Author: admin

  • Desalination may trigger water price hike

    But cost confusion rife if dams overflow: In the long term, however, the supply of water should adjust to maintain the supply/demand balance. In this context, it may be more appropriate for usage prices to reflect the LRMC of supply, rather than the short term scarcity of water. Further, setting prices to reflect the short term changes in supply of water may result in perverse outcomes, for example, very low usage prices may be required when the dams are overflowing such that usage prices do not inform customers about the costs of providing them with water in the long term.

    Reflecting costs of desalination plant in prices: There were a wide range of issues relating to how best to reflect the costs of the desalination plant in prices. The first issue that the Tribunal would need to consider was whether the costs of the desalination plant, or a proportion of these costs, should be recovered through developer charges rather than the periodic charges.

    Depends on desal future demand outlook: This largely depended on whether the plant had been constructed to meet the likely future demands placed on Sydney’s water supply due to new growth or whether it is constructed to ensure security of water supply for existing customers. If the plant, for example, had been constructed to meet future demand from new growth areas then it may be consistent with existing pricing policies to recover part of these costs through the upfront developer charges. If the costs of the desalination plant were to be recovered through the periodic charge, the Tribunal will need to consider whether the costs should be reflected in the fixed component of the two-part tariff or whether it should be reflected also in the usage component of the charge. This would, in part, relate to the operating rules of the plant.

    When should desal payoff start? Another issue related to the desalination plant was the point in the price path that these costs should begin to be reflected in water prices. One option, for example, was to allow the capital costs related to the construction of the plant to be recovered from users prior to the plant commencing operation. This may mean a fixed charge being levied on users prior to the commencement of the plant with the usage component of the charge only commencing once the plant is operated. The Tribunal will consider these timing issues for the desalination plant as part of its inquiry processes.

    Tell IPART which system to choose: IPART sought comment on whether the costs of the desalination plant should be:

    • incorporated in upfront developer charges or Sydney Water’s periodic prices or a combination of both;

    • recovered through the fixed component of the two-part tariff or a mix of fixed and usage components;

    • reflected in Sydney Water’s prices prior to the plant being operational.

    Reference: Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal, Review of prices for Sydney Water Corporation’s water, sewerage, stormwater and recycled water from 1 July 2008.Water – Issues Paper DP92, August 2007. Inquiries regarding this document should be directed to a staff member: Richard Warner: (02) 9290 8406; Nigel Rajaratnam: (02) 9290 8467 Website: http://www.ipart.nsw.gov.au

    Erisk Net, 21/8/2007

  • Find out about the issues around GE crops

    The Victorian moratorium on GM canola was introduced in March 2004 to protect farmers from the inevitable financial losses that would result from the introduction of GE canola. It is currently due to expire on February 29, 2008, unless a new moratorium order is introduced.

    However, there is a strong push in the Victoria’s State Labour government, notably from  Agriculture Minister, Joe Helper, who wants to lift the moratorium on genetically engineered (GE) canola. The announcement was plastered across the front page of the Sunday Age in May 2007, leaving many people choking on their cornflakes. Response was a huge public backlash which left the Sunday Age letters editor drowning in letters from angry consumers.

    Joe Helper issued a speedy retraction the next day, in which he promised to consult with business. He later amended this statement and promised to consult the community as well! This was followed by the announcement on 22nd May of an ‘independent’ panel to review Victoria’s moratorium on the commercial planting of GE canola.

    Full article http://www.truefood.org.au/news2.html?mode=aust&newsid=354

    Other GM news stories on ebono.org:

    Row brewing over GM canola moratorium

    War of words erupts over GM canola

    WA university set to spread GE crops

  • What you can do to stop GM

    Tell the your State Minister that GM crops is an election issue – for you

    The Australian state governments of New South Wales, South Australia, Tasmania and Victoria are under pressure from the Howard Federal Government and the biotech industry to lift bans on growing genetically modified (GM) food crops, like GM canola.

    All have announced panel inquiries into whether the GM bans are necessary. Yes, they are!

    Email or write to your State MP, letting them know that you are against GM products and you consider this to be a federal election issue. With enough response from the public, they’ll be sure to pass the news onto Kevin Rudd and cohorts. 

    The current legislation for states and territories are:

    The Australian Capital Territory (ACT) has introduced a moratorium on the commercial release of GM food crops in the ACT until 2006+. The moratorium will be reviewed annually. The Health Minister has indicated that the ACT will continue to support licensed, scientific research into genetically modified organisms (GMOs) being conducted in territory.

    Katy Gallagher, MLA
    Deputy Chief Minister; Minister for Health
    ACT Legislative Assembly
    GPO Box 1020
    Canberra ACT 2601
    gallagher@act.gov.au

    The New South Wales (NSW) Government has banned GM food crops until 2008. It has not banned GM cotton, which has been grown commercially in Australia since 1996, and will allow any GM crop field trials to continue at the discretion of the Agriculture Minister.

    The Hon. Ian Macdonald,
    Level 33 Governor Macquarie Tower,
    1 Farrer Place,
    Sydney NSW 2000
    macdonald.office@macdonald.minister.nsw.gov.au

    The South Australian (SA) Government has implemented legislation to establish a moratorium on GM crops until 2008. The Bill does provide for exemptions to allow field trials to continue under specific conditions.

    Hon Rory McEwen MP
    Minister for Agriculture, Food & Fisheries
    GPO Box 668
    Adelaide SA 5001
    minister.mcewen@state.sa.gov.au

    The Tasmanian Government has extended its moratorium on the commercial release of GM crops and animals in Tasmania until 2009. Provisions for research trials using GM non-food crops continue to be strictly enforced, for example GM poppy field trials have continued in the state despite the moratorium

    David Llewellyn
    Minister for Primary Industries and Water
    GPO Box 123B
    Hobart TASMANIA 7001
    No email address!

    The Victorian Government has implemented a moratorium until 2008, with the Control of Genetically Modified Crops 2004 Bill passed in May 2004. The Bill specifically prohibits the commercial planting of GM canola.

    Joe Helper
    Minister for Agriculture
    PO Box 175
    Maryborough VIC 3465
     joe.helper@parliament.vic.gov.au

    In December 2003, the Genetically Modified Crops Free Areas Bill 2003 was passed by Western  Australian Parliament, and in March 2004, the Premier declared the entire state of Western Australian a GM free area.
    A review of the operation and effectiveness of the Act is to be conducted in 2008.

    The Hon Kim M Chance MLC
    Minister for Agriculture and Food
    11th Floor, Dumas House
    2 Havelock Street
    West Perth WA 6005
    kim-chance@dpc.wa.gov.au

    Both the Queensland and Northern Territory Governments support the national gene technology regulatory scheme and have not implemented any further legislation.

  • Bayer blames God for GE contamination!

    Bayer GE Rice

    Tuesday, 6 February 2007: You might blame the dog for eating your homework, or a traffic jam for being late to work. But if you ever find yourself facing a multimillion-dollar class action lawsuit for contaminating the world’s number one food crop with an unapproved genetically engineered variety, just do what biotech company Bayer does. Blame God!

    Yes folks, it seems that according to Bayer, God hasn’t been dealing with the big issues lately. Instead of answering millions of prayers, stopping wars or ending famines, God has left all the important things to gather dust in the heavenly inbox whilst ensuring Bayer’s unapproved variety of genetically engineered (GE) rice goes forth and multiplies around the world instead.

    According to documents submitted to the court by Bayer, last year’s massive contamination of US rice with an unapproved, experimental variety of rice called LL601 was due to ‘acts of God’ or the rice farmers themselves.

    Pushing the blame onto the rice farmers is no surprise, as the farmers are the ones suing Bayer for millions of dollars of lost income. The price of US rice plummeted last year, immediately following the discovery of the GE contamination in rice exported to Europe and Japan, where consumer resistance to Bayer’s less-than-divine intervention in their food is strong.

    Full article

  • Row brewing over GM canola moratorium

    Posted Tue May 29, 2007 12:39pm AEST

    ABC Online   

    The Organic Agriculture Association is urging dairy farmers to oppose the lifting of a moratorium on genetically modified canola.

    The State Government is conducting a review on the moratorium due to be lifted early next year.

    Canola crop The Organic Association’s Robin Grant says once the ban is lifted no-one will be able to stop the G-M crops spreading to non-GM properties.

    And she says the invading crops will be resistant to conventional weed killers.

    She says evidence of canola spread can be seen along railway lines in Victoria’s cropping belt.

    "The amount of canola that is along those railway lines if you go there in October when it’s flowering you’ll just see that they can’t control these crops," she said.

    "The agricultural weeds that are on our roadsides now, they just can’t control it, they won’t be able to control it."

  • War of words erupts over GM canola

    Posted Mon Aug 20, 2007 2:23pm AEST

    ABC News Online

    Federal Labor’s primary industry spokesman Kerry O’Brien is accusing Agriculture Minister Peter McGauran of promoting one side of the genetically modified (GM) canola argument.

    Mr McGauran released a report on GM crops this month and is pushing state governments to drop their bans on GM canola.

    Senator O’Brien says Mr McGauran ignored sections of the report referring to consumer resistance, divisions in the farming community and weed problems.

    He says Mr McGauran is setting up another argument with the states.

    "There is also the question of whether the markets are going to be there for our product or whether there’s any advantage to the extra expenditure that’s spent in getting a higher value for the crop that’s grown," he said.

    "All these issues have to be dealt with, this is something to be dealt with dispassionately, not in the heat of an election campaign for political advantage."

    Mr McGauran says lifting the bans will put choice on GM technologies in the hands of farmers.

    He says he acknowledges the report was not all positive, but he says most farmers are in favour of GM technology.

    "The problem for Senator O’Brien is he’s walking both sides of the street, he doesn’t support nor oppose GM, I think the political cowardice after all these years and all of the data and evidence available not to make a decision, you’re either for the commercial release or you’re not, so long as all the safeguards are in place," he said.