1
$\begingroup$

Sometime in an alternate 2005, a handwavium science event creates a situation where excessive rainfall occurs throughout much of Australia. This event, now referred to as "the great rainfall", was the start of the much greater event now called "the great greening", in which the greater rainfall and other variables (thanks to handwavium) creates a perfect environment to plants to grow.

Scientists of the world determined that this change of circumstances would be permanent, and if the Outback were left alone, much of it would turn into a rainforest in a few decades.

This turn of events creates a "land frenzy" in which many people from around Australia and the world rush to claim the newly available (and unoccupied) land in the Outback.

now for my question : how should australian government do in this event, especially in regard of the "land frenzy" ?

$\endgroup$
4
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The assumption that the land would be "free" is, I think, a key false assumption. It's not as if there's scads of unowned land there. $\endgroup$
    – jdunlop
    May 18 at 23:59
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Ah, ... so Hughie really sends it down. Is it going to be bigger than the near biblical proportion rains that have fallen during the first half of 2022 due to a persistent La Nina weather pattern? A fourth flooding rainfall event might occur soon. Endless East coast Rain $\endgroup$
    – Fred
    May 19 at 3:22
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I’m voting to close this Q because it is a high concept question and an open-ended question. Please see the help center and help center to better understand how to ask a good question. (Specifically, there is no right answer. There might not even be a useful answer. How would you judge between, "the government does nothing," "the government makes a fortune selling homesteading plots," and "the government executes anyone entering the outback"?) $\endgroup$
    – JBH
    May 19 at 7:04
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The Australian government should decree that all the land belongs to certain wealthy donors to the Australian government. That's how governments work, right? $\endgroup$
    – user253751
    May 19 at 9:40

3 Answers 3

4
$\begingroup$

Flood control

There is going to be serious flooding issues in the Outback. Water management will be essential to avoid chaos and runaway erosion. A giant public works project is in order and it will need to happen fast.

Hydroelectric power

Water impoundments can be built and the resulting water power used to process nitrogen fertilizers from the air, which they will need to augment the poor soil of the Outback if they are going to grow food. Which they should.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Presumably the soil is enriched as part of "the great greening", as it's stated outright that it creates "a perfect environment for plants to grow". So fertilization is taken care of, because otherwise, yes, you'd just have flooding over barren land. $\endgroup$
    – jdunlop
    May 19 at 0:05
2
$\begingroup$

Raise prices, of course. This all depends on how badly land is wanted. You don't want it to become overcrowded, with no natural areas of pure rainforest. So: set off about 50-65% of the land for people to build on. Clear off any vegetation/rainforests from that part of the land.

Then you can profit from the rainforests themselves. Fruits and plants can be sold for medicinal or culinary purposes. Products from a rainforest can be used for a myriad of things. You don't have to restrict yourself from profit from the land--put the rainforests to good use!

The thing to be careful of is not to kill all of the forests. Make sure a significant portion of Australia is allocated as a natural reserve. This would keep environmentalists happy, as well as safeguard future harvests for rainforest products.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Without cropland humans occupy an area of less than 5 million square kilometres. (With farmland this increases to somewhere around 19 million square kilometres). 50-65% of the outback would increase the first number by more than 50% and the second number by about 12%. That is a huuge are of land. Especially if its as fertile as for example india. So maybe we can tone down this 50-65% to like 5% and still be happy $\endgroup$
    – SirHawrk
    May 19 at 8:52
  • $\begingroup$ You've clearly thought that out. I would agree. $\endgroup$
    – Wyvern123
    May 19 at 12:37
1
$\begingroup$

If you believe Donald Horne's assessment from The Lucky Country, it does nothing!

Australia is a lucky country run mainly by second rate people who share its luck. It lives on other people's ideas, and, although its ordinary people are adaptable, most of its leaders (in all fields) so lack curiosity about the events that surround them that they are often taken by surprise.

$\endgroup$

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .