EcoRadio

Author: admin

  • Overpopulation: The World’s problem

     

    The earth does not contain enough resources to indefinitely sustain the current enormous population growth. For instance, there is a limited area of arable land and living space. China, home to 1.2 billion people or 1/5 the world’s population, is an excellent example of the kinds of problems that arise in an increasingly crowded society. Trying to increase the standard of living of its people, China has industrialized and the economy has grown (Hanson). This increase in wealth has increased the demand for food in China. The demand is so great that China went from exporting 8 million tons of grain in 1992 to becoming a net importer of 16 million tons of grain in 1994 (China News Digest). This causes a world-wide grain shortage which raises prices, which in turn puts food out of reach of even more people.

     

    In many areas, there is simply not enough food to feed the growing populations. Each day 40,000 children die from malnutrition and its related diseases. 150 million children in the world suffer from poor health due to food shortages (Turbak, 20).

     

    Another resource, which cannot keep up with an increasing population, is water. The supply of fresh water is limited. The recent California drought exemplifies this problem. Conflicts ensue between farmers, municipalities, environmentalists, and others over water rights. Recently, environmentalists battled with Los Angeles over the diversion of water from Mono lake to the LA basin. The Mono Lake incident and the aqueduct fights highlight some of the conflicts that arise over water. Creating fresh water can be expensive. A swelling population may have to turn to desalinization for their clean water. Oil-rich Saudi Arabia is the only country for which this process has had any success. However, Saudi Arabia does not require the vast amounts of agricultural water that California and other areas need. Another possible solution to the fresh water shortage is towing icebergs from the polar caps. This is just too costly for many areas.

     

    In addition to depleting resources, overpopulation increases environmental problems. Pollution is an environmental problem whose magnitude is increased by overpopulation. As more people drive more cars, use more electricity, throw away more trash, and cut down more trees, the environmental problems we experience are greatly increased. The earth could easily sustain a small population of highly polluting people. But as more people such as ourselves pollute, massive problems occur. Pollution is magnified in developing nations. As those nations with larger growing populations become richer, their pollution increases with their wealth. Developing nations often promote industries that pollute to compete economically. These industries are less tightly regulated in order to stimulate growth.

     

    Besides causing the environmental strains on the earth, overpopulation causes a large number of the social problems in today’s society. One example of this is described in the recent study by Ohio State University showing that children whose family sizes were larger did worse in school. “The research, to be published in October’s American Sociological Review, found that as family size increases, parents talk less to each child about school, have lower education expectations, save less for college and have fewer educational materials available” (CAPS).

     

    Each individual’s political power is reduced with increased population. As the population increases, each representative in the US and state congresses (as well as senators) represents a wider segment of the population. This problem was initially addressed by increasing the number of representatives. However, when the number of US representatives reached 435, the sheer numbers became unimaginable and led to a cap on the number of representatives. In Lincoln’s time, there were 185,000 residents in a congressional district. Today, there are about 600,000 people in each district (Oberlink). The only alternative would be increasing the number of representatives, however this would only decrease congresses’ efficiency.

     

    Social funding per capita is also reduced when the population grows. Again, California provides an excellent example. In 1990 there were 5.7 million children enrolled in California’s K-12 schools, while there will be 7.9 million in 2000 (Bouvier 41). “Our secondary school population is growing by 177,000 a year. The Dept. of Education projects that 35,333 new classrooms, or approx. 1,399 K-12 schools will be needed by the year 2000. That is almost a school a day. California already has some of the largest class sizes in the nation (Phillips).” With this growth in school needs, the state cannot meet the budget requirements. This has significantly contributed toward the state’s deficit, as well as reduced the quality of education.

     

    In the 1980’s, there was a 10% population density increase in the US. This led to a 20% decrease in housing affordability. The supply has not kept up with the demand for housing, which caused the real estate boom. This causes continually growing urban communities such as Los Angeles, which has experienced problems due to its sheer massiveness (Johnson).

     

    The traffic problems we face daily are another result of overpopulation. Just in California, 300,000 hours are wasted in traffic congestion each year at an estimated annual cost of over 892 million dollars. In addition, these idiling motors add to the pollution problem (Oberlink).

     

    Many people feel that efforts to stop the rising population are unnecessary. They feel the population is under control and, in effect, the population bomb has fizzed. Ben Wattenberg, in The Birth Dearth, cites that a shrinking population will put developed nations at a severe disadvantage. It will cause military, economic, politic, and cultural weaknesses in relation to other countries.

     

    People against population controls cite statistics in their favor. According to the 1994 US Census, the fertility rate of 59 countries is below 2.1 births per female which is the number of children per family needed to maintain the population. China is down to 1.8, and Spain is down to 1.4 (Verburg). These people also claim Africa is experiencing shortages of laborers, even though they reject technology because of the reduced labor it requires.

     

    Anti-population control advocates feel that the resource problems may not be as bad as earlier expected. Since 1960, the world’s food supply per capita has increased 27% and the food production in developing nation has increased 20%. The world’s oil reserves have increased from 100 billion cubic meters in 1980 to 158 billion cubic meters in 1993. Only 50% of the world’s arable land is used. Grain production increased 2.1% in the 80’s, well above the 1.4% necessary to feed the increasing population (Verburg). According to the UN, the world’s population may stabilize at 7.5 billion in 2015.

     

    Although opponents to population stabilization cite statistics in their favor, the overwhelming majority of statistics point toward a severe problem. One in four births in the developing world outside China is unwanted (Verburg). It took 123 years, from 1804 to 1927 for the world to produce its second billion people, yet it took just thirteen years, from 1974 to 1987, to produce the fifth billion (UN Population Division). There are three more people in the United States every second with nine births and three deaths every two seconds (Universal Almanac, 173). In 1960 Europe was the most densely populated continent. By 1991 Asia surpassed Europe’s denseness with 176 persons per square mile while Europe only had 168 persons per square mile. Americans can barely feel this squeeze with only 43 persons per square mile (“Population,” World Book Encyclopedia). If the population continues to grow at current rates with no further decline (a highly unlikely scenario), there will be 694 billion people on the Earth by 2150 (Verburg).

     

    The Catholic Church represents major religious opposition to controlled population. The Church’s official stand is against any birth control whatsoever. They believe God should plan families. The problem includes Catholics obeying John Paul II’s Human Vitae, the church using its political power in stopping abortion and birth control advances, and protesting the discussion of family planning at world forums such as the UN Women’s conferences (Ehrlich, 22).

     

    Zero Population Growth is the foremost American activist organization for population control. They cite several solutions for the population problem including family planning services, international awareness, population education, improving women’s status, and economic incentives. Many of these solutions have been implemented in various countries with success. These are easy solutions with few adverse side-effects.

     

    The Chinese government has been able to control population by creating economic incentives for families with less than two children. With 1/5 of the world’s population and only 7% of the land, population checks were badly needed. Population control was achieved using education, government propaganda, and community pressures. For instance, a couple promising to have only one child receives a one-time reward of money and rice. If that child does not live to maturity, the couple is allowed another. The child will receive a private plot of 70 square meters of land, compared to 50 for a child in a larger family (Mings, 479).

     

    Similar techniques could be implemented in the United States by slowly removing the tax write-off for more than 2 children. Families will not experience extreme economic hardship if the decline were gradual enough. Moreover, government revenue could increase. An example of such a solution would be amending the current US H.R. 6, a middle-class tax cutting bill, to limit the $500-per-child tax credit to two children.

     

    Birth control and family planning is another excellent way of slowing the surging population growth. Japan is a crowded nation the size of California with a population equal to about half the US population. Population controls were badly needed. Condoms have proven to be an extremely successful way of slowing the growth. With dedicated stores, such as Condomania, and aggressive advertising, condom usage reached 547 million in 1991. This is almost as much as the 561 million the US used with twice the population.

     

    Another factor attributing to the decrease in population growth in Japan is the stressful working conditions. Men concentrate heavily on work and less on recreational activities. Because of the resulting high stress levels, overall sexual activity has declined and the sperm count with it. These factors, coupled with the high condom usage, has slowed Japanese population growth. The slowed growth has resulted in a temporary aging of the population, which creates minor problems, but is unavoidable in any fix to population growth (Watanabe).

     

    Population growth is slowed as women’s rights are increased. This is evident in developed nations where fewer births occur as the woman’s role in society changes. Elevating women out of their lower-class status in many nations will greatly aid progress. As women gain economic, political, and reproductive power in today’s industrialized nations, birth rates drop dramatically and now most of western Europe is at or below replacement level.

     

    Finally, all the people of the world must be made aware of the situation. The problem is not popularized in the media as much as other problems which stem from overpopulation such as the environment, AIDS, and lung cancer. Children and adults are well informed on how to help the environment, how to avoid AIDS, and that smoking is bad for their health. But they are not well informed about all of the problems of overpopulation. Overpopulation information needs to be more widespread than it currently is. This can be reasonably achieved with information in TV segments and in science and social studies classes.

     

    While less developed countries face the biggest problems, solutions also need to be implemented here in the US. In California, the fertility rate grew from 1.947 in 1982 to 2.480 in 1989 (Bouvier 13). Educating the public will ease California’s population growth.

     

    Successful steps have been made in fighting the problem. The first step, recognizing the problem, was reached by Thomas Malthus with An Essay on the Principle of Population in 1798. Malthus pointed out that population tends to grow at an exponential rate while the food production grows at a geometric rate. Thus population growth must be checked. He mentioned “positive checks” such as war, famine, and disease, and “preventative checks” such as celibacy and contraception (“Population,” Encarta).

     

    In 1968 Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich wrote The Population Bomb. They were the first to popularize how serious the problem had become. While incorrectly predicting short term large-scale famine and plague, the book awakened the world to the upcoming problems.

     

    Today, the United Nations Population Fund is collecting information on the problem. Events such as the UN Women’s conference in support of family planning and birth control have raised the status of women, an important step in reducing population. Family planning was not even on the agenda in the 1972 conference, but it was stressed in the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development, as well as the 1994 Women’s Conference (Marshall).

     

    With an impending crisis looming over the horizon, the afore outlined steps must be followed to ease the population problem and the many other problems which are directly related to it. When people are educated to the benefits of limiting family size, they respond with lower birth rates. Education, coupled with economic pressure, will end the overpopulation problem and ease many of the other problems faced by today’s society.

    THIS IS AN OLDER ITEM AND IS NOW MORE IMPORTANT THAN WHEN WRITTEN

  • Wong admits mistake

    The key condition the Government set on its highly conditional 25%
    emissions reduction target was the achievement of a global agreement to
    stabilise atmospheric carbon at 450 parts per million by 2050. Such an
    ambitious goal would be welcome, but would require far stronger action
    from Australia and it would mean very steep emissions reductions from
    all countries.

    The first line of the Prime Minister’s press release from May 4 reads:

    ‘The Rudd Government has today committed to reduce Australia’s carbon
    pollution by 25 per cent below 2000 levels by 2020 if the world agrees
    to an ambitious global deal to stabilise levels of CO2 equivalent at 450
    parts per million or lower by mid century.’

    As Minister Wong acknowledged in Estimates hearings today, however, the
    Government’s position, backed up by Professor Garnaut’s modelling, is
    for stabilisation at 450ppm by 2140, not 2050. This would put the world
    on a much slower and more dangerous reduction trajectory.

    “The Prime Minister’s target was wrong by 90 years,” Senator Brown said.

    “This mistake changes the whole effect and meaning of the Government’s
    position. It moves it from an ambitious global goal to a weak one.

    “The Minister’s office and the Department of Climate Change have known
    about this mistake since at least Tuesday, when it was revealed by the
    ANU’s Andrew Macintosh.

    “The Minister told the Committee she would find out whether the Prime
    Minister has at any time been informed of this mistake.

    “Minister Wong and her department said that no-one in the business of
    environment groups backing the Government had asked about the vital
    error. It is extraordinary that the mistake was not picked up.”

    Tim Hollo
    Media Adviser
    Senator Christine Milne | Australian Greens Deputy Leader and Climate
    Change Spokesperson
    Suite SG-112 Parliament House, Canberra ACT | P: 02 6277 3588 | M: 0437
    587 562
    http://www.christinemilne.org.au/| www.GreensMPs.org.au
    <http://www.greensmps.org.au/>

  • The Gulf Stream

    The Gulf Stream begins upstream of Cape Hatteras, where the Florida Current ceases to follow the continental shelf. The position of the Stream as it leaves the coast changes throughout the year. In the fall, it shifts north, while in the winter and early spring it shifts south (Auer 1987; Kelly and Gille 1990; Frankignoul et al. 2001). Compared with the width of the current (about 100-200 km), the range of this variation (30-40 km) is relatively small (Hogg and Johns 1995). However, recent studies by Mariano et al. (2002) suggests that the meridional range of the annual variation in stream path may be closer to 100 km. Other characteristics of the current are more variable. Significant changes in its transport, meandering, and structure can be observed through many time scales as it travels northeast.

    The transport of the Gulf Stream nearly doubles downstream of Cape Hatteras (Knauss 1969; Hall and Fofonoff 1993; Hendry 1988; Leaman et al. 1989) at a rate of 8 Sv every 100 km (Knauss 1969; Johns et al. 1995). It appears that the downstream increase in transport between Cape Hatteras and 55°W is mostly due to increased velocities in the deep waters of the Gulf Stream (Johns et al. 1995). This increase in velocity is thought to be associated with deep recirculation cells found north and south of the current (Hall and Fofonoff 1993). Examples of these recirculations include small recirculations east of the Bahamas (Olson et al. 1984; Lee et al. 1990), the Worthington Gyre south of the Gulf Stream between 55° and 75°W (Worthington 1976), and the Northern Recirculation Gyre north of the Gulf Stream (Hogg et al. 1986). Recent studies suggest that the recirculations steadily increase the transport in the Gulf Stream from 30 Sv in the Florida Current to a maximum of 150 Sv at 55°W (Hendry 1982; Hogg 1992; Hogg and Johns 1995).

    The Gulf Stream transport varies not only in space, but also in time. According to Geosat altimetry results, the current transports a maximum amount of water in the fall and a minimum in the spring, in phase with the north-south shifts of the its position (Kelly and Gille 1990; Zlotnicki 1991; Kelly 1991; Hogg and Johns 1995). Rossby and Rago (1985) and Fu et al. (1987) obtained similar results when they looked at sea level differences across the Stream. All of these studies found that the Gulf Stream has a marked seasonal variability, with peak-to-peak amplitude in sea surface height of 10-15 cm. The fluctuation is mostly confined to the upper 200-300 m of the water column and is a result of seasonal heating and expansion of the surface waters (Hogg and Johns 1995). Height differences this small, if assumed to decay linearly to zero at 300 m, would only result in annual transport fluctuations of about 1.5 Sv (Hogg and Johns 1995).

    Interestingly, the variations in transport of the deep waters in the current appear to be almost opposite in phase to the surface waters, and their magnitude is more significant (Hogg and Johns 1995). As Worthington (1976) suggested, the maximum transport occurs in the spring, and the amplitude of the annual cycle is as large as 5-8.5 Sv (Manning and Watts 1989; Sato and Rossby 1992; Hogg and Johns 1995). The mechanism Worthington proposed was extensive convection south of the Gulf Stream in winter due to the atmospheric cooling of surface waters. This causes the thermocline to deepen and the baroclinic transport to increase (Fu et al. 1987). Although his idea has been controversial, alternate hypotheses have not adequately explained observations (Hogg and Johns 1995).

    Like transport, the meandering of the Gulf Stream intensifies downstream of Cape Hatteras, reaching a maximum near 65°W. Meanders often pinch off from the current to form Gulf Stream rings. On average, the Stream sheds 22 warm-core rings and 35 cold-core rings per year (Hogg and Johns 1995).

    Once it reaches the Grand Banks, the structure of the Gulf Stream changes from a single, meandering front to multiple, branching fronts (Krauss 1986; Johns et al. 1995). Early oceanographic papers on the North Atlantic (Iselin 1936; Fuglister 1951a, 1951b; Sverdrup et al. 1942) mention the branching, but due to sparse data in this area, the branch points were considered largely theoretical until confirmed by Mann (1967). Mann (1967) showed two branches at 38°30;N 44°W. One branch curves north along the continental slope, eventually turning east between 50° and 52°N. This branch is called the North Atlantic Current and was well known even in Iselin’s time. The other branch flows southeastward towards the Mid-Atlantic Ridge and is called the Azores Current. This southern branch is most likely synonymous with Iselin’s “Atlantic Current” and was formally named the Azores Current in a paper by Gould (1985).

    The region of the Gulf Stream’s branch point is highly dynamic and subject to rapid change. The high degree of mesoscale activity, along with rapid changes in the major surface currents, make this a very difficult region to study. Part of this variability arises from the high amount of eddy activity. Eddy kinetic energy along both the Gulf Stream and the North Atlantic Current is at peak values here (Richardson 1983). There is also the presence of elongated, high-pressure cells along the offshore side of the North Atlantic Current (Worthington 1976; Clarke et al. 1980; Baranov and Ginkul 1984; Krauss et al. 1987). These pressure cells may be linked to outbursts of Labrador Current water from the Grand Banks (Krauss et al. 1987) that lead to extensive mixing at the end of the Gulf Stream.

  • Carbon Trading and cash values on forests cannot curb carbon emissions

     

     

    More worryingly, plans for low-carbon technology give the expansion of high-carbon coal power pride of place. The promotional rhetoric is of Carbon Capture and Storage [CCS background guide], yet those from the power sector are blunt about its shortcomings. “One of the plants we are building is CCS ready, although to be quite frank no one really knows what that is at the moment,” claimed Steve Lennon, managing director of South Africa’s Eskom.

     

    The underlying problem is that business adjusts the problem of climate change to neoliberal economics, which judges value according to financial cost rather than environmental sustainability or social justice. This manifests itself in a promise to massively expand carbon markets [emissions trading background guide]. The idea is that governments give out a limited number of permits to pollute; the scarcity of these permits should encourage their price to rise; and the resulting additional cost to industry and power producers should encourage them to pollute less.

     

    Jos Delbeke, deputy director-general for the environment at the European commission, was in Copenhagen claiming that this is how the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) is now working. Yet his department’s own data for 2008 shows more international “offset” credits circulating than the level of claimed reductions, while lobbying pressure has resulted in a twin-track system from which every business wins.

     

    On one side, heavy industry like the steel sector has more credits than would be needed to reduce its emissions, so it sells them. Delbeke shared a panel on carbon markets with a representative of ArcelorMittal, which alone gained an estimated subsidy of more than €1bn between 2005 and 2008 by this means.

     

    On the other side, power companies pay less for pollution permits than the cost they pass on to consumers, generating windfall profits that could reach up to around €70bn by 2012. The circulation of these permits does nothing to help new investment in renewables.

     

     

    Other measures to avoid business obligations displace the problem of tackling climate change on to developing countries. The Summit’s final Copenhagen Call talks of a crucial role for forest protection in developing countries, and that such measures should represent around half of the action needed to limit climate change by 2020.

     

    These figures are taken directly from Project Catalyst, an initiative bringing together “climate negotiatiors, senior government officials… and business executives”, whose presentation (marked confidential) more straightforwardly emphasises the “the size of the prize for business”. It also speaks of the opportunities for “companies in forest management, pulp and paper, or construction” to access a “€20-30bn value chain” in developing countries.

     

    Strikingly similar assumptions have found their way into negotiating texts on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD), which will be discussed when UN climate negotiations resume in Bonn next week. Yet the whole idea that deforestation can be stopped by simply putting a price on forests is flawed, with forest communities and indigenous peoples warning that it will encourage further land grabs by large companies. They point to evidence that the real drivers of deforestation are the major construction, mining, logging and plantation developments whose owners stand to be rewarded by REDD funds.

     

    These are the voices that the world should be listening to as it seeks to tackle climate change. Even the self-proclaimed “progressives” of big business seem to be putting profit margins above environmental need. Without a more fundamental re-examination, to paraphrase one panellist, they look set to remain on the back end of a horse that is galloping in the wrong direction.

     

    • Oscar Reyes is a researcher with Carbon Trade Watch, a project of the Transnational Institute, and environment editor of Red Pepper magazine.

  • EU out on a limb with carbon scheme

     

    The Coalition this week gave bipartisan support to the Rudd Government’s proposed target of between 5 and 25 per cent of 2000 levels by 2020 (equivalent to between 4 and 24 per cent of 1990 levels) but said it would not pass emissions trading laws to meet the targets until after the Copenhagen talks.

    New Zealand is reviewing its emissions trading laws and aims to align them with the scheme that emerges in Australia. Canada, which has committed to reduce emissions by 20 per cent by 2020, has put its emissions trading laws on hold until the rapidly-evolving US scheme is finalised. In the US the Waxman-Markey bill is likely to be debated in the House of Representatives in August. The scheme will implement President Barack Obama’s emissions reduction targets, which are equivalent to between 0 and 15per cent cuts on 1990 levels by 2020.

    Progress on the legislation is much faster than many observers had believed possible, but few believe the bills will have passed the Senate before Copenhagen.

    Japan – which took on a tough emissions reduction target under the Kyoto Protocol – has said it will announce its new 2020 targets next month. Environment Minister Tetsuo Saito said this week it would be at least 15 per cent of 1990 levels. The Japanese appear to be relying mainly on regulatory measures to achieve the goal.

    South Korea has said it will announce targets later in the year but its recent stimulus package centred on a green new deal that spent $US36 billion ($45 billion) on clean energy and public transport.

    Promises from developing countries have been largely regulatory and measured in different ways.

    China has promised to reduce energy consumption by 20 per cent below 2005 levels by next year and has ambitious targets for renewable energy use. China already has twice the installed renewable energy capacity as the US.

    India has taken a tough line on developed countries proving their bona fides first, but has promised to limit the growth in its per capita emissions to less than the growth in developed nations. Indonesia has pledged to reduce emissions from its energy sector to 17 per cent less than they were projected to be in 2025.

  • Kevin Rudd’s $300m ‘phantom’ buyback sparks new row with states

     

    “He’s not buying water, he’s buying the air that runs over the dams,” Opposition environment spokesman Greg Hunt said.

    Of the 240 billion litres the Rudd Government purchased, less than 48GL would have flowed in the rivers under this year’s allocations. Much less would have reached the Murray River to help Adelaide’s water supply crisis and the dying Lower Lakes.

    Nearly half the water is in the Gwydir and Lachlan river systems. But both end in terminal wetlands, meaning only in flood years does the Gwydir flow into the Darling River, and the Lachlan flow into the Murrumbidgee. The waters of the Macquarie, Darling and Barwon are severely reduced in their journey through Menindee Lakes where, when it is full, 460GL evaporates every year.

    The NSW Government reacted to the sale by placing an embargo on any further buybacks in the state and demanded that Victorian irrigators be called on to sell their share of water licences.

    The Rudd Government is understood to be finalising an additional $50 million purchase of Murray River water from Murray Irrigation Ltd in NSW, setting up a possible showdown with the Rees Government.

    Since taking power, Mr Rudd has vowed to spend $12.9 billion on water programs, including $3.1billion to buy irrigation licences and $5.8 billion on irrigation infrastructure.

    The program is aimed at saving the Murray-Darling system, which has been badly degraded by reduced water flows caused by a combination of over-allocation of licences and severe drought.

    The Prime Minister visited the banks of the Murrumbidgee River near Canberra yesterday to announce the Twynam purchase, which followed last year’s $23million purchase of NSW’s Toorale Station.

    Twynam farms 285,000ha over a series of properties in NSW fed by the Murrumbidgee, Lachlan, Macquarie and Gwydir river systems. It is believed to be the biggest single owner of water entitlements in the country.

    The company will use the $303million to continue its ongoing process of moving out of irrigated cropping into dryland crops such as grains.

    The deal will bring the total amount of water entitlements acquired by the Government to 297 billion litres.

    Mr Rudd said the buyback would be a boon for the river system.

    “Historical over-allocation and climate change are having a devastating impact on the Murray-Darling Basin’s unique environmental assets,” the Prime Minister said.

    “If we don’t start to make this adjustment now, irrigators and the communities who depend on them face a far tougher and more abrupt cut in the future.”

    He said his action provided a stark contrast to the Howard government’s failure to buy back a single litre in water licences.

    He also rounded on Malcolm Turnbull, the former environment minister, for failing to show leadership on water or climate change.

    The Opposition Leader had “squibbed in the face of the right-wing ideologues” within the Liberal Party and the Nationals, the Prime Minister said.

    However, Mr Hunt said Mr Rudd should focus on improving irrigation infrastructure rather than buying phantom water.

    “He is spending hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money and hoping it rains,” Mr Hunt said.

    “What happened to the $5.8billion for vital water infrastructure works in rural areas which the Coalition left for Mr Rudd? Australian farmers want to help to deliver water savings through improved water efficiencies and support this water infrastructure fund.”

    “It means, as it rains, the rivers get a greater share. It is the responsible thing to do to purchase water entitlements,” Senator Wong said.

    A Twynam statement said the company, controlled by the Kahlbetzer family, had initiated the sale by approaching the Government. “Over the past few years, river water systems have been well below the historical availability of water on those river systems in which Twynam operates due to dry seasonal conditions,” the statement said.

    “Twynam has been actively managing the transition of its operations away from extensive irrigation.”

    Australian Conservation Foundation healthy rivers campaigner Arlene Buchan said the licences were spread around key bird-breeding areas and other high conservation value areas around the Murrumbidgee, Lachlan, Macquarie, Barwon and Gwydir rivers. “Each of these rivers has wetlands that will benefit greatly from this purchase,” she said.

    NSW Irrigators Council chief executive Andrew Gregson said the deal meant the state had surrendered more than its fair share of irrigation licences, with all major water purchase coming from NSW. “There has been no attempt on behalf of the commonwealth to purchase from other states,” he said.

    The National Farmers Federation questioned whether the Government had considered the impacts of the sale on local communities.

    Nationals agriculture spokesman John Cobb backed the concern, saying he was appalled that his electorate being “hit again”. “Here we have the Rudd Government ripping 240 gigalitres of water out of regional communities, which has the potential to create hundreds of jobs in regional Australia, grow thousands of tonnes of food and fibre to feed people and permanently stimulate the economy.”