Traveston About More Than Water

Peter Garrett must have felt confident the range of biodiversity protection measures built into the dam design would not achieve their objective of protecting the lungfish and the turtles. But ultimately, water – as much as climate change – will put a limit on the number of people the planet can support. Tor Hundloe provides the bigger picture.

Tor Hundloe in the Courier Mail (12 November 2009):

BEFORE we rush to condemn or congratulate Peter Garrett for his decision to reject the Traveston Dam, we should try to imagine ourselves in his place.

I wonder how many of us would relish being given the responsibility he had.

The first thing we have to do is fully understand his charter – which matters are in his court and which rest elsewhere?

As federal Environment Minister, his focus has to be the big picture. His job was not to make decisions on issues such as the amount of land that had to be inundated, the number of farmers and residents to be relocated, or alternatives to the dam such as water recycling.

Rather, he is charged with protecting and promoting the national interest when it comes to this country’s natural assets.

And that means maintaining the ecological integrity of World Heritage areas such as Fraser Island, the Great Barrier Reef and the Wet Tropics.

And it means protecting biodiversity.

One of the most obvious threats to biodiversity is the loss of threatened and endangered animals and plants, which is where the Mary River turtle and the lungfish came into play. Garrett had to satisfy himself the threatened animals would survive the building of the dam. His decision points to the fact that he and his large staff of public servants, assisted by the assessment of scientists, came to the conclusion the animals would not be safe.

Garrett and his advisers must have felt confident the range of biodiversity protection measures built into the dam design would not achieve their objective of protecting the lungfish and the turtles.

I understand that most of us, on whatever side we fall, have not had the same access to all the data and analysis as the Minister.

This means we will probably continue to argue among ourselves about the dam based on our emotions, on our ideals of fairness and our vision for the future of southeast Queensland.

On this basis, reasonable people will disagree unless they are able to put aside personal interests and immerse themselves in some science. This is a very difficult task.

I have seen the Mary Valley community conflict over the dam first-hand.

My great-grandparents were among the first settlers in the area. Great-grandmother Lucy Salmon wrote in the New Idea in the 1930s of the trials, tribulations and adventure of moving her large family from northern NSW into the Gympie area by horse-drawn wagon.

Those of my relatives who have felt uneasy with my work and advocacy as an environmental scientist, particularly in my assessment some years ago of the damage forestry was doing on Fraser Island, came to welcome me as an ally against the dam.

This was notwithstanding the fact it has not been an issue on which I have researched and hence offered an opinion. Presumably as a “green” person I simply had to be on their side.

My relatives have not been united on the dam. Some see it as a necessity if water is to be provided to the rapidly growing population from Gympie south to the border.

Both schools of thought, if I can call them such, canvass the relative merits of alternatives to the dam, such as desalination, recycling or piping water from northern New South Wales.

They, and I, find most other people interested in the issue seek to comprehend what is driving the current demand for more fresh water.

The rapid population growth is the near-universal answer.

You don’t have to be a hydrologist to know that whoever made the water on the earth stopped making it millions and millions of years ago.

The water allocation problem is having sufficient supplies where people live.

We can speed up the recycling of water by putting it through water-cleaning infrastructure. Not everyone is happy with this.

We can desalinate – the whole of the United Arab Emirates survives by using its considerable oil revenue to convert sea water to drinking water.

We can use much less per person, as we did during the drought.

But ultimately, water – as much as climate change – will put a limit on the number of people the planet can support.

And this certainly applies to our little corner of the planet.

Garrett’s decision did not resolve the real issue we face on a rapidly crowding planet.

Until we as a society are willing to seek common outcomes for the common good, we will continue to argue needlessly, and the next decision will become even harder to make.

Finally, policy paralysis sets in.

Tor Hundloe is a Foundation Professor of Environmental Science at Bond University. His book The Planet of the Thinking Animal: How to Survive the 21st Century was released in September.

Source: www.news.com.au