(We) can do better

Media release 20 July 2009 Greens MP Lee Rhiannon is calling on the NSW government to halt tomorrow's auction of 1,200 mega litres of water from the Artesian Basin in Walgett that was saved through the Commonwealth and landowners' funded Cap and Pipe the Bores Program. "Premier Nathan Rees should invest in scientific research to clarify what levels of groundwater use in the artesian basin are sustainable rather then undertake this ill-advised sell off," Ms Rhiannon said. "Farmers who adopted more sustainable land use practices to improve the basin's health and water pressure are justifiably angry that the government is now flogging it off to other users. "Selling licenses to outfits like mining and processing companies shows that the government is willing to put corporate profits before the needs of farmers and the natural environment. "The auction is the thin edge of the wedge for future water trading in the basin and threatens sensitive groundwater dependent ecosystems which sustain native birds, animals, insects, fish and plants. "This precious water supply should not be flogged off. This is a crude money grab by the Rees government. "There is no clear scientific evidence yet available on the amount of groundwater can be sustainably extracted from the basin without damaging fragile ecosystems. "The basin, which lies beneath 22 percent of Australia, contains thousands of springs that help preserve rare bird, animal and plant species. "Climate change will exacerbate the importance of keeping these springs healthy, with the anticipated increase in drought conditions. "The auction of 39 percent of water saved annually under the Cap and Pipe the Bores Program is a kick in the teeth for farmers. "On current prices the government is set to make approximately $2.6 million from the first auction and $28 million from the Cap and Pipe the Bores Program over the next ten years. "The NSW government should postpone this auction," Ms Rhiannon said.

On 19 July 2009, the Sydney Sun-Herald newspaper ran the following article by writer Kelsey Munro: 'Record number of arrivals swells population'

"Figures suggest we're experiencing the biggest boom since the 1950s. A combination of high immigration rates and high birth rates has pushed Australia to a record population boom."

To summarise, Munro identifies the following population statistical trends in Australia from source 'RP Data':

* (Australia's) population growth in 2008 was the highest since the baby boom of the 1950s, according to statistics from RP Data.

* Last year, Australia's population grew by 1.9 per cent, or 406,083 people (nearly 1/2 a million!), to 21.6 million. This is a record figure of 253,415 in net migration (total arrivals minus total departures) represented a great increase over 2007's net migration figure of 184,438.

* Western Australia was the fastest-growing state in 2008, with a 3.1 per cent population increase largely fuelled by overseas migration drawn by the resources boom.

* However, Queensland had the greatest raw number of new residents, with 107,000 new Queenslanders (including births) arriving during 2008.

* NSW grew by 97,509 people but lost 22,690 residents to other states, mostly Queensland. However, this is almost half the number of rescees and publci idents heading north compared with the year before."

Demographer Peter McDonald from ANU claims that our popluation is mainly from immigration, made up from overseas students, New Zealanders, long-stay business visas and working holidaymakers.

Based on 2008's 1.9% cummulative growth rate, Australia's population by 2050 will be at least 44 million.

RE-ELECTION QUESTIONS FOR RUDD:

1. If record immigration offers such net economic and social benefits, why are all Australian states failing to cope and deliver on the flooding demand for public infrastructure and services?

2. Why is Australia's federal government choosing to lead the first world in population growth?

3. Why with such record immigration, is the Australian public denied disclosure of Rudd's federal population policy? - a policy that is the root driver of domestic demand for all resources, for imports, for inflation, for unemployment and for all public infrastructure and services!

4. Why are Australia's living standards and affordabilty being allowed to erode?

In history, there are two types of invasion. One by military aggression, the other by mass immigration. Australia has colonial history of both, which is being perpetuated today in a kind of neo-colonisation. Politically acceptable economics that seeks to silence views on the economics of mass population growth is head-in-the-sand politics that ignores the living standards of a society.

The Rudd Government is perpetuating a policy of 'eco-colonisation' without realisating the triple bottom line consequences. By eco-colonisation I mean a form of unofficial colonisation by way of mass imigration on teh basis of generating domestic economic growth. Like other forms of colonisation, eco-colonisation in mass like Australia has presently can similarly lead to displacement of the existing population by the immigrant population. For instance, more educated immigrants tend to displace the indigenous. A country's indigenous culture can be steadily eroded by an immigrant mass-culture, especially when that immigration involves economic immigrants with employable skills and wealth.

This was the nature of Australia's colonial past and it is being perpetuated today on an economic basis by the current Rudd Government. But importantly, this has nothing to do with race or ethnic origin. The problem is the impact of the sheer volume of immigrants and the impact on local society and environment.

Rudd no understand history.

Original Source: http://www.climate4you.com/images/OperationBarbarossa1941.jpg

Submission by Jill Quirk, headlines and teaser by Admin, candobetter

Growth is discretionary but the Government doesn't want Victorians to realise this

We have just learned from a newly issued State Government report that building on the outer urban fringes -taking into consideration the infrastructure needs for making new suburbs from scratch- costs more than twice as much as building within established areas.

The hackneyed arguments about urban sprawl vs. urban densification are usually presented and reported as either forced choices or choices of the most suitable recipe of proportions of one or the other.

What is rarely questioned is the actual need to have the rate of population growth that forces these dilemmas on us.

The State Government and planning authorities as well as developers and all those who lobby for higher population growth must be well aware of the extent to which the level of population growth in Victoria is discretionary. These aforementioned must also be well aware that logically, growth at the present rate or indeed at any rate is not possible into the indefinite future.

http://www.liveinvictoria.com.au is a Government website to drive population growth upwards

Even without the State Government recklessly inviting people from overseas and interstate to join us in our water depleted state e.g. via the website http://www.liveinvictoria.vic.gov.au, Victoria would still experience population growth- but at a far more manageable level- roughly 30-40,000 per annum as opposed to the present nearer 100,000 p.a. increase . Eventually with a balanced level of incomings and outgoings and our natural birth and death rate , Victoria's population would level off in the next 40 odd years.

Victoria now in ecological overshoot

Victoria is now in ecological overshoot-as clearly demonstrated by the need to industrialise our water supply with a desalination plant and by the parlous state of our environment as described in the State of the Environment report 2008.

That is why we need to stabilise and then allow natural attrition

This is why Victoria, for a secure future needs to look towards stabilising its population in future decades. As long as our population increases, our environment will be in decline. The present scenario of high population growth guarantees a poorer existence for future citizens than that of present citizens just as the present residents are poorer than those of 40 years ago when the environment was in much better shape and we had adequate water supplies.

As Victoria is in overshoot in 2009, imagine what it will be like in 10 years with 1 million more people,many of them living on the Melbourne outer fringe in large poorly designed houses on small blocks of land with few transport options. 10 years from now, more of our agricultural land close to the city will be either built on or earmarked for development. At the same time we will be further down the one way road towards oil depletion which will adversley affect car travel economy, agricultural output and transport of goods.

In ten years people on the outer edges will be much closer to the edges of survival - food, water, petrol

The people of Melbourne especially those in the suburbs of the urban fringes will be much closer to the edges of survival. Their lives will be more difficult as they struggle to find economical transport and their opportunities for self sufficiency in a climate of rising food prices will be limited by lack of land and time.

These are all arguments against a mindset of continual population growth and expansion of our city which has so many unwanted consequences right now for the bulk the population.

Higher urban density not the answer; we are already going upwards and outwards

The alternative to extending the urban growth boundary given continued population growth is the densification of the established parts of the city which the State Government report says is the cheaper option for accommodating population growth. Unfortunately, at a massive 2% socially engineered p.a growth rate, we will get both more urban sprawl and urban densification . Urban densification has distinctly negative consequences for affected residents- overcrowding , uncertainty of what will be built next and where, loss of natural light in houses, loss of gardens and of open space and increased traffic. Eventually everyone will be adversely affected except those with enormous property buffers within the city i.e the very rich.

Apart from major conservation and wildlife considerations on which other organisations will be making separate submissions especially as extension of UGB affects the Green Wedges, the proposal to extend the UGB totally lacks vision and any will to make a different future in the interests of Victoria's citizens.

The Victorian Government should totally revise its modis operandi with regard to its own part in population growth in Victoria and work towards a sustainable future with first a future stable population and then inevitably a smaller one after mid century. This kind of foresight is needed if we are to have a future and not ecological collapse.

Jill Quirk

(Submission by Jill Quirk, on behalf of Sustainable Population Australia (SPA) Victorian Branch)
If you want to contact Jill, send her a message to [email protected]

***

See also on the financial cost alone:Jason Dowling and Clay Lucas, "Suburban sprawl costs billions more," The Age, July 17, 2009

"PLANS to build thousands of homes on Melbourne's fringes will cost Victorians around $40 billion more than if they were built in existing suburbs, a new State Government report shows.

In an embarrassment for the Government on the day that submissions close on its plans to further expand Melbourne's urban growth boundary, the report released on Wednesday shows the total cost of building homes in new outer suburbs is more than double that of building in existing areas.[...]"

Ed. But don't believe that writing to the Age will save you or even that the Age owners care - the Fairfax Press and the Murdoch Press would be backing this growth to the hilt, since they have corporate investments in property development and its marketing throughout the world, as indicated by, for instance, www.domain.com.au and www.realestate.com.au

Image from cover of Graeme Base, Uno's Garden, Viking, Penguin Australia, 2006

Re: Proposed Urban Growth Boundary changes.

There is a fantastic book by renowned author Graeme Base, that I often read to my children. It’s called ‘Uno’s Garden’. It’s about a guy named Uno, who arrives in the forest one beautiful day, where there are many fascinating and extraordinary animals there to greet him. And one entirely exceptional Snortlepig.

Uno loves the forest so much, he decides to live there. But, in time, a little village grows up around his house. Then a town, then a city….and soon Uno realises that the animals and plants have begun to disappear….
(sounding familiar?)

***

Graeme Base starts his book with this rhyme:

‘The animals go one by one
A hundred plants, then there were none
And all the while the buildings double…
This numbers game adds up to trouble’

So significant is this story, that it featured as the Myer Christmas windows in 2007. If you haven’t already read the book, I urge you to get a copy. It really is easy to read, and makes perfect sense.

On behalf of my children, I would like you to seriously consider the moral of this story when determining the UGB and population expansion.

Sharing our backyard on the periphery of the proposed new South East UGB, are EPBC listed, endangered Southern Brown Bandicoots. To my kids, these are like the ‘Snortlepig’ in the story. They think the Government must be careful to protect them as it’s important we have biodiversity. They really get that. What they don’t get, is that the Government is now planning to shift the boundary of the Urban Growth Corridor encroaching into Green Wedge land further threatening the SBB’s, to make way for more ‘concrete and McMansions’. They are worried that it will never end, and wonder where all the animals and farmers producing our food are going to go. They are worried that when they get ‘old’, their children and grandchildren will suffer for today’s government’s seeming lack of concern for the environment.

What should I tell them?

Submitted by: Catherine Manning [to the Growth Areas Authority]
Friday 17th July, 2009.

Photographs of Southern Brown Bandicoots in our backyard near Clyde.

Kangaroo Island scrub fire, photo from CFS by Lisa Dalby, December 2007

In April 2009, Australia's leading bushfire research organisation, Bushfire CRC Ltd, published another important report 'THE COST-EFFECTIVENESS OF AERIAL FIRE-FIGHTING IN AUSTRALIA'
by Gaminda Ganewatta & John Handmer, via the Centre for Risk and Community Safety, RMIT University in Melbourne.

The report has examined the cost effectiveness of aerial fire suppression in Australia and has made the following important and most relevant findings, which cannot be ignored by fire authorities and their politically disposed masters:

1. "The use of ground resources with initial aerial support is the most economically efficient approach to fire suppression!"

2. "Aircraft are economically efficient where they are able to reach and knock down a fire well before the ground crew arrives!"

3. "Rapid deployment of aerial suppression resources is important, especially in remote or otherwise inaccessible terrain!"

4. "The sole use of aircraft is economically justified in the event of other suppression methods being unable to reach the fire event quickly!"

5. "Critical factors are speed of deployment and turnaround time!"

6. "Aircraft save more damage than they cost to operate, noting that high volume helicopters and fixed wing aircraft are economically more efficient in fire suppression, compared to small helicopters and large air tankers. Air tankers are less manoeuvrable compared to helicopters, thus their use in initial attack is not practical, unless used solely for large events!"

So while Brumby's Royal Commission is working towards finalising its investigation into the Victorian Bushfires, this presents an opportunity for Fire Management to harness such relevant bushfire research. Before next bushfire risk season key relevant bushfire research like this can be evaluated and the costs, budgets and business cases formulated to propose application to fire management operations.

But frankly can one lead a politicised brumby to water?

The following references provide useful illustrations and real life accounts of practical aerial fire fighting resource options out there (print them off and have a darn good read):

www.richard-seaman.com

'Helicopters: Stopping the Blazes'

Tigerquoll
[Licensed Commercial Helicopter Pilot]

The Emperor Julian codified the land-tenure laws which Napoleon later consolidated. The substitution of the Napoleonic code for the British inheritance system could help overpopulation and poverty.

July 11 was World Population Day, marking the day in 1987 when the world’s population passed five billion. This year’s theme in the UN is ‘Fight Poverty: Educate Girls.’

Here are some things that the UN does not talk about and which Bill Gates probably doesn't realise.

The third world countries that have natural increase problems began by their steady-state communities being disorganised through massive immigration - then called colonisation, now called industrialisation. The problems began with loss of land-tenure as entire peoples were disorganised and disoriented by having their traditional land removed from their control. Africa and India, for instance, had many stable populations for centuries, as testified by their high biodiversity and healthy natural systems at time of colonisation. The degradation of their natural systems has accompanied the destabilising of their human social organisation and overpopulation.

It was not until the 18th and 19th Century, with the imposition of the English political systems that these populations blew out. Polynesia, micronesia and Australia, colonised later, are succumbing later to the same failure of practical democracy.

The people of the original steady state societies lost their land to the colonisers and were encouraged to become wage-earners instead of self-sufficient. The new economy was initially agricultural and then manufacturing. Large landless families benefited both agriculturalists and manufacturers. Those without land were totally dependent on wages for their labour to survive and could not opt out of the labour market. Thus, people who for thousands of years had been self-sufficient and free, became servants.

Like the Americas and Canada, Australia is still being 'colonised'. The landless people who were forced to come here or who came voluntarily and displaced the aboriginal population are now losing their own access to land here, just like the Aboriginals. At the same time women here are being conned into having more children. It is becoming harder to get a decent education as well.

There is every reason to anticipate that this difficulty will increase.

The Importance of Child Labour Laws in preventing overpopulation:

Once the rot has set in, next thing to go are effective child labour laws. This is because if there is no ban enforced on children labouring, then large families are preferred to educated wives. Once children are a major source of income, mass-education withers away.

Child Labour Laws as a variable in fertility rates[i]

Here are some explanations for changes in human fertility since the beginning of agriculture.

In countries where effective labour laws prohibit the employment of children, those children become costly rather than income-beneficial.[ii] In those countries where working for wages is the main option for survival for many but where child labour is prohibited, then people who rely mainly or uniquely on wages will have fewer children.

Similarly, a woman who has education will be more valuable as an income-earner than as a child-producing wife in a society that prohibits child-labour. Where women earn less than men for doing the same job, in a society which needs skilled workers and prohibits child-labour, then this will be a disincentive for taking such women out of the workforce to have children. It will also be an obstacle to marriage because men's capacity to find work will be undermined by the cheaper but still skilled labour of women. In societies where monogamous marriage is the model for raising children, there are implications for marriage frequency. With children a high cost, only men with high incomes will be able to afford to take a wife out of the workforce to nurture children.

Inheritance Laws as a variable in average wealth differentials

In countries where men can own and inherit land, but women cannot, (England from the 12th century until the 1920s) then lack of land is an incentive for women to marry for material survival, but women who can own land and earn a salary may experience their ability to earn as a disincentive to marriage due to the status and power of running their own lives.

A disincentive also operates in countries where, in divorce, either partner may acquire rights to the assets that the other brought to the marriage.

Some countries have facilitated the ability of women to work, raise and educate children outside marriage -- e.g. France. To this should be added the fact that French women also benefit from equal inheritance rights to men.

Although French women only recently (in the 1970s) regained the right to manage their affairs, this right, coupled with the government's duty to house, educate and assure an income to its citizens, enhances women's security and independence.

France also, through its inheritance system, makes French women more likely to inherit wealth than British women and many British men, who had almost no land inheritance rights until primogeniture was revoked in 1926.[iii] Even though all children may now inherit in societies based on British law, because there is no legal requirement that they inherit, there is still a profound tendency to disinherit children in those societies, through second marriages or due to their being the product of casual union, or based on ideology or a whim. (I often think of how the very rich Australian, Reg Ansett, disinherited his son, Bob, apparently excusing the inexcusable with an ideology that everyone should make their own way in the world, failing to take into account that different generations have very different prospects according to resource depletion and other changes.)

The legally enforceable inheritance rights of any French child, legitimate, illegitimate, issue of first or subsequent marriages is almost certainly a major factor in the lesser disparities between rich and poor in France and those other countries in Europe which benefited from the Napoleonic Code (a Roman law based system). It is noteworthy that Pacific Islands which have inherited the French system do not have the same rates of overpopulation, homelessness and economic poverty as the ones that were colonised with the English system. (Neither do those in Japanese waters, with the exception of those which passed into US ownership after the Second World War. The Japanese inheritance system also preserves land in families.)

Unfortunately the French situation of equity will be affected by changes to the Napoleonic Code introduced by President Sarkozi in 2008. Now it becomes possible for a spouse to make a serious claim on part of a deceased's estate where that estate previously went entirely to blood relatives.

The recent ability of technological societies to prove paternity is a new factor that could be exploited to access additional income for children whose mothers might otherwise be their sole providers. This could act to increase the fertility rate, but men might become more careful about impregnating women under these new circumstances.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
[i] Excerpt from my book in progress below on this subject.
[ii] Doepke, M., Growth and Fertility in the Long Run, Mimeo, University of Chicago, 2000, available in reduced form in Doepke, M. "Accounting for Fertility Decline During the Transition to Growth", Journal of Economic Growth, 9(3), 347-383, September 2004. The speed of the fertility transition depends on policies that affect the opportunity cost of education, namely education subsidies and child-labor restrictions. Doepke considered the case of two countries that started to grow at roughly the same time, but which had experienced very different government policies: (South) Korea and Brazil. Korea had a strong public education system, and child-labor restrictions were strictly enforced, while Brazil had an ineffective public education system, with little systematic enforcement of child labour restrictions. Doepke found, as his model predicted, that the fertility decline associated with development proceeded much faster in Korea than in Brazil.

[iii] The rule of primogeniture in England was not changed until the Administration of Estates Act of 1926.

Al Gore has been involved in the business of raising Black Angus cattle for most of his life.

Not once during the 96 minute presentation, An Inconvenient Truth, did Al Gore mention livestock and our diets as a cause of global warming, or suggest any form of solution or alternatives. This omission would be similar to not mentioning cigarette smoking in a discussion of lung cancer!

According to a report, Livestock’s Long Shadow –Environmental Issues and Options, released in November of 2006 from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, livestock emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to every one of the most serious environmental problems. Additionally, animal agriculture is responsible for 18 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalents.

It's not just the well-known and frequently joked-about flatulence and manure of grass-chewing cattle that's the problem, according to a recent report by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).
Livestock:

Produces 65 percent of human-related nitrous oxide, which has 296 times the Global Warming Potential (GWP) of CO2.

Accounts for 37 percent of all human-induced methane (which is 23 times as warming as CO2.

Generates 64 percent of the ammonia, which contributes to acid rain and acidification of ecosystems.

With a burgeoning world population, and rising middle classes in Asia, the demand for meat and dairy will continue to grow.

The loss of species is estimated to be running 50 to 500 times higher than background rates found in the fossil record, largely due to the land required by livestock.

Land-use changes, especially deforestation to expand pastures and to create arable land for feed crops, is a big part of the industry's damage. So is the use of energy to produce fertilizers, to run the slaughterhouses and meat-processing plants, and to pump water.

"Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today's most serious environmental problems," Henning Steinfeld, senior author of the report, said when the FAO findings were released in November.

With a burgeoning world population, and rising middle classes in Asia, the demand for meat and dairy will continue to grow.

The twin "elephants in the room", livestock production and population growth, are avoided by Al Gore and by many environmental and climate change groups.

Surely these "inconvenient truths" need to be debated at Copenhagen if there are to be any realistic gains made?

Al Gore's web site

This article was originally sent to me on 5 July 09. Apologies to Joan for the delay in publishing - JS Counsel assisting the Royal Commission into the 2009 bushfires are reported to have advocated the 'reinstatement' of community bushfire shelters. Communities have never had bushfire shelters to reinstate. Previous so-called 'community refuges' were not purpose-built bushfire shelters, and most were no safer than a house or any other building. Many were potential death traps. They were buildings with raised, rubbish-littered sub-floors, holiday camps consisting of small, separated timber huts surrounded by metre-high grass, car parks and football grounds reached by narrow, bush-lined tracks. While a well constructed shelter may provide safety for those who are in it, this is not the only consideration. What cannot be assured is:

• that outlying evacuees will reach them safely
• that shelters will be open to receive evacuees early on each day of bushfire danger.
• that any town can forecast whether it will actually be threatened, and therefore need to have its community shelter open.
• that community shelters used for other purposes on normal days (as they must be for economy) will be able, on any and every day of bushfire danger, to convert their normal activities at short notice, and make ready to receive evacuees. (Would they eject their usual occupants?)
• that those working in community shelters used for other purposes know of their bushfire purpose? The North Warrandyte Community Centre was typical of these (1991). Though it exhibited an `Emergency Refuge' sign, when evacuees from a bushfire arrived at its door, neither the fire brigade nor the Centre's committee had known it was a general evacuation refuge. Staff did not know whom to contact or what procedures to follow. (See Community safe refuges, Chapter 12, The Complete Bushfire Safety Book.)
• that community shelters in tourist towns will be large enough to accommodate the townspeople plus tourists. (If these became overcrowded, would late evacuees be rejected?)
• that if community refuges are redesignated, and if they are made safe, but seldom need to be used as bushfire shelters, their purpose will not fall into a limbo of bureaucractic and community apathy. As has happened with the wonderful, purpose- built bushfire shelters constructed at an average cost of $1/4 million in 1989 at schools in the Dandenong Ranges.

Two other big aspects for consideration:

• the use of community and/or family bushfire shelters was originally intended only forchildren, the frail and aged. Able-bodied persons were expected to learn how to defend their homes, or shelter in them, in a safe manner
• unattended homes (of evacuees and other absentees), have the highest incidence of destruction.

The more people dependent on shelters, the more homes left unattended to be destroyed. As each burning house send off embers to ignite other houses the rebuilding costs for a shelter-dependent society will be astronomical - annually. Isn't it cheaper and better all round to teach individual and community safety? In schools, workplaces, clubs, migrant centres …? Isn't it cheaper and better all round for grants and low interest loans to be made available to low income residents of bushfire prone areas before the bushfire season, to help them prepare their homes for bushfire safety? Isn't it cheaper and better all round for specific funding to be provided to municipal councils to help less able householders put their properties in a safe state before summer? The more households who prepare their homes, grounds and prepare themselves properly in the knowledge of bushfire defence and survival, the less places will be needed in refuges and the more homes will survive for well founded evacuees to return to. © Joan WebsterAuthor of The Complete Bushfire Safety Book (Random House 2000) andEssential Bushfire Safety Tips (CSIRO 2008) See also: "How misconceptions about bushfire bunkers may cost lives" of 21 Jun 09, and "Fire bunkers could have helped in the Victorian fires" of 10 Feb 09.

One of several speeches made at Melbourne 14 July 2009 rally against undemocratic rezoning of green wedges to benefit developers by making it possible to continue high immigration by providing housing at the expense of wildlife, open spaces and democracy.

The speaker is Michael Hocking of Taxed Out. The GAIC tax proposed is quite medieval, like a tax on peasants to benefit lords, which is how the feudal system worked. Where modern practice in the anglophone land-tenure systems is to tax developers the windfall they make on rezoned land, the GAIC tax would tax landowners if they sold land which had been rezoned against their wishes. The choice is a Hobson's one; if you stay you pay very high rates based on the theoretical value of resale. Hard to stay under the circumstances. A recipe for driving farmers and wildlife out and ushering suburbia in. A policy driven by the Growth Lobby.

Language is powerful. ‘In the beginning was the word’. Everything in the universe vibrates. The words we speak vibrate from our vocal chords and pass through every cell of our bodies. Infants in the womb feel the vibration of their mother’s words all around them, pervading their environment and their bodies. Somewhat like being in a surround sound Imax theatre only more so.

The words we think become the words we speak. These words reflect our consciousness which attracts people and experiences that mirror our thoughts. Like attracts like. The bible says “To him who has, more will be given.”

Words have power, not only because of the sound they vibrate but because of the associations they carry. Every time you say or think a word, instantaneously, for a split second, the image of that word imprints on your brain. You may not even be aware of it. For example if I say the word ‘apple’, you just visualised it, didn’t you? That’s because we learn language by associating images and feelings with sounds. In the same way by hearing the same word, whether from someone else or from yourself, bombards the mind with that image. Are we going to choose to fill our minds with positive images or negative images?

Japanese researcher Masaru Emoto found by freezing drops of water and photographing them under a darkfield microscope that when one said ‘Thank you’, ‘I love you’ or “I appreciate you’ or placed the written word on paper attached to the water, the water organised itself into beautiful, symmetrical crystals which looked like vibrant gems. Conversely, when negative thoughts and words like “I hate you,” “ugly,” “demon” were used, it made the water disorganized and unstructured, which looked like a muddy sewer. His research clearly shows that water responds to our thoughts, words and feelings. Since humans are 70% water, it’s obvious that negative thoughts, words and feelings can adversely affect people (see footnote).

So if people around you are constantly using language that is foul, disrespectful, violent, negative, how does that make you feel? If you use foul language yourself, how does it make you feel? For myself when I hear the word my aura contracts and my heart chakra closes. This is not desirable to me.

Spiritual people talk about the beneficial effect of repeating certain words such as mantras on our consciousness. So what about the negative effect of speaking and hearing certain other words on our consciousness? Do people realise what they are creating in their aura?
Perhaps this is why the Buddha taught that Right Speech is part of the Noble Eightfold Path.

The Power of Swearing:
Cultures with no written language believe that spoken words have the power to curse or bless people as well as affect the world around us. This means some words are very good and some words are very bad. Researchers agree that swearing came from early forms of word magic. So let’s consider that for a moment - sounds have the power to affect our psyche deeply. Given that the right hemisphere of our brain controls our instinctual and emotional sides and the left hemisphere the rational, logical part of the brain, it’s interesting to note that studies show that swear words do not need the left brain to process them. Functional magnetic resonance imaging studies show that the more complex parts of our brain (that process language) can struggle with the simpler part of our brain (that process emotions, motor responses) when a person swears.

The F Word:
Let’s take the F word for example. This word means different things to different people. What does it mean to you? To many people, it conjures up images of rough, lustful sex, totally lacking in refinement or sensitivity, somewhat like copulating animals. As such, it violates the sanctity of love-making and is arguably one of the most profane, vulgar words in the English language. Those who use the word often say it means nothing to them at all, just a collection of syllables – or does it? What about subconscious associations?

Why do People use the F Word?:
Studies show that men swear more than women. Men swear to create a masculine identity and to express emotion, since they are taught not to cry. Some people use the F word to add humour, emphasis or shock to the conversation. Or it could be used to camouflage one’s fear or insecurity.

People use the F word for a number of reasons, one of which is to establish rapport and build camaraderie – but that only works if both parties use vulgar language, otherwise, a wedge can be driven between people.

As the world becomes increasingly chaotic, confused and destructive, more people seem to be using this word in daily conversations without even realising it, especially in Australia where it is like a pandemic, followed by its ugly sister, the P Word.

1. Expressing Anger:
It is a word most commonly used to express anger. What has sex got to do with anger? Have you noticed that in general most negative people of this generation use the F word frequently and positive, uplifted people never use it?

The F word is like an umbilical chord connecting people to the womb of anger, violence, rage, fear and despair. On the other hand, positive, uplifting words connect people to the womb of peace, harmony, generosity, gratitude and humility.

Swearing can not only arise from a hostile mind but can create a hostile environment and induce other people to violence. In the U.S. the courts take this into account and regard obscenity as ‘unprotected speech’ that does not come under the constitutional First Amendment of freedom of speech.

2. Being Cool:
It was thought at one point that women swear to imitate men but now studies show that women swear in order to imitate women they admire and to establish trust and intimacy with other women.

In certain social groups, the F word is regarded as ‘trendy’ or ‘cool’ and not necessarily used when the person is angry but for the sake of appearing ‘sexy’. Such people appear to be fascinated with the F word and actually speak the word louder than other words in the same sentence. If your friends are all using the word, it’s very easy in order to be accepted by them to use it too.

People who use vulgar language in a conversation think that non-users are overly conservative, however I know many people who are very radical in their thinking and lifestyle but never use the word and even detest it. It may be an interesting exercise for such people to make this subject a topic of conversation to find out what others think.

3. Obsession with Sex:
I wonder if people who use the F word constantly are actually saying ‘I want sex.’ Why all the obsession with sex? Could it be to escape from the pervasive and undeniable suffering around them, or simply to escape their own suffering? Humans are constantly seeking pleasure and running from pain. The pleasure dulls the pain sensation. Food is a big one and so is sex.

Or could it be that humans suffer so much from Nature Deprivation Disorder (feeling disconnected from the natural world) and themselves, that by using the F word - which is distantly related to a unifying act of deep intimacy - they are trying to reconnect? Sex for many people is the only way they know to feel unified with a world that fosters increasing disconnectedness.

If that is the case, why not sit and meditate in silence, connecting with our higher mind and angelic kingdoms? Or, if that is too difficult, then perhaps go out into nature and focus on another species, imagining ourselves as that creature and feeling union-oneness with it. If we feel another being as if we were that being, separation disappears like an illusion in a timeless, magical moment. Maybe that is the reason why universally people love to watch animals in the wild.

4. Habit:
For other people, using the F word is only a habit - albeit a bad one – fuelled by habituators around them. With a little self-awareness this habit could be broken simply by noticing when this word is used in thought processes and immediately replacing it with a different word. In no time the habit will be broken much to the surprise of non-swearing colleagues, many of whom will be quietly relieved.

5. Rebellion Against Society:
Some people use the F word to rebel against society. Interestingly, swearing was a punishable offence in New England and in today’s world is the #1 reason to be fired from your job. A new survey from TheLadders.com reveals that 36% of US bosses have issued a formal warning and 6% have fired an employee for swearing, deeming a foul mouth the most punishable of all workplace faux pas. This poll of over 2,000 executives reveals that 81.2% of senior office executives find a foul mouthed colleague unacceptable to work with.

I met a woman recently who told me that the F word is the only way to accurately and strongly express your anger and that she trained other women to 'come into their power' by using this word. Perhaps what she was really saying was that foul (anti-social) language is a way of saying that you don't care what society thinks of you. The sad thing is that such a person ostracises not only society but also intelligent non-swearing individuals from their circle.

6. Brain Damage:
Who has not seen the sad spectacle of a demented alcoholic staggering down the street shouting angrily at the world using the F word excessively? According to studies, too much swearing could be a symptom of disease or as a result of damage to parts of their brain. Various neurological and emotional conditions can also affect a person’s ability to speak and lead to extreme swearing.

7. Unresolved Negative Emotions:
It’s a mystery to me why highly intelligent people who are earnestly trying to make a positive difference in the world are habituated to using the F word. Such people have an extensive vocabulary to draw upon and could easily find other words to adequately express their anger. Could they be needing to rise above their own negativity, which is after all an emotional condition born of frustration, anger, fear, disappointment, despair and so on before trying to save the planet? Can they not see that using the F word perpetuates negativity in a never-ending vicious circle and lowers the vibrations on our planet, like adding fuel to a fire that is already raging?

The P Word:
Another similar swearword used to express anger is the P word. Every time it is used, an image of a person urinating imprints the brain. How unsavoury is that to contemplate? Why do we even need to think these disgusting, irrelevant things when we can use less unsavoury words like ‘annoy’ bother, irritate and so on?

Affect on Non-Swearers:
Incessantly using the F word in the presence of those who never use it and find it offensive is disrespectful and can make them feel polluted by you. Some individuals go so far as to avoid those who use the F word or even hang up the phone when speaking with them.

Even threatening to use the F word around non-swearers but then not using it, causes the hearer to think the word momentarily in their mind and cringe in expectation. This can produce physiological symptoms of stress such as a tightening in the abdomen, neck, hands, or face in the non-swearer. To use the F word around people who don’t use it, or to threaten to, can be a subtle psychic assault on that person, whether they speak up about it or not.

Every word we use can be a weapon to hurt others or a healing balm to heal and bless them. Let’s choose carefully.

Breaking the Swearing Habit:
Words are pictures that we paint on the canvas of our own and others’ minds. Using a rich array of image-provoking words is mentally satisfying and socially stimulating. For example, in casual situations we could substitute the F word with other words such as darn, pesky, blooming, gosh, heck or gee. To express anger we could use words like furious, livid, irate, wild, outraged, boiling mad, incensed, disgusted, appalled, devastated, disturbed, aggravated, upset, ballistic, explosive, raving, or fuming. Or come up with your own versions!

For example substitute the four letter F word with the three letter F word i.e. FUN. Try saying 'Fun off!' or What a FUN hot day it is today! What the FUN are you doing??? Our FUN government has decided to run another rally.....Get FUNNED! He is a FUN-wit. If you say it with as much anger as possible it actually sounds hilarious.

Do you see what a smorgasbord of linguistically colourful words we have to choose from instead of the same predictable boring old F word? It’s like going into a restaurant and choosing the same old MacDonalds burger with fries for breakfast, lunch and dinner!

Additionally, we can use adjectives to qualify the word, for example steaming, supremely, increasingly, outrageous and so on. And we can invent new slang like ‘Let’s see how the mop flops’ or ‘trot the rot’. For hundreds of years Australians have been famous for humorous and unique colloquial expressions which define our culture and give us originality. What happened? Have we all dried up and resigned ourselves to predictably spitting out the F word every other sentence? It’s fun to think up and use new slang so why not try it?

How do Swearers Respond to being Challenged?
On raising this subject with people who use the F word frequently, responses have ranged from 'You need to get over this and just accept me as I am' to ‘It’s a colourful word and part of the Australian vernacular’ to 'You are right - I feel like a fisherman's wife and hate using the word! Thank you I will replace it with a different word.'

Some people have gone out of their way to use the F word more frequently to deliberately annoy me. Does such a person truly care about how I feel?

I would dearly love for a revolution in consciousness about this word with some open dialogue or debate or at the very least some serious consideration of how this word affects us and others in our vicinity.

Raising Your Own Vibration to Raise the Planet’s Vibration:
Raising our vibration starts with words we use in internal dialogue - the thoughts in our heads. If we choose positive words that encourage self-confidence, kindness, appreciation and gratitude we tend to respond more positively to the outer world. This contributes to peace and helps turn the tide on planetary destruction which originates from hatred and anger. It sounds like a long shot, but remember, sound is vibration and everything originates from vibration.

We Australians seem to have the habit of putting ourselves down, as if it’s some kind of virtue - and it’s not. As a result we are less likely to express appreciation of others. Have you noticed that when you are kind to yourself it’s a lot easier to be kind to others? And we wonder why there is so much discord in the world. If we tell ourselves ‘I am loveable, generous, kind, caring, intelligent, beautiful’ etc. and appreciate ourselves, it will help us be that much closer to extending the same kindness to others. If everyone practised appreciating each other, the world would be a better place.

Imagine if, instead of someone saying ‘F you!’ they said ‘Thank you, I will think about this.’

Doesn’t it make sense to consciously eliminate toxic words that foster harshness and vulgarity and instead use words that foster love and kindness to all creatures? Wouldn’t that help heal a troubled world on the brink of ecocidal madness and create the peace, love and harmony we all deeply crave?

Not everybody speaks about how much they dislike the F word, but such people do exist and they suffer quietly for a long time. Maybe it’s time to speak up and help the world change the tide of negativity and usher in a new age of genuinely positive imprinting of consciousness of ourselves and those around us?

******

Footnote: While not all scientists agree that Dr Emoto’s work is credible research, bear in mind that the understanding of resonance is in its infancy and scientific trials can be problematic when the results can be so easily influenced by an experimenter’s mind. See Dr Emoto explaining what his critics fail to grasp at youtube.com/watch?v=rZDOPQRdxJM.

Subtitled, "Admiral Wayne Swan and Kaptain Kevin Rudd D-Day WWII Budget Newsreel Spending Campaign".

Yes, this video puts our problems of 'leadership' and 'vision' succinctly.
And could lead to deeper questions about the meaning of life, the notion of human intelligence, and the nature of money.
Or we could just be happy that people like Cyrius01 are out there to balance out the Krudd and Howard humour deficits.

Erickson Aircrane Flynn
Courtesy: G. Brooks, January 2009.

['Flynn' part of record CFS fleet']

It took many bushfires over many decades, but in December 2008, South Australia's Premier Mike Rann started seriously committing to Aerial Bushfire Fighting by securing an Erickson Aircrane water bombing aircraft being based in South Australia during the Fire Danger Season. The Erickson Aircrane, nicknamed 'Flynn' is now part of a serious CFS fleet of 15 fire-fighting dedicated aircraft with standby crews as Premier Rann says "to improve the capacity and flexibility of the Country Fire Service to respond to potentially threatening bushfires.”

The Erickson Aircrane, is capable of carrying 7,500 litres of water (freshwater or seawater) and has been proven an effective response and support to 'bolster' ground bushfire fighting crews in Europe, the US and in Canada. “In the past we’ve had to rely on an Erickson Aircrane from interstate but now we can call on this aircraft when needed at short notice." Mr Rann said.

Although Victoria and New South Wales have long had their own Erickson Aircranes and access to other fire fighting aircraft, the scale and number of major bushfires in these two states over recent decades has far outsurpassed the bushfires of South Australia. Similarly, the population sizes and government budgets of both Victoria and NSW far exceed that of South Australia. So why has Victoria and NSW lagged behind in proportional terms with its airborne bushfire fighting capacity?

What is significant coming from South Australia is the Premier of that State declaring: “The State Government recognises its responsibility to provide the best and most effective resources to protect South Australia’s urban fringe and rural communities from bushfires and consistently continues to deliver on this pledge” and his commitment to aerial fire-fighting and bushfire surveillance and his government's recognition that an effective airborne unit can "help accelerate the response times to bushfires!”

Now as a result, bushfire fighting results are coming out of CFS South Australia like that reported by the media below...

[The following extracts from an article by Doug Robertson, Joanna Vaughan and Frances Stewart on AdelaideNow.com.au, 15 March 2008]

'CFS hit heatwave fires hard and early!'

"THE CFS heatwave strategy to strike quickly and with everything has averted a series of potential disasters during our most extreme fire danger period.
Praise yesterday was being heaped on the firefighting force's ferocious attack on fires at Williamstown, Balhannah and Willunga.

The plan – to throw as many people and resources as possible at a fire in its first 30 minutes – kept the SA's three-day fire-damage toll to less than 200ha, one home and only minor injuries.
It is a reflection of lessons learned in the devastating Eyre Peninsula Black Tuesday fires in 2005 and the recommendations handed down in a coronial inquest into that fire.

After 12 days of a record heatwave, firefighters were warned earlier this week that the dry landscape was ready to burn and if a fire had not been controlled within the first 30 minutes, it could spread into a disaster. In a clear example of the rapid response, fire crews yesterday were able to extinguish a "fast-moving" grass fire near Balhannah after only 20 minutes.

Strong winds swept the fire towards Nairne but it was contained to only 8.2ha after several resources, including 120 firefighters, two fixed-winged water bombers, an air crane and two aerial observation aircraft, were thrown at it. The fire at Willunga that destroyed a house, injured nine firefighters and burnt through 153ha, was officially contained yesterday. More than 220 fire fighters were supported by five fixed-winged aerial bombers, one air crane and two aerial observation aircraft. The planes refilled in three minutes and averaged a nine-minute turn-around to the drop site at the height of the bushfire on Thursday.
Erickson Aircrane Flynn
Courtesy: G. Brooks, January 2009

The two air-tractor aircraft carried 3200 litres of foam and three AT-602s – brought in from Port Lincoln – filled up at Woodside and each made more than 25 drops on the fire ground in about five hours. "With the fire behaviour we have seen in Willunga and Williamstown, if there hadn't been such a significant response in terms of numbers and time they spent on the ground, these fires would have taken off and threatened communities far further afield than the areas they have been restricted to."

"When everything works together, it's amazing. The fire bombers are so important helping fight the fires; they help the guys on the ground so much." Australian Maritime Resources chief pilot Peter Bidstrup said the aerial bombers needed the CFS volunteers on the ground to be fully effective.

"We're airborne within two minutes of a page, typically, and able to respond two AT-802 (aircraft) with 3200 litres each anywhere in the Adelaide Hills within 15 minutes," he said. "That gets 6400 litres of foam on to the fire and the idea is to get it on when it's small."

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Surely this must send a stark lesson to the Premiers of Victoria and NSW and to the respective bushfire fighting Boards and Executive of Victoria's CFA and NSW's RFS. If only the volunteers in those states could receive what those in the CFS do.

Ross Gittens, an economist, discusses the state of the recession in Australia in today's Business Age, 13-7-09. He made a comment about China needing lots of 'steel and energy' - the very 'commodities' that Australia supplies.

This common use of misleading terminology fosters misunderstanding of what is really happening.

Energy is not a commodity. Gittens was implicitly referring to the coal we export. Coal has the inherent potential to supply energy when ignited. It is this type of flow of energy when activated that is used to do work or some other useful purpose for society. This inherent potential has to converted to actual potential. A system has to be installed to mine the coal, transport it to the power station installed to generate the electricity. The inherent potential energy in the coal can then be realized. These activities entail the use of raw materials, including those providing the energy needed, for the construction, operation and maintenance of the system.

Thermodynamics is often mentioned in discussions about what is happening in industrialized society and what is possible in the future. Conventional thermodynamics deals with energy flows when the existing potential is activated. That is only part of the issue. It covers the functioning (operation) of the installed system. It does not cover the development of the system throughout its life that enables the potential in that coal field to be realized. 'net energy' does cover only some aspects of the development and operating costs.

"Fossil fuels resemble capital in the bank. A prudent and responsible parent will use his capital sparingly in order to pass on to his children as much as possible of his inheritance. A selfish and irresponsible parent will squander it in riotous living and care not one whit how his offspring will fare."

This quote sums up one side of what current society is doing to its inheritance. The other side is what the wastes from its operations do, including causing climate change. It is lamentable that this is not widespread understanding in today's society.

Admiral Rickover spoke these words in 1957. Many prominent people have espoused this wisdom over many decades. However, the community at large and the elite who run the economy are deaf to this stark reality, even though the message on what the wastes are doing is starting to seep out.

It is intriguing to wonder how long it will be before there is widespread awareness of what civilization has done to its life support system. They have to learn that money does not really control what is happening. Dollars will not be a good fuel as oil runs out. They cannot be used for food and do not make a good drink.

It is to be hoped, however, that smart people power will utilize modern communication measures to cope with the irreversible developing challenges.

Denis Frith

Jan Heald and Maryland Wilson of the Australian Wildlife Protection Council

Rights of Wildlife

A lot of people at the July 14 demonstration against Madden's proposed land grab in the Green Wedges were there to campaign for the rights of wildlife. Among them were three members of the Australian Wildlife Protection Council (AWPC), President Maryland Wilson, Secretary Jan Heald, and winner of an AWPC award for outstanding service, Rod "Roos" Stoner.

"We appreciate this opportunity to be a VOICE for our native animals," said Maryland Wilson. "It is a privilege to be standing with Julianne Bell of Protectors of Public Lands, who speaks for all those affected by the Government's outrageous planning laws, which run roughshod over ecosystems and biodiversity."

She was, of course, referring to Planning Minister Madden's shocking proposed expansion of Melbourne's Urban Growth Boundary, involving rezoning up to 46,000 hectares for residential development, new roads and a freeway.

Addressing a large and angry crowd of people who had gathered to protest at the destruction of the wedges and draconian taxes on landholders, President Wilson expressed her sympathy for those who stood to suffer from the taxes, but she said, "Someone here also has to speak up for the kangaroos and other wildlife who cannot vote or speak up themselves. If these plans go ahead millions of living creatures will suffer and die, and our world will be poorer for their loss and we as human beings will be poorer for our loss of decency towards them."

Victoria the leading state in environmental destruction

In an interview, President Wilson told me, "In 2006 the AWPC wrote to Madden, asking that any development should have an environmental impact statement (EIS) before proceeding. Not only has he ignored that reasonable and modest request, but he has proceeded to create policies which destroy native wildlife habitat at an alarming rate, so much so that Victoria is now the leading state in environmental destruction. The Victorian government and Mr Madden's planners run roughshod over wildlife habitat, seemingly without giving a thought to the ramifications of what it means in extinction of species."

When asked what she felt might still be done, President Wilson said, "Obviously Mr Madden is not going to listen to the pleas for help to preserve what wildlife remains. Therefore the only alternative is for a change of government."

She said that the situation is growing so serious for species, especially kangaroos, that she cannot keep up with the calls she receives for help and her volunteers are stretched to the limits on the frontiers of encroaching suburbia, dealing with a sort of 'animal apocalypse'.

Tragic and avoidable situation of the Somerton kangaroos near Thomastown

"For instance", she said, "Several years ago we made an award to one of our 'wildlife warriors' - Rod Stoner - for his incredible efforts to draw public attention to and get help for the plight of a small mob of kangaroos trapped by industrial, commercial and housing development in Somerton. The animals were literally being built around as they foraged for grass in fields that had been enclosed after they had entered it. Some died while trying to make it across the highway. A road was paved down the center of the area; rock crushers made noise and dust on one side; delivery trucks entered and left on another, bulldozers worked on another, and everywhere there was rubbish piled up and strewn around. The animals were being treated like so much rubbish themselves."

"A number of people from different organisations were so shocked that, there and then, we formed the Coalition for Wildlife Corridors. We have published surveys and drawn maps and studied the problem of Victorian wildlife in the particular and the general and we have, most importantly designed easy to follow plans for wildlife corridors in particular areas."

"Rod Stoner has been monitoring these poor kangaroos for several years now,and we have tried everything but stand on our head to gain effective action from VicRoads, DSE, and the Hume City Council. All have made reassuring noises when pressed, but no-one has taken any real responsibility. We who care so much see that those who have power in planning and development have no real concern for the suffering of other creatures and no real respect or understanding for the natural world. Because of this callousness and apathy, this poor little mob of kangaroo refugees will eventually die out. Our wildlife deserves ... So ... Much ... better, " she said, drawing the words out.

"On a bigger scale", she added, "It is obvious that a population explosion in Melbourne, with the accompanying demands for housing is responsible for the Somerton and other tragedies to date, but, with the latest figures showing that Melbourne is increasing by 2000 people a week, it will not be long before we see all our wildlife die out in Victoria, the most cleared state with the worst species extinction in Australia."

"If we cannot refrain from continuing this completely avoidable rate of population growth in addition to climate change and the reduction of indigenous habitat and wildlife access to water and food, our wildlife are doomed."

"Is this really what we want for Victoria?" she asked.

Australian Society of Kangaroos thanks the organisers of the rally

Nikki Sutterby, the Coordinator of the Australian Society for Kangaroos said she sent a big thank you to the people who organised the demonstrations and marched today to save our environment in Victoria, and its green wedges.

"As an organisation that is fighting for the rights of kangaroos, we are well aware of the suffering and displacement that occurs when natural areas are destroyed for development", she said.

"We are currently fighting to save a mob of kangaroos at Mill Park who are land locked by development, and another at Bendigo."

But that is only a teardrop in an ocean of infinite sadness ...

"These animals represent millions of animals that lose their homes every year to the expansion of human development and may we say that we are fully supportive of what you are doing to save our environment and increase the publics awareness regarding it."

Ms Sutterby regretted that she was unable to personally attend the protest, due to circumstances beyond her control, but she offered to give her organisation's ongoing support to the campaign.

Shortly after his lunch with the "Progressive Business Association" must have ended, Mr Madden, who apparently departed shyly out the back door, looked surprised to be intercepted and presented with the resolutions of the Bastille Day Rally against Urban Expansion and Rotten taxes by Julianne Bell, Rosemary West and Jill Quirk, acting on behalf of the environment and democracy.
See also: Unnatural Growth and Rotten Taxes and Animal Apocalypse Shortly after his lunch with the "Progressive Business Association" must have ended, Mr Madden, who apparently departed shyly out the back door, looked surprised to be intercepted and presented with the resolutions of the Bastille Day Rally against Urban Expansion and Rotten taxes by Julianne Bell, Rosemary West and Jill Quirk, acting on behalf of the environment and democracy.
See also: Unnatural Growth and Rotten Taxes and Animal Apocalypse

Julianne Bell presents Planning Minister Mr Madden the resolutions from Melbourne's Bastille Day rally against Urban Expansion, July 14, 2009. (Photo by Jill Quirk)

Bastille Day a good day to defend public land and to demand representation

Bastille Day, Melbourne, Tuesday 14 July, 2009 Many groups with converging environmental, landholder and democratic concerns gathered at the corner of William and Collins Streets, to hear speakers alert the public about Planning Minister Madden's unpleasant and undemocratic plans for Victoria's green wedges.

Ms Bell of Protectors of Public Lands (Victoria), Jill Quirk, of SPA, Ms West, of Green Wedges, and Michael Hocking, of Taxed Out (S.E. Region), had organised a day of protest, which Planning Backlash had urged people to attend. "In our view the attack on Victorians by the Brumby Government in implementing the urban growth boundary expansion, the Green Wedge land grab and levying exorbitant taxes on family farms and small land owners is extraordinarily serious. It has far reaching implications for, amongst other things, destruction of the environment and climate change," wrote Mary Drost.

Resolutions

The meeting passed the following resolutions under the heading of "Protectors of Public Lands":

This meeting:

1. Deplores the fact that Planning Minister Justin Madden MLC is hosting developers at an ALP fund raising lunch and is putting Victoria’s planning policies up for sale.

2. Calls upon the Minister to:

• abandon the Green Wedge land grab.
• levy developers, not family farmers and small landowners.
• hold a population summit to determine how many people Victoria can reasonably sustain.
• meet with community groups at Parliament House to discuss the Urban Growth Boundary Extension and related matters.

Outside the palace

Instead of their usual stamping ground on the steps of Parliament House, where politicians are apparently willing to take the flack for the growth lobby, the protesters had decided to demonstrate closer to the source of Victoria's woes - at a meeting with big business and developers held by the ALP-fundraising arm known as the Progressive Business organisation in the Intercontinental Rialto Hotel.

After speeches from Julianne Bell, Rosemary West, Michael Hocking and Brian Walters S.C., the demonstrators spread out in an angry body hundreds big across Collins Street, rhythmically shouting, "Axe the Taxes" and proceeded downhill to the hotel where Mr Madden's Bastille-Day rendezvous was scheduled.

Outside the hotel there were a number of impromptu speeches through a loud-hailer, punctuated with sustained chants of "Sack Madden", "Sack Brumby", whilst the crowd waited patiently, if noisily, for Julianne, Michael, Jill and Rosemary to deliver the resolutions to Mr Madden. It was clear that most of the people attending, particularly those who stood to lose enormous equity through taxes on any future land-sales or through enormously increased rates if they did not sell, were responding to immediate and serious threat. The faces were tense, there were tears glistening, voices were angry. One man with a continental accent took the loud-hailer and warned that people would be drained of every drop of blood - he meant money - if they failed to halt the process there.

Eventually the four delegates returned to say that they had delivered the resolutions but that Mr Madden had still not arrived for the lunch.

After some deliberation, and in view of the fact that the police had asked politely, the crowd disassembled, with cries of 'We'll be back!" Julianne Bell, Rosemary West, Jill Quirk and a candobetter journalist went around to a cafe behind the hotel and drank their coffee facing the window.

Late meeting with Mr Madden

Mr Madden was spotted shyly leaving the hotel and was intercepted, as pictured in the photos. He did seek to separate himself quickly and turned away, but wheeled around when someone called out, "Marie-Antoinette! Are you afraid to talk to the people?" He then remained long enough for Julianne Bell to present him personally with the Meeting Resolutions. There was a brief chat, where he insisted that his door was always open, or words to that effect, prompting another comment to the effect that if it only cost $1,500 for business to lunch with him, then surely taxpayers who pay much more than that annually, could expect to have much more influence. A member of his party was heard to claim that the State Government has nothing to do with population growth in Melbourne, that it is a Federal Government responsibility. A member of the Bell party corrected this misapprehension.

Indeed, population growth policy, particularly through immigration, is more and more crafted and influenced by the States, for it is the state governments which look after land and water. Population growth increases the price of land and State Governments reap financial benefits from land-transactions via taxes. The Victorian government has a website called www.liveinvictoria.vic.gov.au (see more about this and the developer lobby in Melbourne at Melbourne 2008: Life in a destruction zone which shows some of its dedication to the policy of increasing population in Australia.)

One more thing. The resolution calling for a population summit could backfire, since Mr Brumby's predecessor, Mr Bracks, held the Melbourne Population Summit in 2002. This event was almost entirely given over to developer propaganda, with journalists making speeches to promote population growth, as if they actually experts. The Premier and many others misled the public by talking as if Australia's population was falling and presenting massive population growth as a benign, even positive. Auspiced by the developer officiated and funded Australian Population Institute (APop), the Dennis Family Corporation (Developers, Financiers, builders, land-bankers), various commercial media with a reliance on marketing land, Mr Pratt, a big advocate of big populations and 'managing water' for business reasons who was facing criminal charges before he died, with Master of Ceremonies, Steve Vizard - convicted of insider trading - it was a very sorry event which reflects and reverberates to this day to the great shame of all politicians associated with it.

A new video has been uploaded to You Tube as part of our continuing campaign against Repco Rally Australia.

The video shows footage from the Byrrill Creek Special (RACING) Stage of the rally.

Help fight this eco-vandalism.

Sign our online petition at www.petitiononline.com/NRG01e/petition.html and check our website at sites.google.com/site/norallygroup for the latest info.

We don't want it!!! We don't need it!!!

Blurring of Government with Land Speculation Ominous for democracy in Australia

The opaque but omnipresent relationship of Australian state governments to developers and big business is a source of disquiet. A Bastille Day lunch between Victorian Planning Minister, Mr Madden, and big-business seemed especially Marie-Antoinette, as hundreds of angry farmers, other landholders, wildlife and other environment groups, demonstrated outside.

All were concerned about the bad laws and injustices that excessive population growth is driving in Victoria. Most are beginning to realise that it is because of the Government's excessively close relationship with the developer growth lobby that Victoria is suffering from water shortages, homelessness, increased violence and loss of democracy. A new tax the government wants, which would involve taxing landowners instead of developers for government-imposed changes to land-zoning could beggar thousands of people.

Jill Quirk, Victorian President of Sustainable Population Australia, said, “Planning Minister Madden's Bastille-day lunch with the ALP's developer-linked Progressive Business fund-raising arm is ironic.”

Yes, Jill. Bastille Day is the anniversary of the time in the French Revolution when the people demanded representation in return for their taxes from a worthless government that was selling off public land to the highest bidder in order to finance debt and printing worthless money.

Progressive Business Association: Official association for Big Business and the Labor Party

The Progressive Business organisation calls itself is ‘an associated entity of the Australian Labor Party [which] from time to time, donate funds to the Party’. It has two membership types : Corporate - $1,550 (incl. GST) and Business - $990 (incl. GST). Corporate members get 5 Tickets to the Breakfast Briefing Program and access to 5 Twilight Briefings for 5 company representatives; Business members get 3 Tickets to the Breakfast Briefing Program and access to 5 Twilight Briefings for 3 company representatives.

Most Victorians pay far more than this in taxes every year but the Minister for Planning doesn't listen to them.

The Victorian public get NOTHING but coercive population growth and development expansion. Research has shown that many of the government's sponsors and business associates reap far more in public contracts than they ever donate.

President Quirk commented that, "In a democracy, government policies should be conceived and drafted with the interests of ordinary citizens in mind. The push for more and more population growth causes friction, disruption and loss for those directly impacted and also to the citizens at large. Nature as a whole is being steam-rolled and many cannot sleep at night from rage and despair."

Sharon Beder should be declared a National Treasure and we should be listening to her rather than to corporate advocates like Bernard Salt. Today, as Victorians go to demonstrate against the assault on democracy of a government which is almost impossible to differentiate from the corporate developer lobby, her words help us to understand our predicament.

Her blog, with many articles like the one cited below is here:http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/sbeder/

A Revolutionary shift from democracy to corporate rule ...

"The revolutionary shift that we are witnessing at the beginning of the 21st Century from democracy to corporate rule is as significant as the shift from monarchy to democracy, which ushered in the modern age of nation states. It represents a wholesale change in cultural values and aspirations.

This eclipse of democratic values by corporate values is not a natural evolution but the consequence of a deliberate strategy employed by corporate executives who have combined their financial and political resources to spread free market ideology. Corporations, individually and in concert, have utilised all the major communication institutions of a modern society – including the media and education – to shape community beliefs, values and behaviour. This has enabled corporations ‘to enthral and becloud the understanding’ of large numbers of citizens so that it is commonly believed that large corporations are benevolent institutions that should be minimally regulated because what is good for them is good for society as a whole."

More here, in "The Corporate Assault on Democracy" by Sharon Beder.

Beder is also the author of multiple environmental politics books.

Rights of Landowners to be clarified

July 14th 2009

On July 9th at the Seymour Magistrate’s Court, the date of 27th August was set for a contest mention where charges of trespass against Sugarloaf Alliance employees will be refined.

These charges have been made by two Yea landowners, whose freehold properties have been affected by the construction of the North-South Pipeline. Their land was entered by pipeline employees, who fenced off a portion of their property, excluded the owners under threat of arrest and constructed a pipeline 1.75 metres in diameter, all against the wish of the landowner and prior to acquisition under the normal due process by way of the Land Acquisition and Compensation Act.

It is extremely important to all landowners, that the question of the right to enter private freehold land, for the purpose of major infrastructure construction, prior to due and proper acquisition(under the Land Acquisition and Compensation Act) is clearly and finally clarified.

Brumby government threatenes to recover legal costs

The Brumby Government should hang it’s head in shame when it threatens to recover legal costs over this issue. Any Government should uphold the rights of its citizens to the highest level, particularly the rights of freehold landowners.

One would think that the Government would also want this point of law decided, unless of course, Mr Brumby is worried that in his extreme haste to construct the N-S Pipeline, he has instructed employees to illegally enter freehold land.

Also : Contrary to recent Melbourne Water Media Releases, Plug the Pipe is not involved with any legal actions against Melbourne Water. All actions past and pending have involved private individuals. Melbourne Water has been mischievous in these media statements.

Jan Beer, Plug The Pipe Spokesperson, Yea Group
Mob: 0407 144 777

It was entirely predictable that Prime Minister Kevin Rudd would concede that the Copenhagen summit in December would fail to reach a global emissions reduction deal. ABC Online
Despite his pre-election rhetoric, he is worse than a climate change sceptic and has failed even his own aims on carbon emission cuts! He did an about-face on deep cuts to greenhouse gas emissions just days after Australia's delegation backed the plan at the climate talks in Bali. He backed a 25-40 per cent cut on 1990 emission levels by 2020 rather than 60%. This further whittled away his commitment to only a 5% reduction of carbon levels by 2020!

Like his failed grand gestures on Kyoto and vow to Japan's illegal whaling, this conference in Copenhagen is also doomed!

G8 leaders failed to persuade India and China to join a push to cut greenhouse emissions by 50 per cent by 2050. Why should nations with much lower per capita output of greenhouse gas emissions make more sacrifices than Australia? On the contrary, our obligation, as one of the highest per capita emitters in the world, is to lead the way.

"On a global scale, Australia has the highest rate of greenhouse gas emissions per capita," said Professor Mark Diesendorf, co-director of the Institute of Environmental Studies at the University of New South Wales in Sydney.

Kevin Rudd's real masters are the coal, banking and mining industries.

His "projected" (deliberate) population growth is to stimulate further consumerism. If we accept the reality of anthropogenic climate change, it cannot be addressed while we have a historically high population growth rate and continue supporting highly polluting industries. We are digging ourselves into a hole, and the deeper we go the harder and more costly it will be to scramble out!

With contradictory policies we will see no leadership on climate change from our present Rudd Government. Global population, and a population policy for Australia, should be on the agenda in December. Kevin Rudd is self-fulfilling his own prophesies about Copenhagen!

[This article is in response to Mary's comment referencing 'The Age' article 'State policy wins: Camberwell project approved' posted on (We) CandoBetter.org website Friday 10th July 2009...thank you Mary.]
What has Victoria's Premier Brumby got against the residents and retailers of Camberwell?

Threat #1: A 14-storey 'SHREK' highrise for Camberwell Junction

'SHREK' rising out of the middle of Camberwell'...a massive proposed 14-storey apartment high-rise for Camberwell Junction by developer, FKP Property Group.

Camberwell locals have for over six years made very clear to the Victorian State Government of their opposition to high-rise and high-density development in Camberwell. Locals and their council have rejected the proposed high-rise for the Worrells Mercedes/Henley Honda site at Camberwell Junction.

And shame on the owner of this important prominent site, Bill Bowness, of Melbourne's property developer Wilbow Corp. Back in September 2006, Wilbow Corp pocketed $284 million from its sale of the site to Queensland property group FKP Property Group. FPK's subsequent $47 million high-rise project for the site involves two residential towers of 9 and 15 stories, as well as a 5-storey office building with ground floor retail. Did Wilbow or FKP approach Boroondara Council to ask for community input into suggested future use and design of this prominent and valuable site at Camberwell Junction?

FKP has since modified its plan, proposing a 14-storey office tower plus two separate 9-storey buildings with 106 apartments. It is massive over-development of the site and one completely out of character for Camberwell Junction's low-rise shopping precinct. The popular Burke Road strip has won a survey of the best performing suburban strip in Melbourne and is one of the most personable and vibrant strip shopping precincts. Local resident action group, Boroondara Residents Action Group [BRAG], claims the Government's decision to allow the 14-storey high-rise will ruin Camberwell.

Yet FKP spins its hollow commitment to 'sustainability' on its website claiming FKP: "accepts its responsibility to achieve synergy between business operations, community and the environment. This responsibility is underpinned by a commitment at every level of the organisation to continually raise the benchmark, delivering environmentally sustainable developments and working in partnership with local community groups and organisations." Spin-doctoring is a literary art aint it? ..and then voila! SHREK! And what's to happen to the heritage protected building on the site fronting Burke Road?

Premier John Brumby

Why is Brumby's Labor Government imposing a South Bank high-rise vision to Camberwell's suburban shopping centre? Generations of families have been established in Camberwell since the 19th Century. Thousands of them have poured their life savings into renovating and restoring their homes because they value the special residential amenity that Camberwell provides. And look at the value of the area now! Camberwell is one of the quietest, leafiest suburbs in Melbourne. Any real estate agent will tell you that Camberwell it is one of the most sought after residential areas in Melbourne. Camberwell is the residential jewel of Melbourne - a leafy established suburban district typified by beautifully restored Edwardian homes and lovingly cared for established gardens. In the main, Camberwell is zoned the with highest possible amenity protection: the much prized 'Residential A1'. As an old Camberwell Grammarian [1976-1981] I know Camberwell like the back of my hand and that to invade Camberwell with high-rise would be aesthetically destructive, architecturally misguided for Camberwell. From both an architectural and town planning best practice perspective, it would be professionally, morally and culturally wrong. It would destroy Camberwell's character and undermine its heritage value.

Riversdale Road looking towards Camberwell Junction as it is today.

Boroondara Council is right to support local Camberwell residents and retailers in their opposition to these developments. Council has been angered by Brumby's Labor Governments standover approach overriding its planning decisions that take into account local community values and concerns. The Brumby Government's fetish for population growth and high density development is anathema to Camberwell's residential character and retail amenity. Once high rise goes into Camberwell it will be a legal precedent and a commercial developer’s frenzy. Camberwell will descend into another South Bank. The high-rise for Camberwell Railways station will follow the same planning failure as that at Box Hill station. Once again, State Governments acting like autocrats where the rights of locals don't count. And it is not just in Camberwell but across Melbourne. Locals are being denied their landhold rights to respect and preserve the special and valued character and amenity of their suburb.

So what has Brumby got against Camberwell? What does Premier Brumby and his interfering authoritarian state government envision for Camberwell? Can we expect to see a tannery approved in Monomeath Avenue or high transmission lines plonked up the length of Month Albert Road in some misguided spiteful principle?

Perhaps Brumby is too wound up in economic short termism like Chinese Premier Li Peng. Recall Li Peng was hell bent on that term 'progress' and to that warped end used force to quash the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 and who ordered the displacement of a million Chinese to build his Three Gorges Dam.

Chinese Premier Li Peng (1989 1998) - his legacy as a hardliner, hell bent on short term economic growth to the detriment of the community and the environment.

Community Protest over Extension of Melbourne's Urban Growth Boundary, Destruction of Green Wedges & Unfair Land Tax on 14 July 2009

Here is the notice of a community rally protesting over the impact of the expansion of Melbourne's urban growth boundary, about to be pushed out by up to 46,000 hectares, for residential development and a freeway/ring road. The State Government is considering taking over planning powers of these new "growth areas".

The rally is being organised by Taxed Out Inc., Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc. and the Green Wedges Coalition. Community groups have been angered by the announcement that, as reported in the Age of 16 June 2009. Planning Minister Madden will host a luncheon on 14 July 2009 to "brief" developers and business "on the vision for our growth areas and the need to fast track infrastructure investment to create jobs" - and to raise funds for the ALP. It seems that a privileged section of the community can buy the Minister's ear at the expense of other citizens.

When: 11:30 am Tuesday 14 July 2009

Where: Meet at the South-East Corner of Collins and William Streets, Melbourne.

Why:

The proposed expansion of Melbourne's Urban Growth Boundary will involve rezoning up to 46,000 hectares for residential development, new roads and a freeway. This policy could see unprecedented destruction of green wedges; environmental damage plus loss of western grasslands; destruction of wildlife including endangered species; increased greenhouse gas emissions; building of yet more freeways; loss of arable farm land; compulsory acquisition of land; increased tax burdens including the grossly unfair vendor tax a "Growth Areas Infrastructure Contribution - GAIC"; and comes as a result of the go-for-growth-at any-cost Government philosophy. Also the erosion of our democracy will be on the cards if the elected State Government bypasses Parliament and local councils over planning and environment issues.

Transport: Trams in Collins and William Streets, some meter parking in Haymarket Street. Train to Flagstaff Station then tram down William Street. Spencer Street then tram down Bourke or Collins to William Street

Bring to Rally: Warm clothes, a cut lunch and something to sit on. Plus a placard. (Some will be provided.)

Support Needed:

We would be very glad if you can send us a message on behalf of your organisation in support of the rally. This will help prove that your organisation is not city-centric or has "NIMBY" tendencies. Send to the above email address. I will read them out. Make sure to give the name of your group. (Messages of support have already been received from a few outer suburban and rural groups saying how much they appreciate city folks taking up these issues.) Plus we need people to attend even for a short time. Send to Julianne Bell on jbell5[AT]bigpond.com

Contacts: Julianne Bell Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc 0408022408 and jbell5[AT]bigpond.com, Rosemary West Green Wedges Coalition 0418 554 799 and John Holtham Taxed Out 0409136311.

Fini Developer & City of Gosnells West Oz hard on near-extinct Black Cockatoos in Rehab

Glenn Dewhurst, of the Black Cockatoo Conservation Team in West Australia feels harassed and almost despairs in the face of complaints from a developer who lives next door to the 12 Acre Black Cockatoo Rehab facility in Martin, W.A., which Glenn has dedicated years of his life to constructing.

West Australian Black Cockatoos in Rehab enjoying nuts

The developer, David Fini, of David Fini Developments, has complained about noise from nesting birds, Glenn says. Glenn cannot understand why since, he says, only two birds have been born in the rehab facility. "They were accidents. It is not meant to be a breeding facility; it is for rehab. We free the birds when they are well, we don't breed them."

Mr Dewhurst says that Mr Fini has also complained about workers there picking native nuts to feed the birds.

Glenn says, "The collection of nuts is wide and varied, usually covering up to 100kms at a time. We never pick in the same spot and only 20% of any nuts. We have permits. Some weekends we have travelled over 350kms to get food for these birds. It is very important to have the native food and critical for their rehabilitation."

"Mr Fini has complained about the volunteers visiting the rehab centre, too", says Glenn Dewhurst, "Although there are only four volunteer workers at any one time."

In addition, Mr Fini has complained about the noise from the cockatoos that are being rehabilitated.

Glenn Dewhurst says that he does not believe that noise levels greater than those from wild birds in the area can be shown to be coming from the birds his team are rehabilitating.

He says that there are many more wild birds than the few black cockatoos in rehab.

More Noise from wild birds in Perth caused by birds displaced by developers

He explains that the numbers of wild birds moving in and out of the Perth area are constantly increasing because they are being displaced by developers like Mr Fini. "The wild birds don't have enough to eat and so more and more of them are trying to find food in the same place, wherever there are a few trees."

Despite Mr Dewhurst's impression that the Black Cockatoo Rehab Facility is being targeted unfairly, the Black Cockatoo Conservation Team find the local Council seems reluctant to stand up for the Cockatoos.

Council Inflexibility and unhelpfulness could kill these rare rescued birds

The Black Cockatoo Conservation Team say that they have asked the council and Mr Fini to allow them to adopt mitigation strategies which Mr Dewhurst believes have not even been stated in the report to council for the Tuesday meeting. "I have been told that the planner Andrew Bratley has only nominated 3 strategies and recommended that the strategies are refused."

"Ninety-five per cent of the birds will be moved to the other center, when it is ready. The other center is also in Martin and is called Kaarakin, and is located at 1.5km from the 'clone' facility which is the facility that is the source of Mr Fini's complaints."

"If the new facility isn’t ready these endangered cockatoos will be at critical risk. The Shire and the Developer seem to intend not to give the facility any time," says Glenn.

The Team are therefore desperately trying to move the cockatoos at the Martin facility to their other Kaarakin facility, which the Council made available to them some time ago for a pepper-corn rent. Ironically, however, the Council is inexplicably delaying a survey that is necessary before the cockatoos can be moved in.

Glenn writes, "We have fought hard to do what we do; I have personally given all my energy and strength to bring the plight of these birds to every Australian and beyond. I at times have put the birds before my beautiful family and they have been very patient with me, allowing me to follow my passion in saving these endangered birds.

In the five years of her life, my five-year-old has only been on two very short holidays down south. My three and one-year-old have only been on holiday once. Andrea and I spend every spare cent on these birds and she even agreed for us to cancel a holiday to visit her parents overseas, so that we could deal with issues relating to the endangered Black Cockatoos.

We now need your help to help us save the facility that has saved so many endangered Black Cockatoos, Please help any way you can."

These people may have some power to change this situation:

DEADLINE TUESDAY 14TH JULY -

Ian COWIE CEO City of Gosnells, icowie[AT]gosnells.wa.gov.au
Donna Faragher, Minister for the Environment Youth, Minister.Faragher[AT]dpc.wa.gov.au
Premier Colin BARNETT, wa-government[AT]dpc.wa.gov.au
Honourable Brendon GRYLLS MLA, Minister.Grylls[AT]dpc.wa.gov.au

So many contradictions in government behaviour

Glenn says the contradictions are a source of stress in themselves. He describes how, in April 2008, the City of Gosnells gave him a letter of support for the BCCT facility that they now want removed - at the request of the West Australian Department of Environment and Conservation. Only a few months ago, the same government's Minister for Environment had congratulated the BCCT on getting Land for Wildlife for these endangered cockatoos.

"We have all worked so hard for the sake of these special endangered Birds. We cannot lose this fight to the City of Gosnells and Mr Fini, as it is a fight for the survival of these birds. If we lose our 'clone' (secondary) facility then the City of Gosnells may be implicated for the demise of the endangered Black Cockatoo."

“Yes”, says Dewhurst, “The City of Gosnells has given us another facility on a pepper corn rental, for which we are thankful. We are not, however, allowed to build there unless we meet the normal conditions of building approvals. Although we should have no problem in meeting these, we are still awaiting the carrying out of the survey necessary before we can make our application.

"The City of Gosnells is responsible for the survey and for the delay. Because of these delays, we cannot even move the birds in the near future."

"We have also encountered personal hardship over this matter and have felt that we are being persecuted. For instance, Andrea and I believe that we have been subject to allegations of financial impropriety from a councilor at the City of Gosnells and from FINI Developments. To defend our good name we engaged an auditor at the cost $3.500, which we put on our personal credit cards. The complete audit showed no financial mismanagement. We are now in debt and it will take us about four months to pay this off. We estimate that the councilor in question has cost our organization $46,000 because of his allegations which have all been proven false.

Scale of the Conservation Facilities

This rescue attempt of an endangered species is no small affair. Glenn and his team are managing a wildlife rescue of international significance which has taken hundreds of thousands of dollars and many volunteer hours to run. The stakes are enormous for the birds, for their carers, for Australia and the world. At least two large facilities are required. Because of the amount of land and building involved simply to keep these birds, alive, safe and then to prepare them for release, closing down one facility before the other is opened would almost certainly have appalling consequences. Some of those consequences would be financial, of course, but the worst ones would be irreversible species decline, not to mention the extreme discouragement of the workers involved and the message this sends to children, Australians and the world. How sad if we were to lose these amazing, long-lived wise and funny creatures because a council had difficulty understanding the significance of the conservation program. This is not like a development that gets held up and costs some investors money; it is like destroying a part of Eden, never to recover.

Why the Black Cockatoos require two facilities

Mr Dewhurst says that the Black Cockatoo organisation requires 2 facilities in Perth (another is 450km away) for the following reasons:

• some of the injured and young birds require round the clock care. The Martin facilities can accommodate 24 hour volunteer care; and

• some of the research requires round the clock observation for the same reason. The Martin facility can accommodate this; and

• some of the birds housed at the Martin facilities are utilised for community educational purposes and are tame enough for people to interact with. These birds are also utilised by DEC for educational purposes. As these birds are valuable to the open market, for this reason they require secure facility; and

• having two facilities ensures protection from total disaster such as natural events like bushfires; and

• lastly, the Cohuna (Kaarakin) site requires major repairs. These are ongoing and have so far taken more than 7000 volunteer hours, which equates to a minimum of $200,000 in labour. The site is far from being the primary care facility. Currently it can only house around 30 birds.

Please consider emailing the following people who might help if they realise the significance of the problem

Ian COWIE CEO City of Gosnells, icowie[AT]gosnells.wa.gov.au
Donna Faragher, Minister for the Environment Youth, Minister.Faragher[AT]dpc.wa.gov.au
Premier Colin BARNETT, wa-government[AT]dpc.wa.gov.au
Honourable Brendon GRYLLS MLA, Minister.Grylls[AT]dpc.wa.gov.au

See also: http://blackcockatoorescue.com, Threatened West Aust Black Cockatoo gets help and Help save West Australian black cockatoo from extinction, phone Glen on 0417 988 872.

[This article was initially posted as a comment in response to Brian McGavin's article 'Report on conference to find 10 best of 20 climate solutions'].

A 'Queenslander' style family home in Brisbane

If "Australia was a big country well able to absorb a bigger population" [Ed Miliband, UK Climate and Energy Secretary], then we would have full employment, public infrastructure and services would have excess capacity ready to cope, federal and state governments would be in surplus and there would be no undue pressures on our economy, society or ecology. But this is clearly not the case - just read any newspaper in Australia. It's obvious when commuting to work. Try getting a job. Try getting elective surgery. Try booking children into a school or toddlers into childcare. Try buying a house.

Edward Miliband, an economist and now somehow qualified to be UK Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change in Britain's Labor Party, and somehow qualified to be an authority on Australia and its population capacity and ecological footprint - or else really an ambitious UK polly who will say anything before checking his facts, and who has no expertise on Australia or in population sociology?

Demand stress upon all resources is worsening and at its root, this demand is driven by the growth of human population and its proportionate demand for scarce resources.

What is needed to clarify the problem is to establish measures and benchmarks. The ‘best or most favourable’ population for Australia and each of its cities and regions will be its 'optimum population'. This is one key benchmark. It is a more appropriate measure than 'sustainable population', because 'sustainable' implies the maximum possible, which is a less than ideal outcome. If Australians want to live in congestion akin to Bangkok or Hong Kong, then even if our resources could be pushed further to the sustainable limit, Australia's 'sustainable population' would be a scary number!

Bangkok

But how do we measure the benchmark of 'optimum population'? The Optimum Population Trust (OPT) approaches this measurement by applying the test of ecological footprinting (or eco-footprinting) This seeks to measure the ecological carrying capacity of a district, province, country, global region and even the whole planet. Carrying capacity is defined by OPT as "the size of human population that can be supported in a given territory, in a specified life-style (for example 'Modest European'), without degrading its physical and ecological environment, and without imposing wastes on the global environment beyond a specified limit." OPT Research Co-ordinator Andrew Ferguson defines eco-footprinting as "the process of determining the bioproductive area that a person or a population needs in order to sustain a specified lifestyle."

So the test then comes down to one of lifestyle. Lifestyle is a familiar term but one worth defining at this point. Dictionary .com defines lifestyle as "the habits, attitudes, tastes, moral standards, economic level, etc., that together constitute the mode of living of an individual or group." Perhaps Australians should reflect on this definition -'room to move', 'low cost of living', health, individual freedoms, access to opportunities, access to resources, etc. In Australia, we apparently have one of the best lifestyles on the planet. Australian lifestyle is made up of a set of values that should not be taken for granted.

So if eco-footprinting is about the relationship between a bioproductive area of a person or population to sustain a specified lifestyle, then this assumes lifestyle is inversely proportional to population - where the larger the population and faster the growth of that population the lower the standard of lifestyle - 'room to move', lower costs, opportunities, resource access, reduced competition, etc. In Australia, we apparently have one of the best lifestyles on the planet.

But this is relative and these days it depends on where one lives in Australia and one's socio-economic status. Back in the 1960's Australia was arguably a classless society. These days not so. In 1960 Australia's population was 10 million. In 1970 it was 12 million. In 1980 it was 14 million. In 1990 it was 17 million. In 2009 it is 21.8 million and increasing exponentially currently at 300,000 per year and could reach $23 million by 2010. So in 50 years, Australia's population has more than doubled. With current government policy at both federal and state levels our population will likely double again to 50 million in less than 50 years. Based on policies and historical trends to concentrate population in Australia's capital cities, this means Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane and other major cities will be twice the size they are now. Imagine that for a moment! This is the real risk. It is frankly the biggest problem facing Australia.

Some other useful measures to better define the population growth problem are:

'Ecological footprint' is defined by the World Wildlife Fund as "an ecological footprint compares countries' consumption of natural resources with the Earth's biological capacity to regenerate them," or "a measure of humanity's use of renewable resources."

'Ecological space' is "the biologically productive space available to each person on the planet. Divided into equal shares (i.e. divided by world population) it was 5 - 6 hectares per person in 1900 and decreased to 1.5 hectares per person by 2000. Ecological space can expand or shrink depending on resource consumption, technological innovation, population growth and other factors."

Hectare, global (gha) "In eco-footprinting, 1 hectare (10,000m2, or 100m x 100m) of biologically productive space with world-average productivity. In 2002 the biosphere had 11.4 billion hectares of biologically productive space corresponding to roughly one quarter of the planet's surface. These 11.4 billion hectares include 2 billion hectares of cropland, 3.5 billion hectares of grazing land, 3.8 billion hectares of forest land, 0.3 billion hectares of inland waters and 0.3 hectares of built-up land. One global hectare is therefore a hectare representing the average capacity of one of these 11.4 billion hectares. Thus a hectare of highly productive land represents more 'global hectares' than the same surface of less productive land. Global hectares allow the meaningful comparison of the ecological footprints of different countries, which use different qualities and mixes of cropland, grazing land, and forest."

Becoming familiar with these measures and benchmarks will enable us to have a clearer understanding about what population numbers and growth Australia and Auatralians can indeed 'absorb'.

Moama Beach, South Australia...with many hectares per person (and seagull).

"Meeting a friend out walking one morning." Photo by Wildlife Carer, Anne-Marie.

"Russia has just announced a ban on all kangaroo products from the 1st August, citing consistent contamination. For those that are unaware, the kangaroo meat exported to Russia is manufacturing meat. This is forequarter bones with meat attached, offal, trimmings and bruising, all put through a grinder and turned into slush, then boxed, snap frozen and exported. The Russians use it for salami and sausage mostly. They add chopped root vegetables and fat, fill the slush into sausage casings, and smoke them. Its then hung for some weeks until cured, then eaten. This is what our politicians have been doing in China lately, trying to convince the Chinese to buy the rejected Russian export kangaroo slush." Pat O'Brien

Perhaps our politicians think that, because China already has world attention due to contaminates in material used for baby formula and pet food, where babies died and pets died, that it won't matter if we push contaminated roo meat on them. Let us hope that is not the case.

Film and Interviews

For more from Pat O'Brien, President of Wildlife Protection Association of Australia, on the problems attached to preparing and exporting kangaroo meat, see these films:
"Meatworks", at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nY1UD7GpYsw
"Lay Reports on Kangaroo Numbers"

See also, "Urgent Need for Wildlife Corridors in Australia" from the Australian Wildlife Protection Council.

Petition against kangaroo shoots and other resources

A petition is also available, calling for a moratorium on commercial and non-commercial kangaroo killing.

For an extraordinary series of photographs documenting the behaviour and interaction of wildlife with each other and carers click here

Kangaroos are being killed in areas where they are quasi extinct. Learn more at http://www.stopkangarookilling.org

Picture of protected young orphans by Wildlife Carer, Anne-Marie.

Russia blames food safety for Australian kangaroo meat ban

Thursday, 09/07/2009

On the ABC it was reported that Russia has banned all kangaroo meat from being imported to the country.
It has been claimed that the news "is a massive blow to the Australian kangaroo harvesting industry as Russia takes up to 70 per cent of supply and that the industry contributes up to $270 million to the Australian economy per year and employs over 4000 people." LiveExportShame queries these figures.

Peas are 'harvested'; Kangaroos are 'slaughtered'

People who disapprove of the way that Kangaroos are hunted or that they are hunted at all query the sanitising terminology of 'harvesting'. This comment appeared at LiveExportShame: "The kangaroos are SLAUGHTERED not 'harvested'. Thats what is done with peas."

Project officer with the Queensland Macropod and Wild Game Harvesters Association, Tom Garrett, said that "They're saying that there's a systemic problem with the import of Kangaroo meat into Russia and their quoting E-coli in one shipment so I believe it's a little bit to do with politics as well," he says. Mr Garrett says the ban come in on the 1st of August this year and it will see the price of kangaroo meat become worthless.ABC original source

Peter Garret and Law (EPBC) Policy & the System

Pat O'Brien was very disappointed with Mr Garrett's failure to carry through with pre-election committments to reform the EPBC Act. See "Law (EPBC), Policy & the System" interview here about those promises and contrast with Garrett and his government's conduct towards our wildlife. This film also gives a very commonsense appraisal of the ideal of maintaining kangaroos in the wild by making them our national dish when we have 21.6 million people here and growing rapidly, and looks at the history of 'wild life for food scams'.

By chance I noticed an article in the Guardian newspaper on Thursday and managed to attend an interesting conference at Manchester Town Hall this weekend 4-5 July. It was chaired by Lord Bingham, formerly Britain's top judge, and part sponsored by the Guardian, who will be running a feedback on the conference in a special supplement next Monday 13 July.

Advocates for 20 proposals to mitigate climate change were invited to speak. They covered scientific and engineering solutions to economic and social solutions. A couple of interesting solutions came from Australia. One of the delegates, Kirk Sorenson, has an interesting site on thorium reactors.

There was no pre-agenda and I went along expecting to lobby for why population was not included as a key solution. Climate and Energy Secretary, Ed Milliband, would be speaking at the Saturday session.

Population Sustainability Network

In the event, I found on the day that a talk on renewing commitments to reproductive health policies was included for the final Sunday afternoon session. This was given by Louise Carver of the Population Sustainability Network. It turned out to be fairly low key and was cautious on really highlighting the issues, but at least it was there. One interesting point was that she said family planning funding was at an all time low and had dropped by 30% in real terms since the mid-1990s.

Milliband waffling, out of touch on population problems in developed countries

I did question Milliband at the Saturday Q&A on how politicians and the media were neglecting and ignoring population as a key driver on Climate change and other key issues. Predictably he waffled, saying that he heard this issue raised quite often in relation to climate change, but really we were doing all that can be done and the key was to make reproductive health care easily available and improve the education of girls in developing countries in particular.

I replied that both politicians and many green groups were in denial on population as a key issue. The UK Government had no policy on population and we would not solve the critical problems ahead without going further and incentivising a move to smaller families through the tax system, instead of raising perverse incentives to increase our numbers as is happening in several developed countries like Germany and Australia.

He responded by saying that Australia was a big country well able to absorb a bigger population. Due to question time pressures, I did not have the chance to point out that in fact Australia was a very fragile country ecologically, much of it desert and unable to withstand further big population pressures, but his reply demonstrated how out of touch influential and supposedly well-briefed people can be on ecological and population pressures.

Even so, there were some very interesting presentations.

The aim of the Report is to narrow the best solutions (in the opinion of the panel) down to ten from the original twenty. These will be covered in more detail in the Guardian next Monday, but all will be mentioned.

Thorium and fission

As a nuclear skeptic, I found the presentation on the Thorium alternative to Uranium energy fission by Kirk Sorensen, an aerospace and nuclear engineer from Alabama USA, quite compelling. I spoke to him later and he is basically an advocate for developing the Thorium fission process as a far more effective energy performer than the uranium fission path. He said Thorium was ignored because the US Government wanted to make weapons grade material via Uranium and consequently went down the nuclear/uranium development path. His blogsite, he says, has all the details: www.energyfromthorium.com or www.thoriumenergy.blogspot.com

Improving grass to capture more Carbon gases

Another presentation of interest was by Tony Lovell on soil carbon and redefining grazing habits in arid areas to improve grass quality and consequently carbon capture. A further interesting presentation was by UK scientist, Mike Mason, who looked at an Australian company domestic ceramic fuel cell appliance called BlueGen. This seemed to promise a lot.

Cloud-seeding

A Professor Salter has also been trying to get £25m funding for 6 years to complete development for around 50 cloud seeding ships to reflect more solar energy back into space. Again, this was compelling in its simplicity. To find out more go to www.see.ed.ac.uk/-shs then browse to climate change.

Leggett on Solar

Jeremy Leggett of SolarCentury photovoltaic company made a good presentation on increasing solar power cells, claiming that 116% of UK power needs could potentially be provided by solar power, if north and south facing roofs of all UK properties were adapted to use solar voltaic cells. He also mentioned a WWF UK report coming out in late 2009 "Pathways to a one planet economy".

Economics

Andrew Simms of the (UK) New Economics Foundation gave a very assured presentation on Do Good Lives have to cost the Earth? It seems they are all following the UK Sustainable Development Commission's groundbreaking Prosperity Without Growth report published April 30, 2009. I hope to get in touch with him on several related issues.

Lifeboats and overpopulation

Andrew gave a good analogy on the thinking of many modern growth economists, quoting a now deceased economist Mesham. "A man falls from a 100 floor building. As he heads down the 99 floors they say look he's still fine. Then he suddenly smashes into the ground. Too late! Another one was on lifeboats - from another delegate. "We need to plug the hole in the lifeboat and bale it out." The hole in this case being population. Most green groups are busy concentrating on bailing it out!

Brian McGavin

“Si spegne, signori, si chiude”
("Lights off, gentlemen, we are closing down”)

Recently a well-known professor of Siena University, a hydrology expert and director of FAO development projects in Africa, launched an extraordinary thesis, using instruments of cultural anthropology, in an Italian publication.

In the middle of the renewed interest in demography, with one side decrying the population dearth and the other denouncing the obscene threat of overpopulation, professor Pietro Giuliano Cannata has introduced what amounts to a new world vision, challenging both views.

Liberation from the shackles of determinism is at hand.

For Cannata, the long and anguished process of evolution, dictated by biological necessity, but without a design (telos) has been overtaken by culture, which now governs evolution.

Reading the book is in itself an experience regarding the revelation of the psychological forces that impel our behaviour and preoccupy every human being. Fear of death and attempts to dominate and exorcise it, using a variety of means from civilisation to civilisation, define those civilisations in major leit-motifs.

I use the editor’s comment to convey the main thesis:

“Suddenly one day, it became clear that the human species was taking control of its own destiny, because humans started to “choose”, in a confused and intermittent way, between life’s accidentally encountered bifurcations, in the long story of biological blind evolution.

Among these choices one triumphed over others: the decrease of births and the consequences of this, plus a significant new element: the refusal to procreate.

What were the reasons for this reluctance? Apart from the usual causes of economic difficulties, lack of social services, demand for political and professional participation by women, and aspirations for a continuously higher quality of life, another reason appeared. This one is a guiding anthropological, psychological and cultural factor, the unconscious determination to shirk the call for procreation, to refuse to transmit life.

After winning the competition for nourishment and space, after madly multiplying and achieving extraordinary levels of well being, consuming to satiety almost all the world, the human species refuses to grow anymore. Humans are getting ready for the final decline, in a disciplined way.”

The author wants to show an ontological transformation of evolution, no more driven by blind necessity and condemned to repeat the past. Life then, as glimpsed through the testament of some great philosophers and poets, is an insensate flight towards Nothing. The question about our final destination has no answer since the faith in a divine origin and destiny has dwindled.

The old fertility paradigm

The old paradigm imposed the fertility imperative on women. The female of the species will however soon everywhere be liberated by contraception and the possession of her body. History points to a rather different view of the maternal instinct: "Against the terror of repeated pregnancies, reality shows abortion and infanticide to be common practices. The casual smothering of the new born (which resulted in the canonical law of the suspended cradle), exposure to freezing weather, the fable of the children lost in the woods…”

Did men invent the maternal instinct?

Was the notion of maternal instinct invented by men, to better subjugate women and insure their cooperation in the propagation of their genes?

These and other strange questions run through the book, supplied and documented with vast philosophical, environmental and anthropological knowledge. The mind boggles and is taken over by a sense of despair, an outcome which I am sure the author did not intend. On the contrary, he seems to present the vision of a future without humans as the best solution to this absurd eternal flight towards death, the only sure thing in the uncertainty of life.

To be born - "Ed è rischio di morte il nascimento" - ("To be born is to risk death" - G.Leopardi) is the same as being mortal. Mortality is a state of being so intolerable that every century, every culture has invented a way to exorcise and justify it. The thirst for meaning cannot be satisfied: the enlightenment has eliminated all dogmas and the crumbling edifice of faith brings with it isolation and alienation.

Challenging paradigm of dominant males' reproductive success

Among the numerous themes to be dissected is the presumption that dominant males dominate natural selection in reproduction, denying the weak the chance to reproduce themselves.

“But the examination of DNA explodes this theory, showing more exceptions than confirmations of the dominant male theory, revealing six different fathers for each of the six kittens born to one female cat. Every male cat had a chance. Selection is therefore dictated by chaos.”

"It is clear that the health of the planet is a human task. It depends on humanity. Humanity is freeing itself from the unbearable weight of the world. This liberation will be the end of the future and maybe the end of history, because our descendant’s won't continue to get on and off the merry-go-round. Inexorably, the merry-go-round will slowly empty itself and finally stop. Nobody will get on anymore."

"Lights off, gentlemen, we are closing down."

CFA Chairman Kerry Murphy

Victoria's Country Fire Authority (CFA) in its Annual Plan for 2008-09 (CFA's Plan) clarifies its 'Strategic Direction' for the forthcoming year out of its longer range Corporate Plan [2007-2011]. This Strategic Direction was in effect well before the Black Saturday catastrophe and remains in place. No doubt, the longer range Corporate Plan [2007-2011] remains in place too.

The CFA's Plan states that the purpose of the CFA is: "guided by our legislation our purpose is to serve the communities of Victoria in supporting and educating them to protect themselves and others from fire and other emergencies." But herein lies one of the root causes behind Black Saturday. Is the CFA's stated purpose appropriate? Can we now say with the benefit of hindsight that it is still appropriate in the wake of the categorical failure by the CFA to control the many ignitions across Victoria before, during and after Saturday 7th February 2009? Did not the CFA have the benefit of hindsight following the 2003 Victorian Alpine fires and the 1983 Ash Wednesday fires to put effective strategies and resources in place before Black Saturday?

Issue 1: The CFA is dictated by legislation. The Victorian legislature dictates the CFA's role, responsibilities, and functional scope. If the performance of CFA against its role, responsibilities, and functional scope is below standard, then this reflects a failing of the CFA Board and Executive. But if CFA's role, responsibilities, and functional scope is not what the community expects of its prime rural fire fighting authority, then this cannot be the CFA's failing but that of the Victorian legislature.

Issue 2: The CFA considers its purpose in fire fighting as one of "supporting and educating communities to protect themselves from fire and other emergencies." Surely the core purpose of this fire fighting government agency is to fight bushfires - to prepare for, detect, respond, and suppress bushfires! But 'supporting, educating and helping' communities to protect themselves seems to be a cop out. A support focus is inconsistent with the CFA's stated Goal No. 1 'To reduce the impact of fires and emergencies in Victoria'. How has this disconnect come about?

Issue 3: The CFA's Plan desribes the CFA's responsibility as one extending beyond fire fighting to "other emergencies." This seems quite vague and open ended. And is not the State Emergency Service (SES) charged with dealing with other such emergencies? Indeed, how many disparate organisations were whipped up on 7th February? By adding to the CFA's core fire fighting task, these 'other emergency' must surely dilute the resources and skills training the CFA can focus on bushfire fighting.

Issue 4: Given the failure by the CFA, as the lead bushfire fighting authority, to avert Victoria's bushfire catastrophe, one must question the merits of the CFA's Plan to allocate just 18% of its $309 million budget toward Bushfire Response. That $309 million was divied up as follows:

Preparedness..................................$98 million (32%)
Organisational support (overheads).....$85 million (28%)
Response (ACTUAL FIRE FIGHTING)....$55 million (18%)
Infrastructure............................... ....$7 million (2%)
Prevention........................................$7 million (2%)
Governance......................................$6 million (2%)
Recovery..........................................$4 million (1%)

So 1/3 went into preparedness - clearly how that as spent didn't work for Victorians last February! Can the CFA Board and Executive explan how that $98 million in Preparedness helped prevent Black Saturday from being worst that what it was?

Another 1/3 went into 'Organisational support'. What is this? Overheads? One must question whether 28% of funding wrapped up in non-fire fighting overhead tasks is duplicated across the SES and urban Fire Brigades?

And just 18% went into actual fire fighting - detection, response and suppression of bushfires!

Assumedly the CFA budget all relates to bushfire management, however does it? This is not clear given the 'other emergencies' the CFA is required to deal with...and where does the CFA, Fire Brigade and SES budgets, roles and responsibilities start and finish? It is all very loose, perhaps politically so.

The bulk of the CFA's capital budget for 2008-09 has $24.8 million goining into building more fire stations and an additional $24.7 million on more fire trucks. Again the question is, would more fire stations and fire trucks have mitigated Black Saturday? Would more fire stations and more fire trucks avert another Black Saturday in the same area or elsewhere in the State? How is such massive investment of this combined $51 million to address the systemic failings of ignition detection, response and suppression - especially when those ignitions are often in remote inaccessible country?

The CFA's Plan also estimates the volunteer cost component to be in the order of $840 million; approaching a figure triple the government's annual funding allocation! So not only is the CFA supporting, educating and helping communities to protect themselves in the event of bushfires, indeed communities volunteer themselves to do most of the fire fighting emergency work! The government is wanting to have its cake and eat it too. It wants to be seen to be providing a core emergency bushfire fighting service to the community, yet expects this to be done by the CFA with grossly inadequate funding, charges the CFA to mainly support, educate and help communities fight their own fires and expects communities to perform most of the fire fighting anyway.

Lastly, the CFA Plan states that "during 2007–08 the CFA Board worked with executive management to refine CFA’s strategic direction and, in doing so, six strategic issues were identified that both the Board and executive management need to focus on in the coming year.

These themes are:

1. Volunteerism
2. Environment
3. Financial Sustainability
4. Industrial Relations
5. Organisational Health
6. Partnerships

How are these related to the core task of bushfire fighting? Do we as that our police service or urban fire brigades or ambulance service or ineed armed services have such public service themes, or do we expect them to do their job properly and accept we must pay for it through our taxes? I'm sure many rural Victorians would be happy to pay higher taxes if they knew their bushfire authority had what it needed to protect them in the event of bushfires.

Issue 5: Brumby's Royal Commission is soon to deliver its findings and recommendations out of its investigations into the worst bushfire tragedy in Victoria's history. How will the Commission's recommendations contrast with the strategic focuses set by the CFA Board and Executive?

Hopefully, one of the very few redeeming features to emerge from this dreadful tragedy will be a final public realisation of how grossly out of touch CFA leadership has become, how negligent the Brumby Government has been to fund and evolve the standard of bushfire fighting, and how sorely let down Victorian communities were last summer when they entrusted their government to warn and protect them from bushfires.

Forestry Minister Tony Burke and Premier Bartlett may be rejoicing that Gunns has a joint venture partner, the Swedish company Sodra, for Tasmania's pulp mill. It would be "good" for jobs and for the Tasmanian economy!

Swedish company Södra stated that it would only be involved in a pulp mill in Australia if it was Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certified, totally chlorine-free (TCF) and 100% plantation-based.

The Wilderness Society

So-called "sustainable" forestry has perpetuated the myth that primary and old growth forests can and should be harvested using "Sustainable Forest Management" (SFM) techniques.

However, forestry has transformed most of Sweden’s forests into plantations and young forests. Sweden's forestry corporations are quickly turning a once a beautiful land of old-growth forests full of life and diversity into clearcuts. Nearly all Sweden's virgin forests are gone. What is left is the old growth forests, and those are being erased now.

Over 1,800 animal and plant species in the Swedish forests are red-listed and many of them are dependent on old trees, dead wood and old-growth forests deciduous trees to survive. This is despite Sweden's example of "good" and "sustainable" forestry industries!

Gunns will still have to pass the final stage of an assessment by the Environment Minister, Peter Garrett, before the mill can operate, but is allowed to begin construction of the project!

Could this be the price that Tasmanians, and Australians, are willing to pay for what is "good" for jobs and the economy?