Miscellaneous comments from 27 April 2011

Wed, 2011-04-27 23:02 by admin
If you have anything you would like to raise, which is likely to be of interest to our site's visitors, which is not addressed by other articles, please add your comments .

Topic:

Comments

admin

Wed, 2011-04-27 23:12

-form" id="comment-form">The Opposition has slammed a proposal that would allow some violent asylum seekers to remain in Australia on temporary protection visas. Also, changes to immigration laws will make it easier to send criminals back to their country of origin or, at least, prevent them applying for permanent protection visas.

The minister says the Migration Act already permits him to issue temporary visas, although he stresses that refugees will not be returned to countries where they'd be in danger of persecution.

The Liberal Party wants to reinstate temporary protection visas because it says there use acts as a disincentive to people smugglers and is one way of stopping asylum seeker boats.

The changes proposed would be backdated to today, meaning those involved in recent uprisings at detention centres, but who are yet to be charged, would face the new character test.

The 1951 UN refugee convention is not appropriate today. The world has changed. It was formed after the second world war, and our allies were displaced and Australia has a small population. It is now predicted that by 2050, there will be millions of asylum seekers fleeing wars, famine, natural disasters, overpopulation and climate change. Our human carrying capacity is already at the brim!

Our economic immigration is crippling our ability to manage immigration numbers, and priorities.

The government is not representing the interests of the people of Australia. It shows how our "democracy" is an illusion. We are allowed to vote on peripheral issues, but the main decisions made by governments are outside our control, and they don't listen! Humanitarian immigration intake should happen off-shore, and replace economic immigration and family reunions. Anyone arriving without documents and visas should be sent back to their homeland, or where they came.

There's too much political correctness, and not enough patriotism for Australia. Why don't any members of parliament have enough courage to uphold our sovereignty?

nimby (not verified)

Thu, 2011-04-28 10:42

Sarah Hanson-Young is right in that asylum seekers should be processed faster. However, if they arrive without documents and a visa, the whole process is inevitably long! The solution is processing off-shore, from refugee camps.

Any illegal arrivals entering Australian territorial waters should not be allowed to enter Australia. By accepting them, it is giving a signal to others that they can be successful in obtaining residency, and more will come. Numbers are predicted to escalate in the future, with overpopulation, famine, conflicts and climate change.

We must set some tough precedents now. We should abandon our economic immigration and take more of our share of humanitarian refugees, and WE Australians should choose who comes here!

The Greens, the political party that supposedly seeks a better future for Australia's most poorest and disadvantaged people and better environmental protection, is putting the welfare of illegal asylum seekers first!

According to the Salvation Army Report into Poverty showed that 2 and half million Australians - or 1 in 10 - are already living in poverty and over 100000 Australians are homeless!

With NO POPULATION policy, how can the Greens implement any of their policies for Australia's benefit?

The Greens should promise to fix up things for the two and half million poverty stricken Australians and the homeless BEFORE they open the flood gates and allow MORE people into the country! With contradictory policies, the Greens will never do well in the polls.

Editorial comment: The Greens were formed in 1992. The fact that the Greens have made so little headway in all these years given the obvious rottenness of the major parties surely shows that those who lead the Greens prefer the Greens to remain as they are with no effective presence in most Australian Parliaments and almost no ability to interfere with the plans of greedy vested interests to ransack the Australian public and its environment. The real impact of parties like the Greens on Australian politics is to take up the time, energy and money of thousands of well-meaning supporters, who would otherwise use their efforts far more productively. Their campaign, referred to by nimby, only for the rights of prospective refugees who are able to pay people smugglers, whilst saying almost nothing about the two and a half million impoverished Australians, the 100,000 homeless Australians, or even the millions of other refugees in refugee camps not able to pay people smugglers' fees, is a perfect way to waste the efforts of many of the well-meaning, but naive, people who the Greens draw into their ranks.

Bandicoot

Wed, 2011-04-27 23:24

A three-year-old girl was savaged by dingoes after wandering into bushes on Fraser Island (called a "tourist island" by the media ?), according to witnesses. The dingoes were out of sight in nearby bushes and when the child was away from the adults, and they "came in and attacked the child," said Terry Harper, head of the Queensland environment department.

Both of the wild dogs were later captured and destroyed by park rangers.

A TV report said April 25th 2011 that NO Rangers were working over the weekend at Fraser Island!

After the sudden death of Clinton Gage at Fraser Island on Monday 30th April 2001 the Queensland Government instantly ordered for "culling" of the dingoes to begin. Nowhere did they say that Clinton Gage was tormenting and teasing the dingo by throwing stones at it prior to his attack and ultimate death. Where were the parents?

Chimeric (not verified)

Fri, 2011-04-29 20:25

The Master Builders Association has come up with a frightening proposal which will deprive Australians of their rights. I know it sounds ridiculous that a bunch of builders could do that, but have a look at the article. They are demanding that there be no permits for building in residential areas. That's it. Open slather for slums and corporate landlords. The price for housing is dropping so that cannot be used as an excuse Write to the Minister Matthew Guy to urge him to not do this, since the Liberals promised power back to local councils and the community whereas these proposed changes would give all power to developers. You can comment on the article at . Ask them when the Master Builders were elected to government, for pete's sake.

nimby

Sat, 2011-04-30 14:24

The Anglican church is to be congratulated for being enlightened enough to condemn our population growth rate - and to question the rationale that it brings prosperity. Such a politically sensitive topic like this takes courage and wisdom to be contrary mainstream political thought. There should be some limits to the baby bonus so that big families are not encouraged, and the costs passed onto the public purse.

However, the real source of our growth, and the same proportion of our "natural" growth rate, is from economic immigration. Thus, this is the easiest source of growth to limit. It's all about misanthropic greed and selfish take-what-we-can now mentality, leaving little for future generations.

With the wind-down of our natural resources, to grow our population now is simply foolish and reckless. We have so many challenges this century, and without being sure of our food security, energy crisis, climate change impacts and impending global disasters, with a stable population we would be in a better position to handle and survive them.

Church agencies often are forced to deal with the poverty and social issues caused by population growth. There are many dimensions of human communities, and the implication of limitless growth are enormous. A one-dimensional justification, based on the specious and groundless theory that it promotes "prosperity" while ignoring the other multiple impacts - mainly negative - cannot and should not be enough to have it forced onto us.

The Salvation Army estimates that there are 2.5 million Australians living in poverty, which is approximately 12% of the population. This is an increase of 400,000 people in the last three years, or an additional 0.5% of Australians living in poverty since 2002.

The Anglican Church asks how did we learn to live with the idea of 30 per cent of the population living below the poverty line, when wealth and prosperity abound at the top of the economic heap? Wealth is being re-distributed to a few, while the rest are becoming poorer.

There is not virtue in denial!

See also: , , , in Rupert Murdoch's Australian, , of 30 Apr 11 by Nicky Nicklin in the Sydney Morning Herald. The corporate newsmedia, on the whole, and their Government glove-puppets have united to shout down the Australian Anglican Church's sensible proposal for Australia to become sustainable.

nimby (not verified)

Sun, 2011-05-01 08:38

The extent of "middle class" welfare has been exaggerated so that there is justification for the cuts rumoured for the next budget. There will be predicted slashes to "middle class" tax rebates and concessions. A study found that just 4.6 per cent of benefits were paid to the richest 40 per cent of families. However, Australia's welfare system was ''very tightly targeted'' to those in most need, especially when compared to other OECD countries. The family tax benefits have increased living standards for lower income families. There will be a reported $400 million cut to medical research in the Federal budget too. Australian researchers have made numerous discoveries that have significantly improved health-care, but without continued government support, many more promising research projects would have to be abandoned. Another report shows a 66 per cent increase in the number of times dole payments were suspended for eight weeks as a penalty for not looking hard enough for a job. However, the penalties do not ensure more unemployed found jobs. The May federal Budget will be about getting the long-term unemployed and those with low-level disabilities into work - that's assuming that the jobs actually exist! Last year 278,000 families received the $5294 baby bonus. it is estimated to cost about $500,000 to raise two children to the age of 18, that baby bonus isn’t going to go very far. But Families Minister , who is finalising welfare proposals for the May 10 federal budget, . If the baby bonus does not represent the true costs of raising a child, and more parents are left without support further down the track when child-raising costs escalate, why continue it as it is? With less welfare, less jobs and less research on medical care, boosting our population is surely absurdly the wrong and reckless thing to do? Increasing poverty will ensure cheaper wages eventually, and less welfare will mean more poverty, including children living in poverty. More people means less benefits - and everything - for each!

nimby (not verified)

Mon, 2011-05-02 19:38

A VicUrban report also reveals Melbourne's building industry is failing to meet the need for housing for overseas migrants to Melbourne. Our population growth rate is so high that the supply of houses in established suburbs is dramatically inadequate, a leaked confidential report reveals. This means that new housing developments on the city's fringe are the only areas in Melbourne where building approvals outstrip demand, with a surplus of 4775 houses. Read in The Age, "Home construction in the urban fringe "excessive". Overseas migration to Melbourne was the main factor driving housing under-supply. Melbourne's migrant intake rose sharply from 40,000 a year in 2006 to 83,000 a year in 2009, and is now at 63,000. Planning Minister Matthew Guy is obligingly trying to make housing for families affordable by "doing this through a program of faster land release, regional growth and urban renewal". However, with no end of population growth in sight, there will never be a "solution" to the "shortage" of housing. It's exactly what they want to invigorate Victoria's otherwise ailing economy. The lack of sales in means that the industry is now a victim of their own success! Prices have been pushed up to outstrip the average pay packet! The allegorical petri dish will overflow and we will continue to be covered by toxic urban sprawl unless we curb the growth in our numbers. Our State government keeps accommodating population growth instead of stopping it. There is no "solution" to the housing crisis while there is no end of population growth in sight. It's all a farce. Politicians only have a 3 year term but the implications of unsustainable growth must be faced by the residents, now and in the future. Victoria receives more than our fair share of immigrants, but we don't need them here due to lack of industries and jobs. Our trade deficit keeps blowing out! 63,000 new arrivals to Melbourne means over one thousand new home seekers - from immigration only - each week in Victoria. Existing Victorians are being squeezed out of home-ownership. Where is the justice in this? Our State government should be making policies for the benefit of Victorians, not outsiders and opportunist new-arrivals. We vote for our government to to act on our behalf, not for the international community who want to improve their lifestyles. We should be standing up for our sovereignty, and not putting dubious economic arguments to support ongoing population growth before the welfare of the residents. It is actually a form of discrimination, bigotry and racism. We lure people from overseas by convincing them that they will have a better life, and they find themselves in the far-flung outer western growth areas that are the least desirable addresses. We deny them public transport and infrastructure and jobs, just so the establishment can have the (short-term) economic benefits. People are being treated as economic units, but many will find themselves abandoned by expensive fuel costs and being forced to drive taxis due to unemployment.

Furious (not verified)

Tue, 2011-05-03 20:43

A local ecologist is reported to be "shocked and disgusted at the 100 plus Snow Gums and Manna gums that were removed from the end of Moorooduc Hwy last week by Peninsula-link. He says that it appears to be illegal removal and believes that no zoologist was present. "The result is 10 dead ringtail possums and 3 dead brushtail possums hit by cars. I can’t understand why the pines were left and the native veg was removed. The trunks and limbs are full of hollows and need to be retained not mulched." The public need to know how bad Peninsula Link are. The government needs to bring them to law.

nimby (not verified)

Wed, 2011-05-04 08:25

More bad news for koalas! A report states that koalas could be headed for extinction due to a disease similar to AIDS. It means they are often killed by other diseases such as chlamydia. Koala researcher Jon Hanger told a Senate inquiry in Brisbane yesterday the decline in koala numbers was far more dramatic than could be explained by habitat loss. This sounds a bit simplistic! Our native animals are very stress prone, and habitat is their protection - everything! This is despite Queensland spending $43 million on habitat! Maybe this is not enough, considering the massive land clearing in Queensland. It's like locking the gate after the horse has bolted! Australian Koala Foundation executive director Debbie Tabart said environment laws and policies had been proved totally inadequate in protecting koalas. The human-induced stresses are clearly overwhelming in the last 200 years. We are already the biggest mammal exterminators in the world.

Sheila Newman

Wed, 2011-05-04 00:40

For the record, French petrol prices on 2 May 2011 rose to over $2.00 AUD per litre.

1.54 EUR = 2.09584 AUD
Euro Australian Dollar
1 EUR = 1.36094 AUD 1 AUD = 0.734788 EUR

#10;<a href=" http:="" />http://candobetter.net/node/2454

Geoffrey Taylor

Fri, 2011-05-06 00:09

There is evidence of gross media manipulation and falsification from the outset of the protest movement in southern Syria on March 17th.

The Western media has presented the events in Syria as part of the broader Arab pro-democracy protest movement, spreading spontaneously from Tunisia, to Egypt, and from Libya to Syria.

Media coverage has focussed on the Syrian police and armed forces, which are accused of indiscriminately shooting and killing unarmed "pro-democracy" demonstrators. While these police shootings did indeed occur, what the media failed to mention is that among the demonstrators there were armed gunmen as well as snipers who were shooting at both the security forces and the protesters.

The death figures presented in the reports are often unsubstantiated. Many of the reports are "according to witnesses". The images and video footages aired on Al Jazeera and CNN do not always correspond to the events which are being covered by the news reports.

For more, read of 3 May 11 by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky on Global Research. Read also, on Global Research, of 4 May 11 by , re-published .- Editor.

Francis (not verified)

Fri, 2011-05-06 12:01

The Baillieu government's budget gave not incentives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or any support for environmental initiatives. They did nothing to commit to increase to 20% renewable energy by 2020, water or energy efficiency, or a solution to our housing crisis. There was some funding for Landcare, public transport, water recycling and local groups, but without an overarching plan for environmental protection and emissions reduction it is unclear how these programs will secure a healthy environment for Victorians. On top of recent regressive efforts to return cattle to the Alpine National Park and stifle wind-farm development, Victoria's budget sends worrying signals for the future of Victoria’s environment. The budget failed to include any commitment to secure clean energy jobs currently up for grabs. Obviously economic growth overrides any environmental concerns, or leaving Victoria intact for future generations. It's a retro budget, totally out of touch with reality, and only meant for a short term frame - while they are in office! No government are prepared to tackle long-term policies that might make them in any way unpopular?

Bandicoot

Fri, 2011-05-06 18:03

THE world's population, long expected to stabilise just above 9 billion in the middle of the century, will instead keep growing and may even hit 10.1 billion by 2100, a United Nations report said. According to a UN Report, the world population is expected to exceed 7 billion in late October, only a dozen years after it surpassed 6 billion. The projections were made by the United Nations population division, which has a track record of fairly accurate forecasts. Fertility is not declining as rapidly as expected in some poor countries, especially in Africa, and has shown a slight increase in many wealthier countries, including the United States, Britain and Denmark. The latter nations growth is not due to fecundity but to immigration - ostensibly to promote economic growth! Yemen, for example, is a country whose population has quintupled since 1950, to 25 million, would see its numbers quadruple again, to 100 million, by century’s end. They are still living in a medieval past of tribal culture and big families. It is recklessly assumed that food and water will be available for the billions yet unborn, and that potential catastrophes including climate change, wars or epidemics will not serve as a brake on population growth. Future generations cannot be guaranteed a livelihood at our rates of growth. The great majority of the projected population increase comes in the poorest countries, where clean water, food and other resources are already hard to come by — to say nothing of transport and other infrastructure. Traditions still hold strong in Africa and other nations, such as early marriage and polygamy. Provided with information and voluntary access to birth-control methods, women have chosen to have fewer children in societies as diverse as Iran, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Mexico, and Thailand. However, ignorance and largess mainly prevail under the blanket of religious and cultural rights and political correctness. Unlike animals, humans do not have to become victims of our own fecundity! Animals can overpopulate and reproduce beyond their carrying capacity in the absence of predators, and due to environmental limitations. Their numbers ultimately collapse through starvation or predation. Despite our intelligence as a species, we are still driven by inappropriate evolutionary urges for survival of the species, dominion and expansion! Non-scientists are the ones who claim that inexhaustible economic growth and technology will solve all our problems, but it is the scientists who are pointing to the limits of such thinking.

Anonymous (not verified)

Sat, 2011-05-07 08:14

Despite the Canadian government's highest seal skin quota in history -- they sanctioned the killing of 468,000 seals in the name of fashion -- demand is very low because of activists' and organisations' efforts to ban seal product trade in the United States, European Union and elsewhere. Now sealers have little economic incentive to go out on the ice. The Humane Society International reportedly saw only a dozen sealing boats operating, and so far, about 33,000 seals have been reported killed -- that's less than one-tenth of the number of seals killed in recent years. Baby seals aren't "hunted" because they are incapable of escaping, or of self-defence. They are simply bludgeoned to death! They are continuing the campaign against the slaughter of Canada's new-born seals by lobbying Russia and China with video footage of cruelty, asking restaurants and food suppliers in United States and Canada to boycott Canadian seafood, and continuing pressure on the parliamentarians. This industry is based on exploiting the very young of a sentient animal for the high price of its fur, that is used more as a status symbol rather than a need. It's based on cruel human narcissism to allow the travesty and abomination of wearing seal skins at such as high cost. With humans overpopulating the Earth, it is especially evil that people take more than they need, simply for vanity. It is said that the "money is the root of all evil" but sometimes the lure that brings the money in must be targeted - human greed and self-absorption. In a letter released this week by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, the Montreal-born actor calls on Stephen Harper to put an end to the annual Canadian seal hunt. While it is "cruel to bludgeon and shoot thousands of seals every year, the slaughter also costs taxpayers millions more to support than it actually earns." In the letter, Shatner cited a University of Guelph study that found that ending the hunt would save Canada at least $7 million annually.

Bandicoot

Sun, 2011-05-08 13:19

PM Julia Gillard wants 800 asylum seekers who try to make their way to Australia by boat, instead taken immediately to Malaysia for processing. In return, Australia would resettle an extra 4000 genuine refugees from Malaysia. The Greens have slammed this plan as "inhumane" however, surely the policy is not to punish genuine refugee but to deter illegal arrivals? Surely those already assessed as genuine refugees be given precedence over unknown asylum seekers? Malaysia's higher commissioner in Canberra, Salman Ahmad, said asylum seekers would be treated humanely. Mr Abbot says that We did have a problem, John Howard created a solution, Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd took a solution and turned it into a problem again. The proposed asylum-seeker swap with Australia is likely to be a one-off deal. Treasurer Wayne Swan said the Gillard government would continue to pursue agreements with other countries. Abbott's position is that floods of asylum seekers come here by boat; they pass through other countries to get here; they can and should stay in those other countries but they come here because, after all, Australia is such a great country who wouldn't want to come here? Quite rightly, he said that "Australia is anywhere near being a lifeboat to the world is ludicrous". They are not "criminals" either, necessarily, but there are limited number of life-jackets. It is legal to seek asylum by boat (under international and domestic law) and asylum seekers arriving by boat make up less than 2 per cent of Australia’s annual immigration. Maybe it's time to rethink some of these domestic and international laws, and our economic immigration policies? With our own population size reaching the brim, and increasing poverty and homelessness in Australia - due mainly to an economic model based on limitless growth - we are not in a position to attract those seeking asylum here. The wars on Iraq and Afghanistan were supported by Australia, and this displaced millions of people too, however, it is estimated that there will be millions of people fleeing their countries in the future due to climate change, conflicts due to famine and overpopulation, and disasters - exacerbated by overpopulation! It's not about "racism" as some hysterical commentators say, but about our sovereignty, our environmental and border security, and understanding ecological capacity - our own life-supporting vessel - must be prioritized over politics, global humanitarian needs and those who have not proved to be genuine refugees.

Sheila Newman

Sun, 2011-05-08 14:10

I cannot say that I have ever experienced problems with mercury-based fillings but some people who do have concerns may be interested in these investigations, policies and opinions in Europe. Norway banned mercury in tooth cavity fillings three years ago. In Sweden and Denmark people are counselled to avoid them. The European Union is currently considering the merits of following suit. There is a place in Belgium where treatments are carried out to reduce the presence of mercury in people who, it is argued, are more sensitive than others to mercury in the body. A French dentist is one of their patients. She changed from dentistry to orthodentistry in order to avoid using mercury-based fillings. She asserts that dentists are endangered by the presence of mercury particles in the atmosphere around the head of patients whilst fillings are being done. Dr Michel Goldberg of the faculty of Medicine at Descartes University of Paris was interviewed. The Descartes Medical school does not endorse the measures taken by Norway, although they do recognise an incidence of mild allergic reactions to mercury and that pregnant women should be careful of having fillings. They say that there is absolutely no evidence of any serious consequences from mercury-based amalgams in teeth. Source: France 2 News, Wednesday 4 May 2011, 2000hrs:

Bandicoot

Tue, 2011-05-10 09:53

If we have a $16 billion collapse in revenue, how will flooding regional areas with 16 thousand more so-called "skilled" migrants help? Population growth doesn't pay for itself! It means that the public purse will have to be raided further to pay for the infrastructure demanded by these regional areas, already facing high unemployment! According to Australian National University demographer Peter McDonald said this boost would "not do a great deal" for skills shortage because intake numbers included family and children as well as the workers. recent work has focused on theory relating to low fertility, the implications of low fertility for population futures and upon related policy options. He is presently working on methods to evaluate the effectiveness of pronatalist policies and upon more precise measurement of cross-sectional fertility trends. Economics and demographics as academic studies can deal with ideologies and infinite quantities, and be divorced from reality. Doctors, nurses and automotive apprentices from a number of countries had been recruited. Ironically, with so many international students coming here to study, presumably for our first-class educational facilities, why do we have shortages of such basic skills? It's almost impossible to gain apprenticeships here, due to the small numbers available. Our human resource is our own population, not foreigners from (no doubt) third-world countries! It's about driving down wages and working conditions. Mining companies should be offering scholarships, studentships, traineeships and apprenticeships to gain skilled workers, not by-passing Australian citizens. We can't control where people live, and most people head for our cities. The costs of adhering to an economy that's based on perpetual growth at all costs will cause our economy, and nation, to implode. Making government policies based purely on economics is one-dimensional and dangerously inadequate. It will limit our ability to survive the thousands more years we should hope to have in this continent as the indigenous people of Australia have done - by living sustainably within environmental constraints.

Vernon Terrill (not verified)

Fri, 2011-05-13 16:29

This year Penguin(Australia) published . The Baker IDI Heart and Diabetes Institute is a very respected body and the book is likely to become a standard text for diabetics. The advice on diet is provided by Manny Noakes and Peter Clifton, authors of The CSIRO Total Wellbeing Diet, which drew much criticism for providing advice on diet with the support of meat and dairy interests. With such a team it is hardly surprising that the book on diabetes does not even mention the vegetarian option, let alone advocate it.

Anyone wishing to make the case for a vegetarian diet for diabetics can start by logging onto the Pubmed search engine at and searching for , then clicking on such titles as are in language they can understand. They might go a step further with a search for Momordica charantia diabetes. I majored in biochemistry for my science degree and I'm not as readily daunted and confused by the technical terms as many people would be.

Anonymous (not verified)

Fri, 2011-05-13 18:57

Julia Gillard's new makes it clear the needs of the economy are more important than her "sustainable Australia" mantra, demographer Bob Birrell said.

Dr Birrell said Population Minister Tony Burke's report had failed to analyse Australia's current population impacts. The strategy fails to mention a population target, and also makes no attempt to predict how Australia's major cities will grow and cope over coming decades. It makes no mention of our welfare, our environment, our food security or the fact that Gillard previously rejected Kevin Rudd's " " gaffe.

As for climate change, it's thumb-up to the rest of the world trying to reduce their emissions! It's basically a form of discrimination - that we in Australia will continue to GROW and other countries can worry about the impacts!

Our Federal government has become the mouthpiece for a consuming growing monster called "The Economy"! It doesn't matter that the world is running short of oil and energy and that climate change will have severe impacts. Increasing our population to please the Economy is shallow and one-dimensional policy. At least it is an admission that businesses and their interests are running our government!

Businesses want new mega-stores and housing estates to keep popping up, and they are running this government's purse strings.

nimby

Sat, 2011-05-14 08:34

[Editor's Note: republished as article here: ] Media release from Government’s population policy: Shifting deck-chairs on the Titanic. The results of the Government’s consultation on a population strategy for Australia show that the process was only ever for show, says environment group, Sustainable Population Australia (SPA). SPA’s President, Sandra Kanck, says that the outcome is what Minister Burke started off saying, which was that the solution to our population problem was to move people around the countryside. “This is nothing short of the deck-chairs on the Titanic solution: put them in clusters on one part of the deck or spread them evenly, the Titanic will still sink. “There seems to be little understanding that every new person arriving on this continent either as a migrant or a newborn will ultimately be demanding the same standard of living as the rest of us. “Just like other Australians they will need water, food, petrol for their cars, hospitals for their health needs, and more power stations, and each of them will be responsible for the release of still more greenhouse gases, regardless of whether they live in the city or the country. “This is a huge disappointment – despite the large numbers of submissions to the inquiry which recognised the environmental implications of continued population growth, the Government has ignored them. “This government has demonstrated that (a) it has no understanding of the environment and (b) it remains captive to the development lobby,” said Ms Kanck. ps: our government's purse strings are clearly held by big business interests, and not by public interests, democratic processes or the welfare of people now and in the future. There is no recognition of any environmental or sustainability issues. It's purely myopic policy by political leaders who fail to have vision beyond the next elections.

Bandicoot

Wed, 2011-05-18 11:33

A new survey finds 52 per cent of Melbourne city's residents oppose having more people in their suburb, and only 11 per cent favour it. A Nielsen survey for the Productivity Commission has found a clear majority oppose residential redevelopment in their suburb. Obviously what economist see as "productivity" and progress is not what the residents have in mind! A big unmet demand for housing in Melbourne is from people wanting to live in inner and middle suburbs. But resident opposition has blocked many redevelopment plans to house them. There are too many NIMBYS! 86 per cent fear more developments and people in their suburbs would lead to increased traffic congestion, 56 per cent to increased noise, 48 per cent fear loss of street appeal, 37 per cent more crowded public transport, 35 per cent shadows from tall buildings, and 27 per cent fear it would lower their property's value. They are quite right! The 11% of those who favour more people in their suburbs are probably the property developers, those allied to the building industry, have vested interests in banking or mortgages, real estate, or have big business interests in expansion. What other reasons could there be? We could relinquish our lifestyles forever for the benefit of economic growth, or hold onto our houses and stop our suburbs being resources for the growth-pushing lobby. It's assumed that because population growth fueled our economic growth after world war 2, that this phenomenon can be perpetual and ongoing. The "cup" will never be filled, and we can promote limitless growth through ongoing immigration. It's naive and shallow thinking. it's assumed that like mindless bacteria in a petri dish, we can keep growing our cities and population forever, and Nature and society will just keep accommodating - for benefit of a few! Population growth keeps outstripping land, natural resources, our fragile food and water supply, our State and Federal funding, and our hip-pockets' ability to pay for all the infrastructure demands of growth. On a finite planet and a land with limited fertile soils, irregular water, vulnerable to fires, droughts and floods, it should be obvious that there are limits to growth. Switzerland is one of the world's richest nations and has a diminishing population and only 8.8 million people. They treasure their intangible assets. Why are we in Australia hell-bent on population growth? it's time to break the cycle of addiction to population growth as our economic driver. We need a new model based on sustainable principles. It's simply fatalistic and will eventually limit humanity's survival in Australia's harsh and irregular conditions - even without the overlay of climate change! It's due to an absence of a real and innovative economy. The Stable Population Party of Australia should poll well in the next elections. Instead of NIMBYs being the problem, they are the people who will protect our city's well-being and should be listened to. Bring on more NIMBYs before we all lose our backyards forever!

Anonymous (not verified)

Fri, 2011-05-20 17:13

The EPA allowed HRL Dual Gas to go ahead with its dual brown coal and gas demonstration plant at Morwell in the Latrobe Valley, with only one gasifier and turbine to be run on syngas. EPA chief executive John Merritt said the first gasifier and turbine met best practice. The HRL plant at Morwell, in the Latrobe Valley, will use gas from brown coal and natural gas, to produce electricity. Mr Merritt says the new plant will produce 30 per cent fewer carbon emissions than other coal-fired power plants. The second gasifier and turbine, which were planned to be operated on natural gas, were not approved. Environment groups are considering whether to begin legal action to try to stop the plant. Climate Change Minister Mr Combet told a conference in Morwell the government would help carbon-intensive communities make the long-term switch to cleaner and green technology while protecting jobs. As yet, the government has not announced what price carbon will be taxed at and how that tax will be levied. And that has some in the agricultural industry worried. Environment Victoria chief executive Kelly O'Shanassy said the plant would still damage the environment even though only part of it has been given the green light. Environment Victoria would consider legal action against the decision.

Sheila Newman

Sun, 2011-05-22 07:27

As many of us feared, it appears that MDBA (version 2011) is about to renege on its statutory responsibility to manage the Murray-Darling in the national interest, and is now merely a mouth-piece for who seek to continue to over-exploit the environment and waters of the river system. Original article may be read at: Comment by ' | '

Bandicoot

Sun, 2011-05-22 09:15

Opening session of the 58th General Assembly of the International Council for Game and Wildlife Conservation (CIC) Contradictorily, in this address, Scanlon says (Saint Petersburg, 12-15 May 2011) that we are fortunate to be in a country with a strong tradition of conservation and management of wildlife. Hunting and conservation are ultimately in collision courses, contrary in aim and purpose. The hunting and conservation communities have long recognized the need to regulate trade in game species in order to maintain viable populations in the wild.. Scanlon is living in a different era, not in the 21st century at a time our wildlife is under extreme threats from many human activities and habitat loss! The aim of CITES is to conserve biodiversity and contribute to its sustainable use, and it does this by ensuring that no species of wild fauna or flora is unsustainably exploited for international trade. Hunting is another (unsustainable) form of animals exploitation. It's not conservation but killing for recreation. It is very disappointing and surprising that he, representing CITES and conservation of species, could give this type of address. How does "hunting" become something to be proud of, or a valid cultural pursuit? Culture is a human construct, not inevitable or necessarily desirable. As such, we don't have to honour it or treasure it and greenwash it as if it were something to do with "conservation". How does killing conserve? It's a contradiction of terms. The anthropocentric idea that species can be protected for our own lethal use - entertainment killing - is a condemnation of his attitude towards non-human species. To label them in a category of "game", and to use wildlife in a "trade" context is obscene and a concept from out dark past that needs to be eradicated. With declining species and habitats to make way for human "carrying capacity", CITES should be about protecting and honouring our planet's biodiversity, and their intrinsic value. These are cruel and harsh attitudes. Animals are not resources but part of our world's fabric, it's ongoing systems and valid and essential life-forms. They are not disposables at human whim!