Comments

James Sinnamon

Sun, 2011-01-16 19:23

Whilst Tigerquoll rightly condemns those who have profited from creating the circumstances, which have needlessly caused so much more harm than should have occurred, it is nevertheless essential that decent ordinary people do as much as they can to relieve the hardship. If they were to wait until those, who should be held responsible, pay to relieve the hardship they have caused, donate what they rightly should relief, which is so badly needed won't be possible. Of course, intending donors must look very carefully at appeal funds to ensure that the money they give to is most likely to reach those most in need.

Tigerquoll

Sun, 2011-01-16 15:01

The public should NOT have to donate one cent to the Queensland Premiers Flood Relief Appeal. The donations, or should I say blood money, should come wholly from Liberal, Labor and National Party coffers. For it is these corrupt political parties that received donations (read 'bribes') from influential developers to get flood prone development approved and the forests ripped down.

And those developers made millions and millions. Look at the scale of the Riverside developments alone!

Now the people of Queensland are paying the price of that corruption and council gross negligence with their homes, livelihoods and lives. Many victims have no insurance because the insurance companies were well aware. Many will never recover. After the media limelight has dimmed, many will sink into despair and worse.

For the Queensland Labor Party to have the gall to ask for public donations is TRIPLE DIPPING - (1) from taxes and rates already collected, (2) donations from developer already collected and now (3) hoodwinking the public for donations.

Cough up Bligh and spare the epistles and calculated Boudiccan body language.

You may have fool some people this time.

Tigerquoll
Suggan Buggan
Snowy River Region
Victoria 3885
Australia

Les Hutchinson (not verified)

Sun, 2011-01-16 10:18

Thank you for this informative commentary Vivienne, and to Sheila for getting candobetter back online! The info re developers aka land exploiters/land pirates salivating over these lands is a useful summary and starting point for further research. The excellent photos were actually taken by Darren Novak of Oyster Bay, Sydney. We need to try our utmost to save these kanga families and all this beautiful bush from the unending depredations of stupid land-greedy white men. Hopefully the REWARD offered by WLPA for info re the Morisset kangaroo maimers and murderers will bring results via CrimeStoppers and the Courts.

James Sinnamon

Sat, 2011-01-15 17:10

These were posted to a discussion about the road toll on the John Quiggin web site. So far, they have drawn one response which is included below. Sunday 16 December update: I had not noticed one statistic, given at the start of the discussion, that does seem to show that failure to enforce road rules with sufficient vigour can lead to greater fatality rates even if the roads are much less crowded as they must have been in 1970, when 1061 died on Victoria Roads. This makes the appalling Victorian road toll of 300 of 2010 look almost acceptable by comparison. One of my responses follows: Even roads that much less crowded as they must have been in 1970, still saw horrific road tolls of 15 jan 11 It had escaped my attention that at the start of the post Professor Quiggin did give the evidence, in hard statistics, which showed conclusively that too little enforcement of traffic rules and automotive safety standards were largely the cause of Victoria’s horrific road toll of 1061 in 1970 as compared to the still unacceptable Victorian road toll of 300 in 2010. My apologies. Clearly, unless harsh penalties are applied, the road toll will be unacceptable even on roads as uncrowded as they were in 1970. Nevertheless, still I think that much of what I wrote in my previous posts still stands. If acceptable road safety could be achieved just by punishing, ever more harshly, those who have broken rules, which our authorities responsible for road safety tell us divide drivers into those who are driving ‘safely’ and those who are not, we should have achieved that long before now. If 300 were still killed in 2010, even with the harsh enforcement of traffic rules that was applied then, then I think other factors I have mentioned, which are clearly detrimental to road safety have to be addressed. One of the posts which caused me to look again more closely is below. Most recent comment of 15 jan 11 Liam, I would certainly like to see more comprehensive Australian road toll statistics. The road toll statistics for Victoria you have offered to John from the 1950s to 1998 would be a good start. Is it available on-line? Is it available in a digital electronic format? I think comprehensive road toll statistics would reveal a lot more than our Governments and the greedy vested interests they serve would want us to know, for example, what is the correlation between the death toll and: * the crowding of so many millions more people into this country in recent decades? * abysmal urban design, which forces so many of us to travel, usually by car, vast distance every week to go to work, school, shopping centres, other vital amenities, for recreation or to socialise? * lack of decent public transport, which is really only just another aspect of Australia's poor urban design. Are the Ponzi 'growth' economists plans to further double Australia's population likely to (a) increase or (b) decrease our road fatality rate? (BTW, I am surprised that my previous comment did not draw a response. Of course, I don't really mind that much if it doesn't.) Earlier comment, referred to above Breaking road rules is not, in my view, always the same as driving dangerously nor is exceeding the speed limit always the same as speeding. In past times, when the enforcement of road rules was nowhere near as strict and harsh as it is today, many who, from time to time, broke these rules which arbitrarily distinguish between ‘safe’ driving and ‘unsafe’ driving, were still rightly regarded as safe and careful drivers. Very likely, many such drivers would have found themselves regularly deprived of their driving licenses if today’s harsh driving law enforcement regime had been in force back then. Individuals, who break road rules, even to the point of statistically increasing the risk to themselves and to others, are not all reckless and uncaring. Much of the breaking of traffic rules is done by people pressed for time by the pressures of life imposed by economic ‘reforms’ of recent decades and our poorly designed cities and road networks which force many millions of commuters every week to endure many hours of gridlock to go to and from work or to other necessary life amenities. The people who have imposed these economic ‘reforms’ and poor city planning on us, made even worse by population growth, that few existing residents want, are at least as culpable as ordinary road users for the appalling road toll. "Specious logic", a response to my above two posts Your argument is one of those act v rule utilitarian claims. It plays fast and loose with collective action problems and tries to sneak things into the uncertainty envelope. It is specious logic. We absolutely need rational and robustly enforced road rules. That’s not the same as arguing that everyone who breaches one is reckless or will cause a tangible harm to another’s legitimate interests. What the breacher often does though is impose the risk on people who haven’t consented to it, in much the same way that some one embezzling a trust fund to play the commodity markets may welll make a fortune and yet never cost his or her unwitting creditors a penny. Yet he is still a schyster if he is imposing risk on others to which they have not consented. If the rules could be robustly enforced in real time, there would be an argument for more variable speed limits and for latitude for those with better maintained vehicles and proven skill and competence i.e. a better match between risks, costs and rewards. The fact that there was more margin for error would create a benefit that could be shared about more equitably. If nobody is driving with PCA and nearly everyone is sticking to the speed limit and respecting traffic control signals and all the demonstrably unfit persons are off the roads as drivers, then maybe everyone can drive a little faster, ceteris paribus. But making up your own rules to suit is simply externalising the cost of your convenience.

Bandicoot

Sat, 2011-01-15 17:08

Lord Mayor Quinn said it would have been irresponsible to go public with alarming findings which were subject to further analysis, provided the results of a new study showing that the probable levels in a one-in-100-year flood had reduced to normal. Despite warnings by scientific and engineering experts in 1999, successive Labor-dominated Brisbane councils and Queensland Labor governments worked to reject and bury recommendations for sweeping changes in planning, emergency relief and transparency when true flood levels for Brisbane were revealed in the aftermath of the record 1974 floods. As a minimum, developers and residents need to be advised of the actual flood risk on their property, the study found. The engineers and hydrologists involved in the study warned that the next major flood in Brisbane would be between 1m and 2m higher than anticipated by the Brisbane town plan. Insurance company lawyers should have a field day with the study, as it provides evidence the council chose to wittingly ignore warnings that its decision to maintain its strategy would increase its liability and cause the loss of Natural Disaster Relief funds. It was anticipated that during a large flood similar in magnitude to that experienced in 1974, by using mitigation facility within Wivenhoe Dam, flood levels will be reduced downstream by an estimated 2 metres. The problem is that the “shock absorber” couldn't take much more. The recommendations in the report for radical changes in planning strategy, emergency plans and transparency about the true flood levels for Brisbane were rejected and the report was covered up. Alarming report on risks covered up - The Australian

nimby (not verified)

Sat, 2011-01-15 13:13

Source: Urban sprawl aided Aussie torrent: experts
Sydney (AFP) Jan 14, 2011

Rapacious development in fast-growing Queensland magnified the horror of Australia's epic floods, experts said, with natural buffers paved over by concrete and new construction paying scant heed to environmental risks. Experts said the rapid development of Brisbane and surrounding areas had worsened the damage by replacing absorbent green corridors with cement, and by erecting new buildings on vulnerable sites.

A comprehensive 1999 Brisbane River Flood Study made alarming findings about predicted devastation to tens of thousands of flood-prone properties, which were given the green light for residential development since the 1974 flood. The study warned that the next major flood in Brisbane would be between 1m and 2mç higher than anticipated by the Brisbane town plan.

The council had permitted the development of thousands of properties whose owners were led to believe they would be out of harm's way in a flood on the scale of 1974.

A high-level public servant, who revealed that the local and state government at the time were less concerned with flood risks and more interested in seeing property development in low-lying areas. Anna Bligh and previous governments were more interested in short-term gains, economic growth, population growth and employment than the welfare of residents of the future. Developments have all taken place in areas that were not flood liable in 1974, but they've increased the amount of water... (and) both volume and velocity of water flow during that time," said Chris Eves, from the Queensland University of Technology.

Misplaced faith by governments and residents in the flood mitigation potential of Wivenhoe Dam meant they played into the hands of property developers. Lord mayor at the time, Tim Quinn, and others in the civic cabinet at the time had known about the study for four years but withheld its existence from ratepayers.

Sunshine Coast Mayor Bob Abbot said the “open for business” mantra being driven by the development industry had trampled over sensible planning schemes.

Allan Sutherland, mayor of Moreton Regional Council, said a review of the SEQ Regional Plan, population projections and the urban footprint were essential. Mr Sutherland said flooding was a major issue in the old Caboolture area where poor planning appraisals had seen developments cause downstream effects with disastrous consequences.

When you allow development on the flood plain it has to change the flow path of floodwater. Rebuilding everything in exactly the same places and in exactly the same way... does nothing to help communities adapt to future risks, but simply leaves these areas just as vulnerable to the next disaster of an even greater magnitude, says Rob Roggema, an urban planning expert at The Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology.

There need to be an inquiry similar to last year's Royal Commission into the 2009 Victorian bushfires.

See also: Forum discussion - Water policy after the flood, Crowded Flood-path: Lockyer-Valley, Wivenhoe Dam and Brisbane, Queensland, Australia 2011, Cost of Queensland floods made worse by government policy on land-use planning and population by Sheila Newman, Council rates system destroys urban rainforest and community in Brisbane by Geoffrey Taylor.

submitted by Nimby

quark

Sat, 2011-01-15 12:26

I just flicked on the television to see the flood news and came across a program about a wildlife rehabilitation centre for orphaned kangaroos. The carers were so organised, so familiar with the animals and showed the babies sitting in artificial pouches in baskets in their lounge room, then the slightly older ones in an enclosure preparatory to being released. All animals are released. They were describing the temperament of the kangaroos as very gentle and friendly. I hope they are not released anywhere near the Morriset Hospital to have missiles (cars) aimed at them and to be tortured by vile psychopaths who should actually be in gaol.

nimby

Sat, 2011-01-15 09:43

Eden Park roo cull permit stays despite protest

Just when we thought we might have a transparent and accountable State government, as promised, we have the news that kangaroos will continue to be "culled" as pests in Whittlesea area, and that there will be a full duck shooting season in Victoria this year.

Where is the sanity, environmental respect and protection for wildlife? With good rains, waterbirds should be allowed to peace to breed and recover their numbers. Already native birds and animals are facing so many obstacles to survival, and now they will have firearms as well.

There is unlikely to be more than 300 kangaroos in the Eden Park area. They will be eliminated, and developers will have access to cleared and sterilized areas for building. The real pests, such as rabbits and other feral animals, will continue their destruction "business as usual".

The hatred and venom towards our native animals is a disease, and illustrates just how environmentally illiterate the public - and governments - are.

See, also, comment "Victorian Government announces a full duck shooting season".

Matilda B (not verified)

Fri, 2011-01-14 13:25

Animal rights activists are threatening legal action to prevent duck shooting in Victoria. It follows an announcement from the DSE that the season will run for a full 12 weeks from mid-March. The government says it will closely monitor duck hunters when the season begins in March. Coalition against Duck Shooting Laurie Levy has been called an real eco-terroist". This sounds like what the Japanese whalers call Sea Shepherd! The term "eco-terrorists" is being applied to anyone who dares to interfere with people killing wildlife and polluting the environment - for commercial interests or for fun. He should be proud to be considered amongst the finest! On the contrary, terrorists are the killers, not those protecting the victims. This announcement is disgusting and just a slap in the face for those who thought we might have an accountable government with a bit of compassion and common sense. They are just bending to the political power of the shooting lobby, despite their diminishing numbers, and the numbers of self-serving employees in the DSE who are also shooters. Waterbirds are trying to survive and breed, to build up their sadly depleted numbers. What will happen? They will be shot out of the air for entertainment! Incredibly, rural voters bemoan the locust plague, but they are quite willing to support the recreational shooting of any of the few waterbird survivors of a long drought that might prey on them.

James Sinnamon

Fri, 2011-01-14 10:48

Thanks for your thoughts. I was personally very moved by the acting and the plots both movies (both based on real life historical events). It is hard to know how the decent and highly courageous people portrayed in these films, when faced with the circumstances they faced, could not have behaved without showing considerable emotion, so I fail to understand how anyone could consider the acting of these characters overdone. It's hard for me to praise "Fair Game" which I have, myself, seen twice recently at the movies, too highly. In fact, I gained a better understanding of how the US Government lied about the supposed Iraqi "Weapons of Mass Destruction" to justify its (and Australia's) invasion of Iraq than I was ever able to gain from reading any articles in newspapers or magazines, whether mainstream media or 'left wing' prior to then. Even though "Casualties of War" is not without some weaknesses in my view, that film stands head and shoulders above just about any other movie I can recall seeing about the Vietnam War, most of which unashamedly repeat essentially the official lies used to justify that war. Those who produced that movie have also done humankind a great service. Everything which tells even just a small amount of the truth about that war and other wars caused by the United States, particularly in a Holywood movie, makes it just that much harder for the United States to behave that same way in future. By the way, the fears expressed in "Casualties of War" that those who were convicted of rape would not serve anything close to their sentences has been borne out by the subsquent events:
One of the soldiers was acquitted on appeal after it was determined that his Fifth Amendment rights were violated, and his confessions were ruled inadmissible. His brother's sentence was shortened to 22 months. The corporal and sergeant's sentences were reduced to eight years, with the possibility of parole after 4 years. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_incident_on_Hill_192#lang1969a)

quark

Fri, 2011-01-14 07:59

I also wonder about the fate of animals, especially wildlife in the floods. I heard a fragmented story about horses that were killed in the Queensland floods. I hope that wildlife although displaced by the rising waters have a bit more hope than animals that are tethered, confined or in some way unable to escape. One of the problems is likely to be fences that will impede their flight to safety. All will be revealed as the waters recede but I imagine that since kangaroos get caught on fences under more normal conditions then this will also have happened in the floods.

Anonymous (not verified)

Fri, 2011-01-14 07:43

No, I have to admit I don't have much time for the output of Hollywood, these days. I think much better movies coming out of Europe for years and these go largely unnoticed by our media our movie critics. I have also seen "Fair Game" and "Casualties of War" at the recommendation of a friend. I mostly agree with the political message of these movies but they both suffer from poor charecterisation and overacting.

tim

Fri, 2011-01-14 07:25

BTW, news has it that Haiti's fertility rate has tripled since the earhquake. Good work Canada! Your foreign aid has paid off again!

RichB

Fri, 2011-01-14 03:24

Everyday on the news you see the chaos and destruction caused by the floods and the suffering to humans and their pets which of course is terrible...There is no mention at all of the suffering caused to our beautiful native wildlife..What has happened to the kangaroos, wallabies and all the others..Why doesnt the destructive human parasite get of its high horse and show some respect and care to our wonderful native animals...Its not all about humans and their concrete jungles..

Tigerquoll

Thu, 2011-01-13 11:58

If the native forests hadn't been cleared, likely there would have been less flooding. Not too many people around 220 years old, but perhaps natural history or Aboriginal oral history can lay claim to pre-colonised Queensland having less damaging floods.

The transpiration rate of native forests is considerable. A single mature Eucalypt can consume 7300 litres of water per year. In a forest or plantation with a density of 1100 trees/hectare, the water consumption (transpiration) will be 8,030,000 litres of water per hectare/year. [World Rainforest Movement].

So if the forests had been there, the ground saturation that caused the Queensland flooding (groundwater has nowhere to go except horizontally) would have been markedly reduced; perhaps just swollen rivers rather than flooded ones. Forest and river ecosystems have a delicate balance. Rape the ecosystem and suffer nature's violence!

Lesson: bugger the natural environment (ie rip the guts out of native forests) and wear the consequences, Brisbane!

Take the following CSIRO report from 1999.

Australian Trees for the Rehabilitation of Waterlogged and Salinity-damaged Landscapes

by David T. Bell, CSIRO, 1999. [Australian Journal of Botany]

'The revegetation of damaged agricultural landscapes requires a detailed knowledge of appropriate species and their adaptations to cope with the stresses of environments altered by humans. ...Australian catchments yield little water under natural vegetation, the trees and shrubs being especially resourceful in utilising much of the annual rainfall input. Replacing native, deep-rooted perennial species with annual crops always results in a net gain in catchment water. To redress these problems, cleared landscapes must be partially restored to tree and shrub cover to utilise the excess water remaining when crops are harvested or lie dormant over summer. Upland regions of restored landscapes should be planted to tree crops, particularly those that are luxuriant water users, of commercial value to farmers.

Lowland sites in damaged catchments must be revegetated with trees which have waterlogging adaptations, such as aerenchyma, and tolerance to the products of anaerobic respiration. Areas of waterlogging that are additionally affected by excess salts must have exceptional trees. Australia has a number of native species which are well suited to survive these conditions, produce biomass and utilise excess water, while restricting or coping with the uptake of over-abundant salts.'

The CSIRO should play a key role in land use development, farming and urban planning.

Tigerquoll
Suggan Buggan
Snowy River Region
Victoria 3885
Australia

nimby (not verified)

Thu, 2011-01-13 10:51

The demands for infrastructure dampen the economy. According to Ross Gittins (SMH) the economic case for rapid population growth via immigration is surprisingly weak, but a lot of economists are keen to give you the opposite impression. The Carr panel on population found that while population growth increased the size of the economy, it did not make Australians significantly better off, as measured by GDP per capita. Once again the floods and drought - forces of nature - have demonstrated the folly of imposing a 'Big Australia' level of population on this ancient land. Unfortunately those who wish to make big bucks from this lunacy. The economy has been given priority over people's welfare and Australia's long term stability. Australia's powerful have little concern for this landscape - just as long as we can make money by making holes in the ground and importing people to increase the populations size - regardless if its impacts on peoples health. A Flinders University study of the effects of migration warned that Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne and Perth would have difficulty coping in future droughts because population growth could overwhelm attempts to improve water infrastructure. While noting that states had increased spending on water infrastructure, the report says: "It remains moot whether this increased capacity for our cities will cope in the next drought, given that they will have substantially larger populations nudging absolute water demand even higher, even with improved water use efficiencies from behavioural and technological solutions." It's a case of population driving short-term economic growth, but at the same time swallowing up costs for infrastructure, and water sources, the more long-term commitments. Populations are dynamic, multi-faceted and complex, People are not livestock that can be slaughtered in a time of drought, or be valued as asset losses in bushfires or floods. Now Anna Bligh is under pressure to build more dams. Australia is one of the worst places in the world for dams. it’s too flat. And it’s so hot, often the evaporation rate is greater than the rainfall. Al the best dam sites have already been used up. All we have left now are the dregs. Our economic model based on population growth, productivity bound to property development and mining of finite resources, is questionable in the light of Australia's lack of environmental vulnerability, climate change and instable weather patterns. Population is the main driver of loss of biodiversity and subsequent degradation of our planet. Can we do anything? I am afraid not, extinction is the end solution. Editor's comment: Thank you for yet another generally excellent post, nimby, but I have one issue to take up with you. Whilst it seems to me more more likely than not that the pessimistic prediction at the end of your comment will be realised, I don't think that such pessimism is likely to achieve anything, except, perhaps, to dissuade people out there, who might be motivated to act against the selfish wealthy elites who are destroying our future, from doing so. As long as there is any hope for a better future, or indeed, any future for humankind, we should do whatever we are able to try to bring that future about.

quark

Thu, 2011-01-13 09:39

Queensland floods are a graphic and immediate demonstration of how an economy functions within the environment rather than the other way around.

Sheila Newman

Thu, 2011-01-13 03:18

I agree that removal of trees enhances the severity of flash floods. In the Murphy's Creek flash flood, it seems you had weeks of rain causing totally sodden land, which could absorb no more rain, so when there were 60 solid minutes of rain, the denuded floodplains must have been like a smooth bath-tub. If you look at the area, the Lockyer Valley is a patchwork of treeless crop-sown riverflats with very little absorptive capacity. All around the valley are hills, feeding the river system. You can see Forest Hill bang smack in a river junction on the right and Galton to the left of it and Toowoomba further left. Running down by the center of the valley is a huge long tarmacked highway. I've just written this up as an article here: http://candobetter.net/node/2332 Comments welcome. Constructive criticism will be incorporated. Sheila Newman, population sociologist home page Articles Copyright to the author. Please contact sheila [AT] candobetter org or the editor if you wish to make substantial reproduction or repu

quark

Thu, 2011-01-13 00:14

A friend living in Brisbane for the last 15-20 years told me the following in a phone conversation tonight . First she told me their house was safe from the floods as it is on high ground and not near the river. When they first moved to Brisbane, friends warned them not to buy in an area below the level of the 1974 floods. Real estate agents contradicted this advice saying that another flood was just "not going to happen" "Don't worry!... " they said My friend and her husband looked at maps of historical flood levels and decided on the basis of the 1974 flood where it was safe to buy. She said properties near the river are extremely expensive- it is the choice spot. Imagine how values will plummet. She tells me the Wivenhoe dam was only 13 % full until about early 2010 but then there has been rain nearly very day since September 2010. As a result, the ground would be full if water I imagine. Strict water restrictions remained nevertheless e.g No car washing, watering the garden only between 4-6pm She remarked that the regular rain over several months ruined local crops. She said that she thinks the Wivenhoe dam, built partly to flood-proof Brisbane after the 1974 floods has been "full" for a number of months. ("full is in inverted commas as the dam has a capacity for more than 100% ) My friend is amazed that the day before yesterday there was no flood alert at all for Brisbane- and now it is a disaster area, with water rising over the next few hours. Lastly, her daughter went out tonight locally to buy food and - alas - no milk, no bread, no fresh fruit or vegetables. They are making do with what is in the cupboard.

Tigerquoll

Wed, 2011-01-12 13:33

Planners at local council level and possibly legislators at State level across Queensland and NSW must be legally liable for approving building on flood-prone land. Residents and an experienced expert law firm should partner up in a class action and sue the pants off these reckless greedy governments who approve such development.

Last May, the victims of the floods in Roma, Charleville, Bollon and St George took their claims to their insurance companies to court. [Read More].

But it's the government planners who are most liable, who approve the developments up front with full knowledge of an area having a history of flood. Similarly, planners who approve building development on high bushfire prone land need to be also legally liable.

It is as dumb as building below the king tide mark.

Glad to be back; wish it was in more pleasant circumstances.

Tigerquoll
Suggan Buggan
Snowy River Region
Victoria 3885
Australia

Thanks, Tigerquoll. Glad 2 c u back. Boldfacing above is mine. - Editor

Bandicoot

Wed, 2011-01-12 10:30

Queensland is experiencing extreme weather, and the floods could easily be explained as a feed-back system of heating, cooling, more tropical rain and dry weather patterns. As the atmosphere and oceans continue to warm, the ability for more water vapour to be carried in the atmosphere intensifies -leading to more frequent and intense rain. According to the Bureau of Meteorology 2010 has become Queensland's wettest year on record with the state annual average rainfall being 1109.73 millimetres, more than the 1950 record. Under Anna Bligh, land clearing continues to erode the countryside and contribute to the risks of flooding. The state government had originally planned to remove more than a thousand trees to widen the highway between Geham and Hampton but will now cut down about five hundred after protests from locals. Natural Resources Minister Stephen Robertson in April 2009 announced a three-month ban on clearing endangered re-growth forest across Queensland. Rural lobby group AgForce immediately criticised the step, predicting job losses in both the city and rural Queensland. AgForce reiterated that they do not support a regulatory approach to dealing with further changes in vegetation management. What contribution (if any) urban development could be making to the current river flood levels? Vegetation and rural land use change could also be relevant in comparing 2011 with 19th century floods? In natural systems undisturbed by urbanisation, agriculture and industry, flood events do release substances such as sediment onto inshore ecosystems. However, with the increase in land used for agriculture, pollutants such as nitrogen and phosphorus (from fertilisers), chemicals (from pesticides) and increased sediment (from land clearing and over-grazing) have found their way onto the Great Barrier Reef. Since records began, Australian agriculture has changed or destroyed half the woodlands and forests of the country. More than two-thirds of the remaining forest has been degraded by logging. WWF raised the alarm over figures showing Australia lost 300,000 hectares to land clearing in the year to 2007, the latest available statistics. This was the equivalent of clearing about 5 million suburban house blocks, Nick Heath of WWF told the media. Queensland had the worst record, clearing an area equal to the land mass of the Australian Capital Territory. 2009 was the last year of the state’s policy of allowing broad-scale land clearing and its record dwarfed that of the other states combined. Already too much damage, and species losses, have occurred. In 1974 the heaviest rain was quite concentrated in the first range of hills inland from the coast, either at places like Enoggera Reservoir which don't drain into the upper Brisbane River, or the Gold Coast hinterland which is in a different catchment. This time it looks like the heaviest falls have extended further inland and therefore affected a greater proportion of the upper catchment. GIS database mapping will need to be compared with the 500K ha per year land clearing rates in Queensland. When are we going to hear how excessive land clearing during the 80' and 90's has contributed to the severity of these floods?

nimby

Tue, 2011-01-11 23:00

No asylum seekers should be allowed to arrive by boat to our shores. Any arriving illegally should be sent back to their port of exit. The risk of leaking boats, overcrowded conditions, pirates and shipwrecks should not be allowed to happen. Our humanitarian intake should be naturally increased, and more asylum seekers should be processed, but is needs to happen off shore. They should not be lured into taking such terrible risks with children on board. We need to reduce our massive economic immigration intake, and students, and concentrate on a greater humanitarian intake of refugees. Australia only wants the well-heeled or well educated to invest in our property market, or provide competition for labour, and thus cheaper wages. Your comment (originally published here on 2011-01-11 at 08:11AM +1000) has been published, congratulations, but Geoffrey Taylor's still has not been as far as I can see. - Editor

Enne K (not verified)

Tue, 2011-01-11 17:01

The people who think that we can have limitless population growth are living in denial. They should go to Haiti and see the devastation and poverty and misery of overpopulation. According to the Australian Academy of Science's advice, "If our population reaches the high end of the feasible range (37 million), the quality of life of all Australians will be lowered by the degradation of water, soil, energy and biological resources. Cities such as Sydney and Melbourne will double or triple in size, multiplying their current infrastructure problems and their impact on the surrounding regions of the continent. " Is this what our greedy generation wants - maximum population?

Sheila Newman

Tue, 2011-01-11 10:55

A breath-taking perspective, Ixpieth. I feel pretty certain that Australia is going down the same road as Ireland. When the IMF comes to collect, Australians need to refuse to pay up, like Argentina, not like Ireland. I nearly said that we are like Ireland, except that we have minerals and other raw materials, whereas Ireland has little and even lost all her trees (to the same English colonial phenomenon) centuries ago. But then I thought of how we have gone into infrastructure debt to turbocharge our mining product and of how sales depend on a market which is inexorably grinding to a halt. And, after even politicians refused more taxpayer money to create and finance Swann and Rudd's "Ruddbank" in 2009, Mr Swann seems now to have managed by himself to make Mr and Mrs Middleclass's superannuation legally available to bolster the doomed construction sector for when the banks pull out. The floods in Queensland and Northern NSW highlight the wobbly basis of the Australian growth economy. If we had a bill of rights, or better still, a civil code, like the French and other European states have had since the 19th century, to guarantee us affordable shelter and income, we would stand a chance. If the payroll tax laws were repealed and we then had the right to withhold our income tax (which is collected before we get paid) we would also have bargaining power. And, if we had zero-net immigration, we would stand a chance of consolidating and redistributing what real wealth we have (as opposed to paper-debt-based 'wealth'). Feel free to dispute these observations; I would like some feedback. Sheila Newman, population sociologist home page

nimby (not verified)

Tue, 2011-01-11 10:34

The world environment continues to be besieged by human activity. The tragic earthquake and floods of Haiti were compounded by deforestation and overpopulation, making both the poorer and mother nature the biggest losers of 2010. Overpopulation is one of the prime reasons for poverty. Banning condom use almost doubles the birth rate of a country. The use of condoms as a part of sexual practice must be permitted. Improving the lives of women has a positive effect on the health care, education and the economic development of their countries. Anticipating a global population of 9.1 billion people by 2050, the UN has warned that international food production must rise by 70 per cent to meet the growing demand. The true problem of the world is: OVERPOPULATION. Technology will not and will never save us. The threat of overpopulation is ignored due to PC, and human arrogance. (Emphasis added by Politically inCorrect editor.)

Geoffrey Taylor

Tue, 2011-01-11 08:27

I submitted the following to the SBS discussion page: A true humanitarian refugees program would not discriminate against the very poorest refugees in the refugee camps and in favour of those with enough leverage and money to be able to pay People Smugglers as Australia's policy effectively does now. If we are prepared to allow those brought here by People Smugglers to settle then morally we should grant residence to all refugees who request it. The numbers of refugees that we then would have to give residence to would vastly exceed Australia's capacity. That is the unworkable alternative to having a refugee policy that is properly understood and enforced. This is perhaps one of only very few things I will ever say in favour of the otherwise unbelievably dreadful former Prime Minister John Howard, but his 'Pacific Solution' was just such a policy. Of course, the refugees should have been handled far more humanely, but unless rules are applied that favour a substantial number of the poorest of refugee applicants in refugee camps over those able to pay people smugglers, then those rules can't be said to be fair.

Bandicoot

Mon, 2011-01-10 23:13

This landmark documentary series explores Australia's century long struggle to overcome the White Australia Policy. Australia used to be the Lucky Country, with plenty of natural resources and lots of land and opportunities for everyone. Australia was founded on the working class dream. The concept of terra nullius was well and truly entrenched in the thinking of the people of the day, and continues now. The outcome of the First World War in 1919, saw the British Empire at its height. The British Empire only finally started dissolving after the First World War, with the process being speeded up dramatically in the aftermath of the Second World War. The primary reason for the dissolution of the empire was economic and political rather than racial. Australia had signed the Versaille Treaty in 1919. PM Hughes rejection of Japan in the League of Nations would not have stopped their invasion of China, SE Asia and attack on Australia. This was about Imperial expansion. Even in the second world war we cooperated closely with Britain and sent troops in both world wars. England was still the "mother country". It surely was not too surprising that Australia would encourage British migration? If Australia had been settled, by a quirk of history, by the China, Indonesia or Japan, would the rest of the world have labeled them as "racist" or bigoted if they almost exclusively encouraged their own ethnic/national to immigrate? Granted, it was wrong for the government of the day to exclude families of the Chinese and those of other non-British to bring their families here, or to deport Islander workers, but history has shown that a policy of open immigration and limitless population growth are not beneficial or conducive to cohesive societies. Australia experienced stability, freedom, economic growth, prosperity, and gave Utopian childhoods to many children during the baby boom era, and before. Few nations are expected to have the obligation of an open door policy to immigration. We were not a totally "white" country but our traditional owners were outcast and were "protected" to the extent of (almost) forced extinction. Australia was founded on the basis that we were fundamentally racist. However, people are naturally - due to geography, adaption and cultural differences - divided into races, nations and ethnic groups, and as such, there will always be some division due to race. There isn't so much of a fear of asylum seekers and boat people, but a natural suspicion of outsiders and being part of a human herd. It's about human nature, and patriotism, and protecting our borders and properties. Your Say: Immigration Nation on SBS

ixpieth (not verified)

Mon, 2011-01-10 19:40

Thanks Tim, I enjoyed your original post as much as I did contributing, so to keep the ball rolling..... 1/ I think the current economic system has let everyone down, no matter where they are. I too have my low income card in my pocket, and have for the last 10 years, altho not having children I assume it's easy to say I wouldn't have it any other way. Those who have been let down the most are those who believed the spin. To that end, education, or the lack of it certainly plays a big role. I remember Harold McMillan (U.K. conservative P.M.) telling me as I unfurled my first wage packet in 1966 that "You've never had it so good", the 4 pounds that I poured into my hands didn't seem like a king's ransom but then I believed my parents, borne and bred in frugality that the main aim was to provide a better world than they had when they were children, and given that my parents went through 2 world wars and a depression I can understand exactly where they were coming from. We are now in a different space, and forgive me but I haven't had children, but I feel we have overshot the necessities and frugality that kept this world sustainable. Yes there were the London "pea soupers" when thousands died from bronchitis, but I think the advent of advertising and later marketing, the green revolution (based on oil) which saved the lives of millions in Africa and India has led us down a path that is too good to be true. So now we come to the "earth fights back" part of history, and just as I thought that people would notice if a massive natural disaster occurred, the Tsunami came and wiped away 200,000 people in one hit, and we just kept on going. Ayaan Hrisi Ali's remarks about the "desperate" refugees having the choice of joining this merry go round or suiciding hit me right between the eyes. She came out of Ethiopia and landed in Holland which gave birth to her wonderful intellectual potential, and yet came up with such a "final solution" I was shocked. 2/ So yes I agree that there is to be a re distribution, both within and amongst global economies, and the wages gap is the first place to start. And no matter who it is, we all have to allow a voice for ecological limits. I liken this to the proposed emissions reduction scenarios. Global emissions have to be reduced by 50% by 2050 (I know these are all "modelled" figures) ergo, western societies face a mind boggling 90 - 100% reduction whereas developing countries are allowed to INCREASE their emissions to allow development. Naturally for the U.S. this is a major sticking point, remember Dick Cheney and his "The American lifestyle is non-negotiable" comment, they really mean that. As the U.S. and Oprah Winfrey gain more and more access to Australia so does the Amway. I saw a Q & A a while ago and Bill Shorten appeared. A question came from the audience re Tim Jackson's "Properity without Growth" and in 10 seconds Shorten completely white anted the whole paper by saying, "I'm sure there are a lot of people earning $150,000 a year who would question that theory" It's easy to attack and destroy ANY theory that quotes Marks, degrowth, or is percieved to herald a "backward step" where we'll all end up living in caves. A Steady State does not advocate this at all. 3/ & 4/ Show me the money. When the bean counters tot this all up a figure of $12 TRILLION has been lost through the global financial crisis. Now tell me there's not enough to go around. There have been many suggestions about a levy of miniscule amounts on the trillions of financial transactions that take place every day, but no-one has got the courage to take these bastards on. I remember when Argentina were in real financial trouble and they just defaulted on their debts, so what ? Ireland bent to the whim of the IMF and borrowed their future away rather than constructing a new one. I agree wholeheartedly that there is a complete vacuum when it comes to leaders who are advocating for the future, determined to maintain the status quo, we seem to have forgotten that this current market system is only 30 years old and failed miserably at the first hurdle. The vested interests hold sway and are not going to give in - just today I heard all the CEO's of big tobacco swearing on oath that smoking was not addictive. Well the same applies to growth, it is an addiction completely destructive to ourselves as people and society as a whole, not to mention the surface we live on. Of course the biodiversity loss would be increased as the undeveloped world "develops" or as more and more people migrate to countries where they can aspire to western standards. The first move has to come from the west. From a grass routes movement that has seen through the paucity of infinate economic growth.

tim

Mon, 2011-01-10 19:08

"The Amerindians refused to mine gold for the Spanish, so the Spanish imported many thousands of slaves from Africa." No doubt it was because, as we hear people say now of imported workers...."Because they do work that our people won't do". But alas, overtime, the slaves too went native, and refused to work for, well, slave wages. Sounds familiar doesn't it. It should. That is what immigration is all about. Displacing indigenous people with those who will do the work on the cheap. And soon the native-born find themselves marginalized. What happened to Haiti is happening to us, correction, has happened to us. Foreign companies (agribusiness), have depopulated rural Canada and sent the sons and daughters of farmers to the cities to compete with a foreign-born slave labour class. Sounds hyperbolic but that is what 80% of our immigrants are. Working for $13/hour in Canadian cities where you need to make $20/hour just to keep your head above water. Our minimum-wage servants were not brought here by slave ships, but dispossessed by liberal trade agreements and corporate expansion. Did this not also happen to the Roman Republic? Expansion and conquest flooded the cities and farms with slave labour, and the once proud farming class was forced into the urban feed lot? And tell me, was that not the case in Britain at the onset of the Industrial Revolution? The enclosure movement created the cheap labour needed to slave in factories for 12 hour days and pittance? And didn't the African slave trade provide the capital for investment in this nascent British "take-off", as Rostow called it? I read EP Thompson and Christopher Mayhew but you studied this era in depth. Overpopulation alone is not the key to everything-----but the fact that it is completely ignored justifies my emphasis on it I think. Most aid is dispensed, not for the benefit of recipients, but for the benefit of those who give it. The aid agencies, the governments and the dupes who want to feel good by mindlessly donating to a "good" charity without doing their own research. You state, "Sending a few dollars to Haiti is good... No-one is against charity". I say it is bad and that I for one am against charity without conditions attached. It has been argued on candobetter that "relief" must be treated differently than "aid". But the problem is that the condition in countries like these are a constant emergency. Famines, floods, earthquakes, tsunamis---the traumas are never ending. As you point out, societies cannot be built on charity. Nor can they be built without governments and people taking responsibility. In my experience, I have done the most harm to people by trying to help them out or "fix" them. By trying to rescue people from the consequences of their folly so they that they never learn to change, nor have the ambition to change. Why should they? Why should Haiti, Zimbabwe, or the Philippines clean up their act when good old Canada can be relied to throw money at them. Borrowed money, I might add. What ever made Haitians poor, foreign aid without birth contol will not lift them out of poverty----as you know. My article is about Canada and Haiti, a special relationship. Haiti is our Mexico. And Mexico, as you also know, has had its farming class destroyed by the NAFTA agreement. I am not one of those North American anti-immigrationists who ignore push factors or our complicity in them. Landless people get very poor, but foreign aid and open immigration will not cure it, it will exacerbate it. The historical reasons for poverty are interesting, but the question is, what can be done about it now?

Sheila Newman

Mon, 2011-01-10 18:46

Tim, Did you ever read these other articles on candobetter.net about Haiti's history? Are you aware that Haiti originally had a sustainable population and economy, until the arrival of the Spanish and the introduction of slaves, and that much land and manufactures were recently internationally corporatised, so that, mostly, the only thing left for Haitians is to work for crummy wages - and that the Catholic church actively works against contraceptive provision, which in any case the Haitians are too poor to afford? Here are the URLs and teasers: How did beautiful, rich, sustainable Haiti become Poor Haiti? Posted January 14th, 2010 by Sheila Newman How the tragic situation of Haiti's overpopulation and poverty came about? There were not always 9m hungry people there. When this once rich and beautiful island was discovered by Christopher Columbus in 1492, it was inhabited by a population of about 100,000 Amerindians, living in a steady state economy. The Amerindians refused to mine gold for the Spanish, so the Spanish imported many thousands of slaves from Africa. The French took the whole island over in 1697 and it remained their most lucrative possession until 1825, despite the inhabitants claiming independence and freedom from slavery under the French Revolution of 1789. At that time there were few Amerindians but about 400,000 African slaves and 100,000 colonists. Added on 17 Jan 2010. Slavery is ongoing in Haiti. Catholic blog fights contraceptive aid to Haiti Posted January 21st, 2010 by Sheila Newman A blogsite called "Catholic Dialogue" sounds so extreme in its condemnation of feminism, contraception and women's choice that you wonder if it's actually a joke. The blogsite warns people not to donate to Caritas Haiti because they support condoms, the celebration of Women's International Day and present a 'negative image of the Catholic Church'! Please DO therefore consider donating to Caritas Haiti. And thanks, Catholic Dialogue, for telling us about them. They have survived the earthquake. Personally I think they are improving the image of Catholicism. Haiti: There's no such thing as a curse Posted January 22nd, 2010 by Sheila Newman A French writer, Louis Préfontaine, talks about the roles of the United States, Canada and France in propping up dictatorships, and of the United State's particular role in divesting Haitians of land and public institutions. See also "The U.S. Role in Haiti’s Food Riots: 30 Years Ago Haiti Grew All the Rice It Needed. What Happened?" Sheila Newman, population sociologist home page

Sheila Newman

Mon, 2011-01-10 18:35

Personally, I would like to see many more authors, as well as comments. And on all kinds of topics as long as they can relate to our core subjects in some way - as most things do anyway. Just to remind anyone browsing, our website is for reform in democracy, environment, population, land use planning and energy policy. There is room there for all kinds of politics, styles, illustrations, languages, culture, sciences and humour. Sheila Newman, population sociologist home page Articles Copyright to the author. Please contact sheila [AT] candobetter org or the editor if you wish to make substantial reproduction

nimby

Mon, 2011-01-10 16:52

The ageing population is also a hindrance to the GDP. Older people are a burden on society as they are not big consumers. They get sick and need nursing care - besides the massive bonds or fees needed to be paid to nursing homes - and even though many are self-funded retirees. Long lives inhibit economic growth as younger people work, pay taxes, need to buy cars, houses, baby goods, household furniture and white goods. A plague effecting mainly older, useless people, would also be an economic benefit, and allow more younger people to immigrate and become consumers. Obsession for economic growth requires constant consumption of resources and goods and services. A stable and healthy population, of people with high longevity, is a threat to economic growth. Economic growth has become an end in itself rather than a means to support our lifestyles and insure an inheritance to pass on to future generations. We will eat away our futures with this fatalistic, myopic policy.

tim

Mon, 2011-01-10 12:54

In my view, the virtue of this blog---candobetter---lies not so much in the essays posted but in the quality of comments that they provoke. The comments above are a case in point. The last one particularly is a launching pad for much more discussion. I will leave with a few questions. 1. As a former charter member of the perceived poor, now at the threshold of re-entry to their ranks, cannot those who are currently unemployed, on food stamps, deeply leveraged or with homes foreclosed or about to be foreclosed be forgiven for believing that they are "actually poor"? Homeless Vancouverites may not suffer to the degree of Calcutta slum-dwellers or Brazilians in flavellas, but let me tell you, they are not liking outdoor living right now. 2. If the goal is global de-growth, but within that framework selective growth for those most in need, are North America's working poor and dispossessed to be the considered ripe for de-plucking? And should the corrupt elites in developing nations be exempted from the radical wealth transfer? In other words, must we not think in terms of the redistribution of wealth within countries as much as between them? In Canada, as in the US, the growth of the past three decades has come with a widening of the income/wealth gap. As the pie has grown bigger, ordinary Canadians have gotten smaller and smaller slices. Ditto America. 3. Is the reason tha growthers feel that much is to be gained from advocating for the perceived poor have something to do with the fact that our poor are really hurting, and would react rather harshly to any politician who would advocate economic contraction for the benefit of people in the southern Hemisphere? Try running on a no-growth platform now. The working poor, the ordinary folks, think any such proposal is mad. 4. Here is a politically incorrect thought. What if, in the interests of global equity, an all-powerful global government commanded severe economic shrinkage for the relatively affluent 20% of nations and economic growth for the 80% fuelled by massive wealth transfers, would there be enough to go around? Would the economic growth necessary to uplift the developing world impose enough biodiversity loss, soil erosion and GHG emissions as to be fatal to our species even if affluent economies were subject to severe austerity and retraction? Perhaps Foster answers that question. I need to read his analysis. Tim Editorial comment: Thanks, Tim. I agree, of course. However this blog still lacks sufficient structure and does not yet have even its own search engine, which is a consequence of my past poor prioritisation before my road injury and hospitalisation back in May last year more seriously hampered my own ability to contribute to and manage this site. Thanks, Tim and so many other visitors for having kept breathing so much life into this site, during the recent times, when I was almost completely unable to. With proper structure and even with no more than the existing authors and contributors I think candobetter will be indisputably seen as an unparalleled Internet resource for good by any reasonable environmentalist or progressive. (JS, 10 Jan 2011)

ixpieth (not verified)

Mon, 2011-01-10 08:45

Just to fill this out a bit, there are those (Herman Daly ex chief economist World Bank) who have argued for strong population controls for a long time. (www.steadystate.org) I think the reasons for this is that there needs to be growth in a large section of the global south, there are basic rights that just aren't there yet. I think it is becoming more and more obvious to all as the plight of refugees is discussed that our "lifestyle" cannot be advanced much more, particularly when a finite planet is brought into the discussion. www.degrowth.eu There are those, such as Prof Tim Jackson who would see a re orientation of investment into ecological areas as a transition to a Steady State. Of course even a Steady State (which goes back to John Stuart Mill) allows for growth within ecological limits. Others, such as degrowth - ers maintain that the economic "uplift" of poorer nations must continue "as quickly as possible" but must run in parallel with a "contraction" in wealthy countries. This is urgent and necessary, this was also put very forcefully by John Bellamy Foster in "Capitalism and Degrowth" in the Monthly Review - http://www.monthlyreview.org/110101foster.php Meanwhile, back at the ranch in Frankston, the latest Economic Development Strategy is advocating a CAD permanent population of 18,000 as well as a ramp up of the workforce to 18,000 with the necessary gross floor area of 1.3 MILLION m2 (currently 120,000 m2). It's "our" turn right ? There is no doubt that the "growthers" still feel there is much to be gained from advocating for the "perceived poor" in western society and this needs to be countered wherever possible to compare with the "actual poor" globally. Even very intelligent thinkers (Ayaan Hrisi Ali in a discussion with Jennifer Byrne - could be on iview) see the "primacy" of western society at a point whereby those "desparate" refugees who risk their lives to get here have a "choice", the ultimate existential choice, of accepting their part of contributing to economic life and growth or not. Am not sure if this derives from her abandonment of Islam or not. The point is that even when education fulfills it's role to the fullest extent, the "choices" this brings are often too seductive to pass up. The time has come for "us" to be selective and bring into the equation, as a minimum, the "externalities" which have to date been completely dismissed, including population. Even the Queensland floods are seen a a fillip for economic gowth, when the rain stops that is.

James Sinnamon

Sun, 2011-01-09 22:17

On a National Interest program about population first broadcast in April 2009, it was pointed out that the Victorian Bushfires actually added to the GDP and did not reduce the GDP as one would think. Why? Because only the economic activity of rebuilding following the damage is added to the GDP by accounts. The destruction caused by the bushfires was not subtracted from the GDP. Surely we would have to be wealthier as a nation if we did not have those bushfires. Activity not required to rebuild burnt property would surely have allowed other activity which would have truly added to our wealth to have happened. Yet the same economists who tell us that population growth adds to our prosperity, if they followed the same methodology that they apply to draw that conclusion, would tell us that the bushfires added to our prosperity. To be consistent, they should also advocate the lighting of more bushfires and the reduction in spending on fire fighting to further increase or national wealth.

James Sinnamon

Fri, 2011-01-07 23:18

Thanks for your thoughts, quark. However, unfortunately, even this gives more ground to the growth pushers than they deserve. The only 'economic benefit' of 'growth' is not, in fact, an economic benefit at all. Transfer of wealth from the poorest in society to the wealthiest, through increased housing costs and lower wages driven down by higher competition is, if anything trickle up rather than 'trickle down'. Possibly, arguably some of the wealth trickled up from the poorest to the richest is 'trickled down' again to the less wealthy amongst the priveleged, but this would be tiny in comparison to the wealth already lost outright to society through the cost of immigration and population growth. I very much doubt if any growth pusher would be able to fool any intelligent person with his/her claims even for as little as a minute if the sheer illogicality of what growth pushers argue was more widely pointed out. The claim, that population growth is of any benefit to society as a whole, let alone to the poorest in society, can be easily shown up for the deceitful fraud that it is. A further thought, 8 Jan:. Perhaps "gush up" and "gush out" would be more appropriate terms to decribe what happens to the wealth of ordinary people and society as a whole because of 'growth'.

quark

Fri, 2011-01-07 22:38

Growth pushers most likely rationalise or spin to themselves, their nearest and dearest and anyone else who asks that the growth they demand will benefit them and that a proportion of this economic benefit will trickle down to others. Even if others lose out all over the place, ultimately I'm sure the growth pusher would say that others benefit from his/her wonderful contribution to the over all economy. Of course it is complete self deception and an often successful attempt to deceive others.

Bandicoot

Fri, 2011-01-07 09:55

Ships from conservation groups Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd are heading for the Southern ocean, braced for clashes with the Japanese fleet. Last week Paul Watson of Sea Shepherd said he was “prepared to die” if necessary to protect the whales. Unfortunately, there are very few politicians even willing to send navy vessels to monitor Japan's illegal plunder in Antarctic "protected" waters. The Japanese whalers plan to kill up to 935 Antarctic minke whales and 10 endangered finback whales during the hunt. An Australian navy vessel "Melbourne" recently rescued a British-flagged chemical carrier from pirates in the Arabian Sea. Their actions are commendable, but the Arabian Sea is far from Australia, and so were these pirates. Australia under international Maritime Law needs permission from New Zealand to enter the Ross Dependency where the whaling fleet are heading. Their government promised to monitor Japan's fleet. However, the Australian navy ignores pirates in their own back yard, and so does New Zealand. Why is Japan allowed to bully us, and ruthlessly plunder the oceans? They don't care about the niceties of diplomatic solutions, or protocols. Japan says the sale of whale meat helps to pay for the research programme. However, they have published no scientific results, and most of what needs to be learned about whales requires living ones.

James Sinnamon

Fri, 2011-01-07 07:29

Thanks, Tim, for yet another robust contribution to the debate. I have one stylistic concern, which I have raised a number of times before, but which is yet to be taken on board by other contributors. I think the word 'growth' should be placed inside inverted commas, because I don't any process which causes the destruction of vast amounts of natural capital can accurately be termed 'growth'. I think real growth, in which the development of human society or the natural world actually can be plausibly shown to at least match the consumption of natural capital (that is, of course, if we ignore the destruction of natural capital in the sun without which even that growth would not have been possible) would not be an altogether bad thing. Of course such growth would have to be finite. Some past pre-industrial periods of human society as well as pre-human development of the biosphere could rightly be labelled periods of 'growth' in my view. Could a growth pusher possibly be motivated by kindness and not by selfish greed? In one way it just could be argued that some growth pushers just could be more kind-hearted and generous than opponents of growth. However this would only be possible if it could be shown that any growth pusher, through the goodness of his/her heart, truly wants to share his/her own wealth with others including the as yet unborn or those wishing to settle in his/her country. I have yet to see any credible evidence of this. However, there is more than ample evidence which shows that growth pushers are, to the contrary, motivated by selfish greed. For them population growth is a way to increase the demand for commodities they have monopolised, most markedly shelter or to use the consequent greater labour competition to force others to work for them at lower rates of pay. Growth pushers must surely know that what they do makes the whole of the society poorer and less sustainable. However, because of the perverse structure of the economy (at least in the Anglicised part of the world) they, themselves, instead, gain. Even if it could somehow be proven that the growth pushers were motivated by selfless altruism and not by greed, I think the rest of us should still be entitled to oppose their demands as all of us (and the rest of the biosphere) and not just them are being made to pay the price.

Anonymous (not verified)

Thu, 2011-01-06 10:02

Ed. A phrase about ethnicity has been edited from this comment because the context seemed to have been missed out.

We have many immigrants and refugees from nations that depend on window shutters, iron grills, firearms and high walls. Some come from war zones where conflict is the norm. Not only this, but some countries must employ private security guards to protect businesses and housing estates. Coming here, the opportunities for crime are enormous. Our houses, like 24 hour fast food outlets, are soft targets, easy and accessible.

The rise in crime cannot be blamed purely on new-comers but on society's fragmentation.

Our relative safe Australian suburbans are becoming targets for thieves and rapists. We are becoming internationalized in ways that we don't want. We embrace high immigration and diversity, but the costs are not often mentioned for political correctness.

nimby (not verified)

Thu, 2011-01-06 05:37

Fifteen species of Australia's frogs are currently endangered, twelve are listed as vulnerable and four have become extinct. Of particular concern is the disappearance of frogs from pristine habitats. The first evidence that Australian frog populations were in serious decline was provided by the disappearance of two species — the southern day frog and the gastric brooding frog.

The reasons are all predictable - loss of wetlands, livestock usage, insecticide and herbicide use, introduces species of fish that prey on eggs and tadpoles, increased soil salinity and logging operations.

"Climate change" too is a generic explanation that could be used as a scapegoat for human impacts.

Beginning in the early 1980s, biologists began to realise that amphibians such as frogs are extremely sensitive to pollution and other environmental stresses. Many environmental scientists consider amphibians, including frogs, to be excellent biological indicators of broader ecosystem health because of their intermediate position in food webs, their permeable skins.

The construction of dams and weirs across the Murray-Darling Basin has significantly altered the flow regime of the system. Flooding, which once fed off-stream fish-free wetlands, occurs less and less often.

Out of about 5800 species of amphibians such as frogs and toads, Perth Zoo says 43% are in decline while 2% are already thought to be extinct. In contrast, a mere 1% of species are on the rise.

Dr Andrew Hamer, based at the University of Melbourne, stressing that reptile and frog habitats need be conserved in residential areas by keeping them as natural as possible, even if they are only small areas. "Our research suggests that many reptile and frog species have been negatively affected by urbanization,” says Dr Hamer. With higher density living, more concrete drains rather than rivers and creeks, and less back yards and green wedges, our amphibians and reptile have little chance of being protected.

Editorial comment: Emphasis and link added. Also, last paragraph has been extracted and added as a short appendix to linked article.

quark

Tue, 2011-01-04 21:00

Because we are human we see each human as being a unique individual whereas we see other animals as examples of their species and almost as replicas of each other unless we come to know a a particular animal as a pet. By "we" I mean my impression of most people I meet. Experiments have shown that our inability to see individual differences in animals is part of our development and as babies we do visually distinguish individuals in animal faces ! Hence the linguistic terminology such as "stock" meaning perhaps thousands of individual cattle. It reduces the importance of each individual According to Richard Dawkins in "The Selfish gene" humans can be seen as can any other animal, as machines for perpetuating our genes. It does seem selfish to bring our own children into the world while there are children who need the care we are withholding and waiting to give to children yet to be conceived. It would be interesting to know the mind set that prompts some mega Hollywood stars to adopt children rather than have their own. In a material sense the capacity of these people to provide at least material care for adopted children within the family is almost limitless. For ordinary people, that is most of us, our capacity is limited. If we are hard wired to pass on our genes, then most of us will put our resources into that rather than raising someone else's children even if we do not explain it to ourselves this way. The chances for a woman to reproduce are limited biologically and socially to about 2 optimum decades. To most women the theoretical knowledge that world population now is higher than it has ever been may not affect her almost once in a lifetime decision to make use of her fertile years and her limited opportunities. Women are almost invariably young or youngish when they have their children. In Western society they are very conscious of the limited time, the biological clock. They are most likely not thinking on a global human population scale when making their child bearing decisions. They have one chance, this is it and when it's gone it is gone forever whether the woman is one of 1 billion on the planet or one of 3 billion. If she thinks in an ecological way, she will possibly say to herself "my child will be a great conservationist and the world will be better off for him/her having been born!

Anonymous (not verified)

Mon, 2011-01-03 15:42

www.acfonline.org.au/uploads/res/res_atlas_main_findings.pdf CONSUMING AUSTRALIA - the main findings: There is a section on urbanisation and city hot-spots. It says too that nearly half of an average household’s eco-footprint is attributable to food production. Cattle grazing in particular is very land-intensive in Australia. Without the Hormone Growth Promotants, industry experts say another two million head of cattle would be needed to make up a shortfall in meat, creating environmental problems. HGP have been banned in the EU because of health reasons since 1988. And CSIRO livestock industry chief Alan Bell said HGPs were "very safe and backed by science". The CSIRO Total Wellbeing Diet book sparked arguments in Australia between dietitians over its promotion of a high-protein diet at the expense of carbohydrates. The fact that the book was funded by the meat and livestock industry added to the controversy.

Matilda B (not verified)

Mon, 2011-01-03 08:51

ACF consumption map has shown that high density living increases per capita ghg emissions, despite less use of cars. Despite the lower environmental impacts associated with less car use, inner city households outstrip the rest of Australia in every other category of consumption. Even in the area of housing, the opportunities for relatively efficient, compact living appear to be overwhelmed by the energy and water demands of modern urban living, such as air conditioning, spa baths, down lighting and luxury electronics and appliances, as well as by a higher proportion of individuals living alone or in small households. In each state and territory, the centre of the capital city is the area with the highest environmental impacts, followed by the inner suburban areas. Rural and regional areas tend to have noticeably lower levels of consumption. Cities are getting hotter due to concrete and loss of vegetation. High density housing denies people of vege patches, compost, rain water collection and solar panels. Larger households are more efficient than single households, but high density means less natural shade and gardens. Glare and reflected heat from pale surfaces is reduced by shading from eaves, verandahs and from vegetation. Box-like high rises inherently require energy-consuming air conditioning. The city heat island magnifies this demand peak, because more energy is used for indoor cooling. During heat-waves, the city’s warmer nights cause extra thermal stress, resulting in increased urban death rates. Australian cities are among the dirtiest in the world and our ecological impact per head of population is disgraceful. Trees not only provide shade, they are Nature’s own evaporative coolers - perfect for the dry atmosphere. City-wide plantings lessen the urban heat island, greatly improving summer comfort. The word "sustainable" is often thrown around in government circulars, but their policies are totally contradictory. Editorial comment: Thanks, Matilda, for demolishing so well and so succinctly many of the arguments so often given to justify the construction of vast volumes of cramped, expensive inner-city high-rise accommodation. I have emphasized passages I think are particularly good. I trust that that is OK. Is there any chance you could obtain a copy of that ACH consumption map you referred to?

quark

Sun, 2011-01-02 13:59

Had the Victorian State government in 2010 not extended the urban growth boundary the limits as set would have been a signal of the limits to growth. Now population growth and market forces are determining what happens to Melbourne's food growing areas, and natural habitat for wildlife. In passing this legislation the former State Government with the help of the Opposition waved the white flag of "we give in in to endless population growth". In the article above I understand that the council rates are levied on the market value of the land- not the capital improved value. If it were the latter then the rates would be lower for blocks making up an area of rain forest in the suburbs than for blocks with a set of town houses since the rent on the latter could be calculated and the buildings have a value anyway. What is the value of a rain forest to the bean counters? In Henry George circles they advocate a straight land tax, the one that would mitigate against being able to keep a rain forest in a suburb where population pressures are enormous. They also say "tax bads , not goods" In the case described, the "bad"aspect of keeping a rain forest is that vacant land is not affording accommodation or any other easily measureable service to the community such as a laundromat or restaurant. As the author points out, however, the presence of this rain forest provides a valuable service to the community especially if it is treated as common land. The benefit to the community is in fact an "externality" just as gardens in any suburb offer benefits to neighbours who play no part in any financial transaction involved in retaining or maintaining them. In a system where land value rather than capital improved value is taxed, retaining empty blocks is discouraged (a "bad") but having a generous garden issuing forth with the perfume of old roses or providing a riot of indigenous plants to delight the native birds , and provide habitat for native micro bats or indeed a veritable rain forest are also discouraged!! How do these obvious "goods" get to be valued so that they can be retained? Of course the council could levy the rates on the capital improved value of the land but with huge population pressure even this measure would only delay the inevitable loss of these assets in our cities. If population growth continues, the pressure will continue to be on Australia's capital cities and their surrounds. This is a choice made by government and it is most definitely not in the interests of the majority of present population. Governments need to focus on the fundamentals (within their anthropocentric capabilities) like the need for food growing areas and areas that mitigate against warming on the local level. This would act as their own legitimate and easily justifiable signal to slow population growth.

nimby (not verified)

Sun, 2011-01-02 13:35

Britain's mass immigration turns out to be not due to gross incompetence, but to the Labour government engaged in a deliberate and secret policy of national cultural sabotage. This astonishing revelation surfaced quite casually last year in a newspaper article by one Andrew Neather. He was a speech writer for Tony Blair. In 2001, its manifesto merely said that the immigration rules needed to reflect changes to the economy to meet skills shortages. Since 1997, the number of work permits has quadrupled to 120,000 a year. Unless policies change, over the next 25 years some seven million more will be added to Britain's population, a rate of growth three times as fast as took place in the Eighties. It was a politically motivated attempt by ministers to transform the fundamental make-up and identity of this country. It was done to destroy the right of the British people to live in a society defined by a common history, religion, law, language and traditions. It was to put a put another 'multicultural' identity in its place. One motivation by Labour ministers was 'to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date'. The argument that Britain is better off with this level of immigration has been conclusively shown to be economically illiterate. Very high immigration means that it desperately difficult to cope with so many children who don't even have basic English. Other services, such as health or housing, are similarly being overwhelmed by the sheer weight of numbers. It also conveniently guaranteed an increasingly Labour-voting electorate since, as a recent survey by the Electoral Commission has revealed, some 90 per cent of black people and three-quarters of Asians vote Labour. It was indeed a conspiracy to deceive the electorate into voting for them. The vast majority of the new immigrants have no intention of integrating into British society and becoming compliant Labour voters. Instead, they want the British to change by introducing sharia law. Britain could become another backward hell hole like Pakistan, Sudan, and Somalia. Ironically, voting trends indicate that migrants and their descendants are much more likely to vote Labour. The full document was made public in February 2010 following a Freedom of Information request by Migrationwatch, a pressure group. A version of the paper was published in 2001, but most of the references to “social objectives” had been removed. Only now that their working-class supporters are deserting them in droves have they started to talk about restricting immigration. Damian Green, the shadow immigration minister, accused the Government of having a secret policy. “This shows that Labour’s open-door immigration policy was deliberate, and ministers should apologise,” he said. www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/7198329/Labours-secret-plan-to-lure-migrants.html Addressing the Royal United Services Institute in London, Tory Home Secretary Theresa May confirmed that Yemen-based Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), was “now working in the UK and planning new atrocities.” Ms May admitted that there was a second threat to Britain from young Muslims living in the country who were “being trained in Somalia to carry out atrocities when they return to Britain.” She identified the “radicalised young Britons” as being of “East African origin.” The British National Party alone has warned that tolerating mass immigration could only lead to terrorism in Britain. Editorial comment: Even the English, the forefathers of many of whom have used mass immigration and colonisation to destroy cultures all across the globe, are right to object to their own culture and economic well-being being similarly undermined today. However the 'terrorism' which this commentator warns against, is in fact, a far greater threat to the people from the very lands from which these migrants come from than it is to citizens of England. The reason is that acts of terrorism, said to have been committed by Islamist extremists against the West have provided pretexts for the launching of the bloody destructive wars against Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, etc. The death toll in Iraq alone exceeds over 1,000,000 people. How could the perpetrators of 9/11, 7/7, the Madrid train bombings, the Bali bombings, etc., possibly claim the these acts, which caused the deaths of, at most, 3,000 'infidels' (on 11 September 2001) and well over 1,000,000 million Islamic people, possibly believe these acts to be blows for Islam? If these acts were, indeed, perpetrated by Islamist extremists, then it would seem that there is, in fact, common cause between Islamist extremism and the ruling elites now waging those wars in Central Asia and the Middle East. However, those who are more skeptical of what we are told by our political leaders and the newsmedia should be asking for the evidence that Islamist extremists are guility of these crimes. And if they were, how were they able to outwit, at least three times, the operators of the most sophisticated and expensive air defence system that has ever existed, that being of the United States? Why, for example, after more than 9 years of military occupation of Afghanistan, the land from which 9/11 was supposedly launched and in which its perpetrators trained, has not a single person with a proven link to 9/11 been captured? If we truly want to prevent any more terrorism against the West, then we should join with the 1,403 verified architectural and engineering professionals and 10,763 other supporters have signed the petition demanding of Congress a proper and truly independent investigation of the 'collapses' of the 3 World Trade Center Builidings on 11 September 2001 including WTC 7, which, mysteriously, wasn't even mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report.

nimby

Sun, 2011-01-02 09:19

Fruit and vegetable sellers say shoppers should prepare for a nasty surprise at the checkout after floods devastated three of Queensland's food bowls. Raw sewerage is running into the rivers. The farmers federation said crops could be sourced from other parts of Australia but industry groups said growers in southern states had been dealing with bad growing conditions. However, many "other parts" of Australia's horticultural areas are under threat from urban sprawl. By expanding suburban areas to the north, west and south-east of Melbourne, the government hopes to secure over 50,000 hectares of land for the building of 284,000 houses. Between 1968 and 1971, Melbourne metropolitan planning process officially established nine green wedges as non-urban zones for open space or parkland between Melbourne’s main transport corridors. These green spaces were set aside for flora and fauna conservation, farming, landscape protection, recreation and resource utilization. However, our food bowls are being swallowed up. The Australian Bureau of Statistics says while peri-urban areas occupy less than 3 per cent of agricultural land they account for more than 25 per cent of the gross value of agriculture production. In Victoria that figure is even higher. Horticulture farmers are being driven from their properties by zoning changes and the soaring value of land. Vegetables Victoria president Luis Gazzola said Victoria would lose its vegetable industry unless there was some sort of rational support for its future. RMIT University associate professor Dr Michael Buxton said more research was needed on the planning and "right to farm" issues that were adversely affecting growers. "Everyone agrees we want, and will need, more food, but government agriculture and planning departments are do-ing nothing about it. The production of peri-urban agriculture is without paral-lel, and nowhere near as season vulnerable as broadacre farming, so it must be planned for and protected." To make things worse, changes in society encourage and celebrate conspicuous and excessive consumption, and growth. We humans like to think of ourselves as civilized and rational thinkers, but we are dominated by an impulse which now finds expression in the idea that inexorable economic growth is the answer to everything, and, given time, will redress all the world's existing inequalities. "Technology" will improve, and "market forces" will create barriers to growth just before the we eat away at our survival! Federal governments are responsible for population growth, yet the States are forced, and willing, to accommodate. While revalued land is considered a "windfall" for the owners, ultimately our limited fertile soils are being concreted over by urban sprawl, and it means food must travel further, be under threat from extremes of weather that will hit more with climate change, and peak oil will assure us that prices continue to rise. Humans now occupy, or have altered and exploited, two-thirds to nine-tenths (estimates vary) of the planet's land surface. It seems only a matter of time before they take over all the remaining "empty" spaces.

Anonymous (not verified)

Sat, 2011-01-01 22:28

Hi, well, it seems I was too much on the downstream view reality was 2008 = 2601 TWh from nuclear and 2009 = 2560 TWh but the trend did not continue as fast it seems and 2010 is on the track to be between the 2008 and the 2009 results. final numbers will be available in May 2011. michael

Enne K (not verified)

Sat, 2011-01-01 18:10

It is always argued that bigger councils can provide services at lower costs than their smaller counterparts. This argument typically asserts that local councils with larger populations can provide municipal services at lower costs per unit of output than local authorities with smaller population bases. Policy makers thus merge small spatially adjacent local authorities into bigger geographical entities with larger population masses in order to reap assumed scale economies in service provision. The notion that population can be employed as a measure of scale carries the implicit presumption that population size and service output are very closely positively correlated. Some services exhibit significant scale of economies, most notably domestic water provision, IT services and regional economic development. However, many other services, especially human services, do not have economies of scale. There is evidence that most local services show diseconomies of scale at relatively low levels. For Australia, distance often means it is simply physically impossible to provide service from a single centre to a huge spread of country towns. In his doctoral thesis, Stephen Soul (2000) examined the effect of council size (as measured by population) on gross expenditure per capita. He concluded that increasing population yields a lower level of gross expenditure per capita up to a council size somewhere between 100,000 and 316,000 people, at which point ‘scale diseconomies’ begin. Council rates, with economies of scale, should be now cheaper, but costs are spiraling. From the day ex-Treasurer, Peter Costello, made the extraordinary plea “to have one for the country”, we have politicians on both sides, business leaders and media commentators calling for population growth. We are trying to provide goods and services to more and more people and we run into barriers. When we notice increasing costs for goods and services, diseconomies of scale has set in. There are limits to growth. Editorial comment: See also Cate Molloy : Forced council amalgamations planned by Property Council of Australia of 7 Sep 07. Federal election and Queensland local council amalgamations (of Sep 2007(?)).

Enne K (not verified)

Sat, 2011-01-01 17:38

Michael Murphy was one of the few warning us of the 2008 meltdown well in advance. Also, he’s totally committed to “finding biotechs that will be able to treat the superbug plagues and to technology that can keep people in their ancestral place, growing their own food". He really is a farmer and lives off the land. He even has a Permaculture Design Certificate. Unlike other environmental writers, Murphy keeps fighting to change the course of history, in his work as a biotech expert and as a high-tech farmer. He still believes there is a chance for humanity to survive. Murphy's Twelve tips for profiting on commodity demand: 1. Population Growoth - Murphy warns that “the carrying capacity of the earth is much lower than the current population,” which is predicted to increase 50% by 2050. Big families are a cultural and economic preference that takes a long time to change, probably too long” to be effective in slowing population growth. 2. Small houses/small cars and more reliance on electronic entertainment and communications. 3. "Peak" food is a big problem. The collapse of wild foods is inevitable, including the oceans. 4. We may be at "peak water". Processing water may help for a short time, but it takes too much energy. It will happen in many places over the world. 5. Soils are pretty much destroyed by farming, and we only have thin topsoils left. It can be recovered, but methods are largely ignored by agri-businesses today. 6. Forests are "goners" - due to acid rain, destruction and the pine beetle. 7. A dangerous trend is toxic chemicals, increasing every year as agri-businesses push it. 8. There are opportunities for renewable energy sources, but it means that oil will be at a sustained $200 to get it happening. Myopic self-interested politicians and special-interest lobbyists. Politicians don't act until it's too late. 9. Solar - the coming explosion in coal prices will nearly bankrupt the big coal-based power companies, so maybe electricity rates will be forced high enough to encourage solar. 10. Ozone layer can't be fixed. 11. Diversity is another thing that "can't be fixed". There are not enough people raising pure bred animals to make a real difference, and then there’s all the wild species die-offs to further limiting global species diversity. 12. Alien species: Same here: “Can’t be fixed". Getting worse. The future looks pessimistic and dim, but it also means that there are a lot of opportunities here for a savvy investor with a long-term perspective, especially anyone retiring between 2020 and 2050. See www.marketwatch.com/story/twelve-tips-for-profiting-on-commodity-demand-2010-12-28

quark

Sat, 2011-01-01 15:20

A September media release of Sustainable Population Australia points out that per capita economic growth as measured by per capita State Domestic Product based on ABS figures grew less or declined in the states with the highest population growth www.population.org.au/index.php/publications/media-releases/media-releases-2010/652-population-growth-damages-standard-of-living It seems self evident that a per capita figure of anything will tell us more about how individuals are affected by what is being measured than an over all national figure and will give more of a picture of how life is in a given country however one figure has to be a very crude indication of anything meaningful or qualitative. I totally take the point of the author of the article that ownership of stuff e.g multi cars in one family are not an indication of being better off than e.g a family 40 years ago with one car if it only gets the family to achieving the same as it did with the one car back then. Real wealth and quality of life are better assessed by comparing hours worked to achieve A, B or C. or time spent to get to Place D or E rather than the relative $ cost of an item or trip between decades. Then of course so much cannot be measured unless distilled from the complexity of our society and reported as a statistic e.g. level of stress and frustration with everyday life, hope and excitement for the future, feeling of belonging, ease of finding solitude in nature, joy of childhood. Much of this information will live on only as memories, diary entries , old letters and stories.

nimby

Sat, 2011-01-01 15:14

The anti-whaling activists found two harpoon ships from the four-vessel whaling fleet on the edge of the Antarctic pack ice, about 1700 nautical miles south-east of New Zealand, Sea Shepherd leader Paul Watson said last night. The group's fast interceptor boat, Gojira, and its helicopter were last night searching for the factory ship, Nisshin Maru, which normally steams within about 30 nautical miles of the chaser ships. They have not yet been located. Fortunately, the whale killing has not yet started. They plan to mount a campaign of constant harassment to distract the Japanese. Japan self issued a scientific permit for a four-ship fleet to slaughter up to 935 minke whales and 50 fin whales this summer. The IWC are part of the "scientific whaling" scam. Prime Minister Julia Gillard this week reiterated Australia's opposition to whaling ''in every circumstance''. However, which "circumstances" will make the Antarctic ocean, the Whale Sanctuary or the whales themselves of critical enough importance to actually enact upon and get the illegal fleets removed? Rhetoric without the followup action is just hot air and political spin.

Anonymous (not verified)

Sat, 2011-01-01 12:34

According to a government source, migration has a meaningful impact on the rate of growth of per capita GDP. "From 2013 to 2020, the rate of growth of GDP per capita would be about 0.15 percentage points higher with migration of 180,000 than with zero migration. This is equivalent to an upward shift in productivity of 0.15 percentage points which, if it were to be achieved through productivity improvement, would be considered to be a very desirable result". However, population growth is not "productivity". Also, "Whatever immigration or participation strategy is followed, the modeling shows that, with constant productivity, a sharp fall in Australia’s per capita GDP growth is inevitable from 2010 to 2020. After that, per capita GDP growth starts to rise again reaching a new peak around 2040 and thereafter remaining relatively high". People are simply being imported as "production" and as economic units. There is no consideration of our dependence on finite resources, our environment, of crowding, climate change or peak oil. It is based on conclusions from extrapolation of abstract economic theories. However, real life is more complex and multi-dimensional, and intrinsic values can't be ignored.

Matilda B (not verified)

Sat, 2011-01-01 11:01

Economists and politicians like to work with quantitative data to assess their success and effectiveness, not subjective things like access to public services, general well-being of the community, living spaces, amenities, environmental health, or public satisfaction. Once the elections are over, individual concerns are readily dismissed. Economists assume that the Economy must continually grow, and government success is measured in monetary terms. Economic growth can be to our detriment, especially if it means endless population growth. The GDP may appear "healthy", but not living standards, housing, air quality, and general well-being. China and India are expanding with vibrant economies, but the immigration flow is towards Australia, not the contrary. Over the next two decades, India's working-age population will increase by 240 million -- four times the entire population of Britain. 800 million people living on under 20 rupees (45 cents) a day, according to official data, and a growing Maoist revolt in poor areas shut out from the nation's economic boom. With such high population growth rates, any efforts towards economic development could easily be swallowed up by needs rather than spendable money. While China's living standards have dramatically risen over the past 30 years, the gap between rich and poor has sharply widened. Income distribution has remained skewed in favor of the rich for too long, and the government has failed to provide decent public goods. According to Ross Gittins, "There's no doubt a bigger population leads to a bigger economy; the question is whether it leads to higher real income per person, thereby raising average living standards." The twist to the argument is: "we need to grow more and do more damage to the natural environment because when we're richer we'll be able to afford to fix the damage we've done to the environment." Business people have a case for supporting increased population, because the larger the market the lower the average cost of the good or service being sold and this means greater profits and ( assuming the market is competitive) lower prices for the consumer. Beware of anyone wanting to sell you on the idea of population growth dressed up as "good" for the economy. At the turn of the 18th century, the Reverend Thomas Malthus stated that the human population would outstrip our ability to feed ourselves. Had it not been for the "green revolution" developed by Norman Borlaug, our population would have stalled at about half its present number. However, there are limits to how far Nature can be manipulated to grow more food and resources. Economics drives population numbers - not the other way round. The Economy has become an end in itself! This our politicians don’t understand. Economies of scale has produced cheaper food, and this has encouraged population growth, But, as population has expanded to take advantage of the economies of scale, it has moved into the area of diseconomies of scale for the other goods of life - for freedom of movement, and for freedom from crime and other forms of social disorder. As natural resources move toward exhaustion, the costs of pollution control rise, and traffic become worse. Crime rates are made worse by population growth. In California, more funds are spent on prisons now than on higher education. As the blessings of economies of scale are exhausted, humanity becomes entrapped in diseconomies of scale, and these do not cure themselves. Malthus argued in a 1798 that population increases geometrically, while the means of subsistence increases arithmetically. Crime, disease and war are necessary checks on population, he said. We are already in "ecological overshoot". "Diseconomies of scale" affect things connected with transportation and space. The larger the population that has to adjust to the unstretchable space available, the worse (or the more expensive) the functions or products become.

nimby (not verified)

Fri, 2010-12-31 12:21

According to a report by Essential Economic for Regional Cities Victoria, the cost of providing critical ‘hard’ infrastructure in Regional Cities to support higher population outcomes compares favourably with congestion inefficiencies associated with a similar level of population growth in metropolitan Melbourne. For example, by 2036:
"The additional cumulative cost of providing critical infrastructure to support a redistribution of 50,000 persons (25% Scenario) from metropolitan Melbourne to the Regional Cities is estimated to be $1.0 billion; this compares with inefficiency costs of $3.1 billion associated with the same number of persons being accommodated in metropolitan Melbourne".
So redistributing people in regional centres is cheaper than in urban areas. These requirements include additional infrastructure and resources for: water, gas, electricity, public transport, residential and industrial land development, communications (inc NBN), health, education (schools, TAFE, university), kindergarten, childcare, aged care, community needs such as libraries, arts, recreation and waste services. The amounts are astronomical! If we stop the manic increase in population most of the woes that all of the politicians are carrying on about can be mostly or at least partially solved: housing scarcity and cost; infrastructure wearing out, environmental degradation, loss of agricultural land to urbanization, crowded public transport, expensive water provision (desal plant), long hospital waiting lists, congested roads, etc. The one-way course of economics - towards constant and limitless growth - is misanthropic and is heading us towards our own decline in living standards and even our ultimate survival on our small planet. We need some political ideals that relate to holistic planning and for the benefit of people now and in the future, not for the CEOs, the banks, elite businesses, global competition and property developers . The costs of growth ultimately are paid for by tax-payers, and we are the ones who benefit the least!

BeattyO (not verified)

Fri, 2010-12-31 11:51

We can see from what's happening now in Australia - the flooding up north and the lingering drought that threatens and controls all of the nation - that such conditions may not be 'new'. The continent has always been a nation of both extremes, including bushfires. This kind of weather and the the inherent risks that are a threat here means, of course, that added population in Australia shouldn't be a question! Most of the country is desert. You cannot live in desert. Forget it! So then we have the Govt clearing land, destroying native koala and wildlife habitat, because according to them, with added infrustructure, you can live in former-wildlife habitat. No problems. More people occupying Australia means more stress on food supplies, like now, with wheat being threatened because of floods in Qld. Duh. Not only that - but the risk of their own lives and assets, if they are congregating in these Qld towns. Black Saturday's bushfires ate away at locals in the growth town/suburbs of Kinglake and parts of Whittlesea, the latter of which used to be a close community, that now are also dealing with the transfer to the town of no-hopers from neighbouring City of Whittlesea suburbs of Lalor and Mill Park, because the council wants (are they housing commission residents, or something?) certain troublesome people, in the fire-risk town.

nimby (not verified)

Tue, 2010-12-28 18:57

Masayuki Komatsu, a counsellor at the Fisheries Agency, reportedly called minke whales ''cockroaches of the sea'' in an interview with an Australian television station. A senior Japanese fishery official compared minke whales to ''cockroaches'' and the Fisheries Agency rose to his defense, saying the comparison was intended to illustrate that minke whales are highly fertile. His remark provoked a stream of protests, particularly from New Zealand, which is one of the antiwhaling nations in question. The gestation period of a Minke whale is about 10 months and the calf is born near the surface of the warm, shallow waters. Within 30 minutes of its birth the baby whale can swim. The mother and calf may stay together for a year or longer. Minke whales reach puberty at 2 years of age. Male Antarctic Minke Whales reach sexual maturity at about 7.3 m and eight years, females at 7.9 m and between seven to eight years. They live to about 20 years. Minke whales are the most abundant baleen whale. It is estimated that there are about almost 800,000 minke whales world-wide. They are hardly in "plague" proportions, and do not breed like cockroaches! For a "fisheries" expert, such a highly ignorant and inflammable statement only adds to the scientific information NOT gathered by whale slaughter.

Enne K (not verified)

Tue, 2010-12-28 16:12

We rely unhealthily on imports. In the face of peak oil, costs will only increase and we lose more economic independence and skills. Manufacturing is the creator of jobs. Manufacturing is the engine of growth. Manufacturing develops the middle class. We are losing jobs offshore, and then import more people because we have "skills shortages"? There should be incentives to produce and buy Australian goods, and impose import taxes on similar foreign made items. Globalisation will be limited in the future due to peak oil and the subsequent costs. Skills are being overlooked in Australia due to free trade. Farms are being sold overseas due to looming scarcity of land and food production. Liberal economic policies in Australia, and the obsession of selling off to the highest bidder, is threatening Australia's future and autonomy as a nation. Short-term economic gains are threatening our sovereign security. We need a campaign to embrace Australian made goods, and protect our shores from the flood of imports that deny us value for what is already here. Globalisation should be wound-down as a retro concept ultimately not in our interests. An economy that relies on population and economic growth is not sustainable, and we could end up crushed by the weight of our own numbers.

Geoffrey Taylor

Tue, 2010-12-28 14:55

It's so uplifting to have a political leader, even if it is Victorian Treausurer Kim Wells, from on the 'conservative' side of politics, point out facts that should have been obvious, but which have, apparently, somehow escaped the notice of all but very few of Australia's leading economists, journailists and politicians. How could any economy, which is so dependent upon providing housing for current residents and immigrants, possibly be strong in comparison to others? How can the building houses and necessary infrastructure be anything but a massive cost to the Australian economy? What can we possibly hope to gain in exchange, except more people? To do what? Build yet more houses, that is unless effort is put into building some other sector of the economy, which all of our governments have yet to do. How could China's economy have gained such an advantage in relation to foreign economies, if its leaders had, instead of building their manufacturing sector, made their economy dependent upon housing in the same way that Australia's 'leaders' have? (This, of course, ignores the question of whether or not the consuming as much of the world's non-renewable natural capital as the Chinese are can possibly be sustainable.) Thank you, Vivienne, for pointing out Victoria's $35 billion trade deficit. How could any economy, so dependent upon housing be other than in massive deficit? (Imagine, if you could what the size of China's deficit today would be if they had been similarly dependant upon housing.) What created by the housing sector can possibly be exported and used to reduce our trade deficit? If, in spite of Kim Wells' observations, Australia continues in its dependency upon housing, where can this possibly lead us to, other than massive indebtdness and enslavement?

Bandicoot

Tue, 2010-12-28 09:42

Victoria's economy also heavily depends on foreign students. Considering many are lured here with the aim of PR, like the housing and property development industries, it depends on population growth. They contribute about $5 billion to the Victorian economy each year. The new study from the Centre for Population and Urban Research shows that employment growth in Melbourne has been primarily in city building and people servicing industries, sectors which are dependent on population growth, mainly from overseas migration. According to Monash University's Dr Bob Birrell, what's happened is that the population growth of the past five or six years had been taken as a starting point for the Government and business projections. They are assuming that the very high rates of recent years will simply go on into the future. On the other hand, he says we're not seeing any significant growth in the knowledge intensive or high tech area that the Government had hoped for. So much so that in per capita terms Victoria is the slowest growing state by far of all states and territories in Australia. The study (Melbourne: A Parasite City?), pointed out that population growth had masked ''grim'' economic realities including the doubling of Victoria's international trade deficit to more than $35 billion. Commonwealth Securities State of the States report (July 2010) rates Victoria one of the nation's worst performers when it comes to economic growth and retail spending, but among the best at building and financing houses, and expanding the population. We seems to have ended up in a no-win situation, with Victoria relying on population growth to prop up our economy. Cutting immigration would hurt Sydney and Melbourne the most. Unless we have a sustainable and productive economy, we could thus implode under the our own weight. Where so we stop? 10 million, 15 million, 20 + million people in Victoria until we have eaten away at our future? Any aim of sustainable future is simply political spin while our economy depends on population growth, and imports of goods and people.

admin

Tue, 2010-12-28 08:59

The new Victorian State treasurer, Kim Wells, sounds as if he is singing a new tune on housing, population growth and manufacturing. Or it sounds like that in an article by David Rood, "Economy too reliant on housing, says Wells," December 27, 2010 The Agehttp://www.theage.com.au/victoria/economy-too-reliant-on-housing-says-wells-20101226-197xv.html

"VICTORIA needs to move beyond its unsustainable dependence on building houses to fuel economic growth, according to new state Treasurer Kim Wells.

In his first interview since assuming the role, Mr Wells said Victoria needed to broaden its economic base by rebuilding the neglected areas of agriculture and manufacturing. Mr Wells promised every coalition election policy would be delivered by the 2014 poll.

''We have an enormous reliance on building brand new houses in this state - I don't think long term that that is sustainable,'' he said."

Moreover, Kim Wells had already spoken on this issue prior to the election in his Shadow Treasurer State Budget Reply of 6 May 2010:

http://www.kimwells.com.au/show_article.php?item=302

"The Victorian Economy

World economies finally appear to be improving from the lows experienced following the global financial crisis.

However, despite more optimistic forecasts in this Budget than last, the Victorian economy remains fragile.

Furthermore, the Brumby Government has failed to address the major underlying issues of high population growth, housing affordability and real structural change within the Victorian economy.

The Victorian economy has been increasingly reliant on the housing sector and population increases to drive growth.

Last financial year, Victoria's population increased 2.2 per cent - 70 per cent of that increase due to overseas migration.

Access Economics in its September Quarter 2009 report described population growth as "underpinning" the State's economic growth.

However, housing affordability is a real issue for many Victorians.

A median-priced house in Melbourne now costs more than eight times the average annual pre-tax wage of $63,000, making it extremely difficult for home buyers.

According to a recent international housing affordability survey by Demographia, the average Melbourne household would need to spend over 50 per cent of its annual income to pay for the mortgage on a median-priced house.

The survey also found Melbourne housing was ''severely unaffordable."

Out of 272 cities surveyed, Melbourne was rated the third most unaffordable.

Housing affordability is approaching levels where many first home buyers and new residents in Victoria will be shut out of the market.

This is due to:

* 1. the supply of new housing blocks failing to match the strong demand from population growth;
* 2. stamp duty payable on an average Melbourne family home being the highest in Australia; and
* 3. the Brumby Government's decade of inaction on the issue and its failure to properly plan for the state's significant population growth.

And of course, State Labor is further reluctant to do anything on the issue because of its vested interest in benefiting from the continual increase in stamp duty payable on rising property prices.

However, it is now crunch time and the Government has failed to address the critical issue that the Victorian economy now requires a wider, more stable economic base for continuing growth.

Last month's Commsec state economic analysis reinforced this view, rating the Victorian economy third last for economic performance among the eight State and Territory economies. It noted that "there is little to separate Victoria, Northern Territory and Tasmania" in the economic league table.

Under Labor, Victoria's manufacturing sector has continued to decline and the State's export performance can only be described as mediocre.

Since 1998-99, manufacturing's share of the Victorian economy has fallen by nearly a third to just over 11 per cent.

Victoria's export volumes are barely matching levels of a decade ago.

Victoria's share of national merchandise exports has decreased from 20 per cent in 1999 to just over 9 per cent a decade later.

Even New South Wales was able to grow its exports by 36 per cent since 2001, while Victoria's exports have fallen 22 per cent - the worst performance of any State.

The Brumby Government has failed to fix the infrastructure and regulatory blockages impeding our internationally competitive enterprises. "

Is democracy looking up in Victoria? Is hope possible in the early 21st century?

At candobetter.net we will all be watching closely.

Enne K (not verified)

Sun, 2010-12-26 14:44

Dutch police have arrested 12 Somali nationals suspected of plotting an imminent terrorist attack in the Netherlands. They were detained on a tip from the intelligence services that they were planning an attack shortly in the Netherlands. There have been growing holiday security concerns in Europe following a suicide bombing in Sweden and attacks on two embassies this week in Rome. A prosecutor said they wanted to eradicate the threat and the focus of the investigation now will be on any potential connections to terrorist operations planned for other countries. According to the Dutch authorities, all the suspects are of Somali origin, six are Dutch citizens, five have no permanent residence and a man comes from Denmark. Europe is on alert for a terror attack, and the latest scare came from Rome. An explosive device was left under a seat on the subway. Security at major cities across Europe has been stepped up.. with growing concerns about a terror attack during the holiday season. Three Melbourne men charged with planning a terrorism attack on the Holsworthy army base in Sydney have been found guilty. The court heard they planned a shootout at the Holsworthy army barracks in the belief Islam was under attack from the West. People living and gaining from living in the West, and their hospitality, should be denied their citizenship. Open immigration obviously is too idealistic and poses a risk in our fragmented world. We can't afford to be naive any more. Not all cultures or religious group support our ideals, or democratic freedoms. According to the SBS Immigration Nation report, within a decade, resentment to further immigration was setting in. Multiculturalism was being imposed from above, even though opinions were sharply divided about whether the benefits outweighed the risks. As the host country, people making their homes here should understand our history, our values and our culture and be prepared to adapt to and honour Australia. It is not only about a changing and increasingly hostile world, but about our population growth impinging on our liveability, our costs and the space, freedom, and tolerance we have always taken for granted.

Menkit Prince

Sun, 2010-12-26 02:33

How amazing that Frodo has survived let alone is thriving! I wonder if it's all the good thoughts being sent her way by people all around Australia and perhaps even the world? I wonder if Australia Zoo is working with alternative type supplements that pull heavy metals out of the body? It would be worth them trying something like this otherwise it's just a matter of time before Frodo succumbs to the inevitable lead poisoning. Then again if she is ever released it won't be possible to administer such supplements anyway .... I can't help but wonder why one of the big organisations didn't offer a big reward to find the culprit? There have been 13 attacks on Koalas on the east coast of Australia all year. When will it stop? "It’s embarrassing for Australia that we eat our own wildlife ....I’m here to tell you it’s just not right. Simply do not buy, use or eat kangaroo products” ~ Steve Irwin Sign the most important petition ever created to help kangar

Franc-tireur of... (not verified)

Sat, 2010-12-25 23:06

Frankston Council has boasted of several environmental awards, notably the "Sustainable Cities award", which turns out to be made by the Victorian Government, apparently acting on behalf of Keep Australia Beautiful. If you go to the relevant website, you may search high and low, but you will not find any objective scientific criteria for this award. Indeed you will find almost no criteria at all. One wonders for what reason Frankston Council received the award. Now Frankston residents may study the council’s Draft Climate Change Impacts Adaption Plan. The description of the climate change impacts seem reasonably well researched and well presented. The plan for action, however, limits actions to adapting and putting up with climate change. No consideration is given to avoiding or minimising climate change. Australia is still increasing emissions by 3.1%. It is not reducing them. It is not even stabilising them. Emissions are increasing because of continuous economic growth (a government policy), population growth (a government policy) and increased affluence per capita - a policy of increasing consumerism, which has the impact of increasing pollution. These environmentally unsustainable goals are clearly demonstrated in the present Frankston City Economic Strategy plan which aims for more economic growth and more population growth, which will inevitably result in still higher CO2 emissions and the depletion of scarce resources. So Frankston City's Economic Strategy plan is anti-environmental and pro-climate change. Obviously Frankston should aim for a steady state economy, self-sufficiency, and a stable population with the capacity for sustainable decrease, through attrition. This will not stop climate change but it will lessen the pollution that causes it and so lessen the chances of extreme changes. To continue with 'business as usual' is totally irresponsible and has serious consequences for our future generations. Perhaps in the not-too-distant-future there will be Nuremberg Climate Change trials for councils and politicians who failed to make decisions to protect the helpless citizens of communities which paid their salaries and trusted them.

RichB

Fri, 2010-12-24 15:41

What a great post Bandicoot..If I hear one more Australian say kangaroos are in plague numbers and are pests Iam going to totally lose it.....This Government doesnt care about tourism. All they care about is resources and agriculture big bucks for the greedy Drones....Where I live near Margaret River WA...there is a terrible bush fly problem that occurs during the summer and it is driving the tourists away in droves. Apparently the federal government can introduce a species of dung beetle that comes out in spring which should reduce this problem but they have more or less said it doesnt damage agriculture in any way so dont worry about it. Never mind tourism...They are hell bent on mining the margaret river area aswell but being a tourist / wine region there is alot of uproar...What a coincidence do nothing about the fly problem, destroy tourism because of it and open the area up for mining , more money in the misers coffers....I love conspiracy theories..

Bandicoot

Fri, 2010-12-24 14:12

With globalisation and the "one world" agenda of our governments, kangaroos are a visible reminder of our heritage, of our uniqueness, of our open plains, our Indigenous history, and our Colonial past. They belong to folklore, and should be only in pages of natural history books, not in the wild. Due to the push towards mass immigration, Internationalism and globalisation, our government doesn't want our British or Aboriginal past. It is to be wiped out so that we are a generic international resource. Kangaroos don't belong any more, have no economic value except to attract tourists to nature parks and zoos, and they only have to be in symbolic quantities and in symbolic form. Kangaroos, at least some varieties, haven't had the common decency to die off like many other other species! They are barrier to land development, and the spread of further human settlements in regional areas. Their robustness is therefore a threat, one that must be "managed" like damage control. Few people love Australia, and we are not even encouraged to any more for fear of being "racist".

quark

Fri, 2010-12-24 11:11

Any indication that kangaroos were a problem to the Aborigines? I mean where do humans in this society get off?

nimby

Thu, 2010-12-23 12:38

According to Professor Glyn Davis, for only one brief shining moment, from 1974 to 1988, was university education free. Otherwise access has always been governed by fees. However, before HECS, fees were minimal. Until 1974 there were Commonwealth and state scholarships. This meant living frugally, but students had a living allowance that meant they could study full time. Ironically, many of our politicians who took advantage of free tertiary education are now guilty of restricting it to those from families who can afford to give a home and financial support to students. The cost burden of university education, plus housing, means only the well-heeled can afford a profession. China constitutes about 27 per cent of the market and an even larger slice of revenue -- more than $6 billion. Overseas students contacted by The Australian were waiting for Skills Australia to release its review of the migration points system, especially the new priority Skilled Occupation List, which was expected to tighten the number of courses that lead to residency. Are our universities really attractive education-wise, or are they attractive as a path to PR? Education is the country's second-biggest export sector after resources. It is also a route of least resistance to a "big Australia" (ignoring the impoverished asylum seekers who don't qualify) and economic/population growth.

Enne K (not verified)

Wed, 2010-12-22 15:09

With environmentally illiterate leaders, it is not to far stretched to see our property market extending into the Mallee. Once the area has been denuded of the responsibility of endangered and vulnerable native fauna (and which aren't?), the land would be "vacant" and sterile enough for urban sprawl, regional development, and more mega stores and housing estates. Under the Brumby government, housing was reaching close to the bush-fire prone areas of Kinglake and St Andrews. This means that the understorey, instead of being a layer for biodiversity, became a threat to residents. If bushfires are part of our bush's natural reinvigorating regime, then why are people being pushed further into these vulnerable areas? Logging and "management" means that forests become more open, more exposed to oxygen and the fuel drying out. Professor Kanowski, professor of forestry at the Australian National University, said wet eucalypt forests, characterised by tall trees and a dense understory, did not usually burn well because they were too damp. But during extremely hot, dry weather they could burn, and burn ferociously. More buffers might be needed, but they also might need to be kilometres deep. Professor Kanowski's main message was that in some areas, and under certain weather conditions, there was a high risk of fire and people had to live with that.. If these areas in the Mallee have not burnt for up to 140 years, why the need to deliberately do so, and kill of the reptiles and birds that will have no hope of escaping, and nowhere to live if they do?

nimby (not verified)

Wed, 2010-12-22 12:20

According to The Age report today (22 Dec) population growth has fallen to its lowest level since March 2007 as immigration continues to decline. The growth rate slowed to 1.7 per cent in the year to June 2010, down from a peak of 2.2 per cent recorded in June 2009, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics. However, a growth rate of 1.7 % would still mean a doubling in 40 years, if it continues. Graeme Hugo, a professor of geography from the University of Adelaide, said the change was mostly due to a sharp drop in the number of students with temporary visas. Education, justified by "skills shortages", is the easiest route to Residence in Australia. Australia doesn't want poor people, but those with assets to buy into the property market, or those educated at their own expense. Why fund Aussies to study? We have some "student" contacts from Venezuela. They have the audacity to decide to live here permanently, and claim Australians are lazy! The contrary would never happen, and Australians would likely be barred from working there. Ironically, Venezuela has an abundance of first class universities, both private and public. There are 99 public and private colleges and universities in Venezuela. The public university system in Venezuela has fared better than the lower education system. Venezuela boasts a number of national universities in various states that offer degrees through to the graduate and professional level. There are 2 national universities in Caracas alone. Tuition is free. Promising students are often given scholarships to study at foreign universities. With our universities outsourced, and broadcasted "skills shortages", no wonder those overseas think we in Australia are inadequate, stupid, and underpopulated!

Enne K (not verified)

Tue, 2010-12-21 13:55

Ideologies and humanitarian concepts of equality, diversity, one-ness of the human race, compassion and egalitarianism are fine in theory, on paper, but the human race ironically does not fit into these ideals. The discrepancy between the limitations of humanity and an ideal world are glaringly obvious once overpopulation and the plight of refugees face us. The recent tragedy of lives lost on Christmas island bring the refugee crisis to our headlines. These people are risking their own lives, and the lives of children, by making these perilous crossings. Children are being used to ensure public sympathy. However, the boats must be stopped before more tragedies happen, and asylum seekers must be made fully aware of the potential dangers. Only genuine refugees should be taken, and the process of identification should take place in the refugee camps, not in Australia or in detention centres. The people coming on boats should be flown back! We need some tough action to protect other potentially tragic sea-crossings. We must ensure that only suitable and genuine refugees, ready to adapt to Australia, are allowed to start their lives here.

nimby

Tue, 2010-12-21 10:33

Lead toxicity from some of the pellets remaining in her intestinal tract will still be monitored. "The pellets in her stomach and intestines seem to be moving around but have not been expelled, and may never be. I will continue to monitor the lead levels in her blood but so far she does not appear to be affected by lead toxicity," veterinarian Dr Amber Gillett said. Frodo's overall health is very good and staff at the Australia Zoo Wildlife Hospital can see a positive future for her. Frodo has maintained her feisty attitude, active nature and appetite, continuing to move around well in her outdoor enclosure which she shares with other koala joeys. "Frodo has started growing fur back over her wounds and has a healthy appetite which is brilliant to see considering her condition a month ago. At this stage no further surgery will be scheduled. Frodo will have another thorough check up just after Christmas to reassess her lead levels," Dr Amber continued. Australia Zoo news

Anonymous (not verified)

Mon, 2010-12-20 22:20

MT Isa may be the worst place to buy a house, but Sydney's western suburbs dominate a list of 13 of the nation's top no-go zones for residential real estate investors. Ethnic tensions, high crime rates and aircraft noise are reasons to stay away from Bankstown, and Blacktown/Mt Druitt is no better. Buyers are urged to stay away from flood-prone Giru in far north Queenland, crime-ridden Shepparton in regional Victoria, The figures for the year to March show total crime in greater Shepparton was up 5 per cent compared to the previous year. While Iraqis and Afghans have been settling here for about a decade, the most visibly different arrivals have been the black Africans from the Congo and Sudan. The fact that there are lots of crime free and hard working muslims does not mean that the social, political, religious tensions can't come to Australia in the same way that they haven't come to France or Denmark even if the threats are only from a 'small percentage'. Social cohesive communities where people are glued together with common values, aims, language, history and cultural heritage surely are much less prone to crime and disunity.

Beatrice (not verified)

Sun, 2010-12-19 22:01

A popular belief about Sweden, when living so far away from Europe, is that they might have a small immigration program and a lively, proud yet complacent, homogeneous society and subsequent nationalism. The facts about their liberal 'refugee quota' intake come as a surprise, and partly due to the more Muslim associated issues that in Australia, is something we haven't encountered - yet. No society should be expected to tolerate more than what is only a bit of almost, experimental, multiculturalism. What do people expect from people who are not and possibly never to be assimilated into a bleak, cold, dark and 'white' culture? Sure, Sweden have done their bit with refugees, and even economic migration. However authorities need to not accept complaints about the system as being, oh - 'all racist'. Swedes no doubt want to preserve their society and long history and monarchy! What about closing all the doors on immigration? And only really, genuine refugees, allowed 'in'?

Enne K (not verified)

Wed, 2010-12-15 15:03

"Unless the Baillieu government recognises that it is impossible to make life better for Victorians if population growth continues, as in the last decade, it too will fail to deliver as Victorians suffer anew." The Baillieu government have move the deckchairs on the Titanic by not allowing high rise developments along rail roads and freeways in the new growth boundary, but there is a real sameness about them. They also believe in a "big Victoria" and Melbourne @ 5 million. There are limited way of softening the impacts of population growth against the swell of public opinion, environmental and sustainability concerns. Any problem is excacerbated by more people. The poverty, homelessness, rising costs, rising trade deficit will continue if our economy is reliant on property development - requiring a constant flow of people to fill them! Without a sustainable economy for Victoria, with limited manufacturing, relying on the shot in the arm of population growth to fuel economic growth is based on shaky grounds. .

Bandicoot

Wed, 2010-12-15 13:28

The Age, December 15th The Age JOHN Brumby's government lost last month's state election because it became too cosy with the big end of town and lost touch with the real-life concerns of ''ordinary'' people, says a senior federal Labor MP. In a scathing critique of the defeated government, the member for the Melbourne seat of Wills, Kelvin Thomson, said suburban planning outcomes under former minister Justin Madden were ''a disgrace''. The former frontbencher said people in his north suburban electorate had been ''screaming for years'' for a new high school in Coburg, but the Labor state government had not delivered. State Labor had also failed to build train lines to Doncaster and Rowville in the rapidly growing eastern suburbs. But the ''heart of the problem'' was that Labor had sided with business in backing excessive population growth. ''We have been cheerfully increasing Melbourne by 200 people a day, 1500 per week, 75,000 each year, standing shoulder to shoulder with property developers saying what a good thing this is for Melbourne,'' Mr Thomson said. ''It is not. Melbourne's runaway growth is the reason for the rising cost of living, the transport problems, the planning debacles and the crime.'' Mr Thomson, a critic of ''big Australia'', said: ''Taking a bow in corporate boardrooms for running their high-migration, high-population, bugger-the-environment agenda has seen the Labor Party grow out of touch with ordinary voters.'' In defiance of new state Labor leader Daniel Andrews's call for party members to keep criticisms of the election campaign in-house, Mr Thomson said the defeat required ''serious analysis''. (Does this mean we need more Wikileaks to get some transparency in government?) ''It is not enough to write this off to an 'it's time' factor, as if the voters change governments once a decade without regard to circumstances,'' he said. ''To think like this will become a self-fulfilling analysis and condemn us to the next decade in opposition. ''Nor is it enough to utter platitudes such as 'we made mistakes', 'we aren't perfect', and 'we need to do better', without any tangible sign of a change in direction or approach. ''Such platitudes mask a defiance, which voters will sense and question our sincerity.'' (They are paid to be in government for our benefit, on our behalf, not for a few elites) Mr Thomson said Labor had ''grown out of touch with the reality of life for ordinary people'' during its decade in power. In that time electricity prices and council rates had doubled and gas and water bills had increased by more than the inflation rate. (Also rising crime rates and council rates. Once population goes over ecological and social "overshoot", the costs start to spiral). To win back support, Labor should pledge to peg household electricity prices and council rates to pension rises, he said. ''If the pension goes up by 2 per cent then household electricity prices should not be allowed to rise by more than 2 per cent,'' he said. ''If electricity companies need to build more infrastructure, they should recover the cost of that from the businesses and property developers who are the beneficiaries of that infrastructure, not from ordinary households and certainly not from pensioners.'' (Most of the costs for water and power are not from what we use, but from the fixed costs, to pay for increasing populations, and the maintenance and upgrades required) The slogan for Labor was "keep the jobs coming". Some jobs we don't want to keep coming, like building and property development and desalination plants! Well done to The Age, and for Kelvin Thomson, a refreshing voice of logic!

nimby

Tue, 2010-12-14 10:12

Pushing Australia's population above natural limits will inevitably create "NIMBYs", as this is when the rubber hits the dirt and people are actually impacted by government growth policies. Kevin Rudd's "big Australia" gaffe headed his downfall, and Gillard's renouncing of his "big Australia" as her first act in power. The Brumby government's downfall also was his pushing towards constant growth, against the grain of social and political resistance. There are limits to growth. An infant will usually triple his or her birth weight by the first year and grow 1.5 times longer than his or her birth length, but this rate cannot continue. Bones and flesh cannot withstand the weight and pressures, and bodily organs start to stall. Oversized bodies generally suffer from early decline, and death. Chickens artificially forced to grow fast in factory farms are "processed" long before their maturity. This analogy is quite appropriate too to the size of herds, or collections, of any species. What we're doing is what all other creatures have ever done to survive by expanding into whatever territory is available and using up whatever resources are available. Epidemiologist Warren Hern of the University of Colorado at Boulder even likened the expansion of human cities to the growth and spread of cancer, predicting "death" of the Earth in about 2025. Like the accelerated growth of a cancer, the human population has quadrupled in the past 100 years, and at this rate will reach a size in 2025 that leads to global collapse and catastrophe. "Biologists have shown that it's a natural tendency of living creatures to fill up all available habitat and use up all available resources," says William Rees of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada. "That's what underlies Darwinian evolution, and species that do it best are the ones that survive, but we do it better than any other species. Humans have been overly successful on our planet, to our own detriment, and other living creatures. A four year study by academics in Europe and the United States has quantified the contribution of population growth to carbon dioxide emissions. Presented at an occasion put on by The United Nations Foundation at the climate change summit in Cancun, it concluded that moderating population growth could save emissions of 1.4 to 2.5 gigatonnes of carbon a year, effecting 16-29 per cent of the reductions needed to keep world average temperatures from rising more than two degrees above preindustrial levels, which is widely seen as the tipping point for dangerous climate change. Here in Australia, our leaders are under pressure from industry groups to import "skilled" labour and continue our economic migration program, and to support our property/housing boom. While we are supposed to become more "sustainable" and miserly in our use of resources, our State and Federal leaders are driving onward growth and consumption levels, and making any efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions even harder to minimize. Ironically, Brumby lives in a leafy suburb and owns a farm. Neither Brumby or Madden have chosen high-density apartments - what they are forcing onto the public. Those making our policies, inevitably based on the short-term benefits of economic growth at all costs, are protected from looming global trends and insulated from future climate change threats by their position, their power and wealth.

Anonymous (not verified)

Tue, 2010-12-14 09:12

This article makes its points very well. The mainstream media apparently avoided printing it, probably because it contradicts their own fairytales.

Tigerquoll

Mon, 2010-11-22 14:30

If you are serious about saving the koalas and protecting their habitat, and have complained already in writing to the Queensland Government and to the Australian Government, yet neither are not prepared to do anything to save them, then go international.

Notify UNESCO and start learning about Australia's international obligations and letting those at UNESCO know what is going on.

I suggest you first read '2010 Year of Biodiversity Tries to Rein in Runaway Extinctions', read up on the IUCN on Koalas, which UNESCO is responsible for, then formally notify the plight of these koalas to UNESCO, attaching your correspondence to the QLD and AUST governments, and send it to:

Mrs Irina BOKOVA
UNESCO Director General
7, place de Fontenoy 75352
Paris 07 SP France

Let us know how you go. Good luck!

'A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.'
- Margaret Mead.

Tigerquoll
Suggan Buggan
Snowy River Region
Victoria 3885
Australia

nimby

Mon, 2010-11-22 14:02

LONDON: White Britons would be 'a minority' in their own country by 2066 if immigration continues at the current rate, according to research. If immigration stays at its long-term rate of around 180,000 a year, the white British-born population would decline from the current total of 80 per cent to just 59 per cent in 2051, analysis of figures from the Office of National Statistics shows. If the trend continued, the white British population, defined as English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish-born citizens, would become the minority after about 2066, the paper said. Andy Green was appointed CEO of Logica in 2008 after spending 21 years at BT. He was recently ranked in the top 50 most influential people in IT. Andy Green, said "I'm not really that bothered about climate change," he shrugged. Population growth is such - just over six billion now and projected to grow to nine billion by 2050 - that, Mr Green tells us: "Humans are a plague, and the track record of plagues is not good". The government has been accused of allowing Indian IT companies to bring in cheap labour through intra-company transfers, shutting UK graduates out of the jobs market. The majority of skilled workers entering the UK from outside the European Economic Area come in on intra-company transfers. In 2009, they accounted for 22,000 out of a total of 36,490 skilled migrants. Loss of biodiversity and destruction of fragile ecosystems are being felt across the world already. Ecosystems provide supporting services like nutrient cycling, oxygen production and soil formation. All these are vital if we are to feed our growing population without further degrading our environment. At the moment invasive non-native species are the second greatest threat to biodiversity in the UK after climate change. "Sustainability will be the defining issue of our generation," said Green. "And it’s business’s problem, not the Government’s. Sustainability needs to be a board room issue for all businesses." Bill Gates told an audience at a Washington health summit that there is no such thing as a healthy, high-population growth country. “If you’re healthy, you’re low-population growth,” he said. The government has vowed to slash the level of net immigration after a decade of open borders under Labour. The cap on migrant numbers from outside Europe comes into effect next year. The immigration cap - which was a key part of the Conservatives' election manifesto - is aimed at cutting net immigration from its current level of 196,000 a year to "tens of thousands". A temporary cap of 24,100 will be replaced by permanent measures from April 2011.

Enne K (not verified)

Mon, 2010-11-22 12:10

The Ipswich Koala Protection Society (IKPS) rescues about 150 orphaned, sick or injured koalas every year – most of which are not victims of deliberate cruelty, but of land clearing for residential development. Suburbs that once had healthy koalas have been developed and depleted. The koalas are going. 60 per cent of females rescued by the IKPS were sterile because of cysts on the ovaries – thought to have been caused by chlamydia. This is caused by stress, due to human impacts. Frodo is getting a lot of attention, but little if any coverage has been given to the number of koalas killed or injured as a result of habitat loss. It is normal for koalas to roam, however they rarely stray more than a few kilometres from home and, if relocated, will often die trying to make their way back. Despite urging by conservation groups since around 1992, Australia's federal government has refused to list the koala as vulnerable.

Anonymous (not verified)

Mon, 2010-11-22 08:42

Labor has continued to waste the money of the public on freeways, myki, the desalination plant, the north-south pipeline. VicForests, and put more pain on the people by adding to urban sprawl and environmental destruction. With an Environment Minister, Gavin Jennings, more interested in developer profits than the environment, the interests of Victorians, the majority, will not be met. The pain of growing Melbourne will not translate into gain, but more costs and depletions of land, water, coastlines, and what used to be scenic areas of Victoria.

Anonymous (not verified)

Sun, 2010-11-21 23:28

A very interesting interview with Kevin Bracken on 3CR's "Keep Left."Download MP3 here. Note however that doubt has been cast on earlier interpretations of analysis that a 757 hit the Pentagon but left little impression on that infrastructure and even less debris of itself. Apparently this relied on an assertion that the ground floor has multiple masonry walls or rings, which is incorrect. The rings, it seems, start on the 1st floor and the ground floor is open with only columns in the way of the planes impact. Also saying that the entry hole is not large enough to represent a 757 impact is not scientific rather subjective. This section of the Pentagon was basically bomb proof and the impact hole was big enough to include the engines and the lower fuselage where the heavy parts of the plane are. Also the punch out hole is unusual, it could be caused by any large heavy object hitting the wall like a cannon ball tearing the bricks out in a circular hole. See "What hit the Pentgon? Misinformation and the effect onn 9/11 Truth" of 15 Feb 2020 by Dr Drank Legge (PDF 883K) at http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2009/WhatHitPentagonDrLeggeAug...  .

Sheila Newman

Sun, 2010-11-21 23:20

With Gavin Jennings as environment minister, who needs enemies of the environment? I do not understand how this man lives with himself and the hypocrisy of pretending to represent the Victorian electorate. Sheila Newman, population sociologist

CSI (not verified)

Sun, 2010-11-21 21:16

How many of the desperate poor which the Green Left love are let into Australia? Very few. The great majority of the new arrivals are solidly middle or upper class and relatively well to do. They help drive the continuous building boom which the Australian economy has become wholly dependent on. If the population stabilizes, then who would buy all these new houses and businesses? The bottom would drop out of the property speculation and construction industries. The Green Left greenwashes this unsustainable, greed driven mass immigration. People will not voluntarily limit their consumption. The more people, the more environmental damage they will do. That is the reality, not the fantasies peddled by the Green Left about people voluntarily sacrificing their lifestyle and comfort so ever more people can be crammed in while at the same time preserving the environment.

Sheila Newman

Sun, 2010-11-21 18:42

Foodbowl Unlimited, (see "Orwellian Waterworks: big-agribusiness and Victorian Gov") which has Victorian State Government backing - financial and legal - is probably a beneficiary of this policy on which Bandicoot so rightly sounds the alarm. Look at the people involved. Sadly it seems that what is happening in Australia is truly the result of having a mixture of sociopaths, incompetents and cowards in charge, in all three mainstream parties, with rare exceptions (such as Kelvin Thomson). I look at my local member of parliament, Alistair Harkness, for instance, and wonder what he is doing to save us from the loss of agricultural land or anything else. Only seems to be ignoring the problems and supporting the bad government policies. Sheila Newman, population sociologist

Sheila Newman

Sun, 2010-11-21 18:09

John Marlowe, (By the way, just to clarify, the comment, "Not everything said of Jim Saleam by Wikipedia is untrue," was originally published in my name by Editor James Sinnamon by accident. It was his comment but he selected the wrong author name when he published it. This mistake has been corrected. No big deal.) Firstly, freedom to express political views is a core tenet of candobetter.org which is "a website for reform in democracy, environment, population, land use planning and energy policy." I would think that most of our readers would be very interested in authentic responses to the questions raised about AFP. I have read with interest your own responses today. I can see why you feel it would have been better if Scott had posed a simple question about the Party's ownership of the material he raised questions about, although, I don't think that what he did would qualify legally as slander. It is obvious that he feels strongly about the issue of racism. He is also a writer on this blog and wants to make it clear to readers that he has no sympathy for racism and was obviously worried that candobetter.org might be endorsing a particular political party. For instance, as you say, the statement by the AFP that they want Australia to remain predominantly white can be read as racist or can be justified in terms of wanting to maintain political control within the contemporary majority. By the same token, it is obvious that you feel strongly that new ethnic dominances may pose a threat to rights informally established by the contemporary majority. I have never noticed in your work any tendency to attribute particular values to particular inherited physical characteristics of populations, such as 'race'. Australia First, Jim Saleam, and anyone else all are welcome to respond in this discussion and to put their points of view, so it isn't true to say that the subject or party of which the politics have been queried has no right of reply. I also agree that it is wrong to condemn people to perpetuity for dubious activities in the past. The public does, however, have the right to ask questions and be reassured and to pose questions anew if new doubts arise. The public should also be reminded that the ALP and the Coalition have recent political antecedents who held racist positions and promoted war, immigration, aboriginal and other policies based on these. Sir Robert Menzies, for instance, and Sir Arthur Calwell. As far as I know none has recently endorsed death camp policies, although Calwell was for deporting many Malayan, Indochinese and Chinese wartime refugees, some of whom had married Australian citizens and started families in Australia. Generations of school children were educated to such norms and men were sent to war to die for them. People in the areas of Australia with large rural components were carefully inured to the dispossession and ill-treatment of aborigines through public policies. Such policies effectively created a situation where changes to immigration laws to promote multiculturalism would have created alarm signals. A range of reactions could then have been predicted, including endorsement of Nazi policies, unfortunately. This was probably a particular risk in States with rural areas where aboriginal health was atrocious and actual massacres had occurred and murders had recently been glossed over by our justice system.

John Marlowe

Sun, 2010-11-21 13:58

Media dirt digging is why so few enter politics. Digging up someone's past is mass media sport, especially that of the paparazzi. Dare anyone have an unsavoury past, they shall be condemned to purgatory.

Here, slur as been perpetuated, denying any right of reply by the targeted subject.

I know no-one who does not have some part of their past they do not regret, but is it another's right to publicly condemn them for it in perpetuity?

I wager many a politician, if their past were investigated and made public, would have unsavoury skeletons in the closet - traffic convictions, public drunkenness, AWOL from the Army, unwanted pregnancy, dishonest conduct, shoplifting, mixing with the wrong company. Perhaps I am guilty of all these. I am not a religious person (as some may have gathered) but one Biblical quote here is apt: "let he who is without sin, cast the first stone".

Milly

Sun, 2010-11-21 13:17

Multiple human rights groups, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, accuse North Korea of having one of the worst human rights records of any nation. They refer to North Koreans as "some of the world's most brutalized people" with severe restrictions placed on their political and economic freedoms. North Korean defectors testify to the existence of prison and detention camps with an estimated 150,000 inmates (about 0.85% of the population), with reports of torture, starvation, rape, murder, forced labour, and forced abortions. Convicted political prisoners and their families are sent to these camps, where they are prohibited from marrying, required to grow their own food, and cut off from external communication. All religious activity is seen as a revolt against North Korea's socialist principles and the cult of Kim Jong-il and his father. A considerable number of secret Christians have been discovered, arrested, tortured, and sometimes killed. Despite this many take the risk of sharing their faith. Last year we had evidence that some [of those captured] were used as guinea pigs to test chemical and biological weapons." These sort of realities make our mainstream newspapers full of trivialities. The "news" is about selling papers and advertising, and promoting their own values. The reality of our planet, and the pain inflicted on, and because of, humanity gone wrong is white-washed, sanitized and censored.

James Sinnamon

Sun, 2010-11-21 11:50

Obviously as John Marlowe has pointed out Wikipedia can be and has been used as a vehicle for slander (whether or not that is what its creators had intended). However, one fact about Jim Saleam which can't be disputed is that in the 1970's he was a member of the National Socialist Party of Australia in the early 1970's. Images, such as those included below, which have been emblazoned in my memory and the memories of many Australian political activists for decades, prove this beyond doubt

Of course, we can't hold a person's past indefinitely against him. As an example, Ross ("the Skull") May, in the second image,

has come out and publicly repudiated the Big Lie of September 11. Whilst, I can't be absolutely certain of May's motives, this nevertheless gives me hope that even people who, in their youth have promoted such clearly evil causes as Nazism, can, over years, develop compassion for their fellow humans and become forces for good. All the same, I think a frank disclosure by Jim Saleam of this dark mark against his past is necessary for members of the public to have confidence that the true goals of the Australia First Party are its stated goals.

John Marlowe

Sun, 2010-11-21 10:38

As a member of AFP, I have passed on this discussion to AFP to allow them to directly respond. I am not a representative voice of AFP, just support most of their policies.

Slander is about making defamatory comments about someone that are not true.
Scott has made statements about AFP and a member of that party that cast dispersions on the reputation of both. Then in the same comment Scott has stated that the accusations are likely untrue. But the damage has been done. The innocent victim must prove innocence, which is unjust.

So I question Scott's method and consider his slur unfair. An ulterior motive appears confirmed in his subsequent comment above.

Having said that, I defend Scott's right to question and criticise the policies of a political party like AFP. I agree with the need for clarity in policy and platform by AFP and any political party seeking election. People have a right to know what a party stands for and on sensitive issues where it stands if in deed it has a position at all. Why didn't Scott just ask this as a comment instead of perpetuating an unsubstantiated slur?

But I am not a voice for AFP, so I cannot justify or defend AFP.

I am opposed to racial vilification and to bias against any racial group. I support AFP policies, yet there are some issues I don't agree with. And then frankly, what Party has members that agree with everything that the Party says and does?

I do have an issue with the 'predominantly white' quote. At the same time, I would feel uncomfortable if for some reason Australia invited 10 million Africans to Australia and the African culture became the dominant culture in Australia. Equally I would feel uncomfortable if 10 million Americans or Brits rocked up, irrespective of their skin colour. I think the colour thing is irrelevant. It is more an issue of preserving traditional culture (of any country), and on this point I empathise with Aboriginal Australians and what they have endured. This is a complex issue.

A CAUTION ABOUT RELYING ON WIKIPEDIA

As for Wikipedia as a frequent source of 'truth', on AFP and its chairman Jim Saleam, it too is slanderous and has been rejected by both. Yet Wikipedia continues to publish slander, false statements and untruths. Wiki has been approached to have the content removed, yet continues to allow it to be published.

I point out that the authors of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Saleam are a extreme left wing group with a bent on defaming and destroying AFP and its chairman.

If you go to the site and click on 'View History', you will see that a select group of authors have built the Wiki site. They belong to an extreme political group base in Sydney called 'SlackBastard' - check their website: http://slackbastard.anarchobase.com and another group also Sydney based called 'Fight Dem Back' - check their website: http://www.fightdemback.org.

So evaluate the 'truth' of the Wiki now!

You will also notice if you scroll down the Wiki 'View History' that yours truly has contributed to deleting the Wiki material, but each time the material is deleted, Wiki has a automated email update in place and these authors quickly restore the slanderous content. These authors know that people will first check Wikipedia to find out about AFP and its chairman, so these character saboteurs with Wikipedia complicity effectively hold the truth captive.

Imagine if this same slur was on a Wiki for Julia Gillard or Scott or the editors of CanDoBetter. This is a dangerous development in undermining privacy and reputation.

If one types one's name on Google these days ( long it is not as ubiquitous as John Smith) if one has ever posted comments online, the data may still be there for all to see, including potential employers doing background checks. People have been sacked and murdered from what they write on Facebook.

Irrespective of the merits of AFP, online character assassination is scary development, despite all the Australian Government's fan fair motherhood Internet Policing and Privacy Rules.

So my message is be careful what you read and what you write on line - we are each personally vulnerable!

James Sinnamon

Sun, 2010-11-21 09:28

I omitted, in my previous comment, in part, because of the lateness of the hour, to acknowledge that the Australia First Party has a lot of good policies that candobetter supports. I thank Scott and John Marlowe for making this known to our readers. All the same, we have to seriously address any possibility that organisations that candobetter as a whole promotes, or that contributors promote, could be accused of racism or worse. It is reassuring to know that Jim Saleam has denied distributing the racist leaflet referred to by Scott and has repudiated its content (See ABC news story of 29 July this year Racist leaflets not ours: Australia First linked to by Scott). Still, Jim Saleam has a past history that will inevitably cause many people to question his motives and the true goals of an organisation in which he plays such a prominent role in. As I wrote above, I think that the best way to deal with this is for Jim Saleam, if he has not already done so, to frankly disclose his past and explain why, as a youth, he joined the National Socialist (Nazi) Party and when, how and why he repudiated that organisation.

Anonymous (not verified)

Sun, 2010-11-21 09:06

Subject was: "warmongering leaflets copy" This anonymous post, presumably by a supporter of the Australia First Party includes a leaflet, originally published on the web-site of the Australia First Party. It can also be found on this page. Iraq was invaded in 2003 under the fraudulent pretext that Iraq (and not the united States) was a threat to other countries, because of claims, known to be false, that Iraq had massive hidden stockpiles of "weapons of mass destruction". The fact that the Australia First Party has taken this public stance against this immoral war stands contrary to allegations that Australia First is a racist party. It would further help if the Australia First Party would add it voice to those who are demanding the truth be told about the September 11 atrocity. - Editor AUSTRALIA FIRST PARTY VICTORIAN BRANCH CITIZENS PETITION TO:- The Members of the High Court of Australia; the Honorable Chief Justice Murray Gleeson AC, the Honorable Justice William Gummow AC, the Honorable Justice Michael Kirby AC CMG, the Honorable Justice Kenneth Hayne AC, the Honorable Ian Callinan AC, the Honorable Justice Dyson Heyden AC, the Honorable Justice Susan Maree Crennan. We the undersigned Citizens, entitled to vote in elections, and being MEMBERS OF THE ELECTOR’S PARLIAMENT OF AUSTRALIA, THE HIGHEST AUTHORITY IN OUR NATIVE LAND, Petition and Authorise the said Justices to:- I] Constitute and undertake a Judicial Enquiry into the knowledge, conduct, and actions of the former Howard/Vaile Liberal/National Party Government, its Ministers and Parliamentary Members, and to include such Public Servants as they find involved, excepting and excluding all members of the Australian Defence Forces, which has contributed and led to the Act of War by Australia on the Sovereign Nation of Iraq, to establish any illegality, breaches of Public Duty and or Trust owed towards the Australian People. II] We further Petition and Authorise the said Justices, should such illegality, breaches of Public Duty and or Trust, be prima facie established:- a] To engage and request the Governor General of Australia, to pursue the Public Prosecutors Office to institute criminal charges against the same, as are appropriate under the Crimes Act, or other legislation in accord with the Australian Constitution. b] To forthwith request the Governor General, as Commander of the Australian Defence Forces, to proceed with the orderly disengagement of Australian Military Personnel from continuing war on the Iraqi People, and for their safe return to Australia. c] To establish a tribunal or authority as necessary to consider redressing the damage, and the suffering thus caused to the People of Iraq. Name Address Signature

Bandicoot

Sun, 2010-11-21 09:06

According to a report in The Weekly Times , Victorian horticulture is being swallowed by the urban sprawl and the results could be devastating.
The ABS reports that peri-urban areas occupy less than 3 per cent of agricultural land they account for more than 25 per cent of the gross value of agriculture production.
Broadacre farming is being given higher priority while horticulture farmers - market gardeners - are being driven from their properties by zoning changes and the soaring value of land.
This may have brought a financial windfall for many of them, despite the GAIC tax, it means that houses are being built over fertile food-production land.
Vegetable Victoria President Luis Gazzola said Victoria would lose its vegetable production industry, and that this would happen unless land with A-class water and a buffer zone was set for the next 100 years. The growth-pushers with so much financial power in our State government are not likely to be interested in our food security, but profits.
To hell with vegetables for the next generations!
According to the Year Book Australia, 2009-10 ABS:
Global population growth of one per cent per year, increased consumption and the diversion of food crops for biofuel production and for intensive feeding of livestock, have all increased the total global demand for food, resulting in food shortages in particular countries.
According to the United Nations, there are currently close to one billion malnourished people globally. Changes in climatic conditions, soil degradation, scarcity of arable land, a decline in the standard of rural infrastructure and use of outdated agricultural practices have affected the global community’s capacity to respond.
The Australian Greenhouse Office's Guide to Climate Science and Impacts records the following consequences of climate change:
* a decrease in available water resources;
* higher temperatures and hence evaporation;
* increased heat stress of livestock causing reduced weight and milk yields;
* reduction in chilling cultivars, viticulture (vineyard yield);
* damage of crops from extreme weather, increased pests and disease outbreaks;
* a reduction of area of arable land from the 'dustbowl effect" and;
* a reduction in crop yield and quality.
Australia has about 6% arable land depending on source of the information, which is less then the size of France (total area).
Australia’s soils and seas are among the most nutrient-poor and unproductive in the world. Only around 6 per cent of the Australian landmass is considered arable – one of the lowest proportions of any country in the world. Australia in Brief: A unique environment
The Committee of Melbourne simply gloss over the crisis:

Although our water resources are stretched and we will need to continue effective management of arable land, here in Melbourne and Australia we are well positioned to service many of these global needs over coming decades.

"Effective management" won't supplement what Nature fails to provide due to concrete!
The eco-suicidal attempt of our governments to maximize our population and at the same time destroy the vessel that is supporting our existence - our ecological systems - is evidence of corruption and a trade-off of long term survival over short term profits, and votes!

Scott

Sun, 2010-11-21 02:09

It would appear that the distribution of the offending leaflet has been a "problem" for the Australia First Party on several occasions this year. In February this year, Saleam denied the AFP was involved in the leaflet appearing in letterboxes in Wagga and this was followed by the material turning up in the Riverina region in April. In July the leaflets once again turned up in several areas including Western Sydney. I have looked over the Australia First Party website and have to confess that I agree with a lot of their core policy such as reducing immigration, rebuilding Australian manufacturing, controlling foreignn ownership etc etc. I did notice however that they have a section devoted to their leaflets which contains no disclaimer in regards to the offending material that has supposedly been a thorn in their side all year. Surely this would be an opportunity to distance themselves from such offensive literature and perhaps fend off the critics who believe they are simply recruiting more people who will believe such rubbish. Couldn't help but notice the closing quote on the site: "Australia must remain predominantly white" -- Ouch!!

Pages

Click to read all comments.