Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

Archives for June 2005

GM Ban Challenged

By

It is not every day that I agree with the Hon Warren Truss MP but today’s media release from him is a beauty:

Australian Agriculture Minister Warren Truss today called on State and Territory governments to end their moratoria on the cultivation of GM crops if they are at all serious about making their jurisdictions investment centres for biotechnology.

Mr Truss said that all the States, and the ACT, had sent delegations to the BIO 2005 conference in Philadelphia in the United States this week – looking to attract investment in their respective biotechnology sectors.

“How can the States and Territories hope to attract any investment while they keep their moratoria on GM crop cultivation in place?” he said.

“You also have to question the credibility of Victoria hosting next year’s Agricultural Biotechnology International Conference while maintaining a moratorium on the commercial use of agricultural biotechnology.”

Mr Truss said that, since 2003, the Australian Government had invested around $1.29 billion in biotechnology-related R&D.

“But the State’s moratoria mean that only the cotton and cut-flower industries can take advantage of the latest developments in GM crop breeding,” he said.

“The real losers are Australian farmers, who are quickly falling behind their major competitors as they are denied the benefits of new technologies.

“How much longer can Australian farmers match overseas competitors if unscientific State bans on genetically-modified organisms (GMO) deny them access to higher-yielding, pest and disease resistant, drought-tolerant plant varieties?

“These bans are usually based on claims that being GMO free will deliver marketing advantages for Australian products.

“How many more years do we have to wait for the so-called ‘market advantage’ to eventuate?

“Australia must continue to evaluate new GMO varieties in a sound scientific way to help build consumer confidence in the safety and benefits of these products. Agricultural biotechnology in Australia will go no where unless State-imposed bans on GMOs are lifted.

“If a particular State government wants a future as a centre for biotechnology, it must do more than offer support for the related research and declare itself a ‘bio-hub’.

“That government must allow that research to be commercialised and used by Australian farmers,” Mr Truss said.

This is Part 5 of my series on GM Food Crops. Part 4 was posted on 20th June and can be found at https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/archives/000681.html while Part 3 was posted on 14th and can be found at https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/archives/000662.html .

Managing Our Rangelands (Part 2)

By

In my first post on rangelands (Part 1, posted 22nd June), I wrote how these are vast areas covering most of Australia. And I asked the question, how should these areas be managed/not managed?

Graham Finlayson is a reader of this blog and has a property near Bourke in New South Wales. Graham is also an advocate of ‘holistic management’. His property has been destocked for 15 months out of the last 41. He has had 60mm of rain over the last fortnight.

According to Graham, “My decision on when to restock will be based on if and when the condition of the land and pasture are capable, as a minimum ground cover level is targeted.I always try to keep in mind what I want the place to look like in 5 to 10 years time and base todays decisions on that.”

Graham emailed the following comment on rangeland management:

“There is currently a lot of conflicting debate over how we are managing our rangelands, or in fact any of our land or ecosystems in general. This has been accelerated I believe by the ongoing drought, to the extent that most of the metropolitan population are now more aware and concerned.

Rather than look for pity for ‘the poor farmer’ with this kind of exposure, I feel embarrassed at the extent of the damage that we have inflicted on our landscape. The paddock does not become a dust bowl because of ‘the drought’, rather it is a direct result of the decisions we have made. If our management of stocking rates, crop choice, animal movement etc are based on hope, tradition, ignorance or apathy, and we do not put the health of our land first than it will suffer. This can happen in any season but we feel it the most when it just ‘won’t rain’.

I am a firm believer in the methods and philosophies of Alan Savory, which are being practiced in differing variations all over the world with great success. Rather than fight against what I was starting to learn, I embraced the new way of thinking as the answer that I had been looking for in my never ending battle against mother nature. Suddenly I realised that not only do we not have to be constantly struggling to survive, but we also have within our grasp the ability to greatly improve our ecology as well.

This country is badly scarred by claypans (bare ground) which I believe probably formed originally in the late 1800’s as a result of very poor grazing management. The Western Division (aprox. 45 per cent of NSW) actually carried 15 million dry stock equivalents (dse) or sheep in the late 1880’s until the inevitable drought of the 90’s which saw that number decimated. Since then, in over one hundred years we have averaged approximately 7 million dse with plenty of good and bad seasons throughout that period. This tells me that not only have we dramatically altered the landscape to the extent that we have halved its capability, but also that it had that capability. Even though we greatly improved our water and fencing etc we continued to gradually mine our resources through using management techniques not suited to our environment. If the land could sustain 15 million dse before we altered the environment then perhaps it will again, if we provide that sort of environment for a similar system to flourish.

Imagine the benefit to every country town of doubling production and profitability. Economic independence, more jobs and younger people, less crime and welfare dependence. The positive effects would be enormous, especially if the land management took into account inevitable dry spells as just another factor to be aware of and managed for without reducing profitability. It is these interrelated aspects of ecology, economics and people that holistic management is all about.

For us to be able to improve our grazing management and control we almost quadrupled the number of paddocks we have. This allows us to combine the effects of using larger mobs for beneficial “herd effect” where it is required, and the ability to ‘rest’ the paddocks for 48 to 50 weeks every year. The amount of time the livestock are out of the paddock is more crucial then the number of head that you have present when grazing. This system negates the need to use fire as a tool that is used often. It seems to me that fire is the only tool in the tool box for many people in decision making positions.

Remember that if the only tool in the toolbox is a hammer, then all your problems look like nails.”

I appreciate not everyone is a fan of holistic management. I am keen to post alternative views. Email me at jennifermarohasy@yahoo.com.au.

Peer Review Process at IPCC Formally Questioned

By

A standing committee of the U.S. House of Representatives has formally written to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) questioning the integrity of the Third Assessment Report and asking nine specific questions.

The letter from Committee Chairman, begins:

Questions have been raised, according to a February 14, 2005 article in The Wall Street Journal, about the significance of methodological flaws and data errors in studies by Dr. Michael Mann and co-authors of the historical record of temperatures and climate change. We understand that these studies of temperature proxies (tree rings, ice cores, corals, etc.) formed the basis for a new finding in the 2001 United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Third Assessment Report (TAR). This finding – that the increase in 20th century northern hemisphere temperatures is “likely to have been the largest of any century during the past 1,000 years” and that the “1990s was the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year” – has since been referenced widely and has become a prominent feature of the public debate surrounding climate change policy.

However, in recent peer-reviewed articles in Science, Geophysical Research Letters, Energy & Environment, among others, researchers question the results of this work. As these researchers find, based on the available information, the conclusions concerning temperature histories – and hence whether warming in the 20th century is actually unprecedented – cannot be supported by the Mann et. al. studies. In addition, we understand from the February 14 Journal and these other reports that researchers have failed to replicate the findings of these studies, in part because of problems with the underlying data and the calculations used to reach the conclusions. Questions have also been raised concerning the sharing and dissemination of the data and methods used to perform the studies. For example, according to the January 2005 Energy & Environment, the information necessary to replicate the analyses in the studies has not been made fully available to researchers upon request.

The concerns surrounding these studies reflect upon the quality and transparency of federally funded research and of the IPCC review process – two matters of particular interest to the Committee. For example, one concern relates to whether IPCC review has been sufficiently robust and independent. We understand that Dr. Michael Mann, the lead author of the studies in question, was also a lead author of the IPCC chapter that assessed and reported this very same work, and that two co-authors of the studies were also contributing authors to the same chapter. Given the prominence these studies were accorded in the IPCC TAR, we seek to learn more about the facts and circumstances that led to acceptance and prominent use of this work in the IPCC TAR and to understand what this controversy indicates about the data quality of key IPCC studies.

For complete letter and questions click here:
http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/Letters/06232005_1570.htm

Cloud Seeding

By

According to ABC Online :

A cloud-seeding project is expected to bring extra snow to the Snowy Mountains in New South Wales this season.
The State Government says when clouding-seeding was done in the area last year, it created 25 per cent more snow.
The technique involves sending tiny amounts of silver iodide into winter storm clouds, and is being trialled over a 1,000 kilometre square part of the Kosciuszko National Park.

The Minister for Primary Industries, Ian Macdonald, says the technology is bringing both economic and environmental benefits.
“This will help the amount of snow in the mountains, which is good for the ski industry, which is important for the regional tourism industry, as well as creating more water for electricity generation and irrigation,” he said.

“It’s environmentally sound because more snow pack will help the long-term survival of a number of endangered animals and plants.”

I wonder which endangered animals and plants will be saved?

Following on from my previous post, I wonder would the ACF or the NCC approve of this?

Do you?

Church to Campaign Against Climate Change

By

According to ABC Online, the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) has turned to the Church in its campaign to halt climate change.

The ACF has formed an alliance with the National Council of Churches to encourage Christians to write to, or visit, their Federal MP to lobby for a re-think on water and energy use.

Reverend John Henderson, the general secretary of the National Council of Churches, says Christians have a moral obligation to help fight climate change:

“These are basic issues through the teachings of the New Testament and the Old Testament,” he said.

“This is not new to us. I mean the Christian Church comes out of a long community, in fact it comes out of more than 2,000 years of community life where people have learnt to live with the world in which they are placed.”

While the ACF and mainstream Christian Churches are, in my view, both essentially faith-based institutions, how much of their base philosophy is compatible when it comes to the environment and how it should/might be managed/not managed? For example, while the ACF generally advocates a “hands off” approach to nature i.e. exclude people from the landscape and don’t manage it, in the bible Noah took a “hands on” approach i.e. built the ark to save the animals.

What do you think?

One of my definitions of sustainability has been salvation in the church of the environment.