(We) can do better

Summary: The report's two crucial conclusions are that the greenhouse problem can be solved by adoption of alternative technologies, and that this can be done at negligible cost to GDP.

The glaring fault in the Report is its failure to discuss the energy assumptions underlying these conclusions, which I argue are invalid.
The core assumption is that alternative energy technologies can be scaled up by the huge magnitudes required to replace fossil fuels.

There has been almost no study of this issue, i.e., the limits to renewable energy sources. The paper looks at the quantities of wind, solar, geo-sequestration etc. that would have to be provided if Garnaut's conclusions were to be achievable, and indicates why these quantities are impossibly large.

If these arguments are valid then it will not be possible to provide the amount of energy consumer capitalist society demands while achieving acceptable greenhouse targets. lt is argued that the greenhouse and energy problems must be seen as elements within the general limits to growth predicament, and that these and other alarming global problems cannot be solved without transition to some kind of Simpler Way.

The 12 page paper is dated 13-11-08 and can also be found at ssis.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/GarnautFinal.html Critical feedback on the paper would be welcome.

The Final Garnaut Report; A Radical Critique of its Energy Assumptions.

13.11.2008

The publication of the Final Garnaut report (2008) has made a significant contribution to increasing awareness of the magnitude and urgency of the greenhouse problem and it has moved Australia towards the implementation of carbon trading. However the lengthy and detailed report is based on crucial energy assumptions that are not discussed let alone established. The argument below is that these assumptions are invalid and therefore Garnaut’s conclusions are unsound and his policy recommendations are seriously misleading.

Like the Stern (2007) and IPCC Fourth Report Working Group 3 (2007) analyses of carbon mitigation Garnaut’s core conclusion is that the greenhouse problem can be solved by the adoption of alternative technologies at negligible cost to GDP. In other words, these three highly influential reports reaffirm the common belief that conservation effort, geo-sequestration, nuclear energy and renewable energy sources can cut greenhouse emissions to safe levels while GDP continues to grow at more or less historical rates. Remarkably, none of these reports considers the reasons for concluding that the alternatives cannot replace fossil fuels, at any economic cost. This case is detailed in my Renewale Energy Cannot Sustain Consumer Society, (Trainer, 2007a), and a more recent summary of the case is given in Trainer 2008. (Critiques of the Stern and IPCC Reports are given in Trainer 2007b, and Trainer 2007c.)

Garnaut’s treatment of the crucial assumption

Garnaut concludes that the desirable target for atmospheric CO2 concentration is 450 ppm (although he recommends a 550 ppm target on the grounds that the lower one is not likely to be accepted.) The IPCC estimates that the 450 ppm target would result in a 2 – 2.4 degree rise in temperature. Many would now say that this runs an unacceptable risk of global ecological damage. Hansen (2008) argues that the appropriate target is in the region of 380 ppm, which the world has already passed.

Garnaut aligns with the IPCC in saying that the target would require all carbon emissions to be eliminated by 2100. He anticipates that by 2100 Australian electricity consumption is likely to be 7 times as great as it is now, i.e., around 5.25 EJ/y. (Fig. 20.10.) His Fig. 20.18 anticipates that globally electricity will be generated at a rate that is 10.3 times the present rate, i.e., 103 TWh/y or 620 EJ/y. These figures represent huge increases on present electricity consumption rates, and Garnaut is saying they will be achieved without carbon emissions (p. 482) or significant economic cost. Apart from a few superficial remarks, no explanation, derivation or defence of these assumptions or conclusions is given in the 700 page Report. Almost no reference is made to the possible magnitudes of the contributions that might be made by renewable energy sources, geosequestration and nuclear energy. He simply assumes or states that alternative technologies will be able to cut emissions sufficiently. Almost all of the relevant statements in the 700 page report are given in the brief Appendix 1 to this paper.

The energy targets.

First, note again the magnitude of the problem. By Garnaut’s own account the 2100 global target is a 10 fold multiple of present electricity supply, and a 7.5 multiple for Australia, with 95% of it coming from non-carbon emitting energy sources.

It is not clear how Garnaut accounts Australia’s probable transport energy and the figures do not seem to add up. Fig. 21.4 shows transport emissions rising from 80 million t/y to 350 million t/y under business as usual, but falling to about 20 million t/y by 2100 under the Standard run. (p. 512.) It is assumed that by the end of the century zero-emissions fuels account for 90 per cent of fuel use in these transport modes. (p.. 513.) This would mean that transport energy demand would multiply by 4.375, to 4.725 EJ.

However Fig. 20.10 shows total electricity demand is expected to be 5.25 EJ by 2100, which would mean only .875 EJ would be left to meet direct electricity demand, which is already .7 EJ and increasing at around 3% p.a. If direct electricity demand increases only at the rate ABARE expects Australian energy demand to settle to to (1.9% p. by 2030), then by 2100 it will be 6 times as great as it is now, around 4.2 EJ/y. If we add to this the electricity Garnaut assumes for transport the total is 9.45 EJ, 13.5 times the present amount, not the 5.25 EJ Garnaut’s Fig. 20.10 indicates.

The faulty methodology; "Top down" modeling.

Like Stern and the IPCC Working Group 3 and virtually all analyses of carbon mitigation, Garnaut has relied solely on either "bottom up" modeling (costing each unit of replacement technology and multiplying by the amount that would be needed) or top down modeling (estimating the effect that overall measures such as a carbon tax would have on a choice of energy sources). Garnaut’s approach is in general "top down" although he says some of the studies referred to were "bottom up".

The logic of the former approach asks what amount of tax on carbon would raise the cost of carbon based energy to the point where users would turn to other sources. To answer this question satisfactorily we would need to know firstly what the other sources cost, and more importantly whether they can be implemented on the scale required. This second question is not asked by Stern, the IPCC, or Garnaut. The following section sketches some of the many reasons for concluding that the alternatives cannot be scaled up sufficiently.

The reasons why alternatives cannot replace carbon fuels.

Let us take the global electricity target Garnaut assumes, 620 EJ/y, and also assume one-third of this comes from geosequestration, wind and solar sources respectively.

Geosequestration.

If one-third of 620 EJ, i.e., 206 EJ was to come from coal via geosequestration which captured 90% of emissions (and it might be only 80%), this would be about 6 times the present amount of world electricity produced from coal. If 90% of emissions were captured, emissions from electricity generation alone would be about 1/2 of the present global total CO2 emission level, when the target must be zero. In addition at that rate of coal use the commonly estimated probably recoverable coal resource of 1 trillion tones would last less than 40 years. (However the Energy Watch Group, 2007 (see also Hienberg, 2007), believe resources are much more limited than has been generally assumed, and that coal supply could peak within about 2 decades.

Note that all this is only for the provision of electricity and other forms of energy would also need to be explained. At present 40% of Australian energy is not accounted for by electricity plus transport.

Wind

If 206 EJ of electricity was to come from wind, where would this amount of capacity be located? Garnaut notes that there could be a problem of "site availability" (p. 481.) Trieb (undated), a strong advocate of renewables, estimates that total on and off shsore European potential is only 4 EJ. Europe would have to draw from a far wider area such as Czisch (2004) advocates extending from Morocco to Khazakhstan. This would set problems to do with transmission loss and equity; i.e., the right of other people in those areas to a share of the wind energy they produce.

If Australia is to use 7 times its present .7 EJ/y of electricity, and one-third of this is to come from wind, then wind supply would be 1.7 EJ/y. This is 50 times the amount of wind energy that the Sustainable Energy Development Authority estimated in 2005 might be provided by wind farms in NSW. Australia would need about 156,000 windmills of 1.5 MW capacity (at global average capacity of .23; IPCC, although Australia is likely to exceed this.) Average annual mill production for replacement purposes would have to be about 6,000, costing perhaps $9 billion p.a., not including transmission line replacement.

If we assume that Australia has 5000 km of coast with ideal wind conditions, then at normal spacing (5 x 10 diametres) the mills would form a band 156 km wide. (This is a significant underestimate, given the fact that areas are excluded by prior use, and that wider spacing would be required in a continuous band.)

Photovoltaic energy.

To derive one-third of a world 620 EJ electricity supply from PV sources, at average Sydney insolation, yielding about .85 GJ/m/y, would require 242 billion square metres of panels, which would probably be 27 metres per person (for 2050 population). For most of the world insolation would be much lower than in Sydney.

If Australia was to derive 1.7 EJ p.a. from solar panels we would need 2 billion square metres of panels, possibly 66 square metres per person. At the present cost, including balance of system cost, this would come to $475,000 for a household of four for one-third of national electricity supply. These PV panels could only supply electricity for about 7 hours a day on average.

Nuclear energy.

Nuclear energy is almost irrelevant to a discussion of the long term global energy future in view of the limited Uranium plus Thorium resources, unless breeder or fusion technologies are assumed. (Trainer 2007, Chapter 9.) The commonly estimated 3.7 – 4 million tones of Uranium would generate a total of only about 600 EJ of electricity, i.e., the equivalent of one year’s demand at the 2100 global rate Garnaut anticipates. Taking the high resource estimates and adding Thorium might multiple the quantity by 6. (Zittel, 2006.)

Integration problems.

Even if these formidable quantities of wind and solar energy could be collected and afforded, the main problems surrounding renewables have not yet been raised. These are to do with the integration and storage problems they set. No matter how much wind and PV capacity we build they can provide no energy at all – on a calm night. Output from wind and solar sources rises and falls markedly, and can do so quickly. All PV capacity would come on stream within a couple of hours, but it can take many hours to ramp up a coal-fired plant to full output. (Gas plant can ramp up quicker than coal, but gas use will not be a significant component in a renewable world, because it emits CO2, and gas resources will be largely exhausted later in this century.)

These are not difficult problems when wind and sun contribute a small proportion of demand, say up to 15% each, because adjusting the surplus coal/nuclear generating capacity can accommodate their varying output.

Very large quantities of electricity cannot be stored. Pumped hydro systems are the best option, but can cope with only a small fraction of the demand. Hydroelectricity makes up only about 6% of Australian electricity supply. To store as hydrogen means that possibly 75% of the electrical energy generated would be lost, not including the embodied energy cost of building the elaborate hydrogen generating, processing, storing and electricity regenerating plant. (Bossell, 2004.) That is why a number of people believe we will never have a large scale "hydrogen economy." (See Trainer, 2007a, Chapter 6.) Garnaut devotes one sentence to this enormous storage problem, simply asserting that we can expect it to be solved. (p. 481.)

Note also that if the wind sector is large, for every 1000 MW of wind capacity added up to 1000 MW of coal or nuclear power might also have to be built, to use when the winds are down. This would add greatly to the capital cost of the new system, and clash with greenhouse goals.

If the PV contribution fell from 1.7 EJ to zero in a few hours a load equivalent to about 70 coal or nuclear power stations of 1000 MW capacity, twice our present total generating capacity, would have to be picked up by some other source.

Could solar thermal systems solve the problem?

Because solar thermal systems have the capacity to store heat that can be used to generate later they will probably be the most valuable contributors to a renewable energy world. However it seems that even in Central Australia, possibly the best solar thermal site in the world, these systems will not be ale to provide significant quantities of electricity over the three winter months at an acceptable cost. (For a more detailed discussion, see Trainer, 2008.)

In winter output from trough systems in use in the best US sites goes down to 20% of summer output. The analysis of relevant factors such as direct normal insolation levels, the probable performance of east west troughs in winter, operating and embodied energy costs, and transmission losses from distant sites, seems to leave little doubt that trough systems in winter would not be viable. Average 24 hour flows might be in the region of 10 W/m.

Dishes would be more effective than troughs, but output from the US Mod dish systems corresponds to a continual flow of 18-25 W/metre over a winter month. Performance data on other systems (Davenport, 2008) indicates c. 25 W/m flows. However such figures apply to use of efficient Stirling engines generating electricity at the focus of each dish and these are not applicable to our purpose, which requires heat storage.

The ANU group is exploring the use of ammonia dissociation (splitting into hydrogen and nitrogen) as a way of storing heat from dishes. (Lovegrove and Luzzi, 1996.) They believe the energy efficiency of the chemical process could be .7, and that half the energy entering the dish should be available for generating electricity after storage. This approach is very promising but its net energy efficiency seems to be problematic. For instance if the above Mod etc. winter output figure is reduced to .7 to take into account the ammonia storage process efficiency, and reduced again to take into account the lower efficiency of steam generation compared with Stirling engines, then the winter output would probably be significantly lower than the above 18-25 W/m reported for dish–Stirling systems. Note that at 25 W/m a large power station would need a 40 million square metre collection area, probably costing in the region of $(A)35 billion.

From this gross flow must be subtracted the embodied energy cost of building the collection plant and the heat storage plant involving large and heavy pressurised tanks for the ammonia process. The attempt to assess the embodied energy cost of this system in Trainer 2008 indicates high figures for very large scale systems. Fortunately the Whyalla project being built by Wizard Power will clarify some of these issues. Its developers say they are not yet clear about probable performance and in any case understandably will not make their technical information public.

Also to be deducted are the embodied energy costs of the very long distance transmission lines from central Australia to Eastern coasts. For European supply from Eastern Sahara these could be 15% of energy generated.

Perhaps the most difficult problem for solar thermal systems is set by the need for several days storage of energy in view of winter cloud occurrence. The climate data in Trainer 2008 shows that in central Australia in each winter month there might be two runs of 4 days with little sunlight. Heat storage capacity capable of coping with such runs would be extremely costly in terms of dollars and embodied energy. However if it is assumed that solar thermal is going to solve the intermittency problem set by other renewable source a far greater storage problem is set. This would require solar thermal plant to be equipped with the capacity to generate, accumulate, and store energy output from perhaps three times as much wind plus PV etc. plant as there is solar thermal plant, for several days.

For these reasons it seems that although solar thermal systems will probably be the most valuable contributors to a renewable energy world, they will not be able to guarantee electricity supply in winter even in Australia.

The conversion problem.

Discussions of the potential of renewable energy sources usually fail to take into account the need to convert energy from forms that are available to forms that are needed. Conversion is typically quite energy-inefficient, meaning that much more energy needs to be generated than might appear to be the case.

Electricity accounts for only about 20% of Australian final energy consumption. Garnaut does not explain where the perhaps 40% of energy other than direct electricity and transport energy is to come from, and he therefore does not deal with the losses of energy in conversion from one form to another Nor does Garnaut deal with the fact that sea and air transport cannot be fuelled by electricity.

It should be made clear that little of the global energy budget is likely to come from biomass. (Garnaut does not assume a large contribution.) In Chapter 5 of Trainer 2007a it is explained that if 9 billion people were to have the present Australian amount of transport energy per person from cellulosic ethanol, we would have to harvest a 23 billion ha plantation on a planet with only 13 billion ha of land. (Australia’s biomass potential is likely to be far greater than most countries.)

Energy conclusions.

At the very least the above discussion shows that there are several major difficulties and important issues which need to be resolved satisfactorily before confident conclusions can be arrived at, yet Garnaut does not deal with any of these. He anticipates an Australian electricity consumption that is 7.5 times the present amount, with 7 times the present amount coming from non-carbon based sources, and he anticipates global electricity consumption 10.3 times as great as at present but in a report of 700 pages gives no attention to showing that such huge multiples can be provided. This paper has pointed out that there are a number of impressive lines of argument supporting the conclusion that they cannot be provided.

All the issues raised above were presented to Garnaut as a mid-2008 response to the Interim Report, in the paper Trainer 2008. Receipt of this paper was acknowledged but it is not included in the list of submissions received in the Final Report.

It should be stressed that the points made above are not arguments against renewable energy. We must move to total dependence on renewables as quickly as possible and we can all live well on them, but not in an affluent-consumer-capitalist society.

The Limits to Growth position.

For some 50 years a "limits to growth" analysis of our situation has been accumulating, taking into account many more than energy issues. Its core point is that consumer society is grossly unsustainable because its levels of production and consumption are far higher than can be kept up for long or than all could ever rise to. The quest for affluence and growth is the direct cause of the many alarming global problems now accelerating. Just to note one of these impressive lines of argument, the Australian per capita footprint, around 8 ha of productive land, is about 10 times the amount of productive land that will be available on the planet by 2050 (even ignoring land losses.)

Considerations of this kind support the claim that consumer-capitalist society is not just grossly unsustainable, it cannot be made sustainable. A way of life which is rapidly destroying ecosystems and depleting resources, that is shared by only one-fifth of the world’s people but that all the rest are striving for, that insists on doubling consumption every 23 years, that is possible for a few only because they are taking far more than their fair share and condemning some 4 billion people to poverty – can’t be made sustainable or just.

Even though Garnaut actually briefly discusses the problem of resource limits (p. 69 and Table 3.3), he defers to the dominant ideology regarding the limits theme. He says there is no point considering any option to the greenhouse problem which threatens significant slowing of growth, let alone which involves a transition to much lower levels of production and consumption. He says, "It is neither desirable, nor remotely feasible, to seek to lower the climate change risk by substantially slowing the rise in living standards anywhere, least of all in developing countries. If such an approach were thought to be desirable in some expression of distant and idiosyncratic values, neither Australians, nor people in the developing countries, would accept it.(p. xxl.) Global and national mitigation is only going to be successful if reductions in emissions can be made and demonstrated to be consistent with continued economic growth and rising living standards." (p..)

For several decades some of us have been arguing that the only way out of the global predicament is by huge and radical transition to some form of Simpler Way, in which the core elements are non-affluent lifestyles, mostly small local economies under participatory social control and not driven by market forces or profit, and without any growth at all. (See The Simpler Way website, Trainer 2006.) Such a society would not be possible without equally radical change away from the competitive, acquisitive value syndrome that has driven Western culture for several hundred years.

There is now a small but rapidly growing global movement attempting to build an alternative of this general kind, most evident in the Global Ecovillage Movement and the Transition Towns initiative. Yet, given the overwhelming dominance of the commitment to material affluence and economic growth, the prospects for global transition to some kind of Simpler Way must be judged to be remote. This conclusion is powerfully reinforced by the failure/refusal of governments, media, bureaucracies, people in general, and the intelligentsia to recognise any need to question the commitment to pursuing limitless affluence and growth. Garnaut’s final Report powerfully reinforces the faith that there is no need to think about limits or transition to simpler ways, because alternative technologies will be able to eliminate the greenhouse problem while delivering with vastly greater quantities of energy, and at negligible cost.

Appendix 1. Statements relevant to the adequacy
of renewable energy sources.

- There is a path to Australia being a low-emissions economy by the middle of the
21st century, consistently with continuing strong growth in material living standards.(p. xvii.)
- The solutions to the climate change challenge must be found in removing the

- The interaction of the emissions trading scheme with support for research,
development and commercialisation and for network infrastructure will lead to
successful transition to a near-zero emissions energy sector by mid-century. (p. xliii.)
- Substantial de-carbonisation by 2050 to meet either the 450 or 550 obligation is

- The development of storage technologies and ongoing technical innovation is expected to combine with geothermal energy to begin to replace fossil fuels as the long term solution to our energy needs. Near zero emissions coal technology will have carried out its primary role and remain a significant energy source for some time. (p. 482.)

In Chapter 11 Garnaut makes it clear that he has not examined the potential of particular renewable energy technologies (p. 251) but he regards the most likely of these to be carbon capture and storage. The key numbers, such as those represented in Figure 11.1 stating costs associated with the 450 and 550 ppm targets, cannot sensibly be given without a detailed and convincing explanation of precisely what mix of alternatives might make their contributions and at what cost for each of them. No derivations of these conclusions are given.

- Technological development of any type is difficult to predict. When powerful incentives to innovation are introduced to a market environment, however, human ingenuity usually surprises on the upside. How will this ingenuity manifest itself in the face of high emissions prices and increased public support on a global scale for research, development and commercialisation of low-emissions technologies? We do not know, but there are good reasons to believe that, if we get the policy settings right over the next few years, the technological realities later in the century will be greatly superior to those which, for good reason, are embodied in the standard technology variants of the models used by the Review. (p. 273.)

The footnote says “2 The standard technology assumptions represent a best estimate of the cost, availability and performance of technologies based on historical experience, current knowledge and expected future trends. The standard scenario includes some technological cost reductions through learning by doing and improvements in existing technologies and the emergence and wide-scale deployment of some currently unproven technologies such as carbon capture and storage, hot rocks (geothermal) and hydrogen cars. It does not, however, include a backstop technology in any sector.” (p. 273.) No references are given.

- As one alternative to the standard technology assumptions, the Review
modeled an enhanced technology future, embodying various assumptions of more rapid technological progress, none of which seems unlikely. (p. 252.)

The essentials in the footnote are

- Faster energy efficiency improvements of an extra 1 per cent annually from 2013 to 2030, an extra 0.5 per cent from 2031 to 2040
- More effective carbon capture and storage in response to higher carbon prices
- The share of combustion CO 2 captured increases from 90 per cent to 99 per cent as the permit price rises from zero to $140/t CO2-e
- Faster learning by doing for electricity and transport technologies by increasing the parameter for the learning functions by 50 per cent relative to the standard assumptions over the whole simulation period, and
- Non-combustion agricultural emissions are eliminated when the carbon price exceeds $250/t CO-e. (p. 273.)

Each of the statements in this footnote lacks support, raises major problems and is open to radical criticism. Firstly, the future rate of energy efficiency improvement is highly uncertain and there are poor grounds for assuming particular rates regardless of whether or not the past yields clear figures. We are in an era of great uncertainty, risk and difficulties. Certainly in the short run the now greatly increased incentive is likely to generate considerable gains, but after the low hanging fruit have been picked there will probably be severely diminishing returns. Yet Garnaut assumes likely rates of improvement out to 2040, without supporting argument.

One of the most challengeable aspects of Garnaut’s optimism concerns geosequestration. In this passage he proceeds as if 99% capture and storage will be achieved. (E.g. pp. 273, 482.) It is generally assumed, including by the IPCC, that the limit is 80 -90%. In any case geosequestration can only be applied to that perhaps 50 - 60% of carbon emitting energy generating plant that is stationary. What’s more, Garnaut assumes without explanation that this rate will be possible at the relatively benign cost of $140/t – CO2e.

The third claim is not clear but seems to be, again without explanation, that the figures in the first (energy efficiency) paragraph can be increased by 50%.

In the fourth statement he baldly asserts an outcome which, to say the least, calls for serious examination. How are agricultural emissions to be eliminated, and how is this brought about by the carbon price of $250/t?

In Economic Modeling Technical Paper 1 it is said that there was a detailed treatment of renewable generation in the MMRF modeling, (p. 10), but no information is given.

The most appropriate statement Garnaut makes regarding the core problems is, “Many of the individual technologies are technically proven. Issues of scale, integration and economics are likely to be the greatest challenges. The challenge posed by the scale of the task is the most significant of these.” (p. 495). The reference to the scale of the problem is appropriate but no discussion is offered or referred to.

Again these statements are in effect all the Report includes which refer to, let alone defend the crucial assumption that alternative technologies can solve the problem. In other words almost no case is given and it has been simply assumed that sufficient alternatives can be found to provide more than ten times present electricity supply, while almost completely eliminating emissions.

by Professor Ted Trainer of UNSW.

Bossel, U., (2004), 'The hydrogen illusion; why electrons are a better energy carrier', Cogeneration and On-Site Power Production, March – April, pp. 55 – 59.

Czisch, G., (2004), Least-cost European/Transeuropean electricity supply entirely with renewable energies, www.iset.uni-kassel.de/abt/w3-w/project/Eur-Transeur-El-Sup.pdf

Davenport,

Energy Watch Group, (2007), Coal Resources and Future Production, April. http://www.energybulletin.net/28287.html

Garnaut, R., (2008), The Garnaut Climate Change Review; Final Report.
http://www.garnautreview.org.au/index.html

Hansen , J., (2008), http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/007829.html

Heinberg, R., (2007), “Peak coal; Sooner than you think”, On Line Opinion, 21, May,
http://www.onlineopinion.com.cua/view.asp?article=5869

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, (2007), Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report, Climate Change 2007: (Working Group 3), Mitigation of Climate Change, Summary for Policy Makers.

Lovegrove, K., Luzzi, A., (1996), "Endothermic Reactors for an Ammonia Based Thermochemical Solar Energy Storage and Transport System", Solar Energy, vol. 56, pp. 361-371.

Stern, N., 2006, Review on the Economics of Climate Change, H.M.Treasury, UK, Oct., . http://www.sternreview.org.uk

Trainer, T., (2006), The Simpler Way website, http//ssis.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/

Trainer, T., (2007a), Renewable Energy Cannot Sustain A Consumer Society, Dordrect, Springer.

Trainer, T., (2007b), The Stern Review; A critical analysis of its mitigation optimism, http://ssis.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/Stern.html

Trainer, T., (2007c), A critical discussion of the IPCC analyses of carbon emission mitigation possibilities and costs, http//ssis.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/IPCCcrit.html

Trainer, T., (2008), Assessing the limits of solar thermal power generation. http://ssis.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/solartherm.html

Trieb, F., (undated), Trans-Mediterranean Interconnection for Concentrating Solar Power; Final Report, German Aerospace Center (DLR), Institute of Technical Thermodynamics, Section Systems Analysis and Technology Assessment.

Zittel, W, et al., (2006), Uranium resources and nuclear energy, Energy Watch Group, Dec.

The following was posted as a comment to the article "About Immigration". Until I got half way through the article, I had not realised that it had been spoken back in 1993 and not recently. Our social, environmental and economic outlook has considerably worsened since 1993, but little else has changed from what Mark O'Connor describes, that is, except, in my experience, the baiting of opponents of immigration as 'racists' is not as widespread as it was back then. At least in on-line discussions, this old favourite of "open borders" advocates, is used much less. However, apart from that, nothing appears to have changed in 15 years. Back then the case against population growth was almost as well known as it is today and was ignored back then as the growth lobby exerted its anti-democratic influence on the national population policy direction behind closed doors just as they do today.

This time we must ensure that the knowledge that we have about the harmful effects of human population growth does inform our national population and immigration policy, so that in another 15 years time, we don't find ourselves living in a crowded desertified and polluted third world slum. - JS 9 Dec 08

Author and poet Mark O'Connor on "immigrationism":

The world average for net immigration is of course zero. Most countries take in about as many immigrants as they produce emigrants. Overpopulation may be the greatest current problem for most nations, yet a well balanced immigration program need contribute little to this.

Only a handful of countries, such as Australia and Canada, have seriously unbalanced immigration programs. In these countries many more thousands of people enter the country than leave it each year. The net influx then becomes a serious problem both for the economy and for achieving population stability and ESD (Ecologically Sustainable Development).

The word 'immigrationism' in my title is not a mere synonym for immigration. We are talking about an ideology - one that is currently omnipresent in the media. Immigrationism is the belief that a large surplus of immigrants over emigrants is a normal and healthy situation.

Like all ideologies, immigrationism is dangerous because it invokes our moral sense and then applies it to a simplified and perhaps misleading model of the universe. Yet, like all ideologies, it becomes less dangerous once one has a name for it. One can then keep long-term tabs on the creed, note and remember what sorts of people its leaders have been, and also which awkward facts its PR may have swept under the carpet.

Oddly enough, we have had till recently no common word for 'immigrationism' and have had to speak clumsily and rather misleadingly of 'the ethnic lobby' (as though most immigrants were immigrationists). It is even possible that I am the first person to coin or use the word 'immigrationism' in the present debate. Yet if so, how have we done without it? Immigrationism is surely as vivid and identifiable a presence in Australian politics as environmentalism or monetarism.

There is now a second near-synonym which I will occasionally prefer this is 'the politically correct line on immigration,' or PCLI for short. As this second term suggests, immigrationism is part of the wider problem of political correctness - that is, of orthodoxies and assumptions that may constrict debate.

The current PCLI often presents itself as self-evidently humane and altruistic, and its opponents as selfish and chauvinistic end of discussion! However, our immigrant intake is not in fact dominated by refugees but by those whose skills are allegedly of value to us, and by those whose own ethnic groups, motivated by ethnic chauvinism ('racism') or family loyalty, have lobbied hardest. Further, a glance at the politically correct discourse of mainstream Australian media will show that it is in fact obsessed with materialist values, e.g. with ways to increase GDP (Gross Domestic Product).

So let's take a closer look at one of the crucial code-words of the PCLI.

#RacistBaiting" id="RacistBaiting">The Use of 'Racism' to Inhibit Debate

Twenty-five years ago, in the Vietnam era, we Australians had a conservative establishment, a rather complacent, self-indulgent and self-perpetuating establishment. It saw itself as right-wing, and it far too readily dismissed its dissidents as pro-Communists or pink. Today we have a similarly complacent establishment, but one that sees itself as left-wing, and far too readily dismisses its dissidents as crypto right-wingers.

This I think is the explanation for the common cant use of the word 'racism' in contexts which have little or nothing to do with race. Many of those who misuse this word are quite literate enough to know that 'racism' is not a loose synonym for any and every kind of prejudice against minorities. (They may not realize, though, that by their misuse of this word they merge cultural or ethnic differences into racial ones, and thus recreate a central plank of Nazi propaganda).

They use the word in this way because they need a 'boo-word' - a word with such intensely negative connotations that, hopefully, no opponent in debate can shrug it off, yet so vague in its meaning that it can be applied to practically anyone who disagrees with them. As with the McCarthyites, who called anyone to their left 'pro-communist,' the trick is to loosen the original denotation of a word until it means less and less, while retaining the original intensely negative connotations. At the same time the true believer refuses to notice any degrees or gradations. To him or her 'a pinko is a pinko,' or 'a racist is a racist.'

In recent months the news programs of Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), and Special Broadcasting Services (SBS) have run several items of Australian news each week that are introduced by the logo or title 'RACISM' - a remarkable feat of political correctness considering that most of the items were in fact not about racial but about cultural or ethnic issues. Somehow the more accurate terms 'ethnicism' and 'ethnic chauvinism' don't seem to appeal to them, or to some newspapers that follow their lead.

Such witch-hunts, once launched, can go a long way. Once their term 'capitalist running dog' or 'communist fellow traveller' is extended to anyone who questions the politically correct orthodoxy, almost the whole population is at risk. Similarly, once 'racism' comes to be a loose synonym for any kind of prejudice the war against 'racism' can continue without limits - or it could in a dictatorship. The recent raids on the Immigration Department might be just a beginning.

As the McCarthyist and Fascist eras show, a witch-hunt in progress attracts misguided idealists. It also attracts the competitive egos of some mediocre writers and artists who, lacking original ideas of their own, seek to carry the pre-established views to new extremes.

Even democracy itself, a philosophy based on respecting the will of the majority, could be under threat since the true PCLI apparatchik is liable to brush aside the will of the majority as 'revisionist' or 'racist' or whatever.

The good news for environmentalists is that such outbreaks of ideology are a bit like boils. At least in a democracy they tend to come to a head and burst, leaving a painful slow-healing sore. We need to keep the pressure on them until they do.

So, to the larger issue of political correctness.

#PoliticalCorrectness" id="PoliticalCorrectness">Immigrationism and Political Correctness

A central question for this conference is, I take it, how could a democratic government introduce a policy as problematic and unpopular as Australia's recent immigration policy?

• We have known for at least the last 20 years that we were headed for an age of automation and computers in which the last thing we would require was more labor. Instead we brought in a million migrants over the past 10 years, and wound up, perhaps not entirely unrelatedly, with a million unemployed and an economy half-ruined. (And as the economy sinks, more and more environmental standards are being abandoned.) [Note: This speech was given in 1993]
• We have long known that the present population of Australia (which refuses to contemplate any major change in its wasteful and destructive life-style) was already doing permanent and morally inexcusable damage to this nation's fragile environments. Yet we have set immigration levels that have kept our population on course to double at least every 50 years.
• We know that the population of those currently in world refugee camps greatly exceeds the total number of immigrants we could conceivably take in over many decades. Yet for the past ten years we have kept refugees to a mere 11,000 odd per year, while we have taken in anything up to 160,000 other immigrants per year, mainly from countries whose populations have no real need to emigrate. Indeed one of our largest sources of immigrants is a European country whose chauvinist government actually bribes its people to have more babies.

So we have a policy that is environmentally, economically, and morally a shambles, and which the Australian electorate has overwhelmingly rejected in all the opinion polls.

Yet you could tune in to a whole year's editions of the ABC's TV NEWS and 7 30 Report and discover only that our high immigration policy is good and inevitable, and that anyone who questions it is probably a secret member of the Hitler Youth League.

Environmentalists like Paul Ehrlich and David Suzuki have condemned Australia's population growth as extreme by First World standards. They have also argued that the First World's population growth is actually far more of an environmental problem than that of the Third World. Granted that each Australian expects to use resources equivalent to at least 30 Third World citizens, Australia's 17 million [now 21 million] is already the equivalent in environmental load of about 540 million Third World citizens - roughly the population of Africa, and almost all of it supported on our coastal rim.

Yet, for over a decade, parts of our national media, notably including some SBS and ABC TV programs, have been spreading an ideology according to which Australia's traditional culture and national identity are cripplingly narrow and inadequate; hence, only massive immigration from as many overseas countries as possible can restore Australia's credibility by turning us into a progressive multicultural nation. Persons opposed to population growth have often been accused of cultural chauvinism (what the illiterate calls 'racism') and the effects of population growth on environment, urban problems, the economy, and on Aborigines, are either dismissed or are presented as benign. The SBS/ABC ideology sees itself as a progressive, egalitarian and international one.

#Dilemmas" id="Dilemmas">The Dilemmas Our Opponents Are Facing

An advocate of high immigration rates obviously needs to believe that Australia can take millions more people. To defend this position, he or she may ask, 'How can you or anyone else presume to tell when Australia is overpopulated?

The environmentalist's answer is very simple, 'If the current population, with the lifestyle it presently requires the government to provide, is already doing permanent and unacceptable damage to the farm-lands, the forests, the rivers, and the unique native species of which we are custodians, then we are already overpopulated.'

Some immigrationists will wriggle further on that spike by demanding, 'But couldn't we all reduce our environmental impact on everything by 50 percent each, and so have twice as many people?'

The environmentalist's reply is nothing less than devastating 'We could, but we haven't. Australians today demand more resources per person than ever before. It will be time enough to re-open the case for more people if in a decade or so this pattern of consumption has been reversed.'

Some immigrationists are social optimists who claim that population isn't a problem any more because 'we' are just about to introduce some much improved system for equitable distribution of wealth. But once again, the environmentalist may simply ask them (a) how they're so sure their system will work where Karl Marx's failed, and (b) just how soon are they promising to install it nationally or globally, and (c) whether better distribution will necessarily save the environment.

This leaves the committed immigrationist in a hopeless dilemma. Only ecological illiterates still believe in the 'empty country' myth. Yet if Australia is already approaching its optimum population, or has exceeded it, immigrationism is irresponsible.

The simplistic myth of Australia as a 'land without people for people without land' has been tried and found wanting. Out of hundreds of thousands of immigrants who arrived after the Second World War from depressed agricultural areas in Europe, very few succeeded in finding land in Australia. Most of the land that was economically farmable (and much that wasn't) had long since been ruthlessly cleared. Post-war immigration to Australia did not mean finding a use for an 'empty' land, it meant further overloading the balance of cityfolk to farmers - that is, of food and import consumers to food and export producers.

In short, for those emotionally committed to immigrationism the optimum-population debate is a morass. It involves issues many of them are either not expert in or simply don't care to think about. Many immigrationists prefer to see their creed simply in terms of human charity, of helping people. Yet, like the Unjust Steward in the Bible, they try to give away what is not quite theirs to give. In a more modern analogy, the would-be charitable immigrationist is a bit like someone who writes a check to the Salvos [Salvation Army] on someone else's account - and without even finding out if the account has the required funds.

The only way to avoid entering this debate is to deny your opponent speaking-rights - that is, to rule him or her out of court. How do you do that? Well, if you are unscrupulous you go for 'moral monopoly.'

#MoralMonopoly" id="MoralMonopoly">The Art of Moral Monopoly

The essence of the moral monopolist tactic is to claim that you preeminently possess some virtue - which in reality is shared by almost the entire community - and that your opponents disgracefully lack it. (Respect for 'motherhood' used to be a favorite choice.)

Claims to moral monopoly usually involve a conspiracy theory. In the U.S. in the 1950s the followers of Senator McCarthy obsessively denounced a supposed conspiracy to overthrow the government. This conspiracy was largely a myth, but the myth was a godsend to the accusers. It allowed them to turn the widespread and minimal virtue of allegiance to the national government into a sort of moral monopoly of their own. This helped free them from the responsibility to argue logically or to be nice people. It was also a great cover for vested interests.

The belief that all human beings are sharers in the brotherhood of humanity is a basic cherished view of our culture, for at least the last 30 years. Yet in Australia in the 1980s some members of the multicultural lobby attempted to make this commonplace virtue a peculiar possession of their own group. They did this by setting up a conspiracy theory that people who preferred lower rates of immigration were part of an omnipresent 'racist' conspiracy.

We can now see why the 'racism' ploy forms such an essential part of the immigrationist position. Without it, the debate would largely turn into one on the environmental and economic carrying-capacity of Australia.

Conspiracy theories constructed by moral monopolists often rest on very odd assumptions. Some immigrationists claim that Australia is obliged to maintain high immigration until we have a roughly representative mix of the peoples of the world (or alternatively, of 'Asia' or of 'the Pacific region') right here in our own country. Needless to say, no such moral obligation exists. The people of Thailand, China, Finland, etc. are not ashamed of having a predominance of people of a particular ethnicity or culture in their country.

Indeed, national boundaries since the age of nationalism began, have been increasingly drawn along ethnic lines. It is a little hard to see why Australia alone or almost alone has an obligation to radically change its ethnic mix, and to become a sort of microcosm of the world - unless they mean to argue that Australia is not a real nation but a sort of international treaty area, like Antarctica. But then the moral monopolist doesn't debate; he or she assumes.

Source (pdf 27K).

In 2001 I made predictions about Australia's current predicament, at the end of a statistical appendix on population and energy for Australia and France (pdf 2.8M). Throughout my thesis I discussed these looming problems and their drivers. It seems appropriate to cite the short predictions from the appendix here, because Australian governments constantly pretend that no-one could see what was coming. The people who formed government from the 80s to now should be held formally responsible.

[Written in 2001]
"Australia's recent history is a strong indicator that population growth is likely to remain rapid or accelerate in the next half century. Between 1946 and 2001, Australia's population grew by 11,849,099 persons, or by 157.58%. From 1946 to 1974 it grew by 85.76%. From 1974 to 2001 it grew by 38.65%. Between the year of the French base projections, 1990 and 2001 Australia's population has grown by approximately 12.8% from 17,169,800 to 19,368,345 or an average of 1.6% per annum. Australia's growth, up to 1966 was affected by baby boom high fertility and high net migration. Although fertility declined rapidly after this, the high immigration continued. With increasing longevity this means that the population has continued to expand rapidly. We can assume that most of the Australian baby boomers will die between 2027 and 2051. If high immigration continues, however, the population will have continued to expand and will require more intense land-use, more infrastructure, and more technology to maintain its economy, even with similar per capita footprints. With exponentially expanding drylands salinity and other forms of desertification, plus massively degraded waterways, together with micro-climate changes brought about by local vegetation removal (without considering the possibility of macro-global climate changes) it is difficult to see how such a large population will survive without severe declines in quality of life, standard of living, health and longevity. As well as other bio-diversity die-off, the chances seem high for considerable human die-off due to the effect of desertification on the economy and environment. Petroleum based energy shortages are likely both to increase poverty and misery as cheap fuel becomes much less accessible to ordinary citizens. Pollution is likely to increase as coal and other lower grade fuels are substituted, since Australia has not invested in alternative energy sources. Poor design of built and transport infrastructure will add to the difficulty in reducing and satisfying energy demand for both personal and economic use."

On the other hand, under a different system:

"France's recent history is a strong indicator that population growth is unlikely to accelerate in the next half century. Between 1946 and 2001, France's population grew by 18,914,482 persons, or by 47.13 %. From 1946 to 1974 (28 years) it grew by 25.4%. From 1974 to 2001 (27 years) it grew by 17.32%. Between the year of the base population for these projections, 1990, and 2001 France's population has grown by 2,462,713 people or approximately 4.35%, or and average of 0.39% per annum from 56,577,000 in 1990 to 59,039,713. France's growth up to 1974 was affected by both the high fertility of the baby boom and high immigration. After 1974 the contribution of both these factors declined sharply. Increased longevity means that the population remains large, although its base is reducing. If we consider that the Baby Boom went from 1947 to about 1966, and assume longevity of between 80 and 85 years, then between 2027 and 2051 the baby boomer generation will die off. With no other changes this will leave the French population several millions smaller. Since France, like most Western European countries is under considerable environmental stress due to the intensity of land use required by its economy, a smaller population even with similar per capita footprints would lessen this stress and the long-term need for greater infrastructure and technology for the maintenance of the population and its economy. If, as seems likely, petroleum based fuels become rarer and more expensive, France is ahead of a lot of other countries, including Australia, in the spatial organisation, planning and technology for transport and other built infrastructure mediating economic and personal fuel needs. It currently has access to alternative fuel sources and technologies and potentially to others."

Today (8 September 2008) Premier John Brumby unveiled his ominous Victorian Transport Plan in a briefing at Federation Square before an audience of transport heavies.

The Plan no longer includes, however, the proposal encoded in Recommendation 4 of Sir Rod Eddington’s Investing in transport - East West Link Needs Assessment of March 2008.

This proposal, which lies at the very core of his Review, read “Planning work should commence on the staged construction of a new 18 kilometre cross-city road connection, extending from the western suburbs to the Eastern Freeway.”

Concerned people in Melbourne understand that this “cross city road connection" referred to road-tunnels planned for inner Melbourne, to transect Royal and Holland Parks and the Newell Wetlands; and to traverse Sunshine and Footscray in the Western suburbs along elevated roadways.

The East West Tunnel has done a disappearing act

To the citizens of Melbourne's great relief, the East West Tunnel has done a disappearing act!

Rod Quantock, Actor and Activist, and Deputy Convenor of the Royal Park Protection Group Inc. (RPPG) stated that his group interpreted the deletion of the East West road tunnel and freeway from the Brumby Victorian Transport Plan, as "a win for commonsense and the common people."

Quantock described how the groundswell of opposition has grown from June and July this year. It was around that time that councils in the path of road tunnels and toll-ways - Brimbank, Melbourne, Moonee Valley and Yarra Councils - voted unanimously “No Tunnels,” in the face of massive community outrage.

Grass-roots opposition and the dramatic decline of the Labor vote

Convenor Quantock said that there was a general feeling that:

"Grass roots opposition, the dramatic decline of the Labor vote in recent local government elections and the threat to sitting State and Federal Labor Members of Parliament may well have helped persuade the Government against including Sir Rod’s tunnels and freeways in today’s Transport Plan.”

Julianne Bell, Convenor of Royal Park Protection Group (RPPG), told how RPPG has been at the forefront of opposition to destruction of our parks, our local neighbourhoods and heritage streetscapes by the retrograde, ill-conceived transport plans of the Brumby Government.

The long war for democracy and public space is ongoing

Ms Bell stated,

"We have campaigned for 10 years against the expansion of the Eastern Freeway through Royal Park and, during this year, against the onslaught of the Eddington road tunnels. We are grateful that Royal Park, with its open bushland and wetlands, has seen a reprieve from what could have been almost fatal destruction at the hands of bulldozer drivers working on the tunnels.

"The Zoo animals can breathe easy now that a tunnel won’t be constructed next to their home. The State Netball and Hockey Centre can rest assured that games won’t be disturbed by the blasting next door in underground tunnels."

She warned, however, that no-one can afford to relax for long in the current frantic climate of incessant construction. Miss Bell explained:

"The Brumby Government continues to pay lip service to the philosophy of sustainability but appears intent on destroying the urban environment with incremental expansion of roads."

Patrick White, [the great Australian novelist, and author of Voss], sagely observed in 1972 when addressing a rally in Centennial Park, Sydney:

“Parkland is valuable and greedy eyes see the money in it. So you must always be on the alert. Hang onto your breathing spaces in this developing and already over congested city. Protect your parks from the pressure of political concrete.”

Julianne Bell says that RPPG will continue to campaign for sustainable public transport and will be eternally vigilant about proposals by any Government, no matter what colour or persuasion, to build more freeways or tollways through inner Melbourne.

For more information, contact Rod Quantock on 0438862079 & Julianne Bell on 0408022408

It has been assumed that the natural environment could bear any impact of human activities!

However, according the State of the Environment report, it is very likely that many species won’t be able to adapt. Biodiversity richness, inherited as part of the natural wealth of this country, is being sacrificed on the altar of short-term economic benefits. As a result of mismanagement and ignorance, people and animals will be at risk from extreme weather such as heat waves, drought, fire, floods and storms. We haven't even faced the full impact of climate change yet!

Current measures of growth such as GDP and population ignore environmental degradation and the social wellbeing of inhabitants. Bulging growth boundaries may be good for land developers and corporations but are detrimental for most people who are not only threatened by the collapse of our ecosystem and climate change, but by traffic congestion, increasing pollution, higher costs and charges, water restrictions, housing stress and poor public transport and infrastructures.

Business as usual isn’t going to work! Brumby's government should step down and a caretaker administrator take over until State elections.

What are State of the Environment (SoE) reports?

State of the Environment reports (SoE) www.ces.vic.gov.au/CES/... are made on two levels: state and national. The National Reports are made on the following themes: Atmosphere, Biodiversity, Coasts and oceans, Human settlements, Inland waters, Land, Natural and cultural heritage, Australian Antarctic Territory.

The last published State of the Environment Australia Report was in 2006.

Most Australian states have prepared full SoE reports since the early 1990s, but Victoria has only just published her first, in 2008. Any previous reports were minor and had little or no comparability with the standard and methods that full SoE reports are expected to have.
Unfortunately, this report has a very poor standard. It isn't really a report; it is a policy document, which cites other reports, second or third hand ones.

Legal status

Since 1999, Australian Government legislation mandates the preparation and tabling of the national state of the environment report in Parliament through the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (section 516B)

1. The Minister must cause a report on the environment in the Australian jurisdiction to be prepared in accordance with the regulations (if any) every 5 years. The first report must be prepared by 31 December 2001.
2. The report must deal with the matters prescribed by the regulations.
3. The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the day on which he or she receives the report.

States and territories

[This para newly inserted on 10 December 2008] These reports are not made under the same legislation as the Commonwealth SoE Reports and their comparability is moot. Under the Australian Constitution the States have control over many aspects of the Environment, particularly with regard to land and water. It is not clear what, if anything, might be done where Commonwealth and State Reports and recommendations contradict each other.

Most State and Territory governments prepare state of the environment reports on a regular basis, and it is a legislative requirement in New South Wales, ACT, Tasmania, Queensland, Victoria and South Australia. In New South Wales local governments are legislated to prepare regular SoE reports.

The first ever real Victorian State of the Environment Report (2008) is finally out.

The dead give-away that this isn't a serious ecological report is that it treats us as 'consumers' instead of citizens. [Citizens contribute fully to their country; consumers just hand over cash and go away and shut up].

It contains informed statements which make Victorian economic growth policies look stupid and dangerous to public safety. Unfortunately this report, pretending to be critical, sets objectives which often look as if they would be impossible to coordinate (although some might be achieved briefly through combinations of strong propaganda and force) and which are mutually contradictory. This was probably the result of having a committee which could not really reach agreement between scientific reality and economic ideology, so what we get is a cognitively dissonant mix. My heart goes out to the sincere participants in this compilation.

Most of those whose backgrounds have been made available to the public in the document (you have to click the links) are economics, business or management. Trish Caswell used to be the ACF President, and when she was, she was very vigilant to ensure that population policy was kept off the agenda. I would call her an industrial relations person. There is a dairy irrigator, a council CEO. A primary industry veteran. These people are billed as having knowledge of sustainability, but, most would not have scientific knowledge of ecological systems. I think we are again victim to the Victorian government's idea that 'sustainability' is an economic concept. Can this really pass muster under the EPBC Act? It doesn't have to.

You can read the credentials of the reference group here.

Co-Chairs: Dan Atkins,Kate Vinot,
Members: Alex Arbuthnot, Cheryl Batagol, Dr Sarah Bekessy, Patricia Caswell, Catherine Dale, Russell Higgins, Gillian Sparkes, Mick Murphy, Terry Walshe, Rob Gell, Kelly O'Shannassy

Sarah Beckersley is the only one who inspires confidence in me as an ecologically educated person, however there are three in the unhighlighted list who I don't know.

It is actually pretty amazing that a committee with such obvious business bias and apparently poor aggregate biophysical science background has been allowed to put forth such a report. The report is full of cliches and lacks the profound knowledge of the 2001 State of the Environment Report. We can see why.

The Report, such as it is:

The trick is to go to the end first, but I'll start at the beginning here.

A good beginning:

The Victorian State of the Environment Report 2008 says that:

The future cannot be an extension of the past

Australia’s total material requirements are increasing and are more than twice that of other OECD countries.

Victoria's population growth is a major driver of environmental degradation.

Population growth, settlement and consumption patterns, and climate change are the key drivers of environmental degradation in Victoria.

"Population growth and settlements Victoria’s population growth, increasing affluence and the expansion of our cities and towns, have contributed to unsustainable levels of resource consumption and waste production. This has direct environmental impacts through changes in land use, from conservation and agriculture to cities and towns. To supply our cities and towns, we harvest water for residential and manufacturing purposes, change river flows, discharge wastes to land and sea, remove native vegetation and send damaging gases into the atmosphere."

"Lifestyle factors, such as the demand for larger homes and the rising cost of city living, are increasing the demand for development on Melbourne’s edges. These areas are poorly serviced by public transport due to low urban density and a focus on motor vehicle dominated urban design rather than transport systems which have the least environment impact, and which reduce our vulnerability to future economic shocks."

"Changing social patterns have led to a reduction in the number of people per household. At the same time there has been an increase in the size of houses which are often poorly designed for the local climate with low thermal and water efficiencies.These trends, combined with a growing population means we need more houses than ever before. This drives demand for household furniture and appliances, as well as heating and cooling and has led to an increase in the consumption of raw materials, water and energy."

"Victoria is largely banking on carbon capture and storage to deliver major reductions in our State’s emissions. Reliance on a technology that may not be ready until 2030 or later risks emissions continuing to rise for some time."

"Business as usual isn’t going to work."

"We must take strong action, not just make further aspirational policy commitments."

Yes, they must - only, unfortunately, they don't.

"The last assessment of river health in 2004 found that only one fifth of major rivers and tributaries in Victoria were in good or excellent condition. In 2008 nine out of ten Victorian basins in the Murray Darling Basin were found to be very poor health."

"The plants and animals which depend on our inland waters also indicate the health of rivers and wetlands."

"Unfortunately the news is not good. 21 fish species, 11 frog species and 29 species of waterbirds are threatened, and only 14% of riverside vegetation along major rivers and streams in Victoria was found to be in good condition, with most being patchy and interspersed with weeds."

"Wetlands are also very important for environmental health, but no statewide study of the extent of our wetlands has been undertaken since 1994.At that time, more than a third of our naturally occurring wetland area had already been lost and over 90% of the wetlands on private land had vanished – often drained for agriculture or housing developments. In August 2008, groundwater levels in half of the most highly developed or potentially stressed groundwater areas were the lowest on record."

"Water management in Victoria is rapidly increasing in sophistication and accountability, and Victoria is recognised for its leadership in water management."

That remark about leadership in water management and others about Victoria's Water Our Future are a dead giveaway that the Vic Government had influenced the report, if only in the language - you can tell by the empty cliches. In fact, one of the 'reference group' is Cheryl Batagol, currently the Chair of Melbourne Water.

(Personally I don't recognise Victoria as a leader in water management; I think it's a leader in water propaganda. PlugThePipe and PipeRightInc and FairWaterUse would agree, I think.)

"However, the degraded state of many of our rivers shows that the way we manage our water resources has not secured the health of our inland waters."

"Millions of dollars are being spent on efficiency and securing supply, but the impact of climate change means that water allocated to the environment may not be enough to secure environmental health. Sharing water between competing uses ultimately involves social and therefore political choices. To date, the environment has been the loser. Difficult decisions must be made as water availability declines and pressures on our environment increase. Many inland waters are in poor condition and in the context of ongoing drought and climate change, their future health is uncertain."

But these ...um... policy-writers are prepared to keep on growing our population and infrastructure! Have they no shame???

"Victoria is Australia’s most cleared and most densely populated State. More than half of our land has already been cleared and we are continuing to lose native vegetation at a rate of some 4,000 ha per year, mostly from endangered grasslands. Our State has the highest proportion (48%) of sub-bioregions in Australia in poor condition, with four out of Australia’s five most cleared bioregions found in western Victoria."

"Land clearing for cities, towns and farmland has contributed to a biodiversity crisis in Victoria. Most of our high quality native vegetation is found on Victoria’s public land in National and State parks and forests."

"Native vegetation remnants on private land are often small, patchy, isolated and degraded by human activities."

The next two paragraphs are really important, but, read through the report... and you cannot imagine the lot in charge of Victoria ever doing anything for flora and fauna except packaging it up for food until it is extinct. Effective laws would prevent that.

"Laws and policies for managing our natural environment have been developed over many years but need to be reformed. Victoria is committed to a joined-up approach to catchment, land and biodiversity management. Current management arrangements are complex and involve all levels of government, as well as public and private land managers. This has resulted in an extensive and complex range of regulations and legal requirements for land managers, and variable compliance and enforcement."

"Reform is needed to simplify environmental legislation and to align the environmental objectives of all levels of government to drive improvements in environmental condition.
The Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988 is failing to meet its stated objectives and needs to be reviewed to address Victoria’s natural environments and their vulnerabilities to climate change. It also needs an adequate long-term allocation of resources to ensure effective achievement of its objectives."

BUT... The report wusses out. It almost says we cannot go on increasing our population but it doesn't. This means, to my well-honed senses for bull-dust and bowing to pressure, that the Victorian population is about to be subjected to severe price rises and subjugation in order to allow continued population growth, and so as to protect the elites from an impact on their profits as much as possible.

I predict that this report will be used to ram through new planning policies which will totally remove Victorians' ability to affect how development proceeds. It will be used to remove most of our rights to control our local environments. It is appalling that Victoria, having finally produced a 'state of the environment report' seems to have sunk to a point of exploiting the opportunity for the aims of some ego-bound, terribly rich developers and their planning and political friends who are trying to maintain profit in the face of world economic crash - and the hell with the rest of us.

"PART 5 Living well within our Environment Key findings • The wellbeing of Victorians is ultimately dependent upon the health of the natural environment. The ecosystem services upon which we depend have been, and under business-as-usual scenarios will continue to be, compromised."

BUT ... the main quality of business as usual in Victoria is "Growth" and the architects of this report won't even go near that one. In fact the section on growth of population and consumption is the only section with no recommendations. It contains a blank box for recommendations. How coy!

"• Social and economic systems are vulnerable; as a result, so is human wellbeing. Urgent and fundamental changes are needed and government must provide transparent, exemplary leadership."

Hard to see how the leadership of a government that persists in importing more and more people could ever be exemplary. This report is so 'sophisticated', it is hard to believe that the authors would recognise transparency.

"• Vulnerabilities are partly the inadvertent by-product of increasing efficiency, reducing the capacity of Victoria to adapt to looming sustainability challenges. Current vulnerabilities include the dependence on brown coal and petroleum and, globally, the ability to supply food under conditions of expected climate change and global population growth."

Actually, they do counsel the government to reconsider its food export ambitions, which is very ominous seeing as they refrain from counseling the government to reconsider its people importing ambitions.

"WR10 The Victorian Government should carefully consider its food and fibre export target of $12 billion in light of external economic factors, current knowledge regarding current and future water availability, river health implications, and potential to achieve higher levels of irrigated production through improved water use efficiency."

• Victorians have proven talented and innovative, and, with government support, they are well equipped to deal with the challenges of moving into a post-carbon economy. Victorian industries want strong leadership and certainty from government as they adapt to this future.

There it is again, that 'challenge' word. And the 'leadership and certainty' wanted from the government by industry... That's engineers and property developers lobby jargon. It means, "Make sure those 'customers' of yours tow the line, Mr Brumby."

• While it is essential to ensure that future development is within sustainable limits, Victorian society is unsustainable now. Refocusing on current patterns is necessary and possible through use of the term ecologically sustainable use (ESU). ESU is applied in this discussion to make the point that present uses affect the state of the environment as much as do growth and change.

Sounds so reasonable, doesn't it. If only the expectations of growth were not there and the subcurrent of awful coercion and absolute uncompromise, which gives away the insane agenda.

• ESU becomes a reality when decoupling (a separation between an indicator of wellbeing and an indicator of environmental pressure) is demonstrated. Relative decoupling has commenced in many sectors, but ESU will only be realised when absolute decoupling is achieved.

I.e. The 'consumers' will learn to be happy with less and we will be happy as long as there are more and more consumers, living with less and less. And, um... let's just drop that 'citizen' word forever, eh?

• Resilience is so fundamental to sustainability as to be almost invisible. Essential ecosystem services and liveability, valued by all Victorians, can only be maintained when resilience – the ability to adapt to system shocks – is re-established within ecological systems and in society.

The writer of the Summary did admit that he had not sought consensus. So what I hear here are the sane words of a biologically literate on the panel, coupled with the ideological demands of the economically ... um...sophisticated ... on the panel. The same cognitive dissonance clangs in the two statements below:

"• In the context of the scale of the challenge, environmental governance is disparate and inconsistent. The current nature of environmental challenges means that governance must become strategic and future-focused. The technique of strategic environmental assessment should be used to address the long-term and wider implications of planning and policy."

"Technology has a significant role to play in reducing environmental pressures. However, due to associated inherent risks such as the rebound effect and the paradox of efficiency, technology alone must not be seen as a ‘silver bullet’. The environment doesn’t care
how efficient our technologies are if overall pressures continue to increase."

Although it flags population growth as a major driver, and talks about the importance of biodiversity, as a long-suffering Victorian, I was looking out for any comments which accept continued population growth, increasing density as an environment saver as an excuse for growth... I was on the look-out for anything that sounds like the Engineering or housing lobby.

And I found it - right at the end:

"Growing together"... (uggh)

"Recommendations LW1 The Victorian Government develop and use a single robust and clearly defined vision of an environmentally sustainable Victoria, incorporating environmentally sustainable use of natural resources, and use this to develop an update to Growing Victoria Together."

These guys are incorrigible! Sounds like something out of Bananas in pyjamas.

"LW2 The Victorian Government should ensure that the value of ecosystem services is factored into economic decision-making, as water and climate are starting to become. Agencies should become as adept at valuing and accounting for ecosystem services as they are economic and social services."

"LW3 The Victorian Government develops Growing Victoria Together to monitor and report on holistic wellbeing using consistent, valid and statistically verified sustainability indicators that, as a set, comprehensively cover each of the environmental, social and economic values of importance to Victorians."

Yep. Unfortunately, your usual market hype. They hope to overwhelm us with cliches until we go into a trance and simply follow their orders quietly.

"LW5 When considering ecologically sustainable development, the Victorian Government should take into account the present and short-term (as well as longer term) impacts of the development process and use all available development opportunities to achieve reductions in absolute environmental pressures."

Okay, so, how are they going to do that without stopping population growth? One way: they raise prices for every vital resource so that they can make a lot more money out of a huge population of people paying most of their incomes for food, water, housing, heating and transport. Democracy will be cancelled, of course. But they will be taking care of that in the ... um... education section.

LW6 That decoupling of wellbeing from environmental pressures should be a major policy objective of the Victorian Government. Targeted policy, as well as public education programs, should be introduced to reduce the dependence of economic wellbeing on high consumption and its attributed environmental pressures.

"LW7 That the Victorian Government comprehensively integrates decoupling, its stages and importance, into all Victorian Government decision-making at the strategic level."

"LW8 That the Victorian Government, generally, employs better data collection, monitoring and reporting regimes, with a stress on long-term, consistent data sets."

"LW9 That the Victorian Government, wherever possible, prevent the perpetuation of shifting baselines, particularly in regard to natural systems for which the crossing of thresholds are known and would constitute ecosystem collapse."

"LW10 That the Victorian Government factors in likely compounding pressures such as the expected effects of climate change when setting targets for ecological restoration."

"LW12 The Victorian Government should develop and monitor indices of social resilience, measuring all its elements (for example, innovation, diversity, distributed systems and the ability to embrace change)".

Note the jargon: 'embrace change'; 'diversity'. Diversity, the way the government means it, is not an element of social resilience; it is an element of disconnecting networks so that populations are easier to manage, more passive, disempowered and quietly - they hope - dysfunctional.

LW21 That the Victorian Government continues to investigate and implement market-based instruments to achieve positive environmental outcomes using prices set to account for the full value of ecosystem services. Any interventions should be by way of budget allocation and not through the creation of market distortions."

So, you can see in these exerpts, sane interspersed with greedy and insane. The 'leadership' in this report is about a small self-identified elite who think of the rest of us as children - oh, pardon - 'customers', with very few rights to be cajoled and coerced to serve them.

This is ecological reporting on an intellectual par with management in "Are you being served?".

Now you know why the corporate press took it seriously - it's made to order for them and their mates.

The report is available as a collection of pdf documents directly or indirectly linked to from www.ces.vic.gov.au/CES/...

Some of the pdf components are: Part 1: Introduction (564MB), Part 2: Driving Forces (1.1MB), #10;The summary of the report is available as a <a href=" http:="">Summary (2.5MB).

Good reading and please send comments and article!

Editor's comment 10 December 2008: Changes were made to this document today to correct the date of the last State of the Environment Report Australia, from 2001 to 2006 and to make clearer the lack of relationship between the State and the Commonwealth reports. After the question, "Can this really pass muster under the EPBC Act?", the comment, "It doesn't have to," was also inserted.

On Monday 1 December a readers' letter which was dismissive of of the movie "Quantum of Solace" was prominently placed on in the middle of the first of the two of Courier Mail's letters pages with a photograph included. "Quantum of Solace" is the latest instalment of the saga of British MI6 agent 007 James Bond consisting of 22 movies going back to "Dr No" made in 1962. Whilst I have mislaid that letter, it, in essence, dismissed the James Bond character played by Daniel Craig as a clone of Jason Bourne played by Matt Damon. Having, by now, seen both movies in which Craig played Bond and having seen "The Bourne Supremacy" I failed to understand his point. The differences between the two seemed quite pronounced.

Two days later a further brief letter also appeared in the pages of the Courier Mail. This letter unfavourably compared "Quantum of Solace" with Baz Luhrman's epic "Australia" starring Nicole Kidman and Hugh Jackman. The latter correspondent wrote that the audience to "Australia" broke out in spontaneous applause whist the audience to the latter left in silence. That was, in fact true.

Whilst the audience to the Tuesday screening of "Quantum of Solace" also left in silence, that has occurred with a good number of other movies that I have thoroughly enjoyed. Indeed, I never remember ever having been in an audience which has spontaneously applauded at the end of any James Bond movie, so it would be wrong to judge the audience's appreciation of a movie from that alone.

The correspondent, of course, should be applauded for trying to persuade Brisbane audiences to see native grown Australian productions in preference to British productions. Indeed, on the Tuesday this week when our theatre party saw "Quantum of Solace", it was only because we were too late to see "Australia".

Nevertheless, I don't believe either of the correspondents were fair to "Quantum of Solace". I had thoroughly enjoyed the movie and, moreover, greatly appreciated the way the script writers had woven into the script current geo-political themes. This has also been noticed by New Statesman journalist Emma Felber in the article "007 Bolivian socialist?" of 14 Nov 2008.

After reading the second critical letter I was moved to send the letter, included as an #LetterToCM">appendix to the Courier Mail in plenty of time for today's edition of the paper:

My letter was not published in Thursday's paper, nor was any other favourable to "Quantum of Solace". None had been published on Tuesday or Wednesday, either, so the Courier Mail letters' editor's treatment of that movie appears to have been one-sided and unfair to date.

For me it is a vexed issue when films like "Quantum of Solace" take on board progressive pro-environmental themes. Objectively, over the longer term, the massive budgets for films such as these represent a huge waste of our endowment of finite non-renewable natural resources. On top of that, the encouragement of many in the movie audiences to emulate the profligate consumption by the movie's central character of fast cars, lavish hotel accommodation, electronic gizmos, expensive clothes, alcohol, gourmet food, etc, etc, would further compound the problem.

The plot of "Quantam of Solace" implies that MI6 can be expected to act to prevent evil corporations seizing the natural assets of countries like Bolivia and trashing their environments, albeit only after internal political struggles between cynical pragmatists on the one hand and those upholding principles of accountability and respect for the self-determination on the other. In reality, it is almost certain that in such circumstances, MI6 will work as one precisely to serve the interests of such corporations against the interests of the people. Nevertheless, in spite of this over-riding unreality, the plot includes insightful discussion of the meddling of countries like the US (if not the UK) in the affairs of Latin America, the way corporations manipulate Governments to get heir agreement to plunder the natural resources of those countries and how fake environmental organisations only act to make the ecological crisis worse. No doubt those in control of the Courier Mail would not feel comfortable about Brisbane audiences being exposed to these sorts of ideas.

Notwithstanding the progressive an pro-environment political themes in "Quantum of Solace", if we, in Queensland, are to similarly prevent evil corporations, aided by their local henchmen and henchwomen - like Queensland's Premier, Anna Bligh, from gaining control of our natural resources and continuing to trash our natural environment, then we will need to do it ourselves with large-scale grass roots political action and not expect some outside knight in shining armour to do it for us.

#LetterToCM" id="LetterToCM">Appendix: unpublished letter sent to the Courier Mail on 3 December

I beg to differ with the verdicts on the latest James Bond movie "Quantum of Solace" printed in you paper on Monday and Wednesday.

Having arrived too late to see "Australia" on Tuesday, our party, instead, saw "Quantum of Solace" and I thoroughly recommend it. I would concede that the movie was not as good as "Casino Royale", but it had a very hard act to follow.

The film producers should be commended for having woven into the script current geo-political themes, such as the looming global shortage of petroleum, how fake environmental organisations act to make the current ecological crisis worse, the meddling by the US in the affairs of Latin America, and attempts by private corporations to seize control of those countries' natural assets, including water.

As some with inside knowledge, including former Labor Queensland state MP Cate Molloy, believe that the Bligh Government intends to privatise our water infrastructure, this movie may be more directly relevant to Brisbane audiences than many would realise.

It is as if the people who managed to get into Victoria's Parliament don't realise that the Electorate can read transcripts of everything they say and do. On 2 December bi-election neophyte, Ms Kairouz, feeds the Premier the questions and Brumby makes fools of all of us:

SOURCE: http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/downloadhansard/pdf/Assembly/Jul-Dec%202008/Assembly%20Jul-Dec%202008%20Daily%202%20December%202008.pdf
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
Tuesday, 2 December 2008 ASSEMBLY PROOF 3

Picture: Mr Brumby & Ms Kairouz, who narrowly beat Les Twentyman (Independent) in a bi-election in June 2008]

Population: growth Ms KAIROUZ (Kororoit)

- I refer to the government's commitment to making Victoria the best place to live, work and raise a family, and I ask: could the Premier inform the house of how the government is planning for Victoria's future, with Melbourne expected to reach a population of more than 5 million people by 2036?

Mr Brumby's rhetoric on Victoria's population predicament

Mr BRUMBY (Premier) - I thank the member for Kororoit for her question. As we all know, Melbourne is renowned for its livability and affordability. We are now in the midst of a population boom, which is the largest in the state's history. It is a population boom that is larger than the population growth of the postwar years and larger than the gold rush years of the 1850s.

By the way, just today - totally coincidentally - the ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) released its June 2008 population growth figures. They show Victoria's growth over the last year at 1.8 per cent. The national growth rate was at 1.7 per cent.

Of course it is a huge contrast with the figures of some years ago. We recall the figures of the 1990s, when Victoria was losing population in vast numbers to other states.

This morning, with the Minister for Planning, I released Melbourne @ 5 million - a planning update that delivers on our commitment to prepare the longer term plans for Melbourne. The population data we released today in Victoria shows that Victoria will grow by
2.3 million people between now and 2036, with something like 1.8 million extra people expected to be living in Melbourne. The policy released today refines the key directions of Melbourne 2030 to ensure that we can accommodate an additional 600 000 dwellings in Melbourne over the next 20 years.

Because our population is ageing, because the baby boomers are ageing, the rate of new dwelling construction and approval will grow at a faster rate than the rate of population growth. Our record in terms of livability and affordability was confirmed again yesterday. The Real Estate Institute of Victoria survey of housing affordability showed again, I am proud to say it, that Victoria is the most affordable capital city on the eastern seaboard for those who are looking to buy a home.

That comes as no surprise when you consider the generous assistance packages that we have on offer to first home buyers in Victoria. It comes as no surprise when you think of the off-the-plan duty concessions we provide; and when you think of the pensioner stamp duty concessions, which are the most generous in Australia.

There are a number of features of Melbourne @ 5 million. Firstly, through Melbourne @ 5 million we move from a single node city to a multicentred city, so there will be central activity districts in Box Hill, Broadmeadows, Dandenong, Footscray, Frankston and Ringwood.

We will also be promoting very strongly three major employment corridors across Melbourne. We are also preparing a development strategy for the Werribee employment precinct to unlock employment in the west.

The second feature is the review of the city's urban growth boundary over the next nine months. That is to accommodate 134 000 of the 600 000 new homes outside the current UGB. Thirdly, there are the native grassland reserves, where we are working with the federal government to establish two reserves near the Wyndham growth area. This will be a significant improvement on the practices which have been in place in the past.

We are also ensuring that we have the right infrastructure for our communities, with significant investment occurring in the areas of health, education and, course soon to be announced, transport.

The previously announced state infrastructure contribution has been significantly reformed and modified as part of this announcement for new land brought inside the UGB as proposed today for inclusion in 2009. We will pay a contribution of $95 000 a hectare, reflecting the windfall that occurs from the rezoning of that land and bringing it in from the UGB; and secondly, for land that was bought within the UGB in 2005, that charge remains at $80 000 a hectare, the same as was announced at that time.

I am pleased to say in terms of housing affordability that the government has decided to remove the contribution for land that was already within the UGB in 2005, and that will save something like $546 million in costs for more than 60 000 new homes that will be built within the existing UGB boundary. At a time when affordability is so important, notwithstanding that Melbourne is the most affordable capital city on the eastern seaboard, this is a very positive initiative.

Finally, the funds raised through the infrastructure contribution will average around $60 million a year, of which $30 million will be directed to state infrastructure in those areas, and of the remaining amount, the bulk will be devoted to a new growth areas development fund from which councils in the growth areas will be able to apply for funding for infrastructure projects in a way that is very similar to the Regional Infrastructure Development Fund.

This package today is all about affordability, livability and sustainability. It confirms our city and our state as the best place to live, and it will of course be reinforced next year when we release our regional statement, the preparation of which is being overseen by the Minister for Regional and Rural Development, the member

Public Transport

Public transport: government performance Mr MULDER (Polwarth) — My question is to the Premier. Given that the Premier has previously blamed the problems in public transport infrastructure on Jeff Kennett, John Howard, population growth, petrol prices, Connex and now the Rudd government, at what stage does the Premier actually take responsibility for the public transport chaos in Victoria?

Mr Brumby's ripost on Public Transport

Mr BRUMBY (Premier) — I thank the honourable member for his question, and I am proud to say that our public transport system in Victoria is carrying more passengers than it ever has in its history — by a long way. Our rail system alone is handling 201 million passenger movements this year. That is the highest number of movements in the history of our state. It is more than in the post-war migration years and considerably more than in any recent decade. We are carrying that number of passengers because we have made investments in the system. Before the end of the year we will be announcing further investments so that we cater for the strong growth that is occurring in our public transport system.

The honourable member who asked the question referred to a former Premier from the 1990s. Our system today is carrying well over twice the number of passengers that it was carrying in the 1990s, and we are doing it because we have made investments in the system and because we have strong population growth and a strong economy.

Just in the last year — since 30 July 2007, when I became Premier — we have purchased 50 new V/Locity carriages and committed to the $501 million north-east revitalisation project with the Rudd government, which is the biggest rail project in country Victoria in decades. Also, we have launched the new timetable with over 633 extra train services a week. We have rolled out the early bird scheme. We have purchased eight extra new metro trains, which brings the total order to 18.

We have opened the new electrified line to Craigieburn; with new stations at Roxburgh Park and Craigieburn, Tuesday, 11 November 2008 ASSEMBLY 4459 and we have added new services at Craigieburn. We have rolled out new bus routes between North Melbourne station and Grattan Street and the Royal Melbourne Hospital. We have upgraded the St Kilda Road tramway.

In the 2008–09 budget we announced a $794 million infrastructure boost to improve public transport. There was $275 million for improvements at Laverton, Westall and Craigieburn; $3 million to upgrade Prahran and Windsor stations; $10.4 million for design works for the extension of the Epping line to South Morang; $32 million for around 1700 new car parking spaces at 10 stations and the upgrading of Noble Park station to premium status; plus $14.7 million to expand bus and coach services to South Gippsland and the Bass Coast; $254 million for the maintenance of country rail lines; and $64 million to boost the NightRider service.

All these things represent the most significant investment we have had in public transport in this state.

What we are endeavouring to do is turn what has been a low-volume suburban system into a modern metro system. We will — — Honourable members interjecting.

The SPEAKER — Order! The opposition will cooperate!
Mr BRUMBY — As I have indicated on numerous occasions, before the end of the year we will respond to the Eddington report with the Victorian transport plan, and that will put in place the framework for the further long-term growth of our system. It will provide short-term, medium-term and long-term measures and create in Melbourne and across the state a transport system which is the best in Australia.

Today Jill Quirk, President of Sustainable Population Victoria, deplored the Victorian government's irresponsible growth policies.

The Victorian Government plans to extend Melbourne's growth boundaries, benefit major property developers whose profits may well have fallen with the global economic crash, as speculation on housing met with predictable limits.

Brumby pushing people envelope to breaking point

But the Brumby government is again pushing the envelope by pushing the boundaries of common sense and democracy to keep the illusion of profitable growth going.

As Mervac, Delfin Lend Lease, MAB Corporation, the Dennis family and Villawood queue up to a development-mad Premier for dispensations from only recently extended boundaries,[1] Victorians are reeling at their government's extremism, the Labor Party's supine acceptance of a dictator at the helm, and the tragic impact on our social and natural environment.

Victoria is running out of water. Public transport is stressed beyond any prior experience. Sparse and disconnected native flora and fauna reserves and bitterly defended "Green Wedges" of open space are being criss-crossed and dissected with a rash of extremely expensive multi-lane toll-ways and housing estates. Although population growth is out of control, along with transport and water, the Premier's way of dealing with these terrible problems -- which his government caused and continues to make worse -- when they are raised in Parliament, is to reconstruct them as if they were great triumphs, simply steam-rolling every objection.[2]

Road-makers part of the problem

The spread of housing depends on the rolling out of roads. Railways aren't quite so popular because you cannot just keep adding to them in order to supply new suburbs. With roads it is a lot easier. Nonetheless, Peter Newman is famous for pushing new railways, the better to connect them with light rail and new roads - and more houses and more people.

Huge corporate developers stand to gain from Melbourne people's distress

Pointing to headlines in the Age, Ms Quirk said, "Look who's happy about the extension of the urban growth boundary-BIG-NAME property speculators!" They were celebrating yesterday, with the proposed stretching of Melbourne's city limits, which brings despair to the actual electorate. The stretching is, according to the Royce Millar article, "set to deliver windfalls of many millions to some of Australia's largest developers". Shaking her head in disbelief, Ms Quirk quoted the title:"Property giants pop cork over city stretch."

Ms Quirk reminds us that, "In case anyone had not noticed who is likely to benefit for population growth while the average person is struggling to cram himself into the morning train to get to work- it's the big end of town who do not have to catch peak hour trains! Neither do these people have to worry about the cost of water as it inevitably becomes a scarce and expensive commodity into the future."

Government catering to anti-social forces

President Quirk says, "The property developers are self serving and the government is reprehensible in catering to their greed by pushing for greater and greater population growth. They thumb their noses at the rest of us and treat wildlife whose habitat gets destroyed with total disdain."

"Melbourne will never be better than it is today as it is on a rapid downhill journey to greater overpopulation with no end in sight and the loss of all amenities that made it a unique liveable city."

To contact Ms Quirk email the author of this article.

[1]http://www.theage.com.au/national/property-giants-pop-cork-over-city-stretch-20081202-6psg.html?page=2
Property giants pop cork over city stretch - article by Royce Millar, December 3, 2008
[2]http://www.parliament.vic.gov.au/downloadhansard/pdf/Assembly/Jul-Dec%202008/Assembly%20Jul-Dec%202008%20Daily%202%20December%202008.pdf
Questions without notice, Tuesday, 2 December 2008 ASSEMBLY PROOF 3, "Population Growth".

Translated from an old cartoon by Pessin from Le Monde

For years Australians have had their elections run by a commercial media over which they have less and less control. That media also decided what the public got to hear and what it didn't. With the invention of the Internet, although the commercial media is still very strong, for the first time in human history, everyone in the world who is not part of a totalitarian State, like China, Burma, Saudi Arabia or India, for instance, has the possibility of finding out real news, real politics, of creating politics, of reporting politics, and of championing truth and justice.

This web site (candobetter.org) exists to report politics and promote political ideas and actors who the mainstream press would never report - like the Greens raising concerns about population growth in Parliament, or how there are real reasons to worry that Australia's natural resources departments aren't doing their job to protect Australian animals.

We exist to expose where politics profit big business at the expense of democracy.

We exist because the editors and writers think this kind of website is essential. You may not like it, but at least you can have a look and choose not to come here again.

But, obviously a lot of what goes up on candobetter.org also gets up politicians' noses. These new proposals to have a secret list of 'undesirable' internet sites, which might have nothing to do with sex or crime, scare us.

The reason should be obvious. If a government can have a secret list of 'undesirable' netsites, we might be on it, yet no-one would ever know. We would have no defense and our readers would have no defense. It would be just like having nothing but the Murdoch, Fairfax and CNN media to rely on again.

And maybe something like that is behind this idea of Internet censorship. I would like to know who will benefit from this, especially since, apart from controlling access to media, the proposal seems almost certain to fail in its stated objectives of controlling crime, for technical reasons which Senator Ludlam begins to explore in Detailed Questions to Conroy on Government's Big Brother Internet proposal.

The Big Brother Internet proposal will probably fail in controlling crime, but it could make it easier for you and me to look at the sites government wants us to watch, and instill fear in us so that we won't stray away from those government-friendly big-business benefiting URLs. The old commercial media chains and the big telecommunications providers are dying to be able to 'offer' services where you and I will pay a certain amount to watch their choice of the internet, but, if we want to look somewhere else - and it could just be at internet in another language from another provider - we will have to pay extra and maybe our browsers just won't find what we want.

Having the Australian Government put the fear of ... um... God ... into us about casually surfing the net without a Big Provider's toolbar guiding our journey, could be all it takes to send Australia's much bossed-around "Mums and Dads" scurrying back to the Big Name providers, to avoid being arrested for inadvertantly opening one of those netsites on the Secret list.

Yes, the internet isn't just about truth and justice. It is also possible to use the Internet to communicate evil, to spy and to lie. Yes, it is possible to steal over the internet and it is possible to make money through marketing pornography resulting from sex-slavery, child-exploitation and terminal violence.

But the problem of pornography and exploitation doesn't explain why the Government wants to be able to peer over your shoulder, tell you what you may or may not view, and make your internet provider enforce this, or else.

We already can access Internet filters for children and adults.
We already have laws to deal with pornography. The police already have powers to investigate crimes. They can already seize material and take you away to prison if you are engaged in downloading child-pornography. So what is this "Mandatory Internet Filter" really for?

#WhatYouCanDo" id="WhatYouCanDo">What you can do

Attend protests against Mandatory Internet Filtering in your capital city on Saturday 13 December. The following list has been provided by wearechange.org.au:

Melbourne: 12pm-5pm, State Library

Brisbane: 11am-3pm,Brisbane Square

Sydney: 11am-4pm, Town Hall
Check www.nocensorship.info forums for Sydney updates

Adelaide: 12pm - 4pm, Parliament

Hobart: 11am - 1.30pm, Parliament Lawns

Contact your Federal Parliamentary representatives and let them know where you stand on this issue. If they indicate that they will be voting against the legislations, give them your heartfelt congratulations. If they indicate that they intend to support censorship, then demand an explanation. In particular, demand answers to questions such as those put by Greens Senator Scott Ludlum.

Lists are to be found on the Parliamentary website:
   Members of the House of Reps are listed by name, electorate, party and state.
   Senators are listed by name, party and state.

http://www.getup.org.au/blogs/view.php?id=1560

Sign the GetUp on-line petition. So far, 74,304 have signed.

Participate in Online Forums such as on Getup Filtering at Odds with Broadband Revolution by Colin Jacobs
Online Opinion: Clive Hamilton the Net Nanny, Winning the war against Internet censorship, internet censorship.

Visit web-sites with current information about the campaign against Internet censorship including: www.stopthecleanfeed.com, wearechange.org.au, Electronic Frontiers Australia.

(original picture at http://astrubal.nawaat.org/index.php?tag=freedom-of-expression
There is also a great video there about the internet and amnesty international)

The Senate, Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia:

Questions on notice about internet censorship to Sen. Conroy, Min. for Broadband

Thursday 27 Nov. 2008. Notice paper No. 47 Pp 60-61
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/work/notice/snpf_047.pdf

Senator Ludlam, of the West Australian Greens, is almost alone in asking questions about Sen. Conroy's bizarre proposal to police what we read and watch on the internet without letting us know the details. His investigations on our behalf need to be publicised.

Here they are:

Senator Ludlam: asks the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy questions about the recently announced 'live pilot' of Internet content filtering:

(1) Why does the pilot aim to test the impact of filtering on Internet connections ranging up to 12 Mega bits per second (Mbps) when 12Mbps is the minimum speed which the National Broadband Network project is claimed to deliver.

(2) Why will the pilot test the capacity of the filters to 'detect and provide warnings on circumvention attempts'.

(3) What is meant by 'provide warnings on circumvention attempts'.

(4) Does the Government propose, or is it considering, the criminalisation of circumventing or attempting to circumvent the proposed filtering regime.

(5) Will Internet Service Provider's be required, or permitted, to apply any level of filtering to the Internet connections of people who have not volunteered to participate in the pilot.

(6) If the customers participating in the pilot are volunteers, how will the results of the pilot be of any worth when they will be affected by self-selection bias.

(7) How does the Government propose to prevent technological tools such as proxies, Virtual Private Networks, the Tor service and encryption from being used to circumvent the Government's filtering regime without adversely affecting the ability of Australian businesses and residents to conduct their online business in a safe and secure fashion.

(8) Are technological tools such as Virtual Private Networks, Peer-to-Peer applications and encryption, being used by persons trafficking in child pornography online; if so, how will the Government's proposed filtering regime prevent this.

832 Senator Ludlam: To ask the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy-

(1) On what basis does the Government claim that Internet service provider (ISP)-based filtering is more effective than personal computer-based solutions.

(2) What is the Government's justification for making the dynamic content analysis filtering component of the regime opt-out rather than opt-in.

(3) Why is it necessary to compel all Australian ISPs to supply a filtered Internet service when there are already some ISPs offering such a service in the market.

(4) If the demand within the Australian public for filtered Internet connections from their ISP exists as claimed by the Government, why has this not manifested itself in the market to date.

(5) What evidence does the Government have to support the claimed public demand for filtered Internet connections.

(6) Can details be provided of organisations that have assisted the department through providing advice, information and examples that have contributed directly to the Government's proposed filtering plan.

833 Senator Ludlam: To ask the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy-

(1) What is the current number of Uniform Resource Locators (URLs) on the Australian Communications and Media Authority's (ACMAs) list of overseas-hosted prohibited or potentially-prohibited content.

(2) How many unique domain names are within the URLs which are currently on the ACMA blacklist.

(3) (a) How many active URLs are currently on the ACMA blacklist; and (b) of these, how many have been, or in the ACMA's view would be:
(i) classified MA15+, (ii) classified R18+, (iii) classified X18+

On Tuesday, 11 November 2008 in the Senate, Senator Ludlam, Greens of Western Australia, commented on the answers Senator Conroy (Minister for Broadband, Communications and Digital Economy) had given him in response to this question:

Do the U.K., Canada, Sweden, Norway, New Zealand, and Finland have mandatory internet filtering systems like the one that Conroy is proposing for Australia?

Senator Ludlam: "I want to briefly comment on the response by the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy to my question earlier about mandatory internet filtering. The reason I put the question to the minister in the form that I did was to clarify whether the government's intention is to provide an opt-in internet filtering system in Australia for concerned parents or other people who might want to provide a filtered internet system for their families or for themselves, or whether the minister intends to go down the track of a mandatory feed. With some regret, I must admit that the minister's comments have caused a great deal of concern. He has probably inadvertently muddied the waters quite substantially about the system that the government is proposing.

U.K., Canada, Sweden, Norway, New Zealand, Finland, do not have mandatory content blockers

In estimates hearings on 20 October the minister listed a number of countries as trialling or having in current use mandatory internet filters. He listed a number of countries, including the UK, Canada and those that I mentioned in my question earlier. The reason I put the question to the minister in the form that I did is that none of those countries-the United Kingdom, Canada, Sweden, Norway, New Zealand and Finland- has mandatory content blockers on their service providers.

That is not even under trial in these places. It was trialled briefly, I believe, in Sweden, but it was optional, not mandatory, and that was embroiled in controversy last year when police tried to add certain kinds of peer to peer trackers to the list of what were meant to be simply child pornography sites. So we immediately saw the proposed expansion of the list that was being run in Sweden by police for completely unrelated purposes. I would put it to the minister - and I hope he would agree - that the list of countries which have mandatory filtering is not one that we particularly want to join.

Iran, China, Saudi Arabia, India, Burma do have mandatory content blockers

I am speaking of Iran, China, Saudi Arabia, India, Burma and some other countries. These countries are in many ways highly repressive, and I do not think that is a precedent we want to follow in Australia.

The problem with the concern and alarm that has been raised in the online community is that the minister has been very careful not to clarify what kind of system the government is proposing for use in Australia.

Evasive approach

"We saw the same rather evasive approach in response to my questions earlier. All we are really after from the minister is, firstly, a retraction of the statements that he made before the estimates committee on 20 October, because quite clearly the story has changed-and at least that is quite welcome. The minister is not proposing that the countries that he listed a couple of weeks ago have mandatory content blockers. Also, we would like a clarification of what the government intends."

I do not see a great deal of consultation going on

"What the minister said in the press was that, when this trial is proved successful, the government will move to institute such a system in Australia and that the process will be consultative. I do not see a great deal of consultation going on. The process is just rolling out, and a great deal of concern has reached my office and I presume also the minister's office. So I would really appreciate some of those concerns being taken seriously."

Story by Jill Redwood

The immense trees that have sheltered and raised hundreds of generations of owls and gliding possums are now being hacked down by VicForests. The understorey of tree ferns and waratahs, twining silkpod and musk daisy bush are being crushed into the mud by 40 tonne bulldozers.

Victoria’s Brumby government is allowing their logging department to destroy these ancient treasures - home to threatened species like the Powerful and Sooty Owls, the Long-footed Potoroo and the secretive Spot-tailed Quoll.

This is the forest that was promised for protection in 2006 by the State Labor Government. So why is it being destroyed now? … (click here) read on …

Flawed maps and broken promises

In 2006, the then premier, Steve Bracks, made a promise to “protect all significant stands of old growth currently available for logging”. This, with several other areas called icon forests amounted to about 41,000 ha. However, he also promised there would be no impact on the logging industry - an impossible undertaking.

A few days before the 2006 election, the Environment Minister’s office (then John Thwaites) did a quick and dirty job of throwing the old growth maps together -. It was so badly mapped it included cow paddocks, logged forest and burnt regeneration. In the two years since this promise was given, hundreds of hectares of Old Growth Forest have been logged while conservation groups tried to engage a stubborn government to reassess the maps. Cow paddocks were safely protected, but magnificent old growth was crashing to the ground.

Fiction writers employed while old growth falls.

Post election, the Labor government engaged a couple of logging industry supporters to write a report on how the industry in East Gippsland would manage if these forests were protected. Pete Steedman was an old ALP head-kicking hack and Graham Gooding was the former head of the Victorian Association of Forest Industries. The result was a great piece of fiction and spin that only the logging industry can create. For instance, despite the fact that the declining logging industry provides less than 2% of the region’s employment, their document claimed it was 50% or more. Fearful of a union backlash, the government did nothing - no reassessment of maps, no protection, no tourist walks, no pay-outs; just more clearfelling of old growth forests.

The year 2500 is a long time to wait for these big trees to regrow again.

Old Growth Walk for visitors

The maps also left out the very area that was promised for the visitors’ walk. In the 2006 policy document Victoria’s National Parks and Biodiversity, Mr Bracks stated he would “Invest $1.3 million to create … the Great Short Walks of East Gippsland”. This was to include the “Old Growth Walk - Goongerah” (Goongerah is the nearest small town to Brown Mountain).

In the late 1990s, a member of EEG discovered this magnificent stand of forest and called it the Valley of the Giants. Since then hundreds of visitors have experienced these grand trees, which have names like Almo, Lofty, Uncle George, Steadfast and Big Foot. The track was tagged and has become a well known but unofficial walk that is easy to access on a gentle slope and with the Brown Mountain Creek rainforest running through the centre. We have taken two parties of government officials in there in order to negotiate this area becoming formally recognised as a walk. Now half of it has been hacked down.

VicForests rides roughshod over government policy

VicForests was created in August 2004 to ensure logging public forests was a profitable business. It has never made a profit since then despite millions in govt handouts. The unruly band of old-school loggers within VicForests could see that Brown Mountain might be protected before they could get to it’s real estate, so in early 2007, they planned for last stands of unprotected old growth to wiped out.

EEG duly sent our formal objection to VicForests, as part of the sham called ‘public consultation’. VicForests’ duly told us that it was all perfectly legal and to bugger off. They later told the Minister’s office they didn’t know this coupe was contentious or a planned walk!

In late October 2008, VicForests sent the loggers in to start wiping these carbon, water and wildlife rich forests off the face of the planet. Not to mention our old growth walk. Not only that but they had to gall to name the coupe “The Walk” in full knowledge of what they were doing; another example of the goading, fibbing, cowboy nature of this organisation.

These trees would have been mature when Shakespeare was writing his plays. The tree ferns that shelter beneath them could be twice as old. The forests have survived hundreds of years of storms, snow, drought and the occasional fire. They are now being obliterated from the landscape in 4 weeks by a team of 5 men - as part of an “approved logging operation”. Work for five blokes for four weeks. Gone forever.

The great irony is that in 1995, when John Brumby was in opposition, he made a very stirring speech at a forest rally in Melbourne.

"... that's what we'll do when we're in government
- no more export woodchipping,
an industry in the future based
on plantations and the proper protection
of our high conservation value forests." (John Brumby 1995)

See the link below, for the video footage of his powerful words.

http://www.engagemedia.org/Members/pvmedia/videos/brumby-for-web.mov/view?searchterm=brumby

Who is the government afraid of?

Is this government so easily cowered by a bunch of ruthless welfare recipients that run VicForests? Or is it the weedy might of the loggers union that scares them?

Please - write letters to Gavin Jennings and John Brumby expressing your outrage. Enough old growth forest has been destroyed and converted to pulpwood farms in East Gippsland over the past 40 years. Far too much of the little that remains has been lost since their 2006 promise to protect our old growth.

The logging of this most significant stand of old growth on Brown Mountain is the ultimate statement of contempt for the public’s deep concern and love for our ancient native forests.

Hon John Brumby
Premier of Victoria
1 Treasury Place
Melbourne, Vic 3002
john.brumby[AT]parliament.vic.gov.au

Hon Gavin Jennings
Minister for Environment,
Level 22
50 Lonsdale St
Melbourne, Vic 3002
Gavin.Jennings[AT]parliament.vic.gov.au

The The Final Energy Crisis (2nd edition), Pluto Press, UK, 2008 is a book like no other on the topic of energy and peak oil of which I am aware.

It went well beyond the usual formulaic basics and it satisfied my appetite for stimulation rather than repetition and reinforcement. It is designed to be read in parts and in no particular order. However, nearly all of the articles are a subject in their own right, to be absorbed and considered slowly. The sections and chapters are:

1. Introduction by Sheila Newman

Part I: Measuring Our Predicament

2. 101 Views from Hubbert's Peak by Sheila Newman
3. Prediction of World Peak Oil Production by Seppo Korpela
4. The Assessment and Importance of Oil Depletion by Colin Campbell
5. Coal Resources of the World by Seppo Korpela

Part II: Geopolitics

6. The Caspian Chimera by Colin Campbell
7. Update to the Caspian Chimera by Sheila Newman
8. The Battle of the Titans by Mark Jones
9. Dark Continent, Black Gold by Andrew McKillop
10. The Chinese Car Bomb by Andrew McKillop
11. Venezuela, Chavez and Latin american Oil on the World Stage by Sheila Newman

Part III: The Big Picture - False Solutions, Hopes and Fears

12. No Choice but International Energy Transition by Andrew McKillop
13. Population, Energy and Economic Growth: The Moral Dilemma by
14. by Ross McCluney
15. Peak Soil by Alice Friedemann
16. Notes on Terra Preta by Sheila Newman
17. Nuclear Fission Power Options by Sheila Newman
18. Fusion Ilusions by Michael Dittmar
19. Geothermal by Sheila Newman

Part IV: After Oil

20. France and Australia After Oil by Sheila Newman
21. North Korea: The Limits of Fossil-Energy Based Agricultural Systems by Antony Boys
22. How will Japan Feed itself without Fossil Energy? by Antony Boys
23. The Simpler Way by Ted Trainer
24. In the End: Thermodynamics and the Necessity of Protecting the Natural World by Sheila Newman

Like other books on the subject of 'peak oil' The Final Energy Crisis, (with engineering professor, Seppo Korpela and oil geophysicist Colin Campbell) does examine and test Hubbert's theory - for gas and coal as well as oil (and gives you the maths to test yourself in an appendix) - but the book doesn't stop with the usual (updated) depletion curves.

It is really the beginning of the elaboration of a new paradigm, which seriously examines (among other possibilities) nuclear fusion, nuclear fission, geothermal, terra preta/agrichar and the logistics of energy distribution in different social systems. It is like most books before this were explaining that society depends on fossil-fuels, but this book assumes you know that, and discusses the world within that knowledge perspective. It is for people who have already looked into the subject broadly but would like help to understand the limitations of different proposed technologies and political solutions. I read somewhere that the Editor had said that it was written for people who dealt with problems and fear by learning as much as they could.

Not limited to the 1000 word article or the one minute sound-bite, it also engages relevantly in original and sophisticated geopolitical and economic analysis, for instance about the history and future of Latin American oil and the possibility of realignments among ex-Soviet Union and third-world oil and gas producers.

The "Battle of the Titans", written in 2002 by the late Mark Jones, and also included in the first edition, is a prophetic piece which shows how the reckless and wasteful 'free market' energy policies since the days of President Reagan have caused the economy of the US to have become vastly less efficient than those of Europe and Russia. In coming months and years the energy vulnerability of the US will compound the problems caused by the collapse of its finance sector.

Newman assumes that her readers will be intelligent and adventurous and doesn't limit her authors to basic reviews of simple flow-energy technologies. Rather, she invites us to jump in the deep end and follow particle physicist, Michael Dittmar, as he dissects nuclear fusion technology in the 10 billion Euro International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) project on the basis of the durability of nuclear 'carpets' and the half-life of tritium.

Dittmar's description of the staggeringly complex and difficult technical problems to be overcome before the dream of unlimited cheap power held out by the proponents of nuclear fusion is to be realised left me in little doubt that further expenditure on ITER is a massive wast of public resources.

Similarly, in the chapter, "Peak Soil", Alice Friedemann, shows, in a lively and pithy analysis, that industrial bio-fuel production on a large scale will only make our energy and environmental circumstances worse and not better. Friedemann plunges head-first into a meter of topsoil to see the damage which destroying crop-stubble for cellulosic ethanol might pose to world food supply by destroying an environment which supports "ten 'biomass horses' underground for every horse grazing. Sadly, some of Friedemann's forebodings have become reality in recent months as the diversion of agricultural production to bio-fuels has caused food shortages in many countries.

Other technologies, which are somewhat more promising than the above two described in the book are geothermal and the other more familiar forms of renewable energy such as wind, solar, hydro-electric, tidal, etc, and even nuclear fission. However, as Ross McCluney shows in the chapter "Renewable Energy Limits", all have their limitations and problems. Ultimately we have no choice but to scale back our consumption of energy. We must certainly dispense with any expectation that we can continue to raise both our own material living standards and those in the Third World in a planet with an ever increasing population.

Nuclear fission writing is usually limited to very polemical argument for or contra. These polemics are discarded and nuclear is examined from a host of unusual perspectives, including the importance of trade economics and income from fuel recycling in preserving certain nuclear proliferation treaties, the influence of insurance costs in preserving old designs, why no-one is building thorium fueled fast breeder-reactors, but why India might take a lead in breeder reactor technology and thorium fuel. Newman admits that it is very difficult to evaluate the costs and returns of nuclear power plants, including the dangers, but describes a relatively simple method by which one might begin to evaluate and compare any fuel source and technology, including nuclear.

In the chapter "How Will Japan Feed Itself Without Fossil Energy", agricultural scientist, Antony Boys explores Japan's carrying capacity in the Edo period (1603-1867) and contrasts it with import reliance and nitrogen overload in the twenty-first century.

Already some societies have been forced to confront the challenge of depletion of fossil fuel, particularly petroleum. Two examples are given, both from the 'socialist' camp, Cuba and North Korea; one reputedly successful, the other a disaster. As Cuba transformed itself, in the 1990's, to cope with a dramatic drop in oil imports following the collapse of the Communist bloc in 1989, North Korea, also without its own deposits of gas or oil, descended into famine when its imported oil and gas supplies fell by more than 50% after 1990. This is described in the Chapter "North Korea: The limits of Fossil Energy-Based Agricultural Systems" by Antony Boys.

Sheila Newman, in the chapter "France and Australia after oil", raises the "Cuban solution" as an example of the principle of relocalisation. After analysing pre-fossil fuel France and her options for the future, Newman makes surprising and frightening political predictions for Australia, based on whether it adopts relocalisation or 'big' power options, such as nuclear and massive coal-operations. She identifies the big power options with the interests of infrastructure development lobby groups that are promoting big power developments in the expectation that these will service huge new cities of new immigrant consumers, supplied by Australia's huge and unpopular mass immigration program. Newman points out that the democratic interests of Australians are unlikely to be served by these corporate agendas, which she notes have also distorted the Australian water supply situation. She also seriously questions the costs of financing such schemes and the logistics of building and maintaining them. Reading her analysis, one starts to seriously doubt that the 'important people' who decide these things have actually done the maths.

For me, this is one of those rare books which left few questions begging. It seems as if the editors and the contributors had already gone nearly everywhere I had intended to go and a good many other places, besides, and had thoroughly researched the issues and thought through the questions posed. The orthodoxies of the mainstream environment movement and scientific community are held up to critical scrutiny and often rejected. This is particularly the case with the last two sections which are focused on proposed solutions and future prospects. Andrew McKillop's critique of 'free market' 'solutions' to the energy crisis, in particular the 'carbon finance and credits circus', in the chapter "No Choice But International Energy Transition" was particularly satisfying.

This is an enlightening rather than a depressing book. The editor, who writes the introductions for each section, has a good feeling for the absurd and finds humour and hope in unusual places. A message comes through not to panic, but to think. For all the absurd beliefs and ugly outlooks exposed by the various authors in this book, we find hope in unusual and unexpected places and a sense that, although answers will not necessarily come from the expected authorities, and the problems we face are extraordinary, there are ways we could slow down the crisis to a manageable pace, there are choices about the values that dictate our decisions, and politics are important.

See also: Review of The Final Energy Crisis by Mark O'Connor author of Overloading Australia (RRP AU$20) on page 8 of the December 2008 newsletter (pdf 923K) of Sustainable Population Australia, other customer reviews at amazon.com.

The following was adapted from Green's MLC Lee Rhiannon's media release "World Youth Day cost blowout: independent review needed" of 26 Nov 08 - JS

Those who have accepted the necessity of the current fire sale of NSW government assets included in the recent "slash and burn" budget, which is taking that state into recession, may be amazed to learn of the staggering cost blow-out of the World Youth Day celebrations held in Sydney from Tuesday 15 to Sunday 20 July 2008.

The NSW Auditor-General's report released on 26 November reported that the cost to NSW taxpayers increased from an initial estimate of AU$20million (all amounts in Australian dollars) to its final cost of over $120 million. In addition, the Federal Government contributed $20.5 million bringing the total cost to Australian taxpayers to over $140 million. As some costs incurred by NSW Government agencies may be unobtainable, the full cost to taxpayers may never be known. For its part, the Catholic Church contributed only $10 million to meeting the costs of the event.

The Sydney Morning Herald of 27 reports that the Department of State and Regional Development claimed that NSW had gained $152 million, but had yet to substantiate that claim.

On top of this, the NSW Government plans to throw tens of millions more taxpayer dollars at a planned #V8supercars">V8 supercar races to be held at Olympic Park. The Minister for State Development having given in principle support for NSW to incur losses of up to $86million over three years.

As consquence of the World Youth Day Fiasco Greens MP Lee Rhiannon says the NSW Auditor-General, not the government, should conduct an independent performance audit of World Youth Day because the government cannot be trusted to provide an impartial, comprehensive evaluation of the event.

The Auditor General today recommended that the government undertake a cost benefit review of its involvement in World Youth Day.

"It is not in the public interest to let the government conduct a post-event review of World Youth Day, as recommended by the Auditor-General today," Ms Rhiannon said.

"The history of this government suggests an internal post-event review would be shabby and unhelpful. A thorough review into all aspects of World Youth Day 2008 by an independent body like the Auditor General is required.

"In June this year I met with the Auditor-General to ask him to conduct a performance review to delve into the effectiveness, efficiency and economy of agencies involved in organising the event.

"The Auditor-General has powers to conduct a performance audit and investigate allegations of serious and substantial waste of public money.

"There are many aspects of World Youth Day 2008 that deserve to be put under the microscope, not just why the final cost was six times the original budget estimate.

"The Auditor-General could analyse whether the additional APEC like police powers given were excessive or appropriate, and uncover the full story behind the decision to use Randwick racecourse for the papal mass and the resulting compensation deal.

"Mr Achterstraat's office could also examine the continued failure of the government to publicly release key reports and papers detailing predicted costs and benefits, despite repeated demands before the event was held.

"The Rees government is keen to put Sydney back on the events circuit. The flawed decision to bring V8 supercar racing to Olympic Park is a prime example.

"A proper independent evaluation of World Youth Day by the Auditor General is important to learn lessons for the future of this state," Ms Rhiannon said.

See also: NSW Electricity Privatisation, "Youth day ran $100m over budget" in SMH of 27 Nov 08 and more subdued reporting in "World Youth Day bill $100m over budget" of 26 Nov 08 in Rupert Murdoch's Australian newspaper which lavishly promoted the event at the time, NSW Auditor-General's World Youth Day Report (pdf, 45K).

#V8supercars" id="V8supercars">Appendix: Community will Carry the Cost of V8s at Olympic Park

Greens Media Release of 26 Sep 08

New laws to ban compensation claims by local businesses adversely affected by V8 car racing at Olympic Park in addition to a $35 million injection of public funds shows that the community, not the organisers, will pay the costs of the Supercar event.

This legislation is reported to remove the right of local business operators to seek compensation for disruptions to their business caused by the event. It is also reported to circumvent environmental and planning legislation to stop legal challenges to the event.

“This government has a track record of arbitrarily removing citizens’ rights and throwing around government money to support private sector events. It does not have a track record of ensuring the public gets any return on that public investment,” said Ms Hale.

“Legislation to remove the rights of Olympic Park leaseholders is unacceptable. Leases were signed on the understanding that business owners had a suitable environment to operate their businesses. The government is taking that environment away to benefit another commercial enterprise.”

“If the government is going to renege on the promises it made in the leases, the V8 promoters should pay compensation.

“Similarly any attempt to remove the rights of local residents to take legal action in response to the months of disruption and the environmental damage that will be caused by holding the V8 event at Olympic Park is also unacceptable.”

“Today’s Auditor-General’s report into the $100 million blow out in public funding for World Youth Day shows just how inept this government is when it uses public funds to promote private events.”

“The V8 event at Olympic Park will have many negative impacts on local residents and businesses. The event should be moved to the existing motor racing precinct at Eastern Creek where the negative impact will be significantly less,” said Ms Hale.

See also: NSW Electricity Privatisation, "Why the V8 Supercars will be taxpayer-injected" in SMH of 29 Sep 08, "O'Farrell vows to restore free travel" on the ABC on 13 Nov 08, "Say no to v8 supercar racing at Olympic Park" on Lee Rhiannon's website, Parliamantary debate of V8 Supercar Races at Sydney Olympic Park of 24 Nov 08.

(lire la version française)

"Soon all men will be brothers"

We are told that we are in a time of globalisation. Soon all men will be brothers. The Internationale will be the new human race. The sin of Babel is forgiven. The sole language of tomorrow, English, is the chosen one. Already borders no longer protect the bad guys: all the virtuous are united against bin Laden, the butchers of Bosnia are tried in Holland, Interpol hunts burglars. Like Capital, the Proletariat will soon have no country either. The most marvelous thing is that this prodigious work was all done whilst we were sleeping; in the most natural way, apparently; without any special effort.

But then the alarm clock goes off and we open our eyes to a completely different reality.

Walls

Migratory patterns thousands of years old, as vital to human ecology as marine currents are to the life of oceans, have been criminalised. We try to make escape from the human reserves of Africa as difficult and as dangerous as moving from one neighborhood to another in Berlin once was. Sailing northwards, fear of the police, within sight of the Rock of Gibraltar, can pull you to your death. In this street, they have been at war forever with hereditary enemies on the opposite footpath. Europe is, of course, in process of unification, but little Belgium is no longer able to maintain peace between her Flemish and Walloon populations. Sporting matches open with processions of flags and screamed national anthems reminiscent of incitement of hysteria before big military bloodbaths. Indeed, how many peoples have known nothing but war for decades?

So… Are we living in a period dominated by globalisation or by the persistence or even the exacerbation of bellicose sanctification of flags and borders?

The Seven plagues of globalisation

Clearly, we are currently at an early stage of globalisation where only the seven plagues are globalised: globalization of mafias, commerce, financial robbery, man's exploitation of man, subordination of women, ransacking of natural resources and planetary poisoning… Against this background, the economic game is based on the simplest kind of rule: work travels to wherever it costs less. Your wages are not too terrible, you have reasonable social benefits, your government really tries to provide effective public education, health, transport, nature conservation services, DANGER, unemployment awaits! In the countries known as democracies, many people have understood this and have elected governments which are most likely to overturn social progress achieved over a century, and to feign a response to ecological emergencies, without taking the radical measures necessary. The day that British workers return to 19th century conditions, England will once again be the workshop of the world. It’s the law of competition, one of those famous incontrovertible ‘economic laws’.

Utopias

Here and there, however, a few utopians resist this suicidal course.

A utopian is someone who believes that humanity can and must use intelligence to guide his destiny, rather than laws - laws which, since the death of God, are no longer divine - but called ‘natural’ to hide the fact that, in reality, they only exist to protect the interests of the powerful.

Well, as it happens, here are some reflections that globalisation has inspired in one such utopian.

Globalisation is a formidable process which should be intensified.

It is true that competition profits peoples which have the most skillful workers, the most inventive engineers, the rarest minerals, soils and climates specially favourable for particular crops …

But, when the success of a product comes from its low price and that is due to meagre salaries, work done by children or prisoners, at the cost of public health services, education, transport, and to lack of respect towards natural environments, we should say, “We don’t want that money!” and send it back.

We don't want that money

It is relatively easy to work out how much of the cost of a product has been cut through lack of ecological and social policies. Industries which have their products manufactured in places where the costs are smallest, know very well how to do this. They know the value of that “economic and social differential” which causes them to knock on one door rather than another. The price of imported products would then be increased by a sum proportional to that differential, to compensate for the unhealthy basis of their cheapness. No customs taxes, which profit importing countries, would be involved, since the money obtained would be entirely reimbursed to the exporting countries. “We don’t want that money!” It would be up to the exporting countries then, whether they used this money to better the social condition of their population and to preserve their environment, or to add a few diamonds to the crowns of their oligarchies.

According to another – perjorative – meaning, the term ‘utopia’ refers to an absurd, impossible dream. Recent events have shown that nothing could better illustrate that notion of an aberrant utopia than a belief in progress based on the continuing unrestricted freedom of those who have taken all the worlds wealth for themselves.

Francis Ronsin
(Translated by Sheila Newman)

Francis Ronsin was Professor, Department of Contemporary History, at the Université de Bourgogne (Dijon). He has published several books and numerous articles that focus on the relationship between political struggles and private life: La Grève des ventres - Propagande néo-malthusienne et baisse de la natalité en France 19ème-20ème siècles (Aubier, Paris, 1980); Le Contrat sentimental - Débats sur le mariage, l'amour, le divorce, de l'Ancien Régime à la Restauration (Aubier, Paris, 1990) ; Les Divorciaires - Affrontements politiques et conceptions du mariage dans la France du XIXème siècle. (Aubier, Paris, 1992); Le Sexe apprivoisé -Jeanne Humbert et la lutte pour le contrôle des naissances (La Découverte, Paris, 1990) ; and La population de la France de 1789 à nos jours. Données démographiques et affrontements idéologiques (Le Seuil, Paris, 1997); La Guerre et l’oseille (Syllepse, Paris, 2003). He is also the principal organizer of the international research seminar Socialism and Sexuality.

Rights of partial or full reproduction of this article are forbidden without permission from Francis Ronsin.

David Ray Griffin has been writing groundbreaking, compelling research guides rebutting the official 9/11 narrative since 2004, when he first published "The New Pearl Harbor." This review in Publishers Weekly is an exciting and welcome acknowledgment, finally, of his important work. In celebration of this achievement, 911truth.org has put all of Dr. Griffin's books on sale at our online store, with a number of other excellent materials. Your purchases from the 911truthstore directly support the work of 911Truth.org, which in turn helps support the work of grassroots organizers around the world who continue to persistently distribute materials, talk with people on the streets, show films and host discussion groups, and thus hold our own feet to the fire, compelling each of us to stand up and make a difference. We appreciate your support.

The nearly 40% of American people who doubt the official account regarding the September 11, 2001 attacks will be gratified to learn that their misgivings have become recommended reading by a pillar of the book trade, Publishers Weekly.

The leading starred review on PW's "Web Pick of the Week" is Dr. David Ray Griffin's newly released The New Pearl Harbor Revisited (Interlink/Olive Branch press, 2008).

In its November 24, 2008 online issue, PW writes:

Griffin "addresses many points in exhaustive detail, from the physical impossibility of the official explanation of the towers' collapse to the Commission's failure to scrutinize the administration to the NIST's contradiction of its own scientists to the scads of eyewitness and scientific testimony in direct opposition to official claims.

"Citing hundreds, if not thousands, of sources, [Griffin's] detailed analysis is far from reactionary or delusional, building a case that, though not conclusive, raises enough valid and disturbing questions to make his call for a new investigation more convincing than ever."

Weekly reviews from this trusted and prestigious publisher have guided the book trade, including booksellers, publishers, librarians, and literary agents, for 136 years.

Dr. Griffin's book can be found at good bookstores or purchased at a discounted price from 911Truth.org.

The review is copied below.

Elizabeth Woodworth
Professional Librarian
Victoria, BC, Canada

---

Web Pick of the Week

The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-Up, and the Exposé
David Ray Griffin. Interlink/Olive Branch, $20 (386p) ISBN 9781566567299

Author and professor Griffin (9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press) knows his work is referred to by officials and the media as conspiracy theory, and he has a rebuttal: "the official theory is itself a conspiracy theory." In this companion volume to 2004's The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11, Griffin provides corrections, raises new issues and discusses "the two most important official reports about 9/11," the 9/11 Commission Report and the National Institute of Standards and Technology report on the Twin Towers, both "prepared by people highly responsive to the wishes of the White House" and riddled with "omission and distortion from beginning to end." Griffin addresses many points in exhaustive detail, from the physical impossibility of the official explanation of the towers' collapse to the Commission's failure to scrutinize the administration to the NIST's contradiction of its own scientists to the scads of eyewitness and scientific testimony in direct opposition to official claims. Citing hundreds, if not thousands, of sources, Griffin's detailed analysis is far from reactionary or delusional, building a case that, though not conclusive, raises enough valid and disturbing questions to make his call for a new investigation more convincing than ever. (Oct.)

-- Publishers Weekly, 11/24/2008

Previous Reviews (at Amazon):

"Circuses use people to clean up their elephants--a dirty job, but someone has to do it. The 9/11 Commissioners evidently likened themselves to circus workers, cleaning up after the (Republican) elephant. They did a very sloppy job, making it easy to see that 9/11 was an inside job. The contrary view--that the 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by Arab Muslims--has been the source of innumerable evils, which threaten to destroy our country and the world itself. David Griffin's New Pearl Harbor Revisited contains everything needed by Congress and the press to see through the most massive crime and cover-up in our history." -- Edward Asner, actor and citizen

"Citizens in many countries are waging a war on the cover-up of the basis for the so-called war on terror--this basis being the official interpretation of the 9/11 attacks. Along with the Internet, which has equipped both public figures and ordinary citizens to wage this war on the cover-up, David Ray Griffin has revealed dozens of omissions, distortions, and contradictions in the official story in a way that provides undeniable evidence of its falsity. The New Pearl Harbor Revisited presents a powerful exposé of the false narrative that has been driving the mainstream political agenda since 9/11. It is now up to politicians and journalists around the world to expose this truth to our peoples." -- Yukihisa Fujita, member of the House of Councilors, the Diet of Japan

"David Ray Griffin stands at the center of one of the most impressive citizen research projects in history. In this superb new volume, he draws together a great quantity of recent evidence and demonstrates beyond question the fraudulent nature of the official account of 9/11." -- Dr. Graeme MacQueen, Founder of McMaster University's Center for Peace Studies

"Mr. Griffin has again painstakingly laid bare the many lingering questions and inconsistencies of the official story regarding the horrific attacks of September 11, 2001. Sadly, millions of taxpayer dollars have been squandered on investigations that yielded no accountability, few answers, and fewer reforms. Yet, the attacks of September 11, 2001 have been wantonly used as political and policy fodder. Without truth, there can be no accountability. Without accountability, there can be no real change. Without change, we remain at risk." -- Monica Gabrielle, widow of Richard Gabrielle, who was killed at WTC2 on 9/11/01, member of the Family Steering Committee for the 9/11 Commission

"President Bush and Vice President Cheney have many questions to answer in light of this book. This time they should have to testify separately and under oath. Unlike their testimony at the 9/11 Commission, behind closed doors, this should be open testimony." -- Jesse Ventura, Governor of Minnesota, 1999-2003

Original posted to www.911truth.org

Snow Manners, a leader of the successful 2006 Toowoomba community campaign to defeat a plan to force them to drink recycled sewage, warned Queenslanders not to be fooled by Queensland Premier Anna Bligh's apparent backflip on her Government's plans to impose recycled sewage aon all of south East Queensland. He said:

"Anna Bligh cannot be trusted on recycled water backflip

"Anna Blighs apparent reluctance to add recycled water to drinking supplies is just political expediency.

"The premier is heading to the polls with a poisonous political pill if she advocates drinking processed sewage and she knows it.

"Anna Bligh must completely outlaw drinking processed sewage in Queensland to satisfy the electorate before going to the polls and not just placate the electorate with words before the polls.

"Unless processed sewage for drinking in Queensland is outlawed before the next election then a re-elected Anna Bligh would claim a mandate and immediately put the dangerous processed sewage into the drinking water.

"The long term health of Queenslander's is far too important to be subject to political backflips by the Premier.

On 15 November Snow manners had addressed a packed meeting of 250 Brisbane residents opposed to both water recycling and water fluoridation.

Contact Snow Manners:
Mobile: +61 407 352 334
Desk: +61 746 356 673

CTAG Rally 26/10/2008 “Sustainable Public Transport - No Road Tunnels or Freeways” From a photo by Cory Baudman

Melbourne Campaign Opposing Road Tunnels

The frenetic pace of events held since mid September concerning Melbourne’s Transport system indicates community support for improved public transport and opposition to new freeways/road tunnels. Events include:

Wednesday 24 September:

State wide Freight Conference attended by Royal Park Protection Group (RPPG) and Protectors of Public Lands Victoria (PPLVIC) representatives at which RPPG asked a question of Victorian Minister Tim Pallas re the wisdom of spending $9 billion on road tunnels instead of rail freight.

Zoo animals' conditions compromised for sporting events, now threatened by tunnels

Wednesday 5 November 2008: RPPG Representatives Met Melbourne Zoo Director:

Julianne Bell and Dr Barry Clark met Dr Jenny Grey, Director of Melbourne Zoo, to warn of the threat to the Zoo animals if the proposals to construct a tunnel next to the Zoo in Royal Park proceed as planned in the Eddington Review and to request that she make representations to her Minister. Barry also raised our continuing concern about the adverse impact on Zoo animals of the effects of light at night. Two thirds of the Zoo is illuminated at night by light spill from the State Netball and Hockey Centre hockey fields light towers. Bell raised the issue of the new inappropriate supermarket-style carpark at the Zoo’s north entrance. It was opposed and lost by RPPG at VCAT.

Saturday 15 November 2008: Walk Against Warming: Numbers of anti tunnel/pro public transport campaigners took part in the Annual Walk against Warming, a protest against climate change and need for action. YCAT and RPPG attended with “No Tunnels" banners and placards. It was disappointing that we were not warned that the Myers Christmas parade had blocked off most of the city and many did not get to the event.

Tuesday 18 November 2008: Meet the Candidates for Melbourne Council Election: The North and West Melbourne Association held a meet the candidates’ forum which gave us the opportunity to quiz them on their position re Eddington’s road tunnels. All except Robert Doyle’s team were unequivocally opposed to the tunnel. In view of the fact that Lord Mayor John So sacked virtually all the Parks and Gardens staff as a cost saving measure, I asked would candidates guarantee that proper staffing levels be restored to save our parks?

Final Battle Looms in War over Road Tunnels and Freeways through Melbourne

Royal Park Protection Group Inc. (RPPG) has joined other disaffected community groups to form CTAG - the Coalition of Transport Action Groups. These include (in addition to RPPG): Brimbank Transport Action Group, Flemington Association, Frankston Bypass Group, Kensington Association, No Freeways 4 West Footscray, South Morang Rail Alliance, Sunshine Residents and Ratepayers Association and Yarra Campaign against the Tunnel (YCAT). Meeting regularly at Trades Hall, they are coordinating action against Eddington’s road tunnels and freeways/tollways and are demanding sustainable public transport.

Their first action was to organise a rally held under The Clocks at Flinders Street Station on Sunday 26 October 2008 with the theme "Sustainable Public Transport – No more Road Tunnels or Freeways”. The rally was a great success with more than 600 attending. Among a great diversity of participants were many young people. TV coverage was good.

Daniel Bowen, President of the PTUA, was an impressive keynote speaker. He told how Victoria’s public transport system urgently needs reform and more funding.

Julianne Bell spoke for RPPG and read out messages of support from about 25 groups from Protectors of Public Lands Victoria Inc. (See YCAT website for reports and photos.)

After the ralley CTAG met and reviewed objectives. The following “pledge” was renewed:

“That this meeting reaffirms that CTAG supports sustainable, equitable and accessible public transport and remains opposed to the proposals under the Eddington Report for construction of road tunnels and elevated tollways in Melbourne. Additionally, we consider that there should be no negotiations entered into with the State or Federal Governments over the Eddington project.”

Premier Brumby says he will unveil the Melbourne Transport Plan in mid December 2008 (it was to be November.)

Incredibly, in the face of community opposition and despite the financial downturn and uncertainty of federal funding, the State Government may press ahead with the Eddington tunnel projects.

Quotable Quote:

Mr Peter Mc Mullin, a Lord Mayoral candidate in the Melbourne Council election, when answering a Herald Sun online question as to whether he opposed The Tunnel said :… “if the state government's response to the Eddington Report is to accept the recommendation regarding the tunnel, I will vigorously protect JJ Holland Park from being a staging ground or exit point. Parks like JJ Holland Park are an indispensable community asset and must be protected at all costs. If there has to be an exit in that area, I would advocate for it to be via Paddy's Brickworks in Kensington Rd.” This is all news to “Paddy” who doesn’t know that a tunnel might be coming through his brickworks! Watch our lips Mr Mc Mullin and Council candidates - NO TUNNELS!

This editorial was originally published on 19 Nov 08 on www.seashepherd.org.

The Politics of Pretending to Save the Whales

 

Commentary by Captain Paul Watson

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

How can you sleep Peter Garrett when the whales are dying?

When is the Australian government going to get serious about saving the whales?

The Labor government of Kevin Rudd came into power a year ago on the crest of numerous promises to the people of Australia. One of those promises was to get tough with the illegal activities of the Japanese whaling fleet.

As someone who has spent a lifetime defending whales, I have to say that the performance of the Australian government in regard to the defense of the whales has been dismal and impotent. There has been plenty of posturing and posing, meetings and diplomatic ping pong but the plain simple truth is that the government has done nothing at all.

The Japanese whaling fleet is at sea, steaming south with the intent to slaughter the same number of whales as they targeted last year. 935 threatened Minke whales and 50 endangered Fin whales.

The verdict is plain - Kevin Rudd and Peter Garrett have failed to convince the Japanese whalers to budge an inch on their illegal activities.

The Japanese intend to kill endangered whales in an established whale sanctuary in violation of a global moratorium on commercial whaling and in direct contempt of an Australian Federal Court ruling specifically barring Japanese whalers from killing whales in the Australian Antarctic Territory.

They are giving a finger to Australia as they pass by on their way south. They arrogantly view Australians and New Zealanders with contempt. They know that the elected officials of both nations lack the courage, the passion, the motivation and the desire to do anything that might harm trade relations with Japan.

But the politicians have a problem. Australians and New Zealanders deeply love the great whales. Aussies and Kiwis have both the passion and the desire to protect the whales. In Australia last November they voted for a government that would take an aggressive stance against the whalers.

What they got has been appeasement, excuses, and the politics of retreat.

And they have made it clear that as defenders of the whales, the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is no longer welcome in Australia.

Since October of 2005, Sea Shepherd has been based in Australia in our campaign to intervene against illegal Japanese whaling activities. From 2005 until December 2007, we were able to enjoy support and encouragement from the authorities.

All that changed with the election of Kevin Rudd and the appointment of Peter Garrett as Minister of the Environment.

Over the last year, it has become quite evident that using a passive aggressive approach, the government is working to force Sea Shepherd to take our ship elsewhere.

We continue to enjoy the overwhelming support of Australian citizens and it is only because of that that we believe Sea Shepherd has not been directly ordered to leave Australian shores.

 

Why do we believe this?

From 2005 until May 2008, we were given a free berth in Melbourne. We were then told that the berth would no longer be available and the only place we could go would be the commercial docks at $59,000 per month. The decision was made to move the ship to Brisbane where another dock was secured.

This was after Sydney harbor made it very clear we were not welcome.

We have also been told that we could not dock in Fremantle in Western Australia.

Upon arrival in Brisbane we were told we could not use the dock we had arranged because we were too large, despite the fact that larger ships than ours had used the berth. In fact the vessel that had just left was much larger. We were forced into a commercial dock at $500 per day. This means we have to pay some $80,000 dollars for a berth at the same time we delivered nearly a million dollars worth of business to port by hiring local contractors to construct a helicopter deck, install a new hydraulic crane and to outfit the ship with new boats.

It is frustrating to be fighting to protect and defend the whales and Australia's multi-million dollar whale watching industry and having to pay $80,000 just to have the ship stay at a berth that would otherwise be unoccupied.

In March of this year, I was struck by a bullet fired from the Japanese whaling ship. I was saved by the Kevlar vest I was wearing. Because of the threat of gunfire, I decided to provide my crew with Kevlar vests and requested permission to have them sent to Australian Customs to be brought onto the ship at departure. The request was refused thus directly endangering the lives of my crew.

When I landed last week at Sydney Airport, I was detained upon arrival and questioned for an hour and a half. They wanted to know what my agenda was, who I would be seeing, what I would be doing, where and when. They had a file on the desk of media clippings on Sea Shepherd, yet they said it was just a routine questioning.

The police have visited the ship to question the crew about our activities.

The Federal police last week sent a message to Australian Director Jeff Hansen in our Perth office requesting he come in for questioning. He did so and was asked what our plans were.

We have been told that should we return to Australia after the campaign we may have to pay "duty" on the ship for staying in Australian waters despite our Dutch registry. This would be in the area of $300,000 to $400,000 dollars.

Our application for charitable status has been in limbo for more than two years. This has cost us a great deal in loss donations.

At the IWC meeting in Santiago, Chile when I attempted on a few occasion to speak with Peter Garrett, he turned and walked away and refused to speak with me.

One of his aides told a member of the Australian delegation that they considered Sea Shepherd to be "an enemy" to the interests of Australia.

It looks like we will have no choice but not to return to Australia after this campaign.

Almost half of our crew will be Australian this year.

It seems to me that if the government of Australia is not willing to honour it's promise to the people who elected them then they should at least allow the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society to do the job the government should be doing, but refuses to do.

Whales are being killed, international law is being broken, whale defenders are being assaulted and shot at and the best that Peter Garrett has to offer is to allocate $6 million dollars for non-lethal whale research to show the Japanese that such research can be done without killing whales.

Of course the Japanese know this but what Mr. Garrett does not seem to understand is that the whales are not and never have been slaughtered for "research." They have been killed for commercial profit - plain and simple. The Japanese are not interested in research that does not turn a profit.

It would have been better if the $6 million had been allocated to save the diminishing populations of Tasmanian devils. This allocation of funds is not going to save a single whale.

Or better yet, Mr. Garrett should have allocated some of that money to the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society Steve Irwin to allow us to be even more effective in our interventions against illegal Japanese whaling activities.

Of course that would never do - to provide support for a group that is actually protecting and defending whales instead of hanging banners and talking about saving whales.

The Australian government needs to get serious about protecting the whales and honouring their pre-election promises to do so.

See also: "Captain Paul Watson Responds to Greenpeace Quotes in International Herald Tribune" of 21 Nov 08, "In Battle Against Whaling, Groups Split on Strategy" in NYT of 22 Nov 08, "Daryl Hannah Joins Sea Shepherd Crew To Fight Japanese Whaling Fleet" in ecorazzi of 22 Nov 08.

The following article has been adapted from an article which was published in Gympie Life on 30 Sep 08.

Secret State Land Deal

The Queensland State Govt. is preparing to gift $100 million worth of public beach land to private developer.

Is the public purse now underwriting land developer risk in Queensland?

Recently released Freedom of Information (FOI) files reveal that senior State Government Departments are working behind the scenes to give hundreds of hectares of prime ocean-front public lands to a Rainbow Beach developer.

Additionally, the FOI documents — copies of internal State Government reports — indicate that some Departments support transferring the land 'pre-approved' for development. This means the local Council and local community would not only miss out on the value of the land, they would also have no say in what is developed on it.

Public land north of Rainbow Beach along Inskip Peninsula has very high recreational and economic value. The deal underway would give large areas of this precious public asset to Rainbow Shores Pty Ltd in return for the private corporation's leasehold interest in the low-lying, 200 hectare Rainbow Shores Stage 2 development lease.

The lessee has an active Development Application (DA) seeking approval for a 6,500 population suburban subdivision upon this lease. This DA appears highly unlikely to be approved due to rapidly changing social and environmental factors, including climate change and rapidly accelerating beach erosion.

Informed Rainbow Beach residents say this lack of eligibility for development makes the Stage 2 lease commercially worthless.

However, FOI documents clearly show Government agencies have managed to calculate Stage 2 land value at $100m. They have assumed the lessee's DA is already approved (which it isn't and most likely won't be); they have then totalled the net retail value of the thousands of urban allotments proposed in the DA, which do not exist and aren't approved.

This flawed calculation means the Government is now inclined to give away one hundred million dollars' worth of developable public land in exchange for land that cannot be developed.

The FOI papers call this transfer a 'like for like' exchange. Very clearly it isn't.

The error stems directly from Departmental assumptions about the Stage 2 lease entitlements that are either grossly mistaken or collusive with the developer. The lease clearly places the onus on the lessee to acquire all necessary approvals and permits. These are not acquirable under current policy and knowledge. This is the developer's problem, not the State's.

However State Agency involved in the deal are dumbly parroting the lessee's claims the lease was originally granted in recompense for surrender of mineral sand leases, and thus entails an obligation from the State. This is historical nonsense. The mineral leases were rendered unprofitable by the Fraser Government's cancellation of mineral sand export licenses. The Bjelke Petersen regime consequently granted Development Leases to the affected mining companies. This was more a corrupt act of favouritism to party supporters than it was compensation for anything of real value.

This aberration of fact and logic is only able to continue due to the covert and absolutely unaccountable nature of the process now underway. If it results in a land transfer of the type and scale indicated in the FOI documents it will be a terrible loss.

The list of areas drafted for possible 'swap' is extensive and includes allotments which residents say are vitally important to the balanced development of the seaside town into the future. This surrender would deliver nearly all future Rainbow Beach development potential to one private interest. This would lead to development forms that destroy the last seaside village remaining in SE Queensland, removing a unique social and environmental recreation option from all SE Queensland. residents.

Local residents ask: Why does the Government process exclude the concerns and knowledge of the local Rainbow Beach community? Why are the poor calculations being kept from public scrutiny?

Why does the Government pander to the lessee's claims but ignore the public interest?

The two men accused of torturing, mutilating and killing Peanut, the puppy stolen from Moranbah, should not be able to escape on a defence of "mental illness". Criminals of this level are not humans and should not be entitled to “human rights”. They are sub-humans! There has been a spate of horrific wildlife attacks too. The RSPCA are called out for thousands of attacks on animals every year. We also have cruel, but quite legal, attacks on animals due to the commercial kangaroo killing industry and the live export trade. Although most of us would cringe at such a crime, the fact that this gross cruelty exists, and can be inflicted on such an innocent creature, means that we, society as a whole, are sliding down a vortex of evil and permissiveness. This pet was more someone's property! The nature of this and other crimes is extreme, and the perpetrators are purely evil. They should be locked away from society for much more than the maximum of 3 years. The case against the torturers and killers of Peanut needs to become a precedent for much tougher sentences for animal abuse. While attention goes to human rights, animal rights are being left behind. There needs to be more laws to protect the vulnerable in our society - particularly animals.

Anna's plan to fill the dam - foolhardy

With SE Qld combined dams capacity over 40% and heavy rains predicted soon and in the next few months, there has been growing speculation as to whether recycled water, sourced from sewerage treatment plants will still be added to Wivenhoe Dam for domestic use.

To squash this speculation, Anna Bligh announced last week that unless Wivenhoe Dam was 100% full and it was physically impossible to add another drop, recycled water would still be pumped into the dam.

Anna Bligh is old enough to remember the devastation the 1974 flood wreaked on Brisbane and she should remember that Wivenhoe was built both for water storage and for flood mitigation purposes.

The SEQ Water website states:

"During a flood situation, the dam is designed to hold back a further 1.45 million megalitres , as well as its normal storage of capacity of 1.16 million megalitres.

"It is anticipated that, during a large flood similar in magnitude to that experienced in 1974, by using mitigation facility with the Wivenhoe Dam flood levels will be reduced downstream by an estimated 2 metres".

Filling Wivenhoe Dam as Anna Bligh wants to do with recycled water will put Brisbane and Ipswich at risk of severe flooding.

As with forced Fluoridation, Recycled Sewage Drinking water was also Anna Bligh’s idea. A Ministerial Statement put out by Premier Beattie 28 Jan 2007, cancelling the promised Referendum was that the " Deputy Premier " convinced him that recycled water was necessary.

"The data the Deputy Premier has presented to me upon my return indicates that it appears inevitable that we will have to rely on purified recycled water – it is no longer an option, we have no choice."

Common sense is called for, it is obvious that to be effective flood mitigation, Wivenhoe Dam should never be full, it is not meant to be full unless there is a flood. Using recycled sewage water for domestic use is unproven , it has huge potential for risk and t has never been done before, no-one on earth deliberately sources sewage water for a significant portion of their domestic supply.

Message authorised by Merilyn Haines
spokesperson for Queenslanders For Safe Water (www.qawf.org)
contact Mob 0418 777 112

Merilyn Haines will be standing as an independent candidate against Anna Bligh in her seat of South Brisbane at the next state elections.

In an effort to silence residents with difficult questions, Western Australia's Cockburn Council routinely limits question time and threatens residents who defy these limits with AU$1,000 fines. The Mayor, Stephen Lee, is now on extended leave after the Crime Commission had found him guilty of misconduct for having accepted an undeclared election campaign donation of AU$43,000 from the Singapore-controlled developer Australand, which wanted to build the controversial Port Coogee Marina.

See also: Postscript: Cockburn Councillors threaten to use ratepayer funds to sue residents, Appendix: Cockburn Community advertisement of 18 Nov 08

The article below, by Mary Jenkins secretary of the Spearwood Residents Association, who stood as an independent candidate in the recent state elections, appeared in the Cockburn Herald on or before 18 Nov 08.

The Cockburn Gazette, in its story, "Protestors Blasted" of 18 November, reported that 100 people with placards had protested at the council meeting and police had been called in to control the residents. The Mayor of Cockburn, Stephen Lee, is now on extended leave after the Crime Commission had found him guilty of misconduct for having accepted an undeclared election campaign donation of AU$43,000 from the Singapore-controlled developer Australand, which wanted to build the controversial Port Coogee Marina.

---

This article, by Mary Jenkins secretary of the Spearwood Residents Association, who stood as an independent candidate in the recent state elections, appeared in recently in a Western Australian newspaper.

I was secretary of the West Ward community Association in 1985. I always had good relationships with three mayors and the Commissioners who ran council in 1999. Things changed when Stephen Lee became mayor especially since his second term when he began to silence anyone who asked question he did not want to answer.

What infuriated people that attended council meetings in the last few years were how the public were treated with contempt and their questions dismissed. Who is to say that a different council would have done things much better and at considerably less cost to ratepayers? The complete cost has not yet been realised!

How many council general meetings have the people who gave unquestionably support to the mayor, attended? Anyone who attends council meetings regularly, because they are interested in community affairs and process, will be aware of the rapid decline. Councillors could have halted the decline if they had requested further question time at any meeting. They did not once over-rule mayor Lee. Hence the community reaction and threatened with $1,000 fine if they spoke up for further time to ask questions or demanded answers to new planning developments, is to be expected from a vibrant community.

As secretary of the Spearwood Community Association and a member of Concerned Citizens for Good Governance I would like to make it clear that the administration of our council is not the issue of conflict. The administrators are professional people doing a good job under difficult circumstances. They have always listened to and attended our Association meetings, unlike our ward councillors today.

Many of the people who object to the mayor and councillors process have lived in Cockburn for over 60 years. Some have also been councillors themselves and have never experienced what is happening today! Three of our X mayors are also disturbed at the present state of Cockburn Council.

In fact this is having economic consequences both inside and outside Cockburn. Cockburn is no longer considered a property positive place to live in the future according to the Real Estate editor of the Sunday Times (2 Nov 08). Cockburn did not even get a mention. Seems once again the investment and drive is North of the river! So is the transport system!

Could this be because Cockburn has always been a safe union faction ALP seat? Our local member Fran Logan has never lived in Cockburn. In fact the last two state ALP union faction members - Norm Marlbourgh and Bill Thomas - never lived here either! Not one of them ever spoke up for a good coastal train service that would develop Cockburn as a tourist place. Instead industry has been given a free hand to pollute the air we breathe. It is only since the community lobbied for deep sewerage that it is happening at last. Our ALP member and present council ignored this until a State election was imminent this year.

Spearwood Association endorsed the petition to the Minister and rejected Stephen Lee's 3 months leave on full pay at their October meeting. Who is to say 3 month will resolve Lee's problem, hardly likely given McCusker is about to resign and it took Julian Grill a year? What then? Another 3 months in January when there is no general council meeting? How long will this go on for we ask the Minister?

Many of the protesters are people who take an interest in local affairs and planning. They like living in Cockburn. They hope one day Cockburn will return to a democratic council where the community voice is listened to. The alternative is for WEST Ward to become part of Fremantle. Then a proper coastal development can take place without the conflict that exists today between both Fremantle and Cockburn councils. Traffic problems will not be ignored through the region, cycle ways and pedestrian paths will be restored on the coast as part of Fremantle tourism.

Whatever the future holds things will need to change from the present situation. The next council general meeting is on November 13th. Can we expect police on horseback, security with dogs and ten police and plain-clothes detectives present? Is this the way to run a local council meeting where most protesters are over 50, some as old at 80, and just doing what is their right in a democratic country? Come along and support people power.

Mary Jenkins 3 November 2008. Mary ran as an independent candidate in the September State election.

#LegalThreats" id="LegalThreats">Postscript: Cockburn Councillors threaten to use ratepayer funds to sue residents

The Cockburn Herald of Saturday 22 November reported in its story "Councillors legal threat against rowdy ratepayers":

"Acting Cockburn Mayor Kevin Allen wants to sue his constituents for being mean to him at recent council meetings.

"He says he is tired of having abuse hurled at him by rowdy members of Citizens for Good Governance and describes their comments as defamatory, appalling and childish.

"'They are not good people -- they are anarchists,' he said."

Councillor Allen said that he was seeking legal advice.

Councillor is acting Mayor whilst Mayor Stephen Lee is on fully paid leave whilst appealing against five counts of misconduct by the Crime and Corruption Commission for having accepted an undeclared AU$43,000 donation from Australand during the last Council election campaign.

Another Councillor Carol Reeves-Folkes said that she would also be seeking legal advice. She stated that she "will throw everything and everything at people who continue to disrupt the meeting," whilst Helen Atrill and Julie Baker felt that they hadn't been defamed and other councillors did not return calls.

The Cockburn Herald report continued:

"Citizens for Good Governance convener Robyn Scherr said her group had been unfairly targeted.

"'The Council is lashing out because they feel threatened,' she said.

"'We are still calling for the council to be sacked and if the minister can't sack the council, then he should resign.'"

#CockburnCommunityAdvertisment" id="CockburnCommunityAdvertisment">Appendix: Cockburn Community advertisement of 18 Nov 08

The following is the full text from the advertisement which appeared in the Cockburn City Herald of 18 Nov 08 together with some of the scanned image.

COCKBURN
COUNCIL
HAS FAILED

The community wanted Council to demand Mayor Stephen Lee to resign. They should have stripped the "Misconduct Mayor" of his exorbitant pay! But without debate, councillors quickly voted to use our money to give Mr Lee a paid holiday! By acting as a team in support of the disgraced Mayor they've condemned themselves as well.

$20,000 on PR spin
$20,000 for the Mayor's holiday
$20,000 more holidays in January?

Justice Delayed
Justice Denied!

WE NEED
YOUR HELP
TO TAKE BACK CONTROL
OF YOUR COUNCIL

The Ausbuy website features 'hot press' articles about issues of importance to Australians. An article questioning continued mass immigration was posted earlier this month and has attracted some commentary. Further comments would be welcomed.

My assertion that the Green Parties of the world are, for the most part, essentially human rights parties and not environmental parties as discussed in the article “Who is the Most Idiotic Green Party of the World?” (People and Place, Vol. 16, No.1), is of course, never more better illustrated than in Canada’s Green party. Here we have a country suffering from the highest population growth rate in the G8 group, with its most important province losing 60,000 acres a year to growth, (not to poor planning), and immigrants generating as much GHG every four years as the entire Alberta tars sands development, and a Green Party that wants to jack up immigration by 38% or more than its present intake. Multiculturalism, according to their party leader, not sustainability, not the viability of our biodiversity, is Canada’s “great project”. Over 500 species at risk in Ontario will just have to suck it up and die for the new human varieties that pour through Pearson International airport. Cultural diversity trumps biological diversity. We don’t have an identity of our own to preserve. Like everything else, it must be imported. Of course, that is not their scenario. They would have it that, as Dr.Rees would insist, that Greenfield acreage can be protected from massive injections of immigrant populations by strict land use planning. That 60,000 acres a year of class 1 that Ontario loses is not because of population growth. Oh no. That is all down to “sprawl”, something any good planning department can cure. It is so ironic. Greens want it both ways don’t they? They tell us that closed borders are an impossibility in a global economy. Yet they have this naïve faith in their internal closed borders. This belief in their paper fortresses of farm land protection, green belts, nature reserves, provincial and natural parks and so forth. Smart growth. And yet all around them, from Portland, Oregon to Los Angeles to the intrusions upon British greenbelts to Yosemite to the Steve Irwin reserve and on and on. The historical evidence is clear. There is no sanctuary from population and economic growth. The Growth Monster wants Lebensraum and no Munich agreement will be respected when times will get tough. And they will get tough. The appetite for more and more is insatiable and mere park or zoning boundaries will be swept aside. What is most fraudulent about the smart growth argument is not that is a documented failure or that according to numerous American studies that sprawl accounts for no more than half of all Greenfield development, population growth the other half, but that especially in the context of Canadian politics it is intellectually dishonest. Why? The people who advocate mass immigration and are in a position to implement, the leaders of the federal political parties like the Green Party of Canada, do not contol land use planning. That is under provincial and local jurisdiction. Questions for the Green Party and its leader. Who controls local government in Canada? Are there any campaign spending limits imposed on those who run for local governments? Are there any disclosure laws that force candidates or civic parties in Canada to reveal who is behind their campaigns? Let me save the Green party the trouble of answering those questions. The answer is, local governments in Canada are BOUGHT AND PAID FOR BY DEVELOPERS. And the zoning bylaws are customized to fit their needs, as are the local newspapers, by and large. The only hope for sensible planning is to have it imposed province-wide. But observe what happened in British Columbia. After three decades the Agricultural Land Commission was decentralized by the new, right-wing Gordon Campbell government so that it would be vulnerable to local developer pressure. As a consequence good farmland in densely populated southern BC was released to their clutches and exchanged for poorer land in the northern part of the province. On paper the Agricultural Land Reserve still has the same amount of land in the bank. But it is a shell game. Good land out, bad land in. And notice that the NDP governments in Ontario, or the prairies did not have the will to introduce the same farmland protection as the BC NDP government did in1973. Point being, don’t advocate mass immigration when you know, intellectually, that the land use planning that you speak of that must accompany it is a political impossibility. Don’t let kids on a school bus that has no seat belts. Many Greens radiate a cavalier impression of wildlife. Erich Jacoby-Hawkins stated on March 6/08 that Europe with 70 times the population of southern Ontario had “some” wildlife, so we “have a lot more room for newcomers within our existing developed spaces.” But there are 536 species at risk in Ontario that would take issue with that. Dr. William Rees the country’s most eminent “Green”, told us in effect that Canadian biodiversity was inconsequential. He stated that it was more important to relieve tropical biodiversity by importing people from overpopulated areas like Central America at the cost of our own biodiversity because Canada was not relatively “bio-rich”. So much for the Sierra Club’s campaign to save the Rocky Mountain caribou. A glance at the biographies of Green Party candidates as provided by the Green Party of Canada website during the federal election would confirm my impression. Of the 13 people listed, only 3, or 23% percent, could be categorized, I think, as “environmentalists”, rather than social activists or people with human rights or social justice concerns. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_candidates,_2008_Canadian_feder.... Jacoby-Hawkins biography, for example, is replete with phrases like “social issues”, “community groups”, “homelessness”, “Centre for Policy Alternatives”. I don’t think I would see him on a bird count. One might argue that it is not a criminal act to be committed to social justice. Indeed not. But it is false advertising to make it your priority when you label yourself “Green”. “Green” has connotations of placing humanity within the context of nature. Of putting the lifeboat before its passengers. If the lifeboat sinks, the passengers drown. The question of whether some passengers are inequitably treated, while valid, is secondary to the our need to focus on whether the lifeboat is sea worthy. Are there too many passengers? Can we pick up drowning swimmers? Is the fact that most of the drowning swimmers are people of colour of any relevance what so ever? It is not criminal to care about other people. It is criminal to care ONLY about people and not about the wildlife that too many people are crowding out. This is not misanthropic. Because if we crowd out wildlife, we destroy biodiversity services, we commit suicide. We undercut our own survival. The Green Party of Canada is not Green. It is an imposter. (The pity is, there are some within it that aren’t, and they are the ones we would like to support to transform their party into something which lives up to its name. Something like the New Zealand Green Party. But the Green Party hierarchy has a closed borders policy towards those would attempt to traffic with such people.) Tim Murray November 17/08 List of 13 Green Party biographies: Erich Jacoby-Hawkins http://www.greenparty.ca/en/campaign/35004 Eric Walton http://www.greenparty.ca/en/campaign/35036 Phil Stone http://www.greenparty.ca/en/campaign/59031 quite aware that population growth is a multiplier of problems. Is an active outdoorsman, photographer, environmentalist. Adrianne Carr http://www.greenparty.ca/en/campaign/59029 Brian Gordon http://www.greenparty.ca/en/campaign/59008 rare understanding of need to stabilize pop growth in Canada. John Fryer http://www.greenparty.ca/en/campaign/59014 trade union leader par excellence retired Blair Wilson http://www.greenparty.ca/en/campaign/59036 Mike Nagy http://www.greenparty.ca/en/campaign/35027 Lorraine Rekmans http://www.greenparty.ca/en/campaign/35002 Valerie Powell http://www.greenparty.ca/en/campaign/35086 not environmentalist Kate Storey http://www.greenparty.ca/en/campaign/46004 agricultural issues Angela Reid http://www.greenparty.ca/en/campaign/59011 Hugette Allen http://www.greenparty.ca/en/campaign/59018 solid understanding of the importance of population growth to environmental degradation.

This was only the first shot in the war on unsustainable growth.

Australians and the world now have on record where their so-called leaders stand on this question. The 'nay group' carries the names of the people Australians may hold responsible for thirst, starvation and slavery, if the future continues to unfold according to their plan to continue population growth.

S.A. Senator Minchin about-face

In passing I note that the elderly Liberal Senator Minchin, South Australia, failed to support this motion. Minchin made his maiden speech congratulating ex-NSW leader, Bob Carr, on his ostentatious (and curiously ineffective) stance against population growth.

Young South Australian Senators, Xenophon & Hanson-Young vote for the population motion

However, Independent, Nick Xenophon, did support the motion.

And so did the youngest member of Federal Parliament in Australia's history, Sarah Hanson-Young, also in South Australia.

Now South Australians have a real choice in the Federal Senate!

West Australian based Greens Rachel Siewert and Scott Ludlum also supported the motion.

And so did Christine Milne, who represents Tasmania in the Senate. (She is informed on peak oil and other energy issues and has some good discussions on her site.)

Pressure for growth comes mainly from the property & infrastructure development lobby

I have been studying this political problem of obdurate growthism and the pressure for growth from the infrastructure development lobby now for years. It is a threat to our democracy. I will be watching with great interest from now on. I can only urge those six senators who showed the ability to think for themselves and to strongly represent Australia's welfare not to give up. The mass media is pro-growth because it is really part of the corporate sector, so the senators won't derive benefit there for their courage. In fact the only source of support they may find is in the broad Australian population. The Greens seem to be the only ones attuned to the cries of warning from people in Australia who can see things getting so bad so quickly as we place more and more pressure on this fragile country's natural resources, wildlife and trees, democracy and social structure. It is good to see that they have managed to shake themselves loose from whatever was holding them back from confronting the issue of population in previous years.

Details below:

http://www.aph.gov.au/HANSARD/senate/dailys/ds131108.pdf

Senate Hansard November 13th 2008 p.3.

WHITE PAPER ON GLOBAL POPULATION
Senator BOB BROWN (Tasmania—Leader of the Australian Greens) (9.37 am)—I move:
That the Senate calls on the Government to develop a white paper on population during this period of government which takes into account:

(a) projections of a global population of between 9 to 10 billion people by 2050;
(b) the inability of the Earth to provide for 9 to 10 billion people if average resource consumption is to be at
current levels in Australia;
(c) climate change;
(d) Australia’s inability to host exponential population growth; and
(e) the wellbeing of future generations and life on Earth.

Question put.

The Senate divided. [9.41 am]
(The President—Senator the Hon. JJ Hogg)

Motion defeated 6 to 47

(The President—Senator the Hon. JJ Hogg)

Ayes………… 6
Noes………… 47
Majority……… 41

AYES

Brown, B.J.
Hanson-Young, S.C.
Ludlam, S.
Milne, C.
Siewert, R.
* Xenophon, N.

NOES

Adams, J. Bernardi, C.
Bilyk, C.L. Boswell, R.L.D.
Boyce, S. Brandis, G.H.
Brown, C.L. Cameron, D.N.
Cash, M.C. Colbeck, R.
Collins, J. Conroy, S.M.
Coonan, H.L. Cormann, M.H.P.
Crossin, P.M. Eggleston, A.
Farrell, D.E. Feeney, D.
Ferguson, A.B. Fielding, S.
Fierravanti-Wells, C. Fifield, M.P.
Fisher, M.J. Forshaw, M.G.
Furner, M.L. Hogg, J.J.
Humphries, G. Hurley, A.
Hutchins, S.P. Ludwig, J.W.
Lundy, K.A. Macdonald, I.
Marshall, G. McEwen, A.
McGauran, J.J.J. McLucas, J.E.
Minchin, N.H. Moore, C.
Nash, F. Parry, S. *
Polley, H. Pratt, L.C.
Stephens, U. Sterle, G.
Williams, J.R. Wong, P.
Wortley, D.
* denotes teller
Question negatived.

Story by Catherine Case:
With the Community Cabinet due to take place in the city of Launceston where I live, I thought what better opportunity to ask a question of the Prime Minister about the government's obsessive focus on economic growth and their apparent blindness to the realities of ecological limits? I also wanted to try and ascertain whether they had any long term plan whatsoever to deal with projected population growth in Australia. Would they even acknowledge it as an issue? No one in the mainstream media ever asks these questions, the paradigm of "perpetual growth" goes unchallenged. It seems so blindingly obvious to me that endless growth is an impossibility. Why isn't someone - anyone - in the government facing up to reality?

Launceston community cabinet

On Wednesday 5 November 2008, I attended the community cabinet at Launceston, where I got to ask a question I had prepared in front of 400 people. Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, looked at me with total disdain and completely avoided (and in the most patronizing way) answering my question, which was:

Relentless focus on growth

"For me one of the most disappointing aspects of the Labor government has been the relentless focus and almost obsession with "growing the economy". It's as if every member has sworn to repeat this mantra as often and as loudly as possible on every occasion, as we've already heard here tonight.
Isn't about time that we stopped pretending that mindlessly chasing unending economic growth is even remotely compatible with sustainability?

Population numbers

Because underlying this whole issue is the unspeakable and forbidden P word - POPULATION

The Australian Bureau of Statistics recently projected that Australia's population could increase to 42 million people in a little over 40 years with Melbourne and Sydney both reaching nearly 7 million people each.

Is that sensible, desirable or sustainable?

Australia is in bad shape already

Aren't we as a country already seriously struggling with water supply, energy independence, food production, depleted fisheries, overloaded infrastructure and severe environmental degradation?
When will the government show real leadership on this issue and start to address the elephant in the living room that is population?

When will the government take the brave step of articulating a national population policy - one that recognizes REALITY and dispenses with the cozy fantasy that is the economic mirage of never-ending population growth?

Will this government have the courage to articulate a policy that, as recommended in a recent CSIRO publication, aims to stabilize the population of Australia to 25-27 million people by 2050?

And if not, why not?"

Prime minister Rudd responds obliquely

First off Rudd said that he and his government wouldn't apologize for wanting every "able bodied" person to have employment… the importance of strong economy, jobs etc.

Then he rattled off something about buying back water entitlements. Some more guff about signing the Kyoto Protocol. Some other far-fetched rhetoric about "sustainable development".

He said how important it is for Australians to address climate change and how the government is doing just that.

The only thing that even got close to addressing the question was something about immigration rates and how the government adjusted those in accordance with economic conditions. And Rudd cursorily mentioned "natural" population increase as if the government had no hand in promoting and encouraging it and was powerless to do anything about it.

And even though I'd addressed the question to him and the Minister for the Environment, Peter Garrett, Rudd quickly pointed at the next person in the audience with their hand up and didn't pass the mike on to Peter Garrett, even though he did with all the other questions to various ministers.

He struck me as a shifty, slippery piece of work. I guess I shouldn't be surprised. But I would have liked to heard Garrett's response, and I hope to follow up on this.

General problems with conduct of the Community Forum

As well as the frustration of having the Prime Minister fudge my question, I found the way the community forum was conducted disappointing. At the beginning of the forum, which was already running about 20 minutes behind, after numerous welcomes and thank you's, everyone had to listen to Rudd for about another 15 minutes telling us about all the wonderful election promises that he has kept - in some detail mind you - and all the wonderful things still to come.

Yet the Prime Minister and his entourage were supposed to be there to listen to US! It was like an election speech, anyone would think the guy is still trying to get elected. Even his ministers were looking uncomfortable and bored. I let one of his advisors know in no uncertain terms that I thought it was rude and inappropriate that he went on so much. It was pretty obvious the whole thing is a PR exercise pure and simple.

By the way, I did get quite a bit of applause after my question, so lots of people were in agreement.

Follow-up with Peter Garrett

Peter Garrett just happened to be making an announcement right next to where I work yesterday. I was able to bail him up after he'd finished his official stuff and after he had spent some time placating pulp mill protesters with his reassuring words of how diligently he would be assessing the project against the extremely narrow commonwealth guidelines and how after all, It was Malcolm Turnbull who had approved it - not him! I had heard this before. At least he made the effort to go and talk to them which I have to give him credit for....

It was quite funny because the protesters have taken well known songs and changed the words to become pulp mill protest songs and halfway through Garrett's speech they started singing them very
loudly, practically drowning him out.

Anyway, I got round to saying to Garrett that I was the person who had asked the question the night before about population and that I had been disappointed that he didn't get a chance to answer it.

"Well," he said, "I'm in complete agreement with the Prime Minister."

Population was not a problem!! It was more important to address issues like environmental impacts and other things.

"But" I said, "Surely you have to take population into account, it's a major factor?" Did he really think that Australia having 42 million people was a good idea given the already existing environmental problems?

My recollection is that he said that he was not going to "talk numbers", that it was "not about the numbers". He reminded me that he had been President of the ACF for a number of years, arguing that this had acquainted him well about population as an issue, but it's not "the problem".

He disagreed with my "opinion" about population.

I said, "Well it's not just my 'opinion'; what about the CSIRO? They're recommending that this be addressed."

My impression was that he totally dismissed this point, and that he walked away from me, still pronouncing what sounded to me like platitudes about consumption, sustainable industries, etc etc.

Oh well....

My next thing is to fill in the form that they gave out at the forum and send it to him with some more specific questions. I want to see what he says when he has to put something in writing.

The Elephant In The Room

Written by Norm Smith, Mayoral Candidate for the Save Chilliwack Citizens Alliance.

l have received phone calls and emails recently from residents who are questioning the validity of my position, stated on page one of the Save Chilliwack website, that we are facing a water crisis due to runaway growth, and my position that we cannot sustain our official community plan without depleting the Sardis-Vedder Aquifer.It is appropriate to issue a press release regarding the facts concerning our City's dwindling water supply, and the water crisis we are facing if Chilliwack continues with it's pro-growth "Official Comunity Plan".

I stand by these assertions, and I cite as evidence information published on the City of Chilliwack's official website.

The city admits "We are approaching our limit for water withdrawal from the Sardis-Vedder aquifer and will have to seek out new sources of water for the future. These new sources will be more expensive to develop and operate and will not be the same quality as the Sardis-Vedder aquifer."
www.chilliwack.com/main/page.cfm?id=1445

Elk Creek was generally viewed as our city's "backup water supply" but it is already being diverted to accomodate the vast commercial and residential development plans that have already started on our Eastern Hillsides.

It is now apparent that this unreliable source is going to be stressed out sooner rather than later. Elk Creek dries up in the summer and freezes up in the winter.

The city plans to divert the Sardis-Vedder Aquifer to accomodate the Eastern Hillside developers. This will be the straw that breaks the back of our aquifer and triggers the water crisis.
Reference: http://www.chilliwack.com/main/attachments/files/774/Appendix_B2.pdf (see 3.8)

This is a bad deal for Chiliwack residents because the cost of these massive water projects would be better spent on "quality of life infrastructure" such as a network of bicycle and pedestrian trails and an improved hybrid bus service. The whole mess is a direct result of Chilliwack's "pro-growth" strategy.

The whole situation is a huge tragedy, as our Sardis-Vedder aquifer has won several contests and won the best drinking water in Canada contest two years. It is rare to have a pristine water source that requires no chlorination. It should have been protected from overdevelopment, and we need to protect what is left.

The whole thing could probably have been prevented if City Hall had been promoting a "pro-infrastructure strategy" instead of a pro-growth strategy. The needs of Chilliwack residents must come ahead of the interests of developers.

The continued promotion of growth in our city is an unsustainable blueprint for disaster. We need to change direction.

Norm Smith
Mayoral Candidate and Co-founder
Save Chilliwack Citizens Alliance
savechilliwack.ca

Too many unanswered questions on net censorship

Media Release by Scott Ludlum, Greens Senator for Western Australia, 11 November 2008

The Australian Greens have warned there are too many unanswered questions about the government's internet filtering plan, as the government calls for Internet Service Providers to participate in its trial.

"We still don't know how this filter would sift through the billions of websites on the internet in search of the 'unwanted' material referred to in question time today by Minister Conroy," said the Greens Communications Spokesperson, Senator Scott Ludlam.

Last month at Senate Estimates, Senator Ludlam queried the focus of the filter and in particular, whether similar schemes have been implemented overseas. The Senator queried the issue again today to establish why the Government had compared Australia's proposed mandatory system with a number of other countries where net filtering is not mandatory. Again the Minister failed to answer the question directly.

"Unfortunately, the Minister did not respond to my question. He still hasn't explained why the proposed mandatory filter is being compared to optional filters operating overseas. It's like comparing apples to oranges. It doesn't advance the debate in any way."

"The internet has not traditionally been the focus of censorship in democratic countries, and the online community has been tenacious in its pursuit of straight answers from the Minister. I'll be doing what I can to get those answers on the record so we know what we're dealing with," concluded Senator Ludlam.

For more information or media enquiries please call Robert Simms on 0417 174 302

Robert Simms
Media Adviser to
Senator Scott Ludlam
Australian Greens Senator for Western Australia

Sitting weeks: Tel: 02 6277 3467 | Fax: 02 6277 5821
S1.36, Parliament House, Canberra ACT 2600

Non-Sitting weeks: Tel: 02 6277 3566 | Fax: 02 6277 3185
SG111, Parliament House, Canberra ACT 2600

Mobile: 0417 174 302

www.scottludlam.org.au

See also: "Filtering out the fury: how government tried to gag web censor critics" in the SMH of 24 Oct 08, #more-217">"Filtering Pilot and ACMA Blacklist - Not just 'illegal' material" on Electronic Frontiers Australia on 15 Nov 08, "Net censorship plan backlash" in the Age of 11 Nov 08, YouTube broadcast of Senator Scott Ludlum questioning Communications Minister Senator Stephen Conroy about the planned censorship, "Winning the war against Internet censorship" by David Jackmanson on Online Opinion of 17 Nov 08, Online Opinion Forum "What's happening about the internet censor?" of 13 Nov 08, "Australia Joins China In Censoring The Internet" on TechCrunch of 30 Dec 07, www.scottludlam.org.au