The current economic crisis in Europe can be compared to a couple in a street building a three storey mansion in a street made up of one storey dwellings and then forcing the residents of the one storey dwellings to stop paying their electricity and gas bills to meet the mortgage repayments of the couple who built the three storey mansion.

Article by Joe Toscano

The scramble by members of the European Union to appoint technocrats as leaders of Greece and Italy highlights how little input electors have on government policy in the 21st century. Unfortunately they have forgotten what is good for the markets isn’t as most governments believe, good for the people they rule.

The current economic crisis in Europe can be compared to a couple in a street building a three storey mansion in a street made up of one storey dwellings and then forcing the residents of the one storey dwellings to stop paying their electricity and gas bills to meet the mortgage repayments of the couple who built the three storey mansion.

The people of Italy and Greece are seething with uncontrolled anger at seeing governments that theoretically represent their interests squandering their taxes to bolster the fortunes of banks and corporations who found themselves at the pointy end of the Global Financial Crisis because of their greed and unconscionable behaviour.

Irrespective of how many technocrats are appointed to European parliaments, irrespective of how many austerity measures are introduced by parliaments that dance to the tune of the corporate parliamentary puppet masters, irrespective of how many governments of national unity are formed to save corporate capitalism’s bacon the people in the streets will ultimately determine government policy.

The parliamentary puppet masters seem to have forgotten that ultimate political authority in a democracy rests in the hands of the people, not the state, the corporate sector, the bureaucracy or the government of the day. When working up the right channels fails, when the ballot box does not reflect the will of the people, when parliament is hijacked by unaccountable corporations and societies institutions are subverted by that small section of society that owns the means of production, distribution, exchange and communication to maximise their profits, the people are left with no other option but to use direct action to put ultimate political authority back into the hands of the people.

Original Source, Issue No.957 of the Anarchist Age Weekly Review which covers the two week period 21st November - 4th December. Latest issue here.

Once again, we come upon another poignant anniversary. December 7, the day that the Japanese Imperial Navy attacked Pearl Harbor some 70 years ago. Like 9/11, it is traditionallly marked as a significant historical event. But I believe that it is significant for entirely different reasons than what we have been given. On December 7, 1941, the Japanese government undertook a desperate gamble. The questions we need to ask are several. What made them desperate? What would make nations desperate today? What do desperate nations and desperate people do when they reach desperation? And what do we do when these desperate nations and people are armed with nuclear weapons?

Whose lesson will YOU follow?

We are often told that if we don’t learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it. The problem is, however, that history often teaches lessons quite different from those that the puppeteers of patriotic propaganda would have us believe. Such is the case whenever December 7th approaches. That is the day when my life experience collides with the official narrative. Let me tell you why.

Fiction That Told The Truth

Nevil Shute's book On The Beach was mandatory reading for my generation. It was read by school-children across the province (B.C.). Subsequently, of course, we were subjected to a raft of movies about nuclear war and what it would mean. Two stand out for me.

"Testament" with Jane Alexander in a lead role, was unique in that it did not depict a blast or even a hint of what lead up to the war. Instead, it showed how a typical middle class suburb would try to cope with nuclear fallout, and how inexorably, people would die off to the point that the community would collapse. Like "On the Beach", the audience was left with an over-powering sense of futility, made more powerful by the absence of infrastructure damage, firestorms and bodies trapped in rubble.

We can't hide from scarcity

These movies actually simulate our predicament too. We face a threat----scarcity----which will breech every wall, border or nuclear umbrella. The virtue of the analyses like those of Jack Alpert and Chris Clugston is that they remind us that we are all tied into a global resource base. The depletion of the minerals and metals and fuels (NNRs) which Chris has inventoried will affect everyone on this planet as surely as the radiation did in Nevil Shute's book (and movie) and in "Testament". We can hide behind our gated communities, or behind militarized borders, but scarcity will come calling and will not be kept out. Not even a trillion dollar-a-year military budget can save us.

This in fact, was the case with the walled cities, fortresses and castles that were beseiged by Alexander, by Caesar, by the Crusaders (and their adversaries) by the Mongols and countless other intruders throughout history. Hiding behind walls gives you respite from privation and death, but not permanent sanctuary. Typically, the besieged end up eating each other. Don't get me wrong. I am an immigration-reductionist. I believe that unfettered mass migration will accelerate our collective demise. (cf. Bill Rees' "Globalization, Migration and Trade"). But strong borders in the context of remorseless global scarcity will be like speed bumps. I want speed bumps in my neighbourhood to discourage commuter traffic----but they will not address the problem of overwhelming traffic volume in the city. We can act locally---as is our responsibility----but Chris Clugston and Jack Alpert remind us that the problem we face is beyond local solutions. Its global or bust. And that was the case during the Cold War. The effects of a nuclear exchange could not have been quarantined to one region, or avoided by finding a secluded haven. My mother understood this.

The trauma of growing up under a nuclear shadow

I remember, as a boy, begging my parents to build a bomb shelter. I firmly believed that Russian bombers would one day appear over the horizon. After all, the air raid siren just two blocks away would sound off at random just to keep us on our toes. On one occasion, I was walking home from school with a group of other 6 year old kids---including my classmate Daphne---- when it sounded off as we were walking by it. We sprinted home in panic and Daphne was in hysterics by the time she reached her mother.

The school authorities too did their part in fostering this tension. We practiced duck-and-cover drills which today are often the subject of humour among those who did not live through it. I don’t remember laughing. It didn't help when Sputnik was launched either. To hype the fear of Russian military and scientific dominance, the Vancouver Sun featured a front page photograph of Soviet children all raising their hands in a science class to show that they all had the correct answer. Our teachers waved the newspaper in our faces to impress us with the need to "keep up" with the Russians. School curricula was beefed up and we all felt the pressure to pack our brains with knowledge. In those years, the stress was such that I could not eat breakfast until well after Christmas. Trust me, if you are going to traumatize people, best to scare the Beejesus out of them when they’re young. I never needed to read Stephen King.

There are no personal escape hatches

My folks were endowed with much common sense. I remember my mother asking me, "Tim, suppose we build a bomber shelter, and the Russians drop an atom bomb on Vancouver. What if other parents didn't build a shelter, or stock it with food and water. How would we keep them out? And if we could, would you want to? Would you keep your friends out? Would you keep Ronnie, Doug, Daphne and her sister out? And if we survived, how long would our food and water last? When it ran out, where would we get our vegetables and milk?" I was about 7 or 8 at the time, and Mom always used the Socratic approach with me--- she was my best teacher. I learned, very early, that we are all in this thing together. There are no personal escape hatches. And if there was, I don't think I would want to survive anyway. I don't own a gun, and I am never shot anyone (or any animal for that matter). In the face of starvation, I do not believe that the better angels of our nature will prevail. Starving marauders will kill without mercy. If murder is the price for living, count me out. In fact, if an upheaval of that order unfolds, I'd like to get my hands on the pill that Australians used in "On The Beach". Stuff your Second Amendment. Guns won't grow food. But I am a Canadian, and I guess that is a typical Canadian attitude.

Nuclear war still the ultimate disaster

The other movie of great poignancy was the 1984 British docudrama "Threads", about a nuclear attack on the city of Sheffield. It is simply the best dissection of the aftermath of nuclear war ever made. It should have been required viewing for every Congressman in the United States and every politician in the Warsaw Pact. See that movie, and you will understand that nuclear war is, always was, and always will be the ultimate disaster for humanity. I am sorry, but climate change doesn't even come close. In fact, I find it ironic that Severn Suzuki’s generation should assume the mantle of being the first generation to actually face the prospect of species extinction in their lifetime. Generation Y did not invent doomsday. Boomers lived with it.

Setting the stage for war

I cannot understand why the possibility of nuclear war is virtually off the radar screen. In the desperate scramble for scarce resources governments will do desperate things. Think about what Japan did in December of 1941. They provoked a war with a superpower that was many times its industrial superior, all because its oil supply source was cut off. I can’t believe that Pakistan, India, Israel, Iran .....among others, would stand still and watch their citizenry starved to death. I can't believe that the United States would stand by and watch the Chinese commandeer our oil. How is this for setting the stage for conflict: We are determined to build one crude oil pipeline to Kitimat (the Enbridge Northern Gateway Project) to serve the Chinese market and another---Keystone-- for the US market, after the Chinese recently launched their first aircraft carrier. So much for Canada the Peacemaker. If you think oil spills would be an environmental disaster, try nuclear winter.

The real lesson of Pearl Harbor

The conventional lesson that Americans drew from the Pearl Harbor attack was “Never again should we let our guard down, we must always be prepared”. And 9/11 has been served up as a refresher course. But we can never defend ourselves from the consequences of growing scarcity. Desperation breeds desperados, and this time, they have WMD.

Scarcity is the trigger

It seems like we are at a carnival show watching a shell game. There are four peas---one representing Peak Oil and non-renewable resource scarcity, one representing biodiversity collapse, one representing climate change, and one representing a holocaust from nuclear/biological/chemical war---all hiding under four different shells. Environmentalists seem to be fixated on the third shell, the one that conceals climate change. I think that is a dangerous fixation. I think that the most imminent and lethal danger is scarcity, because as Jack Alpert has tried to tell people, scarcity leads to conflict. And conflict in turn leads to scarcity, as the haves will invest precious resources trying to protect what they and the have-nots will spend resources in trying to get it. This is what Jack calls "The Death Spiral of Civilization". Scarcity is the trigger.

The question that confronts us then is, "How do we solve Scarcity?", or if we can't---as Chris Clugston would argue---how do we mitigate it to reduce the carnage? My answer is that since the economic pie will shrink dramatically, we must dramatically reduce the number of people who demand slices, for contrary to eco-socialist mythology, there is not enough to go around to indefinitely support our population. If we could manage the descent in a graduated fashion, we might avoid the conflict which would ignite Armageddon. I know it is a faint hope, but I rather like civilization. I'd like to hang on to it as long as possible.

That is the lesson that Pearl Harbor teaches me. What about you?

Tim Murray
December 2/2011
PS

If you want to see Threads the movie, try this link.

A better way to view it would be to obtain the DVD and see it without breaks.

Amid a European and global economic crisis, governments are still letting markets get away with little regulation, big bonuses and dubious financial instruments that are distorting financial stability for short-term gain and putting enormous pressure on people to pick up the manufactured debts

Much of Britain’s press is relentlessly euro-sceptic, to the extent that the euro’s survival is being talked down and political supporters of Europe no longer speak up. For a change, think of some of the benefits.

Once again financial markets which were prime movers in causing the economic crash in 2008 are gambling on destabilising currencies. Back in the 1990s the pound bounced around wildly in the hands of speculators and it is again weak against the euro, despite the euro’s problems. The euro brought new stability to currency markets, challenging the supremacy of a US dollar, exposed by America’s massive budget deficit.

Several countries, like Montenegro in former Yugoslavia, have the euro as the official currency without being a formal member of the euro zone, because their own economies are not viable enough. Ecuador's economy hit the rocks and the country now uses the US dollar as its national currency to inject more stability.

Currency devaluation is a mixed benefit for getting out of trouble. It doesn’t tackle underlying structural problems. Nor does it help businesses in a balanced way. The last time the UK devalued its currency, economists realised that while exports may be helped, major importing economies like the UK see price inflation linked to currency devaluation in important sectors like cars, food, energy and raw materials.

As UK North Sea oil and gas reserves decline the country will be reliant on more expensive imports paid in dollars. A study for the Government’s Department of Business Enterprise: UK Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Production and the UK Economy, predicts that in a few years the UK could run up a cumulative deficit in oil and gas imports of over $500 billion – to add to our economic troubles.

Governments are still letting the markets get away with little regulation, big bonuses and dubious financial instruments that are distorting financial stability for short-term gain and putting enormous pressure on people to pick up the manufactured debts.

Financiers are now leveraging unsustainable interest rates on loans to Greece and Italy at levels similar to states on permanent aid like Pakistan and Egypt, forcing Italy to pay a 20 per cent addition to its debt in interest. Imagine a house-buyer saying they were in difficulty and being told: “Okay, we’ll triple your interest rate on the loan.” Something is wrong. The tail is wagging the dog and politicians need to get a grip.

Members of the European Union enjoy the historic integration of a continent so recently divided by wars. People can live and work across the Union with reciprocal health benefits. Yes, there are things about Europe we can improve, but countries don’t lose their identity by being better connected. They are enriched and learn from each other.

Brian McGavin Nov 2011

Reflecting upon the events of the past year (2011) in Canada, the travesty of our democracy remains salient. Mother Nature was not allowed on the ballot, and none of the five major parties were prepared to support her cause. None of them---not even the Green Party----were prepared to say that Canada's runaway population was killing biodiversity, paving farmland or raising carbon emissions. Why? Quite simply, the environmental movement had failed to create a large constituency of support for population reduction in Canada. Nothing underscores that failure better than a look at Nature Canada and its campaign to encourage supporters to ask the Harper Consevative government what it thought were penetrating questions about protecting the environment.

What is wrong with Nature Canada is what is wrong with Canada's environmental movment

Take a look at Nature Canada's website http://www.naturecanada.ca/election2011.asp, and their "questions to ask " politicians in this federal election, and then you will understand what is wrong with Canada's environmental and conservation movement. They have taken the "P" out of the IPAT equation---the foundational formula of the environmental movement in the 1970s. Nature Canada, Nature Conservancy, the David Suzuki Foundation and the Sierra Club, the Green Party of Canada and the fake greens in the NDP all would have you believe that we can add 350,000 consumers to our population every year, year after year----in other words, one metro Toronto every decade---without negative ecological impacts! And if challenged, they will tell you that we can shoe-horn tens of millions more into this country by strict land use planning--- aka "smart growth",----preserve greenfield acreage and minimize their energy use. Aside from the fallacy of this contention, it is intellectually dishonest. Land use planning is in the hands of local government, and as Professor Robert MacDirmid of York University has documented in "Funding City Politics", local governments are controlled by developers.

Here are some questions to ask Nature Canada and their politically correct clones:

1. Why won't you---Canada's green NGOs---- make public your corporate funding sources? Why do you hide your sordid corporate benefactors from your own members?
2. Why do you---Canada's green NGOs------ accept money from corporations like RBC, the Toronto Dominion Bank, the Walton Group, Encana, Atco etc etc? What do they want from you? What have you not said or advocated in return for their patronage? What is the going rate for your silence? Does not the stench of the corporate money that Big Green accepts rank with the "dirty subsidies" that governments provide Big Oil?
3. Can you explain the 'coincidence' that you have not taken on immigration-driven population growth in Canada when that is a major goal of corporations like RBC who fund you?
4. Can you seriously argue that we can "decouple" population growth in Canada from environmental degradation, from farmland and habitat loss and carbon emissions?
5. Why have you not pushed for an environmental assessment process for the government's immigration and pro-natalist policies? Do you honestly believe that renewable energy can be "scaled up" to meet the demands of a Canadian population that grows at over 1.08% per annum? Do you understand what exponential growth is? If you think a population level of 34 million is for Canada is sustainable, at point would you concede that it isn't? 44 million? 54 million? 84 million? At what point along the road to ruin would you be prepared to call for a Population Plan for this country? Hello?

Nature Conservancy's Silence on Species Loss At the Edge of Urban Canada

Canada's environmental movement sure smells like a movement. Their population-myopia is an outrageous omission that smacks of political correctness and outright corruption. Species loss is not something that only happens in some distant wilderness. The real killing fields are right here on the perimeters of Canada's growing urban centres. That is why Walton International---a land banking corporation, finds that it makes good business sense to give donations to Nature Conservancy for high profile land acquisitions far away from the farmland that Walton likes to purchase at the edge of cities like Calgary. When that land is rezoned to 'urban' use and housing development---Nature Conservancy stays mute, as it has when other patrons like RBC underwrite urban sprawl or bankroll the tar sands. Then, when Nature Conservancy "saves" a wetland or valley 500 miles away, these corporate donors can share the bragging rights. The new parkland is then declared parkland "forever". Forever, that is, until oil hits $250/barrel or minerals critical to our economy are in desperate shortfall. Until then, however RBC, the TD bank and Shell Canada can show off their credentials as good green citizens and paragons of corporate social "responsibility".

Suzuki Brave In A Foreign Land

Nature Canada implores us to "vote for nature" in this election. But where, on any federal election ballot in any constituency, can "nature" be found? The counterfeit "Greens", along with the NDP and the Liberals, actually want to hike Canada's immigration quota from its current 285,000 to 340,000!!!! Canada already vies with Australia for the dishonour of having the highest per capita immigration intake in the world, and has the highest population growth rate in the G8 group! Privately, David Suzuki has called this process of converting third world immigrants to "hyper consumers" in Canada as "madness", but will not say so on a major media outlet. He has, however, bravely gone on ABC radio in Australia to tell Australians that Australia is overpopulated. But Australia already had Tim Flannery and the Australian Conservation Foundation to tell them that. Will we have to invite an Australian environmentalist here to say the same thing about Canada? In what way has Canada not overshot its carrying capacity to the same degree as Australia? Why the silence, Dr. Suzuki? Why be frank 'down under' but be seized with demographic lockjaw in your own country? Does the DSF customize its policies to suit its benefactor, RBC, whose Chairman Gordon Nixon has lobbied for an immigration intake of 450,000?

So Why Is Nature Canada Ignoring Population Growth

Nature Canada is right in one important respect. In their words, "we cannot afford to allow nature and the environment to be ignored." So why are they ignoring population growth?

Tim Murray
April 7, 2011

Nature Canada's statement:

During this year’s election, we cannot afford to allow nature and the environment to be ignored.

Ask the Candidates:
Canada is not enforcing its own laws to protect wildlife, according to several Canadian and international investigations. What will you do to make sure Canada does a better job of enforcing our laws to protect wildlife like caribou, whales, and migratory birds?
I am concerned about plans to allow oil and gas drilling in national wildlife areas, marine protected areas and other places that should just protect nature, period. How will you make sure nature is really protected in all federal parks and protected areas?
I am concerned that we are losing so much of Canada’s unique wild lands, waters, and oceans. What will you do to protect more lands, waters, and oceans for nature and future generations?
I worry about environmental disasters like oil spills and mining waste accidents. How will you do a better job of using federal regulations and environmental assessments to prevent environmental disasters?
I am angry that my hard-earned tax dollars are going to subsidize big oil and gas companies and our Canadian lakes are being handed over to mining companies to dump their waste. What will you do to end these dirty subsidies?
Everyone says that Canada is not doing its fair share to fight climate change. What is your party’s plan to really move Canada to a green economy powered by renewable energy?
Canada urgently needs an ambitious national plan to protect nature for wildlife, for us to enjoy, and for future generations. What will you do to show national leadership and give Canada an ambitious vision and a plan to protect nature for all?

Tell Canada’s leaders where you stand – vote for nature in 2011!

Paul Cleary’s book Too Much Luck: The Mining Boom and Australia’s Future, is a timely appraisal of the dramatic economic and social impacts, as well as the political ramifications of the current resource boom.

(The reviewed work covers much of the same ground as Dirty Money of 2011 by Matthew Benns, which I am currently reading and can also recommend.) This review of Paul Cleary's book by Professor Kerry Carrington, Head of School of Justice at Queensland University of Technology was originally published on theconversation.edu.au on 25 November. It is being reprinted here with her kind permission. Professor Carrington asked that this review be republished as widely as possible.

Paul Cleary’s book Too Much Luck: The Mining Boom and Australia’s Future, is a timely appraisal of the dramatic economic and social impacts, as well as the political ramifications of the current resource boom.

Cleary argues that the resource investment stampede is squandering Australia’s precious non-renewable fossil fuels, leading to a high dollar, inflation and interest rates, at the expense of manufacturing, education and tourism industries.

There is, he argues, a strong case for a more measured approach to harvesting these resources in the long-term interests of all Australians through better taxation, saving and regulation of the resource sector. This book is not anti-mining and does not argue that resources should be left in the ground, as Stephen Kirchner would have us believe.

Cleary coins the phrase “investment stampede” to capture the seismic shifts at work. The sector is growing fast – too fast – at 15% per annum, with a pipeline investment of $174 billion. Global demand especially from Asia has fuelled this boom. Current economic returns for the mining corporations and their shareholders are staggering.

Cleary coins the phrase “investment stampede” to capture the seismic shifts at work. The sector is growing fast – too fast – at 15% per annum, with a pipeline investment of $174 billion. Global demand especially from Asia has fuelled this boom. Current economic returns for the mining corporations and their shareholders are staggering.

In August 2011 BHP announced an annual net profit of $23.5 billion, while earlier in the year Rio Tinto had announced an annual profit of $14.3 billion.

Cleary’s book analyses an array of adverse impacts resulting from an investment stampede, including the growth of fly-in, fly-out (FIFO) workforces. Until the 1970s, mining leases tended to be issued by governments subject to conditions that companies build or substantially finance local community infrastructure, including housing, streets, transport, schools, hospitals and recreation facilities. Townships and communities went hand in hand with mining development.

Not any more. The haste of this extraction process has become increasingly reliant on a continuous production cycle of 12-hour shifts, seven days a week, and one increasingly reliant on fly-in, fly-out or drive-in, drive-out (non-resident) workers who typically work block rosters, and reside in work camps adjacent to existing rural communities.

There are estimated to be around 150,000 non-resident workers directly employed by the resources sector, anticipated to rise to around 200,000 by 2015, but no government body appears to be counting and projected growth is equally elusive.

This is an odd oversight given the rapid growth of reliance on non-resident workers in the resources sector carries significant impacts for individual workers and their families and host communities, as evidenced by the many submissions to the Australian Parliament House inquiry into FIFO/DIDO work practices, chaired by the Independent MP Tony Windsor. Some of the significant impacts include:

• A sudden influx in high risk populations (young single males with large disposable incomes) exacerbating crime and alcohol-related social disorder problems
• The creation of new lucrative unregulated drug markets and markets in commercial sex work.
• Rises in traffic congestion and road accidents.
• Stretch on infrastructure.
• The erosion of community wellbeing.
• Heightened risk of protracted social protest over coal-seam gas extraction.
• Ongoing widespread social protest against the erection of camps in close proximity to established rural communities.
• Increasing burden on local services.
• Soaring housing costs and other local costs of living
• “Fly over effects” on the local economy, and an ever-decreasing permanent resident workforce
• Increasing rates of staff turnover,
• Reversal of the trend of women entering the mining industry (down from 15.7 to 12.6% according to the most recent ABS statistics)
• Increases in the average hours worked each week exacerbating fatigue related car accidents and work injury as they commute either end of work cycles than in the workplace (an average of hours 45 hours as at August 2011, with 1 in 3 working over 60 hours per week).

These impacts undermine the long-term sustainable community development of rural Australia. It is troubling therefore that dramatic socio-demographic processes have been unleashed by this boom without concerted attempts to accurately research, measure or account for the numbers of non-resident workers involved and their nation-changing impact on the Australian society and economy.

Just as the number of non-resident workers is not being researched or counted, Cleary draws our attention to how the rapid depletion of natural non-renewable resources is not being counted either. Again, the long term social and environmental costs, including the time value of Australia’s natural resources and the opportunity costs of squandering them through an investment stampede are not being measured.

Instead, the gaze of most state politicians in particular has been transfixed on the short-term economic benefits shared by so few. Cleary draws attention to the dominance of a short-term economic view which frames the current resources boom – a view to which Kirchner appears wedded.

The real challenge for a government of and for the people – and not just a government at the beck and call and in the pocket of the powerful mining industry lobby – is to recalibrate the frame of reference for assessing and responding to the social and ecological impacts of the mining boom in the long term interests of the nation.

The corporate power of the mining industry, especially to lobby governments, state and commonwealth to influence policy making in Australia is alarming. As Cleary points out, “Not only did the miners change the prime minister and change government policy, they went on to brag about how their coup had stopped similar schemes from spreading around the world.”

State governments who grant mining licenses and regulate the industry also earn a share of the minerals extracted through royalties. Last year Queensland and Western Australian governments collected around $6 billion.

The Queensland government’s endorsement of the BHP Billiton Mitsubishi Alliance proposal at Moranbah to allow up 100% of workers to be non-resident is a more recent example of Cleary’s complaint about the impact of corporate power. It even contradicts Queensland’s own resource sector housing policy that workers should be allowed the choice where the live and work industry. The Moranbah mining community, with its long history of communal solidarity, is now destined to become surrounded by thousands of non-resident workers housed in dongas.

While the Queensland government introduced social impact assessment processes as part of the Environmental Impact Assessment approval process in Sept 2010 in part to address these concerns, it has failed to regulate the long term cumulative impacts of resource development. Why? State governments have a fundamental conflict of interest in setting themselves up as the arbiters in disputes over access to agricultural land, the granters of exploration licenses and the approvers of environmental and social impact statements, precursors to project development consent from which royalty payment to the state flow

Cleary’s book offers a much needed critique of the collision of self-interest between state governments and mining companies which both profit handsomely from the speedy extraction of resources.

Given the state governments’ conflict of interest and susceptibility to being courted by corporate power, the need for a commonwealth power to over-ride state powers in the interests of the more effective long-term regulation of the mining industry is long overdue. This week, Australia got one thanks the insistence of independent MPs Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott, who supported the Mineral Resources Rent Tax (MRRT) in return for the overhaul of the environmental approval processes and legislation.

Given the state governments’ conflict of interest and susceptibility to being courted by corporate power, the need for a commonwealth power to over-ride state powers in the interests of the more effective long-term regulation of the mining industry is long overdue. This week, Australia got one thanks the insistence of independent MPs Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott, who supported the Mineral Resources Rent Tax (MRRT) in return for the overhaul of the environmental approval processes and legislation.

Too Much Luck can be credited for fanning the shift in public opinion and political climate in support of the MRRT. We are at a critical moment in the boom, when strong, not weak, Australian Government leadership through the policy-making processes of federalism are absolutely vital, if, to use one of Cleary’s metaphors, Australia is not to look like Nauru, “but on a continental scale”.

Feed the world with Genetically Modified foods? The French Minister for Agriculture is preparing a new law to prevent GM crops in France as the European Court of Justice has questioned the health-risk basis of current French laws against GM. It probably suits GM patenters to keep the battle on this footing as a decoy because the major danger lies elsewhere - in loss of productive land tenure. In the US, meanwhile, the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) has filed suit against Monsanto Company to challenge the chemical giant’s patents on genetically modified seed. The organic plaintiffs were forced to sue preemptively to protect themselves from being accused of patent infringement should they ever become contaminated by Monsanto’s genetically modified seed, something Monsanto has done to others in the past.

"http://www.thefutureoffood.com/onlinevideo.html"

French Law on GM 28 November 2011

Yesterday (28 November 2011) the French Conseil d'Etat took European Court of Justice advice that France's laws against OGM have no basis because France has not provided evidence that OGM presents any especially high risk to human or environmental health.

If France want to continue to outlaw GM then it will have to make a new law. The Minister for Agriculture, Bruno Le Maire has stated that he is preparing one.

"We do not want to cultivate Monsanto 810 on our territory because the environmental doubts are too great," he said.

About 30 countries in the world produce OGM crops. At the moment four countries are major producers of OGMs, the United States, Brazil, India and Argentina. Lesser producers are Spain, Portugal, Sweden, Germany (representing about 2% of world production) and Poland, the Tchec Republic and Slovakia.

OGMs have been studied as if they were medications - with reviews to see if they are toxic or produce allergies. These results have shown no danger of medical toxicity or allergy. The problems lie in other directions.

Turbo-industrialised agriculture a threat to democracy

The major legal and social problem is contamination of non-OGM by OGM because it carries the risk of widespread loss of land and crop tenure and self-government. This is a simply enormous problem, because these seeds are privately owned. If OGM seeds are found on your property you can be forced to pay for them and there have been many instances of this where farmers have been bankrupted. (Cases cited at 11.47 minutes into the on-line film.)OGM in private hands causes dispossession and alienation from traditional food-sources, with starvation and enslavement to corporate producers in non-industrialised and industrialised countries alike. The French Revolution was all about winning the right to own land for all citizens from feudal regimes where only a small proportion of people owned the land and the means of production. The OGM Revolution is shaping up as a means to segregate land and food production again from most people, although its proponents present it as a means to 'feed the world'.

March 29, 2011 Organic Farmers and Seed Sellers sue Monsanto to protect themselves from patents on genetically modified seed:

You can purchase a dvd of the new film: "The Future of Food". Below we have republished a statement about a new class action against Monsanto's industrial patents on OGM genes.

"Preemptive Action Seeks Ruling That Would Prohibit Monsanto From Suing Organic Farmers and Seed Growers If Contaminated By Roundup Ready Seed
(Originally posted here.)

NEW YORK – March 29, 2011 – On behalf of 60 family farmers, seed businesses and organic agricultural organizations, the Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) filed suit today (http://www.pubpat.org/assets/files/seed/OSGATA-v-Monsanto-Complaint.pdf) against Monsanto Company to challenge the chemical giant’s patents on genetically modified seed. The organic plaintiffs were forced to sue preemptively to protect themselves from being accused of patent infringement should they ever become contaminated by Monsanto’s genetically modified seed, something Monsanto has done to others in the past.

The case, Organic Seed Growers & Trade Association, et al. v. Monsanto, was filed in federal district court in Manhattan and assigned to Judge Naomi Buchwald. Plaintiffs in the suit represent a broad array of family farmers, small businesses and organizations from within the organic agriculture community who are increasingly threatened by genetically modified seed contamination despite using their best efforts to avoid it. The plaintiff organizations have over 270,000 members, including thousands of certified organic family farmers.

“This case asks whether Monsanto has the right to sue organic farmers for patent infringement if Monsanto’s transgenic seed should land on their property,” said Dan Ravicher, PUBPAT’s Executive Director and Lecturer of Law at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York. “It seems quite perverse that an organic farmer contaminated by transgenic seed could be accused of patent infringement, but Monsanto has made such accusations before and is notorious for having sued hundreds of farmers for patent infringement, so we had to act to protect the interests of our clients.”

Once released into the environment, genetically modified seed contaminates and destroys organic seed for the same crop. For example, soon after Monsanto introduced genetically modified seed for canola, organic canola became virtually extinct as a result of contamination.

Organic corn, soybeans, cotton, sugar beets and alfalfa now face the same fate, as Monsanto has released genetically modified seed for each of those crops, too. Monsanto is developing genetically modified seed for many other crops, thus putting the future of all food, and indeed all agriculture, at stake.

In the case, PUBPAT is asking Judge Buchwald to declare that if organic farmers are ever contaminated by Monsanto’s genetically modified seed, they need not fear also being accused of patent infringement. One reason justifying this result is that Monsanto’s patents on genetically modified seed are invalid because they don’t meet the “usefulness” requirement of patent law, according to PUBPAT’s Ravicher, plaintiffs’ lead attorney in the case. Evidence cited by PUBPAT in its opening filing today proves that genetically modified seed has negative economic and health effects, while the promised benefits of genetically modified seed – increased production and decreased herbicide use – are false.

“Some say transgenic seed can coexist with organic seed, but history tells us that’s not possible, and it’s actually in Monsanto’s financial interest to eliminate organic seed so that they can have a total monopoly over our food supply,” said Ravicher. “Monsanto is the same chemical company that previously brought us Agent Orange, DDT, PCB’s and other toxins, which they said were safe, but we know are not. Now Monsanto says transgenic seed is safe, but evidence clearly shows it is not.”

The plaintiffs in the suit represented by PUBPAT are: Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association; Organic Crop Improvement Association International, Inc.; OCIA Research and Education Inc.; The Cornucopia Institute; Demeter Association, Inc.; Navdanya International; Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association; Northeast Organic Farming Association/Massachusetts Chapter, Inc.; Northeast Organic Farming Association of Vermont; Rural Vermont; Ohio Ecological Food & Farm Association; Southeast Iowa Organic Association; Northern Plains Sustainable Agriculture Society; Mendocino Organic Network; Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance; Canadian Organic Growers; Family Farmer Seed Cooperative; Sustainable Living Systems; Global Organic Alliance; Food Democracy Now!; Family Farm Defenders Inc.; Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund; FEDCO Seeds Inc.; Adaptive Seeds, LLC; Sow True Seed; Southern Exposure Seed Exchange; Mumm’s Sprouting Seeds; Baker Creek Heirloom Seed Co., LLC; Comstock, Ferre & Co., LLC; Seedkeepers, LLC; Siskiyou Seeds; Countryside Organics; Cuatro Puertas; Interlake Forage Seeds Ltd.; Alba Ranch; Wild Plum Farm; Gratitude Gardens; Richard Everett Farm, LLC; Philadelphia Community Farm, Inc; Genesis Farm; Chispas Farms LLC; Kirschenmann Family Farms Inc.; Midheaven Farms; Koskan Farms; California Cloverleaf Farms; North Outback Farm; Taylor Farms, Inc.; Jardin del Alma; Ron Gargasz Organic Farms; Abundant Acres; T & D Willey Farms; Quinella Ranch; Nature’s Way Farm Ltd.; Levke and Peter Eggers Farm; Frey Vineyards, Ltd.; Bryce Stephens; Chuck Noble; LaRhea Pepper; Paul Romero; and, Donald Wright Patterson, Jr.

Many of the plaintiffs made statements upon filing of the suit today.

Jim Gerritsen, a family farmer in Maine who raises organic seed and is President of lead plaintiff Organic Seed Growers and Trade Association ased in Montrose, Colorado, said, “Today is Independence Day fo America. Today we are seeking protection from the Court and putting Monsanto on notice. Monsanto’s threats and abuse of family farmers stops here. Monsanto’s genetic contamination of organic seed and organic crops ends now. Americans have the right to choice in the marketplace – to decide what kind of food they will feed their families - and we are taking this action on their behalf to protect that right to choose. Organic farmers have the right to raise our organic crops fo our families and our customers on our farms without the threat of invasion by Monsanto’s genetic contamination and without harassment by a eckless polluter. Beginning today, America asserts her right to justice and pure food.”

Dr. Carol Goland, Ph.D., Executive Director of plaintiff Ohio Ecological Food & Farm Association (OEFFA) said, “Consumers indicate, overwhelmingly, that they prefer foods made without genetically modified organisms. Organic farms, by regulation, may not use GMOs, while other farmers forego using them for other reasons. Yet the truth is that we are rapidly approaching the tipping point when we will be unable to avoid GMOs in our fields and on our plates. That is the inevitable consequence of releasing genetically engineered materials into the environment. To add injury to injury, Monsanto has a history of suing farmers whose fields have been contaminated by Monsanto’s GMOs. On ehalf of farmers who must live under this cloud of uncertainty and isk, we are compelled to ask the Court to put an end to this unconscionable business practice.”

Rose Marie Burroughs of plaintiff California Cloverleaf Farms said, “The devastation caused by GMO contamination is an ecological catastrophe to our world equal to the fall out of nuclear radiation. Nature, farming and health are all being affected by GMO contamination. We must protect our world by protecting our most precious, sacred resource of seed sovereignty. People must have the right to the resources of the earth for our sustenance. We must have the freedom to farm that causes no harm to the environment or to other people. We must protect the environment, farmers livelihood, public health and people’s right to non GMO food contamination.”

Ed Maltby, Executive Director of plaintiff Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance (NODPA) said, “It’s outrageous that we find ourselves in a situation where the financial burden of GE contamination will fall on family farmers who have not asked for or contributed to the growth of GE crops. Family farmers will face contamination of their crops by GE seed which will threaten their ability to sell crops as organically certified or into the rapidly growing ‘Buy Local’ market where consumers have overwhelmingly declared they do not want any GE crops, and then family farmers may be faced by a lawsuit by Monsanto for patent infringement. We take this action to protect family farms who once again have to bear the consequences of irresponsible actions by Monsanto.”

David L. Rogers, Policy Advisor for plaintiff NOFA Vermont said, “Vermont’s farmers have worked hard to meet consumers’ growing demand for certified organic and non-GE food. It is of great concern to them that Monsanto’s continuing and irresponsible marketing of GE crops that contaminate non-GE plantings will increasingly place their local and egional markets at risk and threaten their livelihoods.”

Dewane Morgan of plaintiff Midheaven Farms in Park Rapids, Minnesota, said, “For organic certification, farmers are required to have a buffer zone around their perimeter fields. Crops harvested from this buffer zone are not eligible for certification due to potential drift from herbicide and fungicide drift. Buffer zones are useless against pollen drift. Organic, biodynamic, and conventional farmers who grow identity-preserved soybeans, wheat and open-pollinated corn often save seed for replanting the next year. It is illogical that these farmers are liable for cross-pollination contamination.”

Jill Davies, Director of plaintiff Sustainable Living Systems in Victor, Montana, said, “The building blocks of life are sacred and should be in the public domain. If scientists want to study and manipulate them fo some supposed common good, fine. Then we must remove the profit motive.

The private profit motive corrupts pure science and increasingly precludes democratic participation.”

David Murphy, founder and Executive Director of plaintiff Food Democracy Now! said, “None of Monsanto’s original promises regarding genetically modified seeds have come true after 15 years of wide adoption by commodity farmers. Rather than increased yields or less chemical usage, farmers are facing more crop diseases, an onslaught of herbicide-resistant superweeds, and increased costs from additional herbicide application. Even more appalling is the fact that Monsanto’s patented genes can blow onto another farmer’s fields and that farmer not only loses significant revenue in the market but is frequently exposed to legal action against them by Monsanto’s team of belligerent lawyers.
Crop biotechnology has been a miserable failure economically and iologically and now threatens to undermine the basic freedoms that farmers and consumers have enjoyed in our constitutional democracy.”

Mark Kastel, Senior Farm Policy Analyst for plaintiff The Cornucopia Institute said, “Family-scale farmers desperately need the judiciary anch of our government to balance the power Monsanto is able to wield in the marketplace and in the courts. Monsanto, and the biotechnology industry, have made great investments in our executive and legislative branches through campaign contributions and powerful lobbyists in Washington. We need to court system to offset this power and protect individual farmers from corporate tyranny. Farmers have saved seeds since the beginning of agriculture by our species. It is outrageous that one corporate entity, through the trespass of what they refer to as their ‘technology,’ can intimidate and run roughshod over family farmers in this country. It should be the responsibility of Monsanto, and farmers licensing their technology, to ensure that genetically engineered DNA does not trespass onto neighboring farmland. It is outrageous, that through no fault of their own, farmers are being intimidated into not saving seed for fear that they will be doggedly pursued through the court system and potentially bankrupted.”

About PUBPAT

The Public Patent Foundation (PUBPAT) is a not-for-profit legal services organization affiliated with the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law.
PUBPAT protects freedom in the patent system by representing the public interest against undeserved patents and unsound patent policy. More information about PUBPAT is available from www.pubpat.org."

How ironic. A party that poses as the vanguard of democratic reform denies its own membership the chance of greater democratic participation. Why?

An Apparent Contradiction

What’s this? A political party that has always claimed to be the spear-head for the democratic reform of Canada’s electoral system junking an experiment in internal party democracy? A political party that has argued for proportional representation in parliament but has abandoned a process that would ensure proportional representation of all strands of opinion within its own ranks as reflected in party policy? A political party that prescribes more democracy for Canada but not for itself?

Welcome to the Green Party of Canada (GPC). A party that in 2004 set up a participatory Web-based process for broad-based policy development that would invite and permit rank-and-file members to determine party policies. Forget stacking meetings and microphones, forget slate voting for convention delegates, forget the standard sordid trademarks of traditional party politics. At long last, here was a political party that would give ordinary party members a direct say in choosing the policies which their party would run on. The initiation of this “Wiki’” process---as it was called----was a de-facto declaration by the GPC of trust in democracy, of faith in its own members, best summarized by Chairman Mao’s famous invitation to members of his Chinese Communist Party. “Let a hundred flowers bloom and a thousand thoughts contend.”

The trouble was, when the people spoke, the leadership didn’t like what they heard----so they pulled the plug on democracy. Obviously the people need to be “educated” before they can be trusted. The party leadership knows best.

The Trouble With Encouraging Democracy Is That Party Members Take It Seriously

In 2004-5, the Green Party brass discovered that “empowered” members can use their new-found power to vote for politically incorrect and inconvenient policies. And none was so politically incorrect and inconvenient than a policy that was articulated in a position paper entitled “A Strategy for a National and International Canadian Population Policy”. It was a policy that would have required the GPC to “provide the strong political leadership needed to create a credible population policy” for the country “and undertake an initiative to educate Canadians about the acute dangers of overpopulation and to build public participation and support for a population policy.” Particularly incendiary was “Position 5”, which stated that:

“The Green Party of Canada should advocate steps to slow the growth of population in Canada pending the development of the information base on carrying capacity and the completion of public consultations, and press for measures to increase international aid to those overpopulated countries that have or are willing to adopt policies to lower fertility but need assistance to develop and implement such policies.”

The paper also offered the view that It went on to argue that “As Canada will have a very slow natural population growth rate without immigration for about the next fifteen years (Statistics Canada), one measure to slow population would be to bring immigration to levels in place prior to 1989” when “Canada adjusted its intake of immigrants according to its ability to absorb and provide suitable employment.” The paper noted that since 1990, when the Progressive Conservative government of Brian Mulroney aspired to match the Liberal Party target of one percent annual population growth for the country, immigrants fared significantly worse than other Canadians, while prior to that, the reverse was true. “This”, the authors observed, “may suggest that Canada has reached its carrying capacity. For as long as an ecological surplus exists, additional population seems to increase wealth, but when carrying capacity has been exceeded added population causes a rise in poverty levels.”(William Catton).

Bottom line: “Canada needs to develop a population policy that links human numbers in Canada to the long-term carrying capacity of Canadian lands and boundary waters taking into consideration the needs of other species and the biodiversity required for a healthy ecosphere.”

The People Have Spoken--- Don't Let It Happen Again!

This was dangerous stuff to the party hierarchy----but apparently not to the majority of participating party members, who voted 56% for its inclusion into party policy. It was that fact, rather than the policy proposal itself, which scared the pants off those who feared that their career prospects would be sunk by a democratic torpedo from their own membership. As Tony Cassils, the chief architect of the collaborative effort to formulate this policy, recounted,

“Recommendation 5 caused some unease, especially among the members of the GPC who were candidates in ridings because they feared, probably correctly, that they might be pilloried by other parties for seeming to favour a slowing of immigration. By early April 2005, fearing that the population plank might win approval, they came up with an idea to sever the population plank and make a separate one on immigration. ....Eventually , the GPC simply shut down the Wiki process for policy development. I fully understand the anxiety that Recommendation 5 engenders in GPC candidates and I believe that this is the reason that any thought of population stabilization in Canada is suppressed by the GPC. ...Elizabeth May shuns any mention of limiting population growth.”

Anti-Immigration Views Must Be Quarantined

In retrospect, this suffices to explain why in November of 2008, following the federal election, Eric Walton, Erich Jacoby-Hawkins and others in the ruling GPC clique reacted with reflexive alarm when they learned that all those who had stood as GPC candidates were recipients of a questionnaire sent out on behalf of Biodiversity First ---an organization (of which I was ‘Vice President’) that challenged mass immigration-driven population growth in Canada for its negative ecological impacts. They were quick to advise these candidates not to answer the questionnaire nor to communicate with BF, interpreting it as a classic “divide and conquer” strategy. But given recent history, when a majority of GPC members had indicated support for BF’s aims in the Wiki experiment, it would probably be more accurate to say that party heavyweights were desperate to quarantine our views because they perceived them as a deadly virus that might infect their membership should they be exposed to our perspective. After all, the fact that just three years earlier 56% of grassroots participants approved of a plank to limit population growth---including immigration, was proof enough to them that our ideas would have traction in the Green Party at large.

Elizabeth May A Perfect Fit For A Party Phobic About Population Concerns

This fear pre-dates May’s ascension to the GPC leadership, but her arrival certainly gave it impetus. It is clear that May’s leadership fits perfectly with the ruling clique’s determination to make political expediency and political correctness---rather than ecological correctness---the priority of the party. Elizabeth May was tailor-made for this crew of fake greens, as she auditioned for the role when she lead the Sierra Club of Canada and passed the screen test with flying colours. When Paul Watson and a group of dissident Sierrans threatened to restore the goal of sustainable population for America to the policy books of the Sierra Club of the United States, May threatened to change the name of her sister organization in Canada if they were successful. Since then she has consistently characterized immigration concerns as "trivial" in importance and maintained that urban sprawl fed by exploding population growth can be cured by good "land-use" planning, despite the fact that local zoning is under the jurisdiction of local governments bought and paid for by developers, as Professor Robert McDermid has documented in "Funding City Politics". She remains oblivious to the fact that mass immigration has, in the past two decades, accounted for four times as much GHG emissions as the Tar Sands development, and clings to the delusion that population growth can be 'de-coupled' from carbon emissions and ecological degradation.

The Futility Of Fighting From Within The GPC

Despite May’s make-over of the GPC, it still is not a cohesive and monolithic bloc. Large pockets of the party are not afflicted by population-denial and the opportunism of their leaders. Nevertheless the ruling clique have succeeded in enveloping the party with a cordon sanitaire of filtered information and are slowly but surely creating a party in their own image, much like the Pods in the sci-fi classic “Invasion of the Body Snatchers” succeeded in replicating the form and shape of human victims. It looks like a Green Party and walks like a Green Party, but when you look into its eyes no one is home. Its policy pronouncements give the game away. This party is Green in name only. Those who would reveal themselves as unassimilated by the governing ideology, who would attempt to play the population card, are destined to be marginalized and driven out with discouragement. As Erich Jacoby-Hawkins told one of them on March 6th of 2008, “...you’ll find the existing progressive consensus (beyond the Green Party) is towards more open immigration, not tighter, so you are bucking the trend on this issue----so to follow your own Lakoffian advice, you would need to be the one to acquiesce at this point.” Translation: Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated.

A National Tragedy

The hijacking of Canada’s Green Party by population-denialists is more than a tragedy for the GPC. It is a tragedy for Canada. For if the Green Party will not be truly green, who will?

As that policy position paper of 2005 stated, “Canada needs leadership for the age of ecology from the green parties, not the myopic managers of the old-line parties who act like it is “business as usual “, while paying lip service to the notion of sustainability and to other environmental issues.”

Tim Murray
November 25, 2011.

Is life as much fun as it should be or are our opportunities for enjoyment in daily life eroding? Brolga-Brolga explores the notion of a Gross National Fun Quotient and finds that Australia is deficient in this vital national resource.

Pointless Productivity and Gross National Fun Quotient

Is life as much fun as it should be? I’m tuned in a lot to the mainstream media, which gives me exposure to the prevailing messages to the masses and the local psyche. It was the nurses’ ongoing struggle to maintain their conditions and a phrase associated with this –“productivity improvements” that made me wonder if life was getting to be less and less fun. And I wonder how accurately productivity measures in a clinical situation like a hospital reflect the quality of the work done. What sacrifice is made by workers and patients in delivering “productivity improvements”? From the pressure that is being applied, it seems that there is absolutely no slack in the system to allow for nurses to be human, to have an “off day”, to “waste” a few minutes talking to patients or colleagues. Such intangible “time wasting” moments are fun; they make the job worth while. They make you want to turn up for work tomorrow and they increase staff and patient morale.

Are we in such a myopic, economically rationally straightened era that we can’t afford those moments any more?

Stressed Students

Universities seem to be populated with stressed students either grappling with tertiary studies in a foreign language or flying in and out of lectures between part time jobs which are an economic necessity dictated by HECS fees and little government support. Do students still have time to goof off and hang out fermenting ideas with other students on campus in the hours before the next lecture? I doubt it.

Perpetual Motion

My impression is that the whole country is in frantic perpetual motion! Mining workers fly in and fly out of their work places in isolated areas. Maybe it’s fun to begin with but it’s all about digging up stuff as fast as it can be shipped off and nothing to do with a reasonable life outside work for employees. A large sacrifice is made in that workers are absent from their families for the duration of their work stint. The lifestyle is mandated by circumstances and quality of life if is only incidental. In capital cities and larger centres both parents work now and so drop children of at crèche or school and then re-unite after work. No-one stays at home with the dog!

Poor Dogs

Dogs used to be good fun. I don’t own one at present but have had a total of 28 years of sharing my life with dogs. Where I live, everyone looks so serious as they stride purposefully to the designated off-leash area with their plastic bags tied to the leashes like flags, a signal of their dutiful consideration for others in a crowded suburb. They veer away from people walking in the opposite direction (if that person is not attached to a dog) as if to say “no one is going to accuse me of having an erring dog.” Looking after a friend’s dog recently I walked him in my street fully equipped with the requisite plastic bags. The dog sniffed around in the grass and even squatted in that unmistakable way but then changed his mind. I walked on with him and was immediately pounced on by a neighbour accusing me of anti-social behavior! I also notice that people walking their dogs don’t actually seem to have the time to do it. They plug something into their ears as they walk or else, they jog, cycle or skateboard as though they have to get the job done really quickly or do something else at the same time. This type of dog walking is no fun for dogs who, when liberated from the confines of a back yard, are subsumed into a world of tantalizing aromas and do not want to walk necessarily in a straight line at a constant pace. Rather they like to pull up or change direction without warning when arrested by a waft from a lamp post or distracted by a rustle in a bush. To be pulled along at cycling pace where any dog-initiated deviation will result in serious neck injury is not canine recreation! Some people actually don’t have any time to walk their dogs at all and pay a professional to do this. The professional I see at the local park looks as though he is having fun, at least. Yesterday he was in charge of about 5 dogs and took photos of each individually, wearing a small red and white trimmed seasonal hat. I must take my own hat off to these owners. They do love their dogs. The photos will go on the family Christmas card I guess. Perhaps paying the dog walker is akin to crèche fees.

Lack of Leisure

It seems that a lack of leisure time is a big part of the problem. Whereas now we hear through the media that our huge problem is our aging population and the challenge of looking after them, just a few decades ago, the problem we all faced was what we would with our increased leisure in the future! How would we amuse ourselves with extra time on our hands ?

The problem never arose! Those who were going to be at a loose end dreaming up new activities to fill their unstructured time now work more hours than ever!

Robbed of time, robbed of space

Lack of space will also sap our capacity for uncomplicated leisure. Back yards are places to have fun but we have to give them up it seems. Every daily newspaper has an article about how we must give up our attachment to our outside play areas - our back yards. We must, we are told, be filed away in apartments on top of one another, unable to play outside on the spur of the moment. Even those lucky enough to retain a back yard seem to be making heavy weather of it ! It is no longer an unstructured relatively natural area but now must earn its keep and maintain its value (without being over capitalised) with swimming pools, concreted and paved areas, barbecue areas and decking crammed into the space. Will the kids still enjoy it?

Our 'leaders' bully and threaten us

The rhetoric from governments and business spokesmen is full of the threat that if we don’t shape up, buy more, move up, sell more, make more, produce more, be competitive, have more babies, import more immigrants - then we will sink into the quicksand of not keeping up.

My observations may be very subjective as is the notion of fun but I feel an increasing seriousness enveloping the world I know. Everywhere I look I see less fun, more angst. I think one would need to be oblivious or a committed optimist to believe that the gross national fun quotient was on the increase. Or perhaps I just haven’t grown up?

Australia had the world's first Labor government ever and ratified the United Nations' International Labour Organisation's "Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention" in 1973, but in 2011 nurses are threatened with jail when they take industrial action. Footage of 24 Nov 2011 nurses' march on Parliament on Channel 9 plus coverage of associated and earlier related news on Channel 9 (unfortunately interrupted by ads for Pringles chips- which are unhealthy - and Westpac - whose land-speculation and growth lobby activities push up price cost of living and therefore wages).

As news.com.au reported on 19 November, nurses who defy the orders of "Fair Work Australia" to end industrial action in support of their claims for some compensation for huge recent increases in costs of living and civilised working conditions, risk 12 months' jail -- this, in a country, which had the world's first Labor government ever and ratified the United Nations' International Labour Organisation's "Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention" in 1973.

In fact, only 3 years after Labor Prime Minister Gough Whitlam signed the Convention, his successor, Malcolm Fraser, enacted the vicious sections 45D and 45E of the Trades Practices Act, which outlawed "secondary boycotts". Since then Liberal Governments, in collusion with subsequent "Labor" Governments, have taken away ever more of our collective bargaining rights.

http://candobetter.net

A website for reform in democracy, environment, population, land use planning and energy policy

The late Michael Crichton was partially right. The environmental movement in an increasingly secular society has assumed the mantle of Christianity. This is most particularly true, I would submit, in its obsession with motivations and intentions, as if nature gave a damn what we "intended". Too often those in the "environment justice" coalition choose politically correct pursuits and ignore their ecologically incorrect consequences.

"Noble intentions are a poor excuse for stupid actions. Man is the only species that calls some suicidal actions 'noble' ".
Garrett Hardin

Noble intention: Help the starving masses of Haiti, Central Africa, Afghanistan, Philippines, etc.
Stupid action: Sending them aid without making it conditional on birth control, thereby doubling their misery in a generation.

Noble intention: Encourage people to cut their personal waste and consumption.
Stupid action: Oppose effective measures to reduce the number of people who are doing the wasting and consuming.

Noble intention: To concentrate on ending income and wealth disparities within nations and between hemispheres.
Stupid action: To allow that focus to be exclusive of concerns about the total human footprint, which is largely unaffected by wealth redistribution. The equal distribution of rations on an overloaded lifeboat facing a Perfect Storm far off shore will not suffice to save it.

Noble intention: To fight racial injustice.
Stupid action: To assuage white guilt by assigning all responsibility for overshoot to the rich "North" and relieving the global poor of any responsibility for their irresponsible fecundity and its resultant environmental degradation.

Noble intention: To fight 'Islamophobia' and ensure that all Muslims are not categorized and treated as 'terrorists'.
Stupid action: To frame concerns about the impact of Islam on women's rights, democracy and most importantly, fertility rates, as "Islamophobic" and off the table.

Noble intention: Not to be sidetracked from the main task of reducing global population by religious or ethnic mud-slinging.
Stupid action: To let the Catholic Church in particular, and other denominations in general, off the hook for their criminal responsibility in pushing humanity to the brink of ecocide by fighting against birth control measures. Culture matters. And harmful cultural practices must be mercilessly attacked---whomever practices them.

Noble intention: To keep people focused on issues, not personalities or blame.
Stupid action: To let environmental organizations off the hook for their collusion with corporate donors who have paid them "not to understand" the role of immigration-driven population growth in environmental degradation. Ignorance is one thing, corruption is another. Nor is it smart or ethical to not to call green NGOs and fem-green left out for their despicable race-baiting, McCarthyist tactics in smearing and isolating those who try to put the "P" back into the IPAT equation where it belongs. Their tactics must not be rewarded with silence. Bullies thrive on passive non-reactions. I am from the east end of town. If Sierrans and Hartmanites push me, I push back. Only twice as hard.

Noble intention: To serve the interests of all humanity.
Stupid action: To frame the effort to restrict migration, control borders, and prevent national population overshoot as "parochial", "trivial", "selfish", "nativist", "xenophobic" or "racist" when open borders are a proven fertility stimulant to nations who treat North America, Australia and Western Europe as a safety valve for their burgeoning population and as a source of remittances. It is also supremely stupid to ignore the fact that migrants to North America---a major resource glutton----on average quadruple their GHG emissions upon arrival and similarly multiply their consumption to the cost of the whole world.

Noble intention: To worry about climate change.
Stupid action: To make climate change such a fixation that it hogs the stage so that more imminent catastrophes (overpopulation, Peak Oil, Peal Soil, water shortage, biodiversity collapse, atomic/chemical or biological war and terrorism) do not get the attention that they need. Systems collapse is consequence of all these disasters acting upon each other, but why nominate climate change as the only meaningful metric of overshoot when other unfolding disasters are poised to kill us first?

Noble intention: Foster women's rights.
Stupid action: Support only 'voluntary' family planning even though that alone won't get us to sustainability, and even though nothing is more coercive of women's rights than making women live in an overpopulated environment. That is, an environment of inadequate housing, inadequate water, inadequate food and nutrition, poor air quality, poor educational opportunities, and more violence. No Chinese Communist Party apparatchik could be as tough on procreative "rights" as the environment would be on us if there had been an extra 400 million Chinese people born because the Chinese government lacked the resolution to enforce a One-Child-Per-Family law. That's 1.8 billion metric tonnes of GHG emissions per year not added to the global atmosphere and billions of barrels of oil and tonnes of coal not consumed thanks to the OCPF law. Still wish that the Chinese government had not infringed on women's 'rights'? Would you prefer extinction to a curb on procreative rights? Species suicide is noble? And you call your position "ethical" while my prescriptions are "monstrous", "inhumane", "intrusive", "undemocratic" and "disrespectful of women's rights"?

Noble intention: To tell me how to write. To tell me to “tone it down a little”, not to be so “abrasive” or "caustic", to walk on egg shells and tip-toe around people’s sensibilities so that my message will be received by a wider readership.
Stupid action: To promote the idea there is a “one-size-fits-all” writing style that appeals to everyone. Wrong. It takes a variety of approaches to reach different people with the same message. One writing style may not be to your taste, but it may well be what grabs the attention of others. Instead of trying to drive one style off the stage, concentrate on getting the message out in a different way--- your way. There is room for all styles and approaches, and many are complementary. If you don’t like playing the “Bad Cop”, then by all means, be the “Good Cop”----but don’t pretend that we don’t need bad cops. There is a time and a season for being undiplomatic. Especially when the stakes are so high and danger so imminent.

Tim Murray
June 26, 2011

Community Rally - Wear Red this Thursday - 23 November 2011!
Please encourage your family and friends to attend this very important rally to tell the Baillieu Government that the Victorian community supports nurses in their fight to maintain and improve nurse patient ratios and ensure a high quality public health system.
Victorian Public Sector Nurses and Midwives Community Rally.

Community Rally - Wear Red this Thursday!

GM crops are being seen as an “answer” to human overpopulation, a “big Australia” and a way of securing food for the future. The global challenge is to produce 70% more food in the next 40 years. GM has the potential to increase hunger around the globe.

Greenpeace has been accused of being anti-science over the destruction of experimental GM wheat trials in Canberra earlier this year.

GM crops are being seen as an “answer” to human overpopulation, a “big Australia” and a way of securing food for the future.

Greenpeace's senior scientists, Dr Janet Cotter, says she thinks the big issue with GM is crop contamination.  She says we are seeing lots of canola contamination in Australia, and in wheat trials overseas we are seeing contamination of crops.  The insertion of genes into the genome causes unexpected and unpredictable results such as allergies - allergies are proteins and in peer reviewed studies protein introduced into a pea plant, have caused allergen problems.

Population challenges

Population growth in developing countries generates a huge challenge to food and nutrition security, with 93 per cent of world growth expected to occur in those countries while arable land is being reduced by land degradation and climate change. The global challenge is to produce 70% more food in the next 40 years. Of course, it's offensive to cultural, economic and religious sensitivities to keep within our ecological limits?

The success of the Green Revolution at feeding Asia’s growing population is touted across the world as a triumph of modern humanity over the limitations of nature and traditional farming. The Green Revolution is shuddering to a controversial halt precisely, when greater productivity is needed.  Dr Bourlag's “population monster” is rearing it's ugly head!

Dangers of GM

Lack of research done to detect any effect this herbicide and insecticide DNA might have on human health. Over the years we have had some horrific side-effects from the use of chemicals that had been researched for 10 years and later proved to be cancer-causing or dangerous to pregnant women. They were then withdrawn from the market.
GM has the potential to increase hunger around the globe. This jars with people's logic (and defies brilliant marketing campaigns by the GM industry) but the companies responsible for producing food globally could actually cause further food scarcity. The International Assessment of Agricultural Science and Technology for Development reported that
instead of allowing farmers to save and reuse seeds as they have done for generations, they will be required to purchase new seeds each year.

GM companies claim that their seeds will feed the poor, when in fact their only goal is greater profits.  GM canola can cross-pollinate with a number of other species, and eating such resulting crops would decertify organic livestock as well.

Shady agro-giant, that food-world Voldemort, Monsanto in the 1990s sold Indian farmers, stricken by drought and poverty, were so entranced by Monsanto's promises of wealth that they take on debt, at local moneylenders' extortionate rates, to buy the GM seed hundreds of times more expensive than traditional seed. 

French researchers found rats fed GM maize showed
significant liver and kidney damage. The findings only came to light after Monsanto was forced to publish its raw data on safety tests by anti-GM campaigners. Dr Seralini concluded that rats which ate the GM maize had ' statistically significant' signs of liver and kidney damage.

Scientists at Scotland's Rowett Institute found intestinal and immune system damage to rats fed GM potatoes. Even though some lectins are highly toxic to humans, the developers of the GM potato believed that it would be toxic to insects, nematodes and fungi without harming mammals. To his surprise and alarm Dr. Arpad Pusztai, a Hungarian immigrant to Scotland, found that rats fed the GM potato suffered damage to their immune system and digestive system.

Canadian gynaecologists have found insect toxins from GM plants in the blood of pregnant women and their foetuses.  The researchers suggest that the most
probable source of the toxin is GM food consumed as part of a normal diet in Canada, where GM presence in food is unlabelled.

Africa's solution to drought and crop diseases may be in growing genetically engineered crops specifically tuned to resist weather conditions and mature quickly. This could result in saving crops from losses of harvests, which are followed by hunger and starvation. Nearly 200 million people in Africa are undernourished.  At present, most African countries cannot advance GM crop research because national policies or regulatory systems are not prepared to deal with safety requirements. Only South Africa and Nigeria have a specific policy for biotechnology.

Facing a growing number of people in need of food aid, the Kenyan government gazetted existing legislation in August that allows for the importation of genetically modified (GM) crops as well as for the cultivation of GM food crops within Kenya.

Teresa Anderson, of the Gaia foundation, which partners with the African biodiversity network to prevent the industrial commoditisation of the continent’s agriculture, says Kenyan farmers’ opposition to the new legislation is a testament to how devastating GM could be for their farming practises. Farmer would no longer be able to save their seeds for the next planting season, and would be in possession of a patented product.

decline of bees

The decline of honeybees around the world continues to puzzle scientists. Australia is the only continent that has been spared the mite but it may soon be here.

The genetic modification leads to the concurrent genetic modification of the flower pollen. When the pollen becomes genetically modified or sterile, the bees will become malnourished and die of illness due to the lack of nutrients and the interruption of the digestive capacity of what they feed on.  Digestive shutdown due to hard material in the digestive tract compromises the immune system and points to GMO flower pollen.

Russian Scientists Find Third Generation of Hamsters Sterilized by GM Soy.  One group of hamsters was fed a normal diet without any soy whatsoever, a second group was fed non-GMO soy, a third ate GM soy, and a fourth group ate an even higher amount of GM soy than the third.

 Using the same genetically modified (GM) soy that is produced on over 90 percent of the soy acreage in the US, the hamsters and their offspring were fed their respective diets over a period of two years, during which time the researchers evaluated three generations of hamsters.  GM crops, instead of being a solution to feeding a blow-out of global population growth, could actually solve the overpopulation crisis.

Nearly all the third generation GMO babies were sterile!

While Australia is in a more fortunate position than many other countries, our natural environment, our biodiversity and our agricultural resources are already under strain from the demands of our current population. To restore sustainability to our landscapes and waters, we need to reduce the demands on them.

UN Millenium Development Goals failing

The U.N.'s Millenium Development Goals has been trying to eradicate poverty, with a program that started in 2000, and the goal is supposed to met in 2015. However, the world is still at 2 billion people who make less than $2 a day. The problem is: overpopulation causes poverty and hunger, and makes nations vulnerable to corruption. If you tackle reproductive rights first, it's the first step in addressing poverty and food security.

The shocking death this past summer of Canada's newly-elected Leader of the Official Opposition, Jack Layton, forced me to put the following article on hold. Mr. Layton's sincerity, persistence and bouyant optimism in the face of encroaching cancer was inspirational even to his political enemies. Nothing could attest more to his universal appeal than the fact that a state funeral was held in his honour. Nevertheless, respect for the man should not mean that criticism of his policy direction should be suspended or that his ideology---the ideology of his party----should enjoy indefinite immunity from critical examination.

Growth is OK if its "benefits" are shared

For those who do not follow Canadian politics, the New Democratic Party is now Her Majesty's Official Opposition, thanks to its stunning success in the recently held federal election. On the weekend beginning June 17, 2011, the triumphant party held a national convention in Vancouver, and party leader Jack Layton once again attempted to present the NDP as a clear alternative to the reigning Conservative government led by Prime Minister Stephen Harper. The main order of business, it seemed, was semantics.

Mr. Layton assured party members that the proposal to rid the preamble to the party constitution of the word "socialist" reflected the intention to merely modernize the language of the party---- not revise its values. The NDP would still be the party that would restructure Canadian society in a fundamentally different way. But what way would be fundamentally different? Consider this prominent portion of Layton's speech (emphasis mine):

"You are the reason that New Democrats are Canada's Official Opposition – fighting for the values we cherish.....Canadians elected the NDP to be the Official Opposition, but also to propose ideas, not just to oppose the government.It's up to all of us in this room to live up that responsibility – to provide Canadians with a positive alternative and to build a strong and united country. To grow our economy, create new jobs, and always put the needs of everyday families first." http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/06/17/pol-ndp-friday.html

This stated party objective was something that Layton has repeated on numerous occasions, including his victory speech on election night when he vowed that "We must focus on economic growth and environmental sustainability". Some three years ago—in a speech given on May 22, 2008 to “The Shepherds of Good Hope”, Layton had declared that the problem with growth was that its benefits were not fairly and equitably shared. “Today we are seeing a very disturbing trend in Canada: the growing gap between the rich and everyone else. More wealth (sic) is being generated than ever before—but that does not mean that everyone is better off. In fact, the opposite is true. The reason is pretty clear---the benefits of economic growth (sic) are not being shared equally among all Canadians.”

Doublespeak is a long-standing NDP tradition

It is a theme that provincial NDP leaders have emphasized as well. Then BC NDP leader Carole James told delegates at the party convention in Penticton in November of 2009 that we needed to "grow the revenues" to support the social services that the party hoped to extend and maintain for the benefit of the province. The current leader, Adrian Dix, remarked during his bid for the leadership that the NDP were better economic managers than the incumbent Liberal government because the growth rate was higher during its decade of office than was the case under the last ten years of Liberal rule. Former Saskatchewan NDP Premier Lorne Calvert had peddled the same line, arguing that growth was needed to grow the tax base and that the party's mission was to ensure that all citizens benefited from the process. Of course, all of this economic growth could exist side by side with "strong environmental protection", a contention made less credible by his government’s record. After seeing his province’s Green House Gas (GHG) emissions by 60% since 1990, Calvert still had the cheek in 2006 to promise his audience that “while continuing to grow the Saskatchewan economy, we will stabilize the absolute level of GHG emissions by 2010.” The Manitoba NDP, for its part, once declared on its website that "We want Manitoba to be a place that promotes sustainable growth and a place that recognizes our lakes, rivers, and forests as our greatest assets." Great assets to be preserved---or developed? Since then, they used the 2010 throne speech to brag about the province’s “unparalleled growth”. http://todaysndp.ca/search/node/sustainable%20growth For New Democrats, as for other parties, growth is the measure of success.

Ironically, following Layton's speech, a TV interviewer spoke to the party's environment critic, MP Fin Donnelly of New Westminster. He spoke of his determination to stop oil tanker traffic down a sensitive part of the BC coast, but when asked about the contradiction being opposition to the tar sands development and the party's commitment to protect the jobs of "working families", he admitted that the issue was difficult and then launched off into an explanation of how it was important to develop a "sustainable" energy policy. Too bad Doris Day is not still alive to sing the NDP's theme song. "Growth and the environment, growth and the environment, go together like a horse and carriage---- you can't have one, you can't have one, no you can't have one without the other."

Deceit by semantics

No doubt further research would yield a hundred other examples of this kind of double-talk. Initially it was my belief that it reflected a sinister attempt at manipulation and obfuscation, but then it struck me: Canada's social democrats have swallowed their own greenwash. They have no idea that they their statements are oxymoronic. The NDP has indeed, as Jack Layton said, "modernized" its language. It is the language of confusion and deceit. The language of people who are, in the most profound sense, ecologically illiterate. People who believe that we can put one over on Mother Nature simply by changing our language. Not comfortable with "economic growth"? Fine, then we will call it "sustainable" growth. Don't like that? OK, then we have sustainable "development" waiting on the bench ready to jump over the boards and join the play at any time. As Garrett Hardin said, in “sustainable development” growth-mongers have won a moratorium from the painful process of thinking.

The truth is, the NDP wouldn't know what "sustainability" was if it leaped up and bit them on the ass. The "alternative" vision which they represent is the vision of the 1960s, when conventional wisdom had it that "the environment" was a luxury, an externality that would be nice to have as soon as we could "afford" it. Only by growing the economy, and becoming "prosperous", can we afford to "clean up" the environment. "Hey honey, look. I know you would like us to buy new furniture and paint the house, but we have to finish the addition first, and pay down the mortgage." This line follows the same kind of logic that would argue that only by fostering a strong tobacco industry can we gain the revenues necessary to build cancer clinics.

Equity isn't the main issue

Look Jack, whether you call yourself a socialist or a social democrat is of no relevance. If you say that you want to make things ‘fair and equitable’, we’ll take your word for it. The issue, however, is not how we can grow the pie and divide it equitably, but that the pie is shrinking while you’re inviting more diners to the table. At least the father of Canadian socialism, J. S. Woodsworth, understood that you need to turn the immigration tap off when the economy is in a tailspin. Adding more consumers to the stew will not grow the supply of cheap non-renewable resources. And as Dr. Peter Victor of the University of York observed, growth is not particularly effective at eliminating poverty, creating full employment, or safe-guarding the environment either. Since 1976, as both the GDP and the greenhouse gas emissions have gone up consistently, levels of unemployment and poverty have bounced around.
Here is a news flash for socialists--- Oops, I mean "social democrats" (by all means let’s be modern): The economy is a fully owned subsidiary of the environment. No environment, no economy. (Eg., no cod, no Newfoundland cod fish industry). At what point in history will that truism sink in? We don't expect Conservatives to get it. After all, they are Conservatives. They are in love with capitalism, and debt-capitalism and growth work hand in hand. But the NDP is the “Opposition”, and don't we elect opposition parties for a reason? Aren't they supposed to offer an another option? A genuine choice?

Continuing growth is not possible---get it?"

For some, continuing economic growth may seem necessary, even desirable---if you don't care about undercutting our life-support system. But what New Democrats don't understand is that even if continued economic growth is necessary and desirable, it is not possible. Our industrial economy depends on the unsustainable use of finite non-renewable natural resources, which by definition, cannot be used indefinitely. That is why they are called "non-renewable". "Renewable" energy cannot be scaled up to anywhere near our requirements. To believe otherwise is to reveal a kind of mystical thinking which is informed by a blend of shallow research, wilful ignorance and false hope. A dozen credible sources could be cited but a local one will do. Just read what Canada's foremost energy expert, David Hughes, has said. His motto? "Beware of scale".http://www.walrusmagazine.com/articles/2009.06-energy-an-inconvenient-talk//?ref=2009.07-environment-an-inconvenient-talk&page=
There are lots of alternatives on the drawing board, but they won't take us where we need to go. Not even close. And even if energy needs could be met, no replacements could be found for all of the 69 metals and minerals that analyst Chris Clugston identified as critical to the operation of an industrial system and which have already ‘peaked’. Metals and minerals which, like oil, will always remain in the ground but which at some point soon, will not be able to be affordably extracted. In other words, at some point, there will be a net energy loss in procuring them. http://www.wakeupamerika.com/papers-and-essays.html

We are entering an age of what Clugston calls "continually less and less". Our industrial economy will keep shrinking. Economic "stimulation" will only feed the demand for increasingly scarce and expensive natural resource inputs whose rising, prohibitive cost will eventually choke the economy. In other words, these "job-creating" efforts will only accelerate our remorseless drive to the cliff. Them's the facts, m'am. And what is First Officer Jack Layton's advice to Captain Edward John Smith (aka Harper) on the HMCS Ecological Titanic? "Full steam ahead sir. We can go faster if the ordinary working people in Third Class are given a fair share of the perks on board this great vessel. And by the way sir, we need to pick up more passengers---at least 340,000 immigrants a year---to keep this ship ‘vibrant’ and growing.”

It is astonishing that even an articulate man with a PhD who claims to represent a brand new change of direction for the country is evidently unaware of our extreme predicament. Don't politicians spend any time reading and thinking outside the CBC Matrix? Or are they content to believe their own bullshit? Apparently.

The NDP is NOT an "alternative"

New Democrats are not an "alternative". They are what Jan Lundberg described as "Team-B"---a “group of cheerleaders for a different shade of growth mongering. In this camp are some politicians and organizations that many progressive people would prefer to love unconditionally. After all, fundamental change, however overdue, is nice to put off or to pretend that it might be smooth....Accommodating more people as part of population growth or immigration solves nothing, but fattens the wallets of the growth industries responsible for urban sprawl and increased consumer spending.” http://www.culturechange.org/cms/content/view/197/65
It seems that everyone has heard about petro-collapse except the politicians and the media. No one can talk about the impending collapse and the reckoning except, as Lundberg puts it, “on fringe websites or in our living rooms. Or at the bar. Or in the woods. In the streets.” Certainly not, however, in Canada’s House of Commons or on the CBC. And obviously not in the NDP caucus.

Put on a happy face. Think positive. Wishful thinking and wilful ignorance will banish those recession blues forever. The New Jerusalem that Tommy Douglas spoke of awaits you. We can have our cake and develop too. It must be true---I heard on the CBC.

Tim Murray
June 19, 2011

"France isn't in the business of stealing educated elites from developing countries that need doctors and engineers." (French Minister responsible for immigration) In France, university education is free for citizens and for foreign students - but there are quotas on foreign students and preference is given to French citizens. In view of the global financial crisis, the French Minister in charge of immigration now aims to cut the number of work visas for foreign student professionals by half.

French policy on Foreign Student visas and Change of status in marked contrast to Australia's

Claude Guéant is the Minister for the Interior in France, a position that traditionally carries the immigration portfolio. At the moment he is attempting to reduce the opportunities for legal immigration to France. One of his targets is to reduce by half the list of 30 occupations open to non-Europeans. (France has an open-door policy to other European Union nationals, who almost automatically acquire ten-year visas and permits to work. For people outside the EU, including Australians, Canadians, Americans, non-French Africans, Chinese and Indians, visas rarely extend over three months. A 'permanent visa' only lasts up to one year. No visa comes with an automatic permit to work. The latter must be sought independently from local prefectures. Although policy 'memos' (known in France as 'circulars') emanate from the Minister for the Interior from time to time, the interpretation and execution of these policies is carried out at local and regional level. On November 18, 2011's France 2, 8pm news, there was a report on protests and complaints from international students who had gained their qualifications in France but who were either being refused work permits or work permit renewals and being asked to leave the country. Guéant has said that "The right to study in France does not equal the right to work in France." Note that, in France, universities are free to French and foreign students with visas, but there are quotas on numbers, with preference given to French citizens.

Claude Guéant's Memo on skilled migration to France

France: 31 May Skilled Immigration Policy memorandum to Regional and Departmental Prefects from Minister of the Interior:

"Objective: Controlling skilled immigration"

"Summary: The Government aims to adapt legal immigration to French society's needs and her capacity to welcome and integrate it. Taking into account the impact on employment of one of the most severe economic crises in history, this objective implies a reduction in immigration numbers, in line with the national objective recently announced, by adopting a qualitative and selective approach. In effect, priority must be given to the employment of professionals already legally resident in France, whether they be French or foreign. It is therefore your responsibility to exercise vigilance to ensure that applications for work permits are rigorously informed. You should be all the more rigorous where the employment in view is not particularly highly skilled. The procedure for change of status (students applying for professional work permits) should be closely supervised. Exceptions for students applying for a provisional visa in order to look for work must remain rigorously limited. Having lived legally in France as a student, salaried worker, or holder of a card of "competencies and skills" does not carry a right to any special consideration in the procedure of granting a work permit. These rules also aim to reinforce the fight against employers who misunderstand regulations protecting the right to work. To ensure that these instructions are properly executed, you should organise a meeting of specialists in these matters at your level." Source: http://www.circulaires.gouv.fr/pdf/2011/06/cir_33321.pdf - Translated by Sheila Newman from original French.)

This 2011 French immigration policy is interesting because it denotes a policy reaction that is very similar to one taken during the 1974 oil shock by the then Minister for the Interior responsible for immigration in France, Andre Postel-Vinay. Similarly, today, in 2011, the global financial crises that repeatedly threaten are probably symptoms of the rising cost of petroleum and other energy sources - like nuclear, plus the huge cost of wars currently being fought to regain power over oil producing states that won independence through OPEC.

The rationale which accompanied the ministerial recommendation to reduce immigration to France in 1974 was clearly based on the perception that economic hardship would be long lasting, blow out of population in the Third World would be inevitable, and that France could not save the world's poor by taking them all in.

André Postel-Vinay was the Minister responsible for immigration at the time. He had also previously been the main person responsible for administering foreign aid funds[1] for 27 years and was well aware of the burgeoning populations and economic and political problems in the third world. As well as this familiarity with external events, from 1963 to 1974 he had overseen the administration of an organisation for immigrant housing in France. His knowledge of the situation which had created the bidonvilles was extensive. His "Immigration Policy" recommendations were copiously studded with statistics about the gravity of immigrant housing problems. Whilst urging diversion of funding to improve housing for those immigrants already in France, he also advocated publicising the appalling housing situation and poor economic outlook overseas to the traditional sending countries in order to discourage both prospective immigrant workers and their families.[2]

Postel-Vinay said that three factors made ceasing immigration a preventative necessity: the doubling of third world population by late in the 20th Century; the likelihood of profound and lengthy economic crisis; and the problem of the public housing shortage for both French and foreigners.[3]

“The doubling of third world population that we are led to expect by the end of the century, gives rise, in my opinion, to considerable danger. [...] Unless development skills and technology were to improve at an astonishing rate, unless the spirit of human solidarity were to spread in a quite novel way, the proliferation of the human species will increase poverty and malnourishment over vast territories...

To reject, on principle, the idea of stopping or limiting the entry of new immigrants, would mean that we must allow immigration to increase, even if it adds to unemployment and the peopling of slums. This is indefensible. [...] I am aware of the shocking character of any kind of interruption to or limitation of arrivals, the inhumane quality of sending people back to poverty; but that poverty, alas, is likely to constantly increase and to reach geographical regions ever further away: we cannot take in an unlimited amount. We would perish without relieving it.” (André Postel-Vinay in an interview with Le Monde, 29/9/74, translated by myself.)[4]

This was to become long-term policy in France and the EEC.

The French immigration writer, Weil, theorised that shifts in French power-elites' bipartisan positions were based on fundamental economic changes, rather than on democratically expressed resentment of immigrants. (Immigration theorist, Money, maintained the latter.)[5] Weil's theory finds support in contemporary documents and interviews with Postel-Vinay in France and I found corroboration of these in opinions later expressed by Postel-Vinay to myself.[6] Postel-Vinay said that the situation with immigrants was reaching crisis proportions of homelessness and unemployment. I asked him if anything in particular had influenced him to believe that the oil shock related recession would be especially long and serious. He replied that he had been particularly influenced by the head of the CNPF (Confederation nationale du patronat français - National Confederation of French Employers)[7] at the time who had told Postel-Vinay that the recession was likely to be long and hard, with materials shortages, and that, since industry would be unable to employ immigrants it would be advisable to stop immigration.[8] Postel-Vinay then recommended the reduction in immigration. He also gave me a copy of the original document, "Immigration Policy" which alluded to advice from the CNPF.[9]See "The Growth Lobby and Its Absence," Appendix 6, "Copies of Original Documents from André Postel-Vinay.

Was ceasing immigration a logical economic decision arrived at independently by Germany, France and Belgium?[10] André Postel-Vinay told me that it had been his own idea to suggest it, but that persuading the government was helped considerably by the fact that Germany had already made the decision.

More on Foreign Students and French employment from Claude Guéant in 2011

Guéant further precised that there has been absolutely no reduction in the number of foreign students admitted on French territory, which remains at around 60,000 per annum. [...]

But I say that in a country [...] where each year 110,000 more people people arrive on the job market, you have to start by concentrating on local demand for work. You have to recognise the differences between several kinds of countries (...) We have to be very careful about some countries. France isn't in the business of stealing educated elites from developing countries that need doctors and engineers." [11]

NOTES

All notes come from "The Growth Lobby and Its Absence," except for note [11]

[1] From André Postel-Vinay, Minister responsible for Immigration from May 1974, in an interview in Le Monde 24/9/1974, cited by Weil in La France et ses étrangers, pp.83-84.

[2] See "The Growth Lobby and its Absence," Appendix 6, Document 'B', p.A6-3 for a copy of the original in French: André Postel-Vinay, "Politique d'immigration", (Note de M. André Postel-Vina pour le "Comité restreint"), 1 July 1974 (8 pages, numbered to 9, with pages 2 and 3 cut and stuck together and then photocopied. For instance, he wrote that "Whilst our housing program has never exceeded 117,000 dwellings in total, for the entire population, French or foreign, the number of families of foreign workers arriving each year in France has risen, on average, to 38,000 since 1970. In a country like ours, where there are a considerable number of slums, the comparison between the two numbers - 117,000 and 38,000 - gives an idea of the tensions and social oppositions that can arise in response to such a high rate of family reunion." Patrick Weil, La France et ses étrangers, op.cit., p.86, contains details of the anouncement that was circulated immediately to sending non EEC States warning them of France's decision to stop immigration and of the problems intending immigrant would encounter if they attempted to find work, housing and visas in France.

[3] From André Postel-Vinay, Minister responsible for Immigration from May 1974, in an interview in Le Monde 24/9/1974, cited by Weil in La France et ses étrangers, pp.83-84.

[4] Postel-Vinay gave me a copy of this interview himself, commenting that he had just re-read it and wanted me to know that it was an extremely accurate journalistic account of his reasons for ceasing immigration. He told me this on the occasion of a visit to his Paris apartment to collect copies of documents on the morning of Saturday 13 January 2001. The quotation is of André Postel-Vinay, Minister responsible for Immigration from May 1974, in an interview with Jean Benoit in Le Monde 24/9/1974, pp 19-21.. Here is the original of the text translated above. “Le doublement de la population du tiers monde que l’on nous promet pour la fin du siècle, présente, à mon avis, des dangers considérables. [...] À moins que l’art et les techniques de développement ne réalisent des progrès d’une étonnante rapidité, à moins que l’esprit de solidarité ne se répande d’une manière imprévue, cette prolifération de l’éspèce humaine aggravera la misère et la sous-alimentation sur de vastes territoires ... “Rejeter, par principe, l’idée d’une interruption ou d’une limitation des entrées de nouveaux migrants, cela reviendrait à soutenir que nous devons laisser se développer l’immigration, même si elle contribue à l’accroissement du chômage et au peuplement des taudis. Ce n’est pas défendable [...]. Je n’ignore pas les aspects choquants de toute mesure d’interruption ou de limitation des entrées, le caractère inhumaine de ces refoulements de la misère; mais cette misère hélas, risque d’affluer toujours davantage et d’arriver à des secteurs géographiques de plus en plus lointains : nous ne pouvons pas l’accueillir sans limites. Nous en périrons sans la soulager.”

[5] See Chapter 4, thesis, "The Growth Lobby and its Absence," for my literary review of these authors.

[6] During a visit to his Paris apartment to collect copies of documents on the morning of Saturday 13 January 2001.

[7] The CNPF is the National Federation of French Employers.

[8] In response to a question that I asked Postel-Vinay during a visit to his Paris apartment to collect copies of documents on the morning of Saturday 13 January 2001. See other documents supporting these recollections of Postel-Vinay further on in my thesis, where I go into the events of 1974 in more detail.

[9] See "The Growth Lobby and its Absence," Appendix 6, Document 'B', p.A6-3 for a copy of the original in French: André Postel-Vinay, "Politique d'immigration", (Note de M. André Postel-Vinay pour le "Comité restreint"), 1 July 1974 (8 pages, numbered to 9, with pages 2 and 3 cut and stuck together and then photocopied. On page 7 he has written: "Dans la conjoncture présente, il y a tout lieu de croire que cette décision d'interruption serait bien vue des grandes organisations syndicales et, même, sans doute, du CNPF, au niveau supérieure." "In the present situation there is every reason to believe that this decision to stop [immigration] will be looked upon favorably by the big unions and, even, without doubt, by the CNPF, at a high level."

[10] As claimed by Georges Tapinos in "The Dynamics of International Migration in Post-War Europe", in G. Luciani (ed), Migration Policies in Europe and the United States, 1993, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands, Chapter Six, p.133.
[11] "Étudiants étrangers : Guéant défend sa circulaire"

Next Tuesday 22 November is the 48th anniversary of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963. The whole world is indebted to JFK more than to any other single individual in history for preserving the peace and, on no less than three occasions, preventing global nuclear holocaust. This was originally #comment-162783">posted in response to an article Armistice Day of 18 November on johnquiggin.com.

Next Tuesday 22 November is the 48th anniversary of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963. The whole world is indebted to JFK more than to any other single individual in history for preserving the peace and, on no less than three occasions, preventing global nuclear holocaust. I think it is time we commemorated JFK’s selfless bravery and his sacrifice no less than we have just commemorated the bravery and sacrifice of tens of thousands of Australians who have fallen in the two World Wars and other wars of this and the last century.

It is most instructive to read President Kennedy’s speech to the American University on 10 June 1963, 5 months before his murder. Here are some excerpts:

“We do not need to jam foreign broadcasts out of fear our faith will be eroded.” (Contrast that to NATO’s jamming of radio broadcasts from Libya during its recent invasion.)

“Above all, while defending our own vital interests, nuclear powers must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war. To adopt that kind of course in the nuclear age would be evidence only of the bankruptcy of our policy–or of a collective death-wish for the world.”

“World peace, like community peace, does not require that each man love his neighbor–it requires only that they live together in mutual tolerance, submitting their disputes to a just and peaceful settlement.”

“So, let us not be blind to our differences–but let us also direct attention to our common interests and to the means by which those differences can be resolved. And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children’s future. And we are all mortal.”

It is also most instructive to compare JFK’s words and actions with those of President Barack Obama and his unspeakable predecessor who, between them, have caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands and the devastation, so far, of Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya. Let’s hope Obama and his new Australian Deputy Sheriff can be stopped before they do the same to Syria, Iran and — who knows where else?

See also: The YouTube channel of Charles Ochelli, the Blind JFK researcher, James Corbett's interview with Charles Ochelli.

See also, before you respond to Jimmy Wales' appeal for funds: The WikiPedia Fraud parts 1, 2 and 3 on ctka.net . Jimmy Wales caught out covering up for the Warren Commission. (In spite of this unsavoury aspect of Wikipedia, I still find Wikipedia useful in many other ways. Nothing else of which I am aware comes close to it in terms of a comprehensive catalogue of important knowledge. Those, who make use of it, must bear in mind such instances when it has been found to have covered up information, when widespread knowledge of that information has been perceived to threaten powerful vested interests. - Ed)

This is an article about the history of nuclear power in India, the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty, and of the recent changes in international agreements about supplying companies with uranium where those countries were not signatories of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty.

In the first decade of the 21st century delicate international negotiations proceeded with India, which offers a huge commercial market for uranium but has an interest in developing nuclear self-sufficiency based on its huge thorium reserves. India’s nuclear technology has developed independently due to being isolated through India’s having developed nuclear weapons too late (1974) for inclusion as an official Nuclear Weapons State under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

The NPT of 1970 accorded five countries: France, China, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States the exclusive official status of Nuclear Weapons States based on their having reached that status prior to 1970. Of those five countries, all but the USA reprocess spent nuclear fuel. As well as having been excluded from this club, India has enduring differences with the NPT’s strategies for lowering risk. Historically it has preferred to support a global policy of universal disarmament initiatives. It claims to be very uneasy about China’s capabilities and not to be reassured by Pakistan’s expressions of potential support for the NPT.

India has thus proceeded in comparative isolation with a civil nuclear power program, planned from the 1950s, receiving little or no fuel or technological assistance from other countries.

Up through the late 1990s India’s nuclear power plants performed poorly with only 60 per cent capacity.

The dot-com revolution of the 1990s saw a huge flow of Indian students and scientists into US universities, institutions and firms. With the dot-com crash many of them returned to India, bringing substantial technical knowledge with them. The scientific and technical community in India became very attractive for the global outsourcing of new scientific and technical developments. It is perhaps partly because of these social changes that capacity of its nuclear power plants improved markedly by 2001-02 to 85 per cent. [1]

As early as the 1950s India planned for a three-stage nuclear development program. Stage One was for U-238 to be used in pressurised heavy water reactors (PHWRs). In Stage Two the plutonium generated by these PHWRs was to be deployed to run FBRs. This has so far only been done in a 13 Megawatt experimental small FBR at Kalpakkam. The planned FBRs were to use the plutonium mixed in a 70 per cent oxide (MOX-fuel) in its core within a fertile ‘blanket’ [2] of U-233 and thorium-232 which would be there to make the fuel in the core sustain fission. In Stage Three it was intended that the FBRs use thorium-232 to produce U-233 as fuel for the third stage reactors. [3] India currently has 12 nuclear power plants. The Department of Atomic Energy has government clearance to set up a 500 MW prototype of the ‘next-generation’ FBW at Kalpakkam, with the intention of commercially exploiting thorium for its major fuel supply.

After Australia, India possesses the world’s largest reserves of thorium. Use of Indian thorium would make India independent of imported uranium including reprocessed spent uranium.

On 9 December 2006 US Congress passed the United States-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act, allowing shipments of nuclear fuel and technology to India for use in its civilian nuclear power program.[4] India had not yet ratified this agreement. A major point of difference was US insistence that used fuel from any US-supplied reactor must not be reprocessed.”[5] This would inhibit practices in India’s energy and weapons system, for both kinds of facility were, at the time of researching the first edition of this article (May 2007), still producing plutonium for reuse. The agreement would require complete separation of power facilities from weapons facilities, which were still exchanging reprocessed materials.

“The opposition to accepting safeguards on the grounds that it is difficult to separate civilian and military facilities, and that it compromises on national security, is, however, ill-founded. Demarcation of facilities as military should not be difficult but a detailed exercise of identifying these has to be carried out. The manner in which the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) declared the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) and a few other facilities out of bounds for AERB inspections with a single bureaucratic order in 2000, would suggest that the process should not pose any administrative problems either. In any case, the agreement is for a phased declaration. But there will be a substantial cost involved and that is the price one has to pay for failing to plan for long-term fuel needs properly.

Since the research reactors Dhruva and Cirus are the chief sources of weapons-grade plutonium, and it makes no sense to use reactor-grade plutonium for weapons, one can easily demarcate all the power plants as civilian. It would seem that the main costs would pertain to replicating reprocessing plants specifically for weapon purposes because one cannot declare the existing plants - which currently reprocess spent fuel from power reactors as well as research reactors to yield plutonium for the breeder programme and weapons respectively - as military.

It is obvious that one-way traffic of nuclear material from military to civilian reactors does not pose any problem; it is only when there is a two-way traffic, as in a reprocessing plant, a dedicated facility for each objective becomes necessary because of safeguards on the material that comes in and goes out. There could be other costs involved in duplicating personnel and equipment required in this as well as other operations where people and equipment double up for the twin objectives at present.” [6]

Exception made for India in 2008

On August 1, 2008, the IAEA approved the India Safeguards Agreement and on September 6, 2008, India was granted the waiver at the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) meeting held in Vienna, Austria. The consensus was arrived after overcoming misgivings expressed by Austria, Ireland and New Zealand and is an unprecedented step in giving exemption to a country, which has not signed the NPT and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) While India could commence nuclear trade with other willing countries. The U.S. Congress approved this agreement and the President signed it on 8 October 2008.
[7]

Since the UK and France, both countries which reprocess fuel, had also shown interest in the huge commercial market which India could represent, it seemed likely that the pressure on the USA to relent on its anti-reprocessing stance would grow. Given the profit issues and that the corporate forces have an interest in this stance changing, resistance was difficult.

In addition, however, to purchase uranium from the 45 member Nuclear Suppliers Group required India to sign the NPT, which India continued to refuse to sign. It may be that the very factors which proponents of FBRs cite as discouraging their research and production in countries like the US are positives for FBR research and production in India. In this case, India is probably the place where FBR technology and production may break through first if it is going to.

Predictably a way has been found around the obstacles to commercial trade in nuclear products with such a large market as India.

Update 2011

"On August 1, 2008, the IAEA approved the India Safeguards Agreement and on September 6, 2008, India was granted the waiver at the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) meeting held in Vienna, Austria. The consensus was arrived after overcoming misgivings expressed by Austria, Ireland and New Zealand and is an unprecedented step in giving exemption to a country, which has not signed the NPT and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). While India could commence nuclear trade with other willing countries. The U.S. Congress approved this agreement and the President signed it on 8 October 2008."

“As of January 2011, Australia, a top three producer and home to worlds largest known reserves, has continued their refusal to export Uranium to India because it has not signed the NPT despite diplomatic pressure on their part. In November 2011 the Australian Prime Minister announced a desire to allow exports to India, a policy change which she hoped would be authorized by her party's national conference in December.”[8]

NOTES

This article updated November 2011 from part of Sheila Newman,“Nuclear Fission Power Options,” in Sheila Newman (Ed.), The Final Energy Crisis, (Second Edition), Pluto Press, UK, 2008. Originally under the sub-heading of "Some Political and Commercial Complications: India as the new FBR lab."

[1] Source: http://www.uic.com.au/nip45.htm
[2] The core is the central part of a nuclear reactor containing the fuel elements and any moderator. A fast neutron reactor is configured to produce more fissile material than it consumes, using fertile material such as depleted uranium in a blanket around the core. Source of definition material: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf51.htm
[3] Frontline, Volume 22 - Issue 16, Jul 30- Aug 12, 2005, http://tinyurl.com/362kjb
[4] “Nuclear Technology Milestones 1942 to Present,” Nuclear Energy Institute, Washington, http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=3&catid=265
[5] R. Ramachandran, “Behind the bargain”, Frontline, Volume 22 - Issue 16, Jul 30- Aug 12, 2005, http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2216/stories/20050812005700700.htm
[6] R. Ramachandran, “Behind the bargain”, Frontline , Volume 22 - Issue 16, Jul 30- Aug 12, 2005, http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2216/stories/20050812005700700.htm
[7] and [8] Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Non-Proliferation

By upwards engineering population growth, the Victorian and Australian Governments are showing disregard of "ultimate deprivation" and leaving "future generations with the task of rationing energy, oil and food..."

Today, Friday, 18thth November, 2011, Sustainable Population Australia, Victorian Branch president, Jill Quirk has condemned Victorian Planning Minister Matthew Guy's recently announced approval of a development at Clyde North of up to 6600 houses covering more than 400 hectares to expand the population by 18,500.

The previous Victorian Government's ‘Victoria in the Future’ (VIF) projections estimated that Casey could reach a population of 370,000 by 2026 which is larger than the present city of Canberra.

No food at the Infill

“Due to government growth policies, we are risking future food security by destroying prime agricultural land for new housing estates. As one of Australia’s most fertile and valuable agriculture areas, Casey should be preserved for the vital role of food production. Casey has a favorable climate, topography, fertile soils, supportive transport and recycled water infrastructure. With climate change, limited arable soil and oil depletion, Australia needs markets close to cities as Casey is to Melbourne.” said Ms. Quirk

Dangerous Government engineering of population growth in Victoria

“The push for ever more population growth by governments and business is denying us the chance of an environmentally sustainable future. The apparent lack of real long term thinking with regard to population and the emphasis on the electoral cycle from our politicians will leave future generations with the task of rationing energy, oil and food, and untangling the transport gridlock. The Victorian government should now concentrate on providing reliable transport services to the existing outer suburbs rather than seeking to swell these areas with anther million people by 2025.”

“Instead of planning and policies based on growth and the disregard of ultimate deprivations, we need policies based on realistic appraisals of our long term needs, a sustainable population, and sustainable economy” said Ms Quirk.

Further comment: ph. Jill Quirk, President Sustainable Population Australia (Victorian branch) 0409742927.
(The patrons of Sustainable Population Australia are Patrons: Hon Bob Carr, Dr Paul Collins, Prof Tim Flannery, Prof Ian Lowe, Dr Mary E White.)

Of all religions, nothing is more enduring than our misplaced faith in technology. The truth is, there is no technological "fix" for overconsumption.

"One of the hallmarks of waves of innovation, however, is that technology should never be underestimated." James Bradley Moody and Bianca Nogrady from “The Sixth Wave: How to succeed in a resource-limited world” http://theconversation.edu.au/population-is-only-part-of-the-environmental-impact-equation-4009

The Ignorance Of Environmentalists Should Never Be Underestimated

In arguing that “Population is only part of the environmental impact equation”, James Bradley Moody and Bianc Nogrady make a commonplace mistake. They assume that technological innovations and efficiencies can offset the ecological impact of population growth, or put another way, by miniaturizing our footprints technology can counteract the introduction of more “feet”. Technology, they remind us, “should never be underestimated”.

With all due respect to James Bradley and Bianca Nogrady, what should never be underestimated is the persistent ignorance by environmentalists (or "cargo cultists" as Catton called them) of the Jevons Paradox (or Khazoom-Brookes postulate). Consider these factoids :

1 .Energy use per unit of US GNP has fallen 50% since 1975 after enormous efficiencies were effected following the Arab oil embargo. Yet total energy usage has risen in the US by more than 40%.

2. Since 1980, for any given car, the average fuel economy has improved 30% but American drivers responded by driving bigger vehicles greater distances. And thanks to population growth there are 130 million more cars on the road. 88% of increased energy consumption is due to population growth and only 12% to increased per capita energy consumption.

3. Fuel efficiency in aircraft improved by more than 40% since 1978, but overall fuel consumption rose by 150% since 1975 due to the explosive growth of air traffic from cheaper costs per mile.

4. Air conditioners improved their efficiency by 17%, but then the number of air conditioners increased by 36% erasing that energy saving. The same phenomena has been observed with other products like furnaces, computers, DVDs. More are bought and left running.

The bottom line here is that energy consumption has grown steadily as efficiency improvements have steadily lowered the cost of consuming it, as Mr. Jevons would have predicted. Within the context of a market economy, tech efficiencies will always provoke more total consumption. Money freed up by the introduction of more efficient technology will be spent on other goods or services.

Decoupling Consequences From Actions and Belief From Common Sense

Not content with repeating one misconception, Moody and Nogrady repeat another:

"In this vision of the world, technology allows us to begin to decouple economic growth from resource consumption, without compromising either population or affluence".

I guess we can expect that then that weight gain will be separated from ice cream consumption and dehydration from the lack of water. We can grow the population to 15 billion and if there is any negative fall-out from that, don't worry. Among those extra billions there surely will sprout a genius who solve all the problems wrought by growth----just as Julian Simon imagined----presuming geniuses can develop without adequate food clean water, shelter, education and health care made scarce by overpopulation. There is reason for hope, because many environmentalists and Green Party politicians have already managed to "decouple" their thought processes from their cerebral cortex.

Two Types Of Technology

I think it would be useful to distinguish between two types of technology. Those technologies which enable us to discover and exploit natural non-renewable resource (NNR) deposits and those that enable us to use NNRs in an ever-increasing number of new applications. As analyst Chris Clugston stated in his book “Scarcity”, “Ironically , while human ingenuity and technical innovations that increase economically viable NNR supply levels are experiencing diminishing returns, human ingenuity and technical innovations that increase our NNR requirement levels appear unlimited.” In Clugston’s words, “we are getting double-whammied”----as NNR-supply technologies are becoming less effective, the NNR-requirement technologies are running amok.

Thus we have “more efficient” expresso-makers, garage-door openers, and personal computers---stuff we didn’t have fifty years ago. And they all require more NNRs than just energy NNRs in their manufacture. The bad news is that as Clugston has meticulously documented, 69 of the 89 NNRs that are vital to our industrial economy have already peaked, while the appetite of emerging economies for these resources is set to grow leaps and bounds. China’s share of global economic output , a mere 2.2% in 1980, is set to increase to 18% by 2016.

Nature Doesn’t Give A Damn About Our Per Capita Anythings

What techno-optimists fail to grasp is that Nature couldn’t care less about our efficiencies---- real or imagined----- or about per capita anything. It’s about TOTAL consumption, and particularly the resources that underpin our industrial civilization. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out what happens next when our very existence is predicated upon the continuous availability of ever-increasing quantities of finite, non-replenishing and increasingly scarce NNRs.

Tim Murray
November 15, 2011

PS Read Craig Dilworth's "Too Smart for our own Good". Technology has only allowed us to grow further on a limb. The bigger we are, the harder we'll fall.

This threat to clearfell half of Melbourne's street and park trees because they are supposedly "nearing the end of their lives" is an unprecedented threat to Melbourne's heritage. I regard the threat to Melbourne's trees as one of greatest threats to Melbourne and its livability. Plus the revival of the East West Link tollway-in-a-tunnel through the inner suburbs and parks. Can you imagine what this tree clearance of elms and plane trees will do to tourism? And what about living conditions in the city - the "heat island effect" will be extraordinary if half the city's trees are to be removed. Just as they are looking fantastic with recent good rainfall! - Julianne Bell, Protectors of Public Lands Victoria

Julianne Bell (of Protectors of Public Lands Inc.) writes:

I appeared at the Future Melbourne Committee on Tuesday last and spoke on the agenda item on the Draft Urban Forest Policy. I was the only person to speak and PPL VIC the only group apparently to make a submission.

This threat to clearfell half of Melbourne's street and park trees because they are supposedly "nearing the end of their lives" is an unprecedented threat to Melbourne's heritage. See my submission below. Also the Herald Sun report of 5 November 2011 with comments from the Lord Mayor in case you think I am making this up.

"Stately elms going in city tree change"

I did not make a submission on the Committee of Melbourne's (CoM's) Open Space Strategy which was raised the same night but am following this up. I would not have been allowed to speak anyway as there were hundreds of residents there to hear the result of resolutions regarding a review of the CoM's electoral system and Occupy Melbourne protests.

Note that there are supposed to be "consultations" on the "Draft Urban Forest Policy" and the "Draft Open Space Strategy."

I regard the threat to Melbourne's trees as one of greatest threats to Melbourne and its livability. Plus the revival of the East West Link tollway-in-a-tunnel through the inner suburbs and parks. Can you imagine what this tree clearance of elms and plane trees will do to tourism? And what about living conditions in the city - the "heat island effect" will be extraordinary if half the city's trees are to be removed. Just as they are looking fantastic with recent good rainfall!

Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc (PPL VIC)
The Chair
Future Melbourne Committee
Town Hall,
Melbourne 3000

8 November 2011

Dear Chairperson

Submission on Item 5.3 Draft Urban Forest Strategy

I am speaking for Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc. (PPL VIC) in commenting on this draft strategy.

I wish to make the following points:

Our organisation applauds the objectives expressed in the document of the Draft Urban Forest policy. The trendy name tends to conceal the fact that we are dealing mostly with street trees.

We recognise that the drought has impacted badly on Melbourne’s trees and that it was the intransigence of the Bracks Government for refusing to assist the City of Melbourne to drought proof the trees by, for instance, building a sewer mining project in Princes Park which would have supplied water to Melbourne’s parks and street trees.

We are alarmed, however about suggestions that there will be a wholesale felling of trees classified as “nearing the end of their lives.” In particular we are concerned over the fate of avenues

Staff of the City of Melbourne appear to have a purist view about removal of avenues of trees and maintain that the entire avenue should be removed rather than attempting removal of failing trees and interstitial planting of the gaps. At a recent hearing on the World Heritage Management Plan of the Royal Exhibition Building and Carlton Gardens held by Heritage Victoria, the spokesperson for the CoM suggested that as the Plane Tree avenue in the Carlton Gardens was nearly the end of its life then the whole avenue should be removed. Our arborist who gave evidence, was of the opinion it was the finest avenue of plane trees in Victoria: that the trees are healthy; and that they have another 20 years or so lifespan.

Several years ago we had the unfortunate example of the avenue of Camperdown elms - 550 elms in the main street – which a Committee of representatives including Heritage Victoria and Friends of the Elms, with I believe the support of the City of Melbourne arborist, recommended the whole avenue be felled. The Corangamite Shire Council accepted the recommendations of our consultant arborist that the few gaps be filled by interstitial plantings. Consequently a moratorium has been placed on the destruction of the elm avenue and elm avenues in side streets. They have adopted a policy of interstitial planting in any gaps. between trees.

We would request that the City of Melbourne identify exactly what trees you are proposing to remove and what species you are proposing to plant in their stead. Additionally with regard to avenues we would like explanations as to why healthy trees cannot be saved and replacement trees of the same species planted in the gaps. (We realise that there may be problems with this approach in St Kilda Road.)

I have heard that Council has a questionnaire on the Draft Urban Forest policy. I can’t locate it on the website.

Signed Julianne Bell Secretary PPL VIC Mobile: 0408022408

Article adapted for candobetter.net from emails and announcements by
Julianne Bell
Secretary
Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc.
PO Box 197
Parkville 3052

Mobile: 0408022408

Whenever democracy breaks out from its shackles, we celebrate the event as if the victory has been won. But no sooner is the confetti swept from the pavement when, it seems, the honeymoon is over, and the movement or politician that was hailed as a saviour becomes the subject of disappointment. We suffer the cold realization that some problems defeat us---or those we have elected to solve them. We come to understand that even if King Canute had been a constitutional monarch who commanded the incoming tide to stop in the name of some democratic assembly, his order would still have been to no avail. There are limits to our power, however we consitute it. Especially when we command nature to yield what it can no longer supply what we have been accustomed to expect.

Democracy is a process, a means to an end

I get the impression that too many of us have made a fetish out of democracy. Democracy is merely a method of decision-making, a process, a means to an end. Even if you think that is always a superior method of arbitrating options, it does not always guarantee that there are solutions to the problems that it would attempt to address. Suppose that after the collision, the second and third class passengers of the Titanic had rose up and demonstrated against the incompetence of the captain and his officers, and determined that the reckless pursuit of a trans-Atlantic speed record was madness. Lets further suppose that they were able to seize control of the ship. What then? The ship would still be short of lifeboats. The only thing that they could do is make sure that lifeboat space was allotted to those people most deserving of it, rather than what turned out to be the case, namely, that a disproportionate number of survivors were from the first class section.

When Egyptians took to the streets to overthrow Mubarak, progressives the world over immediately become euphoric, as they are now with the Occupy demonstrations. At long last the people are telling elites that they have had enough. Finally they are taking matters into their own hands. But Egypt's problems remain. How can 80 million people---even as democratic participants----solve the problem of overshoot in a nation with a carrying capacity of perhaps a quarter of that number (or less)? If they came to that realization, would they still adhere to a democratic contract? Would a majority of the passengers on the Titanic have voted for a lottery that would mean that 66% of them would drown? Would the 66% calmly accept their fate because it was determined by a democratic process?

The slogans of democratic solidarity will make no impression on the math of EROI

Rather than confront this issue, progressives resort to the antique slogans of the civil rights movement. "The people, united, shall never be defeated....The people, united, shall never be defeated...(ad nauseam)". Newsflash. The "people", no matter how great their solidarity, their resolution and their faith, CAN be defeated by resource shortages. And when they begin to realize it, when they begin to realize that it is scarcity, not some economic or financial model, that is going to kill them, then the veneer of cooperation and the ethic of 'inclusiveness", caring and sharing will wear off, and it will be every man, woman or family for itself. Leningrad offered us a case history of what scarcity can do to civilized values. Despite a generation of socialist programming enforced by the sanctions of a Stalinist police state, during the 900 day siege desperate Leningraders disinterred freshly buried corpses to eat them, and even committed cannibalism. That is what happens when Sharon Astyk's "Love Economy" comes face to face with extreme deprivation. Altruism has its limits.

You can tax the rich but you can't overtax nature

Egalitarianism does not suffice to save us. If there is enough to go around now, there soon won't be. We can and should "tax the rich", reform the currency, dump the banking system, ration oil and do all those good things. But it won't be enough. Not by a long shot. We have already passed several tipping points, with climate change, as lethal and real as it is, in my view, the least consequential of all of them. Our ship has already hit the iceberg. It's called "Peak Everything".

A message that provokes anger but not answers

This is a message that will not be well-received. Activism, by implication, is predicated on hope. On the belief that we can "do something" about injustice and poverty. Telling activists that ultimately, nothing can be done for the vast majority of us, reeks of defeatism and fatalism, and runs counter to the grain. While the market for false hope is insatiable, Cassandras are as unwelcome as lepers. We are the bad news bears. The more we tell them that it can't be done, they more they grasp at straws. For each green delusion we deconstruct------be it solar energy, windmills, transition towns, permaculture etc etc----another Great Green Hope comes charging at us like cavalry to the rescue, until it too falls victim to close scrutiny. When pressed against the wall by math and logic, social justice activists lash out in defensive anger:

"Why are you doing this? What is your point? What is the point of writing about our problems if you don't offer a solution for them? We are you throwing cold water on our hopes and aspirations? Humans are ingenious. We are 'problem-solvers' by nature. Solutions are possible. But in order to find them, people need to believe in themselves. They need to believe that it can be done---if only they work together, if only they are allowed self-determination and 'control over the decisions which affect them' (another 60s cliche). They need hope. They need a positive message. So shut up and go away."

We have the right to hear the brutal truth

To me, this is much like telling my doctor that I only want to hear positive results from my lab tests. Many people would indeed prefer to be blissfully ignorant. Denial, after all, is a proven coping mechanism. But speaking for myself, I want to have a realistic prognosis. I have a right to know how long I have to live, and at what point I can no longer do the things that I now take for granted. Having a timetable would help me reset my priorities, and make the best use of my remaining time. In short, I want to hear the truth. And I think society as a whole has that same right. Those who do not want to hear the truth can wear ear-plugs, or continue to ignore the writings of people like Richard Duncan, William Catton, Craig Dilworth and Chris Clugston and be sidetracked by distractions. I expect that they will be in for a "crude" awakening, just as that documentary title suggests.

Tim Murray

I am not, by nature, a conspiracy theorist. As Carl Sagan said, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. But when people of my ilk consistently see our interviews, op-eds, and lecture invitations abruptly cancelled with feeble excuses given---if given at all---then random events suddenly take on a pattern. If we examine it, I think only one conclusion emerges as most plausible. We have been witnessing a slow strangulation of debate about overpopuation. It represents a mass die-off of open discussion of arguably the most important topic of our time by those upon whom our society most depends. Our scientists.

An Excuse That Just Doesn't Add Up

CAPS (Californians for Population Stabilization) was to have a booth set up at the Vancouver Convention Centre for the science fair held by the American Association for the Advancement of Science this winter. But guess what. After making the arrangements and paying a fee of $2500, CAPS was told that the deal was off. They could not have a booth at the fair after all. Why? It seems that somebody got to them. Of course, alternative explanations can be entertained. AAAS explained that it is “a non-profit, non-partisan, scientific association, and unfortunately, CAPS does not align with AAAS”. Funny how they took the rent and then made the discovery that CAPS didn’t have as legitimate a right to have a booth as did other organizations less focused on education. In response to further inquiry, they added that “We do not provide booth space to organizations with as direct a political and lobbying intent as CAPS on issues that go beyond the interests of our multidisciplinary membership and meeting audience.” Keep in mind, this is the same AAAS whose journal “Science” published Dr. Garrett Hardin’s “Tragedy of the Commons”, an article that attracted more reprint requests than any other paper Science had ever published. Ironically, Dr. Hardin was a founder of CAPS, which AAAS now wants to exclude from its upcoming Vancouver conference.

Once upon a time overpopulation was considered a legitimate subject for scientific research

How times have changed. In 1976, Canada’s then most prestigious and august scientific body, the Science Council of Canada, issued a report (Number 25) that concluded that the country faced a future of severe resource constraints, and that it would be prudent for us to slow the population rate down so as not to exceed 30 million people by century’s end. “Only by keeping population growth low, while at the same time implementing conservation measures on all fronts....”, would it be possible to meet future energy demands. And if we did that, they predicted, our population would “stabilize within a generation”. (p. 10, SC Report #25) They added that “annual net immigration of about 50,000 per annum would achieve that growth.” (p. 61) Net immigration is now more than six times that number and according to the 2007 census Canada had the fastest growing population in the G8 group, with all major parties wanting to increase the pace! By the beginning of this year, Canada stood at more than 34 million people---and still growing, as resource shortages loom. No one can say that, as far back as 1976, our top scientists did not try to warn us about the consequences. And the warnings continued.

In May of 1991 scientists in the “Intelligence Advisory Committee” submitted a report to the Privy Council of Canada that emphasized that “Controlling population growth is crucial to addressing most environmental problems, including global warming.” Six years later, a team of 63 scientists, academics and graduate students led by Dr. Michael Healey of UBC completed a $2.4 million federally-commissioned study of the Fraser Eco-Basin that argued for the development of a Population Plan for the country, as it was apparent that many other farming regions outside Canada’s major urban centres would suffer the same ecological damage that Greater Vancouver’s burgeoning population had inflicted upon the region. Their verdict was that “...population is central to the problem of sustainability. The government cannot pursue sustainability and at the same time ignore population...The federal government should adopt a population policy for Canada that is consistent with the principles of sustainability (of which) immigration is one facet.” (Executive Summary, Prospects for Sustainability, p.6)

In all three cases then, scientists had identified rampant human population growth as very much a legitimate subject of scientific research and felt compelled to recommend curbs to that growth. Their reports obviously evidenced “lobbying intent”. But now, in 2011, the zeitgeist has shifted to the point that apparently “science” must stand by in silent witness to a mugging of nature, and pretend that this “non-involvement” is something other than what is it---collusion by default. Scientists have become “silent partners in crime”. Surely Dr. Stuart Hurlbert of SDSU was correct. “Suppression of fact and opinion highly relevant to a topic under discussion (eg. Sustainability, population growth , effects of immigration controls) is one of the strongest, most devious , and most irresponsible forms of advocacy possible.” It seems that the editorial gatekeepers of scientific debate are even more reluctant to debate population issues than are politicians. As Professor Fred Meyerson of URI once remarked, “If we were discussing the population and growth and migration of any other species, no one would shy away from it.”

I smell a rat

Here is my suspicion. I smell the odour of two smear organizations in this incident. The Southern Poverty Law Centre (SPLC) and the Center for New Community (CNC), who have made a habit of vetting upcoming events and notifying the hosts that some of the invited guests are "un-American". No doubt, the AAAS have been told that CAPs is "anti-immigrant" and "racist". This is what has been happening all over the continent the past few years, and with increasing frequency. Here goes the pattern. Someone in our movement is invited to a convention, or to an interview or to submit an op-ed piece, and suddenly, it is cancelled---with no reason given. It seems that nearly everyone in my circle has had an experience like that---including me. It is like really hitting it off with someone and then, inexplicably, finding her cold upon meeting her the second time. Or being engaged and being inexplicably left at the altar. If it happens once, or even twice, you can find reasons to dismiss it. But when it becomes the norm, you know the fix is in.

Environmentalist Frosty Wooldridge had an interview slated for the Thom Hartmann show on NPR. Then suddenly it was cancelled. Environmentalist Leah Durant had an interview scheduled on the Lou Dobbs Show, and suddenly it was cancelled. She had a regular column on Huffington Post, and then it too was suddenly cancelled. No explanation given. But guess who took her place? Carl Pope, the former Executive Director of the Sierra Club, the man who called in the SPLC to a launch a smear campaign against Sierrans who attempted to restore its policy of immigration reduction to the policy books. It seems that all media is been sanitized and cleansed of those elements who would challenge the orthodoxy of "progressive growthism", a perverse hybrid of left-wing social policy and right-wing economics.

Now I have learned that Madeline Weld, president of the Population Institute of Canada, was invited in late September, 2011, to speak at an event that the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) was organizing for October 31, to mark the occasion of the world population reaching 7 billion. The event was to last 3 hours and include a roundtable discussion. But, on October 13, Ms. Weld was advised by CIDA that the entire event had been cancelled due to "unforeseeable circumstances." I have an idea what those unforeseeable circumstances might have been. I suspect that the person who invited Ms. Weld had no idea who she was. But others at CIDA did--and when they saw (too late) who had been invited to speak at the 7 billion event, they were no doubt horrified. Ms. Weld has challenged the neglect of family planning by CIDA and their flawed development model which ignores population. The powers that be figured it was best to cancel the event.

The Tentacles of the Smear Network Have A Continental Reach

There are Canadian groups plugged into the SPLC "Hatewatch" network too. The SPLC sends out frequent bulletins advising supporters where 'racists' are about to speak. No sooner was the first press conference for the fledging "Canadians for Immigration Policy Reform" convened when it was under attack in a Eco-Marxist online magazine for its 'racist' agenda. If you think this is paranoia then perform a test. Set up a phoney lecture date by someone on the SPLC hate-list and schedule it at a local college or auditorium. Advertise it widely and then wait for the rent-a-crowd rag-bag protesters to show up with placards and blow horns to shout the phantom lecturer down. Make it a cold winter night so we can greet them with fire hoses.

The New McCarthyism

We talk about the Sixth Extinction, the fact that we are in the midst of human-caused species loss on a massive scale. But what we don't seem to fathom is that we are also witnessing the Seventh Extinction event---- a wave of Neo-McCarthyism that is sweeping over the land and causing a mass die-off of discussion about the consequences of runaway immigration-driven population growth in North America. People are being silenced, excluded and dropped. They are losing their columns, their radio shows and their foundation money. And the people who are doing it to them are the same kind of people who wrung their hands when told about how badly treated "the Hollywood Ten" were, or how 'un-American' the House on Un-American Activities was in the 50s. And the Civil Liberties Union has nothing to say about it. Hypocrites.

It's time to call off our unrequited love affair with the soft green-left

What can we do about it? For starters we can refuse support or cooperation with any who work with the smear network. Stop working with Avaaz.org or Commondreams.org. Stop supporting green NGOs and left wing think tanks that repeat their lies and exclude our voice. Stop pretending that environmentalists, feminists and ‘progressives’ are friends who have lost their way, friends who share our goals but don’t yet understand our perspectives. These people are our enemies. They aim to destroy us. All of them. The McKibbens, the Monbiots, the Brunes, the Hartmans. THEY are the sectarians, not us. They are the ones who deserted the IPAT equation, not us. We have tried to work with them but they will not work with us. In fact, they work very hard behind the scenes against us---using their friends at Hampshire College, the SPLC, the CNC and the other smear merchants as their hit men. Their objective is not ours. They are not authentic environmentalists. They want to manage the environment to accommodate endless population growth, but we want to end population growth to accommodate the environment. There can be no fellowship between us. We must end our unrequited love for this so-called environmental 'justice' coalition.

Wake up. This is war.

Tim Murray
October 19, 2011
(note published first at www.balance.org 11/11/11)

The 8th of November 2011 in New Caledonia marked the launching of a new program, called, "One tree, one day, One life" at the 7th Conference of the Pacific Community. Deforestation is the hallmark of colonisation in the South Pacific as everywhere. In small islands, deforestation can make the difference between an inhabitable and an uninhabitable island in terms of rainfall. A joint declaration to participate in a program where every island inhabitant in every participating island in the Pacific will plant a tree every year has already been signed by the Marshall Islands, Samoa, the Cook Islands, Tuvalu, Nauru, Tokelau, Vanuatu, Wallis and Futuna and French Polynesia as of the last SPREP summit in Apia in July 2011.

(What do Australia and New Caledonia have in common? See end of article for the answers.)

Pacific Islands get together to plant trees

The 8th of November 2011 in New Caledonia marked the launching of a new wider Pacific Island program, called, "One tree, one day, One life."

The idea is for each island inhabitant to plant one tree every year.

Anthony Lecren, New Caledonia government member for the economy, trade and sustainable development presided over the launch at the global warming and sustainable development summit at the 7th Conference of the Pacific Community in Noumea preparing for the RIO+20 Summit.

He urged Pacific island countries and territories to unite around a common project in order to make Oceania heard at the Rio+20 Summit in June 2012. He was joined by Samoan Deputy Prime Minister, Fonotoe Nuafesili Pierre Lauofo, who said, "We will not be the last to react."

Deforestation of Pacific Islands

The Pacific islands are home to some 10 million people and constitute one-third of the world's maritime exclusive economic zone, with its natural riches and biodiversity still relatively intact compared to those of Europe. They represent an invaluable treasure for our planet. The ecology of these islands is, however, damaged and consequently fragile. Climate change is expected to add to their vulnerability.

Deforestation is the hallmark of colonisation in the South Pacific as everywhere. In small islands, deforestation can make the difference between an inhabitable and an uninhabitable island in terms of rainfall. An extreme case is Nauru. Once perhaps the richest and most beautiful of all islands in this area, it was mined into a desert for the its guano phospate reserves, which had been deposited over millenia by a rich population of migratory birds. As the forest disappeared, then the soil, tragically the rain stopped falling. Now the few locals that remain rely on water imported from Australia (itself the driest inhabited continent on earth), and the human population there, once tall and powerful in the region, is now exceptionately unhealthy.

Nickel mining in New Caledonia

New Caledonia has also been deeply scarred by mining, not for guano-phosphates, but for nickel. The scars are both ecological and social, for nickel-mining meant that there was always a well-paid temporary immigrant strata with power on the island, able to call political shots, running the principle employment sector and massively changing the shape of the land and its use to the great disadvantage of the indigenous inhabitants who were largely deprived of their self-sufficient economic choices.

"Wide-scale mining started in 1875 in Houaïlou and Canala communes. Early mining was done by hand and then gradually became mechanised. By beginning of the 20th century two large mines at Bourai and Thio were established. In the initial years, after nickel was discovered mining was done in about 330 mines. However in 1981 there were only 30 functional mines as against 130 in the early 1970s. [5] Because of the remote location of the islands, about half of the ore was smelted locally, despite the underdeveloped industrial infrastructure of New Caledonia.

The production of ore was nearly constant between 1875 and 1948, but then increased about 70 times reaching a peak of about 8 million tonnes in 1971. This rise followed by a decline, to about 4 million tonnes of ore in 1981, due to cyclones, reducing demand for the metal and increasing role of other world producers, such as Indonesia, Philippines and Australia. Correspondingly, the mined area decreased from 21,500–8,700 hectares (53,000–21,000 acres) and the number of people employed in the industry from about 6,200 to about 3,600. Nearly half of them worked at the mines and another half at the major Doniambo processing plant near Noumea." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel_mining_in_New_Caledonia

Joint declaration on climate change, biodiversity, economic diversity

A joint declaration pertaining to the "one tree, one day, a life" initiative for the Pacific region will be signed by those countries wishing to participate in the program, which now includes the Marshall Islands, Samoa, the Cook Islands, Tuvalu, Nauru, Tokelau, Vanuatu, Wallis and Futuna and French Polynesia as of the last SPREP summit in Apia in July 2011.

The joint declaration comes from awareness both of the international responsibilities in ensuring the preservation of the insular biodiversity of the Pacific region in a context of climate change and of the difficulties facing each of the governments in making their voices heard at international level in matters of the environment and sustainable development.

The initiative aims to harmonize the sustainable development policies and actions of the countries, governments and territories of the Pacific in accordance with the institutional framework recommended by Rio+20 and to make it the environmental and sustainable development platform for the territories of the Pacific at the Rio+20 Summit.

South Pacific islands have suffered from very unbalanced economies since colonisation and this program seeks to contributing to a diversification of the economies of the South Pacific and, in particular, the development of the "green economy."

This article is the result of press communications resulting from the conference with the hope of producing "factual communication with an international reach."

"One tree, one day, one life"

The project unveiled by Anthony Lecren consists in planting one tree each year by New Caledonia's 250,000 inhabitants. That is equivalent to 250,000 trees planted per year over a period of at least 10 years. The program has also been designed to promote economic spin-offs, develop activity in rural areas and ensure livelihoods for those populations all the while contributing to restoring the "human-nature" link.

This project draws on the support of over 10 years of knowledge and experience in terms of existing research and development in New Caledonia and enables consolidation of a number of different projects by their size, geographic scope and economy.

Because New Caledonia suffered by mining, it also has long experience of the problem of reforestation and skilled scientific personnel, organisations and companies to carry this out. New Caledonia hopes to gain more visibility for these specialists in the wider Pacific community and to play an important role in their common reforestation project.

To find out more about biodiversity in New Caledonia, have a look at the biodiversity portal that brings together participants, scientists, institutions, programs and organisations in this project.

What do Australia and New Caledonia have in common?

They are both beautiful Pacific Islands, although Australia is also identified as a continent.
They have both suffered major deforestation for mining and agriculture.
They both have a colonial history which dispossessed an indigenous community, although France has done a better job of providing housing and education for its citizens, including indigenous ones.
They have very similar climate and biodiversity regions.
They were both convict colonies.
Both suffer from the political impact of continued high immigration. In New Caledonia's case this is mainly restricted to French and European skilled or wealthy nationals, whereas in Australia it is part of a virtually unrestricted program to inflate local prices for resources and assets.

NOTES

Source for announcements about the One Tree, One Day, One Life program launch was a Press release from Noumea, 8 November 2011, from Florence Dhie-Le Guénédal, Antipode Productions. Also: www.1tree1day1life.nc and www.biodiversity.nc

Steven Mayne is a famous independent Australian political and economic reporter, founder of crikey.com and of the Mayne Report. Here he writes to the Australian Media Inquiry. "I was planning to open my submission with a crack at the Inquiry for not getting Rupert in to give evidence whilst he was in town, but there was no opportunity... Former Federal Court judge Ray Finkelstein was very much on the front foot leading the discussion and my session from 2-3pm this afternoon turned into an hour of combat, covering the ins and outs of the Murdoch empire, media regulation, corrections, licensing and media ethics." First published http://www.maynereport.com/articles/2011/11/08-0212-5482.html

Ten points for discussion at Media Inquiry appearance on November 8

Whilst a more comprehensive final submission by Stephen Mayne will be produced by the November 18 deadline after listening to the various hearings in Melbourne and Sydney, what follows are 10 broad discussion points for the November 8 appearance before Ray Finkelstein QC and Matthew Ricketson.

1. A concerted push on the mandatory release of information

Whilst employing hundreds of investigative journalists to try and ferret out secret information is a noble exercise, democracies can make the transparency and accountability project a whole lot easier by mandating the release of information on a timely basis.

I subscribe to the philosophy that “sunlight is the best disinfectant”.

The most interesting piece I've read after the British phone hacking scandal was by an American freelance journalist Heather Brooke, who wrote the following in The Guardian on July 10 discussing what she called ”the secretive system of information patronage”.

I was amazed, having been a reporter in the US, to discover that all the public records we used routinely to conduct basic verification and investigation were off limits in the UK. Records such as criminal convictions, arrest logs, full court documents and land ownership documents were either illegal or very difficult and expensive to obtain. Even the detailed financial accounts of public bodies were unavailable.

When I tried to investigate parliamentary expenses, all the records I'd normally access in the US were secret. A five-year legal battle to access official information was ultimately ineffective, as parliament tried to retrospectively change the law so the Freedom of Information Act didn't apply. At that point, someone on the inside sold the full database to the Daily Telegraph.

This puts journalists wanting to do serious public interest investigations legitimately at a severe disadvantage. The fact is, all information is vulnerable to release – it is simply a matter of the resources someone wants to devote to obtaining it. In Britain information is not equally accessible to all, rather its release depends on one's wealth, power or privilege. Only the richest and most powerful media organisations have a shot at access and they, in turn, only want to expend their resources on investigations they believe will guarantee a story and a big audience – thus the focus is on sex, scandal and celebrity.

Australia does pretty well in relation to mandatory information release and the British MPs expenses scandal was surely a lesson to everyone that disclosure reduces the likelihood of bad behaviour through rorting and an entitlement culture. You would never lodge a claim for the cleaning of your moat if you knew this would pop straight up on a Parliamentary website pretty quickly.

However, we do have a number of information gaps.

Why did the Australian Greens lock out the media from much of its national conference in Perth last weekend? These forums should be open to the media.

Why aren't Australian institutional investors required to disclose how they vote their shares in listed companies like their US counterparts do?

Why aren't fund managers who vote on the pay practices of public companies not releasing their own executive remuneration arrangements?

Why aren't registered Australian political parties required to publically release annual income statements and an annual balance sheet?

Why do Federal regulations exempt disclosure of political donations below $11,000 and allow donors to wait until February 1, 7 months after the financial year end, to disclose the annual list of donations?

Whilst we all debate the challenges faced by the business model of quality journalism courtesy of the internet, I very much prefer mandated internet disclosure being the best antidote, rather than having documents being FOI-able.

Journalism these days should be about easily sifting and sorting through an avalanche of regular online disclosures and providing context to these facts.

For instance, it is wonderful that every ASX announcement since 1998 from almost 3000 listed entities is online.

It would be helpful if the Inquiry made some strong recommendations for legislation that improves comprehensive and systemic disclosure regimes in Australia.

For instance, Victorian councils should be required to follow the lead of Melbourne, Geelong and Hume and release all councillor expense claims on line each quarter.

This simple legislative change would make accountability of councillors much easier to pursue. Also, see suggestion number 9 for a specific proposal on improving local government journalism.

2. Dealing with the News Ltd ownership situation

It is almost 25 years since News Corporation launched its takeover bid for the Herald & Weekly Times, leaving Australia with the most concentrated newspaper ownership market of any established democracy in the world.

No matter how you slice and dice the numbers, News Corporation is the dominant newspaper publisher and this is very unhealthy for Australia's democracy.

Whilst there are many issues with Rupert Murdoch's leadership of News Corp since January 1953, if his entire Australian publishing and associated digital empire was sold to another party, it would be just as troubling.

Would we be concerned if a Russian oligarch, the Chinese Government, Clive Palmer, Exxon Mobil or British America Tobacco assumed control of such an important and powerful contributor to Australia's democracy? Of course we would.

Whilst compelling News Corp to sell some newspapers would be legally challenging, I urge the Inquiry to formally express its concern about this level of ownership concentration and encourage News Corp to, in the first instance, voluntarily pursue some modest divestments.

Failing that, such market dominance can usually only be addressed when a market participant is seeking to further extend or entrench its existing holdings.

To this end, Foxtel's proposed $1.9 billion acquisition of Austar to create an Australian pay-TV monopoly with management control vested with News Corporation does create such an opportunity.

I believe the ACCC and FIRB should only approve this takeover if News Ltd undertakes to reduce its newspaper interests to below 50% of the market.

Both FIRB and the ACCC have delayed approvals until early in 2012 and I urge the Inquiry to request that these agencies wait to hear the recommendations of the Inquiry before approving the acquisition or negotiating any concessions.

Defining a specific market share would not be easy, but an appropriate divestment would potentially involve one of the following:

· Dispose of all operations in South Australia or Queensland, excluding The Australian.

· Agree to sell a range of suburban publications in the major capital cities plus daily papers in smaller cities such as Hobart, Newcastle, Cairns, Townsville, The Gold Coast and Geelong.

· Sell the daily tabloid operation in Melbourne or Sydney.

Even after undertaking such a sale to the likes of Seven West Media, Fairfax Media or APN News & Media, News Corp would still have the largest newspaper market share in any western democracy, but the dominance would be marginally reduced.

3. A light-handed licensing regime for editors and proprietors

Licensing or accreditation is common place across many industries, from taxi drivers, to doctors, car salesman, liquor outlets, brothels, lawyers, nurses, teaching, gaming employees, snake catching and many other professions.

I am a former accredited tennis coach and also was subjected to police checks before serving on a kindergarten committee of management.

It should not be anathema to the media industry to introduce a light-handed licensing regime for newspapers, magazines and major websites, similar to what occurs with radio and television.

Experience tells us that government intimidation, takeovers and shutdowns of media need to be avoided at all costs for the media to be generally free and fearless.

However, you need to be able to deal with editors and proprietors who go rogue, for whatever reason.

Australian media regulation is not equipped to deal with a News of the World style situation, were one to arise.

Therefore, assuming an independent statutory body were established to succeed the Australian Press Council, I would support this body effectively licensing the editors and owners of major newspapers.

If Alan Bond had still owned The West Australian when he was jailed for Australia's biggest fraud, the licensing regime would have forced either Bond Corporation to sell the newspaper or Alan Bond to relinquish ownership and management control of Bond Corporation.

It is not unreasonable to apply a “fit and proper” test to newspaper owners.

If Fairfax Media was suddenly discovered to be involved in large scale illegal drug importation, it would lose its licence to own and operate newspapers in Australia.

Such a regime raises questions about the so-called licensing of individual journalists or commentators. I'd be opposed to this but do believe each mast head should have a single responsible person, probably the editor in chief or editor, who should be required to meet basic probity tests, such as not being a bankrupt or having criminal convictions.

4. Expanding the journalistic capacity and diversity of public broadcasters

Crikey publisher Eric Beecher described The ABC's launch of its opinion and commentary site, The Drum, in the following terms during an October 2010 interview with The Australian:

"Operating in the commercial space, we expect vigorous competition from other commercial publishers. But to see the ABC tanks roll up on our lawn was bewildering."

"The Drum seriously and dangerously compromises the ABC's editorial integrity."

I'm a contributor to both Crikey and The Drum and disagree strongly with these sentiments.

There a few paying outlets for online commentators and some extra competition for Crikey has added to Australia's media diversity.

However, pay rates for online contributions remain relatively modest compared with print.

I am currently paid $150 for a Crikey story, $200 for a contribution for The Drum and $250 for occasional pieces that appear on Fairfax's businessday.com.au.

The word rate for these contributions over the past year has averaged about 17c, which is well below the $1 per word rate paid by The Monthly, which is at the top of the market.

In terms of expanding diversity, the same goes for the university sector collaborating to launch The Conversation website for academic contributions earlier this year.

The Drum has been a very successful venture. It publishes about 60 pieces per week and attracts between 2.5 million and 3 million page impressions each month.

It has used more than 1000 individual authors since Unleashed (now Drum opinion) was launched 3 years ago and it receives more than 1000 comments each day.

For a modest public investment, this has added to Australia's media diversity and should be commended by the Inquiry as a worthwhile expansion of the ABC's Australian journalistic operations.

The same goes for ABC News 24 which has provided some worthwhile competition to Sky News, plus the morning commercial television news programs.

That said, it is disappointing that important watchdog programs such as Media Watch are not more effectively resourced.

Media Watch won't even be able to comprehensively cover this Inquiry because its final program for the year was last night, November 7.

5. A new model for the Australian Press Council

After being banned or abused by some News Ltd journalists and editors after publishing the www.jeffed.com website during the 1999 Victorian state election and later launching Crikey.com in February 2000, in 2006 I tried seeking some relief from The Australian Press Council.

The issue was a column by Piers Akerman published in The Daily Telegraph on December 1, 2005, which included the following:

It can be argued that almost anyone can call themselves a journalist these days, as evidenced by the nonsense published by people claiming to be journalists on websites such as Eric Beecher's and Stephen Mayne's Crikey.

After the newspaper refused to publish a correction or right of reply, I lodged a complaint with The Australian Press Council.

A mediation was held on Thursday, May 18, 2006 and then a determination was released on June 23, 2006.

Interestingly, the letter from Daily Telegraph associate editor Roger Coombes which rejected the proposed right of reply, claimed that Crikey regularly refused to run rights of reply.

I responded by claiming I couldn't recall a single News Ltd right of reply which Crikey had not run and cited 20 specific examples from over the years.

In the end, the following appeared on page 19 of The Daily Telegraph on June 26, 2006 under the headline “Telegraph article is vindicated”.

The Australian Press Council has dismissed a complaint against The Daily Telegraph from Stephen Mayne concerning a December 2005 Piers Akerman column in which he was mentioned.

The article discussed the Federal Government's proposed sedition laws aimed at preventing the ‘urging' of violence and argued that journalists would not be caught by them. Mr Akerman continued: “While some media figures have been arguing for a shield law specifically to exempt the media from the anti-terrorism laws, it can be argued that almost anyone can call themselves a journalist these days, as evidenced by the nonsense published by people claiming to be journalists on websites such as Eric Beecher and Stephen Mayne's Crikey.”

In a brief letter to the editor emailed four days later Mr Mayne wrote: “Piers Akerman blithely opines that ‘almost anyone can call themselves a journalist these days' and then describes me as someone ‘claiming to be a journalist'”.

In two following sentences Mr Mayne outlined his journalistic credentials. The newspaper replied that Mr Mayne's complaint was “entirely without substance” and that a careful reading of the article showed that Mr Akerman did not label Mr Mayne as someone “claiming to be a journalist”.

The Council agrees with this interpretation. It does not see any implication in the column that impugns Mr Mayne's journalistic credentials. Nonetheless, the Council believes that, had the newspaper printed a letter from the complainant (the Council frequently recommends that complainants write letters to the editor to achieve balance), this matter could have been resolved at the outset.

This was not a satisfactory process and I support Bob Brown's proposal that Australia adopt the Norwegian model with an independent Press Complaints Commission with powers to investigate non-members.

The sanctions ought to extend to prompt and prominent corrections and apologies and a system of fines for members who don't publish as directed.

However, there should not be any pre-vetting or pre-publication approval requirements. The complaints regime should only deal with issues after publication.

6. Rogue bloggers, anonymous contributions and moderating comments

The internet has completely transformed the ability for public commentary in the media.

Reader feedback used to be confined to talk back radio and letters to the editor, but online comments have exploded in recent years.

Anonymous commentary on blogs can often by toxic but the response by South Australian Attorney General Michael Atkinson in 2009 was a bridge too far. Under laws which were passed unanimously and then later repealed, Mr Atkinson proposed that blog commentators must reveal their names and addresses during election campaigns.

The internet simply doesn't lend itself to such regulation.

A better approach is that responsible mainstream publications fund moderators who apply some basic editorial standards and quality control to published comments.

It is good that the Herald Sun is belatedly doing this with Andrew Bolt's blog although the following blog post by Mr Bolt on Sunday night shows that he yearns for a return to the old “anything goes” approach when he was in charge of moderating:

A number of readers today have raised with me criticisms of the moderation of this blog over the past several weeks. Some suggest I have lost interest in the comments, or have stretched myself too thin.

I accept that there have been delays. I understand your concern. But you need to know two things.

First, for legal self-protection, I am not able to moderate my blog any longer. All comments must go through our moderating team.

Second, again for legal reasons, and because this blog has become the target of lawfare, our moderators are understandably very, very careful when going through the comments. This means delays and a touchiness about publishing anything remotely dangerous.

We have also had some technical problems I hope will be resolved. But the main problem is this: the erosion of the right to free speech is now also affecting people who are simply trying to comment on this blog. If you think this is a dangerous state of affairs in a democracy, I wouldn't disagree. I ask you for your patience. We are trying to sort this out.

The most important element of comments discussion threads online is that those people who are criticised are not prevented from defending themselves and providing an alternative view.

The most aggressive and controversial Australian political blog is Vexnews.com run by Andrew Landeryou, a right wing Labor Party figure in Melbourne closely associated with Bill Shorten.

Whilst Vexnews often runs highly defamatory and inaccurate material about me and other political figures, at least it allows an alternative perspective through the comments.

I've never had Vexnews refuse to run a comment correcting or criticising one of its reports, whereas the experience with News Ltd is the exact opposite where virtually all posts or proposed letters to the editor are ignored.

7. Saving the business model of newspapers

I am the Australian Shareholders' Association company monitor for Seek.com, REA Group and Carsales.com, the three largest online classified sites in Australia which now have a combined market capitalisation of almost $5 billion.

These enterprises do not directly fund a dollar of journalism yet their value has been created at the expense of traditional newspaper classified advertising, especially from Fairfax in Melbourne and Sydney.

At one level, it would be easy to try and fight the reality of online and social media, but I've come to the view that newspaper publishing is anachronistic and environmentally damaging.

Printing all those newspapers, sending the trucks everywhere and then dealing with the recycling effort is a huge daily exercise, especially when each reader consumes such a small proportion of the total product.

We should not bemoan the demise of such an old world distributions means, but instead focus on ensuring the electronic and online media worlds can cater for enough professional journalism and disclosure to maintain our vibrant democracy.

8. Dealing with the corporate governance challenges at News Corp

It is curious that the media, more than any other sector, attracts family investors who like to personally shape and influence outcomes.

This is because the media business deals with political influence and individual families enjoy the status that comes with this territory.

After spending 8 years working for News Corp and crossing swords with Rupert Murdoch at 12 different shareholder meetings over the years, I'm convinced that his primary motivation in life is gaining and retaining influence over western governments and policy.

Unlike any other figure in history, he has understood the way political power can be leveraged for commercial gain.

At one level, the rise and rise of the Packer and Murdoch families in Australia over the past 70 years was an example of how media power could be leveraged into private wealth.

For instance, when the South Australian Government passed legislation requiring Alan Bond to sell down his 45% stake in Santos in the early 1980s, this is how Australia's most notorious corporate fraudster explained his response in his autobiography:

With a 30-day time frame on the sale, I quickly looked at my options and decided that Rupert Murdoch and Sir Peter Abeles were the logical ones to approach to buy the 30% I was being forced to sell by the government. My thought process said: ‘You might be getting rid of me, but I'm going to leave you a legacy – two other individuals who you won't be able to push around. I get the last laugh on this one.'

There was another reason for going to Rupert. He owned the major newspaper in South Australia and I thought this would stop the government doing other ridiculous things around the project. In turn the price of the shares would go up and I'd make more money on the remaining 15% I held. I said to both Rupert and Sir Peter: ‘I've got to sell these shares and I need to do a deal. This is the price and as soon as the deal is done you'll make a lot of money.'

They agreed, and in two days the deal was done. They bought the whole lot and paid me cash. As I promised them, this turned out to be an astute investment for Murdoch and Abeles as they virtually doubled their money in only a few months.

This sort of wheeling and dealing has been a feature of the Murdoch and Packer families over the years.

For many years, it led to share price out-performance, but the wheels have come off News Corp in recent times, such that 5 of the directors closest to Rupert Murdoch recently suffered a clear majority of independent shareholders voting to have them removed from the board.

However, the Murdoch family gerrymander over News Corp – which sees the family control 40% of the votes and only 13% of the stock – has prevented change from occurring. This capital structure is now looking out-dated and undemocratic.

Similarly, Rupert Murdoch's approach to scrutiny and debate at the recent News Corp AGM in Los Angeles was nothing short of dismissive.

Perhaps one regulatory intervention in Australia could be that media licence holders need to respect the democratic principle of “one vote one value” in their capital structures.

There is no doubt that Rupert Murdoch has been an extraordinary media entrepreneur, but the nepotism and board stacking at News Corp has led to poor investment decisions, insufficient governance oversight and share price under-performance.

Rupert Murdoch also suffers from the habit of hiring and promoting colourful characters who are sometimes of dubious character but always extremely loyal to his interests.

This was clearly evident in the British newspaper division and has been a feature of his global tabloid newspaper operations around the world.

A more pro-active regulatory regime in Australia would perhaps be a positive force in the ongoing attempts to reform and update the governance arrangements at News Corp.

9. Government funding of a watchdog website for local government

I agree with Bob Brown's submission about making philanthropic journalism tax deductible.

Equally, Eric Beecher's thesis about growing the non-News Ltd pie through discreet government funding of journalistic start-ups is also a worthwhile argument.

One area worthy of specific attention is a dedicated watchdog website for local government.

As an elected councillor in the City of Manningham since December 2008, I've noticed that the sector is not scrutinised nearly enough by the media.

If the Federal Government provided $5 million of annual funding for an independent website aimed at exposing poor practices and promoting good governance in local government, it would dramatically change performance in the sector.

At the moment, local government suffers from the fact that there is no formal political opposition keeping those in power accountable.

It also receives little attention from the mainstream media and those reporters assigned to cover it on local papers are often inexperienced and poorly resourced.

10. Adding a journalistic division to the Australian Charities and Not-For-Profits Commission (ACNC)

The Federal Government, with the support of the independents and Greens, has announced the formation of the Australian Charities and Not-For-Profits Commission (ACNC) to regulate the large and growing not-for-profit sector. It will commence operation in July 2012.

The media, as a whole, fails to scrutinise this large and important sector and I believe the ACNC's mandate should include a separate watchdog website with an independent charter to pursue genuine journalism about the sector.

Once again, a budget allocation of perhaps $5 million per year could resource a newsroom and media operation with up to 20 editorial staff.

The charter, independence and accountability mechanisms would need to be important, but with a mandate to expose poor practices and promote good governance, such a website would make a real difference to accountability in the sector and would also provide a lot of source material for the mainstream media.

Stephen Mayne
Melbourne
November 8, 2011

It seems that we are under the impression that Mother Nature will award us points for effort. If we do our best and try living less unsustainably, she will forgive us our sins and let us stay in the game because, well, surely she realizes that we are something special---and should get special treatment. But the truth is, this lady is not for turning. She is one 'hard-ass', a referee that cannot be swayed by our histrionics or our pleading. We have got to understand that she has her own schedule, and will not hold up the train for us.

Mother Nature's Press Release on Earth Day

In the wake of an announcement by Transition Towns College in Pennsylvania to hold a workshop about an "Energy Descent Action Plan" that would outline a model for developing strong sustainable communities and strong local economies less reliant on fossil fuels, Mother Nature issued a press release today announcing her Energy Descent Action Plan, which was apparently formulated without public participation.

Stakeholders take note

Despite her declaration that this plan is non-negotiable, she nevertheless invites all stakeholders to present their amendments and counter-proposals at the upcoming General Meeting on Earth day---if that is what makes people feel good about themselves. But she warned that she will not be attending the meeting---- explaining that she is disinterested in our input, doesn't give a damn about prospects for survival, and doesn't accept our credentials as an exceptional species deserving of special consideration.

Mother Nature outrages Eco-Socialists

As could be predicated, the announcement was met with incredulity and outrage. Eco-socialists complained that her plan was unnecessary, fascist and Malthusian. There was no need for energy descent because there is enough energy to go around, if only the rich were made to pay and share the wealth. Dump capitalism and this phoney energy crisis would be unmasked for what it is, a capitalist plot. Monbiotists argued that the plan was scapegoating the poor for the sins of the rich, and if Canadians stopped hogging energy and learned to freeze in the dark for 5 months a year, then there would be no energy shortage. Feminists from Hampshire college joined in on the swarming, claiming that Mother Nature was blaming women for climate change and peak oil, and if only women were "empowered", they wouldn't demand so many natural non-renewable resources. Finally, human rights advocates demanded that the poor, the oppressed, the marginalized, gays, lesbians and transgendered 'people of colour' be exempted from her austerity measures. Apparently, however, these entreaties and demands fell on deaf ears.

When she was told that we are trying our best to live more sustainably or rather, less unsustainably, and that we are determined to build resilient, self-sufficient communities, she appeared unmoved. Sounding like Vince Lombardi, she is reported to have said that "Either you make the cut, or you don't. Living within your resource budget is not everything. It is the ONLY thing."

That statement did not go down well with identity groups. "We won’t accept these cuts !", they exclaimed. "Billions of innocent people will die.... our species may even go extinct. "

It was at that point that, reportedly, Mother Nature shrugged her shoulders and replied, "What the (expletive) do I care?"

It is rumoured that another wave of "Occupy" demonstrations will be planned, modelled on the one that took place on Easter Island in the 17th century, when protesters demanded an end to income disparity and debt slavery as a solution to restore old growth forests. (No mention was made of overpopulation however, because it was thought to be a red herring employed by the rich to blame the poor for their own excess, besides, if women had been empowered, they would have chosen to give birth to fewer loggers.)

Humans vs Mother Nature (again)

It now appears that we are at an impasse. We have bargained in good faith. We have tried to meet Mother Nature half-way, and moderated our demands in the hope that our sacrifices would provoke reciprocal concessions. But Mother Nature doesn't seem to understand that successful negotiations involve give-and-take. We have agreed to cut our consumption of natural capital in half and slow our use of natural resources that cannot be replenished. But we are obviously dealing with an intractable opponent.

Nonetheless, we must remain confident that by our resolute solidarity and determination to secure special treatment, we will convince her to give way. Either that, or thanks to human ingenuity, we will come up with alternatives. After all, we always have before, haven't we?

Now repeat after me, "The People, United, Will Never be Defeated...The People, United, Will Never Be Defeated.....The People, United, Will Never Be Defeated.....etc. etc."

Tim Murray
November 7, 2011

Let's assume that the AGW hypothesis is correct. Let's accept that man-made climate change is real and that it is serious. Very serious. Should it then be our prime focus? I would argue not.

"Models can generate hypotheses, but can't test them."
Dr. Dave Ankey of the University of Western Ontario (retired)

I don't spend my time debating the veracity or falsehood of AGW. I simply question why climate change has hijacked the environmental discussion and become the maniacal obsession of so many. Peak everything, the collapse of biodiversity services and/or the chemical, biological and/or nuclear war that issues out of relentless and increasing resource scarcity will do us in LONG before the ravages of climate change (man-made or not) drive the final nail into our coffin. It is NOT, as Canadian Green Party leader Elizabeth May has said, the most "urgent" problem of our time. And Canada's Chair on Energy and the Environment (recently named as Canada's top scientist) Dr. David Keith, on the other hand, would agree with me. He explained his reasoning in an interview he gave to the CBC. http://www.cbc.ca/thesundayedition/podcast.html

In a nutshell, this was his verdict on climate change: it’s serious, but not that serious. Not what soft green climate-obsessives want to hear. In fact, there is enough in his message to disappoint and challenge everyone from deniers to alarmists alike. Dr. Keith believes that climate change is occurring at a pace that is too dramatic to be the result of a natural cycle, and that something must be done about it, or in one hundred years there will be shocking contrasts to life as we know it now. But he does not see such climate change as this “apocalyptic, existential threat” that must be addressed ”in years rather than decades.” There simply is “no credible science” to back this alarmism up. While he sees climate change as a dominant environmental problem, he declared that “If I had a dollar to spend in the next decade I put it into fighting poverty and disease in the undeveloped world.” Dr. Keith, BTW, is also the scientific advisor to Bill Gates, so good luck on trying to dismiss him as a denialist crank.

I focus on overpopulation because I agree with Dr. Keith's priorities, but for one amendment. I believe that reducing our numbers is key to reducing poverty (aka scarcity). The fewer of us there are, the larger our per capita slice of the shrinking resource pie will be. I refer to carbon emissions data in my arguments mainly because audiences have been conditioned to regard them as the only metric of environmental degradation. Thus, for example, I will tell them that since 1991, mass immigration has been responsible for four times as much GHG emissions as the entire Alberta tar sands development, which Ms. May and her green constituency thinks is the crime of the century.

But what is at least equally important to me is that immigration-driven population growth has been responsible for the development and despoilment of four times as much land---usually prime farmland----than has the tar sands project. Almost all of the species on our endangered list are threatened by continuing urban sprawl, sprawl that is not simply the result of bad planning but population growth. The perimeter of Canada's 5 major urban centres has become the killing zone of wildlife and the pavement of our Class 1 farmland---some 60,000 acres a year in Ontario alone. This has little to do with climate change. It is the consequence of a deliberate program to grow the economy with more consumers and cheaper labour.

I don't want to provoke a debate on this, for that debate would further fuel the focus on climate change. I simply regard climate change as more a symptom more than a cause. Perhaps if I didn't live in the frozen north but in the land of raging wild fires ‘down under’, my priorities would be different. While the case for AGW may be 95% watertight, within the AGW camp there is obviously a spectrum of differing views. One end there is Dr. Keith, and on the other end there are folks like your Andrew Glikson. I prefer the hard numbers that American analyst Chris Clugston has provided. No one seems able to tell me whether the ocean will be one meter or six meters high by the end of this century, but Clugston has shown me that certainly within 40 years (or less) our global industrial economy will be without the NNRs it needs to function (and it is not all about oil or energy). Telling me to focus on climate change is like telling a 21 year old skydiver to quit smoking because statistically he has a high risk of getting lung cancer when he reaches his 50s. Should it not be more important and urgent to tell him that he must not be so sloppy in packing his parachute?

We are all alarmists ---that is why we are in this business. But some of us are more alarmist than others concerning the six constituents of the Perfect Storm, and we tend to ring the claxon louder on one of the dangers than others. I ring it vigorously on over-population, while McKibben rings the climate change bell so loud that he can't even hear the bad news about our 7 billion milestone (ditto Monbiot). For me, the number 7 is far more significant than the number 350.

October 30, 2011

This article describes an example of the serious and inhumane impact, in the form of crisis involving several individuals, and a specific suburb and hospital system, of Australian immigration policy. The government is maintaining a policy of high mass immigration contrary to the wishes of the majority of citizens. Citizens have no useful outlet and no effective parliamentary representation on this.
The mass media covers matters in a manner that keeps the arguments circular and without constructive democratic outlet. For this reason candobetter.net serves an important purpose in expressing peoples' views and in exposing the impacts of the government's undemocratic and environmentally and socially harmful policy.

Student industry - easily abandoned cash-cows

In this article the push by universities to get students from overseas to make up finance shortfalls that once were supplied from taxes comes under the spotlight.  The article looks at the cost to Australian students deprived of places and the cost to foreign students of maintaining their places.  It also looks at how Victorian hospitals' bed shortages are a direct result of the effective push by the growth lobby to have more and more people in this country.

There is little revealed in the media of foreign student struggles, their impact on university courses and standards, their access to residency, and scams. Universities have become another industry, outsourced globally for economic benefits rather than institutions that aspire to quality education, learning, ethics and research – and a way to ensure our young people are able to reach their potential equitably.

Open to rorts and scams

The Federal government migration program, designed to attract thousands of young, highly skilled students to fill Australian jobs, has been "corrupted" by a Melbourne man who created a sophisticated scam that rorted the already dubious system.

Carmine Amarante made tens of thousands of dollars, and was expecting more in the future, by manufacturing hundreds of fraudulent documents for international students to ultimately become permanent residents.

The student scam also allows “students” to enter Australia without sufficient financial support, without tickets and money to pay for their air fares to return to their countries.

Our own personal experience

We have experience with an international student we were in contact with, from a country in South America. I will call her “G” so not to identify her.

We helped her find accommodation and we have invited her to join us for a few social and cultural events.

G has been under terrific stress - no job, no money, failed exams, not being able to pay rent, and then she developed a mental health issue - paranoia, delusions, crying and became suicidal.

She started a fire in the rented house she is in, and burnt her clothes and linen. She suffered bouts of paranoia and called the police three times, thinking she was being assaulted or raped.

G asked for help. We took her to a GP and he referred her to the local public hospital - one of the biggest in Melbourne. We stayed with her for 12 hours in the hope of getting a bed.

After my partner spent many hours with her, not long after he left she was released by the hospital, to another “student” who arrived at the emergency ward last moment. He had no money, was almost illegal himself, with inadequate accommodation and no car.

She had to be picked up at the station. She was threatening to escape, and she vowed she wasn't going to take “drugs”!

She was using her acquaintances and friends to borrow money. She had no job, her rented room was almost expired, and she wasn't welcome where she had been living.

Excessive stress on foreign students

This kind of situation has occurred before, with very serious consequences, such as when Huan Yun "Allen" Xiang, a 46 year old Chinese student with little social support, shot several people in his class at Monash university in 2002. Although Xiang might have developed paranoid schizophrenia anyway and was presumably a permanent citizen, since he ended up indefinitely at Thomas Embling Hospital for the criminally insane, he seems to have been isolated by language difficulties. As he began shooting, it was reported that "People in the classroom were initially confused by the noise and by Xiang screaming 'You never understand me!' from the desk he was standing on."[1]. He would would also “curse the lecturer constantly in Cantonese” from the back of classrooms.[2]

It should be recognised that the stress of being away from one's family and compatriots and studying in a new language, without adequate finances or whilst acquiring large debts, is guaranteed to increase health risks. If Universities are to have foreign students they should be responsible, caring and hospitable towards them and liaise with the Department of Immigration and the students' embassies. In the days of Columbo Plan students, foreign student welfare was taken seriously, but this caring attitude has fallen away as foreign students are now simply seen as cash cows.

Population growth drives bed shortages for locals and for immigrants

Our recent crisis was made worse by Victoria's hospital bed shortages. The impact of high population growth means that there was no bed for G at the local hospital. Despite overcrowding in this hospital already, the Victorian government is planning to greatly increase population and housing density in the surrounding suburban area. The “shortage” of beds is due to not the number of beds dwindling, but to our population boom!

G is not illegal at the moment as her visa has not expired. She was given more time to pay the university fees that she owes. If this time expires, so will her visa. There are no funds coming from her family. They live in poverty, and G was actually expected to sent money to them!

Quite legal to be vagrant in Australia

After ringing up “Immigration dob-in line,” I was informed that it is quite legal to stay in Australia unless the visa has expired, or there is some evidence of fraud. This is despite students being without income, accommodation, or not being able to pay for study fees. Even illness can't force them to be deported.

In Continental Europe, not having suitable accommodation or funds are grounds for being refused entry or sent home.

The Immigration Department won't do anything about students in need, or those causing problems to themselves or others until they are illegal! They don't even have to have money or ticket, (depending on the student visa type) and if they don't manage, Australian authorities generally do nothing!  G can be destitute here and there is no duty of care from our government. The department of Immigration suggested that I should contact charities!  Already our charities are over-used. 

Foreign students are silently allowed to “fall through the cracks” of social support, but any criticism and exposure of them is based on “racism”?

Abandoned by the Embassy

The embassy of the country G came from was not interested in her difficult situation in Australia. They had no funds, despite the Ambassador being on a salary of $20,000 per month, with an office in Canberra!

The university tried to contact her, but got no response. We don't know where the money for her ticket home is coming from.

She is now in a public hospital ward in a psychiatric unit.

Poverty of foreign and Australian university students

Governments are reluctant to pay for the costs of educating Australians, and to give them the support they need. The growth of demand from international students, most of them from Asia, is a way of filling a potential gap in university enrollments which are now beyond the means of most Australians to pay. Foreign students are willing to pay for their own education, at full costs, at no expense to the Australian government.

Education has become Australia’s third largest export earner, after iron ore and coal.

High student poverty rates

Universities Australia has reported that one in eight Australian students surveyed by them told of regularly going without food or other necessities because they did not have enough money. According to the National Union of Students the maximum Youth Allowance benefit that an Australian student under 25 and living in a share house can receive is $245 per fortnight, which is 38% below the poverty line ($645.15 per fortnight). No wonder students are struggling.

Population groups which may be at particular risk of food insecurity include homeless people, those on low income or living in poverty, including people on pensions and benefits, unemployed people and students - including international students.

Universities Australia’s most recent survey found that one in eight students regularly go without food or other necessities because they don’t have enough money. Money Help’s financial counsellor Brian Kerr says, most of the students I’ve helped are international students who find themselves in financial difficulty. Students are on such a low income but the cost of being a student is so high.

Tips and services to keep you above the poverty line

Foreign students little more than slave labour

Overseas students getting as little as $6 an hour to work in local Asian restaurants are too afraid to complain for fear of losing even the meagre wages paid by their unscrupulous bosses.

They are here as cash-cows, to provide willing, cheap and flexible labour to businesses.

Little media attention

There is very little in the media about the problems of international students. It's a hidden industry, and the costs to our already strained charities is ignored.

The implications of universities being starved of funds and having to rely on international students has impacts on Australia's job market, especially for local students. Education here has been globalized, to our detriment.

Ambiguity of International students programs makes abuse likely, with serious consequences

Amarante admitted he was paid between $500 and $1000 for the 777 false work experience documents he created and had paid employers, some who were friends, some from referrals and others he approached on the street. This exposed “student” scandal further compromises our GSM (“general skilled migration”) program.

Of the 375 visa applications lodged under Amarante's false documents, 34 were granted permanent or temporary visas, 67 were refused, 217 remain pending and 57 were withdrawn.

Students coming to Australia should be interested in education, not residence in Australia. Learning and qualifications should be the motive, not living in Australian. Mixing immigration and education leaves this scheme open for corruption and distortion. It assumes that we have insufficient job applicants and ignores our population growth, our youth unemployment and underemployment levels, and displaces more further Australians from housing.

Notes

[1] Jamie Berry, (2003-09-12)."Student believed Monash killings were 'his destiny,'" The Age.

[2] Jamie Berry, "Student 'hosed' room with bullets, court told,"The Age, September 13, 2003.

Post-script - G, motivated by her estranged mother, wants to "sue" the people her helped her for "emotional abuse" (trying to get rent payments from her) and "kidnapping" (after admitting being suicidal to the local GP and taking her to hospital) in order to acquire funds to pay her fees and stay in Australia!

October 31st, 2011, was a "teachable" moment, one of those moments that come so infrequently that they must therefore be seized and exploited to the fullest extent to increase public awareness. That was the day that, according to demographers, we reached an awful milestone, the day that our species became 7 billion in number. If you expected David Suzuki to use that event to highlight the problem of overpopulation, your expectations would have been cruelly dashed. Dr. Suzuki instead chose to spout the Monbiot line. Overpopulation is not the problem, you see. Its overconsumption by you know who.

Suzuki Repeats The Monbiot line

This article is for Suzuki-cultists who have been trying to tell me that finally The Great Man "gets it", that underneath it all, he really does understand that overpopulation is a key driver of our predicament. Wrong. He is a unreconstructed Monbiotist pure and simple. October 31, 2011 was arguably the most significant day in human history, the day we reached the 7 billion population mark. That was the day for Dr. Suzuki to step up to the plate and talk about overpopulation. Instead, he chose to repeat the tired old party line of soft green environmentalism and Hartmanite feminism. Next time greens want us to join their parade on climate change, keep that in mind. http://www.straight.com/article-519421/vancouver/david-suzuki-overconsumption-not-overpopulation-biggest-problem

Try this experiment. Phone his foundation and ask why they don't devote space to population issues. The answer I got was "We don't have the resources to deal with it." The David Suzuki Foundation is purported to have a $7 million annual budget. One would think that they could find a few bucks to bang the population drum, but then again, that would scare away a good part of their donor base, a base that includes the Royal Bank of Canada, Encana natural gas, and American corporations with commercial motives to shut down their Canadian competition.

As Steve Kurtz, a long-time population activist in Ottawa----now a resident of the United States---remarked: "He suckered me when I read some interviews or articles during the past year. But I won't be fooled again." Suzuki is good at customizing his interviews according to what he thinks that particular audience wants to hear. If an Australian audience wants to hear that Australia is overpopulated, he will tell them so---as he has. But we will not get on the CBC and tell Canadians that Canada is overpopulated, as he has done in more cloistered quarters or while overseas. Yet his fawning fan club in CBC-land lauds him as a man of integrity and courage, and the Great Canadian Myth persists, a myth swallowed whole by adoring fans in Australia, America and across the world.

Don' t Choose Fake Environmentalists For Heroes

Suzuki and the environmentalists are a waste of time. For them, the "P" in IPAT is a sop thrown out to appease our sensibilities, an inconsequential nuisance that they have to deal with but wished they didn't. Window-dressing. If you need to worship a Canadian environmental hero, try world-acclaimed wildlife artist Robert Bateman or Captain Paul Watson. Both of these men are aware of the 'raging monster' of human overpopulation and not afraid to say that it is running amok right here in Canada. To my knowledge, they are the only Canadian celebrities on the landscape who deserve to be called 'environmentalists'. As the term is presently used, an environmentalist is someone who attempts to manage the environment to accommodate relentless population growth, while a Malthusian would attempt to reverse population growth to accommodate the environment. Environmentalists---so-called---are essentially "growth-managers", not growth-stoppers.

By the way, if you want to understand the impact of overpopulation on biodiversity, take a look at Dave Foreman's latest book, "Man Swarm". This is what people like Suzuki, Monbiot and McKibben need to talk about----especially on days that have great demographic significance.

Measuring The Suzuki Legacy

If you want a measure of the Suzuki legacy, try to understand what impact he has had in shaping the mind-set of environmentally conscious people in his own community (mine). The Sierra Club here is a dominant force in this area, and conducts lectures and film nights through-out the year to "raise" our consciousness. They have a monopoly on the environmental conversation, and David Suzuki is a central figure in their pantheon. On one cold day in December of 2009, a cluster of local Sierra Club members stood in the parking lot of the village shopping centre with placards demanding meaningful action at the Copenhagen meeting on climate change. Their signs carried phrases like "Stop at 350" and "Stop Global Warming". Good on them to give up a weekend afternoon to make a statement about our environmental crisis. But on October 31st of this year, they were nowhere to be seen.

Instead, I met one of them in a local store dressed in a costume. When I asked her why she was dressed that way, I got the answer I expected, "It's a very important day, it's Halloween!" I replied that it was indeed, a very important day---- but not for that reason. She reacted with bewilderment. "Why?". I then began to tell her that it was the day that demographers estimated that we passed the 7 billionth mark, that our population number was now seven times what it was in 1800, that it had increased 250% in my lifetime, and that there are now more children born in one day that there are primates in the world. She cut me off to object that we need more children, and that if we lived more simply, there was more than enough to go around. "We need to grow our own food and get off the grid". In other words, hers was the programmed response that one gets from almost anyone now in her subculture. It is the typical catechism one hears from environmentally-conscious under-30s. Overpopulation? Maybe, but if we "empower women", dump capitalism, live like Ghandi, and share the wealth, overpopulation will take care of itself. Besides, birth rates are falling, aren't they?

Thanks For Nothing

So thank you Suzuki. Thank you Sierra Club. Thanks for nothing. Thanks for two decades of aggressive misinformation. Thanks for being the Pied Pipers who led an entire generation astray. Thanks for being Missing-in-Action on October 31st and blowing another "teachable moment". You are worse than useless, you are dangerous. Corporations have the environmental movement they paid for. One that manages dissent rather than directs it toward crucial targets. One that, to use Thoreau's words, "hacks at the branches of evil rather than striking at its roots."

Tim Murray
November 5, 2011

Sierra Club motto: "Let's cut our per-capita consumption in half so we can allow the population to double."

The violent removal of Occupy Melbourne protestors by Victoria Police on Friday 21st October 2011 from Melbourne’s City Square after being given the green light by the Melbourne Mayor, Robert Doyle, and the Victorian Premier Ted Baillieu highlights how important it is to reclaim open public space for political activity in the City of Melbourne, a city that only gives lip service to the right to protest.

The 11th November has played an important role in radical Australian history. On the 11th November 2011 the Melbourne based Anarchist Media Institute encourages the people of Melbourne to reclaim Melbourne’s City Square to commemorate:

The 11th November 1854, the day 157 years ago when the Ballarat Reform League, the organisation behind the Eureka Rebellion, was formed on the Ballarat goldfields.

The 11th November 1880, the day 131 years ago when Ned Kelly one of Australia's most well known rebels was executed in the Old Melbourne Gaol.

The 11th November 1918, the day 93 years ago that marked the end of World War One, a war fought by workers at either end of a bayonet fo the glory of God, King and Country that resulted in the death of ove
60,000 young Australian men from a population of only five million people.

The 11th November 1975, the day 36 years ago when the Governor General dismissed the Whitlam Labor government, a government that introduced more reforms in four years than every post war Australian government put together has been able to achieve.

Join us - Midday Friday 11th November Melbourne City Square Reclaim the Past to Understand the Present and Change the Future.

Australian Radical History the Eureka Series 2011 No. 10 - Think about it!!

The media reports about the violent dispersal by the Victoria Police of peaceful Occupy Melbourne protestors on the 21st October 2011 is full of justifications for the outrageous actions of the Lord Mayo Robert Doyle and the Premier Ted Baillieu. One hundred and fifty-seven years ago, despite the authorities best effort, the people of Victoria rallied behind the Eureka rebels, not Governor Hotham and Queen Victoria.

Within four months of the rebellion the 13 men charged with High Treason for their participation in the rebellion had been acquitted in the Victorian Supreme Court by a jury of their peers. Within six months a General Amnesty was declared for all those miners and esidents connected with the Eureka Stockade. Within six months a new Electoral Act gave miners the right to vote. Within seven months the notorious gold license was replaced with an export duty on gold and the hated Gold Commission was abolished.

Within eight months Raffaello Carboni, one of the leaders of the Eureka Rebellion, was elected to the Local Court at Ballarat to adjudicate mining disputes. Within eleven months both Peter Lalor, the elected leader of the Eureka rebels and John Humffray, the leade of the passive resistance group within the Ballarat Reform League, were elected to the Legislative Council of Victoria.

The difference between 1854 and 2011 is a free diverse vibrant media that reflects the will of the people not the will of the corporate sector and the government. The Eureka Rebellion did not end on the 3rd December 1854, the Occupy Melbourne protests will not end on the 21st October 2011, they will continue while that small section of society that owns the means of production, distribution and exchange dominates every aspect of our lives.

You can hear Joe Toscano's wonderful weekly radio show on 3CR by podcast. Catch the latest here

Have you spent a lot of time on the Mornington Peninsula, but never heard of Tootgarook Swamp or its values? If your answer is yes, well you aren't the only ones. We were in that position a few months ago too and here is what we've learned since then.

Have you spent a lot of time on the Mornington Peninsula, but never heard of Tootgarook Swamp or its values? If your answer is yes, well you aren't the only ones. We were in that position a few months ago too and here is what we've learned since then.

Once a major landmark, diminished by peat mining

· Tootgarook Swamp was once the largest landmark on the southern end of the peninsula stretching almost the whole length between the bay and the ocean.
· The area used to be home to hundreds of species of native fauna including Southern Brown Bandicoot(endangered), Eastern Quoll(extinct on mainland), Long-nosed Potoroo (endangered), Australian Bustard(critically endangered) to name just a few.

Unfortunately it was also valuable for its special Peat soil which was extracted and used as fertilizer on nearby farms and experimented with in hopes of producing electricity and gas from it. Dredging allowed enrichment for this fertiliser process and also gave opportunity for grazing land, and residential housing developments to occur on the Swamp and human interference caused a lot of changes and damage to the natural environment as well as increased flooding which is still being addressed currently.

Still home to 115 species of birds and other animals whose habitats are endangered everywhere

So maybe now you're thinking, why should try to save it now? We also asked that and after much research we found many reasons which we've listed below.

· Because it is still home to over 115 different bird species, some of which are endangered or threatened. Many are migratory and travel thousands of kilometres to the area to use breeding site and produce new generations of birds.
· The Swamp contains many indigenous flora species which no longer readily occur on the peninsula. Endangered Communities of indigenous vegetation still grow in the area.
· It also houses many species of native mammals, reptiles, fish and insects. Some of these are also endangered or no longer plentiful on the Mornington Peninsula.
· It is all that's left of an important part of the history of the Mornington Peninsula.
· Because it's a floodplain and the Swamp helps to control the flooding by acting as a retarding basin and sponge, by holding, storing and soaking up excess water.
· Water is important for everyone. Wetlands keep our waterways healthy by filtering, cleaning water as it flows through. Wetlands filter suspended solids, nutrients, heavy metals, organic matter (which may break down here too) and even oil. They treat stormwater naturally before releasing it back into our waterways and ground water. This ground water is used for irrigation on farms and keeps our soil healthy so we can grow trees and crops as well as many residential bores.
· Peat wetlands globally have been identified as a major storehouse of the world's carbon, exceeding that of forests. They actively accumulate organic matter into carbon sinks. Both aspects are worthy of attention by the UNFCCC.
· Peat wetlands have a wide international significance and their wise use is relevant to the implementation of the RAMSAR Convention, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), and other international instruments and agreements.
· Peat wetlands play a special role in conserving global biodiversity because they are the refuge of some of the rarest and most unusual species of wetland-dependent flora and fauna.
· Peat wetlands have been recognized by the RAMSAR Convention as a particularly threatened wetland type.
· Peat wetlands are the predominant wetland type for cultural heritage, notably through their capacity to preserve archaeological remains and the palaeobiological record under waterlogged and deoxygenated conditions.
· It is mostly in the hands of private landholders. If we do not give voice to a voiceless environment nothing will stop it from being destroyed to make way for more development on the Mornington Peninsula
· It is important as a habitat for animals at a vulnerable stage in their life cycles and provides a refuge when adverse conditions such as drought prevail.
· As a signatory to the RAMSAR Convention, Australia has an obligation to promote the conservation of Wetlands of International Importance (RAMSAR listed wetlands) and the wise use of all wetlands.
· Although wetlands cover only about 3% of the Earth's surface, they are vital to our environment.
· Wetlands constitute a resource of great economic, scientific, cultural, and recreational value for the community.
· Environmental degradation is more prominent within wetland systems than any other ecosystem on earth. By 1993 half the world's wetlands had been drained.

Tootgarook Swamp needs RAMSAR status

So with all these reasons now we need to ask How do we save Tootgarook Swamp? (see www.SPIFFA.org/ for more in-depth information or view photos at Facebook-Friends of Sanctuary Park.)
One important way we have identified is through the RAMSAR convention. What is this?

The Ramsar Convention, is an intergovernmental treaty that provides the framework for national action and international cooperation for the conservation and wise use of wetlands and their resources. The Convention’s mission is “the conservation and wise use of all wetlands through local and national actions and international cooperation, as a contribution towards achieving sustainable development throughout the world”. At the centre of the Ramsar philosophy is the “wise use” concept. The wise use of wetlands is defined as “the maintenance of their ecological character, achieved through the implementation of ecosystem approaches, within the context of sustainable development”. “Wise use” therefore has at its heart the conservation and sustainable use of wetlands and their resources, for the benefit of humankind.

To become a Ramsar site the Tootgarook Swamp must go through a nomination process to assess whether it meets the criteria necessary to become an internationally recognized site. We are currently encouraging the Mornington Peninsula Shire and Government Agencies to begin this nomination process but we need your support.

To support a Ramsar nomination for the Tootgarook Swamp we encourage you to pass this information to as many people as possible.
If you support this Nomination we ask that you email Send Email to Mornington Peninsula Shire Mayor Graham Pittock along with your name and address stating that you support this nomination.

It has been more than two years since Environment East Gippsland began legal action to sue the government’s logging monopoly, VicForests. In August 2009 we applied for an injunction for an immediate stop to logging at Brown Mountain. A year later, on 11 August 2010, the ruling was handed down. We had won our case! This is a report from Environment East Gippsland.

Not only did Environment East Gippsland win the case for Brown Mountain, but we successfully set three major precedents for other community groups:

1. it was the first time any environment group had been granted standing[1] to take the government (or one of its agencies) to court,

2. we were granted an injunction against logging for the first time in Victoria and possibly Australia, and

3. We did not have to provide ‘security’ a type of ‘bond’ incase we lost (VicForests put in what turned out to be a fairly bodgie claim that we should put up $60,000).

The case was set down to be heard in the Sale Court over two weeks, but it stretched out to four weeks through March 2010. Although we were successful, and although the ruling should alter the way VicForests and the government looks after public forests, we are still seeing them disregard the same laws and regulations over which they were sued. Their reasoning? The ruling technically only applied to Brown Mountain. So if we want to show that the law applies across the state, it might take another court case! They are gambling that we won’t resort to this. But to ensure that any further plans to challenge them are stymied, VicForests is refusing to pay our court costs as ordered. EEG and our lawyers have sent reasonable requests for the money owed. After months of letters, VicForests offered us HALF of our costs! This insult means that the case will now be handed over to official auditors to draw up the bill of costs and if not paid, it heads back to the court. More costs and more time wasting.

Left in limbo

Brown Mountain’s 600 year old trees are still firmly in the ground but remain like a ‘hole in a donut’, surrounded by reserved forest and National Park. Despite its values having been well and truly proven in court, it is still mapped as a logging zone and under the control of VicForests. The surveys ordered by the court have not been carried out. We suspect they see this area as symbolic of the battle between ‘government and greenies’. We saw the length and cost the DSE went to in order to gut the heart from Goolengook’s forests. Let’s hope they are simply cooling their heels rather than plotting its annihilation. Being legally trounced by EEG must have hurt. We know that the 1995 Forest Management Plan is considered redundant and in need of rewriting, and we know there are plans of weakening the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act; both documents helped our court win.

Pre (or Pro)-logging surveys

One outcome of the court case is that VicForests have set up very poorly funded Mickey Mouse pre-logging surveys in some forests. Consultants are hired that employ others to carry out wildlife surveys for some species. The consultants are given minimal time and resources, making the results totally invalid. We are currently applying under Freedom of Information to obtain details of these survey methods and results.

VicForests hired Chela Powell, a young forester with a PhD on the study of beetles in blue gum plantations. They call her their ‘conservation biologist’. She devised some survey methods that seem to us to explain how to look for certain animals in the wrong forests and then frighten them away with the wrong methods. VicForests also decides which forests might be deemed worthy of a survey. It is they who decide if a stand of forest is old growth, and it is they who give themselves the option of including forests that might be considered to be High Conservation Value (HCV). We have reason to suspect that they are doing pre-logging surveys in about half of the old growth they should, and almost no HCV, as this one is optional. There are some low quality forests surveyed that will most likely result in no finds. We also know they have logged old growth forest since the court ruling and are also clearfelling Potoroo habitat where their own contracted survey teams discovered them!

What does this all mean on the ground?

The legal finding for Brown Mountain should mean that logging agencies and land managers have to be cautious in regards to the possible existence of threatened species where they plan to destroy or alter their habitat. This can be extrapolated to every other forest, meaning cautionary management must be shown (as in the Precautionary Principle, much debated to in court) when planning to destroy or modify likely habitats of threatened species. This could include areas in which the DSE plans to carry out roading or prescribed burns, as well as clearfell logging. DSE is stating this isn’t the case, but provides no explanation. Surveys should happen across all forests – regardless of their age or conservation value. But it’s not.

VicForests have a few options:

· Honour this ruling and pay for decent, credible surveys in every planned logging coupe. Don’t log where rare species exist.

· Honour this ruling but do the cheapest possible ineffective surveys that cover minimal forest areas.

· Accept that the logging industry and its shrinking markets are in terminal decline and wind down operations to suit.

· Influence the revision of the Forest Management Plan to remove prescriptions to protect rare wildlife.

· Push to have the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act watered down to make current mandatory actions ambiguous or ‘flexible’.

Greg Barber, MP for the Greens, asked a question of the then ALP Environment Minister the day after the September judgement. Minister Jennings said he would honour the decision. The Shadow Minister for the environment, Liberal member Mary Wooldridge, also promised to honour the court ruling. Now that a Liberal-National party is in Government, we see a clear attempt to take no action while planning changes of environmental legislation.

---

The court ruling

It was August11 and everyone stood as Justice Robert Osborne entered and took his seat. Throughout the March case, he always seemed to have a quizzical, bemused look on his face as he bowed to us on entering and leaving. Again he bowed and so did we. We had been anxiously waiting months for this moment. He began to read his findings. The court room booked for the judgement had to be changed to accommodate the one or two hundred supporters. When Liz and I walked into the upstairs gallery there was a sea of friendly faces and standing room only. In one corner was a very small huddle of grey suits representing VicForests.

Our hearts sank to the floor as he acknowledged some points which VicForests had made, and our points on the crayfish and kite that weren’t strong. But then he uttered the word “Nevertheless ...” and our hearts jumped back into place as we anticipated his next words. Basically he told VicForests that they can’t log the old growth forests of Brown Mountain until VicForests had:

1) put in place protection zones for the Potoroo in three of the four planned logging coupes,

2) had qualified people survey in the correct season for Giant Burrowing and Large Brown Tree Frogs as well as the Spot-tailed Quoll, in all four coupes,

3) created a 100 ha zone to protect the gliders of coupe 15 and,

4) reviewed the protection measures offered to Powerful and Sooty Owls in East Gippsland.

But he didn’t go far enough to say they must do this to the satisfaction of the court, only to the satisfaction of the Director of Biodiversity Policy and Programs within DSE. That was the weak point.

He also ordered that we:

· give DSE copies of all photographic evidence we have of the presence of the Long-footed Potoroo in the area (our lawyers told us not to provide this once the case had started); and

· show DSE the precise location of where one of the Potoroo images was captured as used in our evidence by one of the surveyors.

Our lawyers argued that a ‘compliance in an unsupervised fashion’ and a ‘self-executing injunction is not appropriate’ given VicForests’ past record of strong resistance to compliance and an ‘ineffective regulator’ (DSE). They said that the history of this matter showed that there was no transparency or honest dialogue from DSE/VicForests towards EEG.

However the judge claimed it shouldn’t need to go back to court for tick-off when there’s already a DSE statutory framework in place to resolve habitat protection (which we just proved wasn’t working). As DSE wasn’t part of the dispute, he considered them as apart from it. But we showed they were as good as compliant with VicForests’ refusal to properly protect the wildlife. Still, if given the legally correct reserves, these logging coupes should all receive protection, even if vulnerable to being moved and swapped as Special Protection Zones.

To ensure proper transparency, Justice Osborn ruled that VicForests should give EEG:

· relatively detailed maps of the protection zones for the Potoroos and owls within 14 days of their creation.

· details of any survey results of the Giant Burrowing Frog, Large Brown Tree Frog and Spot-tailed Quoll.

· 28 days notice in writing of plans to log any of the four coupes.

We have received nothing to date.

More on Brown Mountain

NOTES

[1] Editor: "Standing" is the legal right to initiate a law suit. Yes, if you thought that anyone could initiate (via a lawyer) or as themselves, a complaint of a failure to abide by regulations or laws in an Act, think again. Usually this right is very much reserved, with the effect of protecting vested interests and specialists. Not only did EEG set a precedent in getting standing, but I think they set a precedent in using the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1986 in court! I believe that no action had previously ever been made using its powers!