population

Professor Brat can expect to be attacked by "journalists" across the political spectrum with every sort of accusation and scandalous report. He risks a well paid former female student coming forward to complain that while counseling her on her grades, he leaned forward and put his hand on her thigh._{#fnPcr_3" id="txtPcr_3">3} Or worse.

This will be Professor Brat's likely fate even though his election was not about Cantor being Israel's Representative, a fact that the voters who elected Brat probably don't even know. Professor Brat himself might not know it, hence this warning. Professor Brat accused Cantor of representing, not Israel, but "large corporations seeking insider deals, crony bailouts and a constant supply of low-wage workers." This ensures that the transnational corporations and military/security complex will join the Israel Lobby in gunning for Representative Brat.

And, in addition, Brat is unlikely to be warmly welcomed by the Republican Party as he defeated one of the party's top leaders. This could start a trend, and Republicans could lose Mitch McConnell, the Minority Leader in the Senate. Also, many, if not most, House Republicans will have spent a number of years accommodating Cantor in exchange for favors that the Majority Leader can confer, and they are not happy that their investments in Cantor have been wiped out.

A likely explanation of Brat's victory is that it was a protest vote, like the recent EU elections where the major parties in the major countries lost to relatively new and heavily demonised third parties, such as Farage's Independent Party (1993) in the UK and Le Pen's National Front Party (1972) in France. The establishment is already at work explaining that these electoral victories along with Brat's are due to their racist anti-immigration stance. Little doubt that immigration played a role, especially in the UK and France, but the extraordinary gain in third party clout is due to the public's disgust with the corrupt traditional parties who have ceased to represent the public on any issue.

Just as I think Representative Brat is a marked man, so are Farage and Le Pen. (Yes, I know, Marine is a woman, but the term is "marked man.") The Establishment thought that Farage and Le Pen could be disposed of with lies and demonization. Their unexpected victory in the EU elections has brought that supposition into question. If Farage and Le Pen cannot be assassinated by the media, the prospect of physical assassination arises. The Establishment has perfect cover. As both political leaders speak out against the heavy level of immigration that is transforming the national existence of the UK and France, the intelligence services that serve the state can easily come up with a "deranged Muslim."

The main target of Farage and Le Pen is not immigrants. Their important target is the EU, which, more than immigration, is attacking national sovereignty, thus dissolving the peoples of historic European countries into a new and artificial entity called Europe.

Farage and Le Pen are also opposed to Washington's control of European countries and their foreign policy through NATO and other organizations dominated by Washington. Washington is no more willing than the Israel Lobby to take assaults on its power lying down. Attacks on the EU and on NATO are regarded as attacks on US interests. My conclusion is that the lives of Farage and Le Pen are at risk.

And so is Vladimir Putin's. Despite Washington's demonization, Putin has risen to recognition as the most capable world leader. Unlike Obama, Putin walks freely among crowds. He doesn't stand behind a bullet proof shield when he gives a speech. Russia is overrun with opposition groups well paid by Washington. Putin needs to recognize his danger before he is removed.

Like Israel, Washington has no tolerance for those who get in its way. Just ask Muammar Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein, Viktor Yanukovych, and Bashar al-Assad.

Yes, dear readers, I know, the list is longer. You don't need to write in to tell me.

Footnote[s]

#fnPcr_1" id="fnPcr_1">1. #txtPcr_1">↑ From Australia, it has not been easy to cast judgement against Israel, a nation founded in 1947 by survivors of the Jewish Holocaust in which 6 million were brutally murdered. The Holocaust is possibly most brutal act ever carried out against any one one racial and cultural group in the history of humankind.

Ironically, in spite of the fact that many of the founders of Israel had relatives, partners friends, murdered by the Nazis were lucky, themselves, to have survived the Nazi death camps, they, themselves, behaved abominably towards native Palestinians — stealing their land, mass murder such as at Deir Yassin in order to cause other Palestinians to flee for their lives. In 1956 and 1967, the United Kingdom, the United States and France colluded with Israel in wars of aggression against its Arab neighbours including Egypt, Syria and Jordan.

A chilling example of the criminality of the state of Israel is documented in the article Kennedy, the Lobby and the Bomb (2/5/2013 - republished on candobetter.net) by Laurent Guyénot. On the sunny day of June 8, 1967, two days before the end of the Six Day War of 1967, in which Israel conquered the Sinai Peninsula, the Golan Heights and the West Bank of Jordan:

"... three unmarked Mirage bombers and three torpedo boats flying an Israeli flag bombed, strafed and torpedoed for 75 minutes this NSA (National Security Agency) ship -unarmed, floating in international waters and easily recognizable - with the obvious intention of leaving no survivors, machine-gunning even the lifeboats. They only stopped at the approach of a Soviet ship, after killing 34 crew members, mostly engineers, technicians and translators. It is assumed that if they had succeeded in sinking the ship without witnesses, the Israelis would have attributed the crime to Egypt, so as to drag the United States into war on the side of Israel."

... http://www.voltairenet.org/article178401.html file:///?q=node/3432

More than any other article I have read, this article by Laurent Guyénot makes it clear why Israel is so hated and feared in the region. Only the close proximity of a Soviet warship, whose crew witnessed the crime, thereby enabling survivors to be rescued, prevented Egypt from being blamed. Had this occurred the U.S. would have had a pretext to join to also declare war on Egypt and a much larger and much more bloody conflict, conceivably even World War 3, would have ensued.

More recently, Israeli Mossad agents were observed in Kiev in February 2014 working alongside Nazi anti-semites helping to overthrow the democratically elected Ukrainian government of President Victor Yunokovych.

#fnPcr_2" id="fnPcr_2">2. #txtPcr_2">↑ A full list is not included in this article. Presumably, Paul Craig Roberts assumes that, in the United States, this is common knowledge what the other five "powerful interest groups" are, but, writing from Australia, I don't know. - Ed

#fnPcr_3" id="fnPcr_3">3. #txtPcr_2">↑ Whistleblower Julian Assange faces charges of rape and sexual assault in Sweden.

On 9 February 2014, a Yes vote of more than 50% was obtained and the referendum to have a quota limiting immigration to Switzerland has now passed. Three referendums were held in Switzerland on this day. Voters were asked whether they approved of a proposal to impose a quota on immigration, a federal decree on the financing and expansion of the rail network and a federal popular initiative on abortion. Further referendums are planned for 18 May, 28 September and 30 November, with one to include a proposal on guaranteed income. Note also inside, Malthus on Switzerland's history of population stability.

The abortion referendum proposed that abortions would no longer be funded through health insurance, but should be paid for privately by the mother. The immigration reform proposal was supported by the Swiss People's Party,and opposed the free movement of workers between the EU and Switzerland, which was introduced following a 2000 referendum.

Results

The abortion referendum, that would have dropped abortion coverage from public health insurance, failed by a large margin, with about 70% of participating voters rejecting the proposal.

The immigration restriction proposal was supported by 50.3% of participating voters and approved by the required majority of cantons. The immigration measure requires the Swiss government to either renegotiate the Swiss-EU agreement of free movement of people within three years, or to revoke the agreement.

The proposal mandates re-introduction of strict quotas for various immigration categories, and imposes limits on the ability of foreigners to bring in their family members to live in Switzerland, to access Swiss social security benefits and to request asylum. Opinion polls ahead of the vote showed the lead for the opponents of the immigration measure, but that lead began to close as the day of the referendum approached.

Typical voter turnout in Switzerland is around 40%, and the 55.8% turnout for the February 2014 referendum is considered high. [1]

ECOPOP

The swiss ecological group, ECOPOP, was a key educator in this movement.[2]

ECOPOP, which describes itself as 'an association for environment and population' has a couple of key initiatives:

- To bring back the annual immigration rate to Switzerland to 0.2% of the permanent population.
- To apportion 10% of the development aid budget to the promotion of voluntary family planning.

ECOPOP active for more than 40 years

"ECOPOP (ECOlogie and POPulation) is a politically independent environmental organisation. Its objective is to preserve natural resources and quality of life in Switzerland and in the world for generations to come."

Every 12 years, a million more people in Switzerland!

"The rapid increase of population in Switzerland and in other countries damages the environment, reduces quality of life and is in conflict with the aims of Article 73 of the Swiss Federal Constitution - a sustainable world.

Since planetary ecological capacity and resources are limited, independent of national borders, and, given that international immigration flows are climbing, this federal peoples' initiative should help reduce demographic pressure, at national and international level."

[Note that, in Australia, the population is increasing by one million every three years which shows how bad Australia's plight is. (“Australia's estimated resident population (ERP) reached 22.7 million at 30 June 2012, increasing by 1.9 million people or 9.0% since 30 June 2007.’ ABS)]

So – which is 1.14 million in 3 years (calculated) ]

Malthus noted that the Swiss have a long tradition of small stable populations

The ECOPOP website does not mention this, but Thomas Malthus, in his last book,[3] wrote of this characteristic of the Swiss population.

Although better known for his theories about exponential population growth, Malthus also collected examples of stable populations in Continental Europe at the end of the 18th century, publishing this work in 1826. Among other examples, he discussed the Swiss parish of Leyzin.

In Leyzin, a pastoral society, life-expectancy was considered by Malthus to be extraordinarily high at 61 years. Average number of the births over a period of 30 years was "almost accurately equal to the number of deaths" and emigration was not a factor or a consequence. As Malthus observed, during this period, “the resources of the parish for the support of population had remained nearly stationary.” He described the pastures as limited, and not easily increased either in quantity or quality. The number of cattle, which could therefore be kept upon them was also limited and, "in the same manner the number of persons required for the care of these cattle."

Malthus theorised therefore that young Swiss men were not able to leave their fathers' houses and marry until employment as herdsman, dairymen, or similar, became vacant through a death.

"As, from the extreme healthiness of the people, this must happen very slowly, it is evident that the majority of them must wait during a great part of their youth in their bachelor state, or run the most obvious risk of starving themselves and their families.”

Malthus added that:

“The case is still stronger than in Norway, and receives a particular precision from the circumstance of the births and deaths being so nearly equal.”

Had he looked into the matter more carefully, Malthus would have realised that Swiss villages were small and comparatively isolated. Kinship rules meant that prospective brides and grooms were limited in one's own village and the rugged terrain meant that one's choice was quite limited outside the village as well.

Planes, trains and automobiles have have brought much greater population movement and fertility opportunity to the Swiss, but Switzerland remains democratic, retaining a system of popular referendums. It is this true democracy that has permitted the Swiss to control and advise their government about the immigration and population numbers that they want. They know their history and their country and they know their carrying capacity.

This is a great contrast to Australia, which has little effective democracy. In Australia the government and big business tell Australians what they must put up with. Currently Australia is being flooded with immigrants in such numbers that representation, choice and self-government are being destroyed, with the local population marginalised and disparaged.

Australians' lack of control over their population is deeply ironic because Thomas Malthus declared in his second book that the first had been inspired by the low population of the Australian Aborigines, as remarked upon by Captain Cook [sic]. (It was actually Joseph Banks).

NOTES

[1] Details of referendums, voting trends and outcomes were taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_referendums,_2014 with only minor paraphrasing.

[2] Information about ECOPOP, their aims and the rate of population growth were translated by Sheila Newman from the French page of ECOPOP, http://www.ecopop.ch/joomla/index.php/fr/. There are Italian and German versions of the ECOPOP website too. The the illustration of the high-rises intruding on rural buildings were also taken from the ECOPOP website.

[3] Malthus, Thomas, 1826. Of the Checks to Population in Switzerland in Of the Checks to Population in the different states of Modern Europe in An Essay on the Principle of Population, Book II 6th edition, Library of Economics and Liberty, http://www.econlib.org/library/Malthus/malPlong7.html#II.I.9 cited in S.M. Newman, Demography, Territory, Law: The Rules of Animal and Human Populations, Countershock Press, Australia, 2013

Malthus, the classic whipping-boy for Marxists and a poster-boy for many biological scientists, is usually given credit for his earlier work (1798) where he saw no way out of the Hobbsian destiny apart from abstinence on the part of the numerous poor. However Malthus did not stop his studies there. He did a world tour, inquiring into births, deaths, marriages and making statistical notes, published in 1826. In the extract here, he discusses European steady-state societies.

[4] Source. S.M. Newman, Demography, Territory, Law: The Rules of Animal and Human Populations, Countershock Press, Australia, 2013, pp. 68-69.

Washington

California has 157 endangered or threatened species, looming water shortages, eight of the 10 most air-polluted cities in the country and 725 metric tons of trash ₁ washing up on its coast each year.

California also has 38 million people, up 10 percent in the last decade, including 10 million immigrants. They own 32 million registered vehicles and 14 million houses. By 2050, projections show 51 million people living in the state, more than twice as many as in 1980.

Thank you, Geoff from AussieBushTrek, for e-mailing this.

In the public arena, almost no one connects these plainly visible dots.

For various reasons, linking the world's rapid population growth to its deepening environmental crisis, including climate change, is politically taboo. In the United States, Europe and Japan, there has been public hand-wringing over falling birthrates and government policies to encourage child-bearing.

But those declining birthrates mask explosive growth elsewhere in the world.

In less than a lifetime, the world population has tripled, to 7.1 billion, and continues to climb by more than 1.5 million people a week.

A consensus statement issued in May by scientists at Stanford University and signed by more than 1,000 scientists warned that "Earth is reaching a tipping point."

An array of events under way - including what scientists have identified as the sixth mass extinction in the earth's 540 million-year history - suggest that human activity already exceeds earth's capacity.

Climate change is but one of many signs of environmental stress. "The big connector is how many people are on earth," said Anthony Barnosky, a UC Berkeley integrative biologist.

The world population is expected to reach 9.6 billion by mid-century. The addition will be greater than the global population of 1950.

The United States is expected to grow from 313 million people to 400 million. Economies have expanded many times faster, vastly increasing consumption of goods and services in rich and developing countries.

"The combination of climate change and 9 billion people to me is one that is just fraught with potential catastrophes," said John Harte, a UC Berkeley ecosystem scientist.

"The evidence that humans are damaging their ecological life-support system is overwhelming," said the report by the Millennium Alliance for Humanity and the Biosphere at Stanford. "By the time today's children reach middle age, it is extremely likely that the Earth's life-support systems, critical for human prosperity and existence, will be irretrievably damaged."

California Gov. Jerry Brown had the report translated into Chinese and delivered it to Chinese President Xi Jinping in June.

A new epoch?

So complete is human domination of earth that scientists use the term "Anthropocene" to describe a new geological epoch.

The most obvious sign is climate change. People have altered the composition of the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. But other human impacts, widely discussed by scientists, seldom reach the political arena.

Residues from 100 million tons of synthetic chemical compounds produced each year are so pervasive that they commonly appear in polar bear tissues, whale blubber and the umbilical cords of babies.

Each year, humans appropriate up to 40 percent of the earth's biomass, the product of photosynthesis, earth's basic energy conversion necessary to all life.

Humans have converted more than 40 percent of the earth's land to cities or farms. Roads and structures fragment most of the rest.

Humans appropriate more than half the world's fresh water. Ancient aquifers in the world's bread baskets, including the Ogallala in the Great Plains, are being drained.

Only 2 percent of major U.S. rivers run unimpeded. California's Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta has been entirely re-engineered. The last time the Colorado River reached the Sea of Cortez was in 1998. The Nile, Indus and Ganges rivers have been reduced to a trickle.

Humans surpass nature as a source of nitrogen emissions, altering the planet's nitrogen cycle.

Footnote[s]

#fnSubj1" id="fnSubj1">1. #txtSubj1">↑ In truth, whilst the facts and statistics in the rest of the article are of great concern, 725 tonnes of waste being washed up onto the approximately 1,200 km coastline of California in 12 months seems far from excessive. Could this be a mistake or some sort of typographical error? - Ed

A few years ago I was introduced to Dr. Al Bartlett's "Arithmetic, population and energy" lecture recorded at the University of Colorado , (Boulder) U.S.A. To me, the message was so clear, engaging and logical that no-one could fail to understand it and hopefully none would fail to see the significance.

– He was saying that what may look to be ample reserves , for example, 500 years of coal still in the ground will not last anywhere near that as the demand for that resource increases with exponential population growth.

He was talking to a lecture theatre of students and I thought, "That's good. They cannot fail to understand the significance of exponential growth combined with the use of a finite resource and the implications. I read that Prof. Bartlett has given this lecture 1,600 times since 1969 http://www.albartlett.org/presentations/arithmetic_population_energy.html to average audiences of 80 people. That is 128,000 who have heard his lecture live. One of the You Tube videos of this talk has had 37,720 views. Someone in that large audience over those 4 decades must have realised from them that humanity is in real trouble over finite energy resources and an ever growing population!

Today I heard that Al Bartlett has died. There will be no more lectures to students in Universities, but we can still hear the important and clear message from Prof. Bartlett by going to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9znsuCphHUU. Believe me, you will not be bored, you should be spellbound.

This coming Saturday July 20th, 2.00 p.m. at the Annual General meeting of Sustainable Population Australia, Victorian and Tasmanian branch at the Balwyn Library meeting room, guest speaker, Dr. Bob Birrell of Monash University's, Centre for Population and Urban Research will address the facts and figures which explain "Why is immigration running at record high levels when unemployment is increasing?"

Dr. Birrell says:

"The Australian government is running a record high migration program. Recent arrivals are adding massively to Australia's workforce each year. About 100,000 have found employment in each of the past two years. This is about the same as the total annual growth in the employed workforce in Australia since 2011. As a result they are squeezing out resident workers from employment, particularly young people looking for entry level jobs. This is why the number of Australian born persons on unemployment benefits is increasing by around 50,000 a year.

"The most striking increase in the overseas born numbers is among those in Australia on temporary visas (including 457s, working holiday makers and students). The stock of these temporaries (most of whom have work rights) increased from 1.03 million in December 2010 to 1.13 million in December 2012."

President of Sustainable Population Australia, Victorian and Tasmanian branch, Jill Quirk says:

"Whilst Sustainable Population Australia evolved from concern about the environmental impacts of an ever growing population on the most arid and infertile inhabited continent, the organisation has a broader scope, aiming to contribute to public awareness of the limits of Australian population growth from ecological, social and economic viewpoints.

"Dr. Birrell's talk this Saturday will be of critical interest to all those who care not only about population impacts on the environment but also about the employment climate which confronts those not in secure employment, especially young people who have not yet had a chance to acquire much of a work history. We look forward very much to hearing Dr. Birrell's important talk and commend it especially to policy makers and journalists all of whom are welcome to attend."

Contact, for further information: Jill Quirk, President, Sustainable Population Australia, Victorian and Tasmanian branch,

0409742927

www.population.org.au

Mark O'Connor is running for the federal Australian Senate as a candidate of the Stable Population Party Australia (SPPA).

Photo source was Canberra Times, by Rohan Thomson

Mark O'Connor is running for the federal Australian Senate as a candidate of the Stable Population Party Australia (SPPA).

Mark O'Connor is well-known to candobetter.net and he is the co-author of Overloading Australia and a fierce and long-term advocate for keeping Australia's population small. He lives in Canberra, in a suburb by the same surname, and grows fruit trees from cuttings. Lately he has been specialising in fejoas. He is also an expert in tropical fish. Most of all, of course, he is an environmental poet, known for a slew of books of poetry and pronounced Australia's Olympic Poet by Bob Carr for the Year 2000 Olympics in Sydney Australia.

My favorite poem by him is this one, about God and a coral sea-garden, which has a rich scientific base:

The Beginning

God himself
having that day planted a garden
walked through it at evening and knew
that Eden was not nearly complex enough.
And he said:
"Let species swarm like solutes in a colloid.
Let there be ten thousand species of plankton
and to eat them a thousand zooplankton.
Let there be ten phyla of siphoning animals,
one phylum of finned vertebrates, from
white-tipped reef shark to long-beaked coralfish,
and to each his proper niche,
and — no Raphael, I'm not quite finished yet —
you can add seals and sea-turtles & cone-shells & penguins
(if they care) and all the good seabirds your team can devise —
oh yes, and I nearly forgot it, I want a special place
for the crabs! And now for parasites to keep
the whole system in balance, let . . ."

". . . In conclusion, I want," he said
"ten thousand mixed chains of predation —
none of your simple rabbit and coyote stuff!
This ocean shall have many mouths, many palates,
many means of ingestion. I want
a hundred ways of death, three thousand regenerations —
all in technicolor naturally. And oh yes, I nearly forgot,
we can use Eden again for the small coral cay in the center.

"So now Raphael, if you please,
just draw out and marshall these species,
and we'll plant them all out in a twelve-hectare patch."

So for five and a half days God labored
and on the seventh he donned mask and snorkel
and a pair of bright yellow flippers.

And, later, the host all peered wistfully down
through the high safety fence around Heaven
and saw God with his favorites finning slowly over the coral
in the eternal shape of a grey nurse shark,
and they saw that it was very good indeed.

You can read more about Mark on his home page.

Life is increasingly serious, it seems to me. Or is it just what I choose to watch on television or read, especially on the Internet? Quark writes about our Heath Robinson government in Victoria, of the war between cyclists and nature lovers over parkland, of factory-farming of human masses and the tedious obligation of infinite pseudo choice.

It’s not that I go looking for trouble exactly.

I have what I would call a normal concern about our environment, not only because I enjoy nature but because I think I understand its inextricable relationship and importance to us. I also think I have a normal concern about the future, about the way animals are treated and about preserving native species and even about people and their quality of life.

Who doesn’t care about at least some of these things?

The sad thing is that I can’t find any good news, anywhere on these fronts.

Everywhere I look things seem to be getting worse

Everywhere I look the situation seems to be getting worse and I am constantly confronted with images and accounts of suffering factory farm animals, homeless, doomed orangutans whose forest homes have been decimated, kangaroos being culled, and cattle tortured after an interminable journey to the other side of the planet before what must be the final real relief of expiring.

I think, to be a happy balanced person, I’m supposed to focus on other things and to appreciate the “privileged” place in history and in geography in which I find myself.

I’m supposed to thank my lucky stars that I live in the age of mass communications, especially the Internet.

I must say that I really do appreciate these things which I am using right now but, at the same time, there are so many other aspects of our contemporary world that are draining it of enjoyment.

This effect is a combination of how changes to our political, social and physical environment affect us directly and the pressures that human existence place on other creatures. I learn about these things via the very media which I have just acknowledged as a great plus.

Daily deluge of pleas to save the helpless from us

Daily, I am deluged with electronic pleas to help stop baby seals being clubbed to death, save bears from being caged for the purpose of draining bile from them, to save from logging, forests in my own state which are home to the engaging and endangered Leadbeater's possum, the Victorian state emblem.

Even if I did not look at electronic media, I would still receive through my letter box appeals for funds to help the hapless products of puppy mills or to rescue other cruelly treated malnourished domestic animals.

It is well known that laying hens are kept in tiny cages, their little feet never scratching in the earth. If this were not bad enough, the media is oozing with propaganda meant to coax people, push them, finally forcing them through price into minimal sized apartments with little or no natural light.

Factory farming the human masses

Housing for the masses is now all about minimally accommodating people rather than providing living space.

Both situations - for hens and for people - are utilitarian, functional and completely inconsiderate.

I then read and hear about scarce public parkland being appropriated for road construction. At best one could see this as a utilitarian approach about traffic and transport rather than about people and their lives, at worst a project for its own sake.

Stealing our parkland and enemy cyclists

Parkland is a luxury that can be just stolen from the people it seems. This can happen in Melbourne or Istanbul.

Whatever is happening spawns unexpected competing interests.

The gentle activity of cycling has become some sort of monster! In Melbourne cyclists want bicycle paths as commuter highways through parkland and require the sacrifice of pre-European settlement trees.

The cyclists could traverse the parkland in a meandering fashion on the existing pathways but they want to go at top speed in order to get to work.

You see, cycling is now a mode of transport rather than a recreational activity.

Cyclists occupy the high moral and environmental ground because of their dainty carbon footprint.

This is a kind of war between the cyclists and those who want to preserve the park.

The country’s priorities now seem to be focused on our lives as real estate consumers and workers. Numbers of hours worked, house prices, GDP, company profits, are critical indicators of our competitive edge.

Are these things really life or death?

Heath Robinson government

We seem to be trapped in a very unimaginative version of a Heath Robinson machine with no detours.

Even our recreation seems to be about something organised and orchestrated from a higher power like the AFL (football) rather than our own ways of re creating ourselves. Our private activities and invented fun have literally no room in contemporary life.

Opportunities for creative play are being removed as open space diminishes and we are funneled into profit making arenas of entertainment. These opportunities are being removed as the ratio of nature to humanity decreases and access to nature diminishes, becoming less accessible in crowded, regulated, expensive cities.

Even our precious spare time is hijacked by organisations.

Things that I never used to have to make decisions about and could leave ticking away in the back ground are now items I am supposed to spend time on. I refer here especially to telcos and to energy supply.

In a nutshell, it requires quite some calculation to ascertain if one company is better value than another. This question comes up several times a week through phone calls interrupting my peace or someone at the door insisting that I go and find my last electricity account. Even after I have worked out the advantage of one over another, it will have all changed by the time I get around to working it out again and I’ll find I’ve been on the wrong plan or with the wrong company.

'Choice' - a tedious obligation

Did we ever really need this in our lives? “Choice” has become a very tedious obligation.

The Internet, smart phones, the “vibrancy” of a city growing in population at an enormous pace, Skype, Twitter, tablets: all these should make me happy.

The trouble is that I am losing what really made me happy.

Normal life increasingly criminalised

At the risk of appearing to indulge in nostalgia, our lives are far less free than they were. Big Brother is out there doing its robotic best to nab us in a hapless 100 metres of driving at 64 in a 60 zone or the parking officer is doing his level best to add to his daily quota as we tear back to our parking meters when a community meeting goes 10 minutes too long.

Even using water has become a sort of crime whereas it was once part of our lives and it was OK to hydrate both ourselves and our environment. Friends boast to one another that they never water their plants or are getting rid of their gardens. My neighbours have covered theirs in concrete slabs which will be very economical on water.

All the above symptoms impose stress and remove spontaneity and freedom. It is the effect of our governments imposing themselves on us and overcrowding us so that we are constantly banging up against the will and interests of others, the limits to resources, and being reminded us of the cost of everything, every minute of the day.

Along with the loss of fun and freedom in contemporary life, there is a burdensome overlay of the oppressive and unhelpful role that governments play in our lives. There’s a feeling of being administered, of having ideas, projects and changes to our environment imposed on us; of control of our world coming from somewhere outside ourselves.

Media release from Sustainable Population Australia (SPA); Further information: Jenny Goldie 0401 921 453
See also: Baby bonus 'scrapped' in budget in the SMH, Government scraps baby bonus in deficit budget on the ABC.

Sustainable Population Australia (SPA) today wholeheartedly welcomed the Budget decision by the Federal Government to abolish the baby bonus from March 2014.

Instead eligible families will receive increased family payments (Family Tax Benefit Schedule A) when they have a new baby.

SPA National President, Ms Jenny Goldie, says introduction of the baby bonus by the Howard Government was ostensibly to help families with the costs of having a baby. It became associated, however, with the then-Treasurer Peter Costello’s call to increase the birth rate (“One for Mum, one for Dad and one for the country.”)

“This was probably the most unwise thing Costello ever said,” says Ms Goldie. “The last thing this country needs is a boost to its population. Our annual natural increase of over 150,000 is on top of excessive immigration levels (net migration 228,000 to September 2012).

“Whether it was causation or simply correlation, after the introduction of the baby bonus, Australia’s fertility rate went from 1.7 to 2.0 before dropping back to 1.9. This places us amongst the highest of OECD countries.“

Ms Goldie says Australians have to appreciate that the country is already overpopulated.

“Most environmental indicators are going down, not least biodiversity, and our largest cities congested. Infrastructure is not keeping up with population growth so services are declining.

“It is critical that we stabilise population numbers as soon as possible. Abolishing the baby bonus is a welcome first step,” Ms Goldie says.

Further information: Jenny Goldie 0401 921 453

The Greens are at the crossroads as a political party — should they focus on the wider concerns of the electorate, or should they stick to environmentalism? For instance, the humanitarian crying out for the suffering of refugees needs to be focused on what drives people to become refugees, like our engagement in unjust wars, environmental damage and over-population. Dr Peter Cock says they need to stay green. [Comment from Candobetter.net editor: Some of us here think the Greens need to rebrand if they don't become green, but we appreciate the discussion in this article, which targets our concerns.]

Article by Dr Peter Cock. Originally published at Independent Australia, posted by admin on 26 April, 2013

POLITICAL DISCOURSE in Australia is dominated by jobs, deficits, refugees and living costs — and how these affect individuals. To tackle them well is to win an election. So, if the Greens want to remain relevant in Australian politics, should they respond to the issues that get media attention?

They seem to think so, having recently announced a “softening” of policies in preparation for the election. It’s the wrong course for the party.

The Greens need to accept their role as an irritating and educating core that challenges the political centre. To do so, they need to remain dedicated to applying a “green lens” to political issues and focus on educating the electorate about the impact of any proposed policies on our ecology.

The most difficult task is putting habitat before species and species before individuals. This difficulty is multiplied when the species in question isn’t our own.

Environmentalism has mobilised concern for human injustice and redirected it to other species. Live sheep trade is a good example. We are only just making connections between the well-being of other species and ourselves.

After forty years of environmentalism, “green” issues surround us. However, the focus has been to protect environmental victims. This has limited environmental advocates’ ability to challenge the values and social structures that create them.

The challenge of environmentalism is to educate citizens about deeper, harder issues and then turn that into support. Most donor and public resources help alleviate the suffering of human individuals and groups. There is little left for habitats, other species or future generations. While important, focusing on individuals limits our ability to create real change.

When environmentalism enters mainstream politics in the form of the Greens, the “green lens” of public advocacy is too caught up in humanitarian actions without reference to ecological impacts. For example, Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young’s focus is on immigration and refugees as a substrate of the primary question of a sustainable population.

Need to focus on unjust wars that drive refugees

The humanitarian crying out for the suffering of refugees needs to be focused on what drives people to become refugees, like our engagement in unjust wars, environmental damage and over-population.

The environmentalist aspiration is to make all political parties “greener” and not to claim it as their own. There are many shades of green, yet the Greens need to be accountable to ecological criteria as the basis for the assessment of all policies. The Greens’ point of difference as a party should be to make green criteria central to policy, whether this be gay marriage, a wealth tax, or hunting feral animals in national parks.

The natural care for our own species can be the main vehicle through which environmentalists promote caring about other species and shared habitats. If they are to make the few supporters into the many, they have to confront their attachments and lead them to connections between their individual interests, our species, and the role of other species in sustaining life.

Forty years of environmentalism have revealed a politics embedded in using accumulated resources to suppress change. However, there is increasing awareness that our relations with the earth are at a critical junction. While small groups are creating a transformative possibility, many despair.

Many people still may not grasp the arguments made by environment activists — that to have a chance of avoiding catastrophe, the human race needs to end its perceived war against nature and embrace change. The true challenge of environmentalism is to gain wide acknowledgement of the possibility for societal transformation and then achieve it, rather than just blaming particular groups or corporations.

As important as grassroots efforts, change at the top of green politics is necessary. Applying a “green lens” to policy is part of this. It has the potential to shape not only political discourse, but also to encourage environmental thinking in the general population. Doing so, they can be a source of hope and energy for transformation.

The Greens would be remiss to abandon their part in guiding the change, and inspiring the next wave of ecowarriors to bring it to fruition.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License

"This submission does not follow the suggested response questions but sets out to make comment upon what we see as the necessary strategic planning issues for the future of Melbourne... In our previous submissions on planning, BRAG has pushed for a federal population policy that limits immigration to more sustainable levels like we used to have in the 80’s and 90’s of around the 70,000 to 80,000 p.a. mark and we have not moved away from that stance. The first step in any planning is to have a population policy that is sustainable otherwise planning policy will continue to fail....we believe that the general planning powers must be with local councils who better understand their municipalities and those who live in them. Centralization leads to power and power leads to corruption and this is one of the issues we are now facing with developer donations being used to corrupt decision-making." You may not agree with everything, but it's a pretty impressive democracy submission.

Melbourne Metropolitan Planning Strategy Submission from the Boroondara Residents’ Action Group (BRAG)

The Boroondara Residents’ Action Group has a current membership of over 500, mainly residents and small business operators in Boroondara. BRAG also receives strong support from the general residents of Boroondara.

BRAG is registered under the Associations Incorporation Act 1981 N0 A0054624J
P. O. Box 1034 Camberwell Vic. 3124 www.brag.asn.au [email protected]

Introduction

The Boroondara Residents’ Action Group has been lobbying for a new planning strategy to replace Melbourne 2030 and Melbourne@5million since before the last state election but the discussion paper is a big disappointment because it provides little in setting a strategic direction or evaluated options.

Therefore this submission does not follow the suggested response questions but sets out to make comment upon what we see as the necessary strategic planning issues for the future of Melbourne. Any planning for the future must be accepted by key interest groups but most importantly by the residents and general citizens of Melbourne. Otherwise it will fail, just as M2030 did, because the residents and general public were not really consulted so they had no ownership of M2030 or M@5Million.

The Ministerial Advisory Committee has indicated that we must move away from regulation as the primary means of achieving outcomes, which is very concerning, as that would leave planning and construction in the hands of developers who would act in their own interests and not in the interests of the end users, the residents of Melbourne.

The Committee has listed some principles including a Polycentric city linked to regional cities which could be developed further to provide a more realistic planning direction but the Committee has accepted that Melbourne’s population will continue to grow without any indication that it is the escalating growth that is part of the problems we are now facing, overloaded infrastructure, unacceptable housing densification, water and power issues, public transport issues, traffic issues, etc.

In our previous submissions on planning, BRAG has pushed for a federal population policy that limits immigration to more sustainable levels like we used to have in the 80’s and 90’s of around the 70,000 to 80,000 p.a. mark and we have not moved away from that stance. The first step in any planning is to have a population policy that is sustainable otherwise planning policy will continue to fail.

We recommend that the principles set out in *Kelvin Thomson’s 14 point plan are seriously considered and we understand that this is really a federal issue but unless the state governments start a push to review the current policies nothing will change.
( *Kelvin Thomson is the Federal Member for Wills and a copy of his 14 point plan is attached)

Recommendations For a Planning Policy for Melbourne

One of the key issues that residents are concerned with is protection

- for Melbourne’s leafy green suburbs and the increasing amount of opportunistic development that is changing the character of their tree-lined streets. Therefore any plan must contain mandatory protection of neighbourhood character and mandatory height controls set by the local councils after consultation with their local residents.

- Any proposed new suburb in future must first have the necessary infrastructure before any housing is built including roads, drainage, sewerage, water and power, shopping centre, social amenities and transport links.

- A detailed plan to upgrade existing public transport to meet immediate and future needs in Melbourne including a rail link to the eastern suburbs and to existing and any new airports

- A detailed plan to capture and recycle suburban rainwater and build local water storage and distribution capabilities.

- Plan for reducing our dependency upon building houses to keep the economy going and introduction of hi-tech industries and intellectual products – bring back the “clever country concept”.

- Decentralization should be one of the main objectives of any planning policy. In Victoria there are opportunities to create regional cities with one initially in the east of the state where there are resources for power and water and one in the west where there are several suitable sites such as Hamilton or Warrnambool.

- We believe there should also be a plan to develop in the future another major city in Victoria of about 1 million ( or more) and, because Portland has the potential to develop a natural harbour, it should be investigated now as a possible site.

Note : regionalization, with good planning by establishing smaller cities using cheaper land tax and other exemptions, can be surprisingly inexpensive and would strike at the cause of our current urban problems. First build the infrastructure then the people will follow. Fast trains linking to Melbourne will be essential.

- There have been many suggestions, mainly from those in the planning profession, to centralize planning. However we believe that the general planning powers must be with local councils who better understand their municipalities and those who live in them. Centralization leads to power and power leads to corruption and this is one of the issues we are now facing with developer donations being used to corrupt decision-making.

- It will be essential that VCAT be returned to be an appeal body on planning issues ( partly because tribunal members are generally planners or architects who’s professions rely upon the development industry for their income and their decisions continually go against councils and resident objectors). VCAT should only be able to adjudicate on whether or not council has made its decision properly based on its own and government regulations and procedures, VCAT should not be able to act as an “Authorized Authority”. This would return some sanity to issuing planning permits.

- Currently planning permits can be rolled over for a further period and are often traded on sale of the property, which places a value on the permit and makes the property more easily tradeable. Very often large profits are made by such trading. This is undesirable and should be stopped.

Finally

Currently planning has been ad hoc and continually changing depending upon the government of the day. This will be the sixth strategic plan for Melbourne in the last 25 years plus many minor planning changes which does nothing for certainty. (That means there are real changes about very four years).

Over this period public consultation has been token and inadequate resulting in planning decisions being heavily criticized by the public. We note that members of the Ministerial Advisory Committee consulted with many who were listed at the back of the discussion paper “Melbourne, Let’s talk about the future” but not one resident or resident group. This is damning but not surprising because that is how it has always been.

It looks to us that nothing has changed. The professionals seem to be saying “we know best” but do they? We don’t think so for in all that time they still haven’t got it right.

Jack Roach
President Boroondara Residents’ Action Group.

In Summary.
Any planning policy must contain pointers to the following :-

- A plan made in concert with the federal government for developing a sensible population policy.
(To continue to support population growth in our cities makes no sense when we don’t have enough water, power, public transport or adequate health systems, police, etc to cope with the current population numbers).

- A similar plan made in concert with the federal government for a workable policy on climate change & environmental issues in conjunction with the population policy
- Ensure honest and genuine community consultation processes in developing a new metro strategy. ( Didn’t happen for M2030 or M@5Million).

As well as developing a new planning blueprint for Melbourne it is essential for consultation on a new planning blueprint for coastal areas and consultation on a new planning blueprint for country areas

- Regionalization policy which should include broadband rollout for home office connection and improved train and fast train services.
- A plan for a future airport to service the eastern growth corridor and the Mornington Peninsular.
- Remove dependency upon development as the only way to keep the economy going.(Strengthen manufacturing base toward hi tech. industries and intellectual products. Bring back the “Clever Country” concept).
- Scrap Melbourne 2030. and Melbourne@5million.
- Positively protect heritage.
- Protect suburban residential from opportunistic infill development Return planning power to Councils. (Centralized planning V each council having its own say must be in balance). Melbourne is like a giant tapestry with each area having its own character with different requirements and different demographics. Ensure that the Minister for Planning’s plan for new residential zones is enacted to protect the residential suburbs from opportunistic development through his Neighbourhood Character policies.

- Retain third party rights - to be notified, object & appeal.
- Councils to set and control zones in their own municipality.
- Councils to set height controls.
- Councils to identify where any development should occur
- Review Urban Growth Boundaries to ensure they are permanent
- Convert VCAT to an appeal body only.
- Restrict VCAT from acting as a planning authority.
- Limit areas for high-rise development.
- Provide positive plan for protecting public land and open space.
- Provide guidelines for better designed student accommodation complexes that blend with existing residential areas & amenity rather than the current future ghettos that overpower the local area especially in university precincts.

Other suggestions that are not directly related but must be included in policy:

- A Corruption Commission that has the real power to work properly.
- No Political donations (for access and/or favours – especially from developers).
- The role of paid lobbyists must be removed.

Kelvin Thomson’s 14 point plan.
Condensed from a recent speech made to the Malvern East Group.

A lot of people have agreed with me that a population of 36 million is not a good thing for Australia - opinion polls show 2 out of 3 think it is a bad idea. People don’t want it. But a lot of people think it is inevitable, that there is nothing we can do about it. This is simply not true. As I said earlier, the population number we end up with depends on our net overseas migration numbers.

So to show there is an alternative, in November 2009 I released a plan for population reform, a plan to stabilise Australia’s population :

- Stabilise Australia’s population at 26 million by cutting the net overseas migration program to 70,000 p.a.
- Cut the skilled migration program to 25,000 p.a.
- Hold the family reunion program at 50,000 p.a.
- Increase the refugee program from 13,500 to 20,000 per annum.
- Alter the refugee criteria to include provision for genuine climate refugees.
- The revised number of annual permanent arrivals from these programs would be 95,000 – 50,000 family reunion plus 25,000 skilled plus 20,000refugees. Two more factors need to be considered, the number departing permanently from Australia and the number of people arriving permanently from New Zealand. To reach a net overseas annual migration target of 70,000, the number of automatic places available for New Zealanders needs to be restricted to the number of departures from Australia over and above 25,000.
- Reduce temporary migration to Australia by restricting sub class 457 temporary entry visas to medical and health related and professional engineering occupations.
- Require overseas students to return to their country of origin and complete a 2 year cooling off period before being eligible to apply for permanent residence.
- Abolish the baby bonus.
- Restrict large family supplement and Family tax benefit A for third and subsequent children to those presently receiving them.
- Dedicate the savings from the baby bonus and reduced expenditure on family payments fro 3rd and subsequent children towards increased investment in domestic skills and training through universities and TAFE
- the final 3 points go to increasing aid to the U.N. and using aid budget to educating girls for better family planning and putting overpopulation on the agenda for International Climate Change talks.

Twenty thirteen awaits us tomorrow. What is reasonable to expect of the year which some may see as being an unlucky number? Should we reach for the sky or just try to maintain business as usual?

Twenty thirteen, where have you been?
At midnight, where shall we meet you?
We’ve known you were there, so far and so fair
Unlucky some say. It’s the number.

But is it just numerals that signify doom?
Or is it the way we are living?
The Earth’s still benign; to me it’s a sign
That something is there that’s worth saving.

Twenty thirteen, there’s nothing you’ve seen
You’re just waiting to open the curtain.
We’ve all been here just part of the scene
In twenty twelve, stuff happened, that’s certain.

For most of this year we did not live in fear
But we addled our heads with vexation.
Our Earth’s getting hotter, this seems to be clear
It’s really much worse than taxation.

But the little we do keeps us right on and true
Towards the temperature that’s untenable!
What should we do as we open the flue?
And fill up all our convertibles?

Twenty thirteen, didn’t think I would see,
A year so far into the future!
How would we explain all the chaos and shame?
To a person long dead at this juncture?

If things were bad in eighty four
We were losing species by the score
2012 was worse with little hope
Population's up, should we blame the Pope?

The Arab Spring has done its thing
With tensions and power struggles arising
Was it all good? Did it do what it should?
Or is there something that it’s disguising?

I wonder anew at all the “to do”
Europe’s Germany much like a strict father
What worries me most is not burning the toast
But the economia of “Ellatha” *.

We stand upon the Fiscal Cliff
Marionettes precariously dangling
What strings to pull to mend the rift
caused by money printing and wrangling?

But that’s not all, we’ve hit the wall
What will be left, what’ll be the score?
Twenty thirteen, it’s too much to ask of you
To fix it all is too big a task for you!

Twenty thirteen, it’s too much to explain,
But you know what I mean, to you, it’s plain
The things to be fixed are so fundamental
And it’s all strung together, it’s elemental.

* Ellatha is Greek for Greece

Environmental activism can be all consuming and exhausting. Is it worth making the effort?

In our overpopulated world and fast growing cities of Australia there are too many human forces stirring up the environment to manipulate it in the name of development and growth . Because of the vast amounts of energy and finance available to those who would sacrifice nature for development, the changes that are wrought on the environment can be huge with very far reaching effects.

Citizens' needs, rights and obligations

What do we do as ordinary citizens? Do we simply watch as much loved countryside goes under the bull dozer for development? Do we let it pass that wildlife is massacred on the ever expanding network of roads, each new one cutting across the habitat of other species? Do we cruise by acceptingly in the back seat of the car noting changes to our surroundings that we never asked for and do not want? Do we sit down resignedly and turn on the television instead of protesting when a decision is made to build 8 storeys just down the road where there should really be an public open space in our quiet suburban street? Perhaps the proposed edifice doesn’t overshadow our back yard directly, but it deeply affects our neighbours. Is it our concern? In Melbourne these days there are very few victories for those who don’t want constant changes to our surroundings. Most changes that occur remove open space and amenity and generally pull nature asunder. The trend is the creation of increasingly urban environments where we could perhaps forget that nature exists outside some really good photos on our IPads. We who are adults now know that nature exists because we have experienced it. It used to co-exist with us in the city. But the next generation will not have this familiarity and will not be as acutely aware as their surroundings are further and further modified by development. An 8 storey building becomes a 20 storey building. This is not as dramatic as losing open space to any sort of construction. Their fight reflex will be extremely blunted.

Burn-out

One of the problems with the decision as to whether to act or not is that communities and individuals can be run ragged and burnt out with protest efforts. Those who want to steal our natural environment have the means- political and financial in spades to do this. The scale is enormous and the resources of the rest of us are comparatively small.

The struggle

From my experience, people vary in the attitudes they choose to take. Many I know are torn between wanting to enjoy their lives and making the effort to try to save what they love and appreciate about their local or the larger environment. If they become involved in protests they find that their lives are taken over with meetings, submission writing and rallies to preserve the status quo or mitigate the damage of development to the environment. After a while, especially after a series of failures, the rewards of contacts made through community efforts wear thin and they feel cheated of their spare time. This leads to a paradox – “My life is being taken over trying to put out spot the fires of environmental destruction around me but can I really get on with what would have been my life whilst my environment is being torn apart?” Priorities then seemingly cascade from the dilemma. I will put my time and money into this battle that has a small chance but there is another more far reaching one which we are even less likely to win but which has wider repercussions.

Do we really have a choice?

But do we really have a choice in whether to act or not? Can we afford to live in a bubble containing the elements in our lives which we appear to be able to control and largely ignoring the rest? To take the position that there is nothing I can do to change anything, is to assume powerlessness. I know people who assume this position. Do they do it just in order to take a breather from the constant war? Maybe this is something one can do with some degree of comfort if the battle ground seems sufficiently distant. But what if the destruction moves right next door or across the road?

It is really just a matter time. You may or may not be lucky with how close to your life it comes to you before you move or die and of course not all environmental damage needs to be happening where you live to affect you, anyway.

Ultimately, not to act is really to have a wager that the environment will manage to out last us.

NEW POPULATION BOOK HOLDS SOLUTIONS TO HABITAT DEPLETION: Sheila Newman has just published new theory in a new book, Demography, Territory & Law: The Rules of Animal and Human Populations (see link). Two chapters are on multi-species demography, the rest apply the theory to non-industrial societies and the author comes up with a completely new test for the collapse model of Easter Island, which will stun those who thought they knew all about it. Forensic biologist, Hans Brunner writes of it: "This book takes us to a completely new paradigm in multiple species population science. It shows how little we understand, and how much we need to know, of the sexual reactions when closed colonies with an orderly reproduction system are destroyed, be it people or animals."

Policy Objective: a) To ensure our continent’s long-term sustainability, we aim to first stabilise then reduce Australia’s population to an ecologically sustainable level... Inside read the Democrats' new population policy for Australia and a comment from the Senior Deputy National President, Darren Churchill.

In response to my article, "Growth lobby finally devours Australian Democrats?" here: Darren Churchill, Senior Deputy National President, Australian Democrats, wrote: "Your article asks, "Whatever happened to the Democrats' Population Policy?" Well, after some years without a proper population policy (although population was still referred to in our Immigration and Environment Policies and our party objectives) the Australian Democrats balloted a new Population Policy in May this year. it has been hailed by many as our "best Population Policy ever!" See it here: http://www.democrats.org.au/policies/pdf/Population.pdf."

I'll allow your readers to make their own assessment of the connection of our strongly balloted policy and the stories of the last couple of days."

Here it is below, to save readers looking up the pdf:

Australian Democrats Population Policy

THE ISSUE

1. As a consequence of human impacts, Australia faces serious environmental degradation and resource constraints which continue to be exacerbated by a growing population, increased per capita consumption and inefficiencies.
2. Population growth reduces our ability to preserve our unique biodiversity and places strains on our economy, infrastructure and housing supply.
3. A growing population puts more pressure on us to find new ways of ‘keeping up’ with material demands that are one of the highest per capita in the world.
4. Population growth does not necessarily create wealth, despite the claims of the development lobby, and it certainly does not improve national well-being.

POLICY OBJECTIVES

a) To ensure our continent’s long-term sustainability, we aim to first stabilise then reduce Australia’s population to an ecologically sustainable level.
b) To restrain population growth in a way that is equitable to all, is in keeping with the environment’s capacity to sustain human numbers and that acknowledges Australia’s international human rights obligations.
c) To support families in making decisions about family size so that additional stresses are not placed on our unique environment, long-term agricultural productivity or infrastructure.
POLICY ELEMENTS

The Australian Democrats will work towards:

i. Creating a formalised system whereby immigration intakes are determined as a result of trends in key indicators of sustainability.
ii. Decoupling the business visa class immigration programme from market demand, and instead introducing an annual quota system congruent with key indicators of sustainability (when considered with Policy Element iii).
iii. Doubling the numbers in our humanitarian visa class.
iv. Expanding programmes promoting gender equality, empowerment and opportunities for women, and welfare services so that the aged are less reliant on their dependents to financially support them, both at home and in our international development programmes.
v. Expanding programmes that make all family planning options cheaper and more accessible to anyone who may choose them.
vi. Expanding programmes that provide retraining and support the 1.5 million long-term underemployed, unemployed and disadvantaged back into the workforce.
vii. Limiting baby bonus/family leave provisions and diverting the resources to education, family planning and foreign aid.

Official Australian Democrats Policy – as balloted 25 May 2012
Humanity ? Sustainability ? Prosperity ? Democracy Page 1 of 1
Authorised by: Darren Churchill, 29 Brunswick Circuit, Kaleen, ACT, 2617

A left-wing environmentalist group opposed to all forms of racism and xenophobia has been able to get a national immigration referendum on the ballot in Switzerland.

Philippe Roch (R) from the Ecopop group.

The Environment and Population Association, or Ecopop group, successfully argued that overpopulation from massive immigration is putting undue pressure on Switzerland’s finite natural resources.

“The pressure on land, nature and the countryside is considerable, and quality of life is continuously deteriorating due to a lack of living space,” Ecopop member Philippe Roch told the BBC.

Roch is also a former director of Switzerland’s Federal Environment Office.

The group wants annual population growth through immigration capped at 0.2% and a tenth of foreign aid to be used for birth control measures abroad.

Ecopop members gathering signatures

Direct democratic action a right in Switzerland with referenda

More than 120,700 certified signatures, far above the minimum 100,000, were gathered to get the referendum on the ballot on November 2. Although no date for the vote has been set yet, should the initiative clear other administrative and legal hurdles, it will likely take place in 2015. ( For more on how Swiss direct democracy works and why this system would be desirable in Australia, see
"You can help bring Direct Democracy to Australia.")

Population numbers in Switzerland

Switzerland’s population has risen by some 15-percent since 1990. It currently has a population of eight million, with a quarter of them being foreigners.

“Switzerland currently has one of the densest populations on the planet, with 480 inhabitants per square kilometre in ‘Mittelland’,” or central Switzerland, Ecopop leader Andreas Thommen told AFP, insisting “this development is not at all sustainable in the long-term.”

The Swiss government re-imposed immigration limits on the so-called “A8? EU nations – Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia - last April. After the 2,000-a-year cap expired in 2011, numbers from those countries exploded to 6,000. Many from the relatively-poor countries are attracted to Switzerland due to its low unemployment rate, which is currently 2.9-percent.

Ecopop logo

Switzerland’s population has is 3.0-percent more now than it was in November 2011, due completely to immigration.

The right-wing Swiss People’s Party has also been able to get an immigration referendum on the ballot.

Ecopop was founded in 1971, with a mission of protecting Founded in 1971, Ecopop says its mission is to protect the environment by restricting immigration and slowing down population growth.

Is the Department of Planning in the Victorian State government vital to our lives or is it just part of endless population growth ? The Planning Department operates with a seemingly remarkable ignorance of the realities of resource (especially oil) depletion, some apprehension of climate change, scant reference to the environment, and no mention of creatures other than humans. Something funny's going on.

Self-perpetuating planning

A friend and I recently were discussing disconsolately the current Victorian State Minister for Planning’s zone reforms and the department’s Metro Planning document "Melbourne, Let’s talk about the future." The purpose of both seem to be to facilitate more development, to make life easier for developers and to remove obstacles. I maintained that the more development that is allowed, the more disruptive the activities will be and the less certainty residents of Melbourne will have of the continuing amenity of their surroundings. Au contraire, they will live with the certainty that their amenity will decline.

My friend tends not to be rebellious but, like a lot of people, can see that there are powers behind the scenes at work in our lives. She came out very firmly saying, “Well you’ve got to have planning, other wise you will end up with a hotch-potch of development." The more adamant she was about this, the more I wondered if what she said was indeed true.

Planning in its current form seems to be all about accommodating population growth. It is about more and more human activities, buildings, roads, bridges houses. But does planning need to be exclusively about more of us and more of what we do, continually modifying our natural environment and pushing out other species?

Planning without growth

What would our Department of Planning do if growth was slow or non existent? Would the planning Department be able to justify its existence? What sort of changes would then need to be planned for? There could be changes in the age structure of the population which might require different services. But are these the domain of the planning department? Couldn’t the Department of Human Services take care of this? Then there are changes to the types of energy sources that must be provided. Energy is privatized in Victoria but the Department of Primary industry now has the role of overseeing energy distribution and invests in new technologies (according to its website).

Because of past and present population growth, Victoria and all of Australia is way behind with infrastructure provision, so the Planning Department could put their minds to this and, for the first time in our lives, we might be adequately provided for in this respect. Or could an ‘Infrastructure department” take care of that? With a stable or near stable population, houses would still need to be built for a time as there are not enough roofs to cover the heads of the current population. Could the Planning department focus on that? Or would housing be best in the hands of the Department of Human Services? It is after all a basic human need. It would not make a terribly impressive glossy coloured document, but the homeless would be impressed.

Self-important planners

With rapid population growth as we have suffered for the last decade, which of the State government ministers gets the most press attention? I think it is the Planning Minster. This attention is not a compliment to him nor to his predecessor though. They both hit the news because development decisions are controversial and permanent in nature with a few winners and many more losers.

With a stable or very slowly growing population, planning would no longer be “famous” as it is now in Victoria. Would it even be necessary as a separate entity?

Those in power need to look to the future because they make decisions that endure long term. The Planning department seems to respond to the greed and desires of the growth lobby by facilitating growth. With superficial buzzwords and motherhood statements in the document “Melbourne, let’s talk about the future,” the Planning department foreshadows a real shock for residents of regional towns such as Geelong and Ballarat. With the mantra, “Planning for regional city growth is vital,” the Department glibly writes off our future hope of livability by embracing growth like an adored relative and with a seemingly remarkable ignorance of the realities of resource (especially oil) depletion, some apprehension of climate change, scant reference to the environment, and no mention of creatures other than humans.

Sheila Newman has just published new theory in a new book, Demography, Territory & Law: The Rules of Animal and Human Populations (see link). Forensic biologist, Hans Brunner writes of it: "This book takes us to a completely new paradigm in multiple species population science. It shows how little we understand, and how much we need to know, of the sexual reactions when closed colonies with an orderly reproduction system are destroyed, be it people or animals." Two chapters are on multi-species demography, the rest apply the theory to non-industrial societies and the author comes up with a completely new test for the collapse model of Easter Island, which will stun those who thought they knew all about it.

“You’ve got to have Planning” (with a capital P)?

Let’s try life without it.

Kevin Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull like many other politicians seem to think of themselves as ideas men. Do we really need politicians with 'ideas' or are they a liability?

On Monday night’s Q and A on ABC1 TV, guests Kevin Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull, from the comfort of their respective non party leadership positions (and in Kevin Rudd’s case basking in the imagined glory of the way he would now be leading the country had it not been for the 2010 leadership coup) quipped and bantered between themselves throughout the show.

Especially not big population ideas

Their harmonious good humour finally evoked the question from an audience member as to whether they had considered jointly forming a new political party, to which they both agreed that they had not. Kevin Rudd even surpassed himself in wit saying that they would not be able to agree on the leadership (of such a party)! During the program I heard one of them say that he had “a few good ideas” as did the other (giving the other due credit ) In other words they are a pair of mutually self proclaimed “ideas people”. I hate to think what those ideas are and am 100% certain that they would involve a huge population for Australia. Both men are on record as advocating this.

I suppose whichever of Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee said that they of had "ideas” thought that the idea of their ideas would be enticing to the audience.

But do we really need politicians to have ideas?

It always seems to be the materialization of someone’s big idea that clashes with the needs and wants of others and with nature. Politicians should be in the business of appreciating what we have and trying to withstand assaults on it rather than contributing their own ideas to its transformation along with the myriad developer and big business ideas that we are assailed with.

Megalomaniac dreaming

Two megalomaniacs dreaming up an Australia which is nothing like the Australia we live in is not what Australia needs. The best tools for a politician are a set of guiding principles and a philosophy.

Politicians with ideas just make more work for the rest of us. We have to correct them, modify them, try to premept them and pay for their projects whether we like them or not. We have to interrupt our own lives to try to avert the disasters their ideas can become.

Overactive children

It is a bit like cleaning up after a very imaginative and active child has been in the house all morning playing in the kitchen cupboards. The unfortunate difference with politicians who have ideas and want to make their mark is that the results are more costly. We have far more difficulty controlling them and we can’t lock them in their rooms when they make a mess.

Ideas are great for those in creative fields. If an artist has an idea and chooses to put it on paper or canvas, that’s fine whether I like the idea or not. Unless I am forced to hang the picture in my house it doesn’t affect me. A friend’s ideas expressed in very bad poetry are OK unless he asks to read them aloud to me. It’s when you get into the materialization of large scale ideas such as buildings, roads, bridges and other engineering works as well as large populations that the sensitivities of the rest of us collide with the ideas person.

I’ve convinced myself. We do not need politicians with ideas. We actually need them not to have ideas, and for them to take expert independent advice for their decisions. Apart from this I would appreciate it if they could keep things running smoothly in the background so that I can get on with my life.

Community groups are making submissions on the Reformed Zones in Victoria. The government's zoning aims to increase commercial areas into residential areas in a serial manner and to intensify activity in the green wedges. The Department of Planning and Community Development has appointed a Ministerial Advisory Committee 'to review all submissions and provide advice back to the government', but the Chairman of the Committee is Geoff Underwood, who is prominent in the affairs of the Australian Population Institute (APop), which is officiated by professional developers and has the primary aim of promoting a huge population for Australia. What chances do robust submissions have with APop defining the parameters of planning in Victoria? See Planning Backlash submission inside.

The zones in question have as their stated objectives 'to better manage growth' and to 'simplify requirements' and to 'allow a broader range of activities to be considered' and 'to ensure that they still reflect the aspirations of all Victorians'.

Despite the latter objective, the zoning, if it remains as it is, will increase the intrusion of commercial areas into residential areas in a serial manner and intensify activity in the green wedges. The government has appointed the Ministerial Advisory Committee to consider all submissions, but the Chairman of the Committee has been prominent in the affairs of the Australian Population Institute from its beginning. APop is officiated by professional developers and has the aim of promoting a huge population for Australia. Along with billionaire, Richard Pratt and Steve Vizard, it played a major role in ex-Premier Steve Bracks's 2002 Melbourne Population Summit which began the current campaign to institute population growth as a norm for Australians and used sophisticated propaganda techniques to do this. See /node/594#comment-981and http://candobetter.net/node/149

The members of the committee are:

Geoff Underwood, Secretary to the Victorian Branch of APop http://www.apop.com.au/who.html

Chris Canavan, QC, represented Hotel Windsor Holdings in their bid to get an extension in time for redevelopment, which had been denied them by this [Baillieu] government.

Joanna Stanley, Communications Consultant with the particular specialty of "Advocacy and influence through media and stakeholder relations," but who is better known as the media spokesperson at Brunswick Residents Unite.

Liz Johnstone, Planner, Planning Institute of Australia and Manager, Planning Policy & Projects, Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV).

Planning Backlash's submission

Below is Planning Backlash's submission to the 'Reformed zones for Victoria' Ministerial Advisory Committee. It begins by thanking the Minister for his good work, because of his apparent receptiveness to the need for democratic input, however it then requests very challenging, but absolutely necessary, real reforms.

"Suburban - Residential

We agree with the proposed changes to residential zones as finally we can have the protections against inappropriate development that we have been advocating for since Melbourne 2030 was brought in and forced onto us by the previous government, in spite of our objections. The Residential Zones are excellent and we thank the Minister of Planning for his courage bringing these in, no doubt against the wishes of the DPCD.

However there are a number of points requiring amendment and the Minister has heard us voicing our concerns and has said he is open to change and is waiting for the report of the Review Committee. Our agreement to the whole zone concept is dependent on these amendments, because if these are excluded, the advantages would be seriously compromised.

List of Amendments that we request

1. The Minister will scrap the ‘within 100 metre’ of a commercial zone to prevent commercial creep into residential zones. This can in effect double the business area and has unwanted implications.

2. The Activity Centres will be Principal and Major also central, and must have fixed boundaries, and not extending out 400 metres.

3. Neighbourhood Activity Centres will be just local shopping strips.

4. There will be no population targets.

5. There will be no reduction in residents right to object and appeal.

6. Maximum heights must apply to all buildings in the zone.

7. The only uses not requiring permits in residential zones will be those not requiring permits now. Everything else requires a permit and residents retain the right to object. Current prohibitions must be retained with no dilution of present conditions. Rather, enhance the zones to provide the tools to enable the protection of neighbourhood character.

8. The Council working with residents can say where and how big the residential zones will be and the Minister will approve and the DPCD will not interfere.

9. If the Council wants mandatory heights the Minister will give it and the DPCD will not interfere.

10. No offices and shops as of right in the Residential Growth Zone (RGZ) or the General Residential Zone (GRZ).

11. No food and drink premises as of right in RGZ.

12. No medical centres as of right in RGZ, GRZ or Neighbourhood Residential Zone (NRZ).

13. No place of worship as of right in any residential zones.

14. No changes in size of land where houses can be built without a permit.

15. No to nine metre building heights in NRZ areas as these areas are predominantly one and two storey houses, or in GRZ where it conflicts with the Neighbourhood Character.

16. Neighbourhood character must be considered and this could mean in areas of predominantly single story detached housing that ResCode is varied to suit neighbourhood character, allowing prohibition of boundary to boundary dwellings

17. Height limits must apply to all buildings and not just residential. "

NEW POPULATION BOOK HOLDS SOLUTIONS TO OVERPOPULATION & HABITAT DEPLETION: Sheila Newman has just published new theory in a new book, Demography, Territory & Law: The Rules of Animal and Human Populations (see link). Two chapters are on multi-species demography, the rest apply the theory to non-industrial societies and the author comes up with a completely new test for the collapse model of Easter Island, which will stun those who thought they knew all about it. Forensic biologist, Hans Brunner writes of it: "This book takes us to a completely new paradigm in multiple species population science. It shows how little we understand, and how much we need to know, of the sexual reactions when closed colonies with an orderly reproduction system are destroyed, be it people or animals."

Canada is at the mercy of ruthless growth-merchants, just like Australia. Until recently, however, counter-growthism Canadians seemed to be almost totally unrepresented in their local, provincial and national press. Candobetter Free Press was therefore interested when news came our way of an exchange between growthists and counter-growthists on the British Columbian island of North Saanich. Another counter-growthist writer, Tim Murray, also lives on an island in British Columbia - Quadra. He often complains about the prevalence of growth politics there in a general aura of Greenwash and the lack of representation of other ideas in the local and national press.

North Saanich is located on the Saanich Peninsula, approximately 25 kilometres north of Victoria, British Columbia on southern Vancouver Island. The District is surrounded on three sides by 40 kilometres of ocean shoreline, and is comprised of rural/residential areas, and a large agricultural base. It has an international Airport (Victoria International Airport) and a ferry terminal (Swartz Bay Ferry Terminal).

Calls for 'more housing'

Recently a resident there wrote in to the local paper, The Times Colonist, calling for more housing to be built to accommodate employees of local businesses. The theme was 'more growth needed'. The writer, J.A. Tomminen, anticipated objections. (http://www.timescolonist.com/Housing+needed+North+Saanich/7481260/story.html#ixzz2B1jky1u1) He dismissed environmental concerns in advance with a questionable assurance that what he was proposing would not destroy "the ambience" of North Saanich. I say, 'questionable' because how the hell can he guarantee anything of the sort? And, when the natural environment is gone and Saanich is overpopulated, how do we go back and, will Mr Tomminem pay damages to all the original inhabitants? I think not. So what is his word worth?

What he actually wrote was: "We can create a vibrant community without destroying the ambiance of North Saanich."

Most environmentalist bulldust detectors would start beeping at the word 'vibrant', because it is a growth industry buzz-word for uncomfortably high population density, usually associated with high rates of overseas immigration. For this reason alone I recently screened-out two Australian local election contenders, who used the word in their election material.

"Ambience" is a plastic substitute word for 'environment' and it tends to include bright lights, loud drunks, gentrified suburbs, yuppie venues, choking fumes, increased traffic, violence, and higher rates and taxes. Ambience means the synthetic environment. "Ambience" has no time for natural environment, local flora and fauna, stable populations, low land costs, home orchards and self-sufficiency.

Vibrancy and ambience together with 'more housing', 'progress', 'moving forward' and other growth lexicon, are all about a desperate raking in of dough, faster and faster, in any way possible. Whilst one recognises that the harsh world we live in pushes more and more people to scrape a living by pushing others around and doing stuff they would not choose to do, anyone who can still draw the line in the sand, needs to stand up for quality of life, democracy, natural environment and honesty.

Short term thinking

On September the 24th, 2011, Allan Tominem and Lucy Tominem (who had then only lived in North Saanich for four years) signed a letter to the council encouraging it to support the idea of an industrial park, and questioning the economic viability of having so many farms. The argument was largely based on the idea that the community could not remain as it was because it cannot provide jobs for people of all ages.

The fact that in the past it was not necessary for farms to be highly productive, nor for farmers to make a profit margin so high that it would finance other industries is overlooked in such discussions. The fact that the growth economy is unsustainable and leaves big populations high and dry when bubbles burst is not addressed.

It actually sounds as if North Saanich is still capable of providing a self-sufficent economy - just not a growth economy.

America, Canada, Australia, and most of the Anglophone countries are scraping around for a living in a declining growth economy of which the symptoms are nomadic movement of people from dying suburbs in search of work. Unfortunately the real-estate bubbles that have caused international debt have encouraged a delusional view that high turnovers and big profit margins are the norm. But the real-estate economy is parasitic and only lasts for as long as it can milk established wealth by developing land cheaply and buying and selling land and buildings to people on credit who must then find work to service their debts where no long-term work exists.

Long-term thinking

Responding to the Tominem's attempts to drive infrastructure expansion in North Saanich, Diane McNally wrote in the Victoria Times Colonist, that it is time to put limits on the island's growth. McNally is a member of the Healthy Saanich Advisory Committee and the School Board.

On 30 October, she wrote, "There are limits to growth. The fact that we live on an island makes our area an excellent laboratory for the concept." She asked, "What future are development-approving "pro-future" fans envisioning? What is the vision for North Saanich and Saanich Peninsula? What is the vision for the Capital Regional District and the South Island?"

She criticised the promotion of "growth" as "fresh and new", pointing to how it is really the artificial preservation of a superceded economic system that uses up ecosystems. When would the growthists in Saanich "address a limit to population increase on this island?" she asked.

"It's past time time to take "degrowth" seriously, a concept first expressed by ecological economist Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen in 1971 in reference to the ecological limits to growth as it relates to the industrial economic growth model. I applaud supporters of planned downscaling of production and consumption: they are the real "pro-future" supporters, who think far enough ahead to consider long-term ecosystem and human survival."

Read more: http://www.timescolonist.com/time+limits+Island+growth/7474929/story.html#ixzz2AxPGD5iB

Let us hope that environmental and economic thinkers in North Saanich support Ms McNally and the long-term future of their island which hosts green forests, wildlife and sustainable farms, in an encroaching sea of Canadian concrete and growthist ideology. Why would any community throw such uniqueness away? The answer is, of course, that communities don't; it is bad government that sells them out.

Dr Graeme Pearman's speech on "Climate Change Issues" is now available.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics reports the highest population growth rate since 2009. An 18 per cent increase in annual net overseas migration to 197,200 is responsible for the rise. Australia is entering a period of uncertainty for which we will be better prepared if we do not have to support ever more people - native born or immigrants. -- Sustainable Population Australia (SPA)

Australia's population growth getting out of control

The latest figures that show Australia’s growth rate has risen to 1.5 per cent are alarming, according to Sustainable Population Australia (SPA).

The Australian Bureau of Statistics reports this is the highest growth rate since 2009. An 18 per cent increase in annual net overseas migration to 197,200 is responsible for the rise.

SPA National Vice-President, Dr John Coulter, says, irrespective of what Prime Minister Gillard once said, we are indeed hurtling down the track towards a big population.

Socially, environmentally and economically beyond the pale

“If we continue with a 1.5 per cent national growth rate, Australia will have doubled its population to 45 million by 2060,” says Dr Coulter. “This is totally untenable in environmental, social and economic terms.

“We are facing the twin challenges of climate change and peak conventional oil,” he says. “The latter will mean a possible doubling in oil prices by the end of the decade which will have grave implications for the economy.”

Dr Coulter says the current resources boom will not last and Australia will not be able to support even the present population, never mind a larger one.

Petroleum depletion, massive economic debt and climate change make three scary horsemen

“The US author Richard Heinberg is currently touring Australia. He warns that the end of economic growth is imminent because of the energy crisis, the debt bubble and climate change. If there is no economic growth, we certainly cannot support a growing population.

“Climate change is particularly worrying because we appear to be heading for a rise in temperature of at least 3.5o C which will wipe out much of Australian agriculture.

Dr Coulter said that Australia is entering a period of uncertainty for which we will be better prepared if we do not have to support ever more people, be they migrants or native-born.

Further information: John Coulter 08 8388 2153

Source: Press Release from SPA, www.population.org.au, 28 September 2012

NEW POPULATION BOOK: Sheila Newman has just published new theory in a new book, Demography, Territory & Law: The Rules of Animal and Human Populations (see link). Two chapters are on multi-species demography, the rest apply the theory to non-industrial societies and the author comes up with a completely new test for the collapse model of Easter Island, which will stun those who thought they knew all about it. Forensic biologist, Hans Brunner writes of it: "This book takes us to a completely new paradigm in multiple species population science. It shows how little we understand, and how much we need to know, of the sexual reactions when closed colonies with an orderly reproduction system are destroyed, be it people or animals."

__._,_.___

The Rio+20 global environment conference in June aimed to set the environment agenda for the next 20 years. The consensus was that Rio delivered virtually nothing. The pre-agreed outcome document ‘The Future We Want’ is a 49-page wish list of clichés and aspirations, but it does not address or respond to the fundamental issues needing action at all. It failed completely to acknowledge the central importance of unsustainable population growth on a planet of rapidly diminishing resources. The blog gives a one-page summary.

Motherhood statements, no family planning

The outcome document for the Rio+20 environment summit in June 2012 is 49 pages long. Some 23,917 words. Women were mentioned in less than 0.01 percent of the text. And only two of the 283 sections addressed women's needs for family planning.

Nothing concrete came out of the closing day of Rio+20, though countries have agreed in principle to work towards setting up new 'sustainable development goals', The world has agreed to a set of new ‘sustainable development goals’, says Caroline Spelman, the UK’s Environment Secretary. Her priorities will be on the sustainable development goals. Between now and September there will be a lot of preparation for a UN meeting which will try to choose which thematic areas the goals should focus on. For the UK, the three priorities would be energy, water and food. (Not population of course, the underlying driver)

The Prince of Wales in video to Rio conference 2012:

“Like a sleepwalker, we seem unable to wake up to the fact that so many of the catastrophic consequences of carrying on with “business-as-usual” are bearing down on us faster than we think, already dragging many millions more people into poverty and dangerously weakening global food, water and energy security for the future,” he said. “It is, perhaps, a trait of human nature to act only when the worst happens, but that is not a trait we can afford to rely on here. Once the worst does happen, I am afraid that this time around it will be too late to act at all.”

“The international community needed to be better informed on the facts otherwise it will be faced with “panicked responses to crises that could have been avoided.”

Mathis Wackernagel, President Global Footprint Network

Today, humanity uses the equivalent of 1.5 planets to provide the resources we use and to absorb our emissions. The majority of countries and states operate their economies without tracking the ecological resources they use against what they actually have. It is like flying a plane without a fuel gauge, and it affects everything from what you pay at the grocery store to the type of world you and your children will live in.

Dr. William E. Rees, ecological economist and former director of the University of British Columbia’s School of Community and Regional Planning in a blog June 12, 2012:

“The Use and Misuse of the Concept of Sustainability.”

“The concepts of ‘sustainable development’ and ‘sustainability’ continue to be subverted, distorted and otherwise misused in the ongoing political debates concerning global change and economic development. Society continues to be in deep denial of fundamental facts pertaining to contemporary biophysical reality and the increasingly global socio-cultural context within which the human universe is unfolding."

After Rio, we know. Governments have given up on the planet

George Monbiot, The Guardian 25 June 2012:

It is, perhaps, the greatest failure of collective leadership since the first world war. The Earth's living systems are collapsing, and the leaders of some of the most powerful nations – the United States, the UK, Germany, Russia – could not even be bothered to turn up and discuss it. Those who did attend the Earth summit in Rio last week solemnly agreed to keep stoking the destructive fires: sixteen times in their text they pledged to pursue "sustained growth", the primary cause of the biosphere's losses.

My city’s been assaulted by an enemy within
That eats away its organs and pushes out its skin.

My city’s been assaulted by an enemy within
That eats away its organs and pushes out its skin.
Its green lungs are encroached upon with buildings and cement
And trees fall prey to processes not for their benefit
The creatures that inhabit them are treated like invaders
And councils put up possum bands to help their friends, the traders.

An example of a 'possum band'. This ridiculous sort of chastity belt for trees to stop possums sheltering where they have always sheltered is a cruel device for which residents unwittingly foot the bill to councils in nice little rorts arranged with the manufacturers of these totally unnecessary devices.

Our Bay was scarred so drastically, fish habitat destroyed
Dutch shipping firms arrived here by our government employed
Our scarce tax dollars spent on something few can see
To make Port Phillip’s shallow bed a highway in the sea

Our gentle houses on their blocks with gardens so appealing
Are bought for land and then smashed down by developers unfeeling
A moonscaped block means 6 for 1 of this you can be sure,
But these are not, as one might think much needed housing for the poor
They sell for more as “garden free” than all that went before!
If I had my way, most certainly, it would be against the law

Our suburbs densify, we’re told, to save the outer land.
But it’s not saved, it’s sleight of hand, the UGB’s right out of hand
It expanded once and then again. The belt is never ending
Blocked arteries, obesity: that’s the report I’m sending.
Now living here in Melbourne is as on a building site
The noise and the disruption remind us daily of our plight
We’re trapped in growth, why won’t they see?
This is the path to take from us our precious liberty.

An ecological, rather than a business profit mindset requires thinking beyond commerce and money-making and focusing on the biological parameters that keep civilisations in existence.

Anyone who has read Malthus’ An Essay on the Principle of Population, Ehrlich’s The Population Bomb, Meadows’ et al. The Limits to Growth, Smith’s Population Crisis and most recently Lowe’s Bigger or Better? will appreciate that humanity is facing a series of converging catastrophes including fossil fuel shortages, water shortages, a food crisis, soil degradation and climate change.

The world’s population is projected by the United Nations to reach at least 9 billion by 2050. By that time the world will require twice as much the food and energy consumed today. At present resources are consumed at a rate of 1.5 times the Earth’s capacity to renew them. By about 2030 this ecological overshoot will exceed replenishment levels by 100 percent. The natural capacity of the Earth is thus being rapidly depleted.

With business-as-usual Australia’s population is likely to reach 36 million or more by 2050. This increase is occurring at a time when the converging catastrophes are beginning. The technological optimists say that Australia should first increase its population via immigration and then worry about the consequences later. This is merely a front for corporate greed: to make short-term profits while leaving the mess for future generations to clean up.

So what now? Australia continues on the path to Big Australia given existing immigration numbers and the population growth rate. Big Business continues to push for big numbers. The media generates anxiety about asylum seekers and the control of borders, when in reality the number of asylum seekers is small compared to legal migrants. Nevertheless, critics of immigration are conveniently dismissed as nativists, not concerned with the ‘global good’ when in fact the strongest advocates of mass immigration to Australia, the Big Business lobby group, are primarily concerned with their profit margins rather than morality. They get away without the strong condemnation they deserve.

An ecological, rather than a business profit mindset requires thinking beyond commerce and money-making and focusing on the biological parameters that keep civilisations in existence. Our business elites, with the notable exception of Dick Smith, seemingly have no concern beyond day-to-day profit making. This would not matter if they did not have such a death-lock on the throats of both our major political parties.

What to do? A reduction in Australia’s immigration rate to 70,000 per annum, in accordance with Kelvin Thomson’s ‘14 Point Plan’, will still enable Australia to increase the intake of refugees and meet our humanitarian obligations.

Following in the footsteps of the greats I referred to at the beginning of this message, my contribution to the cause has been my own book: Sleepwalking to Catastrophe which exposes the pro-immigrationist arguments as the sophistry which they are. This work also serves as my manifesto for an alternative economic system considering the long-term future of our environment. Ultimately, the pen is still mightier than the sword as writing remains the most powerful medium we have to educate others.

As a young person I call on all celebrities to join with me in voicing opposition to the perpetual growth model. It is important that we combine the power of writing with the public exposure of celebrities to communicate with the masses. In doing so, young people just might be able to have a future.

Victorian Planning Minister Matthew Guy is setting up a website http://www.planmelbourne.vic.gov.au asking for residents' feedback on the sort of Melbourne we want in the future. These kinds of websites, however, make it hard to say what you really think. It is probably better to send the Minister a submission re Plan Melbourne saying what you really think, in your own words, rather than responding to the website questionnaire. Email it to Matthew.Guy[AT]parliament.vic.gov.au . As a guide, we suggest that any plan must first have a policy to limit the population growth. To ignore this issue and try to plan for greater growth, would be self defeating.

Alert from BRAG

The Department of Planning has been working on a new metropolitan planning strategy and regional growth. A press release today from the Minister of Planning says, “We need to build on the best of past planning strategies and bring fresh thinking to our consideration of projected growth and change and how we address the challenges in front of us”.

But Brag's Vice President, Mary Drost, has responded saying,

“Population has grown too fast and infrastructure hasn’t been able to keep up.”

She is quite right. Melbourne is the fastest growing city in Australia, we grew by about 605,000 from 2001 to 2010 compared with only 450,000 in Sydney and that trend continues. And we are under pressure with overcrowded transport, gridlock on our freeways, overloaded sewerage and drainage, water shortages, power blackouts, problems with schools, hospitals etc.

The current planning strategy is to retrofit development into existing areas using existing capacity in schools, hospitals roads, rail,
trams etc. but any capacity is now well and truly filled. For instance our trains and trams are already seriously overcrowded.

BRAG's view is that any proposed development should identify local infrastructure capacities, show the effect of the project and how the developer will tackle the problems that will arise. If the developer does not come up with a satisfactory solution then the application should automatically fail. It should not fall back on Councils or the residents to rectify such problems.

Outer suburban developers have long been required to fund local infrastructure requirements. Why not in the inner suburbs?

BRAG contends that a bigger Melbourne is not a better Melbourne. We are trying to cope with densification in inner Melbourne as well as the urban sprawl and neither option is the answer. The Federal budget is unlikely to provide finance for the necessary infrastructure upgrades. Of course we have the elephant in the room – massive population growth, which both federal and state governments ignore.

So what is the answer?

We are constantly told that we need to go up to cope with population growth . Commentators like Bernard Salt from KPMG and the
Committee for Melbourne believe Melbourne needs New York style development and have promoted “Manhattanising” Melbourne,
which appeals to the development and construction industry but would be a disaster for residents.

Boroondara is a great place to live and, as a consequence, is under pressure from the developers because it offers them the best
economic returns. Our Council is doing its best to manage the tensions between accommodating growth and offering housing diversity while maintaining liveability. However the pressure from developers will continually increase making council’s task ever more difficult.

More and more residents from all over Boroondara are asking BRAG for help in combating opportunistic development in their area.
Under the previous state government there was a real decline in local democracy and local say in planning issues which accompany urban consolidation. When we object, we are branded NIMBY’s But its OK to say “not in my backyard”. We do have rights concerning the neighbourhood we live in despite what the growth lobby says.

Now we have an opportunity to exercise those rights. Planning Minister Guy has announced he is setting up a website http://www.planmelbourne.vic.gov.au which offers residents the opportunity to have input to the sort of Melbourne we want in the future.

We urge you to carefully consider the issues then go on to the website and tell the government what you think. Encourage your neighbours to do the same. If we don’t then the government will think we don’t care.

However, be careful about following the lead set by the questions. Like many such government surveys, they seem to be set up to gain predetermined answers.

BRAG believes it is better to send the Minister a submission re Plan Melbourne in your own words that say what you really think. Email it to Matthew.Guy[AT]parliament.vic.gov.au

As a guide, we suggest that any plan must first have a policy to limit the population growth. To ignore this issue and try to plan for
greater growth, would be self defeating but you make up your own mind and tell the government accordingly.

Jack Roach
BRAG(Boroondara Residents Action Group)