Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

jennifer

Breakfast with Czech President Vaclav Klaus

By

The 500-strong contingent of skeptics currently in New York for The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change were up early for a second day. Breakfast was again at 7am and the first speaker was given a standing ovation – a man who had travelled all the way from Prague, the President of the Czech Republic Vaclav Klaus.

New York 005_blog Vaclav Klaus.jpg
Vaclav Klaus is a well know global warming skeptic and was re-elected President just two weeks ago.

In his speech President Klaus talked about the “robust relationship between carbon dioxide emissions and economic growth” and went on to suggest there are three types of countries in Europe based on their emissions profile and level of economic growth. He described the less developed countries of the European Union (EU), including Greece, has trying to “catch-up” since the signing of Kyoto and in the process increasing their level of carbon emissions by 53 percent. The post communist countries were described as seeing their heavy industry disappear and experiencing a decline in GDP and a drop in emissions of 33 percent Then there are countries like France and Germany which have seen their emissions increase on average by 4 percent.

The President said that “the dream” to reduce emissions in the EU by 70 percent in the next 30 years could only be achieved if there was a dramatic de-industrialization of Europe (likely associated with a dramatic drop in GDP), a dramatic drop in population or a technological revolution.

President Klaus outlined previous attempts in Europe, for example the Soviet Union under Brezhnev, to impose radical economic change and the “innocence of climate alarmists” to currently mastermind society including their belief in their own omnipotence.

The President concluded with comment that “uncompromising lessons about the collapse of communism” need to be re-learnt:

“We have to restart the discussion about the very nature of government and about the relationship between the individual and society. Now it concerns the whole of mankind, not just the citizens of one particular country. To discuss this means to look at the canonically structured theoretical discussions about socialism (or communism) and to learn the uncompromising lessons from the inevitable collapse of communism 18 years ago. It is not about climatology. It is about freedom. This should be the main message from our conference.”

New York 010_copy_Vaclav Klaus.jpg
Standing ovation, including from London-based Kendra Okonski and former advisor to Russian President Putin Andrei Illarionov . New York based Statistician William M Briggs is the tall guy in the background to the immediate left of Dr Illarionov.

Thanks again to conference sponsor’s The Heartland Institute .

More on day 3 soon.

—————-
You can read a perspective on day 3 of the conference from William M Briggs here: http://wmbriggs.com/blog/2008/03/04/heartland-conference-day-3-and-wrap-up/.

You can read my perspective on day 1 of the conference here https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/archives/002809.html and day 2 here https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/archives/002813.html .

Climate Change Conference, New York – Day 2, In Review

By

The 500-strong contingent of skeptics currently in New York for The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change were up early to hear Robert Balling and Ross McKitrick speak at breakfast.

A key message from the address by Professor Balling was that there are a lot of non-greenhouse signals that can impact climate including sulphates, dust, ozone, biomass burning and land use change. Given even the IPCC agrees that we have a poor understanding of the impact of these different variables on climate – how can the debate be over? The Professor concluded with the Thomas Huxley quote, “Skepticism is the highest of duties, blind faith the one unpardonable sin”.

Ross McKitrick gave a very different type of address getting into the detail of the recent temperature record – how it is measured and how there is a large population effect on the US temperature data which accounts for about half the observed warming since 1980. Dr McKitrick went into the detail of the statistic analysis and his arguments with the IPCC and scientists at Realclimate.

New York 013_Ross_blog.jpg
Ross McKitrick speaking to the title ‘Quantifying the Influence of Anthropogenic Surface Processes on Gridded Global Climate Data’, 7am Breakfast Session

New York 014_bob_blog.jpg
Bob Carter amongst the crowd who woke early to hear Dr McKitrick

Following the breakfast we had a choice of 6 different tracks on either paleoclimatology, climatology, impacts, economics, politics or movies. I spent most of the day in the ‘impacts’ track and thoroughly enjoyed myself.

I even got to meet polar bear expert Mitch Taylor. He followed a presentation by entomologist Paul Reiter which emphasised malaria is not historically a tropical disease with outbreaks in the England, Sweden and Finland before the advent of DDT. Dr Reiter also made the point that Al Gore was completely wrong in his documentary to suggest that Nairobi did not have a history of malaria outbreaks – in fact here were five major epidemics to the 1950s.

Of course the best photographs for the day were from Mitch Taylor who told us about his field work in the Arctic counting polar bears – or more correctly field sampling using mark-recapture techniques. Dr Taylor said that these demographic studies indicated at least two subpopulations of polar bears in the Artic had a constant population size, that two were increasing in number and that two were in decline – one of these from over hunting and the Churchill subpopulation from climate change in particular a reduction in the amount of sea ice. Accepting the climate models Dr Taylor indicated that bear numbers could decline across the Artic from present numbers of about 24,500 to around 17,000 over the next 100 years.

New York 034_blog_Mitch2.jpg
Jennifer Marohasy and Mitch Taylor, Marriott Hotel, March 3, 2008 International Climate Change Conference

My colleague Alan Moran told me that the best speakers of the day were Tim Ball and Fred Singer at lunch, but still slightly jet lagged and still recovering from a breakfast of scrambled egg, hash-browns, spinach, bacon, fried tomato and a bit more I decided to sleep through lunch. I also missed Dr Moran’s presentation as it clashed with Dr Taylor’s.

New York 028_blog_avery.jpg
Denis Avery giving a television interview.

I did wake up in time to hear William Briggs who gave a fascinating insight into the worldwide hurricane data concluding there is no discernable increase in either number or intensity. This conclusions was supported by Stan Goldenberg from NOAA who emphasised the importance of understanding how hurricane data has been collected historically in his presentation which included photographs taken inside the eye of hurricanes from flights within NOAA’s Hurricane Hunters – WP-3D Turbo Prop Aircraft.

New York 052_Leon_blog.jpg
Leon Ashby, South Australian landholder and director of the Australian Environment Foundation, films conference proceedings.

I sat in on one of the economics sessions and the talk by Michael Economides, University of Houston, focused on our past, present and likely future dependence on oil and gas explaining that these hydrocarbons account for 87 percent of the world’s energy needs and suggesting that there was no alternative to hydrocarbon energy in the immediate future with wind and solar only likely to ever meet half of 1 percent of our energy needs over the next century. This presentation, in which the professor explained he considered AGW “unadulterated nonsense” contrasted sharply with the presentation from Benny Peiser. Dr Peiser spoke at the last session for the day in the impacts track asking the question “What if Al Gore is right?” He put it to the audience that the current response from the world’s skeptics was not reassuring to the public or politicians and that given our “cultural baggage” people had reason to fear climate change. Dr Peiser, like the other speaker in this session, Dr Stan Goldberg from NOAA, suggested regardless of the cause of climate change we should prepare for it.

Dr Peiser acknowledged government across the world had no real solution to rising emission levels but that solutions would come through geoengineering. In contrast to Professor Economides, Dr Peiser suggested the world might one day be run on solar energy and that within a 100 or so years we would know how to make it rain.

With the conference over for the day, my colleague Alan Moran and I decided on a brisk walk through Central Park before a wine and meal at Morrell’s in Rockefellar Plaza.

New York 061_blog_racoon.jpg
A racoon in Central Park. March 3, 2008

Another great day thanks to conference organisers The Heartland Institute.

More tomorrow.

—————-
And you can read about yesterday here: https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/archives/002809.html

Economic Implications of Climate Change Measures: Alan Moran

By

A matter that has received less attention than it should is what are the energy consumption and cost implications of the measures proposed to abate carbon dioxide and what would be the economic consequences of success in this.

There are many emission abatement goals that have been floated. Perhaps the two most conservative are an emission stabilisation goal and a 20 per cent reduction goal. In Australia and England the respective Garnaut and Stern reports have envisaged much deeper cuts than these.

The first chart show business-as-usual – with emissions in 2030 projected forward at the 1990-2004 rates of 1.3 per cent for the OECD and 5.7 per cent for the developing countries; the former Soviet bloc is held constant. This shows emissions at an aggregate 43 billion tonnes, almost 50 per cent higher than 2004.

Chart 1

Alan Chart 1.jpg

Even though emissions in the developing world probably overtook those of the OECD in 2007, their per capita emissions were very much lower 2.4 tonnes compared with 11.5 tonnes (with the former CPEs at 7.9 tonnes). Notwithstanding the fast growth of the developing country emissions in business-as-usual 2030 they remain little more than a quarter of those of the OECD.

If now we were to call for a 20 per cent reduction on 2004 levels and apportion that equally in per capita terms, the outcome is a standard 2.5 tonnes per capita. For the OECD countries this is a dramatic reduction. The OECD’s aggregate 16 billion tonnes under BaU (12 tonnes per capita) becomes 3.3 billion tonnes. Developing countries, though above their 2004 levels are well below their BAU on a per capita basis, as are the former soviet bloc countries. Chart 2 illustrates this.

Chart 2

Alan Chart 2.jpg

The most recent Australian report on the emission control measures, by Professor Garnaut, acknowledges that the easy gains in emission reductions have been made, especially with the dismantling of the command economies of the Soviet bloc and China. Those countries’ CO2 intensities have now stopped falling, in fact are rising. Indeed, China has already surpassed the magic 4 tonnes per capita which would be the level required for stabilisation of emissions and has only pulled a fifth of its population out of poverty.

Mr Garnaut suggests that Indonesia and PNG could become vast sinks to offset other countries’ emission levels. This is a pipe dream. It may allow for a windfall gain for the two economies but there are not enough trees for this to offer anything but a pinprick.

Ominously, Garnaut hints strongly about the necessity of trade pressures on developing countries to reinforce their sense of public spirit. That in itself would destroy the world trading regime and retard all countries’ living standards. And, the process is already underway with the EU negotiations of bilateral “Free Trade Agreements” with developing countries. As Rasheed Sally points out, “The EU is also increasingly interested in linking trade policy to climate change. New FTAs will likely contain trade-and-sustainable-development chapters, which could house climate-change provisions in the future.”

If targets for reduced carbon dioxide emissions could be met by replacing baseload power stations with nuclear power, the cost increases for most countries would be relatively small. For countries like Australia, where coal is cheap and massively abundant, a premium on existing prices of perhaps 30-40 per cent would be expected. Many European countries would face no cost increases since nuclear is already the cheapest option.

However, several of these countries have already gone a good way to a nuclear power based electricity industry. And this illustrates the difficulties in making the required level of cuts. Even France with over 70 per cent nuclear emits 6 tonnes per capita. France is therefore way above the magical 2.5 tonnes of CO2 per capita and has already used up its scope to make the cuts by substituting out of carboniferous fuels.

And France, like many other European economies has outsourced many of its energy intensive industries like smelting to areas like Eastern Europe and the Gulf where energy is cheap but greenhouse emissions are no less than if the production was left at home.

Chart 3 Emissions and GDP per Capita

Alan Chart 2.jpg

The impossibility of meeting emission reductions by replacing coal with nuclear, in itself the least fearsome solution, is illustrated by the relative shares of electricity and gas in the emission profile.

All OECD countries are a bit different but the magnitudes are similar. For Australia, electricity is only 35 per cent of emissions and this starts to define the maximum that can be achieved by making the use of coal prohibitively expensive.

Chart 4

Alan Chart 2.jpg

The report to the former Australian government examined the switch to emission levels at 80 per cent of 1990 levels by 2020 . This estimated the CO2 equivalent trajectories were as follows.

Chart 5

Alan Chart 5.jpg

Noting that a 37 per cent reduction was required, it argued, “To illustrate the magnitude involved, this is equivalent to, for example, replacing Australia’s entire existing fossil fuel–fired electricity generation capacity with electricity from nuclear energy while at the same time removing all existing vehicles from our roads.”

Moreover, these measures are not taking place in a vacuum. A great many greenhouse mitigating regulatory programs are in place even in those Kyoto recalcitrants which used to comprise Australia as well as the US. For Australia:
• There is a vast number of subsidies for emission management renewable energy technology and installations,
• We have regulatory impositions on electrical equipment and most importantly on new houses which have to meet a “5 Star” energy efficiency standard; this is a convenient means by which those that presently have their own homes can shift costs onto those looking to buy them and salve their consciences without incurring any expense – indeed profiting since the higher costs of new houses is automatically transmitted to the value of the existing stock,
• There are obligations on electricity retailers to use a specific and growing share of renewables in their mix of energy sources. These renewables, as well as requiring costly additional management expenditures to deal with their intermittency, are about twice the cost of conventional coal fired electricity. By 2020, 20 per cent of electricity is to be from renewables, less than 6 per cent of which will come from commercially viable hydro sources.

These existing measures are the equivalent of a tax on stationary sources of electricity of about $10 per tonne, or 30 per cent of the ex-generator cost.

A carbon tax or auction of permits would come in over and above this. Early work on the level of such a tax that would be required put the level on $10. That is a distant dream. Stern put the number at US$100 but also had a lot of persuasion and education to assist – calling upon what the economist Lionel Robbins famously referred to as “that very scarce commodity, human love”. And by bending the rules of finance and allocating very low discount rates to the net present value estimates of costs, he managed to argue that the costs would be minor and swamped by the benefits.

Energy costs have already risen strongly in OECD countries in the light of self-inflicted measures to reduce CO2 emissions. To do the task that is sought by those promoting the notion that catastrophic human induced global warming will take place in the absence of rigorous control measures will result in massive industrial disruption and loss of income as investment is diverted to energy resources that offer poor productivity and as industries and consumers reduce and restructure their demand.

The emission reductions required are much greater than the previously horrific calls like 20 per cent below 1990. For OECD countries, we are talking about emission levels of a quarter and less of current levels. Moreover, none of this will do very much for emission controls if Developing Countries are not also forced into making emission reductions or holding them at current levels. In the absence of this we would see emissions of developed countries being largely transferred to developing countries and the emission intensive goods being imported.

To combat this requires a comprehensive new form of currency in the form of carbon ratings. All goods would need to be rated and their producers would be required to demonstrate the required credits. In the case of imports that did not meet these stipulations, the importer would be required to meet the deficit. Pretty soon we would see a world trading economy unrecognisable from that we now have.

At the very least this will create tensions as developing countries will maintain that they are being denied the opportunity to reach the levels of economic wellbeing that the OECD countries have achieved.

In addition, developed countries themselves, aside from denying themselves cheaper goods from the third world, will be incurring inefficient expenditures on investments in green energy (an especially favoured approach by the two Democrat candidates for the US Presidency). This reduces the overall productivity of investment thereby reducing income levels over and above the transitional costs incurred in economic reconstruction.

This is a copy of the address by Alan Moran, Institute of Public Affairs,
to the The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change , New York, March 3, 2008

Certified Tasmanian Seafood or Not: A Note from Jane Rankin-Reid

By

“Fishermen are worried a certification row will confuse consumers, says Jane Rankin-Reid in Saturday’s Mercury newspaper.

Fishermen are unhappy with radio advertisements sponsored by the Marine Stewardship Council promoting their March 2nd “Sustainable Seafood Day”. “Buy only sustainable seafood products branded with the MSC gold label”, the advertisement urges listeners.

“We haven’t been advised of Sustainable Seafood day”, snorts Rodney Treloggen, CEO of the Tasmanian Rock Lobster Fisherman’s Association. “This aggressive campaign is really only about internal certification industry rivalry. Its very bad for the local fishing industry to send false messages to consumers when we’re working so hard to protect our fish stocks and have achieved so much in this region.” Many Tasmanian Rock Lobster Fisherman’s Association members has undertaken a voluntary industry initiated program, the award winning, Clean Green, MSC’s main Australian rival, which also runs best practice environmental and fishery stock management awareness courses for local fishermen. “We’ve yet to see the market need to sign up for MSC’s certification program” says Treloggen. It’s very expensive at $200,000 per fishery. I’m not sure of the benefits to Tasmania, given the success of our own sustainability initiatives.” All exporting Australian fisheries must be certified with the Federal Environmental Protection Biodiversity and Conservation Act. “We must be certified every 5 years and if we don’t get it, we’re can’t export. It’s more far reaching than MSC certification”, says Treloggen.

The Marine Stewardship Council is a prominent UK charitable foundation, sponsored by leading British supermarket chains, Tescos, Marks and Spencers, Whole Foods Market Inc and multinational food corporation Unilever, Europe’s largest seafood importer. Seafood sustainability certification has become big business in Europe with consumers increasingly urged to shop with their consciences. But MSC’s certification outreach has had little impact in Australia to date with only two regional fishing bodies, the West Australian Rock Lobster and the Australian Mackerel Icefish (Heard and MacDonald Islands) fisheries signed on to its program.

The MSC’s fifteen month certification process is “onerous”, according to West Australian Fishing Industry Council CEO Guy Leyland, but worth it for Australian fisheries aiming to sell in US and UK retail markets where consumers are increasingly demanding independent third party sustainability certification for their seafood products. Although West Australian rock lobster is the only Australian fishery certified in WAFIC’s catchment to date, very few if any of its MSC gold labeled products are actually available to Australian consumers. Why promote the MSC exclusive “Sustainable Seafood Day” when there are so few certified products available to Australian seafood buyers? “It’s political”, says Leyland. “It’s about creating consumer awareness so there’ll be demand for sustainability certification”.

“That’s a complete load of…”, says Treloggan. “It’s a negative scare campaign, manipulating local consumers to reject Tasmania’s award winning Clean Green standards. Why promote a consumer branding program with no products available if they’re not trying to muscle in on local certification turf and create serious doubt in Australian shoppers’ minds about the integrity of our industry?” In Britain earlier this month, another aggressive MSC sponsored sustainable seafood campaign backfired badly, when condemnation from the UK’s statuary marine agency Seafish, the Scottish Salmon Producers’ organization and rival certification body Friends of the Sea accused MSC of “confusing rather than educating consumers”, by sponsoring the World Wildlife Foundation’s “Stinky Fish” Sustainable Seafood Shopping Survey. The WWF’s online viral marketing campaign is anchored by an animated puppet, Stinky Fish who interrogates restaurant owners and fish sellers about their seafood’s sources. Launched in mid January, Stinky Fish advises seafood shoppers to only buy fish that bears the exclusive MSC gold label for sustainability fishing assurance because “everything else is stinky!” Although MSC staff initially believed Stinky Fish would raise awareness about sustainable fishing amongst a hard to reach online audience, “they did not foresee the negative reaction that the video would engender with its partners and colleagues in the seafood industry”, MSC said in a statement last week. As the charity distanced itself from the fishing furor, it advised WWF to immediately remove any reference to MSC from its website.

“Seafood Sustainability Day” is designed to raise Australian consumers’ awareness quickly”, says Duncan Ledbetter, MSC’s Asian Pacific representative. “You’ve got to remember that as much as 70% of seafood sold in Australia is imported. A lot of the fish products available in Coles and Woolies are not from sustainable fisheries, so looking for a sustainability label is a good thing”. Ledbetter insists that MSC’s radio advertising campaign doesn’t condemn non certified seafood but Australia’s fishing industry experts worry that sending confusing messages to shoppers will do far more harm than good.

from The Mercury in Tasmania, Saturday March 1, 2008

Climate Change Conference, New York – Day 1, In Review

By

I arrived in New York this morning for the first ever international meeting of ‘global warming skeptics’.

It’s actually called ‘The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change’ but many of the speakers and delegates are well known AGW skeptics and they have never gathered before in one place and time. At least certainly not the 500 or so said to be here today. [And of course none of them are skeptical of climate change – but rather the extent to which carbon dioxide drives warming.]

Perhaps appropriately for a first meeting of AGW skeptics it has been a chilly day. It has been probably close to zero outside with a blustery wind.

Indeed when I ventured out onto Broadway for brunch this morning in a warm coat I thought my ears were going to freeze off. Then I found a shop full of hats and bought something lined with fake fur – and I was slightly warmer.

New York 017_New Hat_copy.jpg
Jennifer in her new hat, Manhattan, March 2, 2008

After a long nap – I hadn’t really slept for 36 hours having missed my connecting flight from Sydney to New York in San Francisco – I registered for the conference at 5pm.

The conference is at the New York Marriott Marquis right on Broadway. I am also staying at the hotel and I think you can get everything here except a pot of tea.

Anyway, it was good to see some Australians here including my colleague Alan Moran, Bob Carter and his wife Ann, Viv Forbes, Ian McClintock, Tom Quirk – and that was just who I met this evening.

I was asked to mind a table for the Australians for dinner at the request of Viv Forbes, anyway, next thing a couple of Italians asked if they could join me and I thought what the heck, then three New Zealanders turned up and sat down, and Viv returned to find his dinner table full of ‘others’ and me – but I think he had a good night anyway.

New York 042_Alan_copy .jpg
My colleague Alan Moran (the good looking one) with a fellow from Sweden and another from Holland at the conference reception. Manhattan, March 2, 2008.

The conference dinner was opened by Joseph Bast, President of The Heartland Institute. He began by saying that Jim Martin, Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment, recently told the Denver Post, “You could have a convention of scientists who dispute climate change in a relatively small phone booth” and went on to say that we finally hope this conference will put this misinformation to rest for good. He mentioned some of the 101 speakers from around the world joining the 400 or so delegates including skeptics from Russian, France, Canada and Australia.

Mr Bast also mentioned that Al Gore had been invited to the conference and to speak and that The Heartland Institute was prepared to pay his US$200,000 speaking fee – but he declined the invitation.

There were few formalities, no head table or pledges of allegiances. We were asked to respect diversity of opinion and the freedom to disagree.

The first speaker was a comedian Tim Slagle who was absolutely hilarious. He began by complaining that he had looked many of the delegates up at Sourcewatch before coming and was disappointed to find he was the only one not getting a million dollars from an oil company. [It was a joke, which the dinner crowd enjoyed, and by-the-way The Heartland Institute organised the conference without any money from oil or gas companies]. Most of Slagle’s jokes were so politically incorrect I shall not repeat them here and he included a plea for the legalization of cannabis and a comment that “global warming would be a God sent for Canadian citrus growers”.

The keynote speaker was Dr Patrick Michaels. He gave a really interesting address focusing on whether global temperature is still on a warming trend and what is happening at the Arctic and Antarctica concluding that the temperature trend is still one of increase – when ENSO, volcanoes, solar variability and carbon dioxide are taken into account – but that the warming is not much of a global threat. [The presentation also included a couple of good Al Gore impersonations.]

Much of the discussion that followed the key note address was around the subject of warming trends right back to the so-called Medieval Warm period and Ross McKitrick was invited to the stage to comment on the extent to which there is now a consensus regarding the last 1,000 or so years of the temperature record. For those who have read ‘Taken by Storm’ you may not be surprised to know that his answered was long and interesting.

All in all it was a great day and dinner and I would like to thank The Heartland Institute, The International Policy Network and The IPA for the opportunity to be here.

More tomorrow.

New York 019_broadway_copy.jpg
The view from my room. Even at midday Broadway was lite up.

——-
From today’s New York Times:

Skeptics on Human Climate Impact Seize on Cold Spell
By ANDREW C. REVKIN
Published: March 2, 2008

“The Heartland Institute, a public policy research group in Chicago opposed to regulatory approaches to environmental problems, is holding a conference in Times Square on Monday and Tuesday aimed at exploring questions about the cause and dangers of climate change.

“The event will convene an array of scientists, economists, statisticians and libertarian commentators holding a dizzying range of views on the changing climate — from those who see a human influence but think it is not dangerous, to others who say global warming is a hoax, the sun’s fault or beneficial. Many attendees say it is the dawn of a new paradigm. But many climate scientists and environmental campaigners say it is the skeptics’ last stand.

Read more in the New York Times here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/science/02cold.html?_r=2&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin

But of course don’t believe everything you read.

Beyond Media Headlines: The Key Issues for the Macquarie Marshes

By

Media reports yesterday** correctly drew attention to the fact that there are levy banks within the Macquarie Marshes and that they are depriving key wetland areas of water.

But the stories went on to lump upstream legal and planned irrigation development that makes allocations for environmental flows with legal and illegal levies on grazing land within the marshes. Some levies within the marshes are currently blocking designated environmental flow water from reaching the northern nature reserve.

Some of the media reports suggest a need for more studies, but the solution may simply be to bulldoze levies so that environmental flow can get through to the nature reserve.

Other issues within the marshes that require action, rather than more studies include:
1. Preventing the trampling of bird nesting sites by cattle, and
2. Addressing the general issues of overgrazing.

The Macquarie Marshes is a large non-termial wetland in central western New South Wales covering about 200,000 hectares. Most of this area (88 percent) is privately owned and grazed. There are two publicly-owned nature reserves where cattle are excluded and which are Ramsar-listed, meaning they are considered of international importance for migratory bird species.

The most definitive recent publication on the ecology of the Macquarie Marshes is:

The Macquarie Marshes: An Ecological History
by Gillian Hogendyk
IPA Occasional Papers
http://www.ipa.org.au/publications/publisting_detail.asp?pubid=683

You can see pictures of overgrazing at this blog post:

Cattle killing the Macquarie Marshes, 21October 2005
https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/archives/000949.html

There are pictures of the illegal levies here:

More Water Won’t Save the Macquarie Marshes, 28 March 2006
https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/archives/001282.html

And for more discussion read:

Three Pressing Issues for the Macquarie Marshes, 13 July 2006
https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/archives/001481.html

—————————–
** Yesterday’s stories include:

Report reveals illegal Murray-Darling irrigation. By environment reporter Sarah Clarke
Scientists say the flood plains are being sucked dry and there is no legislation in place to stop further development.
A new report has exposed major flaws in the management of key rivers and flood plains along the Murray Darling Basin. Satellite images of a key wetland in north-western New South Wales reveal more than 2,000 kilometres of earthworks have carved up the waterway. While some of the channels and levees may have been authorised, others are considered illegal and are diverting water into irrigation and farming.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/25/2171517.htm

NSW vows crackdown on Murray-Darling earthworks
The New South Wales Government says it will crack down on unauthorised earthworks in the Macquarie Marshes in the state’s north-west. A report by the University of NSW found that more than 2,000 kilometres of channels, levees and dams are carving up the Macquarie Marshes and diverting water into irrigation and grazing areas.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/25/2171663.htm

Wetlands in a flap after the rains
February 25, 2008
Birds are winning the battle of the marshes, writes Daniel Lewis.
Wading through Monkeygar Swamp, with magpie geese honking in the sky above, even a vicious bite from the odd leech can’t wipe the smile off Ray Jones’s face.
There’s enough water for significant bird breeding in his beloved Macquarie Marshes for the first time since 2000, and the National Parks field officer is on a high after depressingly dry years.
“When you see these geese taking off you can’t help but smile,” Jones says. A fellow parks employee recently told him: “This is the first time I have seen you smiling for years.”
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/wetlands-in-a-flap-after-the-rains/2008/02/24/1203788147733.html

‘Water theft’ threatens Murray-Darling
By DANIEL LEWIS & MARIAN WILKINSON – Australia
Monday, 25 February 2008
A MAZE of levee banks, channels and dams is stealing water from the state’s flood plains and threaten to undermine the $10 billion Murray-Darling Basin rescue plan.
A year-long study by a leading wetlands expert also says environmental water stolen on the flood plain that is home to the iconic Macquarie Marshes has already caused enormous environmental damage.
The report says inappropriate development has continued for decades…
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/river-rescue-under-threat/2008/02/24/1203788147679.html

Flood plain development ‘stealing water’
February 25, 2008 – 6:35AM
Levee banks, channels and dams are stealing water from NSW flood plains and threatening to undermine the $10-billion Murray-Darling Basin rescue plan.
The authors of a report on flood plain development on the lower Macquarie River say state and federal governments have turned a blind eye to water theft through flood plain harvesting, Fairfax reported on Monday.
http://news.smh.com.au/flood-plain-development-stealing-water/20080225-1ugc.html

‘Water theft’ threatens Murray-Darling
By DANIEL LEWIS & MARIAN WILKINSON – Australia
Monday, 25 February 2008
A maze of levee banks, channels and dams is stealing water from NSW’s flood plains and threaten to undermine the $10 billion Murray-Darling Basin rescue plan.
A year-long study by a leading wetlands expert also says environmental water stolen on the flood plain that is home to the iconic Macquarie Marshes has already caused enormous environmental damage.
…. SOURCE: Sydney Morning Herald.
http://www.farmonline.com.au/news_daily.asp?ag_id=48948