Plug the pipe

4th October 2010

Jan Beer, Plug The Pipe spokesperson and environmental activist in opposition to North-South Pipeline, is taking legal action against Government Agency Melbourne Water for alleged infringements of her right to privacy over a 2 year period.

Mrs Beer was photographed, video-taped and followed whilst the pipeline was being constructed. The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal heard this morning that over 100 documents exist detailing the monitoring of Ms Beer by Melbourne Water.

“At no time during this period was I informed who the people collecting my information were employed by, why they were collection my information, and what it would be used for" says Mrs Beer.

“I felt harassed, persecuted and along with other opponents of the pipeline have been branded a “quasi-terrorist” by a Minister of the Victorian Government. In fact I feel as though I have been treated like a dangerous terrorist that needed to be silenced” said Mrs Beer “ It is like living under a dictatorship, rather than a democracy, where people have the right to peacefully protest.”

A Memorandum of Understanding is in place for the North-South Pipeline, similar to that for the Desalination Plant, between Melbourne Water and the Victorian Police. It is possible that the information collected on Ms Beer has been transferred to other parties pursuant to the MoU.

“The sheer volume of information collected on my client is astounding” said Elizabeth McKinnon, solicitor at the Environment Defenders Office. “At issue in the proceedings is whether Melbourne Water attempted to comply with the Information Privacy Act in relation to the management of protest activity at the site”.

The next hearing in this matter will take place in February 2011.

Time to come clean on the real costs of water

The original case for Labor's controversial $1 billion food bowl upgrade was rejected by state cabinet because the government's promised water savings could not be achieved for the price tag of $1 billion, it has been revealed. Premier John Brumby has continued to tell Victorians that the savings could be made, despite not having any proof that they were achievable.

Already the project has identified 650 of the system's 6300 kilometres of channels for rationalisation, or downsizing.

Farmers claim millions of dollars of taxpayer funds are being wasted through the installation of unnecessary meters and other irrigation infrastructure on properties that have no use for them.

(cotton seeds being fed to cattle due to drought - source: wikimedia commons)

In April 2009, the Premier told Parliament: It has always been the basis of this project that there would be at least 225 gigalitres of water savings.
According to Plug the Pipe, the truth of the matter is that the pipeline has provided a mere 16.7 billion litres. That translates to a piddling 1% of Melbourne’s current water supply. So far it has only delivered 22% of the proposed 75 Gigalitres water and with only 139 days left available for pumping, the absolute maximum that can now be delivered is 58 billion litres.

To add injury to insult, the desalination plant costs rise to $5.1 billion, and $200 million a year to run. Average annual water bills soon to be $3000!

Cuts to irrigation farmers

Farmers have slammed an independent report that says Murrumbidgee and Murray irrigators should make big sacrifices to help revive the Murray-Darling Basin. The cut would drain at least $2.7 billion out of the basin's economy, however the scientists say the pain would not be shared equally across the basin's 18 catchments. In most catchments, the required reduction is less than 10%.

However, in two catchments - the Murray and Murrumbidgee - the reductions are significantly greater, in the order of 39% and 65% respectively.

The Wentworth Group of Concerned Scientists' report proposes that the Murrumbidgee and Murray regions have their water caps cut by 65 and 39 per cent respectively. 

The Wentworth group recommend to restore environmental flows:

1 Restore and maintain all major rivers and flood plains in the Murray-Darling Basin in a healthy condition;

2 Manage the Coorong and Lower Lakes as a healthy functioning river estuary; and

3 Improve or maintain the health of wetlands of national and international significance.

Cost of saving the Rivers' Health

In late 2006 the ongoing drought in the Murray-Darling Basin combined with a lack of action on the implementation of the National Water Initiative highlighted the need for a clear statement on the reality of Australia's water predicament.  According to the group, We built our modern Australian economy in a period of much higher rainfall and we assumed that it would keep on raining. But it hasn’t.

(Wentworth-Marray darling rivers source: wikimedia commons)

Scientists for the Murray Darling Basin Authority say the cost of saving the river's health will be a $2.7 billion drop in profits from communities throughout the basin - a drop of 26¢ for every dollar in the Murrumbidgee catchment and 12¢ for Murray communities.

The Murray-Darling is a floodplain river system. However, the Basin is under enormous stress as a result of past water-allocation decisions, prolonged drought, natural climate variability and emerging climate change. A lack of water and the absence of natural flooding are having a significant impact on many key environmental assets - rivers, streams, wetlands, forests, floodplains and billabongs. 

The Living Murray program was established in 2002 in response to evidence showing the declining health of the River Murray system. It is a partnership of the Australian, NSW, Victorian, South Australian and ACT governments.  The River Murray is currently experiencing its lowest in-flows on record and periods of drought need to be considered in delivering The Living Murray program.

We face a real risk that the ecosystems supporting the river system will collapse, undermining the businesses and communities that depend on it.

The best-available science suggests there is a substantial risk that a working river will not be in a healthy state when key system level attributes of the flow regime are reduced below two-thirds of their natural level. It selected water from the least profitable activities in each catchment so that the required volume of environmental water could be obtained at the lowest economic cost.

Wetlands and economic threats

The Australian Conservation Foundation estimates as much as 90 per cent of all floodplain wetlands in the Murray Darling Basin having been lost or severely degraded. The agricultural economy of the Murray-Darling Basin earns $9 billion a year in export income. Without the Murray-Darling Basin wetlands and rivers, the great productive base of our agricultural bread basket would not exist.

To achieve a level of two-thirds natural flow in all the catchments of the Basin the environment’s share of the existing Cap on diversions would need to be increased by approximately 4,400GL. This represents a reduction of approximately 40% of the current Cap on diversions.

Dairy farmers need constant rain to ensure regular milk production. It is dairy and their fodder crops that have been consuming most of our irrigation water.  Australia’s milk production is enormous, and with good prices available overseas, much of it is exported. About 600 litres is used to produce a litre of milk.  The Murray-Darling food bowl has been upholding our economy for a long time.

President of the NSW Irrigators Council Col Thomson said the report should be disregarded because there would be some areas that probably almost cease to exist.  So easy just to dismiss wetland, river systems and a life-support system?

Melbourne's water storages

Water storages supplying Melbourne are 32.7 per cent full compared with 26.3 per cent at the same time last year, meaning dams are holding an extra 126 billion litres.  However, water restrictions have been eased!

When the drought was at its worst a pipeline was conceived to bring water from the State's North to Melbourne but recent wet weather, continuing water restrictions and the revelation the city has enough water for two years without rain has some questioning the project.

The protest group, Plug the Pipe has been most vocal in opposing the project. It says people, particularly farmers in the North of the State, are having their water rights taken away in favour of Melbourne's gardens.  Someone should be pointing out how we have been forced to build a $5 billion desalination plant because we forgot about water.  In Melbourne's population explosion, the Brumby government forgot about water so they've had to make the north-south pipeline over the hills to steal water from the bush!

 It is all about politics, not logic or caution. We cannot be addressing climate change and water shortages while we are heavily dependent on unsustainable dairy industries and exports. However, it seems that producing food is a minor industry compared to the building industries and property development, supported by swelling numbers of city people who obviously pay more taxes and contribute more to the economy!

United Nations Report

Energy and Agriculture Top Resource Panel's Priority List for Sustainable 21st Century is a new and hard-hitting report concludes that dramatically reforming, re-thinking and redesigning two sectors-energy and agriculture-could generate significant environmental, social and economic returns. The report prepared by the International Panel for Sustainable Resource Management, have reviewed all the available science and conclude that two broad areas are currently having a disproportionately high impact on people and the planet's life support systems-these are energy in the form of fossil fuels and agriculture,
especially the raising of livestock for meat and dairy products.

Agricultural goods, particularly products from animals, which are fed more than half of all world crops. Agricultural production accounts for 70% of the global freshwater consumption and 38% of the total land use. Food production accounts for 19% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions and 60% of the phosphorus and nitrogen pollution and 30% of toxic pollution in Europe;

Hmmm...

On 12 August 2009, Water Minister, Tim Holding said that
"The Liberal, National and Greens parties have today sought to deprive Melbourne and Victoria’s stressed rivers, like the Murray River, from water saved through irrigation upgrades. In an unprecedented move, opposition parties voted to disallow the Bulk Entitlement (Eildon-Goulburn Weir) Conversion Further Amending Order 2009." His interpretation was that, "This prevents water savings from the Food Bowl Modernisation Project from going to the environment and to Melbourne households and businesses via the north-south pipeline." (Government website press release 12-9-09)

Now, why would the Greens and the Liberal Nationals all vote together like that?

So what's really going on?

We provide three articles based on three press releases.
Greg Barber's is probably the most comprehensive.
To summarise, he says that:
- Because there is no water to divert at the moment no-one is losing anything by stopping to discuss the matter
- The government is refusing to reveal its 'business case' without which no-one can judge its economic and hydrological claims
- The government has attempted to proceed without Federal Environment law clearance
- The government is not providing verifiable accounting data and measures for outsiders to assess the project
- The project appears more political than hydrological
- Commerce seems to be trumping water security
- Environmentally it's a case of suck and see since there is no indication that anyone knows what the impact of the proposed changes will be
- The project is already destroying the social ecology of farming communities.

See "Greg Barber: Disallowed Bulk water Entitlements lack detail, provide no environmental warranty"

On Wednesday, 12 August 2009 the Victorian Parliament Upper House passed a motion moved by the Liberal Nationals Coalition to disallow parts of a water regulation which would have seen the Brumby Labor Government break key water promises.

The Coalition’s disallowance motion was supported by the Greens and DLP member Peter Kavanagh.

Coalition spokesman says it opposed the order because it broke three key promises

Leader of The Nationals and Shadow Minister for Regional and Rural Development, Peter Ryan, said the Coalition opposed the order because it broke three key promises made to Victorian communities.

The government’s intention was to redirect water to Melbourne through the north-south pipeline despite it being promised to the Snowy and Murray rivers,” Mr Ryan said “Labor also planned ‘negotiating with the Commonwealth’ on distributing savings from the second stage of the Food Bowl Modernisation Project, which contradicts its original promise of allowing the water to be split 50/50 between farmers and the environment.

He added that, “Furthermore the order lacks the necessary rigour in auditing savings from the Food Bowl Modernisation Project.” Mr Ryan said the Coalition was determined to hold the government to account over its promises to the environment, to irrigators and communities in northern Victoria.

Mr Ryan accused the Government of attempts at "looting water" due to failing to plan for Melbourne's future water needs

“Today’s successful disallowance motion in Parliament highlights the overwhelming opposition to the Government’s attempts to loot water from food producers and the environment because it has failed to plan for Melbourne’s future water needs,” Mr Ryan said.

“Labor’s hyperbole that by disallowing this order, the Coalition has denied water to the environment and Melburnians is factually incorrect.

“The ball is now in Premier Brumby and Minister Holding’s court to actually come back to Parliament with a fair and honest amendment to the bulk entitlement.

“Such an amendment should include a rigorous auditing process for savings which is approved by Parliament and where environmental water and savings that are meant for irrigators are delivered to them, rather than to Melbourne.”

Greg ... of the Greens commented that the Coalition should not treat the matter like political football and should do more than just criticise the Government. It should tell the electorate what it will do if it comes to power.

Rights of Landowners to be clarified

July 14th 2009

On July 9th at the Seymour Magistrate’s Court, the date of 27th August was set for a contest mention where charges of trespass against Sugarloaf Alliance employees will be refined.

These charges have been made by two Yea landowners, whose freehold properties have been affected by the construction of the North-South Pipeline. Their land was entered by pipeline employees, who fenced off a portion of their property, excluded the owners under threat of arrest and constructed a pipeline 1.75 metres in diameter, all against the wish of the landowner and prior to acquisition under the normal due process by way of the Land Acquisition and Compensation Act.

It is extremely important to all landowners, that the question of the right to enter private freehold land, for the purpose of major infrastructure construction, prior to due and proper acquisition(under the Land Acquisition and Compensation Act) is clearly and finally clarified.

Brumby government threatenes to recover legal costs

The Brumby Government should hang it’s head in shame when it threatens to recover legal costs over this issue. Any Government should uphold the rights of its citizens to the highest level, particularly the rights of freehold landowners.

One would think that the Government would also want this point of law decided, unless of course, Mr Brumby is worried that in his extreme haste to construct the N-S Pipeline, he has instructed employees to illegally enter freehold land.

Also : Contrary to recent Melbourne Water Media Releases, Plug the Pipe is not involved with any legal actions against Melbourne Water. All actions past and pending have involved private individuals. Melbourne Water has been mischievous in these media statements.

Jan Beer, Plug The Pipe Spokesperson, Yea Group
Mob: 0407 144 777

In "North-south pipeline figures all at sea" in the Melbourne Age of 21 Jun 09, Melissa Fyfe reported:

"The basic assumptions used to predict the amount of water to be delivered to Melbourne from the north-south pipeline have 'now proven to be wrong', Victoria's top water adviser has admitted."

This further confirms what the group Plug the Pipe, a group representing Goulburn Valley farmers, whose water the north-south pipeline is intended to steal, have argued all along. Here is their response.

Victorian Government's own Office of Water exposes "The Great Brumby Pipeline Lie"

Our View:

From the very beginning, Plug the Pipe has always maintained the 'irrigation savings don't exist' to supply 75 billion litres of water to Melbourne through the North South Pipeline. DSE's acknowledgement of this fact under present conditions in yesterdays AGE article by Melissa Fyfe simply confirms The Great Brumby Pipeline Lie. Also in that article, DSE claimed that conditions have only recently changed which is blatantly false and is a thinly veiled attempt to cover up the enormity of their deception or blunder. The water lost from the irrigation districts has not significantly changed since the announcement of the project. Equally offensive is DSE's defence in blaming the errors in water saving calculations on junior staff, a cowardly statement of low credibility considering the magnitude and complexity of the multi-billion dollar water plan.

The Brumby Government has acted with either unfathomable incompetence or with extreme dishonesty ...

The Brumby Government has acted with either unfathomable incompetence or with extreme dishonesty by its unwavering line that irrigation water savings will be achieved to supply 'new water' for Melbourne, the Murray Darling Basin crisis and Victoria's drought affected food producers.

The North South Pipeline was painted as the saviour through the Premiers 'New Water' for all but has turn out to be just a cruel deceptive trick that even the originally misguided can now see through.

The question remains, how many lies and blunders can a Government make on water before it damages their credibility and electability?

The North South Pipeline will be a major election issue in the minds of the average Victorian as they head to the polls next year. They will be thinking the promise of water nirvana and the reality of water hell as the pay more for water they did not receive from a dry pipe. Farmers and environmentalists will be thinking the same thing and we will be there to remind them all not to forget.

Jan Beer

0407 144777

www.plugthepipe.com

(Illustration: Statue of King Midas who turned water to gold and nearly died of thirst, but later became a worshipper of Pan and nature.)

By Chris Harrison, BAppSc, GDC, October 2008

(This article was also published in Weekly Times Now. See also: Transcript of interview with Maude Barlow, Canadian water rights activist on Background Briefing) of 12 Oct 08.

Two months ago when Premier Brumby told a COAG meeting that there is very little water in the Murray Darling Basin he was stating the obvious. At the time he was justifying Victoria’s apparent reluctance to aid South Australia and provide more water for the Coorong.

This year for the first time in the state’s history the urban population of Melbourne will consume more water than is allocated to the farmlands of Goulburn irrigators. Water availability in the Goulburn Valley is at an all time record low.

The Government knows full well the acute shortage of water in the Murray Darling Basin but is still proceeding with the construction of the North South pipeline. This project has deservedly been widely condemned by grass roots populations, scientists, environmentalists, think tanks and the leaders of every non-labor political party.

The Victorian Government maintains the North South Pipeline is a vital component of Victoria’s emerging water grid. The use of the term “water grid” to describe the pipeline is a misnomer. The pipeline is a one way street. Water can flow in only one direction - from the Murray Darling Basin to Melbourne.

However, the term water grid is valid in the sense that the pipeline allows for the development of privatized water markets in the non-agricultural sector. The pipeline allows investors to purchase water in the Eildon Dam and sell it to Melbourne via the North South Pipeline, to Geelong via the Geelong interconnector and to Bendigo and Ballarat via the Goldfields Superpipe. This network of pipelines gives over 4 million people access to water from Eildon. This population base is expected to double over the next forty years.

The North South Pipeline is strategically important to the Government’s plans to allow urban populations to source their own water, in turn divesting them of a core governmental responsibility. If in the future your town needs water you will be told to go into the market and buy it. The Government will claim they have built the infrastructure to enable you to do this.

The failure to understand some basic principles of water has led the Victorian Government to drive the development of the water grid. This policy will place the state’s urban, environmental and agricultural sectors in competition and at risk.

The neo rationalist economic mantra of water must move to its highest value use has been a monumental failure. The idealism of this mantra has been replaced by the reality, water moves to the place where it can achieve the most financial and political leverage. The Goldfields Super Pipe has already shown us some of these failings, but first some definitions are in order.

When permanent water is traded, the buyer is only purchasing the right to use a specific volume of water on an annual basis. If the dams are empty the buyer has purchased air space in a dam or virtual water. When the dams are full the buyer will receive 100% of the quantity of water purchased, this is real water. The allocation percentage therefore relates directly to how full the dam is and at best it is 100% of what was purchased and at worst no water at all. High security water nearly always delivers 100% of the water purchased and conversely low security water hardly ever delivers the volume purchased. Victorian agriculture uses mainly high security water although there is real evidence that this is no longer the case with the onset of climate change. Over the last 100 years the Eildon dam has not delivered 100% allocation to irrigators on just five occasions, four of these occasions have been in the last six years. The Victorian water grid is based on water sourced from the Eildon dam. The latest connection is the Goldfields Superpipe supplying the rural cities of Bendigo and Ballarat.

The Goldfields Superpipe and associated infrastructure was built at a cost of more than $280 million but it remains essentially dry because the water purchased by water authorities has the same security as in the agricultural sector. The 9% allocation means that of the 20 billion litres of water purchased by Ballarat and Bendigo, less than 2 billion litres of water will be for use this year.

The Goldfields Superpipe experience represents a historic and fundamental change for urban authorities. For the first time urban water security is linked with rural water supply. Urban populations are suffering the same fate as irrigators and the environment.

The Victorian Government is creating water markets forcing rural and urban populations to compete for water. The outcome of this competition will be determined by the relative political and financial strength of each sector. Last year the temporary price of water hit a record high of $1,200 per ML when Adelaide entered the market. The market dramatically fell to just $400 per ML weeks after Adelaide and horticulturalists stopped buying. There was no doubt about the effect of competition.

The problem that we are all facing is that high security water has been very much less secure over the last twelve years. The editor of the Bendigo Weekly has suggested Bendigo purchase more water than is needed to improve the City’s water security. The futility of this approach parallels Penny Wong’s experience. The Federal Government has just spent $50 million for a cited 28 billion litres; just enough to fill several swimming pools of water was available to contribute to the Murray Darling Basin.

Ballarat and Bendigo are looking for 38 billion litres of water from the Superpipe. With water allocations from the Goulburn standing at 9% they will need to purchase 420 billion litres of water entitlement to receive their objective of 38 billion litres of water.

Of course in wetter times when less water is needed, hoarded “virtual” water materializes into “real” water. Perhaps this could be sold through the water market offsetting costs to urban water authorities and possibly government coffers. The temptation urban water authorities have to over secure supply will effectively lock away vast amounts of water from both irrigators and the environment.

The Goldfields Superpipe experience is a blue print for the North South Pipeline and Melbourne. Both the NS pipeline and the Goldfields Superpipe will be tied to irrigation water availability. With Bendigo its allocation percentage is the same as irrigators. With Melbourne, its allocation is tied to water savings generated from the irrigation areas. As Planning Minister Madden said two months ago if it is dry, the North South Pipeline may not have any water. Conditions have worsened since the Minister made that statement however, small amounts of water will only be available to North South pipeline in dry years regardless.

The coalition’s flip flop on using the North South Pipeline is somewhat academic as the Eildon Dam is predicted to take at least 7 years to recover should normal rainfall return. Sufficient water from savings generated by irrigation infrastructure modernization will not be achieved under the scenarios experienced for the past five years. Again the government is misleading the public by quoting amounts of virtual water or the amount of possible savings that can be generated when it is wet. The CSIRO predicts water availability to become scarcer in future and so Melbourne will be forced into the market and that will be to the detriment of urban communities, irrigators and the Murray Darling Basin.

The Victorian Government has failed to understand that cities along with irrigators and the environment need real water, not virtual water. The recent spat between Premier Brumby and Premier Rann, where South Australia was accused of doing little for the Murray River serves to illustrate this point well. Premier Brumby meritoriously claimed Victoria has contributed 120 billion litres to the Murray annually while South Australia has contributed nothing. When MDB CEO Wendy Craik was asked how much of this 120 billion litres was available for the Murray this year at last weeks Senate Committee hearing into the Coorong and lower lakes, she said “none”. The conditions have been so dry that the water only existed as virtual water. The reality is not a cup full of water of the annual 120 billion litres amount has ever been contributed to the Murray.

There you have it, the context is breathtaking.

Bendigo and Ballarat has 20 billion litres of virtual water for the Goldfields Superpipe, but less than 2 billion litres that they can actually drink. Bendigo is expected to harden its stage 4 water restrictions within weeks.

The Murray River has 120 billion litres of virtual water already surrendered from foodbowl irrigation districts (in the 80/20 deal) annually but not a glass full of real water has ever entered the system.

Victorian foodbowl irrigators have over 1,700 billion litres of virtual water but less than 180 billion litres that can actually be used to produce food.

Melbourne’s storages are at 34.5%, 611 billion litres of real water equivalent to nearly 1 ½ years usage, and yet Melbourne wishes to extract 75 billion litres of real water from irrigators and the environment through the North South Pipeline.

Premier Brumby’s promise of ‘NEW WATER’ for all is like the emperors new clothes, just not there.

Those who can’t see the Premiers new clothes are angry and their numbers are growing.

A lose, lose, win project (or Spinning water away from irrigators and the environment)

Plug the Pipe Media release of 18 September, 2008

The Foodbowl Unlimited Group (FUG), the Victorian Premier and Water Minister have all consistently said that the North South pipeline was a win, win, win project. Irrigators, the Environment and Melbourne would all have extra water.

When the FUG offered Melbourne Water and the Victorian Government the rights to 75 billion litres of water for $300 million they guaranteed them that 75 billion litres in the first year even though they were aware that the savings would not be achieved at that stage.

65 billion litre shortfall to come from irrigators, environment

Peter Garrett, Federal Environment minister on regional ABC radio (18/9) has now said that Melbourne Water is not able to take any water from the environmental reserves (10 billion litres), water that has previously been saved for the Murray River (46 billion litres) and no water can be taken to Melbourne before an independent audit has been conducted (savings generated in 2008/2009 not available until 2009/2010). These figures as indicated in the committees own report show that there will only be 10 billion litres available for Melbourne.

Given these restrictions and the guarantee of 75 billion litres of water to Melbourne's storages prior to the next state election it is clear that the government is going to be using water that otherwise would have been allocated to irrigators and or the environment. It will in fact be a lose, lose, win project even if you take Minister Garretts' statement on face value.

Brumby Government free to use indefinitely water pre-destined to save Murray-Darling

But the plot thickens.

Discussions with Garrett's office have revealed that the Federal Minister intends to allow the Brumby Government to use water from existing water savings projects pre-destined for the Murray River based on an underhand technicality. That is, environmental water generated from irrigation saving will be free for the Brumby government to use for the North South Pipeline until it is formally handed over to our river systems. The hand over will be at the discretion of the Brumby Government.

It is clear that the Premier, Water Minister, Federal Environment Minister and the FUG have actually been doing the very thing they have accused so many of their opponents of. How honest has the Victorian Government been? The people will make their judgement at the polls.

Plug the Pipe will attend the Senate Inquiry into water management in the Coorong and Lower Lakes in Melbourne next Wednesday.

Media Contact : Ken Pattison 0427 534158 (Irrigation Spokesman)

See also: Coalition pledges to shun pipeline in the Age of 19 Sep 08, www.plugthepipe.com.

The following was posted in response to an article Working the land - or not of 24 Jun 08 by Jenny Hume on Web Diary.

This article raises the vexing question of how we are to live sustainably off the land in the longer term. If incomes to be earned from sustainable farming practices are low in comparison to those to be earned by working in the city or in mines, then we need to consider whether those economic activities are sustainable.

The government needs to control the activities of any sector where they threaten the viability of other sectors, particularly vital sectors like food production. To risk severe social disruption for short-term profit might make sense to corporations, but it is the duty of governments to mitigate corporate excesses and to direct and balance activities so that the community is buffered and major conflicts are avoided.

Clearly in the case of mining, and in that light, the current activities are not sustainable, as I argued earlier. Is it any wonder that farmers, who are ultimately attempting to turn the comparative trickle of energy obtained from the sun into wealth, cannot offer wages competitive with those on offer from industries which are, in large part, simply plundering energy accumulated over at least tens of millions of years by biological and geological processes? If other city-based economic activities were also placed under the microscope, we would invariably find that they are also ultimately based upon the unsustainable destruction of the our finite capital.

So, agriculture has been placed at an extremely unfair disadvantage compared with other economic activities. To expect it to compete with those other activities under these circumstances would guarantee the destruction of our soil and our future impoverishment. As David R. Montgomery's Dirt - the Erosion of Civilisations (2007) shows, this is far from being just a theoretical question.

If we are to establish an economy which is to be sustainable in the longer term, we are going to have to face the fact that many of us may find unpalatable, that is, whether we live on the land or in cities, we are going to have to learn to live by consuming far fewer material resources than we do now. Even if we eliminate many absurdly wasteful practices of our throw-away society, and even if we remove the enormous inequalities in income distribution, we may still find ourselves without the same access to all the convenient gadgets and comforts to which we are now accustomed. We are going to have to get used the idea that we won't all be able to travel by air to the other side of the world every year or across the continent every two months or so, or be able to buy every gizmo we desire almost at will only to throw them away a mere 12 months later.

Of course one first and necessary step will be to remove the often crippling burden placed upon on farms by the finance sector, which, in turn, drives farmers to ruin their land. As I mentioned earlier, one means towards achieving this would be to re-establish a Peoples' (i.e. Commonwealth) Bank.

On top of that, the rest of us should consider paying more for food in order to allow farmers to be able to both earn a decent income and to properly look after the land. It would also help if were to change the grossly inefficient industrialised food processing and distribution system (the US version of which is described lucidly in the US by Christopher Cook's Diet for A Dead Planet – See YouTube broadcast). Breaking the Coles Woolworths duopoly would help. Similar to the re-establishment of a Peoples' Bank, why not establish a publicly owned supermarket company that only has to meet its operating expenses and not pay inflated returns to its shareholders, company directors and CEO's? Local cooperative producers' markets could complement the aforementioned Peoples' Supermarket to allow as much food as possible to be consumed locally.

Local food distribution and consumption would reduce transport, storage and packaging costs, which can only continue to climb from now on due to the growing scarcity of petroleum, and to make easier the recycling of all nutrients. The alternative of continuing to mine nutrients from the soil and dump most of them in landfill up to hundreds of kilometres away cannot be sustainable. The fertilisers currently used to partially replace lost nutrients are either finite resources or are manufactured unsustainably using finite and limited fossil fuels. Moreover, their use, in conjunction with the use of pesticides, tends make soil sterile and lifeless as Jenny Hume is, no doubt, aware.

Some links which may be of interest include: Working the land - or not of 24 Jun 08 by Jenny Hume on Web Diary, Who owns your sewage? of 3 Jul 08 by Valerie Yule on Online Opinion, Last gasp for single desk marketing of Australian wheat of 17 Jun 08, Peak oil prices cause South Australian Farmers to call for 'fair market forces' of 10 Jun 08, Orwellian Waterworks: big-agribusiness and Victorian Gov of 27 May 08, Insight program's take on Labor Shortage of 17 Jun 08, A 10,000 year misunderstanding of 1 May 08 by Canadian soil microbiologist Peter Salonius, I will govern for all Victorians (caveat: but only if you are powerful and connected) of 26 Jun 08.