Jennifer Marohasy

a forum for the discussion of issues concerning the natural environment

Blog

Whooping Cranes Killed In Florida Storm

By

“A small flock of year-old whooping cranes led south by an ultralight aircraft has been wiped out by violent storms that swept over their habitat in the Florida salt marshes.

The 18 birds were raised in a Wisconsin sanctuary and left last fall on a 2,000-kilometre migration that took 78 days.

“They were strong and healthy birds, and they’re all gone now,” said Joe Duff, one of the lead ultralight pilots and co-founder of Operation Migration. …

Read the story in the Toronto Star here: http://www.thestar.com/News/article/178087

The Real Issue: Global Over-Breeding – A Note From Haldun Abdullah

By

Hi Jennifer,

Now that we have left global warming behind us (almost unanimous agreement that it is the result of human activity or rather over-activity, and that its here to stay unless something is done about it urgently) we can concentrate on the real issue, which is, as I believe over population both at the global and local levels.

It seems like the balancing forces of nature, biotic potential and environmental resistance (in the ecological sense), have lost their balancing character in favor of biotic potential. World population has been soaring in the past few centuries in spite of wars, diseases, epidemics and so forth. I have attached an illustrative reference, which shows how world population has increased over the years and how it will reach about 8 billion by 2020. The animation included is really gloomy (Australia does not seem to be effected).

I strongly believe that, unless something is done about human over-breeding very urgently (like having an international agreement on limiting populations on a rational basis) the whole world will be overpopulated in such a manner (like some countries already are!), that the developing countries shall not be able to reach a standard of living of the so called developed countries. Further, because of the continued depletion of resources, the standards of living in the developed countries will reach such levels that severe intra-specific competition (sometimes referred to as “innovation”) will be dominant in every aspect of our lives. Not to mention that present day international conflicts will be much more widespread. So far, we humans have been clever overcoming environmental resistance, it did not work out, let us try to be wise from now on (not wise guys!).

Regards, Haldun

Weekend Reading: Climate Change 2007 – The Physical Science Basis

By

The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has just released a 21 page report summary for policy makers of a report entitled ‘Climate Change 2007 – The Physical Science Basis’ which will be released later in the year.

The report summary can be downloaded here: http://www.ipcc.ch/ .

The report summary has been the focus of intensive media interest for some days and according to the ABC has been described by WWF as a “clarion call to governments to act urgently to slash emissions” and by Greenpeace as a “screaming siren”.

It is unclear from the associated media release when the full report will be made available.

——————-
Changes to the text in this blog post were made about 10 minutes after I posted it. New text is underlined.

What A Wahli!

By

Indonesian blogger, Ong Hock Chuan, has taken up the case for Richard Ness, an American mining executive falsely accused by environmental NGO’s of deliberately polluting Buyat Bay in northern Sulawesi.

In a recent post Ong invited Wahli, the Indonesian arm of Friend’s of the Earth and the group who’s false accusations led to the arrest of Ness, to put their case at his blog.

This was their response:

“I’ve read your blog and my oppinion is there’s nothing we (Walhi) could discuss further about such topic you’ve thrown on your blog since you started it without critical question about ‘how businesses and NGOs can work together to protect and improve the environment’ like you said in your email below. i don’t know what your intention here but we refuse to answer your call to put our organization in such ‘brutal’ discussion in your blog.”

I don’t know, I reckon Ong’s blog would be much less brutal than an Indonesian jail… where Whali want to send Richard Ness.

Read the complete blog post here: http://theunspunblog.com/2007/01/31/australias-watching-where-is-walhi-newmont-and-the-other-players/

————————————
To read more about Richard Ness, click here and for more background on the trial read Eric’s blog, click here. If you want to know who Eric is, click here.

A National Plan for Water Security (Part 2): The Issue of Over-Allocation

By

The Australian government’s new $10 billion, 10 point plan entitled ‘A National Plan for Water Security’ states that there is a need to address “once and for all water over-allocation in the Murray-Darling Basin”. This is point 4 of the plan.

So what does it mean to be “over-allocated”?

According to The Plan “over-allocation is where more entitlements have been issued in a system than can be sustained.”

What does this mean?

According to a recent report ‘Water Use and Regulation’ by the ANZ bank:

“The National Water Commission estimates that as of 205, 1 percent of Australia’s 340 surface management areas and 5 percent of 367 groundwater management areas were over-allocated (that is over 100 percent of sustainable water levels were permanently allocated for extraction and consumption), while another 13 percent of surface water and 23 percent of groundwater areas were ‘highly developed’ (that is 70-100 percent of sustainable water was allocated) putting them at greater risk of temporary over-allocation during dry periods.”

I find the concept that over-allocation means over 100 percent of the water in a system has been allocated unusual and extreme and I have contacted the Nation Water Commission asking for more information and the specific reference. (deleted following comments below from Ian Mott and Wally, see below)

In the relevant document from the National Water Initiative there is no specific definition of ‘over allocation’ and comment is made that each state and territory has used different criteria.***

In the development of ‘Water Allocation and Management Plans’ in Queensland under the Water Act 2000 the arbitrary figure of 30 percent was used; that is if more than 30 percent of a river’s flow is diverted it could be considered over-allocated.*

How much of the Murray Darling Basin’s water is diverted?

Under natural conditions it is estimated that 46 percent of the 24,000 gigalitres that flow into the Murray-Darling Basin is consumed by wetlands and floodplains with the remaining 54 percent flowing out to sea. Now, with all the regulation it is estimated that 11,580 gigalitres, or about 50 percent of the water within the Murray Darling Basin, is diverted for irrigation.**

Based on the estimates in ‘River Losses and End of System Flows’ (MDBC, November 2003, and ignoring the 1,200 gigalitres from Inter-Basin Transfers), it would require that the government buy back about 4,425 gigalitres of water entitlement for the system to be at a 30 percent level of extraction.

If government paid a probably conservative $1,000 per megalitres for permanent entitlements then I estimate they would need about $4.425 billion.

This is an awful lot of money and the government currently only has $3 billion in the budget for buying water entitlements.

Is it worth it? What would be the net benefit of returning the 4,425 gigalitres to the Murray Darling Basin?

The Murray-Darling Basin covers about 14 percent of the land mass of Australia but mean runoff is only about 24,000 gigalitres or 6 percent of the Australia’s total mean annual runoff (Australian Water Resources Assessment 2000, pg 25).

While relatively little water falls within the Basin (6 percent), most of Australia’s water infrastructure has been developed here including the Snowy Mountain scheme build in the 1950s to drought proof the region.

The Murray River has essentially been turned into an irrigation channel with its headwaters part of the Snowy hydroelectricity scheme, four large dams and 13 locks along the way and the system ends in a series of barrages at the so-called Murray mouth.

The Murray River is kept artificially high most of the time as water is moved from the dams which are mostly at the top of the Catchment to irrigation areas downstream and also to meet Adelaide’s water needs.

The Darling is a very different system and less regulated.

In summary, ‘A National Plan for Water Security’ assumes over-allocation in the Murray Darling Basin but does not explain how this was determined and what an acceptable level of extraction might be. Assuming that 30 percent of pre-development flow levels is a reasonable level of extractions, the government would have to buy back about 4,425 gigalitres of water and is likely to cost more than $3 billion.

Buying back this water is likely to significantly impact on agricultural production in the Basin and the rural communities in irrigation areas.

There are already significant environmental flow allocations for the Murray River. Given the Murray River is already a highly regulated and somewhat artificial river system I doubt that the environmental benefit from the return of additional water would be significant. What would the environmental benefits be for the Darling River system?

——————-
This is the second in a series of posts on ‘A National Plan for Water Security’, Part 1 is here: https://jennifermarohasy.com.dev.internet-thinking.com.au/blog/archives/001859.html

* I can’t find a good reference or link for this, Luke can you help?

** Based on ‘River Losses and End of System Flows’, published by the Murray Darling Basin Commission, November 2003. Can someone find the document on the internet for me?

***Changes made to this post at 12noon on Friday 2nd February.

Coral Reefs May Benefit From Global Warming

By

ON Friday in Paris the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will launch a new report, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, with an up-to-date assessment of likely temperature rises because of global warming. Three related reports will be released later in the year, including a report on the likely effects of the rise in temperature. The report on impacts is likely to include a chapter on Australia and a warning that corals on the Great Barrier Reef could die as a consequence of global warming.

The idea that the Great Barrier Reef may be destroyed by global warming is not new, but it is a myth. The expected rise in sea level associated with global warming may benefit coral reefs and the Great Barrier Reef is likely to extend its range further south. Global threats to the coral reefs of the world include damaging fish practices and pollution, and the UN should work harder to address these issues.

Read the complete article here: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21144521-7583,00.html