growthism

There is his huge gap between what the people want and what politicians and their masters want.

(Cartoon by Jill Quirk.)

I attended a Population Task Force meeting yesterday inMacLeod (for region Ivanhoe and Eltham). There were about 30 in attendance, all but one ‘oldies’, mainly from Ivanhoe/Eaglemont, a couple (myself included) from Eltham.

The convenor was Richard Della Riva who just sat there and looked bored. His electoral office is in Vermont, so he would not know too many people in MacLeod.

The moderator and keynote speaker was a youngish Tim Smith. The presentation lasted less than 15 mins, then it was over to Q&A. I kick-started Q&A by stating that I got the impression this was not about stabilisation of population growth but rather accept growth as a given and then see how it can be managed. I wanted to know what environmental impact study had been done (approving murmurs from the floor ) and was asked to make a submission (which I will asap).

Many objected to population growth

Tim Smith was then hammered by the rest who all complained each in their own way about the population growth, some gave mini-speeches from their seats. He used the excuse – not convincingly - that many of these questions were of a federal nature, again and again he asked people to make a written submission. You can make one at http://vicpopulation.com.au/.

At the end Tim Smith asked by show of hands who thought immigration was too high. Up shot the arms. He re-phrased it: Who thought it was right or not enough? 2 arms out of 30 went up – one woman who spruiked for hemp growing and the one next to me, sent by a church group, who was just interested in getting more refugees. (She stormed out of meeting after closure).

Surely, 30 is not a representative sample, but I thought it very interesting that 28 out of 30 wanted less immigration, and they were all Third Agers plus one young woman in her mid 20s who was very anti-immigration. I gave her a copy of Peter North’s book Growing for Broke, which she very much appreciated.

Dr. Andrew Leigh MP is a former Professor of economics at the ANU and is now the Labor member for Frazer. During his university career he was awarded the Economic Society of Australia's Young Economist Award which is given to honour that Australian economist under the age of forty who is deemed to have made a significant contribution to economic thought and knowledge. He has published over 50 journal articles in the disciplines of economics, public policy and law, and over 100 opinion pieces. His research findings have been discussed in, amongst others, the Australian, the Australian Financial Review, the Christian Monitor, the Economist, New York Times, the Sydney Morning Herald, Time and Washington Post. He has also written a number of books, perhaps the best of which is titled Battlers and Billionaires, which weaves together vivid anecdotes, interesting history and powerful statistics to tell the story of the growing inequality in this country. It is not as hard hitting as Thomas Piketty's book Capital which has a similar theme but a different conclusion, arguing that increased growth will not prevent the spiral into global inequality. Andrew's book on the other hand tells us that inequality can fuel (economic) growth, almost implying that the end justifies the means.

In other words Andrew is no slouch and is probably the most academically qualified person in the federal ALP, which suggests his ideas will translate into ALP policies. And this is alarming since it appears that someone as obviously influential as Andrew does not have his papers peer reviewed, allowing him to use sources for his arguments that suit his theme but are scarcely very reliable. This is unfortunately not an uncommon practice. There are so many articles produced by the so called think tanks that you can find written justification for almost any absurdity. Don't like wind turbines? Well search around and you will find a paper that tells you the low frequency noise from the blades will make you sick. Ditto for odd ball fetishes like vaccinations, garlic as a cure for AIDS, or the dangers of male circumcision, but most of the think tank literature is written for their paymasters so, while the health benefits of cigarettes are no longer promoted, you can find plenty on stuff defending fast food, alcohol, mining, gambling, and of course, growth.

Faith and overpopulation

Which brings me to a paper Andrew published in 2014 called “The Pro-Growth Progressive”. Growth has been religion for the ALP even before Paul Keating embraced Milton Freedman’s economic ideas and is the weapon of choice for most economists. In his introduction Andrew stated that in relation to population growth,

“he defaulted to an optimistic faith in humanity's ability to innovate”.

But faith is just the default position for those who wish to believe when no evidence is available or, to quote from Hebrews 11.1, faith is the substance for things hoped for. There is a wealth of evidence, (or at least a book load, Why Things Bite Back by Edward Tenner, former executive editor for physical science and history at Princeton University) that humanity's innovations have unintended consequences far beyond what could ever have been contemplated. Just two interrelated examples: the invention of pesticides and antibiotics both lead to the acceleration of the evolution of super bugs. Alarmingly this development of resistant strains became obvious very early but humanity had become too dependent on both to halt or even modify their use, leaving us with a growing number of antibiotic resistant bacteria like MRSA and pesticides that are killing the bees, our food pollinators.

Life expectancy claims

Andrew, in his in praise of growth article, claims that we are living longer and healthier. And while it is true that many diseases have been eradicated or are treatable, obesity has more than doubled in the last 20 years, with 14 million Australians overweight or obese. Obesity is now the biggest single threat to public health. On the basis of current trends, our life expectancy will start to decline because of this disease which is, unlike most other epidemics that plagued humanity, a man-made problem, largely due the food industry's dependency on growth. ( Would you like fries with that?)

Happiness

His next claim is also controversial: he challenges the theory that once incomes reach a certain threshold, more money doesn't buy more happiness. This theory, the Easterlin Paradox, is named after the author, USC professor Richard Easterlin, carried out studies in nine countries on the relationship between happiness and income. Happiness is of course hard to qualify. Apparently frogs are happy in water hot enough to kill them, a bit like some Beijing residents apparently. However Andrew uses a later study done in 2006 that expanded the original Easterly one to 131 countries and concluded that the relationship between satisfaction and GDP was almost linear suggesting that money did buy you more happiness. Like some new age churches he is seemingly enthused by this prospect, linking it to an increased love life and suggesting that Paul McCartney's song should be “money can buy me love”

The argument against this study is twofold. Expanding the study to 131 countries ensured that it included many developing nations where the people on lower incomes would be happier with an increase. The results of this study were presented as graphs which displayed per capita income against levels of reported life satisfaction and the result was indeed a straight line, with satisfaction rising with income. Except that the charts were plotted on a logarithmic scale and, in reality, it meant that an income increase generated a lot more happiness for a poorer person that a rich one - a rather logic conclusion and one that ties into the Easterly theory.

From longevity and happiness, the article moves into environmental concerns, where Andrew argues that we are not running out of non-renewable resources, nor are we making more pollutants. Peak oil is a fantasy and air pollution is reducing. Incredibly, the entire output of the US “weighs” only marginally more than it did a century ago. This, according to his theory, is because most workers, doctors, barristers, don't produce goods from non renewables, so their product doesn't weigh much – its called the weightless world. Well its an extraordinary claim, given the huge growth in metal production to build the cars, planes, machinery that we didn't have a century ago. All those “weightless” people had cars, homes computers, used power and water, took holidays, and someone provided the materials to do all that.

Pollution

When it comes to air pollution, Andrew's claims are refuted by a report from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, called "The Cost of Air Pollution: Health Impacts of Road Transport." This report shows Australia has failed to halt the dangerous rise in air pollution. It estimates that the economic cost of that failure has run into the billions. The report shows that between 2005 and 2010, the number of deaths from air pollution in Australia jumped from 882 to 1483, representing a 68 per cent rise, despite cleaner car technology, which was overwhelmed by the growth in the number of vehicles.

And that is just one aspect of the pollution that plagues us.

No one has addressed the plastics in our oceans, or the space junk that clutters the heavens, the disarray of the world's nitrogen cycle or the number of untested chemicals that come on the market every year. In the US the EPA estimated there were not only 62,000 untested chemicals in the market but it was almost impossible to test for the combined impact of multiple chemicals, even though there was grave suspicions that these were linked to many diseases.

Neocon doctrine

Being an experienced and well qualified academic, Andrew provides references to his claims, 12 of them in fact. Arnold Kiling and Nick Sachultz get two mentions, both referring to their co authored book Poverty to Prosperity. Which also gets a wrap from the Cato institute and the former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a duo that should be as politically popular as pornography to the ALP. Nick Schulz is the DeWitt Wallace Fellow at the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute (AEI), where he serves as editor of AEI's in-house magazine The American, and a columnist for Forbes.com. Schulz has also worked as an editor at Foxnews.com and served as a policy analyst for the now-defunct Empower America, a right-wing pressure group founded by William Bennett.

It would be difficult to cover all the intrigue and skulduggery done by the AEI but here is some : They were one of the leading voices that pushed for a “Regime Change” in Iraq, they helped fund pro tobacco studies, they support climate change deniers ( In February 2007, The Guardian (UK) reported that AEI was offering scientists and economists $10,000 each, "to undermine a major climate change report" from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). AEI asked for "articles that emphasise the shortcomings" of the IPCC report, AEI visiting scholar Kenneth Green made the $10,000 offer "to scientists in Britain, the US and elsewhere, ). Not the sort of people a nice boy like Andrew should be using as his references.

Neocon theory referenced for peak oil

Andrew also refers to Michael Lynch, The "Peak Oil" Scare and the Coming Oil Flood for his thesis that Peak oil isn't peaking.
Which just about says it all, except that his book is full of errors including a claim that the earth has 10 trillion barrels of oil, a figure well beyond any quoted by geologists.

Which leaves the question as to why an intelligent person such as Andrew would be so loose with facts and casual with his choice of references. When incorrect ideas gain widespread acceptance they become false knowledge and are difficult to dislodge. False knowledge gains credence because it suits the religious, political or emotional feelings which have given us climate change deniers. Some other notable examples of spurious ideas that gained acceptance were the conviction that the earth was the centre of the universe and that the world was only about 6 thousand years old. Looking back they seem rather quaint ideas but they weren't dangerous ones as long as you didn't contradict them in public. Which puts them way ahead of the modern day conventional economists.

An alternative view to the growthist one

The alternative view: One of the most profound changes affecting the Australian economy and society over the past 12 years has been the massive lift in Australia’s net immigration, which surged from the mid-2000s and is running at roughly twice the pace of long-run norms.

http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2016/08/the-great-immigration-subterfuge

The Government and opposition's population engineering continues to wreck havoc on democracy and land-tenure, affecting both private property and public lands, and impacting on established low-key local commerce. New proposed uses for the Green Wedge actually include saw-mills and display homes. The Flinders Community Association have begun issuing an information-packed alert for distribution to the local community detailing the damage that State Government changes to our Green Wedges can do to peoples' local natural, social and commercial environment, whilst removing their ability to defend what is theirs. Other communities may wish to take a similar democratic initiative before all our rights to self-government are swept away by unjust legislation to benefit developers. Note that these moves were begun by the previous Labor Government - which is hardly fighting them now. The incumbent government should be rolling back what Bracks and Brumby did, but instead, they are making things worse.MEETING IN FLINDERS COMMUNITY HALL 4 PM SATURDAY SEPTEMBER 15th 2012

Flinders Community Association warning

Minister Louise Asher of the State Government has already set in motion sweeping changes that threaten the National parks but further changes announced by Planning Minister Matthew Guy will also materially affect the character and ambience of the Mornington Peninsula and its towns and villages.

These changes, announced if fully implemented are far reaching and will affect all of us in some way.

This “one shoe fits all” approach to planning is considered by the FCA to be inappropriate – particularly after analysing how the changes would affect the Mornington Peninsula.

Some publicity has been given to aspects of the substantial changes announced by the Minister earlier this month. These have not involved prior consultation yet responses are sought from interested parties by September 21, this year.

The new approach to planning will impact on the future of the Green Wedge, on farming and on the Flinders township - while also putting pressure on the vital Urban Boundaries. In addition, commercial interests will be encouraged to invest in tourism ventures in the National Parks and Reserves.

Ironically, the stated objective of removing uncertainty about rules, policies and planning regulations to encourage greater investment will create further uncertainty, according to our shire planning department, which believes VCAT will be used more often for decision-making and we will have “planning by appeal”. In some cases landowners and developers will be given “as of right” permission to do anything they want without anyone knowing about it and leaving others with no right of appeal!

A couple of specific local examples would be that the hotel (opposed by all parties, local members and community groups) proposed a few years ago to be sited at the corner of Browns and Greens roads beside the Mornington Peninsula National Park would just be given the go-ahead without even needing to pretend it was in any way rural or interested in environmental studies. A development like T’Gallant, the restaurant, would not have to be heard over the number of customers it could service as the limit of 150 patrons is to be scrapped, as will the requirement of 40 hectares site minimum in the Green Wedge needed before building group accommodation. Medical centres, places of assembly and primary and secondary schools are all listed as acceptable for the Green Wedge etc. etc.

What the Amendment Proposes

- Green Wedge zone provisions are to be liberalized to increase the range of agricultural uses allowed without a permit. These include Primary produce sales (for produce grown on the land) and Rural Industry (other than an Abattoir and Sawmill and limited floor area to 200m2) but not within 100m of a dwelling in separate ownership and sale area less than 50 sq m.

Comment: Not requiring a permit means people have the 'as of right' means to do anything they want without having to advertise their intentions so it could mean developments could spring up before anyone knows anything about it and with no right of appeal. The damage would be irreversible. In the interest of conserving landscape and amenity, the siting and design of new buildings such as Rural store demands a permit process. Compliance supervision will need to increase to ensure retail activities sources product only from the property. Near-by urban Industrial zones can readily accommodate rural service industry.

- The list of Green Wedge zone uses subject to permit are to be widened to include Abattoir, Medical centre, Primary school, Sawmill, and Secondary school. Permits can be sought for many other uses including those previously prohibited such as Display home, and Service station, Place of assembly including Amusement parlor, Cinema, Drive-in-theatre, Library and Nightclub

Comment: These permits may not have to be advertised and can be purely at Council's discretion. There are no mandatory provisions that apply. These uses are essentially urban uses and should be located close to the urban population with access to the necessary utility services. Conflicts with farming activities producing smells, dust, noise, waste discharge etc are likely.

- Mandatory conditions are to be deleted relating to the establishment of Function Centre, Group Accommodation, R& D Centre and Research centre, Residential building, Restaurant in conjunction with agriculture etc.

Comment: Large cabin/camping parks, Function centres, and Restaurants etc and could be established on relatively small sites unrelated to agricultural activity. The main tourist routes could become lined with an uninterrupted ribbon of retail activities and restaurants.

Retention of conditions on lot size, area of use, number of patrons, and use “in conjunction with agriculture” etc is necessary to ensure that these uses do not become intrusive in the landscape. Conserving landscape and amenity is critical to maintaining the attraction of the Mornington Peninsula as a key recreation and tourist destination.

- Mandatory restriction on further subdivision in the Green Wedge zone is removed leaving management and control to Council policy.

Comment: Since 1975 the planning scheme has sought to limit the fragmentation of the farming areas from subdivision. Unless relatively strict controls over further subdivision are implemented, adequate sites for agriculture will be difficult to obtain and the further detriment to Peninsula landscapes from closer settlement will occur.

- Three new residential zones (Residential Growth, General Residential, Neighbourhood Residential) are to replace the current five Residential zones. - These will have more guidelines and multiple schedules. ResCode will stay in place as will control on building heights and some local policies (DDO).

Comment: The proposal to indicate growth/change expectations for residential zones could have merit but how will this translate to Flinders? Maintenance of existing village character is essential using existing DDO’s and policies but we will have to fight hard to ensure they remain in place. Growth should be limited to infill development within the Urban Growth Boundary.

- Shops, Offices, Cafés, Medical, Centres etc are to be allowed in these Residential zones without need for a permit within 100 metres of a Commercial zone on the same road frontage.

Comment: In Flinders, there is already an over-supply of retail floor space. The commercial frontage will be doubled under the Amendment. This 'as of right' process gives no opportunity for community review or participation in a permit process for any new development.

- Two new Commercial Zones C1 and C2 replace the 5 existing Business zones, encouraging combined business, retail and office activities. Areas in the existing Business zones 3 and 4 (used for offices, service industry and bulky household goods retailing) will now allow supermarkets and shops to establish.

Comment: Shopping functions will be spread over a wider area and may result in the death of shopping activity in many of the main business centres by encouraging new out of centre developments.

- Industrial zones are to be changed to remove limits on size of offices and allow supermarkets up to 2000sqm and some shops up to 500sqm.in area.

Comment: Industrial activities will be disadvantaged by intrusion of new shopping uses, which would be better placed in the established commercial activity centres.

What can you do?

It is vital we all understand the damage that can be done under these changes. This could irrevocably change the Peninsula as we know it – and its towns and villages. Surely this is the whole reason why tourists come here, to see something that's different not something they have just come from. Do we want the Peninsula to end up just like the Gold Coast in Queensland or the central coast of NSW? Do we want the Great Ocean Road and Wilsons Promontory to also fall under the developers hammer? Tourists want more than just a flash hotel to stay in, another fancy restaurant, another theme park. More and more they want to experience nature, history, the way things work like farming, wine making, cheese making, wildlife reserves.

If you are concerned …

If you are sufficiently concerned by all of this go to the FCA webpage at www.flindersvillage.com.auand click on the various links that give you the full detail of the Government's intentions. You can then send a submission (a letter) to the Government giving your opinions and reasons why to

Mr. P. Allen
Executive Director Planning Systems
Dept. of Planning and Community Development
GPO Box 2392
Melbourne. 3001

Meeting in Flinders

You can also come to an FCA meeting at the Flinders Community Hall at 4pm on Saturday September 15th where the FCA will be seeking approval to make a submission under the FCA banner. But, you should also send yours; the more the better.

Another thing you can do is spread the word. Only the voice of the community can persuade the Government to think twice.

Peter Hall
President.
August 2012

If we are to survive, we must give up two core beliefs. One is the belief that we are qualified to be wise planetary stewards, and the other is that there will always be technological solutions to the problems that were created by previous technological solutions.

Technology Embraced With Religious Fervor

Technophilia is described in various sources as a strong enthusiasm for technology.
But what many members of our species display goes far beyond enthusiasm.

Starry-eyed technophiles go on animatedly, in what appears to be quasi-religious rapture and hyperbole, about a banquet of opportunities apparently afforded us by our technologies. All the while, they blindly ignore the fact that the horrendous problems we face were created and enabled by technologies in the first place – dead zones and enormous “islands” of plastic in the oceans, soil depletion and exhaustion, massive consumption and overconsumption of resources, emissions and air pollution, hundreds of sites on the planet and specifically in North America contaminated by radioactive waste, and the list just goes on and on.

Persistent Love For Nuclear Power A Prime Example

The last item above is a typical illustration. Nuclear power, originally hyped as being safe and "too cheap to meter," is still heavily subsidized by taxpayers, and is still creating problems for present and future generations to deal with. Recent disasters aside, there are tonnes of “legacy” waste we have yet to deal with properly, as well as the increasing contamination of the North American Great Lakes and other bodies of water by radionuclides from mining and power generating activities.

Technopoly

Yet we delude ourselves, as Neil Postman says in “Technopoly,” with “the catastrophic idea that in peace as well as in war technology will be our saviour.” Postman goes on to say that technophiles “gaze on technology as a lover does on his beloved, seeing it as without blemish and entertaining no apprehension for the future.”

Our Sorry Record Is Proof That We Cannot Predict Consequences

And, when it comes to the future, we have already demonstrated clearly that, while we are a clever little species when it comes to inventing things, we have a very poor record in predicting the long term consequences, let alone the unintended consequences. We, in Einstein’s words, “thoughtlessly make use of the miracles of science and technology, without understanding more about them than a cow eating plants understands about botany.”
In a lovely little act of anthropocentric circular reasoning, we claim that human cleverness and intelligence are the main criteria for the job of planetary stewards, and that our technology is evidence of our suitability for that job. Then we claim that, by gosh, we’re the only species which exhibits those qualities (apparently) so we must be the natural stewards of this planet. We fake the qualifications for the job in our favour. And our performance on that job is so dismal that we should have been fired long ago. We are, after all, the only species to bring the planet to the brink of nuclear winter, runaway climate change, and collapse of ecosystem supports necessary for our own life. We are the only species to spread toxic and persistent poisons around the entire planet. We are the only species that has caused one of the “great extinctions” of other species on this planet.

We Must Move Beyond Our Infatuation With Technology And Self-Image As Planetary Stewards

Technophiles might argue that it is not technology, but the inappropriate use which is the real problem. That is a facile and denial-ridden response, as the evidence clearly demonstrates that the problem runs much, much deeper.

And all we hear about in glowing color is that more technology is the solution to our problems – the sort of thinking from the past that has created our problems in the first place. Solar panels will be our saviour. Wind power will be our saviour. Better fuel efficiency in transportation will be our saviour. Recycling will save the planet. And so on. Another quotation often attributed to Einstein sums it up nicely: “The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them.” We must move beyond our obsession and infatuation with our own technologies, and beyond the idea that our role on this planet is one of stewardship and control. We must, in Lovelock’s words, “realize more than other green thinkers the magnitude of the change of mind needed to bring us back to peace within Gaia, the living Earth.” We must plan and execute a “sustainable retreat” from where we are.

Overcoming our own smugness and arrogance about our cleverness and about our place on this planet – overcoming our narcissistic technophilia - would be good first steps.

Rick Shea
February 22, 2012

Originally posted at http://www.greenparty.ca/blogs/9600/2012-02-21/narcissistic-technophilia and re-posted here with the Rick Shea’s permission

In his book, Ethical Oil, Canadian author and high profile media commentator Ezra Levant took aim at the hypocrisy of Greenpeace and other environmental groups in training their guns on Alberta oil sands oil, while leaving oil producers such as Saudi Arabia off the hook. Better that America buy its oil from Canada---a country that respects human rights and applies stronger environmental controls----than from offshore dictatorships. With oil sands and the Enbridge pipeline proposal under attack, and billions of profits and tax revenues on the line, Levant has stepped up his attack on the environmental movement. He charges that their agenda is driven by a prejudice against technology and civilization, a discredited attitude with a long pedigree. The ideology of Deep Ecology is a toxic, anti-human death cult. But is not the ideology of endless growth a death cult of the most profound kind?

Ezra Levant is a Canadian media personality and author of increasing prominence. In my view, he is a composite of the very best and very worst of 'conservativism' as it is known in Canada. He has been a fearless crusader against censorship, corruption in the CBC, Islamopandering and political correctness. Good on him. But coupled with these virtues is a profound ignorance of ecological issues. Unfortunately, he is quite gifted in showcasing this ignorance in an entertaining and persuasive manner. The following two short videos are a sample of his invaluable work on behalf of Big Oil and the ideology of endless growth.

In these diatribes he describes a good part of the environmental movement as a 'death cult' with a 'toxic', 'anti-human', 'anti-progress, 'anti-technology' message. He directs particular scorn at "luddites" and "transition" crazies, who want to "de-energize and de-industrialize" our society and destroy our quality of life. Whereas the early luddites smashed machinery, modern luddites are killing pipelines with their petitions. The reason we enjoy comfort is because of the triumph of technology, human ingenuity and freedom, freedom which is threatened by those who want the nanny state to tell us to recycle, use low flush toilets and regulate our lives. The bottom line is that these anti-industry, anti-progress environmentalists HATE oil, and some of them hate it so much they are telling us lies about it running out. That is what drives them. That is the world according to Levant. And that is the world that, if you believe the polls, most Albertans and western Canadians live in too, including many who do not vote for Harper's Conservatives.

What frustrates me about Levant's rant is that there is a kernel of truth mixed in with his ignorance and sophistry. There ARE people in the green movement (he calls them Deep Ecologists, I call them anarcho-primitivists) who do believe that a pre-industrial existence would be lovely. They believe that life would be so much better 'off the grid'. I am not one of them. I know what it is like to live without electricity. It is an effing pain in the ass, if you want to know the truth. And I know a lot of people like me, who having 'roughed it', never want to go back to that life again. I like civilization. I like the amenities I enjoy, and am grateful for what modern medicine and medical technology has done for me. But that is not the point. The point is that according to what I read, this civilization, the civilization that I enjoy, is not sustainable. It is not a conclusion I want to reach, but there it is.

So the choice then, is either to let it continue with BAU and crash with horrendous consequences-----a very 'anti-human' option surely---- or try to de-industrialize and de-populate incrementally so as to lessen the pain and shorten the casualty list. That, according to Levant, is a toxic, anti-human proposal. And it would be----- if you believe, like Levant, that non-renewable natural resources and human ingenuity are inexhaustible. But I don't. So count me as a luddite.

Tim Murray

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/featured/prime-time/867432237001/anti-industry-anger/1468563171001

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/featured/prime-time/867432237001/green-apocalypse/1469781746001

Take a look at the One Child Policy nonsense at the Australian Democracy Museum site! Today Candobetter.net received a communication from the Australian Museum of Democracy. At first we thought that a bunch of Australian revolutionaries with a sense of humour had contacted us and we immediately went to their website, as they advised us to, to comment. We were disappointed to realize that this is just another face of Australian government propaganda and the Growth Lobby is well-ensconced. The website belongs to the Australian Museum of Democracy, which is owned and financed by taxpayers, but controlled by the government. So, what do you find when you go and make that visit to the website to “have your say” about democracy as encouraged? Update 5 Aug 2011: My comment now published on democracy site.

Today Candobetter.net received a communication from the Australian Museum of Democracy. At first we thought that a bunch of Australian revolutionaries with a sense of humour had contacted us and we immediately went to their website, as they advised us to, to comment.

We were disappointed to realize that this is just another face of Australian government propaganda. The website belongs to the Australian Museum of Democracy, which is owned and financed by taxpayers, but controlled by the government.

So, what do you find when you go and make that visit to the website to “have your say” about democracy as encouraged?

Well, firstly, you find that the site promotes Australian democracy as a given. Secondly, if you try to post, you will discover that democratic speech is moderated at the Museum of Democracy. Thirdly, it purports to educate us about the value of this so-called democracy by evoking four different indicators of what it calls undemocratic governments. The indicators are: Curfews, Prevention of Public Assembly, One Child Policies, and National Identity Cards. Australians are supposed to congratulate themselves that the government apparently doesn't impose these policies. Hmm, and we also don't have public floggings and women are allowed to go to school, so everything in the garden of democracy in Oz is lovely - not!

Enough with the spin, already.

1. Curfews.

Okaaay, so we are still allowed to stay up late and catch scarily neglected public transport home (if there is any).

2. One Child Policies.

We don’t have such policies, yet. But we are working on it with our big population policy. We are currently free to have lots of children, but who has the time or money when we are all working to pay huge rents and mortgages as the cost of living skyrockets due to that big population policy we all hate that’s supposed to make us all rich.

3. Prevention of public assembly.

Then again, there is no civil right to public assembly. If someone threatens you with violence for holding a meeting, they have to actually hurt you before the police will step in. It is actually illegal to hold a democratic protest in many places in Australia because public space has become privately owned. Joe Toscano tries to educate people about this scandalous abrogation of democracy again and again. Check out his podcasts on 3CR. And, if you want to meet in city square or one of those big malls that have replaced normal town centers and streets, you need permission, and you will have to say who will take responsibility for the gathering.

4. National Identity cards

Yes, well, all you have to do is go to the bank and your movements are electronically traceable. You don’t even have the choice of receiving your wages in cash these days. You HAVE TO have an electronic footprint. This isn’t freedom. (The popularization of mobile phones and the lack of public phones is another traceable consumer-trap, not to mention facebook, which more and more people are conditioned to bare their soles on – but you are not forced to engage with these.)

Australia's poor record on Human Rights and even worse on Civil Rights (Democracy)

Australia recently held, with much fanfare, a “National Human Rights Consultation,” overseen by a Catholic priest with a strong commitment to communitarianism, questionably famous for his involvement in Aboriginal communities, and with little interest in civil rights. The outcome consisted of, to paraphrase the Attorney General, “reaffirming a commitment to our human rights obligations; the importance of human rights education; enhancing our domestic and international engagement on human rights issues; improving human rights protections, including through greater parliamentary scrutiny [by Murdoch-controlled parliament, sure]; and achieving greater respectfor human rights principles within the community.

The Attorney General went on to say, apparently without any conscious irony, that “A legislative charter of rights was not included in the Framework as “the Government believes that the enhancement of human rights should be done in a way that, as far as possible, unites rather than divides our community.” !

My submission to the Democracy Museum awaiting moderation - now published

Under “One Child Policies,” in response to “Population control is not an issue in Australia and no attempts are made by government to limit births—in fact they are encouraged!”at 13.55 today, August 3, 2011, I placed the following comment. At 21.09 the same day it was still “awaiting moderation.” On 5 August I saw that it was published. Nonetheless, moderation is a fraught concept on a democracy blog and there should be some explanation at the democracy page, for instance, that they will publish anything except stuff that breaks the laws, including material that is critical of laws.

I wrote,

Thank you for your democracy initiative. I edit an Australian website for reform in democracy, environment, population, land use planning and energy policy. It is at http://candobetter.net

Your claim that “Population control is not an issue in Australia…” is false. It is a major failure of democracy in Australia that the government, at state and federal levels, is artificially stimulating population growth upwards by forcing high levels of immigration on Australians against the small amounts of protest our defective ‘democratic’ system affords and polls which show over 70% of people are against this. It is clear that the major movers of this undemocratic population control policy are corporate members of the Growth Lobby, who have financial interests in growth (notably in property development and allied industries) and that they find support from the corporate and public media, the ALP and the Liberal Party. I wrote my research thesis in environment and population sociology on this and it has been strikingly predictive. You may find it at The Growth Lobby in Australia and its Absence in France. There are many women fighting Australia’s growthist policies. You might like to promote some of my articles about Australian activists against growth and its impacts, particularly this one about how women lead democratic actions in Victoria, Australia against an undemocratic parliament: “Anti-Growth Lobby: Women in politics: why don’t more participate – or do they? (Melbourne, Australia)” At http://candobetter.net we have a whole page assigned to democracy: http://candobetter.net/taxonomy/term/13.

There are also many other policies in Australia – and laws – which are in place – such as the laws on terrorism – which are dangerous to freedom.

The official democracy blurb

Here is what is being sent round by the Museum of Australian Democracy:

“Have your say day August 10th 2011

“A recent survey conducted by the Museum of Australian Democracy shows that two thirds of Australians say they don’t understand the relevance of democracy to their everyday lives, even though we live with it everyday – from our own personal values, to the way we interact with our family and our local community, down to the choices we are free to make.

These are freedoms enjoyed by citizens of a democracy.

That’s why on Wednesday August 10 the Museum of Australian Democracy is holding a “Have Your Say Day”.

On “Have Your Say Day” we want to encourage all Australians to speak out and be a part of democracy.

How can you participate in “Have Your Say Day”

We want you to share with our nation, what you love about the freedom of our country and importantly, discuss an issue you feel passionate about.

Below are 10 steps on how you can get involved in “Have Your Say Day”:

1. Contribute to the “Have Your Say Day” dialogue by visiting www.ourfreedom.com.au
2. Join a group with a cause
3. Tweet about it using #moadhaveyoursayday to join the conversation
4. Find out who your Member of Parliament is at the Australian Electoral Commission website: http://www.aec.gov.au
5. Go to your favourite newspaper’s website and make a comment about a news story, or write a letter to the Editor
6. Start a blog of your own or participate in a blog or forum online
7. Call a talkback radio station and voice your opinion
8. Discuss democracy or some of the issues in today’s news with your family and friends – what are their thoughts and opinions?
9 Post a note in your Facebook status or create your own Facebook poll
10. Post a video to YouTube and tag it “Have Your Say Day” and encourage your friends to do the same.

You can also take a visit to your state’s parliament, or come and visit the Museum of Australian Democracy at Old Parliament House in Canberra – www.moadoph.gov.au

For more information on “Have Your Say Day” – visit www.ourfreedom.com.au

Try it.

For their media contacts the Democracy Museum of Australia lists a commercial company, Fenton Communications, which is a slick ‘cause’ marketer to and for the mainstream.

The Museum of Democracy, in its Annual Report for 2009-2010, included among their “Key performance indicators” to “Increase awareness of the new role of OPH as a museum exploring the past, present and future of Australian democracy” and to “Be acknowledged as a pre-eminent and innovative cultural institution” and to “Extend OPH’s profile and partnerships with other institutions, academics and cultural innovators.”

So, Australians, let this Museum know you are out there and that you expect more, much more of an institution purporting to represent your voices.

NOTES

For the record, when I first published this article, I was very critical of the moderation and failure to promptly publish my comment about the one child policy. I feared that it would not be published, however it now has been, so I do eat my words and pay my respects to the democracy blog, even though I still regard the examples it gives as indicative of growth-lobby bias. At least I was able to criticise this.

So, for the record: I had written:

"As I said,
Under “One Child Policies,” in response to “Population control is not an issue in Australia and no attempts are made by government to limit births—in fact they are encouraged!”at 13.55 today, August 3, 2011, I placed the following comment. At 21.09 the same day it was still “awaiting moderation.”

I wrote,

Thank you for your democracy initiative. I edit an Australian website for reform in democracy, environment, population, land use planning and energy policy. It is at http://candobetter.net

Your claim that “Population control is not an issue in Australia…” is false. It is a major failure of democracy in Australia that the government, at state and federal levels, is artificially stimulating population growth upwards by forcing high levels of immigration on Australians against the small amounts of protest our defective ‘democratic’ system affords and polls which show over 70% of people are against this. It is clear that the major movers of this undemocratic population control policy are corporate members of the Growth Lobby, who have financial interests in growth (notably in property development and allied industries) and that they find support from the corporate and public media, the ALP and the Liberal Party. I wrote my research thesis in environment and population sociology on this and it has been strikingly predictive. You may find it at The Growth Lobby in Australia and its Absence in France. There are many women fighting Australia’s growthist policies. You might like to promote some of my articles about Australian activists against growth and its impacts, particularly this one about how women lead democratic actions in Victoria, Australia against an undemocratic parliament: “Anti-Growth Lobby: Women in politics: why don’t more participate – or do they? (Melbourne, Australia)” At http://candobetter.net we have a whole page assigned to democracy: http://candobetter.net/taxonomy/term/13.

There are also many other policies in Australia – and laws – which are in place – such as the laws on terrorism – which are dangerous to freedom.

Oh, I get it, this is the museum of moderated democracy.

Unless there's economic growth, we're not making progress
Unless the trucks rumble along the roads, we're not making progress
Unless the engines of industry are turning, we're not making progress
Unless the factories and mills belch out smoke, we're not making progress
Unless our armies are on the move, we're not making progress

Until we respect the planet, we won't progress.

Today Treasurer Wayne Swan has tried to justify another rise in interest rates by claiming in true polly-speak that such an impost is a sign of a stronger Australian economy. Swan’s growth fettish belies the LibLab's stale 20th Century baby-boomer ideology. Last month Swan's fettish for strong economic growth and strong population growth for Australia was reaffirmed at the Population Summit in Brisbane held 30th March 2010.

But Swan's growth fettish and consequential rising costs of living do not augur well for most Australians with mortgages.

Swan on the issue of Australia’s current record population growth claims:

“a population cap would compound, not solve, the growth challenges Australia faces.”

“Capping growth over the next 40 years at 0.8 per cent instead of the 1.2 per cent projected would wipe 17 per cent off the nation's gross domestic product by 2050.”

“Restricting population growth in fast-growing southeast Queensland would result in regional product on a per capita basis dropping by 5 per cent.”

“Australia faced a steep decline in workforce participation due to ageing, which would hit growth and government revenue while dramatically pushing up health spending. Boosting productivity would be critical in coping with the ageing trend.”

Swan premised that economic and population growth can only be good for Australia and the task is for Australia to learn how to "grow smarter".

But Swan only sees the economic data yet has no broader social plan. Swan promises to protect national living standards and environmental sustainability, without saying how he can do this.

This is on the back of Prime Minister Rudd infamous October 2009 pronoucement:

"I actually believe in a big Australia I make no apology for that. I actually think it's good news that our population is growing."

It made Australians reel in fear.

On uttering that dire portent, Rudd cast the demise of Australian lifestyle, inviting hoards of legalised arrivals. And neither Rudd nor Swan offers any plans for coping with this enlarged population – no plans for sustainability, infrastructure and maintaining the Australian quality of life. Both are blinkered to the narrow economic interpretations and have lost sight of the social and environmental consequences of high population growth. Rudd’s response on the run is:

"That is why we're taking a leading position on climate change but also the long-term sustainability of the Murray-Darling and the proper provision of water supplies for the future. "This Government is building for the future - we call it nation-building for the future.”

What crap. Some future. Interests rates have just gone up again and are set to continue only exacerbating house unaffordability, the cost of living and degrading Australian living standards. Australian cities have run out of potable water, so billions in taxes are going into desalination plants. Utility charges are going up. Energy Australia is set to raise electricity prices by 60% over the next three years in order to fund Sydney’s massive electricity infrastructure to catch up with the growing urban sprawl. Roads are congested in Melbourne, Brisbane and Sydney. Public transport is old and overloaded.

Swan's and Rudd’s Hong Kong vision for Australia does a not sit well with most Australians. Neither Labor or Liberal have no mandate to impose a growth fettish on Australians. Most Australians already feel that our environment can not cope with a larger population. Treasury’s projection of a population of 35 million by 2050 is obscene.

Back in October 2009, even Federal Treasury head Ken Henry expressed concern that Australia would not be able to sustain a predicted 60 per cent growth in population over the next four decades.

Prosperity is not aggregate GDP figures. It is maintaining and improving the quality of life and standard of living per capita. Swan being a numbers man hasn’t worked out how to measure that so he ignores it. Rudd’s Labor Government has run out of ideas and ideology relevant to Australians.

Rudd’s initiating the role of Minister for Population this month doesn’t change his 'Big Australia' vision, but just wastes more taxpayer money to find a way to justify and spread the 35 million. hardly a priority, population features in Mr Burke's mixed bucked portfolio of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. his only mandate is to deliver some population strategy in 12 months, after the election. Clearly, this is purely electioneering appeasement to disaffected Labor voters. Rudd has responded tokenly to Greens leader, Senator Bob Brown’s proposal for a Senate inquiry into Australia's population. Rudd's population minister appointment effectively hijacks what ought to be an independent review process.

And NSW Labor puppet, Premier Keneally expectedly tows the Labor line: ''I believe Sydney can grow and can grow sustainably, economically and environmentally...Cities can either grow or they can shrink. Shrinking is not an option for Sydney.'' While NSW Liberal planning spokesman, Brad Hazzard, ducked the migration issue saying it was being discussed in the community as Sydney became more crowded.

The Liberal-National Coalition are little different in their ideological response. They listen to Howard’s old Productivity Commission which strangely enough advocates for more productivity and with that more population. The Opposition wants an independent specialist body to inquire into future policies dealing with Australia's population growth – just like the Productivity Commission. Otherwise these listen to self-serving growth fettish extremists the Urban Taskforce.

Not surprisingly, Urban Taskforce chief executive Aaron Gadiel argues for no cap on immigration and says:

"One of the reasons that we don't have the infrastructure that we all want and expect is that in many cases our population in our urban centres is just not large enough," he said. "The larger the population, the more the Government is getting the tax revenue in and has the labour force available to build up the infrastructure."

More people, more urban development, more profits for Urban Taskforce members.

Swan argues that countering pressures of immigration can be addressed by Rudd Labor Government’s education revolution, health reform, welfare reform and the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. How so? Population fueled mainly by immigration drives pressures on water scarcity, urban planning and infrastructure. Population growth is pushing up interest rates, making housing even more unaffordable for Australians. Swan makes no mention of addressing the direct cost of immigration – employment opportunities, housing affordability, cost of living, congestion, inadequate hospital beds, inadequate child care places, utility costs up – electricity set to rise by 60 % in NSW.

"We're determined to make sure that this government and subsequent governments stay dedicated to that task...if it doesn't, we'll all be poorer and we won't necessarily be socially cohesive or environmentally sustainable."

What a vague uncommitted statement!

Australia's Big Picture

According to former NSW Premier Bob Carr, I think we've got to recognise that our cities don't get better economically or in terms of liveability if we force feed population growth into them with this surging level of immigration, that when it comes to skills shortages for example, any new trades person brought into this country to fill a skills shortage also brings dependants. Nor does high immigration solve the problem of an aging population We've got to look at nurturing workers to stay in the workforce longer.

Australian businesman, Dick Smith, says Australia should cut population by slashing immigration and encouraging women to have only two babies. Mr Smith said Australia did not have enough water or food to support millions more people. It was crazy that seawater was being desalinated for drinking water to supply a booming population. "I feel they're going to spend most of their time working out how we can cope with 36 million, rather than looking at whether we really want 36 million."

But currently the facts are that Australia’s population growth rate (September 2009) according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics is 2.1%. The preliminary estimated resident population (ERP) of Australia at 30 September 2009 was 22,066,000 persons. This was an increase of 451,900 persons (2.1%) since 30 September 2008 and 110,400 persons since 30 June 2009.

Compounding at 2.1%, Australia’s population will not be 35 million by 2050, but 35 million by 2030, less than a generation away. [Refer table below]

Sep-08 21,614,100
Sep-09 22,066,000
Sep-10 22,529,000
Sep-11 23,002,000
Sep-12 23,485,000
Sep-13 23,978,000
Sep-14 24,482,000
Sep-15 24,996,000
Sep-16 25,521,000
Sep-17 26,057,000
Sep-18 26,604,000
Sep-19 27,163,000
Sep-20 27,733,000
Sep-21 28,315,000
Sep-22 28,910,000
Sep-23 29,517,000
Sep-24 30,137,000
Sep-25 30,770,000
Sep-26 31,416,000
Sep-27 32,076,000
Sep-28 32,750,000
Sep-29 33,438,000
Sep-30 34,140,000
Sep-31 34,859,000
Sep-32 35,591,000
Sep-33 36,338,000
Sep-34 37,101,000
Sep-35 37,880,000
Sep-36 38,675,000
Sep-37 39,487,000
Sep-38 40,316,000
Sep-39 41,163,000
Sep-40 42,027,000
Sep-41 42,910,000
Sep-42 43,811,000
Sep-43 44,731,000
Sep-44 45,670,000
Sep-45 46,629,000
Sep-46 47,608,000
Sep-47 48,608,000
Sep-48 49,629,000
Sep-49 50,671,000
Sep-50 51,735,000

MESSAGES:

This Rudd-Swan trend for Australia is:

1. 35 million by 2030, not by 2050
2. 50 million by 2050!
3. A million per year (1/4 of Melbourne every year)

Lib/Lab politics have run out of ideology relevant for Australia in the 21st Century. Both are stagnated in 20th Century ideals of economic rationalism, economic growth and globalisation. Neither have workable long term answers to Australia’s entrenched triple bottom line (TBL) dilemmas.

Three simple and effective decisions to stem Australia’s population blowout and give Australia room to explore capacity ready options are:

1. End the Baby Bonus

2. End the Subclass 457 – Business (Long Stay) Visa Scheme

3. Restrict all work visas to Employer Nomination Scheme Occupation List (ENSOL), which requires each applicant to be nominated by an Australian employer to fill a position in an occupation that appears in the ENSOL and for the applicant to demonstrate that they have the necessary skills (including conversational English skills).

But, if economic growth and population growth are causing unacceptable social costs, then what is the alternative?

Clive Hamilton in his 2003 book Growth Fetish argues that our politicans and media are smitten with growth and have an obsession with economic growth (growth fetishism) and the marketing society lie at the heart of our social ills. For decades our political leaders and opinion makers have touted higher incomes as the way to a better future. Economic growth means better lives for us all.

Hamilton points out that 'despite many years of sustained economic growth and increased personal incomes Australia has large social divisions and we don’t seem to be any happier. Economic growth and the marketing society have corrupted our social priorities and political structures, and have created a profound sense of alienation among young and old. lies at the heart of our current political, social and environmental ills - and offers a thought-provoking alternative.’

=======================================================

References:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/10/23/2721924.htm

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/wayne-swan-goes-for-growth-in-population-debate/story-e6frgczf-1225847691025

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/cap-no-solution-to-australias-population-challenge-swan-20100330-r994.html

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/cut-population-now-by-slashing-immigration-and-encouraging-women-to-have-only-two-babies-dick-smith/story-e6frf7l6-1225823124407

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/04/2863763.htm

http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/connectasia/stories/201004/s2866051.htm

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/wayne-swan-down-on-growth-for-its-own-sake/story-e6frg6nf-1225825707741

http://www.familyassist.gov.au/Payments/familyassistance/baby_bonus/Pages/default.aspx

http://www.clivehamilton.net.au/cms/index.php?page=growth_fetish

http://www.immi.gov.au/skilled/skilled-workers/sbs/how-the-visa-works.htm

Also published on Online Opinion on 21 Apr 09.

As the G20 summit of world leaders tries to resolve the economic crisis, where are we really heading? Many key issues are being ignored in the rush to "restore growth" at any price.

Back in May 2008 seven former European heads of state, five former finance ministers and two former presidents of the European Commission wrote a prophetic open letter to the EU Commission. They warned that the global financial system risked systemic collapse. The financial world, they argued, "has accumulated a massive amount of 'fictitious capital' with very little improvement for humanity."

Among the measures they proposed, was a world conference to reconsider the current international financial system. "When everything is for sale, social cohesion melts and the system breaks down." Were Gordon Brown and other world leaders asleep?

At the centre of UK economic policy for 12 years, Brown is forced to wake up to the biggest economic crisis we face and first claims the UK is particularly well placed to ride the storm. As we hit the grim reality, he tries to tell the world he can lead us back to prosperity. If he succeeds in this manoeuvring it will be an unworthy triumph of spin.

Lost in a maze of targets, controls and sticking plaster policies, Brown first promised a weary electorate to "let the work of change begin." "Change in our NHS, change in our schools." The British public is weary of endless calls for 'change'. His speeches are mindless, recycled clichés devoid of real ideas.

Despite well-documented criticisms of his 'stealth taxes' and warnings by the International Monetary Fund that the UK tax burden is the highest in 20 years, Brown pointed to his 'prudent' grasp of the economy and relatively low unemployment -- now rising rapidly. As we now realise, much of the feel good factor in the UK economy was not down to underlying strength, but more to do with property price inflation fuelling spending and Britain's record £1.3 trillion debt mountain.

In truth, Brown breaks much of what he touches. The think tank Civitas concluded "that big spending promises on health and education have been tested to destruction and have not produced the expected improvements." Like most politicians, Brown does little more than kick the usual political footballs and repackaged promises on education, health and crime, where ever-more money is spent with little effect.

Now he is spending public money big-time, like a gambler trying to recoup his losses. After promising billions of taxpayers' money to bail out greedy money markets and watching the pound plummet, Gordon Brown and his crew have thrown savers overboard in a last ditch attempt to float the sinking British economy.

Zero interest rates and printing money to fuel inflation lie ahead and still we have high lending rates. Many fat-cat bankers will be laughing all the way to their offshore bank accounts. The public is given no say. Unlike the US Congress, where are the big debates in Parliament and on TV as the Government hoses billions around to little avail? With weasel words of 'fiscal stimulus' and 'bank restructuring', he increases the medicine of debt and bailouts to restore the financial web that got us into this mess. Instead of bailing out failed banks and toxic debts, where is the strategic thinking to build a genuinely sustainable economy in a sustainable environment?

#EuroMiscalculation" id="EuroMiscalculation">Euro miscalculation

After fudging for years over his 'five economic tests' on whether Britain should join the euro, sterling's collapse after the Bank of England slashed interest rates to half a per cent in a matter of weeks, will make it more difficult to persuade lenders to invest in the pound and they will demand high returns - adding to the UK's debt burden. The merits of saving investment have also been ditched.

Britain's gloomy economic vision and the plummeting pound is hitting businesses, devastating pensions for British retirees in Europe and squeezing holiday makers into deeper debt. The UK is no longer a big exporting economy like Germany so claims this will be good for exports are overstated. We are a major importing economy and the weak pound is already inflating prices. How will markets now judge the City of London's financial competence, when it is a key part of the UK economy?

The Treasury Select Committee now discovers that the taxpayers' bail out is potentially liable for billions more in bank debts and assets based on foreign lending, subject to exchange rate risks and a weak pound. We are back to the instability and speculation of the '90's and may bitterly regret not joining the strong and stable Euro Gordon Brown and George Osbourne disdain.

#RichesToRags" id="RichesToRags">Riches to rags on oil and gas

Oil imports paid in dollars and rising long-term global demand will see bills for UK consumers rise further. Britain's North Sea oil reserves are running down rapidly and we will be reliant on more expensive oil and gas imports. A study for the Department of Business Enterprise: UK Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Production and the UK Economy, predicts that in five years the UK could run up a cumulative deficit in oil and gas imports of over $500 billion.

#PensionsAndPFI" id="PensionsAndPFI">Pensions and PFI

Brown also embraced the costly Private Finance Initiative (PFI), off-loading debts from Treasury balance sheets to look prudent, but in reality, storing up a huge burden on taxpayers for years ahead. Now, the PFI sector is rattling the begging bowl, claiming a 40 per cent, £4 billion shortfall in funding. A double whammy on the taxpayer. The respected Institute for Fiscal Studies estimated that creative accounting by the Treasury already conceals a £500 billion public service liability for PFI schemes, Network Rail debts and public sector pensions.

Much of the blame for Britain's pensions crisis also rests with Gordon Brown for his tax raid on pensions in 1997, according to former Treasury adviser Dr Ros Altman, costing pension schemes an estimated £5 billion a year. Now we are told his 'quantitative easing' or printing money will further hit pension funds. Why doesn't Brown help hard-pressed pensioners now reeling under near zero interest rates on any savings by removing this tax on pension funds?

#BillionsToTrillions" id="BillionsToTrillions">Billions to trillions

As the economic crisis unfolds, we need to ask whether throwing trillions into the marketplace will do more harm than good? Governments around the world have already pumped in around $10 trillion into banks. This should have solved the toxic sub-prime mortgage problem, but the underlying problem is the financial 'debts and bets' market amounting to $500 trillion, when the annual GDP of the whole planet is around $50 trillion. Where has all the money gone? We need to think radically about how to ditch this impossible financial burden. Bankers need to do more than say sorry as they walk away with knighthoods and obscene rewards for failure.

Now the bubble has burst, instead of the casino deregulation popularised by the Thatcher and Reagan administrations, we need to get back to real financial values and quality investment. It is one thing trying to keep people in their only home, but the taxpayer should not be bailing out the buy-to-let property market. Nor are many sound businesses about to collapse. We need to rethink and rebuild.

As Brown spends billions he hasn't got "to restore growth," in a world of finite resources that are depleting rapidly, Green parties should be welcoming this warning for the endless "growth is good" mindset that will wreck our planet.

After years of crazy price inflation, house prices are beginning to drop to more affordable levels. A modest reduction in market capitalisation would be a buffer on the free-spending leverage and investment that creates so much unnecessary growth - in speculative empty office blocks, hedge funds and a shopping binge economy.

Journalist Paul Mason points out the fragile interdependence of the globalised economy, where 10 countries can be involved in the supply chain to produce a single disk drive manufactured in Thailand.

In a few years, the markets will face another major trauma when they realise that once plentiful oil supplies are running down rapidly and the 'globalised' economy this has supported will have to rethink completely. Major investment in a 'Green New Deal' to help us adjust to post oil realities would be a start.

A crack down on money laundering and tax avoidance by the super rich using tax-free enclaves, needs more than talk about "naming and shaming" countries that are not transparent in their banking practices. We have long known of this problem, yet with a bundle of tax havens under UK jurisdiction, socialist Gordon Brown for years looked the other way.

Where is the choice and fresh thinking from our leaders, locked in a world of 'me too' politics? The electorate deserves more than bailing out bankrupt politicians and bankers.

How about learning the words and, next time your pretentious premier/ patronising prime-minister or president comes out to hand the collection plate around for the bankers, CEOs, land-sharks, mouthing the same old tunes, we can all sing it together.

If nothing else, learn the chorus to "Jump ..."!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TYezSrzUUs

The song is by Jean Burnett.
Thanks, Jean.

According to those who track the affiliations of voters with environmental concerns, if they were to vote along strictly partisan lines, IF THE ELECTION WERE HELD TODAY: If we split our votes: Conservative 135 Liberal 83 NDP 37 Green 0 Bloc 51 IND 2 BIODIVERSITY 0 But on the other hand, if “we” who cared about climate change cast aside our traditional love toward our favourite party and voted for that party best able to defeat the Conservative in our own riding, the result would be a parliament with only 75 Conservatives but 123 Liberals, 52 NDP, 55 Bloc, 1 Green and 2 IND . http://www.voteforenvironment.ca:80/ Kevin Grandia and his campaign to vote strategically against the Harper government is based on the fallacy that the opposition parties do not share the government’s ecologically suicidal commitment to economic growth. Growth which is fuelled by runaway immigrant driven population growth and per capita consumption. The green coalition which Kevin works to fashion in fact favours 38% higher immigration levels than the Conservatives, which would result in 38% more GHG emissions, and about 29% of what the tar sands are putting out now. And since neither Layton nor May would actually decommission the tar sands but only stop its further expansion, and Dion will continue it but vaguely promise to make it “green”, then immigration is what separates the opposition and the government. The decision goes to Harper on climate change, although neither deserve accolades. But climate change is only the flavour of the month, the loss of biodiversity services is more pressing and its relationship to population growth is more obvious to most than global warming. When biodiversity services are undercut, when 24% of 12 of its vital services are compromised our survival is imperiled. As it stands, 536 of Canada’s species at risk lie just at the margins of those cities bulging with immigrant growth. Those who advocate such growth, the fastest of all countries in the G8 group, are sitting in all 308 seats in all four parties on both sides of the aisle in the Canadian House of Commons. How, then, as environmentalist Brishen Hoff asks, can we vote for the environment? For all intents and purposes, we live in a Growthist one party state. The contest Kevin describes, between corporate climate changers vs. noble climate saviours is a sham. We don’t need a change in government. We need a change in the SYSTEM of government. Direct democracy. And a change in mindset.

(illustration by Sheila Newman)
In “Population grows at record rate", an article by Tim Colebatch, The Age, June 6, 2008, an Australian journalist has once again been given license by the Fairfax Press to frame Australia’s overpopulation problem as some kind of triumph.

In an article akin to the spin used to sell large bags of potato crisps and sugar, caffeine and phenelalanine-laden soft drinks to adolescents, Tim Colebatch sells overpopulation to Age readers.

Whilst relating the latest ABS statistics, the journalist chooses resoundingly positive terms for this undemocratic and frightening complex phenomenon:

Australia “turned the corner” into 2007 by having ‘almost 21.2 million people'.
In Victoria, the state’s population grew by a “record” 82,430 people. Tasmania “reached a milestone” and is ‘now “on track” to reach 500,000 residents’

Portraying this bizarre engineered growth as some kind of race for supremacy, Colbatch comments that Victoria “lost slightly” ‘in net migration flows to other states.’ ‘Queensland (+25,647) was the “big winner” from interstate migration, as usual, while NSW (-24,028) was again the “big loser”.’

The article concludes with some of the costs of population growth in Australia, but without portraying them as costs. In contrast to the hyped up descriptors for the growing numbers, journalist Colbatch leaves right for the end a peculiarly unemotional account of some of the suffering involved:

“The rapid population growth is driven by business recruiting ready-trained skilled workers from poorer countries rather than training Australians. In the six months to April, almost 100,000 temporary workers arrived, while the Government has just increased the quota for permanent skilled migration from 102,500 to 133,500. Critics point out that there has been no increase in housing supply, so the arrivals are intensifying the housing shortage and helping to drive up rents.”

There is no warning of how the extra people will affect the chances of Australians to weather oil, soil and water depletion.

The statistical news is actually unrelievedly awful, especially as related with ghastly flourishes like these for Victoria:

‘VICTORIA's population has “soared” to more than 5.2 million, with the Brumby Government "claiming the biggest growth in 35 years”' and ‘Treasurer John Lenders said the figures were "an endorsement of our Government's record investment in making Victoria the best place to live, work and raise a family"’.

No mention at all of the growth in groups all over Victoria and the rest of the country protesting at the loss of democracy and control over their environments. This is not reporting. This is propaganda, pure and simple.

Please circulate this article to help to counteract mainstream-media propaganda for population growth.

Murdoch's Queensland Courier Mail has long been in the business of marketing unacceptable development, but the April 9 2008 editorial read more like a medieval sermon on the benefits of floggings.

“Full story needed on big projects” began with some newspeak and then descended into arguments so crude that one suspected that lack of internal conviction was snarling up logical expression.

The editorialist started off by conflating ‘growth’ with ‘progress’, thus giving the concrete entombment of Brisbane a positive spin. Towards the end, in a kind of third-word medical metaphor for torture, s/he crudely compared undemocratic development with medicine and going to the doctor for an abdominal operation. We were not expected to like what we are told is going to happen, but it is clear that we must accept it. To object to being slashed open in order to …what?... would be unreasonable, apparently.

“Progress will sometimes hurt, but like an unpleasant visit to the doctor, it will hurt less if you are warned in advance of what to expect, rather than having a line drawn through your torso and told this is where the operation will happen.”

Shock treatment without a muscle relaxant would seem a little more congruent to the situation than abdominal surgery. Unless this is some kind of medieval operation to remove our persistent ‘bile’.

The writer (or the mad doctor) tells us that ‘We’ all want progress. It isn’t too clear what progress is, from the editorial, and the doctor seems to be hedging about the outcome of the operation, or its reason. Nonetheless, we must suffer for this abstract thing.

If, like most of us, you don’t want to suffer, and you aren’t sure what progress is anymore, you might feel that you are the only person in Brisbane who feels this way and you probably won’t dare raise your voice to protest.

The journalist-social psychiatrist hits potential protesters against the operation for progress with, not just NIMBYism, which isolates with the charge of selfish the person fighting to defend their territory, but with the dreaded “BANANA” acronym. (See 'Damn 'em all', 23 May Courier Mail, Brisbane, Australia.)

BANANA is even worse than ‘selfish’; it means Totally Unreasonable, maybe even certifyably insane; certainly indefensible. BANANA stands for, “Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything.”

The charge is that Queenslanders are objecting to nearly every development that goes up.

Well, Mr Editor-doctor, the fact is that Queensland is very densely populated and developed, so it is pretty difficult to find a place to develop which isn’t close to something else. And, with all this development, why should ‘we’ need, let alone ‘want’ more? We don’t like it, so we are protesting.

Brisbane has far less green space left than Sydney and Melbourne. It is obviously overdeveloped and overpopulated:

“ o•ver•pop•u•la•tion (vr-ppy-lshn) n.
Excessive population of an area to the point of overcrowding, depletion of natural resources, or environmental deterioration.”

We are suffering all three of these symptoms in Brisbane. Why can't we admit we have a problem and stop the cause rather than just trying to manage the effects! (Jennie Epstein in Victoria, slightly paraphrased.)

The editorialist-doctor sympathetically admits: “No one wants a freeway, chemical plant or a new power station at their back door …“but,” (s/he concludes harshly informing us that we cannot escape the symptoms of the progressive disease, or curse) “… these things are a fact of life if we are to cater for the needs of a rapidly growing state.”

The dishonest implication, from the main newspaper, the Murdoch voice of authority in Brisbane, is that Queensland’s extreme population growth is some kind of irresistible Brisbanite fate, like Sysiphus’s was to push a stone up a hill every day, except that, in Queensland, that stone gets bigger every day, and so does the propaganda we have to swallow.

What must Queenslanders have done to the Gods to provoke such punishment as

“freeways, chemical plants and new powerstations at their back door; transport corridors and dams which endanger the environment and destroy local communities ...”

... which the editorialist identifies as our inescapable fate?

The editorialist tells us moreover that many of us may be economically inconvenienced or have airports expanded on our “comfortable backyards.” (This was only to be expected, apparently, and we should have moved somewhere else if we didn’t want our surroundings to degenerate into overpopulated slums. Quite a few of us should perhaps have enquired more carefully before being born here.)

Incredibly, the editorialist equates these sufferings with “our very comfortable 21st century lifestyle.”

And that is not the end of our sufferings: No, we must endure dispossession if we are to avoid dying of thirst in the short term. Nevermind the long term.

Our water security is threatened by population growth, which for some reason we cannot question. That population growth was brought upon us by the developer-serving Queensland Government, which advertised far and wide for it, interstate and overseas. Now we have to put up with the ‘solutions’ for water security which the government that made our water insecure tells us it must foist on us.

For stealing fire from the Gods and giving it to men, Prometheus was chained to a rock. Every day an eagle came and tore his liver out and ate it. During the night it would grow back, only to be torn out again.

Was that the operation?

How bad must it get? It could get a lot worse if our progress takes on the shape of India’s or Africa’s or Chile’s. But, as that dear old man, Augustus Pinochet once said, “Sometimes democracy must be bathed in blood.”

We can be sure that we will be told that it is good for us when that happens.

ECONOMIC GROWTH FAILS TO ELIMINATE CHILD POVERTY Are You Surprised? November 28/07 Once again, the report card is in, and our Great God, Moloch, aka Economic Growth, has failed to deliver on its promise of eliminating poverty. Child poverty that is. Despite a pledge made two decades ago to see that it would come to an end, Statistics Canada recently revealed that 17% of Canadian children live in impoverished conditions, along with just under 10% of adults. Child poverty rates are at double-digits in all provinces except for Alberta, Prince Edward Island and Quebec. After twenty years of failed promises, what is the cure? That old panacea, of course, economic growth. Alberta’s oil economy has boomed and the child poverty rate is low. But then British Columbia’s economy has also boomed and it has the highest rate for the whole country at 21%. Why the discrepancy? It is instructive to look at Quebec, which has suffered a weaker economic performance and lower living standards than the rest of the country. For example, Quebec had an unemployment rate of 8.5% in March of 2006 compared to the Canadian average of 6.3% and 6.8% lived on social assistance compared to 5.2% for the rest of the country. Their per capita GDP was 13% less than Canada’s as a whole and $23,000 less than Alberta’s. Given these numbers, conventional economic thinking would assume that Quebec’s poor would be in rough shape. Not so. It is not so important what cards the economy deals governments, but how governments play them. As Welshman Nye Bevan once said, “Priorities are the language of socialism”. Quebec, you see, has a poverty-reduction strategy. They believe in using the state to help those who need help. According to the Canadian Council on Social Development, using Statistics Canada data, Quebec was able to reduce family poverty rates from 29.5% to 15.0%. This is a much more dramatic fall than Nordic countries were able to effect (2.5%>4.2%) with similar income support payments. British Columbia provides some social assistance to poor families, which, if removed, would see the child poverty rate jump by nearly 25% in that province. Manifestly state intervention is key to reducing child poverty. The champions of economic growth who run our death machine of course see anti-poverty initiatives as a trivial pursuit against the great background of job creation. The greatest welfare benefit is a job, or so we have been told ad nauseum. Economic growth is the tide which will raise all boats, both rich and poor. Social democrats and trade unionists and all other environmental vandals, preach this line too. Armine Yahizyan, an economist with the left-wing the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, home of Naomi Klein’s brother Seth, also follow this gospel. It is as Kenneth Boulding said, anyone who believes that growth can continue indefinitely on a finite planet is either a madman or an economist. Another is Manitoba NDP Premier Gary Doer, the social democrat, who chirped that “All the West is doing well and that’s good. Our growth has been steady over the last five years and we don’t worry about one year over another, we worry about steady growth.” He certainly doesn’t worry about the environment because after all, according to his website, all of his government’s growth is “sustainable growth”. Doer brags that Manitoba’s GDP is projected to be the second-best in the land next year and he looks forward to more population growth in the province. Nonetheless it is an indisputable fact that in the wake of this latest wave of economic growth, and population growth of 1.08% per year over the past five years, that there are one-third fewer Canadians living below the controversial “low-income cut-off” than there were in 1996. The statistics indicate that both the number and the percentage of people considered “poor” by this definition are fewer than a decade ago. But there are competing interpretations for these statistics. Professor John Richards of Simon Fraser University has an explanation that both angers anti-poverty activists and takes the credit from the cheerleaders of the Tory economic miracle. In a just-published study for the C.D. Howe Institute, he argues that the “tough love” policies adopted by the Conservative governments of Ralph Klein in Alberta and Mike Harris in Ontario in the mid 90s, and to a lesser degree by BC NDP Premier Glen Clark, chased employable people off the welfare rolls and on to jobs which improved their lot. “Tough-love” effected an 80% drop in the welfare case loads of both Alberta and Ontario, while “soft-love” had the reverse effect in Ontario a decade previously. In Canada generally, softer approaches resulted in a welfare rate of one in nine, while the institution of a harsher attitude cut that ratio in half. Richards contends that neither strong economic growth, nor a recession, seems to have much bearing on the poverty rate. It is mostly a reflection of the government’s posture toward recipients. Without grappling with his assessment of social welfare policy, both Richards, who favours a hard-nosed attitude to social assistance recipients, and those who promote growth as a bromide for poverty, an agent of employment opportunities, need to be challenged for making one critical assumption. That is, the one that all the people who are off welfare are now gainfully employed. Some in fact are living with relatives, or in the underground economy working for pitiful wages or hours. The fact that they are no longer registered as a burden on a “caseload” does not indicate that they are free from the poverty trap and substantial revenue contributors. Secondly, the booming economy I’ve seen has not been generating high-end jobs, but low-income service sector jobs and positions in retail sales. Having such a job is no answer to escaping poverty. In 2005, 41% of all low income children lived in families where at least one parent had a full-time job. In BC the figure was 50% for a full-time job, and 85% for a job of some kind. The “prosperity” that this tide of economic growth has swept in indeed produced more jobs for low-income parents but they’re not finding jobs with sufficient pay, hours and benefits to lift their families out of poverty. And a huge number of them are not showing up on the Statistics Canada radar screen as “poor”. Any reader of Orwell’s 1984 would come to realize that ruling elites use statistics to distort, or simply lie about reality. The virtual reality that Corporate Canada and its executive arm in parliament likes to project is that thanks to their agenda, the poor have never been so few in number and if we continue to support them the poor will vanish altogether. But a visit to Canada’s major urban centres reveals the truth. If there are a third less people on the dole now than there were in 1996, there is a ten-fold increase in the number of homeless people. Only the top 20% of income earners saw their salaries rise, and it is with callous indifference that they look upon the people who sleep in the doorways of their flashy condos, which the police obligingly clear for them in the morning. In 1980 the disparity between the top-income category and the lowest was $83,000. By 2005, it was $105,400. This, as record numbers of tenants are being evicted from their homes and more and more souls must turn to food banks to feed their families. Vancouver rivals Ancient Rome in the growing opulence of those who view abject despair with cold detachment. I pray one day God may smite the city. In British Columbia a public opinion poll showed in late November of 2007 that the heartless majority is still determined to re-elect the incumbent pro-business party and maintain this immoral system of economic apartheid. The system that historically has displayed no ability to solve poverty, but has no bloody intention of doing so either. The system that is killing the biodiversity that ultimately underpins our existence while thwarting our ability to reduce GHG, yet for all of that, fails to deliver dignity and sustenance to a significant segment of the population. To this God of Economic Growth we have sacrificed social solidarity, time for ourselves and families, and the very environment which supports all life, and for what? Access to a Big Box Store, a Hummer, three bathrooms and an annual Mexican vacation?. A Faustian bargain indeed. Tim Murray Quadra Island, BC