The mouth of the Murray-Darling, back when it flowed into the sea with more regularity than it now does. This outlet is the only exit for an arid land river system which drains 1,061,469 square kilometres of Australia's hinterland and grows 80% of its grapes.
.
Scientists trash Murray-Darling plan
by PHILIP WHITE
Denial. People who deny the
climate is changing because we made a mess. People who deny the Great Barrier
Reef's in deep shit. People who deny that coal is dirty black rotten dead stuff.
And people who deny the Murray Darling Basin's still a dirty great big
catastrophe in equally dire straights. We're gonna die of dire denial.
While the
fleapit's pumped with totemic polemic, our prescience is dying of nescience.
I
could rap this.
Only a month or so back science professor Richard Kingsford of
the NSW Centre for Ecosystem released a report in which his team had trawled three
decades of scientific bird-counting research to show that Murray-Darling Basin
waterbird populations have plunged seventy per cent in that time: a direct
result of reduced water flow. Nobody said much.
Former National Wine Centre boss, Bananaby's off-sider, the
right-wing Riverland rose irrigator Senator Ruston made an early break toward
the microphones.
Senator Ann Ruston with her son Tom and deposed Prime Minister Tony Abbott
I couldn't work out how she'd managed to digest this sombre
document in such a brief timeframe but she sure shot one or two
of its sentences down.
Feathers everywhere.
Apart from that summary execution there's
not been much from anybody in the wine business, or indeed the beverages
business, which would do well to cross this vast inland reality barrier with
some honest intelligence.
The Basin is, after all, responsible for producing eighty percent of Australia's grapes. Most of this wildly unprofitable.
The report is a calm, crisp, elegant document, as
you'd expect of these great brains. Without actually naming the operatives, it addresses
issues this writer has reported constantly over the last forty years of
watching people - men, mainly - working out ways of turning water into ethanol and
selling it as a lucrative beverage without going to gaol.
"The National Water Inititative in 2004 was
one of the most significant agreements in our nation's history," the document
starts, "a once-in-a-generation opportunity to restore the health of
Australia's river systems in a way that promotes economic prosperity while
using less water ...
"Thirteen years after ... and five years since the
Basin Plan came into force, there has been progress ... Two thirds of the 3,200
GL has been recovered, and just over half of the $13 billion spent.
"Whilst
individual irrigators have benefited from the buyback of water, less than one
per cent of the $13 billion has been made available to assist communities adapt
to a future with less water.
"Without susbstantial changes, the
Murray-Darling Basin Plan will fail. Thirteen billion dollars of taxpayers
money will be spent, communities will be hurt, industries will face ongoing
uncertainty, and the river systems will continue to degrade."
Rather than blast
away after the manner of Senator Ruston, those who use the Murray-Darling to
make drinks from its water might get themselves organised with some impressive science
of their own. Like research: your actual visionary pre-emptive planning. Get
all this summarised. Then they could more admirably respond to the Wentworth
eminences' call for better intelligence.
Then we can talk.
But we're going to have to
tolerate a sort of naive but determined honesty in this pursuit. An atypical
honesty.
Divide beverages made in the Basin into fat ones and sugar ones.
The
fat drinks are white mainly and come from irrigated cows.
The sugar ones involve
irrigated fruit. They're coloured and fall into two categories: sustenance and
intoxication.
White fat drinks: Somebody's gotta work out how many tonnes of
fat Australia actually requires. There are already figures available relating
the fat we carry to the public health and fitness bill it incurs. Work all this
out realistically. If we really need this fat, then what's the most efficient and
enjoyable way of getting it into us? Maybe we don't need to irrigate cattle just
so we can stay obese drinking the stuff that comes out of their teats. Why haven't
we weaned?
What's the way of growing the best fat that uses the least amount of
water? I'd like to know.
Coloured sugar drinks without intoxicants? Juices and
whatnot? Just like that stack of fat we measured, somebody should get an idea
of how much sugar we realistically require and what sort it should be. Maybe we
should grow it in cane or something in the tropics where your actual rain is
not such a precious scarcity and you don't need pipes?
Of course there's the
matter of sustenance here: the goodness in the bevvy: minerals, vitamins,
terpenes, fibre: what exactly are they, and what sized stack of them do we have
to make? What's the most conservative manner of procuring this stuff? Who's
gonna monitor the public health bill to make sure this all works?
Coloured
sugar drinks with intoxicants? Here we go. What somebody, maybe Senator Ruston,
could do, is investigate exactly how much intoxicant Australia needs to keep
everybody working without the human repair costs going too ballistic or society
hitting the shellgrit like it did when London discovered gin in William
Hogarth's day.
Like, you gotta keep 'em working, and you gotta be able to raise
an army, but you want also to keep them all humming and buying roses without
coming up the street after you with pitchforks.
So exactly how much alcohol do
we tip into each man. woman and child?
How far can the community bladder
stretch?
Stand back. How much water did we take out of our Basin, our
breadbasket, to manufacture this ethanol? Are there more efficient ways of
producing it? Like turn to the tropics again? Give the Basin a break? Would
cannabinoids be safer, cheaper, and use less water?
Oh yes, before I go we
should probably address the community's rehydration requirements. Like water:
how much should we drink? Can't we get that from the desal plant? How much
longer will we tolerate such an unsatisfactory rarity being a critical gastronomic essential?
Can't we powder it? Like milk? Like just add, well, what?
PS:
While this report is of course a scientific document, it does admit praise for
the foresight of Prime Minister John Howard, in pithy contrast to the very
short shrift if affords Prime Minister Tony Abbott's promise of carp herpes.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment