the northern part of the country into the river system?
Australia is a dry continent. It pays to build water infrastructure to utilise natural rain water from the north. That will last forever and will be a true nation building project.
PS: The article starts with:
"IT is tempting to let the focus stray from the parlous state into which the river system was allowed to slip.
WITH the Murray-Darling Basin charged, birds returning to the wetlands and the rivermouth open to the sea for the first time in half a decade, it is tempting to let the focus stray from the parlous state into which the river system was allowed to slip.
Environmentally, the starting point of yesterday's report by the Murray-Darling Basin Authority that the river mouth remain open at least 90 per cent of the time is a good one.
Consistent flows are needed to preserve the health of the internationally important wetlands such as the Coorong and Lower Murray Lakes and ensure the continued overall health of the system."
2010-09-15
Yoichi Funabashi's interesting but confusing argument of water security
Comments on Yoichi Funabashi “Global water security: Japan should play key role”, 15/09/2010, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2010/09/15/global-water-security-japan-should-play-key-role/
I am not sure some of the alarmist views on climate change and implications for water are not exaggerating beyond imagination!
While there would be an impact on some rivers if the Himalayan glaciers melt. But what would be waterfalls in the Himalayan region and the implications for those rivers?
If rainfalls remain the same, then those rivers might be more irregular in flows, but the total water may not be too different from the case where the glacier is feeding them.
It is a big natural circulation and recycling.
Further, while water is important, the argument for potential conflicts over water by nations is likely to be false.
The use of Israel and Palestine case is of little relevance, because they have been fighting with each other mainly over land but not water.
It seems the author has an interesting but winded excuse to argue for Japan’s role in global water security.
The mention and description of China may provide a clue.
I am not sure some of the alarmist views on climate change and implications for water are not exaggerating beyond imagination!
While there would be an impact on some rivers if the Himalayan glaciers melt. But what would be waterfalls in the Himalayan region and the implications for those rivers?
If rainfalls remain the same, then those rivers might be more irregular in flows, but the total water may not be too different from the case where the glacier is feeding them.
It is a big natural circulation and recycling.
Further, while water is important, the argument for potential conflicts over water by nations is likely to be false.
The use of Israel and Palestine case is of little relevance, because they have been fighting with each other mainly over land but not water.
It seems the author has an interesting but winded excuse to argue for Japan’s role in global water security.
The mention and description of China may provide a clue.
2010-03-29
Treasury under Dr Henry
Comments on Nicola Berkovic “Treasury boss Ken Henry's plea on climate”, 29/03/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/treasury-bosss-plea-on-climate/story-e6frg6xf-1225846612979
It is good to hear Treasury boss talking about climate change.
The report mentions two points, water in Australia and international climate change agreement or lack of it.
It would be interesting to know what Treasury has done in terms of both points.
What advice or policy proposals has Treasury given to the government in terms of water in Australia?
What advice or policy proposals has Treasury given to the government in terms of climate change, including both domestic ETS and international agreement?
Dr Henry talked about free rider in terms of international agreement on climate change.
What has Treasury advised the government in terms of a fair, effective and efficient international agreement on climate change?
From available information on the domestic ETS and Australian government's proposal on international agreement and its doing before and at Copenhagen, it is difficult to see any good, reliable economically sound proposals were made.
For example, how can Australia government solve the national water problem? There have been years and years past and a lot of talks have been done, but the situation has improved little.
How can Australia advance an international agreement on climate change with fair and internationally acceptable, efficient and effective international or world policies to deal with climate change?
The prime minister was a friend of the chair of Copenhagen and was involved in the draft document leaked or circulated at the gathering. Was that a fair, efficient and effective proposal?
What is or was Treasury view on this and more broadly?
One has to wonder why the Treasury boss only talks, but with few actions.
It is good to hear Treasury boss talking about climate change.
The report mentions two points, water in Australia and international climate change agreement or lack of it.
It would be interesting to know what Treasury has done in terms of both points.
What advice or policy proposals has Treasury given to the government in terms of water in Australia?
What advice or policy proposals has Treasury given to the government in terms of climate change, including both domestic ETS and international agreement?
Dr Henry talked about free rider in terms of international agreement on climate change.
What has Treasury advised the government in terms of a fair, effective and efficient international agreement on climate change?
From available information on the domestic ETS and Australian government's proposal on international agreement and its doing before and at Copenhagen, it is difficult to see any good, reliable economically sound proposals were made.
For example, how can Australia government solve the national water problem? There have been years and years past and a lot of talks have been done, but the situation has improved little.
How can Australia advance an international agreement on climate change with fair and internationally acceptable, efficient and effective international or world policies to deal with climate change?
The prime minister was a friend of the chair of Copenhagen and was involved in the draft document leaked or circulated at the gathering. Was that a fair, efficient and effective proposal?
What is or was Treasury view on this and more broadly?
One has to wonder why the Treasury boss only talks, but with few actions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
