Murray-Darling takover may not be legal: Tony Windsor
- How much authority is actually to be handed over by the states.
- How duplication of roles may occur and therefore duplication of costs to the taxpayer.
This has been cross-posted to the site of the Southern Cross Party
This book, by by Linda Weiss, Elizabeth Thurbon and John Mathews, the authors of "How to Kill A Country", is a damning expose of how the same Howard Government which cites "Australia's national Interest" as an excuse to sabotage international efforts to act against the threat of global warming, has, in fact, betrayed those very same interests. Subjects covered include Energy, Rural Industries, Culture, Defence and Blood.
In fact, the list is not comprehensive, as, of course, a comprehensive coverage of all of John Howard's betrayals of our national interest would be a truly massive undertaking. Some I would have also included are:
#defence">Defence
The chapter on defence(#fn1">1) shows how the Government has overruled all the normal defence equipment procurement procedures in order to impose a "Buy American" policy. As a result this country's defence forces will be forced to use inferior equipment, largely unsuited to our defence needs, that won't be delivered for years. In the case of the Joint Strike Fighter we are to be kept waiting until 2018. The book describes how this deal was secured:
How was this deal sold to a gullible Australian ministry? It was first and foremost the Prime Minister's decision, taken unilaterally during a visit to Washington in early June 2002. Discussions with President Bush were followed by a private briefing from the plane's makers, Lockheed Martin, in John Howard's hotel room. Howard seems to have succumbed easily and enthusiastically. So enthusiastically it appears, that even senior Lockheed Martin executives commented that they were 'flabbergasted' that Australia decided to make the purchase so quickly. "That was just amazing, it stopped everything in the room at the time," said Lockheed's international programs director for the JSF, Mike Consentino, about Australia's surprise announcement. "This was our first international customer so it was a memorable day." (pages 150-151)
In order to fill the gap until 2018 which exists as a result of the PM's hasty decision, we are to spend an additional $6 billion on the purchase of 24 Super Hornet (F/A 18 F) fighter aircraft, which were designed to operate from aircraft carriers rather than from land.
Other disastrous Howard Government defence equipment acquisition decisions put under the microscope include:
Energy
The chapter on Energy shows how the Howard Government has undermined tentatitve efforts to establish renewable energy industries in order to satisfy the wishes of Australia's climate changing fossil fuel lobby. This chapter does to some degree suffer from an uncritical acceptance of all alternatives to fossil fuels, the worst example being bio-fuels. It is not altogether clear whether bio-fuels actually increase the world's stock of energy given that fossil fuel derived fertilsers are necessary to grow bio-fuels in the first place. Further the expansion of bio-fuels is exacerbating the loss of bio-diversity in the Third world as rainforests are cleared in order to grow bio-fuels. They are also responsible for making food less affordable for many of the world's poorest as more corn crops are diverted to the manufacture of ethanol.
Neverthless the case for the need alternatives to fossil fuel is indisputable and the Howard Government is deservedly condemended for its wanton sabotage of a number of viable alternatives. Whilst the previous Keating and Hawke Labor governments have vastly better records than the Howard government in this regard, a decision made, upon winning office in 1983, by the Hawke Labor government to close down a government-funded renewable energy program(#fn2">2) did also unnecesarily set back Australia's development of alternatives.
Another fact of significance, not alluded to in this work, was that Whitlam Government Energy Minister the late Rex Connor attempted, in response to the oil crisis of 1973 to make Australia independent. This was the purpose of the AU$4 billion loan that Connor attempted to secure through the Pakistani broker Tirath Khemlani. Of course, this was blown up into the "Khemlani Affair" by the Australian media establisment, most notably Rupert Murdoch's 'evil empire', and was used to destroy Connor's career as well as, ultimately, the Whitlam government in 1975.
Rex Connor died tragically early in 1978 and the since corrupted Australian Labor Party has turned its back on the legacy of this visionary and great Australian political leader(#fn3">3).
Rural Industries
The chapter on rural industries shows how the Howard government has undermined the competitive advantage enjoyed by Australia's rural industries in order to please various US agricultural lobbies. This includes the undermining of Australia's strict quarantine regime and measures to keep out 'Mad Cow' disease (Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy - BSE), which has compromised the U.S. beef industry. Australia has done the bidding of the U.S. on the international market to break down Japan's resistance to U.S. Beef imports because of the BSE threat. This would in fact remove the competitive advantage that Australian Beef enjoys over U.S. beef in the Japanese market.
"National Insecurity" also describes how Australia's competitive advantage in the Pork industry has been similarly undermined to suit U.S. rural commercial interests.
The chapter describes the subordination of industry groups ostensibly acting on behalf of Australia's primary producers and counter-moves by ordinary rural producers including the creation of the Australian Beef Association.
One concern I have with this issue is that all forms of large scale international trade in primary produce are largely unsustainable whether they are into or out of Australia. They are unsustainable because they depend upon non-renewable petroleum to export them to the other side of the globe and because the constant extraction of nutrients from the soil and the need for irrigation in the longer term will destroy the fertility of the soil. For further information read chapter "Farming and Food Production under regimes of Climate Change" by Edward R. D. Goldsmith in the Final Energy Crisis co-edited by Sheila Newman. A second edition is due to be published next year.
The chapter on Culture about contains more damning evidence of the Howard government's complicity in the destruction of Australia's film, television and performing industries.
The book suffers from being not sufficiently critical of the previous Keating Labor Government which, in its time made its own sterling contribution to undermining Australia's economic, cultural and environmental security. It could also use an index, but it is still a very useful and courageous contribution to a necessary debate and well worth the AU$24.95 recommended retail price.
---
Footnotes.
#fn1" name="fn1" id="fn1">1. Disclaimer: I write this as one who has been, on occasions, outspoken against Australia's military adventures, notably the bloody and destructive Vietnam War and the
current inferno in Iraq
. Nevertheless, in a world which is becoming increasingly unstable, it would be suicidal for any nation in a region such as south East Asia not to have a capable national defence force. Of course, the first recourse should be to try to achieve international justice and not engage in any unjust wars.
#fn2" name="fn2" id="fn2">2. I can't cite the source for this fact but I can remember it being mentioned on the radio, probably Radio National, perhaps, 15 years ago.
#fn3" name="fn2" id="fn2">3. For further information, please see chapter 7 of "The Growth Lobby and its Absence : The Relationship between the Property Development and Housing Industries and Immigration Policy in Australia and France", Sheila Newman's 2002 Master's thesis (pdf 2.6MB) downloadable from http://candobetter.org/sheila )
Former Prime Minister Paul Keating was totally wrong in his recent media comments condemning nationalism. A strong dose of nationalism is precisely what this country needs and has always needed. It is economic nationalism that urges Australians to buy Australian, to protect Australian farmers, workers, jobs and businesses. Nationalism prevents the sell-off of our true
icons such as Telstra and Qantas. Nationalism fires the bellies of our international sportspeople. Nationalism is needed to fend off Free (not Fair)-Trade agreements that eat like a cancer on our economy. We also need cultural nationalism to preserve our history and heritage. Finally we need political nationalism so we can stand tall and strong in the world and not
be sucked into foreign wars that we have no right to be involved in and only make us a target of terrorism. While the major parties only offer divisive politics pitting workers, farmers, businesspeople - all true Australians against each other, it's only independents that can unite and truly represent the people.
Cate Molloy,
Southern Cross Independent Candidate for Wide Bay
Peregian Beach, Queensland
ph 0754483784, 0408729499.
Thanks Professor Quiggin from supplying that quote#fn1">1 from our PM. It confirmed that renters do not count amongst John Howard's concerns and that is why they are forced to subsidise, with their taxes, the cost of private home ownership. This includes, amongst many other things, the first home owners' grant and rental assistance for welfare recipients. In both cases the money simply helps further fuel the housing hyper-inflation rather than help to make housing affordable.
I think this debate largely misses two other key factors which have been even more critical in forcing up the cost of housing in recent decades.
1. Much of the cost of housing is in fact the result of the privatisation of the housing market begun by Menzies.
The government-owned Housing Trust of South Australia never cost South Australian taxpayers a cent, yet for decades was able to provide affordable good quality housing to all sectors of South Australian society. Money that would have been unproductively invested in property speculation in the Eastern states was, instead, directed towards establishing viable manufacturing industries in South Australia.
2. That high housing costs are a consequence of high immigration
High immigration now at unofficial, but real and stratospheric href="http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/backscratching-at-a-national-level/2007/06/12/1181414298095.html">300,000 per annum deliberately brought about by the supposedly 'strong border control' Howard Government to suit the needs of property speculators, property developers and dependant industries. There is abundant evidence for this coming out of the mouths of the land speculators themselves. For example read www.realestate.com.au or read this from a 1973 submission by a property developer to the National Population Inquiry:
A large number of industries, including the building industry could not have developed to their present size without the immigration policy ... Population growth promotes expansion in building activity.
This is the mainstay of our economy, which as opposed to that of Japan, is substantially concentrate on national infrastructure rather than purely on export industries.
- cited in "The Growth Lobby and its Absence : The Relationship between the Property Development and Housing Industries and Immigration Policy in Australia and France" p114 of Sheila Newman's Master's thesis of 2002 downloadable from candobetter.org/sheila
As Queensland Deputy Premier Anna Bligh recently put it :
"The only way we could really (stop population growth) is to put a fence up at the (Queensland) border, or to cancel or freeze all new home building approvals," she said.
"That would have a very serious impact on the construction industry that a lot people rely on for jobs."
Remember, this is the 'left wing' female ex-student-activist Deputy Premier of the 'Smart' State speaking.
So we need to grow population in order to provide jobs for those already living here. And of course, tomorrow all of today's new arrivals will depend upon yet more new arrivals in order to create jobs for them. And the day after tomorrow all those newer arrivals will depend upon yet more new arrivals to create jobs for them, and so on until we are all only permitted to consume 5 litres of water a day each and are living stacked on on top of each other all the way up to the mesosphere in concrete boxes.
And, of course, as Professor Quiggin has pointed out, those who have invested in the hyper-inflated housing market expect the value of their investment to be at least maintained, if not increased. How else is this to be achieved without a constant flow of immigration?
How could anyone possibly question the economic capabilities of the various Governments which have brought about these circumstances?
---
Footnotes
#fn1" id="fn1">1. Prime Minister John Howard said in 2004:
I haven’t met anybody yet who’s stopped me in the street and shaken their fist and said: "Howard, I’m angry with you, my house has got more valuable."
The Gold Coast Spit Open Space is again under threat of development with a Queensland Government proposal to build a maritime training simulator for shipping pilots on land adjacent to the sand-pumping jetty, even though it has no windows and no need to be located on the Spit.
Lois Levy, campaigner with Gecko - Gold Coast and Hinterland Environment Council, says that this latest proposal again demonstrates Government unwillingness to listen the community's clearly expressed desire for no development north of Seaworld.
"Once again it appears the Queensland Government is planning for a commercial use of The Spit parklands with this latest proposal. The Government just can’t seem to leave The Spit alone," said Ms Levy. "It must be retained as parkland for our growing population and these commercial uses can be placed elsewhere."
Curiously, the draft application by Department of Transport for the training simulator lists the facility as "community purposes" when it is clearly intended to be a commercial operation with paying students.
"Gecko members cannot understand why this simulator has to be built on parkland when the simulator part of it has no windows and can be built anywhere," said Ms Levy. "This makes us highly suspicious that it is the thin end of the wedge. The excuse that the training centre needs to be close to accommodation and public transport just doesn’t wash."
The proposal is for a 6.5 metre building consisting of three simulator 'drums', a foyer, administration, ablution facilities, briefing / lunch rooms, instructors’ room and storage and parking for 9 vehicles on an area of 980m2 of public land. It is intended to be open from 9 – 5 for 6 - 8 trainees per day and employ 3 - 4 full time staff.
"Given that the Gold Coast does not have any shipping pilots for its seaway, it is very strange that this expensive facility will be purpose built here rather than in the Port of Brisbane and for only 6 students," said Ms Levy.
"Is this the beginning of grander plans for a marine precinct?" asked Lois. "We will be seeking further information from the Department of Transport and will keep the community informed."
For further information contact:
Lois Levy, Gecko Campaigns Committee 0412-724-222
Also visit www.gecko.org.au, www.saveourspit.com
Andrew Bartlett's articles, as well as attracting posts from people, like myself, who are critical of his pro-population-growth stance, also attracts critical posts from extreme market fundamentalist anti-environmentalists, who object even to Bartlett's flawed and limited pro-environmental stance as well as his progressive humanitarian values. One of those contributors, 'alzo', posted the comment:
"Fission reactors should tide us over until fusion reactors become a reality. There are lots of possible energy sources."
This is my response.
Alzo, today we seem no closer to realising the dream of unlimited supplies of energy from nuclear fusion than we were thirty years ago. According to one scientist, who has worked on nuclear fusion, the nail in the coffin of nuclear fusion will prove to be the lack of sufficient supplies of the necessary hydrogen isotope tritium. For further information, see the forthcoming second edition of "The Final Energy Crisis" edited by Sheila Newman (http://candobetter.org/sheila).
Hazards of nuclear fission
In regard to nuclear fission, it is obviously a more viable source of energy that just may, if we are extremely careful, provide a bridge towards a more sustainable future whilst stocks of Uranium and Thorium last, however it has a very considerable environmental cost. If we increase the scale of nuclear power generation to the extent necessary to fill the gap power the environmental risks we currently face will be multiplied many times. The Chernobyl disaster. which could have been far worst if not for the quick thinking of those courageous workers on the spot is one illustration. On top of the hazards of nuclear fission electricity generation, even more environmental threats are posed by mining of uranium, enrichment, reprocessing and disposal of nuclear wastes. A likely consequence of the expansion of uranium mining in Central Australia is that the Eastern seaboard stands to be exposed to clouds bearing poisonous radioactive uranium and other toxic metals blown from the mine tailings dumps (see David Bradbury's film "Blowin' in the wind" for a graphic illustration of this threat). In the past, the long-term containment of tailings from mining operation has been problematic and, more often than not, fails in the longer term (as Jared Diamond has illustrated in describing past mining operations in Montana in Chapter 2 of "Collapse" pp35-41). I don't hold out any greater hope that the mining companies will do any better a job containing the mountains of tailings from the planned expanded Uranium mines.
Practical limitations of nuclear fission
Another problem with nuclear fission is that it can only be used to generate electricity. In order to operate transport or run factory machinery or mine milling equipment, the electricity has to be either somehow stored chemically, or transported directly as electricity using power lines, transformers and other expensive infrastructure. In the former case, energy is lost, in creating, for example, hydrogen from water, and the containment of hydrogen necessitates the fabrication of particularly strong and well-sealed containers. In the latter case, large quantities of non-renewable resources, particularly copper, are required, and it is expected that the world's production of copper will begin to decline next year (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=000CEA15-3272-13C8-9BFE83414B7FFE87).
Practical limitations of other 'renewables'
The other "lots of possible energy sources" are essentially derived from solar energy or geothermal energy. All require the use of equipment, the manufacture of which now requires non-renewable rare metals, petroleum-derived plastics and fossil fuel energy. The problems in building renewable energy generators, on a scale necessary to indefinitely meet global society's demands, as well as to provide the necessary additional energy to build replacement generators and infrastructure, without reliance upon fossil-fuel energy, appear to be overwhelming. It seems unlikely that this can be done on a scale anywhere near the scale we have been able to do thus far relying on our finite endowment of fossil fuels.
Applying the precautionary principle
So, I would suggest that it would be extremely imprudent to continue to consume natural resources at our current rate, let alone to increase our rate of consumption, and to go on trashing the world's ecology as we are doing now on the assumption that we can find an easy replacement to so much of that conveniently packaged solar energy captured over tens of millions of years that we have found buried under the ground. It would be far more prudent to assume that our current practices are unsustainable, and to begin now to reduce those levels of consumption.
Those who are consuming the most whilst contributing the least to society, such as property speculators and financial advisers should be amongst the first to be made to do so.
MEDIA STATEMENT 12 July 2007
The opinions of Cr Henry are not necessarily those of Redland Shire Council/
Division 3 Councillor Debra Henry is challenging the Mayor's dismissive remark that rapid population growth in the Redlands is 'bunkum' (Bayside Bulletin 10 July, p 2).
Labeling his comments as misleading, Cr Henry has called for him to "come clean on a growth rate that is putting environmental and social services under immense pressure".
"Comparisons with Ipswich, Caboolture and elsewhere are irrelevant. The people of the Redlands have persistently identified Redland's natural features and relaxed lifestyle as valued assets to maintain and enhance. But these are quite obviously being eroded by rapid growth" said Cr Henry.
Cr Henry is concerned that the Mayor remains fixated with growth and refuses to grasp the realities of the Shire's growth. "It's simple mathematics" she says "Even what appears to be a small percentage (2%) when applied to a large number, grows quickly".
"A two percent growth rate equates to a doubling in 35 years. With a population of 135,000 two percent growth means the Shire's population will increase by another 135,000 in 35 years. It is exponential growth and never before have we faced growth of this magnitude. The Mayor's refusal to acknowledge this is disturbing" Cr Henry said.
But she believes there is a questionable agenda behind the Mayor's dismissive remarks.
"The Local Growth Management Strategy (LGMS) recently passed 6-5 by this Council and now with State Government for approval is a planning document of the highest order. It will lock the Shire into high growth for the next two decades and with his cries of 'bunkum' it appears the Mayor is trying to detract from the significance of this document" said Cr Henry.
"If approved, the LGMS will result in at least another 60,000 people in the Redlands in less than 20 years. It will result in amendments to the Redland Planning Scheme and the State's SEQ Regional Plan. It will give legal rights of development, and compensation would apply should hindsight indicate the land zonings are inappropriate".
Cr Henry considers it ironic that some of the Councillors supporting the LGMS have lamented some land zonings at Mt Cotton, saying the decision made some 20 years ago locked us into approvals, no matter how inappropriate that decision is in hindsight.
"Let's learn from the past, and use some foresight here. We can negotiate levels of growth, and we don't have to commit vast tracts of land to non-negotiable development".
Cr Henry, who has posted an "e-Petition" relating to the LGMS on www.parliament.qld.gov.au added that the Mayor's "flippant response to a serious situation, is a hindrance to democracy and a threat to sustainability".
Debra Henry
Councillor Division 3
Cleveland South - Thornlands
Redland Shire Council
crdebrah |AT| redland.qld.gov.au
07 38298618
0439 914631
Media Release
Wednesday, 11 July 2007
South East Queensland residents are using World Population Day, 11th July, to urge the Queensland Government to reverse the over-allocation of land and resources committed to development in the region.
According to the South East Queensland Branch of Sustainable Population Australia (SPA), concerned citizens are sending an appeal to the Premier that the Local Growth Management Strategies required under the SEQ Plan be delayed until biodiversity, climate change, natural resources, ecological services and quality of life issues are addressed.
"The government has committed South East Queensland to a level of development that will destroy its biodiversity," said a spokesman for the South East Queensland branch. "We are destroying our natural environment, both through the use of land for housing and infrastructure and through the consumption of natural resources, such as water and building materials."
"Quarries are already having an enormous impact on SEQ's biodiversity, destroying koala habitat and rare and threatened species; and with the increasing demand for building materials we will see even greater destruction," he said. "If the Environmental Protection Agency allows quarrying in 'of concern' regional ecosystems - those types of forests that are already down to less than 30% of their original cover - we will see massive losses of this region's species diversity."
"The South East Queensland Regional Plan was based on high projections and planning from the early 1990's, with little regard for the natural assets of the area," said the spokesman. "The Queensland Government has mapped almost all the vegetation left in the Region as being of state and regional significance for biodiversity, yet it has failed to protect this biodiversity from housing, tourism, rural industry and other impacts."
"We are asking that a moratorium be imposed until the over-allocation of South East Queensland land for development is reversed and sustainable outcomes are guaranteed," he said.
For more information about this important issue:
Sheila Davis, Secretary, SPA-SEQ, Mob: 0423 305478
Tackling climate change is now a worldwide crusade - so what's stopping campaigners driving its simplest solution?
The simplest truths are sometimes the hardest to recognise. This month, according to the UN, world population will reach 6.7 billion, en route to a newly revised global total of 9.2 billion by 2050. The latest housing forecasts for England predict that we will need about 5m more homes in the next two decades. The economist Jeffrey Sachs devoted this spring's Reith lectures to a planet "bursting at the seams". And the most recent Social Trends analysis from the Office for National Statistics painted a picture of a Britain driven mad by overcrowding. Meanwhile, Gaia scientist James Lovelock has been warning about ecological collapse and world resources able to support only 500 million people, with many extra millions driven to take refuge in the UK.
In the midst of all these alarms is a very quiet place where the green lobby should be talking about human population growth. Today has been designated World Population Day by the UN, but you will not see any of the big environment and development groups mounting a campaign on population. Indeed, you will be lucky if they even mention the P-word. Earlier this year, Nafis Sadik, former director of the UN's population fund, berated such non-governmental organisations for being more concerned with fundraising than advocacy. Their silence on population, she observed, was "deafening".
Mainstream concern
So why isn't the green movement talking about population any more? In its early days, back in the 60s and 70s, population growth was a mainstream concern. Groups including Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth (FoE), WWF and Oxfam took well-publicised positions on population issues - endorsing the Stop at Two (children) slogan, supporting zero population growth and publishing reports with titles such as Already Too Many (Oxfam). These days, Greenpeace declares that population is "not an issue for us" and describes it as "a factor [in] but not one of the drivers of" environmental problems.
FOE last year tried to answer some "common questions" on the subject, including: "Why isn't Friends of the Earth tackling population growth?" Oxfam, which as recently as 1994 published a report entitled World Population: The Biggest Problem of All, now does not list it among the dozen or so "issues we work on", and nor does it figure in the "What you can do" section of WWF's One Planet Living campaign.
The green lobby's main argument is that numbers do not matter so much - it is how we live and consume that counts. FoE even remarks that "it is unhelpful to enter into a debate about numbers. The key issue is the need for the government to implement policies that respect environmental limits, whatever the population of the UK". It is a statement that seems to treat population and environmental limits as entirely separate subjects.
There are two powerful counter-arguments to this. One is common sense: that consumption and numbers matter and that if a consumer is absent - that is, unborn - then so is his or her consumption. The second is the weight of evidence. Sir David King, the government's chief scientist, told a parliamentary inquiry last year: "It is self-evident that the massive growth in the human population through the 20th century has had more impact on biodiversity than any other single factor."
The increase in global population over the next 40 years, for example, is roughly what the entire world population was in 1950. The UK, currently around 61 million people, is on course for 71 million by 2074, by which time England's densities will have outstripped those of South Korea, which, by some measures, is currently the world's second most crowded country - second only to Bangladesh.
The Optimum Population Trust today publishes a new report, Youthquake, that warns - echoing Lovelock - that environmental degradation caused by the number of humans may force more governments to follow China's lead and introduce compulsory limits on family size.
Many suspect other motives for the green lobby's neglect of the population issue. It is a sensitive subject, bound up with issues on which the progressive left, which most environmental groups identify with, has developed a defensive intellectual reflex. These include race and immigration - the latter accounts for more than 80% of forecast UK population growth, for example - reproductive choice, human rights and gender equality. Calls for population restraint can easily be portrayed as "anti-people" - surely people are part of "the solution"? It is far easier to ignore the whole subject; let somebody else - or nobody - deal with it.
Verbal contortions
This often involves intriguing verbal contortions. The 70s organisation Population Countdown, having morphed into Population Concern, in 2003 rechristened itself as Interact Worldwide - under its former name, consultants told it, its funders, and future, would dry up.
Faced with escalating forecasts of housing need - one recent government projection says we will need 11m more households in the UK by 2050, an increase of over 40% - the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) proclaims itself in favour of "development that protects the countryside and the environment" and ignores the fact that the main cause of forecast housing growth, responsible for 59% of the total, is population increase.
So why does the CPRE not campaign on the issue that poses the greatest threat to rural England? "If we did," says Shaun Spiers, CPRE's chief executive, "it appears unlikely that our actions would have any effect on population growth, and that would lay us open to the charge of misusing our charitable funds."
How to categorise such reactions? Pragmatism? Cowardice? Sensible tactics? Or an overdose of organisational self-preservation? Whatever the reason, it is infectious - the media (and politicians) take many of their awareness cues from NGOs so the silence on population becomes society-wide. As a result, family size is seen as an exercise in individual lifestyle choice: few people consider the consequences for the planet of their fertility decisions. That means fertility rates in the UK rise, and the population keeps on growing.
· David Nicholson-Lord is an environmental writer and research associate for the Optimum Population Trust. The Youthquake report is available at optimumpopulation.org
· David Nicholson-Lord is an environmental writer and research associate for the Optimum Population Trust. The Youthquake report is available at optimumpopulation.org
· Email your comments to society |AT| guardian.co.uk. If you are writing a comment for publication, please mark clearly "for publication"
Media release
Tuesday, 10 July 2007
Water crisis, housing crisis, transport infrastructure crisis, hospital crisis and continued destruction of open space and bushland are all the hallmarks that show growth is out of control in South East Queensland, say environmentalists.
A spokesman for Sustainable Population Australia - South East Queensland Branch, said that World Population Day#fn1">1 is a time to focus on commitment and action to ensure our population is sustainable.
"However, SEQ's population is not only unsustainable, it's out of control," he said. "Every week the growth rate is driving water, energy and transport infrastructure and ecosystems deeper into crisis."
"What a way to celebrate World Population Day! SEQ is in a dismal state of affairs. It's a great example of what not to do," said the spokesman. ?While there are cries of climate change, falling fish stocks and loss of biodiversity, governments fail to tackle the root cause of these problems, unsustainable growth.?
"Never in the history of the planet has the Earth had to support a human population of over 6 billion," he said. "And neither has Australia had to support a population of over 21 million."
"A growing population demands ever increasing amounts of resources to supply it with the goods and services it needs. It also produces ever increasing amounts of waste," said the spokesman. "Our demands on the planet are depriving other species of their habitat and crippling the ecosystems that support life. Quite simply, we are living like there is no tomorrow. It is morally and ethically wrong."
"What is happening globally is being played out in SEQ. We struggle to support further growth and our lifestyle and environment degrades. If we are genuine about saving the planet, SEQ is a classic example of what not to do because growth in SEQ is out of control," he said.
For more information about this important issue:
Sheila Davis, Secretary, SPA-SEQ, Mob: 0423 305478
Sustainable Population Australia - SEQ Branch, Box 199, Mudgeeraba Qld 4213
Footnotes
1. World Population Day, 11 July, was designated by the United Nations in 1987 to raise consciousness about the impacts of overpopulation on the world and to mark the arrival of the five billionth person on the planet. Twenty years later, in 2007, there are an additional 1.6 billion people and the world is headed towards a population of 9 to 12 billion by 2050. The Earth's population has skyrocketed from 1 billion in 1880, to 2 billion in 1930, and now to 6.6 billion.
I have been a researcher for over fifty years. I am used to trying to look into the minds of writers to understand their views of complex operations. I know that even the brightest and most informed people have a limited zone of understanding. And this limitation is more restricted by the difficulty of converting the mental image into the written word. It follows that there is very appreciable uncertainty about what civilization has done to the operation of its life support system, the environment. Many different perspectives are put forward. Often they express opinions without providing the supporting arguments and facts. There is increasing concern amongst informed people about current trends, especially as the gulf between the rich and poor grows rapidly and climate change becomes more noticeable.
I know that any article I may write about the unsustainable nature of the current operations of society would contrast with many others, often seemingly authoritative because of the skill of the writers. I may be able, in my mind, to critically weigh up their selective arguments but that serves little useful purpose. The general view will roll on.
I decided some years ago that in view of my limited zone of understanding, I would concentrate on getting a sound understanding of what civilization has actually done to the environment. I have done that. It is summarized by what I call 'The Dependence on Nature Law'.
I then set out to explain why this sums up what human operations have done. It is quite long because I found it necessary to define many terms I use and to clarify many of the common misunderstandings. It presents some novel perspective that needs thinking through to appreciate. 'What went wrong? The misdirection of civilization' is my attempt to articulate what has happened in a form that the non-technical can understand while showing the scientific basis.
I believe it is unlikely that many will take the trouble to think through the message in 'What went wrong' in the near future. However, I do believe that it does make a major contribution to understanding of what has happened. I do expect that in due course it will be recognized as pioneering a novel view of the impact of civilization on the ecosystem. A view that will help some in society adjust to the decline ahead. I expect that there will be increasing bewilderment as over population, climate change, water supply problems, investment failings, food shortages, petrol price rises, health problems, a long lasting recession, more global conflict and natural disasters combine with other stress factors to dim future prospects. Those who gain the understanding in 'What went wrong' could well contribute to the Earth Revolution that eases the crisis.
Denis Frith
Melbourne
Australia
17 June 2007
The freedom of humans to be creative and innovative is acclaimed - by us. This is the positive side of the uniquely human attribute. There is, however, a negative side that is not generally recognized.
Humans employ a huge range of transient operations they have installed that invariably involve using and abusing natural resources. Each of these operations provides something deemed of value to society during its lifetime. Each of these operations incurs an irrevocable, un-repayable ecological cost. We are irreversibly drawing down on the irreplaceable natural bounty.
I argue in 'What went wrong? The misdirection of civilization' that this Dependence on Nature Law is soundly based but that society generally does not weigh up worth against eco cost realistically. A natural law is the summation of what invariably happens during natural operations. It is therefore appropriate to classify the dependence of the material operations of civilization on what is available from the environment as a natural law. Natural operations are also dependent on what is available but generally they draw down on natural bounty income only. The consequence of society's exuberance is unnecessarily rapid degradation of our life support system, the bounty available from the ecosystem. There are too many people consuming too much of what nature has left to offer and then providing irrevocable waste. This holistic consumption predicament is exacerbated by the demands on the bounty to maintain the aging foundations of civilization. It is made worse by the gluttony of the powerful. The spree is unsustainable. It is a plague coming to its end. Catabolic collapse can only be avoided by a wise power down. Even then, there is the problem of maintaining cultural benefits even as the population declines.
The conventional economic growth paradigm is based on the fallacious argument that the materialistic structure and operations of our civilization can occur without exacerbating this holistic malaise, consumption of the natural bounty. So growth is being fostered even as the available bounty is declining more rapidly. This is an unsustainable double whammy exacerbated by the need to look after the structure of civilization.
The Dependence on Nature Law really does under lay the operation and maintenance of the foundations of our civilization. Appreciation of that fact makes it much easier to understand how it is that current trends are based on false premises, so are unsustainable. It explains what went wrong.
Conservation groups throughout South East Queensland are asking the State Government to review the SEQ Regional Plan so that it reflects environmental concerns and sets sustainable levels for dwelling targets and habitat protection.
Gecko – Gold Coast and Hinterland Environment Council spokesperson, Lois Levy, says that members have concerns that the projected figure of 1.2million residents has not been updated to reflect the carrying capacity of
South East Queensland.
"The projected Gold Coast figures show that we are being asked to accommodate the second-highest growth figures in the region," said Ms Levy, "when considering the biodiversity of the area, the Gold Coast is already overpopulated."
"The targets in the SEQ Regional Plan are based on past poor planning figures conceived in the early 1990's," said Ms Levy. "They do not take into account current knowledge about the biodiversity of our region nor do they consider climate change and its ramifications.
"Further, recent mapping of fauna and flora habitat does not reflect the extent of encroachment by development into these areas and the amount of habitat needed to sustainably support flora and fauna in South East Queensland," said Ms Levy.
The Queensland Government requires all 18 local governments in SEQ to prepare Local Growth Management Strategies under the Plan to accommodate by the end of June; however, many have been deferred pending reviews of state interests.
Lois Levy 07 55343706 or 0412 724222 or
Sheila Davis 07 5530-6600 or 0423-305-478
Gecko - Gold Coast and Hinterland Environment Council (www.gecko.org.au),
139 Duringan Street, Currumbin Qld 4223
Phone: (07) 5534 1412 Fax: (07) 5534 1401 Email: info |AT| gecko.org.au
Sustainable Population Australia South East Queensland Branch Media Release Monday, 25 June 2007
A recent publication of the Council of Mayors South East Queensland highlights that the mayors of SEQ are seeking help from developers to push the Local Growth Management Strategies (LGMS). These are legal planning documents that force each local government area in South East Queensland to accept unsustainable growth.
The COMmunique#fn1">1 22 June 2007 states:
“The Council of Mayors (SEQ) will seek the support of the Property Council and Urban Development Institute of Australia to lobby the State Government for a communications campaign to promote key messages regarding the intent and purpose of local growth management strategies under the South East Queensland (SEQ) Regional Plan. Although acknowledging the issue, the State Government has yet to commit to a broad based and high profile campaign.”
“Local government mayors recognize they cannot sell unsustainable growth to their constituents, so they are seeking help from those who desire it most,” said Baltais.
“What is most appalling is that they want this unholy alliance to pressure the Queensland Government to spin a story for them,” said Baltais.
“We urge the Queensland Government to resist this pressure and engage the community in planning for its future with a total review of all targets in the SEQ Regional Plan in light of recent studies and current knowledge.”
Footnotes
1. See document at www.councilofmayorsseq.qld.gov.au/.../20070622_communique.pdf (43K)
NEWS RELEASE
BHP BILLITON LAUNCHES REVISED CLIMATE CHANGE POLICY
BHP Billiton today outlined its new four-pronged approach to climate change.
In its revised Climate Change Policy, BHP Billiton said it believed accelerated action was required to stabilise greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at levels guided by the research of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The policy states that BHP Billiton "will take action within our own businesses and work with governments, industry and other stakeholders to address this global challenge and find lasting solutions consistent with our goal of zero harm".
The four action areas identified in the policy are:
Chief Executive Officer, Chip Goodyear, said BHP Billiton acknowledged that the risks of climate change associated with increasing greenhouse gas doncentrations in the atmosphere must be addressed.
"BHP Billiton has recognised that our company, as well as society generally, must make real behavioural changes and accelerate technological progress if we are to achieve a meaningful reduction in energy use and greenhouse gas emissions.
"Our policy is about trying to play our part as best we can and encouraging those we work with to do the same," he said.
The policy includes new targets to reduce the energy and greenhouse intensity of our products by a further 13 per cent and 6 per cent respectively by 2012. It builds on our previous achievements, which include a 12 per cent improvement in our greenhouse intensity over the period 1996 - 2000.
"We are on track to exceed our current target of a further 5 per cent improvement by the end of this financial year. We have also contributed significantly to research and development in clean coal technologies, including geosequestration, and have implemented several related programs across the business," Mr Goodyear said.
"As a leader in the natural resources industry we have an important role in meeting the world's growing energy and resources needs. At the same time, we have an equally important role in minimising the impact of our activities on the global environment and supporting our customers' efforts to do the same", he said.
BHP Billiton's Climate Change policy is attached.
Further information on BHP Billiton can be found on our Internet site: www.bhpbilliton.com
OVERVIEW
BHP Billiton believes that the risks of climate change associated with increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere need to be addressed through accelerated action. The actions should aim to stabilise concentrations at levels guided by the research of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Behavioural change, innovation and technological progress are necessary to achieve stabilisation in a manner consistent with meeting natural resource and energy needs. Building on our earlier efforts, we will take action within our own businesses and work with governments, industry and other stakeholders to address this global challenge and find lasting solutions consistent with our goal of Zero Harm.
Our actions focus on four areas:
BHP BILLITON'S ACTION PLAN
Chip Goodyear
Chief Executive Officer
June 2007
Protecting Our Future
Visit our website: www.superquarry.com.au
or online forum at: redland.yourguide.com.au/blogs/ ...
Post Office Box 5075
Alexandra Hills, Qld 4161
Email: info AT superquarry.com.au
Protest outside Redland Shire Council chambers against plans to destroy Rainforest and Mount Cotton community with a giant quarry.
Where: Redland Shire Council Chambers, Bloomfield St., Cleveland
When: 9.00AM Wed 18 July 2007
For further information visit www.superquarry.com.au
Angry residents have arranged for a public meeting to draw attention to a new 40 million tonne super quarry development planned for the iconic Mt Cotton in the Redlands. The new quarry will result in 70,000 to 90,000 truck movements per year through the Redlands and Logan shires.
Local resident and environmental scientist Mr Ian Bridge said "there is a lot of anger in the community over the way the state government has helped support a large Melbourne based quarry company and ignored local community safety and environmental concerns".
The new State Planning Policy for Extractive Industries, passed by cabinet last week was drafted with quarry operators but without local community input. The policy places planning restrictions on hundreds of property owners across the state and commits some urban communities to thousands of trucks annually for many decades.
"The only government notification most affected properties have received are property devaluation notices from the Department of Natural Resources and Water" said Mr Bridge. "It is a disgraceful indictment of a Government that has lost contact with the community".
Mt Cotton and its surrounds have iconic status for Redlands and Logan residents with the region's most significant Koala population and a unique rainforest community. Redlands Councilor Toni Bowler said "The Government is just hell bent on ignoring the local community and destroying the value of the one of the most significant koala habitats in Australia".
The property for the proposed new super quarry at Mt Cotton was to be zoned as a protected conservation area until purchased by the Melbourne based Barro quarry group in 2003. The Redlands Council was then directed by State government to rezone the land to make way for the new super quarry. The quarry is expected to have a 60 year life and will end up being nearly 1 kilometer in diameter and 5 metres below sea level.
Some of the home owners have lived in the area for over 30 years and now have a new neighbour. With the support of state government, a new super quarry will be developed within 100 metres of their properties. A representative from the Department of Natural Resources advised that the devaluations were a result of the close proximity of the proposed new quarry to homes.
Under the new State Planning Policy the requirement for quarry owned buffer zones had changed, allowing the new Mt Cotton super quarry to encroach on the property boundaries of local residents. It is estimated that nearly 10 million dollars has been wiped off the market value of these properties.
Mr Bridge said that there is a plentiful supply of less sensitive resources. "The new super quarry was unnecessary and would supply less than 1.4 per cent of South East Queensland's requirements for extractive materials, yet subject the local community to over 70,000 trucks per year" said Mr Bridge. "Given there are already identified mega-quarry sites in less sensitive rural areas, within 60kms of Brisbane and capable of over 500 years of supply, this urban development is nothing short of stupidity"
Community Meeting 2.30pm Sunday June 17, Mt Cotton Hall, Mt Cotton.
For further details please contact:
Ian Bridge, 0407303770 - Environmental Scientist;
Cr Toni Bowler, 0402323704 Redlands Councilor;
Cr Darren Power, 34125392 Logan Councilor.
... or visit www.superquarry.com.au
Thursday, 14 June 2007
Environment groups meeting at Coolum Beach on the Sunshine Coast last Sunday, 10th June, called for a moratorium on Local Growth Management Strategies (LGMS’s) under the South East Queensland Regional Plan until after the local government elections in 2008, when local residents would have the chance to vote for candidates based on their views regarding growth.
One of Australia’s leading scientists and finalist for Queenslander of the Year, Professor Ian Lowe, speaker at the weekend conference, said that the existing SEQ Regional Plan accepts the irreversible destruction of SEQ’s lifestyle and biodiversity. “Our unique local natural assets are being destroyed by over-development,” said Professor Lowe.
The State Government’s SEQ Regional Plan is requiring 60,000 hectares of farmland, open space and bushland to be bulldozed and concreted to accommodate over 550,000 new homes.
According to Sunshine Coast Environment Council spokesperson Keryn Jones, environment groups reject the irresponsible population growth targets set for the region through the SEQ Regional Plan and call upon the State and local governments to immediately halt further progress on their respective Local Growth Management Strategies until communities are better informed.
“The LGMS’s are the most important planning documents we will see in our lifetime as they will open up new suburban developments in areas previously inaccessible to developers, lead to high rise in suburban areas, and tie the region into irreversible growth,” said Ms Jones. “Injurious affection laws, unique to Queensland, mean that once land uses have been given the green light it can never turn to orange or red without attracting compensation payouts of many millions of dollars.”
Simon Baltais, President of Sustainable Population Australia SEQ Branch said that the fundamental weakness of the SEQ Plan is that it doesn’t recognise SEQ’s limits to growth. “SEQ will become very ugly and crowded,” he said. “Naturally, many are opposed to these strategies going ahead until the numbers are reconsidered in light of recent carrying capacity studies.”
Simon Baltais: mob: 0412-075-445
Keryn Jones: mob: 0418-982-158
Background paper attached: appeal for moratorium on LGMS
Re 5th June 2007 World Environment Day
Appeal to the Queensland Government
BACKGROUND
The South East Queensland Regional Plan prepared by the Queensland Government has a population target of 3.96 million people for the region by 2026, up by almost 1.2 million from the 2.78 million current residents. In effect, this represents an average growth rate of 50%, although Beaudesert and Ipswich face 100% growth, and several other areas (notably the Gold and Sunshine Coasts) also face extremely high growth rates.
Research conducted by Queensland University in 1996 and on-going studies since indicate that the population of South East Queensland already exceeds the area’s sustainable carrying capacity. The current and likely to be chronic shortage of water is the blatant and most pressing indicator, but there are others equally important, such as 75km² of bushland and agricultural land being converted into housing and other urban purposes each year.
ISSUES
The SEQ Regional Plan even acknowledges that at least an additional 60,000 hectares of land – approximately 12.6% of the total area of SEQ – will be converted to urban use by 2026. We will build more roads but they will be more congested and more public monies will be spent on trying to maintain basic services diverting funds away from services that actually enhance our communities. Currently, infrastructure grids, like those for water, are being set up to support floundering infrastructure and services in other communities at the expense of diluting the quality of life in others.
In the Gold Coast alone there are predicted to be an additional 116,900 dwellings over the next 20 years, accommodating a projected additional 244,000 persons by 2026, over 40% in Greenfield, previously undeveloped, sites.
There is widespread and genuine community fear that these high population targets will soon push ecosystems to that tipping point. We recognise that many of our most profitable and sustainable industries and the health of our communities are underpinned by these natural systems.
The escalating level of public disquiet over population growth in South East Queensland and the fact that consultation during preparation of the SEQ Regional Plan did not include consultation on population levels, should trigger a total reconsideration of the South East Queensland Regional Plan and its population targets.
The number of residents to be accommodated needs to be reconsidered in light of the SEQ Regional Nature Conservation Strategy, biodiversity mapping, climate change predictions of increased drought, bushfire and flood, and ecological services mapping.
Further, supporters of continued growth must be required to provide evidence that such growth is not having a negative impact upon SEQ residents and the environment upon which it relies.
Once gazetted, the Local Growth Management Strategies (LGMS) which Councils are currently required to prepare under the South East Queensland Regional Plan will open up new areas for development and lock in the high population growth.
REQUESTS
Our organisations reject the irresponsible and unsustainable population growth targets set for the region through the South East Queensland Regional Plan. Accordingly we the undersigned, representing our respective memberships, call upon the State and local governments to halt immediately further progress on their respective Local Growth Management Strategies until after:
The following is from a larger article, "Peak Oil and the Preservation of Knowledge" by Alice Friedemann (Link to http://www.energybulletin.net/18978.html was broken. Now changed to http://www.energybulletin.net/node/18978 - Ed, 14 Jun 11) from www.energybulletin.net. An abridged version "The fragility of microprocessors" (Link similarly fixed) can be found on the same site. This article refutes the kind of argument frequently put by people who argue against the urgency of taking action to preserve our world's stock of fossil fuels. A typical #comment-38071">example can found in a discussion on Peak Oil on John Quiggin's blog site of November 2005:
Plenty of options exist. Solar and its derivatives (wind, wave, tidal etc) all have good chances and, with some serious work, could answer the problem. If a more immediate need is there, nuclear is already there. For cars, hydrogen is a suitable energy storage mechanism in the medium term and batteries or hybrids will work now. There is no major crisis, nor will there be.
The important thing now is not to panic and start forcing solutions - let the market signals work their way through and sort it out. It has worked in the past and will in the future.
It is often difficult, without the hard facts and sound, such as are to be found in the article below, to refute these kinds of cock-sure assertions that technology, particlarly technology operating in a world in which market forces are unfettered, will solve all of our looming problems of overpopulation and resource scarcity.
Please refer to original document for footnotes.
by Alice Friedemann
At one time, the Energy Returned on Energy Invested (EROI) for oil was at least 100 to 1.1 We are reaching the point where the EROI of oil will be 1 and no more drilling will take place.17 It was while the EROI of oil was high that most of our current infrastructure was built.
Evidence suggests that the EROI of corn ethanol is less than one, which means it takes more energy to make than you get out of it – an energy sink.
Pimentel and Patzek have shown that it takes twenty seven to fifty seven percent more fossil fuel energy to create ethanol or biodiesel than you get in the energy returned. Worse yet, this is done at a tremendous environmental cost, since biofuel crops harm soil structure and remove the nutrients, deplete groundwater, pollute water with pesticides, insecticides, and herbicides, cause eutrophication of water via nitrogen runoff, increase soil erosion, and contribute to air pollution and global warming at the ethanol plant and when burned in cars.18
Even if the highest claim of a net energy for ethanol of 1.67 were true, a much greater EROI than .67 is needed to run civilization. The 1 in the 1.67 is needed just to make the ethanol. An EROI of .67 has 150 times less energy than oil when we started building American infrastructure.
Charles A. S. Hall, who has been studying net energy for decades, believes that you’d need an EROI of at least 5 to run civilization, because you need to include the energy to make the machines, mitigate environmental damage, feed and house the workers, etc.19
For example, consider a windmill composed of steel and concrete. A windmill farm in the Escalante desert, built to produce 5.55 TWh of power, would require 13.8 million pounds of aluminum, 2.8 trillion pounds of concrete, 639 billion pounds of steel, etc. The wind farm would occupy over 189 square miles.20 Pacca & Horvath don’t give the capacity factor for these windmills, but an often used number is 30% (i.e. wind blows hard enough 30% of the time), so a 5.55 TWh wind farm might serve around 175,000 to 350,000 people, depending on the wind speed and how close people were to the windmills, since power is lost via transmission over long distances.
In 1992 such a wind farm would cost 200 million dollars, which doesn’t include labor and maintenance costs, and would serve less than one percent of the United States population. It would cost over $200,000,000,000 to build enough windmills to generate electrical power for everyone (though of course, you couldn’t, since not all areas have enough wind). With energy prices many times higher now than in 1992, the cost would be far more expensive.
After fossil fuels are gone, the windmills must be able to generate enough energy to maintain themselves and build new windmills, including all of the equipment used to mine the metal and concrete components, forge metal into blades and towers, and build the trucks and roads that enable windmills to be delivered to their sites. Windmill energy must also provide the energy to build and maintain the electric grid and storage battery infrastructure, and all of the people involved in the process. Any extra energy could now be used to run civilization.
It’s often said that once oil goes to “x†dollars a barrel, alternative energy will become economically viable. But this will never happen, because the alternative energy infrastructure is built with fossil-fuel inputs, so alternative energy sources will always cost more than oil. To even talk about energy using dollar figures makes no sense -- you can’t stuff dollar bills down your gas tank.
Energy can be reduced to physics, to the laws of thermodynamics and other rules that the Big Bang bequeathed our universe. Oil has been a free lunch, one that nature spent hundreds of millions of years making, reducing 196,000 pounds of plant matter into one gallon of gasoline – pure, unadulterated solar power that no alternative energy source but fusion could possibly hope to replace.21 Oil is also incredibly easy to use, ship, and store.
The number of scientists who insist that alternative energies can substitute for fossil fuels, and ignore or deny the basic laws of physics and thermodynamics is frightening. It’s reminiscent of Lysenkoism.
By Paul Sheehan
The Sydney Morning Herald
Go to original, also posted in www.truthout.org
Monday 23 October 2006
All attempts to turn Australia into a new Europe have failed miserably, writes Paul Sheehan.
The Roman emperor Nero is best remembered for having his mother and wife assassinated, murdering his second wife, indulging in orgies, concerts and sporting spectacles while persecuting Christians, and blaming them for the great fire of Rome during which, most infamously, he supposedly played the lyre from the balcony of his palace. Nero playing while Rome burned is myth. The rest is not.
I wonder what history will say about us when we are gone, off to that great absolute water frontage in the sky?
That we fiddled while Rome burned? That we were the wealthiest society in our history, worth more than $350,000 for every man, woman and child, with the biggest homes, the most cars, the highest debt, the lowest savings, the highest rates of obesity and excess weight, and the greatest amount of consumerism, gambling and drug consumption, while the landscape, the lifeblood of the nation, died around us, a disaster drowned out by the clamour of consumerism.
Harsh? We have elected a prime minister, four times, who has led Australia through an era of unbroken and unprecedented prosperity, yet appeared obdurately impervious to the greatest issue of our times. He promised to reduce the size and intrusiveness of government but instead increased federal taxes, including the GST, to a peacetime record of 25.7 per cent of gross domestic product, but did not use this unprecedented flow of funds to mobilise the nation against the greatest threat to its survival. Two great strokes of fortune marked his longevity as leader - the economic revolution in China, and an opposition dominated by the factional Frankensteins of the Labor Party and the post-Trotskyite ratbags of the Greens#fn1">1.
All the while, month after month, year after year, the implacable advance of Australia's collective environmental stupidity crept closer until it is now within striking distance of the coastal capitals. After 200 years of trying to turn this continent into another Europe, we are now in retreat, as the arid zones advance.
In this column in August last year, I wrote about a highly innovative grazing enterprise, Coombing Park, not far from Orange, run by George King, who inherited a badly eroded property and turned it into a showpiece, using holistic landcare techniques that are absent from most rural businesses. He had been forced to drop the stock level on Coombing Park to 40 per cent of peak capacity and was deeply worried for the future. As we flew over the western plains in his Cessna 182, he said: "Our politicians and bureaucrats are still illiterate about this environment. We're still treating the symptoms, not the underlying cause. Droughts and water shortages are just symptoms."
Fifteen months later, what is happening on Coombing Park?
"We are going down to 20 per cent stocking rate, which is below our cost of production," King told me on Friday. "Our business cannot trade for many more years if we erode our equity each year. Even the best farmers are suffering now. The bush is dying. The towns, the landscape, the rivers are being killed by this climate change."
Note the term "climate change." Not "drought."
"What I am seeing is a compounding effect," he said. "As more country is stripped bare and dried out we expose more soil. This is releasing more carbon into the atmosphere. Organic carbon levels are falling, and the soil is losing its colour. There are more fires than ever because the dry summers are adding enormous amounts of carbon into the atmosphere and creating more bare ground. So when we do get rain it will be much less effective...."
"I have no doubts this will all accelerate as time passes. Pretty soon we will be able to see the great deserts from the Great Dividing Range."
We are creating deserts out of farmland. And when the rains do come, heavy rain will bring problems, not just relief. An enormous amount of topsoil is sitting dry and exposed, vulnerable to run-off.
Does anyone in the Federal Government accept the scale of this disaster, or are we going to keep handing out multimillion-dollar Band-Aids to lost causes? For the past four years, this column has asked, in every possible way, when our popular culture is going to admit that the 200-year national project to turn Australia into another Europe has been a collective national delusion:
"Face the facts" (Sep 18, 2006), "A horror world of our making" (Oct 24, 2005), "The disgrace of Cubbie Station" (Aug 29, 2005), "A new way of seeing green" (Aug , 2005), "The collapse of the wide, brown land" (Feb 21, 2005), "Riding for a fall" (Jan 15, 2005), "Continent at risk" (Jan 10, 2005), "The natural disaster in our midst", (Jan 3, 2005), "The issue that reigns over them all" (Jul 4, 2004), "Nothing but a wasteland", (Jun 28, 2004), "Dwarfing every other issue" (May 17, 2004), "Two degrees between life and death" (Apr 26, 2004), "A nation hostage to the gum" (Jan 30, 2003), "A ravaged country on the way out" (Jan 23, 2003), "Fire and water will define us" (Dec 9, 2003), "The great water crisis", (Dec 7, 2002).
The "great water crisis" was four years - and 17 columns on the subject - ago. Tim Flannery's seminal warning "The Future Eaters" was published 12 years ago. The crisis has since quickened and broadened. It is affecting food prices. It should soon bite as deeply on the psyche as oil prices. And it is being compounded by global warming.
Yet most people still talk about the "drought." It is not a drought. It is climate change. We changed the landscape. We cut, stripped, gouged, channelled and laid it bare. And thus changed the climate. How can we solve a problem when we can't even name it, and thus still can't even face it?
---
Footnotes
1. Whist the site editors are critical of the Greens in many ways, particularly their failure to adopt policies in favour of population control, they don't endorse Paul Sheehan's view of the Greens as 'post-Trotskyite ratbags'. A media release from Greens Senator Christine Milne, entitled "Extreme fires, melting polar ice put world on notice - time is running out" dated 13 Dec 06 here.
Recent comments