Does it depend on who's paying?

Alarmist of the Year Tim Flannery damns cows to the kangaroo industry and praises them to the beef industry:

Tim Flannery on ABC1's Eating the Future, September 1998:


MUCH of Australia is rangelands, unsuitable for growing crops, but ideal for meat production. Kangaroos and emus are the only large land animals that are perfectly adapted to this country. Both have the potential to be harvested sustainably and profitably over vast areas of the continent—and they taste good too. . . . We can either continue to eat at our country's expense or we can find ways to feed ourselves that's in tune with its nature.

Don't have a cow. Flannery quoted on the Kangaroo Industry Association of Australia website:


UNFORTUNATELY for our environment this attitude prevailed throughout our settlement—the land was wrong and had to be changed into how a good European farm should be, the animals should be removed and replaced with good European animals. Along the way we have caused huge damage to our fragile grazing lands. It's only in recent times that the concept of utilising this land with the animals that belong here has emerged. Doing so has the potential to deliver enormous environmental benefits.

Evolution of the menu. Story in The Land on November 18, 2009:


ENVIRONMENTAL scientist Tim Flannery believes large animals like cattle and sheep are essential to restoring the health of the planet and reducing greenhouse gas levels. . . . The forum at which Flannery was speaking last week was organised by Meat and Livestock Australia in a move to get on to the front foot in the increasingly noisy debate about whether people should become vegetarians to save the planet.

The future is at steak. Flannery in The Brisbane Times, August 9, 2010:


IT is argued by those who oppose meat-eating that cattle produce methane, and therefore a better strategy would be to destock the rangelands altogether. But is it really desirable to abandon use of the world's rangelands at a time of perilous food security? Furthermore, if the rangelands were to be destocked and left unmanaged, it is likely that fire would burn the vegetation, which would lead to more carbon entering the atmosphere and huge increases in nitrous oxide. I believe . . . livestock represent a potent weapon in the fight to stabilise our climate.

Let it beef. AAP story on August 10, 2010:


FLANNERY on Tuesday addressed a forum hosted by Meat and Livestock Australia on the future of grazing in a changing climate and amid rising concerns over greenhouse gas emissions. He said large herbivores such as cattle had replaced huge marsupials that roamed Australia more than 40,000 years ago and had restored balance to the ecology.

We've already noted Flannery's habit of spruiking a form of green power that he's actually invested in - and often without declaring his vested interest. And, yes, this is the man who has claimed that money is corrupting the global warming debate.

UPDATE

Speaking of Flannery's investment in Geodnyamics, the geothermal power company given $90 million by the Rudd Government to develop a technology that Flannery claimed was a doddle:

There are hot rocks in South Australia that potentially have enough embedded energy in them to run Australia's economy for the best part of a century. They are not being fully exploited yet but the technology to extract that energy and turn it into electricity is relatively straightforward.

Huntley's Recommendation, distributed by Etrade, begs to differ:

GDY is an emerging geothermal power company focused on its 70% owned hot fractured rock (HFR) project in the Cooper Basin of South Australia… GDY aims to extract heat for large scale, zero emission, base-load electricity from 4km deep hot granites....

Our recommendation at this stage is Avoid. We justify this based on: the poor financial track record; poor adherence to internally set timelines; the early stage of technological development; the lack of clarity regarding commercialisation; and a lack of suitable valuation methodology. We expect losses to continue for the foreseeable future and the share price to be volatile…

GDY is more science experiment than business. It makes no profits; its technology is yet to prove economically viable. Net losses grew from $300,000 in FY02 to $15m in FY10. No dividends have been paid or are expected for the foreseeable future. Future revenue and profits are highly uncertain… Administration expenses rose by 54% a year since FY04, director's fees by 30% a year....

Enhanced Geothermal Systems (EGS) or Hot Fractured Rock (HFR) technology is a newer alternative approach being pursued by GDY. It involves the artificial circulation of liquids within high temperature 'dry' rock. There are no EGS projects globally which generate electricity on a commercial scale. Investors should be cognisant that the technology must first be proven before commercial electricity production is viable. GDY's Cooper Basin project faces additional challenges from its remote location. High infrastructure costs may prohibit commercialisation. The Federal Government aims to increase renewable energy generation to 20% of total production by 2020. Other renewable energy sources such as wind and solar are far more progressed than EGS....

The original timeline released at IPO in 2001 forecast commercial electricity production by 2006. It is now expected by 2019!

(Thanks to reader Panky.)