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

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

” 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.”

Written by Paul Dalby, 12 September 2010

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

Mr Matthews said that some of the key requirements were for less-fragmented water science institutions, optimisation of research infrastructure; and better user/provider connectivity.

In South Australia, there have several attempts to achieve this over the last few years, but the formation of a single Water Agency under Minister Paul Caica, and the proposed formation of a single, virtual water research “institute” in South Australia is an exciting new development and should be a huge leap forward in achieving the aspirations outlined by Mr Matthews.

Some of this article is quoted from EnviroInfo. Subscribe

Written by Paul Dalby on 16 April 2010

The reason we have a political process is to try to balance all of this information and all of these needs. You will never be able to model it perfectly and come up with THE right answer. We live in a political system where all ideas are contestable, even ideas based on very sound science. This is a good thing. Whenever communities have vested all knowledge and power in a few people – disaster has always ensued.

If scientists want to be influential in this world, they must be:

1. Very honest about what the science says. As we can see from the climate change debate, it does not help the cause of putting across a credible message on science when the results are exaggerated to try and build support for a particular cause. Let the truth tell its own story. In the end civilisations rise and fall on the political process. There is not much you can do to change that. Go along for the ride.

2. Very vocal about what the science says, but more circumspect about what the response should be. Scientists can appear arrogant when they presume that they know the right response. It is important to suggest policy responses and explain what you think the implications are of different approaches, but stick to your knitting and talk about what you know about most of all – the science.

3. Tell your story. People love stories, which is why singing contests, sport, soap operas and crime shows are more popular than shows about science. If you want to reach more people, put a story around what you are trying to say. Corey’s blog-post on  how frogs were disappearing because of the global appetite for frogs legs went viral because it was a interesting story. And the science message got out as a result. Some scientists  complain to me that this is “spin”. True, but not in the sense that you are trying to deceive someone, just that you are trying to get them interested. You are showing respect to your audience by “spinning” the message in an interesting way.

4. I need to hear it at least seven times before I’ve heard it. Putting out one media release, or one article or one presentation and thinking that you’ve done the job of communicating is delusional. Good communicators get their message out lots of times in lots of different ways. When your audience has heard the message so many times they are getting sick of it, (think Kevin Rudd and “working families” or Tony Abbot and “great big Labor tax”) they have finally heard it.

5. Maintain patience and pressure. It is sometimes frustrating that no action occurs even when you think it is obvious that it should. Don’t burn your bridges by taking it out on policy makers in government. You may need to work with them for many years to come, and they are likely to get more powerful over time, not less.  But on the other hand, don’t let up the pressure. Maintain a professional tone to your discussions and presentations in the media. In the end, you will mostly be respected if you keep telling the story about the science. And policy makers can be just as frustrated as you about the lack of action as you are, even if they are not allowed to show it.

I’ll finish this post with a quote from Machievelli, one of the great thinkers on political science, said that “… nothing is more difficult than to introduce a new order. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new…”

True

Written by Paul Dalby on 2 February 2010

I see researchers becoming more interested in working across disciplines, working collaboratively and solving real world problems, but not for the sake of it, to discover new things and do things previously unimaginable. They still work alone and on narrow fields of intense specialty, because break-throughs are found there also. If trans-disciplinary research is going to become more widely adopted, it needs to demonstrate its value, and there need to be tools individuals can pick up to quickly adopt their current expertise to new problem solving processes.

Mike Seyfang’s blog on design, thinking and science describes nicely how transdisciplinary science is a substantially difference science than traditional science collaboration. It requires new skills. In a podcast linked to on Mike’s blog, Tamath Rainsford argues that for transdisciplinary science to succeed, we need  “specialising generalists”, people who know enough about a discipline to add value to discussions across a number of discipline areas (eg. Wayne Meyer from University of Adelaide can debate eloquently with economics, agronomists, modellers and soil scientists).  She also argues that we need to train scientists with new tools  so that they can more effectively participate in transdisciplinary research, such as soft operations research, systems thinking, heuristics, philosophy, working in teams, communication, risk management, decision making processes.

I have seen scientists training their students in these tools for the last 5-10 years, and the number who are is growing. Hugh Possingham, now at the University of Queensland, trains his students in these tools, as well as games theory. His research group is one of the most successful ecological research teams in Australia.

Mike list some common themes that emerge from his reading and thinking on transdisciplinary research. Mikes learnings are in italic, followed by my comments in normal txt:

• Play – a key ingredient in emergent behaviour, playing around with stuff leads to interesting possibilities and great questions. Who resources this stuff? The challenge fopr me is that I need to grow the business. Play must lead to tangible results reasonably soon, or must not distract (too much) from going to where the resources are
• Expand – pure reductionist thinking and methods have served us well in the scientific method and will continue to do so. While we are busy learning more and more about less and less, we should take time out to expand our horizons from time to time. Agree, but again, who is encouraging, rewarding and resourcing? Is this why large research programs are successful over small, short term projects. They give people the opportunity to experiment and play?
  
• Work at the boundaries – one of the key tenets of Transdisciplinarity is to step outside the comfort zone of a single discipline, go beyond collaboration with other disciplines by working at the boundaries. Warning: will expose one to risk and possibly the need to develop new language. (worth it). I’ve seen some of the most exciting ideas for research invented around a table when two specialists meet for the first time. It is beautiful to watch.
• Embrace Risk – learn to fail cheaply and often. You have described my life.
• Open Co-operation – pass it forward, share. The best minds do this. They are not afraid to give ideas away. Because they know they have too many for one lifetime to resolve.
• Swim up-stream and be counter-cultural. I’m not sure this relates to trans-disciplinary science, but it makes old rebels like Mike and I feel smug saying it.
• Trans-disciplinary does not replace traditional research – is an added component. Let’s be careful about telling over-worked, under-paid scientists that they need to throw away their old models and adopt our new great ideas on how they should be doing research. These are new tools to add to the researchers amoury, along with statistics, gell blocks and coffee.
• Speed the Process of Innovation through prototypes, enabling more breakthrough. I have been slow on the uptake on this. I have been resistant to the idea of investing development funds on research, but perhaps if targeted cleverly, will lead to good returns in terms of new business.

Would love to read responses to these thoughts.

Written by Paul Dalby on 1 October 2009

Written by Paul Dalby on 16 September 2009

In July 2007, I posted a link to presentations by Professor David Paton at the University of Adelaide on the “Death of the Coorong“.  David Paton, the leading expert on the Coorong, described the horrible decline of birds, plants, fish and invertebrates in the Coorong system, as a result of years of man-made and natural drought conditions. It should be noted that 90% of waterbirds in the Murray Darling Basin used to live in the Lower Lakes and Coorong. David Paton said the result of continued inaction is likely to be the extinction of some species in the Coorong, and perhaps the compete extinction of the Fairy Tern globally. His student, Dan Rogers presented research on waterbirds in the Coorong in November 2007.  Dan argued for an integrated management system to support policy decisions on managing the Coorong.

In May 2008, I pointed to a series of videos available for download from Catalyst describing the problems of acid sulphate soils and low flows in the Coorong and Lower Lakes. In one of the videos, Mike Young from the University of Adelaide, proposes a different water sharing model for the River Murray that would give the environment a larger share of the water in the system at low flows. In March 2008, I had interviewed Mike Young on the challenges facing the River Murray system and he proposed two key steps to create a “Future-proofed Murray Darling Basin“

1. Replace the current entitlement and allocation regime with a robust one that can be confidently explained as one that will work no matter what the climate scenarios in the future

2. Implement the resultant change in a just a fair manner.

This has not happened yet, and given the pace of reform nationally, is unlikely to happen for some time yet, if at all. This is a complex problem, and it is difficult to trade off the needs of different users of water in the River system, especially when you are not always sure who really needs what water and when.

In a piece of positive news, a recent study by scientists on the Coorong have identified an important number – 300GL. This is the amount of water that needs to flow out at the end of the Murray River to maintain the health of the River. This number is based on an impressive, interdisciplinary and integrated research program called CLLAMMecology, but it gives a simple piece of advice to government. You need 300GL of water flowing out the bottom of the River to maintain the health of the Coorong. The Coorong is a Ramsar wetland, and government has a responsibility to the global community to protect this habitat which supports bird populations that migrate to countries across the northern hemisphere. I suspect 300GL of water out of the bottom of the system will deliver a whole range of other environmental benefits upstream as well. 300GL would be 2% of diversions in an ‘average’ year, and 5% of diversions in years more typical of the last five. Setting such a target would meet Mike Young’s principle of  “entitlement and allocation regime…that can be confidently explained ….that will work no matter what the climate scenarios in the future “.

You can download podcasts and videos from the CLLAMMecology study presentations here.

You can register for the Litfuse feed on your i-tunes or mp3 player: http://feeds.litfuse.com.au/litfuse

Written by Paul Dalby on 22 July 2009

Written by Paul Dalby on 6 June 2009

Written by Paul Dalby on 26 May 2009

“Last week House Energy and Commerce members approved by 51-6 an amendment to the Waxman-Markey bill offered by Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) to create a clean energy bank .  As Greenwire explained, the amendment would “create an autonomous Clean Energy Deployment Administration (CEDA) within the Energy Department” that would “provide a suite of financing options, including direct loans, letters of credit, loan guarantees, insurance products and others” for “energy production, transmission, storage and other areas that could reduce greenhouse gases, diversify energy supplies and save energy.”

At the same time as investment in clean technology increases around the world, investment in oil exploration is falling,which may lead to another oil price spike in the medium term.

“…Oil firms must work doubly hard to replace declining fields and to increase output. Yet the oil industry is short of equipment and manpower, thanks to underinvestment in the 1980s and 1990s, when prices were low. As soon as the world economy starts growing again, the theory runs, demand for oil will once again outstrip the industry’s ability to supply it. In other words, the global recession has only interrupted the “supercycle” of which many analysts used to speak, during which the normal boom-and-bust cycle of oil and other commodities would give way to a protracted period of high prices, as ever-growing demand from emerging markets swallowed everything the extractive industries could produce.”

Where does this leave Australia? Weak and vulnerable in my view. The recent Federal Budget was analysed by Professor Barry Brook from the Environment Institute at the University of Adelaide. There is little cheer in the budget for entrepreneurs in the clean energy game according to Barry’s analysis, particularly in relation to the flawed design and inadequate targets of the CPRS. And Australia is an economy heavily reliant on energy. It’s a big place with relatively few people, extreme climates, and all of our capaital cities will be reliant on energy-hungry desalination for their water supplies. We are rich in coal, but produce only 60% of our oil consumption, so we rely on imported oil and petroleum products. A spike in energy prices will result in pressure on Australia’s economy, and leave us reliant on imported technology to meet renewable energy targets and needs, much like we rely on imported desalination technology.

I would add a note of optimism. The changes to the research and development (R&D) tax credit scheme will “double the level of assistance currently available to small companies and remove the cap on the amount of R&D expenditure subject to a tax credit. Large companies with more than $20 million annual turnover will receive a 40% R&D tax credit instead of tax deductions, which is a 10% net – benefit – one third higher than the current regime.  Small companies will receive a 45% R&D tax credit, which amounts to a 15% benefit – twice the current level.  Small companies with tax losses will be able to ‘cash out’ their R&D credit when they file their income tax return.”

As a modest investor in commercial R&D myself, this is a great incentive, and one that the Rudd government should be applauded for. Let’s hope it stimulates Australian businesses and entrepreneurs to invest in clean energy. More targeted approaches, such as a national feed in tariff, and a redesigned CPRS system along the lines suggested by Professor Brook would be even better. An increase in oil price would be a much more economically damaging driver of investment by Australian researchers and entrepreneurs in clean energy solutions. A Clean Energy Bank for Australia would be visionary.

Written by Paul Dalby on 24 May 2009

http://www.data.gov/

http://www.whitehouse.gov/open/innovations/

President Obama is the first world leader to really ‘get’ the power of online social networks. These initiatives aim to put government data online (that’s right, ‘other’ people will be able to download it and ‘misinterpret’ it ), and champions more open, accountable and transparent government using the web as a tool.

I’m thinking of emigrating.

Written by Paul Dalby on 22 May 2009

Biologists like Corey should know that the selection pressure for being able to respond to immediate scary, dangerous things has been much more powerful than the selection pressure for being able to see well into the distance and respond to dangers that will effect populations down the track. Our DNA just isn’t up to the task. A few outliers and individuals who get pleasure and/or income directly from biodiversity conservation might really care, but the general huddled masses who vote people in and out of government do not so much. We might donate money or sign petitions, but we rarely vote governments in and out of power based on their biodiversity conservation policies. We also rarely choose NOT to buy something because of that companies impact on biodiversity (except dolphins and tuna – I give you that). This is not true for climate change. It was not an issue globally until there were heat waves in Europe, unseasonal hurricanes in the US and a long, long dry period in Australia. It is a direct impact that got people scared. The fickle populations who could not give two hoots about climate change the year before voted governments out of power because they were soft of climate change, and now you can buy carbon neutral beer! Seriously – a beverage MADE with carbon dioxide!!

It is not government who are the problem. It is us. Our brain is too interested in the immediate problems of how to survive, get sex and not be bored. Genetic engineering is required if you want lots of interest in biodiversity conservation. Or we need the bees to die out to show us the direct impact of no free services.

Written by Paul Dalby on 20 May 2009

Professor Wayne Meyer from the Environment Institute at the University of Adelaide, recently presented a new research program in the University of Adelaide – Landscape Science. It includes an excellent summary of the Natural Resource Management (NRM) governance and delivery structures in Australia and South Australia. Wayne makes a strong case for undertaking integrated landscape science (studying how all the bits of the landscape interact) to develop decision support tools that can be used to assess the cumulative impact of decisions by individuals and government on the landscape.

Written by Paul Dalby on 23 April 2009

The one strength science has in environmental debates is its neutrality. If scientific input into policy debates becomes based on things other than a dispassionate analysis of data and information, it simply reverts to political debate and loses its special status. It reverts to being just another form of opinion.

We should value, cherish and continue to demand neutrality in scientific interpretation. While the science comunity may be frustrated by the sometimes outrageous twisting of facts, deliberate misinterpretation, or even straight out lying, by journalists and politicians, in the long run, scientists will have the greatest influence in policy debates if they are seen as being scrupulously dispassionate in their scientific interpretation in scientific reports.

Written by Paul Dalby on 12 January 2009

Rebecca Lester on Coorong and Lower Lakes

Acid Mud in the Lower Lakes

Dan Rogers on Aquatic Birds of the Coorong

A Regional Science Forum for the Lower River Murray (over 20 blog posts and podcasts)

Mike Young on ideas for “future proofing” the Murray Darling Basin

Written by Paul Dalby on 29 October 2008

Written by Paul Dalby on 29 October 2008

Written by Paul Dalby on 22 October 2008