Comments

James Sinnamon

Mon, 2009-02-09 00:01

The following has been cross-posted to the "Fire and Flood" forum on John Quiggin's blog site.

Thanks for your interest and your response James of FNQ. I have cross-posted it as a comment to the article. I trust that that is OK with you. Feel welcome to post further comments there or here. You can do so anonymously, subject to moderation, or using an account.

What I wrote was based on my gut feeling which was confirmed by Hugh Spencer who also lives in Far North Queensland. Hugh describes himself as a 'hands-on conservation biologist'. I am sure he will be most interested in your comments and will respond before long.

I didn't actually say that deforestation caused the floods, rather I said that it made their impacts more severe than they otherwise would have been.

Whether the clearing of land happened recently or over 100 years ago it looks to me, on the evidence, like environmental damage, if, as a consequence, floods cause as much damage as they do.

What got me thinking was the brown colour of the flood water and remembering David Montgomery's excellent "Dirt - the erosion of Civilisations" which pointed out that any agricultural system which allows soil to be washed away faster than it can be created (in the order of one or two inches ever century - I don't have the exact figure on me) is unsustainable.

All past civlisations which allowed their soil to be washed away at a rate faster than what could be replaced has collapsed.

The presence of so much dirt in flood waters (and for that matter, in the Barron river, constantly as Hugh had advised me) is a sign that the natural systems which hold soil in place have been damaged and that Australia is headed in the same direction.

James Sinnamon

Sun, 2009-02-08 22:33

This article drew the following response on John Quiggin's blog:

"I think you may be over simplifying the flooding in North and Far North Queensland. Ingham, the town that appears most often on the news is on a low flood plain surrounded by mountains and near the Herbert River delta. This river has its source on the western side of the Great Dividing Range near Ravenshoe, and this source location is significant because the area around the headwaters, has had heavy rain since early November from Cyclones, and the Monsoon that comes along this time of year.

"The Monsoon Trough has also contributed to the falls along the coast, as Monsoon troughs and rain depressions do, and all this water combined with king tides results in what is happening in Ingham.

"Deforestation on the floodplain for sugarcane farms happened a long time ago and as far back as I can remember, Ingham had floods. The great majority of the Herbert river is in untouched forest so contrary to your suggestion that deforestation caused the flooding is not the only cause.

"As far as the rainfall is concerned, I live in the hills behind Cairns, and we have had less rain this year than last year and the Barron, our nearest river is not in flood, and has not been this wet.

"I hope this helps you understand the Queensland tropics a bit.

James Sinnamon

Sun, 2009-02-08 15:00

The following comment, not necessarily related to this article, was posted to me by a site visitor, yesterday:

I have just discovered this webpage and I want to congratulate you on it. I'm so sick of our neo-conservative media feeding us their right wing bunk which is supposed to be taken as 'normal'. At last a balanced and intelligent website where people are not gagged where we can have truly open minded discussion without fear of censorship of certain topics that may be feared by some as being too contraversial. Discussion is vital and should never be quashed.

James Sinnamon

Sun, 2009-02-08 14:23

The following is from a (so far) brief exchange on a mailing list in response to my posting of this notice to that mailing list.

On Sun, 8 Feb 2009, Terri wrote:

> Hi there,
> forgive me if I'm being really dim... Is this rally against recycling
> water? Or is it against fluoridation and for recycling? Aren't they two
> very different issues (I may be showing my ignorance there). ...

I guess you are in a sense right. Fluoridation is enforced medication which is likely to be detrimental to at least a significant minority of our society, whilst recycling is a supposed solution to our water crisis.

Nevertheless, people who are concerned about one issue tend to be concerned about the other and vice-versa. The decisions by the Queensland government to impose these measures on Queenslanders without proper consultation and a proper debate is symptomatic of the fact that democracy in the sense of 'government of the people by the people for the people' is not practised in Queensland. (For an interesting insight on this, read Tony Ryan's article of 2007 "If this is not democracy - then what is?".)

Personally, I see all these questions related to water supply as linked and I am opposed to all 'solutions' to our water crisis which have environmentally harmful consequences. This includes: water recycling, the Traveston and Wyaralong dams, mining of underground water aquifers at rates which exceed their rate of replenishment, desalination, transportation of water over long distances.

Clearly, if we find ourselves in the hole that the Queensland Government has dug us into by deliberately encouraging the population to grow well beyond the natural carrying capacity of the region in past years (see, for example "More chickens of population growth come home to roost in Queensland" of 14 May 08), then we are going to have choose the least worst from amongst a number of unpalatable options in order to get ourselves back out again.

However, above all else, we simply must stop making the problem worse and must desist with the further encouragement of population growth.

In my view, the least worst of all possible options is a combination of measures to reduce personal, as well as industrial water use and the installation of rainwater tanks.

The latter will incur environmental costs as their manufacture, particularly on the large scale which will be necessary, requires the consumption of non-renewable resources and further emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants, but it is probably a better use of our natural non-renewable resources than gadgets design to break down in years at most.

> ... I come from somewhere that recycles water and it's way better
> quality than Melbourne town water! ...

Could you tell me where?

As far as I know the only places in the world where recycling is used, in any way similar to the way it was proposed for Toowoomba was Windhoek in Namibia and the English Shire of Essex and there, only for emergencies.

Those planning to impose water recycling on Toowoomba in 2006 confided in each other that Toowoomba was to become a "living laboratory" according to a document released under FOI legislation. (See "Courier Mail manipulates reporting of water recycling to demand early election" of 5 Jan 09.)

> ... To someone like me who is used to the idea it seems completely
> unsustainable not to recycle water. The planet recycles water all the time.
> Every drop you drink is likely to have passed through all sorts of humans
> and other animals already). ...

We need natural systems to do the job properly and cost-effectively. Technologically complex systems will incur significant financial and environmental costs. And if they fail, then the health of all of us is put at risk. (See above article and articles linked to from there.)

To be sure, with so much poison and so many exotic manufactured chemicals pumped into our environment all the time, even natural recycling systems may not be able to cope very well, but they remain our best chance.

> ... If we don't reduce our usage, and recycle, surely we'll need more dams?

As I said, we need to live within the natural carrying capacity of the region (and, that is, in the longer term without dependence upon fossil fuels and other non-renewable resources).

> Can't I be against fluoridation but for recycling?

Obviously, of course you can be. If you like you can also be in favour of dams, desalination plants, mining of aquifers, etc.

Sheila Newman

Sun, 2009-02-08 13:39

Dear G.R.L. Cowan (Boron Fan :-)) Long story why it took so long to respond to your comment. I would have been faster if I hadn't lost your email address. Please write to me and remind me what it is at astridnova[at]gmail.com. You will see that today I have substituted your two paras for my faulty ones, with sincere thanks. I have explained in two notes [a] and [b] that the changes were authored by you. I have also recorded where my text was wrong (uggh!). And I have stated how difficult it is to get useful feedback in this area especially. More discussion, including articles by you for candobetter would be welcome. Regards and See below: [a] Many thanks to G.R.L. Cowan for his rewrite of this paragraph which contained inaccuracies and which originally read: "During the operation of a conventional nuclear power station over the years, via the reactions that occur in the atomic pile, the U238 that is there gets converted into fissionable material which includes plutonium and other dangerously radioactive products. These products are increased in a breeder reactor. In conventional reactors moderators slow the neutron firing down so that the neutrons hit each other more easily and accelerate the natural rate of fission." [b] Thanks again to G.R.L. Cowan for his changes to this paragraph as well, correcting the error, contained in the original text: "The Fast Breeder reactor (FBR) Without the moderator the reactor becomes a ‘fast breeder’ with a bias towards the U238 being converted and producing more fuel than it actually burns. In a fast breeder the nuclear waste products which present such a problem in conventional reactors become more fuel. The aim is to make this a closed and remote controlled process." It is very hard to find people who will go to the trouble of carefully reviewing the technical detail in such articles, but the authors, who cannot be specialists in every facet they write on, need this kind of feedback. G.R.L. Cowan's feedback makes this article and this site worth visiting for people trying to understand an area where very little is written for the non-specialist in a field where obscurantism compounds rapid change and complex concepts and engineering in a politically polemicized field. Sheila Newman. Sheila Newman, population sociologist home page Copyright to the author. Please contact sheila [AT] candobetter org or the editor if you wish to make substantial reproduction or republish.

G.R.L. Cowan, H... (not verified)

Sun, 2009-02-08 04:00

I thought my posting had vanished. See if you like this: During the operation of a conventional nuclear power station, some of the neutrons in the atomic pile are captured by its U238, converting it into fissionable material. This includes plutonium and other dangerously radioactive products. These products are increased in a breeder reactor. In conventional reactors, moderators slow the neutrons. By thus reducing each one's likelihood of becoming part of a converted U238 nucleus and increasing its chance of finding one of the already-fissionable U235 nuclei, moderators allow a natural uranium pile to support a slowly increasing chain reaction. The Fast Breeder reactor (FBR) Without the moderator, the neutrons slow down less and the reactor becomes a ‘fast neutron reactor', often abbreviated to just ‘fast reactor', with a bias towards the U238 being converted. In a fast breeder the nuclear waste products which present such a problem in conventional reactors become more fuel. The aim is to make this a closed and remote controlled process.

admin

Sat, 2009-02-07 23:21

I received the following comment from a Maleny resident: I know only Caloundra/Sunshine Coast area and Crow's Nest/Toowoomba area. In both these instances the new big councils are far far better than what was there before. They are more professional, their reps are better quality in general They represent a direction towards regional government with States probably disappearing... I haven't heard an argument I support against this ... bye and thanks for your research www.pecheysandals.com My comment: It's possible for decent candidates to win elections in larger amalgamated councils, but generally, the larger size will make it harder for people who are respected by the community, but who oppose developers and other powerful vested interests to win. That would seem to be why the Property Council of Australia asked former Queensland Premier Beattie to enact amalgamations In the Sunshine Coast Regional Council a pro-democracy candidate, Bob Abbott, former Mayor of the Noosa Shire council, who, in fact, opposed the amalgamation of the Noosa Shire into the Sunshine Coast Regional Council, was able to defeat a developer-backed candidate, who was the Mayor of the Maroochy Shire. The previous Caloundra Shire, of which Maleny was part, also had a pro-developer mayor. The defeat of pro-developer candidates also occurred in the Cairns City Council into which the Douglas Shire was amalgamated and Redlands Shire. This verdict of many Queensland voters angered Rupert Murdoch's pro-developer national newspaper the Australian, which had been counting on the forced amalgamations to solve the developers' problems. I wrote of this in the article "The Australian laments outcome of Queensland local government elections" of 30 March 2008. Nevertheless, I still think that the people of Maleny would be served better still by a council still smaller than the old abolished encompassing Caloundra City Council. That council could have simply been for Maleny and the surrounding areas, or, perhaps a larger Blackall Ranges Shire encompassing Maleney, Montville and Mapleton. Possibly the Sunshine Coast Regional Council would work well as a regional government and the Queensland Government could be abolished. - JS

Denis Frith (not verified)

Fri, 2009-02-06 19:43

Australia has used up a large proportion of its natural capital in an exuberant chase after a high material standard of living. That era is drawing to a close as irreplaceable natural capital becomes scarce.

The PM has allowed the budget to go into deficit in order to finance the stimulus package. This is based on the presumption that the budget can have a surplus when the recession is over. That is a fallacious presumption. Economic growth is now part of history. Economic contraction is the new reality. Australia has used up a large proportion of its natural capital in an exuberant chase after a high material standard of living. That era is drawing to a close as irreplaceable natural capital becomes scarce. Tangible ecological forces are gaining control over the intangible economic ones. The symptoms of the malaise include the impact of climate change together with water, fertile soil and fuel shortages. The devastation of the Murray-Darling basin is only one of the irreversible environmental disasters. There are many others that the people of Australia are becoming increasingly aware of. The current heat wave coupled with dangerous bushfires in the south together with flooding in the north accentuates just how vulnerable our way of life has become.

Tangible ecological forces are gaining control over the intangible economic ones

The PM should have been very careful to choose the components of the package in such a manner to help Australians cope with the inevitable powering down. Stimulating consumption is not the way to go.

Sheila Newman

Thu, 2009-02-05 00:15

Finally, a decent idea from the Brisbane council, but, of course, it should not just happen in communal gardens and it will need water for growing gardens, not for growing the city. www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/10/29/2404968.htm?section=justin The Brisbane City Council is urging residents to grow their own food as part of its community gardens initiative. It hopes to set up a network of small farms across community facilities, parks and schools. Environment Committee chairman Peter Matic says it will help the city reduce carbon emissions. "It's about buying food locally and taking up those opportunities to plant basics in these community gardens so our food doesn't have to travel as far, therefore we reduce our carbon emissions," he said. Sheila Newman, population sociologist

quark

Wed, 2009-02-04 21:55

The man and the plan are totally unimaginative. Does he have what's known as apartmentitis? I believe it's quite serious.

Anonymous (not verified)

Wed, 2009-02-04 21:04

Despite talk of a so called recession, there is no shortage of active construction projects in Melbourne. Anyone who looked around in the suburbs of Melbourne would see frantic building activity everywhere. The housing monster is demanding more and it is being promised more feed by Brumby.

Anonymous (not verified)

Wed, 2009-02-04 17:50

Once it was priests from the pulpit; now it is commercially centred grubs given authority by the mainstream media. The only reason there were not thousands of angry people in the streets for the democracy rally was that the mainstream media, as usual, kept this one off the reporting table. Most people have absolutely no idea of where to turn, who to contact, nor where all the pain from every side is coming from here in Victoria. Unfortunately people are early encouraged to believe that the uneducated, unverifyable, uninformed opinions of professional journos working for the mainstream press are words of real authority. Only the truly desperate would work for these awful newspapers we have in Australia. And the ABC is just as bad now in its encouragement of land speculation and its avoidance of any challenge to the unsavoury fops who lord it over the rest of us. It is criminal and sometimes I think that the most important battle is diversity of ownership of the press and of the means of publication and dissemination. No one man like Murdoch or a board of asset-rich directors like Fairfax should be allowed to organise and influence the way the world is perceived globally. What they have produced is no better than a Roman circus to take our minds off the devastation carried out by their corporate interests for profit.

Milly (not verified)

Tue, 2009-02-03 22:30

It is ironical that the Victorian public, soft-targets, are being urged to voluntarily cut down their water usage to 155 litres each per day, but at the same time between 1200 and 1500 new residents are coming into Victoria each week! Why should the public cut back, while at the same time our government, contradictorily, deliberately keeps adding more consumers? Why should we cooperate unless we are all pulling our weight to save water? Surely people come here for a better life, and they expect the basic needs of water, housing, transport- things that we are becoming short of!

Vivienne (not verified)

Mon, 2009-02-02 08:12

With our government's discouragement of solar power usage, and their support of the coal industry, our bulging population will be the excuse to introduce nuclear power. Non-renewable energy will be put in the "too hard" basket, due to too many people, lack of infrastructure, and the sun being free!

Andrew speaks t... (not verified)

Sat, 2009-01-31 19:39

I also noticed a few possums dying & saved one outside a chuch. Even ppl going to the church failed to save the possum as people are so concerned with themselves these days. No wonder immigration has grown to unsustainable levels. For too long people have been focusing on their holidays, wealth & ripping other people off in the workplace, while other genuine Aussies have been suffering. I have had a terrible time in the Australian workplace. For the past 15 years I have experienced some of the most awful atrocities. I have been forced to quit, resign, been fired, abused, stolen from etc, just because I was doing a good job & that was disliked (because a good worker should be paid more & rewarded for their extra effort) Even though I am tertiary qualified & a very good worker, there has been this terrible mentality of employment agencies, managers etc. All they are concerned about is mass immigration & cheap labour---turning Australia into the third world. These evil people have been getting away with it, & now that more people are suffering we are starting to notice. I say to these ppl. Why didn't you stand up in the past 15 years when I have been telling you how bad it is? Politics starts first, then the economy. Notice how Australia has been worse ever since they opened the gates to mass immigration.

Vivienne (not verified)

Sat, 2009-01-31 19:22

If an anti-green lobbyist, right-wing journalist and capitalist can see the connection between many of our problems today and artificial population growth, then the most banal "man on the street" should be able to put two and two together and see the solution! This forced growth benefits few, and people will want to leave the rat-race. This puts pressure on coastal areas and rural resources. In the last three days, due to the extreme heat, we have been able to see the limitations of our infrastructures, power and water scarcity. If this topic can touch at the grass-roots level, we can have a movement to stop the greed of politicians and businesses who gain from the continual growth. So few people benefit. It has to be thrown into the public arena. Senator Bob Brown needs to be challenged to put his words into policies to reflect that we are past "sustainable" growth, and immigration will be reserved for the most needy of humanitarian cases only. He cannot afford to be ambiguous on such a wide-encompassing and pivotal topic.

Sheila Newman

Sat, 2009-01-31 00:09

The Property Council of Australia has repeatedly boasted about its political power to change policy and that it has 'saved' its members over 2 billion dollars (in one year, I think) by getting taxes cut. If it is true that the PCA influenced the undemocratic, forced council amalgamations which have cost the public so much in democracy and in monetary expenses, then these sums should be recouped from the PCA through charges for services emanating from these new and expensive changes to local government. There should also be an enquiry into the ways in which the PCA and its members have impacted on public policy and practice, e.g. law-making, taxes, and what this has changed about our democracy. candobetter.org/node/628 Sheila Newman, population sociologist home page

Louise (not verified)

Fri, 2009-01-30 23:01

Two ring-tailed possums died where we live apparently due to heat distress - local vets are being rushed with people wanting to save possums because they don't handle this extreme heat well at all. Isn't there a duty of care involved for a park system with a commitment to fauna? Where would birds and possums normally find water for survival? Louise

James Sinnamon

Fri, 2009-01-30 17:09

In all states, except in Queensland, for state elections, the compulsory preferential voting system requires nearly all voters to ultimately make a choice between the two major Parties, that is, except those rare constituencies where minor parties or independents get enough votes to be able to seriously challenge the major party candidates.

So, not giving one's preference to Labor over Liberal, automatically entails giving one's preference to Liberal over Labor.

If one can show conclusively that from a standpoint of democracy and the environment that the Liberal/National parties are preferable to the Labor party then it would be correct to be critical of the Greens.

However given the equivocation on environmental questions by the Victorian opposition, Ted Ballieau's ludicrous support for even higher population growth, the appalling records of both the previous Victorian Kennett Government and the previous Federal Howard Government, there may not be much reason to hope for anything of enduring benefit will be achieved if the Liberal were to be elected in Victoria on Green's preferences.

What is important is that, regardless of how the Greens eventually decide to allocate their preferences they, together with and the rest of us, must be not restrain ourselves from telling the truth about the shortcomings of both the major parties, in particular the current wanton vandalism of the Brumby Government at Brown's Mountain.

That way they can hope to increase their own vote and we can even hope to see a few more Greens MP's elected at the next Victorian state election.

But even if that is not achieved a high vote for partes other than the major parties will still strengthen the hand of the environmental movement.

Sheila Newman

Fri, 2009-01-30 12:36

Vivienne, the source I based the report on Browns speech on Wednesday tells me that, congruent with his motion in Parliament a few months ago, he IS prepared to cut migration. We think that the Age has misreported him. Sheila Newman, population sociologist home page Copyright to the author. Please contact sheila [AT] candobetter org or the editor if you wish to make substantial reproduction or republish.

Vivienne (not verified)

Fri, 2009-01-30 09:03

Our Brumby government is guilty of eco-vandalism and breaking pre-election promises that would have East Gippsland's ancient forests included in National Parks. They can't see the value of the forests for the $$$ signs from cheap woodchips for Japan.

We have no system of quality control and integrity checking in our constitution? The Greens should not give their preferences to Labor. Even Senator Bob Brown is being evasive on the population debate. He has rejected suggestions Australia should curb migration for environmental reasons! The lure of income and economic growth is just too powerful for a herd-species like humans to act logically and with common sense! A larger herd give a false sense of security - obviously!

www.watoday.com.au/national/population-debate-booms-20090129-7t5f.html

Sheila Newman

Thu, 2009-01-29 23:01

See article at www.theage.com.au/environment/logging-on-hold-over-species-find-20090128-7s13.html The loggers are saying there is plenty of forest left for the sooty and powerful owls and they claim that the lobster is a common species. My observation is to say that our society should live within its means, which is to say, we should not be opening new areas to log. Nothing is becoming less common than a big, old tree in a forest with high biodiversity. Loggers can always find a plantation. That option isn't open for the creatures of the forest or for humans who consider loss of biodiversity the first and the worst kind of impoverishment. Sheila Newman, population sociologist home page

Tourette (not verified)

Wed, 2009-01-28 16:27

Brilliant article- another point is that couples intending to marry and perhaps have children want those children to have the resources to lead reasonable lives and raise their own children in circumstances which are at least as good as those they experienced and would probably applaud Marks' cause . Brigid's arguments are quite mad- there is a fertile field there for a clear thinking analysis massacre of just about every one of her assertions. Interest point hat she does not mention Calcutta or Mexico City- and if Australia is so boring why would anyone want to come. We must have somethng here that makes non- refugees leave family and friends to begin a new life here? I wonder what that is.....

Anonymous (not verified)

Wed, 2009-01-28 16:24

I don't think they should be embarassed. I think they should be on trial. Reopen Guantamo and throw the bastards in for financial terrorism and looting. Let's not pussy-foot anymore. Frank Tireur

admin

Wed, 2009-01-28 03:15

This comment was found on the Penrith Press of 19 December 2008:

I hope that the Press uses its journalistic resources to expose the apparently unsavoury proceedings that are associated with the recent decision on the development of the ADI site. At a recent meeting, Council voted 14/15 to enter into a Planning Agreement with developer Delfin Lend Lease to build 3500 houses and clear approx 300 ha of Cumberland Plain Woodland from the ADI Site. This council is clearly intent on the continued development of the Nepean Valley until there is no green space left. It makes a mockery of the long-held council aspiration of the ‘Rural City’. Should you require information on this act of enviironmental bastardry, I refer you to candobetter.org/node/960 for background information.

Sheila Newman

Tue, 2009-01-27 23:00

Hi Boron fan, Sorry I took so long to publish and respond to your comment. I probably should take longer to give a decent answer. I guess you are right that 'coolant' added in brackets is technically confusing. And the neutrons should be 'hitting' the fuel nuclei in the kind of billiard-ball analogy that is usually used. It is quite difficult to write a general article about nuclear power that doesn't sink into the usual polemics. Where I have avoided mistakes others have already made, I have made some mistakes of my own. (I thought that the three scientists who read this article (including a particle physicist) would have picked up these mistakes). I had hoped that readers would appreciate the economic, political and social arguments I introduce here, which are relatively new. Would you care to rewrite the paras you criticise and I will integrate them into the new version? Sheila Newman, population sociologist home page

Anonymous (not verified)

Mon, 2009-01-26 12:20

Scroll down to bottom of article "Brown Mountain Rape" and you will find a google map with the roads and coordinates marked. If you have GIS you can get there. It's a worthy battle; go with the Ents. Frodo would approve.

Anonymous (not verified)

Mon, 2009-01-26 10:24

It should be allowed. It's not that big a problem. And besides, the residential area will be needed to house Queensland's growing population. What would you prefer: A few dead birds with people living in proper accommodation, or people living on the streets while birds live. C'mon.

Doug Woodward (not verified)

Sun, 2009-01-25 21:26

Sheila, recently I ran across some information which I thought might interest you: Future cost projections of solar thermal electric power Liquid fluride thorium reactor Some years ago Atomic Energy of Canada worked on a heavy water moderated slow neutron thorium breeder using an organic coolant to enable high temperature low pressure operation and a structure which would absorb fewer neutrons so furthering the slow neutron breeder feature. Unfortunately the organic coolant (triphenol) turned out to polymerize under neutron bombardment. Interesting comments to European Tribune - Advice to President Obama: go for wind power A different set of comments to the same article as on theoildrum; some are most interesting. Doug Woodard St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada

Paddy Weaver (not verified)

Sun, 2009-01-25 15:02

WA has been acting like a third world nation, pushing population growth well above levels found in most developed nations and encouraging multinational companies to extract nonrenewable resources as fast as possible. All thought of secondary processing has disappeared. This State is likely to end up like some African nations, with all its easy to extract mineral and energy resources depleted and an overload of population to support. With climate change looming, the situation will only get worse -- and this all in the State which has boasted about its Sustainability Strategy. Certainly trains are less energy consumptive than planes and modern VFT may have 19% energy saving compared with conventional rail. But it doesn't take long for 19% saving to be eaten up by population growth in a country that is now adding a million people every 3 years. And don't forget the distances involved here. Try superimposing a map of Europe over WA and you will see what I mean. Mary, we need to stop talking to each other and start talking to the decision makers. My motto for 2009 dripping water on stone opens deaf ears. How about helping and sending your blogs to government and media. (Congrats on you recent West Australian letter). Best wishes, Paddy Weaver. 93861890

Anonymous (not verified)

Sun, 2009-01-25 04:39

Substitute Canada for Australia, Canadians for Australians, and British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario or many other Canadian regions for Queensland, and this powerful article almost exactly describes Canada's pathology. Tim

Anonymous (not verified)

Sun, 2009-01-25 03:12

Something to ponder:

Put together hospital waste water being recycled (drugs/microbes) along with all the other recycled water contaminants of waste water and sewerage, the location of treatment facilities and a bird flu pandemic...what would happen?

Yes, it all ends up in the dams anyway...why not put it directly into the water supply and shorten the cycle....such is life.

Research shows that chlorinated water treatments are thought to be sufficient to inactivate the avian virus in water supplies. However, chlorinated as the water is in the U.S, the water supply has been known to carry residual drugs from human consumption and waste.

This cycling of water loaded with drug levels such as tamiflu might just up the quotient for a superbug problem once discharged into dams. But then again, it doesn't have to be avian flu which triggers an epidemic.

How much chlorine to ratio of waste water will keep the water safe? Certainly the research on chlorinated water combatting avian flu wasn't quite the SEQ scenario of pumping recycled water directly into the dams in high quantities.

Looking at statistics in avian influenza outbreaks and I think of the latest case in
Beijing, recyled water and drought ...some parallels to our scenario....drinking water in Beijing is well-chlorinated...apparently.

At 24°C in the tropics the virulence of influenza viruses in water exists for 2 days.At 7°C the virulence of influenza viruses in water extends to 14 days. Ducks, rice (fields, paddies = flooded by water; farmers at work drink the water from rice paddies) and people – not chickens – have emerged as the most significant factors in the spread of avian influenza in Asian countries. It is water-borne.

Dams/water birds/bird-droppings etc...join the dots for our own water supply.

With the Brisbane flu outbreak that is now globally circulating, low dams, recyled water stages coming online in our rivers, if not dams, and even a contamination incident coverup involving hospital waste water ..that was 2008.

August 2009 is the commencement of recycled water.

So chlorine...is supposed to kill avian influenza...however goodness knows what the ratio to contaminated water will ensure effectiveness in combatting infectious microbes and of what microbes it will be effective against and under what conditions.

If microbes are in the water supply...irrigation...food....anything that comes into contact with the water poses problems.

There are no guarantees. Chlorine has negative health effects (there is no doubt on that); water treatment is expensive (dental costs are too); chlorine kills microbes (not all, not always); waste water becomes drinking water eventually (treat or regulate); tank water (vs dengue fever), water-borne epidemic (vs how long does it take to activate chlorinated water in our supply and will that be soon enough vs all you have to do is boil the water) ...what do we define as an acceptable level of water quality and *quantity*...what is acceptable risk...no guarantees suffice in such scenarios.

Guaranteeing *no risk* is an invitation to litigation. Considering the dusty? taste of the water as chlorinated liquid poured from our taps this December (smelt bad, tasted bad, improved eventually) the whole of Brisbane would be entitled to compensation ...where sediments from heavy rain stirring up dry dams may indeed be the culprits or not.

Is a guarantee of any value at all? Who in fact pays the compensation?

Catch 22.

G.R.L. Cowan, f... (not verified)

Sat, 2009-01-24 15:08

"In conventional reactors moderators (or coolants) slow the neutron firing down ..."

Coolants don't necessarily do that. A single substance might perform both functions, or there might be a moderator that cannot cool (e.g. carbon) and a coolant that cannot moderate (e.g. liquid lead). The parenthesis could be removed; mentioning coolants here serves no purpose I can see.

What is slowed down is the neutrons themselves, in the same way bowling pins slow down a bowling ball. A lead nucleus corresponds to a bowling pin so heavy that a bowling ball bounces back from it almost as fast as it was thrown, i.e., is almost unslowed.

" ... so that the neutrons hit each other more easily and accelerate the natural rate of fission."

Neutrons hit each *other*? Well, I suppose that must be possible.

Slowed neutrons travel a shorter distance through nuclear fuel before hitting, and reacting with, fuel nuclei than do fast ones.

"The Fast Breeder reactor (FBR)

Without the moderator the reactor becomes a ‘fast breeder’ with a bias towards the U238 being converted ..."

That part's good. Well, good-ish. Without the moderator, the reactor is a fast reactor, not necessarily a breeder. The bias towards converting 238-U, over fissioning 235-U, is real. Interestingly, it applies even for reactors with moderator. If the moderator gets hotter, neutron that have bounced off its nuclei come to have higher average speed, and this makes them less likely to cause fission, more likely to convert 238-U. This causes increasing temperature to act as a natural brake on fission.

--- G.R.L. Cowan (How fire can be domesticated)
www.eagle.ca/~gcowan

greg (not verified)

Thu, 2009-01-22 21:08

Spot on Ted. On behalf of shoppers everywhere, I salute your perspicacity. Quite obviously someone needs to look after us. We're completely helpless. Utterly mallified in fact.

Francis R. (not verified)

Thu, 2009-01-22 20:15

Robert Engelman,Population, Nature, and What Women Want (Island Press, Washington, DC, 2008). Engelman rejects accusations that Sanger was a racist, about eugenics: "A rebel in so many ways, Sanger disap­points her admirers today not for racial prejudice but for the con­viction that differential genetic endowments threatened progress and justified reproductive coercion. Sanger was overawed by the scientists of her day, and eugenics was seen - inaccurately - as an outgrowth of evolutionary biology. A heroine of reproductive rights, Sanger was nonetheless all too human and all too much a person of her time. Heroes and heroines usually are." (p. 193)

Vivienne (not verified)

Thu, 2009-01-22 17:10

There are some Christian churches who still follow the Genesis "go forth and multiply", and that many babies is seen as a blessing from God! Of course children are a blessing, but the numbers don't equate with the amount of "blessings". The rationale is that God wants to give His people many children so that He can replicate His love and obedience through our many children. This is in hope that many more people on this earth are influenced by His truth and love. More people for heaven! However, our planet is heading towards maximum capacity now, and humans will become more violent and spiral down the moral and ethical decline as land and resources become more in demand. We are becoming not only more secular and cynical of a faith in God, but desperate and greedy to maximise short-term rewards. A planet on life-support cannot sustain our exponential population growth! Governments will not address this issue as they will lose business sponsorships, and church leaders will not either as they see it as a conflict of interests. Therefore, we need public momentum to face our arrogant policians on this issue.

Sheila Newman

Thu, 2009-01-22 16:13

Sentiments and analysis of how the fly-in policy and the blow-up of the economy disempowered industrial and social protection is good. Your recommendations for more big infrastructure and nationalising mining would meet with support from me if it were not for overpopulation, pollution and petroleum depletion. Interesting article, however. Thanks. Sheila Newman, population sociologist home page

James Sinnamon

Wed, 2009-01-21 12:13

The following is a response to a comment made on John Quiggin's blog site in a discussion "It's over"

Sean Morris (@ #8) wrote, wrote:

"(President W) did what he had to do, OBL is in a cave, Saddam is in hell and we have another set of problems."

Osama bin Laden (OBL) and 'Al Qaeda' were, and remain to this day, an asset of the CIA, a demonic phantom enemy conjured up as a pretext for the US elites to wage endless war against anyone they deem to be standing in the way of their goals. This question has been discussed, amongst other places on the Online Opinion Forum "War: not in my name".

I suggest that people make themselves familiar with the case of the 9/11 Truth movement. Then they will find compelling evidence that it is not "Al Qaeda" which is guilty of the crime of September 11, rather is Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Meyers and many other senior members of the Bush administration.

I decided, back in September, 7 years later than I should have, to seriously study this question and have become convinced that the official US Government explanation of 9/11 is a lie.

Since then I have been engaged in a forum discussion on 9/11 Truth which, at 455 posts is the longest discussion thus far on OLO. If the US Government's expalanation of 9/11 had any merit, I believe I would have found that out by now.

I also urge people to look at these resources:

911oz.com, 911truth.org, 911bloggers.org www.patriotsquestion911.com ae911truth.orgpilotsfor911truth.org stj911.com

9/11 widow Ellen Mariani's open letter to President George W Bush at www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRBOUildaJE

The speech "I call it Treason" by retired US Air Force Colonel Dr Robert Bowman at
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4976139611627220171

Canadian journalist Barrie Zwicker's excellent 70 minute documentary "The Great Conspiracy".

admin

Tue, 2009-01-20 17:12

I probably haven't made the information about Noam Chomsky as accessible as I should have. My apologies for that. I refer Tristan to Barrie Zwicker's YouTube Broadcast "The Shame of Noam Chomsky and the Left gatekeepers" mentioned in the article about Bob Carr. What you need to appreciate is that Barrie Zwicker was a long time admirer and protege of Chomsky. However, he was troubled for a long time by the way Chomsky chose to ignore the mountains of evidence of a conspiracy to assassinate JFK as well as his diminishing of JFK's demonstrably good intentions and his resolve to stand up to the wealthy US corporate elites in his work about JFK. Most importantly of all Chomsky denied the evidence that JFK intended to withdraw US forces from Vietnam. Chomsky, in part, and not altogether consistently, hides behind a concocted 'structuralist' view which holds that individuals such as JFK (or President-elect Barack Obama for that matter) cannot change events even if they want to. So, whatever his personal wishes, he was bound to go along with the US establishment and continue escalating the war. Zwicker kept swinging backwards and forwards between questioning Chomsky and denial, but when Chomsky refused to acknowledge the glaring holes in the US government's explanation of the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 and, instead, attacked those who questioned the US government as 'conspiracy nuts', this became too much for Zwicker. Of course, in the above paragraph, I have just wandered into an area that the vast majority of all the official far-left and liberal-left in Australia consider utterly taboo. As an example, web diary adamantly refuses (linked to from 'about Webdiary' page) to even tolerate discussion on the 9/11 controversy. Nevertheless, seven years later than I should have, I began to seriously study the controversy over the September 11 attack and have over the past 4 months come to the firm conclusion that 9/11 was 'false flag' attack orchestrated by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, General Meyers and many other highly placed US government figures. During those 4 months, I have argued the issue on an Online Opinion forum "9/11 Truth" which now has almost 454 posts and is currently the longest single forum on OLO. Chomsky cannot be unaware of the compelling case of the 9/11 Truth movement. The fact that he chooses to lie about that as well as the assassinations of JFK, MLK. RFK and Malcolm X is confirmation that he is not on our side whatever may be the value of his works about US imperialism. Zwicker holds that Chomsky's literary works aimed ostensibly against US imperialism as 'bait' in order to get people to accept other ideas which serve the interests of the US oligarchy (the 'switch') and I firmly agree. For Further information on 9/11, please visit our modest collection of 9/11 Truth pages as well as Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, www.911oz.com, wearechange.org.au, 911research.wtc7.net, Firefighters for 9/11 Truth, Patriots Question 9/11, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, 911truth.org, 911blogger.com

Tristan Ewins (not verified)

Tue, 2009-01-20 12:21

Just thought I'd say that I'm surprised that anyone would call Noam Chomsky a 'phoney' - or suggest he's of 'The Dark Side'. He is one of the most prolific leftist authors in the US - and was integral in establishing 'Znet' and 'Z magazine'. Having been published in Znet - I appreciate the important work these people do and the opportunities they give to radical writers... I want to contribute to debate on this website - but I hope readers will accept my right to dissent, here, and make their own thoughts known as well. Tristan

Sheila Newman

Fri, 2009-01-16 02:55

Hi Vivienne, I have checked the articles you referenced. Thank you for attempting to make this situation more known. Australians should not feel complacent because we are travelling down the same path. Poor Peru! Is there perhaps some way Australians and others might help by contributing a bit of cash to the workers there? Post an address for donations if you have one. Sheila Newman, population sociologist home page

Vivienne (not verified)

Thu, 2009-01-15 18:38

This company was purchased by Chinese interests Zijin Mining Group and is now called Rio Blanco. For a long time Monterrico Metals and the authorities denied everything, but now with medical proof and photographic evidence… their denials actually provide further grounds for charges to be brought. The doctor who examined the tortured people has also been charged with the crime of expedition of false medical certificates, as he did not affirm the evidence of tortures presented to him. Over 90% of people who cast their vote did so against mining. The result was a resounding 'No'. President Garcia stated he refuses to listen to "illiterate" peasants influenced by NGOs. Little public funds are spent on education and teachers aren't being paid! Andrew Bristow, investor relations manager at Monterrico, declined to comment on the merit of the torture case.

Sheila Newman

Thu, 2009-01-15 11:05

Brian, Great, detailed article. To get a greater feel for the numbers I would like readers to be aware of the difference in permanency provisions in different countries. In Australia 'permanent immigration' means 'permanent, lifetime', but in Europe, it usually means for up to one year and, in Germany, up to three months. Permanency in the European Union countries can only be achieved through naturalisation. It would be useful to know what the rate of 'naturalisation' i.e. 'permanency' is in the non-EU European countries. And, where unnaturalised immigrants have children, in which countries do and don't those children automatically become nationals? Also, the info here on Portugal is very interesting. Portugal was, I think, like the English speaking states including Britain, much influenced by a male primogeniture, which increases tendencies to aggregate land and then to speculate on it in the presence of population pressure. I wonder if this is a part of what is operating in Portugal - land speculation. Sheila Newman, population sociologist home page Copyright to the author. Please contact sheila [AT] candobetter org or the editor if you wish to make substantial reproduction or republish.

Vivienne (not verified)

Wed, 2009-01-14 07:42

The Victorian government has blamed population growth for an increase in greenhouse pollution. Individuals can do their "bit" to reduce pollution, and domestic water usage, but governments need to stop being contradictory in their policies and practices!

Acting Victorian Premier Rob Hulls said population growth was to blame for the spike in emissions! Why don't they do something to address this problem? Our government is has no population plan, and people are being added, as consumers, to enhance the demand for goods and services despite compromising our environment or any attempts to address climate change. Our metropolitan boundaries and being continually swelled, increasing our dependency on petrol and food miles, and native vegetation is being cleared at a rate of 4000 ha a year! We are world-standard wildlife eradicators!

Until we consistency and holistic efforts from our governments, at all levels, to stop the environmental destruction and atmospheric pollution, there is little individuals can do. Victoria's policies are dominated by commercial forces, and our State will continue to become a scorched, polluted and damaged unless we see some real leadership.

Subject was "Limited to what individuals can do to limit climate change" - JS

Anonymous (not verified)

Mon, 2009-01-12 12:52

Thanks Ian, but would still apportion most of the blame to our Green "watchdogs". I don't expect businesses or developers to behave "ethically" anymore than I expect bank robbers not to rob banks. That is what they do. They are after money. And shareholders expect nothing less. There is no morality or immorality about that. Chasing profit is the nature of the beast. But we rely on other people to blow the whistle for us. And they aren't doing it. Why? At one time, myopia and political correctness sufficed to provide answers, but now it is clear to me that corruption is at the heart of it. The Sierra Club and the David Suzuki Foundation and Nature Conservancy, to name three, are bought and paid for by the big credit institutions that feed off development and home buying loans. No wonder they won't reveal who their donations are. (Or how much their directors are paid). I articulated this feeling in the following essay: THE NIGHT WATCHMEN WHO FELL ASLEEP ON THE JOB "The economy we're evolving into will be un-global, necessarily local and regional, and austere. It won't support even our current population. This being the case, the political fallout is also liable to be severe. For one thing, we'll have to put aside our sentimental fantasies about immigration." James Kunstler , futurist, author of “The Long Emergency” Did that sink in, Mr. Olivia Chow (Jack Layton), Elizabeth May, Sierra Club, Suzuki Foundation, and assorted soft green dupes of the corporate cheap labour agenda? Renewables won’t fuel your growth economy nor support your never ending shopping list of social services. There will be no “global” market place to compete with to justify your madness. And no fantasy technologies to recover the ecological damage that your immigrant-driven population growth policies have inflicted on our landscape. Suzuki said that politicians who denied AGW climate change should be jailed. Sounds like a good prescription for the population deniers. Maybe when this is done, and the system crashes, there will be a Nuremburg Trial for those who shoved 5 million consumers down the throat of Canada’s environment since 1990----the number of immigrants that we have suffered since the mass immigration binge began. The first to be executed will not be the politicians but the leaders of the environmental movement, who should have been our watchdogs, but instead were the silent partners to the wildlife holocaust and loss of farmland that consequently took place. They are the Marshall Petains of the occupation we have endured, the Green Collaborators who have tried to pacify us with slogans like “smart growth”, “green living” and “renewable technologies”---as if we could live with infinite increases in our total consumption by reducing our per capita consumption, by being good “Green Citizens” and being clever in steering growth in the “right” direction. We hired them as night watchmen to take care of business but when morning broke we found that our business had been robbed---all along they have been asleep on the job. Their resume of boy scout community work, of do-good and feel-good environmentalism made a good impression in the job interview but failed the litmus test of actually protecting the environment when it needed protecting the most. Like a rotten sundeck railing it offered us false assurance of safety from disaster, but when tested by the forces of growth we have all gone over the edge. It would have better had we saved our donations and our illusions and been without a railing altogether. Then perhaps we might have fended for ourselves and directed our resources into authentic institutions that would resist madness. When history is written it will read that the environmental NGOs together with their talking heads---the Greens, the socialists, the social democrats, the progressives and the liberals---not only did nothing to prepare us for the Long Emergency---but they actually made us even more unprepared for it. The superstructure of social services that they insist on building up when the status quo cannot even be sustained is all funded by revenues from a fossil fuel economy. But instead of weaning us away from dependence on the state, in their bidding war for the feminist, immigrant and progressive constituency they promise more child benefits, more daycare spaces, broader medical coverage for unproven New Age medicine and more money for the proven failures of conventional medicine, free college tuitions, and more and more regulations that can only be enforced by a growing and expensive bureaucracy. All of this of course, is never paid for by “the people”, by some shadowy abstraction called the “big corporations” with whom “the people”, and their unions, have shares in, and which can take flight at the click of a mouse when taxes get uncompetitive. They believe in limiting the behaviour of corporations but not limiting the appetite of unsustainable government. As things take a steep downward spiral the tax grab will get frantic, but in trying to get blood out of a stone they will only succeed in chasing away what remains of their diminishing tax base. Read Gibbon’s treatise on the decline of the Roman Empire and follow the course of Diocletian’s reign. Same scenario. The companion policy to tax and spend is more growth. That too is the trade mark of social democratic-progressive administrations. They can’t deliver their basket of social welfare goodies with income redistribution because of capital flight so they become growthists. But to salve their conscience they attach with great fanfare a “Green Agenda” to the program. A “cake and eat it” platform. Every NDP leader in Canada has espoused the same line. Jack Layton repeated what NDP Premier Lorne Calvert had once said. That the only thing that was wrong with growth was that its “benefits” were not evenly shared. Green Party leader Elizabeth May meanwhile recently joined the attack on the Harper government for not countering the recession that the country was falling into following the financial meltdown in the fall. Economic growth was called for---this from a leader who once mouthed the old slogan that “growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.” We are on a ship of fools with a corporate captain. But his “challengers” would have taken us on the same course to disaster. Tim Murray Quadra Island, BC December 16/08

Patricia Wheeldon (not verified)

Sun, 2009-01-11 08:36

Despite the fact that the largest ever study of teeth (250,000 individuals studied), in the Australian Research Council Population Oral Health Report 2000 (ARCPOH), the Kempsey shire in NSW showed better permanent teeth than all of Sydney (except for the North Shore, where only a small improvement was demonstrated in permanent teeth) - KEMPSEY HAS NEVER BEEN FLUORIDATED - SYDNEY HAS BEEN FLUORIDATED FOR 50 YEARS - KEMPSEY HAS BEEN RATED AS ONE OF THE POOREST AREAS IN NSW in both the Australian Bureau of Statistics reports and the Vinson Report. Despite this, Kempsey is targeted agressively by NSW "Health" for water fluoridation. NSW Health refused to attend the only meeting organised by the community, in which was present an expert on water fluoridation - the meeting was organised with an independent adjudicator. NSW "Health" has been unable to produce the statistics of adverse health affects caused to water workers handling the fluoridation chemicals and has likewise been unable to produce the exact chemical analysis of fluoridation chemicals - even when asked in Parliament. The Australian Government has also been unable to produce any of the above. Patricia Wheeldon

Vivienne (not verified)

Sat, 2009-01-10 10:06

Our governments at State and Federal levels not only benefit from a growing population, but rake in more taxes and charges, including ETS. Their most powerful voter groups are the developers and businesses who rely on an increasing population to feed on a continual demand for goods and services - manufacturing, consumerism and land developments! Climate change is being given lip-service, despite their rhetoric of "sustainable" industries and growth! The approval of the north-south pipeline and the desalination plant, despite public protests, is evidence that we have have grown beyond our natural water limits. Besides the environmental impacts of these monstrosities, they will help (?) to artificially ensure water for an ever increasing population! This is making our reliance on an life-essential resource more and more fragile and technology dependant.

Anonymous (not verified)

Fri, 2009-01-09 20:31

Well, at least one former Labor minister is asking "What the hell is going on?" From The Spectator: Balance population with quality of life Barry Cohen Wednesday, 10th December 2008 Unless I’ve been grievously misled, global warming/climate change is caused by the excessive amount of carbon emissions poured into the atmosphere. The major offenders are the developed countries, and the more affluent members of them in particular. Near the top of the list is our good selves with a footprint Ian Thorpe would envy. And what, I hear you ask, has been Australia’s response? Well for starters, the government has ratified Kyoto; it is developing a carbon trading emissions scheme and is investing in a range of alternative energy proposals, including hybrid cars, solar energy, clean coal, wind and much more. Australia is taking global warming seriously. There are no sceptics or deniers in the Rudd government. There is one problem. An increasing number of people are finding it difficult to equate our climate change initiatives with our immigration policy. Carbon emissions, we are told, are caused by people and affluent people in particular. Ergo, the more affluent nations are the more carbon emitted. You don’t have to be a climatologist, an economist or a demographer to work that out, you just need an IQ above room temperature. Part of the solution therefore, and I stress the word ‘part’, would be to reduce or at least stabilise our population. As reduction is nigh on impossible, that leaves stabilisation as the only alternative. And what are we doing to achieve that? Increasing the annual migrant intake to 190,000, which is double the number during the first year of the Howard government. That doesn’t include 100,000 temporary skilled workers allowed in on 457 visas. One has to be very careful here, for anyone questioning immigration numbers runs the risk of being branded a racist. Nevertheless, I believe it behoves me to ask politely, ‘What the hell is going on?’ If there was a public debate about the level of immigration in the run-up to the last election, I must have missed it. Now, however, we find both government and Coalition united in favour of a dramatic increase in our annual migrant intake. For 2008-9, the projected figure is 203,800 plus 100,000 on 457 visas. When the Chifley government initiated the post-war immigration programme, the slogan was ‘Populate or Perish’. One justification was that having just fought a ferocious war with Japan, we needed to build up our population to defend Australia against ‘the yellow peril’. The White Australia policy was alive and well. Our population of six and a half million could not justify our occupation of such a vast empty continent. Economies of scale would enable us to produce goods at a lower price and increase our ability to export. Only the last of these three reasons has any validity today, and even that is questionable. Our export income is no longer dependant on the mass production of consumer goods. Specialised quality production, agriculture, mining, tourism and educational services earn most of our foreign currency. The latest excuse for increased population is a shortage of skilled labour. Those arguing the case may be right, but in doing so they should answer the following questions: how many of our current unemployed can be trained to fill these jobs? What effort is being made to train unemployed Aborigines in northern Australia where the mining boom is creating demand for the many skilled and highly paid jobs available, or do we believe they are incapable of being trained? If more skilled labour is required, why can’t we cut, at least, temporarily, the numbers brought in under family reunion and humanitarian categories? Halving both categories would reduce the annual intake by 35,000. What impact will the current increase have on our population level? When will we achieve those levels? What then? Where will new migrants live? Where will the water come from to service them? I could continue, but I’m sure you get my drift. Which brings me to my life-long obsession, that governments never connect the dots between increasing population numbers and the ‘crises’ that daily beset our citizens — congested roads, air and water pollution, prohibitive land prices, housing shortages, overcrowded hospitals and schools and so on. And that’s before the impact of climate change. Why am I so obsessed? I was born in 1935 when Australia’s population was around five and a half million. When I became an MP in 1969 it was 12 million. It is now 21 million. In my lifetime the population has almost quadrupled. On 10 June 1970 I asked PM John Gorton for a cost benefit analysis of immigration, and in a speech that followed asked, ‘We all know that if we follow unthinkingly the present immigration programme we will reach any figure we care to name: 25, 50, 100, 200…. The question is, when? Will it be by the year 2000, 2050, 2100, 2200 or 2300?’ The above led to the then minister for immigration, Phillip Lynch, appointing Professor Borrie to lead an inquiry into population. Unfortunately, the Borrie Report, when tabled, avoided the question of numbers. In fact, no federal government has been prepared to answer the following question: How many people can Australia contain and ensure that each and every citizen has a genuine quality of life? If our population doubles in the next 40 years, as it has done in the past 40, what will life be like in Melbourne with seven million people and Sydney with eight million? The mind boggles. All these questions must be asked and publicly debated before any attempt is made to substantially increase our population, and certainly before we take the Garnaut Review seriously.

Anonymous (not verified)

Fri, 2009-01-09 20:24

On the issue of cultural and demographic self-determination, author and American immigration reduction advocate Roy Beck makes the observation: "It is interesting that many advocates of high immigration have no trouble appreciating the desire of an Egypt, a Nepal, a Kenya, a Brazil, a Mexico, a Norway or a Jamaica to have the right of self-determination and to maintain their national cultures. But they consider it somehow illegitimate for the U.S., Canada, Australia and sometimes a few European countries to set immigration levels in the self-interest of their own citizens or to maintain their own cultures." According to Anthony Browne, a British advocate of reduced immigration, this double standard represents: "... an issue of almost total, mind-numbing hypocrisy among western governments and political elites. They defend the inalienable right of other peoples – the Palestinians, Tibetans, native Americans – to defend their culture, but not the right of their own peoples. It is vital to emphasise that mass immigration and the remarkably intolerant ideology of multiculturalism are exclusively western phenomena. Indeed, the striking thing about the global immigration debate in the west is its determined parochialism. If people in India, China, or Africa were asked whether they have a right to oppose mass immigration on such a scale that it would transform their culture, the answer would be clear. Yet uniquely among the 6 billion people on the planet, westerners – the approximately 800 million in western Europe, North America and Australasia – are expected by the proponents of mass immigration and multiculturalism to abandon any right to define or shape their own society." source The example of Tibet is particularly relevant. As Australian Denis McCormack notes: "Australia's educated and political elite have long supported the dalai lama's cause. It is curious, therefore, that this same respectably veneered class is the mainstay of the push for Australia to be "integrated" with Asia. Mass immigration and its Trojan horse, "multiculturalism," are the openly preferred policy tools toward this outcome." He asks the question: "Given that the irreversible cultural shifts being brought about by sustained mass immigration are no more sanctioned by the majority of Australians, Canadians, or Americans than they are by the Tibetans, what does this tell us about the legitimacy of the two-party, representational, democratic political systems we all rely on? If who we are, and what we look like, along with our language and cultural biases can be so vulnerable to radical change, are these not the most serious and urgent grounds for reshaping the machinery of government? It matters little whether mass immigration policy is forced at the point of a bayonet from without, or through gradualist, undemocratic, long-term bipartisanship from within - both paths lead eventually to the "pond."" When will the historic majority populations of the West stand up and start demanding some say over their cultural and demographic destinies? Or is it already too late?

Anonymous (not verified)

Fri, 2009-01-09 19:43

JS wrote: "It should still be possible for Europeans to find a way to stop their becoming demographically overwhelmed if they stand up for their rights assertively."

Good point. I also believe that the historic European and European-descended populations of the West have not only a right, but an obligation, to collectively stand up their own interests. Throughout history, being dispossessed and displaced as a people has been universally regarded as a bad thing. I do not see why the historic majority populations of Western countries are obliged to meekly sit back and allow themselves to become marginalised and minoritised as a result of mass immigration. Merely wanting to determine one's own cultural and demographic destiny has nothing to do with "racism" or a hatred of other peoples. No more than putting the interests of your own family first constitutes hatred toward somebody else's family.

Part of the reason why European-descended peoples are reluctant to assert their own group interests is because of the charge of "racism". This charge has prevented us from properly debating the immigration issue.

As American writer Lawrence Auster notes:

The very manner in which the issue is framed—as a matter of equal rights and the blessings of diversity on one side, versus “racism” on the other—tends to cut off all rational discourse on the subject. One can only wonder what would happen if the proponents of open immigration allowed the issue to be discussed, not as a moralistic dichotomy, but in terms of its real consequences. Instead of saying: “We believe in the equal and unlimited right of all people to immigrate to the U.S. and enrich our land with their diversity,” what if they said: “We believe in an immigration policy which must result in a staggering increase in our population, a revolution in our culture and way of life, and the gradual submergence of our current population by Hispanic and Caribbean and Asian peoples.” Such frankness would open up an honest debate between those who favor a radical change in America’s ethnic and cultural identity and those who think this nation should preserve its way of life and its predominant, European-American character. That is the actual choice—as distinct from the theoretical choice between “equality” and “racism”—that our nation faces. But the tyranny of silence has prevented the American people from freely making that choice.

Vivienne (not verified)

Fri, 2009-01-09 00:58

The status quo of what the human species does, even over thousands of years, is not necessarily justified as "natural", or "normal"! We humans are very much a herd species, and the instinct to continue what has been done by our culture and ancestors before us is very strong. We follow the herd, often blindly without thinking! Taking milk from cattle may have been done sustainably in the past, and helped malnourished or orphaned children. However, now dairy foods are seen as a "need" rather than a special treat, a luxury! The environmental cost of dairy, in land, air and water pollution, is enourmous! If tasty alternatives from plant sources can be produced, and they are becoming more available and improved, they should be promoted. Foods sourced from livestock are inefficient and compromises our environment. As humans, we have the ability to make moral judgements, and not be blinded by culture and commercial pressures.

Ian Rudd

Thu, 2009-01-08 12:19

A good article Tim. We quite rightly expect environmental NGOs and their people to act ethically and not accept bribes that compromise their values. Strangely though we expect and accept that the home building industry and other big business interests will chase their bottom line by whatever means necessary and will act unethically in doing so. The problem lies, I think, not so much with the ethic of the NGOs but with the lack of ethics from business and of course above all with our governments.

thompsonlewis (not verified)

Wed, 2009-01-07 18:17

coal to liquids plant is cheaper to build than most other alternative fuel plants but more costly than a conventional oil refinery. The capital cost of coal to liquids plants is expected to decrease through the ongoing development of technology.

ilan

Tue, 2009-01-06 22:15

perhaps the tide is at last turning... From the left, a call to end the current Dutch notion of tolerance ... Two weeks ago, the country's biggest left-wing political grouping, the Labor Party, which has responsibility for integration as a member of the coalition government led by the Christian Democrats, issued a position paper calling for the end of the failed model of Dutch "tolerance." It came at the same time Nicolas Sarkozy was making a case in France for greater opportunities for minorities that also contained an admission that the French notion of equality "doesn't work anymore." But there was a difference. If judged on the standard scale of caution in dealing with cultural clashes and Muslims' obligations to their new homes in Europe, the language of the Dutch position paper and Lilianne Ploumen, Labor's chairperson, was exceptional. The paper said: "The mistake we can never repeat is stifling criticism of cultures and religions for reasons of tolerance." Government and politicians had too long failed to acknowledge the feelings of "loss and estrangement" felt by Dutch society facing parallel communities that disregard its language, laws and customs. Newcomers, according to Ploumen, must avoid "self-designated victimization." ... lots more in the article

psychiatric nurse (not verified)

Tue, 2009-01-06 19:08

Fluoride researcher wrote,"Who knows how much water is drunk by each individual?" Good point. I am a psychiatric nurse and, just today, I learned that one of my patients drinks up to 20 litres of water a day. This is enough to risk water intoxication, but that water is also fluoridated... The amount that individuals - human and other species drink - varies enormously, as does the rate that they excrete. To me it is quite clear that there must be another agenda, since fluoride is already so available. I think that Mr Truman is a reactionary; someone who feels they have to defend the government because they have a need to trust it as an authority. This is a child-like attitude towards figures who like to parade themselves like parents. It takes real free adults to question anointed authority.

Fluoride Researcher (not verified)

Tue, 2009-01-06 15:52

David Truman: Canberra's water was not fluoridated until 1964 so how can you make the assumption that it was because of no fluoride in Brisbane's water that you had bad teeth. No-one in Qld should be given any form of fluoride because of our climate. Townsville's Douglas Water Treatment Plant emits 20 tonnes of fluoride per year into the atmosphere. No health bodies in Australia are testing the blood levels of fluoride. No one is calculating the other intakes of fluoride from food and air pollution It is now classed as a deficiency disease with a daily dose that can be only calculated by measuring the amount of dilutent used-in Australia this happens to be municipal treated potable water. Who knows how much water is drunk by each individual? You don't know if you have skeletal fluorosis from living in Canberra for 37 years.

Merilyn Haines

Tue, 2009-01-06 13:57

Dear David Are you saying that you lived in Canberra for 37 years and that proved fluoridation is safe? If you smoked cigarettes for 37 yrs and didn't have lung cancer would you say smoking was safe? Fluoridation is not safe, there are thousands of scientific references linking fluoride to adverse health effects, yet fluoridation promoters say it is safe only because it has been in use for 50 years. Just look at the time it took for health authorities to admit that smoking, asbestos, lead in petrol, thalidomide etc, etc, causes harm. After 150 years of Dentists using Mercury fillings it is finally starting to be publicly acknowledged that this is a potentially harmful practice ( Sweden and Norway banned a year ago ) You would think that in the last 50 yrs the NHMRC , the AMA or the ADA may have done just one Health and Safety study to look at the effects of fluoridation on health and yet they haven't. And, why would the Qld govt claim safety on one hand and remove all liability on the other if they really believed it was safe ? Water fluoridation is very strongly linked to Dental Fluorosis,Thyroid dysfuntion, allergies, Osteosarcoma, and increased risk of hip fractures. Yet the Qld govt denies everything, even claiming no such thing as allergies despite double blind trials proving the case. Also David, you will be very disappointed if you look up the latest Australia Adult and Childrens Dental Surveys ( google ARCPOH to find where they are published ) You will find that the majority of adults in other states who have been drinking fluoridated water for 40 years have the same tooth decay ( or more ) than Queensland adults. You will aslo find that after drinking fluoridated water for 12 years children in other states can have more tooth decay than Qld kids . The ADA only refers to baby teeth where there is a small difference ( possibly because of tooth eruption delay from ingested fluoride ) because water fluoridation can be seen not to work when you look at permanent teeth at age 12 yrs ( the WHO International standard for comparing totoh decay. Futhermore the last 3 Qld Children's Dental Surveys show Townsville kids by age 12 have more decay than several unfluoridated Qld Health districts. Apart from the fact that fluoridation doesn't work and causes harm it is a matter of ethics. The Qld Govt Positiion Statement of 2003 clearly states that without the express consent of the community , fluoridation is unethical mass medication. ( and without determination of individual need , pre-existing medical conditions or even follow-up monitoring. There is no control over dose, it depende how much you drink and how much you excrete. If you believe in fluoride, it is everywhere already , in toothpaste. fluoridated mouth washes, fluoride tablets and soon to be in bottled water if Coca Cola gets their way. I don't want a S6 Poison, that does not exist in nature, but is created in the wet scrubbers of Super Phosphate fertilizer plants ( and inported from Belgium which does not allow water fluoridation or sale of fluoride tablets or even fluoride chewing gum ) put into my water, my family and friends drinking water. If you want to drink fluoridated water , you are welcome to buy tablets and dissolve them in water . Medication should be a matter of choice. No politician should be able to force it on people. We should have a choice by Referendum at the very least, but Anna Bligh would't be game as she knows how many peolpe don't want fluoridation forced on them when push comes to shove. Merilyn Haines spokesperson for Queenslanders For Safe Water, Air and Food Inc www.qawf.org info@ qawf.org

James Sinnamon

Tue, 2009-01-06 09:17

I apologise to those who might feel offended because I approved the above post with the included put down "GET A LIFE".

In future, I will consider not approving such posts, or at least removing from them such abuse.

If David had given this matter any thought, he would be expressing gratitude to others such as Merilyn, who selflessly put there own time and money towards rectifying the appalling actions that those in office, supposedly there to represent our best interests, inflict on the public almost every day of the year.

He should ponder what sort of world we would live in if people like Merilyn, instead, chose to spend more of their time going to the beach, drinking at the pub, watching television, going bushwalking, playing golf, etc., etc as I am sure she would love to be able to do.

It's interesting that the above post uses precisely the kind of anti-scientific approach that it claims that Merilyn is guilty of using. He implicitly claims his own experience of having drunk fluoridated water confirms its claimed benefits and refutes any claims of harm.

However, the far stronger evidence of serious harm caused to the health of Merilyn's sister is dismissed out of hand.

Indeed, if we consistently applied the method employed in the post, aren't we also entitled to conclude that fluoridation makes a person more intolerant?

Also, if is so sure of the benefits of fluoride, when can't he simply take fluoride tablets himself and not force others to take that medication?

I suggest David just take the time to understand the case against fluoridation at www.qawf.org, or, if he is unable to do this, at least support the democratic right of Queenslanders to vote in this issue as they were able to recently at the time of the US Presidential elections. During those elections 47 districts in the US voted to end fluoridation whilst only 13 voted for fluoridation.

Quiet Tasmania's picture

Quiet Tasmania

Mon, 2009-01-05 21:15

This Petition may be signed now at
http://gopetition.com/online/24313.html

Here's the wording:

This petition draws to the attention of all governments:

The huge and growing number of dogs kept in the suburban environment;

That most dogs are kept in the suburbs under conditions of close confinement;

That the suburbs comprise a totally unnatural environment for an animal congenitally programmed to free-range;

That innumerable confined backyard dogs are left unattended by their owners because of work commitments, especially during the daytime;

That many of these dogs bark intermittently or continuously because of their boredom, frustration, confinement and deprivation of animal and human contact;

That such extended isolation to a dog, a social animal by nature, can be torture;

That the dog commonly vents its frustration, anguish and torment by whining, howling and loud continuous barking; and

That such barking is increasingly noxious to nearby humans, is often damaging to their health, and is usually in contravention of barking control laws now so commonly left almost entirely unenforced by reckless animal control authorities having regulatory powers but refusing to use them.

Your Petitioners therefore ask all governments to:

Create the Dog Control Act offence "Leaving a Dog Unattended"; and

Compel enforcement by authorised persons with the words:

"It is the obligation of any person on whom a function is imposed or a power is conferred under this Act to perform the function or to exercise the power..."

David Truman (not verified)

Mon, 2009-01-05 16:41

Bruce Bell is quoted as saying "There is no way any sane person who examined the mountain of scientific evidence could ever support these toxins going into our water. "

Well Merilyn and Bruce, I had nearly six years of childhood in Brisbane in the 1950s and had tooth fillings at a very young age. I lived in Canberra for 37 years from 1963 to 2000 and drank fluoridated water for the whole of this time. Melbourne and Sydney have fluoride also.

Merilyn attributes her health problems in Townsville to fluoride in the water there. (Actually, it was Merilyn's sister. - JS) Not a very scientific conclusion - association is not causation.

If her supposition held water (!) then one might expect there to be many, many similar cases over the many decades of fluoridation of our great cities (Sydney and Melbourne between them have about 8 million people.)

What evidence is there for this?

Until you can adduce some hard evidence for this, I will continue to regard the anti-fluoridation lobby as NUT CASES. So typical of the usually ignorant populism that has so benighted the state of Queensland in the past. Pitiable and contemptible. GET A LIFE.

Matthew Ridgeway (not verified)

Mon, 2009-01-05 16:06

Options.. Pet free living. Pet free communities for those that CHOOSE NOT TO LIVE AMONGST OTHER ANIMALS in residential areas primarily intended for people. Give us this choice please! Licensing to own pets, ANY KIND! To ensure pets are wanted by the pet owner and attended to properly 24/7/365. Laws that are enforced 24/7/365 to ensure peace in our communities over insane dog barking, animal waste and neglect of duty to animal care and neighborhood considerations. Not much to ask for really. Makes a lot of sense, but impossible to get legislators to even look at it. Government fails here time and time again. Every dog bark, bite, attack and killing of a person highlights the failure of government to protect our communities from irresponsible pet owners and dangerous pets.

admin

Mon, 2009-01-05 14:51

I received the following in an e-mail. - JS There are numerous examples worldwide as well as In Australia but IF (and it is a BIG "if") the intention is securing an adequate AND healthy supply of water for potable purposes, then it makes sense to introduce recycled water back into the storage sources when they are as full as possible in order to dilute impurities of all types. So delaying adding recycled water until there is a desperate need is not a good idea (but makes sense if desal is involved) ... especially if it simply reinforces the potentially insecure "public" propaganda and/or optimism that created the shortage or lack of security in the first place ... as appears to be the case with all sorts of people forecasting increased rainfall. The aspect is the delightful topic of "risk" and politics ... whereby everything is assessed by risk rather than by reality ... so we want to kill sharks and crocodiles when an attack occurs .. but not ban cars ... indeed I got into some trouble some years ago for suggesting we celebrate only killing 150 people per year ... yet the celebrations continue ... unlike any other industry I know ... and certainly, unlike recycled water ...!

audrey robb (not verified)

Mon, 2009-01-05 12:17

The reason the dog and cat populations are exploding is, many of us believe, because it is being pushed by the pet industry - more pets means more pet food sold, etc., even though 90% of the pets lead miserable and suffering lives. Who cares? Pet food is now one of the biggest industries in the world. There is relentless advertsing to encourage people to get a dog. Notice how every second commercial on T.V. contains a dog? Even the President-elect of the U.S.A. is pushing owning a dog. As for Oprah Winfrey!! The biggest pet food producers are the Nestle and Mars companies (yes, the chocolate people). They now want to open the huge markets in India and China. Meantime there are 75,000 stray dogs in Mumbai (Bombay). Sir Paul McCartney, Pamela Anderson and the like are protesting the fact that Bombay officials want the dogs destroyed. These do-gooders want all 75,000 dogs desexed and apparently released back to the streets. Does that make sense? We've been saying for years that all, I repeat all, potential owners of any, repeat any, pet, should be first screened for suitability of ownership, and be licensed to keep the pet (as now happens ion Switzerland). Getting this licence entails taking a 10-week course in pet ownership to be paid for by the potential owner. This would cut back somewhat on this cruelty to companion animals. But the pet industry will fight it to the death. For some good analyses of the dog problem go to these two U.S. sites: www.barkingdogs.net dogassault.com Audrey

James Sinnamon

Sun, 2009-01-04 16:50

Whilst I strongly agree with your first petition:

"We, the undersigned, acting compassionately in the interests of human and animal welfare, request the world-wide formation of Dog-free Communities ..."

... I wouldn't be able to bring myself to support the second:

"We, the undersigned acting compassionately in the interests of human and animal welfare, require all regulatory and control authorities to recognise the suffering and cruelty being inflicted on dogs, and as a consequence through barking and bloody attacks, on mankind everywhere.

"We petition to legislate for the removal of dogs from societies everywhere except in special cases where this animal's behaviour is socially beneficial."

In a sense I would agree, but it would be hard to legally define 'socially beneficial'. What is important is that people not be subjected to the noise of barking dogs and that dogs not be subject to the cruelty that would cause theme to bark excessively.

The critical problem in most parts of the country that we don't have space to spread out.

We should be able to live with people who are compatible with ourselves, but because living space and housing stock is so limited, many of us are made to live, for example, with people who like having loud drunken parties going to three in the morning breathing down our necks.

People who are not troubled by the sound of incessantly barking dogs (provided that we can be confident that they are not barking because of cruelty) should live together away from the rest of us who are (or, perhaps, vice versa).

Peter Bright (not verified)

Sun, 2009-01-04 15:46

Those disturbed by Australia's increasing obsession with dogs, an animal congenitally programmed to free-range but universally kept cruelly incarcerated by unsuitable owners, are invited to sign my Dog-free Communities petition at gopetition.com/online/17921.html and those even more enlightened souls who realise that the whole dog problem is getting out of control are invited to sign my No Dogs Anywhere petition at gopetition.com/online/13210.html.

Tim M (not verified)

Sat, 2009-01-03 15:30

I was remiss in not taking the time to compliment the multi-talented Sheila Newman for once again taking a bland plate of food and spicing it up considering with some eye-catching and typically novel graphics. We have to face facts. While style alone does not suffice, it as at least as important as substance. The product not only does not sell itself without the right marketing, but in this case, and in the case of so many articles on this website, it becomes, in reader's eyes, a different product altogether. I am not saying what another Canadian said almost a half century ago, that the medium IS the message, I am simply saying that the medium makes it a different message. Ms. Newman always makes it a more conspicuous and potent one. Too much talent in too many areas and too little time to exploit all of it. That kind of frustration must be hell. Thanks again, Sheila Newman. PS Editor James S. also does much to improve presentations by breaking essays up under subtitles. Good work that is rewarded I am sure with more visits to the site. Odd that we know that we can blow a job interview by not taking the time to make ourselves presentable but that so many of us bloggers will spend hours and hours to research and write articles and give no thought to how they look on the screen.

Vivienne (not verified)

Thu, 2009-01-01 09:44

Boosting our economy through brute population growth is the "dumb" and easiest way, but the most foolish! Our industrial revolution and population growth has been supported and promoted through cheap fossil fuels. Once this carbon era is over, the infrustructure that supports our high population and industries will melt down like a stack of cards! Kevin Rudd is still in denial, and is not facing up to the reality of a post-carbon age. We need to be scaling up renewable energy sources, and the transport and the infrustructures to support our population in the future. At least Obama has promised billion of dollars towards renewable energy. Kevin Rudd is no more enlightened than Howard!

Anonymous (not verified)

Wed, 2008-12-31 16:34

This paragraph was added in a revised version, as an insertion between the last paragraph and the one ending with "Truth, integrity and courage are its casualties." We knew that the environmental NGOs were myopic, hypocritical, soft, politically correct and cowardly, but how many of us thought that they were so fundamentally corrupt? I suppose after the David Gelbaum affair, we should not have been surprised, when the Sierra Club of America can accept a $100 million bribe to keep its longstanding support of restricted immigration off the policy books we should not expect that money-grubbing green NGOs north of the 49th should not fall prey to the same temptations. The difference is, at least a third of the Sierra Club in the US couldn’t stomach corruption, including three time Nobel Peace Prize nominee and co-founder of Earth Day, David Brower, a standard bearer of the organization for so many years, who quit because he knew that immigration was an environmental issue that had to be confronted. It was as if the Pope had resigned from the Vatican in protest. Alas there are no David Browers in Canada, only David Gelbaums on Bay Street with their hush money for green groups who will tow the corporate line and decoy sincere dupes at the grassroots level with inconsequential feel-good volunteer work which is akin to polishing the furniture in a burning house. Tim Murray

Jorge (not verified)

Wed, 2008-12-31 15:36

Wow, that sad little developer in the ruined field - says it all. He has sold his soul.

bill T (not verified)

Sun, 2008-12-28 16:53

As a trader for an investment firm I can say this.

Greed made the price go up as with food prices in 07-08.

Some other traders & hedge fund managers feel this way. We need to get speculators out of this area. I can buy lots of oil options and never take title to it. Hell, I know guys who were getting $1 in hard assets and getting $5 in credit, that buys lots of oil options.

As a trader I should not have the right to buy oil or a food based contract unless i am willing to take delivery of it at some point.

Anonymous (not verified)

Sun, 2008-12-28 12:00

Yeah, our society is warped. Ok, we have pets and allow them room, but we all really gotta get away from the pet shops. We need to face the fact thousands of pets die because of being strays, while avoiding buying puppies and other animals from petshops, who derive their animals- products - from puppy farms. Its really bad. Councils need to be more active in making it cumpulsory to have pets desexed. It needs to be people in our society who are willing to turn away from abuse and desex their pets! Indirectly, they will contribute to euthanased animals, perfectly good pets, all because of selfishness and an overpopulation of stray dogs and cats in our nation.

Vivienne (not verified)

Sun, 2008-12-28 09:13

Kevin Rudd, before becoming our Prime Minister, condemned the Howard government's "hollow words and inaction" in failing to stop Japan's criminal whaling. In 2007 the Federal Labor party announced a "fresh approach to end whaling, taking an international and domestic leadership role to protect these beautiful animals". Now they are our government, we need to see these promises fulfilled and some integrity shown by our Prime Minister.

Sea Shepherd Conservation Society reports that our government immigration officials have actually been hostile towards their presence in Australia! The crew aren't allowed to wear bullet-proof vests. Are we apologists for the Japanese now, and have to cringe to them? Our trade relations with Japan are totally unrelated dimensions to our relationship with them. Subservience does not benefit healthy relations with another nation!

Being immune from crime in the Antarctic should not depend on the economic power of the crew's origin. Japan doesn't need the whale meat - they have strategic interests in the area, and their national pride is at stake.

The whaling fleet's presence in Australian Antarctic Territory is violent and illegal on both domestic and international levels. There is no "science" about these brutal killings. Kevin Rudd should fulfil his pre-election promises and stop the violation of the Whale Sanctuary and take sovereign authority in the AAT.

greg (not verified)

Sat, 2008-12-27 16:41

The elite have one over-riding aim. To preserve and possibly elevate that privileged status. The visible elite are not the dominant elite. The former, the politicians, the pundits, the public and private bureaucrats, the celebrity scientists etc., do the latter's bidding, and do nothing whatsoever to contradict it lest they lose their favor and resultant good fortune amongst the A-lists that nurture mutual benefit whilst implicitly threatening fatal excommunication. These mandarins all have a lot to lose. Any of them that might have haunting glimpses or thoughts upon basic reality are simply not game to risk that loss by sharing such views in any publicly meaningful way. A keystone of this bidding is to facilitate, and never effectively oppose, the ongoing growth of the pyramid. The financial matrix of the power system demands that this growth continue. The vitality of its existence depends entirely upon it. This continuance of growth will be pursued and protected for as long it possibly can be kept up with some semblance of functionality, regardless of the pain inflicted and the precious opportunity dashed to pieces. Expecting Rudd and his ilk to act to halt growth is like exhorting a guppy to rise up and fly. Krudd has his role. He has committed and conformed his entire life to it. As have all of his cohorts.

James Sinnamon

Sat, 2008-12-27 15:28

Yes, the thinking of our elites and their political glove puppets, such as Kevin Rudd, appears to have stagnated. Not to grasp that unending population growth combined with the unending growth in the per capita consumption of natural resources on a continent with scarce water resources on a finite planet, is impossible, is indeed, a sign of a stagnant mind. Notwithstanding that one sixth of India's current population is vegetarian (and hence five sixths are not), I, nevertheless, think that the massive anticipated growth in the middle classes of countries such as India and China do, in fact, represent a greater threat than the growth of European populations, or, indeed North American populations (disregarding immigration). Without China's one-child policy the situation would be far worse than it currently is, but we still face a gravely serious situation as it is. Clearly the profligate consumption on the part of many Europeans, North Americans and Australians needs to be dramatically reduced, but failure to achieve that should not be held up by Third World elites as an excuse for unsustainable increases in their consumption. Nor should any failure to contain the increase in consumption by Third World elites be held as an excuse by our elites to reduce their consumption. Copyright notice: Reproduction of this material is encouraged as long as the source is acknowledged.

Vivienne (not verified)

Sat, 2008-12-27 09:39

We can't expect developing countries to further reduce their lifestyles while we flout our own! A bulging global population is one of humanity's greatest threats and can easily linked to terrorism, pollution, loss of biodiversity, natural disasters, food shortages and climate change threats. Environmentalists have argued that the First World's population growth is actually far more of an environmental problem than that of the Third World. China has a one child policy, and about 200 million of India’s population are completely vegetarian . He is continuing to support a population growth set to double from 1990 to 2020, and our livestock industries! Our population is "projected" to grow by nearly half from 1990 to 2020, not like "stagnant" Europe's. It is not Europe that is "stagnant" but Kevin Rudd's lack of ideas and commitment towards climate change, what in 2007 he called "one of the greatest moral and economic challenges of our time"!

quark

Wed, 2008-12-24 18:32

I remember when Victoria was "The garden state". We have since been talked out of even aspiring to the space for a garden let alone a full blown oasis with green lawns. We now need to be satisfied with a courtyard or balcony. We later became "Victoria- on the move" - not appropriate now as our traffic grinds to a halt on congested roadways. Later we were "Victoria- the place to be" I guess we are heading towards "Victoria - the place to be thirsty" Quark

Greg (not verified)

Wed, 2008-12-24 17:44

Bea states: "As much as milk is 'natural' in origin, it couldn't be more unnatural, being it is the milk of another animal that was not designed for humans to consume." and "Literally blood on your hands. So why not suck blood. Would that not be healthy? Think about it.". Really though, what is "natural" and "healthy"? The Masai in Southern Africa very 'naturally' engage in the regular consumption of a mixture of cow's blood and milk. They've done so for thousands of years and been well-sustained by it up until the recent decimation of their culture and homelands by European imperialism. The relatively 'naturalness' of other species blood, milk, brains or whatever are all matters of cultural subjectivity, not physical naturalness. For example it is wrong for an ant to suck the sweet exudation of an aphid? If not, why is is wrong for a human to suck milk from another species? I think it is fair and accurate to state that the most essentially necessary, thereby 'natural', behavior of any living being is to seek a regular energy supplement in excess of the energy expended to gain that supplement. I think it is also fair and accurate to state that, in the case of sentient animals, there exists a natural need and a demonstrated capacity to ensure the extraction of this energy dividend is kept within the ongoing capacity of the local ecology to provide without degenerative exhaustion of the local system. It is apparent that none of milk, meat, soy, or whatever basic foodstuff, are inherently un-natural or unhealthy. It is the industrial process that is so. Industrialise the production of anything, no matter how inherently benign the material, and it becomes corrosive to the ecology, the host society and the consuming individual. We are stuck within a very complex mess at the moment. It helps greatly to discern the physically essential from the culturally contrived and familiar. Then we can see which of these contrivances are valid and which are obfuscatory and/or actively dangerous.

James Sinnamon

Tue, 2008-12-23 13:52

Whilst appalling things were done to the environment by our colonial forefathers, more and more of their descendants have started to gain a greater appreciation of the environment, probably beginning from around the middle of the 20th century.

However, this trend has been massively set back by increased waves of immigration since the 1970's. Just as many early settlers (1) had not affinity for the land, so too is the case with many late 20th and 21s century immigrants. Canadian Tim Murray has written a lot of teh poor rate of participation of newere immigrants in environmental organisations as compared to earlier settled Canadian citizens. The same would be applicable to Australia.

---

1. This was particularly the case since the Gold Rushes of 1851. Prior to then many settlers' values were influenced by the considerable number of scientists in their midst, who respected the environment. Sheila Newman has written of this in her Masters Thesis of 2002.

Copyright notice: Reproduction of this material is encouraged as long as the source is acknowledged.

Anonymous (not verified)

Tue, 2008-12-23 01:44

Of course, all this is well known to most year 6 students, but what's less well considered is the role that assimilation - or the lack of it - played in making it all possible. Consider the early British colonists. Were they committed to Australia, our land, plants and animals? Did they feel any connection to Australia? Was it 'home' for them? Of course not. They were English (or Scottish or Irish or...) plain and simple. And to our eternal cost, successive generations were actively encouraged to feel the same. Despite the good work of people like those in the Jindyworobak movement, many Australians still related to Menzies 'British-to-the-bootstraps' outlook as late as the 1950's. So the early colonists - and their heirs - proceeded to replace all this weird wholesale lingerie, native flora and fauna with more familiar species. Make it more like home. And their children and grandchildren, inheriting their farm, inherited their attitudes too. This was 'British-Australian' culture in action. Bugger the consequences. Note: I am not sure why the above post includes a link to a commercial site, but I am assuming that it was posted in good faith. Let's hope that this is not the start of a trend. - JS

Vivienne (not verified)

Mon, 2008-12-22 08:48

Most of the soy products goes to livestock as feed, not to humans! While many peoples of the world are suffering from starvation, resources are being consumed to feed livestock and the products are going to the wealthy developed nations. It is more efficient to get our food sources directly from nature, from the plants, than use animals to process it, and much more environmentally sound. It is even hard to buy soy beans, despite the high production. They contain high quality protein, compariable to meat without the animal fats.

James Sinnamon

Mon, 2008-12-22 00:00

I don't think soy milk is particularly good for the environment either. Let's not forger how rainforests are being destroyed in South America to make way for toxic soy bean monocultures. It is going to be difficult to obtain sustenance without infllcting cruelty on animals, or damaging the environment or doing both. Until we achieve harmony with our natural environment with stable and sustainable human population, we are likely to be faced with many terrible choices between what is bad and what is worse.

Bea (not verified)

Sun, 2008-12-21 23:29

As much as milk is 'natural' in origin, it couldn't be more unnatural, being it is the milk of another animal that was not designed for humans to consume. In fact lactic acid in milk restricts the absorbtion of calcium in drinkers of milk, so better to definately go for soy or rice milk. There is no cholesterol in those products, and there is no need to use tons of water for such a product. C'mon - if we're meant to be self-sufficient creatures and societies, why are we relying on animal products, daily, too? There's something eery about sucking on milk as adults, when we don't need to. If we were meant to have milk for life, they why don't women lactate 24/7, to 'feed' all these adults? Let alone stealing baby cows from their mothers and killing these cows, to sickly feed human people this milk. Literally blood on your hands. So why not suck blood. Would that not be healthy? Think about it.

Milly (not verified)

Wed, 2008-12-17 11:46

Our "projected" population growth could easily be avoided. Adding more people means more carbon emissions and environmental impacts. However, while people are happy to discuss climate change and ETS, there is a general reluctance to an open debate on population numbers and immigration! Is this "political correctness" or fear of "racism" taunts? Surely our artificially induced population growth rate is the elephant in the room! More people makes it harder to address climate change, and the effects of it potentially more profound and widespread.

Lachlan Laurie (not verified)

Wed, 2008-12-17 10:05

Can you imagine the enormous, sustained economic and social value of retaining what's left of the ADI site? Sometimes analogies are drawn between Central Park in New York, or Centennial Park in Sydney, but they aren't the same as the ADI site is incredibly rare natural woodland, not a man made park. In fact it is the largest remnant of this woodland left anywhere in the world. There is no other continent where the largest city of that continent has a pristine environment representing what it was like before modern times, with the largest native animals grazing freely, where you can see from horizon to horizon. And to decide that that's not an incredibly lucky thing - an incredibly sacred and rare thing - is suicidal. We are killing our future and annihilating our past. Why? - Because Bovis Lend Lease donates almost a million dollars a year to the Liberal and Labor Parties. - So that about fifty men and a few women can have bigger swimming pools and drive newer Mercedes. But when they die and the Mercedes rust, what was it worth? Nothing. And where is the Woodland that was there for millenia before? Nowhere. Forever, nowhere.

Vivienne (not verified)

Wed, 2008-12-17 09:29

Concerned residents were reported to be amazed as Penrith Council voted to condemn hundreds of hectares of endangered bushland at Cumberland Plain Woodland, the former ADI site at St Marys, which NSW Scientists claim is verging on extinction. Despite residents' protests, the Kyoto agreement, climate change promises, a Minister for Climate Change and Minister for Environment, nothing changes! Our government at all levels is in a strangle-hold by land developers and forestry businesses. With our historically high immigration rate, and the constant demand for housing and infrastructure, there cannot be any way to ultimately conserve our environment. Every parcel of land near sprawling urban areas is seen a potential for development. Our Government has only one item on their agenda - financial profits and economic growth! Twenty per cent of Australia's animal and plant species are already threatened with extinction. We need a functioning ecosystem to support life. A safe future for following generations and our diminishing biodiversity is being sacrificed on the altar of "progress". With bushland and forests being cleared, and a growing population, there is little chance of even a 5% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.

Vivienne (not verified)

Fri, 2008-12-12 12:24

Instead of a complex and hard to administer ETS, we should target where the emissions come from rather than being burdened with extra taxes and charges. Justifying exceptions, and regulating industry emissions, will be an administrative nightmare! Replacing coal and oil with renewable energy sources in incremental stages, dismantling most of our livestock industries, and re-vegetating re-claimed land with forests, would address some emission sources. Our technology for alternative energy sources is still in its infancy! Livestock are responsible for most of the methane and nitrous oxide emissions that are much greater atmospheric warmers than CO2 but their numbers are being ignored. As one of the world's highest greenhouse gas emitters per capita, we should not be waiting for China and India or expecting developing countries to reduce their already lower lifestyle standards! Our increasing population, driven by immigration, is magnifying our net greenhouse gas output. We can't be part of the solution if the driver of the problem, human numbers, is not addressed! The public are being greenwashed and rinsed in an effort to make the burden of reducing greenhouse gas emissions an individual responsiblity! However, we have an obligation to sacrifice some capitalistic ideals on a national level for the greater good if the challenges of climate change are to be taken seriously.

Pages

Click to read all comments.