Australian Politics Forum

Australian Politics Forum
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl General Discussion >> Federal Politics >> Why Do Libs Support More Dams http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1330762841 Message started by Greens_Win on Mar 3^rd, 2012 at 6:20pm

Title: Why Do Libs Support More Dams
Post by Greens_Win on Mar 3^rd, 2012 at 6:20pm

White elephants during drought

Building new ones are as risky as betting behind drunken sailors at a casino since rain patterns will shift due to AGW

And in flood, weapons of mass destruction.

So why some in the old parties so keen on old ideas like Dams

Tony Abbott's dam solution for flooded rivers

TONY Abbott will develop a plan to build a series of dams around the nation, as part of the Coalition's policy platform for the next election.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/tony-abbotts-dam-solution-for-flooded-rivers/story-fn59niix-1225983272814

Heavy rain leaves Warragamba bursting and sends residents packing

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/heavy-rain-leaves-warragamba-bursting-and-sends-residents-packing-20120301-1u61h.html

Title: Re: Why Do Libs Support More Dams
Post by FriYAY on Mar 3^rd, 2012 at 6:27pm

If there were no dams you would not be here, idiot.

Title: Re: Why Do Libs Support More Dams
Post by Greens_Win on Mar 3^rd, 2012 at 6:30pm

FriYAY wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2012 at 6:27pm:

If there were no dams you would not be here, idiot.

How many dams do the Liberals plan to build in the Nullarbor ... and how many people will they support?

Title: Re: Why Do Libs Support More Dams
Post by philperth2010 on Mar 3^rd, 2012 at 6:43pm

The Dams in WA are almost always empty and are useless most of the time.....That is why we will build two desalination plants to ensure supply.....Perth is also the only capitol city to be built on an aquifer .....How the Eastern States will handle inevitable droughts is not going to be solved by building more dams.....Old school stupidity IMO!!!

Fools rush in where fools have been before.
Unknown

Title: Re: Why Do Libs Support More Dams
Post by FriYAY on Mar 3^rd, 2012 at 6:50pm

____ wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2012 at 6:30pm:

FriYAY wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2012 at 6:27pm:

If there were no dams you would not be here, idiot.

How many dams do the Liberals plan to build in the Nullarbor ... and how many people will they support?

Moronic response. Large dams would be saving water right now. For the environment and people.

Who gives a fig if they dry out? They'll fill up again.

The key is to build storage away from the main flow and pump/direct excess water there, not dam the actual river.

Greens thinking is disasterous.

Title: Re: Why Do Libs Support More Dams
Post by Greens_Win on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 4:09am

FriYAY wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2012 at 6:50pm:

____ wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2012 at 6:30pm:

FriYAY wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2012 at 6:27pm:

If there were no dams you would not be here, idiot.

How many dams do the Liberals plan to build in the Nullarbor ... and how many people will they support?

So who should finance the building of white elephant dams

Don't tell me someone from the right believes public debt can be a tool for investments.

Title: Re: Why Do Libs Support More Dams
Post by longweekend58 on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 6:58am

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2012 at 6:43pm:

an intelligent person wouldnt extrapolate their own circumstances and apply it to every other city regardless. if the eastern states and SA had built more dams and reservoirs during the drought, the current wet times would have filled them therefore greatly reducing the need for desal plants. but no... we decided to ONLY build these uber-expensive monstrosities when quite literally some more HOLES INTHE GROUND would ahve fized the problem,

Title: Re: Why Do Libs Support More Dams
Post by Greens_Win on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 7:02am

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 6:58am:

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2012 at 6:43pm:

And during the next drought, fill then with toxic water from the dying Murray.

Or even better, with blue green algae from the Torrens.

Title: Re: Why Do Libs Support More Dams
Post by olde.sault on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 7:13am

____ wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2012 at 6:20pm:

What a question for this period when all the rainwater is lost again, running into the sea!

You really need a shrink!

If dams had already been built, ready for this rain, billions would not have been spent on desalination plants that now aren't needed.

Aside from this, droughts will return and these plants will be of use that's if Labor politicians don't let them rust up in the meantime.

Down with all communists!

Title: Re: Why Do Libs Support More Dams
Post by longweekend58 on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 7:16am

olde.sault wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 7:13am:

____ wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2012 at 6:20pm:

water storage is awlays vastyl cheaper than desal plants. the state govts of all persuasions ahve been atrocisious at forward planning. Sydney and NSW in general could be filling these new dams now. SE QLD could have large nuymbers of fulll reservoirs now if not for a lack of them. it is the green influence which for reasons that defy commonsense oppose dams but love desal plants.

Title: Re: Why Do Libs Support More Dams
Post by longweekend58 on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 7:17am

____ wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 7:02am:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 6:58am:

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2012 at 6:43pm:

And during the next drought, fill then with toxic water from the dying Murray.

Or even better, with blue green algae from the Torrens.

it might not have occured to a limited intelligence such as you but it is possible to empty dams and fill them with... AIR.

idiot.

Title: Re: Why Do Libs Support More Dams
Post by Greens_Win on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 7:22am

olde.sault wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 7:13am:

____ wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2012 at 6:20pm:

When the droughts are back, these white elephants sit idle

and still no one from the right have said where the cash will come from to build white elephants.

If we are to waterproof, how about starting with a measure that is less costly and more efficient

i.e water efficiencies, rainwater harvesting, water tanks and so on..

Title: Re: Why Do Libs Support More Dams
Post by Greens_Win on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 7:24am

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 7:16am:

olde.sault wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 7:13am:

____ wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2012 at 6:20pm:

I ignored you two lies about Jane Lomax Smith, yet not this lie.

Greens do not support desal

http://nsw.greens.org.au/policies/water_urban

Title: Re: Why Do Libs Support More Dams
Post by Greens_Win on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 7:40am

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 7:17am:

____ wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 7:02am:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 6:58am:

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2012 at 6:43pm:

And during the next drought, fill then with toxic water from the dying Murray.

Or even better, with blue green algae from the Torrens.

it might not have occured to a limited intelligence such as you but it is possible to empty dams and fill them with... AIR.

idiot.

And where is the financial profit from this ... or do you expect tax payers to pay for dams that hold air now.

Labor ~ Pink Batt / Liberals ~ White Elephants

Title: Re: Why Do Libs Support More Dams
Post by tonegunman1 on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 8:03am

____ wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 4:09am:

FriYAY wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2012 at 6:50pm:

____ wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2012 at 6:30pm:

FriYAY wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2012 at 6:27pm:

If there were no dams you would not be here, idiot.

How many dams do the Liberals plan to build in the Nullarbor ... and how many people will they support?

So who should finance the building of white elephant dams

Don't tell me someone from the right believes public debt can be a tool for investments.

I think there a few white elephant desal plants around at the moment that no one wanted...and if I recollect correctly the last couple of actual dam proposals (where they have got into serious planning territory) have been by Bligh in Queensland and Keneally from NSW.

Title: Re: Why Do Libs Support More Dams
Post by NorthOfNorth on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 8:28am

____ wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2012 at 6:20pm:

So why some in the old parties so keen on old ideas like Dams

Hmmm

My guess would be that some in the old parties might be old Sires with still enough kick in the third leg to like the old idea of a Dam...

Title: Re: Why Do Libs Support More Dams
Post by nairbe on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 9:02am

tonegunman1 wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 8:03am:

____ wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 4:09am:

FriYAY wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2012 at 6:50pm:

____ wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2012 at 6:30pm:

FriYAY wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2012 at 6:27pm:

If there were no dams you would not be here, idiot.

How many dams do the Liberals plan to build in the Nullarbor ... and how many people will they support?

So who should finance the building of white elephant dams

Don't tell me someone from the right believes public debt can be a tool for investments.

Not a word about white elephants in WA, they are worshiping their desal plant as god. It will only take a few dry years and no one will even mention the desal plants in NSW and VIC. Small minded and short sightedness are key policies of the conservatives. More important would be a national water grid. If you link QLD, NSW, VIC and SA with desal and the current dams you could have water across the nation including inland.

I would not be concerned about Abbott building Dams he has proven he will say anything to get power. His interview on today about the maternity leave scheme, he made it clear that he will implement it, but when asked if it would be at the current rate he would not answer just kept repeating he would implement it. So he will water it down, tax business and rip off country women. This man is a Liar of the most cynical type.

Title: Re: Why Do Libs Support More Dams
Post by cods on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 9:15am

are we now claiming desal plants do not do any harm to the ocean..and its inhabitants???

cant say how much electricity they use either...isnt that another No No.?.. and whilst they are not being used they also cost millions...oh well we know labor and cost dont go together dont we?..

for me it would make sense if all this wonderful rain was going into catchment areas for those tough times..instead of going into waste treatment plants..maybe even through peoples homes... who knows a dam may stop flooding.. as well as be useful during a drought.

Title: Re: Why Do Libs Support More Dams
Post by adelcrow on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 9:24am

cods wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 9:15am:

We dont need desal plants or more dams, what we need to do is start treating water as a precious resource and account for every drop we use in industry and privately.
We need good environmental flows not only for the quality of the water but also for the country is flows through so just damming it up so we can continue to be wasteful is not only stupid it is ultimately destructive on all counts.

Title: Re: Why Do Libs Support More Dams
Post by FRED. on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 9:44am

adelcrow wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 9:24am:

cods wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 9:15am:

What twisted logic . You store the water in dams or it goes out to sea ffs When you need the water you pipe it to were its needed.... Simple and works the world over you morons >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(

Title: Re: Why Do Libs Support More Dams
Post by BlOoDy RiPpEr on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 9:59am

I have no problems with dams or water storage, but what we do need is a national water pipeline, would reduce inland floods. also provide water in times of drought

Title: Re: Why Do Libs Support More Dams
Post by Greens_Win on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 10:00am

FRED. wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 9:44am:

adelcrow wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 9:24am:

cods wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 9:15am:

How about storing fresh water runoff underground in aquifers ... or as like Adelaide, in wetlands.

And while banging on about spending billions of borrowed cash in building white elephants like dams and desal ... lets talk about the 50% of coal seam gas wells that break within their life and pollute the underground fresh water aquifers that could keep Australia from dying in AGW caused deeper and longer droughts.

(ABC Landline, midday today)

So why are the old parties so easily swayed with party coal donations to destroy our water security via coal seam gas destruction of our fresh water aquifers.

Title: Re: Why Do Libs Support More Dams
Post by FRED. on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 10:19am

____ wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 10:00am:

FRED. wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 9:44am:

adelcrow wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 9:24am:

cods wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 9:15am:

Because were on about storing water STOREING LIKE YAN YEAN. MAROONDAH . EILDON .THOMPSON FFS >:( >:( >:( >:( >:(

Title: Re: Why Do Libs Support More Dams
Post by philperth2010 on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 10:21am

Governments across the nation have been telling domestic users to cut their use whilst agriculture and industry are allowed to consume at will.....Domestic use is about 10% of consumption where as industry and agriculture use up to 60% plus of this precious resource.....Cutting domestic use will have little affect on storage levels it is industry and agriculture that are required to manage their use to have any net affect on water storage.....Yet Governments across the nation ignore the big users and punish domestic users for little gain.....Industry and agriculture get very cheap water and waste a lot of it as a result.....More needs to be done to address this problem!!!

Title: Re: Why Do Libs Support More Dams
Post by Maqqa on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 10:24am

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 10:21am:

Try 5% for domestic use

Your point is cutting domestic usage would make little difference

Then how come lefties want to reduce Australian carbon emissions when we contribute 1.35%

Title: Re: Why Do Libs Support More Dams
Post by philperth2010 on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 10:35am

Tony Abbott is using once in a lifetime floods to promote building more dams that will never fill.....by the time they are built is will be 50 years before we have these sort of rains to fill them and they will be emptied withing a short time to sit idle once more.....Global Warming will mean rainfall becomes less and less consistent and building dams is a stupid short sighted opportunist approach that is based on floods people should realise are very rare in Australian history.....All this water in the East will be gone within a short time and dams will once again empty faster than they fill!!!

Denying Global Warming is behind this push for dams and Abbott is showing he is an opportunist who thinks drought will not happen again,,,,,He is a fools fool....Much like Longweekend who denied Global Warming is real.....We cannot afford such short sighted populism that will cost a packet but will not drought proof our nation!!!

Title: Re: Why Do Libs Support More Dams
Post by Greens_Win on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 10:39am

Maqqa wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 10:24am:

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 10:21am:

Try 5% for domestic use

Your point is cutting domestic usage would make little difference

Then how come lefties want to reduce Australian carbon emissions when we contribute 1.35%

the planet is a semi closed ecosystem with a fixed amount of water. What varies is the percentage of fresh to salt water, not the quantity.

where as human caused climate change, this is done by shifting currently locked up carbon back into the atmosphere and oceans and causing the glasshouse effect and the acidification of sea water.

Chalk and Cheese.

Title: Re: Why Do Libs Support More Dams
Post by adelcrow on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 10:43am

5% or 60%..every drop counts.

Title: Re: Why Do Libs Support More Dams
Post by philperth2010 on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 10:52am

Maqqa wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 10:24am:

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 10:21am:

Try 5% for domestic use

Your point is cutting domestic usage would make little difference

Then how come lefties want to reduce Australian carbon emissions when we contribute 1.35%

Because carbon emissions are world wide not only local that is why.....If all the countries in the world reduced their emissions by 5% on 2000 levels it adds up to a lot of carbon.....If the rest of the world agrees to act both Labor and the Coalition have agreed to reduce emissions by up to 15% on 2000 levels but the 5% target is a commitment both sides of politics have agreed to.....Doing nothing to reduce emissions is not an option being considered by anyone accept the extremist climate change deniers who have no political support and verge on the fringe of reality.....Climate Change cannot be ignored because a few fruit loops refuse to accept reality!!!

It is no good to try to stop knowledge from going forward. Ignorance is never better than knowledge.
Enrico Fermi (1901 - 1954)

Title: Re: Why Do Libs Support More Dams
Post by philperth2010 on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 11:00am

Salinity made simple!!!

Farmers clear land and cut down trees so they can plant crops.....They then plant short root varieties that require over irrigation because the water quickly drops below root level requiring more water.....There is no longer any deep roots to suck up the excess water so the water drops to the salt level which has always been there....This has two affects.....Firstly it causes the salt to rise making the land useless and secondly it creates underground streams that flush the salt into rivers.....Dams can cause salt to rise when the ground becomes saturated so it is not always a good solution to water shortage!!!

::) ::) ::)

Title: Re: Why Do Libs Support More Dams
Post by Maqqa on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 11:02am

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 10:52am:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 10:24am:

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 10:21am:

Try 5% for domestic use

Your point is cutting domestic usage would make little difference

Then how come lefties want to reduce Australian carbon emissions when we contribute 1.35%

Yet not all countries are doing it - not even close

With water - it's isolated to just Australia and you said it'll make little difference

Yet on a world scale you think it'll change temperature

Or are we doing in desperate hope that others will follow and when others don't follow and the economic damage to Australia is done you'll console yourself with "at least we tried"

you'll use logic in the case of water yet you'll use stubborn stupidity in the case of carbon emissions

Title: Re: Why Do Libs Support More Dams
Post by corporate_whitey on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 11:20am

Quote:

Tony Abbott's dam solution for flooded rivers

TONY Abbott will develop a plan to build a series of dams around the nation, as part of the Coalition's policy platform for the next election.

Its a great idea and dams form such an attractive part of the natural environment once they are built. Why does the Government put such population pressure on our continents scarce resources with immigration when we are already over populated by about 10 million people? 8-) 8-) ::)

Title: Re: Why Do Libs Support More Dams
Post by FRED. on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 11:24am

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 10:21am:

HA HA AGRICULTURE USE To feed the the city dwellers that waste the water washing cars and driveways lolool ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Why Do Libs Support More Dams
Post by Greens_Win on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 11:28am

Maqqa wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 11:02am:

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 10:52am:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 10:24am:

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 10:21am:

Try 5% for domestic use

Your point is cutting domestic usage would make little difference

Then how come lefties want to reduce Australian carbon emissions when we contribute 1.35%

The issue of fresh water security is not exclusive to Australia.

The major river systems of India and China, South America and Europe are at risk and are not alone.

And here is another country
Israel's water economy is on the brink of a crisis.

Demand and consumption are increasing, exceeding the capacity of the natural sources, which are being depleted. Water quality in the sources is deteriorating, due to over-exploitation and intensive human activity. The government of Israel decided on an integrated policy and action:

-To preserve and protect the existing reserves, in quality and quantity.
-To increase considerably the supply of potable water, mainly through seawater desalination and purification of water sources.
-To advance the treatment of sewage, its collection and purification, turning it into the main source of water for agriculture (replacing potable water).
-To intensify water saving in all sectors by economic measures - raising the price, as well as by legal means, enforcement, improved management and organization.
-To invest in Agrotechnology, to convert agriculture to using mainly low quality water - recycled waste water, brack

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/2000_2009/2002/8/Israel-s%20Water%20Economy%20-%20Thinking%20of%20future%20genera

Title: Re: Why Do Libs Support More Dams
Post by longweekend58 on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 1:45pm

____ wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 7:22am:

olde.sault wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 7:13am:

____ wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2012 at 6:20pm:

what do you think 'rainwater harvesting' is???? DAMS!!!

Title: Re: Why Do Libs Support More Dams
Post by Greens_Win on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 1:51pm

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 1:45pm:

____ wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 7:22am:

olde.sault wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 7:13am:

____ wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2012 at 6:20pm:

what do you think 'rainwater harvesting' is???? DAMS!!!

Rainwater harvesting is what Adelaide is doing, putting it into wetlands ~ like the one near salsbury / wakefield highway ... you know, that wetland area in your own city.

Rainwater harvesting is sending it underground for storages ... not building white elephants with loaned money and have then sit around idle.

Title: Re: Why Do Libs Support More Dams
Post by skippy. on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 1:54pm

Quote:

not building white elephants with loaned money and have then sit around idle.

OR overflow,as Warragamba is today, putting at risk hundreds of houses and thousands of peoples lives.Why are neo cons so bloody stupid? it must be a gene they're born with.

Title: Re: Why Do Libs Support More Dams
Post by adelcrow on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 1:54pm

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 1:45pm:

____ wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 7:22am:

olde.sault wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 7:13am:

____ wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2012 at 6:20pm:

what do you think 'rainwater harvesting' is???? DAMS!!!

Being in the water industry you should know that once it hits the ground and starts flowing down rivers and streams its not called rain anymore.

Title: Re: Why Do Libs Support More Dams
Post by longweekend58 on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 1:55pm

adelcrow wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 1:54pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 1:45pm:

____ wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 7:22am:

olde.sault wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 7:13am:

____ wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2012 at 6:20pm:

what do you think 'rainwater harvesting' is???? DAMS!!!

Being in the water industry you should know that once it hits the ground and starts flowing down rivers and streams its not called rain anymore.

a pedantic and rather pointless distinction that adds not a jot of value to the discussion at hand.

Title: Re: Why Do Libs Support More Dams
Post by longweekend58 on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 1:58pm

____ wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 1:51pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 1:45pm:

____ wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 7:22am:

olde.sault wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 7:13am:

____ wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2012 at 6:20pm:

what do you think 'rainwater harvesting' is???? DAMS!!!

Rainwater harvesting is NOT defined as the methodologies you personaly like liek MAR (manage aquifer recharge). MAR is good but a very expensive method of harvesting and not alway suitable as well as having limits to its use impose by the geology of the region. and dont kid yourself that wetland are doing anythgin significant in the supply of water.

dams and reservoirs remain our primary source of 'rainwater harvesting' for reaons that are obvious to most people. cheap, easy and low-tech. the best and cheapest of all solutions.

Title: Re: Why Do Libs Support More Dams
Post by longweekend58 on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 2:00pm

skippy. wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 1:54pm:

Quote:

not building white elephants with loaned money and have then sit around idle.

OR overflow,as Warragamba is today, putting at risk hundreds of houses and thousands of peoples lives.Why are neo cons so bloody stupid? it must be a gene they're born with.

truly you are vying for the title of chief idiot. what do you think would be happening now if there was no dam??? they'd already be flooded out before now. Just like Wivenhoe Dam saved Brisbane from total disaster.

Title: Re: Why Do Libs Support More Dams
Post by adelcrow on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 2:01pm

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 1:55pm:

adelcrow wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 1:54pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 1:45pm:

____ wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 7:22am:

olde.sault wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 7:13am:

____ wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2012 at 6:20pm:

what do you think 'rainwater harvesting' is???? DAMS!!!

Being in the water industry you should know that once it hits the ground and starts flowing down rivers and streams its not called rain anymore.

a pedantic and rather pointless distinction that adds not a jot of value to the discussion at hand.

Read what you wrote..thats exactly what you were doing :P

Title: Re: Why Do Libs Support More Dams
Post by Greens_Win on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 2:03pm

There again perhaps we are being too hard on long, look at the sort of people he takes notice of

If people can't rely on statements like "most scientists agree" and so forth, like that, with an issue of this complexity, how are they supposed to come to an opinion on it?

How should people come to some conclusion when scientists disagree? I think this is a problem that people will have to ask themselves. They'll have to say: What happens in the worst case? Supposing the scientists who say it will warm are correct, is that good or bad? And the answer is: If it warms, it will be good. So what is the concern, really? Even if the warming should take place, and the warming will be noticeable...if that should be the case, if it is measurable, that does not mean that it is economically damaging. In fact, the opposite is true.

But you might get, for instance, flooding in Bangladesh or in the [Maldive] Islands, or in southern United States. Those have to be scenarios. If you have a warming up,four or five degrees, those are possibilities, aren't they?

We have to ask, what is the impact of a warmer climate? It's not the warming itself that we should be concerned about. It is the impact. So we have to then ask: What is the impact on agriculture? The answer is: It's positive. It's good. What's the impact on forests of greater levels of CO2 and greater temperatures? It's good. What is the impact on water supplies? It's neutral. What is the impact on sea level? It will produce a reduction in sea-level rise. It will not raise sea levels. What is the impact on recreation? It's mixed. You get, on the one hand, perhaps less skiing; on the other hand, you get more sunshine and maybe better beach weather.

Let's face it. People like warmer climates. There's a good reason why much of the U.S. population is moving into the Sun Belt, and not just people who are retiring.
http://blog.gerbilnow.com/2012/03/warmer-climate-good-for-singer.html

about the author

Dr S Fred Singer

He is an atmospheric physicist at George Mason University and founder of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, a think tank on climate and environmental issues. Singer has been a leading skeptic of the scientific consensus on global warming. He points out that the scenarios are alarmist, computer models reflect real gaps in climate knowledge, and future warming will be inconsequential or modest at most.

Title: Re: Why Do Libs Support More Dams
Post by skippy. on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 2:03pm

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 2:00pm:

skippy. wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 1:54pm:

Quote:

not building white elephants with loaned money and have then sit around idle.

OR overflow,as Warragamba is today, putting at risk hundreds of houses and thousands of peoples lives.Why are neo cons so bloody stupid? it must be a gene they're born with.

If there was no dam there would be no overflow,so no need to evacuate homes.Were you born stupid or do you practice hard everyday?numnuts. ::)

Title: Re: Why Do Libs Support More Dams
Post by adelcrow on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 2:04pm

And there is nothing cheap about creating and maintaining new reservoirs.

Title: Re: Why Do Libs Support More Dams
Post by Greens_Win on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 2:08pm

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 1:58pm:

____ wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 1:51pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 1:45pm:

____ wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 7:22am:

olde.sault wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 7:13am:

____ wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2012 at 6:20pm:

what do you think 'rainwater harvesting' is???? DAMS!!!

rivers?

why are you linking white elephant dams with river systems

separate the two and dams are extremely expensive white elephants for lame ducks to sit in

Title: Re: Why Do Libs Support More Dams
Post by adelcrow on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 2:15pm

The only long term way of making sure we have plenty of water is to increase the cost until it reflects the real value.
Forget more reserviors, desal plants, pipelines across the country.
All users pay the full price for every drop...its as simple as that.

Title: Re: Why Do Libs Support More Dams
Post by longweekend58 on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 2:30pm

skippy. wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 2:03pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 2:00pm:

skippy. wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 1:54pm:

Quote:

not building white elephants with loaned money and have then sit around idle.

OR overflow,as Warragamba is today, putting at risk hundreds of houses and thousands of peoples lives.Why are neo cons so bloody stupid? it must be a gene they're born with.

If there was no dam there would be no overflow,so no need to evacuate homes.Were you born stupid or do you practice hard everyday?numnuts. ::)

wow... you are actually stupider than I thought. Why dont you tell brisbane to get rid of wivenhoe dam because the overflow from that causes the flooding... go on... demonstrate the true extent of your foolishness to more than just us.

Title: Re: Why Do Libs Support More Dams
Post by longweekend58 on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 2:33pm

adelcrow wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 2:15pm:

I think you are channelling Andrei.... IN a sector where water security suggestions flow rather freely your methodology is actually possibly the very worst I've heard yet. The only possible worst scenario is the Greens who just hoep that 90% of the population dies. So I guess you are the SECOND worst suggestion.

Title: Re: Why Do Libs Support More Dams
Post by longweekend58 on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 2:34pm

____ wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 2:08pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 1:58pm:

____ wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 1:51pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 1:45pm:

____ wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 7:22am:

olde.sault wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 7:13am:

____ wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2012 at 6:20pm:

what do you think 'rainwater harvesting' is???? DAMS!!!

rivers?

why are you linking white elephant dams with river systems

separate the two and dams are extremely expensive white elephants for lame ducks to sit in

never been out to farmland, have you? where do you thinkt eh water comes from for irrigation and livestock when a long way from river systems?

Title: Re: Why Do Libs Support More Dams
Post by philperth2010 on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 2:41pm

Opinions are not facts Longy.....The fact is most dams in Australia where well below capacity and we where facing a water shortage that called for restrictions and water management that is still a problem.....If you think once in a lifetime floods will drought proof Australia I think you are ignoring history that says otherwise.....Rainfall is decreasing over the long term and you cannot rely on praying for rain as was John Howard's policy!!!

Oh how soon we forget!!!

::) ::) ::)

http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Pray-for-rain-urges-Howard/2007/04/22/1177180463040.html

Pray for rain, urges Howard

April 22, 2007

Prime Minister John Howard has urged Australians to pray for rain as hard-hit agricultural regions face zero water allocations due to drought.

Mr Howard warned last week that farmers in the Murray-Darling Basin faced having no water for the coming irrigation year unless heavy rain fell in the next six to eight weeks.

On Sunday he said he intended to meet irrigators over coming weeks to discuss the grim situation.

Meanwhile, he encouraged people to seek divine intervention.

"It's very serious, it's unprecedented in my lifetime and I really feel very deeply for the people affected," Mr Howard told ABC Television.

"So we should all, literally and without any irony, pray for rain over the next six to eight weeks."

Mr Howard urged state governments to waive water allocation charges for farmers who would not receive any irrigation water.

He said the federal government would continue to provide exceptional circumstances assistance to farmers and would consider "reasonable extra help" for irrigators.

"We can't underwrite people's incomes ... but we can provide some extra help, and we would also like to see the states kick in a bit," he said.

Final decisions on water allocations will depend on rainfall during the next few weeks.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
In over a decade in office the Howard Government did NOTHING about Australia's water shortage and long term decrease in rainfall.....Building more dams will not make it rain!!!

::) ::) ::)

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
George Santayana (1863 - 1952), The Life of Reason, Volume 1, 1905

Title: Re: Why Do Libs Support More Dams
Post by corporate_whitey on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 2:41pm

adelcrow wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 2:15pm:

Wow you really are nuts anyone would think you own the watwer that falls from the sky and are entitled to charge for every drop. Go take your medication and go back to bed. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Why Do Libs Support More Dams
Post by philperth2010 on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 2:46pm

adelcrow wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 2:15pm:

Whilst I agree water is to cheap increasing the price will not make it rain!!!

Title: Re: Why Do Libs Support More Dams
Post by Greens_Win on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 2:48pm

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 2:34pm:

____ wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 2:08pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 1:58pm:

____ wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 1:51pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 1:45pm:

____ wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 7:22am:

olde.sault wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 7:13am:

____ wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2012 at 6:20pm:

what do you think 'rainwater harvesting' is???? DAMS!!!

rivers?

why are you linking white elephant dams with river systems

separate the two and dams are extremely expensive white elephants for lame ducks to sit in

never been out to farmland, have you? where do you thinkt eh water comes from for irrigation and livestock when a long way from river systems?

seven years of rural living in south australia (wakefield plains, 100 kms north of adelaide) ~ the grapes in some parts where irrigated from underground, olives from rainfall, and the crops and hay were irrigated by rain falling from the sky.

Now back to the topic

Dams are uneconomical so why is lame duck going down this path ... if not to sit in them when they are dry?

And we are still waiting to hear, who will be paying the debt the liberals want to create by building these white elephants.

Title: Re: Why Do Libs Support More Dams
Post by adelcrow on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 2:56pm

____ wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 2:48pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 2:34pm:

____ wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 2:08pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 1:58pm:

____ wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 1:51pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 1:45pm:

____ wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 7:22am:

olde.sault wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 7:13am:

____ wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2012 at 6:20pm:

what do you think 'rainwater harvesting' is???? DAMS!!!

rivers?

why are you linking white elephant dams with river systems

separate the two and dams are extremely expensive white elephants for lame ducks to sit in

never been out to farmland, have you? where do you thinkt eh water comes from for irrigation and livestock when a long way from river systems?

Abbott is generally dealing with simpletons that require simple answers they can understand. It means nothing that Abbott is totally wrong all that matters is that the message is simple.

Title: Re: Why Do Libs Support More Dams
Post by corporate_whitey on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 2:58pm

The only solution is for the wealthy to pay their proprtional fair share of the use of water through higher charges on high income earners over 100k... 8-) 8-) 8-)

Title: Re: Why Do Libs Support More Dams
Post by longweekend58 on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 3:02pm

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 2:41pm:

Opinions are not facts Longy.....The fact is most dams in Australia where well below capacity and we where facing a water shortage that called for restrictions and water management that is still a problem.....If you think once in a lifetime floods will drought proof Australia I think you are ignoring history that says otherwise..

you miss the point. a strategy for water-proofing australia requires multiple methodologies. but the truth remains that if cities had had double the water storage capacity before the last drought, the the result would have been far less serious. as we are demonstrating at the moment, the country has the capcity to fill large reservoirs at times and it is in these times that we need more capacity. there have been almost no new reservoirs built inthis country in the last 30 years while population has doubled. all along the east coast, the current rains woudl be able to FILL new reservoirs that could protect us from the worst of drought during the next one. but no, the greens oppose ANY dams and would empty most reservoirs given a chance. wate-preoofing needs multiple strategies but the very FIRST one is to increase storage capacity. if we dont do that we are then FORCED down the route of uber-expensive desal plants. the last drough exposed the failings of successinve decades of pathetic water management. Teh trouble is, we learned nothing. there are still no new reservoirs. instead there are billions spent on desal plants which most of the time will lie idle.

building reservoirs is the first obvious step - except to the Greens. Tey'd literally prefer we died instead.

Title: Re: Why Do Libs Support More Dams
Post by skippy. on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 3:13pm

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 2:30pm:

skippy. wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 2:03pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 2:00pm:

skippy. wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 1:54pm:

Quote:

not building white elephants with loaned money and have then sit around idle.

OR overflow,as Warragamba is today, putting at risk hundreds of houses and thousands of peoples lives.Why are neo cons so bloody stupid? it must be a gene they're born with.

If there was no dam there would be no overflow,so no need to evacuate homes.Were you born stupid or do you practice hard everyday?numnuts. ::)

Thanks for proving your worthiness as forum nutjob you do a fine job of it. When you find people lived in that area prior to 1960 and never got flooded you will no doubt feel the fool we already know you are.

Title: Re: Why Do Libs Support More Dams
Post by adelcrow on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 3:13pm

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 3:02pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 2:41pm:

Opinions are not facts Longy.....The fact is most dams in Australia where well below capacity and we where facing a water shortage that called for restrictions and water management that is still a problem.....If you think once in a lifetime floods will drought proof Australia I think you are ignoring history that says otherwise..

you miss the point. a strategy for water-proofing australia requires multiple methodologies. but the truth remains that if cities had had double the water storage capacity before the last drought, the the result would have been far less serious. as we are demonstrating at the moment, the country has the capcity to fill large reservoirs at times and it is in these times that we need more capacity. there have been almost no new reservoirs built inthis country in the last 30 years while population has doubled. all along the east coast, the current rains woudl be able to FILL new reservoirs that could protect us from the worst of drought during the next one. but no, the greens oppose ANY dams and would empty most reservoirs given a chance. wate-preoofing needs multiple strategies but the very FIRST one is to increase storage capacity. if we dont do that we are then FORCED down the route of uber-expensive desal plants. the last drough exposed the failings of successinve decades of pathetic water management. Teh trouble is, we learned nothing. there are still no new reservoirs. instead there are billions spent on desal plants which most of the time will lie idle.

building reservoirs is the first obvious step - except to the Greens. Tey'd literally prefer we died instead.

The Greens and everyone of note in the field of water management in this country would prefer we were more responsible with our use of this precious resource. Its only the major parties that want to play expensive games of politics with our water.

Title: Re: Why Do Libs Support More Dams
Post by longweekend58 on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 4:02pm

adelcrow wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 3:13pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 3:02pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 2:41pm:

Opinions are not facts Longy.....The fact is most dams in Australia where well below capacity and we where facing a water shortage that called for restrictions and water management that is still a problem.....If you think once in a lifetime floods will drought proof Australia I think you are ignoring history that says otherwise..

you miss the point. a strategy for water-proofing australia requires multiple methodologies. but the truth remains that if cities had had double the water storage capacity before the last drought, the the result would have been far less serious. as we are demonstrating at the moment, the country has the capcity to fill large reservoirs at times and it is in these times that we need more capacity. there have been almost no new reservoirs built inthis country in the last 30 years while population has doubled. all along the east coast, the current rains woudl be able to FILL new reservoirs that could protect us from the worst of drought during the next one. but no, the greens oppose ANY dams and would empty most reservoirs given a chance. wate-preoofing needs multiple strategies but the very FIRST one is to increase storage capacity. if we dont do that we are then FORCED down the route of uber-expensive desal plants. the last drough exposed the failings of successinve decades of pathetic water management. Teh trouble is, we learned nothing. there are still no new reservoirs. instead there are billions spent on desal plants which most of the time will lie idle.

building reservoirs is the first obvious step - except to the Greens. Tey'd literally prefer we died instead.

you shoudl go into politics. that last statement had zero content other than blame-laying. ALl you need to do now is learn how to backstab and a front-bench career awaits you.

Title: Re: Why Do Libs Support More Dams
Post by tonegunman1 on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 4:02pm

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 11:00am:

Salinity made simple!!!

Farmers clear land and cut down trees so they can plant crops.....

Yes they have in the past...and this has been a direct result of government policies. A lot of the original land grants were on the basis that the land was cleared...if you did not clear the land you could lose your grant. Successive Departments of Agricultute have also encouraged land clearing and irrigation so broadacre irrigation crops such as cotton could be planted. And a lot of these bigger operations are run by big corporations based in cities and overseas who don't give a flying f..k about agriculture...just money. Governments in the past have also overallocted water and actually ecouraged and profited from the taking up of water licences. Water the deserts and they shall bloom mentality and the wholesale selling out of Australian agriculture to big and often foreign corporations was, and to an extent still is the governmental policy that caused 95% of the problems we have today. The change in this thinking has only been a recent phenomenon But hey, no sorry we made a big mistake...not when you can blame those that were led and encouraged by us to do exactly like they were told and what was at the time best scientific and political practice.

Quote:

They then plant short root varieties that require over irrigation because the water quickly drops below root level requiring more water.....There is no longer any deep roots to suck up the excess water so the water drops to the salt level which has always been there....This has two affects.....Firstly it causes the salt to rise making the land useless and secondly it creates underground streams that flush the salt into rivers.....

Mixing your facts a bit here. There are two types of anthropogenic salinity, dryland and irrigation.
Dryland is caused by the encouraged practice of land-clearing. The trees pumped the water down and when they were removed the water rose up bringing the salt with it.
Irrigation salinty is caused by to higher inputs of water onto the land increasing recharge and causing the water table to rise and when this happens it brings the salt with it. Water evaporates leaving the salt on the surface.

Water has always flowed into rivers and streams from groundwater sources. It is why rivers continue to flow in dry times and is why water is not "used" by agriculture any more than water is used by forests. Water that makes it way into the groundwater systems from irrigation recharges streams and rivers in the same way. So a great proportion of this water is recycled. Most of the salinity in streams and rivers comes from surface run-off with dissolved salts that have been left on the surface. Urban use especially in coastal cities pumps used water out to sea.

Quote:

Dams can cause salt to rise when the ground becomes saturated so it is not always a good solution to water shortage!!!

::) ::) ::)

Title: Re: Why Do Libs Support More Dams
Post by corporate_whitey on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 4:24pm

The rich should be paying much more for the water they use. 8-) 8-)

Title: Re: Why Do Libs Support More Dams
Post by longweekend58 on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 4:28pm

tonegunman1 wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 4:02pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 11:00am:

Salinity made simple!!!

Farmers clear land and cut down trees so they can plant crops.....

This is true so probably the best solution is reduce population but the government is not doing that either...quite the reverse.
As for water quality tell you what, I'm happy to drink a glass of water out of my local creek if you chug a glass from the Swan and lets see who gets sick first.

:)[/quote]

I think part of the problem is most people on here want ONE solution that comes without any negatives. No such utopian solution exists. ALl solutions have drawbacks. The greens therefore determine that we shoudl all die. responsible solutions however mean that we choose the best alternative(s) and then manage the negatives. Yes, dryland salinity is a big problem but nothing short of returning 80% of the land to trees is going to reverse that and that means we can feed ourselves. Thats agood Greenie solution but the rest of us realise that we cat do that so we MANAGE the problem.

Title: Re: Why Do Libs Support More Dams
Post by philperth2010 on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 4:37pm

tonegunman1 wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 4:02pm:

Quote:

Dams can cause salt to rise when the ground becomes saturated so it is not always a good solution to water shortage!!!

::) ::) ::)

Just so you know Perth gets a lot of its drinking water from an underground aquifer....We do not chug back the water from the Swan so I fail to see what point you are trying to make.....Feel free to drink creek water if you wish though!!!

::) ::) ::)

Title: Re: Why Do Libs Support More Dams
Post by tonegunman1 on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 4:55pm

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 4:28pm:

tonegunman1 wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 4:02pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 11:00am:

Salinity made simple!!!

Farmers clear land and cut down trees so they can plant crops.....

I think part of the problem is most people on here want ONE solution that comes without any negatives. No such utopian solution exists. ALl solutions have drawbacks. The greens therefore determine that we shoudl all die. responsible solutions however mean that we choose the best alternative(s) and then manage the negatives. Yes, dryland salinity is a big problem but nothing short of returning 80% of the land to trees is going to reverse that and that means we can feed ourselves. Thats agood Greenie solution but the rest of us realise that we cat do that so we MANAGE the problem.[/quote]

Returning 80% of the land to trees is not that easy anyway. Most trees you plant will die and those that live will be next to useless. It will be a long and drawn out process. The first part of managing a problem is to stop making it worse. But we only want to talk about a small proportion of what is wrong and quarantine other things....and that does not manage anything. Trees are not the answer everywhere either as we have this notion that when europeans came here there were trees everwhere but this is incorrect as there were also extensive grasslands. The trouble is that our lords and disasters want the problems "fixed" as quickly and as cheaply as possible. This is only likely to make things worse.
You can't fill the bucket by making more holes in it.

Title: Re: Why Do Libs Support More Dams
Post by corporate_whitey on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 5:08pm

Who cares what the Greens think - when you get into Parliament Abbott - the first thing you must do is repeal the carbon tax, the second thing you need to do is start building Dams, pipelines, coal fire and nuclear power stations everywhere and the third thing you need to do is triple my pension because I earned it. 8-) 8-) 8-)

Title: Re: Why Do Libs Support More Dams
Post by adelcrow on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 5:21pm

Dont worry..Abbott will repeal everything when in govt and find the money the way he did when he was a Minister in the Howard govt by slashing spending on public health and public education.
Palmer, Twiggy, Gina and Porky Packer will be rolling around naked in pies and your kids will be begging for food on street corners.

Title: Re: Why Do Libs Support More Dams
Post by corporate_whitey on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 5:38pm

adelcrow wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 5:21pm:

Like the Greens and the ALP are any better? Freaking corrupt Malthusian psychopaths. >:( >:( >:( >:(

Title: Re: Why Do Libs Support More Dams
Post by tonegunman1 on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 6:16pm

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 4:37pm:

tonegunman1 wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 4:02pm:

Quote:

Dams can cause salt to rise when the ground becomes saturated so it is not always a good solution to water shortage!!!

::) ::) ::)

Yes and the Yarragadee aquifer is much more likely to get a salt intrusion from the ocean from being drawn down too far by urban users...if your worried about salt. But you also get surface water and desal.
You seem to be placing inordinate blame however on farmers for both quantity taken and resultant water quality and you are being more than a little unfair. The point I was making is that those people who live in rural environments are generally far better custodians of water supplies...and the proof is in the drinking.
:)

Title: Re: Why Do Libs Support More Dams
Post by philperth2010 on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 6:35pm

tonegunman1 wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 6:16pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 4:37pm:

tonegunman1 wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 4:02pm:

Quote:

Dams can cause salt to rise when the ground becomes saturated so it is not always a good solution to water shortage!!!

::) ::) ::)

WA has a salinity problem that is getting worse not better.....WA rainfall is decreasing and the desal plants help to provide the water we need so the aquifer does not get drained allowing in salt water from the ocean.....The south and east of Perth is under threat and unless something is done the problem will only get worse!!!

http://www.abc.net.au/science/slab/salinity/default.htm

Title: Re: Why Do Libs Support More Dams
Post by corporate_whitey on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 6:38pm

Put a halt to all economic related skills immigration, cap political donations, legislate the banning of corporations, build more dams and power stations, subsidize petrol, abolish privatization, deregister the Greens, set up a permanent Royal Commission into Political corruption, stamp out classism in politics, triple all pensions and allowances, abolish work for the dole, abolish all coercion to take casual jobs, ban weekend trading, abolish private corporate ownership of any industry, resource, service, bank or major economic asset, ban the rich from the community game - Aussie rules...ect, ect you get the picture. 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)

Title: Re: Why Do Libs Support More Dams
Post by Greens_Win on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 7:15pm

TONY JONES: An independent study has found that rainwater tanks are the cheapest and most energy efficient way of saving water.

The report found that giving free tanks to homeowners would be cheaper than building dams or desalination plants.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2007/s1898784.htm

Sarah Clarke reports.

SARAH CLARKE: It's a simple way to store water. And with supplies dwindling in most cities, Pam Jacobs says installing a backyard tank is an easy choice.

PAM JACOBS, TANK OWNER: Everybody is being encouraged to save water, I thought I could use the tank for watering my garden.

SARAH CLARKE: A new study reveals tanks are twice as energy efficient as dams and five times greater than desalination plants.

By installing tanks in just 5 per cent of homes in south-east Queensland and in Sydney, building big water infrastructure could be delayed.

KATE NOBLE, AUSTRALIAN CONSERVATION FOUNDATION: If we rolled out rainwater tanks we could defer the need for that for more than 10 years and each year we deferred we're saving significant money.

SARAH CLARKE: Some states argue they're already offering financial incentives.

PETER BEATTIE, QUEENSLAND PREMIER, AUSTRALIA: We support the use of water tanks, in fact my two were delivered this morning.

NATHAN REES NSW WATER UTILITIES MINISTER, AUSTRALIA: The Government's plan already increases the rainwater tank rebate from $800 to $1,500 and extends it to rural and regional areas across the state.

SARAH CLARKE: Currently fewer than one in five homes has a tank.

But this report has found that two thirds of homes in most cities are capable of installing them.

Either way, the report also found that a variety of measures are needed if Australia's water crisis is to be solved.

That's a point that unites the Federal Government and the Opposition.

PETER GARRETT, OPPOSITION ENVIRONMENT SPOKESMAN, AUSTRALIA: I think rainwater tanks are an important part of a mix of things, which are options for us meeting our water needs into the future.

Greens are the environmental and economic management party.

Title: Re: Why Do Libs Support More Dams
Post by philperth2010 on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 7:16pm

I have two rainwater tanks and the water is much better for drinking than the crap out of the tap!!!

:) :) :)

Title: Re: Why Do Libs Support More Dams
Post by Kat on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 7:20pm

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 7:16pm:

I have two rainwater tanks and the water is much better for drinking than the crap out of the tap!!!

:) :) :)

I know what you mean....

I lived on a property with well-water for nearly 10 years.

Tap-water tases like pyss in comparison.

*And we never ran low on water during the drought.*