Jennifer Marohasy has a couple of posts on dryland salinity, including a link to an excellent survey of the recent debate by John Passioura (subscription required). Marohasy’s interpretation is (as always) that the problem has been grossly exaggerated. This kind of unvarying optimism (or the alternative position that environmental disaster is invariably impending) is a fine example of the ‘stopped clock‘ approach to punditry. If you make this kind of claim on every issue, you’re going to be right about half the time.
In the case of dryland salinity, it’s easy enough to find examples of both excess pessimism and excess optimism. Among the optimistic errors noted by Passioura are the assumption of the Western Australian government 20 to 25 years ago that the salinity problem was well in hand, and that there was no problem with large scale clearing. This was covered in a book by Beresford et al which I mentioned a couple of years ago. Another form of excess optimism is the belief that there are easy solutions. These include engineering solutions like the use of the Murray as a drain for saline water (seriously proposed in the not-so-distant past as Passioura notes) and, more recently, large-scale tree planting. As I observed in the post I’ve already mentioned, it’s turned out that in many cases, the area that has to be planted is so great and the time to fix the problem so long that, in a lot of cases, it appears not be economically feasible.
Another piece of bad news is that, whereas early studies focused almost exclusively on agriculture, dryland salinity can cause substantial economic losses through damage to roads, buildings and so on. On the other hand, remote sensing has suggested that the area affected by dryland salinity is less than first thought, and that trends are more variable. And the alarming estimate of 17 million hectares derived from the National Salinity Audit refers to the area that might (in the absence of policy change) have high water tables and therefore be at risk of dryland salinity, not the area that is likely to be actually affected.
If you want an easily accessible view of the problem (a little out of date now, but still very good), I recommend David Pannell’s 2001 AARES Presidential Address Dryland Salinity: Inevitable, Inequitable, Intractable? .
Update 8/2/06In response to a challenge to nominate an environmental issue where urgent action is needed, Jennifer Marohasy says
“In a recent blog post (a version of the same published as an article for The Land newspaper) I suggest something needs to be done about overgrazing in the Macquarie Marshes, This links back to the even more dramatic
Cattle Killing the Macquarie Marshes?.”
Despite the question mark, Marohasy is pretty confident the answer is “Yes’. Her evidence? “An aerial photo showing the line of demarcation between an overgrazed private property and ungrazed nature reserve. As she says, “the impact of grazing here is obvious and dramatic.”
But there are many, many similarly dramatic photos of environmental damage in the Murray-Darling. In these cases Marohasy rightly says that dramatic photos may be misleading and need to be backed up by scientific research (when the scientific research is produced she rejects it, but that’s by the way). [I will try to get some more info on this, and report what research has in fact been done].
How is that Marohasy is so quick, in this case, to label farmers as environmental vandals, and to call for urgent action, when she normally disputes conclusions based on decades of research?
A reading of the posts makes the answer pretty clear. The Macquarie Marsh graziers are in conflict with the irrigators she represents. Follow the money.
John Quiggin 
Just for te record I’ll point that Jennifer Marohasy is an Institute of Public Affairs hack.
I wonder what effect, if any, southern Western Australia’s apparent long term decline in rainfall will have on the salinity problem.
I’ve just read Jennifer’s post and my tree-hugging heart as now having palpitations.
Even if the 17 million hectare estimate for land likley to be affected by dryland salinity is an over-estimate by let’s say 50%, then that still leaves an extraordinary amount of damaged land.
In regards to the Murray, Jennifer conveniently ignores the damage to the Coorong at the mouth of the Murray in SA:
“UP TO 30 per cent of internationally renowned wetlands at the Murray River mouth will be without plant and bird life this summer as salinity levels reach three times that of sea water.
A University of Adelaide study in July showed the small, flowering plant Ruppia tuberosa, which sustains the Coorong ecosystem, had been virtually killed off in the southern part of the 100-kilometre-long wetlands due to drastically reduced freshwater flow from the river.
Associate Professor David Paton — who has studied the Coorong for more than 20 years — said the latest data followed a two-third reduction in migratory bird numbers since the 1980s and the extinction of several species of fish.”
(The Age http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/salinity-killing-murray-river-wetlands/2005/09/28/1127804547936.html)
So according to Steve Munn, Jennifer Marohasy is just a hack.
This type of personal attack seems to be the fall back position when someone knows very little about an issue – but feels very emotional and perhaps threatend by the information at hand.
It would be great if David Paton could provide some data so we can get an idea of trends with respect to bird numbers in the Coorong.
If the situation is as bad as Paton claims, maybe the South Australian government should immediately remove the barrages at the mouth of the River to get some flowing going – to reconnect the river with the ocean.
I was also interstested in Paton’s article in The Age. I followed up with emails and phone calls (the follow up was necessary because Paton did not respond to my initial email).
I was just wanting to get a handle on the nature and magnitude of the problem. But Paton has so far refused to provide me with the relevant information, see http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/000913.html .
Paton told me he was busy. I said if he gave me the relevant reference I could track it down at the local Uni library. But he says that relevant technical information is not published so I won’t be able to access it through my local University library.
So far ‘Murray River scientists’ have a shameful record of getting it wrong – making pronouncments that are so extreme and so lacking in an evidential basis.
My plea is for less spin and more science.
When will people like Steve Munn learn a little healthy skepticism and when will John Quiggin start taking an interest in the evidence?
And by the way, I never said it was all fine, that there are not environmental issus that need to be addressed urgently – and that we don’t have a dryland salinity problem including in WA.
But $1.4 billion of funding for an Action Plan based on an obviously flawed audit … the entire saga is a national disgrace.
Jennifer, if you point me to an instance where you’ve said that an environmental issue needs to be addressed urgently, I’ll happily link to it.
John,
1. In response to your request for information on priority enviornmental issues:
In a recent blog post (a version of the same published as an article for The Land newspaper) I suggest something needs to be done about overgrazing in the Macquarie Marshes, http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/000958.html .
In Myth and the Murray, I suggest all is not well with native fish stock and that we need better data as a beginning to addressing the issue (you may want to fix your links to this document at your earlier posts as they seem to be broken). If I remember correctly, I raised this point about native fish and lack of data at your blog about a year ago. But at that time everyone seemed most interested in who I worked for, not the issues that I raised.
I am also interested in our rangelands. I think they are generally poorly managed. I have published (not online) on rangeland weed issues including rubbervine and prickly acacia.
2. My original work on Great Barrier Reef issues stemmed from a desire to urgently fix the problem of runoff from sugar cane fields. But the closer I tried to get to the problem – the further away it seemed. And thus began my interest in critiquing enviornmental campaigns. Myth and the Murray followed … and here is the link, https://www.ipa.org.au/publications/publisting_detail.asp?PubID=249 .
A broken clock is correct twice a day. However it is not correct “half the the time”.
Sadly the discussion on this blog about global warming left the impression that John is not always a big advocate of evidence.
Terje, that’s absurd. I pointed to thousands of scientific papers as evidence, giving links to sources where those papers were listed.
All I got back were nitpicks similar to your first point.
But I’m happy to agree that the credibility of the anti-science lobby can be measured by their performance on the global warming issue, where they have been proved wrong time after time (on urban heat islands, satellite data, water vapour, sunspot effects etc etc) and still do not change their position.
John I wish it was absurd. In fact my impression of you in other areas of discussion had lead me to believe that you were interested in evidence and in discussing evidence. However you appeared to me to back away from the AGW discussion entirely. This was most disappointing given the strong tone with which you introduced the topic. Willis demonstrated more than any other single individual in that discussion that he reads scientific papers by the likes of the IPCC and others. And yet you would not debate him directly on the evidence. You merely dismissed him as not being well read. The following quote sums up your overall response:-
In fact when you said “large volume of evidence supporting various aspects of the AGW hypothesis and that I could merely summarise the results” you did not even do him the courtesy of a summary. All he asked was to discuss the evidence that global warming is caused by humans and you dimiss him by sending him to read some more versus from the AGW bible.
My own view on AGW is probably closer to you than to Willis. However I don’t think that you demonstrated any strong inclination to discuss the evidence in anything other than a superficial manner.
As I said in that thread, I gave up on Willis when it became apparent that he still wanted to claim that the satellite data supported his case. This is so obviously wrong that I couldn’t be bothered pursuing him any further. The same applies in spades to Tim Curtin.
But I still don’t understand what I am supposed to do in response to a request for the evidence or even a summary of evidence. The IPCC report is a summary, and it’s hundreds of pages long. So I gave a link to a summary, admittedly with a snark.
John,
Perhaps your response made sence from your end. However as somebody who was interested in a discussion of the evidence (rather than just a link to a large report) it looked weak and dismissive to me. I wonder why you even created the topic on your website if the IPCC report says it all. Surely it was so that a discussion can follow.
As an analogy this is how it looked to me. Let say the opening to your topic said “the evidence is clear, God exists”. And Willis said “what evidence do you have”. And you said “listen son here is the bible, go read it a few more times”, even though Willis was the one that could quote all the versus and parables.
Regards,
Terje.
Terje, please don’t hijack this thread and turn it into yet another global warming thread.
p.s. For what it is worth, I think your Willis worship is ridiculous. He was found out on a number of occasions being less than fulsome with the truth. Anyone can bring up a study using Google Scholar and feign eruditeness.
I can’t.
A fair point.
Steve,
I am surprised you are concerned that this thread is being turned into a “global warming thread” …
You started the thread, with the comment that I am just “an IPA hack”. Was that a more useful contribution?
The inference is that I am paid to write what others tell me to write … the comment is false and insulting.
I think Terge’s point is that Quiggin always seems more concerned with who wrote something, rather than what they wrote, rather than scrutinising the evidence … whatever the issue. This has also been my experience.
So what do you think about removing the barrages at the bottom of the Murray River and getting some connectivity between the ocean and the lower lakes and the Coorong … what does The Age say about removing the barrages?
Jennifer, I’m afraid there is more than a grain of truth to the old saying that “he who pays the piper calls the tune”.
The Institute of Public Affairs, of which you are a paid servant, receives literally millions in corporate donations and has refused to publicly disclose the donations.
I think few things are more important in public life than honesty and transparency. It is a pity your master, which is in essence a glorified PR front, has no respect for openness.
The confectionary that yourself and the other think tank battery hens churn out is invariably in harmony with the interests of large corporations and the plutocrats.
The Murray River needs decent seasonal flows to flush out the mouth and flood the flood plains. Anything else is tokenistic.
If irrigators were required to use efficiency measures, like drip irrigation, the Murray could be given the water it requires without too much heartache.
Steve,
It seems that you dismiss what I write on the basis of who I work for, rather than what I write
…like John Quiggin you seem rather less interested in the evidence and more interested in personalities and money trails.
Of course John Quiggin and David Paton could be dependent on their being a crisis in the Murray Darling Basin and Coorong, respectively, for continued funding for their research projects.
But I prefer to hear their arguments and examine their evidence, rather than just acuse them of having a vested interest in an environmental catastrophe.
Terje – “Willis demonstrated more than any other single individual in that discussion that he reads scientific papers by the likes of the IPCC and others. And yet you would not debate him directly on the evidence.”
I gave up debating Willis when I posted scientific papers that contratdicted his evidence that was completely ignored. Willis then went on to claim victory by ignorance as if the posts were never made.
Hello Jennifer I’ve noted with interest your appeal to science/evidence based environmentalism but it seems when ever the scientists in that field come up evidence that humans are having an adverse impact that they are invariably wrong.
Maybe you point out the occasional valid environmental concern but overwhelmingly it seems when it comes down with it you fall into line with a pro-business environmental harm sceptic.
BTW if you could give a quick rundown of what global environmental problems you think are valid it could give some context to your scepticism.
But like Willis if you have a big enough file draw, misrepresent or ignore evidence presented anything can be called into doubt, creationists have know this well.
So do we go into another my link your link where Jennifer points out where the Murray scientists have got it wrong, maybe throw in a Lomborg link to show that this goes for a whole swath of global environmental problems also?
It has obviously hoodwinked not only the science journals but award winning science journalism. Even after years of science journalism and numerous awards Robin Williams still hasn’t got a clue and is easily duped by these dishonest funding hungry scientists who only exist by overplaying the world’s environmental problems.
Not only that these fraudulent Murray scientists got money out of strongly pro-business government who has to be pulled kicking and screaming to fork out money on the environment.
So what is a lay person to do Jennifer?
Believe the qualified scientists or pro business lobbyists who seem to constantly concentrate debunking alleged environmental myths rather than presenting real solutions.
If sceptics like yourself came out with things like an energy/resource efficiency drive and other win/win solutions maybe you would earn some credibility. Instead we have attempts to attack the science and scientists and more often than note role back environmental regulations you think unjustly imposed on business.
SimonJM,
I make it easier for people, who really care, to work out what is going on.
Diverse perspectives can provide valuable insights.
But people need to be prepared to open their eyes and their minds, and at least read what I write with a half open mind… instead of just attacking me personally.
I don’t expect you to believe me, but consider some of the evidence that I point to.
To be an independent sceptic you must be sceptical of the sceptics. You should read constructive criticisms of your own scepticism with a half-open mind.
Jennifer all I see is that you outright refute people who are sceptical of your scepticism. Do you really read their comments with an open mind? Do you admit that even if exaggerated, there’s still a serious dryland salinity problem?
I am sorry Ender, you did post links. I just didn’t see you explain the technical merit of the articles referenced in anywhere near the clarity or detail that Willis did.
Does Jennifer Marohasy know who the donors are and the amount that they give? Do her editors?
Jennifer denied having any interest in knowing who pays when she was busted after her Murray salinity study report because a certain irrigation company was a donor. The IPA conceals its donors and its employees prefer not to know or think about it, yet ask to be trusted.
Hi Jennifer, I heard your discussion on our agriculturally linked environmental problems on last nights counterpoint on ABC radio. Your comments on the validity of the conclusions drawn by Jared Diamond left me wondering if you had ever read his references which include the State of the Environment reports as well as many other well known, scientifically peer reviewed works. Your comments that he was following the ACF’s line suggested that he did not do any reading into this topic, but this is clearly not the case.
Now on the question of salinity and farming, the worst salinity problems in Australia are in W.A. Luckily, this problem has not accelerated at the rate predicted three decades ago, but that is simply because the rainfall has dropped of so dramatically (and this is no exageration). If you are going to talk about this topic points like this need to be included.
Maybe you should also mention that scientists and engineers were warning about possible salinity problems in W.A. in the 1920’s but the politicians of the time (and later) simply refused to accept that there may be better ways to farm our land rather than the traditional American/European way. Sure, lots of money has been made from wheat in W.A., but the simple question of “how long can we keep it up” is another question. After all, unlike the U.S and Europe which have some of the best topsoils in the world, we have the poorest (the glaciers did us no favours in the last ice age). Also, the heavy influence of the El Nino cycle on most of the Australian continent further makes farming in this continent quite a chore.
On a final note Jared Diamond has refuted that he said that farming in Australia should be stopped outright. Therefore I hope you will stop making this claim.
Terje – I not only posted links but explained to the best of my meager scientific knowledge the current state of climate science. I found Willis tends to ignore this and plow on regardless so I stopped trying. Willis is secure in his knowledge and let us all hope that he is right and climate change from AGW is benign. However people, that have far greater depth of knowledge than you or I or Willis, are worried and with, I believe, good reason.
Jennifer, I would be interested in hearing where the IPA gets its funding. In the interest of good, objective science, of course.
Jennifer with due respect I hear that sort of thing form creationists, just open your eyes and heart and you will see the truth.
& no this by itself doesn’t prove you are wrong or biased.
“I don’t expect you to believe me, but consider some of the evidence that I point to.�
Yes it is considered and put into context of conflict of interest, whether it goes against mainstream science both first hand -from the studies themselves- and second hand from what quality science journalisms/publications say, broadly what the history of the protagonists in the business science vs academic science debate and whether there is a case for bias on either side.
“I make it easier for people, who really care, to work out what is going on.�
The people who really care go by the umpire’s decision and they don’t complain when it affects their hip pocket or goes against their ideological position.
Occasionally science throws up studies that go against the grain like that methane study –not as bad as the anti-environmentalists made out- and that plantations forests aren’t always environmentally correct or that recycling is always the best solution but from having an interest in science for many years they are far in the minority and when taken in context still sit well within the science being done.
Again Jennifer I ask which of the problems with the global environment, deforestation, biodiversity, fisheries depletion, overuse and contamination of water, soil loss, pollution climate change are myths? The ones you think like Lomborg that the mainstream scientific community have wrong.
You might as well throw in local ones you like agricultural run off and the GBR, dry land salinity, state of our river systems etc.
I too would like the sources of funding to the IPA, and all other policy thinktanks, to be transparent.
I too would like Jennifer Marohasy to tell us which of the following she believes are serious problems, globally and/or locally:
1. Population
2. Over harvesting of natural resources
3. Pollution (including anthropogenic climate change)
4. Habitat destruction
5. Introducing alien (pest) species
6. Islandisation of natural habitat
I believe they are all increasingly serious and urgent problems which are not really being addressed.
“Islandisation”!?!?? AARRGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Interesting that some animals can leave their islands and start moving into new habitats. I read recently that this is already happening in Canada with some US species already appearing further North, snakes for example.
It cannot be due to the AGW myth, i think they are just sick of Bush 🙂
From a recent conversation, it seems tree planting and protecting those trees, if they are the wrong trees, can add to the problem of salinity. I had the impression the trees in question were aesthetically pleasing, but not environmentally practical. Whereas, environmental protection is nominally a good thing, in this case it appeared to be making things worse as reported from the personal experience of my iinformant.
Wmmbb, Yes, there is some evidence to suggest that ‘the accepted wisdom’ is not going to solve the dryland salinity problem. But John Quiggin has written you should not deny ’30 years of research’ – see my post that he links to above.
Anthony, Prof Jared Diamond may deny he said (in his Brisbane lecture) that we should phase out agriculture altogether in Australia, but if you read the chapter on Australia in his book ‘Collapse’, well that’s what he (also) wrote – read end of Chapter 13.
Terge Petersen et al., I am paid a salary by the IPA and the IPA are funded by corporate Australia (and a heap of individuals). Now corporate Australia are the really bad guys in the eyes of ‘the left’ … in your view always motivated by vested interest. But it is perhaps worth acknowledging, that while the Spanish had a vested interest in discovering America, Christopher Columbus actually discovered America.
Are we now going to deny that Christopher Columbus discovered America because there was a vested interest?
Which reminds me, I reckon I got it right on river salinity and dryland salinity … but you Quiggin fans just can’t acknowledge this fact? Instead you prefer to play politics?
I’m back to my blog … see ya. 🙂
Did I here a jingle jingle when Jennifer departed?
It sounded like sacks of clinking gold sovereigns, but I’m sure its just my vivid imagination.
Hi Jennifer,
I just had a re-read of chapter 13 and could not find any direct statement saying “Australia should stop farming” or anything like it. He simply points out the problems and limitations we face and the sometimes radical suggestions being made by others (such as phasing out cattle to reduce our methane emmisions). These ideas (he also points out) are not coming from “idealistic bird-loving environmentalists but from hard-nosed economists, who are asking themselves: would Australia be better off economically without much of its present agriculture” (page 413 chapter 13).
Finally, he also points out the pioneering work being done by those in groups such as the Potter Foundation. This hardly sounds like a total pessemist to me.
Jennifer,
Thanks for the response. I don’t much like the bluntness of the left-wing versus right-wing tags however if I had to wear one of those hats it would be the latter. I don’t think that corporations are inheriently evil.
I already knew the information you offered about IPA funding from the website. However my question was whether you personally knew the donors or whether you were essentially blind to the specific source of the cash behind your paycheque. If you do know the donors personally that does not mean that your commentary is wrong or irrelevant however it would be good to know.
And my name has a “J” not a “G” in the middle.
Regards,
Terje.
Jennifer, I think you’re pitting yourself against a couple of strawmen there. First, few people would argue that Australia should abandon farming (that would just be silly). And second, corporations are not inherently evil; but it is fair to ask whether they would continue to fund an organisation to produce reports that could effectively reduce their profits and impose regulation or other constraints?
JD,
Actually, corporations are “inherently evil” in at least one sense: by definition and law they have only one aim, which is to make money. Most ethical and religious traditions throughout human history would, I think, consider that an inappropriate setting for human activity, and perhaps, to that extent, “evil”. My experience working in corporations has certainly led me to think so.
Note that I’m not saying I think making money is in any way wrong, but rather that almost any aim or value becomes an evil if it overbalances all others. I’d say the same for any organisation or individual who lauds democracy, freedom, motherhood, or any other human aim, goal, or value above anything all others. It’s the fundamentalist impulse, all the more dangerous in the case of corporations because it’s written into their institutional structure (hence hard for individuals to subvert).
(btw a question for anyone here familiar with Australian corporate law — is it actually the case that directors are required to make shareholders’ financial interests the trump-card for all decisions? That’s what I’ve been given as a reason for not pursuing ethical stances within organisations, but I’m ignorant of the legal facts myself).
Terje, surely the issue isn’t whether Jennifer knows her employer’s funders personally or not, it’s the fact she knows what line will put bread on her table and what line will see her down at Centrelink quicker than you can say ‘environmental catastrophe’. Can you seriously imagine that Jennifer would remain long in IPA’s employ if the scientific evidence for AGW, or species extinction from remunerative exploitation of the environment, or whatever, led to some sort of Damascene conversion? Would the IPA consider publishing her papers if they called for immediate ratification of Kyoto and imposition of drastic carbon emissions cuts? To ask the question is to know the answer.
Terje, few of Murdoch’s minions have ever met the man, but all know exactly what barrows they must push if they are to enjoy a career in his organisation, and what news items are best left out of the news.
Sadly, science is not immune to social influences. The ‘sciences’ of race and eugenics were so popular in the first half of the twentieth century precisely because research producing the right kind of evidence in those ‘fields’ would guarantee funding, fame, and fortune. It fitted the political and economic interests of the rich and powerful to be given evidence to show their wealth and power stemmed from genetic superiority, and the underclass’s immiseration was god-given. So it is with any one who claims to be a scientist and who supports those same interests against the scientific consensus whether the issue is the environment, smoking, asbestos, occupational health and safety etc etc. Perhaps Prof Q would like to comment on whether the same is true of the dismal ‘science’?
Crispin last year out of interest I read the corporations act (easy to find online) and I read profit obligations by law, rights of individuals but no responsibilities. It wasn’t a difficult read so you might like to look it up.
I studied corporations law at uni years ago, from a narrow younguns’ pt of view and from the position you’re taught at uni, ie corporation rights. It was an eye-opener for me to realise over recent years what a selfish, elitist model it is. It won’t last without modification.
Jennifer’s reply above is immature, hands on hips, panting I’m right you’re wrong. With this childish post, she didn’t respond to the questions put to her. Is she saying she is Jennifer Columbus who changed the world by discovering there is no salinity problem? If the salinity issue was over-estimated, that doesn’t mean there’s no salinity problems.
Jennifer tows the party line of the IPA. Deliberate ignorance of IPA’s corporate sponsors does not amount to independence. Jennifer didn’t deny knowing that a major irrigator with a keen interest in the Murray was sponsoring the IPA. She simply claimed that it didn’t influence her work, she wasn’t interested. Yeaaahhh right… she woudn’t be in work for long and the IPA wouldn’t get funding if they didn’t meet their donors’ requirements.
I agree that it can be useful to filter where you get your info from, and filter who you think is worthwhile debating with – there are plenty of nutcases in the blogosphere that aren’t worth responding to.
However, ‘ve found the comments thread on this post pretty p1ss weak.
I think we can all agree that it isn’t any kind of revelation that Jennifer’s writing is going to come with a bias that is predictable given her employer, just as it is pretty easy to predict, say, Clive Hamilton’s likely bias on many issues. It isn’t enlightening or instructive to point this out and spend enormous amounts of time discussing it or interrogating her on what she knows of IPA’s funders. Der! Tell us something we don’t know! I think we all have pretty well assumed where IPA’s funding comes from and how they work already.
I think it is a mistake to assume that the counter-argument on many issues (eg. global warming or salinity) is driven solely by corporate interests with profits to protect. I just don’t think that dismissing Jennifer’s view simply because she works for the IPA is good enough in this case, because there are (at least I think there could be) so many people who would agree with her that are not employed by the IPA.
It doesn’t really matter that Jennifer’s opinion has an easily identifiable reason to be biased if there are plenty of other people who would share her view but who don’t have an easily identifiable bias. I think you can still have a good debate in such circumstances.
I’m not an expert on salinity and am not someone to disagree with either JQ or Jennifer on the issue, but, having read some of Jennifer’s blog, you can find plenty of people there that share some or all of her opinion.
I read her blog, and i don’t agree with most of the stuff, but at least I am learning that there is a lot of frustration out in the regions with green and or left thinking on issues like salinity and vegetation management that might well not be coming from vested corporate interests. I mightn’t agree with the reasons for the frustrations of farmers and landowners, but its worthwhile feeling it, so that you know where people are coming from, and get exposed to the negative consequences of the positive attempts at mitigating environmental problems.
Its quite sobering to debate with someone who almost seems to hate you because they are so bitter about the negative aspects that can come from some government regulation in the bush.
And I can see that it is useful to ask critical questions about science-based policy decisions that impact on people’s livelihoods and require change. Its understandably a big scary thing to tell farmers that whoops their source of irrigation water is screwed and they aren’t allowed to do as they please with their land because of the impact on broader salinity.
You might be cynical of Jennifer’s motives for asking those questions – i am – but that doesn’t mean you don’t need to have a think about them and try and answer them, and deal with the consequences of following through on actions to curb environmental problems.
Steve I don’t disagree with what you’ve said. It’s precisely my desire to know about about the issue that gives me the poos when Jennifer gives such unthinking responses. Where to get balanced coverage of the issue in the small amount of time I have available?
There is still a salinity problem, it just seems we don’t know how extensive or severe or natural or manmade it is. Everyone disagrees over the methods and the costs to fix it or whether it needs fixing. And Jennifer who claims to be in position of the correct knowledge simply raves on about Columbus. She seems of the opinion that there is no problem so I doubt I can learn anything from her. So what to do?
Yeah, the columbus thing was pretty left field. Though, in her defense (what am i doing!?) the tone of the original post and the first couple of comments probably didn’t predispose her to constructive debate.
This is a shallow one dimensional view of humanity. It is like saying that no priest ever disagreed with the pope. I have employees who routinely tell me that I am wrong (often they call me daft, nuts, silly or otherwise). In fact if I knew all the answers myself what would be the point of employing others.
No doubt Jennifer will write on topics that her employer thinks are topical. However to suggest that she lies for money without a shred of evidence is highly unfair.
I am still interested to know if Jennifer is aware of who the IPA donors are.
Steve,
I noted your comment on the frustration felt by farmers towards the greener ways of thinking. unfortunately these frustrations are not that clear cut as now many farmers do not agree on how to tacle salinity (and other) problems for valid reasons. For example in the W.A. wheatbelt some farmers build salt banks to divert water (and the salt it carries) away from their land. As you may expect farmers downstream are not pleased of this as it increases their salinity problems. A similar picture is occuring on the Murray as farmers or graziers downstream are not going to be happy with anything that happens upstream that will impact the their water.
In short this is no longer a “left wing greeny verses the farmer” battle.
I agree Merredin. As an example of how it isn’t simply a “left wing greeny” versus farmer battle the Australian Conservation Foundation and National Farmers Federation have been able to find common ground and release joint policy statements.
I think this post from Jennifer Marohasy should be enough to make those who think Jen is an intellectual heavyweight think again:
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001161.html
Compared to Jen, even wily Willis is a budding Einstein.
SteveM,
You are aware that the post you linked to was somewhat in jest? Surely being capable of a laugh doesn’t exclude you from being an intellectual heavyweight.
Read the comments to that post, and you’ll see that most of Jennifer’s regular readers were able to see that it was not the most serious of posts.
I’d like to know what people think the point is in the personal attacks on Jennifer Marohasy. Yes, she works for the IPA and her posts betray a pattern of scepticism regarding environmental campaigns, which fit in with her sponsor’s ideology. But we all have patterns to our thinking which go beyond the evidence, and if we’re genuine about trying to adjust to reality, it’s surely a good thing to converse with people who have different patterns (and her views are at the opposite end of the spectrum from mine).
Perhaps lefties/greenies here could have the grace to accept that Marohasy holds her position with integrity. If she changed that position, she could always quit the IPA. It’s not like she’d have much trouble finding a job.
It’s tempting to throw brickbats at apparent opponents. We all fall for it, especially (it seems) on the ‘net. But it’s also entirely useless, obscures debate, and diminishes the possibility of shifting position.
Chris B everyone wants debate but like the so called nuclear power debate we don’t need pro-businesses supporters feigning concern for the environment so they can push their agenda.
Government ministers and others coming out saying nuclear is a viable option when they haven’t even factored in or encouraged an energy/resource efficiency drive or have looked at an in depth study of all the possible energy mixes/sources deserves the scepticism it receives.
Some have credibility and can advocate an opposing position but they unlike most anti-environmentalists don’t consistently deny global environmental problems and the science behind it.
If Jennifer and others came out promoting not only win/win business environment positions -like energy efficiency- but also sustainable and ethical business measures -Triple Bottom Line and Sa 8000 trade– they could put up dissenting voices and have some credibility.
But like the packaging industry lobbyists, Jennifer and her type put counter positions that discourages regulations or informed community debate that looks to encourage a sustainable and ethical business environment. Instead they use spin and misinformation to spread doubt in the public domain to keep their bosses happy with their profit line.
BTW Jennifer doesn’t need to lie, just like the creationists all she has to do is misrepresent, use flawed methodology and highlight out of date or context studies to spread her doubt.
I in fact think that she is indeed sincere in her views but lacks the ability to see through her confirmation bias to be taken seriously. If she came up with some criticism of the business sector doing the wrong thing or backed other areas of science that do say humans are having an adverse impact- not just one or two token cases- I’ll start to listen.
Crispin and Steve, Marohasy may well possess integrity. Regardless, the organisation she works for has no objective other than to represent the interests of big business and the wealthy.
Democracy has never been a level playing field and I believe the rise of well-funded far-right think tanks in Australia and elsewhere tilts the playing field even further in favour of the elites.
Marohasy’s writings on climate change have been reprehensible and the “in jest” post I linked to has to be seen in that context.
Her writings in support of Howard and Bush’s do little approach to climate change do nothing to dispel the notion that she happily plays the role of corporate lapdog.
And the point I am trying to make is that it does not in any way diminish her argument, or position, or influence to simply point out that she is a biased employee of the IPA. You are only getting nods of agreement from people who had already been convinced.
It all boils down to whether you are just trying to win an argument, or whether you are actually trying to win people.
You might win an argument by highlighting that Jennifer is a payed stooge, but i doubt very much that many people who currently agree with her or listen to her are going to change their mind upon hearing your comments, and I also don’t think you are warning off any ambivalent people who haven’t already made up their mind. Most people are bright enough to be just as aware of everyone else’s potential biases as they are of Jennifer’s, and will make up their minds based on other things.
So what’s the point?
There is a difference between point scoring, and affecting change.
I’m not arguing about whether or not Jennifer has integrity. I’m saying that this is far less important than whether or not what she has to say is of interest and is worth listening to and responding to.
Some people need to be challenged and debated with, even if they dont have any integrity.
Maybe you think that Jennifer is not influential or interesting enough to need to respond to her arguments. Fair enough. There are certainly people that I don’t bother responding to any more.
But the topic is salinity, and Jennifer is – at least in my view – one of the key contrarians in this country on this topic. So just dismissing her with a personal attack is weak, I think. You are trying to put yourself above and beyond the main level of debate, and it will pass you by without your input.
You might be right, but are the ‘decision makers’ even listening to you? Are you sure that they have dismissed Jennifer?