Jenny Warfe delivered this submission and spoke to it verbally at Planning Panels Victoria, Frankston hearing on C160fran Ammendment. The Amendment would mandate population growth-engineering and a mega city in Frankston, at the head of the Mornington Peninsula, on Port Phillip Bay. Port Phillip Conservation Council (PPCC) Inc.
"The Commission’s claim that it is too costly to preference the development of domestic industry over imports is completely at odds with contemporary reality and recent experience. These are no ordinary economic times, Australia and the world are going through an industrial revolution as we fundamentally restructure how our societies are powered. Yet the Commission seem to think that it’s just business as usual."
Towns and regional centres with relatively small populations, existing workforce shortages and limited local housing will need to host hundreds and sometimes thousands of new workers to support alternative energy construction projects. Governments and industry don't really understand the difficult trade-offs for local communities with alternative energy projects. Without community support, chaos may well ensue.
Dr. Kathy McInnes addresses Port Phillip Conservation Council in Victoria, Australia.
"To date, I understand that 2,268 jurisdictions in 39 countries have declared a climate emergency. It is the one issue about which there is widespread global consensus. It presents a common threat to all countries and no country can isolate itself from it. However, to effectively tackle climate change, there must be an equal focus on population growth and the disastrous effect it is having on the earth's natural environment. To date, there is little evidence of governments doing that.
“About one in 25 Australian homes are at high risk of becoming effectively uninsurable by 2030, according to a new Climate Council report based on analysis by a climate risk assessment group (ABC, 2022).” (Dr Peng Yew Wong, RMIT School of Property.)
Candobetter Editor apologies for the late publication of this report, which was delivered in time. It is also in a different format.
It seems that many of the leading ‘social change’ agents are enthusiastically piling on the bandwagon to reinforce, not change, one of the most significant problems now threatening society at both the global and local scale.
Was COP26 a big waste of time? Population ecologist and PM Expert Advisor Prof William Rees weighs in on the major UN climate conference and points out humanity's collective failure to acknowledge and address the root cause of environmental problems: we are consuming more than the Earth can provide.
It is a great irony, if not tragedy, that so many well-intentioned people, especially climate-focused non-government organisations and ordinary citizens wasted so much time and effort at COP26 in Glasgow. It’s not that the official negotiators achieved so little, but rather that climate change is not the real existential threat, OVERSHOOT is.
UPDATE: Youtube has removed the film again, but you can watch it at https://planetofthehumans.com. We reproduce a letter from Jeff Gibbs, Director of Planet of the Humans.
Did you know that YouTube has removed Michael Moore's massive environmental film, "Planet of the Humans"? The reason appears to be a purported infringement of copyright, which its producer vehemently denies. They didn't like the message, he argues in this rivetting and educational interview. Michael Moore joins Rolling Stone's "Useful Idiots" show to discuss the removal of Planet of the Humans from YouTube, and addresses criticism he and the film have received. This fascinating interview has nearly as much to offer on the environmental movement and its problems - notably with corporate interference - as the film itself.
The draft Yarra Strategic Plan claims to deliver the first Victorian integrated river corridor strategy and to identify immediate actions for the river corridor, enabling long-term collaborative management between agencies and Traditional Owners. It is intended to guide local planning. We publish here a critical submission to this draft plan. Summary of submission by candobetter editor: Climate Change and human failure to interact safely with the natural world. Plan fails to adequately factor in transport interaction with Yarra. Lack of proper transport interconnectivity. Higher density depends on high quality public transport. Private car still dominates. Forecast population growth and new constructions will inevitably cause major environmental damage. North-East Link Freeway will comport massive land-fill problems, hardly referred to in Draft Plan. Likely potential for destabilisation of groundwater in the Yarra Valley in the Bulleen and Rosanna area as a consequence of the North-East Link Freeway project. Substantial areas of public open space is threatened by the project, together with about 25,000 mature canopy trees. Adverse human health effects of the project would include increased air pollution and heightened road noise. Lack of cycling provision on roads in cities of Boroondara, Banyule, Manningham and Maroondah and the Shires of Nillumbik and Yarra Ranges. Proposal in Plan to increase lanes capacity on the Eastern Freeway to cater for the North East Link project by over 40%, from 802,000 square metres to 1,127,000 square metres. Adverse environmental effects would include increased run-off of polluted stormwater into the Yarra River and elevated ambient temperatures as a consequence of the large increase in concrete and asphalt surfaces. Report of the Commissioner of Sustainability, State of the Yarra and its Parklands (2018), concluded that the status of the Yarra river was poor for 18 of its 25 environmental indicators. This can only deteriorate if planned stressors go ahead.
Introduction
The draft Yarra Strategic Plan rightly identifies climate change as a threat to the Yarra River. In this regard, climate change is neither more or less than a register of the failure of the human species to interact properly with the natural world. COVID - 19 also falls into that category.
Transport and the Yarra
The draft Plan gives too little attention to the relationship between transport and the health of the Yarra. This is a major flaw. The functionality of large cities is decided more than anything else by the dominant modes of mobility deployed in them.
The draft Plan declares (p. 16) that the Department of Transport "plans, builds and operates an integrated, sustainable and safe transport system across Victoria. It does not, actually, as little effort is made to integrate the various modes. Within the public transport sphere in particular, insufficient effort is made to ensure the connectivity of the network.
Even more importantly, the concept of integrated transport and land use planning has pretty much been abandoned by the Victorian government, and has done so since Melbourne 2030, with the concept of the poly-centric city at its core, was all but forgotten.
The idea (p. 12) that higher density residential development should be the sole province of inner areas is flawed. There is significant demand for higher density residential development in locations well removed from inner Melbourne. The central problem is that the government has abandoned the key enabler of this, which is high quality public transport across the whole of Melbourne.
The reality is that the modal mix for personal travel in the City of Melbourne is little different from what it was 50 years ago. The private motor car dominates. And it is very space-inefficient.
The draft Plan anticipates that Melbourne's population will grow to nearly 8 million by the year 2051, and with an extra 140,000 dwellings to be built in the Yarra River corridor by 2041.
There are no grounds, within current policy settings, that these "milestones" would be reached without damaging the environment very seriously. The central issue is that the Victorian government does not have a transport plan for Melbourne.
North East Link
The Victorian government's North East Link freeway project is hardly referred to in the draft Plan. It should be. It was developed in the absence of any consideration by the government of other forms of transport, and especially public transport, which would have a relatively benign effect on the Yarra River corridor.
It is understood that the extensive tunnelling proposed for the project would require the excavation of about 1.5 cubic metres of rock and soil, which would go to landfill (see Timna Jacks and Benjamin Preiss, "Warning over toxic soil from 'big dig,'" Sunday Age, December 1, 2019). It is not known whether any of the material is toxic and there appears to be insufficient landfill capacity to take it.
There appears to be potential for destabilisation of groundwater in the Yarra Valley in the Bulleen and Rosanna area as a consequence of the project.
Substantial areas of public open space is threatened by the project, together with about 25,000 mature canopy trees.
Adverse human health effects of the project would include increased air pollution and heightened road noise.
Paved surface area
One of the dysfunctional elements of the dominance of the motor car is the increase in paved road surface that is required to cater for ever-growing motor vehicle numbers. For instance, it is proposed to increase lanes capacity on the Eastern Freeway to cater for the North East Link project by over 40%, from 802,000 square metres to 1,127,000 square metres. The adverse environmental effects would include increased run-off of polluted stormwater into the Yarra River and elevated ambient temperatures as a consequence of the large increase in concrete and asphalt surfaces.
Local government and transport
It is not only at state government level that we have major policy failure in transport. For instance, if one is to consider the land area of the City of Boroondara, it is comprised of about 6,022 hectares, of which 1279 hectares, over 20%, is comprised of road reservations. About 80% of the land devoted to road reservations is controlled by the City of Boroondara, with the balance controlled by VicRoads. The reservations controlled by Boroondara contain about 560 kilometres of local roads.
Significantly, very few of these roads have been developed to provide for safe cycling traffic. They are designed, with few exceptions, exclusively for motor car traffic. Apart from the City of Yarra, the other councils with a direct interest in this project (the cities of Banyule, Manningham and Maroondah and the Shires of Nillumbik and Yarra Ranges), also appear relatively uninterested in increasing the mode share of space-efficient, and therefore environmentally friendly forms of transport.
Conclusions
The Status Assessment contained in the report of the Commissioner of Sustainability, State of the Yarra and its Parklands (2018), concluded that the status of the river was poor for 18 of its 25 environmental indicators.
These measures will continue to deteriorate unless substantial reforms are made to transport capacity in Melbourne, and especially in the Yarra River corridor, to preference space-efficient and less carbon polluting transport modes.
Ian Hundley
29 March 2020
People should know about the state government’s amendments to the Land Tax Act. An interesting article was written about it by Michael Flynn QC in The Age of February 17th 2020. regarding the amendment to the Land Tax Act to restrict land tax exemptions on contiguously rated properties only to regional Victoria. See: https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/home-owners-could-be-slugged-with-an-unfair-tax-20200213-p540jq.html. These changes have resulted in charging land tax for anyone in metropolitan Melbourne with vacant land contiguous with their place of residence. Until now, land adjacent to your home was exempt from Land Tax if the property was rated by Council as contiguous (i.e. house and land rated as one parcel of land) The new amendment has changed this to now levy the tax on any properties in metropolitan Melbourne which have contiguous vacant land next to a place of residence. (For the purposes of this exercise, Mornington Peninsula also is considered to be metropolitan by the way). A paltry $43 million revenue is anticipated.
We have just received a Land Tax bill for $7,786 for two vacant blocks adjoining our house on the Mornington Peninsula. We currently maintain the two vacant lots as 'Land for Wildlife’ – effectively as our bush garden. The garden provides the last remaining piece of intact habitat in the surrounding estate – and we say provides open space and improves the amenity of the area for all other resident too. Many other affected people might have veggie gardens, sheds, animal runs, chook pens etc.
We spoke to the State Revenue Office asking why the Act was amended, and were advised that there was a land shortage in Melbourne due to population pressures and that therefore the land should be developed. So, clearly this “initiative” is designed to get people with vacant land next to their existing homes to sell the vacant land- or maybe the home as well. The consequences of this are obvious: Developer windfall resulting in more people, more traffic, less trees, lost amenity and privacy etc. etc.
Many people affected by this change to the Land Tax Act might be asset rich but cash poor, living in properties they have owned for decades. The dramatic fall in interest rates is likely adversely affecting their ability to meet their existing costs of living, let alone a new land tax bill in the thousands of dollars. Presumably most affected people in the real metropolitan Melbourne, will have sites valued higher than ours on the Mornington Peninsula so will likely be getting bills for even more $$ than we have. They might have no alternative but to sell up.
I suspect many people would be horrified by this latest effort to destroy suburban amenity and impose social engineering on people who can no longer afford to live where they want to, just so we can jam in more people. It smacks of a desperate attempt by government to please developer mates by freeing up any remaining vacant sites in the suburbs for developers to move in- meanwhile existing residents are yet again the losers.
Surely this is an unfair and unjust tax. It was slipped in without any consultation with affected people or the wider community. It certainly was not flagged as a policy in the last state election, and the predicted $43 million revenue - for all the inconvenience it imposes on home owners and likely environmental and amenity impacts - is paltry in the extreme.
How can Australians unite against the corporate and government forces that are failing to avert ecological catastrophe on Australia? We are an increasingly dispersed and disorganised colonial people, without a talking stick of our own.
Our city was alight last night as was the countryside
the first, an exhibition the latter ecocide.
Infernos rage devouring branches, trees and leaves,
baking soil, cooking worms, singeing feathered wings ,
fragile membranes of flying foxes, gliders,
or burning them to oblivion. These creatures cannot outrun
the raging flames gathering force, uniting over ridges.
Wind assisted, the fires grow and gather speed.
These fires can turn a house, a car, a firetruck
into a skeleton or a mere suggestion of what was there before,
an imprint on the ground around what was yesterday a fireplace and chimney.
Smoke envelops once carefree seaside towns. The skies are dark at midday
and penetrating that thick blackness,
the sun appears faintly like a distant headlight through a London fog.
Cancelled camping trips leave city children disappointed.
Now trapped and urbanised, they take refuge in their phones
while those living on the coast are bailed up on beaches, homeless and afraid.
Others lost their lives, eaten up by flames.
The greatest toll was wildlife 500 million dead I'm told.
The rescued ones bear scars on ears and legs and toes
and there's nowhere to return to if by chance they are restored.
Australia's cities were alight last night in magnificent displays,
As the remnants of our forests were consumed in such a blaze!
Bushfires in Australia a real national security issue in contrast to talked up threats of hostile nations in our region. Climate change a significant cause of the fires. [Illustrations by Sheila Newman.]
Bushfires in Australia are a real national security issue in contrast to talked up threats of an alleged hostile nations in our region, according to the Independent and Peaceful Australia Network (IPAN).
Australians are heading into a Christmas day of smoke, fires, death and devastation, with no significant rain projected for weeks, anxiety is rising about when this catastrophe will end.
Many are asking why our leadership isn’t acknowledging climate change as a significant cause of the fires and why is the Australian Defence Force and its highly trained personnel not taking a more active role in fighting the fires- instead of exhausted volunteers and fire fighters? said Annette Brownlie, Chairperson IPAN.
“Lack of public admission of links between increasing temperatures and human-made climate change is not just a failure of analysis but also a betrayal of all Australians.”
“Australia’s decision to spend $200 billion on military hardware including Joint Strike fighter jets and submarines over the next 10 years must be challenged as it is evident that climate change consequences such as drought, rising temperatures and bushfires will demand this money be spent providing genuine national security rather than engaging in wars unrelated to the defence of Australians.”
People in charge of emergency services in New South Wales have scheduled a call for a national bushfire summit, claiming that Australia's political leaders are failing to deal with the NSW bushfire crisis, which their press release ascribes entirely to climate change. Unfortunately, it does not note the services to climate that forests provide. Nor does it note the many other impacts on forests that are drying them out - but could be mitigated - aside from overall climate change. These causes of drying are land-clearing for population expansion, thinning of old-growth forest, and the predations of pyromaniacs or electrical equipment, which are the chief causes of bushfires. And, in the appendix to their press release, they prioritise 'fuel reduction', rather than protection of forests and ways of keeping them wet. Their press release does mention the danger to wildlife as well as to property.
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’S leadership vacuum on Australia’s bushfire and climate crisis has prompted Emergency Leaders for Climate Action to announce a national bushfire emergency summit after the current bushfire season.
The group has also expanded its membership to 29 former emergency chiefs, with six new members joining calls for the Federal Government to better prepare Australia for worsening extreme weather events. The new members include former Deputy Fire Commissioners, former Directors General of Emergency Management Australia, former Director General of NSW National Parks, and a former Deputy SES Commissioner.
Greg Mullins, former Commissioner, Fire & Rescue NSW, said: “We are deeply concerned with the unprecedented scale and ferocity of the current bushfire crisis. Summer has barely begun but record numbers of homes have been lost in Queensland and NSW, major cities have been shrouded in smoke and destructive fires are burning across Australia. Climate change is the key driver to the worsening conditions but the Federal Government remains in denial as far as credible action on emissions goes.”
PRESS CONFERENCE DETAILS:
WHEN: Tuesday, 17 December, 10:30am AEDT
WHERE: Mrs Macquarie’s Road, Royal Botanic Gardens, SYDNEY (Near Andrew Boy Charlton Pool)
VISION: Former fire and emergency chiefs delivering press conference in front of fire truck
WHO: Six former commissioners, emergency chiefs, fire officers, etc. from NSW (Greg Mullins), QLD (Lee Johnson), TAS (Mike Brown), ACT (Peter Dunn), VIC (Craig Lapsley), WA (Naomi Brown)
“Over the weekend homes were lost near both Sydney and Perth, and a large 737 air tanker was sent from NSW to WA. This underlines our grave concerns that despite the support and efforts of state and territory governments, of current fire chiefs and our brave firefighters, Australia does not have adequate resources to fight fires of this scale or to tackle worsening conditions and simultaneous fire seasons in years to come," said Mr Mullins.
“Australia has become hotter and drier due to climate change, but politicians in Canberra seem incapable of admitting the link. There are no credible climate policies to phase out fossil fuels, or bring down emissions, and our government embarrassed us in Madrid.
“We feel a duty to fill Canberra’s leadership vacuum on the fires and will call our own national emergency summit after the current bushfire season to bring together a range of interested parties to look at how we can adapt to a far more dangerous environment. The safety and well-being of communities, firefighters, and wildlife is on the line.
“Our coalition of concerned leaders is growing, and we are not going away until we see action that matches the scale and urgency of the climate emergency and gives some hope for future generations,” said Mr Mullins.
ELCA is releasing in full the list of recommendations it provided to Minister David Littleproud and Minister Angus Taylor in early December.
Major General Peter Dunn (ret), Former Commissioner, ACT Emergency Services Authority, said: “Bushfires are burning simultaneously in several states and territories, and worse conditions are expected over the summer. People’s lives and properties at risk; this is what climate change looks like.”
“Intense drought and extremely hot weather put unprecedented strain on firefighting agencies as well as firefighters, emergency workers, health services, and others. Australia needs a national approach to ensure that states and territories have the resources needed to keep people safe.
“We have been calling for a bushfire emergency summit to work out a coordinated strategy for worsening extreme weather in the future. We will now take it upon ourselves to host it in March. The Prime Minister is invited to join us, and to show the leadership Australia badly needs on emergency management and climate action,” said Mr Dunn.
This short documentary shows the problems that birds face in the US, but they face the same problems in Australia. The current push by powerful property developers, niched in our government, will remove more habitat for the birds where most of us live. Birds Australia's report, The State of Australia's Birds 2015, showed shorebirds in steep decline, and that our familiar friends, magpies, kookaburras, and willy-wagtails, are now struggling.
Waleed Aly ("A Rhetorical State of Emergency," Sydney Morning Herald, 12 September 2019,) has dressed up banality as insight and has been very long-winded about it. His focus is climate change and he laments the fact that we have so "engineered a lack of [political] consensus" that Australia is never likely to successfully address it.
But there is a sense that Waleed believes his unique understanding sets him apart from the problems he describes ... I would like to help him find his feet of clay.
That we worry about climate change is because of the harm it is doing and will do to the natural environment; Waleed's focus, therefore, ought to be environmental decline from any cause, and not just climate change.
The two key drivers of environmental decline are the growth in human population and ever rising levels of consumption. Remarkably, the two key components of Australia's particular economic model are: more people -- population growth via high immigration -- consuming more and more ... forever.
If Australia wishes to address environmental decline -- as Waleed believes we ought -- we must address our levels of consumption and the growth in our population. The latter will require a substantial reduction in immigration -- the principal driver of our population growth.
There is a popular consensus for this measure. What stands in the way? Well, among other things, pundits like Waleed and his occasional employer, the ABC, who refuse to go anywhere near the immigration issue.
For all his posturing and puffing over our dysfunctional politics, Waleed is part of the problem he describes.
Koala populations would once have stretched across the Australian continent, but have now shrunk to the point where we could lose them forever, according to new research that has tracked the impact of diminishing forest cover.
A team of researchers from the ARC Centre of Excellence in Australian Biodiversity and Heritage (CABAH) pieced together the records of koala populations and their food trees up to 130,000 years ago — and projected their changing habitats into the future. Using a combination of climate, soil, and tree data, as well as records of koala fossils, the researchers developed sophisticated modelling to trace the impact of changing distributions of the eucalypt trees on which koalas depend for food. 
Their work reveals that prior to humans arriving in Australia, koala populations were found in the southern tip of Western Australia, and on the Nullarbor Plain that stretches from Western Australia to into South Australia.
The pattern of koala populations suggests that forests of eucalyptus trees extended across the continent in the past few hundred thousand years. But there has been a rapid loss of forests over the past 7,000 years.
As the forests retracted eastwards, koala populations disappeared, and they are currently only found on the south-eastern and eastern coasts.
“We found that climate change caused koala population extinctions in south-western Australia and in the Nullarbor Plain. We also showed that future climate patterns will likely increase the extinction risk of koalas in their remaining eastern ranges,” said lead researcher and CABAH Postdoctoral Fellow, Dr Farzin Shabani from Flinders University.
The study, published in the journal Ecography, used mathematical models to predict the past and future distributions of 60 species of trees, mainly Eucalyptus, that are eaten by koalas. The team included researchers from Flinders University and The Australian National University, as well as colleagues from Switzerland and Iran.
The researchers applied the same models to predict the distribution of eucalypt forests up to 2070 as the climate continues to warm. In the face of other threats such as deforestation and disease, koalas are likely to experience future declines.
CABAH Chief Investigator Professor Corey Bradshaw from Flinders University said there is hope for the most quintessential of Australian fauna — if action is taken to protect existing habitats and replace those already destroyed.
“Climate change has already reduced global biodiversity and will continue to do so, driving sometimes rapid shifts in the distributions and abundance of many species, and possibly causing many to go extinct in the near future. On that front, Australia and its unique species — the koala — is not exceptional,” Professor Bradshaw said.
The marches yesterday were really impressive, but there is a way that school children could be many more times effective in carving out their future on these issues. Australian and State governments are pretty resistant against democratic protests, and anyhow, our governments at all levels don't have much of a clue about what to do about providing energy to our increasing populations. Schools and schoolchildren could exert much more pressure and constructive effort at a local level and we hope they will.
I am trying to imagine myself as a 15 year old back at school and trying to make my own decision regarding the Climate Change rally today, planned weeks in advance. How capable would I have been to assess the science on Climate Change? Actually, even now I don't think I can really independently assess the data. I understand that greenhouse gases accumulate in the atmosphere and are associated with higher temperatures. I understand that the world production of Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GGEs) is increasing and that they come from the burning of coal, oil, and wood or anything combustible and are mitigated by the process of photosynthesis performed by trees and in fact all plants including plankton in the sea. Thank you plants and trees!
In Melbourne we are reducing our tree cover hand over fist as we build over our gardened suburbs far more densely. We add more GGEs as we add more people, since they all use electricity, they all in one way or another use cars or other transport. They consume goods, the production of which causes GGEs.
So I imagine how I would respond to the choice of attending a large rally whose purpose is to send a message to our federal government seemingly thumbing its nose at concern over climate change. In my 15 years would I have noticed any changes personally? I read about melting ice at the poles, I see You-Tube videos of polar bears unable to hunt due to loss off their ice environment. I hear of terrible droughts and fires in Australia often attributed to climate change. My teachers appear to be in favour of students taking half a day off school to attend the rally. What do I do? The popular kids are all attending the rally. If I don't, how will I be seen? What will be the fallout? Whatever I do, will be public as far as my peers are concerned. I have to make a decision and make my first political statement.
People are talking about being "on the right side of history." Of course when my own children ask me what I did I will want to be on the right side of history. However, the issue is somewhat intangible, abstract and seems to rely on a leap of faith. I don't want to be called "climate change denier." That sounds very much on the wrong side of history! I need to be a "believer." A bit of self talk is needed. I feel passionately about the natural world and I see assaults on it every day even where I live. Climate change affects the natural world but the science is complex for me, I have to take it on faith and I don't feel comfortable with this. Despite my misgivings and insecurities, I'll have to go today and join my classmates. I'm taking a punt that I am on the "right side of history." My parents do not approve of my attending but have said it is up to me.
I'm ambivalent but I am going.
I am a schoolteacher, and I am on my way to the Climate Change march. I am also ambivalent.
What are the children going to be learning in their 'first political statement' based on righteous indignation and general demands? I'm afraid they are going to be learning their first lesson in their political impotence. Because, as an adult who has tried to stop over-population, over-development and habitat destruction in this city and this country, I know that the government and the press are entirely capable of ignoring indignation on the steps of parliament from multiple residents' action groups.
As a teacher, I also do not dare to question this approach to environmental concerns, because, if I do, I will become a pariah. However I will tell you what I think we should be doing:
Our schools should not be marching in the city. We should be marching, if we are going to march, to our respective local councils, with carefully thought out lists of demands. First, we should be asking our local councils to make laws against tree removal and habitat destruction. Next on our list would be to ask them to investigate and cost new alternative power options and local food production options. Our schools should then put their science and other teachers to work with the children to examine the logistics and possibilities of these new technologies in the field - locally. What better place for us to learn to be effective, and to engage politically on energy and production than in our own communities and biophysical environments? This would also open up local careers in alternative industry avenues in energy and resources and planning. Youth suicide rates would drop, since political engagement close to home is an antidote to feeling worthless and powerless.
How might we notify the community of our serious intent on these matters? School children should be turning up, with their teachers, to every attempt to remove a tree in their local community and stop it until it is carefully evaluated. Perhaps we could form tree councils with others in our localities in order to promote alternatives to moonscaping our neighbourhoods.
How long, I wonder, would it take before we all realised that there should be local limits to growth? That would put a spanner in the authoritarian regime of planning for population growth and development. Thereby, by combining local action all over the country, we would accomplish far more than any Paris climate change conference.
I guess that is why we are all marching instead.
Land-clearing policy in Queensland has had a significant impact on rates of vegetation clearing. Over recent decades changes in land-clearing regulations in Queensland have led first to a
decrease in vegetation clearing (when strong laws were enforced) and then to an increase in vegetation clearing (when laws were relaxed). Relaxation of land-clearing regulations in 2013
in Queensland led to a significant increase in the vegetation clearing rate. More than one million hectares of woody vegetation, of which 41% was remnant vegetation, were cleared in Queensland
between 2012-13 and 2015-16.
395,000 hectares of woody vegetation were cleared in 2015-2016, representing a 33% increase over the previous year. This is equivalent to roughly half of the forest cleared in the Brazilian Amazon rainforest in 2016.
The 2015-16 clearing rate in Queensland was the highest since 2003-04 (490,000 hectares/year).
Queensland has become Australia’s hotspot for land clearing, accounting for between 50-65% of the total loss of native forests in Australia over the last four decades.
In 2015 the land use sector in Queensland generated 19 million tonnes of greenhouse gas pollution, which was more pollution than the agriculture sector or around 20% of the pollution
from the entire energy sector including electricity, stationary energy and transport.
In 2015 Queensland was responsible for around 80% of Australia’s greenhouse gas pollution from land-use change.
In terms of emissions, 19 million tonnes of greenhouse pollution was generated by the land use sector in Queensland in 2015. This is equivalent to more greenhouse pollution than
Queensland’s agriculture sector or around 20% of the greenhouse pollution from the entire energy sector in Queensland including electricity, stationary energy and transport (AGEIS 2015a).
We like to blame politicians for the lack of action on climate change. But how prepared are people to really pay the price of change? We like to imagine that all politicians need to do is cleverly tax carbon and magically renewable energies will arise to take their place. The situation in France shows the fault in this thinking. Renewables cannot possibly replace fossil fuel - not on the scale needed to avert environmental disaster. Someone must pay the price - and it is the poor who get hurt most.
In France an attempt to raise diesel and fuel prices has resulted in mass riots, led in large part by people from rural communities who were most affected by the rises and had fewer alternatives. We have the same sort of phenomenon in Australia - wealthier Australians get solar panels (with subsidies) leaving renters and poorer people picking up the tab for the electricity distribution system.
The truth is our system is soaked in oil. Any attempt to reduce the flow will be catastrophic, financially, socially and in even more fundamental ways i.e. famine. Our food production system is particularly dependent on oil - you cannot run tractors, combine harvesters and trucks (especially refrigerated ones) on batteries - even if you could, you need massive generation capacity to charge these - which is not going to happen, and certainly not in time. Thus if we attempt to tax fuel in a way that has impact people will start to go hungry - the ones on the margins first, then increasingly more.
So what do we need to do? We need to fundamentally, radically and actively decouple our societies from the fossil fuel system. Modern industrialism will not survive the transition, so relying on high-tech solutions is a mistake - these technologies will not be able to be produced or maintained on the necessary scale given the changes required to avert ecological disaster.
How do we decouple from the fossil-fuel system? With massive sacrifices from everyone. Lets not kid ourselves - these changes will have more impact, and require more effort, than both world wars. Also, if we do not actively take charge, change will be forced on us by circumstance, and that will be even less pleasant. Thus WE NEED TO WORK TOGETHER - and all must be prepared to make great sacrifices.
What is to be done? We need to divide up all the large farms in Australia's non-arid regions (which is about 2%-3% of the land mass - and shrinking with housing expansion and climate change) and create smaller Permaculture farms of around 10 acres - with families, or small groups of friends, running these farms. It has been shown that Permaculture can be done with zero fossil fuels. Masanoba Fukuoka ran his large farm for over 16 years using only hand tools and buying no chemicals or fertilizers. Also the American Professor Russell Smith demonstrated with his book 'Tree Crops: A Permanent Agriculture' how small diversified farms could produce higher quantities of calories than large farms (see the graphic above) The trouble is it can take 10 years or more to establish such a farm - thus we need a massive system of support to enable this (eg. to grow and distribute trees and plants) and to feed people until the Permaculture farms are producing excess. Thus we need to carefully move from the industrial farms that are feeding us now so as to gradually shift that land to Permaculture production whilst feeding the whole population. This will require people giving up things to support the transition - and most of all it will require us to work together, be selfless and not hold grudges when things do not go our way - as they surely will not sometimes. We all need to develop super-hero levels of self denial and perseverance (but unfortunately without the super recognition that comic book heroes get).
Will it work? Many studies have shown that small farms out-produce large farms. This was demonstrated by Nobel economist Amartya Sen and also acknowledged by the U.N which has been trying to encourage smaller farms around the world (but meeting resistance as you can read about here).
What is the promise? I suspect that the benefits of a Permaculture future for Australia (and the world) will be healthier and happier people with better relationships as we engage in animal and land husbandry, craft and local-industrial production - not to mention a future for our planet and our children.
But WE must do it, WE must call for it - WE must support our leaders in achieving this - we cannot sit back and expect them to fix this alone - especially if none of us is prepared to go without.
So who is up for being a super-hero? Who wants to give all to save the world?
What to do now?
Help spread the word! We are looking to start a political campaign called "A Permaculture Future" to promote Permaculture as the viable alternative to our current fossil-fuel based system. Please respond in the comments or contact Permaculture Victoria if you are interested.
Well not really praise as such but, bear with me, while I justify wandering into this absurdity. I know it's difficult to say nice things about MP Craig Kelly, who claimed that people would die because renewables were raising electricity prices. He was perhaps unaware that the World Health Organisation in 2008 calculated that coal particulate pollution caused one million deaths across the world. And Tony Abbott who, between mouthfuls of onion, told us that coal was good for humanity - which was in opposition to both the Pope and the British Royal family's position - the two institutes he holds dear to his heart. Those are just two of 34 confirmed deniers in the LNP, although the Institute of Public Affairs claims half of the LNP members are supporters of their position.
That sounds like a lot of politicians on the wrong track (the US has 180 deniers in Congress!) and its certainly one of the reasons that action on climate change has stalled. But there are a total of 226 federal politicians in both houses, so what were the rest doing? Can 34 deniers be so powerful as to dominate an issue, or are these the nice guys who are actually honest enough to nail their colours to the mast and challenge their electorate to vote for them on the policies and their natural charm and charisma? And, as such, are they not more commendable than the other 192 so called “believers”, including Malcolm Turnbull, who promote or knowingly participate in the processes that are destroying the planets climate?
Which then prompts the question as to why on earth would we have a higher percentage of deniers in parliament than in the general public, and why are so many advocating or just accepting policies that harm the planet? Well, there is money, and lots of it, that comes from those who would like the government to continue with policies that benefit the donor at the expense of the environment. These donations are so important, and so potentially embarrassing, that the major parties have only been transparent with 10 to 20% of their disclosures. What we do know is that Fossil Fuel companies have declared donations of $968,343 to the ALP, Liberal and National parties in 2016-17, which was slightly down from the $1.03m donated in 2015-16 and $1.94m in 2014-15 (which was also a Federal election year).
https://theconversation.com/the-truth-about-political-donations-there-is-so-much-we-dont-know-91003
However even the most cynical politician, one who depends on this source of money for re election, would baulk at supporting some of the improprieties we have had thrust upon us by successive governments, unless there was some way to quell his/her distaste for their parties' actions. One way this can occur is via embracing a particular ideology - which by definition is a system of beliefs and ideals which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy. As such, it's not all that different to its equivalent in religion – faith – as both tend to smother reasoning lest it lead to inconvenient conclusions.
Ideology plays a big part in how political parties and governments function, largely because aspiring politicians can't get endorsement without supporting the parties' theories and must then ‘tow the party line’ or risk dis-endorsement. But it does mean that a minority group can usurp control of a party, something that has occurred in all parties: The modern Liberal is nothing like the Menzies model which was high tax, (by today's standard) protectionist on trade, big on regulation, and ran with a budget surplus and low unemployment (2.2%). The Labor party was instinctively socialist until Paul Keating embraced Milton Frieberg's fantasies with the result that we have two mainstream parties of the right with the Liberal party pushed into the hard right effectively destroying the moderates (wets) and handing power to the ultra conservatives. Barry Jones the former ALP science minister described this as "political compaction," giving voters a choice between McDonald's and KFC.
And when it comes to ideology economics is a star performer. No matter what political camp, be it neo conservative, (hard right) neo liberal, (center right to center left), socialism or communism, economics rules, and does so without a soul, because its criteria for assessment is reduced down to a single figure called the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Governments of the world assume that this one statistic can show whether things are getting better or worse despite the occasional hic-up like the Global Financial Crises. Yet as a measurement it was only adopted in the war years when production (of war material) was the key to winning the war. It did not measure human health, education, poverty, unemployment or environmental damage because the war took precedence over all the things that make up human well being. As a result today's governments will still prioritize policies or projects that will add to GDP, especially if it does so in the governments term of office. They can also virtually ignore those things that are not measured in financial terms and this includes damage to human health or the environment which are dismissed as being “externalities” of lesser importance than its contribution to “the economy” .
Economists (and to a lesser extent politicians) are so obsessed with this they have described GDP as one of the greatest inventions of the 20th century - and they have a point. Because now there is something definitive to give them credibility as policy makers and guardians of wisdom even though there is no correlation between GDP and wellbeing. To enhance this self appointed credibility and to justify all the absurdities they inflict upon us, economists usurped the prestige associated with the Nobel prize which as you may know was an initiative of Alfred Nobel back in 1901. The awards were issued for Chemistry, Physics, Literature, Medicine and Peace, there was no prize for economics mentioned in Alfred Nobel’s will. This didn’t materialise until 1968, when the Swedish Central Bank wanted to do something special for its 300th birthday. It made a donation to the Nobel Foundation to sponsor a prize and to make it more acceptable they called it a prize for ‘economic sciences’. Since the economics prize is announced at the same ceremony it is virtually indistinguishable from the others but the Nobel family estate didn’t approve so at the family’s insistence, the prize was given the name it has – the Sveriges Riksbank Prize given ‘in memory of’ Alfred Nobel, and not a true Nobel prize. Which is just as well since Nobel specified that his prizes should go to people who’s work has “conferred the greatest benefit on mankind”. That’s relatively easy to decide a winner in the traditional sciences, but the economic prize has often gone to people with completely opposing views. One recipient, Myron Scholes the 1997 winner, will forever be remembered by the failure of his hedge fund Long-Term Capital Management (LTCM) which collapsed in 1998 losing $US4.6 billion of investment.
Like any Nobel, the prize gives economists a stamp of approval in the mind of the general public, legitimising their entire philosophy. Of the 74 laureates so far, 28 are affiliated with the University of Chicago, the home of neoliberalism including Milton Friedman and Friedrick Hayek (architects of what become known as Reaganomics - deregulation, and the trickle down effect which double the US national debt) but even Hayek expressed doubt about the award saying:
“If I had been consulted whether to establish a Nobel Prize in economics, I should have decidedly advised against it. The Nobel Prize confers on an individual an authority which in economics no man ought to possess.”
This does not matter in science where the influence exercised by an individual is chiefly on his fellow experts - and they will soon cut him down to size if he exceeds his competence. But economist have influence over laymen: politicians, journalists, civil servants and the public, which gives them undeserved authority that is often used to override warnings from almost all other avenues, including scientific bodies. John Howard once remarked that “we could grow forever,” later admitting that we would need to rely on imported food to do so. Larry Summers, a former adviser to President Obama, stated, "The idea that we should put limits on growth because of some natural limit is a profound error, and one that, were it ever to prove influential, would have staggering social costs." It is a comment often repeated, despite being contrary to even basic mathematics, and was justified by referring to growth as being “sustainable”. When this was seen to be an oxymoron the wordsmiths produced an alternative, environmental problems can be “decoupled” - that is isolated - from growth, and even from population growth. There is no doubt that this form of economics, with its obsession with an ever expanding economy and dubious accounting, has been a great benefit for corporations like the fossil fuel industry. But it is also partially or wholly responsible for most of problems that now beset the world, including plastic pollution in oceans, air pollution in cities, the obesity pandemic, the collapse of coral reefs, and all the threats associated with catastrophic climate change. All so much different from a previous age, when President Kennedy was said to have had a plaque on his desk with the message, “The Buck Stops Here,” meaning that responsibility lies with those in power. Oddly enough the last time Australia had a prime minister who took responsibility for his mistakes was when Kevin Rudd admitted we could not meet his GHG reduction targets because of the population growth he had championed. And his Big Australia dream is still alive and well in the major political parties as well as the Greens.
Don Owers
St Kilda Road and Hoddle Street widening to accommodate larger volumes of road traffic in Melbourne means bulldozing hundreds of beautiful, mature trees, cultivated in a time when people appreciated the importance of natural shade and beauty. This vandalism is caused by willful promotion of overpopulation by the Victorian State government. Furtively supported by an equally venal Opposition, invited economic mass immigration-caused population growth marches on like an invasion preceded by bulldozers, jack hammers and all manner of violence towards our environment and display of might by state governments. Australia grew by over half a million people between July 2016 and July 2017, although natural increase actually declined, almost certainly due to rising costs affecting Australia's fertility opportunity.[1]
Excuse me, but it seems that Pauline Hanson was right, at least on the numbers: We are being 'swamped' - at a rate of Overseas immigrants 63.0 : Australian citizens and residents 36.8 - by the numbers - wherever they come from. These latest growth figures were due 63% to overseas immigration; only 36.8% from natural increase between July 2016 and July 2017. (See the latest ABS graph and details below.) It doesn't matter where they come from; the point is that accommodating these numbers is overwhelming our native animal habitat, our infrastructure, our social organisation, our legal and planning system (which is changing to remove public consultation over expansion and which simply does not enforce wildlife protection laws) and our democracy - because government is more interested in feathering the pockets of the growth lobby than serving the electorate, keeping housing prices down, providing education to young people and helping local business.
The cause of the growth is Australian state governments' constant invitations to overseas immigrants to come and settle here, greatly magnified by internet reach since the late 1990s. Immigration marketing is typified by the illustration we have labelled "Immigration Hype", which depicts a young couple with a baby in a leafy suburb. The reality, of course, is that both young couples with babies and leafy suburbs are declining - due to incredibly high rates of immigration. Although population growth is the number one subject on radio, TV and print media, it is promoted slickly as 'vibrant', 'booming', 'bonanza', 'housing investment opportunity', and the constant citizen and resident protests [See /taxonomy/term/582 and /taxonomy/term/1193] are hardly ever even reported outside https://candobetter.net, thus many Australians feel alone in the midst of this onslaught.
Our governments don't listen to us, but they have even stopped talking normally to us. Instead they repetitively sloganize us about how 'livable' our cities are, like crass advertisers, backed solidly by the growth lobby mouthpiece of the mainstream press and the ABC. The latest boast that they are making is that Australia's population growth will move our economy up to 11th largest economy in the world. It's about as impressive as listening to teenagers boast about how much they can drink; we know it's going to end in a mess.
Our standards of living and quality of life are all plummeting, so we can only fear the future that our unrepresentative governments are socially engineering us towards. We have been a net-importer of petroleum for years. Our land is 30% hot desert and 40% non-arable rangeland. Our major inland river basin has been in ecological strife for more than a century and we are told that climate change will reduce rainfall. We face life-threatening increases in temperature and we are expanding into bigger and bigger heat-islands, called cities. Our non-consensual population increase policy will turn this land into a Mars. This land was wrested from a population that inhabited it sustainably for 60,000 years! And this is progress? Not!
Whilst immigration rates have gone up yet again, over the July 2016-2017 period, Australia's natural increase has actually declined. This decline can be explained by Virginia Abernethy's theory of the Fertility Opportunity,[1] where people see that the future looks dim, so they choose not to have children. This is surely the feeling young people must have as immigrants crowd in by the hundreds of thousands in an economic environment of ongoing deterioration in an already declining quality and standard of living for all but a tiny elite. See http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/living-standards-in-decline-as-real-wage-growth-stagnates/news-story/a95f1b82064fd39e919deec3fd0a9a91
For the 12 months ended 30 June 2017, Australia's population growth rate of 1.6% was above that of the world at 1.1%. Australia is growing at a faster rate than every selected country except for Papua New Guinea (2.1%). The Philippines and Singapore were the next fastest growing countries (both at 1.5%) followed by Malaysia (1.4%) and South Africa (1.3%).
According to figures from the United Nations, Department of Economics and Social Affairs, Australia's population ranked 53rd highest in the world in 2017 and is projected to rank 56th by 2050. By 2050, India is projected to have displaced China as the most populous country with 1.7 billion people compared with 1.4 billion in China.
|
POPULATION, GROWTH RATE AND RANK (a)(b), Summary
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
 |
ESTIMATED RESIDENT POPULATION
|
PROJECTED POPULATION
|
RANK
|
|||
|
2016
|
2017
|
Growth Rate
|
2050
|
2017
|
2050
|
| Selected Countries |
million
|
million
|
%
|
million
|
no.
|
no.
|
|
|
||||||
| Australia |
24
|
25
|
1.6
|
38
|
53
|
56
|
| Canada |
36
|
37
|
0.9
|
45
|
38
|
46
|
| China (excl. SARs and Taiwan) |
1 404
|
1 410
|
0.4
|
1 364
|
1
|
2
|
| France |
65
|
65
|
0.4
|
71
|
22
|
28
|
| Greece |
11
|
11
|
-0.2
|
10
|
82
|
98
|
| Hong Kong (SAR of China) |
7
|
7
|
0.8
|
8
|
104
|
111
|
| India |
1 324
|
1 339
|
1.1
|
1 659
|
2
|
1
|
| Indonesia |
261
|
264
|
1.1
|
322
|
4
|
5
|
| Italy |
59
|
59
|
-0.1
|
55
|
23
|
36
|
| Japan |
128
|
127
|
-0.2
|
109
|
11
|
17
|
| Korea (South) |
51
|
51
|
0.4
|
50
|
27
|
41
|
| Malaysia |
32
|
32
|
1.4
|
42
|
45
|
50
|
| New Zealand |
5
|
5
|
1.0
|
6
|
125
|
126
|
| Papua New Guinea |
8
|
8
|
2.1
|
14
|
101
|
86
|
| Philippines |
103
|
105
|
1.5
|
151
|
13
|
13
|
| Singapore |
6
|
6
|
1.5
|
7
|
115
|
120
|
| South Africa |
56
|
57
|
1.3
|
73
|
25
|
27
|
| Sweden |
10
|
10
|
0.7
|
12
|
89
|
93
|
| United Kingdom |
66
|
66
|
0.6
|
75
|
21
|
26
|
| United States of America |
322
|
324
|
0.7
|
390
|
3
|
4
|
| Viet Nam |
95
|
96
|
1.0
|
115
|
15
|
16
|
| World |
7 467
|
7 550
|
1.1
|
9 772
|
. .
|
. .
|
|
|
||||||
| . . not applicable | ||||||
| (a) Selected countries include major OECD countries, the world's most populous countries, Australia's closest neighbours and trading partners. | ||||||
| (b) Selected country and world estimates and projections for 2016/2017 and 2050 are from United Nations World Population Prospects: The 2017 Revision (medium variant projections). | ||||||
| Source: Australian estimates - this issue of Australian Demographic Statistics (cat. no. 3101.0); Australian projections; Series B in Population Projections, Australia, 2012 (base) to 2101 (cat. no. 3222.0). Selected country and world estimates and projections - United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2017). World Population Prospects: the 2017 Revision, custom data acquired via website (medium variant projections). | ||||||
Your reference for the graphs and quotations from the Australian Bureau of Statistics is: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Latestproducts/3101.0Main%20Features2Jun%202017?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=3101.0&issue=Jun%202017&num=&view=: Annual Population Change, Year ending 30 June 2017.
The Fertility Opportunity Theory: "The causal relationship between perceived opportunity and desired family size is described as the fertility opportunity hypothesis. The fertility opportunity hypothesis accounts for either rising or falling fertility rates.
Absolute level of poverty or affluence is not the primary factor driving decisions and action. Motivation derives from perception. Perceptions arise relative to past experiences or by comparison with a reference group. Thus, the fertility opportunity hypothesis applies in hunter-gatherer societies, agrarian societies, and both developing and industrialized countries. The belief that resources are ample, or not, develops against a specific society’s baseline expectations.
Whereas some demographers still write as though modernization and prosperity are necessary preconditions for smaller family size, the fertility opportunity hypothesis documents a nearly opposite dynamic. People in all types of societies work to limit births when they perceive that resources are shrinking, margins are smaller, and competition has stiffened." Cited from Virginia Abernethy, "Fossil Fuel Energy and Fertility Rates," Vanderbilt University, 2004. https://media.eurekalert.org/aaasnewsroom/2004/2Abernethy-FossilFuel-Paper.doc
VicRoads doesn't really respect wildlife corridors and rarely includes wildlife crossings in its vast expensive highways, despite its Fauna Sensitive Road Design Guidelines (on what page here to find link to pdf document is unclear). The excuse seems to be that they are too expensive. However VicRoads is costing us all more than money. And last week it sent a giant mulcher to mow down forests of trees which had been planted along the Mornington Peninsula median strips as a climate change mitigation measure by previous regimes.
Notwithstanding VicRoads' "Updated VicRoads Tree Policy, 20 January 2017", the corporation hasn't really changed its mechanistic values:
"The updated policy offers increased scope to consider existing trees, not just new plantings, and consideration during planning and development instead of only responding to new proposals. Mr Wall said historically, VicRoads has been seen by the community as prioritising roads, safety and movement over trees and the wider environment."
And went on to confirm that they would continue to prioritise roads over trees.
If VicRoads puts its roadbuilding above the wider environment, on which we all depend, it is plainly out of control, operating within a grandiose belief system that road-builders are more important than anything else.
Recently they announced:
"We’re upgrading the Mornington Peninsula Freeway between Mount Martha and Rosebud to improve safety as part of Victoria’s Road Safety Strategy & Action Plan, Towards Zero 2016-2020 [...]
And along they came with the enormous tree-mulcher, right at the beginning of Spring, when most birds make their nests. The Australian Wildlife Protection Council (AWPC) Secretary, Eve Kelly, could hardly believe her eyes as suddenly she realised that the considerably forested median strips and roadsides were being mown down at lightening speed by a monster machine. VicRoads had employed a single wildlife spotter who was overwhelmed in her attempts to save any birds, lizards, possums, koalas from the path of the giant mulcher. Eve had more success than most, in getting the Mornington Peninsula Freeway project paused by complaining to VicRoads, when she complained about the plight of the wildlife on behalf of AWPC.
"VicRoads was told the clearing would impact on wildlife now and in the future. "We voiced our concerns about the loss of habitat, and the welfare and care of animals now in rehab at wildlife shelters,' Ms Kelly said later. 'We also raised our concerns about the destructive methods used and the lack of planning, including the time of year this work has commenced.'" (https://issuu.com/southernpeninsulanews/docs/spn_10_october_2017)
There were "reports of dozens of displaced animals, including ringtail possums dropping babies from nests, echidnas and blue tongue lizards being trampled by the authority's 'forestry machine' - and even being mulched alive."
"Ms Kelly said 15 orphaned possums were being hand raised at WHOMP after the drama. Two young ringtails had to be put down."
After complaints, VicRoads met with Brenda Marmion of Ocean Wildlife Shelter, and Eve Kelly and Craig Thomson of AWPC, with Klarissa Garnaut of Wildlife Help on the Mornington Peninsula on speaker phone.
VicRoads stopped the clearing and VicRoads Program Director Bryan Sherrit said the program would be redesigned, that work would restart next year after peak summer season, and that the 'high density vegetation removal machine' would not be reused on this project. He added that 'any future vegetation removal' would use more fauna-sensitive methods.
But trees are not safe with VicRoads and its safe roads project.
This is the problem with corporations. They take over state services and run them for profit, and then they start creating work for themselves. VicRoads benefits from overpopulation in Australia, rolling out roads to connect new suburbs, and thinking up new jobs for its friends. Removing trees along roads is one of the more diabolical make-works they have found. They have become like the Cat with the Hat only not so funny with their expanding manic activities, backed up by huge material resources: fossil fuels and machine of inhuman size.
All over Victoria, citizens are trying to stop VicRoads from running roughshod over democracy, contributing to carbon emissions, turning beautiful trees into mulch and displacing Wildlife.
A "Save Roadside Trees in Victoria" website: https://saveroadsidetrees.com/the-problem/roadside-vegetation-issues-non-vicroads/ was formed in October 2016 in response to shocking plans by VicRoads to remove trees from the sides of roads. The first post appears to have been from Latrobe Valley:
"The Latrobe Valley Sustainability Group is protesting VicRoads’ proposal to remove 90 Endangered Strzelecki Gums plus acacias and wattles (including 24 old and very old trees) as part of a road safety project on the Tyers/Traralgon Road in the Latrobe Valley. Latrobe City only has 23% remaining native vegetation."
"A radical plan to remove roadside trees around the State is underway. It is apparently backed by research, but people are continuing to die on roads where trees are completely absent. Is the program, advertised widely as the “Towards Zero” safety campaign simply an environmentally costly experiment? There has been an increase of 13% in deaths from road accidents this year despite the increases in roadside tree removals."
"Conservationist Sue McKinnon said the tree hollows created an important corridor for the movement of phascogales. “The success of the breeding season of the phascogale is dependent on mobility and large numbers of hollows in a wide range as the male runs around over a huge area to find females to breed with, and after this time the male dies,” she said. “If the phascogales’ movement is restricted by removal of hollows along a corridor, the breeding season may fail."
"The Victorian Auditor-General’s Office has produced a document for various authorities to better engage with the community. Auditor-General John Doyle warns “failing to adequately engage the public risks alienating the community and creating negative impacts through poorly informed and implemented decisions.” Look no further than the #WstnHwy Duplication project for an example of where things have gone badly wrong. http://bit.ly/1TLmTWp (https://saveroadsidetrees.com/solutions/
Unfortunately the groups above seem to have got mixed up with Friends of the Earth (FOE), an organisation affiliated with the Socialist Alliance of AntiFa fame, political organisations which take over environmental and other political territory, but don't do much about it. In fact, many people think that, where you see a group affiliated with the Socialist Alliance, that means that the government or corporation will have an easy time.
Australians are also trying to stop the removal of massive trees along the Western Highway. See "The Western Highway Conservation Group," https://www.facebook.com/Savewesthwyveg/
VicRoads has too much power. It should be broken up and road building be returned to local councils, which cannot work as fast and have many other priorities that would dilute the capacity for road-building to take over.
Vicroads and Transurban Project
On 30 October 2017, Port Phillip Bay Keeper, Mr Neil Blake and Mr Jay Gleeson, AGL Community Relations Manager, Strategic Projects, will be speakers at the Annual General Meeting of Port Phillip Conservation Council, Inc. Mr Neil Blake’s talk 'From the back blocks to the Bay' discusses likely threats to the Bay from population growth, urban consolidation and climate change. He will also give an update on his Bay Keeper citizen science initiatives promoting community stewardship of our waterways – including his project recording recent changes to beach profiles and erosion around the Bay. Mr Jay Gleeson's talk will involve a presentation on AGL’s assessment of options for shipping Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) from interstate and overseas, receiving it at an import jetty and injecting it into the pipeline transportation system for supply to south-eastern Australia. After assessing sites around Australia, Crib Point in Westernport Bay has been identified as AGL’s preferred option. Mr. Gleeson will give an outline of AGL’S Import Jetty Project and implications for Westernport Bay and Crib Point, and will take questions from the audience. For background to the LNG project see: www.engageagl.com.au. Time: 7pm 30 October 2017 Venue: Longbeach Place - Chelsea Community Centre, 15 Chelsea Rd., Chelsea.
Dear Members and friends of PPCC Inc,
You are cordially invited to
The Annual General Meeting of Port Phillip Conservation Council Inc.
7 PM MONDAY, 30TH OCTOBER 2017
LONGBEACH PLACE - CHELSEA COMMUNITY CENTRE
15 CHELSEA ROAD CHELSEA
(Near Chelsea Library - ample parking between library and our venue -MELWAY MAP 97 B1)
OUR TWO GUEST SPEAKERS ARE SURE TO BE OF INTEREST:
PORT PHILLIP BAY KEEPER MR. NEIL BLAKE: Neil’s talk 'From the back blocks to the Bay' discusses likely threats to the Bay from population growth, urban consolidation and climate change. He will also give an update on his Bay Keeper citizen science initiatives promoting community stewardship of our waterways – including his project recording recent changes to beach profiles and erosion around the Bay.
MR. JAY GLEESON AGL COMMUNITY RELATIONS MANAGER, STRATEGIC PROJECTS: Mr. Gleeson will give a presentation on AGL’s assessment of options for shipping Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) from interstate and overseas, receiving it at an import jetty and injecting it into the pipeline transportation system for supply to south-eastern Australia. After assessing sites around Australia, Crib Point in Westernport Bay has been identified as AGL’s preferred option. Mr. Gleeson will give an outline of AGL’S Import Jetty Project and implications for Westernport Bay and Crib Point, and will take questions from the audience. For background to the LNG project see: www.engageagl.com.au
We look forward to seeing you on 30th October. Please feel free to promote the meeting with friends and colleagues who might like to hear our guest speakers.
Don't mention the role of war in climate change and economic devastation. Why we shouldn't believe that the US military establishment is sincere on its warning to Trump (and the rest of us) on climate change. I would once have swallowed this whole. A bunch of military men from prior US administration proselytise about climate change on this 4Corners program. Of course they totally ignore the role of war in carbon emissions which is probably the greatest contributor to carbon emissions. This is my reaction to the Australian 4Corners program of 20 March 2017.
They talk about a three year drought in Syria as a major cause of the 'unrest', population movement and the 'civil war' in Syria. They don't mention how Israel and Turkey annexed parts of a major river from Syria. They talk about how the consequent 'unravelling of Syrian society' opened up an opportunity for ISIS which. they say, had been born itself from the 'civil war' in Iraq.
They don't mention the US/NATO funding of the so-called rebellion/rebels in Syria, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Libya. They don't mention their role in war and climate change.
This story serves as a cover for current and future wars in the Middle East, for the destruction of the Middle East. It also serves as an excuse for mass immigration and creates a perceived need for more military defense.
By occasionally mentioning war as having other causes alongside climate change the film attempt to sound even-handed. But the whole thing comes from the CIA, is politically biased against the current US administration, is politically rather than scientifically founded. With regard to the science of climate change, it is just used here as a cover for war-propaganda.
The major message of this 'documentary' is that 'you need the US military to protect you from mass immigration and terrorism due to climate change provoking civil wars in the Middle East.
The film also gets in some anti-Russian propaganda, blaming Russia for blocking wheat to Egypt on one occasion, presumably to designate the Enemy for future wars.
The film tells us how Africans need more land but points out that Africa has lots of potential agricultural land, but China is grabbing that land. Doesn't mention that there is global investment in those Chinese agribusinesses nor that US and European investors are in competition for that land. Africans themselves continue to be turfed off their traditional land and disorganised, driven to seek their fortunes in megacities where child labor laws are either non-existent or not enforced, making children a source of income for families which have lost their traditional land and incomes.
Overpopulation accompanies urbanisation and 'development'. In third world countries it is not a consequence of better medical care lowering the death rate, since, by definition, these 'improvements' are lacking in such countries, which suffer from untreated Acquired Immunity Deficiency, associated turberculosis, and various delocalised viruses like ebola and parasitic infestations, such as schistosomiasis.
The film calls for greater international cooperation on climate change, but gives little power to people over their local situations, which is the first base to fight climate change or any other environmental ill. It is probably the only base, since the power-elite base that controls armies has no intention of resiling from weapons and war industry and has forced exception from climate change protocol for the military.
So, it's all rhetoric and propaganda: PR for the industrial-military-media machine. Repackaged for Australians in their most trusted investigative program.
The publication of this film by 4Corners shows how the people who select for this show are either incapable of analysing pure propaganda or unable to avoid showing it.
Who is choosing these propaganda programs for the ABC?
Canadians for a Sustainable Society is a research and activist NGO focused on changing our society’s pursuit of endless growth and ever higher levels of consumption. Simple growth is neither sustainable nor conducive to reducing inequality, debt, fiscal imbalance or achieving environmental sustainability.
Why Canada isn't hitting it's GHG Emission Targets
The aging trend is merely part of the much larger demographic transition which has accompanied the development of our modern societies. In this transition, life expectancy has increased from under 40 years in the 1700s to nearly 80 and the number of children per woman has decreased from 6 to near 2.
This demographic transition features:
• lower fertility rates
• longer life spans and
• higher proportions of seniors
Aging is inevitable and simply cannot be reversed except by catastrophic population collapse or exponential population growth continuing forever. Aging cannot be supported endlessly by fiscal deficits with the expectation that “growth will pay for it”. Growth does not pay for past deficits as a larger version of a debt producing fiscal structure adds on even larger debts going forward.
Very high levels of immigration has been touted as a “fix” for an aging population. The objective of this fix seems to be to maintain forever the age structure and the rate of growth of the baby boom period. Ie make it the 1950s forever. Attempting to boost immigration to levels which will run ahead of the aging trend will see extreme and ever-increasing levels of immigration with little effect on the age structure.
Why?
Understanding the nature of the changes and modifying our expectations of endless growth are the challenges which all countries will have to meet. Canada is fortunate in that many advanced societies are decades ahead in this transition and are providing an excellent reference for the development of policies which will allow us to deal successfully with the transition to demographic stability.
The best means of dealing with a shift to a higher proportion of seniors is to boost job quality and flexibility along with wage rates. People must be encouraged to be healthy and the concept of working well past the age previously thought of as “retirement age” must be embraced.
Neither Business-as-Usual nor Business-as-it-Once-Was is sustainable. Make sure your media sources and your political representatives are clear on the need for well-informed progressive change in Canadian public policy. “More of the same” is not a viable strategy.
For more in-depth discussion on aging see our page: #5a2015" href="http://canadiansforasustainablesociety.cmail20.com/t/r-l-yhhhuryk-hdxidzdh-r/" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=http://canadiansforasustainablesociety.cmail20.com/t/r-l-yhhhuryk-hdxidzdh-r/&source=gmail&ust=1479989972268000&usg=AFQjCNEiE9dMrpuggvvaKXVB_pfrBxu6iw">http://sustainablesociety.com/
Canadians for a Sustainable Society is a research and activist NGO focused on changing our society’s pursuit of endless growth and ever higher levels of consumption. Simple growth is neither sustainable nor conducive to reducing inequality, debt, fiscal imbalance or achieving environmental sustainability.
Our group believes that only a comprehensive strategy with relevant national metrics and clear goals can deliver long term social stability and environmental balance.
For reference:
Jason Kenney in his Backgrounder for his immigration hearing in 2011
“That being said, research underscores that immigration is not a viable remedy for population aging. A 2009 study by the C.D. Howe Institute concludes that improbably huge increases in immigration (i.e. from the current 0.8% to nearly 4% ** of the population) in the short term would be required to stabilize Canada’s current old-age dependency ratio.”
Backgrounder - Stakeholder Consultations on Immigration Levels and Mix
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/
Library of Parliament - Immigration to Canada pdf PRB0350-e - Page 9
“Finally it is worth noting that in 2000, the UN Population Division conducted a study of whether replacement migration could solve the problem of population aging and decline. Using a scenario that simulates the migration required to maintain the dependency ratio the study concluded that the level of immigration to offset population aging would have to be much higher than in the past. For example the United States would have to admit 592 million immigrants between 2000 and 2050 to keep its dependency steady. The population of the United States was 274 million in 2000. This would mean nearly 11 million immigrants each year, compared with 1.5 million at present – not a very realistic scenario”
**The Math: 4% = 1.5 million per
year or 7 new City of Torontos every 10 years,
Compound growth – doubling every 17 years for a population of 36 billion in 2170
#bbb" href="http://canadiansforasustainablesociety.cmail20.com/t/r-l-yhhhuryk-hdxidzdh-t/" target="_blank" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?hl=en&q=http://canadiansforasustainablesociety.cmail20.com/t/r-l-yhhhuryk-hdxidzdh-t/&source=gmail&ust=1479989972268000&usg=AFQjCNGvDDh_NY7rcpppuE4xrTgNhDMd3g"> |
The cruise industry is just as shameless as the rest of the shipping industry.
The US EPA concludes one cruise ship can emit the same amount of SO2 as 13 million cars and as much soot as 1 million cars [1]. But, despite this, the cruise industry is delaying introduction of new health regulations, trotting out scare tactics such as maritime jobs will be lost, astronomical fare increases etc. The cruise industry even sued US EPA so it could keep burning dirty fuel [2] – and it won as far as I can ascertain.
You might also be interested that there have been no reported Australian studies on health impacts from shipping emissions. In 2012 the Australian Maritime College announced a preliminary study was to start [3] – but it seems to have been spiked as there has been no further reference to it on its website or in the media. The power of the faceless corporations.
Alarmingly, at least in Australia, cruise or container ships are not yet required to switch to cleaner fuel or shore power when in port. Most ports are right in the middle of our cities, so the data I’ve already provided means millions of Austrians are being exposed to this toxic filth every day. Port Phillip Bay has at least six ships per day, all sailing past my place and arriving in the port right under the Westgate bridge, belching fumes over the city as they mostly keep engines running to provide power. See attached image of bulk carrier, the ridiculously named High Courage in the Port of Melbourne.
When the cruise terminal recently moved from Barangaroo in Darling Harbour Sydney to White Bay right on the doorstep of Balmain, residents there soon started complaining of headaches, children in the nearby school falling ill, dirty washing etc [4]. Whilst there has been some indication that cruise liners would switch to shore power whilst tied up at Balmain, I’m yet to hear that it has actually happened. The shipping industry is very canny at avoiding its responsibilities.
However, regarding GHG emissions - a 2008 study of Fremantle and Brisbane ports found Brisbane Port [5] had total GHG emissions of 180,000 tonnes CO2 p.a. Equivalent to emissions from 40,000 cars.
Given the growth of the shipping sector that’s likely to be even higher now. No mention of the other pollutants.
[2.] http://www.cruiselawnews.com/tags/emissions
[4.] https://www.amc.edu.au/files/Research_report_web_1.pdf
[5.] ‘Emissions from ships’ ABC RN Science Show 29 August 2009 http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/emissions-from-ships/3062994
Recent comments