“The Commonwealth [of Australia] has failed in an attempt to have a compensation claim by farmers fighting land clearing regulations dismissed.
“The group known as the Commonwealth Property Protection Association has filed a claim against the Commonwealth for compensation for lost carbon credits because of land clearing restrictions.
“The hearing will resume on July 19…
Read a bit more here: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/06/21/1957942.htm
“The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) released its first projections of world grain supply and demand for the coming crop year: 2007/08. USDA predicts supplies will plunge to a 53-day equivalent-their lowest level in the 47-year period for which data exists.
“The USDA projects global grain supplies will drop to their lowest levels on record. Further, it is likely that, outside of wartime, global grain supplies have not been this low in a century, perhaps longer,” said National Farmers Union Director of Research Darrin Qualman .
from http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_5660.cfm
Most important, 2007/08 will mark the seventh year out of the past eight in which global grain production has fallen short of demand. This consistent shortfall has cut supplies in half-down from a 115-day supply in 1999/00 to the current level of 53 days. “The world is consistently failing to produce as much grain as it uses,” said Qualman. He continued: “The current low supply levels are not the result of a transient weather event or an isolated production problem: low supplies are the result of a persistent drawdown trend.”
In addition to falling grain supplies, global fisheries are faltering. Reports in respected journals Science and Nature state that 1/3 of ocean fisheries are in collapse, 2/3 will be in collapse by 2025, and our ocean fisheries may be virtually gone by 2048. “Aquatic food systems are collapsing, and terrestrial food systems are under tremendous stress,” said Qualman.
Demand for food is rising rapidly. There is a worldwide push to proliferate a North American-style meat-based diet based on intensive livestock production-turning feedgrains into meat in this way means exchanging 3 to 7 kilos of grain protein for one kilo of meat protein. Population is rising-2.5 billion people will join the global population in the coming decades.
“Every six years, we’re adding to the world the equivalent of a North American population. We’re trying to feed those extra people, feed a growing livestock herd, and now, feed our cars, all from a static farmland base. No one should be surprised that food production can’t keep up,” said Qualman.
Qualman said that the converging problems of natural gas and fertilizer constraints, intensifying water shortages, climate change, farmland loss and degradation, population increases, the proliferation of livestock feeding, and an increasing push to divert food supplies into biofuels means that we are in the opening phase of an intensifying food shortage.
End of media release.
Thanks to Aaron Edmonds for this link.
Hello Jennifer,
We had a very lively GMO [genetically modified organism] Reference Group Meeting [in Perth, Western Australia,] this morning and I had the opportunity to lay a few concerns on the line with the Agriculture Minister, Kim Chance, particularly with respect to the Animal Feeding Study by Judy Carman and colleagues in Adelaide. Among the key points to emerge from the exchange were the following:-
1. The Minister refused to disclose the protocol for the feeding study; the list of scientists (local and international) who allegedly approved the protocol; and the members of the review committee who will address milestones.
He was reminded that this is his own Ministerial Reference Group; Western Australian taxpayers money is involved; the study never went out to tender; and is not a state mandate anyway given that WA is a signatory to the Inter-governmental Agreement on Gene Technology Regulation wherein Human Health and the Environment are a Federal jurisdiction.
2. He was also informed that his action could easily be construed as undermining public confidence in the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) and FSANZ, when the independent review of the Gene Technology Act of 2000 has already published its findings (2006) showing that Australia already has one of the most rigorous regulatory systems in the world.
3. He was also reminded that going back to December 2005 Professors Graeme Robertson (Muresk/Curtin Univ.); Stephen Powles (UWA); and Mike Jones (Murdoch/SABC) had written to him informing him that Judy Carman could not be seen as independent and she and her group have no track record in conducting animal feeding studies.
He was also reminded of international concerns for the study (expressed in writing, and responded to in Parliament); and two letters from AusBiotech (Anna Lavelle / Ian Edwards) expressing concerns, and also (in the case of Ian Edwards’ letter) calling for the studies to be halted.
4. The Minister made it clear that only when the results of the studies are published in peer-reviewed journals will he release the protocols. He contended that Bayer and Monsanto do not release details of the protocols for studies that they are currently undertaking so why should he? He said that if there is indeed a flaw in the studies then this will also be revealed upon completion! He also explained that since the commissioning of the studies was by approval of Cabinet he was not obliged to go to the tender process. He assured the Group that the studies were taking place in Australia, and specifically in Adelaide.
5. When asked whether he really believes that the study will answer the outstanding questions that he thinks the “public” still has in their minds he acknowledged that the study is unlikely to provide these answers and it may in fact raise more questions for future work. He also acknowledged that the amount of funding was very small, but “maybe Judy Carman may have other sources of funding to contribute to the study”.
6. He further maintained that ‘consumers’ are confused about the anomalies that have occurred in feeding studies; that our health regulators have a duty of care; and that they have not explained differences in feeding studies to consumers. He further claimed that “only 2 or 3 out of 137 feeding studies presented any details of the protocol involved” and posed the question “Why is there so much unanswered un-answered public information?”
7. He was challenged on this, and attention drawn to the “Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plans” prepared by the OGTR in 2003/04 in response to the Bayer and Monsanto canola submissions that received regulatory approval. These documents were then attacked by the NGO members (Network of Concerned Farmers and Organics). A summary of the key findings of the Bayer Risk Assessment was then given to the Group and I explained that Judy Carman’s claims of there being “little or no feeding studies and no allergenicity studies” did not square with the facts.
Julie Newman will be seeing Judy Carman tomorrow and will notify her that these “preposterous allegations had been made against her”. Julie also informed the meeting that Judy Carman “has a room full of files on Monsanto at her home”.
Best regards,
Ian Edwards
————-
I have previously blogged on this issue here: https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/archives/001067.html
“Mothers and children will rally outstide the United Dairyfarmers of Victora (UDV) conference in Melbourne on Tuesday to voice their opposition to milk produced from cows fed genetically modified (GM) grain,” according to a story in Farmonline.
Mothers Against GE (MAdGE) spokeswoman, Glenda Lindsay, said the group – a newly formed coalition of anti-GM mothers, grandmothers and children –wanted to show farmers, Victorian consumers didn’t want genetically engineered (GE) or GM milk.”
But they are already drinking it.
At least Victorian dairy farmers have been feeding their cows various amounts of GM soy — a product that has been imported into Australia from the US — for years.
This was a finding in an independent report by Professor Peter Lloyd commissioned by the Victorian government some years ago.
According to the spokeswoman for the mothers, Glenda Lindsay, “There are no peer reviewed studies that prove it is safe to drink milk from cows fed GM products.”
But there is no difference in milk from cows feed GM soy and non-GM soy.
I was wondering how some Australian mothers — presumably educated women — could be so ignorant. Then I remembered comment from a colleague some months ago, made in the context of all the global warming hysteria, he said, “Most people are too busy to think, so they ‘buy’ opinion.”
There is a campaign to maintain the current moratorium banning the planting of GM food crops in Victoria. The ban was introduced some years ago, following Greenpeace campaigning, and is set to expire in February 2008.
Ms Lindsay also said, “It makes no sense to grow GM crops when most polls show shoppers don’t want GM foods.”
————-
Comments from Glenda Lindsay are from a story in this week’s Stock & Land. Also available through FarmOnline http://www.farmonline.com.au/news_daily.asp?ag_id=43211
Hi Jennifer,
I’ve just read an article in The Australian regarding a possible sweetner for the Bracks government, namely consideration of a $1.5 billion pipeline to supply Melbourne with water from the Murray river system.
I haven’t found what the other options — desalination, reuse of stormwater and a scheme to use waste water to replace water used by power generators in the Latrobe Valley — were going to cost the Victorian goverment but I’m blown away with spending $1.5 billion for 150 gigalitres per year. And the water will have to be sourced from consumptive users and almost certainly not from environmental flows.
Maybe the $1.5 billion price tag includes the cost of purchasing this water, if not it will add another $ 2-300 million.
To my way of thinking that leaves the capital cost in the region of $10-12 million per gigalitre, or $10-12,000 per megalitre. The opportunity cost of that money will hover close to $1,000 per megalitre let alone any pumping, cleaning, maintenance and payback for the $1.5 billion outlay. And if we account for the lost agricultural production(say $250 per megalitre) due to the loss of the water, then cost per megalitre approaches $2,000.
And to top it all off we’re not harnessing any new water for that outlay.
I can’t begin to guess what it would cost to harvest storm water, which is wasted at a cost to the environment, or getting waste water to power generation sites, at least doing either ‘create’ new water. Water that can be used without infringing on anyone. I’ll assume this is an expensive option.
I do note the Victorian government hasn’t mentioned recycling.
What I do have, is some understanding of desalination. One of the more recent installations is in Ashkelon, Israel. This plant has a capital cost of about $300million( US$250m) to produce 110 gigalitres per year at a cost of $700 per megalitre (52 cents US/m3)
Desalination of seawater takes 3-4kw of electricity to produce a m3 (1,000 litres).
This desalination plant has it’s own gas fired 80MW power station. I would guess such power consumption will have some people jumping up and down, but to put 80 MW into perspective it is less than 1% of Victoria’s generating capacity of 9,000 MW and is close to 10% of Victoria’s current (no pun intended) renewable electricity output of 767 MW of which 580 MW are hydro generated.
All we need to do is expand renewables by 10% to keep blood pressures in check.
A Texas site on desalination supports the Israel experience. Though slightly more expensive – those Israeli’s know how to drive a bargain.
Regards,
Rojo
Greenpeace and most anti whaling organisations proclaimed victory for the whales after the annual International Whaling Commission (IWC) meeting in Anchorage and a deafening defeat for the pro-whaling nations.
This is hardly the truth.
Most IWC delegates agree that the current IWC is dysfunctional and the positions are deadlocked. The moderate minded delegates still believe that the IWC is the best body to solve and manage whaling issues.
Japan threatens as usual to leave the IWC , but Norway has stated it has no intention to leave the IWC and the IWC is the best body to take care of its interests.
So who are the winners and losers in this high political game?
In a recent comment here at the blog, Sidney Holt, one of the persons behind the design of the whaling moratorium, stated:
“Yesterday the on-line paper American Prospect (www.prospect.org) published my evaluation of the present whaling crisis that some of the participants in this debate here might care to look at. I have concluded that the authorities and commercial interests in Japan do not wish the moratorium on commercial whaling to be lifted, because conducting commercial whaling under Special permits for ostensibly scientific purposes is more convenient. The overwhelming evidence now is that Japan intends to indefinitely expand its unregulated whaling, as the major whale populations recover. The argument that whales are eating “our” fish, and that some of them are now competing with the others and hampering thier recovery are purely devices to justify future unsustainable whaling, which is the only kind that can be profitable. The argument about meat stockpiles is interesting because it is really not about selling the current catches but rather preparing the consumer base for the planned increases in production in the coming decade.. Look at it that way and then consider the discussion now going on in the technical press in Japan regarding the projected design of a new and bigger factory ship, and increasing the numbers of catcher boats in order to fully use the factories processing capacity.”
Another scientist, Atsushi Ishii, from Tohoku University in Sendai , Japan, shared a similar view. He believes the current status quo suits the Japan’s Fisheries Agency:
“Japan is happy to continue scientific whaling; but they say scientific whaling is needed because they want to overturn the moratorium, so they need the moratorium to continue scientific whaling,” he says.”
And what did the antis say?
In the BBC article, Dr Epstein from the University of Sydney said:
“There’s that relationship between NGOs and governments that is quite functional from both of their perspectives,” observes Dr Epstein.
“Governments look quite green because they’re listening to NGOs; NGOs get listened to in an international system of states where there isn’t much room normally for them. So there isn’t much incentive to listen to anything else.”
In this thesis, the NGOs dictate what governments need to say to look green, the governments say it, and NGOs duly say nice things about them. Reporters lap it all up, even help foment it, because they know what story their readers are expecting; it is all utterly predictable, and nobody has an incentive to step out of line.
Everyone’s a winner; except, of course, the whales.
Ann Novek
Sweden
PS The Norwegian media even pointed out that Norway was praised at the IWC meeting for its thorough report on how long it takes to kill a whale!
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD has worked in industry and government. She is currently researching a novel technique for long-range weather forecasting funded by the B. Macfie Family Foundation.
Read more