How many times a day do you shower? How long do you shower for?
I live in southeast Queensland, in beautiful Brisbane. The region is famous for its balmy weather, surf beaches, theme parks (including Sea World at the Gold Coast) and general great outdoor lifestyle which often revolves around water and water sports.
Indeed, most people would consider southeast Queensland water rich.
But from the 11th April, when level 5 water restrictions are likely to be introduced, Brisbanites will be expected to comply with a raft of new water saving measures including 4 minute showers.
I don’t have a problem with short showers, but I’m concerned that the government will soon be asking me to have just one shower a day.
Is there any other part of the world where government recommends how long and how often people should shower?
It is extraordinary that the situation has deteriorated to the extent that it has in southeast Queensland.
The Queensland Premier, Peter Beattie, keeps blaming the “water crisis” on climate change and the drought. But the real issue is population. Indeed the population of south east Queensland has doubled since the last dam was build in 1985. There has been a chronic under investment in water infrastructure at least in part because of environmental campaigning. Indeed the planned Wolfdene Dam was scrapped about 18 years ago because of concern over environmental impacts. Now government is trying to fast track dams, desalination and waste water recycling.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Jen – I reckon environmental campaigning is a big try-on – what environmental movement? Evidence for is what ?
It was NIMBY syndrome pure and simple. Most landonwer don’t a dam in their backyard – same in current Traveston situation – do the protesters look like greenies to you? Don’t think so.
Same reason the Koala highway lost Goss the goverment – very well executed NIMBY campaign. And it worked and bankrolled well by the locals.
For those who may have had parents in WWII they’re not fazed – simply back to rationing. And for grandfather – A SHOWER – what a wicked waste – a modest bath please and rationing of the tank supply started when it was overflowing.
This is the drought and lack of planning we had to have. Don’t whinge – nobody wanted to have any more tax dollars expended than necessary. Turning public utilities into corporations and milking them for profit was what we all wanted – so we got it. Spending on water infrastructure when Wivenhoe was 75% full and we were all hosing our driveways – you’re kidding. “I don’t want to pay for that”.
Same with hospitals, electrical power infrastructure, children’s crisis welfare, roads, railways. We all happily let it run down – otherwise where are the lecturing newspaper editorials.
Drinking recycled water when Wivenhoe was 75% full – you’re bloody joking. What pollie would run that with a full dam. You’d have little girls growing penises.
Building bloody piplines everywhere – surely not needed and not through my block please. Putting a tank back in the backyard – didn’t we get rid of those when they put the sewerage in. Total inconvenience and waste of space. What about the mossies? Surely not.
Yes inflows into Wivenhoe/Somerset are lowest on record. Maybe climate change is a contributing factor. Record drought but not unforseeable. But population growth and profligate waste of water area also big factors.
And the fact that none of use really wanted major infrastructure investment and government were happy enough to not plan and go soft.
I wonder what else they might be soft for planning on too – Peak Oil, climate change, military budget, domestic manufacturing, road and rail network, public transport, information technology infrastructure ? Nah – she’ll be right mate! No need to worry or plan. Let’s not raise taxes and as long as negative gearing gets me more of the pie who cares.
Jen – it’s the drought we had to have. Now when someone talks about infrastructure investment and futuire planning we might listen for a change.
When you put it that way Luke, a couple of years of short showers and buckets for the lawn is a small price to pay in deferring the need for new infrastructure and public spending.
PS. my gal and I were using 280L/day. Then we got a timer for the shower. It doesn’t beep after 4 mins or anything. Rather, you just start it when you jump in, and see how long you’ve been in the shower for. Staying informed.
I still occasionally have long showers when i feel like it, but most of the time i shower 4 mins or less, and we use a bucket in the shower for water on our small garden.
As a result, our water consumption dropped 50L/day to 230L/day.
You got it right, Luke. Infrastructure and public debt to fund it are seen as being bad, these days. It’s ok to borrow to buy a house, but not to have infrastructure to support the people living in it.
As for the dam, Melbourne is just about to hit stage 4. The dam that was built to drought proof Melbourne is only 20% full. If inflows and rain were average, all would be still be OK, but they are at record lows. Andrew Bolt has got his readers believing everything would be OK if only we had built another dam, but that is not the case at all. There is no where else to build a dam to rival the Thompson, all we could build are a few more small dams, everything else is pretty well utilised already.
“The bottom line, says the Murray-Darling Basin Commission, is that in the six months to November, water flowing into the Murray was just 7 per cent of the long-term average. Barely half as much water entered the river as in the previous low in 1902.
This is so far beyond our previous experience that we have to be worried. And yet the historical data also gives cause for optimism.
This is the eighth time since 1900 that Victoria’s rainfall has averaged less than 400 millimetres in 12 months. In six of the previous seven, the drought ended, at least temporarily, between December and March. The same is true for less severe droughts: drought-breaking rains usually come in late summer or March.
Our driest year was the 12 months to February 1983, culminating in the inferno of Ash Wednesday. Across Victoria, on average, only 339 millimetres fell, barely half the long-term average of 634 millimetres. But in March 1983, the rain started falling, and didn’t stop. In the next 12 months, 822 millimetres fell, the state turned green, and the dams filled.
That is the usual way. At worst, as in 1944, one drought ended with two wet months, then a new drought began. So far, no intense drought has continued unbroken for more than a year.”
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/theres-no-simple-fix-for-the-big-dry/2006/12/11/1165685613379.html
“In Melbourne, the Herald Sun thundered about the need for a new dam, without specifying where or what. A dam makes sense only if we have water to spare. Where is our spare water? Try telling Gippslanders they don’t need the water coming down their rivers. Try telling Goulburn irrigators they can go without.
As the Marsden Jacob report to the Federal Government showed, Melbourne is not short of dams. Give us the rain, and we can store enough water to last for three years. What we lack is rain; building another dam won’t cure that.”
Building a new dam here would only mean someone else doing without their water. The Liberal Party at the last election came up with the idea of a dam on the Maribyrnong river, which was so small as to be a joke.
There is plenty of water, just too few dams and the ones that did get built (before the greeny virus infected and spread) are in drier areas. Nowadays it is easier to go to war than build a new dam.
A new business opportunity looms, traders will go down streets ringing bells and selling water by the bucket to parched householders. Castro would be amused.
But I dont care, I can shower as long as I like, I have my own water.
It is entirely appropriate that the residents of Brisbane spend all their time thinking about a 15th order issue like water. After all, they have voted for Beattie despite the better judgement of rural communities all over the state. So they now have the government they deserve and the water supply they deserve.
And me, I spent the last half hour of daylight this afternoon floating on the cool waters of my own Dam. The waterfall had just enough volume to give a good massage and the water is so clean that it has a deep blueygreen hue.
At no time was I ever inclined to think of the clock and limit my bliss-out to 4 minutes. In fact, the last thing on my mind was our “dear leader” and his no-where plans for nobody.
And best of all, in Beattie’s own electorate the temperature hit 38 degrees. There is a God, and he takes his advice from Joh these days.
The next step is to order citizens to follow the practice in France, where people never bathe.
But to take many and long showers will ruin and dry out your skin and hair 😉
It’s amazing while camping how little water you can manage with. The camper we have has a 100L fresh water tank and at campsites without service a family of 5 can make that last for a few days, even with quick showers. The showerhead is very low flow and has a shutoff. The house rule is to get wet, shut off the water, soap and rinse. Also, the tankless toilet only uses liter or so per flush and the kitchen sink is small.
Back at home, often I take baths rather than showers and I probably use 100L before 8am by myself most days. I installed underground sprinklers a few years ago and dump a few hundred liters on the lawn most days in summer.
I’m asking an honest question. Is the water situation in Australia really a serious problem or is it exaggerated or artificially worsened by the politicians and the left?
Woody – it may surprise you that not all problems are caused by politicians, the left and even the right.
Some of them are caused by the greater “us”. Most people don’t want new dams in their “backyard” and governments are very tight with infrastructure funding and reluctant to apply more taxation measures.
Ian Mott’s Comments are sort of true – we’ve gotten what “we” in the main have asked for.
Governments of all colours have let national infrastructure run down, including water supply provision.
The “water situation” of course depends on where you are in this big country but in the last 7 years or so we have had ongoing droughts in southern, eastern Australia and south-west Western Australia, with ongoing droughts/drying trends in all our capital cities (except Darwin) combined in some cases with high population growth and urban expansion.
Add the major Murray Darling river system also in drought. Some but not all these years have been EL Nino. The “neutral” years have also failed to deliver big wets.
Western Queensland and north Queensland have had good relief rains recently.
South east Queensland is typical of the water supply malaise – while Brisbane itself is quite green – the nearby water supply catchment 50-100 km inland has had record low inflows. So we’re now looking at dams with 5% capacity by the end of the year if no significant rain. Summer and early autumn being the best times for dam fill. So it’s looking bleaker every day.
I’m told climate variability in Australia is such that we have to build dams 2-3 times larger than in Europe or North America to cope with the climate variability. Southern Africa has the same requirement. All due to El Nino impact and the capacity for multi-year drought sequences I guess.
I still think this is the wake-up call on infrastructure we had to have. Perhaps now shocked out of our complacency. (could add that roads, power and health all suffering from the same malaise).
Nah – she’ll be right mate ! Why worry.
Temperatures and tempers are now flaring in the south-east Queensland water crisis. I was wondering when the gloves would come off.
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21363721-952,00.html
I wonder if anyone here has visited Paris during the summer.
The Parisians entertain the notion that bathing more often than once a month “removes the skin’s natural coating” and surpassing this quota indicates one is suffering from obsessive-compulsive syndrome, aka an irrational fear of germs.
On a nice summer afternoon, at about 3:30 local time on a workday, the workday ends. Immediately, the air in the “City of Romance” is suffused with the odor of a three-day corpse–with understated hints of jasmine and the musk of civet cats.
Is this the frenchification of Australia? Mon Dieu! C’est execrable! Mord et merde! Soixant-neuf avec chanterelles!
If you don’t like the way the guvmint is managing your water supply, if you are annoyed by ‘big brother’ water rationing, then follow Ian’s example and manage your own water supply: get a rainwater tank and/or grey water recycling. Throw in a composting loo and you can disconnect from the taxpayer-funded water infrastructure all together and be free.
Simple.
The guvmint will even give you a rebate to do so.
Or you could wait for the water traders ringing bells that rog described. Ah, capitalism at work! Castro might be amused, Milton Friedman would be proud.
But if your commitment to unfettered capitalism takes a hit when faced with the prospect of paying for something that the government has traditionally provided for you, and you want more water infrastructure, then you could start by campaigning for higher water prices to pay for it, instead of relying on tax collection to pay for water infrastructure.
http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,23636,21363803-462,00.html
Lets face it, most of the major infrastructure planning and building in this country was over by hte late 60’s or early 70’s. Since then our population has doubled nationally and more than doubled in major cities. Did the politicians have the foresight to build new dams……NO they did not.
The economic rationalists have decreed that it is improper and poor fiscal management for any government to incur borrowings or to have to finance debt. As such the means to build new infrastructure projects does not readily exist.
Luke it is not the majority of people that are against new dam building, they are only able to act upon the information provided to them and for the past 20 years at least the bloody NIMBY’s encouraged by the greens have declared that no dams shall be built anywhere.
Certainly since the Franklin, politicians do not have the courage to even propose new infrastructure projects, especially when needed. They are more than ever determined to do nothing rather than risk being voted out of office.
SJT, wrong, wrong, wrong. The population has doubled in this country in the last 35 years. The storage capacity that is currently available is no longer capable of providing enough water to see out a long term drought such as this current one. When these major impoundments were constructed there was an understanding that new dams would have to be built as the population grew. Indeed the planners back in the 1960’s even earmarked certain catchments to build these dams in as population increased. However the likes of Carr and Bracks turned these areas into conservation reserves, removing the opportunity to provide water for a growing population.
Lets face it we can only reduce our water consumption by so much, we can only recycle our water by so much, we can only capture our own rain water by so much, eventually these sort of options will not be enough and I for one do not see the foresight or long term planning that will provide for a growing population. Yes we may have the politicians that we deserve, but the greens and the NIMBY’s must take their share of responibility for the poor planning decisions that have been taken in regards to water.
Peter – I’d agree with the Franklin and green protests – but I suggest local SE Qld opposition to dams are local landholders – Wolfdene Dam – the ill-fated Koala Highway (Brisbane-Gold Coast freeway eastern alternative route – both now gone in Goss Labor era) and the new Traveston and Wyaralong Dams proposed. NIMBYism was the key issue or is the key issue.
I don’t see much greenie activity at all. OK may be some for the cheer squad. Unlikely alliances. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Perhaps mixed NIMBY x greenie on Paradise dam.
How would Motty be if we damn his farm dam, flood his farm and inundate his waterfall for Brissy water supply. He may have words to say.
But it’s all of us too Peter – if you had tried to sell SE Queenslanders usage restrictions, new dams, pipelines, recycled water and desalination plants when our dams were overflowing – everyone would have said what a waste of money. Why do all that?
We’re all just as bad as the politicians etc – a pox on all of our houses ! In some respects we do get the governments we deserve. And where were the rest of us lobbying our pollies and complaining. Nowhere – we were hosing the driveway in blissful ignorance.
As I said above – so what else is not on our radar that ought to be ?? When do we learn?
You also have to be cynical about the vast amount of regional planning that has gone into SE Qld and we still fall into black holes like this. What the hell were they doing in these exercises?
Luke, where’s your evidence for:
“if you had tried to sell SE Queenslanders usage restrictions, new dams, pipelines, recycled water and desalination plants when our dams were overflowing – everyone would have said what a waste of money. Why do all that?”
I think you are confusing lots of issues.
And what is now happening is unpopular with many … while you keep suggesting at this thread (I would suggest wrongly) that we are accepting of it and deserve it?
Enough rain still falls on the roof of the average Brisbane house to supply all the needs of the people within. An equal volume also falls on the roads and paved areas and there is no effort to collect it, or even divert it onto places that could use it.
Consequently, urban streams experience a more than 10 fold increase in flows over their natural variation and this excessive flushing actually restricts the production of beneficial algae etc that forms the base of riparian food chains.
And despite this 15th order issue becomming the topic of the day, week, month and even year, it still has not sunk into the urban mind that centralised water is fundamentally inefficient.
It delivers water with 19th century concepts based on 19th century technology at 19th century efficiency and costs. And the longer we go into the 21st century the higher those costs will rise.
The key facts in this issue are that with even a very small 500L tank at each home, equal to one days normal use, the entire years supply of water can be delivered through a small polythene drip line, (off-peak water delivery) either suspended on the internet cable or fed down a small conduit.
But larger tanks capturing rainwater would place even less demand on the system, allowing the state to become a proper supplier of last resort to a community that has taken all reasonable and practical steps to help itself before sticking its hand out for middleclass public welfare.
Thanks for the information on the water situation in Australia. I think that the answer to my question was “both.”
Addressing long-term needs doesn’t result in short-term votes, so I can see why the dam building has been stalled. We really see that in cities where mayors support the arts while ignoring fixing the sewers.
El Nino has a significant effect on the U.S., but I was surprised the effect went as far as it does.
The biggest problem we have, much like yours, are disputes among the states for water allocation from the rivers. It’s really an economic issue, but people latch on to environmental causes to disrupt anything that hurts their side.
We have a “city water” pipeline running down our road, but the three subdivisions around us share a private well system from which we take what we need. It rarely restricts us, and when it does it just means that we have to water our yards on alternate days. It also has no politics involved. Going private has worked for us.
Jen – of course most people are unhappy about the current situation but nobody really cared until we got here. Now everyone is worried.
All new dams are very unpopular. Who’s want to be the premier or deputy-premier facing that crowd about Traveston. Would you like to sell a new storage to an ungrateful set of locals.
Do you seriously think you’d get recycled water going if you had a full dam?
Prior public opinion on desalination was it was massively complex and too expensive.
But in reality our water is so cheap. But listen to everyone bleat if you put rates up!
The reality Jen – is we have the same sleepiness with road, rail, ports, IT infrastructure and defence – and most people don’t give a bugger IMO – house prices are good, economy is fine for now, footy and tennis to watch, and another series of Big Brother soon – so why worry. Just keep goverment costs really low.
Infrastructure requires political leadership and some taking of risks. Lack of leadership and total risk aversion means it’s politically more expendable to break the system, apologise profusely, and then do then talk about future improvements. We are all happy to go along with that until there’s a crisis.
IMO of course.
It is 100% the governments fault – they are the Crown and until they privatise water infastructure they are the sole owner of said utility.
And it is 100% the voters fault, for voting in such a bunch of ineffectual feel good politically correct wankers.
And the bulk of the responsibiulity of such confused thinking must lie with the hippy generation of the 60s 70s and 80s. Couldnt fight out of a wet paper bag, that lot. And if The Clintons gets in in the US, and Krudd in Oz, then its more of the same.
Crikey I may actually agree with Rog. Only problem is I feel endangered by Howard and Bush too.
The really interesting news over the weekend was the fact that the price of public sector water will go up to about $2.40/Kl. And when it does the economics of private water tanks will be transformed.
At $2.40/Kl the mean annual household use of about 250Kl means an annual cost of $600 to cover the break even payments on in-house storage.
A 13,500 litre water tank attached to 250m2 of roof will reduce demand from mains water to only 13% of total use. That tank will cost $2000 while the rebates will cover all the plumbing etc. And that $2,050 spread over 25 years and an interest rate of 7% means an annual cost of home captured water of only $150 a year.
And that means an average cost, including about 50Kl from the overpriced mains, of about 90 cents/Kl.
And that means the tank will make a profit of about $1.50/Kl or about $300 a year or 15% return on the $2000 investment.
And that means the rate of tank purchase will increase dramatically and further erode the profitability of the existing dams and delivery systems.
All it will take is one good cyclone and Beattie will be the gormless owner of a fortune in excess capacity that produces next to zero return on capital. And most of Brisbane will be free of the dead hand of government stupidity.
Every time I see Beattie’s face these days I just think, “dumb $hit walking”.
Dear Ian
I too saw that of $2.40/KL. God only knows where this figure comes from. But if it is correct then there is no need for any rain tank subsidy because at that price it would pay users to fully pay for the tanks and installation themselves.
And if the government told us mugs at the outset that the cost per KL of the proposed water supply infrastructure (some of which is under construction) was to be about $2.40/KL then the sensible public reaction would be to say shove your expensive show, we’ll install our own supplies and use the existing public supply as a top up.
You are right that if the figure of $2.40/KL is correct, there will be a bill of billions of dollars which can never be recouped via metered water charges. Enough people simply won’t use the more expensive publicly supplied water. Alternatively the taxpayer will have to fork out the billions so that the price of water to domestic users will be competitive with private (tank) water supplies. What a shambles.
Blair
Yes, Blair, at least 25% of the market will disappear the moment the effluent is recycled back into the supply.
And you can bet your mortgage on the fact that the contract for the desalination and recycling plants etc will be worded to ensure that the water from these new investments will get sold before the water from the existing dams gets used.
And that means the dams will remain full for much longer and evaporate close to their maximum potential each year. That is, about 250,000Ml each year (not including Traveston) which is about 66% of total urban use.
In his rush to appear to be doing something, Beattie has set in train the destruction of the long term profitability of all the existing infrastructure. This system had the potential, under proper management, to achieve a capitalised value of about $1.5 billion (at old prices). But there is every indication that this will be extinguished by a bunch of grossly negligent clowns.
Come on guys – this is 2007 – most people don’t want to be piddling around with rainwater tanks these days. It’s all cafe latte society and house blocks are getting smaller. People were darn glad to get rid of tanks last time around. Might be OK for watering the garden.
Wait till some of installations start subsiding and falling over, cricket balls holing tanks and some shoddy workmanship showing up.
Population growth will see it all the infrastructure get used. In any case Blair you’ll be paying one way or another, whether it comes from water pricing or what not.
Alternative – vote in the opposition – jeeez !
Luke, you ignorant boofhead, cricket balls damaging polly tanks? Which planet have you been on lately? You obviously rent and don’t ever see a rates notice. Tanks subsiding and falling over? Give us a break.
But I suppose if you are paid to promote the dear leader’s views in the blogosphere then this is the best you can do in the circumstances.
“You obviously rent and don’t ever see a rates notice. ”
That one always has me laughing. nice one ian. 🙂
Polly want a crackpot !
Ian – no give me a break – get off your butt and have a look at the average installations being undertaken out there. Have a look at their foorprint and form factor. Not all tanks are poly either. Get out from under the private exclusive waterfall and inspect the slums. And we’ll see how they’re all going in 10 years.
I don’t promote any views except my own unlike your ongoing apologism for the forestry industry. more side jobs for the boys.
Dear Luke
When Council supplied water replaced the “big” tank on the tank stand there was a dramatic fall in mosquito borne diseases. But also there was an expectation that when there was a transference to Council supplied water, at a cost, that the costs of would satisfy the wishes of the water users.
But Luke you miss the point: at a price of $2.40/KL there will simply be a limited demand for the higher priced publicly supplied water. You may have better figures than me about the cost of publicly supplied water but given the cost of tanks then householders would be silly not to invest in tanks.
Correct me Luke but I don’t remember at the last State election Peter Beattie saying a vote for me will mean a doubling of your water rates.
As for your inane statement “Population growth will see it all the infrastructure get used” does not the price of water enter into your argument?
Blair
Dear Blair
As an economist you may be disappointed to know that it seems water is a low order issue even at $2.40kl – it’s not price per litre but how much the total bill is. Experience in new housing estates seems to be that people don’t want all that complication of valves, pipes and pumps to get water pressure. Much to the despair of those trying to design and promote a more sustainable future. Just like some people aren’t up to maintaining swimming pools.
So I’m not sure at the average consumption price enters into it as much as you might rationally think. People are prepared to pay for convenience. That’s what they want.
So you think Brisbane won’t use the water with population growth mooted – and you think most of the population want to seriously fiddle (vis a vis simply augment for the garden) with going totally “off grid”.
Just as cafe society might also seem irrational to economists. Not everyone is having a born again play farmer revival like Motty.
That’s why economists need social scientists (unfortunately).
Regards
Luke
P.S. I’m not advocating the “no tanks” position – I’m just saying.
Well Motty and Luke
As I suspected that $2.40 KL is not the cost of augmenting SEQs water supply, it was merely a price to be charged to residential water users. So it is still a mystery to me what are the costs per KL for the various supply alternatives currently under construction or to be constructed.
What frightens me is the revelation in today’s Courier Mail that the water price will be lower than the earlier figure because the rate of return used in calculating the new price will be 4% instead of 7% and the government will recoup its equity from water users over 10 years instead of 5 years.
So presumably after 10 years the (real) price of water will fall?!!! This is voodoo pricing;the Qld govt with its AAA credit rating can borrow monies cheaply. Why would you factor in a water price for assets with exremely long lives like dams, pipes etc., repayments of capital over 5 or 10 years?
By the way Luke why might “a cafe society also seem irrational to economists”? People with high incomes don’t put a high price on their leisure? Why waste valuable in the kitchen when you can simply pay for a meal/drink and relax at a cafe?
Blair
Yes Blair and therefore the cost of water is our cafe society still ain’t a big overall number at our subsidised $1.50 Kl. Just a few trips down the cafe. Of course your answer also predicates on whether your “valuable” will be better spent down the cafe philosophising.
Of course it’s voodoo economics – do you expect they’ll tell us the truth !
Sorry Luke left out “time” after “valuable”.
Blair
I am pro-tanks, but Luke is right i think about the likely public reaction to a world where rainwater tanks become popular again.
Its already started:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/going_green_can_make_you_sick/
Steve – and the comments are interesting – i.e. use a filter, use it in the loo, for washing, the pool or garden. A bit sophisticated for Andrew Bolt – who probably get confused with cold and hot taps, let alone 2 water sources. (surely communist idea). But nevertheless my opinion is that most people see it as a hassle and if it costs a few hundred bucks more – all will grizzle but cough up. And I’m not anti-tank either.
In Brisbane there as some moderate concern about drinking the water – Pb, Cu, Zn, Cr, As, Cd, polyaromatic hydrocarbons, and phalates can end up on roofs through various processes.
Luke hasn’t figured out that a water tank has become compulsory with each new housing approval. So there will be minimum growth in the water market. And about 25% of the population simply will not drink recycled effluent no matter how clean it is. And most of the reluctance to get tanks is the fact that they have never had one. But as people move about from rental to rental to own home, the more exposure they will get to the issue and they will soon discover that it is about as much hassle as managing a fridge.
But I guess that still makes it too hard for old Phlukey.
Ian likes to play hobby farmer with all his little gadgets that he missed in Sydney. Now like a reformed drunk lecturing the rest of about the virtues of rural life on the inherited El Rancho replete with excesses of natural waterfalls and wildlife. I bet Ian has a few little pet native animals up the back too – but for the sake of appearances “I’d rather shoot the bastards”.
Blair wants to have a cafe latte and a rest Ian – he doesn’t want to fiddling with dang pumps and pipes.
Ian I just want to turn my you-beaut triple-overhead valved drip system back on – don’t talk to me about pipe-o-phobia. Give me high pressure mains water that bust pipes or give me death.
So you have just got the bromeliads and ferns looking nice and Ian wants to drop a bloody big tank on it – bugger off.
Dear Luke
Cripes I want to have a cafe latte and a rest?!!
I have never had a cafe latte but Luke I need a rest?
I enjoy the opportunity to comment on the differing views expressed on Jennifer’s website and perhaps my comments are useful.
But silly me I still think that the site provides an opportunity for rational individuals to discuss issues concerning ” politics and the environment”.
So if anybody differs from my views so be it but at least have the courtesy and good manners to express your views without recoursing to cheap incorrect statements such as “Blair wants to have a cafe latte and a rest” and “I bet Ian has a few little pet native animals up the back too – but for the sake of appearances”.
This is really undergraduate tripe.
Blair
Dear Blair
You think this is a serious forum for rational individuals do you? The Royal Bloody Society. Mate !
Lighten up Blair – it was an attempt at humour. If you were offended maybe you DO need a cafe latte and a rest. Or a Bex and good lie down.
And be even handed too – get right up Ian for vernacular abuse unless you’re worried he’ll rip your arms off.
Did you wear a tie as an undergraduate perhaps?
Luke
Blair, never be offended by the village idiot, the attention only encourages them.
The irony is that there are some solutions that could have provided alternate water over the next few years at low cost and at no threat to the existing infrastructure. But why would one want to make Beatties life any easier by making them public?
Dear Luke
So do I think that “this is a serious forum for rational individuals?”
Well I do but by your rhetorical question you don’t seem to so I guess all your contributions re AGW can go into the can and be seen as some sort of self-indulgent exercise to reconstruct your future as a comedian.
As for your profound question “Did you wear a tie as an undergraduate perhaps?” the answer for all the world waiting to know is that I didn’t.
I don’t agree with some of the views expressed by Ian and I certainly don’t agree with his personal attacks on his detractors but he hasn’t attacked me personally and that’s all that matters to me.
Blair
So you’re prepared to disagree with my views but not Ian’s who you also disagree with. Seems fair.
Hang around long enough Blair and you’ll cop a serve from biffo-boy too.