Transition apparently thinks we’re being unfair by “casually agreeing” with Joyce that struggling farmers should think of doing something else if their drought-stricken farms are not viable business propositions in the long term.

It’s true that farming subsidies are widespread in many countries, sometimes for cultural reasons (keeping long-farmed regions producing their traditional fare, maintaining traditional rural communities etc) and there may be sound arguments for such things.

Here in Oz we’re traditionally expected to take a sentimental view of the struggling “man on the land” which is not extended to non-farming people in worse circumstances.

I’m no expert but one difference between the situation here and in Europe, for example, is that their subsidised farmers are apparently working good quality land with continual high production. Here we’re looking at farms failing due to prolonged drought, expected to become more frequent in many regions due to climate change.

I invite transition to persuade us that these farms should be kept going indefinitely at public expense even if they’re never likely to produce enough to be worthwhile ventures.

Bubblecar said:

I’m no expert but one difference between the situation here and in Europe, for example, is that their subsidised farmers are apparently working good quality land with continual high production.

I would say that there is a lot of crofting on land we would call very marginal.

Drought seems to be a regular feature of the climate in many parts of Australia. Perhaps more so than other places with large scale agricultural economies. There still seems to be a mindset that droughts are unusual and just bad luck for an honest farmer trying to make a living. But I sense that mindset is losing traction in the cities. It is not a lack of sympathy it is just a pattern emerging that droughts happen frequently in certain places. Unfortunately we are not in the position to predict droughts with any great precision or accuracy. The only thing I can suggest is some sort of scheme where something is set aside during years of plenty to cover for years of drought, or some kind of regional equalisation on a seasonal basis, but that will get very very messy and open to political corruption and interference, and the farmers themselves probably don’t want it if there is a whiff of socilaism to it. So we swing from from bounty to famine, and farmers find out the hard way if they are up to it or not, or if they have chosen good land in a good place.

I’m fundamentally in agreement with Car and Bar, but what I’d add is that as more and more land become unviable for agriculture, the government has a role in aiding the transition of farmers to other careers: assistance with training and relocation etc.

dv said:

I’m fundamentally in agreement with Car and Bar, but what I’d add is that as more and more land become unviable for agriculture, the government has a role in aiding the transition of farmers to other careers: assistance with training and relocation etc.

Listening to the views of most farmers, it seems to me they’d slip easily into new careers as ultra right wing fascists.

http://theconversation.com/new-technology-brings-star-wars-style-desert-moisture-farming-a-step-closer-76183

imagine if they had the political will

>Transition apparently thinks we’re being unfair by “casually agreeing” with Joyce that struggling farmers should think of doing something else if their drought-stricken farms are not viable business propositions in the long term.

individuals are, always have done, so what’s your objective here, with this thread?

hope it’s not a distraction from you being unprofitable

Bubblecar said:

Transition apparently thinks we’re being unfair by “casually agreeing” with Joyce that struggling farmers should think of doing something else if their drought-stricken farms are not viable business propositions in the long term.

It’s true that farming subsidies are widespread in many countries, sometimes for cultural reasons (keeping long-farmed regions producing their traditional fare, maintaining traditional rural communities etc) and there may be sound arguments for such things.

Here in Oz we’re traditionally expected to take a sentimental view of the struggling “man on the land” which is not extended to non-farming people in worse circumstances.

I’m no expert but one difference between the situation here and in Europe, for example, is that their subsidised farmers are apparently working good quality land with continual high production. Here we’re looking at farms failing due to prolonged drought, expected to become more frequent in many regions due to climate change.

I invite transition to persuade us that these farms should be kept going indefinitely at public expense even if they’re never likely to produce enough to be worthwhile ventures.

I can give you at least a dozen good reasons. But each case needs to be evaluated on its own merits.

• Because it’s cheaper to subsidise an unprofitable farm than pay unemployment benefits to the people driven off the land.

• Because nobody benefits from bankruptcy except vulture companies such as Deloittes that haven’t got the morals of an alley cat.

Then there’s the issue of why the farm is unprofitable in the first place.

• Because of climate change – the government money needs to be spent where it’s most needed.

• Because of competition from countries that subsidise their own unprofitable farmers.

• Because with the backlash against mining and the loss of manufacturing, farming is going to be the only thing keeping the Australian economy afloat.

• Because of competition from countries that use what is effectively slave labour.

• Because the farmer has taken a risk that hasn’t paid off, needs to be supported until it can recover.

• Drought relief.

• Driven into debt because of mismanagement of water supplies by the government.

• Driven into debt on mortgage and loan interest. The land, once devalued to its correct value, slashes mortgage repayment expenses.

• Driven into debt by the policies of produce buyers.

• Disease – needs to be supported until the disease can be overcome.

• Because without farmers on the site, the land degenerates so rapidly that it becomes a badland.

• Can’t afford the staff to run the place – get the government to pay volunteer workers.

• Flood, fire, theft.

• Mismanagement – get new managers.

• Excessive government taxes.

All good reasons for subsidising unprofitable farms for an indefinite period of time. Keeping in mind that ‘indefinite’ and ‘infinite’ are not synonyms, and that not all unprofitable farms should be subsidised.

Dropbear said:

dv said:

I’m fundamentally in agreement with Car and Bar, but what I’d add is that as more and more land become unviable for agriculture, the government has a role in aiding the transition of farmers to other careers: assistance with training and relocation etc.

Listening to the views of most farmers, it seems to me they’d slip easily into new careers as ultra right wing fascists.

can’t say I know most farmers, and certainly would never venture to categorizing how most think, generalize that way, hostile-like

re DV’s point above, putting land out of production isn’t as simple as walking away

>so what’s your objective here, with this thread?

My objective was to facilitate a discussion of this topic.

• Because it’s cheaper to subsidise unprofitable farms than spend millions on a “buy Australian” campaign.

• Because if Australia produces its own food, it can’t be held to ransom by the USA and China.

• Because otherwise, money that would go to supporting Australian jobs is lost overseas.

Bubblecar said:

>so what’s your objective here, with this thread?

My objective was to facilitate a discussion of this topic.

for context I wrote individuals are, always have done, so what’s your objective here, with this thread?

How about a Federal farmland serve that allocates viable land to farmers, returns unviable farms back to nature, keeps an eye on farmers land use, monitors current viable farms for problems ?

Base rent on sales?

mollwollfumble said:

• Because if Australia produces its own food, it can’t be held to ransom by the USA and China.

About 2/3 of Australian agricultural production is exported. We produce far more food than we can eat ourselves, and of that some staggering proportion ends up as waste in landfill each year. We are not going to starve any time soon.

Tau.Neutrino said:

How about a Federal farmland serve that allocates viable land to farmers, returns unviable farms back to nature, keeps an eye on farmers land use, monitors current viable farms for problems ?

Base rent on sales?

Sorry about the typo

How about a Federal farmland service that allocates viable land to farmers, returns unviable farms back to nature, keeps an eye on farmers land use, monitors current viable farms for problems ?

Base rent on sales?

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

How about a Federal farmland serve that allocates viable land to farmers, returns unviable farms back to nature, keeps an eye on farmers land use, monitors current viable farms for problems ?

Base rent on sales?

Sorry about the typo

How about a Federal farmland service that allocates viable land to farmers, returns unviable farms back to nature, keeps an eye on farmers land use, monitors current viable farms for problems ?

Base rent on sales?

How about a Federal farmland service that allocates viable land to farmers, returns unviable farms back to nature, keeps an eye on farmers land use, monitors current viable farms for problems ?

This would also need to factor in rain patterns due to climate change

party_pants said:

mollwollfumble said:

• Because if Australia produces its own food, it can’t be held to ransom by the USA and China.

About 2/3 of Australian agricultural production is exported. We produce far more food than we can eat ourselves, and of that some staggering proportion ends up as waste in landfill each year. We are not going to starve any time soon.

And China is our biggest market, importing over twice as much Oz agri-food products than the next biggest importer (Japan).

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

How about a Federal farmland serve that allocates viable land to farmers, returns unviable farms back to nature, keeps an eye on farmers land use, monitors current viable farms for problems ?

Base rent on sales?

Sorry about the typo

How about a Federal farmland service that allocates viable land to farmers, returns unviable farms back to nature, keeps an eye on farmers land use, monitors current viable farms for problems ?

Base rent on sales?

How about a Federal farmland service that allocates viable land to farmers, returns unviable farms back to nature, keeps an eye on farmers land use, monitors current viable farms for problems ?

This would also need to factor in rain patterns due to climate change

This would also need to factor in changing rain patterns due to climate change

Bubblecar said:

party_pants said:

mollwollfumble said:

• Because if Australia produces its own food, it can’t be held to ransom by the USA and China.

About 2/3 of Australian agricultural production is exported. We produce far more food than we can eat ourselves, and of that some staggering proportion ends up as waste in landfill each year. We are not going to starve any time soon.

And China is our biggest market, importing over twice as much Oz agri-food products than the next biggest importer (Japan).

…not just food, also wool.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

How about a Federal farmland serve that allocates viable land to farmers, returns unviable farms back to nature, keeps an eye on farmers land use, monitors current viable farms for problems ?

Base rent on sales?

Sorry about the typo

How about a Federal farmland service that allocates viable land to farmers, returns unviable farms back to nature, keeps an eye on farmers land use, monitors current viable farms for problems ?

Base rent on sales?

How about a Federal farmland service that allocates viable land to farmers, returns unviable farms back to nature, keeps an eye on farmers land use, monitors current viable farms for problems ?

This would also need to factor in rain patterns due to climate change

IME farmers don’t want government or politicians getting involved in their business. A Federal body to assess and distribute land is about the worst idea you could come up with.

If the world reduces food productive by the same rate as wastage?

party_pants said:

mollwollfumble said:

• Because if Australia produces its own food, it can’t be held to ransom by the USA and China.

About 2/3 of Australian agricultural production is exported. We produce far more food than we can eat ourselves, and of that some staggering proportion ends up as waste in landfill each year. We are not going to starve any time soon.

+1

party_pants said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Sorry about the typo

How about a Federal farmland service that allocates viable land to farmers, returns unviable farms back to nature, keeps an eye on farmers land use, monitors current viable farms for problems ?

Base rent on sales?

How about a Federal farmland service that allocates viable land to farmers, returns unviable farms back to nature, keeps an eye on farmers land use, monitors current viable farms for problems ?

This would also need to factor in rain patterns due to climate change

IME farmers don’t want government or politicians getting involved in their business. A Federal body to assess and distribute land is about the worst idea you could come up with.

ok a private body then

Tau.Neutrino said:

If the world reduces food productive by the same rate as wastage?

What if the world reduces food productive by the same rate as wastage?

party_pants said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

Sorry about the typo

How about a Federal farmland service that allocates viable land to farmers, returns unviable farms back to nature, keeps an eye on farmers land use, monitors current viable farms for problems ?

Base rent on sales?

How about a Federal farmland service that allocates viable land to farmers, returns unviable farms back to nature, keeps an eye on farmers land use, monitors current viable farms for problems ?

This would also need to factor in rain patterns due to climate change

IME farmers don’t want government or politicians getting involved in their business. A Federal body to assess and distribute land is about the worst idea you could come up with.

Ok

Perhaps a private body that can help farmers look for viable land via satellite guidance while taking in changing rain patterns to to climate change?

What if the federal government banned farming in unprofitable areas?

Yet, when I say that giving money to third world countries constantly in drought with their people starving is a waste of time I am, somehow, a callous monster…

Tau.Neutrino said:

What if the federal government banned farming in unprofitable areas?

poor rain fall

unsustainable soil quality

>>It’s true that farming subsidies are widespread in many countries, sometimes for cultural reasons (keeping long-farmed regions producing their traditional fare, maintaining traditional rural communities etc) and there may be sound arguments for such things.

That is part of the reason the other is food security
They need to maintain a farming sector in case of wars, physical or trade wars that they have no control over.
Australia does not fall into this category it’s mainly Europe/UK thing.
Subsidising Australian primary producers is not really an imperative it’s just the way we roll these days.
Barnaby who is in a very rural electorate nailed it IMO.
If you cant exist without subsidies you should think about doing something else.
As for saying that most farmers are fascist, well that’s just nutter talk.

Peak Warming Man said:

>>It’s true that farming subsidies are widespread in many countries, sometimes for cultural reasons (keeping long-farmed regions producing their traditional fare, maintaining traditional rural communities etc) and there may be sound arguments for such things.

That is part of the reason the other is food security
They need to maintain a farming sector in case of wars, physical or trade wars that they have no control over.
Australia does not fall into this category it’s mainly Europe/UK thing.

They also do it for food safety standards and public health and the like. The EU are pretty strict and anal about such things. Although it is arguable they make the regulations thus deliberately in order to create a further non-tariff barrier.

party_pants said:

Peak Warming Man said:

>>It’s true that farming subsidies are widespread in many countries, sometimes for cultural reasons (keeping long-farmed regions producing their traditional fare, maintaining traditional rural communities etc) and there may be sound arguments for such things.

That is part of the reason the other is food security
They need to maintain a farming sector in case of wars, physical or trade wars that they have no control over.
Australia does not fall into this category it’s mainly Europe/UK thing.

They also do it for food safety standards and public health and the like. The EU are pretty strict and anal about such things. Although it is arguable they make the regulations thus deliberately in order to create a further non-tariff barrier.

We’re pretty strict on some of that stuff as well, like importing pork on the bone etc.
Also a couple of guys got unbelievable jail sentinses for importing pork sperm, something like 6 years or so.

Peak Warming Man said:

party_pants said:

Peak Warming Man said:

>>It’s true that farming subsidies are widespread in many countries, sometimes for cultural reasons (keeping long-farmed regions producing their traditional fare, maintaining traditional rural communities etc) and there may be sound arguments for such things.

That is part of the reason the other is food security
They need to maintain a farming sector in case of wars, physical or trade wars that they have no control over.
Australia does not fall into this category it’s mainly Europe/UK thing.

They also do it for food safety standards and public health and the like. The EU are pretty strict and anal about such things. Although it is arguable they make the regulations thus deliberately in order to create a further non-tariff barrier.

We’re pretty strict on some of that stuff as well, like importing pork on the bone etc.
Also a couple of guys got unbelievable jail sentinses for importing pork sperm, something like 6 years or so.

In August this year two WA farmers were jailed for importing pig semen in shampoo bottles.

Peak Warming Man said:

>>It’s true that farming subsidies are widespread in many countries, sometimes for cultural reasons (keeping long-farmed regions producing their traditional fare, maintaining traditional rural communities etc) and there may be sound arguments for such things.

That is part of the reason the other is food security
They need to maintain a farming sector in case of wars, physical or trade wars that they have no control over.

This is fine, but that’s not what the problem is. It is one thing to say “we need to make sure Australia would be able to provide enough food to feed itself if the worst comes to worst and our food trade is interrupted” and it is completely another to say “we need to ensure that non-viable farms in semi-arid areas that are going to become more arid are somehow still in operation ten or twenty years from now”.

Right now we are one of the world’s major net food exporters. Even if you made it illegal to farm in arid or semi-arid areas (barring grazing), we would have no problem at all producing food to cover ourselves. Australia is spoilt for highly arable, well-watered hectares per capita.

There’s a case for prudential subsidies to cover farmers in genuinely viable areas to enable them to deal with the cyclical business, but if your farm has not made a profit for 8 years due to low rainfall then it might well be time to think about another line of work.

Apparently some huge amount of irrigated water in the MDB is lost to evaporation. Solving that would be half the job.

Bubblecar said:

Peak Warming Man said:

party_pants said:

They also do it for food safety standards and public health and the like. The EU are pretty strict and anal about such things. Although it is arguable they make the regulations thus deliberately in order to create a further non-tariff barrier.

We’re pretty strict on some of that stuff as well, like importing pork on the bone etc.
Also a couple of guys got unbelievable jail sentinses for importing pork sperm, something like 6 years or so.

In August this year two WA farmers were jailed for importing pig semen in shampoo bottles.

…and last month a Tasmanian garlic grower was jailed for importing garlic bulbs.

furious said:

Yet, when I say that giving money to third world countries constantly in drought with their people starving is a waste of time I am, somehow, a callous monster…

I think you’ve misunderstood, well, all the things. The countries in famine these days are not usually due to drought. It is due to war and poor governance.

Peak Warming Man said:

Also a couple of guys got unbelievable jail sentinses for importing pork sperm, something like 6 years or so.

Did we do puns?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-15/woman-deported-for-smuggling-uncooked-pork/11603336
African swine fever fears spike in Australia as woman deported for smuggling pork into Sydney airport

dv said:

Peak Warming Man said:

>>It’s true that farming subsidies are widespread in many countries, sometimes for cultural reasons (keeping long-farmed regions producing their traditional fare, maintaining traditional rural communities etc) and there may be sound arguments for such things.

That is part of the reason the other is food security
They need to maintain a farming sector in case of wars, physical or trade wars that they have no control over.

This is fine, but that’s not what the problem is. It is one thing to say “we need to make sure Australia would be able to provide enough food to feed itself if the worst comes to worst and our food trade is interrupted” and it is completely another to say “we need to ensure that non-viable farms in semi-arid areas that are going to become more arid are somehow still in operation ten or twenty years from now”.

Right now we are one of the world’s major net food exporters. Even if you made it illegal to farm in arid or semi-arid areas (barring grazing), we would have no problem at all producing food to cover ourselves. Australia is spoilt for highly arable, well-watered hectares per capita.

There’s a case for prudential subsidies to cover farmers in genuinely viable areas to enable them to deal with the cyclical business, but if your farm has not made a profit for 8 years due to low rainfall then it might well be time to think about another line of work.

Some of the Queensland farmers facing hard times are graziers having to truck in hay from far away. Some have been doing this now for nearly a decade with freight subsidies. The subsidies have now been scrapped by the state government.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-28/drought-report-queensland-frieght-subsidies-slashed-by-2021/11260042

Bubblecar said:

Some of the Queensland farmers facing hard times are graziers having to truck in hay from far away. Some have been doing this now for nearly a decade with freight subsidies. The subsidies have now been scrapped by the state government.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-28/drought-report-queensland-frieght-subsidies-slashed-by-2021/11260042

If we had a national rail network with every line of the gauge then hay could be shifted about in large quantities over long distances much more economically.

party_pants said:

Bubblecar said:

Some of the Queensland farmers facing hard times are graziers having to truck in hay from far away. Some have been doing this now for nearly a decade with freight subsidies. The subsidies have now been scrapped by the state government.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-28/drought-report-queensland-frieght-subsidies-slashed-by-2021/11260042

If we had a national rail network with every line of the gauge then hay could be shifted about in large quantities over long distances much more economically.

+same

every line the same gauge…

party_pants said:

Bubblecar said:

Some of the Queensland farmers facing hard times are graziers having to truck in hay from far away. Some have been doing this now for nearly a decade with freight subsidies. The subsidies have now been scrapped by the state government.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-28/drought-report-queensland-frieght-subsidies-slashed-by-2021/11260042

If we had a national rail network with every line of the gauge then hay could be shifted about in large quantities over long distances much more economically.

or we could shift the cattle to where the hay is. and water.

ChrispenEvan said:

party_pants said:

Bubblecar said:

Some of the Queensland farmers facing hard times are graziers having to truck in hay from far away. Some have been doing this now for nearly a decade with freight subsidies. The subsidies have now been scrapped by the state government.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-28/drought-report-queensland-frieght-subsidies-slashed-by-2021/11260042

If we had a national rail network with every line of the gauge then hay could be shifted about in large quantities over long distances much more economically.

or we could shift the cattle to where the hay is. and water.

Wait, cows can walk now?

dv said:

ChrispenEvan said:

party_pants said:

If we had a national rail network with every line of the gauge then hay could be shifted about in large quantities over long distances much more economically.

or we could shift the cattle to where the hay is. and water.

Wait, cows can walk now?

quadrupedally.

Bubblecar said:

dv said:

Peak Warming Man said:

>>It’s true that farming subsidies are widespread in many countries, sometimes for cultural reasons (keeping long-farmed regions producing their traditional fare, maintaining traditional rural communities etc) and there may be sound arguments for such things.

That is part of the reason the other is food security
They need to maintain a farming sector in case of wars, physical or trade wars that they have no control over.

This is fine, but that’s not what the problem is. It is one thing to say “we need to make sure Australia would be able to provide enough food to feed itself if the worst comes to worst and our food trade is interrupted” and it is completely another to say “we need to ensure that non-viable farms in semi-arid areas that are going to become more arid are somehow still in operation ten or twenty years from now”.

Right now we are one of the world’s major net food exporters. Even if you made it illegal to farm in arid or semi-arid areas (barring grazing), we would have no problem at all producing food to cover ourselves. Australia is spoilt for highly arable, well-watered hectares per capita.

There’s a case for prudential subsidies to cover farmers in genuinely viable areas to enable them to deal with the cyclical business, but if your farm has not made a profit for 8 years due to low rainfall then it might well be time to think about another line of work.

Some of the Queensland farmers facing hard times are graziers having to truck in hay from far away. Some have been doing this now for nearly a decade with freight subsidies. The subsidies have now been scrapped by the state government.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-28/drought-report-queensland-frieght-subsidies-slashed-by-2021/11260042

Many of the graziers are flogging their marginal lands. Have cleared all the useful trees and sent most of their topsoil to the oceans.
Why they should be subsidised to clear more trees and flog more land to death seems imbicilical.

ChrispenEvan said:

party_pants said:

Bubblecar said:

Some of the Queensland farmers facing hard times are graziers having to truck in hay from far away. Some have been doing this now for nearly a decade with freight subsidies. The subsidies have now been scrapped by the state government.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-28/drought-report-queensland-frieght-subsidies-slashed-by-2021/11260042

If we had a national rail network with every line of the gauge then hay could be shifted about in large quantities over long distances much more economically.

or we could shift the cattle to where the hay is. and water.

Kidman did that.

roughbarked said:

Bubblecar said:

dv said:

This is fine, but that’s not what the problem is. It is one thing to say “we need to make sure Australia would be able to provide enough food to feed itself if the worst comes to worst and our food trade is interrupted” and it is completely another to say “we need to ensure that non-viable farms in semi-arid areas that are going to become more arid are somehow still in operation ten or twenty years from now”.

Right now we are one of the world’s major net food exporters. Even if you made it illegal to farm in arid or semi-arid areas (barring grazing), we would have no problem at all producing food to cover ourselves. Australia is spoilt for highly arable, well-watered hectares per capita.

There’s a case for prudential subsidies to cover farmers in genuinely viable areas to enable them to deal with the cyclical business, but if your farm has not made a profit for 8 years due to low rainfall then it might well be time to think about another line of work.

Some of the Queensland farmers facing hard times are graziers having to truck in hay from far away. Some have been doing this now for nearly a decade with freight subsidies. The subsidies have now been scrapped by the state government.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-28/drought-report-queensland-frieght-subsidies-slashed-by-2021/11260042

Many of the graziers are flogging their marginal lands. Have cleared all the useful trees and sent most of their topsoil to the oceans.
Why they should be subsidised to clear more trees and flog more land to death seems imbicilical.

I agree, there are a few paradigms about land management in my area.
Now Casey recons you need to leave bush for drought while others think they should clear all the land and plough it to pasture.
From what I’ve seen Casey is right.
There is more feed during a drought in the bush areas than the cleared areas, there is no doubt about that from my observations.
But I’m a newbie, I’ll leave the bush areas and just manage regrowth.

ChrispenEvan said:

dv said:

ChrispenEvan said:

or we could shift the cattle to where the hay is. and water.

Wait, cows can walk now?

quadrupedally.

Hungrily & thirstily.

ChrispenEvan said:

party_pants said:

Bubblecar said:

Some of the Queensland farmers facing hard times are graziers having to truck in hay from far away. Some have been doing this now for nearly a decade with freight subsidies. The subsidies have now been scrapped by the state government.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-28/drought-report-queensland-frieght-subsidies-slashed-by-2021/11260042

If we had a national rail network with every line of the gauge then hay could be shifted about in large quantities over long distances much more economically.

or we could shift the cattle to where the hay is. and water.

Yes. In some situations this might be more advantageous.

Bubblecar said:

Some of the Queensland farmers facing hard times are graziers having to truck in hay from far away. Some have been doing this now for nearly a decade with freight subsidies

They must be the same clowns that keep voting for the National Party, the ones that deny climate change

dv said:

furious said:

Yet, when I say that giving money to third world countries constantly in drought with their people starving is a waste of time I am, somehow, a callous monster…

I think you’ve misunderstood, well, all the things. The countries in famine these days are not usually due to drought. It is due to war and poor governance.

The World’s Dry Areas

Roughly 2.5 billion people – 30 percent of the world’s population – live in the dry areas, which cover more than 40 percent of the world’s land surface. Scarce natural resources, land degradation and frequent droughts severely challenge food production in these areas.

Approximately 1/3 of the population living in drylands depends on agriculture for their food security and livelihoods – often as their only source of income. Drylands are home to the poorest and most marginalized people in the world, with 16 percent of the population living in chronic poverty.

Productivity in dryland regions face a multitude of challenges – persistent water scarcity, frequent droughts, high climatic variability, various forms of land degradation, including desertification, and loss of biodiversity.

Climate change is projected to affect the people living in dry areas and marginal lands the worst. In the developing world, dryland productivity is further hampered by many socioeconomic factors, such as limited access to technology, poor market linkages, weak institutions, lack of partnerships, and marginalization of rural people.

Quick Facts on the World’s Dry Areas

Cover 41 percent of the earth’s surface
Inhabited by 30 percent of the world’s population (2.5 billion people)
Support 50 percent of the world’s livestock
Grow 44 percent of the world’s food
Account for the majority of the world’s poor, with around 16 percent living in chronic poverty
Most of the world’s poor live in dry areas – with 400 million living on less than $1.25 per day
Drylands lose 23 hectares per minute to drought and desertification – a loss of 20 million tons of potential grain production every year.

http://drylandsystems.cgiar.org/content/worlds-dry-areas

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

furious said:

Yet, when I say that giving money to third world countries constantly in drought with their people starving is a waste of time I am, somehow, a callous monster…

I think you’ve misunderstood, well, all the things. The countries in famine these days are not usually due to drought. It is due to war and poor governance.

The World’s Dry Areas

Roughly 2.5 billion people – 30 percent of the world’s population – live in the dry areas, which cover more than 40 percent of the world’s land surface. Scarce natural resources, land degradation and frequent droughts severely challenge food production in these areas.

Approximately 1/3 of the population living in drylands depends on agriculture for their food security and livelihoods – often as their only source of income. Drylands are home to the poorest and most marginalized people in the world, with 16 percent of the population living in chronic poverty.

Productivity in dryland regions face a multitude of challenges – persistent water scarcity, frequent droughts, high climatic variability, various forms of land degradation, including desertification, and loss of biodiversity.

Climate change is projected to affect the people living in dry areas and marginal lands the worst. In the developing world, dryland productivity is further hampered by many socioeconomic factors, such as limited access to technology, poor market linkages, weak institutions, lack of partnerships, and marginalization of rural people.

Quick Facts on the World’s Dry Areas

Cover 41 percent of the earth’s surface
Inhabited by 30 percent of the world’s population (2.5 billion people)
Support 50 percent of the world’s livestock
Grow 44 percent of the world’s food
Account for the majority of the world’s poor, with around 16 percent living in chronic poverty
Most of the world’s poor live in dry areas – with 400 million living on less than $1.25 per day
Drylands lose 23 hectares per minute to drought and desertification – a loss of 20 million tons of potential grain production every year.

http://drylandsystems.cgiar.org/content/worlds-dry-areas

So you agree with me

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

I think you’ve misunderstood, well, all the things. The countries in famine these days are not usually due to drought. It is due to war and poor governance.

The World’s Dry Areas

Roughly 2.5 billion people – 30 percent of the world’s population – live in the dry areas, which cover more than 40 percent of the world’s land surface. Scarce natural resources, land degradation and frequent droughts severely challenge food production in these areas.

Approximately 1/3 of the population living in drylands depends on agriculture for their food security and livelihoods – often as their only source of income. Drylands are home to the poorest and most marginalized people in the world, with 16 percent of the population living in chronic poverty.

Productivity in dryland regions face a multitude of challenges – persistent water scarcity, frequent droughts, high climatic variability, various forms of land degradation, including desertification, and loss of biodiversity.

Climate change is projected to affect the people living in dry areas and marginal lands the worst. In the developing world, dryland productivity is further hampered by many socioeconomic factors, such as limited access to technology, poor market linkages, weak institutions, lack of partnerships, and marginalization of rural people.

Quick Facts on the World’s Dry Areas

Cover 41 percent of the earth’s surface
Inhabited by 30 percent of the world’s population (2.5 billion people)
Support 50 percent of the world’s livestock
Grow 44 percent of the world’s food
Account for the majority of the world’s poor, with around 16 percent living in chronic poverty
Most of the world’s poor live in dry areas – with 400 million living on less than $1.25 per day
Drylands lose 23 hectares per minute to drought and desertification – a loss of 20 million tons of potential grain production every year.

http://drylandsystems.cgiar.org/content/worlds-dry-areas

So you agree with me

Pity you can’t remember your previous posts. You can learn by your mistakes.

>Barnaby who is in a very rural electorate nailed it IMO.
>As for saying that most farmers are fascist, well that’s just nutter talk.

doubt BJ be taking much responsibility for appealing to and licensing that sort of sentiment, like an arsonist might be indifferent to leaving their fingerprints on a metho container at the scene of a house inferno they lit, their only concern being it burns real hot for long enough before the fire truck gets there

PermeateFree said:

Pity you can’t remember your previous posts. You can learn by your mistakes.

Nah I’m good at tracking like that.

So the major famines of the last 25 years have been in North Korea, Yemen, Somalia, South Sudan and the Congo, in each case having primarily military or political causes disrupting distribution.

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

Pity you can’t remember your previous posts. You can learn by your mistakes.

Nah I’m good at tracking like that.

So the major famines of the last 25 years have been in North Korea, Yemen, Somalia, South Sudan and the Congo, in each case having primarily military or political causes disrupting distribution.

You ignore the cause of drought being a lack of water from natural events. If that fails there is drought regardless of the political situation in the countries involved, which is just an added problem.

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

Pity you can’t remember your previous posts. You can learn by your mistakes.

Nah I’m good at tracking like that.

So the major famines of the last 25 years have been in North Korea, Yemen, Somalia, South Sudan and the Congo, in each case having primarily military or political causes disrupting distribution.

You ignore the cause of drought being a lack of water from natural events. If that fails there is drought regardless of the political situation in the countries involved, which is just an added problem.

You may have noticed that drought only causes famine in countries with poorly or non-functioning economies and social security systems. There are plenty of surpluses produced elsewhere that these people could be consuming.

Bubblecar said:

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

Nah I’m good at tracking like that.

So the major famines of the last 25 years have been in North Korea, Yemen, Somalia, South Sudan and the Congo, in each case having primarily military or political causes disrupting distribution.

You ignore the cause of drought being a lack of water from natural events. If that fails there is drought regardless of the political situation in the countries involved, which is just an added problem.

You may have noticed that drought only causes famine in countries with poorly or non-functioning economies and social security systems. There are plenty of surpluses produced elsewhere that these people could be consuming.

Well you tell that to a third of the human population and see what response you get.

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

PermeateFree said:

You ignore the cause of drought being a lack of water from natural events. If that fails there is drought regardless of the political situation in the countries involved, which is just an added problem.

You may have noticed that drought only causes famine in countries with poorly or non-functioning economies and social security systems. There are plenty of surpluses produced elsewhere that these people could be consuming.

Well you tell that to a third of the human population and see what response you get.

I don’t have to tell them that, they already know.

PermeateFree said:

Well you tell that to a third of the human population and see what response you get.

You’re wrong if you think one third of the human population is in famine.

Bubblecar said:

PermeateFree said:

Bubblecar said:

You may have noticed that drought only causes famine in countries with poorly or non-functioning economies and social security systems. There are plenty of surpluses produced elsewhere that these people could be consuming.

Well you tell that to a third of the human population and see what response you get.

I don’t have to tell them that, they already know.

You are talking about 2.5 billion people in drought prone areas. Australia produces enough food in excess of its requirements to feed only 60 million people and there is no way we would give all of that away in food aid. So where is all this food coming from to feed billions?

dv said:

PermeateFree said:

Well you tell that to a third of the human population and see what response you get.

You’re wrong if you think one third of the human population is in famine.

No, but they all live in drought prone areas.

>>Roughly 2.5 billion people – 30 percent of the world’s population – live in the dry areas, which cover more than 40 percent of the world’s land surface. Scarce natural resources, land degradation and frequent droughts severely challenge food production in these areas.<<

Australia’s problems and world problems are completely different. There is no point discussing world problems in this thread about the pros and cons of subsidising unprofitable Australian farms. It is not going to contribute anything much towards alleviating world hunger or poverty, even though we produce a large food surplus in proportion to our domestic population it’s a drop in a bucket or a piss in a swimming pool really in overall world numbers.

party_pants said:

Australia’s problems and world problems are completely different. There is no point discussing world problems in this thread about the pros and cons of subsidising unprofitable Australian farms. It is not going to contribute anything much towards alleviating world hunger or poverty, even though we produce a large food surplus in proportion to our domestic population it’s a drop in a bucket or a piss in a swimming pool really in overall world numbers.

True. I was responding to an offhand comment by furious. I didn’t mean to derail the thread.
Might be worth another thread.

transition said:

>Barnaby who is in a very rural electorate nailed it IMO.
>As for saying that most farmers are fascist, well that’s just nutter talk.

doubt BJ be taking much responsibility for appealing to and licensing that sort of sentiment, like an arsonist might be indifferent to leaving their fingerprints on a metho container at the scene of a house inferno they lit, their only concern being it burns real hot for long enough before the fire truck gets there

i’ll post that again, because sadly missed in all that I see was any mention of peoples family homes, not insignificantly remiss

conjures Mr Burns and that’s about where our culture’s at, and they’re multiplying

Yesterday at 15:42 Condoblin.

So, we ran out of drinking water, and our only option was to buy some and have is transported to our farm. It cost $900 for a tanker load (water plus transport). For the first time in three years, I put my pride aside and visited the Drought Hub Mobile Bus when it was in town to see how I could apply the Emergency Drought Relief Transport Subsidy. It turns out we are not eligible as we do not own stock and are only croppers. I then asked what drought relief help is available for “just croppers”, to which the NSW DPI representative replied “there is isn’t anything much, but maybe that will change, but who knows?” I looked her in the eye and said we have watched our crops die in front of our eyes for the past three years, and I cannot even get 50 per cent on transport costs for drinking water? An emphatic “No” was the reply. Why are we even bothering? Drinking water is a necessity, not some frivolous purchase. I went home feeling deflated to say the least.

Witty Rejoinder said:

Apparently some huge amount of irrigated water in the MDB is lost to evaporation. Solving that would be half the job.

Building more dams will only increase this loss rate.

sarahs mum said:

Yesterday at 15:42 Condoblin.

So, we ran out of drinking water, and our only option was to buy some and have is transported to our farm. It cost $900 for a tanker load (water plus transport). For the first time in three years, I put my pride aside and visited the Drought Hub Mobile Bus when it was in town to see how I could apply the Emergency Drought Relief Transport Subsidy. It turns out we are not eligible as we do not own stock and are only croppers. I then asked what drought relief help is available for “just croppers”, to which the NSW DPI representative replied “there is isn’t anything much, but maybe that will change, but who knows?” I looked her in the eye and said we have watched our crops die in front of our eyes for the past three years, and I cannot even get 50 per cent on transport costs for drinking water? An emphatic “No” was the reply. Why are we even bothering? Drinking water is a necessity, not some frivolous purchase. I went home feeling deflated to say the least.

This actually beggars belief.
Croppers can feed ten times as many people as graziers. The issue comes out of what is notionally decribed as water for stock and domestic having a higher priority, rorted by those who have stock.

roughbarked said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Apparently some huge amount of irrigated water in the MDB is lost to evaporation. Solving that would be half the job.

Building more dams will only increase this loss rate.

I was thinking covered irrigation channels would help.

Witty Rejoinder said:

roughbarked said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Apparently some huge amount of irrigated water in the MDB is lost to evaporation. Solving that would be half the job.

Building more dams will only increase this loss rate.

I was thinking covered irrigation channels would help.

And corporations building new dams at the taxpayers expense would not be helping water loss from evaporation
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/up-to-30-dams-built-with-government-subsidies-despite-minister-s-claim

Witty Rejoinder said:

roughbarked said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Apparently some huge amount of irrigated water in the MDB is lost to evaporation. Solving that would be half the job.

Building more dams will only increase this loss rate.

I was thinking covered irrigation channels would help.

Channels have been lined covered and piped everywhere in order to reduce loss and create more efficiency but this has downsides as well in that there is no groundwater from seepage anymore and the entireity of our waterways depend upon this seepage. Also, farmers have simply moved this ‘saved’ water to make more and bigger farms, to the detriment of the environment yet still the farmers are broke and drought stricken with hands out to the government. Meanwhile we throw huge amounts of food away uneaten.

roughbarked said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

roughbarked said:

Building more dams will only increase this loss rate.

I was thinking covered irrigation channels would help.

Channels have been lined covered and piped everywhere in order to reduce loss and create more efficiency but this has downsides as well in that there is no groundwater from seepage anymore and the entireity of our waterways depend upon this seepage. Also, farmers have simply moved this ‘saved’ water to make more and bigger farms, to the detriment of the environment yet still the farmers are broke and drought stricken with hands out to the government. Meanwhile we throw huge amounts of food away uneaten.

Cool. Thanks for your imput.

roughbarked said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

roughbarked said:

Building more dams will only increase this loss rate.

I was thinking covered irrigation channels would help.

Channels have been lined covered and piped everywhere in order to reduce loss and create more efficiency but this has downsides as well in that there is no groundwater from seepage anymore and the entireity of our waterways depend upon this seepage. Also, farmers have simply moved this ‘saved’ water to make more and bigger farms, to the detriment of the environment yet still the farmers are broke and drought stricken with hands out to the government. Meanwhile we throw huge amounts of food away uneaten.

Agree with everything except your last sentence.

Startlingly little food goes to waste.

Eg. We get a big delivery of unsold bakery food each month, and divide it four ways – for the homeless, for the church, for ourselves, and for feeding wildlife. None of it goes to waste.

On farms, too, unsold food ends up as fertiliser and stock feed. Not “thrown away uneaten”.

mollwollfumble said:

roughbarked said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

I was thinking covered irrigation channels would help.

Channels have been lined covered and piped everywhere in order to reduce loss and create more efficiency but this has downsides as well in that there is no groundwater from seepage anymore and the entireity of our waterways depend upon this seepage. Also, farmers have simply moved this ‘saved’ water to make more and bigger farms, to the detriment of the environment yet still the farmers are broke and drought stricken with hands out to the government. Meanwhile we throw huge amounts of food away uneaten.

Agree with everything except your last sentence.

Startlingly little food goes to waste.

Eg. We get a big delivery of unsold bakery food each month, and divide it four ways – for the homeless, for the church, for ourselves, and for feeding wildlife. None of it goes to waste.

On farms, too, unsold food ends up as fertiliser and stock feed. Not “thrown away uneaten”.

https://www.ozharvest.org/what-we-do/environment-facts/

roughbarked said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

roughbarked said:

Building more dams will only increase this loss rate.

I was thinking covered irrigation channels would help.

Channels have been lined covered and piped everywhere in order to reduce loss and create more efficiency but this has downsides as well in that there is no groundwater from seepage anymore and the entireity of our waterways depend upon this seepage. Also, farmers have simply moved this ‘saved’ water to make more and bigger farms, to the detriment of the environment yet still the farmers are broke and drought stricken with hands out to the government. Meanwhile we throw huge amounts of food away uneaten.

you ever noticed how you can put an s on the end of something, pointing to category or type, lends to generalization, and how easy generalization goes to hostile generalization, and done a few times you can remove the s and the category lingers in reference to any singular of specific example, as if category defines any individual example

then an all-inclusive-daddy-we can turn up for further perspective, overseeing the hoodoo