LitFuse

The latest report from the Climate Commission in Australia, The Critical Decade, says what every other major scientific review of the literature has said about climate change. In fact this report seems to be simply a summary of other major reviews and is perhaps more of an explanation of these other reports in a simple format than it is a review of the modelling itself. The report has drawn the predictable support from those who are concerned about climate change and derision from those who don’t believe it is a problem. One of the criticisms coming from the latter group is that those scientists who support the climate change theory, only do so because they make a quid out of it. The belief from some is that if you are paid to study climate, it is in your interests to create a panic so you get more money to do research. The same argument could be applied to scientists who study obesity, cancer, water quality, weed management and mining. We believe the latter group of scientists to our great benefit, yet some would have us believe that climate scientists are a particularly cunning and ruthless form of the species, who lie about what the data is telling them and have created mass hysteria through a global, highly organised conspiracy that has only a very small percentage leaving the club to expose the whole sordid tale to the media. This in itself is a remarkable level of loyalty from a group in society who would normally trip over themselves to expose the inaccuracies of another member of their fraternity. These scientists have seemingly benefited by being paid extraordinary amounts of money (an academics salary) for their deception, presumably with a proportion having to go back to keep the central organisation going. I bet its called KAOS.

Complicit in this conspiracy are green groups who morphed from being innocent protectors of whales and trees into rabid anti-development extremists who are part of a separate, but also highly coordinated, left-wing conspiracy to de-industrialise the world and make us all poorer. It is not clear whether they are in cahoots with the climate scientists who are clearly in it for alternative economic reasons.

Also participating in this axis are evil are the following pariahs of common sense:

• Well known left-wing anarchists, British Petroleum
• Well meaning but hopelessly naive, US Department of Defense
• Anti-establishment extremists, Nestle
• Clearly self-interested, BHP Billiton
• Pixies at the bottom of the garden, Chinese Ministry of Economics
• Agents of skullduggery, NATO Parliamentary Assembly

With such a grouping of delirious malcontents supportive of climate change and sounding warnings of the need to take action, it is no wonder that moderate, clear thinking defenders of the world’s integrity such as Alan Jones, Christopher Monckton and well known climate scientists such as Ian Plimer and so rabidly opposed.

Written by Paul Dalby, 26 May 2011

Posted in climate change, LitFuse
Tags: change, climate, climate change skeptics, science

For light reading on a plane trip to Central Queensland from Adelaide, I took with me “Smithereens” by Shaun Micallef. It was the only book in the newsagency I felt comfortable in taking. I could have gone Clarkson but risked being yelled at out of the pages. I didn’t want a ‘real crime story’, a romance or sci-fi and the new releases were too risky. If you don’t like it, you cannot get up and have a bracing walk. It is ‘Two and a Half Men’, easy listening music or old jokes. None a pleasant alternative. Smithereens is a collection of short comedy riffs of two to three pages, collected into a single source for the readers enjoyment.

The book is updated from an earlier version, apparently with ‘added smithereens’, so I felt I had received excellent value for the purchase price.

Shaun’s humour is not for everyone. It is for smug, overly educated and intelligent urban elites such as myself. The jokes are all ‘in’ and require a thorough grounding in grammar, the classics, history, politics, literature and crass popular culture. If you do poorly at Trivial Pursuit (the adult one, not the kids version), this book is probably not for you.

A snapshot:

“The Al Jolson Story

You ain’t heard nothin’ yet

Assuring the audience that they have not as yet heard the absence of something is hardly revelatory, and the implication that they would, upon commencement of some singing, hear nothing would have merely bamboozled them was it not so expertly masked by poor grammar. This, then, was Jolson’s true skill as a performer”

Demonstrating the absurdity of pedantry is not new as a form of humour, but it is performed expertly by Micallef in this book. There is some wonderful satire, for example poking fun at Miss World Contestants (a seemingly never ending well from which one can draw gags) and the normal tongue-in-cheek self-depreciating humour that is Micallef’s trademark. Mostly what I like about Micallef’s writing is that the humour relies heavily on the use of language – right down to the timing inferred by punctuation. It is old style comedy somewhat reminiscent of the Goons and Monty Python, layered with puns, double entendres and squeezing the last laugh out of every joke. There are no ‘one-liners’ in this book (actually there might be a few, but really, not many at all).

To wit:

“Now it had come to this. Writing for television. Me, who had shown such promise as a child that the word ‘prodigy’ was bandied about our house like a high-velocity super ball. True, the word often had a question mark after it, followed by a peal of laughter and a slamming door, but what did my parents know of genius? I preferred my own company anyway. Locked in my room (from the outside), far away from their clucking tongues and talk of urgent Ritalin prescriptions I would beaver away at a concerto here, a novel there, and vice versa. Nothing was beyond my fingertips, except perhaps the ends of my own nails”.

Ave Shaun, Ave

Written by Paul Dalby, 14 April 2011

Posted in LitFuse

While I like to mess around with a surf-board, I cannot claim to have come up with the idea of wave vs tide to explain the difference between climate variability and climate change. Rather, it comes from Peter Hayman, a brilliant science communicator in my view.

Peter asks:

What destroys the sandcastle, the wave or the tide? The answer of course is both, but if I build my castle away from the breakers at low tide, the high tide will bring the waves within reach of my sandcastle and knock it over.

This is the argument behind the dangers of climate change. I’m not going to go into an explanation of the science behind anthropogenic global warming, because others have done a much better job than I ever could – for example, Barry Brook.

But what I do want to briefly point out is that climate variability patterns lie over the top of a warming temperature trend. So just as the wave receding does not mean that the tide is going out, a cool or wet year or two does not mean that the warming trend has stopped. In the country I live in, Australia, we are experiencing major  floods, which was incidentally, predicted to occur. We are experiencing a La Nina year, and a negative Indian Ocean Dipole. One of these conditions on their own would result in an unusually wet and cool year for Australia. Both of them together have always resulted in heavy winter-spring rainfall in some parts of Australia. They have occurred together 4 times in the 20th Century. One of these times was 1974, when Brisbane CBD last had a major flood. This is a big wave, not a change in tide.

What concerns climate scientists is the change in the tide. Because there is variability in the climate, it takes some time to pick out a change in the pattern. However climate scientists can now clearly see a pattern that is a movement in the tide. A change from one state to another. The Responses to Questions & Objections on Climate Change by Brett Parris from Monash University show the graphs of the change in temperature of the air and sea over the last 100 years, and of the air over the past 1,000 years (including projections of what scientists think will happen over the next 100 years).

How do we know that the warming we have experiencing is not just a longer term, natural tidal pattern? Many skeptics who were saying that the earth was cooling, are now admitting that the earth is warming, but say that this is just a natural part of the earth’s cooling and warming cycles. The speed of the current predicted change in climate is much faster than what has been measured in the past. The pace of change we are experiencing is much faster than previous temperature changes. People who study the waves and tides of the world’s climate say that the current increase in temperature cannot be explained by natural causes, and can only be explained by the increase in greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide.

It’s not necessarily the change in temperature of 2-5 degrees Celcius that will hurt us. If it was two degrees warmer today, it would be fine. It’s the extreme events, the waves that come over the top of a shift in the average (tide) that will cause havoc. The heat-waves that kill crops or result in deadly bushfires, the king tides on a rising sea, droughts coming too often, and so on. The waves will knock over the sand-castle, but it will be because they are on a rising tide.

Of course, the funny thing is (if you have a morbid sense of humour such as mine), is that a key solution to man-made global warming is applauded by climate skeptics and opposed by environmentalists in my country of Australia (see article by Barry Brook again).

Written by Paul Dalby, 16 January 2010

Posted in climate change, LitFuse
Tags: australia, barry brook, Brett Parris, climate change, flood, global warming, Indian Ocean Dipole, La Nina

I spent a few days over Christmas reading Keith Richard’s autobiography. It was pretty funny, and easy reading. But I was also fascinated to get an insight into the collaboration between Keith Richards and Mick Jagger as song writers and performers that has been so frutiful over so many years. Collaboration is my line of business and I’m always keen to get a better understanding of its magic.

And it is magic. Keith and Mick are terrific musicians and entertainers, but on their own, mah, I’m not really interested. And judging by their record sales, neither are most others. But when they write and perform together, something new emerges as a result of the collaboration that is more than the sum of the parts. Together, they are one the of the most successful performers in modern popular music.

I see this with scientists as well. I’ve watched two parties come together and invent something entirely new, in a discussion over coffee or in a workshop. The ideas bounce around and then there is either a flash of inspiration and invention, or a rapid coming together of ideas into a new line of thinking. It is very exciting to be a part of, or to bear witness to.

So what makes it work. In the case of the Rolling Stones, it seems to have been a lot of hard work to start with, learning the basics, the history of their music, endless touring and performing, talking with others about music ideas or techniques. And then they require trust in each others abilities and integrity to bounce ideas around, modify each others’ ideas and form something that is a product of a number of minds, with no-one claiming credit only any particular bit.

Hard work and trust. Its the same with scientific collaborations. The most fruitful ones involve the best scientific minds, who have been working hard in their discipline, know its history and have spent lots of time exploring ideas with others. Get a few of these people in a room, who trust each other, and who are willing to contribute ideas without having to defend everything they put on the table, and who will willingly accept that the credit gets equally shared, then magic can happen.

And the scientists I come in contact with are creating ideas with much more value than doo wup with a heavy back beat.

Written by Paul Dalby, 29 December 2010

Posted in Collaboration, LitFuse
Tags: Collaboration, research, science

There is a view that pushing freshwater through the Lower Lakes of the River Murray is a waste of water resources, and we would be better off letting it fill with sea water. The reasons are best summarised by http://www.lakesneedwater.org/position. It says quite rightly that originally the Lakes were estuarine, there is not enough freshwater currently left in the River Murray system to keep the system as healthy freshwater lakes and that the Lakes system evaporates a lot of water.

The problem is that while the Lakes were estuarine (salty to taste but much fresher than marine), they were never marine. Jennie Fluin’s research (pdf) on the history of the Lakes suggests the Lakes were nearly always fresh. Remember that before the barrages were put in, the amount of surface water diverted for consumptive use was about 2,000 GL/y whereas it is now over 13,000 GL/y. The long-term average amount of water that used to flow through the Murray Mouth before development was 12,500 GL/y according to the Basin Plan (pdf). With current levels of development, the long-term modelled average amount of water flowing out of the Murray Mouth is about 5,100 GL/y (figure also taken from Basin Plan). Without the barrages, the system would not only become marine (assuming we artificially keep the mouth open with a dredger), it would probably become hypersaline and start to silt up. My understanding is that in the longer term, the changes that the Lakes would be a thriving marine system are unlikely. More likely, it would be a hypersaline swamp.I know there has been modelling done on this but cannot find any published work. I would be keen for others to point to where such reports could be found.

Originally it was thought that adding marine water would stop the Lakes from turning acid. My understanding is that this is not the case, and that the salts in the marine water would still result in a major acidity event. But again, I cannot find any published reports on this. I would be interested if anyone could point to them.

Currently the Lower Lakes are an internationally recognised wetland system. The reasons are many, but include that it is a nesting site for international migrating birds, and is also a drought refuge for many birds that live across the whole Murray Darling Basin system. The values of the wetland system are listed in this report (pdf). When functioning properly, the Lakes are a breeding ground for fish, and the link between the mouth and the River is necessary for some fish species to breed. These fish find their way right up the River system. Changing the Lakes would not just effect the lower end of the River, but the effects would be felt across the whole Basin.

But probably the main reason the Lakes are being kept fresh at the moment, is that if seawater was allowed to flood in, the salt would very quickly find its way up the River and contaminate Adelaide’s water supply. It would be a brave government who told a million people in Adelaide they no longer had a secure supply of water. Mind you, its also a brave government that tells irrigation communities in the River that they are going to have their allocations cut. Who’d be a politician, ah?

The only way the Lakes can be kept in their current form is to keep more water in the River so that it freshens the Lower Lakes and naturally keeps the Murray Mouth open. The Murray Darling Basin Authority suggests that a minimum of 3,000 Gl is required to achieve this plus keep other wetland systems in the River Basin healthy. By putting this much water back into the system, the River Mouth would be kept open 90% of the time. Without it, the River Mouth will only be open 40% of the time. On a side note, it is tempting to think that the River is back to normal now that it is full. But it is important to remember that this year had perfect conditions for heavy rainfalls in the east of Australia. It was an La Nina year and also the Indian Ocean Dipole was negative. Both result in higher rainfall in Australia and the two of them together happens only a few times a century, and when it does  – usually results in massive floods in the Murray Basin. We had floods this year, but the the River at the lower end is only experiencing average flows.  In the long term, without changes to water extractions, we will witness a drying of the River and Lakes again, with the resulting misery for the irrigation community and damage to the ecological systems that sustain the whole River system.

Written by Paul Dalby, 2 November 2010

Posted in conservation, Coorong & Lower Lakes, LitFuse, Murray Darling, research
Tags: basinplan, lower lakes

The Guide to the Basin Plan is a proposal by the Murray Darling Basin Authority for community discussion on how to restore the health of the Murray Darling Basin. The Plan is a requirement under the Water Act (2007), and is in response to widespread community concern about the state of health of river systems in the Murray Darling Basin (pdf) in Australia that has been growing for a decade.

There can be no argument that the MDB  is in a state of poor ecological health. A Sustainable Rivers Audit (pdf) in 2008 demonstrated that the ecological health of the Basin was mostly “Poor” or “Very Poor”. The Lower Lakes at the end of the system were at risk of turning to acid on a large scale. An internationally important wetland for migratory birds – the Coorong – has changed its ecological character and bird populations are collapsing (David Paton presentation). The total flow at the Murray Mouth has been reduced by 61 percent which means that the river now ceases to flow through the mouth 40 percent of the time compared to 1 percent of the time in the absence of water resource development (from CSIRO Sustainable Yields Report – pdf). There are high levels of salinity built up along the floodplain at the lower end of the River, and important wetlands along the Murray and Darling Rivers are in a poor state of health. There are a number of fact sheets prepared by CSIRO on some of the economics and science that has supported the need for the Basin Plan here.

Over the same period, irrigation communities have also been doing it tough. During the drought over the last decade, water storages were run down to the point that there was no longer water in the system to support water extractions and allocations began to be cut. It is one of the great triumphs of Australian inventiveness and determination that irrigation industries managed to survive through these times. A mix of clever science, an ability to trade water, on-farm innovation and sheer guts got many irrigators through what could have been a decimation of irrigation across the Basin. This is not to say that communities in the region have not experienced real stress and pain, and that some individuals did not have to make realistic decisions to leave their businesses. I am simply dipping my hat to what I think is an extraordinary achievement.

The environmental, economic and social stress over the last ten years has common causes. The drought was long and severe (see presentation by Karlene Maywald), and this compounded a problem of over-allocation of water across the Basin. It is important to recognise that the River stopped flowing at its Mouth in 2002, before the severe drought hit the region. Water had been allowed to be allocated by the government members of the Murray Darling Basin Commission well in excess of the ability of the River system to support them. The powers given to the Commission seemed to be insufficient to stop this behaviour, and as a result, some river catchments in the Basin have become over-allocated (read the CSIRO Report on Sustainable Yields in the Murray Darling Basin).  Peter Cullen summarised the problems neatly in his paper in 2007.

Basin Plan Summary

I have tried to provide a very brief summary of the Basin Plan in the dotpoints below. I would encourage you to read the Executive Summary at the very least. Remember, this is a proposal at this stage. Your input could make a difference.

• Environmental water required: The amount of additional water needed to protect the health of the river systems in the Basin is between 3,000 and 7,600 GL/y
• The total amount of additional water needed for the protection of groundwater bodies ranges from 99 GL/y to 227 GL/y
• The approach used to develop these numbers has been peer reviewed by both national and international peer reviewers. They confirm that the approach is robust and represents the application of the best available science
• Therefore: Extractions to be reduced 3,000 to 4,000 GL, 22–29% of total diversions (or 27–37% reduction from watercourse diversions
• The current diversion limit is about 13,700 GL/y. Based on a proposal to consider an additional 3,000–4,000 GL/y to the environment, the surfacewater SDL for the Basin as a whole would be 9,700–10,700 GL/y. This represents the long-term ‘environmentally sustainable level of take’.
• This allows for a 3% loss in flows as a result of projected climate change
• Economic impact: The Basin Plan will result in loss of 13% of current gross value of irrigated agriculture production ($805 million/y)
• Likely reduction in gross value of irrigated agriculture production: Cotton 25%, dairy 10%, horticulture <5%
• The reductions in water allocations will result in long-term, permanent reduction in the Basin’s gross regional product in the order of 1.1%
• A significant proportion of Basin communities appear to have sufficient diversity of economic activity and social capital that they will be relatively resilient to the proposed reductions in diversions. However, several regions appear to be at a relatively higher risk of substantial social impacts, including in the north-east of the Basin, the Border Rivers, Gwydir, Namoi and Macquarie–Castlereagh regions and, in the southern Basin, the Lachlan, Loddon, Murrumbidgee and Murray regions
• Smaller towns with heavy dependence on irrigated agriculture could experience greater social and economic implications due to their
  dependence and the lack of alternate industries
• The Authority is concerned that the short-term social and economic impacts on some communities and regions could be severe without structural adjustment and has commissioned further analysis on the potential impacts for small and medium enterprises
• Environmental impact: As a result of more water returning to the River, the Murray Mouth open between 90% and 92% of the time instead of 40% of the time (current projections)
• Most river valleys will no longer be rated as ‘poor’ for end-of-system flows
• The increased water back into the River will stabilise and improve decline in threatened species, water birds & native fish including Murray cod
• Policy arrangements: Transition arrangements will be put in place and farmers will be paid for lost entitlements
• Water will only be bought from willing sellers
• In a drought period, the environment and water users share the pain
• As at 30 June 2010, the Australian water purchase program had acquired the equivalent of 655 GL/y of water. In addition, around $4 billion has been committed in principle to irrigation infrastructure efficiency projects. It is conservatively estimated that under the existing program the combination of water purchasing and the investment in water efficiency infrastructure will recover a long-term average volume of surface water of approximately 2,000 GL/y by 2014
• The Basin Plan will not be fully implemented until 2019

Proposed reductions in diversions

Lachlan, Murrumbidgee, Barwon–Darling, Lower Darling (Lower Lachlan Alluvium) – 40%
Namoi, Gwydir, Barwon–Darling (Lower Namoi Alluvium) – 13%
Eastern Mount Lofty Ranges (Angas Bremer) – 38%
Condamine–Balonne (Upper Condamine Alluvium) – 34%
Condamine–Balonne (Upper Condamine Basalts) – 20%
Lachlan Upper (Lachlan Alluvium) – 18%
Murrumbidgee (Lake George Alluvium) – 32%
Namoi Upper (Namoi Alluvium) – 22%
Macquarie–Castlereagh (Lower Macquarie Alluvium) – 40%
Namoi (Peel Valley Alluvium) – 22%
Murrumbidgee Australian Capital Territory (Groundwater) 39%

Note that some of these reductions have already been made due to water purchases or will be made through improvements in efficiency of water distribution.

There is a lot more detail in the Guide to the Basin Plan that I have not touched on here that describes in more detail how the Plan would be implemented. I would encourage you to read the original document if you are interested in this issue.

My view

Putting more water back into the River system is paramount if we want greater certainty for irrigators and healthy river systems that we can all enjoy. Tourism is a major employer in the Basin, and a ugly, sick waterways, and saline floodplains covered with dead trees attracts few visitors. However, I can understand the fear and anger of rural communities who live in the Basin as a result of the proposal put forward by the MDBA. This problem is not of their making. It is government who makes decisions on water allocations. It is the Opposition in Parliament that holds Executive Government to account. It is the Media’s role to interrogate and investigate government decisions and make sure the community understands what is going on. And it is every citizen’s role to hold governments to account and demand good governance or sack the incumbent. In my view, it is our collective failure as Australians that has put us in the position where we need a Basin Plan. It is our collective responsibility to find a way to restore the health of the Murray Darling Basin river systems in a way that does not unduly punish the innocent.

I am not pretending that there are any easy answers here. This is going to be difficult, and will require lots of discussion. The reason it will require lots of discussion, is that we all need to inform ourselves of all sides of the debate. We need to hear and weigh up alternative solutions that are put forward and see if we can find a consensus about how to move forward. Given the tenor of some of the starting positions of they key lobby groups, this may seem a long way off. I am hopeful that these are early starting positions that can mellow over time in the interests of negotiating a win:win outcome.

In the late 1980′s, farming groups and conservation groups came together to address what was then a crisis in dryland salinity and soil degradation. Landcare was formed as a united front for farmers and conservationists who saw that they had more in common that they had differences. The result was a clear mechanism for government to assist and support farmers to better manage their land and protect our common natural resources, and cooperation between farmers and conservationists (who in many cases ended up being the same people).

The same opportunity exists now. A healthy River system is in the interests of all Australians. Prosperous and happy communities in the Basin creates wealth and opportunities for all Australians. Can we work together to achieve these two outcomes? We have time to think this through. The Basin Plan is not adopted until the end of 2011 and will not be implemented fully until 2019.

I would like to challenge some of the assumptions of the current debate and would appreciate your views.

1. Less water means less wealth or less jobs? Perhaps, or it could mean different industries requiring different skills. Are there crops that produce higher profit with less water and more labour? Or different industries altogether? With a major research and investment effort, could we transform agriculture and industry in the region into one that is smarter, more efficient and more profitable?

2. Irrigation is the only driver of the economy in the MDB? It is a major driver, but there is also tourism, services, mining etc. The National Broadband Network will open up massive opportunities for regional communities to attract new businesses and be more entrepreneurial. How can we harness these opportunities to help regional communities thrive?

3. This is about food security? I don’t think so. Our export sectors will be surely hit (cotton, rice and dairy) and the prices of some food will go up (dairy in particular). Horticultural crops will not be hit that hard according to the MDBA. We should also be able to work out how to grow more food with less water through research and innovation.

4. This is about the city vs the country. The city is not against the people in the country. It is for a healthy river system. It is also for a prosperous rural economy and will be willing to pay the price for buying back water to fix past mistakes and to restructure the economy with money for training, research and infrastructure.

5. Putting water back into the River is only good for the greenies. I’m really not an expert here, but my simple maths says that if there is more water in the River, there is more water available during the tough times. This means more certainty for irrigators not less. It means being able to get through the dry times with less cuts to allocation. I could be wrong. I would be interested in other views.

6. The Lower Lakes are just evaporation basins and should be filled with seawater. I have heard many ideas on how to fill the Lower Lakes with seawater to reduce evaporation and save water. This seems like a sensible idea on the surface, but the environmental and economic costs just make it untenable as far as I can make out. The financial costs are much more expensive that saving water through efficiencies upstream and environmentally, any analysis I have seen suggests it would be a catastrophe.

Please leave your comments or joint the debate on twitter using the tag #basinplan

http://twitter.com/presidentdalby

Have your say and get more information

Murray Darling Basin Authority www.mdba.gov.au, 1800 230 067, or email to engagement@mdba.gov.au

There will be an opportunity for community consultation on the Basin Plan being organised by the Murray Darling Basin Authority. You can find out where and when here

ABC webpage for information, comments and interviews on the Basin Plan http://www.abc.net.au/rural/murraydarling/

Lateline interview of Minister Tony Burke, Prof Mike Young and Rob Black http://fb.me/JzS46kxA

Basin Pulse website (a community perspective by Jack Archer)

Water Industry Alliance welcomes the Murray Darling Basin Draft Plan” http://bit.ly/WIAMDB

Community Group website on the Lower Lakes

Paul Myers article in SMH on how building another dam could fix the problems of the MDB

Queensland Economy Watch article hinting that infrastructure development rather than water buybacks will be the most politically palatable tool for making the water savings

(I do not necessarily agree with all of the articles and interview above, I’m trying to collect ideas and put them forward. Please add to these in the comments section)

Written by Paul Dalby, 8 October 2010

Posted in climate change, Coorong & Lower Lakes, LitFuse, Murray Darling, research

This is a guest post by Wayne Meyer, Professor of Natural Resource Sciences at the University of Adelaide recommending and responding to a paper by Beddoe et al. published last year in the American Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.

” I am indebted to David Chittleborough for bringing this paper to my attention. The paper has many authors reflecting its origins in a “problem solving course” and so is an expression of the multi-discipline effort that will be needed to help our societal transition from the addiction to oil and continuous material growth.

I found this paper inspiring – it expresses many of the ideas that I have been struggling with over the last few years. It reinforces the need for us to work hard at identifying the options for doing things differently that will give a better future – a renewable quality of life.

Here is a concluding quote from the paper – I recommend it to you.

“As we learn more about the process of cultural evolution, we can better anticipate the required changes… but the task is huge and will take a concerted and sustained effort if we hope to make the transition a relatively smooth one. It will require a whole systems approach at multiple scales in space and time. It will require integrated, systems-level redesign of our entire socio-ecological regime, focused explicitly and directly on the goal of sustainable quality of life rather than the proxy of unlimited material growth.
It must acknowledge physical limits, the nature of complex systems, a realistic view of human behaviour and well-being, the critical role of natural and social capital, and the irreducible uncertainty surrounding these issues.”

Posted in climate change, Collaboration, research, transdisciplinary
Tags: Beddoe, climate change, peak oil, transdisciplinary, wayne meyer

A recent post on the blog site Larvatus Prodeo has a political focus, but the information that underpins it is worth reflection for scientists. The point from the article that grabbed my attention was the “when political partisans are confronted with facts that challenge their beliefs, rather than weaken those beliefs, they often get stronger”. We sometimes think that by developing a logically impervious argument, we can win hearts and minds and bring about political change. This is clearly not the case. The famous chinese strategist, Sun Tzu, emplores his generals “Do not press an enemy at bay”.  When people feel attacked, they defend. The less options that are given for them to escape, the harder they will fight. For those who are opposed to the conclusions that your draw from your science, how will you present them in a way that makes them appetising enough for your idealogical opponents to swallow?

Written by Paul Dalby, 12 September 2010

Posted in research
Tags: larvatus Prodeo, politics, research, sun tzu

A new $50 million water research institute will be established in South Australia to help secure and manage the State’s water supply.
Premier Mike Rann and the Federal Minister for Innovation Minister Senator Kim Carr announced on 27 May a new Goyder Institute for Water Research, which will position South Australia as a world leader in water innovation and science.

The State Government will provide $25 million over five years for the institute, which will be matched in kind by the CSIRO, the University of South Australia, the University of Adelaide and Flinders University. The institute will provide independent scientific advice on South Australia’s water system, improving the State Government’s ability to forecast threats to water security and develop an integrated approach to water management.

This is an important investment by the State Government in the long term prosperity and sustainability of South Australia, and a great tribute to the vision and persistence of the South Australian Chief Scientist, Dr Ian Chessell.

Written by Paul Dalby, 29 May 2010

Posted in LitFuse, research
Tags: Goyder, Ian Chessell, Institute, research, water