“There is a crisis in Australian farming and grazing fraternity. Bank foreclosures are increasing at a rapid rate. Land valuations, lending criteria, misrepresentation from business advisors, increasing cost of production, low commodity prices, over regulation, animal rights activists all these, and many more reasons are causing a tidal wave to crash down on the rural and regional centres across the Nation…” Cate, Mt Morris, Charleville.
Update June 5, 2014
Some relevant history: Cate speaking to ABC radio May 20, 2014, about how carbon farming is a “good business strategy” at http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-20/mount-morris-cate-stuart/5465060 . But the banks, for good reason, thought otherwise. I don’t know how a grazier can lament the increasing cost of production, and then expect a subsidy for carbon farming. Clearly Cate was after a handout, she was, and apparently still is, hoping for a financial benefit at the altar of anthropogenic global warming.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
I don’t know about Australia, but here in the good old US of A the environmental extremist have a grand vision of depopulating the west and having it as a park where urban dwellers who are packed like rats in a sinking ship can go on vacation.
Jen,
I’ve reckoned for a while that if it hadn’t rained by about half past March the last person standing in western Queensland with 25 cents would be able to buy most of it.
When lenders invite us to borrow and spend, this is what happens.
We all lose.
Sometimes everything.
What does it remind you of?
@SD
“What does it remind you of?”
Don’t know what you have in mind, but I’m reminded of risk management by the borrower.
Could it be that the properties in question are actually grossly and unrealistically overpriced and even in good to average times barely break even?
Good sensible management is a given.
@ Johnathan Wilkes
“Don’t know what you have in mind, but I’m reminded of risk management by the borrower.”
Not even close…
“Could it be that the properties in question are actually grossly and unrealistically overpriced and even in good to average times barely break even?”
Not even close…
“Good sensible management is a given.”
Always employed by those of us who live of our land.
How about irresponsible financiers thinking of short term gain when their institution is in troube…at good stewards of the land costs…yep, that covers it mate.
No one ever quantifies the loss of generational knowledge or the loss of social capital that is occurring in Australian Agriculture and right across regional Australia as Australian society becomes increasingly urbanised.
What are the long term financial repercussions of losing that knowledge and social capital?
Cate points out that short term thinking by financial institutions as well as knee jerk political reactions to melodramatic and emotional ‘greenie’ politics do indeed have something to do with it.
One of the important attributes of generational farmers is that they are essentially optimists. . . they have to be. . .otherwise they would not be able to do what they do.
They have to work with the seasons and they don’t expect every season to be the same or to return the same. Some will be good, some will be bad, some will be excellent and some will be devastating.
Financial institutions that base their operations in Agribusiness in order to seek short term gains on ‘snapshot in time’ commodity prices and/or land values and/or policy/legislative initiatives are IMHO demonstrating a lack of understanding about the long term value of Agriculture in Australia.
Debbie and Cate
What I said stands, if an investment does not return enough profit to service the loan and provide an adequate living for the investor, (in this case farmer) then that was a wrong investment.
How or why the situation arose is an other matter altogether.
Were the condition, rules and regulations imposed on the property known prior to decision to invest or were they not?
Was there misrepresentation by anyone re. the property or finance?
Important questions.
Investment in marginal rural property can and does go pear shaped very quickly if bought at the beginning of the “wrong” cycle without ample reserves.
Not blaming anyone. The full facts are always hidden from outsiders.
I come from a farming family from way back albeit in an area far less risky than others may be but still with the same risks of drought and price/currency fluctuations.
Debbie and Johnathon, good points within your comments. Thank you.
Johnathon, a couple of comments I would like to answer, as that is my family above on the clip.
“What I said stands, if an investment does not return enough profit to service the loan and provide an adequate living for the investor, (in this case farmer) then that was a wrong investment.”
As a stand alone comment, yes, agree. However, it is indeed only a small part of the equation. The accountability is equally apportioned between lender, and borrower – this is not reality – the lender it appears is very very rarely accountable for decisions that they make as well.
What is overwhelminly evident in the bush at the moment, is that this is anything but the case. Some horrific first hand accounts are being put forward of by borrowers. There is conduct taking place from financial institutions that takes ones breath away the term “criminal intent” and “questionable behaviour” coupled with “breaches of confidentiality” are common place from landowners too intimidated to speak up.
These points broadly address your second paragraph.
“Investment in marginal rural property can and does go pear shaped very quickly if bought at the beginning of the “wrong” cycle without ample reserves.”
Of course, applicable to any business – then again, Agriculture, as you are aware is a simple word, yet is such a multifaceted “industry” that one must have the ability to diversify, be sustainable, viable, while employing long term plans with economic reward for that business. If ones business partner misrepresents themselves on these issues, then this indeed, becomes a “problem” as all of these business plans are negated by one “bad decision maker”..the farmer has no hope in overturning that unfortunately.
“The full facts are always hidden from outsiders.” I was so pleased to read this comment. Could not agree any more with you. People on the land are intimidated, scared, and many are “gagged” as it is referred to during mediation processes (another story) and even “veiled threats” verbally, and indeed some in writing, which of course are always open to “interpretation”.
These sentiments are reiterated time and time again in rural and regional communities who are indeed being used as “scape goats” and landowners everywhere are becoming quite angry and frustrated about this.
There are too many people of the land to be “getting it wrong” and most certainly, you will not find financial institutions apologizing for their part in any of this, rather all the accountability in their “eyes” rests with the borrowers. This is undeniable.
Ah, Johnathon, there is no where in Australia as much as we all love our individual areas of land where raised that is “safe” for Agriculture. You see, “your region” (generic use) and “my region” have different attributes that enhance, yet are vulnerable to all forms of fluctuations (all encompassing).
It is indeed as Debbie touched upon “…quantifies the loss of generational knowledge or the loss of social capital that is occurring in Australian Agriculture and right across regional Australia as Australian society becomes increasingly urbanised.”
Live X was a classic example, not seasonal there..no matter where you lived in the Northern Regions or in the Southern regions, it did impact on primary producers – nothing to do with land.
I’m tired of hearing about how hard farmers are doing it and that they need more subsidies and other handouts. Essentially farmers are saying that we have too much debt, our sales are down, times are tough please can the government take some money from everyone else in Australia and give it to us.
That doesn’t happen to other small and medium businesses, unless you are a some ‘green’ scheme. Why should farmers be any different? I know of quite a few farmers in the west of Vic who inherited their farms, live very well, have new cars and often travel overseas. Yet I meet them in the pub and all they do is whinge about how hard they are doing it. Most of them are not very hardworking and/or poor business people and if they are in financial difficulties it’s their own fault.
Farms are very overpriced because too many cockies get bailed out or other handouts and so don’t have to face the consequences of their running of the business.
Stop the bailouts and subsidies make them pay their own way. If they go bust so be it. It will let some other person who is prepared to risk their capital and labour to build a viable business. All Australians will be better off in the long term.
No argument from me Johnathon.
Of course there are times when investors guess incorrectly re markets and weather.
Agriculture is a risky business.
However, short term thinking and knee jerk reaction is not proving to be the best financial partner for Australian Ariculture.
I don’t think losing generational knowledge and social capital is a fair price or a good outcome.
I’m not even convinced it’s cheaper or even financially rational to force good operators off their land.
In my area the result is often vacant, weed infested, unproductive land that gets sold for a song and then begins to devalue neighbouring properties and therefore threaten the debt to equity ratio of other good operators.
The financial institutions and the bureaucracies get their bit, but the other local businesses and suppliers (which are part of the social fabric) often miss out.
“I’m tired of hearing about how hard farmers are doing it and that they need more subsidies and other handouts. Essentially farmers are saying that we have too much debt, our sales are down, times are tough please can the government take some money from everyone else in Australia and give it to us.”
Speechless…I have heard about people who think like this, however until now, I did not actually believe that people really were so misinformed…wow!
Sorry Jen, certainly not intending to be disrespectful to any posters, just shocked at the ignorance that’s all.
Hi Cate
Don’t know why you are speechless. I run sheep in NE Vic. I’ve never had a government handout of any sort. I borrowed to buy my land and I work hard.
I just don’t know why farmers expect to get bailed out by other people. Maybe you can tell me why. I know a bloke in Melb who has a wholesale pastry manufacturing business with a 100 staff. One of his major customers put him under pressure financially at a bad time and as a result he lost his lifes work and a 100 people lost their jobs. He didn’t ask the gov for a handout, he didn’t expect one. He just went under.
Why are farmers different?
Steve
A terse summation from Charleville Pastoral Laboratory was that rural Queensland was subject to
Economics
Politics
Seasonal conditions
And could weather two of the three but not three of the three.
At the moment we have
Politics – the Qld vegetation management act
Economics/politics – the live export debarcle
Season – huge drought
So a hat trick.
And I’d remind Stephen Williams that one might find some differences from Vic to Qld – remember the dry land salinity that didn’t overtake Qld because it is not a mediterranean climate?
Hi Ian
The first part of your comment left me a little confused.
The last part refers to Qld has a different climate and land etc than Vic. No argument about that. I just don’t know why that entitles the farmers there to demand that everyone else in Australia should give them money. That doesn’t happen in other businesses.
Farmers have to learn to sink or swim. I feel sorry for those in difficulty due to circumstances that are sometimes) beyond their control. Why I should be compelled by force to give them money I don’t understand.
As I asked Cate why should farmers be bailed out when other businesses go under?
If this was to occur in the farm sector there would be a period of hard times with those who were marginal going out of business. In the long term we would be better off because we wouldn’t be propping up unviable businesses.
It’s no different than ceasing subsidies for the car industry. The whole country will be better off. Assistance in retraining etc should be available for those who suffer the brunt but the longer you keep unviable businesses going the more unviable they become.
Steve
Stephen your comparison with the car industry is not a good one. Don’t forget the car industry was propped up for the last 40 years and the unions always made sure the OZ auto workers enjoyed much higher salaries and better conditions than other countries paid for building cars.
Of course if the clueless labor party was still in power they would still be throwing money to their union mates as they always do and always will.
Also the Abbott govt refused to support the can fruit industry in Vic so at least they showed some consistency. Shorten and Andrews made a point of telling the fruit growers and factory workers that they would support them financially as well.
I’m not sure that Cate is asking for handouts. Rather I think she is lamenting a loss.
It could all be so different. If there was some integrity in reporting of issues, especially by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.
They provided the mechanism that generated the ban on live export that has so badly impacted the Queensland cattle industry in recent years… http://jennifermarohasy.com/2013/04/sarah-ferguson-defends-abattoir-footage-of-dubious-origin/
Sorry Cate.
And for the activism that has created so much heartache Sarah Ferguson has been promoted and promoted again within the ABC.
They (of course I’m referring to the ABC of propaganda) also supported the campaign that resulted in the ban on diuron, an important chemical in the sugar industry…. http://jennifermarohasy.com/2011/10/great-barrier-reef-research-a-litany-of-false-claims/
Recent manmade drought in the Murrumbidgee… http://www.mythandthemurray.org/murray-darling-dams-out-of-balance-as-water-flows-to-south-australia/
They helped set up conditions from which Ashley McKay and other were properly whacked… http://jennifermarohasy.com/2005/10/tree-clearing-in-queensland-one-mans-battle-against-bureaucracy/
Not to forget how they have negotiated water buy backs… sorry, here I am referring to the new water legislation setup by the Howard government… http://jennifermarohasy.com/2008/11/aussie-farmers-not-beaten-by-salt-but-drought-and-government-policies/
I get confused including why anyone on the land would support either a Coalition government, Labor government or the ABC.
Its all so unnecessary. And I’m sorry.
Look, if Stephen is a full-time farmer whose main income comes from farming I’d give him a good hearing.
I wouldn’t be surprised if there are sections of agriculture which have been pointlessly disadvantaged and even wrecked by government bungling, uninformed activism etc, so I’m all ears for what Cate has to say. That said, a full time sheep farmer who gets his main income from cockying can make this an interesting conversation. I love my bit of land but I’d hate to be depending on it from season to season to survive with no other resource or income. I admire those who do that (I’m assuming that’s what Stephen does) whether they win, lose or draw.
Jennifer ” I get confused including why anyone on the land would support either a Coalition government, Labor government or the ABC.”
I’m with you on that. Both sides of politics support various entrenched interests to the disadvantage of most Australians. I really don’t know why I vote. It’s more about who is the least evil for me.
I don’t mean to be hurtful to those on the land doing it hard, my point is that there are businesses and people all over Australia who do it hard every day, often they end up bankrupt or worse, yes there are worse things than being declared bankrupt. I would like to see a country where hard work and success is rewarded and compassion and assistance is given to those who either through their own mistakes or outside factors fail, I just don’t think that the assistance should be forcibly taken from other people and given to them. Any assistance should be given freely without coercion.
Unfortunately I will be out of internet range for the next few days and so this thread will be old before I return. I only ask that those who are doing it hard ask themselves why other people should be forced (and it is by force) to have money taken from them, filtered through the government and then given to them. If we as a nation could get over this idea of ‘Government’ money we would all be better off.
Steve Williams
Stephen Williams
“Hi Ian
The first part of your comment left me a little confused. ” !!!!!!!!
Repeat
At the moment we have
Politics – the Qld vegetation management act – inflicted on the likes of us at economic cost
Economics/politics – the live export debarcle – inflicted on the likes of us at economic cost, the ramifications of which obviously are not apparent to a Victorian sheep farmer
Season – huge drought
Hat trick
Ian
Got it, sorry a scotch slows me down. I agree hat trick, all the same why should other people be forced to pay for it?
Two of the three are political policies of the worst kind. The solution is to fix the politics. How? I don’t know. The Nats are useless, the Libs marginally better and Labor has lost the plot. The most difficult thing in politics is to get a viable new party. UKIP appears (at the moment) to be on the verge of becoming a force. One Nation caused Howard to change some of his positions (some for the worse). It can be done again.
All we need is a talented hard working group of people who will sacrifice their families, their lives and possibly their reputations. I would have a crack but I don’t have the talent. I have flirted with the Libertarians however I don’t think they can become a force. Too many people are scared of freedom and responsibility nowdays. To get the electorate to accept that they have to stand on their own two feet and take responsibility would have to be done in a slow roundabout way politically and at the same time a full on assault on the Uni’s and schools would have to take place. Unfortunately they have become places of refuge for second rate hearts and minds dependant on government handouts.
Off to bed, 5AM start and 500 km tomorrow.
Steve
Quite right Jen, I / we are in a grieving process, and that is the point of the clip partly, also partly to expose the huge numbers of graziers / farmers losing their land, their homes.
Steven bottom line – no, I am not looking for a “hand out” from anyone – mind you, I would be most entitled to my tax dollars back for a hand up over the life time I have paid myself! You would not be able to find a comment anywhere on my fb or wordpress sites that have ever even eluded to that.
I have worked very hard, like many other people in general, and people on the land – there is nothing unusual about that.
I have borrowed money, and paid it back too! With an equity of 83% to “zero” and owing no money anywhere else, one has to ask the question, “what happened?”
So, can I answer that in public, no – as our legal representatives are looking into this and negotiating with our “financier” presently. This is why I am still able to post from our home.
No, there is no hand outs wanted, and there is not from anyone I know in this area who is in trouble. General comments from all in financial difficulty in a similar position to ourselves is that they want accountability from their financiers for some horrendous decisions (others words) that their financiers have made, that have cost them their homes, their business that were indeed viable, and sustainable.
When financiers “turn rouge” this is a whole new “ball game” and that is indeed every business should be aware of.
There are many Victorian farmers / dairymen in trouble – I know, as they have contacted myself personally to see if I can help them….sadly, I cannot.
“Another Ian” and Neville, I appreciated your comments too, points very well made.
News of another grazier walking off his land at Winton, after his financier ANZ foreclosed on him,his wife suffering a number of strokes due to the relentless attacks on the family is typical of what people are enduring.
Another big court case in Brisbane tomorrow, landowner v’s bank, and then another ten day high court hearing as well, John Wharton v’s Bankwest as well – landowners are taking on their financiers and making them accountable – this is the message.
60 graziers up north are mounting a case against the Federal Govt as a direct impact of live x on their financial situations – these are man made, so man made needs to be accountable (ie Govt).
Another woman, told that her LVR had dropped due to the land valuations going down in the area – Longreach – a viable beef cattle station, she had never missed a payment in her life – she could not get refinanced, she too has walked off after horrendous pressure – why? She was meeting her committments..beggar’s belief!
Another young man, exactly the same thing, his LVR’s had dropped, however he was able to sell extra stock around Rocky, and was just able to refinance – the time afforded to him to refinance was 10 days! This is bullying at its best.
So before people just assume all landowners / holders want a “hand out” I suggest, that people start to ask a few more questions.
I am doing the best I can, under the circumstances to help as many as I can. I most certainly am very reluctant to be in the “public” arena – as I am just a mum, and grandmother who is just woman of the land.
I find myself in this arena, I dont want to be “attacked” but I am willing to talk, and to the best of my ability try to bring some balance to a cancer that is spreading throughout rural Australia.
Rogue banks have the money, the influence to slander if they so wish any individual. That is terrifying to people, it is to me.
Hope I have helped a little. Jen – thanks for the links, Ashley and Doris went to hell and back, as did so many others, Scott and Anne Simpson as well – just too many – another reason why people “eat” into their equity. I have never known Ashley or anyone else ask for a hand out.
But, there is nothing wrong with a hand up, that has to be repaid.
Australian primary producers are subsidized the grand total of 2%…and that is returned by way of child care rebates for women and men who need child care in the urban areas…now, tell me again my fellow sheep farmer, who subsidizes who?
I think we should all help each other out – for those who need it in Australia – the money goes around and around..the problem with that is? Generally speaking I see nothing wrong with that.
The problem is Australias debt and where the cuts should or should not be – and that is a whole other topic.
I must say I’m amused when people say they can’t find much difference between the parties. We had the stupid Keating govt that left Howard the job of fixing their mess and now we have the Rudd and Gillard govts leaving an even bigger mess for Abbott to fix.
The Howard govt paid off about 98bn $ of Labor debt but then gave us surplus budgets year after year.
The Rudd and Gillard govts had the best terms of trade since 1901 yet soon wrecked the budget and ran up deficits year after year. How anyone can some how tell me that one is as bad as the other just amazes me.
I suppose we should consider voting for the barking mad Greens or the equally ludicrous PUPs? Last election I voted for an independent in the senate and voted below the line. But I made sure that Labor was nearly last and the Greens were last. In the Reps I voted for the coalition because the only other candidate I could have voted for had so many other silly ideas that I had to give up on him. And I wanted the co2 tax gone ASAP.
If I’d voted any other way I’d consider myself an idiot who couldn’t understand simple maths and simple logic and reason.
If you want to abandon simple logic and reason and common sense that’s your problem, but don’t expect me to follow your example.
Hi Neville,
The water act was proudly banged through by Mr Howard, with Abbot’s frenemy carrying the lollies. Likewise the Conservation Act , under which all our Southern NSW forests were shut down, was also passed under little Johnny , receiving about a dozen amendments before it was even ratified . (By Little Johnny’s Govt).
Hi Stephen,
All local small businesses were eligible for drought relief during the last drought .( I know of the odd one who had problems when it all ended. )
Hi Cate,
I do know where you are coming from, as the bank refused to deal with me when the big dry ended, took my rural home, (not a farm), could not sell it , then redrew the mortgage.
Banks have been foreclosing on orchardists, etc, on the outskirts of large country towns and cities, to sell to developers, but in your case , if there are so many in the area in the same boat ,it wouldn’t be because foreign interests want big acres would it ?
Barnaby Joyce has made guarded comments about the Cubby sale.
Indonesia wants a million hectares and for some obscure reason they seem to run Canberra
My partner says, ‘is there CSG there?’
HI Pathway,
It is called Agenda 21 ,it is real , it is an official UN policy, not a conspiracy and our dopey politicians have signed up for it.
And Jen, you are so right about the Parties, both are busy with the TPP, in secret, which will put a knife straight through rural Australia. Currently the NSW Govt appear to be applying fatal rules to the fishing industry.
Johnny’s project, Neville.
http://www.environment.gov.au/topics/about-us/legislation/environment-protection-and-biodiversity-conservation-act-1999/about-epbc
I posted that link prematurely about the Conservation Act
I wanted to comment that when Garret first proposed to close the forests, I wrote to him and he replied that he was obliged to ado it because of that Act
Ian I agree that the Howard govt was far from perfect and I promise you I didn’t always give them my first preference in the reps or the senate.
But to somehow compare them to Labor is ridiculous. Howard has since admitted he was spooked by the long drought and polling showed him he had to do something about water and so called global warming.
In retirement he has admitted he is an agnostic as far as climate change is concerned. IOW he admits he doesn’t know whether humans have an impact or not.
I’ve always believed that humans must have some impact on temp both locally (UHIE) and globally through increased co2 emissions.
But the co2 effect seems to be no more than about 1c per century, certainly not 2c or 3c or more as the looney extremists would have us believe.
The Rudd govt made an absolute financial mess and quickly wrecked our borders. When Howard was defeated there were only a handful of people in detention and only a few boats per year. But after just 6 years there were another 50,000+ people who had arrived here by boat at a cost of 1100 lives lost and a blow out of 11 bn $ extra cost to the budget.
The Abbott govt fixed our borders by towing back boats and now people smugglers are offering passages as low as 1,000 $ per person and still can’t get any takers. Under the idiot Rudd and Gillard govts people smugglers were charging between 10,000 to 15,000 $ per person and the boats just poured in for years.
So Ian that’s why under our preferential system I would always put the Greens last and Labor way down near the bottom of the heap. I will never ever vote for stupid people period.
A sleepless night, as another grazier is gone…this sent to me..graziers and farmers are not criminals..rogue banks..when will this onslaught end?
“QLD Corporate Militia harass drought stricken farmer at Muttaburra over non – payment of firearm registration (used a warrant to that affect) . Yesterday afternoon 6 Police vehicles unlawfully entered the property of John and Lindy McClymont “Dunrossie” . Armed police including two senior inspectors from Townsville and Longreach surrounded the homestead and demanded that the occupants come outside, to be stressfully separated and interrogated , meanwhile the owner John was in route from Longreach. ON arrival John was quickly accosted by police wanting to inspect firearms and storage facilities declining an offer of hospitality ,(cup of tea! ) until the said firearms were viewed and some, a concealable ,then confiscated.
The saga continues today however as NAB instructed Receivers are to move in to take possession of their other properties .”
Ian T – yes, we have coal, CSG, Shale Gas, Shale Oil, and oil along with a few “other” natural resources.
There are many exploration liciences over the station (approx 50,000 ac).
Yes Jen,
It is all so unnecessary and the resultant loss of good operators is tragic.
Many of us probably don’t thank you enough for everything you have done to try and insert some common sense into NRM.
So a BIG thank you from me.
I did not think Cate was focusing on asking for handouts either.
Another Ian’s hat trick analogy succinctly summarises the issues.
I think there is a 4th and highly relevant issue though.
4) The best operators/survivors. . . because they were either the luckier guessers or just happened to be a bit more financially secure when those 3 variables arrived together. . . are now being left stranded and expected to keep paying for and subsidising the poor legislation and poor politics that contributed to losing people in the first place!!!!
Steve?
I’m not sure why you think your argument here is indicative of anything other that people can be insufferable and ungrateful whingers:
” I know of quite a few farmers in the west of Vic who inherited their farms, live very well, have new cars and often travel overseas. Yet I meet them in the pub and all they do is whinge about how hard they are doing it.”
To be very clear Steve. . .
I know lots of public servants and lots of pensioners and lots of office workers and lots of academics etc etc who have inherited property from their parents or grandparents, who live very well, have new cars and often travel overseas. Yet I meet them in the pub and all they do is whinge about how hard they are doing it. . .AND!!!!. . . some of them recently are even whinging that they might have to pay $7 to visit their local GP.
I also know people who are on the dole and other forms of social security, who live very well, have new cars and often travel overseas. Yet I meet them in the pub and all they do is whinge about how hard they are doing it. . .AND!!!. . .some of them are even whinging that they may be expected to do some retraining or even some community work. . . .EVEN THOUGH IT WILL BE PAID FOR BY THE REST OF THE COUNTRY!!!!!!. . .and won’t cost them a cent!!!!!!!!
I too find whinging distasteful, but it is not exclusive to cockeys.
I also don’t think it’s a sin to drive a decent car or travel OS.
We are farmers in the MIA and we have borrowed and worked hard too.
Any perceived extras we may or may not have. . . like a nice car or an overseas holiday have been earned via off farm income and scrimping and saving and even by mining our equity a little bit.
Looking at people’s cars or any holidays they take and then passing judgement on that does not approach anything close to libertarianism IMHO.
And here:
” I run sheep in NE Vic. I’ve never had a government handout of any sort. I borrowed to buy my land and I work hard. ”
You are making it sound as if the people around Cate have just expected govt handouts and just haven’t worked hard enough like you do?
I need to ask you some questions about this:
1) Breed of sheep?
2) Size of flock?
2) What is the acreage and the DSE of your land?
3) Which market/s do you supply?
4) Is your NE Vic sheep property your sole source of income and does that sheep property solely support repaying the debt on your borrowings?
Mind you. . .none of that is my business and it’s entirely up to you whether you want to answer.
Also Steve,
I think you lack perspective re handouts/subsides
Australian farmers are one of the LEAST SUBSIDISED in the world yet the majority of the Aussie Ag market is based on EXPORTS.
That means that Australian Farmers have been competing in a highly subsidised global market.
There is no such thing as “free trade” in the global food and fibre market as all of them are subsidised to some degree. . .ours being one of the least subsidised.
I agree with your point about middle class welfare mentality. . .it’s a nonsense that our increasingly urbanised society expects handouts for all sorts of things. . .but where do they expect it to come from if our productive capacity and our GDP is continually threatened by poor policy formulated by people who have no understanding about the nature of the businesses they are regulating and whom they expect should pay?
A couple of things interest here.
Is there increased eagerness to take possession of properties in view of their mineral resources and exploration licences? Are there foreign or corporate buyers waiting? Or are these just ordinary old receivership cases where nobody has that much to gain?
Also, does Stephen Williams actually depend on his stock and land to survive month to month and year to year as does Cate? I mean, there are farmers and there are farmers, aren’t there?
I’m not implying anything in either case, just curious.
I am interested whether the farmers here feel they have been well served by BOM forecasting.
Politically, surely people can tell the difference between the Greens and the rest?
Interesting question cohenite.
This topic has been given quite a lot of space at Jen’s blog.
From this farmer’s perspective, the answer is unfortunately not simple as it depends on which particular aspect of BoM’s forecasting services we are using.
If you mean seasonal rainfall forecasting, the answer is:
NO! we are not being well served.
But many of the forecasting services, such as short term temp and wind speed/direction forecasting are very useful as are the satellite maps, the radar services, stock warnings, storm warnings and so on.
But to give an example that is relative to what is being discussed here (people who cannot repay their short term borrowings and are now being forced off their properties after a severe seasonal drought), let’s revisit what BoM’s seasonal rainfall forecast was for last year.
In Autumn 2013, BoM announced their forecast was 80% probability of a wetter than average Winter/Spring for Eastern Australia 2013.
As a financial/ borrowing risk management tool, I guess it would be useful for farmers if they could tell their financiers that according to BoM, they have an 80% probability of a good season and therefore an 80% probability of being able to adequately service their loans.
I would also suspect that financiers were reasonably confident that those loans would be serviced according to BoM’s seasonal rainfall forecast.. . or at least 80% confident?
But alas. . .the result was instead a severe and devastating seasonal drought. . .which was not forecast. . . & which led some to claim that still meant that BoM wasn’t wrong. . .someone here claimed that even if they gave that as a 99% probability it still meant that BoM wasn’t wrong if the result was a severe seasonal drought.
But the real kicker is that farmers are not given a 20% probability or chance to renegotiate those loans.. . what has been happening instead. . . as Cate has highlighted. . .they end up getting put under more short term pressure. . .and their debt to equity ratio is compromised.
So under those circumstances, BoM’s forecasting is not a useful service.
This year we have BoM forecasting a 70% probability of a drier than average Winter/Spring, yet right now in many places in SE inland Australia we are experiencing one of the best Autumn breaks we have seen in about 3 decades.
Does BoM’s seasonal rainfall forecast mean that we should not capitalise on the present opportunity?
If we don’t take advantage of this Autumn break. . .the result of course will be that we will not be able to adequately service our loans. . .100% certainty on that one.
But none of this means that I don’t want BoM or anyone else to keep trying to improve in this particular space. There would be no one happier than us farmers if and when seasonal rainfall forecasting improves.
“As a financial/ borrowing risk management tool, I guess it would be useful for farmers if they could tell their financiers that according to BoM, they have an 80% probability of a good season and therefore an 80% probability of being able to adequately service their loans.”
That’s a very good point; BOM represents itself as an expert and as we know the AGW “science is settled”. Therefore you should be able to rely on the BOM’s forecasts and if they are wrong and you are financially disadvantaged seek redress.
That would be a real cat amongst the pigeons.
Cohenite,
I don’t think that we should be able to seek redress from BoM if they are wrong.. . although I understand why you made that comment.
Instead, it would be good if financial institutions and bureaucracies and quasi bureaucracies and attendant govt policies/legislation demonstrated an understanding that putting farmers under short term pressure and compromising their debt to equity ratio under adverse seasonal conditions is not the best way to be a financial partner with Agriculture.
It’s not as if they don’t have examples that show how it can work to everyone’s advantage.
Many of the regional businesses that service Agriculture such as supplying machinery, seed, fertiliser, mechanical services, contracting services, building services etc and who are indeed a very important part of the social capital and the social fabric of regional Australia, have a very good understanding about seasonal income and about the need to be flexible according to seasonal conditions. They usually have enough sense to come to a negotiated arrangement when farmers are confronted with something like a devastating seasonal drought.
Of course they charge interest and of course they end up doing OK under those arrangements but they at least have enough sense to not kill the goose.
Unfortunately. . .these same businesses who understand seasonal income and how to invest sensibly and flexibly in Agriculture. . .don’t have the opportunity for redress when farmers are taken down by the short term thinking of financial institutions and bureaucracies.
Sorry deb, policy in this country costing $billions is made on the basis of the climate scientists being oracles. If some farmers get shafted by the banks for failed crops due to dud forecasts by the BOM then I think a class action should be the way to go.
I mean don’t you plan your farming practice for the next year after looking at the BOM forecasts?
Here’s a group of Aussie scientists who can’t find a consensus on AGW. What a relief to see a group with no religious irons in the fire.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/no_consensus/
I’m sorry to have come late into this thread as I believe some of my insights may have been useful earlier in the discussion. There is no mention in the comments so far that Cate’s business plan for Mt Morris apparently included anticipated income derived from “carbon farming” (check out the audio at: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-20/mount-morris-cate-stuart/5465060 ). If this is the case then her bank may well have been prudent in not relying on that potential income source as a contributor to the repayment of her loan.
What is little understood is that when Australia makes claim to meeting its Kyoto Protocol commitments this is based, inter alia, on modelled estimates for carbon sources and sinks from the Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry sector. But when we pay for carbon credits from a landscape the carbon sequestered has to be accurately measured.
In my opinion politicians have sold landholders a pup with the false promise of carbon credits on grazing land. The fact is that the size of the error term of measured carbon fluxes in the underlying soil, commonly exceeds the size of the measured C flux in the vegetation growing on it. Carbon in vegetation and soil is part of a continuum. It follows that we cannot measure true sequestration unless account is taken of all parts of the active carbon pool in the landscape. The sampling problem in measuring these components accurately over a paddock, property or landscape scale is never spelt out. These problems would be further exacerbated in infertile, semi-arid environments as typified by the mulga on Mt Morris. Furthermore, while it is not clear that Cate understands this, it is logical that buyers of credits have a reasonable certainty that the carbon sequestered remains out of the atmosphere “in perpetuity” (or 100+ years in practice). If such conditions were not in place scammers and rorters would have a picnic.
I suspect that any mulga community on Mt Morris being considered as a potential carbon sink would already have a tree density that strongly suppressed its underlying pasture production (conclusions based on the research of Another Ian, who has already posted on this thread). This in turn suggests that current and future cattle carrying capacity in this mulga would be quite low – especially if the cattle have already established a browse line on the palatable mulga tree leaves.
To try to finish on a positive note I wonder if Cate has considered agisting off her 5000 ha of mulga for use as a drought feeding source for drought affected stock from elsewhere in Western Queensland? In the 1960’s Harry Carter took in 1000 Channel Country steers for agistment on his small mulga block (‘Wardilla’, just west of Charleville). Wardilla was wall to wall mulga and Harry bought a dozer and kept the stock alive and in good nick on pushed mulga for 9-12 months as I recall – and was well paid for it. Unfortunately, I’m not sure of the present situation with the tree police and their regulation of drought feeding. But if agistment is being sought and the regulators allow it, this could possibly be a source of current income, as well as opening up the “carbon credit” paddock for greater pasture production.
Cate…experiencing the same problems re. Family Farms along the lower irrigation areas of the Murray here in Sth Aust’……read this and see what you think…
Discussion Paper on solutions for sustainability of a farming community.
Ok…here comes the BBQ. stopper !…let’s cut to the chase and admit the realities of farming in the Mid-Murray Council area..:
a) That it is primarily an agricultural constituent…
b) That the agriculture producers are mostly of generational owned small holdings..
c) the imposts of market requirements, restrictions and pricing are more favoured to large holdings, large corporate agri-business and Managed Investment Scheme producers……
The result being the development of a “perfect storm” of squeezed “family farms”, concentration of production to “outside interests” that export their produce, dumped excess commodities resulting in rock-bottom prices for produce and concentration of water allocation licences with corporate agri-business. The result could be a complete loss to the local community of independence in growth and supply of produce from family farming enterprises.
Many might say..: “So what!..let the market decide.”…But it isn’t “the market” deciding…it’s “Fund – Managed” speculators with super capital, super credit and cross-border / cross-seasonal guarantees of profit margins protected against crop-failure by multi-location producers that, being so large and having the capacity to produce so much, they can control the price of produce by dumping or withdrawing commodities from a market that will eventually be heavily reliant on their capacity….The smaller producer having neither the capacity, flexibility, nor the credit to “ride-out” long-term problems…add to the mix an uncertain climate, and we have that perfect storm mentioned above.
What can we do?…
Those mega-producers deliver their products either interstate or ship to ports for export way outside this council area…so they are not affected by local fluctuations…it is the smaller, family owned farms that are at risk and we can do something there. It is a new idea, building NOT on a cooperative of producers, though they would be good…it is a “market-oriented” proposal that would require a contract between individual parties..no different than the usual “contract to supply” of many businesses…it would require the Mid-Murray Council to become an “investor in the constituency” to supply locations and under-cover premises where a regular, consistent, semi-permanent stalls (much like the Adelaide Central Market) of local farmers could sell a huge variety of produce to local shoppers….produce such as vegetables, meats and fruit and even cereal grains in either bulk or packaged.
I told you it was a BBQ. stopper….but I believe we have the capability to do this…but we have to think big…very big! We have quality growers of everything in the lines of veggies , meats, fruits and cereals…do we have the population of consumers to purchase?…if these “centralised” markets stayed open for say.. three consecutive days each, I would think they would be a goer…considering also the weekend tourist flows through the area..if council could obtain State or Federal monies to construct multi-purpose under-cover arenas with appropiate coldstore facilities…then it could be a goer…There would have to be at least four locations all operating simultaneously over three days, perhaps..one in Morgan, one in Blanchetown, one in Sedan and the other in Mannum….the multi-purpose arenas could perhaps be hired out on other days for other pursuits.
Sure, this is only one over-view of possibilities that would involve cooperation and contractual certainies between council, growers and a willing-to-participate public….there may be other ways of marketing the produce that will support the local community…. but what other choice is there? Just sit back and watch as all these hard-working, quality producing generational farms and families get squeezed out of the industry?…and then when or if the bottom drops out of the market so it becomes nonviable for the big producers to continue and they shut up shop…with the family farms gone, there will be no residual expertise to restart farming in the area and we are left with bare paddocks…. or do we affiliate and come together as a society and instead of ending up with a community that is depreciating and all our young people want to move away from, we become a community that is creating and not only do we get our young people to stay, but we attract more keen people to come to the area because they want to be a part of a growing community.
What do you think?
Good lord!…when I read some of the heartless commentary on this and other right-wing blogs…a right-wing political party that seeks the sympathetic votes of those more vulnerable in the regional areas of the country and then “devours” them as a sacrifice to relentless and unforgiving economic rationalism!….so true is the comparison to the ” sow that eats it’s own farrow ” !
Hi Jaycee,
You are right about heartlessness , but get off the right wing rubbish mate. You don’t get more right wing than our current Cantberra Clowns are trying to be and I am seeing more criticism than praise, on this blog.
Did not Jennifer herself remark earlier, that she couldn’t understand country people voting for either lot ?
Jaycee,
It’s got precious little to do with wings.
Both wings have pandered to the urban elite and as Bill suggests we now have schemes that are not financially prudent and are run by people who are like ‘tree police’.
Regional Australia is in desperate need of sensible policy. . .not political rhetoric.
Debbie, Ian…I’ve “crossed swords” with both of you before and I am not, in this economic / regional climate here to stir the pot on left or right-wing politics…as you may witness in my above post on the family-farms situation in my area…it is a storm waiting to happen…what is needed above all politics is attention to problematic situations and some imagination given to creative solutions that will KEEP expertise, labour and families in situ in these regional areas….we need stability of employment…ergo…stability of production and financing and marketing of produce….Here in this area, as I have noted above, we produce all the food necessities of life…and along with that production come the service / infrastructure industries….good!…So we have expertise in situ…we have production in situ…we have supply and labour in situ…all we need now is marketing of the products…and for that we need either “outside” expertise / networking to export our product or we need to create the infrastructure to bring the consumers to our doors….One solution is that which I sugested above..ie. “centralised markets” contracted with area suppliers under large, professional built and run undercover markets.
Hey!….no arguments about Canberra!…I’m out here too you know!
Thanks Bill Burrows for the relevant information. I’ve just updated the post at the very top of the thread. I say if you sup with the devil, no good will come.
so Jen, who will you be supping with at Heartland – you might get taken for another ride!
Jennifer is correct and if you lay down with dogs you’re likely to get fleas. That’s why everyone should put Labor and the Greens stone motherless last.
But if you want a co2 tax ( some latest yapping is for 25%) and want to waste billions $ every year on idiocy like fake co2 certificates and even more wind and solar etc, then by all means vote for left wing parties. You’ll be fully rewarded and help to make OZ a basket case and laughing stock post haste.
BTW here’s Bob Tisdale’s latest post on the emerging el nino.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/04/the-201415-el-nino-part-10-june-2014-update-still-waiting-for-the-feedbacks/
Very relevant really. A growth market , so who is after all that land ?
““Even though our loyalty to American ranchers is strong, rather than meet the shortfall with conventionally raised beef from cattle treated with growth hormones and antibiotics, we decided to take this opportunity to start sourcing more truly grass-fed steak,” Chipotle founder Steve Ells explained ”
http://wealthydebates.com/chipotle-sources-australia-healthier-cuts-beef/
“…That’s why everyone should put Labor and the Greens stone motherless last.”
Neville…I thought regional Aust’ has been doing THAT for years…and look where it has gotten them!….bloody good advice you give…..and please..don’t start posting tips on the ponies!
“Clearly Cate was after a handout, she was, and apparently still is, hoping for a financial benefit at the altar of anthropogenic global warming.”
I am right here, Jen. I have just seen your post on facebook as well. I have no problem with answering as many questions as I possibly can.
Firstly though, can you clarify the “hand out” we are apparently seeking?
Righto JC tell us why we should vote for Labor or Greens etc.
Read above for my reasons why I will always preference the Coalition before Labor and Greens. Just simple common sense whether you live in regional OZ or the cities. That’s providing you can understand simple logic, reason,history and simple maths.
But please tell us——– do you still think a co2 tax and fake co2 certificates are a good idea? RSS is currently showing no warming for 17 years 9 months and no SS warming for about 25 years. The latest studies seem to show that there is no recent change or perhaps a deceleration in SLR and ditto for glaciers as well. Are wind and solar a good idea? And why ? Is borrowing 1 bn $ a month just to pay interest on our budget deficit a good idea? Has the Abbott govt action on illegal immigrants been a good or bad thing? No boats now for at least 5 and a half months. Please tell us why we should vote for Labor or Greens above the Coalition?
Bill makes some really good points, of course.
We do, infact right now have generally over the entire station (exception of about 10,000 hec if added together) very good ground coverage of many varied species of pasture and native grasses and of course introduced (buffel and alike).
These areas that have been managed are not in a “block” type scenario. they are scattered which is most beneficial, which we have had 800 head (approx) cow and calves units grazing.
For those who are not aware, as Jen is aware. I was part of the Convoy of No Confidence with the National Road Freighters Association.
I am against Carbon Tax, and do not believe in AGW. This is very widely known. I still stand by this to this day. This is posted on our facebook site as well.
With this said, I am more than happy to answer any questions that I can about our decisions here for CFI management.
Please though, do not take the CFI out of context in regard to our present financial circumstances, as there is much that due to legal proceedings I am unable to disclose prior to this.
Hi Cate
Cate, Thanks for being here to answer questions and put your perspective.
You ask me the question… “What hand out are we apparently seeking”?
“Carbon farming” is a concept wholly dependent on AGW. The hand-outs/subsidies that go with it are totally dependent on government support including for carbon markets.
There is no real market for “carbon farming”, its part of the burden that government imposes on all tax payers through its support for AGW. I think Greg Hunt calls it “Direct Action”. Its really just a handout to businesses who are prepared to play his politics.
Cate?
You bought the cattle grazing property in 2008 and wanted to diversify into tourism and carbon sequestering?
Do you understand what Bill Burrows points out above?
Here:
” politicians have sold landholders a pup with the false promise of carbon credits on grazing land. ”
And Bazza. . .
Isn’t it a pity that those who keep zealously defending NRM policy ( based on AGW and international environmental treaties ) that has quite clearly created some perverse outcomes in regional Australia lack the courage or the good grace to be honest about the harm that is being caused?
Carbon farming is an oxymoron which basically entails leaving land fallow and unused. Large areas of Australia have already been given over to this nonsense including Henbury, Toorale and Mable Creek Stations. These Bills are still Law:
http://www.claytonutz.com/publications/news/201108/24/carbon_farming_initiative_bills_passed_now_to_get_ready_for_them.page
I pop on over every now and again to see how the “old folks” are going…the above topic by Cate was pertinent to our stretch of the river, so I thought I’d comment….there are some good posts in there…some relevant points…and Cate seems to be “on top of her game” in her assessment of the farm situation (but not the political!….”convoy of no consequence”??…really!!)….but then the ‘usual suspects’ pop their heads over the parapet and it once again goes into la-la land…I’ll catch you later, when the “old folks” are having their afternoon nap!
Whoa. Back yer truck up, Jennifer.
“You ask me the question… “What hand out are we apparently seeking”?
“Carbon farming” is a concept wholly dependent on AGW. The hand-outs/subsidies that go with it are totally dependent on government support including for carbon markets.
There is no real market for “carbon farming”, its part of the burden that government imposes on all tax payers through its support for AGW. I think Greg Hunt calls it “Direct Action”. Its really just a handout to businesses who are prepared to play his politics.”
My understanding of carbon farming is that the farmer and their financier and the Queensland Government AND the carbon trader AND the Clean Energy Regulator are all voluntarily involved in working out how many tonnes of carbon are sequestered. Then a company puts its hand up via the Carbon Trader to buy those credits. Where is the government handout? This is about a private company buying into a legal scheme, voluntarily. And the farmer voluntarily sells those carbon credits. The Australian Government doesn’t buy the credits from the farmer. The Australian government does not guarantee a buyer for the farmer.
Where is the handout? This is a legal scheme, based on imagination rather than science of course, but where exactly is the handout from the Australian taxpayer?
Thanks.
Okay, lots of questions, so will do my best. I have just re- read Bills comments again, as they are most interesting to me of course.
He wrote:
“But if agistment is being sought and the regulators allow it, this could possibly be a source of current income, as well as opening up the “carbon credit” paddock for greater pasture production.”
And this is exactly how we are managing this scattered 5000 hec area, Bill has worded it perfectly. That is the guidelines for this version of CFI – it must be grazed. And remember, we along with many other landowners, have only put in a small area for potential CFI.
“Urisino” in far western NSW is about to be finalised, I understand (stand to be corrected) it is approximately 80,000 hec (?) The entire station.
Jen, thanks for answering, I appreciate it as always.
Just a few things from up above on your update as well,
“But the banks, for good reason, thought otherwise.” The bank we are dealing with is Rabobank, as reported in “The Australian”.
Some history on Rabobank and CFI / Carbon Trading –
“Dutch Bank Introduces “Climate Credit Card” http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/dutch-bank-introduces-climate-credit-card.html and this http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/dutch-bank-to-offer-carbon-credits-to-brazilian-farmers.html
Rabobank say, again “it is an encumbrance” having the area managed for CFI – certainly a turn of events, although, the bank most certainly does trade in Carbon Credits, and give consent for many others generally case by case for Carbon Credits – so why are landowners / holders different?
Ourselves and many other Graziers are indeed looking to the new CFI (where we can graze it as well as carry on other business practices) as it is land management complimentry.
Equally though, we see that if it does not come to fruition, that there is nothing lost either, as we are not being paid for the management anyway which we all do. So really, it is a possible income stream for many that is being blocked by financiers however, the reason is still quite veiled in many’s opinons.
Naturally, landowners / holders are of the opinon if we are entitled to another income stream that we have paid for, by property purchase, rates, insurance, information gathering, botanist reports, ecologists, pasture anyalists, verification – all of these costs come out of landowners pockets (or the purchaser of the carbon credits for verification can be negotiated), not tax payers (nor should they) and the carbon is sold to say an overseas company who has to purchase x amount from Australia, what is the problem? (Rhetorical)
This is bringing in funds from over seas, to be spent here in Australia, rather than sell the family farm to overseas countries increasing foreign owner ship. This issue is of concern throught out rural Australia.
In regard to Henbury and the other schemes, no one I know, including our selves would contemplate those schemes – again why? The reason is it was a “true” lock up – landowner could not manage it at all, fire, roads, or graze – an inferno wating to happen, and a haven for noxious weeds and feral animal control to be sure. That was the original CFI – hence the term “Lock up” those schemes were doomed from the very concept.
There really is no reason that we should not be able to tap into a legal market (rightly or wrongly, and the Live X supporters would / do say live X is wrong too) where landowners are paid for active management of vegetation.
For too long, have landowners been told what they can and what they cannot do on their land – this is just another layer. Why should land owners / holders with land, locked up under a PMAV (Property Map of Assessable Vegetation) have to pay the rates, can never improve that area as in pasture improvement by managing the vegetation at the landowners discretion, not be able to derive an income off it? That to “our” way of thinking is bad business all outlay, and no income.
The cost of production – well hows this one, fresh off the market. 5cents a Kilo! Thats right, five cents a kilo – now this gets all graziers as mad as heck..4 decks sold, at Roma within the last fortnight, the total amount for the 4 decks made $8,000.00 that, that does not even cover the freight. Cows and calves, sold as units – $110.00 per unit. So, yes, that is a very raw point with all producers.
The rising cost of production on traditional land use is never ending. To produce crops, meat landowners need to diversify where they can to continue to feed and clothe people.
This is why, so many people on the land do not become involved any futher than “AGW is crap and so is Carbon Tax we don’t need it in Australia” generally, one would be hard pressed to find any landower out this area at all who would say differently. People may say “selfish” as only thinking about Australia, well, many are also of the opinon that Australia is in a world of hurt, and people are trying to survive – there are thousands of us who are trying to survive to put food on peoples tables.
Jen do you have the paper released from Hunts office last week that was sent out to financiers? It was sent to me as a courtesy – I dont know how to attach it here. But I think everyone should be able to see it. The more discussion and information sharing the better on this pro’s and con’s.
Debbie, I think all political parties have been selling many of us “pups” for years to be honest and look at all of us, we are still trying to survive, bring things to the forefront discuss and make a difference.
I admire everyones input on this post of Jen’s – it doesnt mean I have to agree, but its good to read others opinions. I am sorry if I have missed some points in the posts, please, just be patient I will endevour to answer as stated before, what I am able to. As well you can appreciate we are indeed in the middle of trying to stay in our home.
Bottom line for us, and many other landowners trying to survive, we are in a position where we are forced to look at all forms of income (leaving all the politics out of it from a Landowner / holders perspective) due to the financial pressures of being, on the land.
Jaycee you asked:
“Cate…experiencing the same problems re. Family Farms along the lower irrigation areas of the Murray here in Sth Aust’……read this and see what you think…”
I read it all, generally, yes I think there is merit in your market proposals.
The benefits into the local communities I can see many advantages there for sure.
There is always that “onion” though..you know the one as you peel off the layers, its the onion that just “keeps on giving” with regulations. I am thinking about the CWA of all things, in regard to a while ago, they ran into problems with food and safety, or something along those lines for selling of all things cakes at a cake stall to raise funds!
The country has gone completely stark raving mad on that one! lol
However, back to the point of layers of regulations. That would have to be investigated in regard to the selling of meat to be sure, just as one produce.
I am going to read it again now, I keep picking up on things in it.
Jen, I just did a big post answering everyone and its gone..or is awaiting moderation as that came up? Sorry Cheers Cate
Cate, Your long comment has been released… (comments go straight through if you keep the same name and email address…) but i don’t follow your argument…. you seem inconsistent to me and opportunistic in your approach. so are many successful business people.
Thumbnail, The entire AGW industry is being funded by little people through the banks and through government. Greg Hunt is planning to spend how much to underpin ‘carbon farming’? The current mandated renewable energy scheme based on carbon credits has resulted in a 70, or it is it 110 percent increase, in Australian electricity prices over recent years? And what set off the recent global financial crisis? Sure it wasn’t only caused by Lehman Brothers but some say they precipitated the crisis. How many billions of dollars did they, or was it just all the other banks, then pick up in government bail outs? And what got Lehman Brothers in to trouble in the first place? There is some evidence it was their obsession with making money out of global warming including through trading in ‘carbon credits’. When something has no intrinsic value (carbon farming) and is dependent on elaborate trading schemes/scams/carbon credits underpinned by banks that are underpinned by governments we all pay in the end… and we are all that much poorer.
Sorry about that Jen, I see, I put an “S” on the end. I didnt realize – thank heavens it wasn’t all lost it was “epic”.
I was trying to address so many different poster’s comments by points in the one post, possibly the wrong way to go about it?
I agree with the term “oppertunistic” in the context of that is what people on the land have to do to survive in these economic times.
We have to diversify, mitigate, sustain and be viable to carry on. Where one income stream may cease on our land, another or more must be available to landowners so they continue to be viable in their chosen activities ie food / fiber etc.
I think generally, that there are two very different, yet by fate interwoven, central points on this thread;
1) The “debate” regarding the validity of AGW and all that encompasses
2) What is now available to landowners in the form of income diversification.
Our “situation” along with many other landowners is ongoing “food” production.
“We” collectively, may not agree with the entire AGW and Carbon Tax agenda – however, it is legal, it is a form of income, and it puts food on the table (depending on the different scenarios) and a roof over peoples heads from that income. Still able to graze livestock etc as normal.
I agree, the power bills etc, horrendous – our account per quarter can be as high as $3-4k, our internet $2-3k per month. (Satellite)
We are just trying to survive, like every other small business, however we provide beef for people to eat.
If there is another alternate legal way to diversify on these lands then let us know, as not only ourselves, but many others would like to hear about it now. Preferably before we are all homeless out here.
Thanks Jen, cheers Cate
http://mountmorrisstation.wordpress.com/
I reckon Henbury is right up there with woodchips-to-Drax in the Green Follies competition. Either could win.
The trouble with the developed West is that we have shot our Judeo-Christian foot off, then our Enlightenment foot…and now we have run out of feet. What the hell! Tip good Aussie dollars into the European Union carbon shark pool, or just send your money off to that Nigerian Field Marshal who’s been emailing you. Wreck or waste something.
Grow and sell sound food? Dig and burn our abundant and superb coal for reliable and affordable energy? Conserve resources? That Conservation gig is so last millennium. Big Oil/Gas wants to hit nukes and coal on the head, and if it has to hold hands with Big Green and help decorate the landscape with giant whirlygigs, so be it. (Both parties will be holding their noses as they hold hands.)
What’s that? You thought it was about the CARBON? No wonder Enron and Lehman Bros loved this game. The punters are so dumb and it’s never their own money (until it is, but that comes later).
Obama’s latest delusional nonsense will hit an already shaky economy and the poorest families will be the hardest hit.
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/obama-rule-by-decree-if-you-like-your-lifestyle-you-can-keep-your-lifestyle/#comments
Of course this won’t change the weather/temp/climate/SLs/ hurricanes/tornadoes/wild fires/droughts/floods/ lightening strikes etc etc at all, just ask India and China. What stupid fools they are, yet they’ll be cheered on here by the Labor and Green zombies.
Good farm management including agistment, rotation etc is one thing but deliberately tailoring farm management under the illusion that CO2 is being sequestered to mitigate AGW is another dimension all together; just ask Peter Spencer and many others who have lost control over their properties.
The Queensland experience during the Peter Beattie era when a government corrupted by the IPCC quarantined parts and all of many properties to reduce CO2 emissions was toned down when the various CO2 agricultural acts were introduced. This was a good tactic politically because it brought some farmers doing it tough on board.
However any farmer getting money for CO2 sequestration is basically getting a government handout at taxpayers’ expense for doing nothing.
I was there for Peter Spencer at his tower of Hope.
I was there for all the rallies, I even invited Jen, and a number of others to speak.
So maybe ponder this. As with Peter, and thousands more on the land, when our land, that we pay rates on, manage etc etc is locked up under a PMAV, and we cannot do anything with it, even though we pay the costs for having out names on the deeds you think it is justified we are denied economic return? Or is it for the good of the environment that others have a say over our land?
Thousands and thousands of us on the land do this – for what? So that some do gooder with a green agenda feels good for “the good of the environment?”
Landowners are sick of being door mats. I do not mean to be offensive to anyone.
Can you not see that landowners are forced through economic times to consider and indeed undertake this?
So while the “debate” continues and there is a market – that is lawful why do people believe that it is their rights to call “us” names expressing their “dissapointment” in individuals, saying we do nothing but grow trees – it is not that simple, and the costs to do this come largely out of our pockets as well, and ongoing to other business’s.
One minute the “Financial Institutions” are being targeted for their part in Carbon Trading and hailed as demons, the next they are applauded for not giving consent? Well, which is it?
If the carbon tax was reversed world wide – then the flow on effects by and large would be celebrated world wide for those who hold those views against AGW and the tax itself.
There would be no need to consider as it would be negated CFI – reguvination projects.
However, it would still leave landowners with locked up portions of their land, unable to improve it and reap economic reward while still having financial outlays on those areas. But thats fine, we do that now anyway…
Cate,
As I know it what is locked up in a PMAV you can do something with.
It is the part that isn’t covered by the PMAV that is the problem ( and I can expand with examples if invited as this is a bit perriferal to the thread).
Hi Ian,
Yes, you obviously do have an understanding of PMAV’s of course, I am talking specifically about the areas on the RE / PMAV’s maps that you can’t clear vegetation ie Pink area’s etc. (my maps are packed…unfortunately)
I dont think it is a bit of a side track but it may help if you do show areas that cannot be touched and the guide lines it may help others (?), as many landowners are saying the same thing – people are so angry at the moment out of frustration, and just feel like political “foot balls” as usual the entire system for being on the land needs an over haul..but that (lol tic) is a different topic imho mate.
The best way to explain is to show I think.
Here are two clips.
The first one shows stock arriving in the yards to be taken out into the CFI managed areas – note their condition on arrival. The drought was quite severe then as well. This is reflected as it is dry as you are able to see.
As the clip progress’s you will see the stock going along fence line, where a rider is going “flat out” on a horse – note the mulga regrowth and ground cover. It is still like this now – this was September 2013 picture. It is indicative of the average paddock conditions in the areas set aside – but not limited to those areas at that time.
The rest of the clip, where there are photos shown of horses getting stock back, waist high ground cover, horse and rider next to baby calves – these too are in the CFI managed areas taking stock off the station only a month ago.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2e7sf3_84kA
This is active management. This is work all encompassing. So please, do not tell me “money for nothing”. And yes, that includes hands on management of the vegetation – if you do not know what goes into the management of these areas or what has to be supplied to even qualify, then please ask.
The second clip shows again, mustering the “mis- mustered stock” approximately 2 weeks ago.
The CFI managed area is again, where the horse rider and the motor bike are trying to block up a rogue beast. Note the vegetation types, and the ground cover. (Not the bulls being brought in from the holding paddock where the dogs and the 4 wheeler are bringing them under control in the very first few frames)
The benefits of the cattle in these areas is huge, the dung back into the ground, the wildlife, the vigorous growth when rains come are all beneficial to these areas.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6duIbDbl5A8
At the end of the day, we, and many others are indeed losing our homes – CFI plays a part for us and many others, however, due to legalities continuing, I am unable to elaborate much further on ours, and others situations. My only advice would be, do not judge us we are families just trying to survive with what is available to us. We are not criminals, we are not law breakers, we are not drug users or mass murderer’s we are people on the land.
I do not like being in the public eye, and “resent” it very much, however due to circumstances beyond my control I am forced to be here. The only positive thing about this, is that families are not feeling so alone anymore, as they can contact us without feeling ashamed about losing there homes for a myriad of circumstances.
This is what happened to a family on the land, that I posted about yesterday that was sent to me as an update – John has not been charged with any offences at all at this point in time:
“follow up on the next day, 17 yes seventeen poo-lice, in 9 vehicles a sheriff ,locksmith ?,negotiator and several receivers entered “Dunrossi “,quite possibly unlawfully as they had an old warrant which we suspect now may have been expired.
Police entered on a search warrant looking for firearms again, they went through everything all buildings ,vehicles, including private goods stored there. Found nothing in the search which took two and half hours.
The receivers then moved in.
John and family are at the other property ,they have a few weeks before receivers move in there.”
– and yet, people want to argue about CFI and express their anger towards people like us? No…There are something’s in life that are more important, and people indeed in the farming / grazing fraternity are hurting big time, in this “The International Year of the Family Farmer 2014” and no one is talking about the elephant in the room – and it’s not CFI.
Cate,
If you purchased a property in 2008 with the intension of making money out of carbon farming then you were seeking, when you still had choices, to exploit the system.
Furthermore, over this same period of time you have sought out the help and support of people like Bob Carter and myself, who at significant personal cost are attempting to overthrow the same.
Jen, really? I am very dissapointed in that comment..
No, Bob Carter contacted myself which he will verify, not sure when, but a long time ago years maybe 2007?. At that time, at personal cost to myself to help organize a series of meetings if possible throughout Qld – I contacted Ron Bahnisch, and the rest is history.
Further, I would do so again in a heartbeat for Bob, and indeed yourself.
In regard to contacting you to speak at Canberra, I was asked to think of people by then NRFA president Mick Pattel, who could contribute in a balanced way to share information with people of all political persuassions. I thought of you, and Bob and you were asked.
I recall you ringing and accepting.
It was never about me as an individual, and that is what you have implied personal gain at that time, insulting…
I was there as an organzier along with the entire NRFA board members to invite all people of all political persuasions to have their say on issues that were important to them, and to hold accountable if only by voices, their dissatisfaction of their elected MP’s – literally, if people thought the person they have voted in was not doing their “job”.
An invitation was extended to every MP to attend. I had to maintain “apolitical” at that time, as many will attest to I most certainly did.
In regard to the continued debate about AGW and the Carbon tax, I have always objected – you know this. It has been written countless times.
This does not mean as a business person, that one does not recognize if there is a way to expand ones business, then one should not do it – and that is what you are suggesting isnt it? To “exploit”?
Capitalize on if need be, dont worry about the drought conditions then either – the CFI was always something that we thought would not happen. A bit like praying for rain in reverse – it didnt happen at that time.
So we started our business stategy just in case it was needed. Although there was nothing appealing in Carbon Tax on Australians (yes, that includes us and many others), but the management of the property was important to us.
Indeed, 2008 it was purchased, end of June.
Remember though, “This Digest was prepared for debate. It reflects the legislation as introduced and does not canvass subsequent amendments. This Digest does not have any official legal status. Other sources should be consulted to determine the subsequent official status of the Bill.”
http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd1112a/12bd005
Jen, you assume to much, in regard to “when you still had choices” unfortunately I am unable to comment to that specifically.
I am starting to wonder who exploited whom now…or maybe I am just very tired and over reading your comment. I hope so. Are you really implying that I have not supported Bob, or yourself over all this time? And even now?
Well, I guess what you think is up to you of course. The elephant in the room still exists, and no commentry to it…hopeless..
Cate,
Thanks, so I’ll give my 2-bob’s worth, using our situation to reinforce many of your own points
The Regional Ecosystem (RE) areas you get included in a PMAV are those that don’t meet the criteria for “REMNANT”, under the Qld Veg Management Act (VMA). So at least on these areas you have a chance of maintaining what you have.
But what isn’t in the PMAV that you could get from the government assessors – well consider:
If the RE is mapped other than white, you’re at the mercy of the gods of mapping. And I’ve described this as making the map that Columbus left with to find China look like a state of modern art. They were supposed to take into account history and condition with the RE mapping. Didn’t happen, so our “remnant areas” are about as pristine as a recycled virginity.
We bought into this place (which is my home ground) for the development potential. In our case we’ve had imposed vegetation mapping that severely affects that on about half the place. And based on the Southwest Strategy Safe Carrying Capacity calculation reduces our safe carrying by almost half.
And, based on nearby land sales, has cost us around a million dollars in commercial value. Try telling your bank manager that sort of news – though better that we worked it out before he did. Compensation from the government? The word doesn’t exist.
And then there is the downward spiral – limited development potential, limited labour resources, unfavourable seasons, reduced cash flow (not helped by going out of sheep due to predation, and the cattle magic Canberra vision), increased borrowing on a reduced asset etc. The hat trick.
Downward spiral.
And then all those supposedly near extinction kangaroos grazing. If you can’t control the grazing pressure – – (Range Science 101). Downward spiral. (Out of interest how do kangaroo turds get featured in the cfi?)
And the time required to get some sanity back into laws and regulations, and the time and effort wasted during that time.
The 1994 Land Act allowed clearing outside a boundary fence at 4 metres and anything that would fall on the fence. It has taken about 10 years to get back to this without tree police threat since the VMA was introduced – the “first improvement” allowed 1.5 m clearing (as one wit said “Where do you find half a bulldozer?” in timber up to 20 metres tall). And so, with limited manpower, for that land I’ve had to “maintain the required secure boundary fence” with time and effort that was really needed elsewhere. More downward spiral.
And our hands being tied re thinning, clearing etc while the woody species frolic. More downward spiral.
The current drought provisions for water infrastructure are IMO a long way ahead. Some pipelines would enable us to somewhat expand our current useable water points from 4 that are left, to many more, but maybe not the 23 we usually have with rainfall. And spread the grazing of our reduced stock numbers – Range Science 101 again. Better long term than the bit I get back for carting water for stock. But you have to have the initial 100% dollars to do it to get the 75% back – interesting in view of the cash flow situation. So potential overgrazing on these areas. More downward spiral.
I could elaborate more but you’ll see where the spiral is headed if you know the old expression and I’ll sum up this way
We’re on the receiving end of a whole series of (hopefully) unintended consequences – or plain idiotic decisions – that have added to the degradation of rangeland resources and of most of its on-ground managers. All of which was highlighted when this started but ignored by the enactors. Finally, I’m also not looking for a handout, but I’d like to get a chance to skim that million or so dollars that went out of our superannuation asset, back from the superannuation funds of the perpetrators of all this. And damages might also be contemplated. Even JC can probably work out which parties they represented.
Cate, I feel great sorrow at the thought that a combination of bad carbon policies, predatory banks and shocking govt export restrictions have caused essential people and families like you to be forced off a country that really needs you.
Apart from trying to change this, all I can offer is best wishes and thanks for your courage. We all need you.
Cate,
I can’t see the elephant in the room?! There has been some discussion about banks, and stuff. But what is the issue you feel has not been discussed?
I can image that Jen has only just seen an elephant if she didn’t realise you landholders were making money out of carbon credits, while at the same time encouraging her contempt for the scam.
Yeah, I don’t want to be hard on farmers when it is the bureaucrats, who IMO are Greenies, and I have seen this in Lake Macquarie council which introduced IPCC based flood zones thus financially crippling land-owners in their shire, who prosecute policy which destroys livelihoods on the basis of the green god.
It is just that carbon farming in any form is such an obscenity.
I’m sure our ABC is covering this issue from the plight of the landowners.
Hi cohenite,
I recently mentioned Agenda 21, which , though most think is a sleeper , is progressing.
I have recently read that the slow uptake by govts , has lead to a quiet concentration of activity at local levels. Your marshes are an example.
Quite O/T, but relevant to an earlier thread, –
“The Chinese army has ordered all military supply stations to only allow the purchase of non-GMO grain and food oil due to health safety concerns over GMOs.”
“This move by the Chinese army is being seen as yet another step towards the Chinese government’s expected ban on the import of all GMO grains and oilseeds within the next 2 years, due to growing public concern over GMOs. The expected ban would be a huge blow to the Biotech industry worldwide.”
Well said Another Ian.
I need that like button.
” We’re on the receiving end of a whole series of (hopefully) unintended consequences – or plain idiotic decisions – that have added to the degradation of rangeland resources and of most of its on-ground managers. All of which was highlighted when this started but ignored by the enactors. ”
You have clearly articulated the results of policies that marketed themselves as a benefit to Agriculture and the Environment.
The result is that neither Agriculture or the Environment has benefited. . .but the money. . . and therefore at least the financial benefit. . . must have ended up somewhere???????
Cate,
I understand you found yourself at the receiving end of that ‘hat trick’ which Another Ian highlighted earlier. . . and that you were attempting to create something out of an untenable situation.
It doesn’t change the fact that the CFI is yet another example of what Bill Burrows explains as being sold a pup.
Whether it’s legal is not the issue.
None of these schemes have resulted in supporting Agriculture via sensible policy, even though they get marketed to landholders as if they are.
We have all seen some landholders ‘take the money and run’ and I think that even helps to convince others to ‘give it a crack’ when they’re feeling isolated and desperate.
The ones who ‘took it and ran’ are then used as ‘success stories’ to further market what we all know is not working.
I can only speak from personal experience in my area. . .but overwhelmingly. . .those landholders who ‘took it and ran’ are not particularly happy with their decision to do that and still bitterly complain that they had to do it or go under completely.
Many of them were good operators and loved what they did and are not enjoying what they’re doing now.
It was all perfectly legal despite the fact that the majority of us who are still here. . . and left to carry the can. . . could hear our internal BS meters clanging to the point of deafening us!
It’s also completely legal for Banks to foreclose in the manner they are doing it and for investors to make money out of ‘thin air’ via GOVERNMENT(!) legislation re taxing carbon and/or via an ETS and/or via direct action.
As I commented earlier:
Rural and regional Australia is in desperate need of sensible policy. . .not political rhetoric.
Both sides of politics have been guilty of pandering to an ideology that is clearly not delivering worthwhile outcomes. . .even though they keep claiming they are.
No offence to either Jaycee or Neville . . .but your little political spat up thread sort of highlights one failing of our mostly excellent political system.
Because voting is compulsory in Australia, the aim of the game is for each side to convince swinging voters in marginal seats that your side is the ‘least worse’.
That is not a good basis for any type of long term policy.
We all know things could be worse. . .of course they could.
That’s not the issue.
It needs to be better!!!!!!!!
Debbie no offence taken, but PC ALWAYS goes through when I start to ask the hard questions anyway. So what’s new?
Here’s a good recent interview by Prof Ross McKitrick exposing Obama’s latest scam. He also covers some of the CAGW fraud as well. Of course I like his take on the clueless waste of money on the mitigation side of the ledger. It can’t work and will never work for thousands of years.
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/3602072824001
Well said, Another Ian! I am a city dweller who was alerted to the carbon tax scam due to the efforts of Barnaby Joyce talking sense to the people in the bush. I finally got it through my thick skull that this was eventually going to hit city folk like me.
My husband and I can’t get lamb at Mitchell butchery, because of the predation that Another Ian mentions (I have given Woollies the bum’s rush because they force halal certified meat on me, but that is a religious war THEY have started and I FINISHED by not buying from them)
How will predation from the banks, Gang-Greens and Mining companies impact what food I can get on my table? Whether I am allowed to have steak and veggies. Or do I have to till my 600 sq m block in town and buy a goat? Good luck with that. :-/
Jennifer, just a few comments on your response to me:
1. I agree that AGW is a crock. I have a Engineering background and have been so hopping mad that the Gillard government did this to us, but she DID, and it is law now, so surely we need to honour contracts while these schemes are wound back.
2. CFI is not the government picking winners. It is a legal, voluntary scheme that farmers may enter into if they desire. The price of the carbon dioxide credits is not mandated by the government, it is (afaik) set by the carbon trading desk, and those credits can be bought by a company acting under voluntary free will.
3. CFI has nothing to do with the Renewable Energy Scheme which makes my power bill a thriller. Every time I open my bill. I get a shock.
4. Jennifer, please. If the banks wanted to dig themselves out of a hole caused by the sub prime crisis, why aren’t they approving these legal CFI schemes which allow farmers to graze the areas set aside for this legal scheme?
5. Surely the rule of law must have its rightful place in our society. Contractual arrangements are a property right, just like vegetation is a property right that has been stripped from farmers like Another Ian. I spit chips when I think that farmers have borne the entire cost of our “Kyoto” obligations. Thanks Rudd.
6. Speaking of winding back the schemes, the banks really do need a kick up the bum. Either they support a legal scheme, and if they don’t they should be made to compensate the farmers whose schemes they won’t consent to. The banks are denying the farmers who voluntarily take part in the CFI a valuable property right in the name of carbon dioxide credits. IN other words, the banks should shit or get off the pot.
@Thumbnnail
“and those credits can be bought by a company acting under voluntary free will.”
This is where you got it wrong and why you don’t think it finally affects all of us.
The power companies (mostly but there are many others) are obliged by gov. decree to reduce CO2 emissions or buy carbon credits to offset same. Either way it costs money and these added costs are passed on to us consumers.
There is nothing voluntary about it at all.
Thumbnail,
It is apparently legal for the banks to NOT honour the contracts.
We all got sold a pup.
These laws were made up by people who have no concept of a real market or that they’re supposed to supply something of value.
In fact they generally are masters at being 100% risk averse and loading all the financial risk onto others via legislation.
It’s all completely legal.
The bottom line is that someone has to pay.
Considering it was born from govt legislation. . .wanna guess who’s gunna pay for this pup?
Re Debbie
“The result is that neither Agriculture or the Environment has benefited. . .but the money. . . and therefore at least the financial benefit. . . must have ended up somewhere???????”
As I see it it is actually all cost and the bill hasn’t been recognised yet by what Rudyard Kipling used to refer to as the “little tin gods on wheels”.
Strange thread this one, started reading backwards from most recent comments earlier and got to wondering who is running the show. Cate seemed to be the victim rather than the source. So I called after a bit of fishing to be put out of my misery in not being able to construct an easy position online.
Quite worthwhile and thanks
g
Another Ian.
You are probably right.
That has certainly been the case re the Water Act 2007 & the MDBP.
Massive cost for no real benefit.
Jo Nova highlights another unbelievably biased poll by the left leaning Lowy institute. It’s a pity that Aussies are basically ignorant about the recent facts and lack of evidence for so called CAGW.
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/are-australians-more-concerned-about-climate-or-are-lowy-polls-loaded-and-misleading/#more-35857
Interesting..I have been reading through..again..many of the posts (sorry, Neville!)…and I see Cate’s dilemma…sure, you could say she has been “sold a pup” on the carbon sink thingy…but as she states, it was a legal, alternative method of financing “food-on-the-table” farm income….even though she believed none of it…these sort of “ventures” drift in and out of marginal farming communities like carpetbaggers selling green soap..the nub of the problem, and the “elephant in the room” is the razor’s edge of viable farm finances in marginal lands and the methods required to keep the farm viable…that 5c. a kilo rings a bell for the pitiful prices paid for at the gate produce around these parts. where it ends up the producer borrowing moneys just to sell the product.
Here’s the rub…as I mentioned in my main piece…you have the “family farmer”, in our area, HE (they are mostly dads) is : Owner, Labour , expertise , financier , manager , and working off-farm several days a week just to keep some cash income to hold on to the family and put food on the table…just don’t get sick!. Really, in the end, it is the “small farmer” against the “corporate agri-business”…and as I read it in Cate’s experience with the banks, it is a “switch and swap” trick, where multi-national corps’ are using political “sell” to appear to be “green and concerned” while all the while working with those who would seek to get rid of any carbon reduction scheme….hence the hypocracy of promo-ing ; ” keen to be green” while mixing it and financially backing conservative govt’s
In reality, the small family farmer will be “collateral damage” the the more profitable “economic rationalism” Managed Investment Scheme……bad news Cate.
I guess you could say that those who were “sold a pup” were those “loyal to the cause” voters who were asked to support those very “economic surgeons” who are going to apply the ‘euthanasia mask’ to them and their hopes.
This comments at WUWT by Prof Robert Brown of Duke university is probably the best and most interesting coverage of the UHIE etc that I’ve read in a long time.
Robert Brown says:
June 6, 2014 at 5:57 am
OK, don’t want to trigger a firestorm here – is the implication from Mr Buske that maybe UHI heat propagation/leaching out into the environment is the cause of the NTH warming? That’s what I infer. Is this even feasible? I wouldn’t have thought that a UHI footprint could be big enough to cause any measurable hemispherical effect.
I think you’re dead on the money. The fact that e.g. HADCRUT4 does not correct its temperature record for UHI in the land surface record (while there is little evidence of equal heating or evidence of much less heating of both the neighboring oceans or the troposphere above) is absolutely an anthropogenic effect on the (predominantly northern) hemisphere temperature computation. The fact that the GISS correction somehow often manages to increase or leave neutral the UHI correction it does compute in the present relative to the past, so that correcting for UHI actually increases global temperatures as the world’s urbanization has proceeded is also absolutely an anthropogenic effect on temperature. The fact that thermometers have, over the greater part of the thermometric record, been used regularly only on the land, in or near urban centers that have monotonically grown, surrounded by an ever-increasing margin of forest turned to farmland, to shopping malls, roads, and parking lots, and even in the present are sited in official weather stations located (say) ten meters or so from a vast complex of treeless concrete runways at airports, in an office building downtown in a major urban center, in between buildings in a government complex surrounded by parking and with buildings acting as a reflector oven during the day — that’s an anthropogenic cause of increase in the computed thermometric record.
It is a simple matter of fact that the southern hemisphere has comparatively few major urban centers and a much smaller population. It has fewer thermometers, and the thermometers it has are much, much less likely to have been read in the same site, regularly, for 164 years back to 1850. In 1850 Antarctica, much of Africa, much of South America, and the bulk of Australia were Terra Incognita, untouched and unvisited by westerners with their fancy scientific instrumentation, unsettled, uncivilized, unknown). Its oceans were visited by whalers and pirates and slavers, not scientific expeditions. Even now, almost 1/3 of the population of the Earth lives in just two countries — India and China, both in the northern hemisphere. Even now, the southern hemisphere has only 800,000,000 people! — that is between 11% and 12% of the total world’s population! It is also important to remember that 80% of the southern hemisphere is ocean and 20% sparsely populated land, where in the northern hemisphere over 40% of the surface area is (comparatively heavily urbanized) land.
Finally, it is a simple matter of fact that computed temperatures — oops, I meant temperature anomalies as we have no idea what the actual global average temperature(s) are even today within one whole degree centigrade either way — are almost never presented to the public with credible error bars. There is a simple reason for that. If they were, the uncertainty of the estimates in the 19th century would be far greater than the total anomaly, and would only gradually shrink to where a warming “signal” could emerge from statistical and measurement “noise” by around the second half of the twentieth century, and would remain commensurate with most of the warming observed in the single burst of conceivably anthropogenic CO_2 driven warming in the entire thermal record, that covers roughly the period between the 1982-1983 El Nino and the 1997-1998 “super” El-Nino that was the last burst of statistically significant (and instrumentally resolvable!) warming we’ve seen in the last 16 years. And yes, southern temperature uncertainties are even today much greater than northern temperature uncertainties because there are far fewer thermometers more erratically measured in a much smaller land surface area, and systematic or not ARGO is damn sparse compared to the incredible number of NH thermometers throughout much of the record.
However, the SH record is, by its nature, much less susceptible to the UHI effect, which is an entirely anthropogenic artifact in the computation of global temperatures, while being even more susceptible to the anthropogenic neglect of a proper treatment or presentation of error.
The very, very interesting thing is that one would expect to first order — in what is admittedly a horrendously nonlinear coupled chaotic system with strong non-Markovian dynamics that I’ve asserted in other posts cannot currently be modelled or predicted in any believable way out to the long (climate, vs weather) term at the granularity of current model computation or any granularity they are likely to achieve in less than decades — is for well-mixed atmospheric CO_2 to have a larger water vapor feedback driven warming of the southern hemisphere than in the northern hemisphere, as the ratio of humid warmed ocean to drier land is 4:1 in the south, 3:2 in the north. Yet we observe the opposite.
A truly cynical skeptic might consider this to be first order evidence supporting two possibilities that either or both could independently be correct. One is that we have the wrong sign for total feedback due to water including all oceanic and atmospheric and albedo-related effects, given the actual dynamic process that govern the ocean and its contributions to local and global temperatures. This is basically consistent with Bob Tisdale’s ENSO-dominant hypothesis (and with Trenberth’s “missing heat” hypothesis that seems to be converging with Tisdale’s). The second is that UHI is important, and computing the land surface record without compensating for it leads to anomalous warming that is not reflected in the oceans or troposphere because it is anthropogenic local warming, not global, but happens to warm the places we are most likely to position our thermometers with a clear time dependent gradient due to monotonically increasing population and land use change.
rgb
Neville….: “supercalifragalisticexpialedocious”….
An intimacy with idiocy.
There is a disconnect going on between irrigated farming proprietors and the source of irrigation around these parts where I live. On the one hand we see a limited resource..: The Murray River…on the other hand we see the desire and need (as the current
market situation stands) for UN-limited draw from that resource. The “equation” does not add up…and if I may extrapolate on the metaphor…the “subtraction” does not even “add up”!
The requirements by the market from “farm-gate” veggie’ growers is for more and cheaper….there being a mathematical limit as to how many root-veggies’ of any variety can be grown on one square metre of soil, and a water allocation limit on all secured farms, means that the older “family farms” that have only so many hectares, aged irrigation systems and too many sons and limited borrowing capacity are doomed to failure…while the Managed Investment Schemes that are Corporate Agri-Farming, with both large capital reserves and financial institution backing can expand, buy out the surrounding old family farms and their water allocations and produce mega crops on a pivot-farming method…..not only can these MIS farms produce the crops, they can dump produce on the market making it totally nonviable for the smaller producers to even put a crop in.
The two biggest corporate buyers (you know who!) of veggies’ are then able to squeeze the price so low, those who do try to make a living on the land can (and in some cases I have heard) , and DO have to borrow money to make up the difference between crop cost to grow and crop loss to sell…in effect, borrowing capital to sell their crop!…THAT or dump the whole crop….one can see where this is heading…and with this “economic rationalist” govt’ , there is little or no sympathy…as in the case of those unemployed youths….”get better or cop it sweet”….and if you go back to that mathematical equation of what can be grown per sq’ metre…it’s almost an inevitability of copping it sweet.
And then we come to the Murray River. If you are a farmer at the tail-end of the Murray, in those times of drought, you get to learn where most abuse is enacted…ie; “the tail end”….quality, capacity and flow all add up to restrictions…yet the “free market” knows no sympathy….the “economic rationalists” govt’ has the ear only, it seems, for the eastern states irrigators….as one farmer eloquently put it…”we got the water before you..so stiff shit!…you want it…come and get it!”….THAT is the way the Nat’s have managed the Murray Darling Basin for decades…then along comes the Labor govt’ and with Burke negotiated a sensible solution for ALL parties, in ALL states, only to have that agreement now torn up by the current vandals in office.
And here is the “intimacy with idiocy”…..from the mouth of one of the most vulnerable farmers…” all the Labor party are interested in is arty-farty things….and the media back them..the media are all on the side of Labor and arty things…not farming…!”……..go figure.
Jaycee,
While I have no argument with your assertion that rural and regional Australia and particularly people such as those in areas like Cate’s have been the victims and the scapegoats of poor NRM policy and impractical, costly, urban based, ‘feel good’ environmentalist policies. . .which part of BOTH WINGS (!) of urban based politics have been complicit in allowing this to happen did you manage to miss???????
You are still advancing that “least worst” argument that is clearly NOT achieving any worthwhile outcomes for rural and regional Australia.
BTW Jaycee?
What id that Burke negotiated sensible solution for ALL parties in ALL states that you claim has been torn up?
Birmingham (from SA) continually states that the MDBP will delivered as planned, as legislated and on time.
What in particular has been torn up by those currently in office?
Thumbnail/ others,
The renewable energy scheme mandates that electricity suppliers either source their electricity from renewable energy sources or offset their emissions through the purchase of carbon credits?
Renewable energy suppliers can also sell carbon credits?
Nev; your rgb is staking rather a lot on hot NH bots cooking the books i.e. more people building their own UHI profile but It’s only on WOTS hey.
These may be a place to start Jen?
Also. . .don’t forget how the derivatives market is used by SHL and other RE producers.
Max Talbot can explain that one very well.
http://www.climatefriendly.com/Personal/PersonalPackages/
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/reducing-carbon/carbon-farming-initiative/carbon-farming-initiative-handbook/carbon-farming
http://www.tai.org.au/documents/downloads/WP107.pdf
http://carbontradexchange.com/knowledge/what-is-carbon-credit
Poor Gav and JC are still trying to play catch up I see. But it looks like some of the MSM are waking up to Obama’s silly nonsense and con tricks. This is a very good summary from the WSJ.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2014/06/wsj-obamas-new-energy-rule-is-huge-tax.html
Debbie…I was up the Riverland the other day picking up some of those ..viral thingies….er..what many on here call ; “trees”…strange, I thought it was a trick of the old German dialect around here and they were single in their speaking so they hissed the word ; “green’!….but anyway….on the local radio news there was a meeting in Renmark / Berri region about concern that water allocations next summer could be halved and I heard on National radio of the re-selling of water permits and allowing more water to be pulled from the rivers for irrigation in the eastern states….perhaps I was mistaken……please explain?
Jaycee?
You will need to do better than repeating something you heard on National Radio.
It looks like you may be conflating/confusing State WSPs and State licencing rules with the Federal Water Act and the MDBP?
Are you perhaps talking about the bureaucratic/ licencing changes to the NSW Water Management Act?. . .which BTW has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL to do with pulling MORE water from the river for irrigation in the eastern states.
The SDLs and the CAPS are still very firmly in place.
Debbie….quote ..; ” What!…you didn’t ‘Google’ it!!!”… unquote… (It’s what one farmer exclaimed when he asked us about the “North Pacific Gyre”…go figure!)
http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/bitstream/2123/191/1/P6201-1205%28rajindercar%29.pdf…
on the waterlogging and salinity in the Griffith / Leeton area after rice growing.
“You will need to do better than repeating something you heard on National Radio.”
But, damn it all Debbie!….it was on the radio that I heard all those promises from Abbott and the LNP. before the last election..which is why I voted for them…and look at it now!!…anyway…where else am I going to get information from?….Jo Nova and Andy Bolt don’t do daily broadcasts, so one cannot rely upon them…!
and thanks for “explaining”
BTW. (by the way) don’t try to fool us with passing the buck to the states…we all know that when Hunt coughs, the LNP. states gleefully shout “gezuntheit!” and then enact.
and BTW (by the way), can I just remark that when I “hear” Cate “talk”, I hear an honest appraisal “from the field” …when I read Neville and some others, all I “hear” is the rattle of a computer keyboard and “see” the luminous glow of a screen accompanied by a plethora of links.
Sock.
Enough’s enough!….Good luck , Cate…you’re on your own.
Jaycee?
I have no idea what you’re ranting at me about?
You claimed that the current government has torn up Burke’s negotiated MDBP.
You then asked me to ‘please explain’ something you had heard on National Radio.
The answer is the MDBP has not been ‘torn up’ and to the best of my knowledge there has been NO moves to alter either the SDLs or the CAPS.
The only changes afoot are administrative changes at State level. . .which ARE NOT contemplating pulling more water from the rivers.
Re Thumbnail June 6th, 2014 at 12:03 pm
“My husband and I can’t get lamb at Mitchell butchery, because of the predation that Another Ian mentions (I have given Woollies the bum’s rush because they force halal certified meat on me, but that is a religious war THEY have started and I FINISHED by not buying from them)”
Hard to imagine Geoff muttering incantations as he works!
@jaycee
You come here with your crappy posts which is bad enough but you behave as if you are doing us and mankind in general a favour.
News for you, you are not! And BTW we don’t care how you vote either!
I’m also wondering what the relevance of the very old CBA analysis of rotational cropping based on rice in the MIA, CIA & MV is?
Much has changed since 2002 Jaycee.
Great posting Jaycee, even stirred hoary old JW hey.
Call on me anytime.
We? How presumptuous!
gav
both, my mate and I could not care less about his voting intentions so the “we” is justified.
And I don’t care much for the “hoary old JW” either.
How would you like me to call you a pompous old windbag?
Don’t like it?
OK I won’t.
How climate policies are hurting the world’s poor. Of course this is just one of the many ways that poor people have to carry the can for this stupid con trick.
In the developed countries the poorest people have been hit the hardest by the delusional wind and solar power monsters that shift even more wealth to richest investors.
http://www.thegwpf.org/how-climate-policies-are-hurting-the-worlds-poor/
Trying to catch up on the thread. Busy day.
The first thing is, no “Jaycee” I am not on my own lol – others are silently reading and shaking their heads from side to side in disbelief at some of the attitudes on here, yet, are pleased at some of the other comments on here.
There are many just like myself out here on the land. I dont know who you are, or where you live, but thank you for making some interesting comments. Indeed all comments hold some value to myself making me think a bit more, so thank you to all.
There are many reading this blog, and are “dissapointed” on many levels from the Agricultural Fraternity.
Assumptions made on how people do or do not vote..childish, those days for many have long past. While some will always vote the same, it is now not always the case. Many on the land will attest to that.
Re Ian and the RE / PMAV information – wonderful to be shared, thank you very much for doing that, I literally do not have the time due to other “circumstances”.
Gavin, must say that is the first time anyone has ever made such a concerted effort to track me down off a blog! lol Interesting to listen to the many many things you have done in your life. First time I have ever spoken to someone who is “Labor/Democrat/ Green”…and your questions as to “what the hell are you doing on Jen’s blog?” Well she put me here, as I told you. And, as I told you, I still do not believe in AGW or the Carbon Tax.
I hope you are feeling a little better this evening, under the circumstances though, health issues are not good. My thoughts are with you. (even though we disagreed on a lot!)
Cate,
It must be a pass time or hobby of Gavin’s to track people down from Jen’s blog. . . as he also tracked me down a while back.
Cate; I truly relish a toe to toe , eyeball to eyeball debate on the edge of the pit but I need to correct just one impression, that I was ever green or labour in defending our fluid democracy. That done, I will readily confess to a lifelong interest in finding fellow free thinkers and good campaigners and in so saying that, I nod to our host Jen. It’s a great blog despite some toxic threads that seem to never end.
On the personal health issues, I seek to promote only the need for vigilance at the GP side of front line medical services and our increasing dependence on high tech solutions as the population ages. On this score measurements and routines run in parallel with a host of other scientific disciplines including physics at its best.
All this of course must lead us to thinking about our education. There was a period when I could observe teenagers in their science class rooms from the barricades of much used and abused lab equipment. Thus I’m heavily committed to the social benefits of good government.
Finally, open discussion leads to improved BS meters and this is what I’m mostly about.
Gavin,
I would suggest most people who comment here are committed to the social benefits of good government.
As Cate’s situation highlights. . . that isn’t happening for rural/regional communities or landholders re AGW & other NRM policies. . . even if they buy into the CO2 Tax/CFI/RET/ETS legislation and laws.
Good programme on ABC Landline today featuring Jen’s recent post on the GMO decision in Marsh v Baxter:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2014/05/michael-baxter-wins-for-gm-technology/
Landline interview the organic certifiers and suggests they try living in the real world.
Landline is one of the very few programmes on our ABC that actually tries to live in the real world.
Check 18.30:
http://iview.abc.net.au/programs/landline?WT.srch=1&WT.mc_id=Corp_TV-iview|iviewAdwords_AdWords_:landline%20news_b_g_46599105559_&gclid=CJPOirGr6b4CFZN8vQodgZAAXw
Hi sd,
And when the real world won’t buy the stuff ? As I said, butter tastes better and is healthier anyway.
SD; you just keep on watching our ABC and all will be well.
Also: It’s time we had that stouch thermometer to thermometer off line.
g
Ian, I’m a butter man too, having been raised on a dairy farm but canola oil has increased in production by at least 400% this c.
Just shows to go what the terror of cholesterol and CO2 can do.
Most of the time “our” ABC equates with definite apoplexy but what we all need to understand, Gav, is that thermometers have never been particularly accurate and with the vagaries of historical temps being ~ a mere 0.7c warmer over the last century combined with no warming this century, we could all back off on the doom and gloom predictions.
Remember when we were all convinced those crop circles were made by extra-terrestrials?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_circle
Cate; I keep forgetting in subsequent posts that we haven’t resolved this vexing inconsistency in your philosophy “as I told you, I still do not believe in AGW or the Carbon Tax” but you can conceive there is a benefit from carbon farming as a broad acre business for your family and others in the current political climate.
How are you at kriging, Gav?
Gavin, hope your feeling a little better today.
Hm, well, I will let a few comments go through to the keeper..as I don’t like being drawn into smoke and mirrors to be honest – I have far more things to do.
Wild dogs are giving us a heck of a time, and there are a few that need a bullet this evening..hope I havent’ offended any readers, however – thats life out here. Got a massive bitch the other day, 8 pups ready to be born in about a month – nasty creatures they are. Just about wiped out the Koala’s here I think 🙁
Gavin, there is nothing inconsistent in what I have said regarding AGW and the Carbon tax – as I said to you the other evening I am yet to be convinced.
I rely on the diaries here on the station – settled in 1866 to now. This cycle of drought, according to the diaries is approx 52-53 years. It is severe in respect to the lack of any rainfall at all falling.
The paddock conditions recorded are accurate, as is the river conditions as well.
You questioned the methods used, etc etc. Mate, where we come from, one doesn’t write BS in diaries that must be accurate so that managers are prepared into the future.
So while it may not stand up to the present day scientific data by modern day scientists, it certainly stands up to the front line of us on the land – henceforth, we were prepared as much as we could be.
We took stock on agistment from drought affected areas, and even neighbors who ran out of feed – they were put across the station, and heavily in the areas under our CFI management (remember, this is just management, as we do not get paid anything from anyone to manage this way) and the stock survived and became fat.
Pretty darn proud of that management, and the accurate diary records 🙂
I hope the carbon tax and the AGW is “blown” out of the air literally! I have written in earlier posts why.
If there is still a market NOT based on this I am still more than happy to sell carbon credits for environmental offsets as well – If the Carbon Tax is wiped out in Australia (hip hip hooray!) and overseas countries still have it, let them come to Australia and purchase ours – let “us” keep overseas funds in Australia and help our economy. Rather that than sell them the land.
This senitment is reiterated far and wide. Then again for those who may have watched Landline today – the Chinese are doing pretty well in the North now with those 10 blocks..
So you see, there is no inconsistency – it comes down to what people want to believe and what they dont.
Yes, there is a business benefit – we are all tax payers at the end of the day – we are all trying to survive these time, using the resources we have available to us – mind you, if the 25 year rule is brought in, the proof will be in the renewal of those areas wont it?.
Landowners do not like their private property rights being dictated to by others – at the end of the day, I have no right over someone else’s private property, it goes both ways.
I also read a comment to the effect earlier on this thread, that some landowners have regretted doing CFI. I wonder was that under the old rule? We too know of landowners who have signed on under the old rule, however the opposite – they have stated it was the best thing they ever did, they cleared all the debt with their financier, they take on agistment stock as well as their own, as seasons dictate – this helps with the increases in cost of production, and low prices for mutton and beef – and they do not regret for one moment doing it.
It is interesting to hear first hand accounts, the pros and cons. It is easy to detect the “BS meter” a mile off…meaning if someone has or has not done it.
Really appreciate this blog. Thanks.
Time to think and justify inclusion?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/07/free-money-all-you-have-to-do-is-to-be-a-climate-victim/
“Free money! All you have to do is to be a ‘climate victim’
Posted on June 7, 2014 by Anthony Watts
Billionaire Tom Steyer creates fund for Climate Victims
Eric Worrall writes:
Californian Billionaire Tom Steyer has just created a fund for victims of climate related extreme weather. The new initiative is intended to be 50% funded by Tom Steyer, and 50% funded by fellow travelers.”
SD; I have so little time online now you have to either come over to my general invitation or I will leave you down in the pack of hermit crabs who can’t be seen in daylight.
BTW I’m similarly short with veteran ebay sellers, Ultrabook dealers, polly advisors and family who are too busy to put my extensive pictorials up in the cloud.
So there it is all out in the open!
I’ll pass on the invite thanks, Gav but if you took up kriging you could forget about thermometers.
Just think how rich your life could become.
Both Gavin & Jennifer, from different sides of the carbon fence, have questioned Cate’s consistency in doubting AGW & the carbon tax – while being prepared to accept payment for fixing carbon in her mulga woodland on Mt Morris. Many workers hate their job but are happy to be paid for doing it. I have solar panels on my roof, not because I think I am saving the planet, but because the Queensland government was silly enough to offer feed in tariffs too good to refuse, and I was in a position to install them. I don’t feel guilty about this at all. There are any number of people in my street and suburb who have been fortunate to be able to take advantage of situations in life because their particular circumstances allowed it, or they were smart enough or in the right place at the right time. Golfers know it as ‘the rub of the green’. OK I might not be as altruistic as Gavin & Jennifer are to their particular beliefs, but I like to think any knowledge I have is also guided by common sense.
Likewise I have no argument with what Cate was trying to achieve in hoping to sell carbon credits generated from her mulga, as a result of the Australian Government’s well publicised CFI. It is just that my background places me in a position where I would have to seriously question the quantum of any C sequestration claimed to occur on her paddock, and especially its measurement. She is hoping to generate real $$ from growth in her mulga by way of saleable carbon credits. Therefore it is reasonable that any buyer is able to verify that the claimed C sequestered is actually fixed and will remain so for 100+ years. In other words her claims would need to be able to satisfy a scientific audit.
‘Another Ian’ and I started quantifying the growth of mulga at Boatman (110 km south east of Charleville) and Monamby (90 km south of Mt Morris) in 1965, by measuring changes in stem basal area in mulga thinned to different densities. Subsequently I did a detailed study of growth and nutrient cycling in a mulga community at Charleville in the early 1970’s. These growth studies have been extended to permanent monitoring plots in mulga elsewhere in the south west, with sites maintained by Queensland’s DAFF researchers up to the present day.
It is my firm belief that no scientific auditor could sign off on the amount of C said to be fixed in any woodland community, without being satisfied with the integrity of the claimed C fluxes – in both the vegetation and soil supporting it. The carbon content in vegetation and underlying soil would have to be measured at the start and finish times, so as to include the total period over which carbon credits are said to be generated. To cut to the quick, the top metre of soil beneath a mulga community contains about 80 t of organic C/ha but this is not uniformly distributed in the soil profile or across the paddock. This leads to measurement errors of around +/- 5-12 t/ha, or even greater in practice, depending on the sampling intensity, its stratification and the amount of time and effort taken to obtain the samples. These errors are repeated each time a new estimate of organic carbon is obtained. Meanwhile the best carbon increment that could be anticipated in mulga woodland would be c. 1.5 t/ha/yr above ground (or c. 2 t/ha/yr above and below ground based on a measured root/shoot ratio of c. 0.4). The resultant error associated with measured C in the soil would thus exceed the quantum of the C flux in the mulga supported by that soil.
To get around this apparently intractable problem it has been suggested that fluxes in soil carbon could be ignored in such accounting. However it would be more honest to make no claims for the amount of carbon sequestered in these landscapes, especially if money was to change hands as a result of it. Without knowing all the facts I suspect the failed Henbury exercise in Central Australia could also have confronted similar problems to those mentioned here.
Bill,
So when I worked for Canegrowers I should have taken the advice from some WWF, Agforce, Commonwealth Government and also Humane Society employees… that if I just went a long “a bit” with the proposed reef protection plan a lot of money could come my way… well I might not benefit personally but I would definitely be in the running for Commonwealth money to employee more staff and the list of benefits went on and on?
And so many successful scientists tell me that they have no choice but to go along with all the different policies from reef protection, to global warming. If they didn’t they would be out of a job, or without funding, etcetera, etcetera.
Me, I would prefer to be out of a job than compromised.
Two paths diverged in the woods… I took the one less travelled… it made all the difference.
Hang on Jennifer don’t get precious. I certainly took a different path to what you followed in pursuing my professional career. But if you are implying that the one I followed was the alternative you were offered when you worked for Canegrowers you are grossly mistaken. Likewise, while I believe I had a successful scientific career I reject the notion that this might have involved kowtowing to scientific absurdities imposed by my employer. Haven’t I told you the history of my resignation – the day after I was told to remove all evidence of a Departmental requested contribution to the Productivity Commission’s Native Vegetation enquiry from the hard drive of my computer?
To recall – We have had two well documented situations in this thread (by Cate and Another Ian) of Queensland primary producers severely damaged by decisions made by the State government. Decisions which greatly limit how they manage their land for the prime purpose of agricultural production, for which the land was assigned by government in the first place. In both cases, given the location of their respective properties, this purpose is effectively for the raising of domestic livestock. As Another Ian clearly stated the Vegetation Management Act has halved his potential carrying capacity. As a consequence of my knowledge of these properties (dating back to 1964 Cate!) I can confidently say they are no longer a “living area”. It has been my personal observation over the years that in such circumstances it is common for landholders to end up flogging the land, their livestock and themselves if they have no other source of off property income. Of course none of these consequences is to be supported or condoned and I have known few who have intentionally set out to do so. In these situations it is therefore quite reasonable for all affected landholders to look to any means to “survive” until government comes to its senses. So Cate looks to payment for carbon sinks on her property and Another Ian goes shooting goats and pigs. They cannot afford altruism, but this is not to gainsay that they are not aware of the stupidity of the VMA applied to rural land and the carbon god which underpins it. And Jennifer please note – while I support Cate’s idea to seek payment for carbon sequestered on her land I have at the same time highlighted the need for scientific integrity in validating any payment. In short I was implying that any claims she might make would not be backed up by hard data.
Analogously it was a retiree’s business decision which motivated me to accept the State’s ‘feed in’ tariff for solar power generated on my roof – not an expectation of reward in green heaven, or to game my neighbours unable to do so. With a bit of luck I’ll outlive the payback time and benefit by reduced demands on my retiree’s cash flow in the meantime. I’m not at all compromised by this – and in fact it contributes to my capacity to benefit others, in other ways. It has been a feature of the ongoing global warming saga that an obsession or religious fervour has seemingly driven the warmers. It would be a travesty if an obsession to be pure took over the sceptics as well.
Jen,
As Rudyard Kipling put it
“If he play, being young and unskillful
For shekels of silver and gold
Take his money by all means, praise Allah.’
The kid was ordained to be sold”.
From “Certain Maxims of Hafiz”, which contains some other home truths which don’t seem to have changed over time.
If I can stay on long enough it would be great to take up with Bill too but going back to SD for a mo I’m really disappointed in your response. Also disappointed in this bit from yesterday, fellow campaigner Luke with very respectable credentials is apparently off this blog . Pooh!
Despite being too cranky with the fire in my belly to hang about, I want to say this, these issues re beliefs must not destroy our infant climate science and its general development regarding potential remedies for an eventual agreed AGW.
There is more; our situation changes day by day, week by week re givens Gov to gov etc.
Last year we put up 5 kw solar co gen on the roof and bonus income helps off set our new gas HWS at a time when this given also goes through the roof along with all grid electricity and before anyone says, it’s hardly any carbon tax to boot.
There!
Forgot to mention I’m cranky on Facebook too and the only reason I’m just g on here is it’s too easy to link the young one who is up to his neck in Gov practice and policy re many matters being logged on our behalf. However I’m mostly out for a flogging.
I must admit I was given the chance to install solar as well and at a very good payback of 66c. The present return of 20c? is perhaps not as bad as it seems because the systems are about a third to half of the price compared to 6 years ago.
Anyway I knocked it back because I felt like a bloody HIPPO and told the girl on the line from Origin that this was my reason for doing so. She couldn’t see my point until I told her it wouldn’t help to fix the future climate at all. Her response was whatttt and try as I might she kept yapping about best science etc etc. In the end I told her she was deceiving her customers if she told them they were helping to change future climate and after a while she gave up.
But Gav seems to believe we can still have an impact on co2 levels and climate, so I just wish he would tell us how this could be done and give us a time line to back up his ideas. Is it 4 thousand, 7 thousand or 10,000 years?
Come on Gav have a go, I can’t wait to see your calculations. But don’t forget ZIP change in extreme weather events, SLR, droughts, floods, bushfires etc etc and don’t forget the super co2 emitters like China and India etc as well.
Bill,
It’s not about being “precious”, its about conviction and integrity and choice. Everyone in Australia has the capacity to make such choices. This is not the case in many countries around the world.
Neville,
Thanks! More power to you. As Edmund Burke wrote/said… “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”
I have found this thread both interesting and disconcerting.
It’s interesting because it is clearly highlighting that much of NRM policy in Australia enacted by both State and Federal legislation is clearly not achieving the stated noble environmentalist goals but rather contributing to further exacerbating problems caused by previous State and Federal policy for rural and regional communities in Australia.. .or as Bill said earlier. . .we got sold a pup!
It’s disconcerting because people who mostly agree with each other about the basic issues are now starting to argue about personal virtue and personal justification for their past actions.
I deeply admire all of you who have spoken up and who are still speaking up. . .I wish there were more courageous people like you. . . but that doesn’t mean that I expect any of us to be perfect and ready to ascend to heaven. . .we are all human and therefore fallible.
Can I suggest, with absolute respect to all of you who do speak up (and from my own personal experience in the MDBP debate/debacle) that sometimes we can be our own worst enemy and can be far too easily ‘divided and conquered’ by the very same mindset that we mostly oppose?
Those of us in rural and regional Australia who have managed to survive some very difficult circumstances actually want to pick up the pieces and move on. Nearly all of us have lost some dignity and had our personal credibility questioned in that fight for survival.
IMHO we need to clearly identify what is not working and stop doing it. . . FOR FOX ACHE!!!!. . . and therefore even more importantly. . . clearly identify what does work and build on those strengths.
I think history teaches us it is better to try and focus on being part of the solution. . . and not focus on being part of the problem. . .or engaging in a mostly unproductive attempt to reinvent the past.
And PS Jen,
Once again. . .a BIG, HUGE thankyou from this MDB broad acre irrigator for everything you have done in the water policy space.
Nev; call me up anytime as a former master of measurements cause I don’t have space in my day to write it out now. Just to fill you in, it’s a nice morning in Canberra so I should go down to my retro table and finish photography of pocket rule style rope gauges recently acquired from ebay as part of my unfinished illustrated guide to hand tools post ww2.
I could also do a module on early hand held instruments given time but that has to wait till I update other workshop-restoration projects left on the backburner while I fight off side affects from pre op C surgery.
We also need to get back on theme re underground carbon farming and that’s my particular interest here having done many experimental native plantings in harsh environments including soils after pines. Have to take this up with Bill too, one meter top soils for early root development are rare on this continent.
Wow! Jennifer must be thanking the farmers who have contributed to this discussion! Love a full commentary on a blog…
1. Voluntary Markets – I accept that some companies are forced by law to purchase these ‘carbon credits’, which are now a property right, and must be recognised by law as such, but wouldn’t you agree that although our power is more expensive, our beef might be less expensive because graziers like Cate are able to reduce the cost of production?
2. Incantations. I just about spat my tea out on my screen when I read that.
3. I personally would not have signed up for the massive solar rebate, but accept that this is a free country, and the solar rebate schemes were voluntary schemes on one side, with forced power price increases on the other side. In other words, some people were absolutely free to transact with a lot of others who were forced to fund their freedom.
4. Very interesting commentary from Bill Burrows re: verification of carbon sequestered.
5. “Carbon” is now a politically charged term. What about paying farmers to keep environmental corridors on their farms? That would help compensate them for the costs they bear controlling ferals. And Gavin, I am not talking about Greens supporters. So relax.
Gav all the best with your health in the future. I still remain a solid sceptic of CAGW but not of some AGW in our future. But I think most of the sceptic scientists are right on the money when they claim a warming of 0.5 to 1c by 2100.
IOW there is zip to worry about and zip that we can do about it anyway. After years of abuse and silly tantrums from Luke he at last offered new safe nukes as a way to combat CAGW. But OZ would take at least 20 years to plan for the first plant and Christo had already done the maths that showed that even 1,000 new nukes built today would have zip impact on temp or climate or co2 emissions by 2100.
He tended this info in his address to Congress and so far no one has challenged him on his claim. We should of course be very concerned about NATURAL future extreme weather events, I mean just look at the past centuries.
So therefore we should use all our scarce funds on new research/development/adaptation and hopefully new technology that will help us to protect ourselves better regardless of the worst NATURAL weather events etc thrown at us.
Trying to change the climate is just a stupid fool’s errand and a waste of billions $ straight down the drain. Just ask Germany and other EU countries now trying to fix their energy grids by building new brown coal power stns.
Thumbnail,
The bottom line is that if the community wants to keep all that legislation in place then energy costs and food costs will continue to increase. Part of that ‘pup’ is that we have been sold the concept that one could cancel out the other and that the legislation is helping to reduce costs for agriculture & therefore the price of the produce.
Your dot point 5 is the concept of paying farmers for ecological goods & services. That is not a new concept and has been fraught with the same issues that are being discussed here re quantifying & evaluating.
The bottom line is that someone has to pay.
Wanna guess who that is?
I would love to involve government in what I am doing, but for future (edible) forestry, not for carbon farming. I’ve realised just how long you have to wait for a moso forest to mature; every dry spring means a year down the drain. The reason to persist is simple: this is one of the few biomes where moso will grow to perfection, and all my stock is first generation Australian seedling stock. Not being right wing, libertarian etc (you can call me conservative) I’d be more than happy to expand and maintain a reserve rather than strain for profits when I know the place is five good seasons short of commercial. (Once you have the right size of forest drought is just a good chance to catch up on other jobs. Now it’s infuriating delay.)
The problem is that governments react to fads. No government in its right mind should tempt me with money in return for growing moso as carbon (apparently it’s some sort of champion carbon muncher). But I see endless vistas of hilly, marginal country in this ideal (except for spring rain) biome just doing nothing. Moso grows on hills, not prime flats! I would even be happy to involve Chinese money/expertise, since moso is very hard to propagate when you don’t have seedlings. I wasn’t all that ambitious till the big climate shift post 2007 brought the good years and I started to get those awesome 90′-100′ poles which European enthusiasts can only dream about. A good season now means big volume of harvestable timber, growing from ground to 100′ feet in seven weeks, and best cut after five and a half years. (It handles the worst of drought conditions, but skips the season.)
A five year turn around for quality timber, safe handling and a tonnage of shoots every good spring. It’s not as simple as that, nothing ever is, but it’s almost as simple as that. Would I feel guilty about involving government in future forestry, with the usual risks and some unusual risks? I’d feel guilty if I had the chance and didn’t. But two things: help, but don’t throw money at me (someone had to pay taxes to get that money) and it’s got to be about PRODUCTION.
I have another hero, Robert who grows moso bamboo. More power to you!
Well said Robert.
I need that like button again.
Debbie – Don’t be concerned with robust debate among friends. There are many ways to skin a cat and despite the best hopes of sceptics there is plenty of fur left on the CAGW cat yet. Best to use every approach you can to get the job done.
Gavin and others – In my contributions to this thread I have tried to stay focussed on the subject. This addressed the matter of the bank foreclosing on Mt Morris and Cate’s desperate attempts to forestall this by employing all measures, including novel ones, to give her family breathing space. To me this is a perfectly natural response to the situation she has found herself in.
The bone of contention seems to be that Cate had the temerity to try to sell carbon credits generated from her mulga woodlands to provide another source of income. The poor science and bad policy that led to Queensland’s VMA and its subsequent impact on the viability of many rural landholdings seems to have been forgotten. My input was to suggest that when we sell air (or more correctly the C extracted from it) we ought to be able to accurately describe and demonstrate to potential buyers that our product is what we claim it to be. My challenge to Cate was that she would have difficulty in doing this, because she would in effect be marketing an interconnected product with components contained within vegetation and soil.
Mulga is a uniquely Australian plant. It is widespread in a climatic zone which elsewhere in the world would only support stunted savannah or grassland. While it is mostly found on soils derived from laterites these soils can be both shallow (supporting ‘hard mulga’ in Queensland or deep, ‘soft mulga’). Cate’s and Another Ian’s mulga is largely on the deeper soils. So Gavin that is why I used a 1 m deep rooting zone in my example of potential sampling problems in my earlier post. In these situations up to 25% of fine root biomass will be found in the top 20 cm of soil. That still leaves c. 75% distributed in the 80 cm measured below that. Incidentally root:shoot ratios in arid zone plants are commonly quoted as 2:1 or larger. Mulga’s ratio is likely to be 0.4:1 or even smaller, depending on seasonal conditions. These examples should give everyone a “feel” for the difficulties facing carbon accountants in the arid zone (or in any of our native woodlands for that matter). A past colleague listed 25 ways to scam carbon accounting on grazing land. I would be surprised if the federal agency charged with overseeing such accounting in this country has addressed more than 2 or 3 of them.
Henbury has been sold back to grazing. . .part of it with an environmental caveat.
Took a $4million loss on the sale as it was bought from RM for $13 million and sold for $9million.
Interesting interview on the ABC country hour today.
Later in the news it was reported as a failed attempt at carbon farming.
Deb; a pic on our ABC proves Henbury was miserable country to start with however it seems carbon farming hasen’t missed a beat at any level including government.
http://www.carbonfarmersofaustralia.com.au/home
http://www.cleanenergyregulator.gov.au/Carbon-Farming-Initiative/News-and-updates/Pages/2014-05/22-May-2014-Carbon-Farming-Initiative-update.aspx
Re gavin June 10th, 2014 at 6:24 am
“Deb; a pic on our ABC proves Henbury was miserable country to start with”
I think you’ll find it is rated OK by Alice Springs area judges.
Gav,
🙂
A little paraphrase to stay on topic.
If it looks like a pup, howls like a pup and chases its tail like a pup. . .
More of those dud predictions from the warmist extremists. I’m sure that a list of at least 20 separate dud predictions or exaggerations could be compiled.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/bandt_proves_brandis_right_yes_the_greens_want_debate_suppressed/
Henbury is a superb place, already about 70% wilderness before it got caught up in this corrupt and nonsensical carbon fiddle.
I just want to chime in here with a condemnation of “our” awful ABC. I happened to be having dinner with the neighbours last night and watched the “news” on what I think was their 24 hours channel. Story after story was white guilt and leftist manipulation, with barely a skeric of anything balanced or informational. Patronising slop by the bucket.
The ABC has become a hideous caricature, and we cannot “go forward” with this self-loathing trash being funded by the very earning public which is the constant target of its manipulation and distortion.
The ABC? Crappier than the commercials, with an agenda far worse than mere profit. Kick it to the kerb. Its main appeal now is to the smug and conceited urban set once perfectly dubbed the Herd of Independent Minds.
Sorry to be this harsh, but the ABC has been asking for it – now it’s gonna get it from me.
Hi Robert,
I used to hang out for the Science Show, now it is all one track , or, if any other subject is covered, you find yourself waiting for the AGW question at the end.
Rural reporting is the same.
The fixation with anything they THINK is politically correct can be breathless. Where Obama leads they blindly follow. It must be very sickening for a lot of correspondents and reporters. Or are they all now converts ?
Yes Jen, very O/T, but I am boiling over some Ukraine ‘obama-itis’ I switched off earlier.
He’s ethnically mixed, he’s loved by Hollywood, he’s leaning to Islam, he’s an AGW High Priest.
He’s perfect for the formula.
So if he says Nazis are on the left, that’s where you’ll find ’em.
I still want it fixed , not scrapped though. God forbid ‘Star FM’ being the only choice.
Robert I couldn’t have put it better. Incredible to think that we fund this left wing monolith with a billion $ every year to promote and encourage the Greens and Labor parties.
In the last 30+ years there hasn’t been ONE conservative presenter of any of their shows at all. Macca probably comes the closest on radio on OZ all over, but even he has his oh so PC moments.
They should be made to present a 50/50 split between conservative and left wing views every day every night and every year.
Failing that they should just split it down the guts and allow 500 million $ for two public broadcasters, one left and one conservative. And I wouldn’t even mind if the conservative half had to include genuine libertarian presenters and programs as well. Bring it on ASAP.
” Robert I couldn’t have put it better. Incredible to think that we fund this left wing monolith with a billion $ every year to promote and encourage the Greens and Labor parties.”
Funny..I seem to recall an “interview” between Tony Abbott and Chris Uhlmann, pre election 2013, where Uhlmann, sitting at the feet of Tony (shades of the dog in “Beau Geste!?), being tounge-tied for words because it appeared (to this viewer at least) he had his tounge firmly adhered to the sole of Tony’s shoe !…….and I believe it is STILL stuck there!………Hey!…old presbeters together ?
Hi Supe.
JC I don’t know why we should have to make excuses and accept your nonsense just because you suffer from some sort of delusion.
Or perhaps you’re just trying to be funny?
Well yes Robert & Ian.
Must have something to do with ‘the eye of the beholder’.?
Henbury &,surrounds has its own special charm.
No offence Gavin. . .but once I finished a uni degree in the ACT. . .I couldn’t get out of there fast enough.
In particular it was miserably cold , it had miserably shallow & lacklustre soils that I had to really feed & heavily protect in order to have a half way decent veggie patch, my horses and dogs didn’t like it much & there were far too many miserable public servants who complained about almost everything.
Mind you. . . I have still got some great friends who live there. . .but sorry. . .The ACT is NOT one of my personal picks for a great place. . .I would definitely place Henbury and surrounds much higher on my list.
More unbelievable stupidity from Labor’s Plibersek and her recipe for destroying real jobs in the developed world. But heaps more jobs for China, India and the developing world.
Just follow the Labor and Green’s barking mad support for their co2 tax, the greatest jobs wrecker known to man.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/plibersek_the_nigella_no_friends_of_warming_politics/
It sort of serves her right.
I heard her referring to Abbot as ‘Nigel no friends’ repeated several times on ABC 24 hour news radio.
I think the Labor Party needs to seriously rethink its current PR strategy. They’re only managing to stir up the media. I would usually give Tanya Plibersek more credit than behaving like that.
PM accused of playing spoiler role on climate change and snubbing US president
ABC, ‘World Today’
(Why can’t I get one of these jobs ? )
12:22:00 10/06/2014
PM accused of playing spoiler role on climate change and snubbing US president
An expert in international climate change politics, Dr Robyn Eckersley, is warning today that if the Prime Minister Tony Abbott does attempt to form his proposed alliance of conservative world leaders against carbon pricing, he will be taking on the role of spoiler and playing a diplomatically risky role with the United States. Mr Abbott and his Canadian counterpart, Stephen Harper, held formal talks in Ottawa earlier today and vowed to put their economies before action on climate change.
“Eckersley’s arguments are largely conducted in the domain of political theory, but have proven influential in environmental politics. Her 1992 book was one of the first to argue for an ecocentric form of government.
In her 2004 book The Green State: Rethinking Democracy and Sovereignty, Eckersley proposes “critical political ecology” as a paradigm to explore what it might take to create a green state or green democratic state, a government where the regulatory ideals and democratic procedures of the democratic state are informed by ecological democracy. The sovereign state is recast in the role of ecological steward and facilitator of transnational democracy. The green democratic state is proposed as an evolutionary alternative to the liberal democratic state, the welfare state, and the neoliberal state.”
I think we have hit the ABC nail on the head here. Our own Agenda21 agent is a consultant.
It seems that the Thwaite’s glacier is being impacted by NATURAL geothermal heat, from volcanoes and more magma flow.
The extra NATURAL heat from volcanic activity under parts of the WAIS has been discussed for years on the better sceptic blogs. Good to see some of the MSM taking an interest and printing the truth at last.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/09/uh-oh-study-says-collapsing-thwaites-glacier-in-antarctica-melting-from-geothermal-heat-not-co2-heat-effects/#more-111163
“…Or perhaps you’re just trying to be funny? ”
Aww!..c’mon, Neville…at least Jennifer has a sense of humour…every time I see her she has those “pearly-whites” flashing a brilliant smile!
Ian I heard the end of that stupidity and couldn’t believe such idiocy even coming from their ABC. These people are out of control and just one more reason why they should have conservatives making up half of their staff, not wall to wall lefties.
Half of their presenters should be conservatives as well, then we just might get some common sense out of them for the first time since 1960.
JC thanks for reassuring us you were only joking. You had me worried there for a short time.
And I agree Jennifer is nice to look at and has a very nice smile.
Another study has found a significant decrease of 4.2% in cloudiness over the USA in the last 30 years. This would easily account for any warming over that period. In fact even half of that percentage would account for the warming.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2014/06/new-paper-finds-significant-decrease-in.html
The role of clouds in temperature was established by Pinker et al back when Monckton was accused of misrepresenting her paper and her gender:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/308/5723/850.abstract
Anyone interested in climate debate post Pinker et al should be aware of some basic physics as discussed here – particularly this
“BTW, do you, guys, know what is the deep physical nature of a radiation flux?”
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/04/10/pinker-et-al-do-satellites-detect-trends-in-surface-solar-radiation/
Interesting debating on the thread, until a bit of diversion happened.
Always appreciate Bill’s comments (yes Bill, even the 1964 reference! lol)
Ian, great “stuff” as usual to read.
In fact even the moso I found interesting as well, I even took a few minutes to have a look at any information I could find on it…terrible plant though when it (under the right conditions) gets away a bit like Leucena I should imagine – oh, and there are some grants available for it as well, reward for productivity – just as an aside.
I found that information on it very interesting indeed, thanks for sharing it.
“Me, I would prefer to be out of a job than compromised.
Two paths diverged in the woods… I took the one less travelled… it made all the difference.”
To have a luxury, a choice like that, how I wish, but nevertheless, in the end there is no compromise (there never was), as those who do not pay landowners – primary producers, accounts, get to have their moral and ethical say over rights on our land – and, show disrespect for those whom support them. I.E have provided food and clothing (hope you all enjoyed your dinner tonight) for generations for Australian’s and people around the world. Hero’s anyone or just hard working people?
The attacks and “heated debate” will continue on if not here, in other places. Meanwhile, the displacement of families on the land is continuing at an alarming rate.
The judicial system is quite a farce so I have learned, to speak / write from ones heart the truth with the only goal of sharing information is turned into a joke and judgmental attitudes – well, it reinforces how much I love my dog…oh, hang on, I will have to shoot my dog, as I am under threat of being homeless again….along with many, many others.
So while the scientific debates continue, I guess the rest have to rely on the good old UN for humanitarian rights hey? Hmmm now we all know how that will end.
There was so much on this thread I would like to have time to address, however time is elusive now.
Stewardship point for example that “Thumbnail” raised – yes, Rick Farley (Deceased) and I discussed this at length on and off for 2 1/2 years while working together on the BBSB Assessments – Bob Carr though, decided it was easier to legislate and the “land grab” for national parks continued.
Tonight, news of another landowner, and his wife have hit breaking point. The husband cow towing to recievers like a frightened child after enduring mental trauma inconceiveable to many, including myself just to try and protect his family, with his wife wishing to fight on.
Poor bugger, fancy being “compromised like that” what is he thinking…
Cate; We (late wife) campaigned for Rick Farley in his final bid for the Australian Democrats
Fair dinkum – fancy that! I did not know that. Rick was a man with many talents to be sure..some popular, and some not. Motor bike and long hair too!
For no other reason, Cate, than a bit of moral support on a sensitive issue…..after all, even though I “lean” to the left, we are all in the same boat!
The Principle of the Third Day.
There are critics of democracy who would complain that the problem WITH democracy is that too many people have access to it. The biggest disappointment must be that it allows the most bigoted and ignorant an equal platform with the most erudite and informed. Such are the principles of equality…: given the amount of study and research that goes into becoming vitally informed on any complex subject, and the apparent dearth of interest others take in their world around themselves, having an equal say in outcomes demonstrates that some have been allocated, or have claimed, “more equal” time and space than others!
We are all aware of the three tiers of government ie. ; Federal-State-Local. I would push for recognition of three tiers of Local Govt’ ie. : Civic Authority-Civic Administration-Civic Service Delivery. I now propose we encourage the “Community” to step-up to the crease and accept it’s own three tiers of Community participation. While these three “principles” are not on the same “civic-delivery field” as the above, it is no less important than such…in fact, I would go so far as to claim community input and attitude is vital FOR the delivery of the other govt’ services………..I call these tiers; The “principles of the three days of the community”…those days being ; a) The day of personal recreation , b) The day of rest and / or spiritual restoration and c) The principle of the third day being ; community responsibility.
The Principle of The Third Day is the necessity of each and everyone in a community, ANY community, to step-up at the end of their personal “weekend” and accept that there are things that need to be done so that the community can function and progress in a fair and constructive manner. We all have notions and ideas. We all would like our voice to be heard on these ideas. There are responsibilities that have to be confronted and dealt with. When one shirks a duty, their load is shifted to another. This would be unfair, this cannot be.
This principle of responsibility should not be seen a some sort of overbearing demand of “school-marmish” compliance, nor a “mutual-obligation” subservience….but rather it be the mature, experienced and calculated action of responsible adults. The modern community cannot afford to slip back into a patriarchal, elitist dominated clique that calls the shots and corrupts the intent of a community. The subtle bullying of some who perceive themselves to have “authority”, must be pushed aside and the right of every citizen to make their voice, however subtle, however meek or shy be heard. So it is necessary for each individual, who can relish the opportunity of equal say, equal vote to make the effort of applying their civic right to themselves to think through proposed government policy, environmental necessity and community social needs and act in a responsible manner to their fellow citizen and the community. We no longer have the luxury of shirking our responsibilities. There is no more “fat” to burn in the community.
The Principle of the Third Day could be seen as a yard-stick by which to measure the honest intent of a socially aware and community minded people to elevate the station of their social environment to one most suited to a gentler community, an understanding community, a most civilised community.
Jaycee thanks for that read.
As i read it, I kept coming back to the word “community” and indeed was pleased to see it written so many times.
For many individuals, this does take on a multitude of different faces.
Mt Morris Station, has most certainly, always throughout the history of this station, been focused on “community”. http://mountmorrisstation.wordpress.com/
After several years research, I am still learning so much about its history.
“We no longer have the luxury of shirking our responsibilities. There is no more “fat” to burn in the community.” These two sentances, that you have written sum up rural Australia, but more importantly all Australia.
Now it is upon the individuals to come together, a tad like “herding cats” one could imagine!
I really don’t care who individuals (general comment) vote for as an aside, I prefer to believe that well intentioned people, have a countries best interest at heart and canvassing of ones ideas that challenge the way an individual thinks can be quite “healthy” by and large.
The art of looking at a situation from boths sides of an equation, has imho, been lost in a fog of “smoke and mirrors”, truly sad.
Cate…that piece was initially directed toward the “community” around this area…but as you so rightly say..it is a reflection of the country as a whole….You may have seen this community appear on the national stage a couple of weeks ago as a tragic news-story….we now have the dubious distinction……well..just Google “Sedan” and you will see….There has to be a “change of direction” for this area, it has been almost abandoned by all three tiers of government for years…it has become so marginal that a kind of “Brisbane Line” has been drawn to cut off the northern section of the constituency!
On the positive side…as I posted early in this thread, the district does produce all the raw crop material for a sustainable community…it is just a matter of marketting and consumers buying. There are those still keen as mustard to work and grow, but there is that damn “wall of denial” by some in authority too afraid to push some risk projects along…..the cry of “Where’s the money comming from” being most vocal…well…I have been building houses and extensions for a bloody long time and I’ve never met a client yet who didn’t “borrow to invest” in their house and home…..sometimes they would lament on the cost of things and I would always answer that ; “money spent on bricks and mortar is the best, most solid investment a family can make….because it serves two purposes..it houses and homes the family and it (generally) increases in value over the years.”…and it is exactly the same (imho) for a community.