The Adelaide Advertiser has not published your letter to the editor in response to the very crazy claims it published on Saturday from Minister Paul Caica. It published errors of fact and has not corrected them.[1]

The news today in Adelaide is the new Goyder Institute Report which can be downloaded here:

http://www.goyderinstitute.org/uploads/Expert%20Panel%20Final_020412.pdf

This report has been written by some of our most popular scientists including: Aldridge KT, Jolly ID, Nicol J, Oliver RL, Paton DC and Walker KF. This is the same Dr Walker who told the ABC TV Media Watch team that Lake Alexandrina has always been a freshwater lake.

I know this report is going to be demanding more freshwater for South Australia and more freshwater for the Lower Lakes. It will be very popular in Adelaide.

We lost the Grand Prix to Victoria. Now we want their water.

No one wants to hear your sensible practical solution of restoring the Murray River’s estuary. In South Australia we just want to complain and we want more water and the Adelaide Advertiser wants to sell more newspapers.

Charlotte Ramotswe.

PS Regarding that Media Watch researcher: Xanthe Kleinig. There is a Kleinig’s Hill near the town of Victor Harbour. Should Media Watch have told viewers their chief researcher perhaps had a family interest in more freshwater or told views that this was another Kleinig family? And Kleinig’s Producer at Media Watch Lin Buckfield is a member of a band called Bully Girls.

******
[1] http://jennifermarohasy.com/2012/04/south-australian-water-minister’s-foolish-statements-about-murray-river-and-ngarrindjeri-culture/

More recently the South Australian government has been encouraging the subdivision of land around the shores of Lake Alexandrina.   That’s irresponsible.

Now its approved the subdivision of land on the edge of Lake Albert.  Apparently it’s to be a canal development with the canals full of freshwater.

I guess that’s just another vested interest to join all the others around Lake Alexandrina and Albert lobbying for more of the waters from the upper Murray and Darling.

Yep.  On my drive home today on Greenhill Rd., I saw this huge sign advertising lifestyle lots for sale called “Meningie Waters”.  Here’s a description from the local newspaper…

“Coorong District Mayor Roger Strother said plans for the development had been delayed for the past six years because of drought with some adjustments made to the design to cater for a similar situation.

“Originally the canal system was suppose to be connected to the lake but now it won’t be,” he said.  Mayor Strother said developers had taken into consideration the environmental needs of the lakeside
township and had met all protocols.

“This is being developed on a low salty flat area so won’t affect any wildlife in the lake,” he said.

“They plan on using a lot of groundwater to fill the canals and will have to pump some water in.”

From Charlotte R.

http://www.murrayvalleystandard.com.au/news/local/news/general/meningie-set-for-population-explosion/2446288.aspx

http://www.meningiewaters.com.au

http://www.facebook.com/MeningieWaters

Of course the Adelaide Advertiser has never let the facts get in the way of a good story and so, without explaining that there is a local solution to the problem, their journalist Catherine Hockley supports the advertisement organised by the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) with a nonsense story headlined ‘Politicians unite to rescue the Murray’

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/politicians-unite-to-rescue-the-murray/story-e6frea6u-1226080269703

This is parochial politics at its worst and shows a complete disregard for upstream environments and communities.

Of course, during the recent drought the Lower Lakes did suffer, and it was so unnecessary. The South Australian government choose to keep the barrages – build across the bottom of the Lake system – closed keeping out the Southern Ocean. Thus the lakes started to dry-up and acid sulphate soils were exposed.

A new website ‘Myth and the Murray’ corrects some of the many myths spun by the Adelaide Advertiser over many years:

1. Murray’s Mouth first closed in 1981.

The narrow breach in the coastal sand bar-dune system, now officially the Murray River’s mouth, was closed when the first European visited the area in 1830.

Charles Sturt described in detail how his men were unable to maneuver their boat from Lake Alexandrina to the Southern Ocean because they were “blocked by sandbars”.

During the recent drought a sand-dredge worked to keep the narrow inlet open. As soon as the drought broke, the dredge was no longer needed.

2. Lakes will become hypersaline.

There is a fear that without the barrages the lakes would become hypersaline, in reality, without the barrages, the natural tidal prism would facilitate scouring of the Murray’s mouth and flushing of the system.

Robert Bourman and his Adelaide University colleagues describe the dramatic change that occurred with the construction of the barrages:

“Originally a vibrant, highly productive estuarine ecosystem of 75,000 ha, characterized by mixing of brackish and freshwater with highly variable flows, barrage construction has transformed the lakes into freshwater bodies with permanently raised water levels; freshwater discharge has been reduced by 75 percent and the tidal prism by 90 percent.”

3. Lakes will become acidic.

During the recent drought the barrages acted as dykes; water levels dropped and Lake Albert dried-up exposing potential acid sulfate soils. These soils are harmless as long as they remain undisturbed and waterlogged, but when exposed to oxygen sulfuric acid forms.

The development of acid sulfate soils can be avoided by restoring the Murray River’s estuary and letting the area fill with seawater during drought.
*************

The Lower Lakes can only be saved with seawater; with a return to their natural estuarine state.

If the Adelaide Advertiser, the ACF and South Australia’s politicians really cared about saving the Lower Lakes they would be getting behind The Myth and the Murray Group and their well-researched and practical solutions…

www.mythandthemurray.org

Leading speaker for the motion was Mr. Matthew Bell (Climate Change & Sustainability Services, Ernst & Young), supported by Ms. Kellie Caught (Acting Head of Climate Change, WWF Australia) and Mr. Kirby Anderson (Policy Leader, Energy Infrastructure, General Electric).

Speaking against the motion were Mr. Michael Matusik (Director, Matusik Property Insights), supported by Mr. John Humphreys (Director, Human Capital Project, University of Queensland) and Professor Bob Carter (James Cook University and Institute of Public Affairs).

The audience of about 150 persons were treated to some pointed exchanges, with the team speaking for the motion concentrating rather more on the science, and their opponents almost exclusively on the economics and cost:benefit analysis of the introduction of a carbon tax.

One compelling argument was the observation that to introduce a carbon tax of $25/tonne of carbon dioxide would cost around $100 billion by 2020, for a notional benefit of 0.0002O C (two ten thousandths of a degree) of warming averted.

The opponents of the tax were awarded a clear win, on rendered applause, by debate Chairman Mr Mark Ludlow (Australian Financial Review).

The briefing was provided by the only scientist on the Committee, Professor Will Steffen. A copy of the slide presentation that Steffen used has recently come into the public domain.

Quadrant Online has today posted an analysis by four independent scientists and an economist of Professor Steffen’s presentation, http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2011/04/government-misadvised .

The analysis demonstrates that Steffen provided the MCCC with only alarmist, inaccurate IPCC advice; no attempt was made to familiarize committee members with the reasons that many independent scientists all around the world view the IPCC as a deeply flawed organisation, whose advice on climate change is almost valueless.

This analysis of Steffen’s advice of last November is the latest in a series of papers critical of IPCC science which go back to 2009. The Australian government and its advisory scientists have failed to respond to any of these critiques, apparently hoping that if they ignore criticism it will go away. Given mainstream media attitudes, this ploy has regrettably proved to be very effective.

Australian citizens – who will be paying the costs of the intended new carbon dioxide tax – should demand that the press and government alike listen to independent scientific assessments of the global warming issue, and undertake critical analyses of the unsatisfactory scientific advice that has been provided by Professor Steffen and the IPCC.

************
Other due diligence reports & related commentaries on Australian Government advice on climate change can be found here: http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2011/04/due-diligence-reports

I feel compelled to alert your readers to the significant property developments occurring in the vicinity of the Lower Lakes in South Australia.

There is the canal development on Hindmarsh Island with pictures at this link:
http://tmhi.com.au/home/

The ‘Wellington Marina’ development occurred during the drought. No water at all on these ‘waterfront’ blocks when the levels are minus 1m AHD. And my guess is that even at sea level, hardly a tinny would float. The Wellington development has houses on it that look maybe 10 years old:
http://www.wellingtonmarina.com.au/index.htm

This other one, ‘Mannum Waters’, was approved by the state government during the height of the drought. It’s a big one and the city of Mannum appears to be welcoming it to boost tourism.
http://www.mannumwaters.com.au/

At ‘Milang Bay’ it’s not canal style, but lake front:
http://www.sarahhomes.com.au/land_dev.php#MILANG

Then there is ‘Pelican Shores Estate’, again not canal style either, but dependent on water at Clayton Bay for water views. No website but a lot of blocks for sale.

There must be a lot of money tied up in these developments!

Of course they depend on the river being at an artificially high height above sea level.

What I mean is that these developments depend on the barrages maintaining what you have correctly described as an artificial freshwater lake system.

Most Sincerely
Charlotte Ramotswe

This link is to a petition urging the Prime Minister to delay the introduction of carbon tax legislation until after an election:

http://www.epetitions.comeonaustralia.com/petition/sign/pid/9

Please sign the petition if you agree with its terms.  Thanks, Case Smit

The Prime Minister explained that by making products that generate carbon emissions more expensive, people will use less of them and this will be a good thing for Australia.

For example, if the carbon tax increases the average Australian family’s electricity bill by $500 and the electricity bill of an average small business by $2,000, families and businesses will use less electricity and this will be a good thing for Australia.

At the same time the Prime Minister announced the tax, she explained that families would be compensated for any increase in electricity charges.   But how will families be compensated?  The Prime Minister must be careful that families are not compensated in a way that would result in them using more electricity.

Indeed, wouldn’t it make more sense if the Prime Minister didn’t compensate anyone for the tax?

*******

http://www.pm.gov.au/press-office/climate-change-framework-announced

The BOM claim their adjustments are “neutral” yet Ken Stewart showed that the trend in the raw figures for our whole continent has been adjusted up by 40%. The stakes are high. Australians could have to pay something in the order of $870 million dollars thanks to the Kyoto protocol, and the first four years of the Emissions Trading Scheme was expected to cost Australian industry (and hence Australian shareholders and consumers) nearly $50 billion dollars.

Given the stakes, the Australian people deserve to know they are getting transparent, high quality data from the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM). The small cost of the audit is nothing in comparison with the money at stake for all Australians.

Jo Nova is part of the team, more details at her blog:  http://joannenova.com.au/2011/02/announcing-a-formal-request-for-the-auditor-general-to-audit-the-australian-bom/

‘An analysis of government schemes designed to cut emissions by direct spending or regulatory intervention reveals they have cost an average $168 for each tonne of carbon dioxide abated.

‘While some have reduced emissions cost-effectively, many of the more expensive schemes are exorbitant ways of tackling climate change, costing far more for each tonne of carbon avoided than any mooted emissions trading scheme or carbon tax.

‘The worst offenders have included the Labor government’s rebates for rooftop solar panels, which cost $300 or more for every tonne of carbon abated, and the Howard government’s remote renewable power generation scheme, which paid up to $340 for each tonne of carbon.

‘By contrast, the proposed emissions trading scheme blocked by the Coalition and the Greens in the previous Parliament was expected to put a price on carbon of $20 to $25 a tonne in its early years…

Read more here: http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-cash-goes-up-in-smoke-20110214-1atnh.html 

[Climate cash goes up in smoke, Mark Davis and Lenore Taylor, The Age]