Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

jennifer

Leatherback Turtles Facing Extinction

By

Marine ecologist Larry Crowder from Duke University in the US is reported at BBC News Online claiming that leatherback turtles face extinction within 30 years if there are not dramatic changes to fishing practices.

According to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species there has been a 70 percent decline in the global population of female Leatherbacks in one generation.

The IUCN attributes the dramatic decline to poaching of the turtle’s eggs as well as entanglement in fishing lines.

According to Professor Crowder:

“Globally, each day, there are around four million hooks in the world’s oceans fishing for tuna and swordfish.

Turtles will eat the bait and get caught on the hooks, or simply get entangled in the lines.

Because the range of leatherbacks is so great, national legislation on long lines will not be sufficient to save the animals.

“If you tag one with a satellite tag in Monterey bay, it will shoot straight across to Indonesia,” Professor Crowder explained.

“They are the most widely distributed sea turtle. They swim from 50 degrees south to 50 degrees north. Trying to regulate their interactions with fisheries out in international waters is really difficult.”

Professor Crowder told delegates [at a conference in Denver] that there was much that could be done to minimise the impact of long line fishing, such as changing the shape of hooks.”

—————————

I have previously written that plastic bags can kill marine turtles particularly Leatherbacks, click here.

More Tall Tales from Jared Diamond

By

I would like to think that Australia’s national broadcaster would take-to-task an American who writes a best selling book that is full of factual errors that denigrate Australia. But instead our ABC just keeps giving him more time on radio to tell his tall tales.

Professor Jared Diamond got a great run on ABC radio last June when he was over here promoting his new book ‘Collapse: How societies choose to fail or survive’. Then Robyn Williams ran him again on The Science Show a few months later and for a whole hour.

I complained and was given 15 minutes on Ockham’s Razor last November.

I have reviewed his chapter on Australia and shown it to be full of factual errors, click here for the published paper and I list some of the errors at the end of this blog post.

Michael Duffy invited Professor Diamond to debate me on Duffy’s ABC radio program Counterpoint a couple of weeks ago, but the professor declined.

So the ABC gave him a wad of time last Thursday night, again on a Robyn Williams program, In Conversation. Click here for the transcript.

While the program was billed as putting the professor on the spot – it was anything but a tough interview. Indeed Diamond was given more opportunity to tell more tall tales.

These included that unless we change our ways there won’t be any tropical rainforests left in Australia in 30 years time. That’s right – read the transcript!

He also thought it relevant to make the point that “Australia is the first-world country that has the smallest fraction of its land area covered by old-growth forest.” I thought we were also the driest continent on earth after the Antarctic so how relevant is that statistic? Should we turn our coastal rivers inland so that we can grow forest were there is now desert?

He goes on to state that Japan has a much larger percentage of its land mass as old growth forest. I would guess – and perhaps a reader of this blog might do the relevant calculations – that we have a much larger total area of old growth forest than Japan?

And I can’t believe the following claim but would like more information. He said in the interview last Thursday night that:

“Farmers are bringing pressure to bear on other farmers. Again on my last visit to Australia I had a very interesting time with a farmer in South Australia who was telling me that if a farmer who either leases land, or owns land outright is not taking good care of the land for example by over-stocking it, then local farmers put pressure on that farmer to change his or her practices. And in extreme cases my farmer-friend told me, if a farmer continues to abuse his or her land then even if you own it outright your land may be confiscated.”

Can anybody tell me as a comment below, or by separate email, whether there could be any truth in this claim that freehold land can be confiscated in South Australia?

————————————–

Just a few of the errors:

In the book the professor gets the price of wood chip wrong suggesting we sell it to Japan for US$7 per ton when official statistics show it sells for A$151 per tonne.

He indicates Australian farmers produce less food on a tonnes per hectare basis than most of the rest of the world, but doesn’t specify which crops. If we consider some of our major crops including cotton and rice – well Australian farmers harvest much more than the world average on a tonnes per hectare basis.

We produce on average 7 tonnes of rice per hectare in Australia while the world average is 4 tonnes/ha and Australian rice growers use 50 percent less water for every kilo of rice produced than the world average. In Australia the average yield for cotton is 1,672 tonnes/ha, while the world average is just 638 tonnes/ha – a lot less.

One of the reasons we manage to produce so more cotton per hectare is because our cotton is all irrigated. This is a reason why we don’t produce so much wheat per hectare. We grow a lot of wheat in Australia, but it is not irrigated, so our yields are low relative to much of the rest of the world.

In the book published by Penguin, Professor Diamond claims that, “it is cheaper to grow oranges in Brazil and ship the resulting orange juice concentrate 8,000 miles to Australia than to buy orange juice produced from Australian citrus trees.” Yet official statistics show Australia exports almost three times the quantity of citrus it imports. During the 2003/04 financial year Australian producers exported navel and valencia oranges worth A$107 million.

Indeed, contrary to the impression give by the professor, Australia exports most of the food it produces with crop exports valued at A$13,269 million in 2003/04.

In ‘Collapse’ Diamond states that Australians are cutting down too many trees and as a consequence Australia’s forests will disappear long before our coal and iron reserves. Some forests have been clearfelled, some have been selectively logged, most have regrown. The area of forest is increasing, not reducing. The area of old growth forest protected nationally has increased from 1.2 million hectares to 3.8 millionh hectares since 1996. Tasmania has 43 percent of its total land are protected in reserves, including 82 percent of its rainforest.

Paying for No Water

By

There is nothing straight forward or logical about how water is allocated for irrigation in Australia. And every scheme and catchment has its own historical idiosyncrasies.

I am always amazed when I read that irrigators are paying for water they aren’t getting when there is a drought. Payment for a percentage of an allocation even if the dam is dry is a condition of many irrigation licenses.

Just yesterday ABC Online reported that:

“The NSW Government is under pressure to waive fixed water charges for Lachlan Valley irrigators.
Producers have started receiving bills for the 2004/5 financial year, despite not having a water allocation during that period.

Is it possible that some south east Queensland irrigators could one day have to pay for no water, because it has been sold to a power station?

A reader of this blog, Hasbeen, was extremely frustrated last week after attending the Community Reference Panel launch of the Logan Basin Draft Water Resource Plan. Logan is just south of Brisbane in south east Queensland, Australia.

Draft plans and reference panels are part of the jargon and process of resource planning in Australia. It has been my observation that they often reflect government’s commitment to consult, while its policy officers dabble in central planning.

I have edited the following note from Hasbeen, written after he attended that meeting:

“What a joke. We got over an hour of an ‘Environmental Investigations Report’ which said it is more important that the river is a wildlife corridor, than we do anything to reduce/prevent erosion and the invertebrates in the sand are much more important than the people who live, and work, on the river.

Then the real crunch, what it means to the people who have lived on, and depended on the river for much of their lives.

For irrigators on supplemented streams there will be not much change. They will still pay for their water allocation, whether or not ther is water. But there is a likelihood that this water will also be sold to higher payers, e.g. power stations, in future.

For those on unsupplemented streams, where not one cent of taxpayer funds has been spent, the story is bad. These people are on area licenses, dictating that they may irrigate so many hectares. These are to be converted to volume licences, but at a very low rate, varying between 4 and 4.5 ML/ha.

Department of Primary Industry figures state that it takes 5.6 ML/ha per year to maintain pasture grass, about the lowest user of irrigation. For dairy farmers it takes 6 ML/ha to produce 4 months of winter rye grass, then a similar amount to run summer feed. Lucerne growers could not survive on this allocation, and neither could small crops growers.

We were told this conversion figure was chosen after a survey of irrigators, but none of the community reference panel had been surveyed.

To make matters worse, a volumetric cap will be put on water harvesting. Harvesting is only allowed when the river is in ‘fresh’, and hundreds of megaliters per day is rushing out to sea.

To tell a farmer that he must watch a river, 30 meters wide, and 6 meters deep rush past his pump, with out taking any is stupid. When that water will be in Morton Bay in 6 hours, it’s criminal.

One of the water resource people I spoke to did not appear to understand our little river, it seemed as if we were talking about two different things.

Their thinking, and I suppose, training relates to our long, slow, inland rivers, where water can take weeks to meander down stream. He found it almost impossible to believe that if we all pumped, with all our pumps, we could not make a dent in the flow of our river during a fresh.

He would not believe that a rain drop, from our head water, would be in Morton Bay in 24 hours.

After EIGHT years of community input we have got a total ‘stuff up’.

None of the pain this plan will impose on our community will, or can, have any benefit for anyone. We will pay for our water, even if there isn’t any, and probably go broke doing it.

How can they get it so wrong, unless there is a hidden agenda, and this plan is to be used as a basis for other plans, which can advantage urban water supply.”

End of note from Hasbeen.

On Boxer and Blogging

By

I’ve observed that comment threads following blog posts can be a bit like forests. When just a few people post lots of comments, they tend to crowd out others, and you end up with a less diverse thread.

There is an old fellow who comments every so often at this blog. He tends to make a useful remark or observation here and there.

Once he dominated a very long comment thread, but it was on a topic he knows so much about. Boxer knows a lot about forestry issues and how to grow a healthy native forest.

In the beginning Boxer used his real name at this blog, then he started signing off ‘Boxer’. He has said that he can relate to Boxer the hard working old horse in George Orwell’s classic novel Animal Farm.

But what a fate befell Orwell’s Boxer. He was working hard trying to get the windmill build for the good of all the animals, but he slipped, and while he was down, the pigs had him carted off to the local glue factory. No state funeral.

Orwell’s novel is about a revolution gone wrong.

Our Boxer has made the following comment about revolutions:

“I think revolutions are not my favourite events because they develop their own momentum and purpose which is not related to the original reason for change.

I don’t trust myself either, when I latch onto an idea, because proving myself to be right very quickly becomes the object of the exercise.

I am interested in the choices we have to make to manage the state of the environment, where all the options, other than eliminate humans altogether, are compromises and we have to choose the least worst course of action.

I follow your blog because you have a tenacious way of pursuing the evidence, which I admire. Only by sticking to the evidence can we avoid the worst pitfalls of picking a side for emotive reasons and then defending that position at all costs, even if one of those costs is worsening environmental fallout somewhere else.”

At this blog, and on the issue of a dead platypus Boxer once commented,

“At least he shot it and then boiled it; he could have brought it to the boil and then shot it.

And on the subject of climate change,

“As soon as someone says ‘the evidence is all in, no further debate is necessary’ I become confident their argument is too weak to survive rigorous analysis. This accusation can be levelled at both sides of this debate at times.

And on forestry,

“Most forest scientists are public sector people, and public servants are not encouraged to discuss their work in public forums. You may be aware that the principal function of the public servant is to NOT embarrass the Minister under ANY circumstances. My minister was part of the public campaign to crush the local forest industry. So I’m not likely to participate in this sort of debate in a more public place using my own name am I?

Somewhere in the public service act there is the power for my employer to put me in a corner to sharpen pencils for the next decade for writing this.”

No. We don’t want our Boxer carted off to the glue factory. We value his insights, appreciate his pen name and we look forward to his next insightful contribution.

————————
This post will be filed under a category titled ‘people’. As a reader and/or commentator at this blog you may like to tell us something about yourself? Contributions encouraged please email to jennifermarohasy@jennifermarohasy.com.

Advertising Our Environment

By

There has been some debate about whether the new advertisement for Australia as a tourism destination is offensive or not.

You can view the advertisement by clicking here.

Is it OK for the young woman/the sheila to use the words ‘Where the bloody hell are you?’

Once upon a time there would have been more complaints about her lack of clothing?

And gee the Australian environment looks OK.

How do we reconcile images like this with the description of the Australian environment as ruin in Jared Diamond’s new best seller, ‘Collapse’, or Ian Lowe’s ‘A big fix: radical solutions for Australia’s environmental crisis’?

How Much Forest Should Be Saved?

By

Tasmanians will go to the polls on 18th March. Of course with an election in Australia or Tasmania comes the usual bagging of the forest industry and timber company Gunns Ltd. This time a proposed pulp mill is developing as the point of contention, but really it is all about the ‘rights’ and ‘wrongs’ of cutting down tall trees.

Stephen Mayne from Crikey.com was rather vicious yesterday, writing that:

“John Gay [Gunns Chairman] knows how to slaughter trees and export woodchips, but building a huge pulp mill is in another league and some in the market think this simple but aggressive man doesn’t have the ability to deliver.”

Interestingly according to the Wilderness Society website:

“Gunns is the biggest native-forest logging company in Australia and the biggest hardwood-chip company in the world.

Gunns receives the overwhelming majority of logs destined for sawmills and woodchip mills from Tasmania. It owns all four export-woodchip mills in Tasmania. It exports more woodchips from Tasmania than are exported from all mainland states combined. Gunns exports over four million tonnes of native-forest woodchips each year.”

Gunns and Gay are survivors.

And with all the hype it is worth considering some statistics – like how much of Tasmania is logged? Barry Chipman from Timber Communities Australia sent me the following spreadsheet yesterday.

forest stats ver 2.JPG

With 45 percent of Tasmanian forests not available for wood supply because this area is reserved, it could be concluded that relative to European countries, John Gay operates in an environment that affords a very high level of protection to its forests.

How does Europe compare to the rest of the world? What percentage of a country should be available for logging? What percentage of Tasmanian forests should be available for logging?

I live in a wooden house and I work off a wooden desk and I use paper everyday.