AUSTRALIA鈥橲 major river system is suffering from excessive water removal and
land clearing.
More than 80 per cent of the Murray-Darling鈥檚 annual average flow to the sea
is now diverted from the river system, mainly for irrigation. Extraction of
water and the addition of nutrients has made the river system susceptible to
algal blooms. Weirs and the introduction of carp have put pressure on native
fish species. In addition, land clearing is estimated to have removed 12 billion
trees from the river basin, leading to water salinity. At least science is now
fighting back in some areas.
An innovative company is turning carp from the Murray-Darling system into
organic garden fertiliser, for instance. The product, Charlie Carp, is produced
by Four Seasons, a small company most of whose shareholders are farmers from the
river basin. It employs four people full-time to catch and process European
carp. Some horticulturists are promoting the product because it benefits the
environment, as well as being effective. Charlie Carp recently won the small
business award presented as part of the World Environment Day celebrations in
Adelaide.
Advertisement
Science may also help to alleviate the problem of outbreaks of toxic algae.
Research at Adelaide University has led to the development of a computer program
that can predict when conditions are likely to cause algal blooms up to four
weeks ahead, giving time for remedial action. Gavin Bowden, a PhD student in
engineering, has constructed a model that uses artificial neural networks to
learn about the factors which contribute to an algal outbreak.
The early results are promising. Using historical data, the model has
successfully predicted past peaks and troughs in algal growth. 鈥淭he ultimate
goal is to have this model sitting either at the head office in the city or at
the treatment plants themselves,鈥� Bowden said. It would allow extra water
treatment to be scheduled when necessary, and would increase understanding of
the factors causing the problem.
Bowden is now looking to adapt the computer model to other uses, such as
salinity. If authorities knew a few weeks in advance that a large volume of
highly saline water was coming down the Murray, he said, water could be pumped
to Adelaide reservoirs before the pulse of salty water arrived, thus avoiding
expensive extra treatment.
NON-GOVERNMENT organisations (NGOs) have accused the Australian government of
trying to hide the enormity of its failure to meet its commitment under the
Kyoto agreement on greenhouse gas emissions. Australia promised to increase the
nation鈥檚 greenhouse gas emissions by not more than 8 per cent over 1990 levels
by 2008. It is already above that figure. Now, say the NGOs, the government is
attempting to cover up a suggestion that it could have met its obligation merely
by regulating land use more tightly.
The sixth Conference of the Parties to the climate change convention, or
COP6, is to be held in November.
Australia鈥檚 delegates recently joined with a small number of other countries
to delete a key paragraph from the report on land use and forestry prepared for
COP6 by the international scientific advisory body, the Inter-governmental Panel
on Climate Change. The paragraph implied that Australia could achieve its Kyoto
target simply by stopping vegetation clearing and planting trees. Australia鈥檚
action was described by NGOs as 鈥渉iding the magnitude of the loophole by
deleting text鈥�.
In last week鈥檚 preliminary discussions for COP6 held in Bonn, delegates from
Australia and NZ won the fossil-of-the-day award from NGOs for trying to limit
public information on ways of decreasing greenhouse gas emissions as well as
opposing meaningful sanctions for not complying with the convention. Our
governments were depicted as depending on 鈥渦ncertain, risky sinks鈥� rather than
serious strategies to cut energy-related emissions. Fast-growing plantations are
desirable, but only as part of an overall plan.
I HAVE been in Finland this week for a conference on the future. It reflected
an increasing feeling that we need better ways of integrating scientific
advances into the political system. Having ignored the problem, Europe is now
finding real public hostility to new developments. While the community in Europe
recognises the economic importance of innovation, it is now increasingly aware
of social impacts. I wonder if politicians in Australia and New Zealand are
getting the message.