“It defies logic that a farm capable of producing premium food for thousands of years into the future, would be permanently destroyed to allow for 20 years of coal mining”, so apparently sayeth Geoff Hewitt and Charlie Wilson, of FutureFood Queensland.

I wonder if either of them knows the meaning of hyperbole? Perhaps they are of the view that the greater the exaggeration, the easier it is to get away with it -“premium food”? “thousands of years”? “permanently destroyed”? “20 years”?

No chance remediation may be a condition of approval?

The use of land has been, and will continue to fall to that use which creates the highest economic return. There are, of course, exceptions, which usually depend on cultural, social, historic or national values or objectives, for their survival against the tide of economic advancement.

However, mining versus agriculture is not one of these exceptions, and the argument of food security is just a load of self-serving nonsense.

Australia has always, to varying degrees, been a net exporter of food.

If we want to argue food security, we should, if we were honest with ourselves, be encouraging our food export recipients to become self reliant. I have not seen this argument anywhere.

Why is it difficult for common self-interest groups to be honest with those they are trying to convince, and simply argue the status quo serves their interests, and not necessarily the interests of a wider group?

Are such groups prepared to pay higher rates and taxes based on the fact that there exists a higher possible economic return on the land they want to occupy?

Who do they expect to make up the shortfall, or do they consider it irrelevant?

Remediation a condition of approval?? Bushie Bill has been listening to the miners spin too long. They say the could and should and will and even have remediated mine sites, but they just cannot think where they are!! Bushie argues for the market to decide best use for our natural resources, except of course exceptions which usually depend on cultural, social, historic or national values. We like to believe that the market can fix everything, but the market is not a social policy instrument. The government is responsible for social policy for the benefit of the people. When the government becomes a participant in the market it can no longer service its social policy responsibilities. How much more evidence do we need of the folly of market based policy than we have seen in the last six months? We are told we will have technology within decades that will allow us to extract the riches under the ground an keep the riches above the ground. How shortsighted is Bushie Bill that he cannot even see that a suggestion that we make a plan that protects about 2pc of our state for food production till at last we have the technology to get the best of both worlds. The argument that current economic value should displace any responsibility to future planning is akin to sending our children to work in the coal mines at age 13 because that is the best short term economic value. But that tenet went out decades ago. Bushie Bill is pushing 19th century social theory and yesterday's fuel. Thank goodness we have people like Geoff and Charlie with vision and courage.

Bushie Bill, perhaps you could provide examples of prime cropping land that has been returned to food production after mining? To destroy areas such as Felton and Haystack Rd would be a criminal myopic act. The approval process for mining is presided over by royalty junkies who look no further than the next election, with no thought for future generations and the planet they will inherit. But wait.... there is a solution to growing energy demand that is widely adopted in countries less suited to it than ours. It does not impact on food production, does not wreck our rivers, does not emit greenhouse gases, and provides handy income to landholders regardless of the weather. It's called renewable energy. Why don't we get fair dinkum about it?

Does it all come down to short term monetary gain? That is what mining brings. It does not secure the future for Australians and yes overseas who import our food products. Once the minerals are mined they are not rejuvenated, whereas prime farming country cannot be rehabilitated to the standard it is prior to mining, but untouched by mining can go on producing food for Australians and the world at large, where there is a food shortage now. Also the damage that mining does to the enviroment in emissions is much greater than that of agriculture to produce food for the nation.

Bushie Bill's challenge that our food export recipients should be encouraged to become self reliant raises the question about whether our coal export recipients should also be encouraged to do the same. The ugly facts of the world are that resources (including productive farming land) are not equally distributed across the globe. However, while coal and other minerals are available across a wide range of landscapes (particularly in Queensland), the distribution of good cropping soils is limited. All that is asked is that there be a rational approach to development that looks both at benefits and costs, and considers the long-term consequences. And, no . . . there is no good evidence that post-mining rehabilitation will return productive cropping soils.

Does it all come down to short term monetary gain? That is what mining brings. It does not secure the future for Australians and yes overseas who import our food products. Once the minerals are mined they are not rejuvenated, whereas prime farming country cannot be rehabilitated to the standard it is prior to mining, but untouched by mining can go on producing food for Australians and the world at large, where there is a food shortage now. Also the damage that mining does to the enviroment in emissions is much greater than that of agriculture to produce food for the nation.

"Bushie Bill" is obviously pro destructive mining at any cost. His comments could have been penned from the cab of an airconditioned drag line. Claims by the mining industry that "rehabilitation" repairs the ruptured landscape is a total con. The Xstrata Wandoan Coal Project EIS admits to permanent degradation of 11,000ha by one or more land capability production scores. This could equate to a 50% reduction in food production potential. I have three questions for "Bushie "BIll. Could he please post his real name? Second, does he work in the mining industry? And thirdly does he eat coal 4 breakfast? Chow to all, I have to go and milk our house cow . "Cowboy Lee", Dr. Lee McNicholl B.V.Sc., M. Sc. Arklow via Dulacca Qld 4425.

Talk about self interest, Bushie Bill is either a stooge from the mining lobby or terribly misinformed. If Bill could see past the mighty dollar that has created his highest economic return in the short term and consider the true cost of burning yesterday’s fuel, he would realise that living on this planet doesn’t entirely revolve around the short-term dollar value of filthy coal being transported from Billy’s mine site.

And what of the 'highest economic return' when coal is no longer popular with our coal export recipients? China's research has already found links between high coal burning areas and rates of birth defects...probably won't be long before they are looking for alternative energy sources. Australia has already pretty much missed the boat on supplying those, with overseas countries such as Germany streaking ahead with alternative power sources such as solar energy. With rising populations, increasing drought conditions and climate change thanks to our wonderful coal industry, food production will be what will drive our economy in the future. For human life to continue, food will always be needed, and countries who have had the foresight to preserve this industry will prosper accordingly!

"Remediation"? Bushie Bill, can you give us an example where prime farmland was returned to full production after mining? One will do. I suspect your real name is "Coalie Stooge". Perhaps also you are unfamiliar with the concept of climate change, which will have unpredictable effects on future food production capacity. Sacrificing good farm land now when we don't know how much of it will still be good in twenty years is a poor choice, when there are other sites where mining could continue.