(We) can do better

By Patsy Crawford

This was an editorial in the Sunday Tasmanian of 1 March 2009.

"It seems only a short while back the Federal Government couldn't state its anti-whaling credentials too fervently.

"Australia would track whale hunters across the seven seas. No killing on our watch, cried a bevy of Government ministers.

"So what happened to those fine words when Australian Federal Police dashed sturdily onto the good ship 'Steve Irwin' last weekend, and, at the behest of Japanese authorities, hauled away written records and videos of whale slaughter?

"The Captain of Japanese vessel 'Yushin Maru No. 3' claims it was rammed.

"The 'Steve Irwin' captain Paul Watson says that if anyone wants to bring charges against him and his crew, that's fine by him.

"The Home Affairs Department has trotted out the feeble excuse it can't respond because the matter is in the hands of the AFP.

"The people of Hobart did a bit of responding of their own, lining up in droves to inspect the 'Steve Irwin' and donate to its cause.

"It beggars belief to think there are countries still clinging to a cruel, outmoded practice that should have been knocked on the head along

with Captain Ahab years ago".

See also: "What whales? Ruddbot's shame" by in the Brisbane Times of 24 Feb 09, "Who called the cops?" by Mark Worley in the Mercury of 22 Feb 09, "Is Kevin Rudd the Neville Chamberlain of Conservation?" by Captain Paul Watson on 28 Jan 09.

1 July 2005, Telstra share price was AU$5.06. 3.5 years later, Sol Trujillo announced his pending departure [26 February]. With Telstra stock nearing a record LOW on Trujillo's watch - AU$3.68, we're informed that Sol will take with him his AU$13.4-million pay package for this year plus another AU$30-million payout. Plus his eight-digit salary each of the previous three years.

For the past four years, Trujillo spent a significant portion of his time outside Australia, distant from the iconic industry he purports to manage. (Does Trujillo use NextG to manage-from-afar?)

For the past 12 months, he focused intently on landing his next job ... while finishing his promised lay-offs of 12,000 Telstra employees. (Is Trujillo helping them in their job searches?)

Trujillo has spent four years raping and pillaging a major Australian asset, receiving perhaps AU$70- million, while driving down the value of the shares owned by Australian citizens.

I don't know which is more pathetic: The nearly 30% loss in stock value; Trujillo's AU$30-million payout; or Telstra employees learning today about Sol's resignation through its announcement by the media!

Judy Bamberger

Judy Bamberger	+61-2-6247-6220 (phone, fax)
Process Solutions	+61-2-6247-4746 (home)
O'Connor ACT 2602 AUSTRALIA
bamberg [ AT ] eaglet.rain.com

See also: citizensagainstsellingtelstra.com

Crucial investigation must not be highjacked by Melbourne's planners and developers

The Victorian Environmental Assessment Council is currently conducting investigation into Crown and Public Land in the Melbourne metropolitan area. Track record of such inquiries mean that only a naive Melbourne citizen would expect anything from this one, other than excuses to confiscate and give away to developers more and more of Melbourne's public land.

For this reason it is important for alternative forums to give as much publicity as possible to the issues in hand. We do this here via one excellent submission, from Jill Quirk, on behalf of the Victorian Branch of Sustainable Population Australia. (Below this report the submission is reproduced in its original form.)

This investigation springs from competition for land-use due to the pressures of population growth

Ms Quirk states, "SPA (VIC) with its particular focus on the interaction of population levels/lifestyle and the environment notes that the investigation into public and crown land has most likely sprung from the pressures of population growth on land use and the increasing importance and competition for the use of this land to a growing population with diminishing private open space available to it."

Ms Quirk's submission highlights what should be the outstanding priority of the report, the problems caused by the State Government's obdurate engineering of a much bigger population. Without this massive population, Victoria's water supply would probably be adequate and the city would be cooler, because there would be fewer buildings, less industrial activity and more trees and green spaces.

Purposes of the Investigation

The purposes of the investigation which the SPA VIC submission addresses are to systematically identify and assess the uses, resources, condition, values and management of Crown land, and public authority land in metropolitan Melbourne; to assess values of Crown land, and public authority land for areas not committed to a specific use, and report on appropriate future uses relevant to Melbourne's livability and natural values; and to report on the contribution of Crown land, and public authority land to Melbourne's livability and opportunities for enhancement of this contribution.

Ms Quirk explained that SPA VIC would urge a broad approach with particular consideration given to the pressure on land- of a rapidly rising population with diminishing private open space.

Melbourne 2030 creates the problems it then purports to resolve

She observed that, "Diminished private open space is prescribed by the Melbourne 2030 urban consolidation blueprint necessitated by projected massive population growth, and she also notes that this projected population growth was under- estimated at the time of design.

On current trends, problems are exponential

This situation makes it necessary to contend with the problem of a very much larger population in the future in Victoria with no end of this growth anticipated.

"At current rates of growth Melbourne could have 8 million people well before the end of the century", Ms Quirk warned.

The problem of encouraging population growth with no end in sight is further complicated by the declining state of the Victorian natural environment (as noted in the 2008 Victorian State of the Environment report).

Urban heat island effect increases urgent need for trees to modify temperature

The inevitable increased urban temperatures in Melbourne from an increasing proportion of built up areas, (Urban Heat Island effect) make the "need for open space with vegetation, especially trees to mitigate or modify increased temperatures at local levels", especially urgent.

Urban water management

"Open space which is not concreted or paved allows maximum absorption of water in to the ground which is important for the health and survival of vegetation in the surrounding area. It is therefore imperative to consolidate and increase permeable open space," Ms Quirk observes.

Democratic representation a factor in environmental degradation

Ms Quirk has called the Enquiry's attention to the fact that democracy is a victim of Melbourne's recent land-use changes. "The impact on democratic rights and democratic structure of centrally engineered changes in use of public land and reduction of public land," she said, and referred to http://candobetter.org/node/628.

Pure environmental value of open land-

Ms Quirk points out that, "There is a pure environmental value of open land."

"A fundamental contribution of land that has not been built over is its capacity to absorb water. Once it has been built over it cannot serve this function. In addition, water shortages through drought and increased demand on our water supplies have resulted in noticeable loss of green areas both in public and private gardens. Thus any that remain are crucial to the health of Melbourne’s urban environment..

"The other contributions of land with vegetation (especially trees) are to cool the immediate environment via shade and transpiration. Heating up of the urban environment has occurred through expansion and densification necessitated through population growth (Urban Heat Island effect) as well as because of global climate change. The cooling attributes of trees and other vegetation create a microclimate of relief in an environment which is otherwise incapable of modifying the effect of summer heat. They thus reduce the need for inside use of energy using air conditioners and other cooling systems.
It must also be remembered that birds and small animals require habitat to survive. e.g. every Grevillea Robin Gordon that disappears removes food for several wattle birds. Public open space has become even more crucial for our wildlife than it was before the massive loss of private open space i.e. private gardens that is well under way.

Public open space has become even more crucial for our wildlife than it was before the massive loss of private open space i.e. private gardens that is well under way.

Value of open space to residents of Melbourne

"With a rapidly increasing population (largely socially engineered by governments- notably state governments by designating nearly all areas in the state as in need of immigration) over the last 10 years, (see http://www.liveinvictoria.vic.gov.au) there has been noticeable pressure on both public and private land. This trend will continue with bipartisan pro population growth stances. Private gardens are being lost at an alarming rate as houses on generous blocks with trees are bulldozed for units and town houses , resulting in a far greater coverage of the land with impermeable surfaces and building, loss of trees, shade and other vegetation This leaves neighbours with less and less relief from built up areas and often owning no garden themselves people rely more and more heavily on public land for recreation. The benefits of open space to people may not always be accurately measured by the number actually on the land at a particular time. The benefit to some may be simply in the relief and reassurance of walking past an open space."

"The value of open land is so much more than the dollar price estimated in terms of what it would yield if subdivided and sold to developers or built on to create a revenue raising venue. It is a defect of our land valuing and legal system that it fails to account for many damages to quality of life through changes to land use."

"We were fortunate in Melbourne that our founders were far sighted in setting aside areas of land for Melbourne’s people. Unfortunately their provisions for future generations have sometimes been exploited for short term objectives (according to Coasian economic values) at the expense of the general population.

These considerations should be uppermost when making assessments with respect to –uses and values of public land. Democratic rights and structure at a local level should be strengthened as opposed to their removal to distant government and commercial forums."

The Final Recommendation made by the SPA Victoria report is that there should be no erosion or loss of public open space from our current situation. It asks that the Victorian Environmental Assessment Council focus on maintaining and maximizing the natural attributes of any land under consideration for the benefit of Victorian citizens present and future.

"We ask that the Victorian Environmental Assessment Council focus on maintaining and maximizing the natural attributes of any land under consideration for the benefit of Victorian citizens present and future."

ORIGINAL SUBMISSION BELOW

The Secretary
Metropolitan Melbourne Enquiry
Victorian Environmental Assessment Council
Level 6
8 Nicholson Street
East Melbourne 3002

16 February 2009

Dear Sir/Madam

Re Investigation into Crown and public land

Introduction:
I am writing on behalf of Sustainable Population Australia: Victorian Branch (SPA VIC).
SPA is an environmental organization whose aims and objectives are:

.To contribute to public awareness of the limits of Australian population growth from ecological, social and economic viewpoints.
.To promote awareness that the survival of an ecologically sustainable population depends on its renewable resource base.
.To help promote policies that will initially lead to stabilization of Australia’s population by encouraging near replacement fertility rates and low immigration rates.
.To promote urban and rural lifestyles and practices that are in harmony with the realities of the Australian environment, its resource base and its biodiversity.
.To advocate low immigration rates while rejecting any selection based on race.
.To help promote policies that will lead to the stabilization, then reduction of global population.

SPA (VIC) with its particular focus on the interaction of population levels/lifestyle and the environment notes that the investigation into public and crown land has most likely sprung from the pressures of population growth on land use and the increasing importance and competition for the use of this land to a growing population with diminishing private open space available to it.

With reference to the purposes of the investigation

(“The purposes of the investigation are to:
(a) systematically identify and assess the uses, resources, condition, values and management of Crown land, and public authority land in metropolitan Melbourne;
(b) assess values of Crown land, and public authority land for areas not committed to a specific use, and report on appropriate future uses relevant to Melbourne's livability and natural values; and
(c) report on the contribution of Crown land, and public authority land to Melbourne's livability and opportunities for enhancement of this contribution”)

SPA VIC would urge a broad approach with particular consideration given to the following:

1. The pressure on land- of a rapidly rising population with diminishing private open space. Diminished private open space is prescribed by the Melbourne 2030 urban consolidation blueprint necessitated by projected massive population growth (which as it turns out was under- estimated at the time of design.)

2. A very much larger population in the future in Victoria with no end of this growth anticipated (At current rates of growth Melbourne could have 8 million people well before the end of the century.)

3. The declining state of the Victorian natural environment (as noted in the 2008 Victorian State of the Environment report)

4. The inevitable increased urban temperatures in Melbourne from an increasing proportion of built up areas, (Urban Heat Island effect) and the consequent need for open space with vegetation, especially trees to mitigate or modify increased temperatures at local levels

5. Urban water management: Open space which is not concreted or paved allows maximum absorption of water in to the ground which is important for the health and survival of vegetation in the surrounding area.

6. The impact on democratic rights and democratic structure of centrally engineered changes in use of public land and reduction of public land. (http://candobetter.org/node/628)

Pure environmental value of open land-

A fundamental contribution of land that has not been built over is its capacity to absorb water. Once it has been built over it cannot serve this function. In addition, water shortages through drought and increased demand on our water supplies have resulted in noticeable loss of green areas both in public and private gardens. Thus any that remain are crucial to the health of Melbourne’s urban environment.
The other contributions of land with vegetation (especially trees) are to cool the immediate environment via shade and transpiration. Heating up of the urban environment has occurred through expansion and densification necessitated through population growth (Urban Heat Island effect) as well as because of global climate change. The cooling attributes of trees and other vegetation create a microclimate of relief in an environment which is otherwise incapable of modifying the effect of summer heat. They thus reduce the need for inside use of energy using air conditioners and other cooling systems.
It must also be remembered that birds and small animals require habitat to survive. e.g. every Grevillea Robin Gordon that disappears removes food for several wattle birds. Public open space has become even more crucial for our wildlife than it was before the massive loss of private open space i.e. private gardens that is well under way.

Value of open space to residents of Melbourne

With a rapidly increasing population (largely socially engineered by governments- notably state governments by designating nearly all areas in the state as in need of immigration) over the last 10 years, (see http://www.liveinvictoria.vic.gov.au) there has been noticeable pressure on both public and private land. This trend will continue with bipartisan pro population growth stances. Private gardens are being lost at an alarming rate as houses on generous blocks with trees are bulldozed for units and town houses , resulting in a far greater coverage of the land with impermeable surfaces and building, loss of trees, shade and other vegetation This leaves neighbours with less and less relief from built up areas and often owning no garden themselves people rely more and more heavily on public land for recreation. The benefits of open space to people may not always be accurately measured by the number actually on the land at a particular time. The benefit to some may be simply in the relief and reassurance of walking past an open space.

The value of open land is so much more than the dollar price estimated in terms of what it would yield if subdivided and sold to developers or built on to create a revenue raising venue. It is a defect of our land valuing and legal system that it fails to account for many damages to quality of life through changes to land use.

We were fortunate in Melbourne that our founders were far sighted in setting aside areas of land for Melbourne’s people. Unfortunately their provisions for future generations have sometimes been exploited for short term objectives (according to Coasian economic values) at the expense of the general population.

These considerations should be uppermost when making assessments with respect to –uses and values of public land. Democratic rights and structure at a local level should be strengthened as opposed to their removal to distant government and commercial forums.

Recommendation: that there should be no erosion or loss of public open space from our current situation and we ask that the Victorian Environmental Assessment Council focus on maintaining and maximizing the natural attributes of any land under consideration for the benefit of Victorian citizens present and future.

Sincerely,

Jill Quirk
President: Sustainable Population Australia (Victorian Branch)

Contact: Via candobetter.org or by post to PO Box 1173 Frankston (for public correspondence)
20 Feb 2009

Over two weeks since lightning struck the east coast of Wilsons Promontory on the Cathedral Range just north of Sealers Cove, most of the northern half of ‘the Prom’ has been burnt. The Victorian Country Fire Authority (CFA) website reports 23,000 hectares burnt out. The Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) website shows the following map of the burn (shaded area below). The fire has burnt the Cathedral Range, along the east coastline right across and along the Corner Inlet shoreline to Millers Landing.

#FireWasNearlyOut" id="FireWasNearlyOut">Prom Fire Was Nearly Out

The Wilsons Promontory bushfire was reportedly sparked by lightning striking the remote Cathedral Range on the east coast just north of Sealers Cove on Sunday 8th February 2009. Witnesses say that by the following Friday 13th, the fire was still localised on the Range and all but out. This is confirmed by the following satellite photo taken by NASA's MODIS Rapid Response Team on the 13th. The satellite takes high-resolution images of visible, shortwave and near-infrared light of Victoria twice daily.

Wilsons Promontory on 13th Feb, showing scattered cloud over the Prom and on the east coast (right side) a small red (burnt) patch with only a single column of smoke noticeable. © NASA 13-Feb-09

Daily updates of this fire can be found at the following URL:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/fires/main/world/australiafire_20090223.html

#LeftToBurn?" id="LeftToBurn?">Left to Burn?

Over the subsequent days the fire continued to burn then the winds increased. Now, more than two weeks later most of the northern half of ‘the Prom’ has been burnt. The vegetation has gone. The Victorian Country Fire Authority (CFA) website today reports 23,800 hectares burnt out. The Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE) website shows the following map of the burn (shaded area below).

© DSE Wilsons Promontory Media Map 24 Feb 09 12:30pm

The fire has burnt the Cathedral Range, along the east coastline right across and along the Corner Inlet shoreline to Millers Landing. Affected sites are Vereker Creek, Whiskey Bay, Tongue Point, Monkey Point, Three Mile Point, Mt Roundback, Three Mile Beach, Mt Margaret, Lighthouse Point Lighthouse, Mt Hunter and parts of Darby Swamp. Wilsons Promontory National Park is just one of the many important natural and wilderness areas of Victoria devastated by these current bushfires.

Wilsons Promontory where thousands of hectares have been burnt.
© Photo. John Woudstra 18-Feb-09

#FrequentFireHistory" id="FrequentFireHistory">Frequent Fire History

In the case of the Prom, this is the second time in four years that fire has burnt through this northern region. On 21 March 2005, a twenty hectare prescribed burn was lit east of Tidal River. It escaped three times over a period of twelve days and burnt out 6,000 hectares of native bushland in the National Park.

A key investigative report was undertaken by Commissioner, Emergency Services, Bruce Esplin, (the Esplin 2005 Report) into a number of fires over previous years. In the case of this DSE prescribed burn in the Prom, the investigations found that the prescribed burn was poorly planned and after ignition, was not patrolled properly.

A notable finding of the report was that: “There remains considerable community uncertainty about the effectiveness of the prescribed burning program, and what changes, if any have occurred in the amount of prescribed burning undertaken since 2003”.( para 33)

Yet prescribed burning continues each year across Australia, not in the small mosaics, but on a grand scale and with a record of frequently getting out of control. On top of the 6,000 hectares four years ago, just a few days ago we hear of over 23,000 hectares of the Prom has now been burnt. Fires in the Prom also occurred in 2001.

#Impacts" id="Impacts">Impacts on Flora and Fauna

The Prom has diverse vegetation communities including warm temperate and cool temperate rainforest, tall open forests, woodlands, heathlands, and swamp and coastal communities. There are rare stands of White Mangrove, being the most southerly stands of mangroves in the world.

The Prom is rich its diversity of native mammals with over thirty species having been recorded, many of which are either rare or threatened. These include the Long-nosed Potoroo, Swamp Antechinus, White-footed Dunnart, Broad-toothed Rat, Feather-tailed Glider and Eastern Pygmy-possum. “One of the most significant habitats of the New Holland Mouse also occurs within the park, and a number of species of whale have been sighted in the waters off its coastline.” The Prom also provides habitat to populations of Eastern Grey Kangaroos, koalas, wombats and emus.

The heathlands, influenced by the frequency and intensity of fire, are rich in species and provide habitats for a variety of fauna, including many threatened species. [Source: Parks Victoria website]

However, bushfire research across Australia has shown that while some native flora are fire tolerant and/or can recover and in some case thrive in the immediate years following a fire, other species have not adapted and so they become displaced and can die out. (DSE website).

While the Victorian Royal Commission is focusing on the fire management measures to protect life and private and public property associated with the 2009 Victorian Bushfires, the impacts on flora and fauna seem to have been overlooked. Some species may not survive if fires are too frequent, as the plants are unable to reach maturity and produce sufficient seed before the next fire episode. (DSE website).

#ThreateningProcess" id="ThreateningProcess">Threatening Process

Little is known about the recovery of fauna diversity as a consequence of such widespread bushfires, be they caused by lightning, intentionally or otherwise. But given the scale of these current fires across the Prom crossing from shore to shore, it is probable than many native animals, as in many other parts of Victoria, will have been burnt alive in the fires and that their already rare populations will now have declined substantially and be at risk of local extinction.

In respect to Australia’s fauna, given that there we now have a fraction of the intact native habitat compared with pre-1788, how can anyone argue that allowing bushfires to get out of control is not a threatening process?

Just in via the bush telegraph, more on woodchip sales downturnLast week there were TWO woodchip carriers moored just off the south head of Twofold Bay (site of chipmill) for several days before one departed without loading any chips. The other is still there and has not loaded any chips. The talk around Eden was that as many as FIVE chip carriers might be expected there, all at once. The reason is: it is cheaper to park a boat there (avoiding port fees) than sail around aimlessly hoping that someone will buy some woodchips needing shipping. It was not unusual in happier times for the woodchipping industry for spot sales of chips to be negotiated very rapidly by carriers on the run in similar circumstances, almost like flagging down a taxi, only this time there are no customers wanting to flag them down.

Editor's introduction. We were amused to read of this report in the Age and it seems a fitting introduction to the analysis below by A.H. of the infamous 'New Residential Zones for Victoria.

"NIMBY mentality holding us back:
JASON Dowling (Comment & Debate, The Age, 20/2/09) outlined some prime examples of how Victoria's "not-in-my-back-yard" mentality is damaging the modernisation of our state. The disruption to development timetables caused by frivolous complaints often delays essential community projects for months. Master Builders Association surveys show planning delays average over 20 weeks and push up the cost of new homes significantly. More than $1 billion in community projects are held up in the planning system now.

We do not support open-slather development. Municipalities have the right/obligation to set the strategic planning framework. Thereafter, the interpretation should be left to people who can dispassionately interpret whether projects fit within the framework.

The State Government's plans to fast-track some of these projects will help provide essential community infrastructure, underpin 194,000 building jobs, and provide greater certainty for Victoria's building industry. Brian Welch, executive director, Master Builders Association of Victoria"

The DEVIL is in the detail. What every residential property owner should be aware of:

SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE ZONE

• The name says it all, open slather, free range for development, Substantial Change. Money for jam for all developers. NSW style development. Anything goes. Let it rip!! You bewdy!! Towers, Towers, Towers etc. You know what it means. This is where we stuff the 1000 new residents who come to Victoria each week to live, if we can, and some in the other zones too. In 5-10 years this Zone won't be the same. Substantial means just that, Substantial Change. No further explanation needed or required.

INCREMENTAL CHANGE ZONE

• The information sheet (bottom of cover page) dated February 2009 states “The Incremental Change Zone allows for a variety of housing types including medium density. housing provided that it respects the character of the neighbourhood”

• However, upon reading the description of the Incremental Change Zone it states: “Purpose. To provide for residential development at a range of densities with a variety of dwellings to meet the housing needs of all households”.

• NOTE: Information sheet says Zone is to provide “medium density”, yet in the Zone description the word medium density suddenly becomes “range of densities”. Medium density is not mentioned in the description of the Incremental Change Zone at all.

• Question: What is a range of densities? Is that like free-range eggs, big ones and small ones?

Subdivision of Land
Exemption from Notice and Review (Appeal to VCAT)

• An application to subdivide land is exempt from the Notice requirements (you don’t get told about any Subdivision). The decision about the application and your existing review rights to VCAT are exempt. (You don’t know about the decision and no longer have any right to have the decision reviewed by VCAT)

Construction and extension of one dwelling on a lot
Exemption from Notice and Review (Appeal to VCAT)

• An application for construction and extension is exempt from the Notice requirements (you don’t get told about any construction and extension). The decision about the application and your existing review rights to VCAT are exempt. (You don’t know about the decision and no longer have any right to have the decision reviewed by VCAT).

LIMITED CHANGE ZONE

Purpose: To ensure residential development protects the neighbourhood character of the area.

Subdivision of Land
Exemption from Notice and Review (Appeal to VCAT)

• An application to subdivide land is exempt from the Notice requirements (you don’t get told about any Subdivision). The decision about the application and your existing review rights to VCAT are exempt. (You don’t know about the decision and no longer have any right to have the decision reviewed by VCAT)

Construction and extension of one dwelling on a lot
Exemption from Notice and Review(Appeal to VCAT)

• An application for construction and extension is exempt from the Notice requirements (you don’t get told about any construction and extension). The decision about the application and your existing review rights to VCAT are exempt. (You don’t know about the decision and no longer have any right to have the decision reviewed by VCAT)

BOTTOM LINE:

• The Brumby Government is attempting to take away property rights in all three proposed Zone changes, which home owners have had for many years. These rights include, the right to be notified of an Application, the right to object to a development, and where necessary, seek a review of the decision made by the Council at VCAT. In these three Zone proposals, each homeowner is being done over by the politicians. There is no Government mandate for this style of change which was never mentioned at the last state election by the Bracks now Brumby Government.

• We employ the politicians. We are their masters not the other way round. Kick butt!! Do you know who is your State member of the Legislative Assembly and the other lot in the Legislative Council. (Look under Parliament in the Business White Pages) or Google: Victorian Parliament.

• It’s your property. Don’t leave it up to someone else. Express your concern to your employee the politician! Do something now. Defend your property rights whilst you still have them .

• Soon it may be too late other than to say “there goes the neighbourhood!”. Now is the time for all Good Men and Women to lay siege to their State Member of Parliament whatever their political persuasion maybe and defend the home-owner’s piece of paradise. The game is not over yet. We must all stand shoulder to shoulder like any Victorians and fight this proposal which will change our lives forever. Bad public policy is just that, Bad. These proposed changes are designed to appease the usual suspects, the Property Council of Australia, the Master Builders of Victoria, the Housing industry Association and the Institute of Public Affairs. Will you willingly relegate your property rights to these vested interests? Will you sit by whilst the above-named culprits receive a leg-up and financial windfall at your cost. It's time to attack the Brumby Government with all our fortitude and get rid of these new Zones.

A.H.

In Victoria in 1992 some bureaucrat got the idea of changing the name (and focus) of the Department of Conservation and Environment to a Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, then in 1996 to a Department of Natural Resources and Environment, then in 2003 a split to (1) a Victorian Department of Primary Industries and (2) a Department of Sustainability and Environment.

Source: http://www.austehc.unimelb.edu.au/asaw/biogs/A002037b.htm

Currently it's known by its obscure acronym DSE...(Don't Support Environment, or Department of Sparks and Embers).

Across the border in NSW, in 2007, the Department of Environment and Conservation was changed to the Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC). Rather than forming a dedicated research and response organisation to focus on climate change, the conservation was dropped from the existing department. Cynically, including 'climate change' as a name of one of its departments, government must feel cosy sending a message it is addressing climate change. For a while the department was headed up by The NSW Minister for Climate Change, Environment and Water - a bucket of outdoor type activities that sounded good together.

Across the border in South Australia, they have the Department for the Environment and Heritage (DEH), which sounds borrowed from the federal Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (another collective bucket). It is hard to see how with so many diverse portfolios, a minister can dedicate any leadership to making genuine improvements to what's left of Australia's intact natural environment and its desperate need for conservation.

With all the money spent on names changing, the tens of thousands could have gone into onground conservation activities like fox control programmes.

I have been monitoring the Jan-Feb 2009 Victorian bushfires from NSW and have turned my attention to the bushfire management in a natural area - Wilsons Promontory. I note satellite observations of the fire with concern showing the lighting ignition on the east coast started 9th February, but had almost extinguished itself by the 13th. Then a wind change drove it out of control. A week later it has burnt out 22,000 hectares (almost 50% of our precious 50,000ha Prom)!

While the Country Fire Authority (CFA) has paid special attention to non-imminent bushfire risks to rather distant private property. The CFA says "the fire does not currently pose a threat to the Yanakie community." Backburning the Prom is given as the only bushfire response strategy. So do we interpret this as a noncommittal response by the CFA for the Prom - that is since no human lives or private property are at threat, the CFA's bushfire response is to just 'monitor' the fire and put out the spot fires threatening private property to the north?

The CFA reports read as though CFA policy for active and damaging bushfires in important conservation areas is to wait for rain, but otherwise 'let it burn'.

And yet the Bureau of Meteorology forecasts hot and windy conditions for tomorrow Monday, 23 Feb 2009.

I interpret this bushfire management by Victoria's CFA as one that respects only human life and property, but does not rate the natural asset values of fauna and flora habitat of the Prom with any respect. It seems at best an opportunity for de-facto hazard reduction that it would normally not get permission to do, and at worst an inconvenient distraction for CFA crews.

If this is the prevailing attitude of rural firefighting then clearly the CFA has no interest in natural assets, and no mandate to protect them from fire in the same passionate way it does private property? There seems no difference in approach or skill set by the CFA to that that would be exercised by urban fire brigades.

So why do we have a CFA? Professional fire brigades are expensive, whereas volunteers are cheap is the political answer!

On this basis, it is overdue for the CFA to be incorporated within the urban fire brigade structure. While this initial structural change won't save Victoria's vast tracts of wildlife habitat in the short term, it will sure will remove the false premise to the community that the CFA respects and defends natural wildlife habitats.

What does Victorian Government's Department of Sustainability and Environment have to say for itself? It is charged with the Promontory's protection.

See also: "Crews unable to slow Wilsons Promontory blaze" on ABC online on 17 Feb 09, "Huge blaze threatens the very heart of the Prom" in the Age of 19 Feb 09.

Immediately after the first record-breaking heat-wave in Victoria - before the major fires - the Coroner came out and said that the death rate had increased noticably. [1]

Illustration from an oil portrait by Sheila Newman of Barry Jones, Chairman of Australia's Population Carrying Capacity Inquiry, 1994

Government policies made Melbourne residents vulnerable to extreme weather.

Deaths from heat-related illness, with power-supply failures to homes relying on air-conditioners and fans as their sole means of cooling, and dry gardens exacerbating vulnerability to fire, can all be related to the push by three successive Victorian governments and two Federal governments to increase Australia's population numbers.

In Melbourne, the ambulance service responded to 1600 jobs a day, double the normal figure of 800.
Ambulance worker, Mr Holman said the heatwave's impact was sharpened by the loss of power, and therefore lack of air conditioning, in parts of the state and concern that some hospitals would have to be evacuated."[1]

The policy of increasing urban density also increased the intensity of urban activity, which creates heat.

The style of many new houses is antithetical to sensible architecture for Australia. The lack of eves or verandas runs counter to soundly-based local culture. Thin walls, big glass windows without shade and tiny tree-less concrete yards packed closely together provide little defense against direct sunlight or drying winds. The sealed surfaces absorb heat and give no opportunity for water or plants. Air-conditioners have become common. Unfortunately, they pour heat into the atmosphere, raising the temperature again. What other choice did some people living packed in badly designed mass-produced housing or cheap sub-standard accommodation in our overpriced rental-market have? And what chance did they have when the power-supply failed due to predictable and exploited for profit over-demand?

Other factors worsening our chances in Melbourne would be allowing the practice of moon-scaping, i.e. the removal of cooling trees to facilitate the construction of new housing estates. (One willow, for instance, has been described as "equivalent to 28 reverse cycle air conditioners. They absorb a tremendous amount of heat from the sun and convert it into cool moist air. At night, if the wind in not too strong all that moisture comes back down to earth and settles on the cool vegetation and warms the local climate. It won't happen if the ground is hot and barren....it doesn't rain too often on a desert." - Comment from farmer on Natural Sequence Farming forum) It is well-known that the soil loss entailed by moonscaping also releases enormous amounts of carbon contained in topsoil.

Predictable water scarcity with unfair restrictions could all have been avoided and were foreseen

And then there were the restrictions on using water to facilitate this much resented process of urban intensification. For, as various premiers kept on stating so cynically, we would not have enough water for the population growth if we did not cut back, cut back more, continue to cut back.

Even more cynically, state politicians gave the impression that they had no control over the population growth. And some of them (e.g. Steve Bracks) simultaneously pretended that deaths were outnumbering births, whilst stating that we had to have more houses for the growing population. This absurdity was allowed to go unchallenged on the ABC on Jon Faine's program.[2a] (Indeed, the ABC sounds more and more like a real-estate promoter.)

No slack was left in the system by people supposed to be professional planners!

The power failures and the water restrictions would not have been necessary if we had not increased our population beyond the capacity to supply Victorians with adequate and affordable power and water.

No slack was left in the system. Scientific caution and citizen welfare were jettisoned for pie-in-the-sky about "Future generations" and various spokespersons spoke in a mealy-mouthed way about virtuous reductions in personal water-use. Industry kept expanding its water-use at the same time, with little information available about this to the public.

Just before the heat-wave and the fires the State of the Environment Victoria Report came out, supposedly lambasting the government for our mutilated environment, and warning that human population growth was placing the greatest demand on this environment which sustains us, bringing us close to eco-collapse. However the Commissioner, Dr Ian McPhail, then gave the government the go-ahead to continue this insane growth. What is the responsibility of the Chairman and the participants in this report for business as usual and its consequences?

And then the Victorian ALP started to let Victorians know that the one million more people it had already dictated Melbourne citizens should submit to had overshot disasterously! At one stage Brumby mumbled something about perhaps we had had enough iimmigration - but never, at no stage, was reducing the rate of immigration allowed as a serious response. In Parliament the matter was treated. ridiculously, as one of 'too many guests invited to a BBQ' which we would all have to make welcome. Later, Brumby attempted to turn the dire situation of overloaded public transport during the petrol-price hikes to media advantage in Parliament, by boasting that more Victorians than ever were using public transport.

Even as late as 20 February, 2009, Federal Minister, Julia Gillard, was rejecting the idea of reducing our record high immigration in a half-dead economy. Then, on 26th of January, around 9.24am, Mr Brumby was asked by the populationist ABC radio announcer, Jon Faine, who was referring to loss of manufacturing jobs, "Do you think there should be cuts to immigration?"

Brumby- (pause and nervous cough- followed by approximately these words.)

"I said last year- we have been growing very fast the time is now to cruise along-not have our foot on the accelerator.
We don't need to increase immigration going forward. Our immigration figure in the last year was about 200,000
I say this number is about right for Australia."

So, who is responsible for power failures and water shortages and deaths from exposure to merciless heat in a city that has overshot its power and water supply? Who is responsible for the role that dessication of gardens may have played in the recent bushfires? Who is responsible for overshooting supply from the Thompson dam? Who is responsible for the empty recreational waters in numerous country towns, which could not pay the skyrocketing water-prices? Who is responsible for allowing community-built and paid-for public swimming pools to be closed down in hot suburbs like Sunshine, Footscray and country areas like Wodonga (several more examples) whilst nearby huge new housing estates privately franchised small indoor pools over which the community had no control?

And who paid the cost of these ridiculous and dangerous policies and turned a blind eye to their impact on democracy and survival in Melbourne and Victoria's towns?

What legal recourse do the families of the victims of imposed water and power shortages have?

What do the families of the victims of these dangerous and dictatorial policies have to say?
What costs can they demand from the government?
Who is responsible?

In my opinion, those who persistently, year after year, drove, promoted and marketed population growth are responsible. The authors of the Victorian government netsite inviting immigrants to come and live in Melbourne, the demographers who lent their 'expertise' to the growth lobby, and those media-presenters who always invite the pro-growthers to speak and make out that those who object to population growth are racists - thus frightening people from speaking up. Also those politicians and planners, and the policy reviewers, who resisted community objections, facilitating Melbourne 2030, and gave the impression that they had the authority to visit this burden upon us - and did - are responsible. They are all the more culpable for persisting year after year amid warnings of climate change. And what about those lobby groups, business-groups, and their representatives, who egged our governments on? (See:, /node/623, /node/569, /node/431, /node/421 - and more - for a rich source of suspects.)

High costs engineered and approved by government

The rising costs of necessities - notably power, water and shelter (homes) - is also related to demand, and this rising cost is another factor which discourages citizens from using enough water to keep their gardens moist, take baths and extra showers, or fill pools and ponds.

But the government has quasi-privatised power and water, which makes the situation so much worse. For instance the sector that provides power from electricity generators is now complaining that they cannot get bank-funding because of Rudd's mooted emissions trading plans. Why on earth did the government sell these generators off in the first place - leaving people hopelessly out of their depth in the private sector trying to make a profit from unsustainable fossil-fuel burning in the middle of a credit crunch, whilst the rest of us wait nervously for the next power failure? (See Annabel Hepworth, Katja Buhrer and Mathew Dunckley, "Climate plan hits power refinancing", Australian Financial Review, 25 February, 2009, p.1.)

Estimating water catchment capacity should be done with high and low rainfall records in mind, erring on the side of safety. This basic public health precaution has been completely ignored by government policy, which has done the opposite. And what has the government done about this engineered predicament? It is insisting on building a desalination plant in the middle of a closely-knit community, from which the transport of water over hundreds of kilometers, will require - MORE ELECTRICITY!

The government ministers, planners and economists involved in 'managing' our State's population overshoot of water and power supplies should be suspended from employment and publicly placed on trial for gross negligence towards Victorians' welfare, contributing to death and suffering.

Risk well-known last century and Danger signs obvious for more than 10 years

Victoria's Thompson Dam, which took ten years to fill, was once adequate for a population of around 15m people, which was the population of Australia in 1983, at the time of its completion.

It is not adequate now.

Between 15m and 21.5 million there were many chances to stop, but we were dragged onward by political desperados.

All Australian parliaments have had access to loads of information from scientists and historians that Australia would run into water-shortages if it grew its population past around 20 million people. The danger signs have been neon-lit for the past ten years. Changes to our climate already have reduced our carrying capacity and our economic viability (which both rely on our environment). Nothing we have done, no technology, has succeeded in reversing this process.

Vast body of literature on Australia's limited population capacity has been ignored at our peril by government

Taylor (1880-1963) argued that Australia could never support more than 65 million people due to its biophysical limitations. He later amended this to 20 million, assuming much higher per capita living standards. Not only does Taylor seem to have been the first to publish the connection between population numbers and affluence (consumption) against the background of local biophysical characteristics and constraints, but he eerily predicted the likely population of Australia as no more than 20 million in the year 2000.[2]

It was not until 1968 [a date coinciding with the release of Ehrlich's Population Explosion], that Australia's huge post-War immigration program began to be questioned in the light of its contribution to population growth and environmental impact.

Subsequently, between 1975 and 1994, there were seven national enquiries and reports which purported to or actually did examine the population question within the scientific context of environmental impact. Five were The National Population Enquiry (Borrie Report) 1975, which paid lip service only, The National Population Council Report 1992, which recommended a population policy; between 1990 and 1992, The National Greenhouse Response Strategy and The National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development, which identified nine elements of a population policy consistent with ecologically sustainable development;[3a] and The Ahrlburg Report 1994, on the foreign aid implications of the economic impact of unrestricted population growth.

The Australian movement, Australians for an Ecologically Sustainable Population, which tried to have a scientifically-based philosophy, was formed in 1988. In 1994 an Australian Academy of Science symposium recommended early population stabilization on ecological, economic and quality of life grounds. The Australian scientific research center, CSIRO, began the 'Ecumene project,' an internationally-linked population modeling and projection study using environmental and economic data (discontinued by the Howard Government). In that same year Tim Flannery published his Australian best seller, The Future Eaters,[4] a scientific work on the ecological and economic evolution of Oceanic countries, which advocates a long term goal for Australia of between six and twelve million people.

Also in 1994 the Australian Population "Carrying Capacity" Report,[3]the "Jones Report" - chaired by Barry Jones), was published. More than 90 percent of submissions, including those from Aboriginal organizations, argued against population growth. The Inquiry's inspired recommendation was to separate political and administrative responsibility for population and immigration (to avoid contamination with racial issues). Immigration intake should become an instrument of population policy, rather than population policy a "long term side effect of ad hoc immigration policy."

The (then) Labor government, with Senator Bolkus heading immigration and ethnic affairs (who had promised the ethnic vote to the Prime Minister of the day, by favoring family reunion and a high migration program), could not deal with the "Jones" report. The Chairman Barry Jones was also the national president of the Labor Party. All hell threatened to break loose if the matter was put to parliamentary debate. An election was imminent. In the interests of Labor's return to power it was decided to keep a lid on the issues for fear of losing the ethnic vote. Jones expressed his opinion that the environmental vote would easily compensate for the ethnic vote, but failed to convince the Prime Minister.

In September 1995 the Government published its response to the 1994 United Nations International Conference on Population and Development. This reactionary document was the work of the Department of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. It was also the Labor government's only reference to the matter of national population policy, which it rejected as too controversial. Other issues raised at Cairo were dealt with in a superficial manner and with only token reference to the environmental connection.

In March 1996 the Labor government was resoundingly voted out of power.

The Howard Government which followed came in partly because voters thought it less likely to rely on high immigration and practices like ethnic branch-stacking, which were disorganising the democratic organisation and representation of communities. Initially the Howard Government placed emphasis on skilled immigration as a means of 'controlling the numbers'. Unfortunately, after the Bracks Government "Melbourne Population Summit, " the Federal Government appeared to cave into the mass of pressure by developer-aligned media to raise immigration. The Howard Government raised immigration to the highest levels ever known and made these very difficult to estimate by dismantling the statistical series which Australia had kept since first settlement (a nearly unique credential for our country.)

After the Howard Government lost power, Rudd's labor government came in with the 2050 summit, which, in guise of a debate, guided the marketing of more policies to increase more rapidly Australia's population.

Do not for a minute think that the State Governments of Australia had no control over this. The opposite is true; the majority redefined their states and even their cities, as 'regions in need of immigration' - a terminology previously reserved for country areas. The Treasurer, Mr Lenders, once said that he didn't think that it was the job of government to determine how big Melbourne grew. Yet that is exactly what the Victorian State Government has been doing.

All these politicians responsible for growing our population had the information at their fingertips that what they were doing was dangerous. But they went ahead against every public and private objection.

Indeed, my own predictions are right on course, with more horror to go if we keep on growing our population. Please read them for it can only get worse.

Behind all this was the Growth Lobby and I think it is reasonable to say that this lobby has taken control of every level of government in Australia. That is not to say that the government has lost control of policy, it means that the Government is now indistiguishable from the Growth Lobby. WE have lost control of it. Commodification of everything and speculation on population-fed inflation and scarcity has been normalised - by the media and by those whom the media have allowed the publicity to have a good chance at entering parliament.

This is why it is so important for you to support alternative media like candobetter and to assist independents to run for government. I draw your attention now, for instance, to the fact that James Sinnamon, the owner of Candobetter, is running for State Government as an independent in Queensland for the election scheduled in less than 4 weeks time. We need lots of independents in every state. We also need lots of help with candobetter, which is entirely voluntary.

Notes:

[1] http://www.theage.com.au/national/heatwave-left-hundreds-dead-20090221-8ea4.html?page=-1 Heatwave left hundreds dead Melissa Fyfe, The Age February 22, 2009:

"January's brutal heatwave may have killed 100 Melburnians - and more than 200 people across south-eastern Australia - an ``invisible tragedy'' now the subject of investigations by the Department of Human Services and the Coroner's Office. "A Monash University analysis of the event in late January - when temperatures rose above 43 degrees for three consecutive days - indicates the heatwave claimed hundreds of lives across Victoria, South Australia and northern Tasmania.

Ambulance Victoria operations manager Paul Holman said the service went into major disaster mode during the heatwave and was busier than at any other time in the service's history, including during the bushfires.

In Melbourne, the ambulance service responded to 1600 jobs a day, double the normal figure of 800.
``People have forgotten about the heatwave, but it had more of an effect on us than the bushfires,'' Mr Holman said.
``We did more jobs in those four days than we had ever done before.'' Mr Holman said the heatwave's impact was sharpened by the loss of power, and therefore lack of air conditioning, in parts of the state and concern that some hospitals would have to be evacuated."
"Data from the Coroner's Office reveals that his figures are probably too conservative. Deaths reported to the Coroner during the heatwave were 2.5 times more than at the same time last year."
"The Alfred hospital reported a 70 per cent rise in admissions, with many patients arriving in the days after the heatwave suffering cumulative effects.""

[2a] Jill Quirk of Sustainable Population Australia, Victorian Branch, wrote to Faine and to Bracks about this, but was not offered a spot on Faine's program to counter the dangerous misinformation and never received a reply from Mr Bracks, former Premier of Victoria. Mr Faine suggested that she try to ring up and put this as an informal comment, unplanned and unassisted, to his show.

[2] T.G.Taylor, 1922, "The Distribution of Future White Settlement," Geographic Review, 10[12] 375-402 and T.G. Taylor, 1937, Environment, Race and Migration, Toronto UP, Toronto.

[3a] "Jones Report," (See note [3]) p.12
[3] Australian Population "Carrying Capacity Report" - One Nation, Two Ecologies, AGP, 1994, p.8. Chaired by Senator Barry Jones, and known herein as the "Jones Report."

[4] 35 Tim Flannery, The Future Eaters, Reed Books, 1994. (Flannery occupied the Chair of Australian Studies at Harvard University in 1998.)

A Gunns' woodchip mill at Longreach in Tasmania

Is the final nail in the coffin for the proposed Gunn’s Tasmanian pulp-mill an economic one?

Tasmanian mills are closing down left, right and centre.

In
“Gunns shuts chip mills”, The MercuryFeb 20, 2009, Nick Clark reports,

“The Long Reach mill will shutdown next week and every Friday until the end of April. The Triabunna mill is closed from midnight tonight until March 9. After that it is closed for a series of Fridays as well as the week of April 10-17. The Hampshire mill at Burnie has had an additional week shutdown added next week and a four day week until the end of April. Tasmania Forest Contractors Association chairman Rodney Bishop said some contractors were carrying as little as 40 per cent of their normal quota.”

Japan doesn't want woodchips now due to the downturn and dropping paper and packaging sales. But, the Japanese company, Nippon, has just bought the Latrobe Valley's Paperlinx factory. It seems like a very risky purchase - even if they got it dirt cheap.

A Buyer’s market or a Fire-sale?

Or is this the same buyer’s market that sees the Chinese making offers for Australian mines, caught in the downturn after overly leveraging on projected growth?

Australians should keep our opportunistic government and Foreign Investment Review Board vigilant not to give in to a fire-sale here. Closing down these unviable industries is what should happen. It should have happened in the 1860s. Let’s encourage these refractory industries to invest in the health of forests by leaving them alone.

Ominous move on Victoria’s protected water catchments

Paperlinx at Maryvale lost a huge chunk of it's 'resource' (trees) in the Victorian bush-fires. At the same time there has been a renewed push by the logging lobbyists to get into Melbourne's catchments, which have been closed to them up until now.
The move to get into our last few protected water catchments is ominous and should not be granted by government.

Victorians should be vigilant about any claims by the logging industry that they are performing a social service of salvage logging and making these areas more accessible for fire trucks.

No fire-sales please

We already know that the worst hit areas in the fires were the logged and wood-chipped ones. On that basis, to let the loggers in to relatively intact forest would be tantamount to increasing Victoria’s fire danger.
Keep an eye on this one and scream loud and long if you get the chance.

Illustration by Gustave Doré for of Jean de la Fontaine's fable of La Mort et le bûcheron

Wood-chip prices way down

On Saturday, February 21, 2009, the Daily Timber News announced a significant down-turn in the wood-chip industry. Defenders of biodiverse old-growth forests are watching closely as events unfold. It is of course not pleasant for people employed in the industry.

Apparently the Japanese pulp industry, up to now faithful through thick and thin, is losing its appetite for pulp. Last year (2008) Australia supplied Japan with the most hardwood chips (36%) in a year when Japan imported “a record 12.3 million BDMT's of hardwood chips”, according to the Daily Timber News.

Surprisingly, the Daily Timber News links the fall in wood-chip imports to the fall in production of “cars, machine tools, electronic goods and mobile phones.”

How so?

Well, all these products “require thick paper manuals,” the report explains.

A number of Japanese pulp mills have substantially interrupted their production. New technology may also be a factor, and the recycling of fibers. [Ed. Does this refer to wood-fiber or something more durable, since wood-fibers are short and recycle poorly?]

Demand may also fall dramatically from China. The industry was anticipating strong growth there because of plans to build more pulp mills and increase capacity in those already built, but these plans are now on hold.

Where to now?

People concerned about the destruction of forests are hopeful that the industry may give up on wood-chipping now. There is a conference coming up which will look at “investigating the possibility of timber concerns investing in the carbon-offsetting trading,” in the light of these declining trends in softwood and hardwood woodchip trading.

The woodchip industry is now facing a huge drop in prices for its chips. It has always operated at a net financial cost to Australians, many of whom have wondered why on earth it has continued for so long. Will the State governments that have for so long protected the woodchip industry try to make Australians pay even more to keep it going? Seasoned conservationists are probably waiting until the fat lady sings.

About the illustration

The illustration by Gustave Doré for of Jean de la Fontaine's 17th century fable of La Mort et le bûcheron (Death and the Woodcutter) might be peculiarly apt. The poem is about an ancient woodchopper, bent over under a huge burden of wood. He is on his way home to his filthy hut and every step is agony; not only from the weight of the wood on his back, but from the weight of his years. Overwhelmed by his problems, he drops his load of wood on the ground and contemplates his sorry predicament. Unable to pay taxes, he must harbour soldiers; he often cannot afford a loaf of bread; he must toil endlessly for his wife and children; he cannot remember any happiness since he came into the world. He decides to call Death for a final solution to his problems. Death comes as soon as She is called, and asks, "What do you need me to do?"

At this question, surprisingly, the Woodcutter says, "I want you to help me lift up this load of wood and get it on my back again. Don't worry, I won't keep you here long."

The moral of this poem is that humans usually prefer to go on doing the same thing, despite the suffering it causes them, than to change. One would hope this were not so for the woodchipping industry.

La Mort et le bûcheron

Un pauvre Bûcheron tout couvert de ramée,
Sous le faix du fagot aussi bien que des ans
Gémissant et courbé marchait à pas pesants,
Et tâchait de gagner sa chaumine enfumée.
Enfin, n'en pouvant plus d'effort et de douleur,
Il met bas son fagot, il songe à son malheur.
Quel plaisir a-t-il eu depuis qu'il est au monde ?
En est-il un plus pauvre en la machine ronde ?
Point de pain quelquefois, et jamais de repos.
Sa femme, ses enfants, les soldats, les impôts,
Le créancier, et la corvée
Lui font d'un malheureux la peinture achevée.
Il appelle la mort, elle vient sans tarder,
Lui demande ce qu'il faut faire
C'est, dit-il, afin de m'aider
A recharger ce bois ; tu ne tarderas guère.
Le trépas vient tout guérir ;
Mais ne bougeons d'où nous sommes.
Plutôt souffrir que mourir,
C'est la devise des hommes.

Originally published on www.seashepherd.org. The Sea Shepherd Conservation Society ship Steve Irwin arrived in Hobart, Tasmania at 1700 Hours on February 20th. The ship was met at dockside by a party of Federal Australian Police officers who boarded the Steve Irwin with a warrant. The warrant authorized the seizing of "all edited and raw video footage, all edited and raw audio recordings, all still photographs, producer's notes, interview transcripts, production meeting minutes, post production meeting minutes as well as the ship's log books, global positioning system records, automatic radar plotting aid, purchase records, receipts, financial transaction records, voyage information and navigational plotted charts." The Animal Planet series Whale Wars was very embarrassing to the Japanese government and the Japanese whaling industry in 2008. Japan does not wish to see the airing of the second season of Whale Wars and is putting as much diplomatic pressure on Australia as they possibly can to prevent further exposure of their illegal whaling operations in the Southern Ocean. "I wish that the Australian government would apply the same "diplomatic" pressure on Japan to end their illegal whaling operations," said Captain Paul Watson. "The Rudd government was elected on a promise to take the Japanese whaling industry to court for their illegal whaling activities. Now they seem to be more interested in taking Sea Shepherd to court for our efforts to intervene against illegal whaling operations." Captain Paul Watson said he would welcome a trial. "We have to start somewhere so it may as well be by taking me to court. Let us get the evidence on the table and although a trial against Sea Shepherd and myself may not allow the introduction of evidence about Japan's illegal whaling operations, it at least will give us the forum to present our evidence. Let's see the Australian government bring the Japanese whale killers to Australia to bear witness against Sea Shepherd and Animal Planet and let's see them appear as witnesses for the government of Australia that professes to be against whaling." "It's a very one-sided affair," continued Captain Watson. "The Japanese ships have not been boarded by the Australian Federal Police; they have not had their video and navigational data confiscated. They have not been questioned nor will they be, yet they violently attacked my ship and crew in the Southern Ocean. Does the law only go to bat for those who destroy nature's creation? Are we about to see the ultimate kangaroo court where Sea Shepherd will be legally crucified because the Australian government has not lived up to their promise of taking the whale killers to court? The truth is that we would not have to be in the Southern Ocean defending the whales if the governments of the world would simply enforce the international conservation treaties they once so proudly signed into law. Without enforcement there is no law - just ecological anarchy." Captain Watson said he had no complaints about the Australian Federal Police. "They were very professional and polite and they were doing their job in carrying out the orders of the government." "We have quite the year ahead of us," continued Captain Watson. "We need to repair damages to the Steve Irwin, we need to secure a second and faster vessel, and we need to be prepared to return to the Southern Ocean again at the end of the year to defend whales. If need be we will be in court to answer to charges of defending endangered whales in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary and to this we proudly plead guilty."

#LastStand" id="LastStand">The last stand for Tweed Coast koalas - our local heritage and icon at stake!

The Tweed Shire has abundant World Heritage areas and has the highest biodiversity of vertebrates in Australia - more than Kakadu National Park - due to abundant rainfall and rich volcanic soil from Mount Warning.

Kings Forest is a 2,000 + acres (880 hectares) parcel of land that contains critical habitat for the second largest colony of koalas on the Tweed Koala Coast (i.e. 145 to 175 koalas) out of a total of 300 koalas (see map). This is a very significant colony. There are a total of 22 endangered species of animals on this land and hundreds of endangered flora (scribbly gum and rare heathland).

There is currently a proposal by Mr Bob Ell, Executive Chairman, Leda Holdings, GPO Box 2522, SYDNEY NSW 200 before State government to develop the following on this land:

• residential development of 4,500 houses (dogs and cats permitted)
• aged care facility and/or retirement living
• educational facilities (pre-school, primary schools, high school)
• village centre
• church
• service station
• golf course and club house
• neighbourhood centre
• regional community facility
• four-lane boulevard

#ThreatsToSurvival" id="ThreatsToSurvival">What threatens koalas' survival?

The biggest killers of koalas (in order of impact) are:

1. habitat destruction
2. cars
3. dogs

All three threats would be present on this development, in addition to others. Felled trees would not only cause loss of habitat for koalas but also loss of koalas' food source. Revegetation of these eucalypt species would take at least five to ten years.

#WildlifeCorridors" id="WildlifeCorridors">Koala-friendly wildlife corridors

Additionally, the plan includes a golf course, a four-lane road and bicycle paths to interface with the wildlife corridor for koalas who move on foot from tree to tree.

There are no koala-proof fences planned around the roads or overpasses/underpasses to prevent koalas from running onto the roads. This would be disastrous for the koalas and would lead to their local extinction.

Already the koala populations on the Tweed are highly fragmented due to lack of interconnecting wildlife corridors. Without a healthy gene pool their species will become weaker and sicker. This is may be the only healthy koala population in NSW. Other populations of koalas die from disease and weak immunity.

Golf courses spray pesticides, herbicides and fungicides that can be carcinogenic, neurotoxic, and mutagenic, affecting immunity and reproduction of koalas who could inhale and also tread in these toxins. Also fertilisers will kill native species of flora.

World koala experts say that when you reduce habitat and food sources to koalas, their numbers will reduce, so if this goes, all koalas go.

Since pockets of koala habitat occur throughout this area, removing pockets will have a major impact on the colony. Although 50% of the koala population are female, none of them have any sign of breeding due to the stress of logging in the area.

#DistributionMap" id="DistributionMap">Koala distribution map for the tweed shire (crosses):-

www.tweed.nsw.gov.au/stpuweb/koala.htm

#UnsafeHumanHabitat" id="UnsafeHumanHabitat">Unsafe human habitat

Due to the high fire-risk nature of the area with so many native trees, this development is very risky for human habitation. Every house would need trees cleared around it, trees that are habitat and a food source for the koalas thus significantly impacting endangered species. This would breach the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act of 1999 (EPBC Act). Furthermore, this is low-lying land prone to floods and close to the coast in the event of rising sea levels.

In summary, this proposal is an ecological disaster for the Tweed Shire.

#Extinct By2020" id="Extinct By2020">Koalas extinct by 2020?

There are estimated to be less than 100,000 koalas remaining in Australia, considerably less due to the recent disastrous Victorian bush fires and Queensland floods.

It is incumbent on us to protect those koalas and endangered species remaining not only for our growing tourism industry but for future generations. Currently, Koalas are predicted to become extinct in the wild by 2020.

Considering we are in the Sixth Mass Extinction of all species, it is imperative that we understand that human survival depends on biodiversity.

See also: "Kings Forest Development threatens 21 Threatened Species of Fauna" on Blue Cray of 28 Feb 09.

#HowYouCanHelp" id="HowYouCanHelp">How you can help

Please write to:

The Director
Coastal Assessments
Department of Planning
GPO Box 39
Sydney NSW 2001
(02)92-285-811
[email protected]

The General Manager
cc The Councillors
PO Box 816
Muwillumbah NSW 2484
email [email protected]
(02)66-702-400.

Deadline: March 2, 2009 (post-dated on envelope)

"Think Globally, Act Locally"

Dear friends of Earth,

Australians everywhere are devastated at the terrible bush fires in Victoria and flooding in Qld. An estimated one million native animals have been incinerated in the infernos, although the true total could be many times more. The surviving animals will be left to starve or die from injuries, heat stroke or dehydration. We have seen the photos of desperate koalas stopping cyclists on the road for a drink from their water bottles, clambering over fences and drinking from people's swimming pools, dog bowls and watering cans. Koalas nation-wide will now number considerably less than 100,000 thanks to these fires and floods.

With the worst record in the world of wildlife extinctions, having driven 40% of our native animals extinct in a mere 220 years, isn't it time, once and for all, that the Australian government stopped allowing the killing of our so called 'protected' native animals, most of whom are suffering from the following major threats:

1. drought
2. climate change
3. habitat destruction from developers and livestock farmers
4. bushfires
5. flooding
6. farmer kills
7. illegal kills
8. roadkill
9. illegal wildlife trade
10. diseases caused by man
11. polluted air, soil and water
12. the 'bush tucker' trade
13. sports hunters
14. government 'culls'

We call on the government of Australia to protect our native animals in the following ways:-

a) Impose an immediate moratorium on the killing of ALL native animal species (except where it's in the best interest of an animal such as in the case of wounding/disease).

b) Immediately revoke all licences for nuisance killing or sports killing.

c) Increase the penalty for deliberately killing a native animal and to include jail time.

d) Mandate that motor vehicles be installed with 'Shu-Roo' type sonic devices to alert wildlife of the approach of vehicles on country roads.

e) For all development proposals to include appropriate wildlife corridors for the species who live there.

f) To increase expenditure for wildlife corridors to be created where native roadkill consistently occurs.

g) Offer substantial subsidies for livestock farmers to transition from cattle and sheep farming operations to grain and vegetable operations, which do not require constant deforestation to create more grazing lands. Much of the dryness of our country, and therefore propensity to bush fires, is due to livestock farming since cattle and sheep pull out the roots of grasses then compact the soil and cause soil erosion, deserts, droughts and climate change. It's time to move away from this destructive industry and help people transition to a plant-based diet for the sake of our nation.

h) Close down the 'bush tucker' trade completely, especially the kangaroo meat and leather industry. Kangaroo populations have plummeted up to 70% nationwide due to drought and excess killing by the commercial kangaroo industry. The average age of commercially killed kangaroos is only 2-3 years, barely reproductive age. More than 50% of kangaroos killed are females - a recipe for extinction and certainly not 'sustainable.' (see www.stopkangarookilling.org )

i) Create an information sheet highlighting the many ways that kangaroos help prevent bushfires such as by eating the dry grasses that ignite easily in bush fires and by regenerating native grasses by eating the seeds and then migrating to other areas before depositing them into the soil via their stool. Kangaroos are beneficial to our ecosystem in many ways. They do not compact the soil and they help plant many seeds by creating indentations in the soil for seeds to fall into. They also need very little water to drink.

j) Use the media to dispel the widely-held myths that kangaroos are in 'plague proportions' and 'pests.' Since there are more than 5 times as many sheep as there are kangaroos and more cows than kangaroos and about the same number of people, it is hardly fair to call refer to kangaroos as in 'plagues' or 'abundant' and to use that to justify killing them. Also there is no scientific study proving that kangaroos compete with sheep or wheat fields.

k) Develop new methods for people to live in harmony with wildlife so there is no need for governments to 'cull' them. Perhaps where absolutely necessary initiate contraceptive measures or skilfully relocate them.

l) Above all, cease referring to native animals as 'resources to be sustainably harvested.' There is no more sustainability in killing our wildlife, especially our iconic animals.

m) Immediately disband the FATE program established by UNSW which pays farmers to allow shooters to come onto their property and kill native animals for a profit.

n) Tourists come from all over the world to see our amazing native animals and are disappointed to only find them in zoos. Since our tourism industry is suffering financially, creating eco-tourism (possibly employing former shooters and/or local farmers to become tourist guides) would do a lot to stimulate our economy and also go far in re-establishing our current abysmal international reputation for eating our national emblems and for the fact that we conduct the largest slaughter of wildlife on the planet.

We are running out of time. Without biodiversity, we will all perish!

May Australia not be the first country in the world to have all its native animals extinct during this period of the 6th Mass Extinction of all species.

Kicking the immigration-fix

The ABC reports that
Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard has rejected a push for a big cut in Australia's migration intake (20 February 2009), despite "Research from Monash University demographer Bob Birrell [which] says the Government's economic rescue package will not save jobs unless the migration intake is cut by two-thirds."

The ABC describes Ms Gillard as having rejected the research, saying there is still a need for skilled migrants.

"We've made some recent changes so that we are taking skilled migrants who have jobs," she claimed, insisting that, "(...) even in today's economic circumstances there are still some parts of our nation where people are crying out for skilled labour, and we have the migration system to assist with that."

Let's see, Gillard believes that there are still some parts of the nation that desperately need skilled labour. Maybe so, but do they "still" need (as if they ever really did), an imported labor force and all its family members coming in annually at a higher rate than ever before, equivalent to the population of a small, rapidly growing city each year? And what do we do with the newly unemployed when these immigrant-demanding businesses go bust?

Politically addicted to unsustainable immigration; any excuse will do

I'm afraid that Ms Gillard sounds to me as if she is more interested in satisfying the demands of the property development and finance industry (which have driven our economy and democracy into the ground) than in serving her constituents (the broad population of Australia) and looking after our long-term welfare.

As candobetter commentator, Greg Wood, rails, "Can someone get Gillard to specify where the skills shortage is now that the resources industry and construction industry are beginning to majorly shed jobs?

Who pays for this costly habit?

While they are at it, can they also ask how increasingly unemployed and under-employed Australians are going to pay the pressure-cooked urban rentals that her lackey Government seems intent upon trying to prop up?"

Update: Immigration Minister Chris Evans 'expects' skilled immigration numbers to drop 'next year' due to the global economic crisis. See "Australia to cut skilled immigration" in the Age of 23 Feb 09

Book Review

A. Peter Klimley, The Secret life of Sharks, Simon & Schuster, New York, 2003.

“There was a massive procession of whales and fish passing by us and moving in the direction of Seamount Espiritu Santo. The first in this animal parade were twenty or so pilot whales. Then came a crescent-shaped formation of dolphin-fish. Then followed a large school of tuna. Were we privileged to be witnessing the slow migration of this whole assemblage toward its next destination, Espiritu Santo? Could this massive assemblage of whales and fishes be using the magnetic lineation on the seafloor below to guide its procession?” Peter Klimley, The Secret Life of Sharks, p.125.

Ichthyologist (fish scientist) Peter Klimley has an ethologist’s eye for communities in the sea. His book describes his own research into shark behaviour, particularly into schooling habits, communication, and navigation methods of particular species. The navigation methods are mind-spinningly different from our own. Klimley concentrates on the navigation skills of schools of hammerhead sharks in the Gulf of Mexico (more below). This focus also leads him to observe ecological communities on the move along the same lines, in the extraordinary procession of whales and fish described above, moving between geological saliences where plant species and therefore fish, aggregate.

Repairing the damage from Benchley's Jaws

When I was about 9 years old, my favorite book - long lost - was by Jeannie Lewis, My life as an ichthyologist. This was a rollicking tale of a woman's adventurous career amid the brightly coloured waters of the South Seas. It was illustrated with perky drawings of kinky little animals, like trigger-fish. It also described strange legends of frogs and stones falling from the sky into thatched huts, and revealed some secret women's business.

I wanted to be an ichthyologist because of it, but unfortunately I read Peter Benchley's Jaws Doubleday & Company, NY, 1974, which almost ruined my enjoyment of swimming in the sea. I now see it as a book about developers taking over a town and corrupting its government, but the scene where a huge serrated man-trap silently surges up beneath the slightly drunk swimmer, has imprinted my mind indelibly.

To cope with this after-image of human swimmers as shark cocktails, I have tried to learn more about sharks.

Seeing fish as individuals

What made me buy Peter Klimley's scientifically rich Secret Life of Sharks, as I riffled through its pages in a Brisbane store that markets remaindered books, was noticing how the author made a personal connection with one of the sharks he studied. He had taken Huey, a foot-long baby grey nurse, from the 'Shark Channel' in the Miami Seaquarium, because he felt sorry for him, knowing his certain fate was to be eaten by other sharks in the Channel. The author also has a strong aesthetic sense of nature.

"One day, I couldn't restrain myself from scooping one up in a dip net to keep in an aquarium above my desk at the marine laboratory. The baby shark that I held in my hands was very attractive. It was brown with alternating dark and light bands, each of which merged into the other with a gradual shift in the hue of its color. Speckling his body were small green iridescent spots. Both the bands and spots would gradually disappear as he grew up. Protruding from the forward edge of his nostrils were long barbels. These gave the foot-long nurse shark, whom I named Huey, a comical touch.

Klimley takes the reader on amazing journeys

Klimley is able to take the reader to some amazing places and share with us some unique experiences, such as feeling as if we are also looking up at the sun-silhouetted bodies of sharks above us in the gulf of Mexico. Another strength of this book lies in the author’s skill in relating clearly, but in an interesting and useful way, the details of his experimental work measuring, testing and describing the behaviour of the creatures he swims amongst. We are introduced to a variety of scientific fields and their application in real life. We also get a good picture of the behaviour of the teams of human observers and neighboring fishermen, of the techniques, skills and the risks required to do unusual tasks in unusual environments.

Routine feats of endurance

Feats of endurance were routinely required in much of this marine field-work. These are interesting for the scope they reveal in human performance, especially that of young men, for instance doing repeated free dives to around 100 feet below in order to tag hammerheads. On one occasion, in another situation, the author notices a colleague becoming disoriented and clumsy from fatigue, whilst swimming against a current in choppy waters, and he comments on how unconscious competition between himself and the other swimmer probably contributed to this.

Shark attacks described in accumulated detail

Klimley describes a shark attack on a collegue in the same way he describes shark attacks on seals and other prey. The account is humbling because it is totally unjudgemental, unanthropocentric. (The diver survived.) This doesn’t mean that the author has no feelings for his colleages, for he reveals a strong and appropriate concern in many situations. The difference is that this account falls into a range of accounts from scientific observation of many many feeding behaviours over a period of time off the coast of a remote island where Great White sharks made their living. We are also grateful to learn what turns sharks on and what doesn’t, and the posture they display when they feel challenged.

Klimley outlines his hypotheses and then instructively describes the problems he encounters looking for ways to test these. Any student would benefit from these descriptions. The author shows versatility and breadth in his scientific knowledge, particularly of earth physics.

Stunning findings on undersea animal navigation

Perhaps the most stunning research he describes are his findings on the use of magnetic lineation on the sea-floor to navigate. In this he demonstrates a huge new dimension to life. He shows that some sharks and other sea-creatures have senses which we humans, and most terrestrial animals simply don't suspect exist. He verifies this sensory world through painstakingly devised techniques to measure, repeat, record and locate patterns of behaviour in individuals in hammerhead schools near the Espiritu Santu Seamount in the south western coast of Mexico. He repeats his measurements at night.

"[Salmon] were certainly skilled navigators, but the scalloped hammerheads might be even better: they made nightly migrations far out into the featureless ocean and were able to find the seamount every morning. (…) There was simply no light to guide the shark … Yet she was swimming away from the seamount in a perfectly straight line."

Klimley describes the different forms of magnetization: "The total magnetic field measured at the earth’s surface is the sum of two magnetic sources, the earth’s inner core and its outer crust. Circulation of electrically conductive molten metals in the earth’s core creates the [very strong dipolar magnetic fields of the (…) north and south poles. (…)"

The author explains that magnetic minerals (oxides of iron and titanium) produce smaller dipolar magnetic patterns on the earth, including undersea. Because of the volcanic origin of underwater mountains you often get such dipolar patterns in different locations on the same sea-mount because the north-south poles reversed their polarity between one eruption and the next. This means that the magnetic particles in those eruptions remain aligned according to the prevailing polarity of the north-south poles at the time of eruption.

30 years of diving with sharks tells us another story about ourselves.

People should not be surprised to hear that, as this story of one man's study of sharks is told, over a period of about 30 years, between the early 1970s and the beginning of the 21st century, the numbers of sharks decline markedly.

Sharks are threatened by human predation because it takes them a long time to mature reproductively and they are often taken by fishing well before they reproduce.

Handy tips to avoid the sharp end of sharks

There are many handy tips for those of us concerned to avoid being on a shark's menu.

Here are some humorous ones I have synthesised from Klimley's more sober observations:

Keep your fat to muscle ratio low: To generalize over shark-species, they seem to prefer prey with high fat-content, and will frequently spit humans out because their fat-content compares poorly with preferred prey, such as seals.

Perfect your killer-whale vocalisations: Several shark species have been shown to react with extreme fear to the sound of an orca’s vocalizations.

Wear black and white swimsuits: In some of his early interactions with sharks, Dr Klimley adapted his wetsuit and wore a fin to make himself look like a killer whale (orca) and some species of sharks in certain circumstances made themselves scarce when they saw him. Perhaps this idea might inspire some swimsuit and wet-suit fashion designers.

A. Peter Klimley is an associate professor at the University of Davis, California https://wfcb.ucdavis.edu/www/faculty/Pete
[24reads-to-edit smn]

Rupert Murdoch never misses an opportunity to preach to his captive Australian audience that this country must continue rapid immigration-driven population growth.

He usually does so through his media outlets controlled by editors who apparently know instinctively what their master wants the Australian public to think. On other occasions he will do so in person, as he recently did on the occasion of a dinner in honor of immigrant Frank Lowy:

"'In my recent Boyer Lectures I spoke of the importance to Australia's future of a liberal immigration system,' Mr Murdoch said.

"'Few other Australians embody the breadth of achievement or the contribution to Australia's prosperity made by immigrants in this country than Frank Lowy.'"

One of Frank Lowy's more visible contributions to Australia has been the erection, by his Westfield Corporation, of massive sprawling shopping mall complexes in almost every substantial urban agglomeration in this country. Rupert Murdoch evidently fears that, if Australia's current record immigrant influx is not maintained, future generations of Australians will not be able to enjoy equivalent contributions from the potential Frank Lowy's that would be prevented from coming here.

In one of his Boyer Lectures referred to in his speech, Rupert Murdoch stated:

"In my view, Australians should not worry because other people want to come to our country. The day to worry is when immigrants are no longer attracted to our shores."

A possibility not acknowledged by Rupert Murdoch is that overcrowding this country may be precisely what will eventually make this country unattractive to immigrants, or, indeed, to people already living here. This was implicitly acknowledged in an editorial of 18 March 2008 "Queensland faces a tougher job on regional development", which stated_#main-fn1">1:

"... much of (Queensland's) growth comprises city refugees making a sea change ..."

If high immigration is as beneficial as Rupert Murdoch insists, why is it that so many of Australians need to flee from the cities into which most immigrants have settled?

The story "English expats make Moreton the only Bay in the village" in Rupert Murdoch's Courier Mail newspaper of 10 January 2009 states:

ESCAPING the overpopulated boroughs of the UK, British immigrants are moving to Brisbane's bayside suburbs, creating their own Little Britain by the Bay."

In the story one women stated, "I would never raise my kids back in England." Another stated " Back in the UK, five-year-olds ... don't know how to play any more."

The overcrowding of both England and the larger southern cities of Australia are precisely the consequence of governments having accepted similar such gratuitous advice in the past from the likes of Rupert Murdoch.

As a consequence, not only have living conditions become intolerable for many, but our very capacity to sustain any sizable population in the longer term, is under threat by runaway population growth brought about to satisfy the insatiable short-term greed of the property speculators and related concerns, whose interests Rupert Murdoch's media promotes.

This article originated from a post to an Online Opinion discussion in response to the article "What's wrong with 'Islamophobia'" of 23 Dec 08.

See also: "English expats make Moreton the only Bay in the village" in the Courier Mail of 10 Jan 09, "Rupert Murdoch urges Aust to open door to migrants" in the Courier Mail of 5 Feb 09, "Honour for Frank Lowy, king of the malls" in the Australian of 6 Feb 09, "How the growth lobby threatens Australia's future" of 24 Jan 09 (also published on Online Opinion with forum discussion).#CopyrightProblems" id="CopyrightProblems">Note: None of the Murdoch newspaper articles, linked to in this paragraph, were available online when I checked just now on 25 Mar 11. However, when I used the title "Rupert Murdoch urges Aust to open door to migrants" (omitting quotes) in a Google search, I found an article with the same title on a site which is openly touting immigration to Australia, www.liveinaustralia.com. Whether it was a straight copy or based on the original, now removed, article in the Courier-Mail it did not say. It seems that important historical documents that could well embarrass some powerful vested interests can no longer be directly cited on the Internet. Many, who would like to retain such records for future reference may not be able to legally do so legally, because of copyright laws. Perhaps it should be made a condition of granting copyright that the owners of the copyrighted work undertake to preserve the work and on-line access to it at least until such time as anyone, who had expressed to the copyright owner interest in having a copy of the work, had been given an opportunity to obtain his/her own copy. If the person seeking copyright is not prepared to give such an undertaking then copyright should be refused. The disappearance from the Internet of articles, cited by me in this article, has driven me to write another article, How copyright laws obstruct the preservation of historically important documents on 26 Mar 11.

Footnotes

#main-fn1" id="main-fn1">1. #main-fn1-txt">↑ See "The Australian laments outcome of Queensland local government elections" of 30 Mar 08. URL of original editorial unknown.

Dear Premier Anna Bligh and Treasurer Andrew Fraser,

I will be standing as an Independent pro-democracy candidate in the state electorate of Mount Coot-tha in the forthcoming state elections.

In part, my purpose in standing is to raise critical policy issues, which I believe will otherwise not be drawn to the attention of the Queensland public.

One issue is privatisation.

The evidence clearly shows that privatisation has gravely harmed the public interest and as a consequence, has been overwhelmingly opposed by the Australian public, including the Queensland public, for years.

Yet, most Australian governments, including your own, have persisted in imposing privatisation without any popular support and without any electoral mandate.

The list of privatisations, which comes to my mind, includes Energex, Ergon, the Golden Casket, the Mackay and Cairns airports, the Dalrymple Bay Coal loader and numerous tracts of valuable publicly owned land.

Indeed, the only privatisation that was raised in an election campaign of which I am aware, is that of the then named State Government Insurance Office (SGIO), now named Suncorp. Former Premier Peter Beattie promised during the 1998 election campaign not to fully privatise the half privatised SGIO, but, upon winning office, promptly broke that promise.

Last year we witnessed, in neighbouring NSW the appalling spectacle of the NSW corporate sector including Rupert Murdoch's Australian newspaper, clamouring for the privatisation of NSW's electricity generators, even though that policy was never put to the NSW public in the previous state elections of 2007, had been explicitly rejected in the 1999 elections and was opposed by at least 79% of the NSW public.

In spite of the widespread public opposition, and in defiance of a vote 702 to 107 against privatisation at the NSW state Labor Party conference of May 2008, Morris Iemma's Government proceeded to ram through the privatisation legislation anyway. Thankfully for the people of NSW, the legislation was blocked with the votes of the Liberal/National Party Opposition, Greens and Independents.

Premier Anna Bligh, I was disturbed to read that your Government also gave its support for the privatisation of NSW's electricity generators, in spite of your own reported personal stance against the privatisation of Queensland's electricity generators in 2006.

Given this history, it seems to me that the Queensland public have good reason to fear that, upon re-election, your Government may proceed to sell of yet more of their assets, including Queensland Railways, electricity generators, more airports, the water grid, public buildings, public land, etc.

The reason I write this letter is to seek your firm assurance that if you do intend to privatise any of these assets that you state your intention to do so to the public before the forthcoming elections, or, alternatively, that you will put any planned privatisations to the public at referenda.

Yours sincerely,
James Sinnamon
Independent pro-democracy candidate for Mount Cooth-tha

This was originally published on 15 January 2009

World energy consumption grew by 11 per cent between 1989 and 1999. Most forecasts project energy demand will grow a further 60 per cent between 2002 and 2030, due to rising global population and economic growth in countries like China and India. (source: chief executive BP oil). Yet, almost all petroleum geologists agree that oil production will peak within 20 years, by which time half of the Ultimate Recoverable Resource will have been consumed. Natural gas will peak shortly after oil. After this, consumption has to fall, eventually to zero. Were consumption to stay constant, proven reserves of oil would be largely depleted within 40 years and natural gas not long after.

Coal consumption

Coal consumption is now growing at twice the average of all fuels, with China accounting for 80 per cent of the growth. If consumption continues at the present rate, proven recoverable reserves will last between 100 and 155 years. With coal, a substantial part of the problem is how much energy it takes to extract it. (source: AF Optimum Population Trust (OPT).

All fossil-fuels peak estimation

However, Professor David Rutledge of the California Institute of Technology recently made a compelling case for the peak of all fossil fuel energy production occurring in 2021 and for 90% of all the fossil fuels that we will ever extract being consumed by 2076. (October 2007: Hubbert’s Peak, the Coal Question and Climate Change).

While the 1990s saw the largest discovery of oil in 20 years in the Gulf of Mexico, this estimated new reserve of 700 million barrels would meet America’s then daily consumption of 17m barrels for just 42 days! (source: Albert Bartlett, Univ. of Colorado). By 2005, US oil consumption had increased by over a quarter, to 21million barrels a day, according to the US Energy Information Agency.

Efficiency

Average efficiency of coal fired power stations is about 35 per cent, but efficiencies could possibly be increased to nearer 46 per cent. However, limiting their carbon pollution by pumping effluent gasses into old oil or coal fields is energy intensive and expensive and there is no efficiency saving by adding carbon capture technology to power plants. As a result no commercial system has been built (source: the Economist magazine, 2 December 2006).

Renewables

Renewables like wind, wave, tidal and photovoltaics are all uncontrollable power sources that together, are limited to supplying at most about 20 per cent of total electricity supply due to the uncontrollable nature of wind, solar and wave supply. Their variable power output causes efficiency problems for traditional power plants that will still be needed to provide on-line back up power. However, Photovoltaic and Solar Thermal Energy has produced negligible results so far - about 1/700th of all commercial energy.

While world renewable energy supply grew by an average 2.3 per cent a year from 1971 to 2004, according to the International Energy Agency in Feb 2006, world population growth continued to increase the number of energy consumers, by 1.6 per cent a year. (source: OPT energy web pages)

Ethanol

Ethanol, produced either from corn or sugarcane, has a low output power density, containing 33 per cent less energy than the same amount of petrol. Eighteen per cent of U.S. corn goes to producing ethanol, but it provides only 1 per cent of the liquid fuel used in the U.S. (Pimentel et al). Similarly, biodiesel contains 12 per cent less chemical energy than diesel oil.

Expanding ethanol fuel production uses vital land needed for food production for ever-increasing populations and risks further widespread forest clearance to grow crops for fuel. Creating ethanol from cellulose waste is seen as a hopeful way forward, but no one has yet demonstrated a method by which more energy could be extracted than the energy required as inputs. The ‘Energy hopefuls’ talk about scientists finding better enzymes, but so far, this is just speculation.

'Net energy capture'

The ‘net energy capture’ would be a revealing figure if its value could be agreed, says OPT’s Andrew Ferguson, but we need to know how much of the by-product can be counted as an output and how much of the total crop can be utilised without causing soil degradation. In the case of corn, total yield is about 15,000 kg/ha (dry), with about half of this being grain and the rest being leftover stubble. (Pimentel and Pimentel,1996). Growing corn is prone to cause soil erosion and sugarcane causes even greater erosion. All the remaining stubble should be returned to the ground to return nutrients. The ‘energy balance’ of producing ethanol from corn can therefore be assessed as positive or negative, depending on judgement. A zero energy balance means that producing ethanol from biomass is not an energy transformation that produces useful energy; but merely a way of using other forms of available energy to produce energy in a liquid form.

Hydrogen a carrier, not a fuel

Hydrogen fuel cells are promoted as a clean fuel and only emit heat and water as waste. However, hydrogen is an energy-carrier, like electricity, not an energy source and needs electric power to extract hydrogen from water through electrolysis. It is only as clean as the fuel source used to produce it and provides only a quarter the energy as the same volume of petrol, diesel or kerosene (source: Prof. R Mann, Manchester University) – a significant problem for aircraft.

Biodiesel

Biodiesel contains 12 per cent less chemical energy than diesel oil and is five per cent less fuel efficient when burnt in an engine. A litre of ethanol contains 33 per cent less energy than a litre of petrol. In addition, ethanol blended fuels cannot easily be transported by pipeline as the ethanol attracts water, making it ineffective as a fuel. It must be transported by road, causing further fuel inputs. (Ecologist Magazine March 2007).

Electricity

In 2004, 50% of the electricity produced in the United States came from coal, 20% from nuclear, 18% from natural gas, 7% from hydro-electricity, 3% from petroleum and the remaining 3% from geothermal, biomass and solar.

A typical sized power station generates around 1000 megawatts (MW), where one MW equals a million watts. In 2002 average power demand in the UK was around 45 gigawatts (GW) or 45 billion watts. With average demand about 66% of peak demand, peak UK demand was then about 68 GW.

Geothermal

Geothermal energy[1] can be extracted without burning fossil fuel and produces only a sixth of the carbon dioxide of a natural gas-fuelled power plant, but heat pumps are expensive to install in houses. While it is very successful in a country like Iceland, where the capital is heated by geothermal energy, it is not as successful in the many places where there is no abundant heat sink in the soil.

Nuclear

Some say nuclear power is the only realistic answer to growing energy needs, despite the huge problems of storing deadly waste and potential terrorist threats. A 1,000-megawatt nuclear power station produces around 30 metric tonnes of high-level waste a year, which remains hazardous to life for thousands of years.

Nuclear fission generates just 2.5 per cent of the world’s electricity[2] and in most industrial countries nuclear supplies about 20 per cent of energy needs. In an extensive investigation, the June 2006 Ecologist magazine noted that Australia has 40 per cent of the world’s estimated 3.5 million tonnes supply of uranium. The industry estimates this would only fuel current nuclear capacity for another 45-50 years, but the potential doubling in number of fission reactors across the world could see commercially extractable uranium fuel ore run out in 20 years. As shortages loom, it is unlikely that nuclear nations with uranium ore, such as Russia, Canada and the USA, will be likely to sell it. The spot market price has risen 600 per cent between 2002 and 2006. The UK and other nuclear power generating countries will be increasingly reliant on remaining supplies from Kazakhstan, South Africa and Brazil and if major expansion takes place, will be investing billions to produce long-term deadly waste for only a short-term energy gain.

Nuclear reactors need 30 million gallons of water daily as coolant to prevent potential meltdown. With sea levels predicted to rise by half a metre by the end of this century, according to the International Panel on Climate Change, all the UK’s nuclear reactor sites are at potential risk of flooding and erosion. Major new reactor construction programmes will add millions of tonnes to CO2 emissions, though nuclear generated power will help to reduce carbon emissions. If the UK opts to keep nuclear power supplying around 20 per cent of energy needs it is likely 10 new reactors will need to be built. Worldwide, around 80 new reactors are envisaged. However, many countries are considering increasing their nuclear capacity further.

A 1998 study for the Canadian nuclear industry found that for every unit of useable high-grade (one per cent) uranium ore recovered, 20 times that amount of CO2 is released into the atmosphere. Most uranium deposits are only found in concentrations of 0.02 or less, making the true picture more problematic. Attempts to extract uranium from seawater would take three times as much energy as would eventually be produced in power output and involves highly polluting chemicals.

One hope is that reactors that breed their own fuel will come on stream. There are only three fast-breeder reactors in the world, in Russia, Japan and France, but only the Russian reactor is still operating and none has successfully managed to breed fuel. According to environmental consultancy Ceedata, if the technology could be made to work, the plutonium fuel to start up two reactors could theoretically double in size every 40 years - enough fuel to power up two more reactors. Optimistic forecasts say the technology might be ready in 20 years.

Energy fantasies?

Contrary energy messages include claims by Solar Century, a company promoting solar power, that if every south facing roof in Britain carried a solar panel, this would generate 85% of UK electricity needs. The same Guardian article of March 7, 2000 also quotes Shell Oil claims that if alternative ‘green’ energy sources were developed these technologies could provide up to 50% of the world’s energy needs by 2050.

Friends of the Earth

Friends of the Earth in its “Tomorrow’s World in Ten Minutes” overview of environmental challenges claims we have the technology to cut home energy use by 95 per cent, increase waste recycling by 80 per cent and vehicle fuel efficiency by 10 times. It says we could produce the food we need with a “tiny fraction” of the chemicals and fossil energy now used. It assumes a stable world population in 2050 without saying how all this can be achieved.

However, most of these claims are totally unrealistic, says OPT’s Andrew Ferguson, because they ignore the problem of intermittency of renewable energy sources, like wind turbines and low power density in biomass and hydro, So there are no grounds for confidence in the belief of a transition to a renewable energy world.

[1] Traditional geothermal, not deep geothermal or hot rocks.
[2] This figure, from The Ecologist is much smaller than the figure given by the International Energy Association, which was 6.8 in 2008. (See: www.iea.org/textbase/nppdf/free/2004/keyworld2004.pdf) The IEA predicts that nuclear generation in 2010 will be 6.2% of the total energy mix and that in 2030 it will be 4.3%, with - surprisingly - greater use of petroleum. I welcome readers' comments on these figures.

Hello Everyone!

With the support of Dog Listeners Australia and a number of pet service providers, Fun4Paws is in the process of coordinating foster home care for the animals of the bush fire zones. Luke Williams and the team at Fun4Paws are now visiting fire affected areas to facilitate assistance for the animals as it's required.

An overwhelming response has been received from people wishing to volunteer to provide temporary emergency care for displaced animals (well over 10,000 emails and 500 calls per day). We are extremely grateful for these very generous offers to provide assistance and now have a tremendously long list of volunteer animal carers and will be in touch if an animal becomes available in your area.

As we have limited email and phone capacity, kindly refrain from sending any further offers for foster homes for animals at this point in time. Should we require more carers in the future, we will certainly let you know via our website www.fun4paws.com.au

For those of you who have family or friends affected by the bushfire that require assistance in temporary care for their domestic pets please contact Fun4Paws at:

[email protected]

0447 115 594

0408 122 974

With Sincere thanks

Luke Williams and the team at Fun4Paw

Fun4Paws is now accepting donations to support the pets in need. Anyone wishing to make a donation to assist with the care of animals of bushfire victims. Details as follows:

Bendigo Bank (Fountain Court, Bendigo VIC)

Account Name: Emergency Animal Respite Care

BSB: 633000

Account Number: 136252087

Donations received will be utilised for the costs of caring for the animals in respite care and also wildlife animal victims

If you are seeking assistance with housing for your animals please contact Fun4Paws on 0408 122 974 or 044711559

Our sincere thanks,

Luke Williams & The Fun4Paws Team

Michael Hudson, argues that President Obama's 'recovery' plan will actually prevent recovery by diverting precious resources towards servicing debt thereby crowding out spending on goods and services. He argues that, instead, Obama should re-establish the practice of writing down of debts to reflect the debtor's ability to pay, restore the power of state attorneys general to bring financial fraud charges against the most egregious mortgage lenders, and for the re-establsihment of taxes on site-rental value, in order to discourage land speculation.

Originally published on Global Research on 11 Feb 09.

Martin Wolf started off his Financial Times column today (February 11) with the bold question: "Has Barack Obama's presidency already failed?"[1] The stock market had a similar opinion, plunging 382 points. Having promised "change," Mr. Obama is giving us more Clinton-Bush via Robert Rubin's protégé, Tim Geithner. Tuesday's $2.5 trillion Financial Stabilization Plan to re-inflate the Bubble Economy is basically an extension of the Bush-Paulson giveaway - yet more Rubinomics for financial insiders in the emerging Wall Street trusts. The financial system is to be concentrated into a cartel of just a few giant conglomerates to act as the economy's central planners and resource allocators. This makes banks the big winners in the game of "chicken" they've been playing with Washington, a shakedown holding the economy hostage. "Give us what we want or we'll plunge the economy into financial crisis." Washington has given them $9 trillion so far, with promises now of another $2 trillion- and still counting.

A true reform - one designed to undo the systemic market distortions that led to the real estate bubble - would have set out to reverse the Clinton-Rubin repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act so as to prevent the corrupting conflicts of interest that have resulted in vertical trusts such as Citibank and Bank of America/Countrywide/Merrill Lynch. By unleashing these conglomerate grupos (to use the term popularized under Pinochet with Chicago Boy direction - a dress rehearsal of the mass financial bankruptcies they caused in Chile by the end of the 1970s) the Clinton administration enabled banks to merge with junk mortgage companies, junk-money managers, fictitious property appraisal companies, and law-evasion firms all designed to package debts to investors who trusted them enough to let them rake off enough commissions and capital gains to make their managers the world's highest-paid economic planners.

Today's economic collapse is the direct result of their planning philosophy. It actually was taught as "wealth creation" and still is, as supposedly more productive than the public regulation and oversight so detested by Wall Street and its Chicago School aficionados. The financial powerhouses created by this "free market" philosophy span the entire FIRE sector - finance, insurance and real estate, "financializing" housing and commercial property markets in ways guaranteed to make money by creating and selling debt. Mr. Obama's advisors are precisely those of the Clinton Administration who supported trustification of the FIRE sector. This is the broad deregulatory medium in which today's bad-debt disaster has been able to spread so much more rapidly than at any time since the 1920s.

The commercial banks have used their credit-creating power not to expand the production of goods and services or raise living standards but simply to inflate prices for real estate (making fortunes for their brokerage, property appraisal and insurance affiliates), stocks and bonds (making more fortunes for their investment bank subsidiaries), fine arts (whose demand is now essentially for trophies, degrading the idea of art accordingly) and other assets already in place.

The resulting dot.com and real estate bubbles were not inevitable, not economically necessary. They were financially engineered by the political deregulatory power acquired by banks corrupting Congress through campaign contributions and public relations "think tanks" (more in the character of Orwellian doublethink tanks) to promote the perverse fiction that Wall Street can be and indeed is automatically self-regulating. This is a travesty of Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand." This hand is better thought of as covert. The myth of "free markets" is now supposed to consist of governments withdrawing from planning and taxing wealth, so as to leave resource allocation and the economic surplus to bankers rather than elected public representatives. This is what classically is called oligarchy, not democracy.

This centralization of planning, debt creation and revenue-extracting power is defended as the alternative to Hayek's road to serfdom. But it is itself the road to debt peonage, a.k.a. the post-industrial economy or "Information Economy." The latter term is another euphemistic travesty in view of the kind of information the banking system has promoted in the junk accounting crafted by their accounting firms and tax lawyers (off-balance-sheet entities registered on offshore tax-avoidance islands), the AAA applause provided as "information" to investors by the bond-rating cartel, and indeed the national income and product accounts that depict the FIRE sector as being part of the "real" economy, not as an institutional wrapping of special interests and government-sanctioned privilege acting in an extractive rather than a productive way.

"Thanks for the bonuses," bankers in the United States and England testified this week before Congress and Parliament. "We'll keep the money, but rest assured that we are truly sorry for having to ask you for another few trillion dollars. At least you should remember our theme song: We are still better managers than the government, and the bulwark against government bureaucratic resource allocation." This is the ideological Big Lie sold by the Chicago School "free market" celebration of dismantling government power over finance, all defended by complex math rivaling that of nuclear physics that the financial sector is part of the "real" economy automatically producing a fair and equitable equilibrium.

This is not bad news for stockholders of more local and relatively healthy banks (healthy in the sense of avoiding negative equity). Their stocks soared and were by far the major gainers on Tuesday's stock market, while Wall Street's large Bad Banks plunged to new lows. Solvent local banks are the sort that were normal prior to repeal of Glass Steagall. They are to be bought by the large "troubled" banks, whose "toxic loans" reflect a basically toxic operating philosophy. In other words, small banks who have made loans carefully will be sucked into Citibank, Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase and Wells Fargo - the Big Four or Five where the junk mortgages, junk CDOs and junk derivatives are concentrated, and have used Treasury money from the past bailout to buy out smaller banks that were not infected with such reckless financial opportunism. Even the Wall Street Journal editorialized regarding the Obama Treasury's new "Public-Private Investment Fund" to pump a trillion dollars into this mess: "Mr. Geithner would be wise to put someone strong land independent in charge of this fund - someone who can say no to Congress and has no ties to Citigroup, Robert Rubin or Wall Street."[2]

None of this can solve today's financial problem. The debt overhead far exceeds the economy's ability to pay. If the banks would indeed do what Pres. Obama's appointees are begging them to do and lend more, the debt burden would become even heavier and buying access to housing even more costly. When the banks look back fondly on what Alan Greenspan called "wealth creation," we can see today that the less euphemistic terminology would be "debt creation." This is the objective of the new bank giveaway. It threatens to spread the distortions that the large banks have introduced until the entire system presumably looks like Citibank, long the number-one offender of "stretching the envelope," its euphemism for breaking the law bit by bit and daring government regulators and prosecutors to try and stop it and thereby plunging the U.S. financial system into crisis. This is the shakedown that is being played out this week. And the Obama administration blinked - as these same regulators did when they were in charge of the Clinton administration's bank policy. So much for the promised change!

The three-pronged Treasury program seems to be only Stage One of a two-stage "dream recovery plan" for Wall Street. Enough hints have trickled out for the past three months in Wall Street Journal op-eds to tip the hand for what may be in store. Watch for the magic phrase "equity kicker," first heard in the S&L mortgage crisis of the 1980s. It refers to the banker's share of capital gains, that is, asset price inflation in Bubble #2 that the Recovery Program hopes to sponsor.

The first question to ask about any Recovery Program is, "Recovery for whom?" The answer given on Tuesday is, "For the people who design the Program and their constituency" - in this case, the bank lobby. The second question is, "Just what is it they want to 'recover'?" The answer is, the Bubble Economy. For the financial sector it was a golden age. Having enjoyed the Greenspan Bubble that made them so rich, its managers would love to create yet more wealth for themselves by indebting the "real" economy yet further while inflating prices all over again to make new capital gains.

The problem for today's financial elites is that it is not possible to inflate another bubble from today's debt levels, widespread negative equity, and still-high level of real estate, stock and bond prices. No amount of new capital will induce banks to provide credit to real estate already over-mortgaged or to individuals and corporations already over-indebted. Moody's and other leading professional observers have forecast property prices to keep on plunging for at least the next year, which is as far as the eye can see in today's unstable conditions. So the smartest money is still waiting like vultures in the wings - waiting for government guarantees that toxic loans will pay off. Another no-risk private profit to be subsidized by public-sector losses.

While the Obama administration's financial planners wring their hands in public and say "We feel your pain" to debtors at large, they know that the past ten years have been a golden age for the banking system and the rest of Wall Street. Like feudal lord claiming the economic surplus for themselves while administering austerity for the population at large, the wealthiest 1% of the population has raised their appropriation of the nationwide returns to wealth - dividends, interest, rent and capital gains - from 37% of the total ten years ago to 57% five years ago and it seems nearly 70% today. This is the highest proportion since records have been kept. We are approaching Russian kleptocratic levels.

The officials drawn from Wall Street who now control of the Treasury and Federal Reserve repeat the right-wing Big Lie: Poor "subprime families" have brought the system down, exploiting the rich by trying to ape their betters and live beyond their means. Taking out subprime loans and not revealing their actual ability to pay, the NINJA poor (no income, no job, no audit) signed up to obtain "liars' loans" as no-documentation Alt-A loans are called in the financial junk-paper trade.

I learned the reality a few years ago in London, talking to a commercial banker. "We've had an intellectual breakthrough," he said. "It's changed our credit philosophy."

"What is it?" I asked, imagining that he was about to come out with yet a new magical mathematics formula?

"The poor are honest," he said, accompanying his words with his jaw dropping open as if to say, "Who would have guessed?"

The meaning was clear enough. The poor pay their debts as a matter of honor, even at great personal sacrifice and what today's neoliberal Chicago School language would call uneconomic behavior. Unlike Donald Trump, they are less likely to walk away from their homes when market prices sink below the mortgage level. This sociological gullibility does not make economic sense, but reflects a group morality that has made them rich pickings for predatory lenders such as Countrywide, Wachovia and Citibank. So it's not the "lying poor." It's the banksters' fault after all!

For this elite the Bubble Economy was a deliberate policy they would love to recover. The problem is how to start a new bubble to make yet another fortune? The alternative is not so bad - to keep the bonuses, capital gains and golden parachutes they have given themselves, and run. But perhaps they can improve in Bubble Economy #2.

The Treasury's newest Financial Stability Plan (Bailout 2.0) is only the first step. It aims at putting in place enough new bank-lending capacity to start inflating prices on credit all over again. But a new bubble can't be started from today's asset-price levels. How can the $10 to $20 trillion capital-gain run-up of the Greenspan years been repeated in an economy that is "all loaned up"?

One thing Wall Street knows is that in order to make money, asset prices not only need to rise, they have to go down again. Without going down, after all, how can they rise up? Without a crucifixion for the economy, how can there be a resurrection? The more frenetic the price fibrillation, the easier it is for computerized buy-and-sell programs to make money on options and derivatives.

So here's the situation as I see it. The first objective is to preserve the wealth of the creditor class - Wall Street, the banks and the other financial vehicles that enrich the wealthiest 1% and, to be fair within America's emerging new financial oligarchy, the richest 10% of the population. Stage One involves buying out their bad loans at a price that saves them from taking a loss. The money will be depicted to voters as a "loan," to be repaid by banks extracting enough new debt charges in the new rigged game the Treasury is setting up. The current loss will be shifted the onto "taxpayers" and made up by new debtors - in both cases labor, onto whose shoulders the tax burden has been shifted steadily, step by step since 1980.

An "aggregator" bank (sounds like "alligator," from the swamps of toxic waste) will buy the bad debts and put them in a public agency. The government calls this the "bad" bank. (This is Geithner's first point.) But it does good for Wall Street - by buying loans that have gone bad, along with loans and derivative guarantees and swaps that never were good in the first place. If the private sector refuses to buy these bad loans at prices the banks are asking for, why should the government pretend that these debt claims are worth more? Vulture funds are said to be offering about what they were when Lehman Brothers went bankrupt: about 22 cents on the dollar. The banks are asking for 75 cents on the dollar. What will the government offer?

Perhaps the worst alternative is that is now being promoted by the banks and vulture investors in tandem: the government will guarantee the price at which private investors buy toxic financial waste from the banks. A vulture fund would be happy enough to pay 75 cents on the dollar for worthless junk if the government were to provide a guarantee. The Treasury and Federal Reserve pretend that they simply would be "providing liquidity" to "frozen markets." But the problem is not liquidity and it is not subjective "market psychology." It is "solvency," that is, a realistic awareness that toxic waste and bad derivatives gambles are junk. Mr. Geithner has not been able to come to terms with how to value this - without bringing the Obama administration down in a wave of populist protest - any more than Mr. Paulson was able to carry out his original Tarp proposal along these lines.

The hardest task for today's banksters is to revive opportunities for creditors to make a new killing. (It's the economy that's being killed, of course.) This seems to be the aim of the Public/Private investment company that Mr. Geithner is establishing as the second element in his plan. The easiest free lunch is to ride the wave of a new bubble - a fresh wave of asset-price inflation to be introduced to "cure" the problem of debt deflation.

Here's how I imagine the ploy might work. Suppose a hapless family has bought a home for $500,000, with a full 100% $500,000 adjustable-rate mortgage scheduled to reset this year at 8%. Suppose too that the current market price will fall to $250,000, a loss of 50% by yearend 2009. Sometime in mid 2010 would seem to be long enough for prices to decline by enough to make "recovery" possible - Bubble Economy 2.0. Without such a plunge, there will be no economy to "rescue," no opportunity for Tim Geithner and Laurence Summers to "feel your pain" and pull out of their pocket the following package - a variant on the "cash for trash" swap, a public agency to acquire the $500,000 mortgage that is going bad, heading toward only a $250,000 market price.

The "bad bank" was not quite ready to be created this week, but the embryo is there. It will take the form of a public/private partnership (PPP) of the sort that Tony Blair made so notorious in Britain. And speaking of Mr. Blair, I am writing this from England, where almost every America-watcher I talk to has expressed amazement at Obama's performance last week idealizing England's counterpart to George Bush when it comes to unpopularity contests. Blair's tenure in office was a horror story, not something to be congratulated for. He privatized the railroads and entering into the disastrous public/private partnership that doubled, tripled or quadrupled the cost of public projects by adding on a heavy financial overhead. If Obama does not realize how he shocked Britain and much of Europe with his praise, then he is in danger of foisting a similar public/private financialized "partnership" on the United States.

The new public/private institution will be financed with private funds - in fact, with the money now being given to re-capitalize America's banks (headed by the Wall St. bank's that have done so bad). Banks will use the Treasury money they have received by "borrowing" against their junk mortgages at or near par to buy shares in a new $5 trillion institution created along the lines of the unfortunate Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac. Its bonds will be guaranteed. (That's the "public" part - "socializing" the risk.) The PPP institution will have the power to buy and renegotiate the mortgages that have passed into the hands of the government and other holders. This "Homeowner Rescue Trust" will use its private funding for the "socially responsible" purpose of "saving the taxpayer" and middle class homeowners by renegotiating the mortgage down from its original $500,000 to the new $250,000 market price.

Here's the patter talk you can expect, with the usual Orwellian euphemisms. The Homeowners Rescue PPP will appear as a veritable Savior Bank resurrected from the wreckage of Bubble #1. Its clients will be families strapped by their mortgage debt and feeling more and more desperate as the price of their major asset plummets more deeply into Negative Equity territory. To them, the new PPP will say: "We've got a deal to save you. We'll renegotiate your mortgage down to the current market price, $250,000, and we'll also lower your interest rate to just 5.50%, the new rate. This will cut your monthly debt charges by nearly two thirds. Not only can you afford to stay in your home, you will escape from your negative equity."

The family probably will say, "Great." But they will have to make a concession. That's where the new public/private partnership makes its killing. Funded with private money that will take the "risk" (and also reap the rewards), the Savior Bank will say to the family that agrees to renegotiate its mortgage: "Now that the government has absorbed a loss (in today's travesty of "socializing" the financial system) while letting let you stay in your home, we need to recover the money that's been lost. If we make you whole, we want to be made whole too. So when the time comes for you to sell your home or renegotiate your mortgage, our Homeowners Rescue PPP will receive the capital gain up to the original amount written off."

In other words, if the homeowner sells the property for $400,000, the Homeowners Rescue PPP will get $150,000 of the capital gain. If the home sells for $500,000, the bank will get $250,000. And if it sells for more, thanks to some new clone of Alan Greenspan acting as bubblemeister, the capital gain will be split in some way. If the split is 50/50 and the home sells for $600,000, the owner will split the $100,000 further capital gain with the Homeowners Rescue PPP. It thus will make much more through its appropriation of capital gains (the new debt-fueled asset-price inflation being put in place) than it extracts in interest!

This would make Bubble 2.0 even richer for Wall Street than the Greenspan bubble! Last time around, it was the middle class that got the gains - even if new buyers had to enter a lifetime of debt peonage to buy higher-priced homes. It really was the bank that got the gains, of course, because mortgage interest charges absorbed the entire rental value and even the hoped-for price gain. But homeowners at least had a chance at the free ride, if they didn't squander their money in refinancing their mortgages to "cash out" on their equity to support their living standards in a generation whose wage levels had stagnated since 1979. As Mr. Greenspan observed in testimony before Congress, a major reason why wages have not risen is that workers are afraid to strike or even to complain about being worked harder and harder for longer and longer hours ("raising productivity"), because they are one paycheck away from missing their mortgage payment - or, if renters, one paycheck or two away from homelessness.

This is the happy condition of normalcy that Wall Street's financial planners would like to recover. This time around, they may not be obliged to make their gains in a way that also makes middle class homeowners rich. In the wake of Bubble Economy #1, today's debt-strapped homeowners are willing to settle merely for a plan that leaves them in their homes! The Homeowners Rescue PPP can appropriate for its stockholder banks and other large investors the capital gains that have been the driving force of U.S. "wealth creation," bubble-style. That is what the term "equity kicker" means.

This situation confronts the economy with a dilemma. The only policies deemed politically correct these days are those that make the situation worse: yet more government money in the hope that banks will create yet more credit/debt to raise house prices and make them even more unaffordable; credit/debt to inflate a new Bubble Economy #2.

Lobbyists for Wall Street's enormous Bad Bank conglomerates are screaming that all real solutions to today's debt problem and tax shift onto labor are politically incorrect, above all the time-honored debt write-downs to bring the debt burden within the ability to pay. That is what the market is supposed to do, after all, by bankruptcy in an anarchic collapse if not by more deliberate and targeted government policy. The Bad Banks, having demanded "free markets" all these years, fear a really free market when it threatens their bonuses and other takings. For Wall Street, free markets are "free" of public regulation against predatory lending; "free" of taxing the wealthy so as to shift the burden onto labor; "free" for the financial sector to wrap itself around the "real" economy like parasitic ivy around a tree to extract the surplus.

This is a travesty of freedom. As the putative neoliberal Adam Smith explained, "The government of an exclusive company of merchants, is, perhaps, the worst of all governments." But worst of all is the "freedom" of today's economic discussion from the wisdom of classical political economy and from historical experience regarding how societies through the ages have coped with the debt overhead.

How to save the economy from Wall Street

There is an alternative to ward all this off, and it is the classic definition of freedom from debt peonage and predatory credit. The only real solution to today's debt overhang is a debt write-down. Until this occurs, debt service will crowd out spending on goods and services and there will be no recovery. Debt deflation will drag the economy down while assets are transferred further into the hands of the wealthiest 10 percent of the population, operating via the financial sector.

If Obama means what he says, he would use his office as a bully pulpit to urge repeal the present harsh creditor-oriented bankruptcy law sponsored by the banks and credit-card companies. He would campaign to restore the long-term trend of laws favoring debtors rather than creditors, and introduce legislation to restore the practice of writing down debts to reflect the debtor's ability to pay, imposing market reality to debts that are far in excess of realistic valuations.

A second policy would be to restore the power of state attorneys general to bring financial fraud charges against the most egregious mortgage lenders - the prosecutions that the Bush Administration got thrown out of court by claiming that under an 1864 National Bank Act clause, the federal government had the right to override state prosecutions of national banks - and then appointing a non-prosecutor to this enforcement position.

On the basis of reinstated fraud charges, the government might claw back the bank bonuses, salaries and bank earnings that represented the profits from America's greatest financial and real estate fraud in history. And to prevent repetition of the past decade's experience, the Obama Administration might help popularize a new psychology of debt. The government could encourage "the poor" to act as "economically" as Donald Trumps or Angelo Mozilo's would do, making it clear that debt write-downs are a right.

Also to ward off repetition of the Bubble Economy, the Treasury could impose the "Tobin tax" of 1% on purchases and options for stocks, bonds and foreign currency. Critics of this tax point out that it can be evaded by speculators trading offshore in the rights to securities held in U.S. accounts. But the government could simply refuse to provide deposit insurance and other support to institutions trading offshore, or simply could announce that trades in such "deposit receipts" for shares would not have legal standing. As for trades in derivatives, depository institutions - including conglomerates owning such banks - can simply be banned as inherently unsafe. If foreigners wish to speculate on financial horse races, let them.

Financial policy ultimately rests on tax policy. It is the ability to levy taxes, after all, that gives value to Treasury money (just as it is the inability to collect on debts that has depreciated the value of commercial bank deposits). It is easy enough for fiscal policy to prevent a new real estate bubble. Simply shift the tax system back to where it originally was, on the land's site-rental value. The "free lunch" (what John Stuart Mill called the "unearned increment" of rising land prices, a gain that landlords made "in their sleep") would serve as the tax base instead of burdening labor and industry with income taxes and sales taxes. This would achieve the kind of free market that Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill and Alfred Marshall described, and which the Progressive Era aimed to achieve with America's first income tax in 1913. It would be a market free of the free lunch that Chicago Boys insist does not exist. But the recent Bubble Economy and today's Bailout Sequel have been all about getting a free lunch.

A land tax would prevent housing prices from rising again. It is the most hated tax in America today, largely because of the disinformation campaign that has been mounted by the real estate interests and amplified by the banks that stand behind them. The reality is that taxing land appreciation rather than wages or corporate profits would save homeowners from having to take on so much debt in order to obtain housing. It would save the economy from seeing "wealth creation" take the form of the "unearned increment" being capitalized into higher bank loans with their associated carrying charges (interest and amortization).

The wealth tax originally fell mainly on real estate. The most immediate and politically feasible priority of the Obama Administration thus should be to repeal the Bush Administration's drastic tax cuts for the top brackets and its moratorium on the estate tax. The aim should be to bring down the polarization between creditors and debtors that has concentrated over two-thirds of the returns to wealth in the richest 1% of the population.

If alternatives to the Bubble Economy such as these are not promoted, we will know that promises of change were mere rhetoric, Tony Blair style.

[1] Martin Wolf, "Why Obama's new Tarp will fail to rescue the banks," Financial Times, Feb. 11, 2009.
[2] "Geithner at the Improv," Wall Street Journal editorial, February 11, 2009.

Michael Hudson is a frequent contributor to Global Research. Global Research Articles by Michael Hudson

See also: "A crisis is a terrible thing to waste" of 14 Feb 09, "Why we should think carefully about Rudd's $42 billion Nation Building and Jobs Plan" of 6 Feb 09.

Bodies are still being found, the Royal Commission still has no terms of reference and yet the ABC is pointing the finger at the environment movement and the Greens! Friday night's 7.30 Report failed to show that the most 'managed' forests were the worst hit, instead giving the opposite, wrong impression and blaming 'greens'.

From a Victorian bush-fire correspondent:

Anyone with knowledge of the areas affected most by the fires who heard the 7.30 report on fire Friday night (13 Feb '09) would have to be on blood pressure medication now.

Pro-logging-industry ABC report ignores facts, creates scapegoats

It was a logging industry coup - with the presenter targeting 'greens' and 'Greens' as the villains that caused these fires. The lack of burning was the fault of the 'greenies' and the Greens politically. Great coverage if you happen to be a logging industry lobbyist, the Bush Users Group, the ALP or Libs.

The fuel loads were what caused the fires, we were told as a 'fact' rather than an opinion ... The whole production made it look like everyone was in agreement, not just those apparently benefiting from a political opportunity, like the self-proclaimed 'fire-expert' David Packham. (See in dot-points below why 'Green' or environmentally-friendly policies cannot be blamed for the fires).

Some of us called up immediately and blasted our outrage down the phone. The number I called was (03) 9626 1666 for ABC TV.

Bodies are still being found, the Royal Commission still has no terms of reference and yet the ABC is pointing the finger at the environment movement and the Greens!

---

Taken from DSE data current to this week:

• 50% of estimated area of the Victorian fires are on private property
• 12% are in national parks
• The remainder is in state forests, crown land or undisclosed.

Hard to see how this can be turned around to blame national parks.

The senate inquiry in 2007 was at pains to point out that in uncontrollable firestorms like this, tenure and land management is irrelevant and we have to build community preparedness to survive the onslaught.

Full quote from conclusions is:

"... there will always be uncontrollable bushfires from time to time. This is most evident from evidence regarding the Australian Alps, which experienced their worst fires in 1939, under a completely different land tenure and management regime to that in place when fires burnt there in 2003. A significant part of living in and managing the environment must be acceptance of fire and ensuring preparedness for it."

Facts that need restating

Below are some points that have already been published on http://candobetter.org/node/1066 and http://candobetter.org/node/1065, but are restated here for quick reference if needed.

• The Greens do not have a policy that advocates no fuel reduction burning - but a more scientific approach. They have never made a campaign out of this. Similar policies are held by environment groups in general.
• How after 12 years of drought and the recent mega fires and a policy of so much fuel reduction burning, do we get the claimed record levels of fuel. But how do you control a fire under the following circumstances?
  1. Temperatures were their hottest ever recorded at 47 degrees.
  2. Relative humidity in single figures and winds constantly hitting 100kmh.
  3. A 12 year drought.
  4. 1ml of rain in 6 weeks.
  5. The previous week had a run of 5 days each over 40 degrees. Unheard of.

Pattern of burning in specific locations

1) Much of the fire burnt most intensively through dry forest. On the Modis fire satellite image, the fire appears to have burnt these forests most intensively, whereas the wetter forests are patchy. The towns of Marysville, Kinglake and St Andrews are surrounded by these drier forest types, where we see the highest levels of devastation.

2) These fires burnt very aggressively in plantations. The Churchill fire burnt through large areas of plantations. These are intensively managed for wood production, with no understorey or fuel loads, yet these burned very intensively.

3) Around Whittlesea, Wallan and East Kilmore, much of these fires burnt through long grass on farmland. The argument of forest protection around these areas is irrelevant, given that these areas are cleared farmlands and had very little forest areas upwind on Saturday.

4) The fire on Mt Riddle was ignited by a lightning strike and burnt the northern slope. At the beginning of last year, the DSE/Parks Victoria lit a large control burn on this slope, of which it even scorched the crowns of the eucs. This control burn did not prevented the ignition and spread of this fire into Healesville and surrounding forest.

5) Many of these fires have started on either private land or non-forest areas (ie the fire that burned over Mount Disappointment). The only fire at this stage to have started in National Park was the Mt Riddle Fire.

6) Large fire breaks had been cut through Mt Disappointment bounding the Wallaby Creek water catchment. This is 'active management', yet they were useless in preventing the fire from spreading from the state forest into the protected Wallaby Creek catchment.

7) It is suspected that the fires west of Mt Disappointment and Yarra Glen, along with Churchill, were deliberately lit. This is a case of managing 'people' rather than forests.

8) These fires are being intensified by a rapidly changing climate. Scientific models developed by the CSIRO have predicted that high fire danger days are going to increase dramatically with increased greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere.

9) Scientific studies around the world indicate that highly disturbed ecosystems are more vulnerable to the climate crisis than less disturbed ones.

---

What happened during specific fires

• The Kilmore fire started on the edge of a farmland, was not catchable, ripped through plantations and across huge firebreaks like the Hume freeway and strategic breaks. It had burnt around the farmland trapping people trying to escape out of Kinglake long before it burnt through the National Park and into Kinglake. It burnt quite slowly through the Wallaby Creek catchment (unlogged) compared to the Mt Disappointment state forest. Mt Disappointment state forest is a mecca for 4wds and other recreationists that claim by allowing them into the bush, then fires will be stopped. Eventhough it was still moving at over 10kmh. A fire is pretty well much uncontrollable at around 2kmh.
• This fire has burnt through the urban interface, the most heavily fire managed areas around. The Kinglake National Park is on very poor quality soils. Hence it is mainly only low growing grasses.
• The Murrundindi fire started in very close proximity to a timber mill. It burnt to Marysville 20 kms away in just over an hour. This is in the most heavily logged and woodchipped area in Victoria and also a mecca for the 4wd and associated groups. It has spotted across the Acheron valley and raced up areas heavily woodchipped as a crown fire (not initially burning through ground fuel) into the closed O'shannassy water catchment.
• We are getting a picture that SOME areas of old growth ash forest remained unburnt in the initial fire storm. But they are burning at very low intensity and will hopefully survive.
The Old growth of Maroondah catchment has generally survived to date but again fires are just starting to enter them. hopefully they will stay at an intensity low enough for the eucs to survive.
• Apart from Bunyip, I cannot think of any major fire this season that hasn't been in a plantation or other heavily logged forestry area. It is almost like they are being targeted.

A crisis is a terrible thing to waste.

In 2008, I made the outrageous claim that all debts ought to be forgiven. This statement was of course meant to outrage, but now that I have an ever better understanding of what went wrong, I feel even more justified in supporting this idea.

This last year, I discovered the most amazing website (www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse). Not only did Chris Martenson, a Master Communicator, consolidate all the things that I felt were going wrong with the world, he explains how these things are all coming to a head. The Crash Course goes for over three hours, so no amount of trying will cause anything I write here to completely determine our dilemmas, but I shall try.

For over twenty five years, I could not understand why as a civilisation we have this fascination with Economic Growth. Everyone tells us that growth is good for us, even though most of us don't like it, and consternation abounds when it goes away, as is happening right now. Well dear reader, it's all clear as a bell now. Capitalism, and its cousins the Free Markets, are fundamentally flawed. Capitalism is doomed to fail, no matter what we do, and here is why.

Everything around you is based on debt. Everything. The car in your garage, the garage, the road outside, the paper you are holding in your hands, was all paid for with money, and money is debt, (www.moneyasdebt.net) 90% created out of thin air by the Reserve Bank. In fact, much of this 'money' does not exist at all now, thanks to computers which are able to make electronic ledger entries in spreadsheets to the tune of any millions you like if the spending can be justified by later earnings. But there's a sting in the tail of all this debt: the money to pay the interest on that debt does not exist either!

So to create the interest payable, even 'more stuff' needs to be built or manufactured or invented. Newer better faster computers, bigger houses, bigger cars, plasma screen TVs, more air conditioners, and of course the interest money on that 'stuff' doesn't exist either, so the dog starts chasing its own tail..... except this dog's tail keeps growing, and it will choke the dog. I hope you are still with me on this, it is very important.

The other aspect of all this growth, is that it is exponential in nature, and an exponential curve looks like this:

This curve is of population, but they all look the same; flattish to start with, then they go skywards. Some of you might hopefully remember something I wrote last year about test tubes and bacteria, and test tubes filling up at midnight? So many things are now growing exponentially, like numbers of cars, roads, houses, debt itself, carbon emissions, water consumption, computers, topsoil loss, fisheries collapsing, that the list is way too long to publish here. As Chris Martenson says in the Crash Course “if you feel as though your life is accelerating out of control, well that's because it is...”

Now, have you noticed how, even just a few years ago, if you had a million bucks you were very rich, but today the very rich are all billionaires? And that when they talk about economic matters today, increasingly, the word Trillion is entering the vernacular? You have to put this into perspective actually. A Million dollars is a pile of tightly packed $100 notes about one metre high. But a Billion dollars is a pile one kilometre high! I can still get my head around that, sort of..... but a Trillion dollars, well that's something else altogether, that's tightly packed $100 notes laid horizontally all the way from here to Sydney!! Just let THAT sink in for a while, because they are using piles of money that large to bailout failed companies and banks where Uncle Sam lives. Money supply is also growing exponentially.

OK, now back to the fundamental flaws. Because debt has been growing exponentially and is going up with that train, the amount of money required to pay all that interest will not be paid in Trillions... but Godzillions! Still with me? Trouble is dear reader, there are not enough resources left to build $Godzillion worth of economic growth, and so the debts can never be repaid. NEVER.

Economists continue speaking in forked tongues, saying we have a financial crisis on our hands, when in fact we have a DEBT crisis.

When Peak Oil caused the price of oil to reach $147, everything (petrol, food, building, and most services) went up with it. The Powers That Be, assuming inflation was causing this, raised interest rates. How helpful was that? Treasury doesn't seem to understand that inflation is caused by too much money being circulated (remember, they print it!), thus causing money to be worth less, and the cost of everything going up. This time, however, it wasn't inflation that caused price rises, it was Limits to Growth. The government is now clutching at straws, they do not understand Limits to Growth. Computer says NO! Limits to Growth means, the debts cannot ever be repaid.

All this was predicted, as long as twenty years ago. But nobody listened, and now we have a huge problem to sort out. I have some ideas on how to fix this mess, but they are all way too controversial to happen before the entire deck of credit cards falls over in a big heap. A several Trillion dollars heap. The powers that be certainly have no idea what to do, they are borrowing ever more money and throwing it at the problem, when in fact someone ought to be shouting “STOP!” very very loudly. But there you go, this is all too much, it wasn't meant to happen, and the best they can do is clutch at straws and hope it will all go away.

But it won't go away, and soon, we will all be on our own. Will we let the multinationals repossess everything because they screwed up? Should we bail out stupid car companies because they ignored all the warnings about Peak Oil and Climate Change and insisted on making us cars that eat the planet? Or do we retake the streets and tell them to get lost (I'm being very polite here!) because we don't want them doing any more damage?

Food for thought for 2009. A crisis is a terrible thing to waste. What are we going to do about it? Next week dear reader.....!

Mike Stasse

Redland City Council

Media release, 9 February 2009

Redland City will host the Queensland launch this month of Overloading Australia by Mark O'Connor and William Lines, a controversial new book that looks at "how governments and media dither and deny on population".

Co-author Mark O'Connor will launch the title at a free event at the Redland Performing Arts Centre Auditorium on February 20 at 4.30pm.

The book, a follow up to Mark's earlier title The Tired Brown Land, aims to show how Australia "might and must become smaller, greener and happier".

The book's launch in southern states earlier this month sparked a war of words with former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser, and continues to fuel debate on the heated topic of population growth in Australia.

At the Sydney launch, former New South Wales Premier Bob Carr said "the debate on population is long overdue", and Overloading Australia has also been endorsed by Dr Robert Birrell, Director of Monash University Population Centre, as "the most informed and accessible analysis of the implications of Australia's high rate of population growth".

In response to criticism aimed at the book, Mark highlights the fact Australia's population growth reached 1.6 per cent per annum in 2008, "a rate more typical of Third World countries".

Redlands Mayor, Melva Hobson, is looking forward to hearing Mark speak on this highly topical subject.

"Here in the Redlands, population growth is something we grapple with on an almost daily basis. We know we need to manage growth, and we are determined to do so in a way that is sustainable and protects the things we love about our city," Cr Hobson said.

"I'm very interested to hear Mark speak, and hear his approach to the population challenge, particularly as it relates to the Redlands."

Redland City Councillor Debra Henry has been instrumental in securing Mark's commitment to bring his books to south-east Queensland.

"To omit population from the sustainability equation is a formula for failure," Cr Henry said.

"With the review of the SEQ Regional Plan under way, it's imperative to recognise the difference between avoidable and unavoidable growth and the influencing factors. Mark's well-researched book, in an easy-to-read format, is a valuable tool for those serious about securing a sustainable future."

Mark is a committed environmentalist, poet and author of more than 20 books (on subjects ranging from poetry about the Great Barrier Reef and the Blue Mountains, to literary criticism and population and the environment).

He will be available to sign copies of the Overloading Australia during the launch and copies will be available for sale.

Overloading Australia launch
RPAC Auditorium
February 20
4.30pm (refreshments served from 4pm)
Free (bookings not required)

Download flyer (PDF, 445K)

#OtherAppearances" id="OtherAppearances">Mark will also be appearing at other locations:

Caloundra
Where: Caloundra Events Centre, Minchinton Street, Caloundra
When: Saturday 21st February at 1:00 - 1:30pm (followed by a SEQ Regional Plan Workshop until 4:00pm)

University of Queensland
Where: Goddard Building (8). Room #139
When: Monday 23rd February, 1:30 - 3:00pm

Brisbane City Council Library
Where: Brisbane Square, 266 George Street, Brisbane
Monday 23rd February, 4:00 - 5:30pm

See also: "Growthist responses to Overloading Australia" of 27 Jan 09, "Overloading Australia - new book about Australia's overpopulation problem" of 23 Jul 08, "Andrew Bolt: Why add 1.5 million when Victorian infrastructure can't cope with current population?" of 31 Jan 09, "How the growth lobby threatens Australia's future" of 24 Jan 09 (also published on Online Opinion with forum discssion).

Every time opinions like Boswell's or Turkey's or the Australian newspaper's go unchallenged more people will believe them.

As a movement are people who defend forests prepared to be kicked down with lies and then try to challenge an entrenched view over months or years?

After I watched 200 people loose their lives, I want you to read some very basic information.

The Kilmore fire started on the edge of a farmland, was not catchable, ripped through plantations and across huge firebreaks like the Hume freeway and strategic breaks. It had burnt around the farmland trapping people trying to escape out of Kinglake long before it burnt through the National Park and into Kinglake. It burnt quite slowly through the Wallaby Creek catchment compared to the Mt Disapointment state forest. Even though it was still moving at over 10kmh. A fire is pretty well much uncontrollable at around 2kmh.

Mt Dissapointment state forest is a mecca for 4wds and other recreationists that claim by allowing them into the bush, then fires will be stopped. Didn't do a thing to slow the fire down and it sped up to a speed that fire fighting agencies couldn't even get around to warn communities what was coming.

This fire has burnt through the urban interface, the most heavily fire managed areas around.

This fire has burnt through the urban interface, the most heavily fire managed areas around. The Kinglake National Park is on very poor quality soils. Hence it is mainly only low growing grasses.

Fire ripped through the most heavily woodchipped area and mecca for recreational groups

The Murrundindi fire started in very close proximity to a timber mill. It burnt to Marysville 20 kms away in just over an hour. This is in currently the most heavily woodchipped area in Victoria and also a mecca for the 4wd and associated groups. It has spotted across the Acheron valley and raced up areas heavily woodchipped as a crown fire into the closed O'shannassy water catchment.

Old growth forest did better than most, but resources not stretching to put out low intensity fires

We are getting a picture that SOME areas of old growth ash forest remained unburnt in the initial fire storm. But unfortunately they are now burning because there are not enough resources to go and put them out and they are a little inaccessible. But they are burning at very low intensity and will hopefully survive. DSE are putting their emphasis onto stopping the fire from getting into the Upper Yarra catchment and this may include back burning the rubicon state forest and private land and other catchments.

The Old growth of Maroondah catchment has generally survived to date but again fires are just starting to enter them. hopefully they will stay at an intensity low enough for the eucs to survive.

Plantations and heavily managed forestry areas attracted the worst fires

Apart from Bunyip, I cannot think of any major fire this season that hasn't been in a plantation or other heavily managed forestry area. It is almost like they are being targetted.

Current lifestyle of making everything drier and hotter. We can expect fire events like this again.

Now is the time for the logging industry to be moved into the plantations.

Now is the time for the logging industry to be moved into the plantations.We've barely got any forest left. The burnt forests will eventually re-grow - Australian native forests can recover from fire. Moving into plantations is a better way for the industry to move forward.

In a way this event is wiping the slate clean of our past land management mistakes and giving the Australian bush the opportunity to continue to evolve as it has for thousands of years with fire.

Salvage logging - will strip everything there

Salvage logging - will strip everything there. At the moment the situation is that the forests have burnt, but that's happened for millions of years in Australia. Fire does provide opportunities for nature, native forests recover from fire.

The plantations need to be salvaged - these are private investments that farmers and other landowners have made - in the face of losing other assets, they need to be worked with to make the most of what's left and what they've invested in over years. Help stimulate the economy, protect communities and stop it from being a burden on tax payers.

Claims about record levels of fuel don't make sense after 12 yrs of drought and much fuel-reduction burning

How after 12 years of drought and recent mega fires and a policy of so much fuel reduction burning, do we get the claimed record levels of fuel?

But how do you control a fire under the following circumstances?

Temperatures were the hottest ever recorded at 47 degrees celsius. Relative humidity in single figures and winds constantly hitting 100kmh. A 12 year drought. 1ml of rain in 6 weeks. The previous week a run of 5 days each over 40 degrees. Previously unheard of.

The media should respond with fact and not create hatred at a time when Australians are bonding.

Paul.

1) Much of the fire burnt most intensively through dry forest with euc species such as Euc radiata and Euc dives. These trees have no market value for the logging industry and usually no logging takes place in them. On the Modis fire satellite image, the fire appears to have burnt these forests most intensively, whereas the wetter forests are patchy. The towns of Marysville, Kinglake and St Andrews are surrounded by these drier forest types, so it is not surprising that we see the highest levels of devastation in these areas.

2) These fires burnt very aggressively in plantations. The Churchill fire mostly burnt through plantation areas managed by Hancock Victorian Plantations and its subsidiaries. These plantations are obviously intensively managed with wood production as their primary purpose, yet these burned very intensively.

3) Around Whittlesea, Wallan and East Kilmore, the much of these fires burnt through long grass on farmland. The argument of forest protection around these areas is irrelevant, given that these areas are cleared farmlands and had very little forest areas upwind on Saturday.

4) The fire on Mt Riddle is an interesting case. This fire was ignited by a lightning strike and has burnt the northern slope. At the beginning of last year, the DSE/Parks Victoria lit a large control burn on this slope, of which it even scorched the crowns of the eucs. This control burn has not prevented the ignition and spread of this fire into Healesville and surrounding forest.

5) Many of these fires have started on either private land or non-forest areas (ie the fire that burned over Mount Disappointment). The only fire at this stage to have started in National Park was the Mt Riddle Fire. The Mt Disappointment/Whittlesea fire raced over in a SE direction into the protected Wallaby Creek catchment.

6) Large fire breaks had been cut through Mt Disappointment bounding the Wallaby Creek water catchment. It could be argued that this is 'active management' by the logging industry, given that the breaks were cut by the contractors. Yet they were useless in preventing the fire from spreading from the state forest into the protected Wallaby Creek catchment.

7) It is suspected that the fires west of Mt Disappointment and Yarra Glen, along with Churchill, were deliberately lit. This is a case of managing 'people' rather than forests. Authorities need to clamp down on arsonists and when convicted, they are put on a police register for life, similar to sex offenders. When high fire danger days are predicted, these 'registered people' need to be directly monitored by the police.

8) These fires are being intensified by a rapidly changing climate. Scientific models developed by the CSIRO have predicted that high fire danger days are going to increase dramatically with increased greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere. In addition, it should be noted that scientific studies around the world indicate that highly disturbed ecosystems will be more vulnerable to the climate crisis than less disturbed ones.

Source: Remarks from a correspondent

A testimony to the generosity and solidarity of Victorians in a crisis, millions of dollars are pouring in for human bush-fire victims, but the people rescuing animals are digging into their own pockets.
We have enough to take care of everybody, man, woman and wildlife. Please direct some to the wildlife.

Help for Wildlife: Ph 0417 380 687 Nigel's Animal Rescue: Ph 0427 533 083 You can use your credit card.

Being responsible, being truly kind and brave

It is very dangerous to go into the forests still, but people are already bringing out the native animals and someone has to take care of them and feed them. It has been reported to me that the rescuers are simply digging into their own pockets and that they are filling up their homes with injured creatures. These animal rescuers and nurses deserve full-time salaries from the government, as well as medals - all year round.
Help for Wildlife: Ph 0417 380 687 Nigel's Animal Rescue: Ph 0427 533 083

Please show that you are not as stingy or pitiless as our government.

You might think that the Department of Sustainability, which administers the Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act (never ever applied) and the Wildlife Act is taking care of things. Well I would like to know what they are doing for wildlife right now, apart from issuing dubious culling licences.

Time to show solidarity with all creatures great and small

It is we humans who caused the fires by thinning the forests over two centuries and letting in the light which dries them up.
The forests control the climate. Without them the ground heats up and turns to desert where nothing grows. The forests need the animals and we need the forests.

The forests CAN BE helped.

We have to rehabilitate Victoria. That includes all Victorians - feathered, furred, finned and foliaged as well as human.

Teresa Wilpa writes, "I am writing with a heavy heart and in a very somber mood. As you already know the fires have savaged over 400 000 ha in Victoria and floods have affected nearly 60% of Queensland.

The suffering of humans and non-humans is beyond words. While the whole nation braced itself and millions of dollars have generously been donated for human victims, it is not always the same when animals are concerned. There are many animal organisations which have sprung into action, but if you would like to directly support affected animals (cutting out the middle man) please read below.

She is making a personal appeal to help a special wildlife shelter which went up in flames. It is Wildhaven in NE Victoria.

The shelter was run by Stella and Alan Reid. Very often we have received updates from Stella on life at Wildhaven. Wildhaven was a real haven - a safe, peaceful paradise for all creatures and especially for kangaroos. As you know I am involved with animal protection and constantly receive emails about cruelty and acts of torment inflicted on non-humans by humans... ... but every time when I spotted Stella's email my face lit up as I knew that I was in for a beautiful treat. The affectionate images of tender kangaroos, usually embraced by gentle light, always had a soothing effect on my sore soul.
We got to know each of them by name...

All animals under their care have perished in the flames (including domestic pets) and numerous kangaroos, wallabies and wombats who lived on their property and whom Stella cared for.....

Please donate generously

- by direct transfer

Bank details:

Stella Reid
Commonwealth Bank of Australia
BSB: 063 222
Account: 10262617

- by cheque

Postal Address

Stella and Alan Reid
c/o St Andrews Post Office
10 Caledonia Street,
St Andrews
Victoria 3761
Australia

By PayPal

PayPal address : [email protected]

Please state there: for Stella's kangaroos

The PayPal option might be the most convenient for International donations.

To burn-off or not to burn-off?

There's a pot-stirring poll in today's Australian - Is conservation policy to blame for the fires?
The truth is that logging is responsible for the fires. Logging or 'forestry management' historically, and probably actually, underpins the philosophy of the Department of Sustainability Victoria's approach to forests and is almost certainly responsible for increasing fire-risk in our forests and Victoria's climate change.

New cut at brown mountain lets in light, starts drying

Here is what logging does to forests:

Source: Woods Hole Research Centre, "Fire and Savannization"

Every year, accidental understory fires damage a large percentage of Amazon forest. This is the phenomenon we have called 'cryptic deforestation' (Nepstad 1999). These escaped fires travel slowly (10-20 meters an hour) and only reach a few inches in height, but they can be quite destructive to understory vegetation and kill many larger trees. Once a forest has burned, increased leaf shedding, an abundance of branches and other coarse fuel enhance its fuel load, and an open canopy ensures the fuel will be dry enough to burn. Since settlement is typically a one-way process, the ignition source - humans - is there to stay, and successive burns tend to be more intense and destructive.

Cryptic deforestation due to forest fires and logging may affect as much forest area as deforestation in most years — and even more during periods of prolonged drought. For instance, during El Niño years, up to 25,000 km2 of Brazilian forests may be affected by fire."

We can change local climate by changing forests.

Think of how much cooler it is in a thick forest on a hot day, if that forest is dark and well watered.
A healthy forest is a microclimate that recycles its own water and creates rain.
The forests that burned were not healthy forests. They have been thinned for centuries by logging. Prior to that, the dry forests were largely created through aboriginal fire-stick farming.

We have been brainwashed by the logging industry to believe this is normal.

The same thing is now happening to the Amazon.

Fires will cost more if we don't spend money on forest-rehab now

Think of all the money and water that the fires have so-far cost us.
That could have gone to hydrating them, nursing them back in to health.
We could recycle water through forests, plant in-between the trees - providing viable understory and denser trees.

Clean Ocean Foundation has been campaigning for just such a use for 'waste-water' for years.

It could pay off in terms of increased rainfall and pleasant climate nearby, quite quickly. As we rehabilitate and increase our forests, around sustainably built, fire-proof towns, climate has a chance of improving, Victoria-wide. We really don't have any other options.

God, we just throw money away on everything else and in Victoria we do send an enormous amount of water which would once have percolated slowly through the land, mostly through forests, out into the sea. Gunnamatta outfall, for instance, where 150 gigalitres of polluted water runs into the sea every year.

Loggers have normalised drying, dying forests to our cost

Note that this may seem more of a problem than it is because the forests have been managed by people who have normalised the idea of constantly thinning forests so that the public no longer question the idea that they catch fire more and more frequently.

Logging costs Victoria more than money; we can employ loggers to rehabilitate the forests and our climate

Yet there are loggers who know and love the forests, but have no other way of making a living. Let's provide jobs for the community rehabilitating the forests and our climate. It would be so much more interesting and positive than logging - which probably costs Victoria more money than it makes.

A healthy forest lets in little light (pic by Sheila Newman)

The key to potentiating a wetter forest must be
(a) in redensifying it; adding trees so that there is less light and less drying
(b) in the opposite order, growing a wet understory, and several layers of such
(c) reducing light and increasing moisture by increasing canopy, density and tree size, height and age

Ideas for transforming dry forests into wet forests in Oz, esp. Victoria.

Dry forests will use up water only as long as it takes to get them on their feet; then they will conserve their own water and positively affect rainfall.

#10;<small>Look at the role of the trees in creating rainfall. More trees, more rain. The best investment of time and energy in this time of growing unemployment. Write to Kevin Rudd and Mr Brumby</small></p>&#10;<h4>Where might the water come from?</h4>&#10;<p>Here are some ideas:<br />&#10;- Recycle drinking water or other water through them prior to reuse - <a href=" https:="" />Gunnamatta Outfall - 150 GL a year.
- Wet the dry 'fuel' and use it as mulch.
- Maybe use chemical agents which retain moisture initially among the mulch (such as are sold for people who don't wish often to water their plants.
- Use wetting agents
- Close down some of the new intensive irrigation farms, such as feedlots and divert the water back to a good cause
- Use water from desal plants - if we must have them; let us use their water well instead of on new developments.

-Tax water speculators (buyers and sellers) an amount per dollar for forest rehab.
- Get volunteers to contribute money from their taxes to buy water for forest moistening.

Once you had established some wet understory, it wouldn't take too long for a lot of the evaporation to stop.

- Fast-growing wet-forest trees which could be helped along.
- Use a variety of techniques to intensify the humidity of the forest climate; maybe possible to artificially increase the canopy for a while, for instance, to retard evaporation.
- You could start planting a section at a time.
- It might be an idea to replant for wet forest (irrigated) on the edges of the forests next to towns (obviously you would then have to plant a buffer-zone to diminish evaporation. However you need a large, consolidated area to enhance the forest micro-climate

- Build up the earth around the forests, using bulldozers, to create giant swales feeding into the forests, stopping run-off and allowing percolation.
- Prolong the swales (Peter Andrews style) back as far as you can in the catchment area.
- Un-dam, undivert rivers and creeks which once fed the forests.

- Stop growing the population of water consumers and take some back from dumb industries like paper (short fibres) recycling. Most industrial recycling is a waste of energy. The most useful recycling you can do is of organic waste in your garden. (Yes, a garden is a very good thing for the environment.)

Those are just some ideas.

Keep on doing the same thing and you will get the same results - lots of bushfires

The Murrindindi fire blasted over the Black Range and some of the most "managed" forest in Victoria on it's way to the Acheron Valley and Marysville. Logging regeneration and pine plantations mostly. Then it slowed down once it hit the O'Shannesy/Armstrong catchment. Unfortunately looks like some old growth remnants from 1939 may have gone in the Deep Creek area.

The logging industry and their political mouthpieces don't care about the truth or facts, they are only concerned with establishing their self interest position in the public mind, off the back of tragedy, and of course blaming "greenies" and "conservation" as the villains.

It is a replay of what they did after the 1993 bushfires, and they kept it up for over 6 months.

Hopefully the Royal Commission will sort out the propaganda and lies from the truth, but no doubt the loggers will provide a barrage of submissions and run a PR campaign in their favour too.

The irresponsible and inflammatory attitude of the mainstream media

Miranda Divine has already jumped on the forest-bashing bandwagon, but has she even looked deeply into the matter?
Wilson Tuckey sounds like a wise old parent, doesn't he, giving us all the bad news about growing up. But are we such children as to believe him?

Twice today on Radio National the opportunists were at it - first Phil Cheney in the morning and on The World Today, the ABC Radio National gave David Packham oxygen.

Let the mainstream media know that their coverage of this rubbish is in bad taste and shows shocking ignorance of the issue. We must not allowing different environment sectors to be used as a political tools by the mainstream media, which, going by its interests in property development, population growth, housing and big-business, would rather get rid of the forests and the native wildlife and just have wall to wall houses and crops - and the hell with our climate.

Now go and answer that poll in the Australian.

See also: "Greens, logging, forest fires and malaria" of 11 Feb 09 and "Brown Mountain Rape" of 26 Jan 09

The real reason why Defence killed 514 kangaroos at Belconnen last May had nothing to do with endangered species. If allowed to live longer, kangaroos might have shown symptoms like the blind sheep previously at Belconnen. And now the truth is out!

How can groundwater and soil be heavily contaminated with dioxins, heavy metals, lead, asbestos, hydrocarbons and PCBs on the BNTS site but not the surrounding areas where people already live?

It’s already in the groundwater, the soil and therefore blowing in the wind. Exactly where are they planning to remove the contamination to? How can everything be rosy after the cleanup since it’s already in Ginninderra Lake and the aquifers?

And what about the damage to the endangered grassland species that the government was oh so worried about the kangaroos 'threatening' when they scoop out 900 square metres of soil?

What about the remaining experimental 100 kangaroos at Belconnen? Will they be secretly disposed of while this 'clean-up' happens?

What’s more important – human health, endangered species, native wildlife, future generations, a clean environment, integrity or making money off yet another housing estate?

There's a lot being covered up in Canberra these days ...

See also: "Defence kiboshes Belconnen grassland refuge plan" of 30 Sep 08, "Defence to clean up Belconnen site" of 30 Sep 08, Remediation of the Belconnen Naval Transmission Station" of 22 Oct 08, "Belconnen Kangaroo massacre" of 30 May 08.

Help us get to 10,000 signatures!