🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 01:15:19 GMT, "Stan Pierce"
<tpierce@bigpond.net.au> wrote:

>
>"Ned Latham" <ned@arthur.valhalla.oz> wrote in message
>news:slrncnofol.trp.ned@arthur.valhalla.oz...
>(snipped)
>> Compare that with a solar furnace, which can be built anywhere the
>> sun shines, can be as large as desired, and can supply both power
>> and distilled water.
>
>If only we could get stuck into a project like this.   All other methods
>could be tried as well.  It's not a case of one or the other.   The training
>of young engineers alone would be worth the effort.  The whole country could
>be greened in a generation or two.  New technologies would come about in the
>process and would be sellable.   New types of business could start up and
>provide taxable income.
> Providing usable acreage land with abundant water would entice people to
>shift from the cities.  So many possible end results.   Just needs vision.
>


Turning the cities effluent inland and treating it to become drinking
quality is feasible

This in turn can be used for plantation forests 
trees are capable of pumping into the air 20 litres of water vapor a
day. Although they can also reduce this according to water available
to them and depending on tree species

Aside from providing huge timber recourses it would increase rainfall
thereby tending to drought proof Australia

One resource that Australia has is space and land 

I do not yet see the need for Bob Carrs Labor party to have everyone
in Sydney eating shit because of his incompetence in not completing
"Welcome Reef dam" This was just pandering to anti-environment and
extreme red group the "greens". Sydneys watershortfull was known for
decades before To have water run out to sea is also not a real answer

"Labor panders to the green beast"
<http://tinyurl.com/5xplv>
link to the herald you now have top subscribe (free)

Petzl
--
Vote 
One Nation first,  
The Opposition Member second 
Your sitting member last
2nd last the anti-environment party the "Greens"