According to M. Chalmers from Bundaberg, “It has taken a long time, many years in fact, but the Government has finally admitted that Australia is suffering from a severe drought.” So begins this letter to the editor in Queensland’s rural weekly The Queensland Country Life. The letter goes on to explain that “lack of rain and water for irrigation means we have no way of growing crops or raising livestock.” Well yes, that’s how it is in a drought.
In fact, perhaps the take away message from this letter and everything else in the three rural papers I read this morning, is that while the government is crying drought and farmers are happy to pick up the millions and millions of dollars being thrown their way as ‘drought assistance’, some farmers haven’t really thought through the consequence of drought. It actually means that you shouldn’t be growing crops and it might be worth destocking rather than bringing those heifers into calf again.
Along the Murray River rice growers know that if there’s no water allocation they can’t grow a crop … and most of them don’t expect to. But interestingly in places like South Australia, where irrigators have mostly planted perennial crops including wine grapes and almonds …well they need water every year.
I guess this is why there is so much anguish when allocations to South Australia are cut to just 70 percent because of the drought. That’s right, South Austraian irrigators are getting 70 percent of their water allocation during what many commentators are claiming to be the worst drought on record.
According to ABC Online, “SA Minister for the River Murray, Karlene Maywald, says the situation is rapidly deteriorating, and that she will announce the new [70 percent] allocation figure early next month [down from 80 percent], but for now irrigators need to understand the severity of the situation.”
So how severe is the situation, really?
I’ve made some comment on this, and also the idea that wind and sun farms will stop climate change, in a piece published today by On Line Opinion:http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5076 .
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Jennifer,
This is a difficult thing. Farmers are on the bottom of the supply chain. They purchase at retail, and they sell at wholesale. They plant crops in almost complete ignorance of the selling price at harvest.
In a market with no government intervention, survival of the agricultural sector would strictly be a matter of bankruptcy among farmers.
Food and food production being important to national security and financial stability, it’s not surprising to see a certain amount of subsidies for farmers to even out what would otherwise be successive waves of bankruptcies among them, and financial losses among those who sell to them, and so on.
Subsidies for farmers can be taken to excess, for instance, in Europe, where the farmers are “hired gardeners” for a continent which could easily afford to declare the farmers redundant, put them in apartments, and import food at lower cost.
But at some level, it’s necessary to preserve farmers from bankruptcy; as the last link in the food chain, there is literally no other economic option in a free market.
Jennifier,
Isn’t the whole Australia shouldn’t cut emissions because we only contribute ‘less than 2%’ of GHG argument a bit of a furphy? Do you believe that larger countries like France and Italy should cut emmisions? If so, why? They also contribute less than 2%. What should the cut-off be?
Do you vote? According to your argument you shouldn’t. Why should anyone vote – their individual vote contributes less than 0.01% to the outcome of an election.
“But it is disingenuous to suggest, as both sides of politics have, that by…” voting “, we can somehow… “change the goverment.
Individually a country can’t achieve too much but what if we had a international agreement which would set targets for nations to reduce emissions?
SimonC,
You are confusing argument. My piece at OLO and here is about the drought… and claims that by investing in renewable energy that as a nation we can somehow stop climate change and prevent drought.
Also, everyone votes (potential resulting in governments changing) at no cost. If we pretend that as a nation there is no cost in paying more for our energy, or using less energy, we are kidding outselves and simply putting ourselves at a competitive disadvantage for potentially no significant environmental gain – locally or globally.
In fact I support an investment in renewable and nuclear, but let’s not kid ourselves in terms of what this might achieve.
Jen,
How can you support investment in renewable and nuclear? By paying more for electricity (directly or indirectly) aren’t putting ourselves at a competitive disadvantage? The only way nuclear and renewables become cost effective is by massive subsidies or by increasing the cost of GHG emitting electricity generators. Both these options have a cost. If you follow your argument we would be silly to invest in alternative energy sources because it has a cost and it won’t stop climate change or prevent drought.
The general public do understand that there will costs involved (at least in the short term) in the move away from GHG emissions.
I’m unconvinced by the ‘we’ll be put at a competitive disadvantage’ argument. We can’t compete with China and India with regards to costs anyway, and a lot of the first world countries (who are real competitors) have signed up to Kyoto and in the process of implementing policies to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Australia could lose out by not investing in research in ways to cut GHG. We should be leading the world in solar and geosequestration research. Selling the world ‘clean’ energy technology is the way forward but until we have the right investment framework here it isn’t going to happen.
Jennifer: Congratulations. At a glance you OLO Windmill article is well written and the rainfall graph is so convincing there is nothing abnormal with this drought. But I only have to look out my window today to see the fallacy in the whole damned thing. Your article says nothing about my hot dry winds.
This week we had some thunder showers and the rainwater pooled and ran. It did not reach the creek and the garden was bone dry again within the hour. This is our spring growth being sucked away and its your food supply. My runoff was their rice water in the old scheme of things.
Sure we have a battle over limited water supply and stressed infrastructure but its not yet about power generation, wind or otherwise.
Despite your rainfall analysis from graphs their water also disappeared in the sky. I have also seen many times this year how rain falls from clouds then evaporates before reaching the ground. BOM have a name for it now. We are talking about huge areas that don’t get their normal share in a series of rain storms.
While our PM is being written up as concerned as he tours poor folks left out in the dust we have to believe there is some conspiracy regarding his current direction.
Hardly; because most of us can see exactly what is going on out there and the PM is very worried. Large sections of his government’s rural constituency are in crisis mode today.
SimonC, if the world had a universal binding treaty to all reduce their GHG emissions, then Australia should go along with its obligations. But the world doesn’t, and never will have, because as soon as a country feels economic pain due to reducing emissions, it will renege on its obligations.
Countries such as China and India are in favour of the EC reducing emissions, but will never do so themselves.
Australia has plentiful coal supplies. That is part of our competitive advantage. Just because we can’t compete on labour costs or low pollution regulations doesn’t mean we should throw away the advantage we do have.
Jen says:
“In fact I support an investment in renewable and nuclear, but let’s not kid ourselves in terms of what this might achieve.”
What it can achieve is bleedingly obvious. As a developed nation and one of the globe’s worst emitters of GHG per capita, it would send a signal to emerging economies like China and India that the West is serious about dealing with climate change.
The argument that setting targets for GHG emission reduction “will roon the ekonomy” is the same tired old line that was trotted out regarding asbestos, sulphur emissions, CFCs and a dozen other such pollutants and substances.
Our economies have demonstrated time and time again an ability to find solutions to problems provided Governments set the right regulatory platform.
Gavin,
Do you really think the BOM counts as rainfall your “water that disappeared in the sky”?
And do you really think Australia has never experience “hot dry winds”?
I guess you do. I guess you believe, whatever you choose to believe …
No discipline.
Jen,
I think the BOM has also collects data on evaporation rates. A graph showing both would be valuable to the discussion. Lower than average rainfall is only part of the problem, lower rainfall normally means less cloud cover, add to that higher than average temperatures over those years and this could lead to very high evaporation rates.
No Mistress; I’m not into discipline and I never thought BOM counts what they can’t measure.
I was merely illustrating the fact that we are suffering from abnormal evaporation almost every day. On this score let me change my other comment to fierce rather than “hot” dry winds. The local firies had to cancel their scheduled burn off late this arvo.
Jennifer; it has occurred to me that you can’t write about drought versus climate change until you know something about our average soil moisture content over considerable areas and decades. Our farming and bushfire conditions can’t be seen directly in BOM data. Neither can our water resources or forest health.
Here’s an interesting link: http://uninews.unimelb.edu.au/articleid_3809.html
Andrew Vizard suggests the drought will break by mid next year based on 140 years of historic records…
in particular the failed spring rains.
The last one broke when Bob Hawke was elected; lets hope that pattern is not repeated.
Welcome to energy and water rationalisation in Australian agriculture. But contrarian to this you will see crop commodity prices aprreciate significantly going forward as shortages prevail and the ‘amrket’ will try to encourage the continuation of ‘illogical’ production. In other words, the food boom will be a permanent and even more disatrous commdity bull than expensive oil. Then again you could simply grow crops that work within the constraints of the environment. But ultimately it is not the farmers who will hurt the most, it is the consumers that never cared to think about the vulnerability of the food supply they took for granted, nor the water they drenched their inedible gardens with.
Jennifer: good engineering requires more than a chance or pot luck. Water storages used for generating, irrigating or a town’s fresh supply should have a five year capacity and operate above half full for normal demand. Many storages won’t reach optimum levels this year or next without shutting down for various reasons including extremely low water tables everywhere. No one is predicting abnormal rainfall improvements.
Soils and cropping are another mater. Seasonal vagaries won’t help many farmers. Some are already cutting on their stock carrying capacity because hay is not there to be cut. We should have cheap meat across the board next week but it means no catch up is possible this time next year.
We have predictions this week for severe NSW crop reductions for the current season but I haven heard yet what the auctioneers are saying about our long range meat prices. Academics talking now about fresh strategies is just more hot air.
This is all a great discussion, but does little to explain the extent of a government’s role in preserving the agricultural sector from the whims of weather and capricious markets governed by predatory and whimsical governments.
I like Professor Andrew Vizard’s commonsense line. Because it is based on past records rather than future projections. A more reliable prediction tool.
The higher drought risk areas have developed survival / recovery strategies that can in part be applied to the more reliable areas when experiencing drought.
First, save the best breeding stock by feedlotting – yard them. Progressively sell the rest. Stock eat less if they cannot walk around, and it helps save soil too.
Second, for grain crops, a strategy of reducing plantings if opening rains are late minimises loss.
Farming is a gamble. Professor Vizard has pointed out the probability of opening rains for various parts of Victoria for next year. 90%+ odds are too good to disregard. Plan for them.
We always go with the odds on cropping. For example, enough soil moisture to plant by the beginning of May and past records show that we have an 80% chance of an above average season. Thems is darn good odds. So we planted this year, and found out about the 20%! But we still have crops – below average.
Like Professor Vizard, I would be reasonably confident of good opening rains next autumn. It always rains after a dry spell…
Last I saw, anyone gets a 50 percent chance at being average, and if it’s not 50 percent, it’s not average.
Schiller no-one is engaging your points because we’re talking of Australian agric and because it’s offensively obvious to us, being put at a competitive disadvantage by US & EU excessive agric subsidies that your point is hypocritical. You need to admit to the fact that the US also pays hugely excessive agric subsidies, not only Europe, and in doing so, causes unnecessary suffering for farmers in other countries (and market inefficiencies and wastes US taxes). It’s an important admission Schiller, you need to make it. Until then you’re likely to be ignored on the subject of Australian agriculture.
ROTF Helen M: How long is a dry spell?
Pinx,
Last I saw, anyone gets a 50 percent chance at being average, and if it’s not 50 percent, it’s not average.
Subsidies move the average, but the average is still 50 percent. Do you get it now?
Andrew Vizard is know for being an independent thinker on “conventional” SOI /El Nino forecasts. He’s worth a listen and much of what his release says is fair enough. However – he appears to have some sort of “forecast” system so the statistical forecast gurus will ask for the cross-validated stats and skill scores which he may well have (or not?). Hard to judge his forecast skill without such things and so why would someone AGW-sceptical put much store in a press-stated forecast with knowing a simulated track record over the climate record or a real track record (5-7 years actual forecast).
And interesting we are in the drought we’re in because minority odds have occurred in a row. The majority odds have not occurred.
So does will the future rainfall be simply a subset of the past. Or has climate change screwed with the probabilities. We don’t for sure – we’re on the cusp of the problem – possibly just emerging from the fog of climate variation.
So Aussie farmers – choose wisely and look around at various advice !
On the probability of average and all that jazz. It is worth thinking about a climate forecast on terciles – above average, average – although better to use median for rainfall, and above average. (in rainfall the wet years distort the average to be larger than the median – mid-point).
Then even if the probability is there – is there skill in the forecast or statistical separation in the forecast to the all years distribution.
Yes – this stuff is important if you don’t want to have yourself on big time.
an example of tercile forecast:
http://iri.columbia.edu/
Note it’s a multi-model consensus. 3 tercile classes and white for no skill.
Within each tercile class – the probability of being in that band.
Not a good forecast for Australia, Indonesia, South Africa and SE Asia – basically giving you previous El Nino impacts !
If you want to play with the numbers yourself try http://www2.dpi.qld.gov.au/rainman/
Try NCS 3 month forecast http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/ahead/rain_ahead.shtml
Note that these forecasts are for 3 months ending in January – autumn is invariably very difficult for forecasters.
Jen , RE Vizard and in similar vein, I forecast high temperatures will drop next autumn. Climatology is the bleeding obvious. Your site should only tell people what they dont know. I doulbt the Vizard forecast builds in the increased chance of rain in some autumns in some places after an El Nino, or considers some of the recent worrying trends in autumn rain.
Worrying about the weather is nothing new in Australia
http://www.middlemiss.org/lit/authors/obrienj/poetry/hanrahan.html
Then welcome to worrying about the climate instead.
Like all things, as our influence widens, so does our locus of concern.