Comments

If "Australia was a big country well able to absorb a bigger population", then we would have full employment and all governments would be in surplus and there would be no undue pressures on our economy, society or ecology. This is clearly not the case. Demand stress upon all resources is worsening and at its root, this demand is driven by the growth of human population and its proportionate demand for those resources.

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

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

So the test then comes down to one of lifestyle. This assumes lifestyle is inversely proportional to population - where the larger the population and faster the growth of that population the lower the standard of lifestyle - 'room to move', lower costs, opportunities, resource access, reduced competition, etc. In Australia, we apparently have one of the best lifestyles on the planet.

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

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

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

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

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

Becoming familiar with these measures and benchmarks will enable us to be more definite on what population Australia can indeed 'absorb'.

The above comment: 'Buy No More Repco spares In Australia' has merit but won't stop the Repco Rally going ahead in December. In order to effectively stop this rally, the campaign ought to focus on multiple initiatives, including publicising in the mass media the event's history of financial failure at Dwellingup, south of Perth.

1. Research the failings of the previous rally being expelled from Dwellingup. This will clearly reveal core weaknesses of the entire rally business case. The event in Western Australia was previously called Rally Australia in 2006 and the key sponsor was Telstra Rally Australia

Check the following websites on the event's financial failures:

http://www.worldrallychampionship.net/features/index.php?id_display=9

http://www.mediastatements.wa.gov.au/Lists/Statements/Attachments/128008/rally.pdf

http://www.parliament.wa.gov.au/Hansard%5Chansard.nsf/0/3050ab9742c6530cc825757000125ee3/$FILE/A37%20S1%2020050406%20p394b-395a.pdf

2. Contact former Western Australia Tourism Minister Mr Mark McGowan, who back in 2005 canned the Telstra Rally as it was called then in WA and proclaimed: "The State Government will seek to end its contract with the motorsport event Rally Australia in 2006 in light of concerns over the economic viability of the event."

Further to the history of the failure of this event, I also direct you to the following relevant weblink:

...."Mr M. McGOWAN: In 2003 and 2004 Rally Australia cost taxpayers $5.9 million. It was the biggest event on the EventsCorp calendar in terms of cost, and that cost was predicted to grow because insurance costs were increasing and some competitors were dropping out.

"The fees payable to the various motor sport bodies involved were also increasing. In addition, we received advice - it has been publicly noted - that the Rally Australia sponsors would not continue to sponsor that event.

Mr R.F. Johnson: Who - Telstra?

Mr M. McGOWAN: Yes, Telstra.
"Costs were rising and the sponsors were pulling out. In addition, crowd attendances were declining, and the international television coverage and core markets relevant to Western Australia were very poor. That meant that Rally Australia was not securing the benefit for the sponsors, the overseas television coverage, and interstate and international visitors to Western Australia. In direct spend, a $6 million event returned - as members have noted - $9.3 million to the state. As I have said ad nauseam, a return of $1.60 on every dollar spent is the worst return by a country mile for an event sponsored by a government. I will go through some of the other events so that members understand the situation."

All the best.

Take the following instance of a local resident protest in the Ku-ring-gai shire in Sydney's still leafy north shore which is dominated by national park:

Katrina Adamski of The North Shore Times on 28 May 09 reported "Angry crowd jeers as Planning Panel adopts town centre plans"

'HUNDREDS of angry residents packed a Lindfield hall to protest against the "sham plans’’ adopted by the Ku-ring-gai Planning Panel last night.
Up to 600 people packed into the Greenhalgh Auditorium at UTS Lindfield, many holding placards and banners. More than 100 people registered to speak but in the time allowed only 60 had a chance to air their views.

As the night wore on, residents grew angrier at the "flawed process’’ with most holding the opinion that their words would not make a difference to the outcome. After listening to people speak for three and a half hours, (chair) Ms Crouch said the panel members would adjourn for a few minutes before voting on the motion to adopt the plans. This was met with boos and jeers as residents cried out that they had wasted their night and started to leave the auditorium. Before the meeting started, Ms Crouch said the panel had held a series of community consultation sessions as well as reviewing more than 1800 submissions and meeting with resident groups.

During the following hours, residents spoke about ad hoc zoning, of impacts on their family homes, about the height, bulk and scale of development destroying the amenity of the area, and how Ku-ring-gai could be reduced to a slum.

When Ms Crouch said that no more speakers could be heard, one resident threatened to report her to the Planning Minister Kristina Keneally. But Ms Crouch said a large number of issues had been raised and proceeded to adjourn for a few minutes to "consider these issues’’. When they returned she thanked people for their "stringent opinions, ideas and suggestions’’. Ms Crouch then put the motion to adopt the plans and send them to the Planning Minister for gazettal and this was unanimously adopted.'

[Extract from The North Shore Times]

So, we think taking over half an hour for a whale to die from explosive internal harpooning is inhumane?
We think 'scientific' whale research is cruel and should be stopped, but not sure how?

Japan's claim that it is conducting 'scientific' whaling is as scientific as Japanese Unit 731 and its 'scientific' human experiments during World War II, commanded under microbiologist Lieutenant General Shiro Ishii of the Imperial Japanese Army.

Try this...
Those engaged in 'scientific' whaling should be publicly labelled as Unit 731 'Nana-san-ichi butai' in the Japanese media!!
This would be one damn nasty way to stop the whaling. How so? Read below extracts.

Activities of Unit 731:
A special project code-named Maruta used human beings for experiments. Test subjects were gathered from the surrounding population and were sometimes referred to euphemistically as "logs" (??, maruta?).[11] This term originated as a joke on the part of the staff due to the fact that the official cover story for the facility given to the local authorities was that it was a lumber mill. [SOURCE: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-439776/Doctors-Depravity.html]

Vivisection
* Prisoners of war were subjected to vivisection without anesthesia.
* Vivisections were performed on prisoners after infecting them with various diseases. Scientists performed invasive surgery on prisoners, removing organs to study the effects of disease on the human body. These were conducted while the patients were alive because it was feared that the decomposition process would affect the results. The infected and vivisected prisoners included men, women, children, and infants.
* Vivisections were also performed on pregnant women, sometimes impregnated by doctors, and the fetus removed.
* Prisoners had limbs amputated in order to study blood loss.
* Those limbs that were removed were sometimes re-attached to the opposite sides of the body.
* Some prisoners' limbs were frozen and amputated, while others had limbs frozen then thawed to study the effects of the resultant untreated gangrene and rotting.
* Some prisoners had their stomachs surgically removed and the esophagus reattached to the intestines.
* Parts of the brain, lungs, liver, etc. were removed from some prisoners.
* In 2007, Doctor Ken Yuasa testified to the Japan Times that, "I was afraid during my first vivisection, but the second time around, it was much easier. By the third time, I was willing to do it." He believes at least 1,000 persons, including surgeons, were involved in vivisections over mainland China.

Weapons testing:
* Human targets were used to test grenades positioned at various distances and in different positions.
* Flame throwers were tested on humans.
* Humans were tied to stakes and used as targets to test germ-releasing bombs, chemical weapons and explosive bombs.

Germ warfare attacks:
* Prisoners were injected with inoculations of disease, disguised as vaccinations, to study their effects.
* To study the effects of untreated venereal diseases, male and female prisoners were deliberately infected with syphilis and gonorrhea, then studied.
* Prisoners were infested with fleas in order to acquire large quantities of disease-carrying fleas for the purposes of studying the viability of germ warfare.
* Plague fleas, infected clothing, and infected supplies encased in bombs were dropped on various targets. The resulting cholera, anthrax, and plague were estimated to have killed around 400,000 Chinese civilians.
* Tularemia was tested on Chinese civilians.

Unit 731 and its affiliated units (Unit 1644, Unit 100, et cetera) were actively involved not only in research and development, but also in experimental deployment of epidemic-creating biowarfare weapons in assaults against the Chinese populace (both civilian and military) throughout World War II. Plague-infested fleas, bred in the laboratories of Unit 731 and Unit 1644, were spread by low-flying airplanes upon Chinese cities, coastal Ningbo in 1940, and Changde, Hunan Province, in 1941. This military aerial spraying killed thousands of people with bubonic plague epidemics.

Other 'scientific' experiments:
Prisoners were subjected to other experiments such as:

* being hung upside down to see how long it would take for them to choke to death.
* having air injected into their arteries to determine the time until the onset of embolism.
* having horse urine injected into their kidneys.
* being deprived of food and water to determine the length of time until death.
* being placed into high-pressure chambers until death.
* being exposed to extreme temperatures and developing frostbite to determine how long humans could survive with such an affliction, and to determine the effects of rotting and gangrene on human flesh.
* having experiments performed upon prisoners to determine the relationship between temperature, burns, and human survival.
* being placed into centrifuges and spun until dead.
* having animal blood injected and the effects studied.
* being exposed to lethal doses of x-ray radiation.
* having various chemical weapons tested on prisoners inside gas chambers.
* being injected with sea water to determine if it could be a substitute for saline.
* being buried alive. (This practice included infants.)

[SOURCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731]

Thanks, Joan for sharing your knowledge with us.

Aime's article suggested that good protection against bushfires could be achieved at a cost that would be affordable to most people. Yours suggests that the solutions proposed in Aime's article and associated comments could become death traps.

Could I put to you that the bushfire bunker designs she suggested may still be considerably better than no protection at all?

Whether or not this proves to be the case, it seems that the cost, in economic and ecological terms, of giving everyone in bushfire-prone areas near absolute protection against the threat of bushfires may be more than we can afford if we take into account the cost of building bushfire shelters and the clearing of vegetation from around the bushfire shelters.

If we multiply the necessary cleared land per shelter by the number of shelters necessary to house the growing numbers of people living in bushfire-prone areas, whether by choice or necessity, then much more of Australia will necessarily become drier increasing even further the likelihood of bushfires in what little bush is likley to remain.

It is somewhat analogous to the way the waste heat necessarily created by the operation of air-conditioning units in cities like Tokyo actually increases the overall temperature as well as adding to the level of greenhouse gases, even as they afford some respite from the heat inside dwellings.

Instead of going to all this enormous expense and trouble, either as individuals or as a community, we, perhaps, instead, need to consider other alternatives, some of which have already been suggested by others including Tigerquoll in his article "Bushfire bunkers strategy an 'after-the-fact' dead end". These include:

• Measures to make the bush less dry. These can be adapted from proposals by Peter Andrews and the Natural Sequence Farming movement to fix up our rural land (although this would require us to rethink many of our assumptions about the inappropriateness of weeds and non-native plant species);
• make the settlement patterns in bushfire-prone areas more compact;
• discouragement of settlement in bushfire-porne areas in the first place;
• effective bushfire-fighting strategies including early detection and aerial suppression of fire rather than the tired old truck-centric response methodology; and
• the establishment of a nationwide professional bushfire fighting service in place of reliance on volunteers;