But now, suffering the same fate, he can see the problem...
Update: oh, and then there is this point too -
Over at Reveal News, Nathan Halverson has a terrific pieceWhy do I get the feeling that libertarian types at the time would have been ridiculing environmentalist's warnings that this was a bad idea. Let the market decide, etc.
on how Saudi Arabia squandered its groundwater supplies in just a few
short decades. Back in the 1970s, the government allowed landowners to
dig as many wells as they desired, in order to transform the desert into
lush farmland. An agricultural boom followed, and Saudi Arabia
improbably became the world's sixth-largest exporter of wheat.
"By the 1990s, farmers were pumping an average of 5 trillion gallons a
year," Halverson writes. "At that rate, it would take just 25 years to
completely drain Lake Erie." The problem was that Saudi Arabia doesn't
get nearly enough annual rainfall to replace those withdrawals. Its
aquifers had built up over tens of thousands of years and were now being
drained all at once.
Not surprisingly, the party didn't last. By the 2000s, the aquifers
had become dangerously depleted. Wells dried up. Oases that had
persisted since biblical times were now gone. The country will need to
build costly desalination plants for drinking water. Most important,
Saudi Arabia's agricultural output declined sharply, with the amount of
farmland now less than half of what it was in the 1990s. In an attempt
to conserve what water remains, the country has announced that the 2016 wheat harvest will be its last. An entire industry, gone.
Just over a year ago, Jones, the Sydney broadcaster, told Malcolm Turnbull he “had no hope of ever being the leader, you have got to get that into your head”.]
Malcolm is almost the perfect reflection of media opinion. He is like blotting paper, soaking up every conventional opinion without any actual apparent ability to think for himself. He is a non-entity in the Barack Obama mould, filled with vapid thoughts and a high opinion of his own abilities and intellect that is never at any stage reflected in anything he says or any action he takes.
He apparently won on the promise that he would not change any of the more contentious compromises Abbott had been able to meld, which is to say, he won promising not to do the very things that he wants to do, and which the media will look to him to do. The Great Communicator he is not. He is a shallow and pompous blowhard.* I'll be livid if a few, persistent and potentially damaging rumours about Abbott's private life are only now exposed as true by journalists.
Why David Frum Is Wrong About Stephen Harper and Canada's Conservative Party - The Atlantic
The tactics of Stephen Harper are not identical to those of Tony Abbott, but reading this article, there are certainly many similarities. I get the impression that Harper may be nastier and much more assertive in private than Abbott, who is probably more just an ambitious dill out of his depth who doesn't know who to listen to.
Explaining the Abbott pathology, one of his senior colleagues said it is rooted in a biblical belief of good and evil, hence his frustrations with a nuanced Obama administration. "Abbott would have us do things in the Middle East that would have had your hair stand up on end," said this individual without going into details.