Catching up on the last few weeks, I’ve finally posted a pile of transcripts of Senate Estimates hearings to Christine’s website.
For those with a bit of time on their hands - or fast readers - there’s some choice tidbits there that are really worth finding.
The pick of the lot is the first of many (I’m sure) head-to-heads with Christine and Climate Change Minister Penny Wong - without a doubt two of the more formidable women in Parliament. This one, from the day after Garnaut’s interim report was released, was trying to get to the bottom of how Labor set their 60% 2050 emissions target.
In a similar vein, this transcript digs into whether any assessment has been made of how much greenhouse emissions savings key climate programs will achieve. The answer at this stage is no, but we have good reason to believe that this is already changing, and the new Government is getting serious about some of this.
For those interested in climate change and agriculture, you can find some very interesting discussions and info here.
Christine did some digging around on the Regional Partnerships rorts revealed before the last election, and put a few questions on notice that may yield some important information. She also drove some discussion of rorting of the Tasmanian Community Forests Agreement grants, which were made public by the Audit Office, after that questioning, last week (see Christine’s release here).
Here’s an interesting and useful exchange over greenhouse emissions from the proposed pulp mill and how that intersects with Labor’s election promise to introduce a greenhouse trigger into the Environmental Planning and Biodiversity Protection Act.
This collection of transcripts on oil, peak oil, transport and related issues starts with a delightful exchange between Christine and her favourite sparring partners, ABARE.
On biosecurity, there are a few different exchanges: on general failings with AQIS identified by an Ernst and Young report; on the abalone virus; on import risk assessment for taro; and on weeds.
Questions around the use of pesticides on strawberries provided a fertile discussion.
Finally, Christine spent some time chasing down an issue she’s been working on for a while - PET scanners for regional areas.
I hope this is useful and interesting for people.
[...] Sara @ Farming Friends [...]
I’d really like to invest in renewable energy but I simply can’t find a good vehicle to do this. I prefer to do concentrated solar and I have had a career in engineering project management. I calculate I have enough funds (without need for any borrowing) and appropriate land to personally build a 400kW plant. I could go much bigger if I brought in like minded individuals or if the economics justified borrowing and I had an appropriate contract with a distributor.
However I can’t even get an Australian company to give me a quote. I have contacted many purported CSP companies based on web searches and had no success. I really get the feeling that this industry is not sufficiently mature for either investors or clients like me and I am on the verge of giving up the quest.
I can see I fit awkwardly between a large scale project and domestic user which seem to be the predominant existing paradigms. I want greater efficiency than a domestic installation will get, however I can offer the advantages of a more distributed solution as compared with a monolithic plant.
It seems to be from your blogsite that you do receive advice from people in the industry who know how to deploy CSP. If so they must be hiding under rocks.
Given your contacts, can you help me find them?
Or do I need to wait a few years for them to be ready and try again then?
What are the estimates on cost of impact on biodiversity resulting from nutrient pollution being transported by along shore current from the Great Australian Bight to the Great Barrier Reef and beyond?
What are the total estimates of the increase in nutrient pollution exposed by deep dredging in Port Phillip Bay for super ships, in Botany Bay for desal pipeline, in Moreton Bay for harbour extension?
Can anybody in The Greens understand all south east and eastern Australian estuaries and bays are part of the same south west Pacific Ocean food web ecosystem?
Who is analysing and measuring the nutrients spewing from the dredging in Port Phillip Bay? Who is measuring cost of importing fish for agribusiness feed meal now being imported due to local seagrass devastation and dependent baitfish stock collapse?
The Australian Govt has released its initial report under the Kyoto Protocol.
http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/inventory/publications/unfccc-report.html
According to the report:
It is in some ways unfortunate but unsurprising that Australia has not elected to account for activities under Article 3.4. Article 3.4 of the Kyoto Protocol allows for activities such as forest management and grazeland management. Because these activities are not included it means that when we log forests, then provided that some sort of forest grows back, the emissions will not be included as part of our greenhouse accounts.
This effectively means that none of the forests logged in Tasmania will count towards Australia’s greenhouse accounts.
John C Fairfax @3 Much work is being done on these questions by GBMPA (Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority), some published some work in progress.
Stakeholder meetings and negotiations are ongoing to reduce and eventually eliminate agricultural run off in particular.
Christine et al. Forgive my impertinence in advance, and please take this as with the best of intent.
I have read much of the transcripts and realize ‘you had to be there’ to know the tone of the meetings. However it seemed to me that Penny Wong was calm, quite rational, and in fact had the upper hand. Your questions read as if they were repetitive attacks and angry/aggressive. Whilst the anger is understandable, perhaps it’s best channelled into something more constructive - less adversarial.
I would suggest a change of tactic as it does not come across well and I doubt it’s effectiveness in this case too. I realise it’s frustrating and hard in the heat of the moment, but “Softly softly catchee monkey”.
I disagree mcfarm. The general point you make is something I frequently think about with regard to Green politicians, how they come across in the media and to the general public, and of course our political colleagues. Too often our elected representatives get caught in angry soundbites sounding all reactionary and single-note (and media manipulations notwithstanding), so I share your concern.
But reading through the transcript, as much as I actually quite like Penny Wong and think /hope overall she will be a positive influence on climate change policy in Australia, I think Milne and Brown did exactly the right thing - they didn’t let her get away with the fact that Labor can’t explain their 60% target via any well accepted basis, and I think Wong very clearly lost the exchange. The truth is the ALP plucked out a number which they think is politically acceptable rather than scientifically robust -of course it was set when the Howard Government was still threatening to gain the upper hand in the climate change debate. So like many of their policies Labor went for a conservative alternative, and in this case, certainly not a particularly science-based one.
It’s reasonable that Wong be asked to explain the basis of the target, and how it relates to Labor’s understanding of dangerous climate change, and be held to that point. She simply couldn’t answer the question, and ducked, weaved, dived, etc. - although I give her credit for not using many weasle word tactics.
While I think Bob and Christine could have interrupted a lot less, they certainly don’t come across as angry to me, more determined and disciplined & focussed on a robust discussion - which is exactly what Senate Estimates are meant to be (and democracy of course!).
OK myriad, we agree to disagree. Still, I’ll make a few observations.
Penny Wong invited Christine Milne to take the ‘fight’ outside the room, so my perception of anger and aggression was perhaps not so far off the mark.
Christine Milne interrupted Bob Brown several times whilst he was asking Penny Wong questions, also indicative of the heat of the moment.
More importantly though, was the tactic effective? No as they didn’t get an answer to the question, nor did they manage to unsettle PW into making mistakes. It is the lack of effectiveness that calls for a change of tactic.
One definition of insanity is to do the same thing repeatedly and expect a different result. If this performance is repeated with the same players (as is likely), do we anticipate a different result?
Mcfarm @ 5.
I unofficially represent stakeholders downstream from Frazer Island. At Fraser island a long-term “postulated” eddy spins clockwise. I submit this eddy transports east Aus coast sewage nutrient pollution onto the Swains Reef and into the GBR lagoon, Coral Sea. Coral Sea - Solomon Islands people are now suffering chronic poverty because of traditional staple food and trade fish stock devastation in this ecosystem.
Based on irrefutable evidence I submit Aus farmers are being wrongly blamed for oversupply of nutrients into GBR waters. Science pointing at farmers is failing to acknowledge the Fraser-Swains eddy and therefore can not differentiate between nutrients from Qld agriculture and nutrients from southeast Aus city and town sewage.
Crucial time and money is being wasted by failing to assess all sources of the total nutrient supply that amounts to a level causing nutrient pollution and damage. Seagrass and coral food web nursery downstream is being smothered by invasive algae and epiphyte growth fed on nutrient pollution. There is no management or any control whatsoever of government sewage nutrient levels being dumped into coastal longshore - along shore current that streams northwards into GBR waters, including via the ‘postulated’ eddy.
Is it possible for The Greens to assess two projects at the same time and include a focus on impact of damage and destruction of the marine environment? Really, climate change is not so immediately and critically urgent.
I have a question or two that may narrow things down to ascertain the seriousness or not of matters at hand. Does the Frazer-Swains postulated eddy exist according to science or does it not, and if it does exist, is that eddy a mechanism transporting southern nutrient supply into GBR and Coral Sea waters or not?
John, I have forwarded your post and questions and we may get a reply. I’m not hopeful though, because you say science denies the existence of an eddy, I have forwarded it to a leading scientist in the field, and most policy is guided by the science.
Mcfarm 9
I do not say science denies existence of this eddy. I am endeavouring to find if science denies or acknowledges existence of this eddy. At present and for years this eddy has only been postulated to exist, that is of course, neither acknowledged or denied by science.
This “postulated” eddy between Fraser Island and the Swains Reef is an absolutely vital key toward understanding biology of the SW Pacific Ocean environment and solutions to serious and general food web devastation.
However I think key science is guided by policy. The Greens and science should be about science guiding the science. Thank you for your interest and assistance macfarm.
More importantly though, was the tactic effective? No as they didn’t get an answer to the question, nor did they manage to unsettle PW into making mistakes. It is the lack of effectiveness that calls for a change of tactic.
With all due respect mcfarm, I think you missed the point. Wong didn’t answer because the tactic didn’t work, she didn’t answer because she couldn’t. If Bob and Christine had softened and diverted from their questioning, this wouldn’t have been anywhere near so evident and Wong et al. would go on .claiming to have some sort of credible plan - now we know they clearly don’t have one, and that is very important information for the public to know when it comes to this government and climate change.
.One definition of insanity is to do the same thing repeatedly and expect a different result. If this performance is repeated with the same players (as is likely), do we anticipate a different result?
I think you need to reappraise what the goal and result was here. I’d score it 2-0 for the Greens.
As I said myriad we agree to disagree, and I think a nil all draw is closer to the mark. However, I must correct you on one point.
PW could have answered the question, but she didn’t want to; it would have put the ALP’s policy decision making process in a bad light. So I did not miss the point; PW made the choice not to answer the question because she didn’t want to, not because she couldn’t - there is a difference. Under the circumstances, ‘could not’ implies incompetence, ‘would not’ suggests skill.
This is not semantics, but very important for future exchanges between the protagonists, of which I believe there will be many.
To Mcfarm @ 9
Any reply yet?
Who has estimates on the amount of food needed from land worldwide, and cost to consumers with ability to afford, now that food resources from the world ocean are seriously and generally devastated?
Who has estimates on the amount of arable land required to produce food for aquaculture to supply world human demand for food in place of food from the ocean?
Agricultural management can not afford to hide fact there is virtually no feed or livestock remaining in the back paddock, or, in that big paddock out there in the ocean.
In terms of supply and demand, who has knowledge of estimates of cost increases of food due to shortage from the world ocean, that is, cost in addition to cost increases presently being reported in media where collapse of ocean food supply is not mentioned?
Hello all
Gasification Australia is a company that is involved
in biomass energy production.
We are currently working on an integrated process for
the production of biomass, which will drive the
re-establishment and sustainable management of
indigenous ecosystems (though modified). Central to
this process is the premise that the biomass industry
is flexible in fuel needs. Consequently there is an
opportunity to develop a biomass industry which
utilises processes sympathetic to the ongoing
functioning of indigenous ecosystems and
landscape-scale processes.
Our process in brief:
-Identify regions with marginal agricultural value.
-Identify areas of conservation significance within or
adjacent to this region.
-Create market incentives.
Once established, harvesting techniques should adhere
to the following:
-Harvesting is managed to maintain adequate corridors
for flora and fauna movement across the landscape.
-Harvesting does not remove entire individuals, but
rather leaves some material for regrowth to occur.
-Harvesting takes into account the need for remnant
areas to be left.
-A certain degree of flexibility should be inbuilt to
allow for other forms of non-indigenous forestry.
The forest management and harvesting process would
adhere to the principles embodied in contemporary
landscape ecology theory and would make use of the
contemporary paradigm of multiple stable states and
shifting mosaics throughout the landscape.
While we acknowledge that this approach to natural
resource management possesses logistical difficulties
related to communication between individual
landholders, we see it as an essential and ultimately
achievable progression. We believe there is an
opportunity here to establish an industry that not
only maintains but drives the improvement of the
biological diversity of vast areas not only around
Australia but also around the world.
We hope that this process stimulates public debate and
helps achieve a shift in how the scientific and
general community view natural resource management. We
encourage your feedback and would appreciate
statements of support.
goto http://www.gasificationaustralia.com to view The Emerald Plan
Nothing yet John C Fairfax@13. Did hear some very scary things about our oceans and climate change though. A bit off topic, but here goes.
It seems that the corals and other calcium shelled creatures can survive the acidification of our oceans due to the increases in CO2 absorption. These same animals can survive a 2 degree warming of the oceans due to global warming due to CO2e. BUT they cannot survive both acidification and warming! This research is just out of California in controlled atmosphere and temp experiments.
So we need to start saying goodbye to the Great Barrier Reef, which at projected CO2e +temp levels will dissolve and die. Also the small exoskeleton floating animals that the worlds fish stock depend on will also die, the consequences of which will be devastating - basically mass extinction. The birds, animals and humans that depend on fishing stocks will also be devastated as the ramifications flow through the food chain.
Please don’t take this as defeatist, but it may already be too late to prevent this happening. CO2e at 550ppm and 2 degrees global warming is almost locked in, and this is the threshold, beyond which it appears there is no return. A ‘doomsday vault’ for these aquatic species is not possible or practical either. There are over 9 million of them, and that’s only the ones we know of.
The marine scientists at the convention were scared, depressed and openly discussing “rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic”. Not a happy state of affairs.
I fear we should accept that the reefs are gone, and instead spend our focus saving something that can be saved. We shouldn’t endulge in what are likely to be exercises of heroic failure.
mcfarm @9 and 16
Thank you for reply mcfarm. I anxiously await reply to the reasonable questions I have put and which I believe science will not answer. So much for politics of science which is really not science, is it?
Never mind rearranging the deck chairs because nutrient pollution is not even mentioned in the ocean ‘acidification’ science you refer to. What needs rearranging is jail space to lock up politicians and bureaucrats who are ignoring the real state of the marine environment and especially the devastation or fish stocks on which humans and animals and the world depend.
It is quite stupid to develop aquaculture policy but no ocean biology policy while putting thousands of fish dependent people out of their livelihood just to facilitate a few industrial aquaculture ’suppliers’.
Aquaculture is already dependent on imported feed and grain from already scarce arable land. Are there any estimates on arable land available for all, food grain, bio-fuel grain, livestock feed-meal grain, and aquaculture grain? The ocean once fed and produced fish for free but now it seems tax spike and investment ‘experts’ are just assuming they can feed tens of millions of tonnes of fish from the land.
In my opinion global warming will not occur as predicted because evidence indicates existing and now rapidly worsening food shortages will cause unrest and world war that will close down considerable business and industry including tourism. A significant reduction in use of fossil fuel should result and alter climate change predictions.
Never mind future climate for the moment. Look at the price of fish already. Fish and chips used to be everyday food for poor people but not anymore.
Why is it taking so long to answer the few straight forward questions I have asked? Surely Bob Brown or someone in this country should be able to secure an immediate answer about existence or not of the eddy between Fraser Island and the Swain Reefs.
John C. Fairfax, apologies for overlooking that. It’s not easy to keep track of all the specific questions that come through the blog, with really only 2 of us maintaining it…
Can I ask you please to put into an email some salient points that could be used for either questions on notice or questions for Estimates hearings, or work in the Rural and Regional Affairs Committee? You could send it, I imagine, most conveniently, to Senator.Siewert@aph.gov.au, who has the fisheries and related portfolios, or to Senator.Milne@aph.gov.au, who has biosecurity and similar through the rural affairs committee. Our 2 offices will then look at it and work out the best approach.
That way we should be able to get some detail.
Please note in your email that your query came from the blog.
Tim Hollo @ 19.
Thank you for response. With respect, surely I have already put various salient points for all The Greens to look at on this blog and to work out the best approach.
I do not seek detailed reply. At this stage I seek a yes or no as to whether there is an eddy mechanism between Fraser Island and the Swains Reef. A second question could be whether such eddy is transporting southern east coast city sewage nutrient pollution into Great Barrier Reef waters.
Again with respect, I have been given the run around on Pacific islander malnutrition and Australian marine animal starvation, since 1982. I find the eddy is a key mechanism causing damage to the Coral Sea and SW Pacific Ocean ecosystem. Damage is compounding. Subsequently I now prefer that issues be aired publicly, especially as I am being gagged by major media while the real state of the marine environment is being blatantly covered up by local, state and federal government.
I fail to see how simple answer to presence or not of the eddy could be forthcoming via email and not via this blog for Greens issues, policies and politics.
I think The Greens would gain immense political support if the public could observe genuine green issues being addressed and policies formed.
How difficult is it to study eddy currents in an ocean environment?
Would you have to task an ‘orian’ and a ‘collins’ to bouy track drifters on a regular basis for a couple of years?
Would you settle for the use of a 4 metre tinny, a years living grant, GPS nav and a bunch of variable depth marker floats?
Would you use the work done to get more sponsership and purchase some GPS transponders to remote moniter the bouys/floats.
Would you also carry out a survey using the cruising yaught community, the local fishing folk and commercial fishers?
Would it be a PHD work?
Seems to me that J C F has a legitimate question that needs to be answered. There is no doupt that eddy patterns are evident through out shallow coastal and archipeligo geographic environments. Its a phenomina thats well documented in anthropologic canoe culture lore and extrapolated from maritime charts notations and logs.
In the spirit of lets get real, I will volanteer my body and time for just a small living retainer, to crew aboard any research vessel commissioned to investigate this specific phenomina!
John C Fairfax,
You passion for the postulated eddy and the marine environment (since 1982) is to be commended. However if the latest research about climate change, ocean temp rises, and acidification are correct. There will be no reefs/sea life, as we know them, to protect.
Also the Pacific Islander malnutrition is no mystery; why prepare a garden, plant and tend it, then dig up, wash and cook a yam which you must then share with your extended family and village, when baked beans come ready to eat in a can? Fish, crustacean, clams and other shell fish, are not exempt from this trend either. Simplistic example yes, but a clash of cultures has been going on for many decades at the expense of more than just islander nutrition.
As for shyt’s anthropologic canoe culture (I most fortunately grew up amoungst the PNG, Fijian, and New Caledonian versions of it 50 years ago) the little that remains will be totally kaput as the reefs die. That’s if the rising ocean waters don’t submerge many of the inhabited island atolls first, and an increasing number and severity of hurricanes and cyclones render them uninhabitable, or most likely a combination of the two.
In short, I believe we must tackle the biggest issues first. The biggest of which is climate change. Anything else is rearranging deck chairs whilst we head straight for the now melting iceberg.
So perhaps a question is in order here: should a minor political party with limited resources chase a postulated eddy that may or may not exist, whilst we/ the planet faces the greatest environmental challenge in our history with a mass extinction event already in progress? The answer to this is obviously it shouldn’t. All the more so given that the global environmental disaster which is in progress will render the postulated localised eddy irrelevant.
Please note this is a private opinion, and I do not represent the Greens.
mcfarm @ 22
Thank you for reply. My passion as you call it is just tenacity to finish the task of finishing the job started, to find solutions to malnutrition amongst Solomon Islands people dependent on food from the sea. One thing has led to another including the eddy.
Are you saying protein deficiency malnutrition is no mystery? Fish used to be the traditional staple food for many people and those most impacted can not afford baked beans. Are you sure the problem is a clash of cultures or could it be invention of refrigeration that has allowed floating factory ships from far way to scoop up and take away food from the Southern Hemisphere. Could the over riding problem be political gagging and cover up.
You use the words “biggest issues”. What other issues other than climate change are you referring to? What issue can be bigger than collapse of the whole world ocean environment and ocean food supply that in the past has been providing over 100 million tonnes of complete protein annually?
I submit damage to the world ocean environment and collapse of sustainable ocean food supply is a big issue. Further, I submit there is no rule or reason to tackle just one big issue at a time.
As for the postulated eddy I submit that eddy is a key mechanism in the SW Pacific Ocean that is equivalent in importance to a major organ in a human body. Suddenly this mechanism/organ has been indicated through evidence as allowing poison to travel in the living system. And you suggest ignore it?
As for question of minor party politics, doing nothing on this issue will help to keep the party minor. Truthful and real action toward marine environment devastation and socio-economic impact and solutions would likely do the opposite.
As for postulated eddy irrelevance I suggest you consider how food shortages cause unrest and war and that any future world war will likely be nuclear. Christine Milne understands impact of food and land shortages. Any nuclear war will close down economies and wipe out significant industry and transport that is burning fossil fuel. World food shortages are already causing inflation. Less money is available to buy fuel and for travel.
Already world food shortage is taking up more or the world’s limited available arable land, including for animal feed for costly aquaculture in a crazy and ignorant attempt to replace essential complete protein grown naturally in the ocean for free. It is crazy because even industrial animal feed needs protein supplement.
These are Green issues. Again I ask, is there an eddy between Fraser Island and the Swain reefs or is there not? What resources does a minor party need to refer a simple question to government authorities to find if nutrient pollution is flowing onto the GBR Coral Sea or not?
As for current direct in the area please refer to the following I have recently found online:
http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/MF9870461.htm
John
Why are you so determined to get an answer from the Greens about the existence of an eddy?
They’re politicians, working with the facts in parliament to affect change. I don’t really understand what you’re after here - if there is a significant problem surrounding Fraser Island and the Coral Sea, then we should be helping the Greens by supplying them factual information from scientific sources. They can then use these facts in estimates etc against people like Penny Wong.
I may be wrong, but I don’t think a Greens pollie is going to answer your question adequately. Perhaps a marine scientist would be slightly more relevant.
I am determined because The Greens is a claimed and promoted environment- concerned political party and because question of existence or not of the eddy is vital to sustainable management of the Coral Sea environment where humans are now suffering protein deficiency malnutrition and chronic poverty associated with staple food fish resource devastation. Impact involves fundamental collapse of islander barter trade that was based on exchange of previously available fish.
Marine scientists have failed and apparently continue to fail to answer question of existence or not of the Fraser Isl/Swains Reef eddy, apparently because of political interference with science. Marine scientists lack political qualification and experience. A political party should be able to overcome relevant interference involving gagging and cover up of a vital environment management issue.
Many questions can arise in order to prove or disprove fish depletion. Only one question is needed to acknowedge or deny existence of the eddy and damage to the environment and nations being caused due to it. Fact of the relevant eddy spreading nutrient pollution will help change world ocean environment management policy and world ocean food availability and supply from unsustainable to sustainable. Estimates on world ocean food supply sustainability at present are not possible.
I am presently in Solomon Islands where I notice dinner plates almost smothered with now very costly rice, and I wonder how much less rice/grain may be needed worldwide if meal plates could still include a portion of fish.
According to science. does this eddy exist or does it not?
John, I sincerely doubt a Government/science collusion or gagging conspiracy to deny the existence of a postulated eddy - no matter how potentially important it may be. My direct experience of scientists at the highest levels in government, is that they will always find a way of letting politically unpalatable truths ‘escape’. I rather suspect it is simply a matter of a lack of research funding and/or (rightly or wrongly) one of priorities.
Now as to the protein deficiencies of Pacific Islanders and the rice substitution diet of the Solomon Islanders, I suspect it is far more complex than just a lack of fish, whatever the cause. My simplistic example above of baked beans being ‘easier’ than a traditional diet, is in fact reinforced by your rice example.
Rice or baked beans, the point is a traditional diet has been usurped for complex sociological reasons - none of which I like very much. And it is the same amoungst indigenous peoples the world over. How many indigenous Australians still live a pre European contact life for example? Are there any less roos to be had, any less bush tucker? And ignoring the indigenous peoples for a minute, Australia has lost 30% of it’s farming families in the last 20 years, and 1.2 million Australians eat at McDonald’s every single day of the year! I don’t think these statistics are due to a lack of aquatic protein, but I could be wrong.
Anyway, are you telling me that the Islanders go fishing every day and return empty handed? From the inshore reefs with line and spear, and from the beaches with spear and throw net? Or is fishing just too much effort for the return, and are there now ‘easier’ ways of getting a meal? Have throw nets decimated the in shore fish stocks below sustainable levels? Or perhaps due to the increased infant survival rate over the last 60 years, are the families now too large and extended for traditional food generation and distribution systems? What was the population of the Solomon Islands at the first colonial census, and what is it now?
I could go on with many more questions, but perhaps you have investigated and dismissed these potential contributing causes?
Mcfarm @ 26, I prefer to be informed of existence or not of the eddy, however.
Perhaps scientists you mention are so unaware due to media gagging they are yet to understand the real state of the marine environment to be able to determine whether or not a problem is unpalatable. As for research funding, in the early/mid 1980’s I discussed Western Port Bay seagrass devastation and unprecedented fairy penguin starvation with scientists at Melbourne University who did not even have resources to fuel their single boat to study snapper in Port Phillip Bay. For example then and now The Age newspaper will not report relevant new fish depletion and impact information of substance. Subsequently matters of priority remain generally unknown, including to busy or secluded scientists.
Some scientists are in the know but are apparently intimidated by threat their own research funds may be cut and livelihood lost. I consider Solomon Islands bureaucrats and politicians may not be speaking about depletion and impact because Australia is silent on the subject. SI looks to Aus as a leader. Real or perceived threat of loss of vital aid could be very intimidating. The A$200 million need for Aus to buy back Aus fishing licenses has surely not been explained in full to SI, or Aus people. Marine animal starvation is absolutely covered up by Aus media and government.
A lack of fish is not so simple. Think, what is more vital than food growth and all associated trade and impact of lost fish resource supply? Fish was the staple and essential complete protein food in SI and remained available even after cyclone, incessant tropical rain, fungus, rot and pestilence. Very importantly, fish was the primary commodity traded in the SI subsistence barter economy. Fish was the equivalent to coins and notes in a money economy. Fish was available free without production cost that has to be paid for by consumers, including cost of unsustainable supply of fish protein supplement now being imported into Australia to feed aquaculture. Aquaculture and wild finned fish product is being imported into Aus at cost near A.$1.5 billion annually. Do not be tricked by high value of abalone, lobster, pearl and fattened sashimi tuna that Aus exports. Aus finned fish stocks generally are devastated. Fish and chips in Aus and elsewhere used to be a staple food for poor people.
In my opinion collapse of available fish resources in SI has caused fundamental collapse of the SI barter economy, causing worsening and chronic poverty, sickness, disease, arguments, fights, civil unrest, coup, riot, arson and need for costly regional security paid for by Australia.
Fish depletion has heavy impact in high density living areas where poverty stricken SI people can not afford ‘staple’ baked beans and do not have access to a garden. A survey revealed one youth who told he had air for breakfast. A student I know has no breakfast, no lunch and only rice for dinner. His father works hard to keep and school his children, no time for desperate all day fishing. Many villages are suffering long term hardship. Many people have moved to town where most can not find work even to pay for return fare home. Poverty is now chronic for an increasing number of people., even in once strong and sober villages.
Just 20 years ago a Western SI village people used to eat fish 3 times a day every day but not any more. One man with liver disease can only afford fish 2 or 3 times per month when it comes to market from a distant island village. I have seen a whole month pass without fish arriving and subsequently the market driven by fish for sale did not take place. Able divers are few but spear reef fish underwater at night using torchlight. Imported torch and battery cost is a burden. Spear and throw net fishing from the surface is now nearly impossible, tightly packed baitfish schools no longer available, individual bigger fish few and far between, frightened and flighty. Older people get cold sitting in a canoe all day. Impacted people can not afford a dugout or any canoe due to no fish to barter and no income to pay for one.
SI Langalanga Lagoon people used to catch 60 fish in 1 hour but in 1982 only 1 fish in 1 hour. In 2005 they were catching only 4 or 5 fish per day. Now sometimes a whole day can pass with no fish caught. A SI professional fisherman using canoe has not seen a yellowfin tuna in the water since 1968.
In Western SI a boy fishing with his father used to return with 10 yellowfin but now the boy who is a teacher can not catch any. Absolutely most island fish (shore fish) such as baitfish and bonito, have been taken as bait for ocean tuna caught by international fishing fleets feeding the world, and nothing has been put back in return. Governments have aquaculture policy but no ocean ecology management policy. World food demand and unsustainable fish supply, environment and socio-economic impact consequences and factors have not been estimated.
Without scientific or available empirical evidence the media blames over-fishing for fish stock depletion, whereas fulltime investigative research since 1982 and a lifetime of marine experience provides irrefutable evidence nutrient pollution is a primary cause, including involvement of the Frazer- Swains eddy mechanism, all needing to be most urgently identified and solutions found.
Amazingly perhaps, SI and only one other nation have the most diversified species of fish in the world, but not the most fish stocks. Various species are small and not edible.
Tourism will help SI people generate income to buy alternative food. Employment of SI people in Australia will help both Aus and SI. Solomon islanders are good and friendly people. SI has a 500 year old man made island of shark worshippers and over 900 other islands suitable for holiday of a lifetime.
Anyway, Aus and SI are in the Coral Sea ecosystem that is being damaged by nutrient pollution from Australian cities. Does the Frazer-Swains eddy exist or not?
How long is the expected waiting time for answer to a simple question on this site?
Come on, what is wrong with communication and science and politics these days?
Does the eddy exist or not?
John,
You’re still not making any sense as to why you demand an answer from a political party.
You ask “According to science. does this eddy exist or does it not?”
If you are so desperate to get evidence about the existence of an eddy, go ask science - ask people who are actually involved in such research.
It seems you’re just frustrated that science can’t prove it, and instead insist on blaming it on a media cover-up - ahh that most believable of excuses.
As I said before, the Greens are a political party. They won’t be able to *answer* your question “Is there an eddy?” Why would they be able to answer such a question?
You make it out like all politicians always know the answer, they just aren’t telling us.
If, on the other hand, you are asking the Greens to ask the question to the Government (who might know), that is another thing entirely. If that is the case, go through the proper channels, and stop uselessly badgering on this blog.
I’d ask the Greens moderators to consider blacklisting John on the basis of their comments policy on trolling.
Thanks, Harvey.
John C Fairfax, I have set out for you quite clearly the appropriate channels to see if we can get this question answered for you. The blog is useful, and I can and have forwarded your questions on, but we are a small party with very few staff working on a huge range of issues. If you are determined to get us to try to find an answer to this question, I suggest once again that you email Senator.Siewert@aph.gov.au directly, setting out your evidence for the existence of the eddy, your concerns with what the impact might be, and your specific suggestions for questions to relevant bureaucrats.
I became aware of the concern over the issue. So over the past few months I have each night hopped in my galactic cruiser zoomed to your planet and mapped the currents in detail using alien technology tens of thousands of years ahead of your own.
A few fisherman saw the lights of my cruiser but they had been drinking so I’m confident no one is going to believe them.
The upshot is good news, after extensive study there is no discernable eddy!
Sorry for not letting you know earlier, just wanted to be sure before I said anything.
Everyone can relax.
It is fact that action is occurring, involving sewage nutrient pollution from millions of people being dumped into ocean coastal current daily. So what is the reaction?
And since when do concerned greens people not want to debate or are not able to provde a single answer to such crucial matter?
Can everyone relax? I can’t. Quanto, reveal your study evidence.
There is a sediment dispersal system flowing to proximity of the postulated eddy. Sediment also includes light weight and dissolved nutrient matter that remains near the surface and does not fall over the continental shelf like heavy sand. See
http://aapg.confex.com/aapg/hu2002/techprogram/paper_43867.htm
Prevailing wind in the Fraser Island area is from the south and south east to the north and nor nor west. Ocean near-surface water is driven by wind. Dissolved and light nutrient matter must go somewhere, but where? I submit relevant east Australian coast longshore sediment is going into GBR Coral Sea waters where it is causing major damage to the marine environment.
Harvey S, I seek answer from this green political party about a green issue to which science can not or will not answer. Human malnutrition and unrest amongst SW Pacific Ocean island people is involved, as well as unprecedented marine animal starvation in Australian waters. And you want me blacklisted and gagged? Who are you Harvey S and what are your motives, your rerasong for such demand? If you have any concern you must know the question of the eddy could be asked as a questioin in Parliament by a party representing green issues, policies and politics.
Tim Hollo, yesterday I returned from Solomon Islands where I saw dinner plates covered with rice and no fish. If fish was available, less rice woiuld be consumed, therfore fish depletion is liked to increased rice consumption and increasing food cost.
Last night I saw an ABC cook/chef program showing how to cook fatty pork for 2 to 5 hours and I wondered about the energy cost and heat produced, compared to fast cooking ability of fish that has been virtually replaced by other white meat including chicken and pork. Fish even cooks faster than chicken. Surely the fish depletion situation and causes are green and climate issues are they not?
Today on ABC radio news I heard the CSIRO lacks knowledge of marine environment ecosystems, including with regard to climate change. Could this be reason why my single question about existence or not of the eddy between Fraser Island and the Swain Reefs is not yet answered?
There is no doubt whatsoever that CSIRO has the ability but not adequate resources for relevant science. What therefore is the use of relevant science if it can not be adequately practiced?
Lack of science to understand damage to ocean ecosystems should not be allowed to obstruct or delay or gag urgently required solutions to already existing downstream impact. Downstream impact includes sociial and economic consequences, such as available staple food resource and barter trade collapse, associated chronic poverty and civil unrest amongst Pacific islanders.
The 1992 Rio Earth Summit 16th - Precautionary Principle declares full scientific certainty is no longer essential to prevent further environment degradation. Poverty hindered nations can not manage their environment. Complete science and real aid is required, not incomplete science and phantom aid.
I draw on the Precautionary Principle to request The Greens Party Australia to call in Parliament for a major increase in marine science research resources, including to urgently ascertain existence or not of a Fraser - Swains eddy mechanism ability to disperse southern city nutrient pollution northwards into GBR, Coral Sea, SW Pacific ecosystem waters.
(apology for typo error in previous posting)
Quanto,
Furthermore, “no discernable eddy” does not mean no eddy.
In the early 1970’s and again in the mid 1980’s I informed government and CSIRO of the fast open ocean speed and direction of the East Australian Current when people were missing at sea with official search in the wrong direction. A mother and 18 month and 3 year old and 2 men were lost. In 1984 with 4 men lost, nine children became fatherless. Government search procedure was eventually changed.
Subsequently I am aware of satellite current measuring technology that is not able to discern near-coast current due to heat coming off the land. I think shallow Swains Reef coral reef would give off similar confusing heat.
Scientific tracking of a buoy by satellite led to existence of the eddy being postulated. Existence of this possible eddy needs to be urgently acknowledged or denied by science, yes or no, categorically.
I submit eddy-associated research will also scientifically identify nutrient pollution killing Australian estuary seagrass nursery that is vital in the food web of the SW Pacific Ocean ecosystem.
Senator Siewert can not answer the question but will undertake enquiries and advise when possible.
Meanwhile does anybody know, does the eddy exist or does it not?
John Fairfax,
We’ve had the following response to your question from the Australian Marine Conservation Society:
Tim Norton @ 35.
Thank you Tim but that reply does not answer the yes or no question. Nevertheless in response, not so long ago humans were not aware aeroplanes could fly.
Yes, heavy suspended sand migrates north along the east coast of Australia and in part ends up in the Coral Sea, but where is the lighter-weight suspended and dissolved nutrient matter transported to? Dumped raw sewage from entire major cities is not normal process. Really, the relevant current is strong enough to transport sand. At the tip of Fraser Isl the heavy sand falls deep over the Continental Shelf. Significant lighter nutrient matter surely remains suspended at or near the surface, does it not?
Deep dredging on the Gold Coast was followed by a significant new outbreak of toxic lyngbya algae downstream in Moreton Bay, Seagrass News then later reporting lyngbya algae identified in inshore waters of the Whitsunday Islands (downstream northwards).
New science is urgently needed. Meanwhile there is various irrefutable evidence indicating sewage nutrient matter from south of Fraser Islands is entering the same longshore current that transports the heavy sand north into the Coral Sea. So, exactly what happens to the nutrient matter needs to be urgently explained because it can not just disappear. Unless refuted, this nutrient matter is linked to killing RAMSAR seagrass and World Heritage GBR coral.
Without having to delve into storage for reference material here and now, research indicates most light weight east Australian coast sediment deposit occurs on the northerly Queensland coast, not elsewhere on or near relevant coast. Prevailing S-SE wind influence on surface current ensures fresher water with bonded nutrients, flow to or beyond the same north Qld sediment deposit area. Are these sediments deposits denied?
My “source of concern” is a result of findings from full-time investigative general research since 1982 into causes of seafood depletion-linked malnutrition amongst SW Pacific ecosystem island people. Photographic and current flow evidence indicates suspended nutrient pollution is feeding algae that is killing seagrass food web nursery, causing unprecedented mass starvation of marine animals, including in Moreton Bay where I have been a member of AMCS. The lyngbya and mass mutton bird starvation is known to the AMCS.
What have I stated that can be refuted? Is there an eddy assisting nutrient sediment flow between Fraser Island and the Swain Reefs, into GBR waters, or is there not?
John Fairfax,
I forwarded your post back to the AMCS, and received this reply:
I will ask your question to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, and encourage you to do the same. To make things easier in obtaining an answer, would you be able to supply your ‘various irrefutable evidence’ and ‘full-time investigative general research’, so that we can ask with more exactness?
I’d also suggest sending this evidence over to AMCS, so they can investigate the issue.
Tim Norton @ 37
At 23 on this thread I have already posted scientific reference to what is known about wind and an apparent eddy current drift between the Swain Reefs and Fraser Island. n.b.
http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/MF9870461.htm
At 32 on this thread I have likewise posted scientific reference to the dispersal system transporting sediment into northern Fraser Island waters. n.b.
http://aapg.confex.com/aapg/hu2002/techprogram/paper_43867.htm
I can supply scientific drawings of an algae tongue in fresh water streaming south off the Swain Reefs but can not post it on this website. Do you have a contact at AMCS and address?
What degree of exactness is presently essential from me? I am the one seeking the exactness with a yes or not answer.
Is there need for a Statutory Declaration and samples from Brisbane authorities to establish sewage nutrient matter is being dumped unmanaged into the relevant sediment dispersal system flowing north with sand through Moreton Bay? Indeed, examine the Landsat picture evidence of the Moreton Bay Catchment as published within the Moreton Bay Scientific Study, with sand sediment current drift clearly visible flowing northwards.
Do you need samples and data to establish evidence that sewage contains nutrient matter? Let us call scientific expertise as witness to state whether or not an over supply of nutrient matter can amount to pollution and feed invasive algae that can damage coral, or not? How much evidence do you want? Surely the above website references will suffice at this stage.
I have already been in contact with GBRMPA and CSIRO and no answer has been provided because data confirming or refuting existence of the eddy apparently does not yet exist. It seems the GBRMPA is bound by jurisdiction, handicapped, Fraser Island waters not included. The CSIRO has no biological understanding of The Sediment Dispersal System on the Southeast Margin of Australia.
In my opinion according to various evidence, there is dire urgent need for Senate estimates and whatever else government procedure is required for urgent scientific study of the entire Australian east coast sediment dispersal system. So I am endeavouring to begin that process with question of the eddy, does an eddy exist or does it not?
I also now question, is east coast of Australia wind and surface current drift in the eddy area capable or not of transporting toxic lyngbya algae spore or cells, from Moreton Bay to the Whitsunday Islands north west of Fraser Island?
Surely these green issues are of interest to The Greens Party.
John Fairfax,
These are certainly issues that are of concern to the Greens, and we will endeavour to follow up the question.
I will email you privately the contact details for who I have been speaking to at AMCS, as I don’t want to publish them here on the site.
To Tim Norton @ 39.
I have followed you advice and contacted AMCS. Reply just received advise quote, “We cannot answer the question”.
I have replies stating, “I call on the AMCS to seek urgent answer to question of existence of the eddy or not because of the seriousness of matters involved”.
I also reiterate call on The Greens to also urgently seek answer, or justifiable explanation why the question can not or will not be answered.
Surely the question must be asked in Parliament. If not why not?
In view of recent developments on the following thread I wish to rephrase my question about existence or not of the relevant eddy.
Will the boundary jurisdiction at the Fraser- Swains GBR ecosystem area be amended to allow GBMPA and JCU science to assess presence of the relevant eddy or not, and if not, why not? See:
http://greensblog.org/2008/06/24/caring-for-our-country-or-is-it/#comments