Green buzz words are best avoided for mostly they contain a high concentration of bunkum

Have you ever wondered who invents the catchy Green double words that are designed to surreptitiously promote the Green cause?.. like the following
global warming
climate change
carbon footprint
gay marriage
healthy river
clean coal
carbon pollution
big polluters
clean energy
carbon tax
ocean acidification
The way these double words are used, either very much distorts the genuine meaning of the words, or presents a false meaning with the aim of supporting the cause, which on deeper analysis is shown to be claptrap. A basic objective and theme is to rob tax payers' money to be wasted on some bizarre scheme. For example:

1. A decade ago we were supposed to be scared of global warming ... nothing happened. It is impossible to measure global temperature changes of a fraction of a degree in a year. Dream on. We have had about 12 years with no detectable rise in global temperature. So global warming was changed to "climate change" and anything variable with the weather is blamed on climate change (in the hope that no geologists object, by saying climate is always changing irrespective of CO2 emissions). The Government grant scam is perpetuated by applicants mentioning "climate change" and promoting the eco-religion that we must do something about it.

2. Next "carbon footprint" was invented to scare people .. what a load of bunkum. It is a foolhardy eco-religion that thinks we can have a prosperous society without burning carbon and hydrocarbon fuels. The gas carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant and its emission is welcomed by the biosphere and farmers as it is a free fertilizer. This is not to be confused with "carbon farming" which also is a nonsense.

3. Gay marriage does not exist. Leave the Marriage Act and the traditional meaning of the word alone. Find another word to describe a gay relationship.

4. "Healthy river" is an inapropriate term to describe Australia's Murray River which is supposed to always flow out to sea at the ocean mouth. This is a nonsense. Over a decade in the Murray-Darling Basin you may on average have about 6 years low flow in drought , 3 years normal flow and 1 year flood. It is ridiculous to expect the river to always flow to sea by stealing more water from the irrigators. It is necessary to maintain water (sea) levels in the Lower Lakes during times of drought.

5. "Clean coal" is a bizarre scheme whereby the CO2 liberated at coal-fired power stations is captured and buried underground in order to stop the "pollution". It is called carbon sequestration (hiding carbon) which is a complete nonsense. CO2 is NOT an atmospheric pollutant.

6. "Carbon pollution" This is a double falsehood. What is meant by carbon is carbon dioxide which is an invisible harmless atmospheric gas vital for the biosphere, and it is implied to be dirty, thus causing pollution. The word pollution is defined in the dictionary as something that is foul or filthy. Using this word to describe the element carbon is a great insult to the most wonderful element in the Periodic Table, that forms more compounds than all the other elements put together, and is an essential component to all life forms.

7. "Big polluters" these are industries that emit large amounts of Greenhouse gases such as CO2, which is considered pollution. None of the major Greenhouse gases are polluting, eg water vapor and CO2. ABC TV continues with TV News images of white steam issuing from the cooling towers at power stations implying that it is "pollution". This is fraudulent media coverage and must be stopped

8. "Clean energy" is supposed to be superior to any other, presumably coal energy, which is the cheapest and we have plenty of it to last hundreds of years. The Greens want us to use solar and wind energy both of which are very costly and have only a limited economic use today, and are not worth doing.

9. Carbon tax: what is being taxed is CO2 emissions, now at $23/tonne, thanks to PM Julia. How crazy can you get? What does an ex-trade union lawyer know about chemistry?

10."Ocean acidification" The oceans are an enormous buffer solution having a stable alkaline pH of ca 8.1

These double buzz words are very deceptive and are largely used to squeeze or demand money from gullible Governments for the development of bizarre Green Projects, with an accompaning threat of the end of the world coming, or its equivalent. Governments should NOT be in the business of picking winners. Leave this to the private sector and R & D financing will automatically follow the most promising lead and at the appropriate speed.

In conclusion, I suggest that these catchy Green Buzz words be forgotten, and/or exposed as inappropriate when used by the Australian Labor Party and the Greens, the US Democrats, and unfortunately in the UK both Labour and the Coalition, God help the UK.

Murray Darling Basin draft plan under scrutiny today

How hopeless can you get? The pollies and environmentalists annoy me greatly. They can't see the wood for the trees. It is all spin, spin, spin and how does my approach effect my voter support.
Jay Weatherall, Premier for South Australia, insists that SA is getting a raw deal with water and that the proposed 2750 GL (billion litres) environmental flows is not enough to meet environmental needs. (The river basin is presently in flood and has been past year). He threatens to take the matter to the High Court. Peter Owen of the Wilderness Society, insists a minimum of 4000 GL environmental flow is necessary to maintain a "healthy river" and flow out to sea.
The NSW and VIC irrigators don't want to loose more water to the environment (and so to be wasted in South Australia, if it even gets there).
SA Labor Gov has commissioned the Goyder Report on the matter which comes to the predictable conclusion that the MDBasin plan should release much more than 2750GL to the river.
In my opinion, the whole media controversy is a nonsense and I suggest that the idea, or model of a "healthy river" that flows out to sea at the Murray mouth all the time is bunkum, or wishful thinking. It hasn't happened in the past and there is no need to force the river to do it now, to the great detriment of having water restrictions for irrigation further up the watershed during drought times.
The current predicament during drought times (maybe 7 out of 10 years) is the MISMANAGEMENT by the South Australian Government of the Lower Lakes system by maintaining a closure of the barrages, or sea dykes, that prevent the sea from entering Lake Alexander and Albert and restoring a natural estuarine system when there are drought conditions inland. Details of the true water state of the region is admirably exposed by Jennifer Marohasy

"Healthy River" model not acceptable for MDBasin Plan

The "Healthy River" Model of the Murray should be consigned to the dustbin. It is promoted by Don Henry, CEO of the Australian Conservation Foundation, as the solution to the problem of water allocation for the Murray Darling Basin. "Healthy river" is spin terminology. It has limited reality. It is more like simplistic eco-religious bunkum.

The objective of the MDBasin plan we are told is to have a "healthy river", says Don Henry. However, alternative objectives must be considered and priorities made when there are multiple objectives. Residents of the region should demand the major objective be "to maximize the agricultural production of the basin", which is already the major food bowl of Australia.

The healthy river idea is concerned with reducing draw-offs by irrigators by 3000 GL for environmental flows, which are supposed to flow into the Lower Lakes (viz., Lakes Alexandrina and Albert) so as to keep them fresh water and then flow out at the ocean mouth. Sounds wonderful, but the idea is not feasible in Australia which has extreme climatic conditions that vary from decade to decade. Such model healthy rivers may be found in the UK or NZ where there is plentiful rainfall year in and year out. .

Australia is different. We have the talent to study the system in all its complexity. First the geography ... what is the MDBasin? Does it include the Lower Lakes? How can a "river" be a "lake" ? A river is a river. A lake is a lake, by definition. The Lower Lakes are not a river but are (were) a sea water estuary that periodically gets flooded with fresh water. A study of the geological system reveals this to have been the case for the past 10,000 years. Prior to that during the last ice age the sea level was ca 120 meters lower and the Lower Lakes did not exist.

We have found out that in times of drought it has not been possible to maintain stable fresh water levels in the Lower Lakes from "environmental flows". The idea is crazy when there is an unlimited supply of sea water available from the Great Southern Ocean which unfortunately is kept out by the Barrages built at the ocean side of the lakes. Sea water floats your boat just as well or better than fresh water, and has a more plentiful supply of edible fish.

Any future MDBasin Plan must consider the merits of a sustainable sea water estuary system. This can be achieved by building Lock Zero at the lower end of the Murray (near Tailem Bend) to control the out flow of fresh water into the lakes. The whole Lower Lakes region including the Barrages needs redesigning by hydro-engineers to maximize its potential for the benefit of the community. More on this later. Allano