The Barrages

The issue of The Barrages, assiduously avoided in the preparation of the Murray Darling Basin Plan has again arisen with a well researched column by Jennifer Marohasy in the May 30th edition of The Land newspaper-

I wrote a Letter to the Editor-

"Once again Jennifer Marohasy (Barrage truths kept from leaking out-The Land-30th May, 2013) has hit the nail firmly on its proverbial head. It is about time that the twin myths that 1.The Barrages were built because of flow depletion caused by upstream extractions, and 2. the Lower Lakes were not estuarine but predominantly fresh water, were both cast to the dustbin of fabricated history.

Those genuinely interested in 'a better way' of managing The Barrages and reducing the appalling waste of fresh water from our highly variable flows, and returning the Lower Lakes  to more like their natural marine environment, should view the documentary "Muddied Waters" that can be found on www.muddiedwaters.com"

David Boyd

I regret that I didn't also mention all of the good material that can be found on mythandthemurray.org

Energy

I have long admired Matt Ridley (author-The Rational Optimist) and now note that he has become a member of the UK House of Lords.
I have also been "dining out" lately with the contention that energy costs are replacing labour costs as the most important factor in establishing competitive advantage between countries. Against that background, you will understand my attraction to Viscount Ridley's maiden speech in the Lords on Tuesday.

Matt Ridley’s Maiden Speech in the UK House of Lords-14th May,2013

Viscount Ridley: My Lords, I wish to speak on the subject of energy and, in response to the prominent references in the gracious Speech, on the importance of economic competitiveness. However, as this is my first time speaking in the House, I hope that noble Lords will indulge me in a few preliminary remarks.

It is an enormous privilege and a daunting responsibility to speak in this House for the first time. I know that it is customary on such occasions to pay thanks to the staff but I have to say that I have been genuinely overwhelmed by the generosity and thoughtfulness of all the staff since I have come here.

I have also been touched by the warmth of the welcome that I have had from noble Lords on all sides of the House. I particularly thank my noble friends Lady Seccombe and Lord Henley, who have mentored me in my early weeks.

Listening to debates over the past few weeks, it has become clear to me that this is a House that not only respects but expects knowledge and expertise. This is something that my father made clear to me when he was enjoying a long and distinguished career in this House, but he would speak only on subjects that he knew something about—in his case, particularly the Territorial Army, the north-east of England and local government. When I spoke to the hustings a few weeks ago before being elected here, I said that if elected I would speak on three main issues: the north-east of England, science and technology, and enterprise and innovation.

I am here to fill the vacancy caused by the sad death of Lord Ferrers, and I pay tribute to that giant of a parliamentarian, who was on the Front Bench under no fewer than five Prime Ministers. I may hope to match his long legs but I do not expect to match his length of service.

I am that strange chimera—an elected hereditary Peer. As a result, I am acutely aware that I am here thanks at least as much to the efforts of my ancestors as to my own. I would not be human if I did not feel a smidgen of pride in being the ninth Matthew Ridley in direct succession to sit in one of the Houses of Parliament since the son of a buccaneering Newcastle coal merchant was elected to the other place in 1747. That brings me to the subject of my speech.

In 1713, exactly 300 years ago, the Newcomen steam engine was just coming into use all over the north of England. One of the very first was commissioned at Byker on the north bank of the Tyne by my buccaneering ancestor, Richard Ridley, in 1713. Within 20 years, more than 100 of these great clanking monsters were transforming the coal industry by pumping water from deep mines and vastly increasing productivity.

The effect of that innovation was momentous and global. By lowering the cost of energy and raising the wages of labour, it set in train a whole series of events, including the mechanisation of industry and the increase in demand for the products of that industry, and so the great flywheel of the industrial revolution began to turn. For the first time, an economy grew not through an increase in land or labour but through an increase in energy, because mineral energy from beneath the ground showed an unusual property that had not been shown by wood, wind and water or by oxen or people—that is, it did not show diminishing returns; the more of it you dug up, the cheaper it got.

At this point, I should like to declare an interest because I am still in the coal-mining business, albeit indirectly. However, my aim here is not to praise any particular kind of energy but to praise the cheapness of energy.

Today, an average British family uses as much energy as if it had 1,200 people in the back room on exercise bicycles pedalling away on eight-hour shifts. It is worth remembering that when people talk about how many jobs can be created in any particular sector of energy. We could create a lot more jobs by making energy on treadmills. What counts is not the jobs we create in producing energy but the jobs we create in consuming energy if we make it affordable—or, indeed, the number that could be lost if we make it unaffordable.

One reason why we in this country are falling behind the growth of the rest of the world is that in recent years we have had a policy of deliberately driving up the price of energy. To quote a recent report from the Institute of Directors:

“The UK’s energy and climate policies are adding more to industrial electricity prices than comparable programmes in competitor countries, putting UK industry at a disadvantage and making a rebalancing of the economy more difficult”.

Household energy costs have doubled in the past 15 years. In the US, where gas prices used to be the same as they are here, they are now one-quarter or one-fifth of the level here. That is an enormous competitive advantage to the US and a disadvantage to us. The chemical industry, as a result, is very keen to move to the United States, and other industries, including the cement industry, are feeling the pinch from high energy costs. Near where I live at Lynemouth on the north-east coast, the country’s largest aluminium smelter recently closed with the loss of 515 jobs, largely due to the rising cost of energy.

A nation can compete on the basis of cheap labour or cheap energy but if it has neither then it is likely to be in trouble. Surely these are not controversial remarks. I know that I am not supposed to be controversial in a maiden speech so, lest I go too far, I will now revert to talking about the north-east of England.

It is worth noting that the north-east is the only region of England with a trade surplus with the world, something to which the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, drew attention in his recent report on the region. We are also a region with strong offshore engineering capability, and I think that the north-east could once again steal a march on the world and deliver competitive energy to the rest of the world. There are 3,000 billion tonnes of coal under the British sector of the North Sea and, thanks to pioneering work at Newcastle University and elsewhere, the technology now exists to gasify this coal, getting carbon monoxide, hydrogen and methane from it and putting carbon dioxide back in. If this technology can be made to work then we can bring plenty of jobs not only to the region but, more importantly, to the whole economy by lowering the price of energy. There is enormous entrepreneurial spirit in our regions but it is held back by the high cost of energy.

So, for the sake of pensioners in fuel poverty, for the sake of small businesses struggling to meet their energy bills and for the sake of large businesses all too ready to leave these shores, let us repeat what our ancestors did in the early 18th century and drive down the costs of energy so that we can drive up living standards.

Global Warming/Climate Change

As the European carbon market collapses and European Governments come under increasing pressure on energy policy, the following communication to a senior Shadow Minister is concise, crystal clear and timely.

"I agree with the Opposition's policy to rescind the carbon tax and abolish the Climate Commission, but not with the rest of its climate change policy. 

The key issue at stake  is what influence if any does human activity have on climate change.

You and others unquestionably believe that human-induced greenhouse gases have a significant impact on global warming -- the process known as anthropogenic global warming (AGW). However, AGW is hypothetical, as  scientists  have not been able to table scientific evidence to prove that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are a significant driver of global warming.

Scientists have developed computer models with which to make  alarmist projections that have received wide media coverage. These models are invalid, as they do not adequately  represent  the interaction of the factors that influence  the climate change process. In fact, these factors still are not properly identified, let alone understood. Contrary to climate model projections, there has not been any statistically significant global warming since 1998, despite anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions continuing to increase.

There are no scientific papers that report the measure of global warming that has been contributed by human activity. This is clear indication that the contribution, if any,  is miniscule, and that the AGW-believing climate scientists have grossly over-estimated the influence of anthropogenic  greenhouse gases on global warming.

Despite this,  the AGW believers claim that there is scientific consensus  and assert  that climate science is settled -- whereas in fact it is not.

Scientific consensus is not evidence;  the opinions of the IPCC, the CSIRO, science academies, and environmental activists are not evidence;  and climate models are not evidence.

As renewable energy generation by wind turbine and solar is at least twice as costly as coal-generated power, there is no economic justification for subsidising renewable energy development.

AT THE VERY MINIMUM, IT IS CONSIDERED THAT NO MONEY SHOULD BE WASTED ON THE COALITION'S PROPOSOSED  DIRECT ACTION PLAN, AND  THE RENEWABLE ENERGY TARGET SHOULD BE RESCINDED. BOTH MEASURES ARE BASED ON POPULISM, AND CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED ON SCIENTIFIC OR ECONOMIC GROUNDS.

Rupert Murdoch Speaks at The Institute of Public Affairs 70th Birthday Party

I have long admired the achievements of Rupert Murdoch-a man with a vision, a strategy and prepared to 'have a go'. His speech is well worth listening to.

Climate Change or Climate Variability

With the Government's mendicant institutions, Climate Institute, CSIRO, Bureau of Meteorology, and the Climate Commission all trotting out statistics and commentary clearly aimed at supporting the Government's Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) mantra, it is refreshing to read some basic comments from an elderly, salt of the earth, western NSW grazier.
In a letter to Bourke's Western Herald, John Oldfield of Belalie Station has written-
"There has been a great deal of discussion this summer about record temperatures. Perhaps the records do not go back very far.
On an old rainfall chart put out by Bourke Stock and Station Agents, Ware and Whittaker in 1953 or 1954, there are rainfall and temperature records.The heatwave of 1939 was still fresh in everybody's memory then. I was a small boy at the time and remember it well. There was no airconditioning and people died.
The average daily maximum for 37 consecutive days was 109 degrees (42.8C) and the maximum for 1939 was 119 dgrees (48C). Measurements were recorded in a weather box beside the Bourke Post Office.
The maximum recorded for Bourke was 125 degrees (52C)  in 1909.

The chart shows average rainfall for 30 years preceding 1939 at 299 mm and for the 30 years before 387 mm. The average rainfall for 76 years from 1878 to 1953 was 345.6 mm.

We obviously have a very variable climate. (My emphasis).

The Global Warming Policy Foundation

This organisations name keeps coming up in my reading, including an excellent recent paper on world energy.

This morning I had a look at their website http://www.thegwpf.org/ and was very impressed with the people on the Board of Trustees and the Academic Advisory Council, several of whom I have met personally. Freeman Dyson, Nigel Lawson, James Spooner, Lord Fellowes, Mat Ridley, Deepak Lal, Ross McKitrick, Richard Lindzen, Bob Carter, Ian Plimer-not bad for starters.

Whilst most of them would be classified as climate change sceptics (like most really intelligent people!), they claim open mindedness in respect to the unsettled science. Their focus is more on the policy positions which should (or should not) be adopted. Chairman Lord (Nigel) Lawson has consistently argued for an "adaptation position" rather than trying to take costly actions to physically change the climate. Their mission and history statement spells it out.

They clearly produce well researched work and I commend the Foundation to you. Have a look at their website.

Concept of a Social License

OPINION

Live cattle: stakeholders v steak holders

·         BY:NICK CATER 

·         From:The Australian 

·         April 02, 2013 

THE evidence that Noah actually built an ark is sketchy to say the least, but one thing can be said with certainty. If Noah were to build his ark in Australia today, he would struggle to get an export licence. Gathering up every living creature that creeps upon the surface of the earth is one thing, but the demands of the Australian Standards for the Export of Livestock (version 2.3) are quite another.

Where is the evidence that Noah adopted "a whole-of-chain risk-based approach"? Did he lodge a notice of intention to export with the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service? Where was his consignment and risk management plan? Did he engage an accredited veterinarian to carry out any inspections or treatment deemed necessary under the approved export program? When it comes to Australian export regulations, livestock beats uranium every time.

Fukushima could not stop the trade in yellowcake, but a grainy video from a single dodgy abattoir in Indonesia was enough for the government to shut down the whole live cattle export trade for a month.

The live cattle ban was one of eight grievances Julia Gillard was reminded of by the ABC's Leigh Sales in a cracker of a question last week. The Prime Minister assured us that banning live cattle had saved the industry "because they were not going to get the social licence they needed unless we addressed animal welfare standards".

It is official: a valid export permit and a current health clearance certificate that meet the requirements of the Export Control (Animals) Order 2004 are no longer enough to safeguard Australian cattle sent for slaughter in foreign climes. The livestock export business is now required to obtain a social licence as well as a real one.

Where does one apply for a social licence? What fees and charges apply? Who sets the criteria and how are they assessed? What recourse is there to appeal an adverse decision? And will they be valid beyond the next edition of Four Corners? These are the great unknowns.

One thing is for sure: parliament won't get a look in because the terms and conditions that apply to social licences are not determined by our elected representatives but by "the community at large".

Social licences have become popular among the shadow civil service of NGOs, pressure groups and lobbyists who drive much of the contemporary policy debate. The old way of influencing public policy -- joining a political party, getting elected, consulting, drafting white papers, bills and passing acts of parliament -- is far too slow for this attention deficit era. Besides, Australian parliaments, state and federal, are frighteningly democratic. One vote, one value may be fine and dandy on paper, but many a visionary social reform has been defeated by the stubbornness of bone-headed MPs elected by dim-witted voters.

The theory of the social licence to operate, or SLO, came out of the US in the late 1990s and, together with ethics planning and triple bottom line accounting, has become part of the subversive toolkit of global activism.

A 2011 report for the CSIRO by the Sustainable Minerals Institute, Queensland University provides a useful summary. An SLO is "an intangible and unwritten, tacit, contract with society, or a social group".

A mining company that wants a social licence must maintain "a positive corporate reputation" and understand "the cultural and historical context of the community and operation".

The weasel word here is community. In the lexicon of the moral crusaders, it no longer means a geographic community encompassing the people who actually live in the vicinity. The new communities are communities of interest and might include, for instance, ethical investment funds, human rights activists and animal rights campaigners, all of whom are said to have a stake (as opposed to a steak) in the live cattle export trade. These groups make up the "stakeholder network" that decides if a mining company or a cattle exporter is acting in the best interests of "the community", that is to say in the interests of the stakeholders, rather than the steak holders.

The social licence that the Prime Minister now requires is very different from the old kind of licence where the authorities provided clear benchmarks. With a social licence the stakeholders make up the rules as they go along, or, as they prefer to put it, the social licence is the subject "of an ongoing iterative process of inquiry and reflection". Statutory licences are practical instruments in the pursuit of the public interest. Social licences are a form of righteous red tape in the pursuit of public virtue. They are devilishly hard to define and prone to capture by articulate, well-funded minorities for public virtue. As Saul Bellow once said, "public virtue is a kind of ghost town into which anyone can move and declare himself sheriff".

Until recently we might have been prepared to sit back and wait for this postmodern fad to pass. Surely the community would one day wake up to the undemocratic, unaccountable nature of settling civic business this way and hand the job back to parliament? Parliamentarians, like cattle, may sometimes go astray, but elections held every three or four years seem to act as a reliable prod to jolt them back on to the straight and narrow.

Since the Prime Minister herself is now prepared to entertain the drab, illiberal notion of the social licence, however, it is time the idea was nailed once and for all. Nobody wants special interest groups, steakholders or stakeholders, to run the country. Popular democracy may be slow, unwieldy and a little untidy, but surely it will do us for now.

Nick Cater's book, The Lucky Culture, is published by HarperCollins in May.