A decison to allow sludge to be dumped of the Great Barrier Reef

[Capricorn1(Tom)]

What's your thoughts....can we do something about this....we have only one planet to live on....what about our kids...been in the development industry all my life....this is so wrong....money...greed to allow sludge to be dumped of the great barrier reef is so wrong...:eyepop::help:Tom

[FlashDrive]

I don't agree with it. :(

I lived in Rocky for 30years....went to Yeppoon a lot and up the coast to Airlie Beach....could ruin things for sure....

Flash....:shrug:

[MortonH]

Agree it's disgraceful.

[casstony]

Behave yourselves guys - talk like that is likely to get you an anti-australian label - wonderful government we have :mad2:

[Capricorn1(Tom)]

Hi Cassidy...worked for the commonwealth government...state government...local government....self employed half of my working life...don't agree with your comments.....its simple black and white, right and wrong , morality....I'm retired....guess I can speak my mind......thanks for your reply....no I'm not a greenie...cheers Tom:thanx:

[Hans Tucker]

Ummm..could be that Tony might be being a bit facetious and not intending that his comments be taken seriously...just a possibility.

[casstony]

:) Hi Tom, hard to get the correct meaning across sometimes, I should be more careful. I was being facetious and referring to the governments tendency to label anyone opposing their position as un-Australian. If they can't kill the reef by dumping dirt on it they'll kill it by warming the ocean.

[Capricorn1(Tom)]

Thanks Hans an Tony for your comments....cheers Tom:thanx:

[blink138]

you guys voted him in!!
pat

[skysurfer]

On the Dutch national TV news 'NOS Journaal' I heard that a mining company will dump sludge in one of the world largest and vulnerable nature reserves.
Dumping 3 million cubic meters, a cube of sludge with an edge of 144 meters !
I read more detailed information on it in the SMH:


Here the link :
http://www.smh.com.au/national/grief-for-great-barrier-reef-say-environmentalists-20140131-31sjj.html

Moreover it supports the coal industry which is one of the largest contributors to greenhouse gas. Particularly in a country with plenty of sunshine for renewable energy.

What do you Aussies think about this ?

[gts055]

An Aust federal government and Qld state gonvernment together with mining companies seeing dollars in export of coal to China. Greg Hunt, career polititian, the most useless Minister for Environment over saw this. Australia has little credibility with activites like this and the killing of mature sharks off Western Australia so people can swim. Japan and whaling for research, at least they eat their "research" catch, Australia shoots and dumps those magnificent ocean predators. hmmm, makes me very angry and now I am grumpy at 6.48am :) Mark

[AndrewJ]

Hmmm heard more on the radio this morning re the plans for Tasmanian forestry, ( which they have been very quiet on ).
Looks like their mates will be back in there to fill their boots while they can.

I found it hilarious when the person being interviewed stated that you can only have a good environment if you have a strong economy???
They should have asked him if he's been to China recently.


Andrew

[cookie1]

Given what we know for certain it really highlights the archaic leadership we have installed in power. No real surprises I guess, back to the 50's!

I heard Greg Hunt a couple of weeks ago, to paraphrase, "liberal believe in the science of climate change, however, it is to early to draw conclusions and take steps. We need at least another 10-20 years to get solid evidence and avoid taking rash steps."

like :shrug:!

[casstony]

It's probably more accurate to say that the other mob was voted out and this lot won by default. I'm not sure moving from an incompetent government to an evil one is a good move :screwy:.

[Camelopardalis]

Let me get this straight...so Australia doesn't have enough other coastline to dump this sludge, they have to go dump it off the greatest marine habitat on earth? :screwy:

[Paul Haese]

I thought political discussions were against the TOS here?

[casstony]

I suspect the Mods turn a blind eye so long as the discussion remains polite, which is within the spirit of the TOS. The point in banning political discussion is that it tends to go off the rails pretty quickly.

[casstony]

There were a number of options for dumping the sludge including dumping it on land but it's cheaper to dump it in the ocean. Hopefully some determined green minded folk will protest and get the dump site changed.

Considering the amount of money to be made from the coal I think they could afford to transport the sludge onto the land with a minor impact on profits.

[Peter.M]

Ahh yea but people only give a **** about animals if they are majestic or pretty. Who gives a rats about them nasty sharks. What if Japans whaling was studied and found to be sustainable, I for one could not find any reason to oppose it. I suspect that many other people would still be against it.

[The Mekon]

Lets get this clear, the word is spoil NOT sludge. Spoil is the solid material from dredging and includes sand, shale etc. As I understand they will be moving some material from one part of the barrier reef park to another part. They are not dumping sludge on reefs. The Great Barrier marine Park is an arbitarily drawn area that includes regions that are much like any other part of the coast. I have worked and travelled exensively in this area. If this were to happen in some of the more northerly parts of the reef I would be concerned like many of you. Otherwise get out of your cars, rip out your airconditioners, and go bush. Then I may have respect for your views.

[casstony]

The choice of dump site could even be a ploy to distract from the main event. Get the public focused on the dump site, eventually decide to dump the sludgy spoil on land allowing us to experience a sense of relief, meanwhile the monstrous coal development goes ahead in the face of global warming.

[Mick]

It doesn't mater what you all say it will happen while everyone stays addicted to electricity that is generated by coal. So many have an opinion but are seldom keen to give up the comforts of modern life.

[casstony]

G'day Mick, I'm not sure that's a fair statement given the popularity of solar panels, even in China, demonstrating a level of public concern.
We have a 3.5Kw system installed which covers daytime air con use and we're looking forward to installing batteries to cover evening usage. Battery prices will fall rapidly over the next few years as production volumes ramp up following subsidized battery installation in Germany.

In a few months SMA will be introducing a combined inverter/2Kw battery to the Australian Market offering simple installation and supplying much of the evening electricity needs.

Coal fired generation is being promoted by vested interests (distributors, generators, government) not by end users.

[rat156]

Have to agree with almost all of the comments here.

The dredging sludge is 80% sand, then 20% other stuff, which may or may not be harmful to the reef near where it will be dumped, which is quite a long way from any coral reef, there is a small risk to the local reef environment. IMHO a small risk is more than what is acceptable WRT the GBR, this should be protected, absolutely, particularly when there is a viable alternative. There was a bloke interviewed on the news who was disappointed as he could use the sludge for some money making venture, but the decision was made.

This federal Govt is what some of us warned you it would be like, except possibly worse, they've been in power for about six months and have already stuffed up education, the environment, national parks, science research, amongst others. Next on the list is health, $8 to see your GP when you're already paying through Medicare and in most cases private health insurance is the thin edge of the wedge. I'm only going to touch on the fact that you can't find out what is actually going on with various aspects of the "stop the boats" policy either because they simply aren't releasing any information or, now, smothering the only real chance for us to find out, the ABC. Not saying whether the policy is right or wrong, just that we don't know what is being done in OUR name, with OUR military. As some of you know I work closely with the military, and using the excuse that the information is operationally sensitive is using the military as a smokescreen for what usually is a Government FU (does anyone remember the "people overboard").

Cheers
Stuart

[torana68]

[QUOTE=The Mekon;1053942]Lets get this clear, the word is spoil NOT sludge. Spoil is the solid material from dredging and includes sand, shale etc. As I understand they will be moving some material from one part of the barrier reef park to another part. They are not dumping sludge on reefs. QUOTE]

yeah dont believe ANYTHING from the print media its really a joke these days anything they can beat up they do, not saying its a great idea but as above they are apparently moving the results of dredging from one spot to another that has the same or similar composition, dunno what this has to do with coal mining????
edit found it:
The decision, related to the Abbot Point coal port expansion north of Bowen, was announced in Townsville.

[blink138]

ha ha paul you have been involved in a good few of them here!
pat

[skysurfer]

Indeed, citizens do not make these choices, it are the big corporations. In the USA, in AU and also in the EU, the big corporations are running our country (or federation in the US, AU or EU case).

About the dumping, when it is really 'only' 3 million m3 according to the SMH article, then dumping on land should be cheaper IMHO.
But, as others say, the real problem is using coal. Same problem as South Africa where there is lots of sunshine and hydropower, water can be pumped back into the lakes on sunny days using the excess solar energy. But they rely on coal as coal is 'cheap'.
It is just running a device on a non-rechargeable battery close to a mains power outlet.

[guggle]

Not me!!

[acropolite]

I don't agree with the decision, in fact I don't agree with digging up coal to sell overseas then claiming we aren't big carbon emitters. IMO history will judge our govenments very harshly, both for the greedy haste in consuming resources and the total disregard for the environment and the people of this country.

We live in an era or unprecedented greed with governments who have little or no regard for the environment or the wishes of the people who elect them.

Regarding the Tassie forest industry, I could write a small book in the subject.

To summarise, Tasmanian Forestry has touted its operations as "worlds best practice" for decade, when nothing could be further from the truth. Clear felling, often using cable logging techniques, burning the remaining rubbish then replacement with monoculture plantations has caused massive problems. The resultant monoculture plantations need constant chemical spraying (with chemicals banned in other parts of the world and no environmental constraints) to survive as frequently as fortnightly, the destruction of the forest floor biomass results in massive erosion and the loss to filtration and moderating systems for our rainfall catchments. Their total disregard for the environment and forest ecosystems led to the collapse of the industry.

Most savvy buyers overseas now insist on product with Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certification, Forestry in Tasmania ignored the writing on the wall and failed to change their practices with the times so the industry collapsed. Instead of modifying their practices, forestry in Australia concocted standards to match their methods. Of note is that for decades, Forestry has received massive subsidies, in the billions of dollars, to trash our environment and sell valuable trees as chips in the overseas market. In doing so they have squandered much of our valuable sawlog assets.

That market has increasingly required product which is harvested in a sustainable and more importantly socially acceptable manner, criteria that our timber products can't satisfy.

The attempts by our illustrious leader to remove world heritage listed forests for a continuation of the same old unworkable procedures (again subsidised by the taxpayer) is just plain stupid.

The environment movement has negotiated agreements like the current forest peace deal before, every time massive amounts of taxpayer money has flooded in to the forest industry, every time the environment movement has been dudded. I have no reason to believe this time around it will be any different.

What needs to happen is a return to traditional harvesting methods, take only the suitable big trees, leave the small trees, dead and hollow stuff alone; when you leave, the forest is mostly intact, still a forest, not a crop.

Unfortunately at the moment that is unpalatable to both the environment movement and forestry, for one it means compromise, the other a complete change in the way they operate.

[clive milne]

The incumbent administration is arguably more honest than those that have preceded them for a long, long time in the sense that they are true to their fundamental nature. The cognitive dissonance arises as one tries to reconcile the unpalatable reality with the (false) image that was sold to us (last election). The implication is clear: One of the biggest problems with politics in this country is that the main stream media is not presenting an honest and balanced view, compounded by the fact that the majority of the voting public relies upon them to form their opinions.
It really doesn't matter how intelligent you are, if your decisions are made on the strength of bad information then it is unlikely you will be making the choice which best serves your interests and those around you.

It is worth noting the extent to which credible, science based advisory bodies in this country (such as the EPA) have been abrogated in function in the last 6 months for the benefit of private commercial interests... but you will need to extend the scope of your research beyond even current affairs on SBS to get an idea of what is going on.

I feel very sad for this country.

[MickS]

What on Earth is happening to Australia. I weep for our future :(

[AndrewJ]

Follow the money;)
It would appear some people want to get as much money as they can before it all turns to custard.

Andrew

[dutch2]

As long as profits are considered before the environment, these decisions will continue to be made.
Tourism generates billions in revenue, better to keep as much of GBR as pristine as possible.
As for the Tassie rain forests, don't get me started..:D

[AndrewJ]

And now renewable energy targets
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-02-06/abbott-affordable-energy/5243134

I quite liked this bit


ie if you can make more money by using a polluting source, go for it.
It might cost more now, but by not aiming for any "new source" targets and making them cost effective over time, we will get nowhere.

Andrew

[Astro_Bot]

Whilst not being across the specifics of the GBR spoil case or the latest Oz Gubmint pronouncements, I've long thought that the problems we face in achieving and improving economic - environmental balance are two fold:

(a) not costing/pricing externalities - mainly pollution of various sorts - pollution (of any kind) enters the "common domain" owned by everyone and access to that "common" needs to be charged at a fair price - there are also localised effects that should not exceed appropriate limits, and other "fineprint" such as some parties being noteably harmed more that others (in certain isolated cases, which may require specific consideration).

(b) not nurturing new technologies anywhere near enough - markets are dumb - markets don't invest enough in unknowns, though occasionally a "visionary" with public or private capital may come along - there needs to be a better framework/mechanism for new technologies (with potential "common domain" benefits) to be nursed to a size/state where free markets can take over.

As both of the above are broadly market failures, and, in my belief, the responsibility of addressing market failure rests with Government, then I believe it's Government that must act to address these issues - they don't necessarily have to provide all of the funds, but investment and corrective action is unlikely to proceed without them.

-------------

I don't want to debate these points - I'm not looking for an argument - I just thought I'd share some idle thoughts. :)

[simmo]

I've just come back from bremer bay on the south coast over here where there were hundreds of birds washed up on the beach. Migrating seabird (forgotten the name) that flies to Russia and back every year this year all turned up malnourished and many died. This has happened all round Australia with this same species.

Also we've had mass die offs of fish in our rivers down south due to algal blooms etc twice this year in one river and some not reported.

As well our state gov has cracked the door open with fracking now being allowed in the Kimberley.

And you will all probably have heard of the baiting of nationally protected great whites.

To cap it off over the road from us a new development has started and the contractors yesterday cleared the dozen beautiful big gum trees that we're growing there. Chipped the lot. Not one piece saved or kept for a beneficial reason. Was like I could literally feel the pain in my heart when they started.

Yesterday I felt like the world let out a groan at our misguided ways. :sadeyes:

Something else what I don't understand is we bang on about the greenhouse gases warming the planet but at what percentage of oxygen do we need to exist? Has anybody been checking how much oxygen is left in the atmosphere and are we using it up quicker than it is being replaced with so much forest now gone?

[rat156]

Simmo,

No-one cares, if it's not happening in their backyard. Also if it affects the profits from the big companies and hence your super they care more.

How else can you explain how Tony Abbot is PM? And a person who can only be described as an environmental and social criminal is in charge in Qld?

When the revolution comes ...

Solidarity brothers (and Sisters)!

Cheers
Stuart

[Astro_Bot]

Amen, brother!

I also say we get rid of all the spies and start again: new organisations, new culture.

[strongmanmike]

He he Oooh lucky Hagar doesn't post here any more, you'd be positively hammered :eyepop: I of course 100% agree with you :thumbsup:

Mike

[luvmybourbon]

wow big words idealist nature

[andyc]

Fill yer boots at Skeptical Science: Climate Change Cluedo (http://www.skepticalscience.com/anthrocarbon-brief.html#oxygen)
The oxygen quantity is dropping, as expected (it shows the CO2 increase is from combustion, not volcanic outgassing). The 'source' link has lots of primary references if you want. But the oxygen decrease is small in absolute terms, so suffocation is certainly not on the cards! :eyepop:

[iceman]

We've had a few reported posts, lots of attempts to bypass profanity, and no doubt getting heated with a political thread.

Time to lock it folks.