NSW Greens preselection candidates re Abbott's high population growth policies

Fri, 2015-07-24 19:05 by Geoff at Eco Bushwalks Sydney

I am a member of the Hornsby Kuringai Greens, NSW and a member of the Greens Population/Sustainability Working Group. On July 18 I emailed all Senate NSW pre select candidates to ask them what they would do, if elected to the Senate, about Abbott's high population growth position, with reference to immigration, 457 visas, and growth economy addiction. I received encouraging responses back from Amanda Findley and Brad Orgill. Whilst I, like many, think it would be a great loss not to have Lee Rhianon in the Senate. She was almost frightening when she hammered home the seriousness of what we are facing with Abbott: TPP, giant coal mines etc., attack on renewable energy; but she won't budge on her position regarding population and immigration. I had a chat with her and James Ryan later and her point was that we are going to be facing thousands of people from the Pacific Islands who have been washed out of their homes by sea level rise and increasing storm frequency and intensity so how can we argue against the current rate? Also she seemed to be saying that it's too complex because of global population reality etc. Below I have published the responses I received to my Population/Immigration/addicted to growth Economy concerns.

Dear Greens Senate NSW pre select candidates.

I`m about to cast my vote for NSW Greens Senate candidates pre selection.

I cannot vote for a Senate candidate who does or says nothing about Australia`s horrendous immigration rate.(and population growth rate.) Greens worthy and humanitarian policy towards environmental and political refugees/assylum seekers is contradicted by a lack of action for a reduction in immigration back to pre John Howard levels - about 50,000 pa. The current rate of 260,000 pa is totally un-sustainable, irresponsible and is resulting in downward pressure on wages, infrastructure failure, sky rocketing city house prices,traffic chaos and threats to delicate ecosystems - eg. North Coast Koala habitat. It is the fuel which fires the developers' and construction industry greed for constant building in Sydney causing excessive demolition of our heritage and increasing population density. More profits for capitalists who bribe the Liberal Party with obscene electoral donations but a down ward spiral in our quality of life and standard of living for ordinary Australians. Greens policy should be in agreement with progress to a Steady State Economy to end the Addicted-to-growth mentality which is destroying life on the planet. Stabilising Australia`s population growth rate is a necessary corollary of this goal among other goals to reduce our eco-footprint per capita and total Australian eco-footprint. Genuine refugees yes, but well off, aspirational, middle class immigrants - we don`t need 260,000 pa. Also their emmigration to Australia represents a brain drain from their own countries. Australia's so called "skills shortage" is a furphy. It's corporate-speak for cheap internationalised labour from non-unionised compliant countries. ie non-unionised - aspirational - compliant - immigrants. The former safe Labor seat of Penrith has swung to the Liberals. John Howard's quadrupling of the immigration rate is the reason. It is Liberal Party social engineering of the electorates. I look forward to your reply in terms on what you will do in the Senate to pressure the Federal Government to reduce population pressure on Australia and in particular to reduce the excessive immigration rate.

Regards.
Geoff Dowsett.
Member. Hornsby Kuringai Greens.
Member. Greens Population/Sustainability Working Group.

Responses from Greens senate NSW pre-select candidates

An encouraging response from Amanda Findley

Hi Geoff. Tough question for an economic immigrant.

I migrated to Australia in 1982 as a 12 year old with my mum, dad and brother - we were escaping poverty and the troubles ofNorthern Ireland. I didn't want to leave my country of origin or my large family, but I had no choice.

My fathers 'family application' was accepted as he did have skills in the info tech area that Australia at that time didn't have. I amvery grateful for the opportunity that I and my family have had- the migration level then was substantially lower and the processwe went through quiet vigorous even though there was still the hangovers from white Australia policy and British Citizenswere given a green light much easier than other NESB people.

So I struggle internally with the debate on immigration as I don't want to be a hypocrite who benefitted and then locked the door -so to speak. My response(Geoff) to the above - If we`re not Aboriginal then we are all part of the on going invasion of Australia.One way of compensating for the destructive impact that we and our ancestors have had on the indigenous humanpopulation and on the forests - wildlife and what was an incredible bio diversity is to stop the destruction now by reducingAustralia`s population growth which continues to cause havoc on the delicate and ancient eco systems of the continent dueto our high human foot print - total and per person.(Geoff)

That being said do I think we have issue - yes indeed. The fixation with the growth at any cost model will be the ruination of ourspecies /planet /ecosystems.

I agree that the current rate of immigration is obscene considering the structural difficulties that we currently face in every cityacross the brown land and even more obscene given our Governments current position of refugees. Absolutely Amanda (Geoff)

I don't support the notion of a big Australia - as a farmer I have an understanding of carrying capacity and I don't think humans fare any better from a feed lot existence than other animals do. We have a long way to go in convincing people to live more frugal lives and that is part of the key to reducing our stress on the planet.

I am certainly interested in promoting steady state economy, but this is not my current area of expertise.

I hope this brief email gives you some insight into my thinking - I will be attending the Hornsby Kuring Gai Greens event on Sunday18th if you would like to have a chat in person.

Regards Amanda Findley

An encouraging response from Brad Orgill

Hi Geoff, I agree with you that inward immigration levels of skilled applicants (as distinct from refugees) have been unnecessarily high. I dobelieve that this has exacerbated the unemployment and underemployment rate and I wrote about this in my published book('Why Labor Should Savour its Greens'). I think the 457 visa scheme in particular has been materially overused. I enclose a scannedextract of the couple of pages from my book highlighting this.

I also believe that high immigration puts downward pressure on wages (and benefits) and increases the need for, and cost to alltaxpayers of, government spending on infrastructure and services. I think (and I also said this in my book) that the governmentfocus on GDP is simplistic (in many ways) of which one is a complete disregard for the more useful measure of GDP PerCapita. The result has been that high immigration has delivered GDP growth but depressed GDP per capita, at a cost to existingAustralians. Business and those deriving their income from invested capital derive benefits from a rapidly increasingpopulation but most Australians do not.

I think housing costs are driven by a variety of factors of which negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions are important. Sotoo is the paradigm for setting interest rates (where the RBA mandate to set rates off CPI ignores housing price inflation). Inwardimmigration and especially the ability for foreigners not immigrating to buy property and circumvent rules has also been amaterial factor. Our governments have been negligent in addressing this (and other factors) to ensure housing costs are contained.We have been notably behind the curve relative to Vancouver and HK where restrictions and explicit taxes have beenimposed.

We need to link the discussion on immigration with a more nuanced discussion on foreign investment as some types of foreigninvestment (such as direct investment in manufacturing or R&D facilities involving technology transfer are of major benefit)but buying the existing housing stock has no benefit.

I think the issues of immigration and foreign investment bring into sharp focus; the question of 'who is the Government governingfor?' and if not for the majority of Australians but rather say - business or lobby groups or relative minority groups withspecific beliefs or agendas - then democracy as currently working in Australia, is failing us.

I hope this gives you an insight into my views.

regards,
Brad Orgill

Dr. Arthur Chesterfield-Evans' Response.

Hi Geoff, You raise a lot of issues.

We need a sustainable world population and sustainable policies for the whole planet. Affluence and a decent life makes people have less children. I am not sure that forced sterilisation works. A new economic system must have a role for everyone in a cooperative rather than a competitive model. This requires a huge paradigm shift.
I am not sure we can merely halt Australia's population growth without thinking about the rest of the world. A small selfish nation will not stand up forever. We took a lot of migrants after WW2, the most in the world for our population. But all the people who came had jobs and all the kids went to the same public schools, not the poor ghettos we have now with unemployed parents.

More global thinking is needed.

Cheers Arthur Chesterfield-Evans

My response to Arhur

Thanks Arthur.
Greens policy correctly prioritises I believe--our humanitarian responsibility to asylum seekers and environmental refugees which we are likely to see thousands of from the Pacific as sea level rises and as weather events intensify. Abbott`s policy of prioritising well off--middle class, aspirational so called "skilled" immigrants who move into the Lend lease and Trigaboff McMansions and swing the formerly safe Labor seats in Sydney and Melbourne to the right and push up demand for Sydney houseprices should be reduced. Their emigration to Aust represents a brain drain from their own country. The dreadful high rise "developments" Sydney residents are now faced with are based on the assumption that population will rise. I believe that a Greens Senator should combine forces with the Member for Wills, Kelvin Thomson and expose the dangers of the Abbott Government's reckless high population growth economy. Use the question time debates - what ever tactics - instruments - are available to Senators. Senator Larissa Waters has expressed her opposition to Australia`s excessive population growth rate at

Regards. Geoff Dowsett

Lyn Maciver's response

Thank you, Geoff, for your strongly expressed views on Australia's current Immigration policy.

As I am sure you would realise Immigration has been a hot topic since colonial times and "policy" development has been erratic and kneejerk at worst with slogans such as "Populate or Perish" to zenophobic "the yellow peril and white Australia" policy.

There have been times of rational diplomacy and some strategic intelligence in our combination of Education and Immigration insights such as the Columbo Plan.

This resulted in having leaders of neighbouring countries educated at Australian schools and universities.

As for the laissez-faire mess we are in just now with full fee paying students and investor parents and too many wanting to have afoot in Australia and another in Asia or elsewhere!!!!.

My position is to require citizenship as basic requirement for ownership of residential property. Business "investment" needs different criteria, especially rural and agricultural land.

We have a big country and it is richly resourced but water and arable land are not at present inexhaustible.

As someone who has studied Permaculture, I am aware that even deserts in time and with careful husbandry can become arable but growth for growth's sake and just expanding into the stratosphere with multiple high rise development is not the way forward in my opinion.

I favour regional development and opportunities for residential and employment hubs networked throughout regional and ruralAustralia instead of current coastal clustering of unsustainable development.

All these alternatives require Imagination and Political Will to enable the best use of our entire land mass. Many people would love to get out of Sydney to cheaper housing, cleaner air, open spaces and less frenetic lifestyle but they need to know they have access to good ongoing educational and locally based employment opportunities and access to reliable and state of the art medical services.

Not rocket science but the emphasis will have to be on promoting life beyond the major cities.

Enormous potential for all Australians.

I do not think numbers are the main criteria. We need to slow down and plan for the future in stages. There has been too much haste and too little intelligent planning for living, sustainable communities to create happy, healthy and creative centres of population all over the nation.

Will require good positive communication to all Australians, selling decentralisation with big benefits.

We are a multicultural nation and that is not going to change. It is both a challenge and a strength in creating diversity and depth of cultural experience for us all.

Hope this gives you some idea of my thinking on the subject.

Best wishes, Geoff. If you would like to discuss with me further, just give me a call on 0457 812 653. I am free now if you want to call.

Just realise that as a Greens Senator for NSW, I would not be a lone ranger, but one of a team, whose decisions are based on stated Greens policy which is not set in concrete but which neither is it ad hoc and policy on the run.

My response to Lyn.

Hi Lyn,

Thanks for your response but I don't think you are aware of the seriousness of Australia's excessive population increase. Decentralisation is not the answer due to our globally significant eco hot spots, delicate and vulnerable eco systems/wildlife habitats - aboriginal heritage and environmental impact per person that is too high in marginal areas away from cities. There would also be vast communication and transport costs. There - poor soils - drought - global warming impacts etc.

Our impact on the environment is absolutely linked to the population size---Are you familiar with Paul Ehrlich`s equation Impact=Population x Affluence x Technology ? I =PAT ? Australia's eco footprint per capita is one of the highest on the planet. We must reduce our population growth rate. Japan now has a negative growth rate. Europe and Scandinavia- no population growth. See some of Dr. Haydn Washington's slides from recent Nth Side Forum talk on Population attchd.

Australia is now in an unprecedented biodiversity crisis (see "Australian Terrestrial Biodiversity Assessment, 2002"; NHT Report). Yet instead of urgently addressing this life threatening crisis, our governments are not only ignoring it, but their policies are clearly designed to exacerbate it. They are driven by ideology and economy that is completely divorced from the natural environment and the benefits of its ecosystem services on which all life on this planet depends. Our Federal and State govts have been hijacked by sociopathic corporations that have no concern for the impact of the population growth on - Australia's threatened bio-diversity natural habitats - quality of life in our cities - meltdown of urban infrastructure - traffic chaos - sky rocketing house prices - a downward spiral in our standard of living and quality of life. Who will profit from Australia's population boom? Answer: Only the capitalist class at the expense of the environment,our quality of life as our infrastructure is stretched and delicate ancient eco systems are destroyed . This is massive corporate welfare as corporations pay no tax to support the need for up graded infrastructure and pay nothing to counteract the environmental collapse --and reap the obscene profits as population increases. Solution---Cut population growth immediately by cutting immigration and closing down Abbott's 457 Visa rort.

Cheers. Geoff Dowsett

James Ryan`s Response

Geoff I agree with you about limiting growth in the traditional economic sense and protecting our environment. As you might be aware I am currently taking Land & Environment Court action to protect the bushland nesting habitat of the critically endangered Regent Honeyeater.

I am particularly concerned about the increasing rates of consumption per capita in our society and the implications that has for our footprint on the planet.

Happy to talk to you about these issues.

James

Topic:

Comments

quark

Sat, 2015-07-25 09:19

Permalink

Comment on Greens' responses

The Greens, one would have thought are so named for their concern for the environment symbolised by the colour green which in nature indicates the presence of water enabling plant life, underpinning animal life. I did not get a sense of urgency about Australia’s environment from most of these replies from pre-selection candidates. Yet Australia's environment is going downhill fast from the effects of human activity. Much needed are strong policy responses to this situation for which we, as current custodians are currently responsible. I don't think there is room for some of the emotions I picked up in these replies. The first was a sort of guilt or awkwardness about the respondent being a migrant herself. Surely a more worthy and responsible attitude would be to feel the need to protect the place which is now her home both for herself and family, the rest of us and future generations? The other theme was that of looking globally first, another sort of guilt response. To me this is almost a recipe for inaction as the problems of the whole globe are so vast and varied. Putting off local issues to the global sphere is like putting action off until tomorrow and tomorrow never comes. The next issue is that of regionalisation. It is the opposite direction of the current one where everyone is flooding to the major cities. Government polices e.g where funds are taken from Aboriginal communities are making it difficult for people to live in remote areas. Harsh banking practices are turning families off their farming land. I'd like to see a detailed plan to reverse the trend of population concentration in rising megalopolises both in terms of overseas and internal migration.

Ponzi demographics (not verified)

Sat, 2015-07-25 12:38

Permalink

Typical of Greens - slippery avoidance of population issue

"I am particularly concerned about the increasing rates of consumption per capita in our society and the implications that has for our footprint on the planet". (James Ryan) This is typical of the Greens' diversion from the topic of population growth - per capita consumption! We might reduce individual consumption levels, to some extent, but on an absolute level they will increase considerable, in fact massively, with "big Australia"! How are we to keep reducing consumption individually? We could all become vegan, but that's not one of their policies anyway. Ride bikes, public transport, yes, but living in high rise apartments is much more energy consuming living, and foot or pedal power can't compensate for the high consumption rate of high rise living. Australia is taking the lazy route to increasing GDP, through population growth rather than through increasing productivity or participation. With the latter declining, government in later years have boosted the former, immigration, to maintain the housing boom! The Greens environmental basis is a distraction, to confuse and attract voters. They are really a party promoting social progress, and agendas of alternative feel-good lifestyles, so-called universal human rights, open borders, "compassion" for the world's displaced, marriage "equality", and free migration to Australia. Feeling "good" does nothing to actually address the issues causing asylum seekers, or protect our environment and lifestyles from the masses of people filling our cities.

Dennis K

Sat, 2015-07-25 23:04

Permalink

Environmentalists don't seem to understand what the Earth needs

There is nothing wrong with increasing consumption, if this is done with more efficient technologies. But as they know little of science, their only answer is to make do with less. Which ironically, probably will harm the environment more. For example, how many pro-environment liberal types advocate high density living, considering the 1/4 acre blog as 'wasteful', despite the fact that high density living is worse for the planet. Sometimes I think it is ressentiment against human progress which drives them, not concern for the environment. Like the old monks, they seek austerity over exuberance. For example, new nuclear technologies could provide abundant energy which is clean and cheap. Consumption is increased, but footprint is still decreased. Better location of jobs and population (ie, have homes for people, not for speculation) could reduce travel times (decreasing footprint), but consumption (the number of trips) remains the same. If people could afford to live near where they work, they would use a fraction of the fuel. Individual consumption of resources can still increase, while total withdrawal from the planet decreases, as efficiency increases. Consider recycling, more efficient extraction processes and more efficient manufacturing process. More goods can be created using the same, or even fewer initial starting materials. This is true progress, and true growth. Growth of knowledge is the most important growth there is. Period. Rather than being made to feel guilty for 'consuming' and having a house, we should seek to further our knowledge to improve our economy, and it is here where the Greens fall utterly flat. All ecologies have an economy. Our economy describes the ecology of human civilisation. This is why I write so much about economics, it is a form of ecology and linked with the Earth ecology in general. But we are losing sight of what an economy IS, let alone how to make it work, and as a result, losing sight, philosophically speaking, of what it takes to make it run efficiently.

Sheila Newman

Tue, 2015-08-04 23:11

Permalink

Environmentalists (?) don't understand earths needs?

Dennis, you wrote, Environmentalists don't seem to understand what the Earth needs As an environmentalist, I was wondering what your operating definition of 'environmentalist' is, for the purposes of your argument here. Not meaning to take offense, but somewhat mystified since I am an environmentalist. But as one reads to the end of your comment, one sees that you imply a particular kind of self-identifying 'environmentalist'. There is nothing wrong with increasing consumption, if this is done with more efficient technologies. There are limits to efficient technologies. They usually mean using fuel more efficiently. This often breaks down to choosing the best fuel for the task, as arguably was demonstrated by Cleveland, C.J., Kaufmann, R. K. and Stern, D.I. “Aggregation and the role of energy in the economy”, Ecological Economics, 2000, vol. 32, issue 2, pages 301-317, also at www.bu.edu/cees/people/faculty/cutler/articles/Aggregation_role_of_energ.... Economists often talk about dematerialisation - i.e. doing more work with less energy, but they measure using energy calories alone, without taking into account how those calories are packaged and where they are used. Looking at the causal relationship between energy use and GDP from 1947 to 1996, Cleveland et al find, instead, that people and business have not used less fuel, but that they have been more careful about the fuels they choose to do different tasks, choosing cheaper fuels to do low production work and more expensive ones for high returns. Cleveland et al’s main indicator of quality is financial price and it seems to be an indicator which performs well in this case. The authors find that the financial cost of fuels is an accurate reflexion of their versatility or adaptability to specific tasks more than is measuring the total calories they embody. " But as they know little of science, their only answer is to make do with less. But scientists also advocate conserving soil, water, fuel, reducing population growth, stabilising production... So, which scientists are you referring to? Which ironically, probably will harm the environment more. We must be thinking of different scientists. :-) For example, how many pro-environment liberal types advocate high density living, considering the 1/4 acre blog as 'wasteful', despite the fact that high density living is worse for the planet. Ah, so are the 'environmentalists' you have in mind people who think of the environment as a moral envelope rather than a biophysical one? Do you mean people who might interpret environmentalism as a kind of religious code? This is what you seem to imply below: Sometimes I think it is ressentment against human progress which drives them, not concern for the environment. Like the old monks, they seek austerity over exuberance. For example, new nuclear technologies could provide abundant energy which is clean and cheap. Consumption is increased, but footprint is still decreased. If you are thinking of Generation IV nuclear technologies, people were writing about them as if they were already being used commercially in the past few years, (See: http://candobetter.net/node/1538; http://candobetter.net/node/1562; http://candobetter.net/node/1571; http://candobetter.net/node/1026; http://candobetter.net/node/431) but they experimental prototypes are now decades old and none is working commercially. (See: http://candobetter.net/node/997). Even that long-time champion of FBRs, Russia, just postponed one of their series in development in order to return to tried and true boiling water reactors. (See: http://www.worldnuclearnews.org/NNRussiapostponesBN1200inordertoimprovefueldesign16041502.html) CANDUs and other traditional reactors have a track record, I agree, but in the Australian context the cost of retrofitting is prohibitive. In 2008 (when I last did the figures) you were looking at something round $2b per plant, and 225.6 thousand MWe nuclear power plants each supplying 25PJ to cope with then fuel demands, plus an average of 4.8 new nuclear plants per year to supply annual growth in consumption. Each plant’s initial cost would be around $USD2 billion, in an Australian economy then valued by the World Bank at $US768 billion, but heavily indebted and privatised." (Source: "France and Australia after oil" in Sheila Newman (Ed.) The Final Energy Crisis -2nd edition, Pluto Press, UK, 2008.) Then you have to wonder why France is considering building no new nuclear plants and not replacing old ones. It could in part be because France does not intend growing her population. By the way, I find France's nuclear power plant to population ration for production of electricity a useful rule of thumb for estimating energy needs. Australia uses far more electricity per capita than France but France supplies about 60 million people their electricity with 58 nuclear reactors of varying capacities. But France also uses a lot of wood, plus tidal, water and solar. What a country can use in terms of alternative energies is shaped by its biophysical nature. Australia has sea and tides, but they are not very harnassable. We have few useful rivers for navigation, unlike Europe. And, another point, France is a very techno country, as well as fairly rooted in soil and tribe. Despite being high tech, it is an energy conserving country and that is how it has survived since the first oil shock. It also doesn't encourage population growth. Better location of jobs and population (ie, have homes for people, not for speculation) could reduce travel times (decreasing footprint), but consumption (the number of trips) remains the same. If people could afford to live near where they work, they would use a fraction of the fuel. Yes, I agree here. Especially on the relocalisation implications. Reducing the need for travel means reducing energy and materials use (where you began by arguing that more energy use was not a problem; we were not to live like monks.) However local basis of economies also implies local source of energies and materials, small local populations and small economies, not the big populations mass producing and mass consuming. Feel free to contradict me with some example. Individual consumption of resources can still increase, while total withdrawal from the planet decreases, as efficiency increases. Consider recycling, more efficient extraction processes and more efficient manufacturing process. More goods can be created using the same, or even fewer initial starting materials. Okay, I've already argued that this is a bit of a pipe-dream. We aren't getting more efficient. I could add that we are spending a lot on war and most people are getting poorer and have less control over their lives. Recycling is mostly a crock, pardon my language, except for organic stuff. Collecting, then processing materials costs energy in transport and fuel and rarely prolongs materials significantly. It has become more of an industry that councils and residents subsidise. Richard Pratt used to send his recycled collections off to Taiwan for cheap labor to process, I believe. (Anecdotal). This is true progress, and true growth. I'm with you on the anti-moralistic attitude, but can't join you on the anti-conserver attitude, because I don't think you have proven your case. I agree with some of your planning efficiency, but it also has social value which is probably more efficient - in the sense of durable and workable and useful to people - than something deemed to have short term financial value as 'producitivity'. Growth of knowledge is the most important growth there is. Period. Can't disagree there, however, for current political systems to remain in place, people have to lose knowledge, and they seem to be doing this. Lousy education system helps. Rather than being made to feel guilty for 'consuming' and having a house, we should seek to further our knowledge to improve our economy, and it is here where the Greens fall utterly flat. I agree that guilt is political manipulation, well-trialed and ground well-prepared by religions. Improving our economy in my view would be to stabilise population numbers, improve democratic power and living stability (as in people having secure landed positions, improve education, encode civil rights, insulate buildings, use shallow geo-thermal, wind power, passive solar, relocalise and try to preserve the global internet in order to preserve knowledge and freedom. All ecologies have an economy. Our economy describes the ecology of human civilisation. This is why I write so much about economics, it is a form of ecology and linked with the Earth ecology in general. Agree. But we are losing sight of what an economy IS, let alone how to make it work, and as a result, losing sight, philosophically speaking, of what it takes to make it run efficiently. Agree with the concept; just differ on technological solutions and notion of increasing efficiency of machines. Organisation has its place in efficiency though and the internet, if it can be preserved, would be key to allowing a very local basis for technologies, including 3D printing for maintaining and repairing stuff, as well as new inventions.

Dennis K

Wed, 2015-08-05 23:20

Permalink

Better living through better systems and knowledge.

As an environmentalist, I was wondering what your operating definition of 'environmentalist' is, for the purposes of your argument here. I am using this in the most likely perceived sense of the word. I consider myself an environmentalist too, but the most popular connotation of environmentalist doesn't elicit the thoughts and ideals which match my form. So I don't call myself such. There are limits to efficient technologies. They usually mean using fuel more efficiently. This often breaks down to choosing the best fuel for the task, as arguably was demonstrated by Cleveland, C.J., Kaufmann, R. K. and Stern, D.I. “Aggregation and the role of energy in the economy”, Ecological Economics, 2000, vol. 32, issue 2, pages 301-317, also at www.bu.edu/cees/people/faculty/cutler/articles/Aggregation_role_of_energ.... Economists often talk about dematerialisation - i.e. doing more work with less energy, but they measure using energy calories alone, without taking into account how those calories are packaged and where they are used. One of the assumptions made is that we have exhausted the available fuel supplies. This is an understandable conclusion to make, not necessarily because it is true, but because it seems an element of human nature. It has been always in error. For me to conclude that 'this times it different', is to make the same error. There are limitations to current technology. Theoretically, these limits can be overcome. I don't consider the fact we don't know how a major problem. You might call this a blind faith in technology. We must be thinking of different scientists. :-). I was referring to those politically engaged, the majority of which don't have a scientific background. The Greens party isn't run as an environmentalist party by those who studied ecology. Many of the most vocal and assertive proponents for change don't seem to have a scientific background. Some DO, no doubt, but they typically don't form political parties. If you are thinking of Generation IV nuclear technologies, people were writing about them as if they were already being used commercially in the past few years, Not specifically, though in-viability today is not guarantee of in-viability in the future. In a more 'meta ' sense, we know the following to be true - The energy per kg of fossil fuels may represent among the densest form of usable energy available in large amounts which can be released by a chemical reaction. - The energy contained in that matter, or any matter is many magnitudes of order greater than that available by breaking those carbon bonds. - Our understanding of physics is constantly evolving. - As the understanding increases, our assumptions of what is possible and what is not possible, and abilities changes. - Assumptions about the future are always are incorrect. Black Swan events occur. Therefore, while it is reasonable today to surmise we are reaching limits, this is only based on a contemporary and temporary state of affairs. While we shouldn't hedge the Earth's future on some miraculous energy source emerging (we don't know when it will occur), it may also be in error to panic and de construct systems which could make such progress possible. Renewable energy may only be a stop-gap measure rather than a new paradigm. Okay, I've already argued that this is a bit of a pipe-dream. We aren't getting more efficient. I could add that we are spending a lot on war and most people are getting poorer and have less control over their lives. Recycling is mostly a crock, pardon my language, except for organic stuff. Recycling is used cynically as a "ploy" to appear environmental. Much of what is put into recycling bins, carefully segregated and washed gets dumped in landfill anyway. However, because it is implemented poorly by people who don't care, it doesn't necessarily invalidate the concept. One of the major problems with recycling, is that goods are manufactured to be constructed, but not destructed. That is, the manufacturer only considers the life of the product until the end of its marketed usefulness (Which can be short for consumer items, which almost everything nowadays is). But consider 3D printing, which is an emerging and rapidly growing technology. It allows people to produce their own goods at home using starting materials designed to be manipulated. This offers the opportunity to create technologies which could construct simple components, then de-construct them back to their constituent parts to be reconstructed again. There is emerging technology which allows processors to be reprogrammed, which would mean that your smartphone could have its microprocessor literally replaced without replacing the unit. New chip technology won't require a hardware replacement. This is in contract to "green" technology which does nothing but save a little power, such as automatic standby mode, i-stop. This technology doesn't open up new avenues, but just allows the existing status quo to keep going albeit with a little less power usage. It is marketable, but doesn't change anything. That which will likely lead to real changes will likely start off having nothing to do with any intention to be "Green". Telecommuting, the Internet, especially high speed internet, FPGA reprogrammable chips, 3D printing, Uber (allows carpooling), video conferencing, flash storage, new mouldable and remouldable plastics and metals, all these can be used with more effect than that explicitly 'environmental. Take Hard Drives. The "green" hard drives which are sold to be power efficient use less by spinning the drive down, but advancements in flash storage allow solid state drives which use less power than even the 'green' drives. Increasing storage density reduces the number of drives one might require. Some companies advertise their "Green" credential by some useless measurement of how many "black balloons" of carbon they have saved. At one place I worked, they have large TV displays on throughout the site telling us how much carbon they saved. The irony of using an always on large screen display panel to tell us this was lost. But, the company which implements good IT systems which allow people to work at home would save far more power. The pursuit for more environmentally friendly items often detracts from advances which really ARE better. I'm with you on the anti-moralistic attitude, but can't join you on the anti-conserver attitude, because I don't think you have proven your case. I agree with some of your planning efficiency, but it also has social value which is probably more efficient - in the sense of durable and workable and useful to people - than something deemed to have short term financial value as 'producitivity'. The examples I used above are just a model. While there is no issue at all with conservation, the actual attempt at conservation may end up counter productive due to incorrect assumptions. Using housing as an example, it may seem to many logical to reduce the land footprint, but this is actually counter productive. The philosophy is that working towards better systems can solve problems better than tackling the problem directly. This is partly what I do for a living, where recurring problems may have to be dealt with and are exacerbated by attempts to solve them. Rather, general overall improvements and advances tend to do more, even inadvertently, than reactionary corrections. Many of the most vocalised environmental solutions fall into the reactionary category (and this allows the centre right opportunity to denigrate them). Too many people? Suggest smaller families. Urban sprawl? Smaller houses. Energy use causing problems? Use less energy. Deforestation? Limit logging. Carbon Dioxide a problem? Tax it. While the intent is good, the focus is on fitting an environmentally friendly paradigm into a system which just can't really do it, without really developing systems which can. This leads to government allocating funds to the wrong places. There is a sense that progress and protecting the earth are to a degree mutually exclusive, but this is only true if one defines progress as per the agenda of the planet rapers and growth advocate parasites. Note how the establishment create scepticism over better technologies? Filesharing is bad and takes food out of the mouths of Angelina Jolies kids. 3D printing will give everyone guns and is dangerous. Uber is dangerous and hurts Taxi drivers. Open Source/Free Software is idealistic faff. Border and trade protection is xenophobia and nationalistic. Renewables chop up and fry birds.

Sheila Newman

Sat, 2015-08-08 15:42

Permalink

Some good answers, Dennis

Hi Dennis, You have some good answers to my questions. Thanks. I did mention 3D printing, I thought. I find it difficult not to call myself an environmentalist (as well as an evolutionary sociologist), just because some people confuse the term with the Church of Faux-Environmentalism. The Fast Breeder Reactor technology still looks dim to me, although you never know. It costs a fortune and there is less and less money to build that stuff. Did you realise the history of the FBR goes back to 1951? From my book, Sheila Newman, (Ed), The Final Energy Crisis, 2nd Ed., Pluto UK, 2008:

The first Fast Breeder Reactor (FBR) or Fast Neutron Reactor was built in the US in 1951 with a tiny output of 0.2MW (electricity) and operated until 1963, when it was succeeded by a 20MW (el) one, a 66 MW one, a 20MW one and “Fast Flux TF” which had a thermal output of 400 MW, from 1980-93. The UK had a 15MW (el) from 1959-1977 and then a 270MW one from 1974-94. France built her first in 1966 with an output of 40 MW (therm), followed by Phenix in 1973 with 250 MW (el) (still in operation) and Superphenix in 1985-98 with an output of 1240MW (el). Germany had one very small one with an output of 21MW (el) from 77- 91, India has one with an output of 40 MW (therm), built in 1985; Japan’s Joyu with 140MW (therm) was built in 1978. Monju 280 MW (el) went from 1994-1996 and is currently closed. Kazakstan’s BN350 has been going since 1972 with an output of 135 MW (el), half of which desalinates about 80,000 tons of water each year for the city of Aktau. Russia has had three FBRs: the first in 1959-1971 reopened in 1973; the second from 1979 produces 12 MW (el), and the third, built in 1981, with an output of 600 MW (el) is the largest still running (with assistance from a US supervisory crew), but it has had a lot of problems with liquid sodium coolant and other leaks, involving long periods out of action. France’s Super Phoenix was the biggest in the world, but it was closed down due to safety problems associated with sodium leaks. Monju Fast Breeder in Japan was also closed due to safety concerns. Significant commercial success seems to have been elusive so far but there are international ambitious plans for “Generation IV” FBRs of various designs, including thorium based ones. The low cost of uranium is often offered as an explanation for the failure of this technology to find the necessary finance to take it past the experimental stage. Design and research are materially and financially costly.

There is more about thorium based breeder reactors here: http://candobetter.net/node/997 Politics also enter this FBR dynamic. But diminishing capital and abundant cheap fossil fuel energy (related things) probably impede the creation of even CANDUs and boiling water reactors. I think that we can make a very good argument to say that petroleum is not really keeping up with population demand because of the increased reliance on novel sources now redefined generically as 'oil' in the major charts (EIA and BP stats), plus the desperate recourse to fracking, despite huge democratic costs. Also, the large proportion of the world's population that does not have access to petroleum due to not being able to afford it. Sheila N

Dennis K

Sun, 2015-08-09 11:37

Permalink

Wider innovation

You did mention 3D printing, a technology I think will be groundbreaking. My point was simply to state that innovations like this can in the end have a much bigger impact on reducing waste and energy usage than overtly "green" technology, even though they weren't created with that intent. This isn't the only example, and I would think that focusing on what is called 'green' or 'environmental' may, nay, probably will, mean missing much bigger things elsewhere. Also, having seen many things once thought impractical become regular consumer items, I reserve judgement on potential developments.

Anonymous (not verified)

Sat, 2015-07-25 14:46

Permalink

Tsunami of asylum seekers

Labor leader Bill Shorten will unveil his party's asylum seeker policy including boat turnbacks as he stares down critics at the national conference. The recent arrivals of "boats" are from Vietnam, where there is no conflict or war. They will be interrogated and maybe imprisoned if they return, but there's no valid reason to leave. The tsunami of displaced is far too great that can be accommodated by the 1951 Refugee Convention. It's outdated and could overwhelm smaller nations by overloading job demands and infrastructure. The UN are keen to see "developed" countries cope with the tide, but are reluctant to actually address and mitigate the causes of displacement! We must ensure world peace, stop powerful nations intervening in foreign affairs, encourage sustainable population sizes, and repatriation of displaced in temporary camps until they can return home. Global population growth means there are no new colonies to conquer and settle, as in the past. There are many failed and dysfunctional nations, that are incapable of handling their overpopulation. Overpopulation drives conflicts, for limited natural resources, and drives the boats. The problem of asylum seekers has outgrown the international agreements, and human migration to "asylum" across the globe is unsustainable. There must be an international think tank to address the issues at their source, not just pretend that people can be shuffled around the planet, like deck chairs in the Titanic!

Dennis K

Sat, 2015-07-25 23:10

Permalink

What about non-boat arrivals?

I see the merit in the boat turnback policy. But what about those who arrive by other means? China is one of the biggest sources of illegal immigrants. Are they all arriving by boat too? The focus on 'boat people' is to distract the population from PROPER border control to some sideshow, so the ruling class can exploit their ability to neglect enforcing our borders for our posterity, for their own purposes and profits of narrow vested interests. Proper border control would also prevent large numbers of legal migrants from entering as this too impacts negatively on the population. The whole point of a border is to keep people OUT so that the people within can maintain the society they wish to maintain.

NSW Greens preselection candidates re Abbott's high population growth policies

Responses from Greens senate NSW pre-select candidates

An encouraging response from Amanda Findley

An encouraging response from Brad Orgill

Dr. Arthur Chesterfield-Evans' Response.

My response to Arhur

Lyn Maciver's response

My response to Lyn.

James Ryan`s Response

Topic:

Comments

Comment on Greens' responses

Typical of Greens - slippery avoidance of population issue

Environmentalists don't seem to understand what the Earth needs

Environmentalists (?) don't understand earths needs?

Better living through better systems and knowledge.

Some good answers, Dennis

Wider innovation

Tsunami of asylum seekers

What about non-boat arrivals?

Add comment

Filtered HTML

Tags in Topic

Help save injured wildlife

Recent comments