(We) can do better

The 2008 Fact Book makes for an interesting read. Simply align the rankings by country with their GDP real growth rate % with the population growth rate of that country. Surprise, surprise. Another Canadian myth bites the dust. The myth best articulated by NDP leader Jack Layton’s pea-brain partner MP Olivia Chow when she stated “We need more immigrants because of our aging population. We need families and young people for productivity and growth.” We won’t deal with the C.D. Howe Report of 2006 that calculated that to maintain our present age structure of 20% seniors through immigration our immigration quota would have to be 28 times its present rate by 2050 boosting our numbers to 167.5 million Canadians. More to the point is while the extravagant immigration that we have suffered in the past two decades, has cost the federal treasury on average $18.3 billion more annually in taxes than incoming revenues according to the 12 year Grubel study, it has also diverted monies away from investment in needed technology. Canada’s labour productivity gains have been substantially below those of France, Japan and the United States. It will be the labour productivity of our workers, not the number of our workers, who will support our retirees. If one focuses just on the G8 countries, the most salient de-coupling of population growth and economic growth is seen in Russia, which so far has had a growth rate of 7.40% in tandem with a drop of .48% in its population! The Germans had a growth rate of 2.60% while enjoying a drop of .03% in their population. I wished I could emigrate to that country---but as Groucho Marx said of the club that would accept him as a member… http://www.photius.com/rankings/population/population_growth_rate_2008_1... http://www.photius.com/rankings/economy/gdp_real_growth_rate_2008_1.html Compare this to dear old Canada. We have this growth rate of 2.50% and look what we are sacrificing to get it. This year a population growth rate of .87% on our best farmland and 5.4% between 2001-2006, the fastest in the G8 group. And the four party leaders who want to increase immigration by 32%, with refugees the wild card! Other countries, like Italy with 1.90% economic growth and virtual population stability at .01, or Japan at 2.00% economic growth and .09% drop, also poke large holes in the population pyramid growth scam. This frontier mentality of ours that only a demographic booster shot can kick start an economy is one that has been challenged in Australia. Former NSW Premier Bob Carr once said that it was a lazy Australia that depended on driving up population numbers to stimulate the building of houses and shopping malls, but a smart Australia would create a smart, sustainable economy with value-added products. Clearly, economic growth is not necessarily predicated on population growth. In fact that is why GDP growth is a delusional yardstick of economic progress, as a growing population will not tell the story of per capita wealth. Middle aged Canadians today will tell you that more waterfront property, more fish, more quality wood, more of the things that are not electronic toys, were much cheaper thirty years ago than they are today. And no matter how great the economies of scale get, our dollars won’t buy back the paved farmland, or the old growth forests that have been cut down. Cell phones and Blackberries won’t recover the time that growth has claimed from our lives in trying to pay for its trappings. The question then is, while population growth, and the immigration that fuels it, is not needed to propel the economy, do we want economic growth? The Environmental Commission for the City of Bloomington, Indiana, adopted a position statement on May 22/08 advocating “A steady state economy in which resource consumption and waste production are maintained within the environment’s capacity to regenerate resources and assimilate waste, emphasizing development as a qualitative, rather than quantitative, process… Ever-increasing economic growth ultimately leads to resource consumption and waste production at rates greater than can be sustained by nature.… A sustainable economy (that is, an economy with a relatively stable, mildly fluctuating product of population and per capita consumption) is a viable alternative to a growing economy and has become a more appropriate goal for the U.S. and other large, wealthy economies.” Perhaps a declining population that fosters a declining GDP is the optimum scenario, and our worst is the inverse of that. For population growth, as the foregoing numbers have shown, is not the most efficient path toward economic prosperity, not the “biggest bang for the buck”. Nevertheless, intuitively it would seem that GDP would inevitably grow when consumers, however destitute, begin to add up. And that every economic upturn rebounds as an environmental “downturn” however well it is dressed up and blunted with controls and regulations. But the advocates of steady-state economics would contest this polarized depiction of GDP and dispute the suggestion that the economy would need to be collapsed to shut down growth. Herman Daly insists that a steady state economy cannot be viewed as some kind of failed growth economy, anymore than a hovering helicopter can be viewed as a stalled airplane. They are two entirely different models. Our objective should not be to engineer a catastrophe. Daly describes the difference this way: “Throughput growth means pushing more of the same food through an ever larger digestive tract; development means eating better food and digesting it more thoroughly. Clearly the economy must conform to the rules of a steady state –seek qualitative development, but stop aggregative quantitative growth. GDP conflates these two very different things.” Key features of the steady-state model are population stability, limits to inequality and an end to the “arms race of unhappiness”. Beyond a certain threshold of sufficiency, research indicates that both between and within societies growth does not increase everyone’s relative income and that self-evaluated happiness is based on the income status relative to others. Consumerism is a dog chasing his own tail, the Holy Grail of happiness in Growthdom will never be found. Maybe it’s time to re-define “rich”. When we stop filling up our plate with busy work and consumer goods and unplug Madison Avenue, we might discover that wealth consists of more time with family, friends, animals, nature, art, music and good books. And more than that, with ourselves.

The report, 'Sydney bursting at the Seams' in today's Herald says it all. "Population growth in such areas will be a big test for the city's future infrastructure needs. A soaring immigration rate means Sydney will need to squeeze in a third more houses and flats by 2031 than was estimated only three years ago. The city's flagging infrastructure is already struggling to cope with population pressures. But falling tax revenue had left the Government little choice but to slash spending, Mr Rees said." "On the same day that it emerged Sydney will need almost 900,000 extra homes by 2031 - a third more than estimated three years ago - Mr Rees told a news conference: "Governments can boast about capital works programs extending out five, 10, 15 years. But essentially what you're boasting about is the level of debt you have." So there you have it people, the choice is yours (or rather, the NSW government's, since you most surely WON'T be asked..) . crumbling infrastructure and declining quality of life and/or . higher taxes and charges and/or . increased state debt. And why? To support a record immigration program that's based on the flimsiest of excuses since GWB attacked Iraq. The so-called 'skills crisis'. How the shamelessly selfish and myopic lobbying of the housing and assorted other 'industry' bodies for bigger markets and cheaper labour destroyed a city. Nathan Rees should now publicly ask Federal Labor to cut immigration to 30 - 35,000 per annum immediately and to provide incentives for decentralisation as a priority.

Cosmos magazine describes itself as Australia's #1 Science magazine and regularly features articles by prominent scientists including Richard Dawkins, Paul Davies and Michio Kaku. In the current issue, David Suzuki writes a feature essay promoted as '6.7 billion reasons to halt population growth'. So what does he have to say? Recalling Tim's earlier post about Professor Suzuki's reticence regarding Canada's population (and corresponding candour about Australia's) this article made interesting reading. Suzuki covers the four-fold growth in human numbers since 1900 and points out that humanity's ecolological footprint (or impact; I) has been enlarged by growth in population and consumption. He lumps technology (T) in with population (P) and consumption growth (affluence or A) as a cause of this bigger footprint and while this is probably true more often than not, it ignores situations where appropriate technology can reduce environmental impact. For example, when I was younger I worked on the same apple orchard that my grandfather had worked some 50 years earlier. We used integrated pest management (predatory mites with much reduced chemical spraying) to control two spotted mite through the orchard, with some success. I asked my grandfather whether he'd had trouble with two spotted mite in his day. 'No'. he said. 'We sprayed every couple of weeks with lead arsenate and never had any trouble with bugs'. Indeed. Likewise, photovoltaic panels represent more advanced technology than coal fired power stations but are - comparatively - benign from an environmental point of view. For the uninitiated, I=PAT is an important concept but given the six full pages dedicated to Suzuki's piece, some recognition that technology can cut both ways in affecting humanity's environmental impact would have been useful. Suzuki describes how modern urbanised communities have become divorced from the reality of where the food, fibre and forestry that supports their lifestyle comes from, leading to unrealistic assumptions about how many people an environment can support. He goes on to discuss how this ignorance leads urban people to believe that the economy is the highest priority, or the real bottom line in maintaining a decent quality of life. These points are well made - if considerably laboured - and provide the groundwork for the closing arguments in the essay, which show that while science can improve efficiency in food production and other agricultural systems it cannot do so exponentially, nor at the rate that the human population is currently growing. This leads Suzuki to conclude that in terms of taking action to rescue the biosphere, we are currently past the '59th minute', meaning that we are in urgent need of decisive action. He says .. 'When I say this to politicians and business people, they get angry. They remonstrate that our stores are filled, cities are growing and booming and we're living longer and healthier lives. So how can we be past the 59th minute? I say it without apology. We are promulgating an illusion that everything is all right by using up the rightful legacy of our children and grandchildren. That is not sustainable, it is suicidal.' OK. Good points. So given that the essay's about population, what should we be doing about it? Well, unfortunately we're left to ponder that ourselves, because there ends the article. I turned the page, hoping for a considered prescription for managing our dire situation.. and found an article about black holes at the core of the Milky Way. Personally, I felt that Suzuki's article had a couple of black holes of its own. Firstly, for an article supposedly about population issues there's nothing there about what might constitute an acceptably sustainable population, either internationally or within any given country. Nor is there even a hint about what might be done to achieve population stability. The article opens with an intriguing paragraph. Having observed that human beings are a remakable species, Suzuki says.. 'But we have shortcomings too. We demarcate borders that often make no ecological sense: dissecting watersheds, fragmenting forests, ..... yet we try to manage natural resources within these confines.' Well yes, we do. At this point in history, it's national governments that have primary responsibility for the natural resources within their borders. Suzuki may not like this state of affairs (internationalists generally don't) but that's the way it is. I found this stanza unusual because it doesn't obviously relate to anything else in the article. It seems to stand alone as a token criticism of borders and - perhaps - as a way of distancing the author from other population commentators with a national focus? But it also limits Suzuki's options when it comes to the kind of decisive action needed at this, the 59th minute. Because - to my mind at least - it will be national governments that need to take the lead on population issues. Developing a target sustainable population for their own environments and policies to achieve it. Implementing policies that encourage efficient resource usage and triple bottom line outcomes. Without nations and national governments, solutions to the population problem will not be achieved. It must be difficult for people who've grown up thinking of nations and borders as somehow ideologically suspect to conceive of them as the means of achieving a solution to such a significant global problem. Suzuki's article, for one, is short on answers. Overall, though, it's refreshing to see the problem of overpopulation given coverage in a (fairly) mainstream science publication - and by such an eminent person as David Suzuki. Taken with Bob Brown's recent question in parliament about Australia's population, can we dare to hope that this signals a change in the traditional Green code of silence on population matters? Time will tell. .

(Photo:Justin Madden, Victorian Planning Minister)
Victorian Planning dictators aim at iconic Macedon Ranges (Hanging Rock region). Where will it end? Call to Victorians and the world ....

We need your help - to help Macedon Ranges.

Background

Revisionist Brumby Planning Dept airbrushes major Planning policy statement

At last Wednesday’s Macedon Ranges Shire Council meeting, Council announced it had received an email from the Department of Planning and Community Development instructing it to remove all references to Statement of Planning Policy No. 8 – Macedon Ranges and Surrounds [SPP8] from the planning scheme. This decision has been made without public consultation.

Significance of SPP8

SPP8 - the ‘Macedon Ranges policy’ – was introduced as State policy underpinned by legislation in 1975. The policy recognises how special, significant and sensitive this area is, and its purpose is to protect Macedon Ranges from overdevelopment and development that damages environmental and landscape qualities.

(Hanging Rock, iconic site of famous schoolgirl disappearance subject of film, Picnic at Hanging Rock)

Since 2000, SPP8 has been downgraded to Local Policy (Clause 22.01). As SPP8 says limit development and maintain rural character, it gets in the way of the current ‘generic’ Victoria Planning Provisions [VPPs] which the government is trying to impose undemocratically on Victorians and their landscape.

Promises, promises...
Since 2004, MRRA has campaigned to have SPP8 reinstated as State policy so it can again take precedence over other policies and sections in our planning scheme. We’ve had promises to ‘protect’ from Planning Ministers, but it still hasn’t happened.

Soviet style revisionism used for capitalist over-development

Now the Department dictates the removal of this critical policy. References to SPP8 have, without consultation, already been removed from the 2007 Gisborne Outline Development Plan. MRRA wrote to the Minister for Planning, Justin Madden, on August 24 2008 asking to discuss this, but has not yet received a response.

Residents disempowered, democracy gutted, environment unprotected

Despite difficulties implementing it, loss of SPP8 will be a mortal blow for Macedon Ranges. There will be nothing left that recognises the environmental sensitivity of this iconic and historic landscape and sets the mysterious and beautiful, geologically remarkable Macedon Ranges apart from other semi-rural places.

Australians and the world must not accept this. Don't let being outside Australia stop you from showing your support to MRRA. Democracy is a concern for responsible citizens everywhere.

SPP8 needs to become Victorian State policy again. It has to take precedence over the ‘one size fits all’ zones and controls in the VPPs, such as the Residential 1 zone and ResCode, which presently prevail. Development under these policies overwhelms local and regional diversity and human rights to self-government.

Action

The concern of Mt Macedon Residents' Association (MRRA) is so strong that they have started a “Keep Macedon Ranges Rural” petition, to the Victorian Legislative Assembly (lower house).

You can leave a brief comment on this site as well.
Hard copies are also available from secretary[AT]mrra.asn.au. Send signed petition sheets back to MRRA: PO Box 359, Woodend, 3442.

The aim is to get an MP to present the petition to Parliament in early December.

The petition sheets have spaces for signatures on the back of them, so twice the signatures can go on one piece of paper (NOTE: the petition text MUST appear on every petition sheet or the sheet will be rejected). If you print double-sided for signatures on the front and the back, make really sure the petition text appears on the front.

Victorians who would like to do more are urged to network, to link to the MRRA petition site; to send this article on to email contacts; to distribute copies of the petition form to local shops, asking them to put it on their counters; to letterbox their street; to tell friends and family and everyone – Macedon Ranges is of State level significance, (and world-famous) and what happens here is of interest to all. Consider passing the petition around and getting people at work to sign up, or even take a petition form to their friends, family or groups.

And let key politicians know what you think of this planning despotism and vandalism. Your local pollie/s is a good place to start but don’t forget some of the other key players as well, such as Premier Brumby, the Minister for Planning, the Minister for Environment and the Minister for Water. Opposition Shadow ministers and the leaders of all political parties and independents would surely appreciate hearing from you as well. Contact details for the main players are at the MRRA website

What type of Macedon Ranges do we want Victorian and Australian children to inherit: An industrial precinct? A high density, metropolitan landscape? Units or high rise on Mt. Macedon? Housing estates up to Hanging Rock?

This will be the last chance for the public to turn things around for Macedon Ranges. Once SPP8 is gone, it’s gone forever. The time to act is now. It is also a good time to act because the global melt-down has exposed for a scam the develop-and-be-damned policy of Australian state Governments.

Make as much noise as possible.
Tell as many people as possible.
Get as many signatures as possible – thousands!

Let Parliament know that the world is watching and that Victoria means it when it says “Keep Macedon Ranges Rural”.

If you need help or have questions or comments: 03 5427 1481, +61 3 5427 1481 (from overseas), secretary[AT]mrra.asn.au

A short article in the The Australian Financial Review of 24 September 2008 leaves the reader wondering what exactly was the point of NSW's extensive program of privatisations going back to the 1980's.

The article, "Bits and pieces won't fetch $1 billion" by Tracey Ong purports to show what options are available to the NSW government in its planned mini-budget to cover the claimed $1 billion-plus shortfall in its budget.

The article states, "The problem for Mr Rees is that the once-rich government asset portfolio has been depleted after two decades of reform." This 'reform' left, according to the article, apart from the electricity assets, the sale of which is now politically impossible, "only a handful of assets... worth offloading."

This surely begs a question from those who have held out privatisation to us as the panacea for all of our economic ills: Exactly what of enduring benefit has been achieved by past waves of privatisation?

Two of the principle justifications given for privatisation have been:

1. It would free up government money in order that it could be spent on 'core' government responsibilities; and
2. It would make the whole economy run more efficiently.

So what then happened to all the money 'freed up' from past privatisations? Why is it, as we are told, that NSW faces a financial crisis? If privatisation is supposed to make economies run more efficiently, how is it that NSW's economy has contracted?

The article lists the "prize assets" already sold: "TAB, State Bank and the Government Insurance Office (GIO)". Other assets that the article failed to mention are the Government Printing Office Printing, the Homebush abbattoir and the State brickworks, privatised by Greiner and FreightCorp privatised by Carr in 2002. In addition, large numbers of government buildings, housing stock and land were sold off, beginning from the time of the Wran Labor Government. That process was accelerated by the Greiner Liberal Government which came to power in 1988.

Much of NSW's roads have also been privatised and turned into toll-ways since the time of Unsworth under the different guise of "Public Private Partnerships", including the infamous Cross-City Tunnel that Carr inflicted upon the Sydney public.

This all begs further questions: How much longer can the process of privatisation continue, and what should the NSW government do to balance its budget once all the remaining assets are gone?

Typically, the article only proposes further privatisation to solve NSW's financial crisis. Other possible measures such as raising loans or obtaining additional revenue are not even contemplated.

Ong gives a list of assets which she tells us could be sold off immediately:

Asset	Value	Operating Revenue
Forests NSW	AU$3.1billion	$AU280million
Sydney Ferries	Unclear	AU$119million
WSN Environmental Solutions	AU$203million	AU$18.5million
State Lotteries	AU$553million	AU$50.3million

Others ruled out as politically too difficult include: Ports, Landcom, the four water corporations and, of course, electricity.

The article points out, even if any of the assets were sold, they would be sold at firesale prices.

Canadian Ronald Wright in A short history of progress (2004) wrote of economic neo-liberalism which demands privatisation of publicly owned assets:

"After the Second World War, a consensus emerged to deal with the roots of violence by creating international institutions and democratically managed forms of capitalism based on Keynesian economics and America's New Deal. This policy, although far from perfect, succeeded in Europe, Japan and some parts of the Third World. ...

"To undermine that post-war consensus and return to to archaic political patterns is to walk back into the bloody past. Yet that is exactly what the New Right has achieved since the late 1970s, rewrapping the old ideas as new and using them to transfer the levers of power from elected governments to unelected corporations -- a project sold as 'tax-cutting' and 'deregulation' by the Right's courtiers in the media, ... The conceit of laissez-faire economics -- that if you let the horses guzzle enough oats, something will go through for the sparrows -- has been tried many times, leaving ruin and social wreckage."(pp126-127)

NSW's record seems to confirm that privatisation is, indeed, just old-fashioned plunder as practised by the Conquistadores, Vikings, Mongols, etc. Revenue generating assets paid for over previous decades by taxpayers have apparently been sold off for no better reason than to line the pockets of private investors, bankers and stockbrokers.

The rightful owners of these assets are the public of NSW, who have paid for them through taxes and hefty bills, and no Government has the right to "offload" these assets without their informed consent. Whenever they have been consulted they have rejected it overwhelmingly. This, and not the failure to get the Labor Party's support, as the article implies, is the principle reason why electricity privatisation was stopped.

Whilst it is true that "domestic and overseas players lining up to get a slice of the action" were disappointed, given the harm already done to NSW by these parasites the NSW public surely owes them no more favours.

To the extent that the alleged NSW financial crisis (as opposed to the global financial crisis) is real it should be fixed by the raising of loans or by finding other fair and equitable means to raise revenue. It should not be "fixed" by selling off yet more family silver.

This article was originally posted on 20 Sep 2008

. It was revised on 1 Oct with the help of Sheila Newman, editor of The Final Energy Crisis (2nd edition).

See also: "Media contempt for facts in NSW electricity privatisation debate" of 19 Sep 08.

NDP’S CHILD BENEFIT PROGRAMS ONLY THE BEGINNING (Sept 28/08) TORONTO -- The NDP rolled out a $51.6-billion menu of promises on Sunday, releasing a campaign platform that introduced a new child benefit as its centerpiece that would see all families with children under 18 receiving non-taxable monthly cheques of up to $2,488. The New Democrats would spend an extra $4.4 billion annually by 2012-13 on the non-taxable payments, which will replace and enhance three existing programs, including the Harper government's $100 monthly payments for children under six. "The New Democrat's Child Benefit will give every middle-class and working family a raise," Layton said in a statement. The party would also implement a new national childcare program, to be phased in over four years at a cost of $1.75 billion annually by 2012-13. The new proposal would be income based, with no families with children receiving less than they do currently. All families earning less than $188,000 annually would receive more, with a middle-class family of four with two children, earning a household income of $40,000 - $75,000, receiving monthly cheques of $2,140. JACK LAYTON MAKES A COMMITMENT TO UNIVERSAL DAY CARE FOR FAMILY PETS The debate about how, where and by whom young dogs should be looked after has occupied much social policy and media attention in recent years because the decline of family values is held responsible for a range of social problems. That the chore of looking after the family dog should fall upon women is unacceptable to the New Democratic Party. They have therefore proposed state intervention in this critical area of our lives. Once again, the NDP, committed to the belief that there exists a social program to remedy every problem, has stepped into the breech, with a bold initiative calling for State Doggie Daycare Centres for Working Mothers. The concept is simple. Working mothers must have the reasonable chance of career advancement and independent living by leaving their dogs at daycare while working a 37 ½ hour week. All dog care expenses will be picked up by registered taxpaying dog-haters, and by a punitive capital gains tax on known dog-hating CEOs. Eventually, should the economy improve by the exploitation and degradation of yet more of the natural environment, the revenues which will flow from clear-cutting and open-pit mining will fund yet more daycare centres for parakeets, cats and tropical fish which liberated working female pet owners will drop off on their way to their mind-numbing, tedious jobs that Gloria Steinem tells them they are so fulfilled at doing. During their ten minute coffee breaks while they stand shivering outside office buildings furtively chain smoking while thumbing through their John Grisham novels, they can feel secure that “Fifi” is being looked after by the nanny state at someone else’s expense. NOW HERE IS MY PRESS CONFERENCE: On behalf of the neo-malthusian Canadian Population Reduction Party I would like to introduce our Child-less Benefit policy to reward those people who were altruistic enough NOT to introduce any more consumers into our highly unsustainable economy. Each child born in Canada will be projected to emit 23.8 metric tonnes of green house gasses and consume 3.7 million pounds of minerals, metals and fuels in his lifetime. I propose a generous benefit to be awarded to each couple or parent to the amount of $1070 per month for each absent child less than the Canadian average. The scheme will be financed with a draconian tax on those with the most children, particularly those who claim that they can afford them, since those are the very children with the highest ecological footprint, due to their conspicuous consumption. Surplus revenues can be set aside for the research and development of the robots which, according to MIT professor Rodney Brooks, will in less than five decades, be so intrusive in so many areas of our lives that they will obviate the necessity for immigration or birth incentives to fill any labour or skills shortages, particularly in the delivery of health care to the elderly. One day, of course, robots may win the franchise, and vote to terminate living Canadians, deciding that they are unsustainable in ANY numbers, as they have never proven that they can acknowledge limits or constrain their appetites. Should that happen, foreign visitors will not notice any difference in English Canada though. We are already born dead on arrival, programmed with a PC mind-set and conditioned responses with no personalities to speak of and waiting for a public broadcasting corporation to down load its world view on us. Tim Murray September 29/30

“We have increased sprawl which is a real problem, it’s related to bad land use planning. It’s related to bad policies that’ll affect where immigrants settle….it’s a problem, but curbing immigration is really focusing on the wrong, and rather trivial aspect of the problem.” Elizabeth May, leader, Green Party of Canada , May 17, 2006. In the game of population growth, land capacity is not as relevant as carrying capacity. Antarctica is a big place with lots of room for lots of people, but how many people can it support? Yet Canadian politicians persist in the assumption that their country is a vast tropical cornucopia that needs ever more injections of people to unlock a hidden bounty of even greater wealth. In fact all four party leaders want to exceed current immigration levels by a third or more, despite the fact Canada already has the fastest growth rate of all G8 nations. That the broadest sector of Canada is either mountainous, permafrost tundra, wetlands, marsh, bog, lake or boreal forest hostile to human habitation is not our toughest sell. That only says that there is little room at Canada’s Ecological Inn, that rather than be billed as a Big Five Star Hotel we should be marketed as a cheap one room motel. The sad salient fact is that 94% of Canada’s land cannot be farmed. Actually, a more plausible figure is that only 5.2% of Canada’s land base is arable, a ration of 3 acres per citizen. That speaks to our carrying capacity. What should concern us about that pathetic arable portion is where it is situated, how much of it is being lost, how recently it has been lost, and why. Of the over 5% of Canada’s land base that is devoted to farming, 40% is found on the prairies, but 51% of the best farmland, the Class 1, is found in Ontario. According to Statistics Canada, in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) more than 2,000 farms and 150,000 acres, or 18% or Ontario’s Class 1 farmland were lost between 1976 and 1996. By comparison, in the London region of Middlesex County between 1996 and 2001, 8500 hectares (21,000 acres) were lost. Since 1966, over 6 million hectares of land in Canada and over 1.5 million hectares of land in Ontario have been lost from agriculture to development. But the key question is, why? (cf. http://members.becon.org/=pals/canada12.html ) It is interesting to observe how the pace of farmland conversion accelerates after 1990 , when Immigration Minister Barbara McDougall under the guidance of Prime Minister Brian Mulroney introduced a new era of substantial increases in immigration levels. Case in point: In the twenty years before 1996, an average of 7500 acres of Class 1 farmland was lost annually in the GTA, but after 1996, in all of Ontario, which is inclusive of areas not subject to population pressures as intense as Metro Toronto, losses averaging 60,000 occurred----a loss rate eight times greater than before the era of mass immigration. http://www.ontariofarmlandtrust.ca/issues-and-programs/saving-farmland To cite another example from Statistics Canada, from page 126 in Human Activity and the Environment . “Approximately 4700 sq. km. of Class 1, 2 and 3 agricultural land or about 1 sq. km. daily was lost between 1981 and 1996.” But the loss rate increased to 1.3 sq km. daily or 33% between 1991 to 1996. There is quite clearly a correlation between population growth and farmland conversion, and in Canada 70% of population growth is driven by immigration. Undocumented evidence suggests that in Greater Vancouver and Toronto, as many as 85% of the residents in the new subdivisions that sit on former greenbelts are foreign born. Yet the champions of farm protection such as Ontario Farmland Trust, Ontario Smart Growth, Smart Growth BC or the David Suzuki Foundation will not dare to mention the ugly “I” word. For them, as for the Growth Management Industry, the Greens and the NDP, it is all just a matter of “land use management”. Yet several American studies have revealed that it is not. A Centre for Immigration Studies report of 2003 established that land use management was necessary but not sufficient, to save farmland, as “sprawl”, that great scapegoat of the environmental movement, accounted for only half, on average, of disappearing rural acreage. A US Bureau of Census study of the 100 largest U.S. urbanized areas concluded in the early 90s that land-use restrictions could not win any lasting, sustainable, protection of agricultural land and natural habitats surrounding cities. Census data established that the sprawl rate was twice as high nationally at 51.5% as the per capita increase in the consumption of land at 22.6%. A city like Denver could contain its per capita land consumption to 8.1% but see its overall land consumption rise by 56.7%--seven times as much. Portland, Oregon was trumpeted as the showcase of smart growth, until too many sheep finally burst the pen and the greenbelt outside city limits got developed. Los Angeles, wrongly tagged as the sultan of sprawl, won an award for increasing its density by 8% for two decades until 1990. Then came 3.1 million immigrants with no where to go and 394 square miles of orchards, natural habitat, rural spaces and farmland were lost to urbanization. In recent years a report by Smart Growth BC painted a rosy picture of B.C.’s Agricultural Land Commission (ALC), calling it a success story “in the context of North American regional development”. (That is damning it with faint praise!). It was a patent falsehood that from 1973 to the end of 2003, “there has been no net loss of farmland in B.C.” The key to that statement lay in the definition of “farmland”. If it is defined as good soil, then the ALC has been playing a shell game with the trusting public, exchanging coveted marketable farmland under its protection for relatively poorer land in more remote locations. The telling concession from Smart Growth BC comes in these lines: “However the quality of farmland in the ALR has decreased, with 2.8 hectares of prime farmland excluded for every hectare prime farmland included. Likewise, the ALR has shifted to the northern part of the province, with 90% of the inclusions in the north and 72% of exclusions occurring in the south.” Harold Steves, a former MLA who fought for the ALC at its inception, corroborated that point recently on CBC radio by stating that the ALC was adding very poor “Class 6” land from north east BC and the Cariboo and releasing good land from the Fraser Valley. The lesson that should be drawn from the ALC experience is that even North America’s poster child of land use planning and farm protection could not stand up to population pressure and political manipulation. B C.’s Lower Mainland is the magnet for immigration, not Williams Lake or Fort St. John. Yes of course Premier Gordon Campbell made a calculated decision to weaken the ALC by turning over the decision making from one provincial panel to six smaller regional panels that would be more vulnerable to “community” commercial interests. Predictably these panels down south have complied with what Campbell’s friends have wanted them to do. But without population growth there would be no demand for new housing and big box commercial developments and potential developers would not be knocking at the door demanding that land locked in the ALR be released. Five hundred acres of farmland in Williams Lake lies unmolested because developers know that the 30,000 New Canadians who will fly into YVR- Van International next year ( statistics courtesy of Regional Development, Metro Van ) have no interest in moving to Williams Lake. Not because it is protected by any land reserve or land use bylaws. One can only marvel at the naïve confidence that the smart growth coalition of environmentalists, planners, progressive developers, and so forth, place in paper fortresses. Despite historical evidence, they believe that dedicated national parks will forever remain inviolate, that greenbelts will never be encroached, or that the sacred will never be touched. Australian writer Mark O’Connor had this warning about that kind of thinking: “These parks have supposedly been created in perpetuity: yet there is a risk that further shifts in ideology may leave a future government free to revoke national parks. It would by then be able to plead the housing and resource needs of a much expanded population, plus its need of export earnings from lands that would be otherwise going to waste. Developers constantly agitate for governments to become less sluggish in releasing more land.” The ALC was a significant achievement, but an anomaly, a product of a unique political culture that likely will never be duplicated. It is interesting that no NDP administration in any of the three other provinces that elected them ever implemented similar freezes on development of farmland. And yet mass immigration apologists who argue that farmland loss to development can be prevented by smart growth won’t even wait until this pie-in-the-sky land-use regime is established before they would wantonly inject more than a quarter of a million people into this society annually when it clearly threatens our ability to feed ourselves. A clear case of criminal irresponsibility. One wonders, would they allow cars to pour onto a newly built highway before traffic controls were in place? The reality is, farmland is not currently protected. It is open season and therefore population growth must be stopped now. Immigration and fertility policies must be fashioned in light of that imperative. A post-carbon world will be unforgiving of transportation costs. Presently 35 times more is spent in fossil energy in transporting a head of lettuce from the Salinos Valley in California to Toronto than in actually growing it . If all the food that Torontonians ate was grown locally in the acres that are now being sold to developers, it would save enough fossil fuels as to be the equivalent of taking 162,000 cars off Toronto’s streets. In Food, Land, Population and the US Economy , Mario Giampietro and David Pimentel postulated that to achieve a sustainable food system and national economy the United States must reduce its population by one third “or face disaster”. And their research did not even consider the impact of declining fossil fuel production. It would be prudent for Canada to factor in imminent resource shortages and worst case scenarios. To be on the HMCS Titanic with a captain who stops to pick up additional passengers with an iceberg visible dead ahead is a surreal experience, especially when he, like so many, believes the ship to be unsinkable and with an unlimited carrying capacity. We need to protect our food source and keep it close at hand. And remember the admonition of Canadian writer Ronald Wright, who, in summarizing the collapse of civilizations, remarked, “Don’t build on agricultural land.” In reviewing this account, my question is directed to myopic policy makers. “Will mass immigration mean mass starvation in Canada?”

Just as we learned in reading Orwell’s Animal Farm that some animals were more equal than others, Canadians learned in April of 2008 from inveterate hypocrites like the United Church of Canada that some Human Rights were so important in the Philippines that others were worth entirely ignoring. Three members of the Philippino House of Representatives representing a human rights advocacy group called “Stop the Killing” testified before a Canadian House of Commons Subcommittee to argue that Canadian aid to their country should be contingent on their government ending the executions by military and paramilitary units in the countryside. Now, it must be said that this delegation is to be congratulated for telling Canadians that foreign aid should be conditional on something. Even bank managers don’t give you money without conditions. And as bad as 900 “extra judicial killings” and “180 enforced disappearances” is in one year, losing 1080 bodies does not stack up to the misery of a country where 40% of women who want to use contraceptives do not have access to them and therefore have to resort to abortion due to lack of family planning information and maternal health care. In the eyes of the Catholic Church, you see, contraceptives like the pill, induce “abortion”, and that is a deadly “sin”. But the real deadly sin is women having three children each in a nation with a food shortage, or “people longage”. Where the annual growth rate is 2.34 per cent and the national population is projected to reach 90 million by year’s end. While Vietnam and Indonesia improved their human development index rating (HDI), the Philippines saw theirs fall seven places. A more telling yardstick is a comparison between Thailand and the Phillippines. According to Ernesto Pernia of the University of the Phillippines, “In 1975 both countries had similar population sizes of 41 to 42 million. Then Bangkok launched a major family planning effort. Now Thailand has a population of around 64 million and is the world's top exporter of rice. Meanwhile, the Philippines with a population of 90 million is the world's top importer of the grain. Thailand had a gross annual income per capita of $7,880 in 2007, while in the Philippines it was $3,730.” Economists at the same university reported that among the poorest 10% of women of reproductive age, 44% of pregancies are unwanted, and 57% of Phillippinno poor had 9 or more children. Not surprisingly, 3.1 pregnancies are unplanned. Why? Poor women cannot afford contraceptives, which amount to half the daily salary of almost half the population, who also lack accurate information and access. Needless to say, the Catholic authorities are not giving it them. And here’s a trick question, do you think CIDA would think to plant any birth control pills or condoms in that 20 plus million annual aid package to the Philippines? I didn’t think so either. Same thing in Haiti and everywhere else where we “can’t do anything about over-population”. But do Canadian politicians care about those kind of human rights? The rights that are lost when too many mouths consume fewer and fewer resources? No. The NDP voice on the Subcommittee, Wayne Marston, typically made noise about the Canadian mining firms using paramilitary forces for their security and the Arroyo regime using Canada to train officers for their repressive deeds. The Canadian left will never look for Malthusian roots for the political repression and economic inequities that afflict developing countries. It is all a matter of a just redistribution of abundant wealth, you see. Meanwhile, Canadian taxpayers just robotically dole out the standard $20 million plus to Manila as their annual breeding incentive. Modeled on the one at home, where Canadian parents receive “baby bonuses” or what is officially called “Child Care Benefits”. I prefer to call them a reward for inflicting more ecological footprints on us. It all flows from that most Canadian of Human Rights, the human right to procreate as many times as I deem fit, have you pay for it, and me take up the space and resources that is due my neighbour. Upon that attitude is built our foreign aid policy. Tim Murray. Quadra Island, BC September 24, 2008

In 1845 the Mornington Peninsula was thick with wildlife: herds of kangaroos, wombats, wallabies, many echidnas and koalas and glorious birds, all unused to man and quite tame and inquisitive. ...wonderful trees, abundance of silver wattles, when in blossom, gilded the country and filled the air deliciously with their sweetness. Now population growth is turning the Peninsula into a desert. Research and graphs by Malcolm Legg and Hans Brunner.

Original fauna

Howitt in 1845 wrote:

“ The Peninsula was thick with wildlife, with herds of kangaroos, wombats, wallabies, many echidnas and koalas and glorious birds, all unused to man and quite tame and inquisitive. He described the wonderful trees and abundance of silver wattles which, when in blossom, made the whole country golden and the whole atmosphere filled deliciously with their sweetness.”

Henry Tuck and others also stated that Kangaroos were like herds of sheep and could never be shot out, and bandicoots and possums were in hundreds and that the native cat was one of the commonest animals.

Ms. Cavill, who lives next to the Moorooduc Quarry Reserve commented in her Masters Thesis:

“In the 1930’s we found bush around us, a whole wonderland of animals, wild flowers, birds, hollow trees, gullies and ground water ways.

Koalas grunted all night, wombats, kangaroos, wallabies, possums, echidnas, bush- and water rats, flying foxes and bandicoots were abundant and tame. At night the frogs roared in the darkness . In the evening, swarms of birds arrived in v-shaped formations and landed on the swamp. Black – and tiger snakes were common around the huge Moorooduc swamp that lay below our property and brown snakes and copperhead were a nuisance around the house.
Our delight in exploring the swamp with its sheets of water, covered with swans and ducks, and its spongy islands of moss and tee-tree was always tempered by fear of these snakes.
On our horse rides their was a never failing source of interest in the discovering new wild flowers, gullies of maiden ferns, orchids, minute wild strawberries, egg and bacon bushes and swathes pink and white heath.

There were several other similar reports made by Wheelwright, Kenyon and Hobson, mentioning also many other species and all describing the Mornington Peninsula as teeming with wild life.

Based on historical and recent records there were at least 37 species of mammals on the Peninsula in those early days.

Much the same could have also been said about the many species of birds, reptiles and amphibians. Hobson in 1837 observed the gigantic crane or brolga and the native turkey ( Australian Bustard ). They are now listed as threatened fauna in Victoria.

The loss of native fauna

With the arrival of pioneers and settlers, timber cutters removed nearly all the mature trees on the Peninsula and shipped them to Melbourne or used them to build railway lines or as fuel to drive stone crushers etc. or to clear land for grazing.

Kangaroos were slaughtered in their thousands on single drives and some of the meat, together with koalas and possums was sent to Melbourne for food. Animals were also destroyed because of competition with sheep and cattle grazing.

Much of the land was then used for farming and for fruit orchards. The clearing of land caused subsequently massive soil erosion and mega-tons of good soil was washed into the sea especially along Balcomb Creek.

With the ever increasing number of people arriving on the Peninsula, the remaining natural bush was gradually destroyed and fragmented.

Chris Tzaros recently worked out that for every 100 hectares of woodland cleared, between 1000-2000 woodland dependent birds are lost. These figures could be even higher for mammals, reptiles and amphibians.

With this drastic decrease of suitable habitat for most native birds and mammals, many species have now become locally extinct. (See graph below).

Doug Robinson has estimated that about 50% of birds which originally existed on the Peninsula are now either locally extinct or are threatened. Ground nesting birds have suffered most, especially because of predation by foxes and cats.

A Mr. Woolley and others also used to shoot ducks in the 1880’s for a living until they were almost shot out.

Later, larrikins delighted in the shooting of wild life when the pubs were closed after 6 O’clock.
In the quarry area bandicoots and kangaroos lasted till about 1940 and wombats and the eastern quoll till about 1960. By 1970 koalas, sugar gliders and antechinuses were still present but have since declined drastically and have become extremely rare and the antechinuses are now extinct in the Frankston area.

There is also a growing concern over a serious decline of invertebrates. Subsequently, there are concerns for the future of many species of bird, mammals and amphibians that feed on them. Habitat loss and habitat fragmentation as well as the over use of pesticides has to be the main reason.

In summary, we have taken over all the prime land on the Mornington Peninsula . The rest of nature is forced to make do with what is left which amounts to less than 5 % of a much- reduced quality of habitat. Plainly, this is the major factor resulting in the ongoing, local species extinction and in an increase in ecosystem stress.

Loss of mammalian species on the Peninsula:

From 37 original species = locally extinct and endangered 25 species = 66%

Loss of mammalian species in the Frankston area:

From 37 original species = locally extinct and endangered 28 species = 76 %

To cap it all, we now have, in a large number of reserves, more introduced mammalian species such as the fox, cat, dog, rabbit, black rat, brown rat and house mouse, than native species. (This does not include all the farm animals such as horses, cattle, sheep, goats, pigs, and deer etc. that take up land originally used by native animals.)

The graph (data from Malcolm Legg ) shows the loss of mammals on the Mornington Peninsula. Since then, two more species had to be shifted to the “extinct” section, namely, the Wombat and the Southern Brown Bandicoot.

The recent, local loss of the Southern Brown Bandicoot is one of the latest examples. In spite of all the lobbying and by-partisan political support, no sufficient efforts have been made to safe this species. This Bandicoot has been in great numbers all over the Peninsula and its disappearance during the last thirty years has been well recognised and documented. This is yet another frustrating, shameful, local extinction story of an iconic Australian species.

Hans Brunner

(Hans Brunner is a Peninsula Wildife Biologist and internationally recognised as a Forensic hair identification expert, through his work identifying dingo hairs in the Azaria Chamberlain appeal and later in identifying a possible new hominid species in Indonesia.)

Office of the Premier of Victoria

1 Treasury Place
GPO Box 4912VV
Melbourne Victoria 3002
DX210753
Telephone: (03) 96515000
Facsimile: (03) 96515298
Email: premier [AT] dpc.vic.gov.au
Internet: www.premier.vic.gov.au

22 September 2008

Our Ref D08/321239

Dr Alistair Harkness MP
Member for Frankston
140 Young Street
FRANKSTON VIC 3199

Dear Dr Harkness

VICTORIA'S POPULATION

Thank you for your representation to the Premier on behalf of your constituent, Mr Hans Brunner, regarding Victoria's population. I am responding on behalf of the Premier.

Victoria's population continues to grow strongly, with growth driven primarily by high levels of net overseas migration.

The Government continues to emphasise the importance of migration, multiculturalism and population growth in Victoria. This contributes to our diversity and flexible skills base, giving us an economy that is more innovative and competitive.

In this context, the Victorian Government is comfortable with the current population growth rate of 1.6 per cent per annum and is not intending to review its population or immigration policies.

Thank you again for your letter to the Premier. I hope that this information is of use.

Yours sincerely,

Nicholas Reece
Acting Chief of Staff

Your details will be dealt with in accordance with the Public Records Act 1973 and the Information Privacy Act 2000. Should you have any queries or wish to gain access to your personal information held by this Department please contact our Privacy Officer at the above address.

What you can do: attend Virtual Inaugural meeting of Immigrants' Memorial Association to be held 19 Oct 08.
What has been done: Protest at Community Cabinet at 12:45PM on Sunday 14 Sep at Belmont State School, Old Cleveland Road, Carindale to protest Minister Paul Lucas's decision to disallow the appeal.

Yungaba Action Group Inc Media Release 10 September 2008

Originally published 2008-09-12 13:25:54 +1000

The recent action by Paul Lucas, Minister for Infrastructure and Planning, in "calling in" the approval process for the redevelopment of the heritage listed "Yungaba" site stands in stark contrast to the action taken by the Government against the owners of "Keating House" another heritage listed building located at Indooroopilly.

While Mr Lucas has effectively removed the proper planning process from the State owned "Yungaba" by the "calling in" of the development application, thus facilitating the redevelopment of the site, the owners of "Keating House" stand to be penalised to the extent of $75,000 for allowing the building to fall into disrepair.

Ms Delene Cuddihy, convenor of the Yungaba Action Group (www.yungaba.org.au) said that Mr. Lucas, by using his "call in" powers and thwarting the normal appeal process, had demonstrated for all to see just how inconsistent and arrogant the Bligh Government had become.

She said "The actions of Mr. Lucas amounted to nothing short of profound hypocrisy and inconsistency and he should reverse his "call in" action if for no other reason than to show that the legal process was not subject to political tampering other than in the most extreme situations e.g. affecting the security of the State.".

Ms Cuddihy said that Yungaba was a State (taxpayer) owned and heritage listed property with a long and rich history of Queensland's past immigration, directly touching many Queensland families. Unfortunately, as the site is located in a well-known prime real estate precinct, it also has enormous speculative potential.

She said that the privately owned "Keating House", came to the attention of Queenslanders only recently, owing to its alleged state of disrepair. Yet, this type of neglect has been allowed to creep in at Yungaba since the sale of the property started looking as a safe bet for Government.

Ms Cuddihy said that large parts of Yungaba have been condemned as unsafe. She asks "How could they let this happen to one of the ten most significant buildings in Queensland history? This is an indictment on their ability to manage Queensland's heritage. I'm sure they won't fine themselves for allowing the building to fall into disrepair."

Ms Cuddihy said the Yungaba Action Group would continue to make representations to the Minister in an effort to save "Yungaba", but suggested the Minister was now expediting the matter, without public consultation, to ensure it was finalised well before the State election.

For further information on the peaceful Public Rally at the Community Cabinet Consultation Meeting on Sunday 14th September, commencing 1.00pm at the Belmont State School, Old Cleveland Road, Carindale

Media contact: Ms Delene Cuddihy on 0402 597 259

#protest" id="protest">Urgent: please attend protest Sunday 14 September

We are inviting you to our protest at the Community Cabinet. The theme of the protest is "Save Yungaba - excise it from the current development application and save it for future generations of Queenslanders".

The protest is about the failure of the State Government to consult with the community on the sale of Yungaba. It has used it's "call in" powers to shut down the YAG appeal to the development.

Here are the details:

Assemble: 12.45pm for a 1.00pm start.

Date: Sunday 14 September, 2008

Venue: outside Community Cabinet at Belmont State School, Old Cleveland Road, Carindale (on your right after Carindale Shopping Centre if you are coming from the city)

Community Cabinet: We will be able to enter the Community Cabinet if we leave any placards outside. Questions will be taken from the floor at the Forum by the Premier. Get your Yungaba questions ready! Following the one hour Forum, there will be informal deputations to ministers for one hour (2.30 - 3.30pm) and this will be followed by formal deputations to ministers. YAG asked to see Minister Lucas, instead we have been given an appointment with his Parliamentary Secretary at 3.30pm.

I do hope you are able to come out and stand up for Yungaba with us.

If you are intending to come, could you give me an indication?

Delene Cuddihy
Yungaba Action Group
Ph 040 259 250 
dc [AT] yungaba org au

12 September 2008

Carbon Sequestration bill up for consideration

According to the Australian Greens, Rudd Government legislation setting up a regulatory framework for carbon capture and storage, vaunted as a 'world first', fails to deal with the biggest regulatory issue the industry faces. They state that, if carbon dioxide leaks, who will carry liability will become a problem without a solution in the legislation proposed.

Australian Greens Senator Christine Milne has made additional comments to the Senate Inquiry Report into the Bill tabled today. It sets out the Greens position that the taxpayer must not be saddled with the risk while coal companies walk away with the profits.

Senator Milne said "Who will carry the liability if and when stored carbon leaks? The Government apparently thinks this question doesn't need to be answered, but it is quite obvious that that approach would leave everybody - supporters and opponents of goesequestration alike - in limbo."

She said that Prime Minister Rudd would have to be prepared for some tough questions on liability. In her opinion, the world would not be coming to Australia for advice about carbon sequestration if it squibs on the biggest question.

"The Greens will work hard to ensure that the coal multinationals do not get away with privatising their massive profits and socialising their risk with geosequestration."

Companies should post bond to cover future liability

Senator Milne stated that "My additional comments to this report set out a proposal under which companies seeking to bury carbon dioxide would post a bond to cover their future liability in case the climate-changing gas leaks after the company moves on."

She said, "That would be a reasonable and responsible approach to take, ensuring that those seeking to make profits also carry the risk.

"While the Coalition predictably wants the taxpayer to carry the can for coal corporations, the Government, inexplicably, thinks it is OK to leave the liability question unanswered. I am committed to working with the Government on amendments to make sure ordinary Australians don't end up hurt by the short-sighted greed of the coal sector."

Australia should be a global solar hub

The senator said that a sensible plan for the future would see Australia pitched as a global solar hub, taking advantage of our world's best solar scientists. There should be a forward-thinking strategy to help coal communities move into a green-collar future.

"Instead, Mr Rudd is deepening Australia's economic vulnerability by locking us into a risky, unproven technofix that is already being leapfrogged by the truly clean renewable energy and energy efficiency alternatives."

(A technofix is a technical solution for a systemic problem which may or may not work and therefore should not be relied upon.)

Source: Greens Press release, Canberra, Tuesday, 23 September 2008
Contact: Tim Hollo on 0437 587 562

The Greens invite people to "Come join the conversation at GreensBlog "

Here's some more about the meeting:

"What do we want? Live, work, rest and play."

The CBD residents associations invite you to come to an open meeting to discuss
Our City’s future tonight
Wednesday 24th September 2008
at 6pm
in the Bluestone Room, Coopers Inn
(cnr Exhibition St and Little Lonsdale St)*
* Sorry – this venue has no facilities for wheelchair access.

There will be a CITY COUNCIL ELECTION on 29th November.

It is vital that we all take an active part to ensure that we elect a Council that works for Melbourne.

The current Council spends too much time and effort squabbling amongst itself.
We must have a council that WORKS FOR MELBOURNE

Come and make your voice heard. Let us work together. We can make it happen.

Editor's comment:
This is a sign of the times. People are realising that they must take democracy into their own hands or lose it at government hands.

In Australia both major political parties support record high immigration. This ensures that it is rarely questioned in Parliament or in the news. In Canada, the situation is even worse_#main-fn1">1. Dan Murray reports that Canadians face a 'choice' at the Federal elections scheduled for 31 October of four out of five major parties which see nothing wrong with Canada's record high and growing immigration rate and none which are campaigning to reduce it.

At the end of week #1 of the election, some immigration-related questions for all parties

Four out of five major political parties in Canada seem to think there is nothing wrong with Canada's current high immigration levels.

Here are some details on what Canadians have heard on the immigration issue during Week #1 of the election. Questions for each party follow:

(1) The Conservatives : Prime Minister Harper has indicated that immigrants are an issue, but mostly as a source of potential votes. In the first week, he spent about a third of his time talking to ethnic groups. Significantly, his first photo-op of the entire campaign was in Richmond, B.C. where he appeared with a Chinese family. Although he said the Chinese family was a typical Canadian family, and that he was trying to protect the middle class, he will probably admit that his principal reason for visiting the Chinese family was because high immigration levels have resulted in the Chinese now being over half of the population there. Since 1990, the Chinese have become a large percentage of the populations of many other areas in Metro Vancouver and of areas in Greater Toronto. In another example later in the week, Mr. Harper repeated the tactic of appealing to ethnic groups by speaking to a group of East Indian (Sikh) business people in Mississauga to get their support.

Here are some questions politicians might want to ask themselves :

A. When a political leader makes a point of starting his election campaign with members of an ethnic group and then spends a large amount of time addressing other ethnic groups, particularly those who have recently-arrived in large numbers, what message does he send to other groups, particularly long-term Canadians? Is he saying that he will give priority to the interests of new groups at the expense of those of long-term Canadians?

B. Ridings such as Richmond and others have witnessed extremely high immigrant inflows for no obvious good reason. Is he saying that it does not matter that a surge in the newcomers has created a situation in which new immigrants now outnumber the long-term Canadians in those ridings?

C. Let's be frank with people of all political stripes. The approach of most political parties towards recent immigrants is a mixture of sycophancy and platitudes such as "creating diversity". The attitude that political parties convey is that anyone from anywhere has a right to come to Canada. And Canada's political parties will perform all the obsequiousness that is necessary to satisfy the demands of immigrants, particularly their demands to re-create their countries in Canada. Instead of this approach, why are Canada's politicians not asking these people two questions: If cultural, economic and environmental conditions were so wonderful where you came from (particularly in China and India), why are you here? Is there a good chance that your demands will re-create the same dysfunctionality in Canada that existed in your home countries?

---

(2) The Liberals : Liberal Leader Stephane Dion has indicated that he too thinks immigrants are an issue, but again mostly because of their votes. He also went to Richmond where he tried to outbid Mr. Harper by promising that his party would spend about $800 million to overhaul the current immigration system in the following ways : increase the number of immigrants; repeal the powers recently given to the Immigration Minister so that immigrants have "due process" ; spend $400 million to modernize information-gathering and otherwise streamline procedures for immigrant and refugee applicants; spend about $200 million over four years on improved language training for newcomers, and another $200 million over four years for internships, mentorship and work-placement opportunities.

Here are some questions:

A. Mr. Dion is saying that he will increase high immigration inflows and make more funding available for immigrant settlement. Is he also saying that in these uncertain economic times, he too thinks that immigrants and their interests (particularly their desire to increase the size of their ethnic groups) should take precedence over the interests of long-term Canadians?

B. By saying that he will repeal powers given to the Immigration Minister, is he saying that he will return Canada's immigration system to the days when the associated Canadian immigration industry sabotaged all efforts to control immigration?

---

(3) The New Democratic Party : Jack Layton has said that he will try to protect Canadian workers from losing their jobs to other countries by stopping tax cuts to Canadian companies that close Canadian factories and then outsource jobs to cheap-labour countries. He will target investments instead to stimulate innovation ; invest in low-emission vehicle production ; train new and displaced workers through a Green Collar Jobs Fund ; create a Jobs Commissioner to investigate shutdowns ; and develop sector-based industrial strategies. According to an NDP policy statement, New Democrats will commit an average of $2 billion a year to this program, aiming to directly create 40,000 new manufacturing jobs and thousands of spin-off jobs while protecting many more.

Here are a few questions for the NDP and Mr. Layton :

A. From the 1920's to 1990, when Canadians were losing jobs because factories were closing, it was standard federal government practice to reduce immigration levels so that unemployed Canadians would not have to compete with foreign workers. Why is Mr. Layton not recommending that Canada re-institute this strategy now?

B. At the same time as Mr. Layton is courageously recommending that the federal government protect Canadian workers, why is Olivia Chow, the NDP's immigration critic, saying that Canada needs more workers? Why is she saying that Canada's high immigration intake should continue? It is estimated that Ontario and Quebec have recently lost several hundred thousand jobs. How is bringing in 250,000+ immigrants every year supposed to help unemployed Canadian workers?

---

(4) The Greens : Green Party leader, Elizabeth May, has downplayed the environmental impact of immigration on Canada and said that the Alberta Tar Sands is a much more serious environmental issue. Since high immigration levels began in 1990, Canada has taken over 4 million immigrants and its population has increased by around 6 million. In a CBC radio programme on Sunday, September 15, Ms. May stated that immigration of the kind Canada has had since 1990 has produced economic benefits and created diversity.

Here are some questions for Ms. May :

A. Ms. May says that the problem of environmental degradation in Canada's major immigrant-receiving areas (especially Southern Ontario and Metro Vancouver) can be solved by sending those immigrants to rural Canada. The big problem with this approach is that it is naive. Many people have left rural Canada because there are no economic opportunities there. So why send immigrants there if they too will soon have to leave? In fact, why bring most of them to Canada in the first place?

B. Does Ms. May know that the Economic Council of Canada and individuals/research groups in other countries have concluded that immigration produces almost no significant economic benefits to host countries? In fact, is she aware that the Economic Council of Canada stated that if a country were looking for an economic stimulus, it should not look to immigration? Why is she saying immigration produces economic benefits?

C. Since Ms. May knows that several hundred thousand workers in Ontario and Quebec have lost their jobs, why is she not standing up for those workers by advocating a traditional significant cut in Canadian immigration levels? Is she saying that the creation of diversity takes precedence over the protection of Canadian workers?

D. At this time, all environmental organizations are advocating measures to minimize human impact in order to offset climate change. Why then is she, the leader of an environmental party, not advocating a population stabilization/immigration reduction policy for Canada? Wouldn't this kind of "Think Globally. Act Locally or Nationally." help Canada to minimize its environmental impact? Or are the environmental effects of 4 to 5 million recent immigrants a trivial matter? How about another 4 to 5 million? Is she saying there is no limit?

---

(5) The Bloc Quebecois: The BQ is the only federal political party to express concern about immigration and its effects. Last May, the BQ asked in the House of Commons that Canada's multiculturalism policy not be applied to Quebec. The BQ has also made clear in its brief to Quebec's Bouchard-Taylor Commission on Reasonable Accommodation that multiculturalism is a negative for Quebec. (In fact , about 83% of all presenters (the BQ included) to the B-T commission said they disapproved of religious accommodation.) The BQ sees that federal high immigration levels , multiculturalism and the Charter of Rights have been responsible for religious accommodation demands in Quebec. Since March 2007, many polls have said that roughly 80% of all Quebec residents said that they did not want to make religious accommodations.

Here are 2 questions for the Bloc Quebecois :

(A) When during the current election campaign will the Bloc Quebecois raise the immigration and multiculturalism issue?

See also: "Truth and immigration" by James Bissett former Head of Canadian immigration Service in the Ottowa Citizen of 18 Sep 08.

Footnotes

#main-fn1" id="main-fn1">1. #main-fn1-txt">↑ The first two sentences of the introductory paragraph above were originally as follows:

Australian public intellectual Phillip Adams has said, on his ABC program, Late night live, that he considers the bi-partisan support for high immigration, which ensures that it is rarely questioned in Parliament or in the news, a 'strength' of Australian democracy. As it happens, Canadian democracy shares this 'strength'.

What I wrote was in accord to my own recollection of what I heard on Late Night Live earlier in the year and also with other things I have heard or read from Phillip Adams on matters directly or indirectly related to population and immigration. However, Phillip Adams e-mailed me today to say:

I've never said that! I have said that a long history of bi-partisan support on immigration issues has sometimes been good....and sometimes very bad - as with White Australia and the refugee scandal.....BUT I'm no supporter of increasing the Oz population by either immigration or an increased birth-rate...for the obvious environmental reasons....

So, if I formed the wrong impression, then I apologise to Philip Admas, but however I may have formed the impression that led me to write what I wrote in the introductory paragraph, this is very welcome news. I look forward to Phillip Adams joining with the likes of Greens Senator Bob Brown in order to challenge the official ideology in support of population growth which is threatening to destroy this country's future.

Ian Douglas of Fair Water Use (www.fairwateruse.com.au) shows how the 'reform', commencing in 1994, which promised to rectify the Murray-Darling's chaotic piecemeal water management structure by making water allocations a marketable commodity separate from the land titles, has, instead, only help bring the Murray-Darling system to the brink of collapse . In accord with our national constitution's provisions for such national crises, he calls for the declaration of a state of emergency.

Originally published with readers' comments on the ABC News web site on 16 Sep 08 08:48:00

By Ian H Douglas

Originally published on the ABC News web site on 16 Sep 08 08:48:00

In the midst of the cacophony of political lambasting, parochial foot-stamping and media static engendered by the crisis currently affecting the Murray-Darling Basin, there has been scant voicing of what many view as the underlying anthropogenic cause of its plight: the 1994 decision of the Council of Australian Governments "to implement a strategic framework to achieve an efficient and sustainable water industry", emphasising "the adoption of pricing regimes based on the principles of consumption-based pricing"; in effect, the establishment of an open water market.

For the majority of the subsequent 14 years, this water "reform" process has induced increasingly polarised opinion but little frank debate. It was left to the likes of then Victorian Premier, Steve Bracks, shortly before his resignation last year, to call the beast by its true name, privatisation.

Moreover, in recent months it has become increasingly clear that the maze of administrative and governance mechanisms responsible for the welfare of the basin are dysfunctional and frequently self-defeating. Concerns have even been raised regarding the validity of current arrangements under Section 10 of the Australian Constitution insofar as it applies to the "reasonable use" of water.

Current events confirm that the chaos continues, with "environmental" water being acquired as a result of one administrative decision, only to be redirected by another. This was demonstrated by the recent purchase of water-rich properties in the Darling catchment involving the Federal and NSW State Governments, raising hopes that our elected representatives were beginning to understand the importance of holistic ecological health as applied to the Murray-Darling Basin, followed all too quickly by last week's approval of the Victorian Government's North-South pipeline by the Federal Minister for the Environment and erstwhile conservationist, Peter Garrett. The Minister apparently believes that this project "will not require an environmental study" as "it will not impact on matters of national environmental significance".

The recent statement from the Queensland Department of Natural Resources and Water that much of the rainfall in the upper Darling catchment "breaks out into floodplains or alternatively feeds into terminal wetlands resulting in a great loss of this water" confirms that some authorities have yet to grasp that the ecological health of the basin is essential to the economic well-being of its agricultural sector.

Such is the morass that is governance of the Murray-Darling.

Proponents of water reform, including the Wentworth Group, largely adhere to the mantra that a consumption-based pricing policy, monitored by an "independent" body, is the mainstay of efficient water management; trusting the market to take care of the precious resource that is Murray-Darling water. Under the circumstances, might the free market be a superior arbiter? Based on the evidence, this is certainly not the case.

The Queensland Government recently announced that it intends to grant tradable water licences to irrigators in the Condamine-Balonne river system, for volumes only marginally less than their current allocations: entitlements which were all but gifted to them not so very long ago. The current drought has convinced some agribusinesses that there would be more profit to be made from selling their water than using it for the purpose for which it was originally allocated to them.

It is not entirely implausible to suggest that, in the near future, some water-rich farming enterprises will list agriculture as a non-core activity, their primary income being derived from water trading.

In other parts of the basin, despite direct warnings from CSIRO scientists, irrigators are increasing the volume of water extracted from already stressed aquifers, as it is more financially advantageous to use groundwater rather than purchase the water they require from the rivers and associated impoundments; apparently oblivious to the absolute connectivity of water in river systems.

This is merely the neonatal phase of a process which, if unchecked, will lead to decisions directly affecting the price and availability of water being made by those whose sole credential is financial clout. Regrettably, neither Mother Nature nor the majority of the farming community have the credit rating required for membership of this potential star chamber. Overseas interests are becoming increasingly invested in this country's water-based commodity market. The unfettered export of our dwindling water resources continues. Under the doctrine of economic rationalism espoused by the water reform movement, there must be major concerns as to where water will be allocated and the uses to which it will be put.

Frustrations are escalating throughout the region: from the headwaters of the Darling, where farmers accuse their neighbours of water theft, to the Goulburn, where opponents of Premier Brumby's pipeline are threatening militant action, and in the Lower Murray, where, while large sections of the local community maintain their strident insistence that fresh water must be injected into Lakes Alexandrina and Albert, other residents are equally strongly advocating the opening of the barrages to allow ingress of seawater. Water wars, as feared by some overseas commentators, are surely not on the cards in this fine country; but the rumblings are unsettling and must be heeded.

National Water Plans and Senate Inquiries offer little hope of prescribing the empirical rethink that is manifestly required. The implications of "getting it wrong" are quite simply too momentous to leave the task in the hands of those who happen to be charged with governmental responsibility at this time.

Australians should indeed be grateful to those who drafted our Constitution, defining the processes to be invoked in response to national crises: a state of emergency must be declared, to enable application of the necessary treatments to address the acute aspects of the malaise affecting the Murray-Darling Basin. A Royal Commission of Inquiry should also be established, to carry out an all-encompassing and independent review of the past, present and future of this ecologically profound and vital natural resource.

Ian H Douglas is the national coordinator of Fair Water Use (Australia), a lobby group which advocates environmentally responsible use of the nation's water.

See also: Environmental group calls for declaration of State of Emergency to save dying Murray-Darling system, Water stolen from dying Murray-Darling by technicality.

Readers comments

Of course privatisation of water is a disaster

Of course privatisation of water is a disaster. Look at the schemozzle private enterprise has made of electricity and the railways.

All the arrogant hyper actives want to do is play Monopoly as they have been doing with banks and investment companies. No matter what disaster they cause, these types walk off with millions.

Every public utility should be controlled by elected boards. If they don't behave to the best advantage of the community, fine them and sack them.

Keep solicitors and MBA's (Masters Of Bugger All) away from anything that requires intelligent direction.

Set up chairs of public administration in all universities.

We've had enough of large enterprises being handed over to executives with no experience in the industry.

Once privatised, publicly owned things, become a remnant of what they once were

Aah monopoly. The great game of collusion that creates winners amongst the related and losers of everyone else. It's true that most things once publicly owned that become "privatised" become a remnant of what they once were however it is the "mantra" of apparently modern economics and public management. This of course is closely tied to the other screamer of "the market will sort itself out" which can be seen to be so blindingly untrue following any of the "recent" financial collapses in the U.S. and their flow on effects on world markets.

The States have absolutely stuffed up water management yet you need to ask why. The short term provision of either votes or monetary income has allowed the State Governments to use water as a means to an end. This use has been exploited to a point that is detrimental to the health of the river systems in question. What exactly is it that has fed this insatiable desire to irrigate. Cotton of course. Now you can't eat cotton and the material that cotton makes isn't actually of much long term value however it posts a great return to a solicitor's trust fund and also enables certain "tax deductible investments" to be used in the greater desire of earning more money. Money is the funny thing, you can't eat that either. But they think they can buy anything they need when they have it.

The biggest scam ever perpetrated on a sovereign state

Don't just stop at water, electricity and railways.

Private enterprise makes a hash of most things - except ripping off profits and delivering executive salaries, perks and bonuses.

The biggest scam ever perpetrated on a sovereign state is that the market and private enterprise works better for people than government services.

Victrorian Government neglect of Sunraysia compounded by water management debacle

The management of the Murray Darling basin and all water management should be in the hands of one authority who would look at the interests of all water users and not just those in the City. The passing of the legislation for the pipeline is the final disgrace.

The people of Sunraysia where I live are being given a raw deal in many ways including transport, proposed closure of CSIRO and research station at Walpeup, the closure of FMIT, the difference in water allocation between NSW and Victoria, no train service, little public transport, a hospital which cannot cope with demand within budget, a private hospital with no nurses so midwifery wing closed and should you need medical treatment in a capital city then be sure you have a couple of thousand dollars each time you travel.

This is all on top of the debacle called water management which is putting emotional and financial strain on all members of the community.

Add environmentally inappropiate crops to that list of failings.

I'd add using environmentally inappropiate crops to that list of failings. Australia, as we are all well aware, has a vastly different climate and terrain yet we persist with water thirsty crops.

Real problem is growing water-thirsty crops in a semi-arid desert

The real problem is that of trying to grow crops which need water in what is essentially a semi-arid desert. Over much of the basin there is no run-off to top up the river, most of the flow originates in the Great Divide. For most of its length it flows through areas where the evaporation rate far exceeds the rainfall. All of this talk of water allocation and water trading is all crap if the water is just not there in the system, it is a smoke haze to hide the real problem.

We need to acknowledge the fact that Australia is not Europe, and as such is totally unsuitable for growing any crops that need any water other than whatever rain falls from the sky. We can all sit around making clever speeches, having committees pass resolutions, have special boards of inquiry and then feel smug about it all, but the whole Murray-Darling system really is beyond help unless we get rid of any forms of agriculture etc that cannot sustain itself on whatever rainfall there is. This will never happen, of course, because there is too much money and livelihood tied up in it all, even though it has no future. The future is that the lower Murray becomes a series of pools and only occasional flow every few years. Most of South Australia becomes dependent on Teflon Mike's desalination plant, at huge expense. The towns along the river, from the riverland, through sunraysia and upstream all wither as there is no income and the whole of western Victoria and central NSW become desolate ghost towns...

The real water guzzlers are the livestock industries and crops

One of Australia's main exports is dairy, and also red meat. We know cotton and rice are water-consuming crops, but the real water guzzlers are the livestock industries and crops, and so much of it is for wealth creating exports. At least 50% of our milk is exported. Why not save water and stop these exports? We should consider Australia first, not companies that are making money and profits from it. Much of our dairy is owned by Japan now, and they want it for Japan. Our ecosystem has helped make our prosperity, but Nature is screaming out that this cannot go on. We need to ensure our own food bowl, and not use if for wealth creation. Export 21st century technologies instead is what we need to do, not irrigation agricultural products. - Vivienne

.

Now is not the time for electricity retail fire sale

NSW Greens Media Release 19 September 2008

Pushing ahead with the sale of the state's electricity retailers during the greatest credit crisis since the 1929 stock market crash would be financial recklessness, according to Greens NSW MP John Kaye.

Dr Kaye said: "Businesses across the globe are offloading assets at bargain basement prices as the financial sector goes into global credit meltdown.

"Selling at the bottom of a market is the least prudent course of action, especially when the retailers are returning dividends to NSW taxpayers.

"NSW Treasurer Eric Roozendaal would do well to note that ‘buy high, sell low' is not a winning formula when it comes to asset management.

"At a time when securities markets globally are walking into a lift shaft and credit is drying up, privatising anything would be fiscally reckless.

"The very firms that have been investing in infrastructure assets and utilities including Macquarie Bank and Babcock and Brown are the ones that have been taking a hammering on the markets.

"NSW faces a choice.

"Ideologically driven privatisation would offload a valuable asset at fire sale prices and leave households increasingly exposed to the hostile power markets.

"The alternative is strategic management of the state's retail electricity sector to achieve sustainable prosperity," Dr Kaye said.

For more information: John Kaye 0407 195 455

John Kaye
Greens member of the NSW Parliament
phone: (02) 9230 2668
fax: (02) 9230 2586
mobile: 0407 195 455
john.kaye[AT]parliament nsw gov au www.johnkaye.org.au

A lose, lose, win project (or Spinning water away from irrigators and the environment)

Plug the Pipe Media release of 18 September, 2008

The Foodbowl Unlimited Group (FUG), the Victorian Premier and Water Minister have all consistently said that the North South pipeline was a win, win, win project. Irrigators, the Environment and Melbourne would all have extra water.

When the FUG offered Melbourne Water and the Victorian Government the rights to 75 billion litres of water for $300 million they guaranteed them that 75 billion litres in the first year even though they were aware that the savings would not be achieved at that stage.

65 billion litre shortfall to come from irrigators, environment

Peter Garrett, Federal Environment minister on regional ABC radio (18/9) has now said that Melbourne Water is not able to take any water from the environmental reserves (10 billion litres), water that has previously been saved for the Murray River (46 billion litres) and no water can be taken to Melbourne before an independent audit has been conducted (savings generated in 2008/2009 not available until 2009/2010). These figures as indicated in the committees own report show that there will only be 10 billion litres available for Melbourne.

Given these restrictions and the guarantee of 75 billion litres of water to Melbourne's storages prior to the next state election it is clear that the government is going to be using water that otherwise would have been allocated to irrigators and or the environment. It will in fact be a lose, lose, win project even if you take Minister Garretts' statement on face value.

Brumby Government free to use indefinitely water pre-destined to save Murray-Darling

But the plot thickens.

Discussions with Garrett's office have revealed that the Federal Minister intends to allow the Brumby Government to use water from existing water savings projects pre-destined for the Murray River based on an underhand technicality. That is, environmental water generated from irrigation saving will be free for the Brumby government to use for the North South Pipeline until it is formally handed over to our river systems. The hand over will be at the discretion of the Brumby Government.

It is clear that the Premier, Water Minister, Federal Environment Minister and the FUG have actually been doing the very thing they have accused so many of their opponents of. How honest has the Victorian Government been? The people will make their judgement at the polls.

Plug the Pipe will attend the Senate Inquiry into water management in the Coorong and Lower Lakes in Melbourne next Wednesday.

Media Contact : Ken Pattison 0427 534158 (Irrigation Spokesman)

See also: Coalition pledges to shun pipeline in the Age of 19 Sep 08, www.plugthepipe.com.

By Earth's Newsdesk, a project of Ecological Internet (www.ecologicalinternet.org) by Dr. Glen Barry, +1 (920) 776-1075Friday 15 September 08. Originally published here.

- Ecological Internet warns converging economic, climate, food and fuel crises are symptoms of massive global ecological bubble, and that without ecosystems there can be no economy

(Earth) -- Current economic difficulties are largely caused by failing global ecosystems and resource scarcity, and are not an excuse to reduce environmental commitments, warns Ecological Internet. The bursting of the mortgage and financial bubbles, and food and energy price increases, are the logical and inevitable economic consequences of over-population, inequitable and unreasonable consumption, and unsustainable economic growth. Environmentalism is the solution to, not the cause of, economic hard times.

"The global growth machine is seizing up because it is hitting ecological limits and because of its own greed. Current global economic difficulties must not stop urgent ecological measures -- like dramatic emission reductions and natural habitat protection and restoration -- necessary to maintain a habitable Earth. Without ecosystems there can be no economic recovery," warns Dr. Glen Barry.

Sufficient environmental policies find it difficult to achieve political support even in times of rapid economic growth, yet this growth is the primary factor driving greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental ills. Human needs for water, air, food and housing are no less in hard times. More than ever ecological sustainability depends critically upon establishing a steady state economy, whereby production is right-sized to not diminish natural capital. Whole industries like coal and ancient forest logging will be eliminated even as new economic opportunities emerge in solar energy and ecological restoration.

This economic cooling may offer a welcome respite to reconsider the growth at any cost madness devouring the Earth’s life giving ecosystems. Growth and livelihoods based upon over resource use from dwindling ecosystems, that mostly benefit the elites, are a dangerous, unprecedented "ecological bubble" that threatens not only widespread economic hardship, but the future of civilization and terrible human suffering.

"In the mortgage bubble's bursting, we see signs of ecological bubbles to come. The world is not only at peak oil, but at or near peak water, land, climate, oceans, food and usable energy. The human enterprise and each global citizen's family size and consumption aspirations must be downsized to a scale appropriate to ecosystem limits. Or the Earth herself, with the assistance of the human created economic system, will do so brutally. Even the best high-yield financial instrument is ultimately only paper and cannot be eaten," observes Dr. Barry.

For further information : ecologicalinternet.org, phone Dr. Glen Barry on +1 (920) 776-1075, or e-mail info [AT] ecologicalinternet org

Ettore Gotti Tedeschi, catholic Italian economist, writes a long article, – where else ?- in the über catholic newspaper The Osservatore Romano, the official voice of the Vatican Curia. It starts with the following incipit:

"We should have the courage to affirm that the fragility and vulnerability of the Western economy are strictly connected, if not the cause, of the demographic crisis, which started 30 years ago and that presides over the sudden collapse of the rate of population growth, from more than a yearly 7% to almost zero. This crisis has provoked indirectly larger and more rigid public expenditure with the consequent difficulty of reducing tax revenues and, directly, a minor growth of the financial wealth produced by families savings."

Dr. Tedeschi, a respected economist, places the responsibility in the hands of insufficiently fertile Western couples for producing the Perfect Storm: current recession, banks crashes, underemployment, Stock exchange and market collapse. Maybe also, like GW, kidney stones, droughts, unusual rain, hurricanes, desertification, snoring and so on.

Unflinchingly, this dangerous propagandist for the Church's outdated doctrine of unrestricted rabbity activity, continues to ask rhetorically, why and how this crisis is connected to the demographic issue?

He delivers the usual lesson on population ageing, which we have all heard before, but adding a very sensitive argument: the plight of the Family, which has lost much of its strength (in numbers):

"The drop of family wealth has been of 2/3, while the vocation to consume of a growing portion of families has forced them to fall into debt. … The process (of running into debt) will worsen because of the demographic crisis... Imagine future scenarios: the hope of using the liquidity and wealth created in the big Asiatic powers like China and India are to be reappraised. These economies which generate a growth rate of their financial activities of more than 10-15% and that have in the past sustained the USA's public deficit, in the future will invest in the home market or to acquire a competitive autonomy by acquiring access to resources.

"To correct the demographic deficit by a politic of steady import of immigrants doesn't produce immediate or even medium term compensation. Leaving aside the problem of solidarity, immigration is necessary for acquiring a growing workforce, but for a long time will be represented by only a fraction of immigrants from European countries, who have a better capacity to generate wealth, but a limited capacity to contribute to the social expenditure.

"To increase fertility is an excellent programme, but it is too long term and its results will be seen only in 25/30 years. However, if families will be stimulated to have courage and bring forth a greater number of children, they will represent an engine of wealth creation, a capacities to overcome difficulties, because they will feel more responsible, they will save more and invest more ...."

from The Osservatore Romano, 11th September 2008

Now, we can together have fun in picking out the contradictions, the ignorance, the superficiality, from this masterpiece Maybe it is too easy.

For example, starting with the Stock exchange crisis, it started in the USA, the country in the Western world which is enjoying – so to speak - major population growth...

And the more the number of children per family, the less opportunity there will be to spend money.

But Dr. Tedeschi lives in another world and he hears only the bells of S.Peter in his head.

My Thanks to Ilan Goldman who posted the extracts from the Australian Senate Hansard on 17 Spetember 2008 to the Yahoo PublicPopForum mailing and to Gloria O'Conner who drew Ilan's attention to this. - JS

The Senate Hansard from which the following were extracted can be downloaded in a 795K pdf file at http://www.aph.gov.au/HANSARD/senate/dailys/ds160908.pdf. The initial #question">question can be found on pages 32-33 of the PDF document, which are actually numbered as pages 18-19. Senator Brown's subsequent #speech">speech can be found on pages 41-42 of the PDF document, which are numbered as pages 27-28

Detail of "Overpopulation" by John Piltre at http://www.progressiveart.com/pitre_page2.htm

#question" id="question">Population Policy (question without notice)

Tuesday,16 September 2008

Senator BOB BROWN (2.33 pm)---My question without notice is to Senator Evans, representing the Prime Minister. Does the government have a population policy? Can the minister tell the Senate whether population growth is essential for economic growth, or is that assumption just plain wrong? If population growth is inevitably needed, is that not an ultimate recipe for planetary breakdown?

Senator CHRIS EVANS---I thank Senator Brown for the question. I think population policy is an important issue confronting Australia and we actually need to have a mature debate over the next couple of years about the development of population policy.

Senator Abetz---I'd say you need to have one.

Senator CHRIS EVANS---Senator Abetz, you keep on interjecting---

Senator Abetz interjecting---

The PRESIDENT---Order! Senator Abetz, we can do without your interjections during question time.

Senator CHRIS EVANS---I actually think it is a serious issue. It was discussed at the 2020 conference and raised by lot of the delegates and it is an issue that the government has been engaging on, particularly in relation to the Treasurer's role, the housing minister's role and of course the environment and climate change ministers' roles. We are working together to try and bring together a broader policy approach in this area.

In terms of my own area, on coming to office I found that the previous government set the immigration planning levels on an annual basis. They just picked a figure annually and there was no context to the selection of the figure and no longer term planning. In our first budget this year the cabinet agreed to my bringing forward next year a longer term planning framework for immigration to this country, which is in part an attempt to deal with that broader population question. We think we need a longer planning cycle. We think we need to deal with those broader considerations. At the moment we have a skills shortage in this country as a result of the previous government's failure to invest in education and training and we are looking to build our capacity by training our own people, but in the short term we do have a need for labour and we are trying to address that.

One of the things I would point to is the changing demographics of the nation. We know that over the period 2010 to 2020 more people will retire than will join the workforce. If you like, 2010 marks the tipping point in the retirement of the baby boomers, and that will exceed the numbers of young people entering the workforce. That is not a temporary thing; this is a longterm demographic shift. It will not rectify itself. We will have a shrinking native-born labour force to supply a growing economy and an ageing population. So there are big challenges in the demographics area, and part of the solution to that will be an increase in migration and, I think, an increase in the overall population, because we will need more workers to support the population and we will need more workers to provide services to those ageing as the cohort of those ageing increases. But there are issues about environmental sustainability that need to be taken into account and there are issues about housing that need to be taken into account.

I suppose your question, Senator Brown, implied that somehow we should respond in a negative way. I think the way to respond is to say that we have a climate change problem and we have to address that problem. Whatever the size of the population, we will have a climate change problem. This government is immediately trying to tackle that climate change problem. We are trying to tackle the problem of water. All of those things need to be taken head-on. Those problems are not fixed by reducing our population or ending immigration to this country. We are serious about housing, we are serious about climate change and we are serious about the environment, but we face other challenges about the workforce and about our demographics. What we are trying to do is bring all that together so that the government has a broad view about these challenges and how we respond. I think we are making good progress on that, and certainly in my portfolio we are very much focusing on those broader issues.

Senator BOB BROWN---Mr President, I have a supplementary question. I thank the minister for the seriousness with which he answered that question. I return again to core question that I asked: is economic growth predicated upon population growth or is that a myth?

Senator CHRIS EVANS---That is a pretty big question to answer in one minute. What I would say to you is that I think economic growth is vital to Australia's future. I think that in the medium term we will need a larger population than we currently have. I think we will have to run an immigration program to deal with the demographic shift and the drop in the workforce. But we also need to tackle those pressing environmental and other problems. The Greens keep raising with me, for instance, the question of climate change refugees and what we are doing to accommodate them. To accommodate them we would have to increase our immigration program. All these things are clearly linked. We are very much focused on the broader population policy issues, but I think we will need continuing economic growth, and I think we will see a continuing modest increase in our population levels over coming years.

#speech" id="speech">Population Policy (speech in response to Senator Evans' answer)

Tuesday,16 September 2008

Senator BOB BROWN (Tasmania---Leader of the Australian Greens) (3.30 pm)---I move:

That the Senate take note of the answer given by the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Senator Evans) to a question without notice asked by Senator Bob Brown today relating to economic and population growth.

I am grateful to Senator Evans for responding to a question that is very rarely raised in this parliament let alone taken on and answered at some length---and that is the question of the role of population in our future. The former Treasurer, Peter Costello, said that population is destiny. I would agree with that, although I think I am coming from a different point of view.

We are on a planet in which there are now 6½ thousand million people, whereas when I was a lad it was half that amount. At the change from the 19th century to the 20th century there were 2,000 million people, which is less than a third of today's population. And we know that by mid-century the population is going to be 9,000 million to 10,000 million people. The world advice is that that simply cannot be sustained. We are now looking at rapidly deteriorating food stores on the planet. We are down to fewer than 50 days of flow-on food availability to meet any great emergency, and the number of people facing starvation around the planet right now is in the millions and increasing rapidly, particularly in Africa but also in parts of Asia, like North Korea.

Because energy drives agriculture, and with the onrush of climate change, the very slow growth in pro -ductivity compared to population, and peak oil, we will be facing a mammoth, chaotic social outcome of too many people with too few resources on the planet in the lifetime of some of us here and certainly in the lifetime of our children. We are obliged to look at this. That is why I asked the government whether it had a population policy, and I do not believe it does. I do not believe the opposition does. The Greens have one which is very general.

I think it is incumbent upon us all to say what we think about the fundamental supposition that the economy needs a growing population if it is to be sustainable. I think that is a fundamental error but it drives all economic policymaking at government level around the world at the moment. If you take the idea that you must have a growing population to have a healthy economy then the planet will implode because the logic of that is that, if the numbers of humans on the planet keep increasing---and we are the biggest, most marauding group of mammals there has ever been on the planet---to just bring other people up to our level of consumption our current population projections say that we will need not one but three or four planets with the resource base of the earth to sustain human population by mid-century. I am talking about 40 years away. It is simply not sustainable.

We as responsible politicians and representatives of the interests of the future of this nation, if not the planet, have to debate this matter. I believe we have to come to the conclusion that we have to devise economic growth that is not predicated on population growth. If not, we have to state at what level we will stop growing the economy because there are too many people. That is an inevitable outcome of the theory that you must have population growth if you are going to have economic wellbeing. It is a fundamental part of the political discourse and yet it is missing from public debate.

One of my major reasons for raising this question is that I get asked about it all over the country. It does not matter what you are talking about, when you go into any size audience somebody will come up and say, 'What about population growth?' So here I am asking that question in the Senate because so many Australians want it debated.

Question agreed to.

What you can do:

Contact Senator Bob Brown to congratulate him for having raised this critical issue in the Senate. His contact details are:
e: ebony.bennett[AT]aph gov au www.bobbrown.org.au
m: 0409 164 603 | p: (02) 6277 3170 | f: (02) 6277 3185

Contents: #OFarrellPilloried">O'Farrell pilloried, #DebateIgnored">Parliamentary debate ignored, #EarlierMisreporting">Earlier misreporting: Iemma exhorted to ignore Labor conference, public will, #WhatCanBeDone">What can be done about this?.

Analysis of the reporting of electricity privatisation initiatives in New South Wales brings disturbing confirmation that the major Australian newsmedia does not accurately report essential facts on issues of vital concern to us. Indeed, it often acts as a conduit for propaganda against our best interest.

Throughout NSW's struggle against a push to privatise electricity, barely any of the newsmedia paid regard to the fact that the NSW Government had no mandate whatsoever to sell electricity assets. Facts acknowledged in hardly any of the reports included:

• In the face of relentless propaganda in favour of privatisation, opposition to privatisation stood at between 79% and 86% according to opinion polls.
• Morris Iemma had explicitly promised not to privatise prior to the March 2007 elections.
• In the 1999 state elections NSW electors voted against the Liberal/National Opposition which stood for full privatisation.

#OFarrellPilloried" id="OFarrellPilloried">O'Farrell pilloried

On 27 August, the day before the privatisation legislation was to be put before the NSW Upper House The Australian's Imre Saluzinsky shared with his readers his high expectations of NSW state parliamentary Liberal Party and leader of the state Opposition Barry O'Farrell in his article of 27 August "O'Farrell won't do a Debnam". There were, of course, those in the Liberal party opposed to privatisation, who were described by Saluzinsky, incredibly, as, at once, both "machiavellian" and "conspiracy buffs to the bitter end" who apparently had paranoid delusions that Labor would use the proceeds of the sale to pork-barrel their way back into office in 2011. Nevertheless, he predicted that O'Farrell and the Opposition would come good:

O'Farrell can either outsmart himself with such conspiratorial thinking, or demonstrate the Coalition is ready to govern. On previous form, he'll choose the latter path.

In response to this article, one reader responded:

Where does political morality lie in your equation, Imre? Both major parties ruled out power privatisation before the last election, and merely months later it becomes a 'must do'? Through their mismanagement Iemma and Costa need the money from the power sell-off for their political survival. Handing them the keys to the vault by aiding and abetting their political fraud will only prolong an inept Labor government. That is the reality facing the entire business community in NSW.

Saluzinsky did not answer.

When Barry O'Farrell failed to follow Saluzinsky's script, two days later Saluzinsky turned on him with a vengeance. On Friday 29 August in "O'Farrell's shame worse than Iemma's", He wrote:

The collapse of the latest reform push is a condemnation of the political class in NSW.

It shows the nation's largest state - over a third of the national economy - in the grip of reform paralysis. And it leaves the credibility of both Iemma and NSW Opposition Leader Barry O'Farrell in tatters.

... O'Farrell shifted ground. He sought independent advice, which backed the sale strategy, then he ignored it, preferring to maintain a united front with the Nationals rather than securing the state's electricity supply.

The Australian's editorial "NSW Labor and Libs are unfit for power" appeared critical of both the Government and the Opposition, however the latter was the main recipient of its venom. It began:

NSW Opposition Leader Barry O'Farrell has just done the unthinkable. By scuttling Labor Premier Morris Iemma's push to privatise the NSW electricity sector, he has raised the serious question of whether the Liberal and National parties can ever be fit to run the nation's largest state. After 13 years of do-nothing and scandal-soaked government from Labor, it is truly remarkable that the Coalition can't bring itself to support the one positive item on the Iemma agenda.

Here, the editorial writer is hardly being fair to the state Labor Government. Former Premier Bob Carr tried earnestly to foist electricity privatisation on the Labor Party in 1998 only to have it rejected by the Labor Party conference. In 2006 the Iemma Government attempted to lead the Federal and Victorian governments to privatise the Snowy Hydro scheme. Iemma could hardly be held to blame if the Howard Government, faced with a public outcry and the late Federal Independent MP Peter Andren's determined opposition, decided to pull out the rug from under privatisation. Clearly, in terms of The Australian's own world view, the Carr and Iemma governments had attempted to do other 'positive' things, which The Australian should have acknowledged.

This year, Iemma went one step further than Carr was prepared to go. He ignored the Labor Party conference vote. He also ignored public opinion and his own 2007 election commitment. What else, short of declaring martial law and jailing NSW upper house members opposed to privatisation, would the The Australian have had Iemma and Costa do?

The editorial goes on to ask, "And for what?"

Anyone placing their trust in the judgement and good will of the editorial writer would have gained the impression that O'Farrell had not provided any justification for his actions. In fact, he had supplied justification in a media release that day. Upper House leaders Michael Gallacher (Liberal Party) and Duncan Gay (National Party) both also provided reasoned and detailed arguments against the privatisation legislation in the Parliamentary debate before it was abruptly closed by an embarrassed Government.

Whilst the editorial was prepared to trust a Government it had itself labelled as 'inept', O'Farrell was not. In his media release, he wrote:

Furthermore, the Iemma Labor Government has an appalling record of dealing with the private sector ? it has failed the public in deals ranging from the Cross City Tunnel to the building of the new Bathurst Hospital.

Given their record of incompetence, Morris Iemma and Labor can?t be trusted to deliver a good result for taxpayers and consumers.

To many, these would seem reasonable concerns. In addition O'Farrell pointed out that there was uncertainty about the implications of the Federal Government's carbon trading scheme and that privatisation had not been put by Iemma to the NSW electors in 2007.

The editorial then moved on to stronger ground:

It is not even clear that Mr O'Farrell's obstruction passes the cynic's test.

Indeed, it had not. That test was being passed with flying colours by the editorial writer himself. The majority of the state Labor Party Parliamentary caucus, which had resolved to ram through the privatisation legislation in defiance of popular opinion, and the state Labor Party conference, has also performed exceedingly well in this regard.

In one small sense, the Opposition's stance may have been due to its instincts for self-preservation, if only because of the Murdoch press's own record of unprincipled opportunism. Had privatisation proceeded, it is hard to imagine that The Australian would not have quietly forgotten the Iemma Government's legendary incompetence and, instead, have begun to sing its praises once more.

The editorial writer then assailed the reader with facts and statistics that would have left him/her in no doubt that O'Farrell, or anyone else who may have wanted to hesitate for longer than five minutes before allowing privatisation to proceed, was stark raving mad.

[Because O'Farrell] "continues to ignore economics 101 ... the Australian would be unable to recommend a vote for a change of government in NSW."

This begs a number of obvious questions: If sound economic practice really required electricity privatisation, why couldn't the policy simply have been put to the electorate in March 2007? Why had it proven so hard to make the public, the trade unions and the NSW state Labor Party see this? Why had the public rejected privatisation in 1999 and remained adamantly opposed to it all along? Clearly neither The Australian nor Iemma deserved the public they had been stuck with.

Murdoch's Daily Telegraph editorialised on 31 August :

Mr O'Farrell ... also has a huge question mark hanging over his head after his performance last week.

...

Mr O'Farrell could not resist the lure of a cheap political victory to wound his opponent when NSW was crying out for some far-sighted leadership.

Presumably by 'NSW', the editorialist meant the small shrill chorus of bankers and investors.

O'Farrell and the NSW state Opposition received additional drubbings in reporting over the following days: "How the people of NSW were sold out" (SMH, 30 Aug) an opinion piece by Premier Morris Iemma. (A google search listed the story with a more provocative title: "How the power of one treacherous leader sold out the people of NSW". Clearly an editor somewhere thought better of that title), "O'Farrell backflip on power sell-off" (The Australian, 1 Sep)."Hopelessly devoted to self-interest" (Sun-Herald, 31 Aug), "O'Farrell's shame worse than Iemma's" by Imre Saluzinksy (The Australian, 29 Aug), "Luddite Liberals" (The Australian, Aug) by John Durie, "Barry O'Farrell misses a chance on electricity" (Sunday Telegraph, Aug. 08)

In Murdoch's Melbourne Herald Sun newspaper, one article, which seems to have since disappeared from the web, even referred to Barry O'Farrell as "O'Fool".

Against this torrent of condemnation O'Farrell was able to write an opinion piece on 1 September in defence of himself in the (Fairfax press) Sydney Morning Herald.

#DebateIgnored" id="DebateIgnored">Parliamentary debate ignored

Astonishingly, even the debate in Parliament which had been recalled at a cost of $500,000 to the NSW taxpayer was ignored by electricity privatisation reporting. Facts revealed in the debate, but unreported in the media, included:

• Prior to the March 2007 elections "the Iemma Government issued emphatic denials that any such sale would take place". On 20 February 2007 Michael Costa stated "There are no plans to sell our retail electricity businesses". (Upper House Opposition leader Gallacher's speech)
• On 9 May 2007 Premier Morris Iemma, when referring to the Owen Review, ruled out any "sale of electricity generation, transmission or distribution."(Gallacher)
• In a Sydney Morning Herald article dated 25 May 2007 Iemma was reported as stating in a letter to Unions NSW that "The privatisation of the State Government-owned energy companies is not on our agenda".(Gallacher)
• On 23 November 2006 Michael Costa stated "There is no energy crisis in New South Wales - In fact, New South Wales has surplus energy."(Gallacher)
• Treasurer Michael Costa, as Secretary of the NSW Labor Council, had in 1998 and 1999 moved motions in opposition to former Premier Bob Carr's privatisation legislation(Gallacher)
• For 13 years up until the 2007 elections Treasure Costa and his predecessor Egan had boasted that NSW had healthy budget surpluses due to their sound financial management. "Treasurer Michael Costa told New South Wales taxpayers before the last election that they had nothing to worry about." (Gay)
• The Owen Inquiry report, which is the Government's principle justification for privatisation, has never been debated in the NSW Upper House. (Kaye)

In this light, why had the media not turned on Iemma and Costa, if it was truly concerned with reporting the truth?

#EarlierMisreporting" id="EarlierMisreporting">Earlier misreporting: Iemma exhorted to ignore Labor conference, public will

Monday 5 May, 2008: The Australian's editorial "Rudd has a stake in NSW power sell-off", published after the NSW state conference voted 702 to 107 against privatisation, urges the NSW Parliamentary Labor Party to ignore the conference.

"Kevin Rudd has a lot riding on NSW Premier Morris Iemma's having the courage to defy Labor's state council and push ahead with the $10 billion privatisation of the state's electricity industry. To his credit, Mr Iemma says he is standing firm. ...

If electricity privatisation can be defeated because unions representing a few thousand electricity workers don't like it, how difficult would it be to stare down union interests to overhaul health and education?

...

The electricity debate is a classic example of the labour movement attempting to bully the government into making a decision that is not for the greater good. Mr Iemma must demonstrate that he is prepared to govern for all people and ignore the demands of state conference."

The editorial writer did not seem to have a problem with fact that 79%-86% of "all people" on whose behalf Iemma and Costa were supposedly governing, happened to agree with the "unions representing a few thousand electricity workers" and state conference.

7 May 2008: Murdoch's Sydney Daily Telegraph gloated at the Labor Parliamentary caucus's defiance of NSW public opinion in "Iemma's grin of victory over power industry sale":

"The rare record of an exceptional political victory came after Morris Iemma emerged from a post-conference meeting yesterday with the backing of his entire caucus for his plans to privatise the NSW power industry.

The Premier was so impressed by his coup - rendered by endorsements from even his rebel MPs as they filed out of the marathon meeting - that he celebrated by updating his Facebook site with the glowing new images.

'I'm very happy,' he said after giving a rare post-caucus briefing. 'There was nothing to vote on.'

An emboldened Mr Iemma then strode into Question Time and accused Opposition Leader Barry O'Farrell of being 'dumb', 'stupid', 'gutless' and having his head 'up his backside'".

Wednesday, 7 May: In a report "Iemma's caucus triumph" by Imre Saluzinsky and Andrew Faulkner, it was noted that Premier Morris Iemma's approval rating had dropped to 28%. Nevertheless the article confidently predicted:

"However, he is likely to receive a bounce in the polls from his display of strength in recent days."

In other words, the NSW public, would respect the 'strength' of a Government that had blatantly defied its will on the question of privatisation more than it would respect those who were intent on forcing Iemma to respect that will. This bizarre prediction was not realised and was quietly forgotten.

#WhatCanBeDone" id="WhatCanBeDone">What can be done about this?

The material described and quoted above represents only a small fraction of many months of misreporting. Luckily the public weren't fooled this time. Luckily, a majority of their elected representatives also chose to represent their will in Parliament and to uphold basic principles of democracy and accountability, this time.

But it so easily could have turned out differently. More often than not such mass media misinformation campaigns have achieved their goals in the recent past.

It is in similar contexts that nearly all the other state governments in Australia have managed to privatise the people's electricity assets. It was in such a manner that Keating got away with privatising the Commonwealth Bank, despite a specific election promise not to. This is how all Australia's state-owned banks and insurance companies were privatised. This is how Howard got away with privatising Telstra. In the same way, Australia was dragged into the Iraq War, in spite of the most massive popular protests since the Vietnam War. This is how "Work Choices" was implemented and continues to dominate as law. That is how a slew of expensive, inappropriate and environmentally damaging infrastructure projects have been imposed against heated community objections in almost every part of this country. This is how successive governments have been able to impose high immigration levels on an uninformed and unwilling public. This is the way that local governments have been forcibly amalgamated in Queensland, NSW and Victoria.

It is time we challenged the right of newsmedia proprietors to act so blatantly against our interests.

If the newsmedia continue to serve the public so poorly, it must, itself, become the focus of popular protests, and progressive pro-democratic political parties must pledge to legislate to prevent the newsmedia from continuing to abuse their powers in this way.

You can help by distributing this article.

Also published on webdiary.

The Green contradiction

For years Green Party leader Elizabeth May has been telling us that there are no ecological consequences from mass immigration. Canada should persist with its "great multicultural project" and aim for an immigration intake equivalent to 1% of its population level, a target that would surpass our current quota by some 70,000 migrants even though this country is already the fastest growing country in the G8 group. That we could suffer this growth without losses to biodiversity, farmland, and air quality is both counter-intuitive and empirically refutable.

May's great escape hatch, of course, is "land use planning", the same nostrum parroted by the Growth Management Industry, the NDP, the environmental NGOs, the "progressive" developers---everyone in denial who would have us believe that we can have our cake and eat it too. We can leave the tap of population growth turned on full blast while deflecting the flood away from sensitive areas.

The accent then, is not on "whether" we grow---because, after all, growth is "inevitable", especially if you keep holding the immigration floodgates open. No, the accent is on "how" we grow. And we should grow "inwards", by packing people like sheep behind tightly defined urban boundaries. Tall rabbit warrens (highrises). Infils. No more sprawl. Never mind that people who live in high density zones have high or even higher footprints too, or eventually burst the seams and colonize outlying greenbelts (hello Portland, Oregon). Or that impregnable nature reserves buckle under the population and economic pressure. And isn't it curious that the pricey urban planners, politicians and yuppie environmentalists who prescribe compact living for the working poor and middle class in Canadian cities, seem to have expensive lakeside or waterfront retreats to draw their mental sustenance from? Do as I say and not as I do?

Elizabeth May re-affirmed her commitment to "smart growth" in a CBC interview on September 14, 2008 when she stated that immigration was a problem only if land use planning was not employed, that is, by implication, if Canadians are concentrated and not dispersed, environmental damaged is minimized. An illusion of the highest magnitude.

Suddenly though, May made a startling logical about face. In responding to a caller's question she remarked that the volume of immigration is not an issue, immigrants simply need to be spread out more. She pointed out that rural areas are losing people and could benefit from immigration. "Just as there areas receiving an influx strains the fabric of an urban area, there are areas of Canada experiencing serious problems of depopulation where it would be fabulous to have the programs that ensured that more immigrants moved into places like rural Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia." But she didn't say what she would do with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which allows immigrants to settle anywhere they want in Canada, nor did she explain why immigrants would rather freeze in rural Saskatchewan than have a more comfortable life in the Fraser Valley or once induced to live in rural or northern Canada, would not eventually move south to the over-stressed cities. Dan Murray of Immigration Watch Canada commented,

"Ms. May says that the problem of environmental degradation in Canada's major immigrant-receiving areas (especially Southern Ontario and Metro Vancouver) can be solved by sending those immigrants to rural Canada. The big problem with this approach is that it is naive. Many people have left rural Canada because there are no economic opportunities there. So why send immigrants there if they too will soon have to leave? In fact, why bring most of them to Canada in the first place?"

So there you are. A Green Party leader who doesn't have her story straight. She wants both higher density and greater dispersal. She wants people packed closely together out of harm's way, away from our natural bounty, but she wants to relieve the pressure from our bulging urban centres choking from the growth forced on them by 18 years of runaway mass immigration. Smart growth and dumb growth at once. That's the Green Party of Canada. Under the thin green paint, it's a muddled mixture of trendy slogans that don't stand up to scrutiny.

Tim Murray,
Quadra Island, BC
September 16, 2008

Vermont writer David Grundy argues that it is well past time that religious extremists in the United States were disregarded in order to permit desperately needed family planning aid be to be delivered to the Third World in order to stop the current food shortage crisis from getting worse.

Article published on 5 June 2008 in www.burlingtonfreepress.com, but no longer available. Pdf file (22K) available from www.populationmedia.org.

In an Associated Press article that appeared April 23 titled "Food program warns of hunger crisis," author David Stringer claims the World Food Program says 20 million of the poorest children around the world are threatened with the "first global food crisis since World War II." "A 'silent tsunami' of hunger is sweeping the world's most desperate nations, said Josette Sheeran, the WFP's executive director," the article reads.

Many examples are given of this condition: "The price of rice has more than doubled in the last five weeks, she said. The World Bank estimates food prices have risen 83 percent in just three years," the article continues.

Various reasons are offered for this rapid rise: rising fuel prices, unpredictable weather, rising demand for food from India and China, the increase in demand for meat and dairy products in these two countries.

Various solutions to the food shortage were suggested. Obviously, grow more food. Plant genetically modified crops that can withstand drought or that produce more nutrients. And yet, in the entire article, there was no mention of attacking the main driver of hunger: too many people. It seems to me policymakers are missing the point if they believe producing more food will solve the problem of hunger when the increase in population outstrips the increase in food production.

About 40 years ago, many were extolling the benefits of the green revolution. Using intensive agricultural practices, the world could end hunger as it was then known. In placing too many hopes on this revolution, two points were missed which are coming home to haunt us in 2008: The increased production of food relied very heavily on the use of fossil fuel and manufactured artificial fertilizers, and pesticides.

Even though more food was produced, it did not keep up with the raging increase in world population.

Voluntarily limiting population size is a very touchy subject. Some of the world's religions won't even listen to arguments in favor of stabilizing our population. Our own administration prohibits financial aid to any organization that promotes family planning through contraception. To me, this is short sighted. 25,000 people around the world die each day of starvation and poverty, according to the World Food Programme of the United Nations. How are we serving humanity by allowing unfettered population growth only to watch a number of people equal to that of central Vermont die each day from starvation?

Too often we think of this as someone else's problem. But it will come home to us as we see less and less variety and quantity of food available to us on the super market shelves. As the price of oil continues to rise, those strawberries from South America in February will be too expensive for even the richest of us to buy. We will find that we will be consuming food that is grown closer to home. A recent study done by a college student has suggested Vermont could grow enough food to feed all of our residents. But you can guess that will not include exotic fruits and vegetables or large quantities of meat and dairy products.

I believe it is past time for our policy makers to stop pandering to conservative religionists and face up to the fact that our world only has enough crop land and fresh water to provide for a population that is very likely less than we now try to support.

David B. Grundy lives in East Montpelier in the state of Vermont in the United States.

See also Why is the UN so complacent in the face of over-population peril? of 2 Jul 08 by Brian McGavin, Secret report: biofuel caused food crisis of 4 Jul 08 by Aditya Chakrabortty.

That two socially immature males would cruelly bash and kick unconscious a kangaroo whilst capturing the sickening spectacle on video in an apparent attempt to impress their social peers should hardly come as a surprise in a country which, unlike South Africa which nurtures and celebrates its herds of wildebeests, stigmatises the magnificent kangaroo as a pest like a blowfly.

Kangaroos are so little understood in their own country, and their negative profile has minimised them as little more than "wood chips" for meat and skin exports. Public hatred of kangaroos is totally incomprehensible! How could kangaroos be more in abundance now than when Captain Cook sailed up the coast? There is less water in our rivers, less wetlands, less vegetation and more feral species, thanks to human mismanagement! Our biodiversity losses are of a world class standard. Kangaroos are scapegoats for livestock and human damage.

The bashings, torture and killings of native animals, especially kangaroos, is surely a reflection on their status. We have officially-endorsed "culls" (read "massacres") such as at Canberra earlier this year, and another at Maria Island, Tasmania. Despite their falling numbers, their "harvest" quota is still set at 3.5 million!

In Victoria, the DSE regularly give permits for killings when landowners are inconvenienced. Is it not surprising that there are low-lives that think that killings for entertainment are "fair go".

Our wildlife needs to be protected as our national symbols, and any attacks or killings needs to attract heavy goal sentences and fines. We are famous for decimating our wildlife, and these sadistic attacks on kangaroos are a reflection of community attitudes that urgently need to change.

See also: Nationwide hunt for kangaroo basher (Western Australia Today) of 11 Sept 08, RSPCA launches nationwide hunt for kangaroo basher (ABC) of 11 Sept 08, RSPCA, police hunt for roo thug.

Questions about channel deepening and underwriting risks

Australia's Victorian Government appointed two Panels in 2004 and 2007 to consider the Port of Melbourne (PMC) proposal to deepen the shipping channels from the Entrance of Port Phillip Bay in the south to the container ship berths at Appleton Dock in the north, and to consider the potential environmental and financial consequences that could result.

The proposal is to allow an increase in the maximum draught of ships using the port, at all stages of the tide, from 11.6 metre to 14 metre.

Following receipt of the two Panel Reports, the Victorian Government granted approval to the Port of Melbourne Corporation to proceed with deepening the shipping channels, in accordance with their submitted channel designs and operating parameters, and to engage the Dutch dredging company 'Boskalis' to carry out the dredging work.

The following comments relate specifically to the safety of navigation of near 14 metre draught ships transiting the Great Ship Channel entrance to Port Phillip and to the potential environmental, financial and social consequences that may occur if these vessels fail to navigate safely through this Channel.

The entrance to Port Phillip is recognized as one of the most difficult and dangerous port entrances world-wide. The cross currents on the flood and ebb tides in the entrance, at times exceed rates of 8 knots and flow diagonally across the Great Ship channel in two opposing directions, simultaneously. Times of high and low water, when the currents are flowing at their maximum, can differ from the predicted times by as much as 60 minutes, due to changing atmospheric pressure systems and prevailing winds. Surface tidal currents oppose the direction of the bottom currents, close to the times of change of tide.

There is factual, electronic and anecdotal evidence that vessels with less than the maximum draught of 11.6 metre are currently being set by the cross currents outside the boundaries of the Great Ship Channel into the Eastern and Western Channels. Mostly these ships will not strike the sea bed due to the existing depths of water in the side channels.

Once the Great Ship Channel is deepened, (but not widened, as proposed by the PMC) for the use of 14 metre draught ships to transit, there is no doubt that the deeper draught vessels will more likely be set into the Eastern and Western Channels and will ground in the shallower water unless these two channels are also deepened to the same depth as the Great Ship Channel.

The Permanent International Association of Navigation Congresses (PIANC) in its publication, 'Guide for the Design of Approach Channels', considers the effect of cross currents in excess of 1.5 to 2.0 knots to be too strong, for the application of their empirical design rules.

In such difficult environments, the PIANC Guide recommendations require the use of ALL available local data and knowledge and testing by simulation trials to determine individual safe entrance channel design widths. These PIANC 'Recommendations' have not been fully complied with in the Entrance Channel design process.

Notwithstanding the Government's acceptance of the two Panel Reports and the PMC proposal there are many serious concerns and unanswered questions expressed by pilots, other professional mariners and hydrographic surveyors, with the safety of the 'approved' entrance channel design, and with the proposed operating parameters for near 14 metre draught ships to safely transit the Entrance to Port Phillip Bay.

Accepting the legitimacy of these concerns, the question of responsibility and liability must be examined for the potential causes (including a flawed channel design and flawed operating parameters) of a near 14 metre draught vessel grounding outside the boundaries of the Great Ship Channel and also for the potential consequences, including a shipwreck and the release of large quantities of oil. Attributing such an accident to an "Act of God" if the ship is set outside the boundaries of the Great Ship Channel and grounds in the side channels is unacceptable.

Ship owners and marine underwriters must take a close look at reduced safety margins and increased risks and the areas of responsibility and liability, and authorities must be aware of the potential economic, environmental and social consequences.

No Risk Assessment to determine the likely occurrence and consequences of such an accident that meets the International (PIANC) or National Standards (AS 4360) relating to Risks, has been undertaken by the proponent's project team.

Dredging commenced on the February 8, 2008. At the start of April 2008 the project was referred to the Victorian Government Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration for the Committee to examine the 'Business Case', as advanced by the Port of Melbourne Corporation.

The reduced safety margins and increased risks associated with the proposed channel design and the proposed operating parameters of a near 14 metre draught vessel transiting the Heads, have not been properly investigated: they are not fully understood and have not been taken into account in arguing the business case. The failure to cost risk in the business case precludes the business case complying with government and industry standards.

These deficiencies undermine the credibility of the design process for the channel at Port Phillip Heads and there is little confidence in the project securing an adequate level of ship safety and maintaining safe financial, environmental and social standards.

The safety of near 14 metre draught ships transiting Port Phillip Heads is being compromised and all parties including governments, ship owners and marine insurers need to be fully aware of the increased level of risk and the potential consequences.

The author of this paper is Captain Frank Hart, former Harbour Master of the port of Western Port and Hastings. His assertions in this report are supported by evidence provided by several former Port Phillip Pilots.

August 2008.

See also: www.bluewedges.org.

Immigration: How Much is Enough for Canada?

Original article published on 6 March 2008. The standard of much of the discussion that ensued was very high.
See #OtherDiscussions">below for links to other online discussions.

How many immigrants should Canada accept each year? What population can Canada support - and how to determine that number? And how many do we want?

These are difficult questions, and it is a sensitive issue. My grandparents immigrated to Canada when my father was eight years old. My wife and stepdaughter are currently permanent residents, and we have sponsored my wife's mother. My business partner and his family are immigrants. I am well aware of the value that immigrants bring to Canada, and the conditions in developing countries. And "Isn't the real problem overpopulation?" is one of the most frequent questions I receive during my Inconvenient Truth presentations.

Having revealed all this, I believe:

• We should allow immigration at levels that stabilise our current population
• We should conduct a 'sustainability audit' that determines how many people Canada can realistically support
• We should determine what kind of population density we want, from sparse to Singapore levels
• We must stop using population growth to postpone problems like a funded Canada Pension Plan, or to drive continuous economic growth
• We must build in a buffer to account for climate change

This is difficult stuff. First, how many people can Canada support sustainably? We must be capable of sustainably producing all our own necessities, including food, shelter, clothing, energy, mobility, and communication. That means we can't count our coal mines or the tar sands for energy. It means that importing food from China doesn't count toward a sustainable food supply for Canada. It also means we have to leave space for the natural world; humans are not living sustainably if other species are going extinct by the bucketload.

Second, once we know how many people the country could support, we must determine how closely we want to live together. It is one thing to say "Canada has lots of space and could hold more people." It is another when you start telling people they must live up north, or that Montreal is going to have the population of Beijing.

Trying to force people to live in sparsely populated areas of Canada has never worked for long. Most immigrants migrate to the big cities for a reason - for many reasons, in fact, and they are generally the same reasons most of us end up in the cities.

I also think we grossly overestimate how many people Canada can and should "hold." Yes, we have vast unpopulated areas. It is also true that many of these areas are inhospitable to humans, and most necessities would have to be shipped in from other regions.

In addition, these unpopulated areas act as buffers for human activity. Paving our vast forests so Canada can accept "her share" of the world's population makes as much sense as razing Brazil's rainforests to cram in more people there. Europe once had vast tracts of forest, but they are all gone, and the Europeans are working toward reforesting - exceptionally difficult, because there are people everywhere.

Finally, we need to get over ourselves. We are not the only beings on this planet. We are not the Supreme Beings, though we certainly have the power to destroy life, including our own. We must learn to live with Nature, as we are Nature and Nature is us.

Brian Gordon
Nominated Candidate, Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca
Green Party of Canada

Trained Presenter
An Inconvenient Truth

People - Planet - Prosperity
The New Green Economy

#OtherDiscussions" id="OtherDiscussions">Other online discussions on immigration and population

Is it reactionary to oppose immigration? of 19 Dec 07 on webdiary.com.au.

Is there intelligent life on Planet Green? of 9 Sep 08,

#comment-470700">Will "the great immigration debate" take place? of 21 May 08 on larvatusprodeo.net.

Have the Greens lost the plot on immigration? of 11 Jul 08 on Online Opinion.